Unlike the executive order to close the military prison and tribunal at Guantanamo Bay that has been widely publicized, another of Obama's bold first moves as President has received much less attention even though it may have a greater worldwide impact. He has also "nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001," as Dana Priest of The Washington Post reports. She goes on to argue that, in effect, Obama by so doing has abruptly ended the "war on terror." I respectfully and strongly disagree.
The nullification to which Priest refers includes the "secret" CIA global network of detention and interrogation centers in Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East that was exposed in 2006, where the Geneva Protocols and even military rules were ignored in carrying out the "war on terror." Gitmo prison and its military tribunals put the spotlight on this clandestine global system. But all the rejoicing about human rights and international law violations that took place there stopping within a year must be tempered by the probability that those who devised and implemented this system will never be held accountable.
The "war on terror" isn't over because by its own terms it could not have ever started, let alone be successful. Terror is and always has been a tactic used by enemies on enemies, not an enemy in itself, and so the "war on terror" is both a gross misnomer and fundamentally misguided. For terrorism to work, its perpetrators and victims must remain as vividly human as possible for without so being the dehumanizing effects terrorists seek cannot be achieved. The very term "war on terror" dehumanizes victims and terrorists alike by reducing them to a tactic, stripping them of the humanity they respectively want to defend themselves with and weaponize. By the same token, the term falsely permits their treatment as if laws for humans don’t apply: counter-terrorism becomes a form of terrorism itself.
Military or war crimes tribunals have been important since Nazis were tried at the end of the Second World War. If operated legitimately and effectively, they can and do bring terrorists as war criminals to justice. But they cannot in themselves restore justice that has been breached, especially when they are illegitimate and ineffective to begin with, as Gitmo proved to be. Moreover, if such tribunals are not used equally to bring to justice those who unjustly established them, they become meaningless. The Obama administration has clearly signaled its awareness of and is actively addressing the former situation, but not yet the latter two, if it or anyone ever will.
The special and legitimizing status of such tribunals in being between, outside of yet building upon existing national and international legal systems will be in jeopardy if the trials are moved into US courts. Choosing the lesser evil is always easiest and most expedient. Notwithstanding this and the fact that it never could have started, the "war on terror" will not end until its counter-terrorist aggressors are also held accountable for their war crimes. As these current events creating the future go, the "war on terror" that never started will never end.
Reference
Priest, Dana. "Analysis: Abrupt end to 'war on terror'" The Washington Post, Jan. 23, 2009.
