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
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
RSS Feed
