The Reasons and Necessity of Guantanamo Bay
On the day of 9/11, President Bush declared a state of emergency with the congress issuing a joint declaration. This allowed for the “necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001”. The Bush administration interpreted the resolution as a means to assert unlimited powers in effect that fell in line with legal parameters. From there, the normal procedure and rule of law was evidently broken down with the rounding up and detention of at least 1200 terrorist suspects for several months, mainly Muslim men from places Al Qaeda was active. In reality, there was actually little to no concrete evidence supporting the notion that these individuals participated in acts of terrorism but rather they were merely targeted for their ‘suspiciousness’. Although all were eventually released and absolved of participation in 9/11 activities, many were convicted of unrelated smaller crimes such as immigration violations. Furthermore, evidence showed that there had been detainees beaten while in custody with their rights such as access to counsel and the notification of family not afforded to them. The average length in which these men were detained totalled eighty days, a quarter being held for over 3 months. The regime had effectively become one of ‘preventive detention’ where suspects were held under investigation without the respective charges or legal evidence to justify their detainment. The Department of Justice understood that these actions would not be constitutionally permissible or bode well with the general public in the long-term and thus chose to enact a policy of ‘preventive prosecution’ in which the suspects were charged with any other violations to hold them for continual investigation. Thus, a state where the actions of the American Government had “the force of the law without the law” became an embodiment of the norm.
A similar outline of the state of exception was applied beyond a purely domestic outlook within America’s foreign policies as well, Guantanamo Bay in particular. The aforementioned joint resolution by congress included language that allowed the use of force against those that “harboured” the attackers. Although Al Qaeda was not a country itself, America decided upon Afghanistan as the military target to retaliate against as the country was known to provide protection to and be the physical headquarters of Al Qaeda forces. The war in Afghanistan ended quickly with numerous allies supporting America and it’s justification of ‘self-defence’. It was the events of Afghanistan in which the US was provided a platform and leeway in international rule. America took direct control of detainees and captives from the war without complete accordance to international law, moving them into a prison camp located in the American military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. An ambiguity in the base’s lease has lead to Guantanamo Bay to become a zone in which neither American nor Cuban law is enforced. The area had effectively provided a space that was not directly specified as US sovereign territory but at the same time effectively and solely controlled by their authorities. Thus, the American constitution and federal courts were not applicable and held no power in performing any form of jurisdiction in regards to Guantanamo Bay.
Similar to the inhabitants of the Nazi camps, the persons held in Guantanamo Bay were identified as ‘prisoners of a war on terror’ with their legal statuses ultimately stripped while in captivity. Agamben states that these people were no longer classified as legal subjects but “legally unnameable and unclassifiable beings” in which they reached the point where “bare life reaches its maximum indeterminacy”. The US government claimed that incidents within Guantanamo were merely examples of ‘enhanced interrogation’. However, first-hand recounts have shown that the ‘enhanced interrogation’ has acted synonymous with “illegal and indefinite detention, torture, inhumane conditions, unfair trials, and many more”. Guantanamo prison is not only a symbol of America’s perspective towards of terrorism and human rights at that specific time, but also a reflection of how the nation would look to govern itself from then on out.
The events of 9/11 have not only affected the quality of Bush’s administration in the way it responded to external threats but also the many governments following. The means in which national security is pushed during extreme crisis situations, stemming from Bush’s retaliation to 9/11, has undergone a strong level of change in rationale and understanding by the general public. No longer are explanations needed or questions asked when the executive power invokes national security measures to law. The premise of “information that cannot be widely shared” is enough to appease and otherwise justify all their actions to a majority of the population. Noticeably, these sentiments also played a key role in current president Trump’s rise to power and subsequent authoritative decisions. Trump has constantly proclaimed a ‘foreign invasion of our Southern border” throughout the stages of his election and presidency. It was the use of xenophobic commentary in words such as “gang-monsters, invaders or hordes” that Trump was able to circumvent the formal political procedures, committing America and a majority of its population to support the border issue. Although there are indeed numerous problems occurring at the US-Mexican border, the true danger of Trump’s ‘border crisis’ is the fact that an environment for constant political paranoia has been created and capitalised on. This has created an ongoing dialogue revolving around the erection of the ‘wall’ as an extra-legal manipulation or the crux of what American society should believe in and stand up for, destined to remain for as long as Trump is president. Regardless of whether Trump’s wall is built, America’s democracy has and will continue to feel the repercussions in which the state of exception has created in the nation.
This essay has focused on showing how the state of exception has been increasingly utilised as a foundation of governance rather than a temporary instrument and the effects of these actions. The studies of contemporary German and American history have displayed the dire consequences that humankind have and will continue to face when examining the dichotomy between civil liberty and national security. The discourse between this trade-off will always remain difficult however it is by achieving a holistic understanding of previous and current events in which the human race can learn from its mistakes and slowly come closer towards achieving equilibrium in the future.
