New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Home arrow Opinion arrow Opinion: Guantanamo turns eight
 
Opinion: Guantanamo turns eight Print E-mail
By David Gushee   
Monday, January 11, 2010

(ABP) -- Eight years ago today (Jan. 11), the United States government transported the first prisoners from Afghanistan to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

On January 22, 2009, the new President, Barack Obama, stated that Guantanamo would close its doors by Jan. 22, 2010. Because of complex questions relating to the future status of some Guantanamo detainees, however, the president has announced that, despite his intentions, the detention center at Guantanamo will not be closed by this deadline.

Guantanamo is known around the world not only for its indefinite detentions without trial but also as a place where the United States lost its way and engaged in cruel, inhuman, and torturous interrogation practices. Despite the rollback of those policies at that detention center, it remains an odious symbol, a propaganda goldmine for our nation’s adversaries.

It seems appropriate to use this occasion to reflect on Guantanamo as a place, and as a symbol of how we lost our way and how we find our way back.

For three years, Christians working under our banner at Evangelicals for Human Rights (EHR) have cooperated with the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT) and religious institutions across the nation to end U.S.-sponsored prisoner abuse and torture. No national-security concerns can override the basic dignity of the human person and the moral and legal principles that govern all civilized nations. We must find ways to secure our citizens without undermining the rule of law or violating our core moral values. The cruelty, abuse, and torture that occurred at Guantanamo stained the image of the United States and did nothing to enhance our long-term security.

Closing the detention center at Guantanamo is an important symbolic act. It will not resolve all the issues we face as a nation, but it would mark a new and better chapter in our efforts to deal with these issues.

But other steps are needed, some of them even more important. The U.S. government should put in place safeguards to make sure that we never violate our own laws and values in this way again. To know what laws or other changes are needed, Americans need to better understand U.S. policies and practices since 9/11. We need to know everything that was done to our prisoners in the last eight years, who did it, who authorized it and what its effects were. We also need to know who the heroic men and women were who resisted cruelty and torture from within the military and the civil service, often at the cost of their own careers.

NRCAT, formed in 2006 and made up of representatives from more than 260 religious organizations including EHR, is among those organizations that have called for the creation of an independent, nonpartisan commission of inquiry to investigate and make recommendations to Congress and the president about what happened and how to prevent it ever happening again.

Some members of the House of Representatives have discussed creating a select committee to perform a similar function. What’s important is that an inquiry happen, not the precise form such an inquiry should take.

The president’s Jan. 22 executive order on torture mandated that all government agencies follow guidelines laid out in the Army Field Manual while conducting interrogations. With the exception of Appendix M (which allows for the possible use of sleep deprivation, prolonged isolation, and sensory deprivation, which are “minor” forms of torture only to those not experiencing them), the Army Field Manual creates one single, public, reasonably humane standard for all U.S. interrogations. In the future, Appendix M ought to be removed from the manual. Additionally, new legal prohibitions ought to be put into place to prevent removal of suspects to other countries that allow torture for interrogation.

Executive orders are not settled law; they are administrative policies. President Obama’s executive order is not the final word on torture. A future president could revoke it -- and in our fevered and fearful environment in this nation today, that is highly conceivable. In order to prevent cruelty, abuse, and torture over the long term, Congress should pass legislation that makes elements of the executive order permanent.

The necessary protections include a “Golden Rule” standard that would require the president to affirm that each interrogation technique authorized for use by American interrogators reflects practices we would find appropriate if employed in interrogating U.S. personnel overseas.

In addition, Congress should require by law that the International Committee of the Red Cross be granted access to all U.S.-held detainees.

America’s Christians should take the lead to ensure that the detention center at Guantanamo closes in 2010 and that future generations of Americans grow up in a country that never again descends to torture.

-30-

David Gushee is distinguished university professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University.

EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP’s staff, board of directors or supporters.





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (28)Add Comment
Amen.
written by jbarrettowen, January 11, 2010
Dr. Gushee, you said: "America’s Christians should take the lead to ensure that the detention center at Guantanamo closes in 2010 and that future generations of Americans grow up in a country that never again descends to torture."

My response: Amen.
War is Hell
written by tenor1, January 11, 2010
.....said a famous American general, and that is what it is. A war is being waged against the United States and all of western civilization because of what and who we are. This administration does not believe it. He wants to ignore it, and we will pay the price - dearly. War is not the "Christian thing to do", but we are not a Christian nation, are we? Just ask Mr. Obama. War is the least desirable of options according to American and western culture, Judeo-Christian founded morals and ethics. However, war is the most desirable of options according to those who are waging war against us today, tomorrow and forever, or until one side capitulates, is dead, or no longer has the will to resist.

Gushsee says that "closing Git-mo is an important symbolic act." No, it is just plain stupid. Not so long as we either realize that we are at war or admit that western civilization is not worth defending. At all costs, and if that means water boarding another three people, then so be it.
Golden rule is what is needed
written by Xenophon, January 11, 2010
Dr. Gushee appealed to the Golden Rule in arguing that we release known terrorists from Guantanamo. I would say what we need is more of a consistent principle of applying law along the same lines as the Golden Rule. As Immanuel Kant observed about human rationality in regard to actions where individuals freely decide to violate the rights of others, the perpetrator is implicitly choosing to have the same actions inflicted on himself as he has inflicted on others. So, in this case, what we should do is interrogate the terrorists in order to gain information that might prevent other attacks and then douse the terrorists with gasoline and set them on fire just as the co-conspirators of those at Guantanamo chose to do to the victims of their attacks on September 11. That is justice and that is what the state is set up to establish.

We have moved entirely too far in the direction of a humanitarian ethic in our criminal justice system. I would agree that we should use the same severity with Americans as I suggested that we use on terrorists for Americans guilty of murders, rapists, and child molesters when they are apprehended and given a more reasonable due process of law to ensure that we have the right person and the punishment fits the crime. One big reason that we do not want terrorists tried in our criminal justice system is that our criminal justice system has become a mere exercise in gamesmanship among lawyers rather than a real effort to establish justice. Prosecutors who oppose reasonable appeals and examining DNA evidence are just as guilty as defense lawyers who game the system to prevent the guilty from just punishment. The documentary, *Thin Blue Line,* shows how prosecutors can forget about justice and simply view the legal system as a contest played with political payoffs.

Dr. Gushee says: "No national-security concerns can override the basic dignity of the human person and the moral and legal principles that govern all civilized nations. We must find ways to secure our citizens without undermining the rule of law or violating our core moral values. The cruelty, abuse, and torture that occurred at Guantanamo stained the image of the United States and did nothing to enhance our long-term security."

Well, not as long as both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration keep letting terrorists go free to attack Americans again from Afghanistan and Yemen as they have. Dr. Gushee confuses torture, harsh interrogation, and abuse. They are not all synonymous as his phrasing above suggests. Torture can be just and be effective in saving lives by deterring future attacks and providing for proportional retaliation. Harsh interrogations can allow American officials to gain necessary information to head off attacks already planned and ready to be carried out by terrorists. Attacks have already been thwarted by these means. Abuse should not be tolerated, but torture and harsh interrogations are not abusive even if they are painful.

We must move away from a humanitarian ethic that views all pain as bad and pleasure as intrinsically good. All people have natural rights, but that does not mean that all people have the same procedural rights in all nations of the world. Individuals can also choose to forfeit their rights based on their actions. Humanitarian concerns should not blind us to issues of freedom of the will and personal responsibility.
Misrepresentation
written by Arce, January 11, 2010
Xenophon misrepresents Gushee's position. The only use of the word "release" or even the concept is not in the article but in Xenophon's comment.

Xenophon, you create a straw man to attack, rather than reading what is in the article. This is a bad habit of yours. Get your mind out of that gutter, for what comes out of your fingers on your keyboard is akin to speaking ill, which Christ said is evidence of an unclean spirit.
Response to Arce's personal attack
written by Xenophon, January 11, 2010
First, your personal attack is completely out of order. I have no habit of setting up "straw men." Please offer evidence this claim before making wild accusations. Your post as it stands is pure ad homimen. Second, Dr. Gushee argues for closing Guantanamo and forgoing forced interrogations. That proposal involves releasing them from Guantanamo and then what?
Still a straw man
written by Arce, January 12, 2010
You still insist that Gushee's column advocates releasing those in Guantanamo. It does not. That is either an intentional lie or an effort to pillory Gushee with a false accusation in the form of a straw man argument. Give it up.
Ask Why?
written by mcskinny, January 12, 2010
I quote the paragraph which contains to heart of the matter:
"Because of complex questions relating to the future status of some Guantanamo detainees, however, the president has announced that, despite his intentions, the detention center at Guantanamo will not be closed by this deadline."

Intentions, meet reality! On the surface the desire to apply the Golden Rule to matters of war are noble, just and Christlike. Reality is that the terrorist are religious fanatics who want to kill Americans and destroy all we stand for.

Treating captured terrorists as rational human beings with the same legal rights as American citizens will not change their ideas or intentions towards America or Christianity.


Much of what has been reported and classed as torture in the news media is only a click or two above the high school and college hazing practices many of us have endured. Not to mention some of the military training young men and women endure every day to insure our rights to complain about perceived torture of a suspected terrorist.

Intentions, meet reality!
Charlie Mac
Reply to Arce 2
written by Xenophon, January 12, 2010
Look Arce, you can either discuss this issue in a reasonable way or you can continue your slander. If you do the latter, I shall just ignore your personal insults. Do you have any substance on this issue or not? I see that you could not provide any evidence for the claims that you made about me above. It comes across that you simply disagree with what I said and are having a tantrum rather than attempting to engage the substance of these issues. If you want an insult site, check out Don Rickles website.

Now on the substance, if you close down Guantanamo, then something will be done with the terrorists. They will not stay there. They will have to be released from there. What will happen then? You have not answered that question.

Here is what has happened so far as I pointed out above--hard core terrorists have been released from captivity only to attack Americans again. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have ordered these releases. If we grant them the same procedural rights as Americans, then it is highly likely that there will either be insufficient admissible evidence in court to convict at least some of them or they will be released without a trial due to this lack of admissible evidence that prevents even an indictment. Here is an excerpt from a January 5, 2010 article from the *Times of London* on terrorists being released just recently as I describe above:

"At least a dozen former Guantánamo Bay inmates have rejoined al-Qaeda to fight in Yemen, The Times has learnt, amid growing concern over the ability of the country’s Government to accept almost 100 more former inmates from the detention centre.

The Obama Administration promised to close the Guantánamo facility by January 22, a deadline that it will be unable to meet. The 91 Yemeni prisoners in Guantánamo make up the largest national contingent among the 198 being held.

Six prisoners were returned to Yemen last month. After the Christmas Day bomb plot in Detroit, US officials are increasingly concerned that the country is becoming a hot-bed of terrorism. Eleven of the former inmates known to have rejoined al-Qaeda in Yemen were born in Saudi Arabia. The organisation merged its Saudi and Yemeni offshoots last year."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article697597

link correction
written by Xenophon, January 12, 2010
Here is the entire link that I tried to provide above:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6975971.ece

When the links are so long, it is easy not to get it all.
...
written by robber, January 13, 2010
I'm sure our enemies are delighted to know that someone like Dr. Gushee is there to feel compassion for them. Of course, if they had the chance they would saw Dr. Gushee's head off. End of story.
...
written by Drew, January 13, 2010
I think that's one thing Christianity teaches: that we show compassionate love to our enemies even when their response is to saw off our heads, or put us on a cross.
Your children
written by Bobby McCord, January 13, 2010
You would have a different opinion if one of your children was being held by one of these terrorists friends and they knew where the child was. I don't think you would want them set free and I believe you would want the U.S. to do whatever it took to get the information about where the child was beingheld from the terrorist. I dont think they should be held indefinitely. When they are no longr useful for information to save other lives, they should be punished for their crimes with the death penalty. We are never told in God's word that we are lay down and let the devil and his minions run us over. we are to Resist the Devil and he will flee.
Gushee choosing sides again
written by Bobby McCord, January 13, 2010
Again Gushee has chosen sides. He always sides with the homosexual, the abortionists, the muslims, the hereitcs, and those who would put down true Bible believers. One day he will truly see which side he is on.
Bobby McCord
written by brotherroy, January 13, 2010
You really need to take a breath, and maybe find another news source. You are entitled to your opinions of course, and I would defend you right to share you opinions, but if you are so bothered by Gushee's opinion, move on.
the role of the state is not compassion
written by Xenophon, January 13, 2010
When we consider issues of public policy such as legal rights, foreign policy, national security, etc., we Christians must distinguish between those who are acting as individuals and those who act on behalf of the state. God has ordained the state to establish order and justice. Agents of the state must act in the best interest of their fellow citizens and that is likely to include killing and other forms of brutality in many cases in order to carry out their mission in a sinful world.

It is a tragic reality that if we do not retaliate against aggression, then such inaction will encourage more attacks against the innocent. See political scientist Robert Axelrod's work on how best to foster social cooperation in his book, *The Evolution of Cooperation.* In his work Axelrod has found that a proportional and consistent retaliation is most likely to promote cooperation through repeated interactions among the players.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/

The model here for the Christian comes from our own Christian culture in the American Civil War. There are many reports of soldiers on both sides who shot down their enemy in battle and then extended care and solace to the wounded enemy when they no longer posed a threat.
...
written by gheadsr, January 13, 2010
I like a lot of what David writes, but this is plain sloppy liberalism. Let someone he loves get killed by an Islamic zealot and see if he still feels the same. We are at war, plain and simple. I fought in Nam, was in Cuba, Lebanon, and 1st Gulf War. I don't think our hands are clean by any means when it comes to war...but, Gitmo is needed, trials should take place once interrogation is finished and the detainees disposed of in a manner consistent with the laws of war.
rules of war
written by Xenophon, January 13, 2010
Gheadsr, we have to remember that the terrorists do not play by rules of war that civilized countries abide by, so they do not apply to them. As John Locke observed, killing or enslaving invaders who threaten our liberty is justified since these aggressors freely chose to violate the rights of others.
brotheroy
written by Bobby McCord, January 14, 2010
If my opinion of Gushee offends you, I am..... no not really. I am here to stay brotheroy, get used to it.
Bobby McCord
written by brotherroy, January 14, 2010
Oh, stay. I get it, you are a cultural warior, a defender of orthodoxy who has taken on the task of making sure that all the liberal heretics who read this site for unbiased news of Baptist life and educated opinion pieces are confronted in their errors throught your opinions. Please continue to post. I find that the best way to expose the inconsitencies and biases of fundamentalists is to let them have their say.
unbiased
written by Bobby McCord, January 15, 2010
If you believe this web site promotes unbiased viewpoints you are farther away from truth than I thought. This web site presents one side and that is the liberal side. It is a rally site for Islam lovers, Homosexual lovers, abortion advocates, and Bible bashers. If you think that is unbiased you are completely brainwashed.
Not unbiased, but fair
written by brotherroy, January 15, 2010
I don't believe this website is unbiased, poor choice of words on my part. Less biased that Baptist Press, absolutely. Most media bias comes in the choice of articles, the selection of which voices are heard, etc. In Op-Ed pieces, sure you have various viewpoints represented, the ones on this site are aimed at Baptists who have left the SBC, or who were pushed out. I realize that for some this is a good thing. Most of us have moved on, developed new institutions, media, literature, mission organizations, etc. Occasionally we hear that we continue to cling to the past, that we cannot let go of the old SBC. While that may be true in some cases, there are plenty who have let go and moved on, and some say good riddance. I don't, I say that SBC and CBF and a host of others have the their place, further the Kingdom of God, and ordinarily should refrain from attacking each other. I would argue, and your posts seem to support this, that there are some in the SBC who cannot let go, who continue to pursue those who have left, pressing their beliefs. There is no question this is your right, but ask yourself, why? Why associate with, in your words, "Islam lovers, Homosexual lovers, abortion advocates, and Bible bashers"? Your characterization of users of this site does not strike me as accurate, but you don't seem to allow truth to get in the way of your crusade. Rant on!
brotherroy
written by Bobby McCord, January 15, 2010
Lets be clear, I am not associating with you or your liberal views. I am concerned about your soul but I don't like you or what you stand for. I am here to reach out with truth against the false doctrines that you and this web site promote. I would like for those who have left the S.B.C. or who were pushed out to know that they are welcome to come back, if they commit to Christ and the Word of God. If that doesn't happen, and I doubt that it will, please stay out. Since you have left the S.B.C. please call yourself by some other name. You are giving BAPTISTS a bad name. Why am I here? Hopefully to point the Islam lovers, Homosexual lovers and Bible bashers to the Truth of God's Word. Again, I doubt that will happen either but I will confront the enemy everywhere I can.
Why so much doubt?
written by brotherroy, January 15, 2010
You extend an invitation to Baptist refugees to come back to the SBC, but doubt they will. You hope to point those you disagree with to the Truth of God's Word, but doubt this will happen. Must be frustrating to be on your crusade, but that is the nature of fundamentalism, followers don't know when to quit, and usually end up destroying the very institutions they claim to love.

The most ironic thing you have said to this point is when you accuse me, and presumably those have formed new communities of Baptist believers, or giving Baptist a bad name? Are you serious? Why are SBC churches taking the word "Baptist" our of their name, and new church starts avoiding the word, and the SBC itself acknowledging PR concerns with the word Baptist? Who are those who have given Baptists a bad name? Wiley Drake, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jerry Vines, W. A. Criswell, all come to mind. No "liberal" Baptists there. In the words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious." In spite of what I believe to the bad reputation given the name Baptists by a whole host of SBC leaders, I know that there are many good and sincere believers in the SBC, both in the US and around the world, who do much good work to further the Kingdom. And even though I am an longer affiliated with the SBC, and disagree with its official statements and many of its leaders, I don't question whether God continues to use Southern Baptists. On the other hand, your approach is to assume that because someone disagrees with the SBC, they have abandoned faith, God, Christ, and the Word, and are labeled the enemy. I will leave it to others to decide who is more arrogant, and just exactly who has given Baptists a bad name.
Faith
written by Bobby McCord, January 16, 2010
Brotherroy
When you have forsaken the Truth of God's Word and compromised His standards, you haven't abandoned the Faith, you never had it. Pat Robertson is not Southern Baptist but I do believe he is closer to the Truth than you are. I do not agree with those churches who seem to be ashamed of the name Baptist. But I definitely do not agree with those like yourself who drag the Baptist name into the liberal ungodly false doctrine you promote. You cannot truly believe you are Christian when you dont believe the authoruty of God's Word. When you are truly saved, you are filled with the Holy Spirit, and He will lead you in the faith. Do you honestly believe that you are filled with the Holy Spirit of God, while you support abandonment of truth, the platform who promotes abortion, the lifestyle which is an abomination, and the forsaking of our Christian heritage? You, sir, are too smart for your own good, you have become your own authority. You are the fundamentalist. You are fundamentally wrong and lost.
brotherroy
written by Bobby McCord, January 16, 2010
to save space here, you are welcome to email me anytime.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , hope to hear from you.
Bobby McCord
written by brotherroy, January 16, 2010
What amazing arrogance you exhibit! You fail to address the questions, preferring ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you. And if all else fails, you assume that your opponents must not have faith, because they hold positions you have concluded cannot possibly be Christian. You attribute to those who disagree with your views the same agenda, in your words "Islam lovers, Homosexual lovers and Bible bashers." You accuse me of becoming my own authority, yet you claim psychic abilities. I will not question your faith, but your demonstation of it reminds me once again of why I am very happy to have left the SBC. I realize your task on this site is to confront heretics and infidels with the truth, but your approach is really not going to get you very far, especially since you cannot sustain an argument without resorting to questioning the faith of others. I will decline your offer of further correspondence, but I am sure we will encounter each other on this site. The Christian tradition is far broader and faith more mysterious than you can know, but I hope that you can learn to appreciate how others can hold differing views without assuming they are signs of unbelief.

By the way, Pat Robertson was ordained by a Southern Baptist church. When he ran for president in the 1980's he asked the church to rescind his ordination so the media could not call him a minister. Most of the references to Robertson still refer to his Southern Baptist' background while pointing out that he is Charismatic.
brotherroy
written by Bobby McCord, January 17, 2010
My problem with you is not that you don't agree with me, it is that you don't agree with God's Word. I am able to say Homosexuality is an abomination because God's Word says so. I am able to say that Islam is a false religion with a false prophet and a false god because God's Word says so. I can say that abortion is murder and anyone who supports it are murderers because God's Word says so. I can say that a true Christian will stand against sin and defend the gospel because God's Word says so. I don't have to be your judge or any other person's because God's Word is clear. All have sinned that is for sure but a saved life is a changed life that is for sure as well, not because I say so, but because God's Word says so. But I know, what God's Word says doesn't make much difference to the liberals. I would rather answer to God for maybe trying to hard to be obedient than to try and explain to Him why I didn't follow His Word, or compromised His truth for the sake of tolerance, openess, or political correctness. Again, I believe God's Word is clear that a Christian becomes a New Creature in Christ and when change takes place on the inside, it will show on the outside. Go and sin no more.
Southern Baptist
written by Bobby McCord, January 17, 2010
roy
Pat Robertson is longer a Southern Baptist but you claim all of his ills are due to his Southern Baptist influence. From reading your posts I take it that you too were once Southern Baptist so what is your excuse? There are many heretics and apostates that once claimed to be Southern Baptist but were expelled or left of their own accord, point being, he is not Southern Baptist and neither are you, Thank God!

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.