Financial Times Editorial - Guantánamo rebuke
Financial Times Editorial - Guantánamo rebuke
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Published: June 30 2006 03:00 | Last updated: June 30 2006 03:00
The US Supreme Court yesterday gave the world a reminder that America remains a nation of laws. By ruling in favour of Osama bin Laden's driver and against America's secretary for defence (Hamdan versus Rumsfeld), it gave a resounding display of America's independent system of justice. The 5-3 ruling was also a stinging rebuke to president George W. Bush's expansive view of presidential authority.
The symbolism of yesterday's ruling should not be underestimated at a time when the US is losing ground in the battle for hearts and minds in the Muslim world and elsewhere. Whether it is in the revelations over the "rendition" of suspects to countries that practice torture, the ghastly pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, or the indefinite detention of suspects at Guantánamo, the Bush administration has consistently damaged America's moral authority in its prosecution of the war on terror. That, in turn, has undermined its ability to defeat an enemy that has drawn sustenance from America's perceived lack of legitimacy in the eyes of much of the Muslim world.
The ruling also contained two important substantive implications. First, it sharply curtails Mr Bush's interpretation of his wartime authority. By saying that Salim Ahmed Hamdan cannot be tried in one of the administration's specially appointed military tribunals, it forcefully reasserts America's separation of powers. It means that Mr Hamdan - and potentially all of the remaining 450 Guantánamo prisoners - should be tried by normal methods, including the courts martial process to which US soldiers are subject, or not at all.
Second, the court upheld the legitimacy of international law, including the Geneva conventions, which the Bush administration has consistently sought to circumvent. The conventions specify that detainees of any description be given access to minimum standards of justice. This robs purpose from the Bush administration's decision to brand its Guantánamo prisoners as "unlawful enemy combatants".
So what happens now? The Bush administration has argued that the detainees are a danger to society. But it lacks evidence to convict them in civil courts. It created the tribunals precisely to avoid the burden of proof required in normal courts (and in courts martial). One solution would be to declare them prisoners of war, which would enable their indefinite incarceration. But this would be a monumental symbolic climb-down in the administration's war on terror. Another would be to pass the baton to the detainees' home countries, such as Afghanistan. But transferring prisoners to places that lack fair process would undermine the spirit of yesterday's judgment. In short, the US administration is caught in a dilemma of its own making. In resolving this, it should pay belated attention to common sense ideas of justice. Locking people up indefinitely without trial does not qualify.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Published: June 30 2006 03:00 | Last updated: June 30 2006 03:00
The US Supreme Court yesterday gave the world a reminder that America remains a nation of laws. By ruling in favour of Osama bin Laden's driver and against America's secretary for defence (Hamdan versus Rumsfeld), it gave a resounding display of America's independent system of justice. The 5-3 ruling was also a stinging rebuke to president George W. Bush's expansive view of presidential authority.
The symbolism of yesterday's ruling should not be underestimated at a time when the US is losing ground in the battle for hearts and minds in the Muslim world and elsewhere. Whether it is in the revelations over the "rendition" of suspects to countries that practice torture, the ghastly pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, or the indefinite detention of suspects at Guantánamo, the Bush administration has consistently damaged America's moral authority in its prosecution of the war on terror. That, in turn, has undermined its ability to defeat an enemy that has drawn sustenance from America's perceived lack of legitimacy in the eyes of much of the Muslim world.
The ruling also contained two important substantive implications. First, it sharply curtails Mr Bush's interpretation of his wartime authority. By saying that Salim Ahmed Hamdan cannot be tried in one of the administration's specially appointed military tribunals, it forcefully reasserts America's separation of powers. It means that Mr Hamdan - and potentially all of the remaining 450 Guantánamo prisoners - should be tried by normal methods, including the courts martial process to which US soldiers are subject, or not at all.
Second, the court upheld the legitimacy of international law, including the Geneva conventions, which the Bush administration has consistently sought to circumvent. The conventions specify that detainees of any description be given access to minimum standards of justice. This robs purpose from the Bush administration's decision to brand its Guantánamo prisoners as "unlawful enemy combatants".
So what happens now? The Bush administration has argued that the detainees are a danger to society. But it lacks evidence to convict them in civil courts. It created the tribunals precisely to avoid the burden of proof required in normal courts (and in courts martial). One solution would be to declare them prisoners of war, which would enable their indefinite incarceration. But this would be a monumental symbolic climb-down in the administration's war on terror. Another would be to pass the baton to the detainees' home countries, such as Afghanistan. But transferring prisoners to places that lack fair process would undermine the spirit of yesterday's judgment. In short, the US administration is caught in a dilemma of its own making. In resolving this, it should pay belated attention to common sense ideas of justice. Locking people up indefinitely without trial does not qualify.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 9:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home