Redeeming Guantanamo: Two Scientists Propose New Mission For The Infamous Detention Center

—by Natasha Geiling Think Progress

Credit: AP Photo / Brennan Linsleyl, File

ince he was a presidential candidate, President Obama has called for the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba. Now, two academics have a unique idea for what the land could be used for if the center were to close: a marine research facility and international peace park.

In a piece published in the most recent issue of Science Magazine, the two scientists — Joe Roman, a conservation biologist at the University of Vermont, and James Kraska, a law professor at the U.S. Naval War College — argue that turning the detention center into a research facility would benefit the U.S., Cuba, and the local environment around Guantanamo. Because the land has been cut off from the rest of Cuba for so long, Roman told ClimateWire that it would be an ideal location to study various natural and ecological features of the area, including Cuba’s coral reefs and mangrove wetlands.

“It has a diversity of habitats that have been protected in part because the area is cut off from the rest of Cuba,” Roman said. “A majority of the land and waters are unoccupied, so therefore it has been great for a lot of the wildlife in the area.”

The land that the Guantanmo Bay detention center currently occupies is actually land that has been rented to the United States by the Cuban government for more than a century, though since the 1960s the Cuban government has treated the U.S. presence on the land as illegal. If the detention center is closed, some parties, like the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, have called for the land to be returned to Cuba.

But Roman and Kraska argue that since the United States has already said that it will not return the land to Cuba, the two countries should pursue a third option. The two argue that a marine research facility, jointly operated by both the United States and Cuba, would be a compromise that would give Cuban scientists financial support and access to facilities, while allowing the United States a chance to retain its presence in the area. The research station would “unite Cuba and the United States in joint management, rather than serve as a wedge between them, while helping meet the challenges of climate change, mass extinction, and declining coral reefs,” they write inScience Magazine.

The two note that the area provides habitat for a handful of creatures that are rare throughout the island, like the Cuban iguana or the West Indian manatee. The area also provides critical nesting grounds for the endangered green turtle and the critically endangered hawksbill turtle. There are also tropical dry forests on the base that are relatively rare throughout the rest of the island.

Roman and Kraska also argue that turning the area into a marine research station, and working to preserve its ecological systems, could be an important counterbalance to the influx of activity that is expected to come to the island as the United States begins to normalize its economic ties with the region. Thanks in part to previous sanctions, Cuba has seen lower rates of development in some areas, reducing the amount of industrial and agricultural damage to its ecosystems. The country itself has also taken an aggressive stance on conservation and climate change, something that Roman and Kraska say has “put it at the center of Caribbean conservation efforts.”

“For the next generation, the name Guantánamo could become associated with redemption and efforts to preserve and repair international relations and the planet,” the two write.

Even if President Obama were to get his wish and see the detention center closed — an unlikely outcome — the plan to convert the center into a research facility would likely face a skeptical Congress.

“That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) told ClimateWire when asked his thoughts about turning the detention center into a research facility. “Why would we talk about a marine lab when we’re trying to save American lives?”

There are currently 91 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, 35 of whom have been cleared for transfer. The State Department expects to repatriate those detainees cleared for transfer by the summer, according to the Guardian.

---

This material [the article above] was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe. ‘Like’ CAP Action on Facebook and ‘follow’ us on Twitter

A Tortured Twist on Ethics

Why isn’t the American Psychological Association pursuing ethics charges against psychologist John Leso for abuses he helped carry out at the Guantánamo prison?

— by Yosef Brody

George Orwell wisely observed that our understanding of the past, and the meaning associated with it, directly influences the future. And as the unprecedented public feud between the CIA and Congress makes clear, there are still significant aspects of our recent history of state-sponsored torture that need examination before we put this national disgrace behind us.

Important questions remain unresolved about the U.S. torture program in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. And the four-year, $40 million Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture is unlikely to provide sufficient answers, even if it’s ever declassified and released.

For example, what will be done about doctors who helped create U.S. torture programs and participated in their implementation? And is there any evidence that cruel, inhuman, and degrading practices continue under official policy, even to this day?

The question of whether American health professionals previously involved in military torture programs should be allowed to quietly and freely continue their careers came to a head recently when it was revealed that the American Psychological Association (APA)refused to pursue ethics charges against psychologist John Leso.

According to official and authoritative documents, Dr. Leso developed and helped carry out “enhanced interrogation” techniques at Guantánamo Bay in 2002. Importantly, the APA hasn’t disputed Leso’s role in the interrogation of detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani, an interrogation that included being hooded, leashed, and treated like a dog; sleep deprivation; sexual humiliation; prolonged exposure to cold; forced nudity; and sustained isolation.

In a subsequent investigation, Susan Crawford, a judge appointed by then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, characterized this treatment of al-Qahtani as “life-threatening” and meeting the legal definition of “torture.”

Over almost seven years, the APA — whose leadership has nurtured strong connections with the military and intelligence establishment — never brought the case to its full Ethics Committee for review and resolution. In defending this decision a few weeks ago, the APA board released a statement explaining that a handful of top people with classified military access had determined that there was nothing unethical about Dr. Leso’s actions and that the case should be immediately closed.

What exactly is the interest of the leaders of the world’s largest professional association of psychologists in blocking investigation into torture? And should psychologists who participated in torture have this dark chapter of their careers wiped clean without censure?

Ethical imperatives to “do no harm” and sanctions for psychologists who break the rules — from sleeping with patients to insurance fraud to not informing research subjects of their rights — exist not only to protect the public but also to provide clear guidance to professionals faced with moral dilemmas. Yet when considering ethical complaints, the APA apparently takes involvement in torture less seriously than these other transgressions.

If such ethical parameters are effectively nullified, what kind of future might we expect?

Here’s an equally important question: Has U.S. torture really ended? While the Obama administration made an early display of banning some of the worst techniques that had been given the official seal of approval under Bush and Cheney, such as waterboarding, the Pentagon continues to engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading practices.

As the lawsuit brought this month by Guantánamo prisoner Emad Abdullah Hassan in federal court makes clear, the force-feeding of hunger strikers there is continuing despite a military blackout since December on the number of inmates engaged in that protest. Human rights and medical organizations have widely denounced this brutal practice.

Before U.S. psychologists and other Americans tell ourselves it’s time to put our history of torture behind us, we should take a hard look in the mirror.

What does it mean for our society to allow health professionals who have been involved with torture to subsequently practice with impunity? Like all civilized societies, we must reckon with past and present truths — if we want to be in control of our future.

Yosef Brody is a clinical psychologist and president-elect of Psychologists for Social Responsibility PsySR.org.  The cartoon by Roy Eidelson, APA Finds No Ethical Violations at Gitmo, a former PsySR president, is used by permission. Distributed via OtherWords.org

In McConnell’s World, The Sky is Always Falling

Guantanamo prisoners get military benefits?  One would think that a member of the United States Senate would be aware of whether or not the Pentagon had approved educational benefits for an unprecedented demographic. Even more assuredly, you’d expect the Senate Minority Leader (and member of the Subcommittee on Defense, Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans’ Affairs, the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, Committee on Rules and Administration, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) to know whether or not those educational benefits intended for military veterans were going to prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.

And this is what the folks over on the right call leadership?

Click the graphic or click here to read the full article and see McConnell’s letter of inquiry.