Guantanamo tribunals

Here’s a cross-post, with my own introduction, of a poignant and powerful letter from Guantánamo, published by Esquire Middle East. The letter was written by Abdul Latif Nasser, a Moroccan prisoner, approved for release in 2016, but still held, who describes the difficulty of coming to terms with the terrible truth that, under Donald Trump, there is no chance that he will be freed.

A cross-post, with my own introduction, of an article about Black Lives Matter and Guantánamo, published in Newsweek and written by the Afghan prisoner Asadullah Haroon Gul, one of the last prisoners to arrive at Guantánamo, in 2007. Gul has never been charged with a crime, and seems to be a case of mistaken identity.

My report on the good news that three Afghan nationals and former Guantánamo prisoners, who were sent to the UAE in 2016-17, have been repatriated following a peace agreement negotiated between the Afghan government and former warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hesb-e Islami movement in 2016.

Following up on an article in the Independent, I look at the cases of five men abandoned in Guantánamo by Donald Trump — men who were approved for release by high-level review processes under President Obama, but who weren’t freed before he left office, and who, to my mind, can now legitimately be considered the personal prisoners of Donald Trump.

Here’s my report about – and link to – an interview about Guantánamo that I undertook this week with Linda Olson-Osterlund on KBOO FM, a community radio station in Portland, Oregon. Linda and I have, it’s sobering to note, been discussing Guantánamo for eleven years.

My analysis of the broken Periodic Review Board system at Guantánamo, a parole-type process introduced by President Obama, to assess whether or not prisoners regarded as “too dangerous to transfer but not feasible for prosecution” could be released. The PRBs recommended 38 prisoners for release under Obama, whilst approving the ongoing imprisonment without charge or trial of 26 others. Under Trump, however, the process has become meaningless, because not a single prisoner has been recommended for release, and, as a result, the prisoners are now boycotting the process, with the most recent example being Hassan bin Attash, a Saudi who was just 16 or 17 years old when he was seized in 2002, and who has now, shamefully, spent over half his life imprisoned without charge or trial.

On the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, one of the bitterest legacies of the “war on terror” that the Bush administration declared in response is Guantánamo, where the men held are sinking into despair under Donald Trump, including one man, Sharqawi Al Hajj, who, just last month, attempted suicide, cutting his wrists with a piece of glass while on a phone call with his lawyer. How long can this injustice continue?

I report on disturbing news from the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), who explain that one of their Guantánamo clients, Sharqawi al-Hajj, a torture victim, “forever prisoner” and long-term hunger striker, “stated on a recent call with his attorney that he wanted to take his own life.”

Following up on an ABC News feature about Guantánamo – a rarity for the US mainstream media, with the exception of Carol Rosenberg at the New York Times – about the case of Abdul Latif Nasser, a Moroccan prisoner who was approved for release from Guantánamo three years ago, but is still held because the necessary procedures weren’t completed by the time President Obama left office, and Donald Trump, of course, has no intention of releasing anyone from Guantánamo under any circumstances.

As the Supreme Court turns down a request for a review of his case by Moath al-Alwi, a Yemeni held at Guantánamo without charge or trial for over 17 years, I examine the significance of a statement made by Justice Stephen Breyer, questioning whether the court’s decisions over the last 15 years – and particularly in relation to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in June 2004 – have led to an endorsement of “perpetual detention.” The answer is yes, but it remains to be seen if the court is willing or able to tackle such a profound and lingering injustice.