The $800,000 Question

National Priorities Project

Well we're droppin' our bombs
In the Southern Hemisphere
And people are starving
That live right here
--Love and Happiness,
John Cougar Mellencamp
___________________

Some sundry figures: It costs $800,000 per year to house one prisoner in Guantanamo Bay, per Mother Jones (11/10/11); Eurasia Review cites a $1 million figure for each cleared Gitmo inmate. The inmates have no date of release.

Compare those figures with the $47,102 annual cost for incarcerating an inmate in a California state jail (lao.ca.gov). The sites says, "[o]ver two-thirds of these costs are for security and inmate health care" ($19,663 and $12,442, respectively.) Annual incarceration fee per prisoner at Supermax is estimated to be $76,000.

So here is the $800,000 question: Why does the U.S. still have prisoners at Gitmo and why are we, the U.S. taxpayers, paying this money to keep them there (especially since the closing of Gitmo was one of President Obama election promises . . . how soon the honeymoon promises are tossed aside)? What are we getting from this expenditure to house cleared prisoners? Why do the incarceration costs at Gitmo far exceed the rates at other state and federal facilities?

And what of the benefits from any of the human detritus we have swept up? We paid a cool $25 million for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (forgetting all of the incidental costs leading up to his capture.) The U.S. has spent at least $7 million to maintain him, and to what purpose and what gain? KSM has never stood before a federal judge, so what form, justice?

The Supercommittee could not arrive at a budget agreement, but we never put the wars or the panoply of related costs on the chopping block.

Consider the very small issue of the incarceration cost of one cleared Gitmo prisoner. Assuming the average citizen pays $5,000 is taxes annually, this means 160 individual annual taxes go to house one prisoner incarcerated in a phony war. Multiply that by the 170 prisoners currently in Gitmo and you see that 27,200 citizens pay their entire taxes to house Gitmo prisoners.

In Ranger's grid square of the Military-Industrial complex in impoverished Northwest Florida, the $800,000 it takes to house one prisoner could fund a full-time homeless shelter or several youth centers. It costs $2.50/visit to the local municipal swim complex. $5/wk for ftwo visits would be beyond the reach of an impoverished child or a citizen living on meager disability funds, and yet those citizens could most benefit from access. Why aren't our municipal facilities accessible by all citizens? And no, there are no provisions to allow reduced fee access for our neediest.

The local Big Bend Homeless Coalition disburses a federal grant for homeless people providing $550 in rent and $113.10 for utilities to cover about 120 apartments -- a supply far underserving the need. As the citizens gain income, they then pay a pro-rated amount. Our local Section 8 Housing Program is an absolute wash, with needy citizens routinely turned away and told to try back in a month, and then another month; a program representative said they are working on logs from three years ago.

Back to the prisoners: The Israelis recently released 1,000 truly dangerous fighters in exchange for one Israeli soldier, and they released them knowing they were still military assets that would take up the cause.

The British released IRA military personnel from prison when they signed their cease-fire. At some point, all of these dangerous men must be released. A liberal society cannot keep people interminably incarcerated sans fair trial. That is not the way we roll.

Gitmo is not Dachau.

Darkness at Noon

War is a ritual, a deadly ritual,
not the result of aggressive self-assertion,
but of self-transcending identification.
Without loyalty to tribe, church, flag or ideal,
there would be no wars
--Darkness at Noon, Arthur Koestler
________________

The Guantanamo Bay detention facilities remain an open sore indicting our inappropriate and illegal response to the perceived terror threat.

Undoubtedly there are some serious criminal elements which target American interests worldwide. Even so, what about the ones held at Gitmo without a glimmer of judicial relief -- either for themm or for us?

Americans expect and need a fair and equitable court system, one which offers liberty and justice for all, no exceptions. Suspected terrorists are not beyond this concept. Liberty is applied blindly, without regard to any predispositions.

Even USAToday considers the Gitmo quagmire:

At the top of the list is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of 9/11. Trying him and others in the U.S. justice system could be problematic for reasons that include the inadmissibility of some evidence (because it was obtained under torture, is hearsay and so on). And what to do with anyone found not guilty? (Guantanamo Blame Game).

The last sentence is the crux of the biscuit. If one is not guilty, the answer to the question of one's legal status is axiomatic. In our legal system, if one is found not guilty, one is released from custody. What could be simpler?

A case like that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would seem to be simple, as he is portrayed as a really bad guy. But is he really? We are all innocent until proven guilty, and trial by newspaper is not a judicial event. The proof against KSM has not been forthcoming. Evidence must follow evidentiary rules. Furthermore, torture and years spent incarcerated awaiting trial are not elements of U.S. jurisprudence.

If KSM is a bad man, then he should have been tried immediately after capture. Why wasn't he? Instead he was spirited away to secret sites and subjected to Skull and Crossbones initiation rights. Clearly, he was tortured. How could KSM ever receive a fair trial in a U.S. courtroom today?

A bigger question than what to do after these inmates are found not guilty is: How will we handle the civil suits which will most certainly arise, including denial of civil rights, illegal imprisonment and torture? Then what?

The "worst-of-the-worst" are probably being held in super-secret isolation because they know too much, rather than merely what they know. It is a big lie to say they cannot get an open trial because of national security concerns. The trials would concern 9-11-01 and the plans and related operations. This is not operational or strategic security. This is merely historical data at this point.

Ranger's solution: Forget the trial. Let Yoo, Addington, Wolfowitz, Tenet et. al. form up a firing quad and just shoot them. Dick Cheney would be the honorary color guard. This would be done at midnight, to ensure that we stay on the Dark Side.

But seriously folks -- What progress have we seen since George Bush was replaced by Obama?

We are still up to our asses in alligators, and no one is trying to drain the swamp.

Lie to Me

Ask me no questions
and I'll tell you no lies
--Oliver Goldsmith

I believe in only one thing: liberty;
but I do not believe in liberty enough
to want to force it upon anyone
--H. L. Mencken

It is not those who can inflict the most,
but those that can suffer the most who will conquer
--Terence MacSwiney
_________________

The concept of torture being used on a prisoner held by U.S. is so terrible that we collectively want to sideline it, and Ranger is no exception. Only a sicko or a non-professional would even consider using torture on a prisoner held by U.S. authorities, be they CIA, Department of Defense or Department of Justice.

The April 9 New York Review of Books includes extensive excerpts of the previously unavailable International Committee of the Red Cross's 2007 "secret report" stating the Bush administration's treatment of al-Qaeda captives "constituted torture" thereby violating international law (US Torture: Voices from the Black Sites.) [The report was obtained by Mark Danner, author of "Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror" who has finally published its findings in his book.]

ICRC officials were "granted access to the CIA's 'high-value' detainees after they were transferred in 2006 to the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 14 detainees, who had been kept in isolation in CIA prisons overseas, gave remarkably uniform accounts of abuse that included beatings, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures and, in some cases, waterboarding, or simulating drowning (Red Cross Described Torture at CIA Jails.)

While the report was shared with the CIA and top White House officials in 2007, the ICRC's guidelines "of neutrality in conflicts" prohibited its distribution. We are confused: Isn't that what the Red Cross does -- revealing instances of torture, in order to bar their continuation?

This strict neutrality is an idea that borders on collusion. It would have allowed the Nazis to continue running death camps in Europe. A moral position is not a violation of strict neutrality in any conflict.

If the ICRC exposes either side for illegal activities, this, too, is a definition of neutrality. One expects a moral position from the ICRC, as it was obvious elements of U.S. leadership had crossed to "the dark side".

"The CIA declined to comment. A U.S. official familiar with the report said, 'It is important to bear in mind that the report lays out claims made by the terrorists themselves.'"

Brilliant. The U.S. labels them "terrorists", holds them in secret prisons sans burden of proof or legal proceedings, ergo, they are unreliable witnesses. Yet. . . one-fourth of the 9-11 Commission Report was extracted from such prisoners in "coerced testimony." Their veracity does not seem to be a problem when the information is being used for the interrogator's benefit.

If you ask the CIA, they'll tell you there was no torture. That is because they are the Good Guys, and besides, we destroyed the tapes that proved otherwise (all hail Rosemary Woods.)

The sad fact of the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) is that U.S. agencies just get too cute for their own good. Someday America will be held accountable for these actions; one cannot hide behind words forever.

Words provide concealment, but they provide no useful cover when the steel is flying hot and straight.

Limbo Land

With the thoughts you'll be thinkin'
you could be another Lincoln

If you only had a brain
--If I only Had a Brain, Harburg/Arlen

_______________

Ranger was wrong.

Specifically, in the semantical matter of detainees in the current hostilities. His position was that detainees were actually either Prisoners of War or criminals, who should be held and charged within the Federal Court system.

However, it is now apparent that most of these people are in fact political prisoners, as they are being held not through any wartime or constitutional legality. "23 of the men have been declared in court not to be enemies of the United States," yet they live in a "strange limbo" behind barbed wire at Gitmo (For 20 at Guantánamo, Court Victories Fall Short.)

These people are neither enemy combatants nor illegal enemy combatants. Barring criminal status, that leaves only one possibility.

Following Secretary of State Clinton's signature on the Department of State's Report on Human Rights-- which tapped Communist China for its abuses -- the U.S. does look a bit hypocritical, especially considering the fact that exonerated men are still languishing in U.S. prisons. President Obama must act quickly and order the release of these men. The rehabilitation of America requires this action.

These incarcerated men are very possibly enemies of the U.S., just not illegal enemy combatants; not executably so. No moreso than the average Pakistani walking the streets of Islamabad.

They will probably end up living in the U.S. and living well, because they were illegally imprisoned and tortured. (Torture is being illegally detained for seven years.) While a very real scenario, it is nothing to get excited about.

In World War II German and Italian troops were housed and utilized as day labor in the U.S., and many remained in the states, later becoming citizens. Many also returned to America after their repatriation.

What better statement could be made about the U.S. than the integration of former prisoner and enemies into our society? The Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) has created such terror that governors are afraid to have al-Qaeda members incarcerated in facilities in their states. We are like the Tin and the Straw Man, with great fear stoked by little cogitation.

The U.S. can fight and kill them over there, yet are too afraid to even jail them here?

"In a news conference in Washington, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that in a visit to Guantánamo on Monday he noted a “very conscious attempt” by guards to 'conduct themselves in an appropriate way'."

How does a guard comport himself in an "appropriate way" while illegally detaining prisoners? And you thought looking good while performing activities was just the purview of the Bush administration. Sounds good, though.

The continued incarceration of these prisoners in a criminal act. It is called false imprisonment.

The entire PWOT was ill-conceived and executed. A good plan addresses these contingencies before their actuality, rather than as an afterthought.

Living Large

"I am a bear of very little brains,
and long words bother me"
--Winnie the Pooh
________________

The Wall Street Journal often amuses me, in a horrifying sort of a way. Yes, the prisoners at Gitmo are packing on the pounds, but that is not what this piece refers to.

In "Gitmo High Life," writer Robert Pollock contends that since fewer than 1% of detainees suffer mood disorders, this would seem to give lie to the thought "That indefinite detention is itself a form of mental torture." However, it is simply not a tenet of American jurisprudence to incarcerate an individual for an indefinite period sans sentencing, evident mental tics or no.

Next, Pollock quotes Gitmo base commander Adm. Harry Harris as rejecting the term "prison," and saying, "We are not about punishment; we are about keeping enemy combatants off the battlefield." There are so many mistaken ideas here.

First, if it were a prison, Adm. Harris could not mete out punishment to the inmates. Punishment is the sentence handed down by a court of law. A prison is a detention facility where an inmate serves out a term of incarceration. He is not to sustain punishment therein.

Next, if these inmates are "enemy combatants," then they are prisoners of war. They are not so many delinquents to be "kept off the battlefield." Detained enemy combatant= POW.

Therefore, they shouldn't be in a penitentiary, and they should be afforded the rights of the Geneva Convention, which means "indefinite detention" is quite illegal.

--by Lisa