Guantanamo Bay: Is History Repeating Itself?
U.S. Army Military Police escort a detainee to his cell in Guantanamo Bay // Photo Courtesy: Shane T. McCoy, Wikimedia Commons
Guantanamo Bay (GITMO) has historically been, and still is, notorious for its human rights violations. Although located in Cuba, GITMO remains under US jurisdiction. Its extraterritorial status hinders the enforcement of legal and human rights frameworks, obstructing due process and earning it the infamous label of a ‘legal blackhole.’ This is now being capitalised by Trump as part of his tough-on-illegal-immigration policy. Within a week of his executive order to expand Guantanamo Bay’s capacity to host ‘the worst of the worst,’ the first batch of migrants has been sent to this extraterritorial detention centre.
Historically, Guantanamo Bay has been used to house ‘suspected terrorists’ from the Middle East as part of Bush’s War on Terror campaign. They were held indefinitely, without charge nor means to legal representation, and tortured for interrogation. Despite objections to evident human rights violations that occur here, GITMO continues to exist due to the ambiguity of its legal status. Whilst Guantanamo Bay is officially under Cuba’s territorial sovereignty, the US has jurisdiction over it. This extraterritorial position in turn compromises the rights of detainees and denies them of legal means to challenge it. While current Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that ‘due process will be followed,’ it is entirely possible that Guantanamo Bay will continue to operate as a legal vacuum. Much of this can be attributed to legal ambiguity, Trump’s administrative credibility, historic disrespect towards legal institutions and hostility towards illegal immigrants.
Trump’s idea of holding illegal migrants in GITMO is far from original. Long before the Bush Administration, Haitian and Cuban refugees intercepted at sea were (and still are) held on a separate part of the island. However, the decision to transfer inland immigrants to GITMO is unprecedented. Although the administration has claimed that this is a ‘temporary measure’ to process immigrants facing deportation, Trump justified the proposal by expressing distrust in the ability of the migrants' home countries to detain them effectively. He antagonised both the migrants and their place of origin, stating ‘some of them are so bad we don’t even trust the countries to hold them.’ This contradiction raises questions over whether detentions will purely be ‘temporary’ or indefinite.
Whilst this measure certainly exploits a legal blackhole, it has the potential to create an even greater upheaval in public opinion due to its symbolic significance. Trump’s repeated characterisation of the affected migrants as ‘the worst of the worst’ simultaneously frames them as national security threats. This is reminiscent of the Bush’s administration's depiction of suspected terrorists, despite 92% of them being found innocent. It is clear that Trump is replicating this well-used blueprint to mobilise public fear and overcome potential legal and ethical objections. This is consistent with his declaration of a national emergency at the Southern border; he has created a narrative that ‘desperate times require desperate measures,’ even if this entails disregarding basic human rights.
Whilst Trump has previously avoided the subject of GITMO’s notorious reputation, he can now be seen deliberately hanging on to it. Administrations over the years have attempted to either whitewash or abolish GITMO: from Obama’s efforts to close the detention centre in 2009 (blocked mostly by Republicans in Congress), to quiet releases of innocent detainees following Rasul v. Bush (although without reparation). Any democratic government would try to avoid being associated with ethical and legal scandals like this. Yet Trump’s blatant disregard of this trend not only attracts public attention but also normalises a narrative that threatens social existing concepts of human rights and the rule of law.
History is repeating itself, except that the danger is now greater than ever. Exploiting legal ambiguity, highlighting an ‘us versus them’ narrative, and manipulating fear for political advancement have long been in politicians’ playbooks. However, unlike former presidents, Trump is barely restrained by institutional checks and balances, and is bolstered by a loyal supporter network who are willing to justify his agenda every step of the way.