Guantanamo forever?

Far from a shutting down of the disgraceful detention center that is so detrimental to US image, it looks like Guantanamo will remain forever a testament to the Bush administration's controversial counterterrorism policies. If six suspected terrorists against whom the US government decided to seek the death penalty at military tribunals are sentenced, they may be executed and buried at Guantanamo thanks to recent regulations. And don't expect the detainees to be freed if they are found not guilty. Because they are deemed dangerous, the US authorities intend to keep them there forever anyway.

One of the major problems with last week's prosecution move by the Bush administration is the fact that evidence based on torture would also be used. Unfortunately, the White House's torture of people and laws is not restricted to Guantanamo. In Iraq, Afghanistan and undisclosed CIA detention facilities around the world, that kind of torture has been abundant. Alex Gibney's latest film, "Taxi to the Dark Side," strikingly documents torture as US policy. Not to mention the tons of reports from independent human rights observers in the US and abroad.

When people are presumed guilty and viewed by their captors as something lower than animals, torture is inevitable. One should look at the Guantanamo phenomenon from this perspective. Although claims against the captives have not been objectively verified, US authorities are sure they are guilty. Bush, the torturous commander-in-chief, keeps saying: "The only thing I know is these are bad people. They are here for a reason." He might indeed be right about most of those people. But should the head of a government act as a judge?

The Bush administration is more comfortable working with military courts, but they certainly don't trust civilian judges when it comes to dealing with terrorism. They are in pursuit of an ongoing fight with the civilian judicial system in an attempt to keep it away from the process and restrict captives' rights as much as possible. There is a case currently being deliberated by the Supreme Court over whether detainees have the right of habeas corpus. A federal appeals court recently ruled against the Bush administration, declining their request to overrule a judge order that mandated the government to turn over all its information on many detainees. There are 180 appeal cases by detainees' lawyers contesting military panel decisions that the men are being properly held as unlawful enemy combatants.

The Bush administration's obstructionist legal tactics are evident in the recent move as well. As a New York Times editorial put it, the trials will proceed under "deeply flawed procedures": Prosecutors will be able to use evidence obtained by improper means, including by torture. The rules will be stacked in the government's favor, so hearsay evidence that would not be allowed in civilian courts may be allowed. Prosecutors may rely on classified evidence that the defendants will not be able to challenge. Defendants may not be allowed to call important witnesses.

Although there is almost universal agreement that waterboarding constitutes torture, the Bush administration still insists it's not. CIA director Michael Hayden finally acknowledged that they used waterboarding in some cases. He argued that waterboarding was legal when it was conducted in 2002 and 2003, but only now may be illegal thanks to a new law. The day after Hayden's remarks, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said President Bush would authorize waterboarding for future terrorism suspects if certain criteria were met. See, no regrets at all.

What happens if a detainee such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a publicly declared "waterboarded" detainee, is sentenced to death? Most of the world would protest, because no civilized justice system allows governments to kill people based on evidence obtained through torture. But the Bush administration has shut its eyes and ears to warnings that such a development would further undermine the US moral standing and eventually its national security. Furthermore, because long procedures are required, the trials may not even start before the end of Bush's term. It's one more gift -- as if the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't enough -- to the new American president from the current administration.