The Observer, April 7, 2006
Volume XXXVIII, Issue 23
Free Speech Zone: Upcoming Guantanamo decision is crucial to US
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Guantanamo detainee and former driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden. While a ruling isn't expected for some time, one thing is for certain; Hamdan has for the second time been caught up in a significant event. The decision from this case will either condemn or reinforce the Bush administration's stance on the treatment of detainees whom they have dubbed "enemy combatants," a broadly encompassing term for anyone in cahoots with "terrorists." In addition to this ambiguous characterization of the "enemy," the administration's policy is equally vague on the status of enemy combatants, their legal rights, if any, and how long they will be in custody and under what charges. All of this flies in the face of the basic principles of international law and treaties such as the Geneva Convention. But since the United States is the world's only superpower, and since most countries ignore international law anyways, the detention of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo might seem justified…if you like despotism.
Many arguments against Guantanamo are based on international treaties and conventions against torture which the U.S. has signed. Unfortunately, the Geneva Convention is excluded from the debate because it practically unenforceable. There are plenty of other reasons to call the administration's policy out for what it is: unjustified incarceration. The key word here is unjustified. The few charges which have been brought up against Guantanamo detainees have been carried out through military tribunals which can deny the suspects virtually all of their rights and sentence them to death without a word to the public or the suspect's family. Judging by the history and accuracy of military tribunals, especially when they are determining the fate of an "enemy," the prospects for the Guantánamo detainees are not good.
Many of the detainees are going on their fourth or fifth year in custody and have yet to be charged with a crime or even allowed access to a lawyer. Along with repeated allegations of torture, many have contended that they have no links whatsoever to al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, or the Taliban. Perhaps they are lying, but the burden of proof should be on the captor. To date, the president and other prominent members of the administration have only been able to fumble over contrived and unconvincing reasons for these undue detentions. Despite what the neocons might have you believe, suspicion does not constitute proof. My question for the administration is: if these "enemies" of America are so obviously guilty, why not give them a fair and speedy trial, as the guiding doctrines of our justice system would demand?
Thanks to the tireless efforts of organizations such as Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a limited amount of information has been gathered about Guantanamo. All evidence supports the thesis that the administration's claims remain unproven and the nature of the administration's detainment policy is therefore unjustifiable. The lack of both evidence and transparency reflects poorly on the United States, especially in lieu of the repeated allegations of torture perpetrated by various arms of the U.S. military and intelligence services, both abroad and at Guantanamo. By presuming the guilt of enemy combatants, the administration is contradicting its self-proclaimed dedication to the global distribution of freedom.
Some people would claim that suspected terrorists don't deserve such rights, that they are outside the jurisdiction of any country's legal system and need to be locked up. But this issue goes to the heart of our concept of justice and fairness in our legal system. If we cannot grant just and fair processes to our enemies, then when we apply it at home it is just the echo of empty rhetoric and dead ideals. It's no surprise that non-Americans would question the motives of a president and administration who cling so tightly to the American flag. They must be asking: Are the Americans full of freedom, or just simply full of it?
