David Hicks is an Australian suspected of involvement with the Taliban in Afganistan. He has been detained without trial or charge since 2002.I have no doubt that he has some objectionable views and may have got up to some reprehensible activity: but the way in which this whole procedure has been carried out without the bounds of ordinary systems of justice bothers me a great deal.
Why has justice been so slow in coming? What is going on? Am I right to be concerned?
30 comments:
Yeah, I am extremely uncomfortable about the situation. I sometimes wonder if I am missing something, because I don't doubt the intelligence of (some of) the supporters of the 'war of terror' (e.g. Christopher Hitchens). However, I'm yet to hear a decent defence of the Guantanamo situation and I can't for the life of me imagine what it would be?!
I think the situation is very bad and I think we should voice our objection to detention without charge or trial with vigour (regardless of whether he turns out to be a monster or not--that's not the issue at hand.)
Praying is something good to do. We pray to governments all the time [maybe not enough]. As in, we request them to act, send them petitions, write letters to our representatives. Its a form of prayer, right?
But we certainly need to pray to God -- petition him -- knock on his door -- And we need to pray for 'justice to come, and quickly'. Jesus said that, right?
Mike, why get concerned about habeus corpus? Since you've left town we've had a law and order bidding war thats seen the introduction of majority verdicts in jury trials and abolished the rule of double jeapoardy.
Yes, Guantanamo Bay is indefensible, but its part of a larger removal of rights and liberties. I notice the debate in Britain today is on the right of muslims to remove head coverings. In each case it seems the state is happy to throw out long held principles of law for pragmatic unprincipled politics. Should you be concerned? Yes. Christians should not trust the state.
Yes, double jeapordy is an 800 year old law cast aside in a trice...
In the UK, practically every news story relates to Islam in some way. What sickens me is the secularists like Jack Straw pretending to be tolerant when they are nothing of the kind, and the Muslims appealing to liberal values like rights and freedom of speech and tolerance when they believe in no such thing. Muslims - and christians too - well never get anywhere while they use the 'I am a victim, listen to me' ploy.
Yes. This is a symtom of the erosion of Christan convictions about the imperfectibility of justice and divine judgement of the judges.
Yes, its unconscionable. Unfortunately with a member of the living dead as Attorney General paying lip service to Hicks getting a speedy trial, while not actually doing anything about it, it doesn't like Hicks will get an outcome any time soon. In the mean time it looks like the psychological damage of being in 'Gitmo' indefinitely, often in solitary confinement, will continue.
The best thing to do Michael is read this transcript between Denton and Hicks' remarkable US laywer, Major Michael Mori: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1709428.htm
The info about military commissions, Hicks charges (or lack thereof) and so on are very enlightening.
I hear and agree with your concern over the whole guantanamo situation. But I'm wondering if it is (or should be) more concerning than (for instance) 150,000 children under five dying of Malaria in the 3rd world this year. Hmmmm. It seems to me that both are social justice issues, but its ... possible that David Hicks is in a better situation than the aforementioned children, and lots of other people among the 2 billion who earn U.S.$1/day. (only possible). Of course I guess Dr. King said that thing about "as long as there is injustice for anyone etc.". Is it right to compare injustices? Dunno...
My only concern is that the Americans might be too lenient. Somehow, the Europeans have failed to realise that we are engaged in a war with people who want to destroy our civilisation. In wars, you try to kill your enemies. The laws of war mean that you will only attempt to eliminate the soldiers, while respecting the civilian population, though inevitably there will be some civilian casualties as well.
Here we are in a situation where, although the other side does not respect any of the laws of civilised humanity, the country on which they have declared war does not attempt to kill them, but simply to capture them (so as to neutralise them and hopefully get some intelligence as well). They feed their enemies at taxpayers' expense and provide religious literature, still at taxpayers' expense, to people who are bent on destroying their own religious freedoms.
This is incredibly benevolent. I fear these people will only cause more devastation onto the free world if they are ever released. No nation in the history of mankind has ever acted so magnanimously towards its enemies. America is honouring its Christian heritage in a way which should shame the rest of us.
Oxford, it srikes me that you sound very much like a lot of americans while implying that you are not one. This is fascinating to me, to meet a non-American who thinks this way. =) Most of the non-Americans I meet think more like me than like you. But perhaps I have been sheltered. Some words within your post the meanings of which I do not understand: "lenient", "inevitably", "civilised humanity", "benevolent", "magnanimously", and most of all "Christian heritage".
I think the most troubling aspect for me is how quickly, and without much press, Habeas Corpus has been dismantled. The Military Commissions Act passed on Sept. 27th passed in the Senate by a margin of 65 to 34 and in the House by a margin of 232 to 191. Arlen Specter (R-Pa) criticized the bill as "patently unconstitutional", offered an ammendment that was shot down, and then voted in favor of the bill anyway.
It has become, more than anything, a campaigning tool. Republicans have already accused democrats who voted against it of supporting "more rights for terrorists."
We are making people disappear, and the majority of the public has no idea. THis is, indeed, most worrisome.
Yes, you/we should be concerned!
I find that in church we often pray such strange prayers around justice. We ask for 'justice' to be done when we know too well what justice is but we are too afraid to pray it. In regard to war we pray that 'justice be done' when we could powerfully pray "stop the war, stop the killings, stop the terror (on both sides)"
In reagrd to Hicks surely we should be praying that he be given a fair trial, be returned to Australia and that he be treated as a human (ie not be tortured, get to see/speak to his family)?
My brotrher- in- law is currently writing a phd on the role of secrecy in democratic governments (at the LSE) I often say to him that most democratic governments are built on secrecy... sadly.
I saw a preview for the film/doco Road to Guantanamo, I think it is due for release in November (in Australia), I assume it has been released in the UK.
Going by the preview it looks like it will be a very hard film to watch, one reviewer described it as a punch in the guts.
The preview alone made me feel helpless, burdened and depressed.
Oxford, I do not think the issue is about whether convicted criminals should be punished through incarceration (a debate for another day), the issue is the basis on which these human beings are treated as criminals in the first place. The western legal system is far from perfect, but one of its strengths historically has been precisely the admission of this fact, which means that there are many elements within the system designed to prevent and minimise and revise failures of justice. It is the arbitrary undermining of these important elements and insights that is so worrying about GB (which is itself a symbol of larger injustices and seizmic shifts in public opinion on such matters).
It should also be noted that this "clash of civilisations" idea is largely a fiction, it just happens to make for good headlines. After 9/11 most of the US media (including the respectable pubs), and a lot of media abroad started running it as fact, but ultimately its quite a flawed paradigm through which to see the conflict. The major grevience in the ME is the Israel/palastinian problem, Bin Laden and co have said and much, but its much easier to believe (and report) that 'they' 'hate our way of life', rather than 'maybe we should do something about our foreign policy'.
THe situation reminds me of the story in "A Few Ggod Men." It domestic terms it is entirely unjust to detain someone without trial for any period let alone for several years. However, we are not talking about domestic law here. One country has compromised the sovereignty of another. The extent to which people are willing and able to engage in that kind of debate is relative to the amount of behind the scenes finger nail pulling in which their government has historically engaged.
Benjamin,
You would not believe me if I told you where I am from!
It is fairly transparent from my nickname, though :)
Byron,
My point is precisely that they are not criminals. This is not a matter of public order where you punish offenders for breaking the rules of society; this is the altogether different field of war, where the "offender" is an enemy outside of society (hence "enemy combatant").
Imagine you are Australian and the Japanese have invaded your country. What do you do? The war approach says: you must try and kill them before they have defeated you. The law & order approach you seem to be advocating says you should try and fetch them one by one, handcuff them, read them their rights and bring them back to Canberra to put them on trial (for, essentially, being Japanese and obeying their government). Somehow, this strikes me as an inadequate response.
Same for the muslim fanatics we are currently forced to deal with.
'One country has compromised the sovereignty of another.' hmm, well it isn't so simple, is it? The lines aren't as clearly drawn...
I think it is important to treat cases differently, so that a war is called a war and a crime is called a crime. Much was lost in N.Ireland because the govt refused to call the IRA struggle a war (which would have meant they could have used lethal force against the other side BTW) and instead treated the terrorists as common criminals.
My problem is partly the lack of transparency here. I just don't know what is going on, and if justice IS being done, I don't SEE that it is being done.
Oxford,
Your desire to emphsise the distinction between the field of war and matters of public order is right. The problem is however that the terminology of 'enemy combatant' fits into neither. It is instead a means of avoiding the internationally accepted rules for treatement of prisoners of war as set out in the Geneva Convention. To justify the detention of Hicks and other in GB and in similar circumstances elsewhere on this basis is to seek to justify actions that are illegal in the contexts of the Geneva Convention, Australian Law and US Law.
Also, your example seems to put the cart before the horse to me. The issue is not how these men came to be detained (although initially there were questions surrounding that re: many Afghani detainees in GB, since released). Instead the issue is, now that they are detained, what do we do with them, how do we treat them, and on what basis? If he's a prisoner of war then deal with him as outlined by the geneva convention (which the conditions at GB breach). If not, he must face a civil court. And Australia and the UK should repatriate him in order to do this.
There simply is no legal room for this notion of 'enemy combattant'.
Why is GB so hidden? What's the big secret? perhaps its that Hicks is somebody's son, somebody's brother, somebody's friend. The big secret is out - he's human!
Inamtes of GB have been successfully dehumanized and demonized. Mission accomplished.
In speaking of countries compromising the sovereignty of others I was actuallty referring to the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The republicans have learnt enough from Vietnam not to refer to such actions as a "police action" and to come out and say that they are at war.
The irony of your example of the IRA is that the government felt entirely free to use lethal force against their enemies and frequently did. In the street the soldiers behaved like policemen but the SAS rarely knocked politely at the front door in order to ask that they might have a quiet word.
I suppose what I am heading towards is that the conflict is essentially illegal to start with by the rule of domestic engagement. War is a grisly exercise in national hermeneutics where we expose the real limits of the extent to which we are prepared to recognise notions of universal human rights.
The question is less a matter of whether we should capture people whom we believe to have attacked our country and hold them without trial as oppsed to whether we should seek vengence upon those who have threatened us.
In a 'time of war' we all too easily opt for the latter.
Oxford,
so if we are playing by 'the rules of war' would you accept American/British/Australian forces captured in Afghanistan/Iraq being afforded similar treatment? or worse?
Is there any place for the rule of law to apply in international warfare or are all bets off - just kill them before they kill you?
"War is a grisly exercise in national hermeneutics where we expose the real limits of the extent to which we are prepared to recognise notions of universal human rights."
Cyberpastor, that is brilliant, seriously.
I think perhaps what this reveals is that 'human' 'rights' is a probemlatic discourse in itself: it is very reliant on force...
Michael K,
Well I believe there is such a thing as the laws of war. Indeed, respect for the laws of war is historically what has set apart civilised from barbarian nations. If you study int'l law, you'll see that it was never meant to be universal; it was meant to regulate conflicts within the civilised world. With the barbarians, you use force. Jihadists have no intention to respect any of the laws of civilised mankind anyway. So the way we might treat them makes no difference in this respect; and what I "accept" or do not accept even less. This makes it all the more admirable that America binds herself with the rules her enemies feel free to disregard.
Alex,
I agree with you that the Guantanamo Bay people fall in neither category. If there is a problem, it is this one. But then I think the roots of the problem are in international law itself, which is totally unsuited to the present situation. The Geneva Convention (and the rest of int'l law) assume the existence of homogenous, geographically-situated blocks with an established leadership which can negotiate in their name. We have none of this here. That's probably why most countries can't analyse the current situation in terms of war and prefer to see it as a police problem. But I've already explained why I thought this was a war. We are dealing with soldiers, not common criminals.
I guess the gist of my original post was simply to say that I find it extremely irritating to see worldwide finger-pointing at the US when, in comparative terms, they treat their enemies so very mildly. In the hands of most other countries, Hicks and co. would no longer be alive for people to worry about them.
hey I am happy to say 'we are dealing with soldiers, not criminals' if we are. But the problem is the lack of conventional statehood here. Who do they represent? Who does one negotiate with?
I really don't think the 'oh, the US is more civilised' argt is worth pursuing. The standard is not just to be better than the rest in this matter. If you take the high moral ground you better have high morals... Particularly as the US represents me in war in a way that Afganistan doesn't (as Australia and Britain's major ally).
The Abu Graib incident likewise was a revelation of a very disturbing undercurrent in the way war is fought in our name.
I think DH needs to take a .45 painkiller in the back of the head...
I'm not surprised the previous post is anonymous - I'd be embarrassed to have my name on a comment like that too.
My question is this: if the people detained in GB are so guilty and so dangerous, what's the problem with having a trial and publically demonstrating as much? Wouldn't that dispel the widespread feeling that law has been capriciously and arbitrarily suspended? Wouldn't that stop GB from being a lightening rod for the very outrage that will keep fueling terrorism?
Perhaps the comment above provides a hint as to why this logic is not embraced: many people in the West, just like their counterparts in the Muslim world, are feeling threatened, uneasy, hurt, angry and vengeful. 'This is no time for subtleties of law. Sure, this guy might be harmless, but I'm not going to wait to find out. Quit your fussin' and just take him out.'
My adivce: go out and hit a punching bag for a while or something. Come back when you've worked it out of your system. The should never drive when your angry, and you sure as hell shouldn't make laws.
I STILL think DH should get that painkiller...
Oh, and I'm not embarrassed about having my name there. I'm just not all that keen to discuss things with such sophisticated people who seem to know everything about how civilisations should work. Say hi to Chumpsky for me.
Yawn...
Well actually, I wouldn't be ruling even the death penalty out if the crimes are severe enough and the context appropriate.
But Matheson is right: what are we supposed to think?
The law is a fiction written by the (alleged) wisest of our community, its power is in its immutability, though it is not immutable. Its power then is in its resilience and its resistance to change. Terrorism, in recent years, has entirely changed the shape of conflict too quickly for the cumbersome, reflective law.
Secondly as far as I can make out the Geneva Convention only holds between signaturies (I am uncertain though I doubt the Mahdi Army is one) and is void when the enemy is not clearly distinguishable from a distance.
In any event you are allowed to hold prisoners of war for the duration of a conflict. Without trial. What could you possibly try them for?
Terrorism is not crime. If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword.
Post a Comment