by Eric Martin
Adam Serwer's recounting of Scott Horton's must-read article on the suspicious case of the Gitmo "suicides" touches on some subjects worth exploring further:
According to Horton, who secures the on-the-record observations of Guantanamo prison guard Joe Hickman, the three men may have been killed at a Gitmo black site referred to by Horton as "Camp No." The prisoners appear not to have died by hanging, but were suffocated with cloth. The three men, Salah Ahmed Al-Salami, Mani Shaman Al-Utaybi, Yasser Talal Al-Zahrani, were all cleared for release, which calls into question the notion that they were hardened terrorists ready to die for their cause. Their bodies were returned to their families with their throats missing--which makes corroborating the conclusions of the military pathologists who concluded the deaths were suicides impossible. One military official, Army Colonel Michael Bumgarner, was suspended after he inadvertently revealed to the press that the prisoners were found with cloth stuffed in their mouths--a detail that had been left out of the official report of the "hanging."
Horton's story is a case study in how a lawless system breaks down: The three men were captured through the haphazard practice of the U.S. offering bounties for terrorists--but why go through the dangerous work of capturing an actual terrorist when some harmless foreigner will do? In Horton's account, there were marks on the men's bodies that suggests they been tortured prior to their deaths -- which suggests the three were undergoing "enhanced interrogations." But of course, since they don't seem to have actually been terrorists or connected to al-Qaeda, there was nothing to learn. The government's disregard for basic human rights standards led to deaths that needed to be justified publicly and then illegally covered up, because it's still necessary to make it appear as though we are living in a society of laws that doesn't allow people to get away with the murder of prisoners in American custody.
While the evidence is damning, it is still not one hundred percet certain that these deaths were anything but suicides, as reported. Regardless, what is certain is that over 100 detainees have died in US custody, and many of those deaths were from the effects of severe beatings, stress positions and other state-sanctioned techniques. As Greenwald notes:
The interrogation and detention regime implemented by the US resulted in the deaths of over 100 detainees in US custody — at least [see “Command’s Responsibility,” a Human Rights First report from 2006, PDF]. While some of those deaths were the result of “rogue” interrogators and agents, many were caused by the methods authorized at the highest levels of the Bush White House, including extreme stress positions, hypothermia, sleep deprivation and others. Aside from the fact that they cause immense pain, that’s one reason we’ve always considered those tactics to be “torture” when used by others — because they inflict serious harm, and can even kill people. Those arguing against investigations and prosecutions — that we “Look to the Future, not the Past” — are thus literally advocating that numerous people get away with murder.
When a policy permitting the extreme physical abuse of detainees leads to several deaths as a direct result of the abuse inflicted, it is beyond Orwellian to refer to the methods employed as "enhanced interrogation techniques." Any abuse sufficient to kill the party being interrogated can safely be called by its proper name: torture, plain and simple.
Unfortunately for the health of our nation's legal institutions, when policymakers - such as those in the Obama administration - have made even the most incremental of attempts to walk back certain portions of the Bush administration's lawless torture and detention regime, GOP leaders such as Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney and others accuse those policymakers of caring more about "protecting the rights of terrorists...than protecting the lives of Americans."
But that characterization represents a fundamental betrayal of the principles of due process and the rule of law as envisioned by the founding fathers. Further, the problem with the arguments about the treatment of "terrorists" and the rights granted to "terrorists" is that the issue is really about what rights are afforded to terrorist suspects, and how terrorist suspects are treated in detention and interrogation.
The modern Republican Party would assume your guilt until you prove your innocence. Except you don't actually get to prove your innocence. Because you're guilty. And in the meantime, you can and should be tortured. Because you haven't proved your innocence yet.
Neat.
That is, to put it bluntly, un-American. America was founded on the notion of granting the accused due process rights and exempting the accused from certain punishments until guilt is proven (and other punishments even for the guilty). This notion, revolutionary at the time, represented a major break from the unchecked police power afforded monarchs and other absolute rulers that preceded the founding of our nation. And yet the Senator-elect from Massachussetts of all places describes these foundational notions as "new rights" - allegedly concocted by the Obama administration ex nihilo. You'd think a representative from a State that played such a pivotal role in the founding of this country would have a better grasp of just how old these rights really are.
These rights were valued by the founders for good reason. Due process is absolutely crucial to the effort to separate the guilty from the innocent, to provide those accused with recourse to correct errors in the application of executive power. Without it, the innocent will suffer en masse, and injustice will reign in cruel fashion.
That is not a hypothetical contention. Such rampant injustice has flowed from the perverse legal doctrine enshrined by the Bush administration, and perpetuated in many ways by an overly timid Obama administration. As the Horton piece illustrates, the three "suicide" cases involved innocent people swept up in an overly broad, and poorly conceived, system of bribery, bounty hunter and wide net. And it wasn't just those three. In fact, most detainees that ended up at Guantanamo were innocent of the listed crimes, and who knows what the ratios have been at places like Bagram and the many black sites around the globe.
Despite this, the GOP would argue that to uphold the ideals in the Constitution with respect to the rights of so many inncents accused would be to give special treatment to the guilty, and to disregard the safety of our citizens. You know, there have been legal systems that have placed such a high value on the lives of its citizens at the expense of the rights of the accused throughout the history of the world. Some persist today. You would find such "caring" regimes in places like the former USSR and Mussolini's Italy, or modern day China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran and Cuba.
Are those models really worth emulating? Do the notions of criminal justice espoused by those regimes really evince a concern for the well-being of the repsective citizenry that is superior to ours when we insist on due process for all accused?
The modern Republican Party might argue that the circumvention of due process, habeas corpus and the rule of law in general only applies to terrorist suspects. But why should that be the case? If we are willing to treat suspected terrorists a certain way, why not those suspected of mass murder? Or rapits? Or child molestors? Or drug dealers? I'd love to watch a politician try to defend, against the charges of a demagogue, the consistency of a position that allows for the treatment of terror suspects one way, but rapists another.
Good luck with that.
(h/t Ugh on the Horton article)
" I'd love to watch a politician try to defend, against the charges of a demagogue, the consistency of a position that allows for the treatment of terror suspects one way, but rapists another."
I believe, for better or worse, Scott Brown answered this question last night. To paraphrase (someone else can read through that speech again) "Our laws are made to protect OUR citizens" caps mine, emphasis his.
Just so you know it has been answered.
Posted by: Marty | January 20, 2010 at 04:02 PM
I parphrased it so badly I did go find it:
"And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation - they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."
Posted by: Marty | January 20, 2010 at 04:08 PM
If only Nixon had given up his Veep slot instead of giving that damn Checkers speech, things might have turned out different for the US of A.
Posted by: Ugh | January 20, 2010 at 04:09 PM
Marty,
A few problems:
1. Our citizens were not granted such rights under the Bush legal regime (see, ie, Lindh and Padilla).
2. By calling suspects "enemies in wartime" and "terrorists" Brown is, again, assuming the guilt of the accused. How do we know if someone turned in by a bounty hunter in Afghanistan in exchange for cash is an "enemy in wartime" or a "terrorist"? We don't. And yet...
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 20, 2010 at 04:16 PM
So Marty, answer not satisfactory.
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 20, 2010 at 04:17 PM
Eric,
I assumed it wouldn't be, although it didn't address Bush. If you would quit citing Bush and listen to what others are saying today the discussion would be more productive. Many people think Bush/Cheney went too far without conceding full Constitutional rights to every terrorist.
Like many things, the easy argument is to say that Bush did it, he is raising money for Haiti, so I don't care a lot what he did in discussing what we should do. My response is so what, doesn't mean I would do it. I might not give that guy in Afghanistan a trial in NYC though. That would not be a domestic crime by any stretch.
Posted by: Marty | January 20, 2010 at 04:23 PM
Not only that, but don't our laws and Constitution allow us to sign treaties, such as those under the Geneva Conventions, that do grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime? Isn't the whole point of that to protect this nation, as much as any other? Might the same reasoning apply to lawyers to protect (accused) terrorits? WTF? Way to miss the point entirely...
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | January 20, 2010 at 04:24 PM
If you would quit citing Bush and listen to what others are saying today the discussion would be more productive.
Um, like Gingrich? Even Brown citing "new rights" is ridiculous. I quoted him.
But why don't you provide some quotes and links to GOP leaders that are taking a better position. Help me to break out of my Bush blinders. Please, and I say that sincerely. I want to believe!
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 20, 2010 at 04:29 PM
Just so you know it has been answered.
Yeah, Marty, that attitude towards non-citizens is why I won't go to the US any more. Neither Bush's nor Obama's DoJ has acknowledged that what the US government did to Mahar Arar was a crime.
I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation - they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime.
Marty, I recognise you're just quoting Scott Brown. But I am so effin' tired of this creepy, repeating meme we keep hearing that the US only kidnaps, subjects to extra-judicial indefinite imprisonment, and torture, "enemies in wartime".
The US has been claiming defensively that the prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay and Bagram Airbase and the other oubliettes around the world, are all "the worst of the worst" ever since December 2001.
And over and over and over and over again, this claim has been proved a lie.
So why is it that, in 2010, over nine years since the US first told this lie to cover their illegal activity, Marty can quote a Republican Senator repeating this tired old lie, and claim that this repeatedly disproved lie "answers the question"?
Why, Marty? Why would you quote this tired old lie at us as an "answer" to a serious question? Why do you suppose Scott Brown thinks he can repeat this dirty stinking lie in public and not be cried down for displaying Palin levels of ignorance about Guantanamo Bay and the prisoners held therein?
Because claiming that the prisoners there are being denied their rights as accused criminals because they are "enemies in wartime" is either a lie or an ignorance of current affairs so complete that Scott Brown is no more able to be a Senator than Sarah Palin was to be President.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | January 20, 2010 at 04:30 PM
And Marty, I specifically argued with Brown's statement:
By calling suspects "enemies in wartime" and "terrorists" Brown is, again, assuming the guilt of the accused. How do we know if someone turned in by a bounty hunter in Afghanistan in exchange for cash is an "enemy in wartime" or a "terrorist"? We don't. And yet...
Also: what HSH said about Geneva.
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 20, 2010 at 04:30 PM
Eric, He is not providing them the full protection of the constitution. That doesn't preclude an appropriate hearing in a military tribunal or appropriate treatment under the Geneva Convention. It just doen't require us to afford them the same protections as a citizen. It also recognizes that any method of dealing with them may end up imperfect, as our internal system is, and to the extent we try to meet the fundamentals of our principles we should place the protection of the country first.
Posted by: Marty | January 20, 2010 at 04:41 PM
Many people think Bush/Cheney went too far without conceding full Constitutional rights to every terrorist.
Who, exactly, is proposing giving full Constitutional rights to terrorists?
Posted by: Phil | January 20, 2010 at 04:45 PM
But it's still all based on a tired old dirty filthy disgusting lie.
Why are you repeating an argument that depends on a lie?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | January 20, 2010 at 04:48 PM
Marty,
That's a nice narrative, but you're reading your own beliefs into Brown's statement. He doesn't actually say the things you claim that he says.
Many people think Bush/Cheney went too far without conceding full Constitutional rights to every terrorist.
Aside from the fact that no one is suggesting giving full Constitutional rights to terrorists, and again you beg the question by labeling "the accused" as "the guilty," I repeat my request for links to prominent Republican leaders that claim that Bush/Cheney went too far.
Do you have those links?
I repeat:
Help me to break out of my Bush blinders. Please, and I say that sincerely. I want to believe!
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 20, 2010 at 04:50 PM
"That's a nice narrative, but you're reading your own beliefs into Brown's statement."
Yes I am, as you are, I believe most of these folks wouldn't get elected, Scott Brown as a good example, if they believed what you accuse them of. The voters in their states are smarter than that.
Posted by: Marty | January 20, 2010 at 04:59 PM
I believe most of these folks wouldn't get elected, Scott Brown as a good example, if they believed what you accuse them of.
Not sure I follow. Which of my accusations does he disagree with? Which of my accusations do other GOP leaders disagree with? Why would Gingrich say that if he actually agreed with Obama?
This request still stands:
I repeat my request for links to prominent Republican leaders that claim that Bush/Cheney went too far.
Do you have those links?
I repeat:
Help me to break out of my Bush blinders. Please, and I say that sincerely. I want to believe!
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 20, 2010 at 05:12 PM
Honestly, Marty, between these claims and the claims that the GOP wants to negotiate HCR with the Dems in good faith, I can't help but admiring you and also thinking that you are a bit naive. I admire that your heart is in the right place, and I agree with you a lot more than I agree with the GOP leadership.
But you don't seem to have a good grasp of that GOP leadership.
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 20, 2010 at 05:19 PM
"Did Stalin Care More About Protecting the Lives of the USSR's Citizens than the Founding Fathers?"
Given that the US barely aspired to killing as many of Stalin's subjects, should we go to war with the USSR, as Stalin DID go out of his way to kill? That would be a big "Nope!".
I mean, really, why even ask such a silly question? It just detracts from the serious nature of the very real problems with US policy to compare us to one of histories greatest mass murderers.
We're not as good as we should, or could be. But we're not remotely in the same league as Stalin.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | January 20, 2010 at 05:31 PM
Brett,
It was intentional hyperbole.
However, the talk is of adopting his version of criminal justice as opposed to the founding fathers' version. So, sadly appropos in some respects.
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 20, 2010 at 05:36 PM
Love the Drudge Report title - you go guy!
Should the US torture - No! Does torture work - Yes! What should we, the US, do with enemy combatants in a current war - any war? Let me know, you get the Nobel Prize in law & philosophy for that one!
When John Woo tried to make a coherent legal construct out of the mess of overreaction to 911 the loonies on the left want him tried as a war criminal. No matter that you agree or disagree with him, at least he tried something in the law.
What should we do, kill all the POWs? Try them all under American law in New York and put them in US prisons - which presupposes guilt and not release under rules of evidence? Release them in Yemen?
Post 2001 the CIA and FBI had joint teams working on chasing people and groups inside the US proper. That is needed. The NSA was making headway doing keyword filtering of telecom streams from US shores. We need that too. Good national intelligence and cooperation among agencies. (Most of it gone now.) Which presupposes a strong rights enforcement and court system check. Which we need too, and still have for those with the time and money to make it work for them. And this scares the loons to death - on both sides. Too much police or too much courts, oh my.
What a delightful dilemma it is.
Which leads to the end of your post. You assume that only Democrats or Republicans can postulate the solutions and frame the debate. I just wrote a bit on my blog about the alternative. http://shootyoureyeout.net/?p=435 I have hope that the way forward rests with the dangerous and horrifying 3-rail of politics in America - “We The People.”
Keep that kitten stocked with ammo!
Posted by: JV | January 20, 2010 at 05:52 PM
If you break the law on US soil, you're a criminal, and are entitled to due process of law.
If you're bearing arms against the US in any manner consistent with the law of war, you're entitled to the protections due a POW.
If you fall between the above cracks and are captured by by the US, and you are a national of a signatory to Geneva IV, you are (with some exceptions) entitled to the treatment due protected persons under Geneva IV.
If you fall through all of those cracks, you are entitled to the following under Geneva IV:
Being waterboarded does not comply with these requirements.
Being murdered by having rags stuffed down your throat does not comply with these requirements.
Being beaten to death, having your legs pulped, having dogs sicked on you, being held naked and doused with water in cold rooms, being hung by strappado, etc etc etc.
None of those things comply with the treatment of individuals held hors de combat by the various treaties and conventions that this nation is a signatory to.
Scott Brown says waterboarding is not torture. Folks who are in a position to try, convict, and imprison or hang US intelligence and military actors disagree with him.
So, f**k Scott Brown on that topic. And the horse he rode in on. And the citizens of the great state of MA who voted for him.
They are god-damned wrong.
It boggles my mind that we're still having this damned conversation. It is, actually, pretty freaking black and white.
You're not allowed to torture people. N-O no.
Posted by: russell | January 20, 2010 at 05:56 PM
When John Woo tried to make a coherent legal construct out of the mess of overreaction to 911 the loonies on the left want him tried as a war criminal. No matter that you agree or disagree with him, at least he tried something in the law.
That's what you get when you cede your constitutional analysis to an action film director with an predeliction for hyper-violence ;)
But more seriously, "at least he tried something in the law" is a ridiculously low standard for handing out merit badges. Come on, the guy argued that the POTUS was unfettered in matters of national security, which includes the ability to detain anyone (US Citizens included) for eternity without trial, with torture of any kind, including, and I quote, "crushing the testicles of children."
We can do better "in the law."
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 20, 2010 at 06:12 PM
What should we, the US, do with enemy combatants in a current war - any war?
Hold them as prisoners. Present and evaluate evidence as to whether they are combatants at all and, if combatants, of what kind. Afford them the treatment that belongs to their status, which in no case includes torture.
It's really not rocket science.
When John Woo tried to make a coherent legal construct out of the mess of overreaction to 911 the loonies on the left want him tried as a war criminal.
Yoo actually is under investigation as a possible war criminal, but not by loonie US lefties. He shouldn't plan on international travel anytime soon.
Posted by: russell | January 20, 2010 at 07:06 PM
OMG, John Woo crushes children's testicles! What happened to just drugging them in the hot tub! Is he hiding in Switzerland? Send him back here right now! :0>>
I wonder if this discussion about prison suicides would have traction if Bernie was the subject? Charlie M? The head of La Familia in San Quentin? Wasn't Jeffery the cannibal murdered in prison? (Just had to throw that in!)
I commend you for continuing to stir up the complex mess of contradictions, religion, politics, revenge, nationalism emotions, and reason that tries to makes sense of war, power that makes humans so dangerous. god help the Borg if they ever come to this planet and try to "assimilate" us!
Posted by: jv | January 20, 2010 at 07:19 PM
Of course I realize it's hyperbole. But, you know what? There's hyperbole. There's over the top hyperbole. There's freaky hyperbole. And then there's why would it occur to any sane individual to go there hyperbole. And comparing the US, (Which, while we're certainly not as good as we ought to be, we compare favorably to, say, most members of the UN human rights council.) is well into WWIOTASITGTH hyperbole.
As well, there's the left's historic infatuation with Stalin, which you'd think would make members of the left a little antsy about making US/Stalin comparisons even humorously.
I just don't think it's constructive, and indeed, why WOULD any sane individual go there?
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | January 20, 2010 at 07:38 PM
The inanity of the previous two comments brought on this wave of apathy that nearly succeeded in overwhelming my desire to respond to the substance of the post, rather than picking at nits, or, more likely, just throwing my hands up and walking away. So, reasonably well played, if that was your goal...
Can anyone link me to authors espousing moral or legal arguments against the prosecution as war criminals the leaders who ordered these procedures or the prosecution as torturers or murderers those who carried out said orders?
I'm dismissing as obvious but ultimately irrelevant arguments about how _untidy_ it would be for us to attempt to unsh!t our bed.
While I agree with russell more than most anyone posting on the interwebs, I don't want us to hold travel abroad and the threat that a court in say, Spain, might hold suspected U.S. war criminals accountable for their crimes over the heads of said suspects. I want them tried, and either convicted or acquitted, here, with our verdict on their actions offered up plainly to the verdict of history.
To paraphrase Feingold (re. warrantless surveillance), we have to deal with the fact that we're harboring war criminals.
Posted by: CMatt | January 20, 2010 at 09:29 PM
I still want to know why Marty thinks that quoting Scott Brown repeating a tired ancient dirty nasty lie is in any way "answering a question".
Posted by: Jesurgislac | January 20, 2010 at 09:52 PM
What should we, the US, do with enemy combatants in a current war - any war?
Avoid things which would condemn us to hell, I think.
believe most of these folks wouldn't get elected, Scott Brown as a good example, if they believed what you accuse them of.
Of course they would and have. You're simply reading something into the text of Scott Brown that isn't there. He means what he said he meant and has said when it comes to torture: he supports it, and so do many voters. If you offer people tax cuts and show them how wonderful war is, they will willingly support torture, if only because they are themselves implicated in the initial misjudgments of the war and feel they have to go "all in." Brown was a big torture supporter and Iraq war supporter. To repudiate Bush now would be an implicit confession that his life was a waste and would result in his neighbors thinking that he was weak.
Posted by: Tyro | January 20, 2010 at 10:34 PM
we're not remotely in the same league as Stalin.
True. As the post points out, Stalin was willing to go to lengths to protect the USSR that we apparently aren't. It does make you wonder what's wrong with us, doesn't it?
I just don't think it's constructive, and indeed, why WOULD any sane individual go there?
Why are people who claim to be sane individuals complaining that we are apparently reluctant to go where Stalin went when it came to getting information out of his nation's enemies? Was it because Stalin cared more about his country than we do?
The problem, Brett, is that the right wing has diabolically decided that they will cast their lot with torture and declare that "torture is patriotic." That's like calling Stalin a patriot, and for that matter, making it look like Stalin cares more about his country than you do or I do. And the American right is going to have to carry that stigma for the rest of their lives.
Posted by: Tyro | January 20, 2010 at 10:57 PM
"Why would Gingrich say that if he actually agreed with Obama?"
The answer to this is both political and, in some cases, legal. Pretty much the saame reasons Pelosi doesn't have much to say about it.
Posted by: Marty | January 20, 2010 at 11:14 PM
Marty, still wanting you to explain to me why you thought it was worth quoting Scott Brown's repetition of the lie about the prisoners in Guantanamo as a answer to the question.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | January 21, 2010 at 04:39 AM
I point this out because the American founding fathers did not invent human rights and democracy. They didn't invent federalism, either; they cribbed that bit from the Haunenoshonee Great Law of Peace. When you concede the historical claims of American exceptionalism, and buy into the notion that the United States arose, miraculously, from a sea of tyranny and absolute government, then you end up half way to the conservative position, which draws much of its power from the notion that you must at all costs protect, and never change, the rare and fragile flower called American democracy.
Posted by: John Spragge | January 21, 2010 at 06:32 AM
Can everyone please stick to comparing the US government to the Mafia and to serial killers so that poor Brett can avoid the fainting couch? Thanks!
Posted by: Phil | January 21, 2010 at 07:03 AM
The argument, that “citizens” are the only “individuals” worthy of rights, is an old traditional argument in the US. The US Government and its “citizens” have killed more people than Stalin could have ever dreamed of. And the greatest justification for this genocide was built on the notion that Native Americans and Africans were not citizens.
... the Jewish Holocaust-the inhuman destruction of 6,000,000 people-was not an abominably unique event.(It was.) So, too, for reasons of its own, was the mass murder of about 1,000,000 Armenians in Turkey a few decades prior to the Holocaust. So, too, was the deliberately caused "terror-famine" in Stalin's Soviet Union in the 1930s, which killed more than 14,000,000 people. So, too, have been each of the genocidal slaughters of many millions more, decades after the Holocaust, in Burundi, Bangladesh, Kampuchea, East Timor, the Brazilian Amazon, and elsewhere. Additionally, within the framework of the Holocaust itself, there were aspects that were unique in the campaign of genocide conducted by the Nazis against Europe's Romani (Gypsy) people, which resulted in the mass murder of perhaps 1,500,000 men, women, and children. Of course, there also were the unique horrors of the African slave trade, during the course of which at least 30,000,000-and possibly as many as 40,000,000 to 60,000,000-Africans were killed, most of them in the prime of their lives, before they even had a chance to begin working as human chattel on plantations in the Indies and the Americas. And finally, there is the unique subject of this book, the total extermination of many American Indian peoples and the near-extermination of others, in numbers that eventually totaled close to 100,000,000.
From Sex, Race and Holy War from American Holocaust by David Stannard
Morality is only for US citizens. (Or at least the right type of citizen, of course)
Posted by: someotherdude | January 21, 2010 at 09:13 AM
I point this out because the American founding fathers did not invent human rights and democracy.
I didn't say they invented it.
They didn't invent federalism, either; they cribbed that bit from the Haunenoshonee Great Law of Peace.
See above.
...buy into the notion that the United States arose, miraculously, from a sea of tyranny and absolute government, then you end up half way to the conservative position
No, but it was a revolutionary compact at the time. The concepts weren't invented here, but they were put into practice here as never before.
Still, you are right about the history, and so I appreciate the comment.
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 21, 2010 at 11:32 AM
And comparing the US...
Brett, let me break this down for you:
One of the two major political parties in this country is arguing that, with respect to terrorist suspects, implementing a Stalinesque justice system evinces more care for the lives of US citizens than does implementing the justice system envisioned by our founding fathers.
If that makes you uncomfortable, I'm the last person you should be blaming.
I never said the US = Stalin. I never said the US was close to Stalin. I never compared the US to Stalin. Not at all.
Please re-read if that's what you thought, and provide quotes showing that argument.
What I said was, to repeat myself: the GOP is arguing that implementing a Stalinesque approach to criminal justice with respect to terrorist suspects would show more care for the lives of US citizens.
That's all.
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 21, 2010 at 11:37 AM
"the notion of granting the accused due process rights and exempting the accused from certain punishments until guilt is proven (and other punishments even for the guilty)" was _not_ revolutionary at the time. It was, in fact, established in law.
There were, no doubt, revolutionary aspects to the US constitution - i.e. features that represented a dramatic or even unprecedented break from existing practice, like "electing a head of state" - but this wasn't one of them.
Neither was George III an absolute monarch, nor did he have unchecked police power. I mean, really.
It's also worth noting, of course, that the US constitution didn't guarantee due process to _everyone_. A significant share of the population could be imprisoned, tortured or killed at will with no legal sanction.
Posted by: ajay | January 21, 2010 at 11:48 AM
Ajay,
Perhaps some sloppy wording on my part, but the Bill of Rights? That was standard fare at the time? Really?
And I never actually said that George the III himself was an absolute monarch, or that he had unchecked police power. Just that limiting these powers was still a relatively new notion. In practice, the entirety of the rights granted citizens was revolutionary in some respects.
(Slaves and women notwithstanding)
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 21, 2010 at 11:57 AM
at least he tried something in the law.
What? He didn't try to get legislation passed. He didn't bring a court case. He wrote a freakin memo. That we were never supposed to see.
Posted by: Hogan | January 21, 2010 at 12:03 PM
I wonder if this discussion about prison suicides would have traction if Bernie was the subject? Charlie M? The head of La Familia in San Quentin? Wasn't Jeffery the cannibal murdered in prison?
Two thoughts:
1. The "suicide" victims were suspects, not convicted criminals. In fact, the evidence indicates they were innocent of any crimes.
2. Even still, if prison officials or law enforcement are killing convicted criminals, they should be prosecuted. Whether or not such behavior gains traction does not change the injustice involved.
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 21, 2010 at 12:19 PM
I agree you can put the statements I questioned down to a matter of wording, but I think wording matters. From reading the hard-line nationalists in the Republican party, I think a the justifications they use for a substantial portion of their policies, from adventurism to opposition to change, depend on the view of the United States as a unique and unparalleled achievement in human freedom. Given this, I think that clarity about what the American founding fathers really did (and did not) achieve matters a great deal.
The US Constitution did represent a revolutionary synthesis; every single feature, from religious freedom to due process to a written constitution existed elsewhere. The American constitutional convention brought them all together in a new way.
Posted by: John Spragge | January 21, 2010 at 02:52 PM
An innocent person is more likely to be tortured to death than a guilty one. The guilty can end the torture by cooperating with the torturer. The innocent cannot because they do not have the information the torturer wants, and the longer they last under torture without providing the information the more convinced the torturer becomes that he is dealing with an especially hardened and committed enemy.
Posted by: togolosh | January 21, 2010 at 02:56 PM
F-Book: I don't disagree. But also note that I never implied that the US version was the end point, or culmination, of democracy, freedom, egalitarianism.
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 21, 2010 at 03:04 PM
Magna Carta, 1215.
(from Wikipedia)
"Magna Carta required King John of England to proclaim certain rights (pertaining to freemen), respect certain legal procedures, and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered — and implicitly supported what became the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment."
Not exactly recent.
Posted by: lijakaca | January 21, 2010 at 03:41 PM
Eric, I do indeed note that you did not, indeed, ever refer to US as an end-point or culmination of freedom. And I agree, American exceptionalism does depend partly on the claim that the American constitution definitively and exclusively establishes the nature of freedom.
By the way, the facebook link refers to John Spragge. I hope to find a way to make that link work better (typepad wanted me to set up my own micro-blog).
Posted by: John Spragge | January 21, 2010 at 04:27 PM
Not exactly recent
Right. We've established that.
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 21, 2010 at 04:46 PM
Marty quotes Scott Brown: "And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation - they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."
and claims that "for better or worse" this answers the question about why people who have been accused of terrorism ought not to receive the same legal rights as people accused of any other crime.
Here's one of the "enemies in wartime": Omar Deghayes, a refugee from Gadaffi (his father was executed in Libya in 1980) who was a legal British resident since age 10, whose wife and son are British citizens, who was taken in Pakistan when he took his family there to escape the war in Afghanistan after "the Americans began paying large amounts of money to find Arabs who had been in Afghanistan".
In Guantanmo Bay:
read the restThe "evidence" against Omar Deghayes, aside from the US having paid the Pakistani authorities a lot of money for him (apparently the Libyans and the Americans were competing in the auction) is that someone spotted someone who looked like him in an "Islamic terrorist" videotape: a Chechnyan rebel called Abu Walid, who is dead. His lawyers were denied access to the videotape by the American authorities: they eventually obtained a copy via the BBC and were able to show that the tape was of a different person.
Omar Deghayes is one of at least eight hundred of the US's kidnap victims who suffered illegal imprisonment for years. He's one of eight hundred people that Scott Brown claims are "enemies in wartime". He's a legal British resident whose brutal treatment Scott Brown defends because he's not a US citizen and so was not entitled to any of the legal rights of a US citizen - including the right not to have your guards stick their fingers in your eyes and half-blind you: including the right for your lawyers to be able to see the evidence for the charges alleged against you.
Omar Deghayes did not take up arms against the US: he did not engage in criminal activity: he went to Afghanistan to do charitable work for some of the poorest people on Earth, and he fled to Pakistan to save his family when the US attacked. Yet Marty repeats this lie - that Omar Deghayes is an "enemy in wartime" and so this brutal treatment is justified - and will not explain why he thinks the lie answers the question.
Why is that?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | January 22, 2010 at 07:36 AM
And of course, Marty, I could keep repeating this. There are a thousand prisoners who were held in Guantanamo Bay: 800 have been released after years of illegal imprisonment and torture because even the Stalinist regime instituted by the Bush government could not find any evidence of their guilt. How many times does it have to be repeated that "enemies in wartime!" isn't a justification or an answer: it's a lie.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | January 22, 2010 at 07:39 AM
This is one of the few areas where Jesurgislac and I agree at least partially, although it took a little while for me to come around to the truth of it: "prisoner" and "terrorist" are not interchangeable.
So this notion that Guantanamo prisoners can (and possibly even should) be treated differently and less humanely than, well, someone arrested and awaiting trial ("humanely" includes, to me, the right to a speedy trial, among other things), doesn't sit well with me. And it shouldn't sit well with you, either, Marty. Anyone that even pauses to consider whether FDR's internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry was constitutional (or the broader case of general internment of ANY resident of Japanese ancestry) should be looking askance at Guantanamo. There's a huge difference between the popular prison-for-terrorists function that Guantanamo represents to lots of people, and what it actually is, that merits consideration.
What we have there is a quasi-legal oubliette. Which would be nearly ok with me, if it contained only a bunch of AQ and other terrorists, but it doesn't.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 22, 2010 at 08:21 AM
Slart, I am in complete agreement that the intent is better than the execution(realized yet unintended not funny pun). I simply believe we could improve how we use it, better limit who goes there and more aggressively put them in front of a tribunal. I disgree that we have to be right about who we take there every time to justify the system. We just need to make sure for those that shouldn't be there it doesn't become a long stay. And, oh yeah, we shouldn't toture them. Since we don't anymore, we are assured by the President, then it shuold be a lower priority and less pressing to sort out the execution
parameters. And since every time someone comes up with a new accusation over the last two or three years the DOJs answer is we investigated and founf no evidence to support prosecution, I am more interested in what we are doing now.
Posted by: Marty | January 22, 2010 at 09:22 AM
Perhaps some sloppy wording on my part, but the Bill of Rights? That was standard fare at the time? Really?
Sorry, by the Bill of Rights do you mean the US Bill of Rights, or the UK Bill of Rights which laid out many of the same principles exactly a century earlier, and parts of which were copied almost word for word by the authors of the US Bill? (Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, prohibition of a standing army, free and fair elections, trial by jury, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments).
In other words: yes, it was indeed standard fare.
Posted by: ajay | January 22, 2010 at 09:34 AM
Marty: I disgree that we have to be right about who we take there every time to justify the system.
The current situation is that the US has had to publicly admit it has been wrong about who they took to Guantanamo Bay at least 80% of the time.
I'm so angry at your casual attitude to kidnapping innocent people that I'm actually finding it hard to type.
So let me blockquote instead, another victim of the American attitude that it's okay to violate those accused of terrorism: this is the (former) British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, a 20-year veteran of the British Foreign Service, speaking of what he witnessed at the show trial of a man accused of being an al-Qaeda terrorist - "a big event put on partly for the benefit of the American embassy to demonstrate the strength of the U.S.-Uzbek alliance against terrorism".
When I hear the lazy, dirty, filthy lies of the US establishment defending the practice of kidnapping and torturing people accused of terrorism, that this is all A-OK because hey, they're "enemies in wartime" - and you think all the system needs is to "improve how we use it, better limit who goes there and more aggressively put them in front of a tribunal"?Really, Marty? You think the practice of kidnapping innocent people, shipping them off to be tortured and imprisoned, just needs to be "improved" to work just fine?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | January 22, 2010 at 09:52 AM
I agree with you on that, but I think "improve" sort of understates the nature of the change, while implicitly overstating the current state of things.
In general, that's a fine idea. But how long can we be wrong, before we even consider acknowledging having been wrong? There don't seem to be any rules in place.
There are prisoners in Gitmo that at this point have been interned over two times longer than any person of Japanese ancestry was interned during WWII, without having done anything wrong at all.
Which is not so bad, if they're Islamic terrorists, but bad if they happened not to have done anything wrong.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 22, 2010 at 09:57 AM
In other words: yes, it was indeed standard fare.
OK, I clearly did not account for the British precedent. But when you say "standard fare" do you mean it was standard fare for many or most European states at the time, or you mean there was one precedent - the UK? I ask in earnest.
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 22, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Torture loopholes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/opinion/21alexander.html
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 22, 2010 at 10:52 AM
Oh, and apparently Obama's just declared final surrender to the forces of evil: at least fifty of the US's kidnap victims will continue to be indefinitely imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay without trial, on the basis that the US is totes sure they're humungously dangerous but can't actually prove it even given a tribunal.
Marty claims the US has stopped torturing prisoners. This is both directly and indirectly false.
It's directly false because indefinite imprisonment in a cage is torture.
It's indirectly false because the US is evidently still using torture - the chief reason for being sure a prisoner is dangerous without any means of proving it in public, is that the evidence you have against the prisoner was obtained by torture.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | January 22, 2010 at 12:01 PM
Sorry to belabor the point.
Posted by: lijakaca | January 22, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Marty claims the US has stopped torturing prisoners. This is both directly and indirectly false.
It's directly false because indefinite imprisonment in a cage is torture.
Additionally, last I heard (Obamian platitudes not withstanding), we were still torturing. Unless there's no hunger strikes going ATM, or we've had a massive policy shift and are no longer trying to break them with force-feeding. That is by any reasonable standard torture, especially when it is done in such a way as to accentuate discomfort for the "patient", and as much to break their will to continue their strike as to keep them alive. Which has been the SOP for US military force-feeding for quite some time.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | January 22, 2010 at 04:01 PM
Sorry to belabor the point.
No need to apologize. My bad. Just me being prickly and defensive. I blame the three month old and the sleep deprivation ;)
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 22, 2010 at 04:02 PM