Michael Ratner: Hillary probably won't close Gitmo because Bill illegally detained people there too

[HamdenRice]

Democracy Now today marked the sixth anniversary of the creation of the illegal prison camp at Guantanamo Bay by reviewing the evolution of illegal detention and torture there. Her guest, Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, provided the overview.

During the interview, however, Ratner reminded Amy Goodman's audience of one of the most dreadful incidents of the Bill Clinton administration -- namely Bill Clinton's use of Gitmo to illegally detain HIV positive Haitian refugees there under dreadful prison like conditions. In a throw-away comment, Ratner said that he had little faith that a president Hillary would close Gitmo, considering Bill's history of using Gitmo to illegally detain aliens while arguing that they had no due process rights -- the same argument that George Bush has used to run his concentration and torture camp at the island port. (I'll link to the rush transcript when it is available later today.)

For those of you who may not remember, toward the end of the first Bush administration, Haiti's president Aristide was overthrown, and the military and paramilitary forces in Haiti launched a vicious crackdown on the pro-democracy movement in Haiti. Thousands of Haitians fled the island by boat. President Bush issued orders that the Coast Guard divert any sea borne refugees to Guantanamo Bay rather than bringing them to the US. There, they were adjudicated to be either economic refugees (who were returned) or political refugees who were entitled to political asylum in the U.S.

About 300 Haitians, however, tested positive for HIV, and at the time, a federal law barred HIV positive aliens from entry into the U.S. Candidate Bill Clinton had hinted that he would close down the detention camp at Gitmo and end the inhumane treatment of Haitian refugees at Gitmo.

Instead, as president, Clinton continued the Bush policy of imprisoning ailing HIV postive political refugees in appalling conditions at Gitmo -- even though the military's doctors said that they could not adequately care for the Haitians there. Public interest lawyers sued the Clinton administration to allow the HIV positive Haitian political refugees entry into the US, but the Clinton administration fought them up through the federal appeals courts. Clinton argued, as Bush would later argue, that detainees at Guantanamo Bay had no due process rights, and that he could detain them without due process for however long he pleased.

When the Clinton administration finally lost at the court of appeals level -- pursuant to a blistering opinion against Clinton's treatment of the refugees and his interpretation of due process -- the Clinton Justice Department agreed to settle and bring the ailing refugees to the US, but only on the condition that the judgement be vacated (disappeared down the memory hole) because Clinton wanted to be free to handle any possible future refugee crisis without being bound by due process concerns. Fearing they might lose at the Supreme Court level, the Haitians agreed to vacating the opinion so that they could enter the US.

So if you think that a president Hillary would shut down Gitmo, think again. Her husband argued right up through the federal courts that he, like George W. Bush would later argue, could detain foreigners at Gitmo forever, without a trial, hearing or due process. Now that Hillary has George Bush acts as a precedent, and given what the first Clinton administration did, do you really think she would give up that power?

To learn more, see

Slate
Clinton's Guantanamo
How the Democratic president set the stage for a land without law.
By Brandt Goldstein
http://www.slate.com/id/2132979/?nav=ais

and

Wiki
Camp Bulkeley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bulkeley

[HamdenRice]

1. Three recs, but no written responses?

As the Department of Homeland Security says, "if you see something (in this post), say something"!

:shrug:

[mmonk]

3. Sometimes, we tire of getting hit over the head

when responding to "inconvenient truth" posts. Thus, the recommends without comment I suppose.

[Ignis]

26. A sad (but true) comment of the State of the DUnion. (nt)

[EFerrari]

30. Yep. Keeping up with the outrages is nearly impossible sometimes.

Commenting on them is as well.

[marmar]

2. Distressing....

A sad K&R.

[Windy]

4. No need to respond... the article says it all, except that this is another bad move by Bill Clinton

Actually, worse than a bad move. Its truly appalling...

And then there's nafta, gat, fcc legislation...etc...

[Stand and Fight]

5. This is very bad news, but be objective people....

It seems that the movie that came out during the Clinton administration -- "The Siege" I believe -- was more than just a portal into some elements of things to come. It may very well have contained elements of the "present" at that time. I am superbly disappointed in President Clinton; however, the question foremost in my mind was who provided the legal counsel on this and how much did President Clinton know about it given the onslaught of the impeachment crazies in the mid- to late-1990s? Another point is this... It is somewhat stupid to assume that just because Bill didn't do something about Guantanamo doesn't mean that Hillary would let it stand. The mood in America is very different now on issue like this -- as they are far more in the public eye with the advent of discussion boards like this and blogs -- and Hillary Clinton strikes me as someone who will ultimately take advice but make her own decisions. Therefore, it seems foolish and beyond the pale to suggest that just because her husband failed to act that she would. They may be married, but I cannot tell you how often my wife and I disagree on fundamental issues. I also cannot tell you how often we agree... I see no reason to believe that if Senator Clinton was elected she would simply default to the positions that Bill Clinton took.

Just my two cents...

[HamdenRice]

6. Fair enough, but Bill didn't just fail to act

He litigated almost to the Supreme Court with the argument that he had the right to detain aliens indefinitely at Guantanamo.

Even if Hillary would not repeat this, it shows their bedrock beliefs about international human rights.

[Stand and Fight]

35. I must object to the very premise of your argument.

I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that Hillary and Bill Clinton share the same exact beliefs on every subject under the sun. Objectively, there is no way for anyone on this board or elsewhere to know precisely whether and candidate and their spouse subscribe to "group-think." While I agree with your observation of the fact that President Clinton's litigation and the wrongness of his actions, I must ardently disagree with your base assertion that this somehow illustrates either the foundation beliefs of Senator Clinton or President Clinton on international human rights.

[fjc]

7. Since the article seems to rely on the word so heavily,

I'd like to know what it means by "appalling" conditions.

[HamdenRice]

11. From Slate

Remember none of these Haitians were criminals or even suspected of any criminal behavior. They were HIV positive political refugees. Yet, as Slate recalls:

As a result, the refugees remained, even after he assumed office, in leaky barracks with poor sanitation, surrounded by razor wire and guard towers. They responded with a hunger strike, and after raucous protests against their confinement, a number were thrown in the naval brig as if they were criminals... Worse still, federal authorities refused to release the sickest Haitians, even though military physicians on Guantanamo lacked the means to treat them.

The Clinton White House justified this atrocious conduct in terms that sound strikingly familiar today...

<end quote>

[Stand and Fight]

36. Definitely...

The fact that the actions of Clinton's administration set the precedence for much of the horror prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are subject to is an awful blight on his record and ultimately on our party. However, I believe that his actions are almost far worst given the fact these people did not stand as alleged terrorists but political refugees -- status health is secondary in juxtaposition of the reason they fled Haiti.

[HamdenRice]

43. Yup, they were innocent victims of political violence picked up in international waters

This was worse than what Bush did in some ways because Bush can at least make a case that we are at war and the people he picked up were combatants.

These Haitians were innocent civilians and they were treated like international pariah criminals. And Clinton argued that he could keep them imprisoned forever.

I'm sure George W. Bush owes a debt of gratitude. It makes his arguments about Gitmo seem less insane.

[sam kane]

8. I remember writing about this at the time in grad school

and being naively shocked by the deafening silence about the fact that we were imprisoning people because they were HIV+. I have since thought that this history was the basis for the contemporary gitmo. It seems like we test out our most atrocious plans on the Haitian people first, e.g. the illegal invasion of Haiti and removal of Aristide, and satisfied with the international community's lack of response, we move on to the rest of the world, e.g. the illegal invasion of Iraq and removal of Hussein.

My guess is that Clinton wouldn't keep G. Bay open, because there is too much to gain now from closing it.

[HamdenRice]

18. At the time, Cubans were "rescued," brought to the US and provided benefits

I remember that the contrast between their treatment made the whole thing that much more infuriating.

Haitians are for some reason entitled to a special kind of degradation from the US.

Some have argued that the West still has repressed rage against the Haitians about the Haitian slave revolution.

[Richard Steele]

9. K&R

[formerrepuke]

10. I would like to see Gitmo permanently closed.. not specifically because

of the detainees, nor to make nice with Cuba, but the sheer cost of maintaining the base must be astronomical: All fresh water has to be shipped in, all traffic to or from the base is necessarily via air or sea, and..most importantly THERE IS NOTHING TO DEFEND in that area.. not even oil. The only reason to keep holding onto that patch of ground is spite.

[Perry Logan]

12. Special "Lame Logic Award" here. But at least it attacks Democrats.

[Turn CO Blue]

45. Oh for Pete's sake. It's a carryover policy that made it

easier for BushCo to continue in Gitmo. You honestly don't defend President Clinton's action of using Gitmo or holding HIV positive Haitians there simply because they had HIV -- or do you?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

13. Carry over policies

The argument against things such as what you justly point out is that these policies were initiated under GHW Bush, an inherited legacy so to speak. Well in a recent thread that point was used regarding the sanctions in Iraq. Two things that dispel that argument that relate to the case you cite.

1)The Clinton administration could have worked to overturn those grossly unjust policies once in office and did not;

2) The Clinton administration actively worked to keep those policies in place.

In the case of the sanctions against Iraq the international community attempted in many cases on many levels, not just the civil sector, to get the sanctions eased and the Clinton Administration quite aggressively thwarted these attempts at every turn.

K&R

[MyNameGoesHere]

14. Sure your right because she is a woman and needs a man

to decide what she needs to do. :crazy:

Please use this as i hate Bill Clinton piece instead of "What Hillary might do because she is married to Bill Clinton hypothesis" ok?

[HamdenRice]

15. Uhhh, I thought Hillary is so experienced ...

because she was so deeply involved in formulation of Clinton administration policy.

You can't have it both ways: you can't claim she is experienced because she was involved in formulating policy in Bill's administration without taking responsibility for some of the appalling policies of that administration.

[MyNameGoesHere]

17. Sorry i never said she had

experience. But i will not ASSUME how she will act in the future either based upon her husband. that is just idiotic.

[HamdenRice]

21. Throwing around words like "idiotic" is not pursuasive at all

especially when you are trying to argue that what her husband's administration did -- which she was deeply involved in -- has no bearing on how we should evaluate what she will do.

It's a glass houses kind of thing.

[MyNameGoesHere]

22. Idiotic

crackbrained: insanely irresponsible; "an idiotic idea"
absurd: incongruous;inviting ridicule; "the absurd excuse that the dog ate his homework"; "that's a cockeyed idea"; "ask a nonsensical question and get a nonsensical answer"; "a contribution so small as to be laughable"; "it is ludicrous to call a cottage a mansion"; "a preposterous attempt to ...

I think it was appropriate.

[Stand and Fight]

37. Hmmm... But HamdenRice

I somewhat agree with LibFromWV -- save the harsh word "idiotic" -- on the fact that it is illogical to conclude that because Clinton played a role in her husband's administration it follows that should would continue those policies. We have no idea of knowing what went on behind the scenes. Even if Hillary Clinton knew about this -- and it's highly probable that she did not -- who is to say that President Bill Clinton would have listened to her advice over whoever thought this was a good idea in the first place. The prudent thing to do would be to ask Candidate/Senator Clinton what she would do about Guantanamo. Only then can we begin to get perhaps an inkling of her intention. I believe it is irresponsible and libelous in this case to surmise something like this about someone -- no matter who the candidate -- based upon supposition. That is dangerously close to what the other side has done for the last 40 years.

[HamdenRice]

42. I don't know how old you are

or if you are of age whether you were paying attention to the news back in 93.

But this was HUGE news. There is no possible way that Hillary did not know about this.

The picture the Clintons always painted of themselves was that Hillary was Bill's closest and most trusted advisor. I find it unbelievable that Hillary did not play a role in advising Bill to keep the innocent, HIV positive, Haitian political refugees detained in Guantanamo.

If you want evidence of how big this story was, just watch a truffle of entertainment like "Clueless." In one of the early scenes, the main character has a high school debate about the "hate-ee-an refugees." It was so well known that it was part of pop culture.

There was hardly a non-brain dead American who did not know that Clinton was inexplicably welching on a campaign promise and treating the Haitian political refugess like animals.

Perhaps Hillary might not make exactly the same mistake again, but from her participation in Bill's administration we have an excellent understanding of her take on international human rights -- namely, she, like Bill, doesn't really give a shit about them.

[Stand and Fight]

46. I well remember the news back then.

What I am pointing out however is the fact that we do not know if Hillary Clinton was involved in the decision making process up to this point. I'll also point out that I believe it is illogical to point out that Hillary was Bill's closest and most trusted adviser as evidenced by his Lewensky entanglements. If he was doing something like that, it is not a far stretch of the imagination that he may very well have told Mrs. Clinton nothing about this decision beforehand. Either way, for all we know she may have advised AGAINST this course of action, but President Clinton was swayed by other advisers. The fact of the matter is that we just DO NOT KNOW what went on behind the scenes.

Once more I reject the premise of your statement that Hillary or Bill Clinton don't "really give a shit" about human rights. It's quite despicable that you would take such an extreme position given the fact that there is someone in the White House who not only seems to genuinely NOT care about human rights, but has seemingly derived pleasure from exploding frogs and allegedly considers the Constitution "just a go*-dammed piece of paper." Don't be so extreme as to put Hillary and Bill Clinton on the same level as Bush -- that just debases and devalues your argument.

Furthermore, it is insulting that you would bring age into this... As if the Internet doesn't exist.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

16. Hillary

is relying on many of the same advisers so information that relates to Bill's term in office should be looked at closely as it's relevant.

[MyNameGoesHere]

19. Prove to me that she will do this because

it is what Bill did? Just more garbage being thrown out against a candidate.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

23. Of course

one cannot "prove" the future but you can make educated guesses based on the information at hand.

If Hillary is to be surrounded by many of the same policy advisers that served under Bill it is an extremely high likelihood that the policies that these people enact and orchestrate will be very similar to those they have initiated in the past. Policies they still defend and promote.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to believe. To believe otherwise seems to me a leap of faith that flies in the face of the information we have at hand.

[leftchick]

24. leap of faith indeed

everything she proposes is a leap of faith as far as I am concerned. Except of course her neocon policy for the Mid-East. That she throws right out there.

[Stand and Fight]

38. Ardent disagreement...

I detest when this is said, but there is some truth in it. We will soon be living in a post- September 11, 2001 and post-Bush mis-administration word. Many of the mistakes that have led to this president having such a dreadful record and public approval rating do not warrant repeating. While Hillary Clinton is not my chosen candidate -- and since we're in the supposition/educated guess mood here -- I put forward the premise that a President Hillary Clinton and her advisers (whomever they may/may not end up being) would be politically astute enough to not repeat Bush's many bungles.

[sam kane]

20. If Hillary didn't claim those years as part of her "35 years of change"

then this would be only sexism, but since she consistently claims those years in the White House as her experience, then it is only logical that she needs to answer for them, as well. A candidate can't just claim the good (surplus) without claiming the bad (imprisoning HIV+ people). Hillary Clinton made the claim that her future behavior will be based on the past accomplishments in the White House (surplus), many many times before Ratner ever did.

Still disagree with him about my bet on what she will do in the future..

[BlackVelvet04]

25. Don't stop now.....

see if you can dig up more dirt to throw at a Democratic candidate.

[HamdenRice]

27. Uh...

We're in primary season. You understand that right? We are trying to determine who is the best Democratic candidate and who has faults.

In that light, how is it "digging up dirt" on the Clintons to note that they illegally detained Haitians at Gitmo using the same "no due process" argument that Bush uses -- indeed that they laid the legal groundwork for Bush's illegal detention policies?

Is there something about this primary process you don't quite understand?

[BlackVelvet04]

29. I understand plenty about the primary process.....

Hillary wasn't president when that happened now, was she? It's no different than blaming her for her husband's infidelity.

[HamdenRice]

31. Was she, or was she not, involved in Clinton administration policy?

If she was, then the record of the Clinton administration is relevant to our evaluating her and what she is likely to do.

If she wasn't, then she should stop claiming to have experience and to be ready to be president from day one.

You can't have it both ways.

Which is it?

[BlackVelvet04]

32. Do you know for a fact she had input

into the decision concerning this? I don't. Maybe she did and maybe she disagreed, but we don't really know, do we? I doubt seriously Bill only did what Hillary approved of.

[sam kane]

33. Hillary claimed Bill's record in the WH for herself, long before Ratner

made the same link.

[HamdenRice]

34. I'm asking you

But if she wasn't involved, then she should shut up about all her White House experience.

[Stand and Fight]

39. I don't think this is digging up dirt.

These sorts of issues -- however ugly -- need to be brought out into the public forum. While I don't believe that Bill Clinton's mis-steps are an indication of what Senator Clinton would do as president, I do think that it is a valuable question to ponder and have answered by the candidate. It's not a matter of throwing dirt. This is a hallmark of our party -- discussing and debating the issues. Even when they are decidedly unpleasant and involve members of our own party. While I think the article is pretty shitty because it draws a conclusion about Senator Clinton based on supposition, it does bring up a relevant and pressing question; that is, "Senator Clinton, if elected president, would you continue to keep Guantanamo Bay open and use it in the matter of your predecessors, presidents George W. Bush and, the first man, William J. Clinton?"

[HamdenRice]

28. Transcript: Clinton administration looked at Gitmo as a place where no law applied

From the rush transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/11/on_its_6th_anniversary_calls_resound

MICHAEL RATNER: During the coup. The first Bush administration and then the Clinton administration, sadly, looked at Guantanamo as a place where no law applied. Then you had the war in Afghanistan, and they picked up hundreds of people in Afghanistan, often through bribery and other means, and then, to our shock, they said they’re going to send them to Guantanamo. Now, we knew why they were going to send them to Guantanamo. It’s because their view is that no court or anybody can go to Guantanamo, has jurisdiction over it or can visit it. And that’s what they did.

...

So Guantanamo really stands for, in my view, everything—almost everything that’s wrong in this so-called war on terror: indefinite detentions without trial, torture, disappearances. And I say “stands for” because we understand it’s not the only institution that the protests are trying to close today. Bagram has 650 people, no lawyers visiting, torture going on. Secret sites all over the world.

And yet, this country continues on its way. The Bush administration does. And, yes, some of the candidates have called for closing, but are they really going to close it? I can’t say they are. I remember my experience with Clinton, when he said he would close Guantanamo Haitian camp in the ’90s, and he didn’t. We had to continue to litigate it. You cannot take the promises of these candidates for their word. They have to really be out there. This isn’t part of our public debate. It’s really very sad to me that it’s not.

[Radical Activist]

40. Nader was right about at least one thing

The left silenced itself too much because it was being done by a Democratic President.

[TwilightGardener]

41. Not good.

[jgraz]

44. Soooo glad we're getting a two-fer

:sarcasm: