In the past few days while doing research on Cuban immigrants to South Florida for a paper I am presenting in a graduate history class. I discovered a link between the Bill Clinton and George Bush administrations regarding the policy of detaining people at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba without regard to Constitutional liberties and basic human rights.
In the early 1990's Cuban refugees or Balseros who sought refuge from Cuba were intercepted at sea by the U.S. Coast Guard on the orders of then President Clinton, and detained at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely, without trial. Haitian refugees suffered the same fate. Under the direction of Attorney General, Janet Reno, the U.S. Justice department argued successfully before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, that the Balseros and Haitians did not have any rights under the Constitution because they were not American Citizens and they were not being held on American soil because the Guantanamo Naval Base was in Cuba. Sound familiar?
These are the same arguments that the Bush administration has used to support its denial of basic human rights and indefinite detention without trial for its Guantanamo detainees. The arguments are so similar that Bush administration attorneys needed to do very little research. Now, I am no Bush apologist. I think he is the worst President in the history of the United States. But I also think that Hillary Clinton is Bush lite. She pretends to adopt progressive positions but her actions and her allegiances to her husband's administration policies contradict her campaign rhetoric.
The case is Cuban American Bar Association v. Christopher, 43 F3rd 1412 (5th Cir. 1995). It was brought as a class action by the Cuban American Bar Association and a number of Human Rights Groups on behalf of some 32,000 Balseros and the approximately 8,000 Haitian Immigrants who sought refuge in the United States but were intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard and interned at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. The only choices available to the Balseros who did not have relatives in the U.S. were repatriation to Cuba where they were sure to be punished their attempted escape, or to remain indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay. Haitians were required to prove that they were political and not economic refugees or they were forcibly repatriated to Haiti where they too, were retaliated against, if not killed, for their attempt to escape.
To be fair, the treatment received by these refugees at Guantanamo was undoubtedly much better than what the current detainees are receiving. They were not subjected to harsh interrogation or torture. In true Clinton-speak, Guantanamo was called a "safe haven". However, conditions were such that many became utterly hopeless about their future. Cubans and Haitians attempted to escape to avoid forced repatriation and a series of riots erupted. Their experiences were documented in the 2003 movie, "Balseros". It should also be noted that most of the Cubans were ultimately allowed to emigrate to the United States while most of the Haitians were forcibly repatriated to Haiti--a clear policy distinction based upon ethnicity.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the Clinton Administration that these refugees did not have any right to Due Process, Equal Protection and could be forcibly repatriated without a hearing on whether they would be subjected to retaliation and that the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was NOT American soil.
The point is: this case and its arguments against affording refugees basic Constitutional rights is a precedent that has been relied upon heavily by Bush administration attorneys to support their arguments that non-citizens in the custody of U.S. officials can be denied basic human rights. It underpins Bush administration arguments about rendition, indefinite detention, rights of the accused to face their accusers, etc., etc., etc.
In my opinion, Senator Clinton ought to be questioned about her position on granting basic human rights to detainees, forced repatriation and indefinite detention. She should be asked about her position on refugee policy during her husband's administration. Was she involved in setting this policy? Was she against it? Would she "reject" and "denounce" the arguments to deny human rights to refugees that her husband's administration argued so effectively?
Senator Clinton is campaigning on the claim that her "experience" in the White House during her husband's administration will make her a better President on "Day 1". I say let's examine the "experience" behind the rhetoric and find out about her positions on various questionable decisions by her husband's administration. I hope that Senator Obama will challenge her on this and other decisions on which her alleged "experience" is based and about which her judgment ought to be questioned. Yes, Senator Clinton, let's examine your "experience" in the White House! Let's see how many of your husband's policies you helped to shape? You are an attorney. What IS your position on Constitutional liberty? How WILL you handle refugees? What WILL you do about the current detainees? WHY should we trust you?