|
<< Back
Guantanamo, No
Editorial
Globe and Mail
June 26, 2006
Any day now, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule in a case that may give President George W. Bush a way out of the GuantanamoBay quagmire. "I very much would like to end Guantanamo," Mr. Bush said recently. "I very much would like to get people to a court. And we're waiting for our Supreme Court to give us a decision as to whether the people need to have a fair trial in a civilian court or in a military court. They will get a trial."
Mr. Bush's remarks represent a partial about-face and, perhaps, a way to save face. Ever since he signed an executive order weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the holding of non-U.S. citizens in indefinite detention and the shipment of "unlawful combatants" to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, he had striven to avoid applying U.S. and international law to the detainees. His basic argument has been that the usual legal safeguards, such as the Geneva Conventions, did not apply in the unconventional war on terror against shadowy jihadists who wear no uniforms. "They're cold-blooded killers. They will murder somebody if they are let out on the street," Mr. Bush repeated in Europe last week.
The prolonged detention of the prisoners without charge is unconscionable. Despite U.S. denials, various human-rights experts say they can document cases of torture, beatings, forced feedings and other abuses. Fully justified or not, the allegations have turned the United States into a dangerous hypocrite in the eyes of many around the world. They say Guantanamo is a legal and moral black hole. Former British High Court justice Lord Steyn called it "a monstrous failure of justice." More recently, Lord Goldsmith, the British Attorney-General, said the prison should be shut down: "The historic tradition of the United States as a beacon of freedom, liberty and justice deserves the removal of this symbol." The image of the U.S. was hardly helped when Rear Admiral Harry Harris, the Guantanamo camp commander, said the recent suicides of three prisoners were "not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetric warfare committed against us."
Belatedly, Mr. Bush is acknowledging the mess he has created. The Supreme Court judgment may help him figure out what to do with the remaining 460 inmates. At issue is whether the administration's plan to try Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former driver, before an ad hoc military tribunal violates international law and the U.S. Constitution. In such a military hearing, un-sworn statements could be used against an accused, as could "classified" evidence. Mr. Hamdan's lawyers say that even though he was a driver for Mr. bin Laden he was not a member of al-Qaeda and never took up arms against Americans or their allies.
The best outcome would be for the Supreme Court to insist that if the U.S. government has adequate evidence against the detainees, they should be brought promptly before a court that is open, fair and impartial and whose ruling may be challenged on appeal. Where there is insufficient evidence -- or none at all -- to support criminal charges, they should be set free and returned home, and Guantanamo should be shut down forever. That would be symmetrical justice.
<< Back
|
