Published time: May 24, 2013 01:04
A guard walks through a cellblock inside Camp V, a prison used to house detainees at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base (Reuters / Bob Strong)
US President Barack Obama reiterated the same “empty promises” to close Guantanamo Bay prison camp during his speech Thursday, according to attorney David Remes. Remes, who represents 17 Gitmo detainees, told RT the speech gave Americans little insight.
Obama’s comments were the first of his second term regarding the
controversial counter-terrorism measures employed by the US,
primarily drone warfare and the indefinite detention of perceived
enemies at Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba. While Remes hoped
Obama would outline a plan to close the detention center, the
experts later said any hopes of transparency from the president
were met with disappointment.
RT: Is Obama’s speech and the news attention
surrounding it a result of the prisoners’ hunger strike at
David Remes: I fear to say that it is. I also have
to say that the speech was a deep disappointment. We had been led
to expect, at least in the media, that President Obama would do
something constructive. All he offered, however, was the same empty
promises we’ve heard before. He continues to defend indefinite
detention, he is going to appoint an envoy who has no power to do
anything beyond what Obama allows him to do, and he keeps blaming
Congress for the problem when he has the authority to transfer men.
My fear is that people will conclude, from listening to this
speech, that there is forward motion, that the problem is solved,
Guantanamo is closed, and everybody can go on to other things.
That’s exactly what happened in 2009 and I’m very sorry there was
no forward movement here.
RT: Are you convinced the prison camp’s closure
DR: Not while President Obama takes this stance. The
news will say ‘Well, he lifted the ban on the transfer of Yemenis.’
That’s a nice gesture. I have to say it’s a gesture, though,
because as long as he blames Congress for not letting him transfer
anyone it doesn’t matter. He was the one who imposed the obstacle
in the first place. I just think this is an unfortunate speech
because it was give an illusion of progress where there is no
progress at all.
RT: Isn’t the news that he’ll allow judicial
review a victory for the lawyers, though?
DR: Well, actually the detainees that I represent
and all of the other detainees have had the opportunity for
judicial review through habeas corpus actions. I think that he may
have been referring to the high value detainees that he’s been
putting on trial for direct attacks against the United States. He
wanted to try them in federal court but there was an uproar so he
moved them to military commissions. So what’s new about saying that
he wants to use the courts to try them? He’s already made that
effort and it failed, I just don’t see what’s new.
RT: One concern is that inmates will join terror
cells once they’re released. Are your clients really
DR: It’s a fake argument. I was in Yemen just three
months ago, I met three of my clients who have been released. Two
of them work at a honey shop in downtown Taiz. They’ve married
since they came back, they’re building families and trying to out
their lives back together. The third client returned to his job as
an engineer as the state energy monopoly in Yemen. I think that’s
the typical story and I don’t think that the overwhelming majority
of detainees should continue to be held because of a fear of a few
who might go awry. You can’t take a zero risk approach to this,
even the Bush people said so.
This article originally appeared on: RT