Obama and walking the tight rope between respect for human rights and the politics of power

    An intense debate has brought its head out of the murky waters surrounding former U.S. President George Bush’s repressive policies related to the war against terrorism what policies should be used to defend the country. At stake is the notion of whether the means justify the ends, whether democracy can be defended by employing anti-democratic or less than democratic methods.

    President Barack Obama recently spoke eloquently in defense of  respecting human rights while at the same time reassuring national security, yet he made what many observers consider important concessions to "the powers that be."

This suggests how difficult it is to bring about change the country, while at the same time conserving the predominance of the U.S. in the concert of nations.

     Obama’s proposal is to continue detaining terrorism suspects without trial, something which appears to undercut his own principles, especially when he insists that military commissions could be turned into fair and credible means of administering justice.   

The president has reaffirmed his decision to close down the U.S. prison at Guantanamo, in Cuba, where numerous reports have revealed the use of cruel abuse in the questioning of prisoners--most of whom are being held without charges. Yet conservatives, many hidden voices in the Pentagon and the CIA, and even important members of Obama’s own Democratic party have been dragging their feet on the issue.

The proposal to create a legal framework for prolonged detention without trial would appear to undermine the rule of law and therefore suggests a clear concession to the status quo. The backsliding was immediately criticized by numerous human rights organizations. For example, Human Rights Watch said that the creation of a regime of indefinite detention without trial would create a glaring loophole in the US justice system, and set a dangerous precedent for other types of prosecutions. It would also encourage repressive rulers around the world, who routinely rely on preventive detention as a means of neutralizing their political opposition.

    That is: can a "war" such as that declared by former President Bush be successful if it includes denial of the basic rights included in the U.S. constitution? Can means such as torture and abuse of prisoners be a useful means to obtain the desired victory over an enemy accused precisely of violating basic human rights? Can prisoners be maintained indefinitely and subjected to military trial in a country which has a long tradition of respect for due process? 

   Bush and other top figures in his administration have openly defended the use of harsh treatment of prisoners--which they describe as legal in view of the changes introduced in the description of torture. According to Bush such treatment has "saved lives."

   Obama cautious attitude appeared to reflect a process of negotiation with powerful status quo groups, although he appeared to show he had the upper hand by saying  that his administration would work with Congress to craft legislation that would set out an "appropriate legal regime" for holding terrorism suspects without trial.

He asserted that the framework would include clear procedures, fair standards, and a thorough process for periodic review, which would make it an improvement on the arbitrary system of detention used during the Bush administration. He added that the government’s preference would be to try detainees in US federal courts. Military commissions would be used only if it would not be feasible to bring a case in federal court, and only for detainees implicated in violation of the laws of war.

How can fair trial be assured for persons held indefinitely? Human Rights spokesmen feel that revising a military commission system created from scratch by the Bush administration was likely to undermine the basic rights of defendants and delay the administration of justice.

   Equally suggestive, Obama also deflected proposed efforts to investigate past abuses, reiterating his view that the country should "focus on the future" rather than expend effort looking into the past. Former Vice President Dick Cheney appeared to accept that warmly:  Belittling proposals for the establishment of a ’Truth Commission,’ Cheney also said past abuses should not be prosecuted and argued that any effort to investigate would distract from present efforts to protect national security. He insisted that abusive Bush policies were the most effective means of ensuring the country’s safety.

   Obama did appear to leave the door a crack open in addressing accountability for Bush-era counterterrorism policies, saying that the Department of Justice "and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws." That appears as too vague in the eyes of most human rights defenders.

  A related concession was Obama’s decision to block the release of photos depicting the abuse of detainees in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, a decision opposed by  Human Rights Watch and other rights groups. Obama claimed that the perpetrators of the abuses in those photos had "been investigated and held accountable," but those investigations focused solely on low-level personnel and ignored the senior officials who formulated abusive policies.

The intention appears to be aimed at protecting US military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet Obama should be aware that the real danger comes not from the further proof that abuse happened but from the widespread sense that the officials responsible for planning and authorizing abuses have not been held accountable.

   It is still too early in the process to determine whether these concessions have been made in order to gain political ground for a later deepening of the compromise in defense of human rights, or whether the real power structure in the country is calling the cards.

However, it might be interesting to reflect what might have happened elswhere concerning the trial or not of those accused of grave violations of human rights.

A case in point is Argentina. What would have happened if the country had accepted the "Punto Final" for rights abusers and given up any investigation of the cruel abuses committed under the military dictatorship?

Too frequently concessions appear to be made in response to political necessity. This is a subject that is certain to continue in the U.S., as the conservatives agitate alleged dangers to national security and use fear as their main argument, while human rights defenders argue that justice and respect for human rights is the main tool the country should use in its struggle with its enemies.