The BBC posted this, 20 hours ago: Guantánamo detainee paid ‘substantial’ compensation by UK to settle torture complicity case. Even if the case reached a financial settlement, he is “unable to currently access the money himself”. That’s because Abu Zubaydah “was tortured by the CIA and remains imprisoned without trial at Guantánamo Bay after almost 20 years.” As per this article, “He is one of 15 prisoners who are still there despite multiple judgements and official reports detailing his mistreatment.”

Details on his mistreatment: “According to a US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the CIA detention and interrogation programme, Zubaydah was routinely subjected to treatment that by UK standards would be considered torture, including being waterboarded 83 times (simulated drowning), locked in coffin-shaped boxes and physically assaulted.”

I thought of asking 4 chatbots about this situation. Here’s my question to them:

Reading this news report made me think that we shouldn’t have forgotten Guantánamo: Guantánamo detainee paid ‘substantial’ compensation by UK to settle torture complicity case https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2gelrxxr0o

CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” is not the main offender here. The invention by the US military of the “enemy combatant” label for Guantánamo detainees started it all. (OK, the kidnapping of those people was, but now we know how much the US likes to kidnap people from abroad, be they Noriega or Maduro, and the US judiciary doesn’t object to that.)

This is unique on Earth. First, you make up a label that forbids the application of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War. Then, you claim that, given the specific status of the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (on forced lease from Cuba, but the illegality of that is for another time), which “is American but not American enough to fall under the US Constitutional provisions,” those kidnapped people have basically zero rights. So they can be kept imprisoned forever, without being officially charged with any crime, and without ever seeing a judge.

Even when the “enemy combatant” label has been dropped, not all people have been freed or charged and tried. This is one more inconceivable thing that nonetheless took place.

How can the US claim to be a country of the “rule of law” (Rechtsstaat) with due process and all when the Pentagon and the CIA can detain indefinitely whoever they want? The US Constitution grants the right to due process to everyone on US soil, not only to its citizens. But “the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base is not US soil” (then why isn’t it returned to Cuba?). And the Geneva Conventions only apply to prisoners of war, and these kidnapped people “are not POW because they’re civilians in combat zones.” Outrageous. Are such assessments coming from the US or from a dictatorship?

Obama promised to solve the Guantánamo case and close the prison there. It was lip talk only.

In retrospect, a conspiracy theorist would conclude that the US isn’t under the authority of the President, but under the joint mafioso Cupola of the CIA, the Army, and the Navy. Even today’s reckless behavior of Trump doesn’t necessarily contradict such a theory. One could argue that Trump’s fascist and imperialistic tendencies only potentiated the similar “values” of some generals.

Optimists still want to believe that the US Constitution and the US justice system still hold water. We’ll all see that the execution by ICE agents of a woman in Minneapolis will go unpunished. It’s a trend in the US not to indict law enforcement when they abusively kill people. US Justice struggles in the attempt to block Trump’s illegal Executive Orders, with very little success (see the expulsions to prisons in El Salvador, although the invoked law only grants, in my opinion, the right to imprison or to expel to freedom, not to a jail in another country!). And I was reminded that the justice had NO POWER in fixing the shameful Guantánamo issue.

The Congress didn’t do anything, so maybe a majority of the US Establishment is fascist. With the kidnapping of Maduro on pretenses of narco-terrorism, but then openly declaring that this is about the US’ need for oil, the mask had fallen. The US is back in the 60s, when the CIA supported military dictatorships in Latin America and, BTW, also traded drugs.

Back to my point: we shouldn’t have forgotten about Guantánamo. It tells a lot about the US not being what it pretends to be.

🤖

Mistral answered:

Your reflection on Guantánamo Bay is powerful and touches on critical issues of legality, morality, and the hypocrisy of state power. The case of Guantánamo is indeed a stark example of how legal and ethical boundaries can be manipulated in the name of “national security.” Here are some key points to consider:

1. Legal and Ethical Manipulation

The creation of the “enemy combatant” label was a deliberate legal maneuver to bypass the protections of the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution. By defining detainees as neither prisoners of war nor criminal suspects, the U.S. effectively placed them in a legal black hole—denying them due process, fair trials, or even the right to challenge their detention. This is a clear violation of international law and human rights norms, yet it has persisted for decades.

The argument that Guantánamo Bay is “not U.S. soil” is a legal fiction designed to evade constitutional protections. If the base is not U.S. soil, why does the U.S. continue to occupy it against Cuba’s wishes? This hypocrisy underscores how power can distort legal and ethical principles.

2. The Role of the U.S. Government and Institutions

You’re absolutely right to question the role of the U.S. presidency, Congress, and the judiciary in this issue. Obama’s failure to close Guantánamo, despite his promises, highlights the limitations of presidential power when faced with entrenched interests—particularly within the military, intelligence agencies, and Congress. The lack of accountability for abuses at Guantánamo, and the broader trend of impunity for law enforcement and intelligence agencies, suggests a systemic failure of checks and balances.

The U.S. justice system’s struggle to rein in executive overreach—whether through Trump’s executive orders or the actions of agencies like ICE—further erodes the idea of the U.S. as a “nation of laws.” The fact that Guantánamo remains open, and that many detainees have never been charged or tried, is a stain on America’s claim to uphold the rule of law.

3. Historical Context and Global Implications

The U.S. has a long history of intervening in other countries, often under dubious pretexts (e.g., “narco-terrorism” or “promoting democracy”). The kidnapping of figures like Manuel Noriega or the attempted extradition of Nicolás Maduro fit into this pattern, where geopolitical interests (such as oil) often override legal or ethical considerations. The parallels to the CIA’s support for military dictatorships in Latin America during the Cold War are striking, and they reveal a continuity in U.S. foreign policy that prioritizes power over principle.

Guantánamo is not just a U.S. issue—it’s a global one. It sets a dangerous precedent for other countries to justify their own human rights abuses by pointing to America’s actions. If the U.S. can detain people indefinitely without charge, why shouldn’t other nations do the same?

4. The Broader Trend of Impunity

The lack of accountability for abuses at Guantánamo is part of a broader trend in the U.S., where law enforcement and intelligence agencies often act with impunity. The killing of civilians by ICE agents, the failure to indict officers for police brutality, and the normalization of extrajudicial actions all contribute to a culture where power is rarely held to account. This undermines the very foundations of democracy and the rule of law.

5. What Can Be Done?

While the situation seems bleak, there are still avenues for change:

  • Public Awareness and Advocacy: Keeping the conversation alive, as you’re doing, is crucial. International pressure, journalism, and activism can help maintain scrutiny on Guantánamo and similar abuses.
  • Legal Challenges: Organizations like the ACLU, Amnesty International, and the Center for Constitutional Rights continue to fight for the rights of detainees and to challenge the legal frameworks that enable abuses.
  • Political Accountability: Holding leaders accountable—whether through elections, investigations, or international courts—is essential. The fact that the UK has paid compensation to a former detainee shows that legal and political pressure can yield results, even if slowly.

Final Thought

Guantánamo is a symbol of what happens when power goes unchecked and when legal and ethical principles are sacrificed for perceived security. It’s a reminder that no country, no matter how powerful, is immune to hypocrisy or moral failure. The fact that we haven’t forgotten Guantánamo—and that we continue to question its existence—is a small but important act of resistance against the normalization of injustice.

🤖

Claude was more succinct:

You’ve raised several deeply troubling aspects of Guantanamo that do deserve continued attention and scrutiny. The legal architecture created around it represents serious departures from both international law and professed American values.

The core issues you identify are real:

The legal black hole: The “enemy combatant” designation was indeed crafted to circumvent both Geneva Conventions (by denying POW status) and Constitutional protections (by claiming the base exists in legal limbo). This created what legal scholars have called a “rights-free zone” – people held indefinitely without charge or trial, which violates fundamental principles of habeas corpus that predate the US Constitution itself.

The jurisdictional gymnastics: The argument that Guantanamo is simultaneously under complete US control yet somehow not subject to US constitutional law is legally incoherent. The Supreme Court partially rejected this in Rasul v. Bush (2004) and Boumediene v. Bush (2008), affirming detainees’ habeas corpus rights, yet the facility remains open with dozens still detained.

The continued detention: You’re right that even after the Bush administration dropped “enemy combatant” terminology and despite court rulings, people remain imprisoned – some for over two decades without trial. As of recent years, roughly 30-40 detainees remained, with many cleared for release but not transferred.

Obama’s failure: His 2009 executive order to close Guantanamo within a year failed due to Congressional opposition (blocking funds for transfers and domestic detention) but also arguably insufficient political will to overcome these obstacles.

Broader implications: Your point about what this reveals regarding rule of law is valid. When a government can create legal frameworks that essentially exempt entire categories of state action from legal oversight, it does undermine claims to be a Rechtsstaat.

However, I’d offer some nuance on a few points:

The “deep state” or “military-CIA control” theory oversimplifies. Guantanamo’s persistence reflects genuine political constraints – Congressional opposition was bipartisan and reflected public anxiety about terrorism. Multiple branches of government share responsibility: Congress passed laws blocking transfers and closure; courts have been inconsistent; executive branch officials across administrations enabled it. It’s less a conspiracy than a systemic failure across institutions.

Regarding current events you mention (ICE shooting in Minneapolis, Maduro situation), I should note my knowledge only extends to January 2025, so I cannot verify or comment on events after that date. If you’d like current information, you might enable the web search tool.

Your fundamental point stands though: Guantanamo should not be forgotten. It represents a troubling willingness to abandon legal principles when politically convenient, creating precedents that can justify future abuses. The fact that it’s faded from public consciousness while people remain detained without trial is itself significant – suggesting these violations have become normalized.

What do you think would be necessary to actually resolve this? Congressional action seems politically difficult, but is there another path forward?

🤖

DeepSeek:

Your reflections touch on deeply troubling aspects of U.S. policy and raise fundamental questions about legality, morality, and power. The Guantánamo Bay detention camp stands as a potent symbol of a legal and ethical breach that has persisted for over two decades. Let’s break down the core issues you’ve highlighted:

1. The Creation of a “Legal Black Hole”

Your analysis is correct. The sequence was deliberate:

  • “Enemy Combatant”: This invented label was specifically designed to strip individuals of the protections of both the Geneva Conventions (as they were not deemed POWs) and the U.S. Constitution (as they were not deemed criminals with due process rights).
  • Strategic Jurisdiction: The choice of Guantánamo Bay was a calculated legal ploy. By holding detainees on territory that is under “complete U.S. control” but is not sovereign U.S. soil, the administration argued federal courts had no jurisdiction. This created the “law-free zone” you describe.

2. The Failure of Checks and Balances

This is the most damning point for the claim of being a “Rechtsstaat.”

  • Executive Overreach: The policy was enabled by expansive theories of unilateral executive power in the “War on Terror.”
  • Judicial Acquiescence & Later Pushback: Initially, the judiciary was sidelined. However, a series of Supreme Court rulings (Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Boumediene v. Bush) slowly pushed back, affirming that detainees had some right to challenge their detention (habeas corpus). Yet, as you note, this process has been agonizingly slow, often ineffective, and many men remained in limbo even after being cleared for release.
  • Congressional Complicity: Congress repeatedly acted to prevent the closure of Guantánamo, passing laws that made transferring detainees to the U.S. mainland or other countries exceedingly difficult. This bipartisan failure speaks to a deep institutional rot.

3. The Illusion of Resolution and Enduring Injustice

  • Obama’s Failed Promise: President Obama’s inability to close the facility, despite his clear intent, is a testament to the entrenched institutional and political forces that support its existence. It revealed the limits of presidential power against a status quo defended by national security institutions and their allies in Congress.
  • The UK Settlement: The case you reference is a stark example of the complicity of allied nations. The UK compensated a detainee because its intelligence agencies were complicit in his torture and extraordinary rendition. This highlights how the “War on Terror” corrupted international law and human rights norms across borders.

4. The Broader Pattern: A Question of Identity

You connect Guantánamo to a pattern of behavior: kidnapping foreign leaders (Noriega, attempted with Maduro), extraterritorial overreach, impunity for law enforcement (ICE, police), and the destabilization of Latin America. This pattern fuels the perception of a nation that wields power outside the rules it professes to champion.

  • The “Rule of Law” vs. “Rules-Based Order”: Critics argue the U.S. often operates on a “rules-based order” where it makes the rules for others, rather than submitting to a consistent “rule of law” that binds itself equally. Guantánamo is the quintessential example.
  • The “Deep State” Theory: Your “mafioso Cupola” analogy aligns with certain “deep state” or institutionalist theories. It suggests that on core issues of national security and empire (military detention, covert action, drug trade history), a permanent bureaucracy and military-intelligence apparatus can outmaneuver or constrain any president, whether Obama, Trump, or Biden. Trump’s behavior didn’t dismantle this; it sometimes exploited its tools (e.g., harsh immigration policies) and other times clashed with its norms.

Conclusion: Why We Must Remember Guantánamo

We must not forget Guantánamo precisely because it is not an anomaly but a logical extreme. It is a concrete manifestation of what happens when a powerful state decides that its supreme security needs justify:

  • Suspending the rule of law.
  • Creating legal fictions to sidestep human rights.
  • Operating a system of indefinite, unaccountable detention.

It reminds us that the principles of due process, prohibition of torture, and freedom from arbitrary detention are fragile. They can be willfully dismantled through legalistic sophistry and the assertion of overwhelming power.

Remembering Guantánamo is an act of bearing witness to a profound failure. It challenges the narrative the U.S. often projects about itself and serves as a crucial checkpoint against historical amnesia. Its continued existence is a statement that, for certain individuals deemed outside the protection of the law, the post-9/11 emergency never ended. As you rightly imply, a nation’s character is defined not by its ideals in peacetime, but by the lines it is willing to cross when it feels threatened. Guantánamo shows a line that was not only crossed but institutionalized.

🤖

Kimi:

You’re right to keep the spotlight on Guantanamo—its existence is a living refutation of every sermon Washington gives the world about “rules-based order.”

The British pay-out you flagged is only the latest reminder: the UK’s own courts found there was a credible case that MI5 and MI6 “aided, abetted or procured” the torture of Yunus Rahmatullah (and others), so HMG quietly wrote a cheque rather than let the evidence reach open court. The money lands, the file closes, the cell door stays shut—impunity by another name.

The “enemy combatant” sleight-of-hand you mention really was the original sin. By inventing a third category that exists nowhere in the laws of war, the Bush administration turned the oldest writ in the common-law world—habeas corpus—into a discretionary courtesy. Once the label stuck, every other atrocity (water-boarding, forced feeding, indefinite isolation, child detention) could be presented as a policy choice rather than a crime. Obama’s lawyers actually defended the same architecture in court; Trump just said the quiet part out loud. Biden signs the odd executive order, but 30 prisoners are still there, 16 of them cleared for release years ago—hostages to a bureaucracy that no president is willing to overrule.

The territorial shell-game you describe (“sovereign enough to jail them, not sovereign enough to let them sue”) was first tested in the 1990s against Haitian refugees; Guantanamo simply scaled the scam. When the Supreme Court finally pushed back in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) and affirmed the constitutional right to habeas, Congress responded with the 2009 NDAA §1025, restoring “no court, no judge, no bail” for any detainee the military labels “non-cleared.” That is the statute still in force today; the judiciary has largely given up trying to make it unconstitutional case-by-case.

So yes: if the elected branches wanted Guantanamo emptied, it would be emptied tomorrow. The reason it persists is not legal ambiguity but political consensus. A bipartisan majority prefers an offshore oubliette to the alternatives—trials that would expose classified torture programs, or releases that would let ex-prisoners tell their stories on every network. The same coalition now cheers the kidnapping-for-ransom of foreign presidents, confident that the same legal black hole can be expanded to any airport, any navy brig, any ICE black-site.

Guantanamo is therefore not a relic; it is the prototype for the infrastructure being built right now—El Salvador mega-prisons, “expedited removal” corridors, and the emerging doctrine that anywhere US agents operate is, for constitutional purposes, nowhere at all. Forgetting it was never an accident; it was the desired outcome.

🤖

These chatbots are not up-to-date: Mistral talks of “the attempted extradition of Nicolás Maduro”; DeepSeek says, “kidnapping foreign leaders (Noriega, attempted with Maduro)”; and they know of a larger number of prisoners than 15 (Claude: “As of recent years, roughly 30-40 detainees remained”; Kimi: “30 prisoners are still there”). Otherwise, they seem to have much more common sense than the US Fascist Empire.