The US president, Barack Obama, has ordered a suspension of the controversial Guantánamo Bay military tribunals, in one of his first actions after being sworn in yesterday.
Within hours of taking office Obama's administration filed a motion to halt the war crimes trials for 120 days, until his new administration completes a review of the much-criticised system for trying suspected terrorists.
The move, which will suspend cases against 21 men, was made at the direction of Obama and Robert Gates, George Bush's defence secretary, who has kept his job in the new administration.
The first military judge to consider the motion, Army Colonel Patrick Parrish, granted the request to suspend the trial of Omar Khadr, a Canadian who is accused of killing an American soldier with a grenade in Afghanistan in 2002. Later another military judge will consider suspending the case of five men charged with plotting the September 11 attacks.
The halt to the tribunals was sought "in the interests of justice", the official request to the judges said.
Moazzam Begg, the former British detainee at Guantánamo Bay, urged Obama to go further. "There is no clear statement about this being stopped and the whole process being recognised as illegal," he said.
"For myself and other former detainees, until we see something tangible happening we are going to reserve judgment. That is because we have been here before – Bush has stated he wanted Guantánamo closed."
Human rights groups who were at Guantánamo Bay to observe this week's session of the tribunals welcomed the move.
"It's a great first step but it is only a first step," said Gabor Rona, the international director of Human Rights First. "It will permit the newly inaugurated president and his administration to undertake a thorough review of both the pending cases and the military commissions process generally.
"The suspension of military commissions so soon after President Obama took office is an indication of the sense of urgency he feels about reversing the destructive course that the previous administration was taking in fighting terrorism."
Jamil Dakwar, director of the human rights programme at the American Civil Liberties Union, said it was a positive step but noted: "The president's order leaves open the option of this discredited system remaining in existence."
Clive Stafford Smith, a human rights lawyer who has represented Guantánamo suspects, said: "It's great isn't it? There is no doubt it will stop the practices at Guantánamo. After all, Obama is now the commander-in-chief."
Speaking on BBC Radio 4, Stafford Smith said: "It's going to take some work but what he [Obama] is looking at, I think, here is a very clear-cut distinction between this administration and the last."
Relatives of victims of the September 11 attacks, who were also at the base to observe the hearings, have said they oppose any further delay in the trials of the men charged in the case.
The requested suspension came on the day a military judge adjourned the war crimes court just before Obama was sworn in by noting that the future of the commissions was in doubt.
Obama has pledged to close the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, which holds 245 men, and had been expected to suspend the widely criticised tribunals.
The president's nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, has said the military commissions lack sufficient legal protections for defendants and that they could be tried in the US.
I'll quote Gabor Rona: "It's a great first step but it is only a first step." Let's see what else Obama can offer.
Should I seek a source of law other than God, when it is He Who has sent down unto you the Book (Qur'an) fully explained? And those whom We have given them the Book know that it has been sent down from the Lord with truth, so be not of those in doubt.
Sorry to be going off topic here, but before he officially assumed office, he chose not to comment much on the Gaza issue saying there could only be one president at a time. Now that his accession to the presidency is complete, why is he not officially condemning israel for it's actions and urging them to lift the embargo?
Sorry to be going off topic here, but before he officially assumed office, he chose not to comment much on the Gaza issue saying there could only be one president at a time. Now that his accession to the presidency is complete, why is he not officially condemning israel for it's actions and urging them to lift the embargo?
Perhaps because that would not do much to start off good relations between the Israeli government and the new Obama administration.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Perhaps because that would not do much to start off good relations between the Israeli government and the new Obama administration.
He doesn't have to do much anyway. Ties between his administration and israel inherently are quite robust. Look at his senior aides, Clinton, a key pro-israeli hawk, so is Biden, im pretty sure i don't need to say much on Rahm Emmanuel.
Point is, in order to maintain cordial dipomatic ties, he shouldn't divest himself of the responsibility to speak out against genocide. Especially when all these fanciful utopian ideals were a key collective theme during his candidacy.
It's about time, closing that hellhole down is way overdue. I've seen this bro being interviewed today. He was locked up there for 7 years, the tortures he described were beyond anything we could ever imagine. It was heart-wrenching to listen n watch it.
Closing gitmo itself down isn't just enough, all those sadistic animals who were in charge there who abused the inmates need to be brought to justice.
Learn Patience from Asiyah, Loyalty from Khadijah, Sincerity from Aisha and Steadfastness from Fatima.
Sorry to be going off topic here, but before he officially assumed office, he chose not to comment much on the Gaza issue saying there could only be one president at a time. Now that his accession to the presidency is complete, why is he not officially condemning israel for it's actions and urging them to lift the embargo?
What do you want him to say exactly?
"Israel is bad!"
Nocturnal: what good would this do? From a purely practical perspective, how would Obama "condemning" Israel actually help the Palestinians?
America has a lot of influence with Israel. We can use that influence for good, to help Palestinians and establish peace in the region. Or we can just throw it away so that Muslims feel good about hearing a meaningless condemnation. Which one do you want?
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
Nocturnal: what good would this do? From a purely practical perspective, how would Obama "condemning" Israel actually help the Palestinians?
America has a lot of influence with Israel. We can use that influence for good, to help Palestinians and establish peace in the region. Or we can just throw it away so that Muslims feel good about hearing a meaningless condemnation. Which one do you want?
Well actually America has alot of influence on everywhere, Obama condeming israel will also allow other countries the opportunity to condemn israel as well
Well actually America has alot of influence on everywhere, Obama condeming israel will also allow other countries the opportunity to condemn israel as well
Doesn't everyone already condemn Israel, including the U.N.?
Incidentally, Israel ignores all of these other countries.
Again, I fail to see any practical upshot—for the Palestinians—for Obama condemning Israel. On the other hand, if Obama actually works with Israel on their side, using our influence to temper them, then maybe we can accomplish something and help prevent more massacres.
In any case, I hope you guys temper your expectations for Obama over Israel. This is a 60-year long disaster. He's not going to solve it in a day.
The US by condemning Israel will send out a decisive message that it has broken with the past, that it has broken with this enshrined US foreign policy of expending every possible resource to protect israel, and it would send out the message that the nature of american foreign policy with regards to the Muslim world is not perpetual, that has not happened.
The nucleus of this so called "terror", is american unconditional support for israel which has engenderd anger and facilitated the growth of radicalism in the middle east.
A condemnation of israel from the president of the US, would reverberate all over the world and it would uplift even the most ingrained cynics. It would have made all the difference in the world. And the last point, given the amount of people that have been massacred by the mass murderers in israel, it was morally incumbent upon him to condemn israel and to use the word "condemn".
The US by condemning Israel will send out a decisive message that it has broken with the past, that it has broken with this enshrined US foreign policy of expending every possible resource to protect israel, and it would send out the message that the nature of american foreign policy with regards to the Muslim world is not perpetual, that has not happened.
The nucleus of this so called "terror", is american unconditional support for israel which has engenderd anger and facilitated the growth of radicalism in the middle east.
A condemnation of israel from the president of the US, would reverberate all over the world and it would uplift even the most ingrained cynics. It would have made all the difference in the world. And the last point, given the amount of people that have been massacred by the mass murderers in israel, it was morally incumbent upon him to condemn israel and to use the word "condemn".
If I understand you, the advantage is simply good PR for Muslims.
Is that worth trading a powerful position to influence Israel's agenda? I don't think so. I could care less about PR, and so should you. So, I imagine, do Palestinians getting their houses and children blown up.
Now, I would also like to see Obama condemn Israel's actions in Gaza. And I agree that it would send a strong message. But sending a strong message is worthless unless it is accompanied by action that will actually help people. With Israel, Obama must play smart politics if he is going to have any positive affect on Israel's actions, and that takes time and patience.
Edit: to put it another way, what would you do if Obama simply "condemned" the way detainees are treated in Guantanamo Bay, but did nothing to close the base or change the policies there? You would rightly dismiss it as a meaningless PR move. The same applies to the Israel-Gaza conflict. Obama could condemn Israel—but unless that condemnation is accompanied by action, then it's just meaningless PR.
If broadly condemning Israel now will make it harder to put political pressure on Israel's government in the future and achieve some actual change of policy on their part, it is better for Obama to wait.
I watched Obama's speech at the State Department today, and he made it very clear that he will not condemn Israel or its right to defend itself from threats. I haven't seen any sign that Obama will wander too far from the stance the Bush administration took on the Middle East conflict. Every president comes into office with the intent of finding a viable peace process, and so has Obama.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
I watched Obama's speech at the State Department today, and he made it very clear that he will not condemn Israel or its right to defend itself from threats. I haven't seen any sign that Obama will wander too far from the stance the Bush administration took on the Middle East conflict. Every president comes into office with the intent of finding a viable peace process, and so has Obama.
I do hope he tries a different tack than "Israel can do no wrong." And I am actually confident that he will.
Hopefully my confidence is not misplaced—because Israel "defending itself from threats" is different than Israel "killing 1,000 civilians with the explicit purpose of scaring them into not wanting to attack again." It's not only immoral, it's stupid, and it has probably erased any gains the peace process has made.
I do hope he tries a different tack than "Israel can do no wrong." And I am actually confident that he will.
Hopefully my confidence is not misplaced—because Israel "defending itself from threats" is different than Israel "killing 1,000 civilians with the explicit purpose of scaring them into not wanting to attack again." It's not only immoral, it's stupid, and it has probably erased any gains the peace process has made.
I'm not sure what "gains" existed from any peace process from Israel's perspective. 1,000 rockets fired into Israeli territory is hardly a confidence builder.
That being said, I hope the stance Obama takes is one of international monitoring of the tunnels between Egypt and Gaza and a more international effort in keeping the two sides at arms length. Peace in Ireland was finally achieved after only 800 years, so hopefully something will change the tide in this conflict.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks