Guantanamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power [NOOK Book]

Overview

In his address to the nation on September 20, 2001, President Bush declared war on terrorism and set in motion a detention policy unlike any we have ever seen. Since then, the United States has seized thousands of people from around the globe, setting off a firestorm of controversy. Guantanamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power explores that policy and the intense debates that have followed.

Written by an expert on the subject, one of the ...
See more details below
Guantanamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power

Available on NOOK devices and apps  
  • NOOK Devices
  • NOOK HD/HD+ Tablet
  • NOOK
  • NOOK Color
  • NOOK Tablet
  • Tablet/Phone
  • NOOK for Windows 8 Tablet
  • NOOK for iOS
  • NOOK for Android
  • NOOK Kids for iPad
  • PC/Mac
  • NOOK for Windows 8
  • NOOK for PC
  • NOOK for Mac
  • NOOK Study
  • NOOK for Web

Want a NOOK? Explore Now

NOOK Book (eBook)
$10.93
BN.com price

Overview

In his address to the nation on September 20, 2001, President Bush declared war on terrorism and set in motion a detention policy unlike any we have ever seen. Since then, the United States has seized thousands of people from around the globe, setting off a firestorm of controversy. Guantanamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power explores that policy and the intense debates that have followed.

Written by an expert on the subject, one of the lawyers who fought -- and won -- the right for prisoners to have judicial review, this important book will be of immense interest to liberals and conservatives alike. With shocking facts and firsthand accounts, Margulies takes readers deep into the Guantánamo Bay prison, into the interrogation rooms and secret cells where hundreds of men and boys have been designated "enemy combatants." Held without legal process, they have been consigned to live out their days in isolation until the Bush administration sees fit to release them -- if itever does. Margulies warns Americans to be especially concerned by the administration's assertion that the Presidentcan have unlimited and unchecked legal authority.

Tracing the arguments on both sides of the debate, this vitally important book paints a portrait of a country divided, on the brink of ethical collapse, where the loss of personal freedoms is under greater threat than ever before.
Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

Adam Liptaak
The book’s title, with its dry allusion to the separation of powers, does not do it justice. Guantánamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power represents the best account yet of what Mr. Margulies calls "a human rights debacle that will eventually take its place alongside other wartime misadventures, including the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the prosecutions under the Espionage and Sedition Acts during World War I, and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War".
— The New York Times
Publishers Weekly
Margulies, a Minneapolis lawyer and civil rights activist, served as lead counsel in Rasul v. Bush, successfully petitioning the Supreme Court to extend the right of judicial review to all prisoners at Guant namo Bay. This book, Margulies's first, minutely chronicles the attempts of the present administration to extend the bounds of presidential authority while limiting official culpability. Breaking new ground by comprehensively analyzing the government's legal reasoning and deconstructing it in the light of historical precedent, Margulies states: "The Bush Administration has not provided a complete explanation for its detention policy. (Part of the motivation for this book is that no one else has either.)" Interspersed with accounts of his fascinating and frustrating attempts to obtain access to his British client, Shafiq Rasul, Margulies shines light on the theory and practice of indefinite military detention, peering into a self-contained, Kafkaesque universe of our own creation barely 90 miles from American shores. Accessible to nonlawyers, the book also offers full citations for those who wish to do further research. Margulies's clear explications of intricate legal points move his narrative effortlessly from the signing of the Geneva Conventions through the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, to the myriad cases of the detainees in Guant namo. (July) Copyright 2006 Reed Business Information.
Library Journal
The abuse of inmates at Camp Delta in Guant namo Bay has become an international embarrassment for the United States and a symbol of American aggression, claims Margolies, that has turned moderate Muslims and even European allies into our enemies. In this compelling account of the Bush administration's unprecedented mistreatment of accused Iraqi War prisoners, the author (MacArthur Justice Ctr., clinical faculty, Univ. of Chicago Law Sch.)-who was lead counsel in Rasul v. Bush, the 2004 Supreme Court case, in which the court ruled against lawless detentions-recounts that trial in fascinating detail. In addition, he includes gruesome examples of beatings and techniques of emotional abuse approved by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2003 that disdain congressional oversight of the executive branch, the military code of conduct, and the Geneva Conventions that require humane treatment of prisoners. These prisoners are mostly victims of large-scale sweeps made in Iraq and have been proven guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Camp Delta commander acknowledges that almost all of them could be released immediately with no danger to the United States. A fine complement to Alfred McCoy's A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror, this alarming inquiry into presidential power and the ethics of prisoner treatment is strongly recommended for public libraries. [See Prepub Alert, LJ 3/15/06; previewed as A Prison Beyond the Law.]-Karl Helicher, Upper Merion Twp. Lib., King of Prussia, PA Copyright 2006 Reed Business Information.
Kirkus Reviews
"Respect for the rule of law is a virtue in its own right, a virtue that becomes more important . . . as the stakes increase." So writes human-rights attorney Margulies, arguing that the Bush administration exhibits no such respect. Margulies has adjudicated the release of wrongly imprisoned suspected combatants from the U.S. interrogation center at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Most, he writes, were Muslim men in the wrong place at the wrong time; the military has acknowledged that "as many as half the prisoners at the base had little or no intelligence value," though they were supposedly carefully screened for just their importance in providing leads as to, say, the whereabouts of the al-Qaeda leadership. One prisoner, for instance, had a severe head wound and could barely communicate; his guards called him "half-head Bob." It is clear from Margulies's account that the events of Abu Ghraib are business as usual at the Cuban base; one woman interrogator, he writes, is fond of rubbing herself against Muslim prisoners at Ramadan to make them ritually unclean, of flinging fake menstrual blood at them, while other guards take apparent pleasure in urinating on the Qur'an and assuring the prisoners that they will never see home again. Those prisoners are the lucky ones; dozens have died in American custody, many tortured in frontline facilities in Afghanistan, to say nothing of the dozens who have been "extraordinarily rendered" to interrogation centers in such friendly nations as Syria and Thailand. The American military has traditionally shunned such tactics, Margulies writes, out of respect for the Geneva Convention and the idea that "to punish one man for what another hasdone is not an American principle." Yet the Bush administration, assuming extraordinary powers over all aspects of government in the name of fighting terror, has made such putatively un-American behavior the norm. Harrowing, depressing-and necessary reading for civil libertarians.
From the Publisher
"One of the Best Books of the Year."

The Economist

"Reads like a thriller."

— W. David Myers, Chicago Tribune

"Cogent and pellucid."

— Jonathan Mahler, The New York Times Book Review

Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780743293563
  • Publisher: Simon & Schuster
  • Publication date: 7/3/2006
  • Sold by: SIMON & SCHUSTER
  • Format: eBook
  • Pages: 336
  • File size: 469 KB

Meet the Author

Joseph Margulies is an attorney with the MacArthur Justice Center and a law professor at Northwestern University Law School in Chicago. He and his wife live in Chicago.
Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

Guantanamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power


By Joseph Margulies

Simon & Schuster

Copyright © 2007 Joseph Margulies
All right reserved.

ISBN: 9780743286862

ONE

"AN ATMOSPHERE OF DEPENDENCY AND TRUST"

I

In the Introduction, we saw for the first time -- and apparently in spite of her best efforts -- the methods of Sergeant Lacey, who, according to an FBI agent on the scene, grabbed a prisoner's genitals in the course of an interrogation. We also learned about "detainee #63," who "had been subjected to intense isolation for over three months," after which time he was seen "evidencing behavior consistent with extreme psychological trauma (talking to non-existent people, reporting hearing voices, crouching in a corner of the cell covered with a sheet for hours on end)." As we will see, Sergeant Lacey's conduct is by no means an aberration. A Pentagon investigation confirmed "numerous instances" in which female interrogators, using dye, pretended to flick or spread menstrual blood on prisoners. The technique was intended to interfere with the prisoners' prayer; a Pentagon official familiar with the investigation said, "If a woman touches him prior to prayer, then he's dirty and can't pray." Nor is this confined to Guantánamo. Since 9/11, the United States has opened approximately six hundred investigations into prisoner abuse. As of February 2006, ninety-eight prisoners had died in U.S. custody, and thirty-four of these deaths are being investigated by the military as suspected or confirmedhomicides.

These events naturally lead us to ask why the Administration created Camp Delta and the other prisons in the war on terror. One answer is that the Administration needed a place to hold captured prisoners, just as in any war. But these are not like the prisons we built for captives in World War II, or Korea, or Vietnam. To understand these prisons, we must return -- however painful it may be -- to that Tuesday morning, September 11, 2001. I was living in Minneapolis at the time and was driving to my office when I heard the news on the radio that the first World Trade Center tower had been hit by a plane. No one seemed to understand what had taken place, and there was some thought it may have been an accident. Inside, my colleagues and I watched the scene unfold on television. My wife was in Mexico City on business at the time and I reached her in her hotel. The telephone was our only connection, but we clung to it like a lifeline as the second plane crashed into the south tower. Soon we learned about the plane at the Pentagon, and not long after about the plane downed in Pennsylvania. This was not an accident.

For a time, all was chaos. Speculation flew and confusion reigned. There was a rumor that a plane was unaccounted for, somewhere near Seattle. Before long, all planes were grounded, leaving my wife stranded in Mexico. Like so many others, and though thousands of miles apart, we watched together on television as the stricken towers fell. We spent anxious hours trying to reach our friends in New York, many of whom lived and worked in the shadow of what came to be known as Ground Zero. But our efforts were in vain; lines were down and circuits were jammed. For the next several days, I shook my head in silent disbelief and could not help but cry at the tragic stories of family members wandering the streets of New York, checking hospitals and morgues, looking for the loved ones they had so casually kissed goodbye that Tuesday morning. We cannot escape these memories, nor should we try. And we cannot fairly evaluate what took place in the days, months, and even years that followed unless we are willing to keep these memories in mind.

The Bush Administration has not provided a complete explanation for its detention policy. (Part of the motivation for this book is that no one else has either.) But that explanation emerges clearly enough if we examine things from the Administration's perspective, beginning with 9/11. On that day, al-Qaeda carried out the most destructive foreign attack on U.S. soil in this country's history. Thousands died, and the lives of thousands of others were shattered forever. The damage to the economy quickly raced into the billions of dollars. More importantly, the nation emerged from that morning different from the night before, and not simply for the rage and confusion that followed in the wake of the attack.

And while September 11 was successful beyond the maddest dreams of its planners, it should not have been a complete surprise. As the 9/11 Commission and others have rightly pointed out, the threat of Islamic terrorism had been present for years:

• 1993: A group led by Ramzi Yousef detonated a bomb at the base of the World Trade Center. The police also uncovered a plot by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman to blow up a number of New York landmarks, including the Holland and Lincoln tunnels.

• 1995: Police in Manila uncovered a plot by Yousef to blow up a dozen U.S. airliners over the Pacific.

• 1996: A truck bomb in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, exploded at the base of the Khobar Towers, killing nineteen U.S. servicemen and wounding hundreds of others.

• 1998: Osama bin Laden issued his now infamous fatwa claiming it was God's decree that Muslims kill Americans. Al-Qaeda operatives carried out nearly simultaneous truck bomb attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 and wounding thousands.

• 1999: A U.S. Customs agent arrested Ahmed Ressam at the U.S.-Canadian border as he was smuggling explosives into the country. His target was Los Angeles International Airport.

• 2000: Al-Qaeda operatives in Aden, Yemen, used a motorboat filled with explosives to blow a hole in the side of the USS Cole, killing seventeen servicemen.

Though bin Laden was certainly a grave and growing threat, his success that morning in 2001 demonstrated just how little we knew about al-Qaeda, including the extent to which the terror network had penetrated American society and its plans for the future. Even if various intelligence agencies knew scattered pieces, in the years before 9/11 "there was no comprehensive review of what the intelligence community knew" about the organization. Whatever else 9/11 may signify, therefore, it surely represented a failure (and perhaps an indictment) of the intelligence community. Three days after the attacks, Congress authorized the president to use "all necessary force" against those responsible. On September 20, the president vowed to meet this threat by using "every resource at our command," including "every necessary weapon of war."

Once the Administration decided to mount a military response, it was inevitable that the military (and, we will see, the CIA) would capture a substantial number of people. The Administration no doubt hoped at least some fraction of these prisoners would be members of al-Qaeda. But at the same time, the Administration must have considered that the number of prisoners with useful intelligence was potentially quite small. Military planners estimate that during counterinsurgency operations, the enemy "capture rate" "may be very low," in part because the "failure of the enemy to wear a uniform or other recognizable insignia results in an identification problem. As a result, large numbers of civilian suspects may also be detained during operations." In Vietnam, for example, the military reported that only one of every six detainees taken into custody was actually a prisoner of war. But having these prisoners in custody provided the Administration with an opportunity to shed light on a dark and shadowy enemy -- assuming it could identify the few prisoners with useful information, and extract it during interrogations.

The Bush Administration also might have expected this would be no easy task. Al-Qaeda, like a number of clandestine military organizations, is obsessed with secrecy. During the search of an alleged al-Qaeda member's home in Manchester, England, police found a training manual that showed just how carefully the organization guards its internal structure. The manual cautioned members to establish widely dispersed cells "whose members do not know one another, so that if a cell member is caught the other cells would not be affected, and work would proceed normally." The manual also advised members to employ a variety of deceptions and subterfuges to disguise their identity and objectives. All of this makes the task of extracting intelligence from al-Qaeda agents that much more difficult. Yet, as we will see, U.S. military regulations explicitly prohibit torture and all forms of coercive interrogations. These regulations were written to comply with the Geneva Conventions, which were drafted to ensure that people captured during armed conflict are treated humanely. If we followed the law, would we miss the chance to acquire valuable intelligence?

Finally, though 9/11 was undoubtedly a monstrous crime, the Bush Administration could have concluded that interrogations in the war on terror were fundamentally different from interrogations in a criminal case. A police interrogator typically wants to know whether a suspect committed a crime that took place sometime in the past. But a military interrogator typically wants to know the nature and character of the enemy, including its structure and future plans. Learning about a particular event that took place in the past may be only incidental to this purpose. The difference between police and military interrogations, therefore, is frequently (but not always) the difference between gathering evidence to be used in the prosecution of an event that has already taken place and gathering intelligence to be used for a military campaign that will take place in the future. And since 9/11 was principally an intelligence failure, the Administration could have believed the interrogations should look more like the latter than the former.

II

The Administration's vision of military intelligence-gathering is based on the "mosaic theory," which maintains that intelligence -- particularly human intelligence (labeled HUMINT and referring to intelligence extracted from people) -- about an unconventional enemy is not likely to come from a single, all-important interrogation with one captured prisoner. By design, each prisoner knows only a small piece relating to his own involvement, and in some cases may not even understand the significance of that piece, which emerges only when combined with other, seemingly innocent, pieces of information culled from interrogations with every other prisoner. And with each new prisoner, analysts need to retrace their steps, cross-checking the new information against the old. This may require that prisoners be interviewed over and over again, even if they had been questioned at length only days or weeks earlier. Only through this painstaking process will a mosaic finally emerge that captures the complete picture of the enemy and its plans, or so the Administration maintains.

The Bush Administration first articulated this theory within days of 9/11, when it began to detain hundreds of people, most of whom were Muslim men, for alleged violations of their immigration status. These immigration detentions are not the focus of this book, since they took place within a preexisting legal framework. But these detentions are nonetheless important to our inquiry, because the Administration altered that framework in important ways that shed light on the eventual detentions at Guantánamo and elsewhere.

Prior to 9/11, people arrested for immigration violations were typically released on bond while their cases worked their way through the courts. For the immigration detentions after 9/11, however, the Administration adopted a wholesale policy of preventive detention -- the controversial practice of incarcerating people while the government determines whether they did anything wrong. In scores of proceedings, the Administration defended this practice by submitting the same affidavit from FBI Agent Michael Rolince, who explained that "the business of counterterrorism intelligence gathering in the United States is akin to the construction of a mosaic." According to Rolince:

At this stage of the investigation, the FBI is gathering and processing thousands of bits and pieces of information that may seem innocuous at first glance. We must analyze all that information, however, to see if it can be fit into a picture that will reveal how the unseen whole operates.... What may seem trivial to some may appear of great moment to those within the FBI or the intelligence community who have a broader context within which to consider a questioned item or isolated piece of information. At the present stage of this vast investigation, the FBI is gathering and culling information that may corroborate or diminish our current suspicions of the individuals who have been detained.... In the meantime, the FBI has been unable to rule out the possibility that respondent is somehow linked to, or possesses knowledge of, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. To protect the public the FBI must exhaust all avenues of investigation while ensuring that critical information does not evaporate pending further investigation.

At the same time, the Administration wanted to construct this "mosaic" in secret. It refused to disclose "the number of people arrested, their names, their lawyers, the reasons for their detention, and other information related to their whereabouts and circumstances." It also ordered that the press be excluded from all immigration proceedings involving these detainees, and that the cases not be listed on the public docket. But secret arrests and closed courts are virtually unheard of in this country. The government had never before tried to close an entire set of cases based on a blanket, undifferentiated claim that closure was a good idea, rather than on a case-by-case demonstration of need. A number of organizations filed requests under the Freedom of Information Act seeking, among other things, the names of the prisoners and their attorneys, the location of their arrest, and the location of their incarceration.

The Administration refused to budge, arguing that even the most modest disclosures would threaten national security. The organizations sued in federal court in Washington, D.C., and the Administration defended its claim to secrecy in a declaration by James Reynolds, chief of the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section in the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. In his declaration, Reynolds warned that "as long as these investigations remain open and active, disclosing the information in question could result in significant harm to the interests of the United States...."

[R]eleasing the names of the detainees who may be associated with terrorism and their place and date of arrest would reveal the direction and progress of the investigations by identifying where DOJ [Justice] is focusing its efforts. In effect, it would allow terrorist organizations to map the progress of the investigation and thereby develop the means to impede them. Even disclosing the identities of those detainees who have been released may reveal details about the focus and scope of the investigation and thereby allow terrorists to counteract it.... The rationale that underlies the withholding of the names of the detainees similarly supports the nondisclosure of their lawyers' identities.... Release of such a list may facilitate the identification of the detainees themselves and the harms described above could ensue.

Several things emerge from these events, and from the Rolince and Reynolds declarations in particular. First, the "mosaic theory" contemplates the prospect of prolonged detention. The process of "gathering and culling" "thousands of bits and pieces of information that may seem innocuous at first glance" could take months, if not years. This would be particularly true if the Administration were determined to "exhaust all avenues of investigation" before deciding that a particular prisoner was not "somehow linked to, or possess[ing] knowledge of," the 9/11 attacks. In theory, constructing this "mosaic" authorizes indefinite detentions, since it depends on both retrospective and prospective approaches to intelligence. One can never know in advance just how much time a particular investigation will require.

Second, Reynolds's declaration reveals a decided preference for conducting these investigations with as much secrecy as possible. In the immigration hearings that were the subject of his declaration, the prisoners had the right to hire a lawyer. But it is clear from his affidavit that, if the Administration could have excluded counsel, it would have. And finally, the immigration violations that provided the ostensible basis for the detentions were admittedly pretextual. That is, they simply provided a basis to hold the prisoners while the FBI completed its investigation. In that respect, the detentions were never meant to produce criminal charges. Any given interrogation may have produced evidence of a crime (in point of fact, no person arrested under this program was charged in connection with 9/11), but that was not their primary purpose. The detentions were preventive. As a result, the great majority of prisoners were held for months but never charged with any wrongdoing. They were simply held until the investigation was over.

In short, the immigration detentions in the immediate wake of September 11 were prolonged, secret, preventive detentions, the true purpose of which was to allow the FBI to investigate whether the prisoner posed any threat to security. All of these elements would eventually become part of the detentions in the war on terror. But the immigration detentions only begin to explain the Administration's detention policy. In particular, the immigration detentions were under the control of the Justice Department, whereas virtually all of the prisoners held in connection with the war on terror, at Guantánamo and elsewhere, are in the custody of the Defense Department and the CIA. How do the military and the CIA gather "human intelligence"? What conditions are necessary to make these interrogations a success? To understand this part of the detention policy, we must look elsewhere.

III

The overwhelming majority of people imprisoned by the Administration in the war on terror have been foreign nationals, and the majority of these have been imprisoned under the detention policy described in the last chapter: potentially indefinite, virtually incommunicado incarcera-tion, without charges, without recourse to courts or counsel, and without the benefit of the Geneva Conventions. But a number of U.S. citizens have also been swept up in this policy, and two that we know of were detained in this country: Yaser Hamdi and José Padilla. Hamdi was seized in Afghanistan and transported to Guantánamo Bay. When it was discovered he was an American citizen, he was transferred to a naval brig in Norfolk, Virginia. Later he was moved to a brig in Charleston, South Carolina, where he was held in solitary confinement. José Padilla was seized at O'Hare Airport in Chicago and transferred to New York. Initially, he was held in the custody of the Justice Department then later handed over to the Defense Department, which moved him to the same Charleston brig that held Hamdi.

Lawyers for Hamdi and Padilla challenged the detentions, arguing that U.S. citizens held thousands of miles from any battlefield had to be charged with a crime or released. I discuss these cases in detail later in the book. For now, however, we are concerned with events that took place shortly after their seizure, when the lawyers for Hamdi and Padilla did what any lawyer would do, and what lawyers had always been allowed to do in this country: they tried to meet with their clients. The Defense Department, however, refused to permit it. The attorneys protested in court, and the Administration defended its unprecedented position by submitting statements from senior military officials.

In Hamdi's case, the Administration relied on a declaration from Colonel Donald Woolfolk, at that time the acting commander of the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay. In Padilla's case, they relied on a similar declaration from Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The Woolfolk and Jacoby declarations go a long way toward explaining the uncompromising logic of the Administration's detention policy. Both officials began with the warning that the nation's security depends almost entirely on the ability to successfully interrogate prisoners captured in connection with the war on terror. Colonel Woolfolk, for instance, said that "interrogation provides information that likely could not be gleaned from any other source," and warned that "[l]oss of this tool, in any respect, would undermine our nation's intelligence gathering efforts, thus crippling the national security of the United States." He insisted that attacks like that of September 11 could become "tragically common" if the court failed to heed his admonitions. Admiral Jacoby was less alarmist but equally stern, cautioning that "[t]he security of this Nation...is dependent upon the United States Government's ability to gather, analyze, and disseminate timely and effective intelligence."

Jacoby and Woolfolk then described the essential elements of a successful interrogation. Foremost, success depends on the ability to create and maintain "an atmosphere of dependency and trust between the subject and the interrogator." The prisoner must come to believe that his welfare is completely dependent on his interrogator, and to trust that his only hope is to cooperate completely. Developing this relationship takes time, potentially "months, or even years." Even after the trust relationship is formed, according to Jacoby's declaration, the nature of the interrogation process must be ongoing: as the military learns information from one prisoner, it must renew and repeat its interrogation of prisoners captured earlier. This, of course, makes it impossible to say how long a particular prisoner may be of use to the United States, since his value conceivably depends on what the military learns from people who may be captured in the future.

To maintain this delicate "atmosphere," the military must hold the prisoner in a "secure," "tightly controlled environment." Any interruption, however brief and for whatever reason, would "sever" the carefully crafted relationship between the interrogator and his prisoner, which in turn would imperil national security. It follows, therefore, that the prisoner cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed access to counsel until the interrogation is complete. "Any insertion of counsel into the subject-interrogator relationship -- even if only for a limited duration or for a specific purpose -- can undo months of work and may permanently shut down the interrogation process." Counsel instills in the prisoner the dangerous and misguided belief that he may secure relief "through an adversarial civil litigation process" -- that is, the courts. This would be disastrous to the "sense of dependency and trust that the interrogators are attempting to create." The prisoner must realize that his welfare is wholly in the hands of his interrogators, and "that help is not on the way." In short, the interrogator's battle is won only when the prisoner believes that all is lost, for only then will he abandon his resistance.

Taken together, the declarations from Jacoby, Woolfolk, Rolince, and Reynolds lay the groundwork for much of the Bush Administration's detention policy. We see a model that contemplates prolonged, potentially permanent incarcerations, characterized by isolation (meaning the prisoners will be held with limited or no access to the outside world), secrecy (meaning their identity will be known only to the Administration), and control (meaning the prisoners' conditions will be controlled solely by their captors, in order to impress upon them that "help is not on the way"). Furthermore, the policy adopts what could be thought of as a default position in favor of continued incarceration. While it may seem to the uninitiated that the prisoner knows only "innocuous" facts, the true import of his information may become known only once the military has the opportunity to reinterrogate him based on information learned from other prisoners, including prisoners who have not yet been captured. Only by this painstaking process can the government exclude "the possibility" -- however remote -- that the prisoner "is somehow linked to, or possesses knowledge of, the terrorist attacks." In any given case, therefore, the most critical decision is the first one; once a detention begins, the institutional mind-set virtually guarantees that it is unlikely to end anytime soon. It also means, inevitably, that some number of innocent people will be detained. The only question is how long they will be held before they are cleared of any wrongdoing and released. In the immigration detentions, the average length of time between arrest and clearance by the FBI was eighty days. More than a quarter of the clearances took longer than three months.

Yet these declarations still are not enough to explain the whole of the detention policy. Just what does it mean to create an "atmosphere of dependency and trust"? What does the prisoner's "secure" and "tightly controlled environment" look like? Precisely how does the military convince a prisoner that "help is not on the way"? In his declaration, Colonel Woolfolk promised -- falsely, it would turn out -- that the military does not use "corporal" forms of persuasion, and that its interrogation methods were "humane." What does that mean? Perhaps not surprisingly, Admiral Jacoby and Colonel Woolfolk were deliberately vague about all of this.

Copyright © 2006 by Joseph Margulies



Continues...


Excerpted from Guantanamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power by Joseph Margulies Copyright © 2007 by Joseph Margulies. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Read More Show Less

Table of Contents


CONTENTS
Preface

Introduction

Part One: UNDERSTANDING CAMP DELTA

1 "An Atmosphere of Dependency and Trust"

2 "Debility, Dependence, and Dread"

3 "The System That Has Been Developed"

Part Two: UNLIKE ANY OTHER WE HAVE EVER SEEN

4 "You Are Now the Property of the U.S. Marine Corps"

5 Debating Torture

6 "The More Subtle Kind of Torment"

Part Three: "OUR EXECUTIVE DOESN'T"

7 "War Is Not a Blank Check"

8 A Pattern of Deceit

9 "Finding Someone Else to Do Your Dirty Work"

Part Four: THE FUTURE OF CAMP DELTA

10 What If He's a Shepherd?

11 Asking Why

12 "Just Shut It Down and Then Plow It Under"

Acknowledgments

Notes

Index

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Average Rating 4.5
( 4 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(3)

4 Star

(0)

3 Star

(0)

2 Star

(1)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing 1 – 5 of 4 Customer Reviews
  • Anonymous

    Posted July 18, 2006

    Guantanamo, the inaccessible dungeon that brought infamy to the USA

    As if guided by providence, this book has been published in the nick of time. In the glare of the Supreme Court¿s recent verdict against President Bush¿s authorizing and condoning the torture of Guantanamo prisoners, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, testifying today before the Senate, urged the senators to support the military tribunals established by the Bush White House to try the prisoners in secret. I truly wish this book were fiction, so that I might consider it merely a thought-provoking, witty and beguiling book, as humorous as Joseph Heller¿s ¿Catch 22¿. But alas, this is not fiction. And the reality that this book is not fiction of a perverse, evil and unfair mind, and that it is as true and real as the tiny, crawling, white worms one so often finds in an old bag of rice, actually paralyzed me at moments with fright as I read the book at night, and I felt as if my hair was almost set on fire. The author, Joseph Margulies, is an attorney at Mac Arthur Justice Center, and a law professor at Northwestern University Law School in Chicago. He has been honored with the prestigious Sullivan Award (2005) for the commendable service he did in protecting our civil liberties, and also for challenging the detention policies of the Bush administration at Guantanamo Bay. At a time when the members and the chairmen of the relevant oversight committees of both the Congress and the Senate (the house and senate Judiciary Committee, e.g.) have done nothing to either halt or restrain the blatantly unconstitutional policies (the Supreme Court has now clearly said so) and atrocities of the Bush Whitehouse, it is admirable that the author has strived, often pro bono, to force the Bush White House, in federal courts, to abide by our constitution and also the Geneva Conventions. (The White House has now said that it will abide by the Geneva Convention!). By striving so courageously to rescue the Guantanamo Bay detainees from a legal Black Hole, he has won the admiration of decent people from around the world, and we should consider ourselves fortunate that we have a man of his caliber and decency living amongst us. Writes Margulies: ¿The Bush administration claims all the authority that could conceivably flow to the executive branch during a time of armed conflict, but accepts none of the restrictions. The result is unchecked, almost imperial power: the power to define the enemy, to act against this enemy anywhere in the world, to imprison him indefinitely without legal process and under any conditions, and to prevent review of any of these discretionary actions by the courts. All of this power is limited to the president¿s promise to exercise it wisely. Nowhere is this power, and its abuse, more evident than at Guantanamo Bay.¿ Further, he states: ¿In the end, the detentions at Guantanamo are important not simply ¿ and perhaps not even principally¿ because of the unpardonable treatment the men and boys have been forced to endure, and not simply because of the unprecedented legal position the Administration has taken to defend this state of affairs. Guantanamo is important, as well, because of what it reveals about the Administration¿s vision of presidential power, and the lengths to which it will go to defend this radical vision.¿ ¿What distinguishes us from terrorists is our devotion to the rule of law,¿ he has said. He is confident that ¿sooner or later the U. S. government would see Guantanamo as a big mistake¿. Well, a majority of people all over the world already think so, and now even the Supreme Court has said so. It is shocking that the man who articulated this absurd policy, attorney general Alberto Gonzales, is still in office, leading our Justice Department. What a shame! The author is certain that the Bill of Rights will eventually prevail, just as it did in the Japanese internment cases during World War II. ¿At that time people thought it was a great idea. Now we recognize it as shameful. This will happen to Guantanamo a

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted November 4, 2012

    Onyx

    Hey Snowstar. It's my birthday.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted February 7, 2009

    Count your blessings

    The next time there is an attack on American Soil (hopefully never !) <BR/>that is anything at all like the 9-11 attach on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon .... I hope you each have a copy of this book in your hands - and ideally you are also sitting next to someone who lost a daughter or son during the 9-11 attach. Perhaps you will have a different view about<BR/>what Pres Bush did for all of us - inspight of the idealest philosophies that you are able to think about in comfort in this country ... which will be lost if too many people fail to see the world's reality weighed against their idealism which is only good for survival in the coffee room chat ... not in the world of terrorism.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 13, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted January 1, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing 1 – 5 of 4 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)