Tag: Taliban

U.S. Report on Latest Session of U.N. Human Rights Council 

The U.S. State Department on October 17 delivered its report on the just-concluded 54th session of the U.N. Human Rights Council.[1] Here are the highlights of that report:

“Establishing an investigative mandate in Sudan . . . [The U.S.] was a member of the core group that established an international fact-finding mission to investigate human rights violations and abuses in Sudan. . . as reports of atrocities and other abuses continue, such as conflict-related sexual violence, ethnically motivated killings, and burning of villages in Darfur and elsewhere.”

Renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Russian Federation . . . [The U.S. co-sponsored this renewal as] Moscow’s campaign has worsened life for Russia’s citizens and made it dangerous for civil society organizations, media, and other independent voices to provide information or express dissent.  Russia continues to hold hundreds of political prisoners, including many sentenced for their criticism of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. Impunity for human rights abuses in the North Caucasus region, including enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, also remains an urgent concern.”

“Renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Afghanistan . . . [The U.S. co-sponsored this renewal] as the Taliban continues to target women and girls, government critics, former officials, and human rights activists through detentions, physical abuse, intimidation, and killings.”

“Advancing Gender Equality. . .[as the U.S.] reaffirmed its support for eliminating discriminatory laws and practices against women and girls in all their diversity, advanced the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and underscored the importance of the right of everyone to education.  We co-sponsored and helped defend resolutions that advance gender equality, including Preventing Maternal Mortality and Morbidity and Girls Education.  The United States helped defeat a slate of hostile amendments seeking to weaken inclusive gender language from these and other resolutions.”

“Supporting Racial Equity and Justice . . . [the U.S.] demonstrated its deep commitment to addressing the challenges of systemic racism both at home and abroad, . . .[by joining] consensus on the renewal of the Mandate of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, [and by co-sponsoring] the resolution entitled Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples, which laid the foundation for enhancing the participation of Indigenous Peoples in the work of the Council.”

“Other Priorities: . . .[The U.S.] co-sponsored resolutions to continue reporting on Burundi and provide assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights . . . [and by joining] consensus on resolutions providing human rights assistance in Cambodia, Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Central African Republic; [and by co-sponsoring] thematic resolutions on such topics including enforced or involuntary disappearances; centrality of care and support from a human rights perspective; the promotion of truth, justice, reparation, and guarantees of non-reoccurrence; the human rights of older persons; the World Programme for Human Rights Education; and the International Year of the Family.”

“Joint Statements: . . . [The U.S. led joint statements on [a] the heightened risks associated with surveillance technologies, including commercial spyware, and the importance of safeguards and responsible practices in the development and use of these tools to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and [b] safeguarding the human rights of women and girls across the Americas.”. . .[In addition, the U.S.] joined joint statements on Syria, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Ethiopia, the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, President Nelson Mandela’s Commitment to the UDHR and VDPA, sexism in sport, antisemitism in sport, rights of intersex persons, the rights of LGBTQI+ persons, reprisals, social reintegration of prisoners, and enhancing access to assistive technologies for older persons, and vaccination, immunization, and the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health.”

“Side Events: [The U.S. co-sponsored events] … on combatting antisemitism, … the Holocaust, and on human rights in Russia, Yemen, and Ukraine.”

=====================

[1] U.S. Dep’t State, Outcomes of the 54th Session of the UN Human Rights Council (Oct. 17, 2023).

Should the U.S. Modify Its Stance Against the Taliban in Afghanistan?

As discussed in a prior post, on August 22, 2023, the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported that since the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021, it had committed at least 800 human rights violations against Afghans who had assisted the U.S. In addition, that U.N. agency also noted that the Taliban had imposed the most radical gender policies, denying education and employment to millions of Afghan women and girls. [1]

Nevertheless, Graeme Smith, an analyst at the Crisis Group who has worked in that country since 2005 and who recently spent several months there, has said, “Most of the stuff we want to do [in that country] requires working with the Taliban.” In addition, in an article in Foreign Affairs, Smith urged western governments and institutions “to establish more functional relationships with the Taliban” that could include assistance with Afghanistan’s electricity grid, banking system and water management. Other experts and humanitarian groups have urged the U.S. to provide the Taliban with direct economic assistance to alleviate the country’s desperate poverty and hunger.[2]

Some positive points about the Taliban also emerged at a late July meeting of the U.S. State Department’s special representative for that country, Thomas West, and other U.S. officials with Taliban officials in Qatar. There was discussion of the country’s “declining opium poppy production and promising economic and counterterrorism actions and that there was openness to a technical dialogue regarding economic stabilization issues soon.” Note also was made of “recent [Afghan] data indicating declining inflation, growth of merchandise exports and imports.”[3]

At this U.S.-Taliban meeting, however, the U.S. also criticized the Taliban and the country’s “deteriorating human rights situation . . ., particularly for women, girls and vulnerable communities,” and its detentions, media crackdowns and limits on religious practices.

A New York Times columnist, Michael Crowley, also wonders whether the U.S. should modify its opposition to the Taliban while pointing out other positive aspects of Taliban rule: fears of an Afghan civil war have not materialized, and the Taliban apparently have prevented a return of a terrorist group that might threaten the U.S. and have cracked down on corruption and banned opium poppy cultivation. [4]

Reactions

These voices of moderation and practicality deserve consideration, especially if the U.S. could obtain Taliban cooperation on allowing peaceful removal of Afghans who had assisted the U.S. The successful implementation of these ideas might well lead to subsequent adoption of other partial measures of positive change.

============================

[1] U.N. Agency Reports Afghan Human Rights Violations Against Former U.S. Partners, dwkcommentaries.com ( Aug. 26, 2023).

[2] Smith, The World Has No Choice But to Work With the Taliban, Foreign Affairs (Aug. 11, 2023)

[3]  U.S. State Department, Meeting of U.S. Officials with Taliban Representatives, (July 31, 2023); U.S. State Department, Thomas West, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs.

[4] Crowley, Two Years After Afghanistan Exit, Biden Resists Calls for More Taliban Contact, N.Y. Times (Aug. 30, 2023).

 

U.S. Afghan Special Visa Program Still Facing Immense Problems 

In August 2023, the U.S. State Department’s Office of Inspector General released its report on evaluation of 2018-22 adjustments to the Afghan Special Visa Program, which was established in 2009 to resettle “Afghans who had worked on behalf of the [U.S.] in Afghanistan and had experienced an ongoing and serious threat as a result.”[1]

The Report’s Findings

“A. The Department Made Efforts To Streamline Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Processing Beginning in February 2021, but Challenges Remain.” More specifically, “as of December 2022, these actions had not eliminated the significant and growing Afghan SIV applicant backlog. Specifically, the Department increased staffing to process emails and determine applicant eligibility; coordinated with the Department of Defense to verify employment; incorporated new software to help process emails; eliminated a portion of the application process; leveraged posts worldwide for SIV interviews; and established remote consular operations in Doha, Qatar. However, because of an increased interest in the program after [the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in] August 2021, the Department experienced an influx of applications causing a backlog for which the Department had inadequate staffing to process. Without additional dedicated resources to address the situation, the backlog in SIV applications will remain a significant challenge.”

“B. COVID-19 Caused Delays to Afghan SIV Processing and Increased the Backlog of Applicants.” More specifically, “the COVID-19 pandemic stalled the Afghan SIV application process, which in-turn increased the number of SIV applicants awaiting in-person interviews….

Embassy Kabul suspended visa interviews twice: from March 2020 to February 2021 and from June to July 2021 because of COVID-19 outbreaks. However, telework allowed the Department to continue some phases of SIV applicant processing.”

“C. The Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program Faces Challenges and Would Benefit From a Strategic Performance Management Approach.” More specifically, “The Department relies on Taliban cooperation for SIV applicant relocation from the country because of a lack of a [U.S.] ground presence in Afghanistan. In addition, the Department has not developed and implemented a strategic performance management approach to resolving the Afghan SIV applicant backlog, and the Department’s Afghan SIV Senior Coordinating Official position has had periods of vacancy and frequent turnover since 2017. Developing and implementing a strategic performance management approach would benefit the Afghan SIV program and help address the SIV applicant backlog.”

“The reliance on Taliban cooperation because of the lack of US diplomatic ground presence in Afghanistan impacts the ability for Afghan SIV applicants to exit Afghanistan and arrive at a US diplomatic post for visa processing.” Indeed, “one of the biggest challenges to SIV applicants departing Afghanistan is the lack of freedom of movement out of Afghanistan, which is dependent on Taliban cooperation. The Taliban’s willingness to approve flights, to allow women to depart Afghanistan alone, to determine the number of aircraft Kabul International Airport can accommodate, and other factors impacted freedom of movement for Afghans.. . .”

As of April 2023, the Department estimates that 840,000 principal applicants and family members remain in Afghanistan with uncertainty where they are in the application process. As of August 1, the U.S. has “issued nearly 34,000 SIVs to principal applicants and their eligible family members while another 80,000 applicants are in process with tens of thousands having begun the applications.

The Report’s Recommendation

The Report then made the following Recommendation: “OIG recommends that the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) Senior Coordinating Official, in coordination with the Bureau of Consular Affairs and the Joint Executive Office for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, develop and implement a strategic performance management approach to improve the outcomes of the Afghan SIV program, including establishing goals and measures of success to evaluate progress against those established goals.”

The Department’s Management responded to that Recommendation as follows: “The Department concurred with the intent of the recommendation and requested that OIG revise the recommendation to read “the [Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) Senior] Coordinating Official, in coordination with the Bureau of Consular Affairs and the Joint Executive Office for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, continue to implement procedural changes and allocate resources in service of meeting the Department’s Afghan SIV processing goals. The Department should use the efficiency improvements, Chief of Mission (COM) decisions, and visa interview sections included in the quarterly Congressional reports on SIV processing to track progress, referencing the Program Design and Performance Management Toolkit as needed.”

“Additionally, Department comments noted that ‘after reviewing the Program Design and Performance Management Toolkit [mentioned in the finding] …, the Department maintains that Afghan SIV … adjudication is a process, not a program. However, the Department is aware of the value in this toolkit and will utilize it as a reference, as needed, while we continue to assess existing [Afghan SIV] processing goals.”

Conclusion

This blog already has discussed the Taliban’s human rights violations against in-country Afghans who had helped the U.S. troops before their August 2021 withdrawal.[2]

============================

[1] U.S. State Dep’t, Office of Inspector General, Evaluation of Adjustments to the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program From 2018 through 2022 (Aug. 2023)  Hansler, Challenges to Afghan special visa program remain two years after US withdrawal, State Dept, watchdog finds, CNN.com (Sept. 1, 2023) . See also Atwood & Hansler, State Department review of US withdrawal from Afghanistan includes far more findings than White House document, CNN (April 7, 2023)

[2] U.N. Agency Reports Afghan Human Rights  Violations Against Former U.S. Partners, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 26, 2023); COMMENT: Dangerous Life in Afghanistan of Family of U.S. Interpreter, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 29, 2023).

U.N. Agency Reports Afghan Human Rights Violations Against Former U.S. Partners

On March 28, 2002, the U.N. Security Council established the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) to promote peace and stability in that country and thereafter that mandate annually has been renewed and revised to reflect the continued needs of that country. This Mission’s headquarters is in Kabul with a field presence of around 1,187 staff throughout the country.[1]

UNAMA’s Report on Taliban’s Human Rights Violations[2]

On August 22, 2023, UNAMA released its report that the Taliban has committed at least 800 human-rights violations against U.S. partners since the Taliban’s takeover of the country in 2021. Members of the Afghan National Army are at the “greatest risk,” followed by national and local police officers and National Directorate of Security officials. Targets also include prosecutors, judges and national, provincial and district officials who served in the U.S.-backed government.

At least 218 Afghan partners have been murdered, the report says. “Some were taken to detention facilities and killed while in custody,” the report says, while “others were taken to unknown locations and killed, their bodies either dumped or handed over to family members.”

In addition, the report asserts that there have been 144 instances of torture and maltreatment, including beatings with pipes and cables, plus at least 14 enforced disappearances and more than 424 arbitrary arrests.

Reactions to the U.N. Report[3]

The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal reported on the above details of this report.

Their articles also noted that “tens of thousands of such former officials remain in Afghanistan, unable or unwilling to join the scramble of Afghans to flee abroad” after the Taliban takeover and inhabit a “climate of  fear.”

These news articles quoted the report as saying, “the abuses it found work against the healing of wounds in society from Afghanistan’s 40 years of war, and contravene the Taliban’s obligations under international human-rights law” and “the de facto authorities’ failure to fully uphold their publicly stated commitment and to hold perpetrators of human rights violations to account may have serious implications for the future stability of Afghanistan.”

The Wall Street Journal also published an editorial claiming that “the Biden Administration wants Americans to forget about Afghanistan” and “continues to offer too few visas for Afghans who helped America. Some Afghan partners told the U.N. that they ‘have gone into hiding’ and ‘live in fear of being arrested or killed by a member of the de facto authorities.’” Therefore, this editorial concludes, “These ugly details add to the disgrace of one of America’s worst betrayals.”

The Taliban government in a statement appended to the UNAMA report said that after the Taliban had seized power, its supreme leader had issued a blanket amnesty to all former government members, that only people acting against the Taliban had been arrested and prosecuted and,  “After the victory of the Islamic Emirate until today, cases of human rights violations (murder without trial, arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, and other acts against human rights) by the employees of the security institutions of the Islamic Emirate against the employees and security forces of the previous government have not been reported.”

Although not mentioned in the U.N. report, the U.S. needs to adopt the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would provide permanent legal status for Afghans who have been admitted to the U.S. on temporary parole visas because of their assistance to U.S. troops and personnel before September 2021.[4]

============================

[1] UNAMA, About.

[2] Press Release, U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, Impunity Prevails for Human Rights Violations Against Former Government Officials and Armed Forces Members (Aug. 22, 2023); UNAMA, A barrier to securing peace: Human rights violations against former government officials and former armed force members in Afghanistan: 15 August 2021—30 June 2023.

[3] Pena, U.N. Says Taliban Committed Rights Abuses Despite Blanket Amnesty, N.Y. Times (Aug. 22, 2023); Shah, Afghans Who Allied with U.S. Face Killings, Arrests Under Taliban Rule, U.N. Finds, W.S.J. (Aug. 22, 2023); Editorial: The Fate of America’s Afghan Partners, W.S.J. (Aug. 22, 2023)Response by the de facto Ministry of Foreign Affairs to UNAMA Human Rights Service report, regarding the violation of human rights against the employees and military forces of the previous government, Directorate of Human Rights & Women’s International Affairs, Kabul (Aug. 2023).

[4] Introduction of New Proposed Afghan Adjustment Act, dwkcommentaries.com (July 31, 2023).

Wall Street Journal Editorial Supports Afghan Evacuees    

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial calls for congressional passage of the Afghan Adjustment Act. [1] This is what it said.

“President Biden’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 ended the free choice of countless Afghans, and thousands who fled to the U.S. are now at risk of losing even more. A fix is on Congress’s agenda, but time is running out.”

“As the Taliban regime retook the country, more than 79,000 Afghans were evacuated to the U.S. They have already undergone vetting, and the majority were granted a temporary immigration status known as humanitarian parole, which offers no path to permanent residency. It also expires after two years.”

“That impending deadline weighs on Mohammad Khisraw Noori, 36, who worked for a time as an interpreter for the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan. Mr. Noori fled to the U.S. with his wife, Waghma, daughter Adeeba, now 6, and son Ebadul Rahman, now 4. They’re in California.”

“’Sometimes I feel like I’m dreaming: How is it possible when I wake up that I’m not worried about something bad?’ he says. ‘If you ask my girl, she’ll say, I’m from America,’ not Afghanistan. She’ll say, ‘I’m so happy here, there’s no shooting.’” Yet Mr. Noori can’t reassure Adeeba that they can stay.”

“When humanitarian parole expires, these Afghans can’t legally stay in the U.S., and the risk of deportation looms. They could seek renewal of their parole or temporary protected status, but neither promises long-term stability. They could ask for asylum, but the dysfunctional U.S. immigration system already faces lengthy backlogs. Tens of thousands of Afghan applicants would exacerbate the problem, and it might be years before they know their fates.”

“’A lot of folks are kind of in limbo,’ says Matt Watters, a Green Beret who served in Afghanistan and is a friend of Mr. Noori. ‘It’s hard for them to invest in certifications that are U.S.-specific, or go to college, or buy a home or a car if they don’t know if they can stay.’”

“The solution is a bill called the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would provide a path to a green card for those currently on humanitarian parole. The legislation would put these Afghans through another round of vetting, looking for links to drug trafficking or terrorism. Anyone who committed a crime after arriving in the U.S. would be disqualified.”

“The U.S. already offers a special immigrant visa that gives permanent residence to Afghans who worked closely with the U.S. government and military. The Afghan Adjustment Act would create a similar pathway for those who fought the Taliban by serving Afghanistan’s Army Special Operations Command, Air Force, Special Mission Wing or Female Tactical Teams. Their spouses and children would be eligible as well.”

“Not all Afghans who supported the American mission managed to escape. The U.S. has no embassy in the country today, but the bill would require the State Department to establish an office that could review Afghans’ applications and issue visas, and an interagency task force would work to alleviate constraints.”

“The Taliban takeover was a particular tragedy for Afghans who supported the U.S. mission, fought for the rights of women, or sought to build a civil society and a free political system. The U.S. has a moral obligation to do what it can to mitigate the harm of Mr. Biden’s catastrophic withdrawal, and passing the Afghan Adjustment Act would be a good start.”

Conclusion

This blog has supported the immediate adoption of the Afghan Adjustment Act based, in part, upon this blogger’s involvement in Minneapolis’ Westminster Church’s co-sponsorship of an Afghan family.[2]

==============================

[1] Editorial, Afghan Allies Still Need America’s Help, W.S.J. (Dec. 12, 2022).

[2]  Immense Problems Hampering U.S. Efforts To Resettle Afghans, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 22, 2022); More Criticism of U.S. Means of Addressing Immigration Needs of Afghan Evacuees, dwkcommentaries.com (Nov. 3, 2021); U.S. Resettlement of Refugees and Recent Afghan Evacuees, dwkcommentaries.com (Sept. 21, 2021).

Guantánamo: Trump’s Order Re-Ignites Controversy

President Trump on January 30 issued an executive order regarding the prison at Guantánamo, Cuba entitled the “Presidential Executive Order on Protecting American Through Lawful Detention of Terrorists.” It stated, ion part, ““Detention operations at U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay shall continue to be conducted consistent with all applicable United States and international law, including the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005” and the U.S. “may transport additional detainees to U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay when lawful and necessary to protect the Nation.” [1]

Shortly thereafter in his State of the Union Address the President announced this action with an additional  ad-libbed remark: “”in many cases terrorism detainees who are captured in the future will now be sent there.”

However, also after the speech, State and Pentagon officials said there were no plans to send new detainees to Guantanamo, a continuation of the practice for nearly the last 10 years.  And John Bellinger, a legal adviser in the Bush White House, said he thought that, given past failures, there would be institutional resistance to refilling the camp. “I  suspect the Departments of Defense, Justice and State would oppose sending new detainees to Guantánamo.”

This action has re-ignited controversy over the U.S. prison at the eastern end  of the island of Cuba in addition to those criticisms mentioned in the prior post.[2]

                                                     Re-Ignited Controversy

According to Robert M. Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas, Austin who on the U.S. Justice Department detention policy task force in 2009, “Nothing in the new executive order changes the various legal and policy obstacles that help explain why no one was brought there in 2017.” Those obstacles are the Islamic State, transfers and the military commissions trial system at the prison.

  1. Is the U.S. at war with Islamic State detainees?

The legal basis for detention of al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in the prison is the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Act that was enacted imIslamic mediately after the 9/11 attacks for military action against the perpetrators of those attacks.

But it is at best unclear, and at worst illegitimate, to claim that AUMF covers Islamic State or ISIS fighters. Thus, transferring any of these individuals to Guantánamo runs the risk of a U.S. federal court ruling that such transfers and detentions are illegal.

This legal risk could be eliminated if Congress passed a new law specifically authorizing the use of U.S. military force against ISIS of the Islamic State, but is it safe to assume Congress would do so.

2. Would the U.S. have legal authority to transfer Islamic State detainees from Guantánamo?

Although the new Executive Order says that Guantánamo detainees may be transferred to the U.S. for trial in U.S. federal courts, there are existing federal statues that forbid such transfers.

Again Congress could pass new laws abolishing those restrictions, but is it safe to assume Congress would do so.

3. Are the military commissions at Guantánamo effective ?

Professor Chesney observes that this system “has floundered in practice, with contested cases bogging down in years of pretrial hearings.” Indeed, President Trump himself this last November acknowledged this problem when he explained why he had decided token the New York truck-attack suspect in the civilian criminal justice system instead of transferring him to Guantánamo.

4. Is the operation of the Guantánamo prison too expensive?

According to the most recently available government figures, Guantanamo cost $445 million to run in fiscal year 2015—making its current costs about $11 million per inmate.

By contrast, the average cost per inmate in the federal prison system was $31,620, the federal Bureau of Prisons said in a 2016 filing.

5. Is the Guantánamo prison a tainted symbol that fuels anti-Americanism?

Indeed, the prison is such a symbol and enhances anti-American sentiment throughout the world. This was a major reason for a Washington Post editorial condemning the Trump executive order. Said the Post, the prison has “incited a storm of international criticism, handed a recruitment tool to al-Qaeda.” This cost of the prison, the Post adds,  is exacerbated by the “hopelessly bogged down” military commissions at the prison in contrast to the over 600 convictions in terrorism cases in U.S. federal courts since 2001.

Mark Fallon, a former chief investigator of the Defense Department’s Criminal Investigation Task Force, said, even if no more prisoners are sent there, Trump’s announcement itself had already caused damage. “Globally [Guantánamo] symbolizes injustice, oppression and torture. And so when you see the president out there talking about expanding upon it, I’m just afraid that that it puts our troops in greater danger overseas and it jeopardizes our national security.”

==========================================

[2] President Trump’s Unsound Action Regarding the U.S. Prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 31, 2018).

[2] Savage. Ordering Guantánamo to Stay Open Is One Thing, But Refilling It Is Another, N.Y. Times (Jan. 31, 2018); Editorial, Trump says he wants to refill Guantánamo. Bad Idea, Wash. Post (Feb. 1, 2018); Schwartz & Lubold, Trump’s Guantaanamo Move Keeps Prison and Detainees n Limbo, W.S.J. (Feb. 1, 2018);Borger & Smith, Guantánamo: Bush-era officials warn keeping prison open may be $6bn error, Guardian (Feb. 1, 2018).

President Trump’s Unsound Action Regarding the U.S. Prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba    

On January 30, just before leaving the White House for his State of the Union Address at the Capitol, President Donald Trump signed an executive order regarding the U.S. prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The Guantanamo Bay Executive Order[1]

The Executive Order entitled “Presidential Executive Order on Protecting American Through Lawful Detention of Terrorists” started with these Findings:

  • “Consistent with long-standing law of war principles and applicable law, the United States may detain certain persons captured in connection with an armed conflict for the duration of the conflict” and that since 9/11 the U.S. “remains engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, and associated forces, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.” (Section 1(a), (b).)
  • “The detention operations at the U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay are legal, safe, humane, and conducted consistent with United States and international law.” (Section 1(c ).) “Those operations are continuing given that a number of the remaining individuals at the detention facility are being prosecuted in military commissions, while others must be detained to protect against continuing, significant threats to the security of the United States, as determined by periodic reviews.” (Section 1(d).)

The Order than addressed the Status of Detention Facilities at U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay. After revoking President Obama’s January 22, 2009, executive order ordering the closure of those facilities (Section 2(a)),  it stated, “Detention operations at U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay shall continue to be conducted consistent with all applicable United States and international law, including the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005” and the U.S. “may transport additional detainees to U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay when lawful and necessary to protect the Nation.” (Section 2 (b), (c))

The Order also directed certain government officials to “recommend policies to the President regarding the disposition of individuals captured in connection with an armed conflict, including policies governing transfer of individuals to U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay.” (Section 2 (d).)

There, however, were modest concessions to the plight of the detainees and other interests. It states, the detainees “shall [be] subject to the [previously established] procedures for periodic review . . . to determine whether continued law of war detention is necessary to protect against a significant threat to the security of the United States” (Section 2(e)); the order shall not “prevent the Secretary of Defense from transferring any individual away from the U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay when appropriate, including to effectuate an order affecting the disposition of that individual issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction” (Section 3(a); the order shall not “affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful permanent residents of the United States, or any persons who are captured or arrested in the United States” (Section 3(b); and the order shall not “prevent the Attorney General from, as appropriate, investigating, detaining, and prosecuting a terrorist subject to the criminal laws and jurisdiction of the United States” (Section 3 (c ).

The State of the Union Address[2]

The President announced that he had “just signed an order directing Secretary Mattis to reexamine our military detention policy and to keep open the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay. I am also asking the Congress to ensure that, in the fight against ISIS and al-Qa’ida, we continue to have all necessary power to detain terrorists — wherever we chase them down.”

He also said, “My Administration has also imposed tough sanctions on the communist and socialist dictatorships in Cuba and Venezuela.”

Reactions

Roger Cohen, a New York Times columnist, said the prison at Guantanamo Bay “is widely viewed around the world as a facility incompatible with the American principles of fair trial, human rights and the rule of law.” Moreover, this decision “will be seen by many as a signal of an American return to the excesses of the war on terror — the use of torture, extraordinary renditions and C.I.A ‘black sites.’”[3]

Admiral Dennis Blair, the former Director of National Intelligence, said Cohen, once testified to Congress that the “detention center at Guantánamo has become a damaging symbol to the world and that it must be closed. It is a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and harmful to our national security, so closing it is important for our national security.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) stated, “Trump’s planned executive order is not the last word on the fate of Guantánamo, any more than his attempted Muslim bans and arbitrary transgender military ban—struck down by the courts—were the last word on those matters. CCR has filed a new legal challenge to the illegality and racism driving Trump’s Guantánamo policy and demanding detainees’ release. It is the courts, not the authoritarian-in-chief, that will ultimately determine the fate of the men detained at Guantánamo.”[4]

The just mentioned CCR action on behalf of 11 Guantánamo detainees was filed on January 11, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It alleges that Trump’s proclamation against releasing anyone from Guantánamo, regardless of their circumstances is arbitrary and unlawful and amounts to “perpetual detention for detention’s sake.”  This move was supported by Muslim, Faith-Based and Civil Rights Community Organizations.[5] On January 18, the court ordered the federal government to provide information about its Guantánamo policy.[6]

The New York Times in an editorial supported this challenge to the continued detention of individuals at the U.S. prison in Cuba. The editorial stated, “the men make a straightforward case for their release. The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners at Guantánamo must have a “meaningful opportunity” to challenge the legal and factual grounds for their detention, which means that the federal courts have the power to review those claims and grant any appropriate relief. If the Constitution stands for anything, the plaintiffs argue . . ., it must stand for the proposition that the government cannot detain someone for 16 years without charge.”[7]

Conclusion

The U.S. prison at Guantánamo Bay has long been a major source of legitimate complaints against the U.S. and should be closed as soon as possible, not potentially expanded as this Executive Order would permit. In addition, this prison provides Cuba with its strongest argument that the U.S. has breached its 1905 lease of the site of the prison from Cuba.[8]

============================================

[1] White House, Presidential Executive Order on Protecting American Through Lawful Detention of Terrorists (Jan. 30, 2018).

[2]   White House, President Donald J. Trump’s State of the Union Address (Jan. 30, 2018).

[3] Cohen, Trump’s Volk and Vaterland, N.Y. Times (Jan. 31, 2018).

 

[4] Center for Const’l Rts, Guantánamo Attorneys blast Trump “Keep Gitmo Open” Order (Jan. 30, 2018).

[5]  Brief of Amici Curiae Muslim, Faith-Based, and Civil Rights Community Organizations in Support of Petitioners’’ Motion for Order Granting Writ of Habeas Corpus, Awad al Bihani v. Trump, Case No, 1:09-cv-00745-RCL (D.D.C. Jan. 22,  2018).

[6] Center Const’l Rts, Court Orders Government to Clarify Guantánamo Policy, Attorneys React (Jan. 18, 2018); Order, Awad al Bihani v. Trump, Case No, 1:09-cv-00745-RCL (D.D.C.J an. 18, 2018).

[7] Editorial, Donald Trump vs. Guantánamo’s Forever Prisoners, N.Y. Times (Jan. 16, 2018).

[8]  See these posts to dwkcommentaries.com: Resolution of Issues Regarding Cuba Lease of Guantánamo Bay (April 4, 2015); Resolution of U.S. and Cuba’s Damage Claims  (April 6, 2016); Does Cuba Have the Right To Terminate the U.S. Lease of Guantánamo Bay? (April 26, 2015)

 

New York Times Recommends U.S.-Cuba Prisoner Exchange

U.S. citizen Alan Gross is being held in a Cuban prison after having been tried and convicted by a Cuban court for violating Cuban law while three Cuban citizens are being held in U.S. federal prisons after having been tried and convicted by U.S. federal courts for violating U.S. law. There has been much public and governmental desire in both countries to have their respective citizens released from prisons and returned to their home countries.[1]

On November 3, 2014, a New York Times editorial recommended that the two countries negotiate a prisoner exchange. The editorial first set forth the following lengthy summary of the two sets of prisoners:

  • “Under the direction of Development Alternatives Inc.,which had a contract with the United States Agency for International Development, Mr. Gross traveled to Havana five times in 2009, posing as a tourist, to smuggle communications equipment as part of an effort to provide more Cubans with Internet access. The Cuban government, which has long protested Washington’s covert pro-democracy initiatives on the island, tried and convicted Mr. Gross in 2011, sentencing him to 15 years in prison for acts against the integrity of the state.”
  • “While in prison, Gross has lost more than 100 pounds. He is losing vision in his right eye. His hips are failing. This June, Mr. Gross’s elderly mother died. After he turned 65 in May, Mr. Gross told his loved ones that this year would be his last in captivity, warning that he intends to kill himself if he is not released soon. His relatives and supporters regard that as a serious threat from a desperate, broken man.”
  • Five Cuban men (the so-called “Cuban five”) had “infiltrated Cuban exile groups in Florida” that had “dropped leaflets over the island urging Cubans to rise up against their government.” Four of them “were convicted of non-violent crimes,” and two of these four “have been released and returned home” while the other two of these four who “remain imprisoned are due for release relatively soon.”
  • The remaining U.S. prisoner and the one “who matters the most to the Cuban government, Gerardo Hernández, is serving two life sentences.” He was the leader of the Five and “was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder” in connection with the Cuban military’s shooting down of a civilian plane operated by one of the Cuban exile groups over the unmarked border between Cuban and international waters.
  • “A three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overturned the convictions [of all five Cubans] in August 2005, ruling that a ‘perfect storm’ of factors deprived the five defendants of a fair trial. The judges found that widespread hostility toward the Cuban government in Miami and pretrial publicity that vilified the [Cuban]spies made it impossible to impanel an impartial jury.”
  • “The full [11th Circuit] court later reversed the panel’s finding, reinstating the verdict. But the judges raised other concerns about the case that led to a reduction of three of the sentences.” One of the Circuit’s judges, “Phyllis Kravitch, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that Mr. Hernández’s murder-conspiracy conviction was unfounded. Prosecutors, she argued, failed to establish that Mr. Hernández, who provided Havana with information about the flights, had entered into an agreement to shoot down the planes in international, as opposed to Cuban, airspace. Downing the planes over Cuban airspace, which the exiles had penetrated before, would not constitute murder under American law.”

The editorial then noted that early “in Mr. Gross’s detention, Cuban officials suggested they might be willing to free him if Washington put an end to initiatives designed to overthrow the Cuban government. After those talks sputtered, the Cuban position hardened and it has become clear to American officials that the only realistic deal to get Mr. Gross back would involve releasing [the remaining] three Cuban spies convicted of federal crimes in Miami in 2001.”

Thus, according to the editorial, the key issue now is whether the U.S. Government will agree to such a prisoner exchange, and the editorial argues that the U.S. should do so for the following reasons:

  1. Gross’ “arrest was the result of a reckless strategy in which U.S.A.I.D. has deployed private contractors to perform stealthy missions in a police state vehemently opposed to Washington’s pro-democracy crusade.”
  2. “If Alan Gross died in Cuban custody, the prospect of establishing a healthier relationship with Cuba would be set back for years.
  3. A “prisoner exchange could pave the way toward re-establishing formal diplomatic ties, positioning the United States to encourage positive change in Cuba through expanded trade, travel opportunities and greater contact between Americans and Cubans. Failing to act would maintain a 50-year cycle of mistrust and acts of sabotage by both sides.
  4. “In order to swap prisoners, President Obama would need to commute the [three Cuban] men’s sentences. Doing so would be justified considering the lengthy time they have served, the troubling questions about the fairness of their trial, and the potential diplomatic payoff in clearing the way toward a new bilateral relationship.”

“Officials at the White House are understandably anxious about the political fallout of a deal with Havana, given the criticism they faced in May [of 2014] after five Taliban prisoners were exchanged for [one] American soldier kidnapped in Afghanistan. The American government, sensibly, is averse to negotiating with terrorists or governments that hold United States citizens for ransom or political leverage. But in exceptional circumstances, it makes sense to do so. The Alan Gross case meets that [criterion].”

This editorial is the latest in what the Times itself states is an editorial series on “Cuba: A New Start.” The first editorial was titled “Obama Should End the Embargo on Cuba.” The next in the series actually was “Editorial Observer: Still Pondering U.S.-Cuba Relations, Fidel Castro Responds,” by Ernesto Londoño of the newspaper’s Editorial Board; it noted Fidel Castro’s favorable reaction to the first Times editorial. The second editorial, “Cuba’s Impressive Role on Ebola” (Oct. 19, 2014). The third editorial, “The Shifting Politics of Cuba Policy.” The fourth, also published on November 3rd with Ernesto Londoño’s byline, “Editorial, Alan Gross and the Cuban Five: A Timeline.”[2]

===========================================================

[1] This blog previously has discussed the Alan Gross case and the Cuban Five case and urged a prisoner exchange: The U.S. Should Pursue Reconciliation with Cuba (May 21, 2011); Commutation and Release of Convicted Spies (Sept. 24, 2011); Roots of Hope for U.S.-Cuba Relations (Sept. 27, 2011); U.S. and Cuba Discuss Exchange of Prisoners (Oct. 14, 2011); Letter to President Obama Regarding Cuba (Aug. 17, 2012).

[2] This blog previously has commented on three of these editorials: New York Times Urges Normalization of U.S.-Cuba Relations (Oct. 13, 2014); New York Times Commends Cuba for Fighting Ebola in West Africa and Again Urges U.S.-Cuba Normalization (Oct. 19, 2014); New York Times Again Urges Normalization of U.S.-Cuba Relations (Oct. 26, 2014). Another post cited Londoño’s article about the U. N. General Assembly ‘s recent vote on the U.S. embargo: U.N. General Assembly Again Condemns U.S. Embargo of Cuba (Oct. 30, 2014). Londoño joined the Times’ Editorial Board in September 2014 after a distinguished career at the Washington Post and the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Londoño , who was born and raised in Bogotá, Colombia, moved to the U.S. in 1999 to study journalism and Latin American studies at the University of Miami.