Liberty and Security

I’ve always had this unsettling feeling about the people we have locked up down in Guantanamo. But I didn’t know a whole lot about their situation. These were my basic questions: How did we grab these guys in the first place? Do we really have the right to hold them forever without charging them? And if we don’t charge and prosecute them, how do we know they’re really bad guys?

Then along comes this post on BoingBoing.net which gave me a chance to take a closer look. I found some disturbing answers to my questions...

How did we grab these guys in the first place?

“We” didn’t grab them. Defense Department data shows that off all that Guantanamo detainees, 86% were arrested by the Pakistanis or the Afghani Northern Alliance and then handed over to the U.S. Why is this disturbing? Because Pakistan was (and remains) under huge pressure from the U.S. to arrest Al-Queda. Wouldn’t Pakistan be tempted to just sweep up a bunch of people (innocent and otherwise) and tell the U.S. that they were all Al-Qaeda? And the Northern Alliance was a coalition of many different groups who have a history of jealousy and rivalry. What better way to eliminate your rival than to hand him over to the U.S.?

Add on top of that the fact that the US was offering up to $5,000 per detainee as a bounty. That’s a lot of incentive to bring in truckloads of detainees… and almost no incentive to take the time to make sure you get the right man. According to Pakistan’s President Musharraf, “We have earned bounties totaling millions of dollars.” (Link)

So, who do we think these detainees are?

Some are probably very, very bad men. But others…

"A substantial number of the detainees appear to be either low-level militants or simply innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time" (2002 CIA report)

"Officials of the Department of Defense acknowledge that the military's initial screening of the prisoners for possible shipment to Guantanamo was flawed" (CIA report.)

"Sometimes we just didn't get the right folks" (Brigadier General Jay Hood.)

“Detainees include: men who were arrested in Bosnia and have been cleared of wrongdoing by Bosnian courts; an Afghan who opposed the Taliban and joined the transitional government but was turned over to US forces by a rival clan; and more than a dozen Chinese Uighurs who have been slated for release but cannot be returned to China because they will likely be tortured. They have nowhere else to go and have been refused asylum in the US” (Human Rights Watch.)

Do we really have the right to hold detainees forever without charging them?

Pretty much.

“…After the Supreme Court ruled that detainees could challenge the lawfulness of their detention in courts, the Bush administration pushed legislation through Congress that revokes that right. The same legislation strips detainees of the right to challenge their treatment, even if they have been tortured, and even after they have been released.”

Technically, each detainee was given a hearing at a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, and that, according to the Department of Defense, counts as due process. But it doesn’t sound like it to me. In the tribunals, the government relied mostly on secret evidence that the detainee was not allowed to see. Often the detainee was never even told what they had allegedly done to be classified as an “enemy combatant.” Coerced statements – even if they were obtained by torture - were used against them. Detainees could not be represented by lawyers. In most cases they were not allowed to bring evidence or witnesses to aid their story. All they could do was testify on their own behalf. (Link)

So how do we know they’re really bad guys?

Here’s where the story of Adel Hamad comes in. It seems like he’s just a good guy who was doing humanitarian work in hospitals in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Five years ago he was arrested in the middle of the night by Pakistani intelligence officials. He's been in U.S. custody ever since. At his Tribunal, he was accused of three things:

1) The hospital he worked for may support "terrorist ideals."

This is conceivable, but the president of the hospital and the people who fund it have not been arrested. Adel’s job was to buy food for the hospital and write vouchers. If the hospital is a hotbed for terrorists, why would you arrest Adel and no one else?

2) In the course of his work with refugees, Adel Hamad may have come into contact with Al-Qaeda or Taliban members.

His hospital colleagues insist that Hamad never spoke about politics, that there was no anti-American activity at the hospital and that Hamad did not have contacts outside the hospital grounds. But, of course, Adel couldn’t present them as witnesses.

Anyway, the logic seems really weak. Consider this: Mohamed Atta was in the U.S. for over a year before the attacks on September 11. During that time, how many people did he “come into contact with”? Should the guy who taught him to fly go to Guantanamo? How about the man who sold him his Pontiac? The woman who sold him groceries? His landlord in Coral Springs, Florida? Everyone at the Gold Health Club that he attended in Lilburn, Georgia?

3) Adel Hamad is an Enemy Combatant

This is a strange one. The Tribunal is using this as a reason to keep him in custody… but at the same time no one has alleged anything that would make him an enemy combatant. There are no allegations that he engaged in terrorism, acts supporting terrorists, violence against the United States or any belligerent act. One voice of dissent during Adel’s Tribunal was an Army Major who said, “…the supporting allegations do not even qualify him as an enemy combatant.”

In any case, Adel Hamad was not captured on a battlefield. Instead he was arrested in the middle of the night from his own home. He had a valid passport and work visa and Pakistani intelligence found nothing incriminating in his place of residence.

So is Adel really a bad guy?

Who knows? Adel may, indeed, be an honest-to-god terrorist. But, for crying out loud, let’s see the evidence for it. And if there isn't any evidence, can we please let him go back to working in hospitals? We need more people working in hospitals.

So what should we make of this?

Well if you’re anything like me, a good, solid freak-out is in order. If you like a more restrained approach, you could spend an evening think about these two quotes.

"Honor-bound to defend freedom" - Guantanamo camp mission statement.

"He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both" - Thomas Jefferson.

If you're looking to read more, visit these sites:
Project Hamad - with many more details on Adel
Interesting report from a Seton Hall Professor of Law
UN calls for Guantanamo closure - BBC News