16 June 2006 - Friday
Asymmetry
So, three Guantánamo Bay prisoners recently committed suicide. Here's the official take on it, according to the AP: '"They have no regard for human life," Navy Rear Adm. Harry Harris said, "neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetric warfare against us."'
And here's the opinion of a right-wing columnist: "They gave momentum to an international campaign to shut Gitmo down which would mean the release of their comrades. To a committed jihadi, such an achievement would be preferable to spending years praying, watching television and playing volleyball."
Coordinated suicide as an act of war? Monty Python was all over this one years ago. Remember the Judean People's Front (or whichever group it was) and its suicide attack squads? A fearsome band of provincial terrorists chases off the Roman imperial garrison. Then each terrorist takes out a sword and stabs himself in the chest. Highly effective tactic -- in the world of Monty Python.
Of course, there can be little doubt that the prisoners were trying to send a message to the world. If they were terrorists, then they were presumably trying to discredit the United States. But it is also possible that they were innocent people trying to send exactly the same message. Having been held without charges (as far as I can tell) or hope of release for five years, an innocent person could be perfectly happy to embarrass his captors. He might even consider the suicide a form of legitimate "jihad," which contrary to popular myth covers many forms of activity other than terrorism. Non-terrorists have a long history of using suicide and similar tactics to highlight what they see as injustices.
The reason this possibility is significant is that we don't know whether or not these three men were guilty. Of the approximately 460 inmates at Guantánamo, as the AP article notes, only 10 have been charged with any crime. The mantra that everyone in Guantánamo is a terrorist is a totally unproven assertion, and furthermore is legally false under the laws of the United States, where individuals are innocent until proven guilty. Even if everyone in Guantánamo had been captured on a battlefield with a weapon in his hand (which is also false), then the relevant classification would be "prisoner of war," not "terrorist."
Let's illustrate the problem with the story of five innocent men who were recently released into the care of Albania:
Many of Guantánamo's prisoners proclaim they're innocent. What's different about these men, Muslims from China's Uighur minority, is that even American authorities said they were innocent, referring to them as "no longer enemy combatants" or "NLEC." Nevertheless, they remained imprisoned more than a year after their names were cleared -- after the U.S. government determined they did nothing wrong and posed no terrorist threat to America or Americans. ...I recommend reading the whole thing. Remember, according to the rhetoric of the Bush supporters, everyone at Guantánamo is by definition a terrorist. Consider that as you read the words of this innocent man -- innocent of terrorism and "no longer" guilty of unlawful combat according to the United States, which imprisoned him for four and a half years.The following is a transcript of the conversation with Qassim, who spoke through a translator on behalf of the entire group.
Q: What was Guantanamo like?
A: Guantanamo is like a hell where there is no justice or respect for human dignity. Our life there was very, very miserable, especially the last one year after being told that we are innocent and still living behind wired walls. We feel confused, frustrated and tired. I would call the worst period of time of my four years incarceration in Guantanamo.
The saddest part of the whole thing is that after being cleared, no longer enemy combatants, or innocent. Being innocent people, we were told that we have no rights but shelter, food, water and a place to pray. Given that, that place is not the normal, usual prison. So I would say that it is a hell.
This piece in the NYT by another former Guantánamo inmate is also interesting. It includes a direct response to Rear Admiral Harris' comment:
I am a quiet Muslim -- I've never waged war, let alone an asymmetrical one. I wasn't anti-American before and, miraculously, I haven't become anti-American since. In Guantánamo, I did see some people for whom jihad is life itself, people whose minds are distorted by extremism and whose souls are full of hatred. But the huge majority of the faces I remember -- the ones that haunt my nights -- are of desperation, suffering, incomprehension turned into silent madness.| Posted by Wilson at 12:23 Central | TrackBackI believe that a small number of the detainees at Guantánamo are guilty of criminal acts, but as analysis of the military's documents on the prisoners has shown, there is no evidence that most of the 465 or so men there have committed hostile acts against the United States or its allies. Even so, what I heard so many times resounding from cage to cage, what I said myself so many times in my moments of complete despondency, was not, "Free us, we are innocent!" but "Judge us for whatever we've done!" There is unlimited cruelty in a system that seems to be unable to free the innocent and unable to punish the guilty.
| Report submitted to the Power Desk
Aldomeir,
I would suggest that you go re-read the Bill of Rights. Tell you what, I'll even quote you the whole 5th amendment so you don't have to go find it:
No person (note: person is not the same as citizen) shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person (again, person, not be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(note, emphasis and parenthetical remarks are mine)
In case you missed that, the 5th amendment says that "no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law." Now, let's go consult the 5th amendment's neighbor, the 6th amendment.
In all criminal prosecutions, (note again, ALL criminal prosecutions, not just those against citizens) the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.(emphasis and notation mine, again)
In case you're wondering about my point on this one, the 6th amendment enumerates that "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial."
In the end, taken together, the 5th and 6th amendments, taken with the rest of the Bill of Rights, assert that it is not legal in the United States to incarcerate someone indefinitely without trial. Now, the jury is still out, but most scholars will tell you that it isn't legal for the U.S. Government to incarcerate someone indefinitely in Cuba either, by US law. Sure, you can argue that it's not the United States and that U.S. law doesn't apply there, but I'm pretty sure that's a loophole that the authors of the U.S. Consitution would have been fairly quick to close off, if they had even considered the possibility of it.
Let's leave the Geneva Convention alone for a moment and go instead to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which, incidentally, was signed by the U.S.) In particular, let's look at Articles 9,10, and the first half of 11.
Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
Hmmm... it looks like the United States has also agreed that these rights to not be held without trial are universally held by all humans.
I eagerly await your response, Aldomeir.
The thoughts of Vengeful Cynic on 20 June 2006 - 10:52 Central+ + + + +
Thanks for your comment, Aldomeir. I find it interesting, though, that you only referred to that one aspect of my post.
In essence, it seems to me, I argued that there is some evidence that Gitmo includes some innocent people -- and in any case, that we have not proven their guilt adequately. But you answered, "But they aren't citizens, so it doesn't matter whether they are guilty or not."
If I am misinterpreting your remarks, please correct my understanding. Otherwise, I think Vengeful Cynic has done well to demonstrate that the Constitution and treaties of the United States do apply a presumption of innocence to all individuals.
The thoughts of Wilson on 20 June 2006 - 21:52 Central+ + + + +
I'd like to note that the presumption of innocence is not an ethical "gift" to the accused; it's more like a logical necessity.
There's this little but important thing in argumentation called the "burden of proof," which is a technical term for "the responsibility for proving true or defending one's claim." As you might guess from my definition, the burden of proof rests on the one making a disputed claim (rather than the one responding to that claim). If the burden-bearer cannot establish the truth of his claim, we have no reason to believe him.
In trials, the prosecution makes the claim (namely, that the defendant did such-and-such); therefore, the prosecution bears the burden of proof. The prosecution must clearly demonstrate the truth of its claim; if it cannot, the defendant must be found "not guilty."
Why does the prosecution bear the burden of proof instead of the defense? Why is innocence the norm instead of guilt? Because a society operating under a presumption of guilt could not function. Anyone could be arrested at any time and for any reason.
Imagine this: It's 4:36am and you're asleep in your bed. Suddenly, your front door bursts open and the police rush in. "You're under arrest for the murder of a man you've never met who lives 2 hours away," an officer tells you as he whisks you off to jail. At your trial, you learn that the victim was murdered at 12:30am the morning you were arrested. You were asleep at that time, but you can't prove it; there were no witnesses and you don't videotape yourself while you sleep. Since you can't prove your innocence, you are presumed guilty and sentenced appropriately.
In short, the presumption of innocence is not something granted exclusively to certain citizens by virtue of the benevolence of their governments. It is a logically necessary principle that is sometimes (and wrongly) denied to certain people because of their oppressive governments.
The thoughts of Martinez on 21 June 2006 - 11:31 Central+ + + + +
(You must preview your comment before posting it)
"...under the laws of the United States, where individuals are innocent until proven guilty." This is simply NOT true. CITIZENS of the US are (supposed to be) innocent until proven guilty. Non-citizens do not have the same protections as citizens. These prisoners in Guantánamo Bay are not citizens of the US, thus they do not get citizenship privileges such as a trial by their peers, et al. Nor are they considered Prisoners of War (as defined by the Geneva Convention) and thus subject to the Geneva Convention.
The thoughts of Aldomeir on 20 June 2006 - 6:58 Central+ + + + +