Justice, Fairness, and Guantanamo

Great Debates
1

Compare and Contrast:

David Hicks, an Australian is currently in Guantanamo Bay awaiting a Kangaroo court hearing His Government won’t speak for him and allows him to be illegally detained by a foreign power. However, he may soon be deemed British, and therefore eligible for a Blairite release (Blair promised that no Brits would be tried in Guantanamo).

He is charged as follows:

*In its formal indictment of Hicks, the United States government alleges:

* that in November 1999 Hicks travelled to Pakistan, where he joined the paramilitary Islamist group, Lashkar-e-Toiba (Army of the Faithful).
* that Hicks trained for two months at a Lashkar-e-Toiba camp in Pakistan, where he received weapons training, and that during 2000 he served with a Lashkar-e-Toiba group near the Pakistan-Kashmir.
* that in January 2001 Hicks travelled to Afghanistan, then under the control of the Taliban regime, where he presented a letter of introduction from Lashkar-e-Toiba to Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda member, and was given the alias "Mohammed Dawood".
* that he was sent to al-Qaeda's al-Farouq training camp outside Kandahar, where he trained for eight weeks, receiving further weapons training as well as training with land mines and explosives.
* that he did a further seven-week course at al-Farouq, during which he studied marksmanship, ambush, camouflage and intelligence techniques.
* that at Osama bin Laden's request, Hicks translated some al-Qaeda training materials from Arabic into English.
* that in June 2001, on the instructions of Mohammed Atef, an al-Qaeda military commander, Hicks went to another training camp at Tarnak Farm, where he studied "urban tactics," including the use of assault and sniper rifles, rappelling, kidnapping and assassination techniques.
* that in August Hicks went to Kabul, where he studied information collection and intelligence, as well as Islamic theology including the doctrines of jihad and martyrdom as understood through al-Qaeda's Islamist interpretation of Islam.
* that in September 2001 Hicks travelled to Pakistan and was there at the time of the September 11 attacks on the United States, which he saw on television.
* that he returned to Afghanistan in anticipation of the attack by the United States and its allies on the Taliban regime, which was sheltering Osama bin Laden.
* that on returning to Kabul, Hicks was assigned by Mohammed Atef to the defence of Kandahar, and that he joined a group of mixed al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters at Kandahar airport, and that at the end of October, however, Hicks and his party travelled north to join in the fighting against the forces of the U.S. and its allies.
* that after arriving in Konduz on 9 November 2001, he joined a group which included John Walker Lindh (the "American Taliban"). This group was engaged in combat against Coalition forces, and during this fighting he was captured by Coalition forces.

…

It is not alleged by the U.S. that Hicks engaged in any actual acts of terrorism, nor that he killed any U.S. or Coalition soldier while engaged in fighting at Konduz.
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks
Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi is a former Taliban envoy is currently a student at Yale University.

Rahmatullah was born in 1978 in Kohak, Afghanistan, to Pashtun parents. In 1982, his family moved to Pakistan, where he grew up and went to school. His schooling was fragmented, but he did emerge proficient in English as well as Pashto, Persian, and Urdu.

*In 1994, the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan, and the 16-year old Rahmatullah joined them in Kandahar, Afghanistan as a computer operator and later, thanks to his language skills, as translator. He was appointed to the position of diplomat in the Afghan Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan in 1998 and “roving ambassador” in 2000. In this capacity he travelled around the world as a spokesperson for the Taliban.

In early 2001 he made a trip to the US.[1] He met with US State Department officials, senators, and the media. He defended the Taliban demolition of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and treatment of women. He would later claim that he was getting disillusioned with the Taliban by this point, although this was not evident at the time.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Rahmatullah’s family fled to Pakistan to escape the imminent US retaliation. He lived in Quetta, Pakistan, for most of the next three years, reading astronomy books, playing with his young children, and completing his unfinished high school education.*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayed_Rahmatullah_Hashemi
So, a simple foot-soldier is imprisoned in a Gulag while an official representative of the Taliban regime (which knowingly and willingly sheltered Al Qaeda) is a guest at an American Ivy League College.

Is this in any meaningful sense fair and just?

2

I do not believe the detention without trial of Hicks has been, thus far, fair or just. They need to give him a fair trial, and determine a fair and just sentence if he is convicted. The fairness and justice of HIS case does not depend completely on the treatment of an embassabor for the Taliban.

3

I agree that Hicks has not been treated fairly and justly. There are many who would suggest that he has been (“the worst of the worst are in Guantanamo”).

By juxtaposing the outcome for a Taliban mouthpiece and supporter with a Taliban foot-soldier and supporter I hoped to indicate how random and unjust many of the detentions in the Guantanamo Gulag are.

4

The US should treat these people the same as they would want US citizens to be treated by other governments. If (say) the Iranian or the North Korean government captured a US citizen, accused them of plotting terrorism against Iran or North Korea, then held them for years without trial, and without the same legal protections that they given their own citizens, would the US agree that this is fine for treatment of “illegal combatants” against other countries?

I don’t believe Hicks should be treated better because he is an Australian or a British citizen. All the people held at Gitmo should be entitled to the same rights as they would if held on US soil, and entitled to all the rights under the US Constitution that aliens get as well as US citizens. (And, as a side note, it does seem to be a strange way to spread democracy around the world, by taking away democratic rights like these).

5

I agree that all should be treated equally. The fact that Tony Blair made a promise that no Brits would be tried at Gitmo is no great moral point- it just shows the unfairness and injustice of the system. One of the Brits released was one of the most severely charged- Moazzam Begg. He is now free.

If David Hicks gets his UK passport, then Blair will be forced to argue on his behalf. He has already been forced to argue on behalf of one British resident/non-citizen after it was exposed that the security services had cooperated in his abduction from A|frica to Gitmo.

6

No. Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi should have his ass shipped to Guantanamo too.

At least it’s completely disgusting that he’s rewarded for his time working for the religious fascist apartheit tyranny by a free education at Yale, though I’m sure he’s pretty angry they didn’t give him a BMW too and perhaps a hot addition to his too harem. It’s not like there’s not hundred of millions of people around the world to pick from that would consider a free Yale education to be the fulfillment of all their dreams - and who haven’t got their hands bloodied by terrorism and fascism.

On the other hand, perhaps this “gulag” is too inhuman, even for such a disgusting fool. I’ve heard they’ve been tortured by seeing nekkid women for Gods sake!

7

So you honestly believe that it would be right to round up all of the Taleban politicians and administrators and lock them up in a US run concentration camp?

8

Sure as hell wouldn’t loose any sleep over it. It’s too late now, but yes I think it would have been right to have rounded up all higher officials until their role in Al Queda in particular and terrorism in general and various other crimes against humanity could have been investigated. For instance I believe I read somewhere that your honorary guest Mr. Hashemi has been involved in some shady business to do with persecuting Christians. And there are today quite a few millions Afghan refugees around the globe who have had to fled their home just precisely on account of the regime that your guest was, and probably am, a proud defender - including quite a few Afghans refugees in the US. Wonder how those refugees in the US feel about seeing their former tormenter suckling the fat at Yale, while they have to work three jobs to make ends meet, let alone dreaming of having an education paid for at Yale. Their bad I guess - they could just have joined the fascist while there was time.

9

Thank you for the link. It’s nice to hear the other side of the story for a change. I enjoyed it immensely.

And Yale shold be beyond embarraassed for it’s actions. They have besmirched what has been a fine reputation. (The last two Presidential Candidates aside. :smiley: )

10

So, David Hicks has the right to a British passport:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060412/pl_nm/guantanamo_prisoner_dc_1

*An Australian held at Guantanamo Bay won a landmark legal victory on Wednesday in his bid to be granted British citizenship – a move that could help him win release from the U.S. prison camp.

David Hicks, 30, has been held at Guantanamo for four years after being captured by U.S. forces in
Afghanistan in November 2001 and accused of being an al Qaeda fighter.

Hicks, whose mother was born in Britain, has sought British citizenship, hoping London would secure his release from the camp as it did for nine British nationals held there.

Australia has refused to seek Hicks’ repatriation.

Hicks has battled in the courts against a British decision to refuse to register him as a citizen because of his alleged involvement with terrorism.

In December, Britain’s High Court ruled there was “no power in law to deprive the claimant of his citizenship.”

On Wednesday, the Court of Appeal upheld that decision, rejecting a challenge from Home Secretary Charles Clarke.*

This means that Tony Blair will be forced to argue for his release and ‘return’ to Britain.

It does seem to be a bit of a lottery if you are to face a tribunal or not.

As I keep on saying, just Kangaroo courts in a concentration camp.

11

And also in the news today:

http://www.itv.com/news/1888.html

*The High Court has heard “compelling evidence” that three UK residents held at Guantanamo Bay are being tortured and humiliated.

The three are going to court to force the British Government to petition the US for their release.

Bisher al-Rawi and business partner Jamil al-Banna were detained three years ago, while Omar Deghayes was kept in Pakistan.

Lawyers for the three say they have been “severely tortured and suffered inhuman and degrading treatment”, two High Court judges were told.

The men also remained exposed to a “real risk” of further ill treatment at the detention facility in Cuba, said Timothy Otty, appearing for the three.

He also described the “distress” the families of the men were having to endure.

Mr Otty was asking Lord Justice Latham and Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting in London, to declare “legally unsustainable” a refusal by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to petition for their release.*

The British Government has already been forced to seek the release of another British resident because it has been exposed that British Security services were responsible for his detention following his working for them.

When the government is forced to argue for these three men and by the same argument for another half dozen British resident non-nationals in Guantanamo, the fairness of the system will look increasingly doubtful.

Those in Gitmo are the worst of the worst and should face trial and punishment unless they are British, or become British, or were British residents. Seems a bit unfair on those with no British connection who were equally ‘guilty’ or ‘not-guilty’ of the quasi-crimes dreamed up by the Bushistas!

Looking increasingly shaky. :smiley:

12

It is a busy news day today for the Guantanamo Brits!

*An eminent former law lord attacked Guantánamo Bay as “a stain on American justice” last night and said Tony Blair’s refusal to condemn it was “shaming for our country”.

Lord Steyn, who retired from Britain’s highest court last year, said: "As a lawyer brought up to admire American democratic values, I feel compelled to say that Guantánamo Bay is a stain on American justice. Only the present administration of the United States tries to defend the utterly indefensible.

Article continues
"Unfortunately, our prime minister is not prepared to go further than to say that Guantánamo Bay is an understandable anomaly. In its feebleness this response to a flagrant breach of the rule of law, reminiscent of the worst actions of totalitarian states, is shaming for our country.

"While our government condones Guantánamo Bay the world is perplexed about our approach to the rule of law. But I hope the world also knows that if the matter was within the jurisdiction of British courts, our judges would unanimously condemn Guantánamo Bay.

“You may ask: how will it help in regard to the continuing outrage at Guantánamo Bay for our government now to condemn it? The answer is that it would at last be a powerful signal to the world that Britain supports the international rule of law.”*

13

If you actually read this article, the “compelling evidence” presented in it consists of an assertion by the prisoners’ lawyer.

"The British Government itself did not have independent evidence of what was happening and would “certainly not accept that there was compelling evidence that the men have been tortured”.

But for someone who throws around words like “gulag”, “concentration camp” and “kangaroo court”, the lawyer’s claim is compelling enough. Who needs evidence - just fling up every conceivable allegation and hope that something sticks.

14

That is evident in the quote I used.

Let’s wait and see what happens with this case. My feeling is that the English judiciary has good libertarian leanings at present and will be minded to find for these applicants.

15

Fine. I suggest you avoid parroting inflammatory rhetoric until the “compelling evidence” is manifested.

16

If by “parroting inflamatory rhetoric” you mean the statement "

The High Court has heard “compelling evidence” that three UK residents held at Guantanamo Bay are being tortured and humiliated.

then you should note that that is the first line of the News Article on the ITV news site.

The only words of mine in that post were: “It is a busy news day today for the Guantanamo Brits!”. The rest of the post was a direct quote.

17

If you’re trying to blame the ITV site for being the source of your undocumented inflammatory rhetoric, consider that the quote I supplied earlier comes from the same article:

""The British Government itself did not have independent evidence of what was happening and would “certainly not accept that there was compelling evidence that the men have been tortured”.

You didn’t bother to quote that part, probably because it doesn’t fit with your claustrophobic world view.

If you’re going to try to debate instead of just rant, recourse to facts would be appreciated.

18

Frankly, I don’t like it when people who toss around words like Concentration Camp, Gulag, and so on casually. Those who do so usually have no idea just what those words really mean.

The problem is that these people fall within a legal loophole, because the itnernational conventions and treaties never anticipated the threats in the modern era. They did terrible wrong, but committed no crimes. In the time when the conventions were developed,

And, I believe that subjecting former Talibaners (Talibanites? Talibani?) to trials would be FAR more unfair and immoral than holding them. It would certainly be more hypcritical and deceptive. Why, you ask? Simple: they committed no legal crime. What law do we charge them with? Conspiracy to committ murder? It was not illegal to conspire to kill Americans… in Afganistan. I dislike the trial of Saddam Hussein for similar reasons. His arguments, while unsympathetic (he’s still a mass murderer), are accurate: he had the right within Iraq to kill anyone, anywhere, at any time. It’s wasn’t a nice law but it wa the law. he should be executed or imprisoned, but subjecting him to a trial is pointless unless the trial itself is part of his punihsment.

Yes, I think both the Nuremburg trial and the Japanese War Crimes tribunal were seriously flawed from a moral and ethical perspective. I apply my principles honestly. And, if Americans were taking part in covert activities against North Korea, I would not object to the fact that North Korea defended itself by stealing them away. Of course, if they abjucted people from North American soil, that would be an act of war… but then, since we conquered Afganistan, we took care of that objection.

Guantanamo is a much more honest solution: if investigators feel the detainees are guilty, they will continue to be detained. As far as abstract justice or our is concerned, that is as just as fair as if we subjected them to a jury trial. It’s not as if people haven’t been released, and despite numerous allegations of cruelty, there is not one shred of evidence that prisoners have been mistreated. Indeed, many have gained weight and all appear reasonably healthy. They have certainly been pressured, mind you.

19

So why hold them at all? Why not treat them as POWs – and let them go, now that the hostilities are over? Even SS men got that consideration, if they could not be proven to be directly complicit in war crimes or the Holocaust.

20

There isn’t any strong evidence that many of the detainees did terrible wrong. That is what Guantanamo authorities say, but what would you expect them to say? They are trying to justify unjustifiable imprisonment of people who have committed no crimes.

Exactly. So release them. Americans have died in the name of protecting civil liberties in the past, and it is still worth the cost today. Especially when the evidence is so poor that these detainees pose any real threat to Americans.

You may be right, but it certainly isn’t as fair as releasing them. Why do you have so much faith in the integrity of the investigators, especially when they restrict access to the prisoners, and take steps to infringe upon their basic human rights? Why is there any secrecy at all here? How come these prisoners aren’t allowed to have advocates despite the fact that there are many people who believe this is unfair? Why is there no check to the power of the investigators?

However, there has been a concerted effort to restrict access so as to prevent the collection of this sort of evidence. Because the Guantanamo authorities restrict access to the prisoners, the burden is on them to prove that no prisoners have been mistreated, not the other way around. Suppose I kidnapped your family members, wouldn’t allow you to see them, and denied I had done any wrong doing because there was no evidence that they had been mistreated.

Pressured into what? Exactly what form of pressure do you think is being applied to these prisoners, and for what reason?

“Pressure” is just a euphamism for torture. There is plenty of testimony that that is exactly what has been going on at Guantanamo, and no evidence to the contrary.