A2 revision: Civil liberties in the USA

Americans are fiercely proud of their democracy and point to the positive force in civil liberties protection that is their codified constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights. But important questions have been asked about the quality of rights protection in the post 9/11 era. On the campaign trail, Barack Obama promised to end the catalogue of rights abuses that took place in the George Bush era. This week he has disappointed supporters with an announcement that a number of Guantanamo detainees will be tried under a reformed system of military tribunal. I highlight this story as a good example for students to refer to in discussion of the effectiveness of the US Constitution, or reference to civil liberties. There are of course questions about individual rights weighed against the collective security of the nation etc etc, but suffice it to say at this point that Americas response to the terrorist threat should be a rich vein of material for American Politics students come the exams.

According to the Guardian:

‘Barack Obama has incurred the criticism of civil libertarians for the second time in a week by confirming that he is to continue to try Guantánamo detainees under the widely discredited military tribunal system set up under George Bush.

The Obama administration said it would introduce a number of reforms to the military commissions that are already processing 13 of the most serious cases of terrorist suspects held in the US base in Cuba. The reforms would make the system fairer and more in line with US justice, the administration insisted.

But lawyers who have campaigned against the tribunal system since it was introduced by Congress in 2006 under pressure from President Bush said they were disappointed to see it revived. In his first week in the White House, Obama promised to close down Guantánamo within a year, raising hopes that he also intended to end the tribunals and transfer cases to civilian federal trials within the US.

On the campaign trail last year Obama consistently called for the closure of Guantánamo and for normal rights and protections to be afforded the detainees. His view of the tribunals was more nuanced: he opposed their final form, calling them “an enormous failure”.

But he voted in favour of an earlier form of military hearings in which prisoners were granted more rights.

Constitutional lawyers however have rejected the argument that the
tribunals can be improved to make them acceptable and workable. Shayana Kadidal, a Guantánamo lawyer with the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights, said that fairness was clearly an issue but no matter how extensively the system was reformed “there is a problem of public confidence in the process both here and overseas”.

Kadidal said the tribunals were a “disaster” that played into the hands of the terrorists. “By trying them in a military setting, it allows terrorists to portray themselves as military figures and their victims as ‘collateral damage’.”’