The UK: Doing What We Should Have Done
In a somewhat surprising turn of events, Britain has agreed to financially compensate former Gitmo prison at Guantanamo Bay detainees who alleged that the British intelligence agency M16 was involved in their torture and detainment. Just recently, the head of the M16 confirmed that its operatives were not involved in the collusion or enactment of illegal acts of torture. Yet, a statement from Prime Minister David Cameron's office asserted that a multi-million dollar settlement had been reached with formerly detained British residents who sued in a civil case over illegal acts of torture committed against them while at the American prison.
It is great that these former detainees- who were obviously considered not to be guilty since they were released by American officials- are being compensated for the crimes that intelligence-gatherers committed against them. But why is it that the British have to fix the United States' problem? President Obama signed a memorandum just after taking office to close Gitmo. One would expect that, nearly two years later, something would have been done about the controversy lightning-rod that is Guantanamo Bay.
Just this week, the first detainee was tried in the American judicial system, an action that was the result of an Obama Administration decision to move prosecution from the military tribunal system to the US criminal courts. The detainee in question was charged with over 240 crimes, and he was acquitted on all but one case of conspiracy, for which he faces a minimum of 20 years in prison. His acquittal reignited the controversy over the Obama decision to try the detainees in the American courts.
But here's the thing: this reaction to the use of the courts doesn't make any sense. If one has a problem with legally charging these detainees, then the issue is with the century-old right to due process. If one has a problem with this man being acquitted, then the implication is that men and women should be locked up for crimes they didn't commit. Thinking that the man should be jailed for the other 240-odd charges goes against the foundation of the American judicial system and is the same as saying that the burden of evidence should lie with the charged and that people should be presumed guilty, not innocent.
There is a legitimate reason as to why the federal government will face difficulties in federal criminal courts, though it is not a reason to return to tribunals. Intelligence-gatherers' actions that were internationally illegal and face serious repercussions as acts of torture will annul some real charges against detainees. These court cases will force the executive government to own up to its actions and face the consequences for them. Unfortunately, some of the consequences may be severe, especially in removing real charges against detainees.
Read more »
It is great that these former detainees- who were obviously considered not to be guilty since they were released by American officials- are being compensated for the crimes that intelligence-gatherers committed against them. But why is it that the British have to fix the United States' problem? President Obama signed a memorandum just after taking office to close Gitmo. One would expect that, nearly two years later, something would have been done about the controversy lightning-rod that is Guantanamo Bay.
Just this week, the first detainee was tried in the American judicial system, an action that was the result of an Obama Administration decision to move prosecution from the military tribunal system to the US criminal courts. The detainee in question was charged with over 240 crimes, and he was acquitted on all but one case of conspiracy, for which he faces a minimum of 20 years in prison. His acquittal reignited the controversy over the Obama decision to try the detainees in the American courts.
But here's the thing: this reaction to the use of the courts doesn't make any sense. If one has a problem with legally charging these detainees, then the issue is with the century-old right to due process. If one has a problem with this man being acquitted, then the implication is that men and women should be locked up for crimes they didn't commit. Thinking that the man should be jailed for the other 240-odd charges goes against the foundation of the American judicial system and is the same as saying that the burden of evidence should lie with the charged and that people should be presumed guilty, not innocent.
There is a legitimate reason as to why the federal government will face difficulties in federal criminal courts, though it is not a reason to return to tribunals. Intelligence-gatherers' actions that were internationally illegal and face serious repercussions as acts of torture will annul some real charges against detainees. These court cases will force the executive government to own up to its actions and face the consequences for them. Unfortunately, some of the consequences may be severe, especially in removing real charges against detainees.
Posts
