2013-05-23T20:14:06-04:00 Peter Jan Honigsberg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=peter-jan-honigsberg Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Peter Jan Honigsberg Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3193277 2013-05-01T17:34:23-04:00 2013-05-01T17:29:22-04:00

Peter Jan Honigsberg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-jan-honigsberg/
Unfortunately, the president's comments are misleading. Congress may have passed the legislation to make it more difficult to close Guantanamo, but President Obama signed it. And he signed it more than once. He signed it each time Congress renewed the legislation. In addition, Obama has refused to work with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to issue waivers that would allow for the release of prisoners, such as the 86 men who have been officially cleared for release years before.

Obama could have closed Guantanamo had he had the tenacity to follow through on his promise to close the detention facilities four years ago. Instead, not only did he not close Guantanamo but, three months ago, he shuttered the State Department office charged with finding homes for the men. He seems to have abandoned his commitment to close the detention facility.

And it is only because of a devastating hunger strike at the detention center -- a strike that is attracting global attention -- that caused the president to address the closure of Guantanamo in his press conference.

Since early February, the detainees in Guantanamo have been on hunger strikes. The number of detainees has increased over this time, to where the military concedes that at least 100 of the 166 detainees held in Guantanamo are now participating. Detainees have been telling their habeas lawyers that a larger number of men are fasting.

The military also concedes that at least 21 of the men are being strapped into a chair specifically designed for them to be force-fed twice daily. Tubes are pushed up the men's nostrils and down into their stomachs. Ensure, some detainees believe that laxatives are added, is then poured into the tubes. If the men vomit or otherwise dirty themselves, the military will let them sit in it. Five men are currently hospitalized.

The World Medical Association believes that people who go on hunger strikes have the right not to be force-fed without their consent. U.S. officials claim force-feeding saves lives. But what kind of lives is our government saving when the men, who have never been charged with a crime, envision a future where they will never see, much less embrace, their wives, children and parents again?

Two weeks ago, the military moved the detainees from communal living situations into individual cells. The military's intent was to forestall communication among the detainees, in the hope that they would no longer encourage each other to pursue the fast. However, the military's strategy to break the strike is not working. More men are officially on hunger strike today than last week.

International media contacts me frequently about the state of the men's lives in Guantanamo. The BBC called again the other night, as did the Times of London. But rarely does the U.S. media call. Relatively few Americans seem to care about the human rights violations occurring in Guantanamo, so why should our media bother? Without Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald tweeting and writing of the fate of the men, we would be even less informed.

Soon another detainee may die in Guantanamo. Depressing, but true. Nine people have died in Guantanamo since it opened on January 11, 2002. There may be more deaths from men desperate enough to commit suicide rather than live until they die of natural causes in Guantanamo. How many suicides will it take before the government hears the voices of those who have been housed in the detention facilities in Guantanamo for over a decade? We have created an international human rights issue of tragic proportions, and no one with the power to act seems to care. Obama says he cares, but nothing changes.

The world is watching. And as we continue to darken our image as a bastion of human rights, the international community wonders what is wrong with us. How can we be so heartless as to not recognize that we are not only violating international law and norms in detaining men who have never been charged with a crime for over a decade, but we are also perpetuating a human rights disaster? Soon there may be more deaths under the darkening cloud that hangs over Guantanamo.

Peter Jan Honigsberg is professor of law at the University of San Francisco and Director of the Witness to Guantanamo project (witnesstoguantanamo.com). He is also the author of Our Nation Unhinged, the Human Consequences of the War on Terror (University of California Press).]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2982526 2013-03-29T22:48:00-04:00 2013-04-01T17:51:07-04:00

Peter Jan Honigsberg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-jan-honigsberg/ media has covered hunger strikes in Guantanamo. The coverage suggests that the military has interfered with the detainees' Korans, causing the detainees to respond with hunger strikes. As of March 26, it is unclear how many men are refusing to eat. The officials claim 31 out of 166 detainees, while the detainees' lawyers argue that a much larger group of men, perhaps even a majority, are participating in the hunger strikes. Because there is disagreement as to how many meals constitute a hunger strike, it is very difficult to determine an actual figure.

The military also acknowledges that 11 men are currently being force-fed. Twice a day, nutritional shakes are poured into tubes inserted through the men's nostrils and into their stomachs, while the men are strapped securely in restraint chairs. Three other men who are fasting have been hospitalized and are fed intravenously.

However, in reading between the lines, it seems that the hunger strikers are not only protesting the alleged mistreatment of the Koran and other conditions at the base. Many of these detainees likely see death as their only way out of Guantanamo.

Of the 166 men in Guantanamo, over half (86) were recommended for release. Nevertheless, they remain imprisoned, trapped indefinitely because of our leaders' shameful policies. President Obama does not want to repatriate a majority of the men back to Yemen, on the grounds that Yemen is an unstable state. In addition, since 2009, Congress has adopted and, Obama has voluntarily signed, restrictive legislation that limits the powers of the Executive to release the men.

Under the legislation, the Secretary of Defense must certify that the men transferred out of Guantanamo will not take up arms against the U.S. No high-ranking official wants to take this risk and be held accountable for a mistake. Yet, these men were never charged with a crime, and the U.S. has recommended them for release.

Consequently, what we are really seeing in the hunger strikers in Guantanamo today are men who believe that there is no way out. Many believe that their only exit will be in a coffin. They watched how former detainee Adnan Latif had been told for years that he was eligible for repatriation and would be going home soon. Then, last fall, when he heard that he was not to be released, he presumably committed suicide in desperation. After more than a decade at Guantanamo, he had lost hope.

President Obama campaigned on a platform of hope. He gave us all hope. And he gave hope to the detainees when he announced on his second day in office that he would close Guantanamo. The detainees cheered when he was elected in 2008, and they cheered him again when he announced the closing in early 2009. Yet, today, over four years later, not only does the prison remain, but the base is on track to receive a $200 million new prison makeover.

Ambassador Daniel Fried, the State Department official selected by Obama to find homes for the men in Guantanamo, has been transferred to another position. No one has replaced him.

The prison in the naval base in Guantanamo is not going to close. The men in Guantanamo know this and now see their lives in shadows. Despite being cleared for release, they see their lives as over. They will never hug, or even touch, their families, their wives and their children again. They will never return to their homes and experience freedom. For them, Obama's promise of hope has turned into hopelessness.

Peter Jan Honigsberg is professor of law at the University of San Francisco and Director of the Witness to Guantanamo project (witnesstoguantanamo.com). He is also the author of Our Nation Unhinged, the Human Consequences of the War on Terror (University of California Press).]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.952150 2011-09-07T17:00:35-04:00 2011-11-07T05:12:02-05:00

Peter Jan Honigsberg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-jan-honigsberg/
Our Witness to Guantanamo project (W2G) is documenting our nation's rule of law violations and human rights abuses post 9/11. To date, we have filmed interviews of 66 people in 11 countries. Thirty-four of the people are former detainees; the other voices include prison guards, chaplains, translators, medical personnel, habeas lawyers, prosecutors, high-ranking government officials, high-ranking military officials, JAG lawyers and FBI agents.

We have heard brutal stories of torture and mistreatment, both physical and psychological, beginning with the capture of men immediately following 9/11. One man was hung by his wrists for 5 days in Kandahar, passing out on day 3. Before he passed out, he watched another man die while hanging. Another former detainee was held isolated and incommunicado in the pitch-black, underground "Dark Prison" in Kabul, where he overturned his "honey bucket" while crawling to locate it. A man in Guantanamo was held up by his legs and forced to mop up his urine with his hair. Another man's face was partially paralyzed for months, after he was forced to lay down on the gravel in Guantanamo and a guard kneed his face.

Although physically brutal, Guantanamo was better understood as a psychological prison, designed to break the detainees. As one former detainee explained, "Look at me, you do not see any scars. You would think I was fine. But, I was psychologically tortured, and that is much harder to show."

Another man told us that he was placed in solitary for a year. He said to himself that he could handle it because he saw himself as a loner. However, after one year in solitary, "I broke," he admitted.

Men coped in their own, personal, ways. Many of the former detainees told us that their Muslim faith helped them accept their fate. Memories of wives, children and families also helped men endure. And one man told us how he often cried, which made him feel better.

We have also heard inspiring and life-affirming stories. One prison guard told us how he now friends on Facebook several of the former detainees he used to guard.

A prosecutor at Guantanamo told us how he had a question of conscience while prosecuting an illiterate juvenile who had allegedly signed a confession in a language he did not speak. The prosecutor entered a monastery for 3 days and consulted a priest. When the priest told him to do the right thing, he quit. The charges against the boy were dismissed. The prosecutor is now the director of a public defender office.

A former Chief Prosecutor of Guantanamo, appalled at the absence of due process in the legal system at the base, also quit. He is now the director of an organization dedicated to eradicating war crimes and torture.

A young medic who worked at the base handing out medications was so disturbed by the military's treatment of the detainees that he applied for conscientious objector status.

Through the voices of the people we are filming, the Witness to Guantanamo project is dedicated to educating people in America and the world on the human rights abuses and rule of law violations in Guantanamo. If President Obama and Congress listened to the stories we have filmed, they would shutter Guantanamo and forever eliminate its stain on our nation.

Former Chief Counsel of the Navy, Alberto Mora, told us, "Without human rights, we are just another country." W2G is working to assure that the stories we have filmed will inspire Americans to return to the core values the Framers articulated in the Constitution over 200 years ago, and that we will not become just another country. Until 9/11, this nation had a powerful moral purpose. We must again become that pillar of human rights.

Sometime after 9/11, I remarked to a friend that I wish I had kept a copy of the newspaper describing the event. My friend looked at me and replied, "You should have held on to the newspaper from the day before."

Peter Jan Honigsberg is professor of law at the University of San Francisco and director of the Witness to Guantanamo project (Witness to Guantanamo project). He is the author of Our Nation Unhinged: The Human Consequences of the War on Terror (University of California Press, 2009) and a regular contributor to the Huffington Post.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.931526 2011-08-19T13:48:33-04:00 2011-10-19T05:12:02-04:00

Peter Jan Honigsberg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-jan-honigsberg/
Much has been written about Guantanamo and the torture, isolation and harsh treatment of the men inside the prison as a result of America's rule of law violations and human rights abuses. However, the literature has not been as extensive in comparing the existential experiences of the men. For example, whose fate was worse: the men who were held incommunicado in isolation cells or the men who were held in the general prison population but who were unable to speak to their neighbors because they did not share a common language?

Is the man held in the general prison population less lonely because he sees men nearby engaging in conversation with each other -- although he himself cannot converse except through basic sign language? Or, might the man held incommunicado and in strict isolation have the advantage because he must remain very conscious of his situation and know that it is imperative to keep mind and body alive?

One of the men we interviewed recently (we will call him Mohammed) did not speak the lingua franca of the prison -- that is, he spoke neither English nor Arabic. During his 8 years in the prison, he was placed in the general prison population but his cell was not near anyone who spoke his language or even a similar language. The result, whether intended by the United States military officials or not, was isolation and a resulting loneliness that informed his life at Guantanamo for those 8 years.

While held in Guantanamo, Mohammed observed human contacts all around him, many of them warm and culturally shared. Perhaps he could have felt that he had a community in having other men present, even if they did not speak the same language. Yet, Mohammed told us that he could not participate in their shared experiences and in their communications the same way that the men who shared a language or a country could.

Sure, he could reach out and communicate through eye contact, hand signs and facial expressions. But he was a shy and quiet man and, apparently, those connections did not provide him adequate human contact. While others who spoke the Arabic language and shared their country's culture had shared identities, he was left to go it alone, he expressed.

Over his 8 long years in the prison, Mohammed made acquaintances and learned minimal Arabic and English. However, he never had the facility for languages that some of the other men had. In addition, and adding a sad irony to his stay in Guantanamo -- it was apparent to the interrogators that he was not a threat to the United States government. Hence, after a few initial interviews, his interrogations in GTMO were terminated. The one advantage of an interrogation is that a translator would have been present for him to talk to in full sentences. Mohammed did not even have that avenue as a means to communicate and express himself.

From what we could gather, for nearly eight years Mohammed may have had other humans surrounding him, but he was dreadfully lonely. And his depth of loneliness came through powerfully as he spoke of his life in Guantanamo. I asked him how he coped. "I cried, and then I felt better," he replied. Apparently, he cried often.

To our surprise, he did not seem bitter. Mohammed's tone was one of humility and acceptance. His quiet manner was inspirational, actually. Was it the way he coped in prison that quieted his bitterness? Was it something else in his personality? Who is to say? In stark contrast, we also had interviewed someone who, 5 years after he was released, continued to be intensely angry and bitter over the injustice he suffered.

Based on these interviews and other interviews that W2G has filmed, it appears (common sense would likely confirm) that one's personality helped form one's ability to cope in Guantanamo. That is, what a man made of the conditions to which he was subjected was more important than the conditions themselves. In addition to coping with the issues by crying, Mohammed also believed that his attorneys would ultimately succeed in obtaining his release. Unlike many other men who became disillusioned and depressed in seeing no results from the work of their counsel, Mohammed never gave up believing in his lawyers.

Throughout our many W2G interviews of the detainees, we also found other examples of how one's personality helped form one's ability to cope. In several other interviews of former detainees, we noticed that people who had resisted the authorities, whether mentally or physically, were often more likely to function better in the outside world once they were released, than people who had not resisted while imprisoned. However, since our data is anecdotal, and since the men we interviewed are not statistically representative of all the men who were held in Guantanamo, we cannot make any firm assertions at this time.

Based on our interview with Mohammed, we believe that he is on his way in transcending his isolating Guantanamo existence. Since his release, he has married a Muslim woman, attends school to improve his skills, is learning the local language, and does not look back in anger. Hopefully, his lack of bitterness will make it easier for him to go forward in the world outside Guantanamo. He is determined to make a better life for himself and his family.

Peter Jan Honigsberg is professor of law at the University of San Francisco; author of Our Nation Unhinged: The Human Consequences of the War on Terror (Univ. of California Press); and Director of the Witness to Guantanamo project (witnesstoguantanamo.com).
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.835102 2011-03-14T13:57:05-04:00 2011-05-25T18:40:24-04:00

Peter Jan Honigsberg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-jan-honigsberg/ confirmed that the prison will remain open for the foreseeable future. Consequently, a significant number of the 172 detainees currently detained at Guantanamo will be held without charges indefinitely, perhaps for their entire lives.

Our Witness to Guantanamo project (W2G) interviewed former General Counsel of the United States Navy Alberto Mora in December 2010. He reflected on the damage we had done to due process and the rule of law post 9/11 in Guantanamo and observed that, "Without human rights we are just another country."

A government that has held prisoners for over 9 years without charges, and now acknowledges that it will continue to hold a significant number of them indefinitely without charges or prosecutions, cannot pretend that it is committed to human rights. Given the ongoing violations of the rule of law in Guantanamo, we cannot help but ask: Are we becoming just another country?

W2G has filmed 53 in-depth interviews. Thirty one of the interviews have been with former detainees and 22 with other voices, such as prison guards, chaplains, med-techs, JAG lawyers, habeas lawyers, prosecutors (including a chief prosecutor), translators, an FBI profiler, military officials, the father of a Kuwaiti detainee and, of course, Alberto Mora.

Khalid Al-Odah, a Kuwaiti citizen and the father of detainee Fawzi Al-Odah, interviewed with the W2G project in January 2011. Fawzi has been held in Guantanamo Bay since spring 2002 without charges. Years ago, Khalid had lived and trained in Texas, and found everyone he met gracious and kind. He had admired our constitution and he believed in the United States and its values. When he had first heard that his son was being held by the Americans, he expected that Americans would treat his son humanely and pursuant to the rule of law.

He organized the families of the 12 Kuwaiti men who had been captured and taken to Guantanamo, with the goal of bringing them home. Today, 9 years later and largely through his efforts and those of the Kuwaiti government, 10 of the 12 men are back home with their families in Kuwait. Khalid's son, Fawzi, is not one of them.

There does not seem to be any logical reason why Khalid's son is still imprisoned. Fawzi's story is no different from many of the over 600 men who have been released from Guantanamo. We asked Khalid whether he believes that his activism may have caused the U.S. to hold his son as a warning to those who speak out against our policies. He replied that many people have suggested this to him over the years, but he cannot accept that the U.S. would act in this revengeful way. He would like to continue to believe that the United States adheres to the rule of law.

During his interview with W2G, we asked Khalid about the emotional effects on his family. He told us this: Sometimes he awakes in the middle of the night and finds that his wife is not in bed with him. He now knows where she goes. She has gone to their son's room to sleep in his bed.

To Khalid Al-Odah, and to all the other parents, wives and children of the men in Guantanamo, and to the citizens of the world, America can no longer pretend that she is the standard bearer of human rights and the rule of law. As long as we hold people for years, and possibly even decades, without charges and prosecutions we are becoming what Alberto Mora said we should never become -- just another country.

Peter Jan Honigsberg is professor of law at the University of San Francisco; author of Our Nation Unhinged (Univ. of California Press); and Director of the Witness to Guantanamo project (witnesstoguantanamo.com).
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.779549 2010-11-05T13:40:25-04:00 2011-05-25T18:10:25-04:00

Peter Jan Honigsberg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-jan-honigsberg/
In the 1960s, the dusty paper-mill town of Bogalusa, Louisiana, sixty miles north of New Orleans, across Lake Pontchartrain, was in turmoil. Bob Hicks, Gayle Jenkins and A.Z. Young led an inspirational movement to eradicate the town's racial barriers. Their grassroots organization was known as the Deacons for Defense and Justice, and the deacons represented the only black group in the '60s that armed themselves and fought back in response to white violence. Martin Luther King never visited Bogalusa -- the philosophy of the deacons did not resonate with King's belief in non-violence.

During those days, blacks who stood up to the white leadership assumed grave risks. The first black deputy sheriff in Washington Parish was shot in the head and died, seven miles outside of Bogalusa. His black partner lost his right eye in the same ambush. The white city police department, which stood idly by as whites assaulted and terrorized the black community, was placed under court order with specific directives to uphold its duty to protect all people. Bogalusa had the most concentrated members of the Ku Klux Klan in the nation. The city attorney was a member of the Klan.

When civil rights workers drove from New Orleans to Bogalusa, two carloads of deacons, bearing rifles, would meet the activists at the edge of town. One car of deacons positioned itself in front of the visiting car, another behind. Then, the three cars gunned their engines and made a wild dash through the white part of town, across North Border Drive, into the black section. Whew! Civil rights workers never traveled into town without the deacons as escorts. The word was that if a civil rights worker was unescorted, white Klan members would give chase, forcing the worker to lose control on that narrow two-lane blacktop, veer off the road and crash. No one would be the wiser.

There were separate lines of progression for blacks and whites at the local paper-mill. Blacks were assigned to the undesirable, low-paying jobs. One black worker employed for 27 years held the position of "temporary" helper. "Trainee" groups were provided to the white employees to enable them to leapfrog past black employees with greater seniority. Bob Hicks became the lead plaintiff in litigation designed to integrate the mill and equalize employment opportunities and pay.

In 1966, the first year that Bogalusa schools were integrated through a "freedom of choice plan," few black children attended. The realistic threats of white beatings were not worth confronting for most black children. The Hicks' children resisted going to the white school. But Bob and his dedicated wife, Jack, who always stood by his side and who always graciously welcomed civil rights workers into their home, enrolled their children anyway. For years after, the Hicks children resented their father for making them attend the white school. But Bob Hicks was relentless. Nothing would impede his goal to integrate the community. And his family would lead the way.

Now, those courageous leaders, Gayle Jenkins, A.Z. Young and Bob Hicks, have passed. When Bob Hicks died in spring 2010, his family petitioned the city council to name 9th street, the street on which he had lived, "Robert 'Bob' Hicks Street." he city agreed.

The street-naming ceremony honoring Bob was held on August 28, 2010. The parade had to be canceled because of the rains. Bob's wife, his children, grandchildren and other guests crowed into the church. Marion Barry gave the keynote address. Many people wore T-shirts and hats honoring Bob.

After the ceremony, I happened to be sitting next to a young man. He told me how he had written plays that were produced off-Broadway. He had lived in Brooklyn, but recently returned to New Orleans. I soon realized that his mother was Barbara Hicks, Bob and Jack's daughter.Barbara had moved to New Orleans, settled there and married a lawyer. The son then pointed to his sister standing nearby. She is a doctor, he informed me. And then he spoke of his two other sisters. One is a lawyer, the other a Ph.D. candidate.

When I flew from California to Louisiana to attend the ceremony, I did not know what to expect. I was not even certain that I should take the time to attend. As most people these days, I had so many other "important" things to do! But, sitting there in the church as the people gathered, visited with each other and shared bread, I realized that there was no moment more important than this. There, before me, I observed the fruition of Bob's lifetime work. Bob had succeeded.

Bob had devoted his life to make the city of Bogalusa, the state of Louisiana and our nation a more just place. And, Bob and Jack's grandchildren represented all that he had fought for. Here on that very hot, humid and stormy August day in 2010, we were witnesses to more than the dedication of "Robert 'Bob' Hicks Street." We witnessed the legacy of Bob Hicks flower for all generations to come.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.755135 2010-10-07T21:19:31-04:00 2011-05-25T18:00:30-04:00

Peter Jan Honigsberg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-jan-honigsberg/ Much has been written on the lives of detainees in Guantanamo post September 11, 2001. But relatively little has been written about the lives of Americans who worked on this side of the wire. In the Witness to Guantanamo project, www.witnesstoguantanamo.com, we have filmed in-depth interviews of former Guantanamo prisoners, as well as American citizens who worked in Guantanamo. The interviews have documented that many of the detainees have been severely damaged, and even broken. But the interviews have also revealed that sometimes the lives of Americans on this side of the wire have been transformed.

An American translator had emigrated from East Turkistan, China, when she was 18. In fall 2001, she was the only American citizen of Uyghur heritage who spoke Uyghur and Chinese. The government asked her to work as a translator at Guantanamo for the captured Uyghurs. At first, she refused, saying that she did not want to be anywhere near "the terrorists." However, a friend persuaded her to reconsider, explaining that it was her duty as an American citizen. She relented, and worked at the base for nearly all of 2002.

After serving the year, she quit. She had become convinced that the Uyghurs were entirely innocent and wrongly held. Sometime after, she joined the legal team that was representing the Uyghurs.

A former Guantanamo prison guard told how surprised he was that many of the men he was guarding were at peace in their hellish environment. During his midnight shifts, when the prison was quiet, he engaged the men. He asked how they could endure the beating, isolation, sleep deprivation, other sensory deprivations and humiliations. The men answered that the Koran gave them strength to accept their fate. Guantanamo, to them, was a test of faith. After several months of conversations with these men behind the wire, the guard asked one of the prisoners to convert him. That night, in the prison hallway outside a darkened cell, the prison guard accepted the Muslim faith.

Another former prison guard now "friends" on Facebook former detainees he had guarded.
The Chief Prosecutor in Guantanamo quit after being told by his superior that his job was to obtain convictions -- that acquittals were not an option. Now he heads a humanitarian anti-war project.

A former Guantanamo military commissions prosecutor had been a fervent believer in the Global War on Terror. He never questioned what he observed, even when suspected terrorists were seized and rendered to CIA black holes to be tortured. To him, the military policy of "need to know" governed. He did not need to know. He trusted America's leaders, who had the intel. After serving in Iraq -- where his assignment was to pay out reparations to the families of people Americans had killed -- he was offered the opportunity to prosecute detainees in Guantanamo. He leaped at the chance. He was on a mission for justice.

When he began processing the military commission cases, a JAG defense attorney explained to him that the men he was prosecuting were not necessarily "the worst of the worst." At first, the prosecutor was dismissive of the JAG defense attorney. However, as he continued to review the evidence, he found serious problems of proof, including an instance where an illiterate Afghani juvenile was being prosecuted on the basis of his "confession" written in a language he did not speak.

One day, the prosecutor awoke to find himself questioning not only the evidence, but also his role in prosecuting defendants where the evidence did not support the charges. As he questioned his role, he realized that he was utterly alone. He could not share his concerns with the other prosecutors on the base (they would not understand, he believed), nor with his wife and family (the information was classified).

With no one to turn to, he entered a monastery. He resided there for three days and contacted a priest for advice. The priest told him to do the right thing. He resigned his position. The charges against the juvenile detainee were ultimately dropped and he was repatriated.

Today, this former prosecutor heads the public defender program in his home town.

It is not often that we meet, or even hear of, people who go through major transformations in life. But that hell we call Guantanamo has transformed the lives of Americans who worked on this side of the wire.

Peter Jan Honigsberg is Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco, Director of the Witness to Guantanamo project -- witnesstoguantanamo.com -- and author of Our Nation Unhinged: The Human Consequences of the War on Terror.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.699553 2010-08-30T15:47:48-04:00 2011-05-25T17:30:22-04:00

Peter Jan Honigsberg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-jan-honigsberg/ A friend said that she recently saw photos of men who had been incarcerated at Guantanamo prison and that the photos expressed each man's human dignity. I, too, have seen the dignity in each of the twenty-four former detainees we have interviewed on film for our Witness to Guantanamo (witnesstoguantanamo.com) project. However, I have also seen something else. Many of the men, though dignified, were broken.

Indeed, how could men, who were sold for $3,000 to $30,000 each, held for up to eight years without charges, often sensory deprived -- whether isolated or sleep deprived for long periods -- not be broken? The men depicted Guantanamo as a "psychological prison," and that it was.

One of the men we interviewed was introduced to us as the "jokester" of Guantanamo. He was seemingly cheerful and laughed with us before we began filming. Yet, during the interview (our interviews usually run for 2 to 2 ½ hours) his sense of hopelessness while in the prison surfaced. He told of the time he called a guard to his cell. He asked the guard to bring a high-ranking military official, a sheet of paper and a pen. He said that he would write on the paper that it was "okay." After signing the paper, he wanted the official to take him to the beach and, demonstrating to us with his index finger pointed at his forehead, "shoot me."

Another man, who was intelligent, exceptionally sensitive, spoke five languages and had never been to Afghanistan or Pakistan but was seized elsewhere, broke early. He was a librarian by trade and should never have been held at the base. When we asked him whether he had ever met with psychiatrists while at Guantanamo, he responded by equating them with "devils" who tried to tear down his mind. He told the interrogators whatever they wanted to hear, whenever they wanted to hear it.

A third man, very insightful, thoughtful and charismatic, told us that he managed the torture and pain by focusing on his foot or on some other detail of his body that he could control. He knew English, but did not reveal it to the guards so that he could overhear their conversations and help orient himself. He prided himself on being a loner and on his initial ability to hold fast and refuse to talk to the interrogators. After several months, the military officials placed him in isolation. He was denied all human contact. The guards shoved his meals through the "bean hole" in the cell door. After one year of intense isolation, "I broke," he said.

Sometimes, I think that men who resisted while at the prison emerged psychologically healthier. And, sometimes they did. One man we met was 16 when captured and, like most prisoners, arbitrarily beaten. He continually fought the guards by throwing feces and such at them, even though it meant that he was beaten up frequently by the Emergency Response Force (ERF) team and then taken to isolation. (The ERF team consisted of 5 or more guards in riot gear. They sprayed detainees with mace and then pummeled them, sometimes while the men lay prostrate on their beds.) Although he was released to a country that is not his home, today this detainee seems able to cope better than many of the men we have met.

Other men survived by "going with the flow." They did what they were told and were beaten less frequently. Necessarily, the men's actions reflected their personalities and character traits. Five men would not survive Guantanamo. They allegedly committed suicide.

Yes, there is a powerful sense of dignity in each former detainee you meet today. But these men who were held for years without charges were more than imprisoned. They were broken. And even though some -- but not all -- of the men released are doing better today, one must wonder whether they will ever fully move on from what they suffered unnecessarily in that hell we call Guantanamo.

Peter Jan Honigsberg is Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco, Director of the Witness to Guantanamo project (witnesstoguantanamo.com), and author of Our Nation Unhinged: The Human Consequences of the War on Terror.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.419421 2010-01-11T20:23:22-05:00 2011-05-25T15:10:21-04:00

Peter Jan Honigsberg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-jan-honigsberg/
The Uyghurs are a unique subset of the detainees at Guantanamo. Their goals were not to take up arms against the United States, whom they consider a good friend, but to protect themselves against Chinese aggression in their homeland of East Turkistan. Consequently, they were declared non-enemy combatants early in the vetting process. But, over time, the Uyghurs have become pawns in the global game between China and the U.S.

The U.S. cannot repatriate the men from Guantanamo to their home in East Turkistan because the Chinese, who depict the men as terrorists, will likely torture and kill them. China has also put immense pressure on other nations not to accept the men as refugees. When Albania agreed to take 5 Uyghurs in 2006, China pressured Albania not to allow any more into the country. Since then, only the islands of Bermuda and Palau have agreed to accept the Uyghurs. Bermuda took 4, Palau took 6. Seven Uyghurs remain in Guantanamo, despite their innocence.

The U.S. has not applied the enormous power it has as a superpower to pressure nations with Uyghur communities to accept these men. It seems that the U.S. does not want to risk provoking China by finding culturally and socially appropriate homes for the men. Members of the larger Uyghur community believe that a portion of the price that the U.S. paid in obtaining China's support for our war in Iraq was not to give comfort and assistance to the Uyghurs.

The U.S. will not allow the men to settle in America, although there is a strong Uyghur community in Washington D.C. President Obama had an opportunity to relocate the men to D.C. early in his administration, but his advisors took too long in making the arrangements. In the interim, Congress passed a law barring all detainees from settling in the U.S.

In October 2008, a federal judge ordered that the Uyghurs be released into the U.S. However, the administration challenged the order and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the challenge, ruling that only Congress and the president can decide who is permitted to enter the U.S. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in this case, Kiyemba v. Obama, in March of this year. A decision is due in June.

It appears that once these men have been released from Guantanamo, President Obama does not care to spend political capital in helping them find homes in Uyghur communities, or even in assisting them in obtaining employment. (The men in Bermuda have found employment, but the men in Albania and Palau have not.) Clearing out Guantanamo is Obama's objective; it is not ensuring that these innocent men can truly move on with their lives once released.

When we spoke to the Uyghurs in Palau last week, they told us that they see Palau as a transition point. They are not citizens of Palau, and have not been issued passports. They are hoping to move to a nation where there is a Uyghur community. There is none in Palau. In fact there are only 400 Muslims in the entire nation of 21,000 people. In addition, they note that for the past eight-plus years they have lived on tropical islands (Cuba and Palau), in stark contrast to their lives as children and young men in East Turkistan -- a landlocked nation, surrounded by more than a half-dozen countries.

We met with the President of Palau, Johnson Toribiong, who described the Uyghurs' narrative as "biblical." The men are stateless, having no home and no opportunity to return home. Many are married, but will never reunite with or see their wives or families again. Their wives cannot leave China without serious repercussions to the members of the families who remain. And because the Uyghurs do not have passports, they cannot travel to other countries.

Rushan Abbas, a translator for the Uyghurs who lived in Guantanamo for 11 months in 2002 while working for the U.S. military, said that the U.S. is focusing too much on the Arab world, and should look over its shoulder at China -- our real long-term threat.

Apparently, even if the U.S. government knows this, it is too afraid to push back on China. And, consequently, the stateless Uyghurs continue to be pawns in the global game of the superpowers.

Peter Jan Honigsberg is a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law and the Director of the Witness to Guantanamo Project. His book, Our Nation Unhinged: The Human Consequences of the War on Terror is published by the University of California Press.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.278893 2009-09-07T19:09:53-04:00 2011-05-25T14:00:22-04:00

Peter Jan Honigsberg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-jan-honigsberg/
On August 22, 2009, the Witness to Guantanamo Project completed its first round of 16 in-depth filmed interviews of former Guantanamo detainees in five countries: Albania, Bosnia, France, Germany and England. Each in-depth interview was 2+ hours in length. Three men did not want their faces shown. We hope to film hundreds of interviews of former Guantanamo detainees. We are determined to document the systematic human rights abuses and rule of law violations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The empirical evidence we gathered during this journey confirmed information found in the recently released CIA Inspector General's Report and memos regarding CIA's strategies and techniques of torturing and otherwise mistreating detainees.

It was very difficult to hear each man's story. The narratives were mesmerizing, powerful, compelling, unnerving and heartbreaking.

The CIA's intention to create a climate of "learned helplessness," that is, of shattering the men's spirits, emerged throughout the interviews. For example, the guards and interrogators did their best to try to break a detainee who was a fourth level black belt karate expert and another detainee who was a former boxer. The US personnel forced a hose down the throat of the karate expert and poured water into the hose. They hung the former boxer by his wrists for five days. On the other hand, a detainee who "went with the flow" and was not a "physical threat," had a relatively easier experience. He had already learned the value of "helplessness."

The complicity of the medical profession was a reoccurring theme. The boxer who was hung by his wrists for five days was let down periodically to be examined by a doctor. Then he was hoisted up again. He passed out on the third day, but they continued to hoist him up for two more days. Two other men described how they were interrogated during surgery. Each man was under a local anesthetic. Any detainee who wanted medical care needed to go through his interrogator. One man refused to ask for dental work because he did not want to ask a favor from his interrogator. Some prisoners who expected to have cavities filled, had their teeth pulled instead.

While brutal treatment was always intense at Bagram and Kandahar air bases, Guantanamo was described by many of the men as a "psychological prison." Some men were held in isolation for nearly the full time that they were at Guantanamo -- over four years in isolation for one man. Initially, prisoners were placed in isolation for five days. But, when the military learned that people could easily tolerate the relatively short periods of isolation, the military increased the length to weeks, months and even years. One man, who was afraid of isolation and willing to say anything that the interrogators wanted to hear, was advised by other inmates that isolation became less frightening with each return visit.

The prisoners responded to the treatment that they received in different ways. Some resisted. One beat up a guard, others spit at guards. Still others threw feces. One prisoner told us that when he was treated unfairly he resisted in order to make himself feel better. There was a community of spirit among some prisoners. If one person was mistreated, others would refuse to eat or strike in support of him. Several detainees used the word "solidarity" to describe their relationship with other prisoners.

Some men endured detainment in Guantanamo by reflecting on their families, their religion, stories in the Koran, and the value of patience. Others accepted their "fate," believing that they could not change it. Still others relied on "hope," expecting that they would ultimately be released because they knew they were innocent.

When we asked people to describe their worst experiences, we were surprised by several of the responses. Two people told us that their worst experience was observing others beaten while they could do nothing about it. Another person's worst experience was the unknowing of what would happen in the future. A Uyghur described his feeling of betrayal by the United States. The Americans had assured him that any information he gave to U.S. officials would not be passed on to the Chinese. When he was later interviewed by Chinese officials in Guantanamo, the Chinese diplomats repeated to him all that he had told the Americans.

The men did not only lose years of their lives while being held in Guantanamo. Their lives going forward are also, for many, similarly lost. Many of the detainees told us that they have been unable to obtain employment. Once a prospective employer hears that the men are former detainees, the opportunity for employment disappears. In addition to not finding work, the Uyghurs in Albania are also facing the prospect of losing their homes. Albania, with a grant from the U.S., has been paying their rents for the past two years. However, the payments are up in October, and it is not clear whether Albania will continue to pay their rents. If not, the Uyghurs may be out on the street or back at the refugee center.

The men agreed to be interviewed for different reasons. The reasons included speaking for history (that is, assisting us in creating an archive) and hoping that others who are still in Guantanamo will soon be released. One man participated because he wanted to "plant a tree for the next generation." He also told me that "the world is one hand with many fingers."

If there is a term that best describes the experience of interviewing these men, it is witnessing their humanity. Guantanamo is about people. Their humanity is what I will remember best.

Peter Jan Honigsberg is professor of law at the University of San Francisco, the Director of the Witness to Guantanamo Project, and the author of Our Nation Unhinged: The Human Consequences of the War on Terror.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.191159 2009-04-24T14:09:43-04:00 2011-05-25T13:15:26-04:00

Peter Jan Honigsberg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-jan-honigsberg/ Professor Peter Jan Honigsberg

In September 2005, the Federalist Society at the University of San Francisco School of Law, where I teach, invited me to debate Professor John Yoo of Berkeley Law School on the legitimacy of the term "enemy combatant." Professor Yoo had just written a book promoting his theory of executive power, and the Federalist Society was sending him around the country to promote not only his book, but also the Bush Administration's platform.

Professor Yoo has been in the news this past week as one of the authors of the "torture memos" used to justify the "harsh interrogations" of people captured in the war on terror. While earlier memos were released during the Bush administration, President Obama declassified additional memos last week. In the memos, torture was very narrowly defined as organ failure or death. Anything less was not torture, no matter how cruel or inhumane.

When I arrived in the classroom, Professor Yoo was waiting, as were over 150 people. It was standing room only. Professor Yoo went first.

He was a very smooth speaker. To people in the audience who were not versed in the subject, he sounded eminently reasonable. I realized that his seductive tone was powerful and could trump anything I said if I were not careful in how I presented my case. Professor Yoo argued that enemy combatant was a legitimate term and that the executive had the plenary power as commander in chief to do whatever he needed to prosecute the war. And that included the power to mistreat combatants in any way necessary.

When it was my turn, I explained that enemy combatant was a generic term that had no established meaning, and that the definition was altered frequently to suit the administration's objectives. I described how the term had been used to circumvent the Geneva Conventions and allow the mistreatment, sensory deprivation and torture of detainees. After my talk, we took questions from the audience. Professor Yoo never lost his cool.

When the debate ended, the students invited me to join Professor Yoo and them for lunch. Yoo talked about his work as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. It was at the lunch that I saw another side of John Yoo. He was not quite the same appealing person. Off stage, he boasted about his terribly important role as clerk to the Justice. His hubris peeked through his smooth veneer. I have no doubt that it never crossed his mind that one day his writing of the torture memos might come back to haunt him.

My parents almost died at the hands of the Nazis. They told me stories of those times, and in my youth I often wondered what a war criminal looked like. Meeting John Yoo showed me. I now understand what Hannah Arendt -- one of the leading political theorists of the 20th Century who, as a Jew, fled Nazi Germany -- meant when she wrote on the banality of evil and how unthinking bureaucrats facilitate evil. When you meet him, Yoo appears as a normal and pleasant person, as someone who cares for his family and his dog. However, he will willingly sign a torture warrant when you leave.

Friends said I "won" the debate. But who really cares who won? What I took away from that day debating John Yoo was something much more important and something I will never forget: I had never expected that I would meet the kind of war criminal bureaucrat my parents had spoken about. That day, I did.

Peter Jan Honigsberg's book, Our Nation Unhinged: The Human Consequences of the War on Terror, published by the University of California Press, has just been released.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.156826 2009-01-10T14:23:35-05:00 2011-05-25T13:00:22-04:00

Peter Jan Honigsberg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-jan-honigsberg/
There has been much talk in the media lately promoting the possibility of establishing truth commissions for Guantanamo. Suggestions have predominately focused on Congressional investigations, similar to the recent Senate committee determining that the torture at Guantanamo was directed by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and other administration officials, or the 9/11 Commission created by members of the executive branch and Congress. All the initiatives currently discussed in the media speak in terms of gathering evidence from former, high-level, Bush administration officials.

However, I am proposing another kind of truth commission - one that focuses on and gathers the stories of the survivors: the men who were imprisoned, inhumanely treated, sensory-deprived and tortured in Guantanamo. This truth commission will collect the stories of their detention and abuse. This truth commission will also interview habeas lawyers who represented the detainees, translators who worked in Guantanamo, and anyone else who elects to testify, such as guards or soldiers. The observations of the detainees and the others will reveal the human narrative of the detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay. Our goal is to collect, document and archive witness testimony to show the truth of what happened at Guantanamo.

The goals for any one truth commission are varied, depending on the event and the location. Each commission has been unique to time and place and has had its own purpose. Goals have included fact-gathering, establishing accountability, creating a historical record of human rights violations, giving voice to the survivors, developing a collective memory, healing, reconciliation, shaming the former government, educating domestic and/or international communities, and reaffirming justice and the rule of law.

Since 1974, when the first commission was set up in Uganda, there have been approximately 33 commissions. People differ on the exact number, depending on their definition of truth commission.

There are three models for truth commissions. The most common model is one sponsored by a government. Usually, government commissions are created when a new regime takes office. Such commissions have occurred in Argentina, Chile and South Africa.

The second model is a truth commission sponsored by the United Nations. For example, the parties to the civil conflict in El Salvador, from 1980 to 1992, could not agree on a government-sponsored commission, each party not trusting the other. Consequently, along with the United Nations' brokered peace agreement, the parties invited the United Nations to create a truth commission to look into the human rights abuses of the past conflict. Truth Commissions established by the U.N. are much less frequent than those sponsored by governments. However, the U.N. has also been involved in truth commissions in Burundi, East Timor and Guatemala.
The third model, although not recognized by all scholars of truth commissions, is one sponsored by a non-governmental organization (NGO). Two such NGO-sponsored truth commissions operated in Brazil and Rwanda. Brazil was sponsored by the World Council of Churches, while Rwanda was formed by a coalition of five non-governmental human rights organizations. That coalition approached four international NGOs for financial and technical support. The Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission, created in North Carolina to address a racial incident in the late 1970s, similarly invited NGOs as sponsors.

The new Obama administration will likely initiate Congressional and Executive investigations into the abuses and human rights violations of Guantanamo. Those inquiries will focus on the powerful officials who established, implemented and propagated the policies that undermined the rule of law. The administration has access to the relevant files, including all classified documents, and has the power to release those documents. It can subpoena officials and require them to testify and offer immunity to those who can point fingers and provide searing testimony implicating the top officials.
Hopefully, the new administration will go forward in these directions. However, few people expect the administration to make this its first priority, and we cannot wait for the political will.

In addition, the new administration has the resources to prosecute the perpetrators. In other nations that committed human rights violations, the new governments sometimes provided amnesty to past officials, reasoning that past deeds are best left to the past. Other nations have been forced to forgo prosecutions because many of the most powerful in the former administration and military still held positions of authority in the new government. However, while other nations may suffer from political instability or lack resources, in a democracy like the United States we can set the example for human rights law. We must support and affirm the rule of law by bringing charges and prosecuting those who obstructed justice, denied due process and thwarted the rule of law.

On a positive note, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) recently introduced a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties, with subpoena power, and members of his staff are aware of our independent NGO-sponsored project.

We outside the administration cannot bring charges and prosecute. But there is much we can do. We can lobby the administration to support Chairman Conyers' bill and to establish other inquiry commissions to investigate former Bush officials and their reprehensible policies. The International Center for Transitional Justice is in the forefront in this regard, working to persuade the new administration to act. However, no one expects the new administration to make the effort to reach the nearly 800 people around the globe who were detained at Guantanamo and to collect their statements. Consequently, we need to move forward independently, and gather these first-person accounts before they become harder to access and people's memories wane. Memory building will prevent denials of Guantanamo in the future and prevent the repetition of policies that condone violence.

We will attempt to reach as many former detainees as possible who have been imprisoned in Guantanamo since that fateful day of January 11, 2002, when the first planeload of men wearing earmuffs or noise-blocking headphones, blackened goggles or hoods, and diapers underneath their orange jumpsuits, were dragged off the plane like baggage and housed in cages that resembled dog kennels. Some of these men have since died, others are currently imprisoned, still others have fled the countries to which they were returned and cannot be found. But over 600 of these men may be available for interviews, and we will try to interview as many of them as we can. The more people who testify and give statements, the more the world will see and comprehend the systematic abuse that occurred. We will be collecting survivor testimony.

Our work will build on previous studies, such as the recent study by the Human Rights Center at Berkeley, that have been undertaken on the Guantanamo survivors. We will reach out to NGOs that have contacts with the former detainees. The detainees are from 46 countries. Some nations like Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan have or had over 100 detainees in Guantanamo. Other countries, such as Canada and Australia, had only one or two detainees. It will take a monumental effort to find all these men, but we will reach out and hope to partner with international NGOs, as well as local NGOs in the detainees' home countries, to access as many former detainees as possible. Clive Stafford Smith, the director of Reprieve in London, has expressed his strong support for this project and we are looking forward to partnering with Reprieve as well as with other NGOs that have been involved in redressing human rights violations in Guantanamo.

NGOs are necessary to facilitate our entering many of the countries. NGOs will help us hire statement-takers who are familiar with the culture and can move into and out of the countries with minimal restrictions.

Of course, there are detainees who do not want to tell their stories -- they want to leave it all behind them and move on to their new lives. For them, repeating the stories may be more painful than therapeutic, and we will, of course, respect their wishes. Others will tell their stories in the hope of obtaining future reparations from the American government or possibly in assisting prosecutions. Some detainees will testify anonymously for fear of reprisals if their names are revealed, and we will respect their wishes.

We will begin with an advisory committee, composed of NGOs and others, which will assist us in selecting commission members, both domestic and international, since this is a global issue with international consequences. We will hold public commission hearings for those detainees who want to testify publicly, as well as for habeas lawyers, translators and others who wish to participate. We hope to videotape the hearings where permitted by the detainees and others, transcribe all hearings and interviews, also as permitted, and archive all voices so that they can never be silenced. We are looking to the Shoah Institute, which interviewed over 58,000 holocaust survivors, hoping that they may assist us, based on their experience in documenting historical memory and data collection.

We understand that these interviews are not only to establish an accurate historical record of America's human rights abuses in Guantanamo. Nor is it only about our Constitution and documenting the violations of its inherent principles, or to bring accountability and shame on the Bush administration. This truth commission is about recognizing the stories and experiences of the people who were affected. Throughout, we will be mindful of the needs and wants of the detainees.

Necessarily, we will create and publish a report of our findings, accompanied by recommendations. We will also archive the interviews and all data. Hopefully, the data will be used by the new administration in its own official commissions, perhaps assisting in prosecutions and in helping the administration consider granting reparations. The research and data will also be made available to future historians and the public, to lessen the likelihood of similar atrocities being committed in the future. As of now, over $115,000 has been committed to getting this project off the ground, and more funding is on the way. Our Guantanamo Truth Commission is moving forward.

Professor Peter Jan Honigsberg can be reached at honigsbergp@usfca.edu. The project is currently seeking support from foundations and individuals to realize the long-term goals of establishing and supporting the efforts of the Guantanamo Truth Commission.
His book, Our Nation Unhinged: The Human Consequences of the War on Terror (University of California Press) will be published in spring 2009.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2007:/theblog//3.56484 2007-07-16T18:54:34-04:00 2011-05-25T12:10:18-04:00

Peter Jan Honigsberg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-jan-honigsberg/
The flight from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to Guantanamo Naval Base is indeed over three hours. The island of Cuba is long and narrow, and Guantanamo is at the southern tip. Since the aircraft is not permitted to fly in Cuban airspace, it must take the circuitous route around the island.

Applying to visit Guantanamo was even more bumpy and circuitous than the flight itself.

Two classes of people are permitted to visit the Guantanamo Naval Base: members of the media and "habeas lawyers." "Habeas lawyers" -- the term is often used disparagingly by the administration -- represent the detainees.

I applied to visit Guantanamo as an author, writing a book for the University of California Press about detentions without due process and the treatment of enemy combatants.

I asked a law student and research assistant, Jody Taliaferro, to help me set up a visit to Guantanamo. At first, she had difficulty finding the contact person. But finally she reached a Pentagon spokesperson. She emailed me:

"I am happy to report that we are definitely on the right path. However, that said, it is a pretty intimidating path!"

Intimidating, it was. Jody recounted that, "when I explained who I was and what I was doing on your behalf, the spokesperson asked for your information (full name, university) which I could hear him typing in. He then wanted to know if you had already written anything on Guantanamo and if so, what. I said that you had written a law review article that was in the publication process. He asked me to obtain a copy and mail it to him."

Since my article takes an unpopular stance with the administration, I was not eager to send it to the Pentagon official without going through proper channels. The article argues that the term "enemy combatant" is an illegitimate term that the administration adopted after 9/11 to circumvent the Geneva Conventions and the United States constitution and thereby give itself license to mistreat, it not torture, detainees.

My friends and colleagues t the law school were convinced that if the Pentagon staff read the piece, they would never grant me permission to visit Guantanamo.

Jody called the spokesperson and again asked him to outline the Pentagon's policies and procedures for allowing journalists to travel to Guantanamo. According to Jody, "he said that he would have to find out what your 'history, sympathies and interest were in Guantanamo.'" When she inquired as how that was relevant, he replied, "You know exactly what I mean."

A few days later, he admitted that he had no official policy in place and no established procedures, but that he would "figure something out."

Apparently, he did. The next morning, another and more accommodating military officer sent Jody an email with the subject line, "Greetings from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." The email read, "I can help you with your interest in visiting our operation."

There were three steps required in obtaining permission for visiting Guantanamo. They included my review of the ground rules for the visit; my submission of "vital information" in order for the military could run a background check; and my selection of the dates of travel. The officer also said that it was his "pleasure" to assist in my obtaining access and that he was concerned in "changing the image" of Guantanamo.

The following day, another officer at Guantanamo sent an email requesting my personal information, including my social security and passport numbers, date and place of birth, eye and hair color, height and weight and my three most recent writings, including my article on enemy combatants. Seemingly out of the blue, this email closed with two quotes from the New Testament.

The first read, "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love Him," from 1 Cor. 2:9. The second read, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows," from Galatians 6:7.

Somehow, the quaint notion of separation of church and state had not filtered down to the base at Guantanamo.

Presumably to assist in filling out the form, the email included a "Vital Template Table" attachment. When I opened it, I was shocked to find someone's personal information, including his social security and passport numbers and date and place of birth. Jody phoned the number in the template to see whether he was a real person. We could not believe that someone at Guantanamo could have made such a mistake.

The person whose name was on the template answered the phone.

"How did you get my number?" he asked. Jody told him. He was a photographer who had applied to visit the base.

Although the photographer was annoyed that the military had attached his personal data to the email, he was gracious, helpful and quite a character. As the end of the conversation, he generously offered Jody his email address, so that she could contact him again.

"I already have it!" Jody replied.

Since then, he has visited Guantanamo and has offered to provide a photograph for my book.

In the meantime, I asked Jody to inform the Pentagon that we had received the attachment with the photographer's information.

The next day, a different officer at Guantanamo resent the same request for information without the religious quotes or the attachment. This new person was very helpful in moving the process along. However, when I filled out the application form, I could not help but be concerned that someone might forward my personal information to future applicants.

A few weeks later, we received the news: "The professor's visit to Guantanamo Bay has been approved."

Next comes the three-hour, no bathroom break, bumpy and circuitous ride to that surreal place they call Guantanamo. ]]>