Detention USA: EVERYBODY is Starting to Ask Questions!

The weather's turning cold. I'm thinking back on some of the activism we engaged in here in Chicago in the spring . . . . and in the summer . . .  and I'm looking ahead to what has -- sadly -- become a winter tradition: the protests on the Guantanamo anniversary on January 11.

And I'm wondering how -- this winter -- we might bring some heat and light to the issues surrounding indefinite detention and the persecution of Muslims.


Guantanamo: unending detention

CHICAGO: Protesting Guantanamo detention
More info at Chicago Coalition to Shut Down Guantanamo

Every year for the past dozen years, activists against U.S. government indefinite detention at Guantanamo, and other violations of due process, have engaged in protests around the country on January 11. (January 11 is marked as the anniversary of the opening of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center.) See, for instance, the events related to our 2012 J11 protest in Chicago.

Nearly a year ago at this time, I was reacting to proclamations by Obama administration officials, saying that they were in the process of working out repatriation or other placement for the 70 or so Guantanamo detainees who had been cleared for release. For a brief moment, I wondered if it might really happen. The result, however, has been that no more than a handful of detainees were sent home.

Instead, the U.S. government continued to force-feed detainees, and to fight tooth-and-nail to resist any attempt to get the truth about those force-feedings to the public.


Korematsu Day

January is a time when people remember another story of U.S. detention: January 30 is recognized as Korematsu Day, after Fred Korematsu, who fought the illegitimate U.S. internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII.

In 2013, I attended a Korematsu Day forum in Chicago at Loyola University School of Law -- one of dozens of Korematsu day events held around the country.  It was excellent, and it included a presentation by a representative from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Chicago on the issue of detention of Muslims in the U.S. since 2001.

George Takei - childhood photo during his family's
internment in Rohwer, AK (Source: Arkansas.com)

I was reminded recently of the importance of Korematsu Day when I saw the wonderful documentary about actor and activist George Takei -- who was himself interned as a young boy.

"As I write this, once again the national dialogue turns to defining our enemies, the impulse to smear whole communities or people with the actions of others still too familiar and raw. Places like the museum and Rohwer camp exist to remind us of the dangers and fallibility of our democracy, which is only as strong as the adherence to our constitutional principles renders it. People like myself and those veterans lived through that failure, and we understand how quickly cherished liberties and freedom may slip away or disappear utterly." (George Takei, "Why We Must Remember Rohwer," The Huffington Post, 4/22/2013)

(Takei has joined with a creative team to bring to the stage a musical about the issue: Allegiance.)

Korematsu Day is a day when we should both look at the persecution of Japanese-Americans in the U.S. in the past, but also look at the persecution of Muslims in the U.S. today.  The question, "What needs to be done to make sure this never happens again?" is not just academic.


The Holder Legacy

Attorney General Eric Holder stepped down last week. Mainstream media commentaries on his legacy are all over the map.  Perhaps it would be fruitful for one or more law school to avail itself of this stock-taking moment. What happened? Why?

The Holder Justice Department: What happened?
(Source: FoxCT.com)

There is a broad range of areas where the behavior of the Holder (i.e. Obama (i.e. Democratic)) Justice Department needs to be scrutinized. Four Five seem particularly closely related:

* indefinite detention at Guantanamo
* prosecutions in the court system stemming from terrorism charges
* provisions to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely under the N.D.A.A. (National Defense Authorization Act)
* suppression of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) report on U.S. torture
* legal justification for extrajudicial execution of U.S. enemies (drone killings)

Remember when we ushered out the Bush administration and ushered in the Obama administration? Did anyone imagine the past six years would be more of the same (and worse)?


Legal protection for people?

Eric L. Lewis
"Lawyer Eric Lewis shows a copy of a statement
by his clients, Britons captured in Afghanistan
and held at Guantanamo Bay."
(Source: Manuel Balce Ceneta in USA Today)

About a month ago, attorney Eric L. Lewis made a very interesting connection between developments in U.S. law by focusing on recent Supreme Court decisions. In "Who Are ‘We the People’?" in The New York Times (October 4, 2014), Lewis pointed out that, on the one hand the acceptance of indefinite detention of people in the U.S. legal system means that the country is no longer serious about treating people as people; and on the other hand the Citizens United decision allows corporations to insist that corporations DO get the full set of rights we have defined for people. Lewis -- who has acted as counsel for individual Guantanamo detainees -- says it is time for people who claim to care about the rule of law in the U.S. to look at the systemic disintegration. "Who is a person? How do you qualify for basic human rights? What is required for you to be able to speak or worship freely or to be free from torture?" he asks.


How might we get all these questions on the table in a meaningful forum in January? In particular, I am wondering how aspiring lawyers feel about what they are getting themselves into today: isn't it time to inquire into a law school education that prepares you to participate in a legal system that isn't working? I like to see a conversation that includes activists, legal experts, soon-to-be lawyers, as well as lots of members of the lay public. I think everybody is starting to have questions.


Related posts

Eric Holder addressed a group of Northwestern Law students and others. Afterward one audience member summed up the speech as he left: "He pretty much said he can kill anyone he wants." The details of that speech will turn you more topsy-turvy than anything Alice experienced when she ventured through the looking glass.

(See Eric Through the Looking Glass)

Even if the current Obama administration approach of releases were to succeed in bringing about the release of everyone at Guantanamo, it would not have begun to address the wrong that has been committed.

(See US to its Humans Rights Violations Victims: "Shut up and take what you're given!" )







The story of the past decade-plus has been the story of the assertion by some that the conception of law that our society has is not sufficient.  Simply put, there are those who say that there is a third, "in-between" category of behavior -- and legal status -- that is not civilian (subject to criminal law) and not military (subject to military law and the laws of war). And since there are no rules about how to deal with that third category . . . .

(See Using the Good, Old Criminal Justice System: Worth a Try?)




Other related links

Law schools are interested in the concept of "rule of law." (See for instance What We Know & Don’t Know About the Rule of Law, October 31-November 1, 2014 -- the inaugural conference of Rule of Law Research Consortium (RLRC), held in conjunction with the University of Chicago Law School. ) Most of the time, however, they proceed from the assumption that "rule of law" exists in the U.S., and that the only question is why it doesn't happen in other places!

12 Years a Detainee

For the next three months, people will be talking about the film 12 Years a Slave and its Oscar prospects. And well they should.

The film is about the experiences of the free man, Solomon Northrup, who was seized and enslaved for twelve years, and it may be the best thing ever to come along for enabling us to confront the true meaning of our history of oppression and racism in America.

But it's not just about history. How many viewers of the film will gasp and realize that the kind of kidnapping and living entombment depicted in the film isn't just limited to the America of our forebears?

Extraordinary Rendition

One minute he is with his family, and the next minute he is in chains.

Of course, this is the reality of every victim of American slavery. The peculiar hell of the protagonist of 12 Years a Slave, Solomon Northrup, is that he thinks he lives in a time and place where it can't happen to him.

The portrayal of the kidnapping of Solomon Northrup matches the practice of "extraordinary rendition" by which the U.S. government has snatched people in countries all over the world and carried them outside the reach of help, or of the law. Many of those people still languish in Guantanamo.

Dehumanization

12 Years a Slave is as much about the captors as the captured.

Everyone is dehumanized.

The most over-the-top character is the crazed slaveholder Epps. Perhaps the most calculatingly evil is the slave dealer Theophilus Freeman; slaveholder William Ford the most pathetic, carpenter John Tibeats the most despicable.  But the character that I found most compelling was the overseer who saves Northrup from lynching one minute, and yet the next has walked away leaving him dangling on the edge of suffocation. What is going on?

Everyone is embedded in the cruelty; everyone is complicit. ("Just doing my job.")

How many Americans -- at all levels -- have been dehumanized by their complicity -- directly and indirectly -- in the renditions, detentions, torture, killings, and other acts carried out by the U.S. government in our name in the "global war on terror" since 9/11?

Can We Act?

Brad Pitt plays a humane, indepdendent, and -- ultimately -- courageous white (Canadian) laborer, Samuel Bass. He has the two best lines in the film.

The first is when Bass tells the menacing Epps, "The law can't make a person a slave. The law could change tomorrow and make you a slave. That wouldn't mean that it was true."

The second is Bass' response to Northrup's request for help. "I'm afraid."

It is that second line that I can't get out of my mind. Is it possible that even heroes come to the rescue only after facing down their own fear?

Who is willing to stand up in America today and say,  "The law can't make a person an indefinite detainee. The law could change tomorrow and say you should be an indefinite detainee. That wouldn't mean that it was true" ?


The 2014 Oscar season, during which so many people will be talking about 12 Years a Slave, coincides with the 12th anniversary of the establishment of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center: the place America uses to demonstrate that even today it can seize anybody it chooses and pack them away indefinitely, dangling between life and death.

I can't help believing that the producers of 12 Years a Slave are sending us a message: "This is about today. Act."


Related posts

My most prominent memory of my first viewing of the Guantanamo film, The Response, is of one of the stars of the film -- Kate Mulgrew of Star Trek fame -- participating in a panel after the screening. I was blown away when she said, "I did this because our civil liberties in our country have been gravely damaged and we all need to contribute to repairing them."

(See Understanding What Guantanamo Means)

We all wish to be judged by our good intentions. But the way people know us is through our actions. So ... what do people in the Muslim world know about us here in the United States?

(See They'll Know Us By Our Actions)

Make no mistake: the powers that be have know that they have cowed most of the public into being afraid to talk about Guantanamo, and that suits them just fine. Our power to act starts with talking widely -- beyond just our usual circles -- about the way in which we're being scared ... and why a government would possibly want to scare its own people.

(See Pentecost, Guantanamo, and the Moment When Talk Becomes Priceless)

Too Much State Power? (Asymmetric Warfare and Asymmetric Policing)

It may seem strange to suggest, on the day that our dysfunctional government has been put back to work after weeks of deadlock by our dysfunctional Congress, that what we're confronting is too much state power. But all signs point in precisely this direction.

Most recently, I've been seeing reports about the man that a U.S. team grabbed in Libya, and every time I see them, I feel like there's something wrong here and we're not articulating it properly.

Continuing the practice that has filled the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center as well as Bagram and an unknown number of other prisons in Afghanistan, the U.S. government arrested/detained an alleged criminal/terrorist, Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai (Abu Anas al-Libi). From the get-go, the U.S. government said that it intended to do two things with this man: (a) interrogate him aboard a U.S. Navy ship; (b) prosecute him in U.S. federal court. The legalities of this are complicated, and turn broadly on the question of whether the man is a soldier, a civilian, or something in-between.

Having worked on the Guantanamo issue for years now, I have some familiarity with the relevant legal concepts. But in this case I kept turning from technicalities to simple moral instinct: no matter what the legal theory is, there is something that doesn't feel right about an all-powerful state grabbing a person and disappearing him down a hole (or multiple holes) where they will -- rules and protocols notwithstanding -- do whatever they want with him (thank you very much).

In other words, you don't have to be a lawyer to be able to assert that there's something wrong with what the U.S. is doing.

This is not, by the way, to deny that crimes may have been committed, or to in any way present a judgement on the character of the individual involved. The one thing does not excuse the other.

The point is the overwhelming asymmetry between the power of the U.S. government and the power of individuals. That is what is immediately apparent to our intuitive sense of justice -- even if we are not able to put it into words.

The U.S. government and its military talk constantly about the new world of "asymmetric warfare" -- which basically boils down to how "unfair" it seems to them that individuals can wield any meaningful amount of power, given how minuscule their numbers or the firepower available to them. But what what we should spend much more time focusing on is "asymmetric policing" -- i.e. the overwhelming power that the U.S. state wields in every encounter with individuals.

What's the Big Trend?

I think the U.S. is in the midst of a big shift.  I think that for over a decade following 9/11 people have been so enmeshed in fear that their instincts weren't working properly. I think that we are in the midst of a slow process of awakening: people are emerging from the shadow of fear to a wider range of sensibility -- and they are realizing there are some things that are out of joint.

We've seen some examples of that already in 2013: the push-back against surveillance, the movement against drone killings, the enormous success of the campaign to end stop-and-frisk in New York City, the widespread refusal to allow an attack on Syria, the call for detente with Iran . . . .

Much work remains to be done.  What will be accomplished in 2014?

Related posts

In the film "The Response," as military judges are debating the fate of a detainee at Guantanamo, one of them says, "Okay, if 9/11 is the measuring stick, are we a great nation because of the blow we took? Or because how we, as a country, respond to that blow? The response matters. Our response defines us . . . . "

(See Why Have We Built A Monument To Bin Laden?)

One issue that has a key place in the midterm elections in 2014, I believe, is surveillance.  With each passing day, I am hearing more and more people say that the surveillance issue is something that a wide spectrum of people are deeply upset about. That includes people on the right as well as people on the left -- people who don't usually talk with each other, much less work together for positive change!

(See The Surveillance Issue: The Fulcrum of the 2014 Election?)



In Chicago, the biggest symbol of asymmetric state power is the Cook County Jail: it is the club that the state uses to compel defendants to take plea deals.

(See Free Them All)

Obama's Three "ANYs"

Barack Obama - the president we thought was going to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center and restore the rule of law - has instituted a new regime. It's called "the three ANYs". The U.S. government can detain:

ANYone!

ANYwhere!

ANYtime!

(Got a problem with that?)

January 22, 2009: President Obama signs order to close
Guantanamo Bay Detention Center within one year.

Details are in the newly minted "National Defense Authorization Act" (NDAA). (got police state?)

If you think it's time to stop being quiet and resist, get involved in the national mobilization against indefinite detention.

If you live in Chicago, COME OUT and SUPPORT the events taking place now through January 11 (and beyond) and spread the word!


Related posts

Chicago was the site of major protests against U.S. detention practices in Guantanamo, as well as in Bagram, other prisons throughout Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world, on and around January 11, 2012. We called for an end to indefinite detention, unfair trials, and torture.

(See Chicago Protests Guantanamo Detention)







"Occupy Chicago opposes the language featured in the National Defense Authorization Act, which if passed would allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military without charge or trail anywhere in the world. This expands and codifies tactics from the War on Terror of illegal detentions condemned by international law and our own constitution. We urge senators Durbin and Kirk to oppose this type of legislation in any form."

(See Occupy the NDAA! Oppose Indefinite Detention! ) 

The story of the past decade-plus has been the story of the assertion by some that the conception of law that our society has is not sufficient.  Simply put, there are those who say that there is a third, "in-between" category of behavior -- and legal status -- that is not civilian (subject to criminal law) and not military (subject to military law and the laws of war). And since there are no rules about how to deal with that third category . . . .

(See Using the Good, Old Criminal Justice System: Worth a Try?)

Why Have We Built A Monument To Bin Laden?

In the film "The Response," as military judges are debating the fate of a detainee at Guantanamo, one of them says, "Okay, if 9/11 is the measuring stick, are we a great nation because of the blow we took? Or because how we, as a country, respond to that blow? The response matters. Our response defines us . . . . "

When the death of Osama bin Laden was announced, I thought, "We're not done with this guy. We're stuck with him now. Guantanamo is our monument to bin Laden. And the worst part is: we did it to ourselves . . . . "

Guantanamo Bay Detention Center

I was having lunch with my friend Steve the other day. Before I could get the words out of my mouth, he was telling me "We've given him immortality! He's gone, but he's left all this erosion of our laws behind!"

Every person who detests bin Laden and what he stood for should be at the front of the line demanding that Guantanamo be shut down and we retrace our steps and correct all the abuses that we have perpetrated since we started that whole sad chapter of our history.

Until we do that, bin Laden has won. He provoked us, and our response has been to build, in his name, a giant monument of injustice.


Related posts

I was back in New Jersey to visit with high school friends in July. It gave me the opportunity to visit the newly opened 9/11 Memorial. Not surprisingly, what I saw made me spend days and weeks thinking about the memorial itself, and the larger issue of 9/11 in our national life. Out of all that I have seen and heard and read and thought about, several thoughts keep rising to the top.

(See 9/11 Memory: Grieving and Celebrating Valor, Leaving Vengeance Behind )


My most prominent memory of my first viewing of the Guantanamo film, The Response, is of one of the stars of the film -- Kate Mulgrew of Star Trek fame -- participating in a panel after the screening. I was blown away when she said, "I did this because our civil liberties in our country have been gravely damaged and we all need to contribute to repairing them."

(See Understanding What Guantanamo Means)


As Sankari explained, when people everywhere unite to fight back against the illegitimate prosecution and persecution of Muslims, they are making an important contribution to the leading edge of resistance against the racist and political repression that affects the African-American community as well as all people of color, with harsh treatment dealt out to undocumented people, LGBT people, women, Muslims, and people involved in the labor, peace, and solidarity movements; and when Muslims join in the broad movement against racist and political repression that affects all these groups, they are contributing to the resistance against prosecution and persecution of Muslims.

(See GUANTANAMO: "Is that who we are?" )

Guantanamo - What Would John Adams Say?

Sometimes it feels like people who are concerned about Guantanamo are a handful of voices in the wilderness. Then there are moments when a lot of people get pulled into the conversation. "Law Day" -- sponsored nationwide by the American Bar Association (ABA) and implemented by state bar associations in each state -- is an example of the latter.

The Boston Massacre
Engraving by Paul Revere
John Adams set a precedent by assuring due
process for a British soldier accused in the massacre.

The theme of this year's Law Day observance is "The Legacy of John Adams: From Boston to Guantanamo." The event encourages educators at all levels -- through contests, special events, and detailed teaching aids -- to get students to learn and think about the legacy of due process and legal protections in the United States, and to ask hard questions about how that legacy is (or is not) being honored today, particularly with respect to the "war on terror" and treatment of detainees at Guantanamo and other locations.

I'm particularly excited about the event that will be hosted by the Nevada courts - a web-streamed screening of the film about the Guantanamo combatant status review tribunals (CSRTs) -- "The Response" -- followed by a web-linked discussion in locations across the state, led by the film's producer, Sig Libowitz. The screening starts at 8:30 a.m. Pacific time on Thursday, May 5, 2011, and can be viewed from a link on the Nevada Law Day page.

Below is a sampling of some of the ways young people are grappling with the issue in other parts of the country as a part of Law Day.

In New Jersey students have made short videos to explore the Law Day theme. Entries can be viewed on Youtube -- one of my favorites is entry #27, "A Question of Justice and Due Process." (I especially like the "man in the street" interviews with other students about the detainees at Guantanamo.) Entry #29 touches briefly on Rasul v Bush . . .

In Pennsylvania extensive resources were provided for Law Day sessions in schools, and award winners were posted on the Law Day website.

There were also significant observances in Connecticut, Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma.

Many of us are slowly coming to the realization that the erosion of legal rights that has happened during our watch in the last decade is not going to be erased quickly or easily. It will take hard work for a long time, and it can't be done alone. It may take a generation. What is your community doing to enlist young people in this challenge?


Related posts

The story of the past decade-plus has been the story of the assertion by some that the conception of law that our society has is not sufficient.  Simply put, there are those who say that there is a third, "in-between" category of behavior -- and legal status -- that is not civilian (subject to criminal law) and not military (subject to military law and the laws of war). And since there are no rules about how to deal with that third category . . . .

(See Using the Good, Old Criminal Justice System: Worth a Try?)

I believe Easter is God's gift to humanity of victory over death, hopelessness and frailty, and I believe that God is alive and in our midst. The witness of the Guantanamo lawyers has confirmed me in those beliefs.

(See Easter Victory: The Guantanamo Lawyers )






Eric Holder addressed a group of Northwestern Law students and others. Afterward one audience member summed up the speech as he left: "He pretty much said he can kill anyone he wants." The details of that speech will turn you more topsy-turvy than anything Alice experienced when she ventured through the looking glass.

(See Eric Through the Looking Glass)

Rahm to Constitution: Drop Dead

While the country is absorbed in "HCR" -- health care reform -- are we ignoring a patient that's dying on the emergency room table? I'm talking about the U.S. Constitution.

"We the people . . . "
The U.S. Constitution: still a priority?

Yesterday, the New York Times ran a long piece on Rahm Emmanuel and his role in the Obama Administration's progress (or lack thereof) in advancing its agenda. I have to confess that I'm not savvy about the complexities of advancing major legislation, and all the talk of arm-twisting and back-room deals left me at a bit of a loss.

And besides, I wanted to know about Rahm's role in holding back the Administration's promised actions to close Guantanamo, conduct civilian trials for accused terrorists, and take other steps to reverse the rights debacle of the Bush era. I waded through paragraph after paragraph about party strategy and special election headaches, until I got to the part about the Justice Department.

The article said that Rahm found himself pitted against AG Eric Holder (which I already knew) and White House counsel Greg Craig, who eventually resigned (which I didn't know). And then it said something about these issues that made the world stand still for me:

"Emmanuel is not particularly vested in the substantive merits or drawbacks of the specific plans. He sees them as politically problematic, wasting scarce capital and provoking unnecessary fights on what he regards as second-tier issues that distract from higher priorities."

Wasted capital? Unnecessary fights? Second-tier issues? Is this how we describe the fundamentals of government power and individual rights?

In other words, the U.S. Constitution has become a second class citizen in 2010 America; at least while there are more important things like health care reform to accomplish.

Health care reform is an important and vast and fascinating undertaking. But care and feeding of the Constitution has got to be our national leaders' No. 1 job. It's a matter of priorities.

FLASHBACK: May 1975
President Gerald Ford rejects NYC pleas for aid.

Related posts

The story of the past decade-plus has been the story of the assertion by some that the conception of law that our society has is not sufficient.  Simply put, there are those who say that there is a third, "in-between" category of behavior -- and legal status -- that is not civilian (subject to criminal law) and not military (subject to military law and the laws of war). And since there are no rules about how to deal with that third category . . . .

(See Using the Good, Old Criminal Justice System: Worth a Try?)




We are allowed to know all about these killings, provided we're prepared to believe the statements of a person we can't confirm exists about a program which is not acknowledged to be happening. We are living in a nightmare that makes Philip K. Dick's dystopias look cozy in comparison.

(See Drones and Zero Accountability Government)

We all wish to be judged by our good intentions. But the way people know us is through our actions. So ... what do people in the Muslim world know about us here in the United States?

(See They'll Know Us By Our Actions)








Rahm appears to be turning what was supposed to be a prime Presidential Moment -- the May 2012 Chicago summit of NATO and G8, at which Obama will preside, in the President's own "home town" and headquarters of his 2012 re-election campaign, no less -- into a fiasco.

(See Does Obama have a Rahm Problem? )

IMPACT FILM: Understanding What Guantanamo Means From "The Response"

More . . . Chicago Protests Guantanamo Detention
Easter Victory: The Guantanamo Lawyers

On reflection, I think the biggest event of 2009 for me turned out to be a screening of "The Response" --a film about Guantanamo detainees and the military tribunals at the Siskel Film Center this past summer.

The experience was a knockout for me, for at least three reasons. My most prominent memory is of one of the stars of the film -- Kate Mulgrew of Star Trek fame -- participating in a panel after the screening. I was blown away when she said, "I did this because our civil liberties in our country have been gravely damaged and we all need to contribute to repairing them."

The Response
Kate Mulgrew, Peter Riegert, and Sig Libowitz portray military judges
in a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) at Guantanamo

The second thing that struck me was the presentation by Thomas Sullivan, a prominent Chicago lawyer who also participated in the panel and described his work defending Guantanamo suspects pro bono. I thought to myself, "Here's this hugely successful big city lawyer, and yet it's important enough to him to spend a massive amount of his time making sure these guys get the benefit of a proper defense."

Third, but far from least, was the quality of the film itself. It raised the basic question: is due process important? What does it really look and feel like when corners are being cut? The filmmaker, Sig Libowitz, did a spectacular job of bringing the core issue -- legal process -- into the foreground and making it compelling. (That's probably why the American Bar Association gave the film its prestigious Silver Gavel Award.)

"The Response" and its creator, Sig, have spurred me to learn a lot more about this issue, share what I've learned with others, and try to contribute to solutions in any way I possibly can.

This past week, the Governor Quinn announced a plan to house Guantanamo detainees at a correctional facility in Thomson, IL. When I went to see "The Response" months ago, I had no idea at the time that Guantanamo -- and all the issues related to it -- would soon become a special concern to all of us in Illinois!

 Related posts

The French Embassy's cultural center in Washington, D.C. screened The Response Tuesday, February 16, for a crowd of about 220 - including many representatives of the military, legal, government, and media community. Screenings of "The Response" are supposed to stimulate engaged discussion, and this one succeeded.

(See Guantanamo: "The Response" and Obama's State Department )

I believe Easter is God's gift to humanity of victory over death, hopelessness and frailty, and I believe that God is alive and in our midst. The witness of the Guantanamo lawyers has confirmed me in those beliefs.

(See Easter Victory: The Guantanamo Lawyers )






Chicago was the site of major protests against U.S. detention practices in Guantanamo, as well as in Bagram, other prisons throughout Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world, on and around January 11, 2012. We called for an end to indefinite detention, unfair trials, and torture.

(See Chicago Protests Guantanamo Detention)

I think the U.S. is in the midst of a big shift.  I think that for over a decade following 9/11 people have been so enmeshed in fear that their instincts weren't working properly. I think that we are in the midst of a slow process of awakening: people are emerging from the shadow of fear to a wider range of sensibility -- and they are realizing there are some things that are out of joint.

(See Too Much State Power? (Asymmetric Warfare and Asymmetric Policing))