Justice Still Denied At Guantanamo

Back in the Bush administration, a system of military tribunals was created to try muslims taken prisoner outside the United States -- many of whom were turned in to the United States military for money with little or no proof of wrongdoing. Bush and Cheney knew they would not be able to convict any of these prisoners in a United States court of law because if they had any "proof" at all it was usually derived from torture.

They created, with the help of a misguided Congress, a system of military tribunals where the level of proof would not be very strict and where evidence derived from torture could be used. This was done in spite of the fact that it violated the rule of law and all concepts of human decency. It was deemed more important to keep these prisoners locked up to justify two illegal wars and the use of torture than to dispense justice, and the reputation of the United States worldwide suffered because of it.

When the Republicans were booted from power in 2008, many of us had hoped that this country would once again return to the rule of law, even for muslim and political prisoners. The Democrats (and President Obama) talked a good game, but have not delivered on this promise yet. Guantanamo is still open and still is imprisoning people without trial or proof of guilt.

And now we hear the kangaroo courts (military tribunals) are once again moving forward. And the rules for these pseudo-courts have not changed. They are still accepting evidence that could never be entered in a real U.S. court of law.

Take the case of Omar Khadr, who was only 15 years old when captured. He is accused of killing a United States soldier by throwing a grenade. He was captured after a firefight in Afghanistan (after being shot twice in the chest). The problem is that there is no proof that he actually threw any grenade -- no proof that would be accepted in an American court.

The only proof is the boy's confession -- a confession he made after first denying his guilt many times. It was only after an interrogator told him he would be anally-raped and killed unless he confessed, that he finally told the interrogators he threw the grenade. The problem is that like a confession from being tortured, a confession derived by threats cannot be trusted since the person may have just been saying that to prevent more torture or rape or to save his life, and not because he was really guilty.

The tribunal's judge, Army Colonel Patrick Parrish, doesn't concern himself with the rule of law though. He has ruled that evidence obtained by torture and threats can be used against Mr. Khadr in the tribunal proceedings. Obviously the tribunal is all about getting a guilty verdict -- not seeing that justice is done.

I could understand why the Bush administration would countenance this type of injustice -- they were protecting themselves and the torture they had authorized. But I don't understand why the Obama administration is allowing this kind of injustice to continue. In the 2008 campaign, Obama promised to close Guantanamo and punish the guilty in a real court of law (and release those for which no proof of guilt had been found). He also promised to end the torturing of prisoners.

Now I do not believe that real terrorists should be freed. They should be taken to court and convicted on the basis of real evidence -- just like all other criminals. But if there is no evidence, then those accused should be released (and a presidential declaration they are terrorists is not proof -- only an accusation). It is not right that proof is needed to convict home-grown violent criminals (rapists, murderers, etc.), but not needed to convict muslims. Isn't murder still murder, no matter who does it?

Justice and the rule of law is one of the basic foundations of the United States, and denying it to anyone (no matter how scary we think they might be) is an attack on our laws and way of life. It is shameful and must be stopped.