Shaker Aamer is a name that few people have heard of or even care about in the 'free world', strange, even ironic since within his own small encased community he has probably been the most well-known resident, fighting and advocating for the rights for his fellow man. However, for this gentleman his external anonymity is about to disappear as he waits to catch a boat home having spent some thirteen years incarcerated often in solitary confinement, at Guantanamo (GITMO). During all this time he has been charged with no crime. Moreover, according to 'independent' observations Shaker like many of his fellow (citizens) internees has borne interrogation techniques that would have been deemed torture if their home had been based in the US or anywhere else in our 'developed world'. At present he is just sitting in 'dock' waiting for his ticket to be endorsed by Congress before being able to return to his family in the UK. But Shaker has been waiting for some while now since George Bush junior whilst President agreed his release as has Obama but the Pentagon, the US Security Services and Congress will not be hurried since their own timetable takes little regard for the 'powers' of the executive or it it seems the rights of the individual when the 'security of the state' is involved. 

Arguably, the single most important ingredient in the make up of American society is the centrality and pivotal importance of the law - it is the key element to a true liberal community and understandably the US is very proud of the Constitution and its attached Bill of Rights. After all, it has provided this political construct with a strong legal spine that has helped shape, define and redefine American society since 1787. The primary strength of this document is to be found in its focus and clarity when considering individual rights, consequently, offering all within the US, protections from the arbitrary actions of the federal and state governance. Hence, this condition is elemental and fundamental to this powerful nation's belief in the legitimacy and longevity of its 'free society'. Yet, what Shaker's story reveals is the very real contemporary dangers inherent in a nation that again arguably, ever since Wilson's presidency, has been engaged - consciously or not - in the increasing securitization of government policy. What does this mean? The process whereby the very freedoms and rights of the individual are suspended and or even emasculated by the primacy of state security. In other words, any idea, person or organisation perceived to be a 'clear and present danger' to the state can be expected to be dealt with 'outside of the law' if it is deemed necessary. This raises that key existential question as to 'who guards the guards'! As the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in GITMO, and clearly the White House has little either since Obama signed an order on his third day in office to close this US military prison -  Guantanamo remains open.  

The unlawful special rendition of Shaker Aamer (a British citizen), taking him from Afghanistan in 2001 having identified him as a 'unlawful combatant', and placing him in US military confinement, but outside the reach of the US 's very own laws let alone his own nations was done in the name of state security. He was after all considered to be a real danger to the US having led a unit of Taliban fighters after meeting the former al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. None of these accusations has been substantiated let alone proved in a civil or military court. His subsequent imprisonment and interrogation has revealed little to support these 'charges'. The effect that this arbitrary action by US authorities has had on Shaker and his family should be blindingly obvious to all but what should also be  clear to everyone is that if the US and its allies are engaged as they are, in a continual and continuing conflict with forces opposed to a 'free society' then we must not act or react in a manner that is representative of the very enemy we are engaging. Otherwise, what are we fighting for? Why are the lives of millions of people being displaced, devalued if not destroyed  in the Middle East and Africa? What is the point of fighting for freedoms by withdrawing from or ignoring them?
 
Shaker Aamer has been sitting for a very long time, 'Watching the ships roll in and then I watch 'em roll away again,'
but fortunately for him his wait is nearly over, least we forget that if the principles of liberty and the fundamental importance of the law are indeed worth fighting and waiting for then we should at the very least 'practice what we preach' in spite of the often overblown insecurity that this may offer us. Otherwise, life just becomes a futile often onesided struggle between the powerful and powerless. For as Shaker Aamar case surely illustrates, his liberty and ours are cruelly diluted and defeated by ourselves not by our enemy.    
 
 KK
 
     

 



 
              
  

The recent arrival and the subsequent Congressional address by Pope Francis has once again exposed one of the  the most exceptional characteristics of American society - Faith. By this I mean, an acceptance of an American way of being by the majority of American society that often flies in the face of the very same rights and responsibilities  that this nation has promulgated as their very own societal strap line since their independence.  This disconnect between a nation's long held ideals and their actions is not unique to the US but what is, is its ability to recognise this fracture yet see little reason or need to do much about it.  In other words, the US largely does not see the value of reconciling the space between their closely held notions and their differing actions since their fundamental faith lies in the process and progress of a successful nation that has little acknowledged history but has endless investment in the future. Since this nation was born, survived, prospered and became pre-eminent primarily because it better articulated than others an understanding of power whilst simultaneously standing under the dreamlike banners of freedom, equality, democracy and the primacy of law. So why change a winning position!             
The Pope having been consciously and somewhat conspicuously met by the US President at the steps of his plane went on to mention four Americans during his subsequent Congressional address, two iconic US figures - Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln - men that in their own unique way looked to unify a nation divided by racial and sectional hatred, both held a deep faith in the American way. The other two mentioned are no less significant since one was Doris Day, a radical, pacifist who founded the Catholic Worker Movement, because her passionate faith lay in social justice and therefore, her driving desire was to fight for the rights of the oppressed. The other was Thomas Merton, a monk who spent much of his energies extolling the virtues and his belief in a continual dialogue between differing faiths. In mentioning these citizens the Pope had identified, sketched out and explained the historic challenges that sit within American contemporary society - continuing raw racial division, growing social, educational and economic inequality and a deep lack of respect that many American Christians have for other faiths and beliefs.

Moreover, as the Pope finished his speech to the Congressional elite and the common citizen with a request to stop capital punishment whilst treating immigrants with respect I wondered what effect this meeting between God's representative and Mammon's agent had proffered. Since as the audience rose as one and applauded endlessly to the Pontiff's declaration that 'God Bless America', were they actually recognising the 'truths' within the speech or just reaffirming their faith in the American way ? As John Boehner, a Catholic  Speaker of the House, sitting behind the Pope started to weep I was also left wondering whether the source of his emotion was to be found in the humanity of the narrative or in this particular politicians own often stated conviction held by many Americans that the nation's continuing material success is because of their close relationship with God. However, I now assume that it was more related to this gentleman's decision to leave Congress since he has been charged by his critics as not being 'faithful' enough to their American way. After all the greatest sin in this particular congregation is to be un-American, just ask God.
 
KK             

In just over a year's time the citizen's of the United States will be asked to cast their vote or to be strictly correct cast their numerous votes (if their various state voting system allows them) on the various federal and state positions of public office that help oversee American society. Understandably, the main focus will be on who will take over the central role in the latest version of the Oval Office, however, before we can even begin to watch this particular blockbuster, the episodic contest over who will represent the two great political parties in the main feature plays to different audiences in numerous 'theatres' around this vast nation. The cast of players on view remains a little one sided at present since the Democrats seem to have only five possibly six people willing to take a part whereas the Republicans have ended up with seventeen appearing at the initial auditions, two having subsequently decided to spend more time with their family as the part offered no longer seemed that (lucrative) attractive. However, this has not stopped the American public demanding to see and hear more from the latest series of this political Punch and Judy show as chants of 'oh no you can't oh yes I can', ring round the various auditoriums.

As Hilary continues her quest to play the main role in a serious if not lofty manner the main opportunity for 'laughs' are left to the new town clown of Republican politics Donald 'Duck' Trump who has decided either consciously or not - take your pick - to take his part very studiously by besmirching, belittling and ridiculing Women, Immigrants, Muslims, and his own fellow Republican political actors in no particular order. The outcome of these often racial and misogynistic reviews so far has been that the voices of 'professional' actors Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz et al  have largely been drowned out by the continuing laughter from the back rows as Donald continues to suggest that his political understanding is as real as his hair. Moreover, since he is a white self made 'successful' business man he is the true representation of America and not a made up bit player of dubious origins and beginnings.

Some critics suggest that this political pantomime will soon give way to a more serious focus as the clock ticks towards first night and as the financial backers demand a cast that 'guarantees'  them a long run and a healthy return on their investment. However, what does this ever lengthening and often grubby election process tell us about US politics?  Firstly, that this reminds us that this political process is often unseemly but usually this part of the play gets shielded from the audience. Secondly, that neither party is in 'great shape'. It has been assumed for far too long that Hilary will get the Democrat ticket and that in part this has damaged her cause since this condition suggests a 'stitched up deal' that lacks a sense of transparency, democracy and legitimacy that most voters wish for but few actually receive. Since, do we really think that Bernie Sanders an independent and a 'socialist' stands a chance? Finally, that this comedic side of the political process only masks a growing weakness within the US political structure - a lack of genuine ability or facility to deal with the real systemic challenges of inequality, climate change and continual and continuing conflict. None of those issues we should find funny.

KK