Juris Prudence
Two small pieces in a recent World Briefing section of the New York Times caught my attention.
First, Germany found no proof that a Turkish-German man held for four years at Gitmo had ties to a terrorist group. No proof, but held for four years. I'm sure we can all sleep better knowing that the suspension of habeus corpus has protected the U.S. citizenry from such threats.
The article says that Murat Kurnaz, 24, was arrested in Pakistan in 2001. If he was arrested, then why wasn't he charged with crime, and why was he not tried? If Mr. Kurnaz was not sympathetic to the Al Quaida cause four years ago, I'm sure he's at least receptive now. Gitmo was a great recruiting tool for Al Quaida.
How are we planning on handling the hundreds or thousands of civil suits which may arise from these illegal and injudicious false imprisonments? America used to have a functioning legal system.
Opposite that brief was another: "Pakistan: Court frees Islamist leader." The Lahore High Court set Hafiz Muhammed Saeed free, declaring his detention without trial since August illegal. This is truly amazing, as Saeed allegedly has ties with the bombers responsible for 180 deaths in the Mumbai train attacks in July.
It seems that the U.S. ignores the rule of law by jailing innocent people, while Pakistan honors its laws, even when the released suspect is most probably implicated in terrorist acts. Forget the national animosity, the question here is one of legality.
The old philosophy of jurisprudence in America was that the integrity of the system was more important than any individual. This includes President Bush.
First, Germany found no proof that a Turkish-German man held for four years at Gitmo had ties to a terrorist group. No proof, but held for four years. I'm sure we can all sleep better knowing that the suspension of habeus corpus has protected the U.S. citizenry from such threats.
The article says that Murat Kurnaz, 24, was arrested in Pakistan in 2001. If he was arrested, then why wasn't he charged with crime, and why was he not tried? If Mr. Kurnaz was not sympathetic to the Al Quaida cause four years ago, I'm sure he's at least receptive now. Gitmo was a great recruiting tool for Al Quaida.
How are we planning on handling the hundreds or thousands of civil suits which may arise from these illegal and injudicious false imprisonments? America used to have a functioning legal system.
Opposite that brief was another: "Pakistan: Court frees Islamist leader." The Lahore High Court set Hafiz Muhammed Saeed free, declaring his detention without trial since August illegal. This is truly amazing, as Saeed allegedly has ties with the bombers responsible for 180 deaths in the Mumbai train attacks in July.
It seems that the U.S. ignores the rule of law by jailing innocent people, while Pakistan honors its laws, even when the released suspect is most probably implicated in terrorist acts. Forget the national animosity, the question here is one of legality.
The old philosophy of jurisprudence in America was that the integrity of the system was more important than any individual. This includes President Bush.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 7:21 PM
2 Comments:
Its amazing to see fascism come back into fashion. As a dedicated anti-nazi I am deeply concerned. The end of the anglo-saxon judicial system, the killing of Habeas Corpus, is a strange thing to behold.
You (US Army) have just legalized torure, and by implication dragged us norwegians in with you. For us to give you prisoners in Afghanistan is no longer an easy matter. Banghram is hell. This is the one point I hope that the US military will have the backbone to resist: To treat the hostile population like inferior human beings.
The lure of fascisms racist bigoted idiot-way to treat the opposition is very evident in the Israeli Defence Force, and is (from what I hear) also evident in the US special core. If any operation in the humanitarian spectre is to be sucessful, operational integrity and moral interaction-tactics are necessary. Again, I think you should learn from the French, their operation in Rwanda was flawless. (They are threatening to shoot down the IAF now, hehe. NATO vs. Israel? )
Martin K,
We have to quit meeting like this--people will talk (!)
I agree totally with paragraph I. Obviously, I am very concerned, as are numerous other Americans.
You misunderstand that the U.S. Army cannot legalize torture; this was done by the Congress. In fact, the Army regs and FMs comply with the Geneva Conventions. For this I am justly proud. If I were a Norwegian soldier, I would not hand over prisoners to the U.S. or clients either. This would make one complicitous with their illegal actions. remember Nuremburg.
A hostile population should never be underestimated.
As per your last para, I can't collude with pleasure at anyone's peril. Jim
Post a Comment
<< Home