Taking Names: Witness Against Torture Gets Personal (by Frida Berrigan)
What does it mean to be a Christian in these times? The works of mercy knock on our door. The hungry, the naked, the sick, and the prisoner demand our compassion -- but more, they demand our action.
I am thinking of the prisoners especially as I prepare for trial in Washington, D.C., tomorrow. There are the 2 million men and women who crowd U.S. prisons -- many for nonviolent offenses. Then there are the tens of thousands shoved in the dark corners of the U.S.'s vast but hidden archipelago of "war on terror" detention. Guantanamo -- perched on the tip of Cuba -- is the most visible and the most vulnerable.
Since walking from Santiago de Cuba to Guantanamo as a work of mercy -- to visit the prisoners and appeal to the humanity of their imprisoners -- with friends in 2005, I have been particularly concerned with what has been called the "gulag of our time."
And so tomorrow, 35 of us go to trial for an action at the U.S. Supreme Court. On Jan. 11, a day that marked six years of torture and abuse at the U.S. Naval Base, 80 of us were arrested there. In the statement we read there, we explained that "We are here to bring their plight and the plight of all prisoners from this current war, to the 'highest court in the land.' We are here to make their suffering visible, to make their voices heard, to make their humanity felt." And we continued that after we were arrested -- many of us were taken into custody under the name of a Guantanamo prisoner. And in a new twist on traditional protest, we will continue to carry those names into the courtroom on Tuesday.
This act symbolically grants the Guantanamo prisoners their day in court, which the Pentagon has denied them for years. For example, Christine Gaunt, a grandmother and third-generation hog farmer from Grinnell, Iowa, will carry with her into the courtroom the name and the memory of Abdul Razzaq, an Afghani man sent to Guantanamo in 2003. She reflects: "Abdul Razzaq continually claimed his innocence. He died in Guantanamo in 2007 of cancer, leaving behind children and grandchildren. He never had a chance to make his case in a court. I will take his name to honor his right to justice before a proper court, a right cruelly denied him at Guantanamo."
Frida Berrigan is a member of Witness Against Torture and can be reached at frida.berrigan@gmail.com
Add to:
Category: Human Rights, Torture
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I do understand your desire to see such and article.
Still it seems very appropriate to honor those who have died in defense of this country and the freedoms we enjoy by insisting that we live to the high standard they have set for us.
Perhaps if there had been more "little protests" where people stood up for others and against evils like what is occurring at Guantanamo etal, men like Bonhoffer would have lived longer.
No protest against evil can be described as "nothing".
Would you rather they protested in such a way so as to deserve more than a slap on the wrist? Or would you just like them to go away and let torture, that can only dirty the names of our fallen heroes, continue?
Posted by: wayne | May 26, 2008 1:28 PM
I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THIS, AND ITS ONLY THE 2ND TIME I HAVE READ THIS POST.I WILL HOWEVER INVESTIGATE THIS STORY, I'M VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN THIS STORY AND WOULD LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON, I'M NOT SAYING ANYONE IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH THERE IS JUST SO MANY DIFFERENT OPPINIONS ON WHAT IS HAPPENING. SO PLEASE IF ANYONE COULD LET ME KNOW A WEB SITE THAT WILL HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND I WOULD BE THANKFUL. THANK YOU AND MAY GOD GO WITH YOU, GOD BLESS, DONNA THOMPSON
Posted by: DONNA THOMPSON | May 26, 2008 2:01 PM
Almost as constant as God's love, is man's inhumanity to man, every and always.
Posted by: Ex Believer | May 26, 2008 3:46 PM
I do understand your desire to see such and article.
Still it seems very appropriate to honor those who have died in defense of this country and the freedoms we enjoy by insisting that we live to the high standard they have set for us.
Perhaps if there had been more "little protests" where people stood up for others and against evils like what is occurring at Guantanamo etal, men like Bonhoffer would have lived longer.
No protest against evil can be described as "nothing".
Would you rather they protested in such a way so as to deserve more than a slap on the wrist? Or would you just like them to go away and let torture, that can only dirty the names of our fallen heroes, continue?
Posted by: wayne | May 26, 2008 4:04 PM
" I have been particularly concerned with what has been called the "gulag of our time."
So concerned that you couched your opinion in the passive voice? If you this Guantanamo is the Gulag of our time, you do not know of the Gulag.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 27, 2008 1:06 AM
You sound as if everyone in a U.S. prison is really innocent and is there only because the government opposes their political views. This is factually inaccurate in almost every case. Should rapists and child molesters and drunk drivers be freed Can you admit that Biblical justice is fulfilled when the government imprisons them? And why not just do a legal protest rally, rather than trespass at the Supreme Court and get arrested? If you tried such a protest in Taliban Afghanistan or Saddam's Iraq, the terrorists you seek to vindicate would have locked you up and possibly executed you. Why don't you oppose some real criminal regimes, like Castro's Cuba or Mugabe's Zimbabwe? Or is it too politically incorrect to go after an anti-U.S. government that oppresses its people? Why the obsession with villifying the U.S.?
Posted by: Help the Poor | May 27, 2008 1:29 AM
You and most of the others who post on this site have a lot of sympathy for the terrorists, but none for their victims.
You sound as if everyone in a U.S. prison is really innocent and is there only because the government opposes their political views.
Why the obsession with villifying the U.S.?
MadHatter and Help the Poor:
You both are really missing the point, aren't you? The issue here is not whether the prisoners at Guantanamo are guilty or innocent. Many of them may well be guilty. But the question is, guilty of what?
The issue here is that they have never been charged with a crime. They are being held for an indefinite time (over five years in many cases) without even knowing what they are being accused of, without the opportunity to secure legal counsel to defend them, and without understanding what kind of case the government has against them.
In your zeal to accuse those who question the government's actions here of "vilifying" the United States, you seem to have forgotten something. I strongly encourage you both to read the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Then please tell me how the government's holding of these prisoners squares with the Constitutional mandates for due process and a right to a speedy trial.
Then after you are finished with that, ask yourselves, who is really vilifying the U.S.: those who are going along with this governmental undermining of the Constitution, or those like Ms. Berrigan who are protesting it? Who is acting in accordance to the rule of law that our forebears fought so hard to secure and in whose memory we observed the holiday yesterday? On the other hand, who is continuing to damage the U.S.'s reputation for just treatment of the accused?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 27, 2008 8:06 AM
"Also, today is Memorial Day. It would be pleasant to be able to come on here and see a tribute from one of the regular writers (I know that the commenters would do so, so this part isn't aimed at you). However, I am not necessarily holding my breath." Posted by: MadHatter07 | May 26, 2008 11:34 AM
The fact that there is an on-going discussion on this subject is exactly that, a tribute to memorialize the efforts of those that fight for Freedom - not just American freedom, but the right to freedom for all humanity. Although this may not be the pleasant or comfortable article some are looking for it is appropriate for this day. Let the bells of justice and freedom ring from every corner of the earth, even for those that oppose our ideology.
The update on the information of this peaceful action was informative. Please keep us posted!
Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 27, 2008 9:26 AM
I don't like the system the Bush Administration has implemented for "enemy combatants". I recognize that the traditional way of treating POWs doesn't apply in this instance in that we're not engaged in a traditional war between armies in uniform. I also recognize that giving "enemy combatants" access to the U.S. legal system and all the rights and privileges it provides isn't feasible. But the Bush Administration's system of leaving people in prisons for a period of time defined solely by the length of the present conflict is untenable. The "war on terror" will never end in that there will always be terrorists out there somewhere.
But here's what I don't understand about this issue. There are many critics of the Bush policy in Congress among the Democrats. What is their alternative and why haven't they passed legislation mandating it? Why haven't they tried to force Bush to veto something that would solve the problem?
For all the posturing done by Bush opponents, effective solutions to this problem are hard to come by. Making alternative policy on this issue would be politically difficult for Democrats so they've chosen to use this issue as a political weapon, but do nothing to address the problem themselves. They seem to prefer to let the courts do the dirty work and make policy. Maybe they've voted on something and I missed it, but it frustrates me when people criticize a policy response to a tricky situation without offering an alternative.
Posted by: Eric | May 27, 2008 10:42 AM
I'm waiting for Kevin to blog on this issue. Then I'll know what to say and think.
Posted by: Silly Bob Thornton | May 27, 2008 1:55 PM
"Then please tell me how the government's holding of these prisoners squares with the Constitutional mandates for due process and a right to a speedy trial."
Our consitution does not apply internationally. Regardless of your viewpoint on the legitimacy of Guantanamo, we are never going to apply the fifth and sixth amendments to suspected terrorists captured in other countries.
Eric is correct that a meaningful alternative has not been offered. Nobody wants to be held responsible for the criticisms inherent in offering an alternative that provides due process, because that will mean being held to account when a released terror suspect commits a terrorist act.
A willingness to take that chance might qualify as courage. Interpretative dance accompanied by a press release, less so.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 27, 2008 1:56 PM
kevin s: "Interpretative dance accompanied by a press release, less so."
These people are willing to go to jail for what they believe in. That amounts to a bit more than "Interpretative dance accompanied by a press release."
Help the Poor: "You sound as if everyone in a U.S. prison is really innocent and is there only because the government opposes their political views. This is factually inaccurate in almost every case."
If Berrigan had written that, it indeed would be factually inaccurate. But actually what she wrote was: "There are the 2 million men and women who crowd U.S. prisons -- many for nonviolent offenses."
Posted by: carl copas | May 27, 2008 2:03 PM
Posted by: kevin s. | May 27, 2008 1:56 PM
"A willingness to take that chance might qualify as courage."
Then I suppose I'm courageous, because I'm more than willing.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 27, 2008 2:06 PM
A significant roadblock to committed, serious wrestling with God over issues like this is our tendency to deal with it at a human level. There's an assumption that the major causes of conflicts with the posts and the comments is wrong-headedness coming from people who need to change their attitudes -- and then all will be fine.
Some posts seem to be eruptions of anger that apparently don't get ear anywhere else.
Most of us are sitting at home/job/church/wherever, waiting for someone to change the world, and cursing the darkness 'cause no one appears to bring the light. It's been done in the work and sacrifice of Jesus, who sometimes expects us to be the answer to our own prayers.
With all my heart I'd like to see what happens, especially in international conflict, when there is some serious prayer and fasting and speaking truth to power that goes beyond participation of groups like Sojourners. You don'tlike conditions? Then get engrossed in your prayers and expect an answer. I promise there will be one.
Who was it, maybe G.K. Chesterton who said something like, "Who said Christianity doesn't work? It's never been tried!"
Posted by: openeyes | May 27, 2008 2:09 PM
Silly Bob Thornton. I see what you did there, and I like it. His name is Billy Bob, but you have introduced an element of zany wordplay into the mix by using a word that rhymes with "Billy". Now everything is thrown of kilter, because that isn't really his name, but something that sounds like his name that makes him seem goofy.
Like vintage Mad Magazine, this guy. Hey, maybe someone could make an Alfred E. Neuman joke. I'll give you a hint... A certain American president looks like him. Go to town!
Posted by: kevin s. | May 27, 2008 2:15 PM
What Chesterton said was: "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."
At least these people are trying, and I give them credit for it. Prosecuting people without due process of law is a violation of the Christian ideal at every conceivable level. (And if that was an eruption of anger, so be it.)
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 27, 2008 2:20 PM
I think we need to correct the problem of Guantanomo. We need to correct the laws saying war criminals don't deserve a fair trial. Today, if you were to be arrested for terrorism (which means if someone said you were waving a gun at a shopping mall or maybe even carried one to school)you could rot in jail for a LONG time before they ever had to give you a day in court.
You would have to prove that you didn't have a gun on you, or that you weren't at the said location. But you can't prove any of that until they give you a trial.
The right to a fair and timely trial is as important to me as freedom of speech. If we don't maintain that -- to be accused is to be condemned. If I'm not allowed to have my side of the story heard -- what good is freedom of speech?
Posted by: frankie | May 27, 2008 2:22 PM
Our consitution does not apply internationally...we are never going to apply the fifth and sixth amendments to suspected terrorists captured in other countries..
According to the Administration, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments also don't apply to U.S. citizens whom they decide to classify as "enemy combatants." Don't forget Jose Padilla.
Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment reads, "No person ... shall be deprived of life liberty, and property without due process..."
It seems to me that this applies to anyone, citizen or not, who is being held by government authorities, except perhaps during wartime (but don't forget, we're not legally at war--no Congressional declaration of war has been made).
At any rate, it seems to many that the government's case for holding prisoners without habaeus corpus is on very shaky legal ground. It certainly doesn't make our legal system appear just and fair to the rest of the world. And since this "war on terror" is primarily an ideological war, our government's willingness to aid and abet these perceptions is equivalent to shooting ourselves in the foot.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 27, 2008 2:26 PM
"Silly Bob Thornton. I see what you did there, and I like it. His name is Billy Bob, but you have introduced an element of zany wordplay into the mix by using a word that rhymes with "Billy". Now everything is thrown of kilter, because that isn't really his name, but something that sounds like his name that makes him seem goofy." Posted by: kevin s. | May 27, 2008 2:15 PM
You, my friend are a riot!!!!! Thanks for the laughter on a day when nothing less would do!
Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 27, 2008 2:31 PM
I starred with Silly Bob in Monster's Tall. It was a great movie...we're sooo creative.
Posted by: Sally Berry | May 27, 2008 2:36 PM
"I starred with Silly Bob in Monster's Tall. It was a great movie...we're sooo creative." Posted by: Sally Berry | May 27, 2008 2:36 PM
I heard that movie was terrible but maybe Mr. Alu has seen it and thinks otherwise.
Posted by: Bad Pitt | May 27, 2008 2:59 PM
Don uses an important word here: "just". The U.S. must devise a just system for dealing with people accused of aiding terrorists or committing acts of terrorism. We love to talk about our “rights”, as if we have the right to do something, we ought to do it or it’s a good thing to do. Just because we have the right to do something under the law or the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s the just thing to do.
The U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply to foreigners caught doing something outside U.S. borders so its protections don’t apply to these people. But that doesn’t mean U.S. policy should be that the U.S. government is free to do what it wants with them. Letting someone sit in a jail cell for an undetermined period of time with no recourse is morally wrong.
I’m not a legal expert. Personally, I don’t think the burden of proof or the standard of evidence for conviction should be as high as in a U.S. court room, but some sort of just process should be developed for dealing with these prisoners. I also would prefer that a limit be put on the number of appeals so that either the prisoners are sent home or sentenced. Ultimately, I’d prefer that they be tried under the laws of the country in which they were caught, but then you get into the issue of extradition and what, possibly even more inhumane, things will be done to them there.
But again, the Bush Administration has proposed a system, flawed as it is, to address the problem of enemy combatants. Where is the opposition party on this? Why are they not attempting to correct the flaws in Bush’s system using their legislative powers? Why are they not showing courage on this issue?
Posted by: Eric | May 27, 2008 2:59 PM
This Dylan song from the cold-war era often comes to mind when reading articles and responses such as this. "you don't count the dead when God's on your side" or in this case you don't count the unjustly treatment of other humans when you've got God on your side....
Oh my name it is nothin' my age it means less
the country I come from is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there the laws to abide
and that land that I live in has God on its side.
Oh the history books tell it they tell it so well
The cavalries charged the Indians fell the cavalries charged the Indians died Oh the country was young with God on its side.
Oh the Spanish-American War had its day and the Civil War too was soon laid away And the names of the heroes I's made to memorize with guns in their hands and God on their side.
Oh the First World War, boys it closed out its fate The reason for fighting I never got straight
but I learned to accept it accept it with pride
for you don't count the dead when God's on your side.
When the Second World War came to an end we forgave the Germans and we were friends
Though they murdered six million in the ovens they fried the Germans now too have God on their side.
I've learned to hate Russians all through my whole life If another war starts it's them we must fight To hate them and fear them to run and to hide and accept it all bravely with God on my side.
But now we got weapons of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to then fire them we must One push of the button and a shot the world wide and you never ask questions when God's on your side.
In a many dark hour I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ was betrayed by a kiss but I can't think for you you'll have to decide whether Judas Iscariot had God on his side.
So now as I'm leavin' I'm weary as Hell The confusion I'm feelin' ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head and fall to the floor
if God's on our side He'll stop the next war.
Copyright © 1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music Columbia Records
Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 27, 2008 3:33 PM
We do suffer from the same moral temptations of all powerful nations with rulers who have heavy imperial, military and imprisonment/domination impulses:
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago: "Pride grows in the human heart like lard on a pig."
Posted by: The First Circle | May 27, 2008 3:57 PM
kevin s: "Silly Bob Thornton. I see what you did there, and I like it. His name is Billy Bob, but you have introduced an element of zany wordplay into the mix by using a word that rhymes with "Billy". Now everything is thrown of kilter, because that isn't really his name, but something that sounds like his name that makes him seem goofy.
Like vintage Mad Magazine, this guy. Hey, maybe someone could make an Alfred E. Neuman joke. I'll give you a hint... A certain American president looks like him. Go to town!"
Kevin s, why'd you have to go and have a sense of humor? Now I can't dislike you, even if your politics are to the right of Attila the Hun and your theology to the right of a Holy Roller snake handler in the Cumberland mountains.
I'm guessing Silly Bob is JamesMartin.
Carl Copacetic
Posted by: carl copas | May 27, 2008 4:08 PM
No Carl, not James Martin.
Posted by: Silly Bob Martin | May 27, 2008 4:41 PM
A certain American president looks like [Alfred E. Neuman]. Go to town!
It's only the ears, Kevin.
D
Posted by: Don | May 27, 2008 5:31 PM
"I'm guessing Silly Bob is JamesMartin"
?????
This is my first post here, and I am wondering what is going on.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 28, 2008 1:00 PM
Uh huh... I'd recognize your thin frame and three day beard anywhere "James"... I know you’re really Silly Bob.
Posted by: Sally Berry | May 28, 2008 1:20 PM
JamesMartin: "????? This is my first post here, and I am wondering what is going on."
James, I was just speculating. Given the way you and Kevin often tilt swords, I guessed that you were "Silly Bob Thornton." Obviously, a bad hunch.
Posted by: carl copas | May 28, 2008 2:54 PM
My guess is that Silly Bob is actually the below radar return of Squeaky???
Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 28, 2008 4:13 PM
JamesMartin, initially someone under the guise of Silly Bob Thorton commented on a couple of article threads that they would simply wait to see what Kevin S had to say about the subject matter in order to know what to think. Since then those items have been removed by the blogmaster so I'm sure the remaining notes seem even more strange than they actually are - if that could be possible.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 28, 2008 4:53 PM
Thanks d.e. I didn't realize that the blogmaster had removed Silly Bob's, er, contributions. JamesMartin likely thinks we're all nuts.
Posted by: carl copas | May 28, 2008 7:10 PM
James Martin - isn't this what they call identity theft? Aren't you a lawyer, sue somebody!!
Posted by: canucklehead | May 29, 2008 1:57 AM
Back to the subject at hand, I am always heartened to see that there are Christians out there willing to take action against these abuses. I am equally amazed and alarmed at the lack of concern for due process and fair play displayed by some people here who would have no quibble over what the government is doing. I am alarmed because those attitudes lend themselves to dictatorship. I am amazed that they can reconcile their policy positions with the gospel.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 29, 2008 6:25 AM
Can we stay on topic, please?
One of the things that is upsetting to me is that when the torture photos surfaced in early 2004, so many of the conservative Christian opinion-makers in this country (Tony Perkins, Cal Thomas, and Gary Bauer distinctly come to mind) rushed to make excuses for or even outright defend the practices. This does not help to shine a light to the world, to say the least ("They'll know we are Christians by our...love??"). Those who think Christians are unfairly maligned in some sectors of society should look at how many of the "leaders" portray the faith.
Christianity Today, to its credit, came out with a cover story soon after called "Why Torture is Always Wrong." However, even that was "balanced" by an opposing view from some retired military person who defended it. Would CT have provided an opposing view to "Why Abortion is Always Wrong" or even seen the need to run a cover story on that topic?
I'm glad there are many rank-and-file evangelicals who were appalled by and disapproving of the torture from the start. But I hope there will be some serious denunciation of these "leaders" who are becoming more and more out of touch with the way Christians think and who continue to make the faith seem hypocritical in the eyes of unbelievers.
Posted by: I and I | May 29, 2008 10:58 AM
I and I -
I would actually be pleased if CT were also willing to print a counter-argument on the abortion issue. As a proponent of intellectual freedom, I always support the airing of different positions.
The problem, I think, is that many people these days haven't learned to think through the implications of such a debate. It doesn't help that the opposing view is often presented as having both equal weight and equal credibility: e.g. "Here's Max Blog, Ph.D., to explain why many scientists believe the earth is flat."
IMO, Max Blog is entitled to his opinion, and is entitled to express it, but he is *not* entitled to the presumption that his view carries equal weight to that of the mainstream scientific community. Likewise, those Christians who believe torture can be justified are entitled to say so, but they are not entitled to the presumption that those views are therefore de facto plausible.
Is it simply too late in our history to assume that people can be expected to make such distinctions?
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 29, 2008 12:01 PM
Another non and I and I -
I don't think the airing of a "counterpoint" is always required. In the case of the flat earth example, it's obviously not. The use of torture isn't some settled science though. I'll add that I oppose any use of torture for any reason. But I think a decent case can be made that using some mild forms of torture to gain information that can be used to save the lives of other people is acceptable. Particularly when torture is sometimes defined as sitting on a hard chair for a long period of time or a room being an uncomfortable temperature. What I'm saying is that defending the use of torture is not as off the wall as saying the earth is flat, and I don't blame Christianity Today for letting people have a second opinion.
I also thinks it's important to distinguish between torture done to get terrorists to cough up information and what was done at Abu Ghraib and exposed in the "torture photos". I never heard Perkins, Thomas, or Bauer defending Abu Ghraib.
Posted by: Eric | May 29, 2008 12:57 PM
Since even the FBI is acknowledging that information got by torturing the informant is useless (the person will say whatever is necessary to get the torture to stop) it's time for Fred and others to not worry about any distinction between "torture done to get terrorists to cough up information and what was done at Abu Ghraib".
As Christianity Today's header stated "Torture is Always Wrong". Unlike Christianity Today, I don't believe there is a legitimate counter argument to that statement. For every retired military person who supports torture there are many equally retired military persons who don't. But this isn't a popularity contest for a point of view--torture is ALWAYS wrong.
Posted by: bren | May 29, 2008 4:25 PM
Wo to you hypocrytes... you like to pray on street corners where others will see. . . You lay up burdens that no man can lift, and don't raise a finger to help. . . You have your reward.
Posted by: anonymous | May 29, 2008 4:32 PM
One more thing to remember about the U.S. and prisons: the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
This may, of course, mean that the U.S. has a higher proportion of people who break the law than anywhere else, but I don't think so. I think it's so easy for people to decide to incarcerate folks they don't like, are scared of, that it has become an instrument of social control. That isn't to say that there aren't some really bad people who rightly are in jail; however, I don't believe that the U.S. has a higher proportion of people who break the law than anywhere else. So why then does the U.S. have the highest incarceration rate in the world?
Posted by: bren | May 30, 2008 1:54 AM
Bren, a lot of the reason has to do with mandatory-sentencing laws for drug crimes and similar offenses. In our zeal to "send a message" that drug use is wrong, we end up incarcerating a lot of people who really need treatment, not prison.
My opinion,
D
Posted by: Don | May 30, 2008 6:23 AM
My post on this topic, which had been successfully placed on the blogsite was deleted. I was not sent a copy of my post nor was I warned about content. Why? It seems rude and unnecessary if it was in fact deliberate, and I think GP needs a consistent policy .
Those who defend torture consistently presume guilt. One major problem is that clear evidence that someone is a terrorist is very rare. The Military has released many from Guantanamo with no charges. Not one of them has agreed with the US military that they were treated humanely. Virtually all of those released have alleged abuse and or severe torture, as has the FBI. Every chief federal prosecutor for the Guantanamo Military tribunal cases has quit, saying the proceedings were extremely unfair and contrary to fundamentals of justice.
Fascism advances when their is no effective way to challenge state abuses of power. I applaud Frida and those who have taken this sacrificial stand for justice. They walk in the tradition of Martin King, Ghandi, Dan Berrigan and Jesus and other heroes of justice, putting their lives on the line for the most abused and despised.
Posted by: jonabark | June 2, 2008 11:24 AM
>Our consitution does not apply internationally. Regardless of your viewpoint on the legitimacy of Guantanamo, we are never going to apply the fifth and sixth amendments to suspected terrorists captured in other countries.
The Declaration of Independence set forth the founding philosophy of our country, later codified in the Constitution, with the phrase "...ALL men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."[emphasis added].
Putting aside for a moment the gender question ("all men..."), they did not say "all Englishmen" or "all Europeans" or even "all citizens". It has only ever been to our shame when we have qualified the rights some ("other") people are entitled to -- whether they be slaves, Native Americans, immigrants, or ethnic Japanese. Christianity early on concluded that God's love and salvation belonged to everyone, not just the "Chosen People," but Jew and Gentile alike.
The U.S. had agreed to, and in fact been a leader in setting, international standards of treatment of prisoners, which seem to have been often intentionally ignored at Guantanamo:
"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." (The UN Convention Against Torture, Article 2, Ratified by the United States of America in 1994)
I understand the risks and dangers -- I lost my step-son on 9/11. But I also understand that we do not bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth by compromising on Jesus' command to love our enemies (real or alleged). I recall that Jesus healed the Centurion's ear, cut by Peter, and admonished him saying that, had he (Jesus) not wished, he could have commanded a whole legion of angels to battle? This was not the method he sought to use, even to the risk of his own life.
Peace.
Posted by: J.L. | June 2, 2008 12:02 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?