Lockerbie's Lesson: Move Guantanamo Detainees to the U.S.
The images from Libya are horrifying: Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person ever convicted for the bombing of Pan Am 103, has returned home to a hero's welcome. Since al-Megrahi is dying of prostate cancer, a Scottish judge released him on "compassionate" grounds.
The United States strenuously objected to al-Megrahi's release. 189 Americans died on Pan Am 103, but the United States is powerless to stop the release, since al-Megrahi was prosecuted and jailed in Scotland. The United States stands by helplessly as one of the world's most vicious terrorists is allowed to die in the comfort of his own home.
The images of al-Megrahi's triumphant return to Libya are particularly galling since the vast majority of al-Megrahi's victims were American nationals. If al-Megrahi had been tried, convicted, and jailed in the United States, he would die where he belongs: in a jail cell.
Moreover, if Congress does not relent on its refusal to allow the transfer of Guantanamo detainees into the U.S., we may well see terrorists who have killed Americans released to heroes' welcomes in the future.
After President Obama pledged to shut down Guantanamo, Congress passed legislation prohibiting the transfer of any ex-Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. mainland. As a result, the Obama administration is now feverishly negotiating with foreign countries to take Guantanamo detainees. Once these detainees are transferred, the United States will lose control over them. Even if some are convicted for crimes against Americans, we will have no say as to their sentences, paroles, or future "compassionate release."
There may well be innocent men on Guantanamo. We thus need a full and fair process to evaluate their respective guilt, and thereby release the innocent. However, Guantanamo also likely holds terrorists who helped plan and carry out attacks against Americans.
If these men are convicted in a full and fair proceeding, they will face significant jail sentences, just like al-Megrahi. These sentences should be served in the United States, not overseas.
If instead all Guantanamo detainees are sent abroad, the United States will lose jurisdiction over them. In a few years, for example, self-proclaimed 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed could be released by a foreign nation on "compassionate" grounds. Moving Gitmo detainees abroad is an easy course of action now, but it has troubling long-term consequences: the loss of U.S. control over the punishment of those detainees who, after due process, are convicted of killing Americans.
In fairness, federal law allows for compassionate release. In particular, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) allows for early release when "extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant." The November 2007 Federal Sentencing Guidelines defined these reasons as including "terminal illness," such as al-Megrahi's. However, such releases in practice are granted rarely, and even less frequently for violent crimes.
Scotland's release of al-Megrahi is wrong at every level. Congress should learn from this troubling incident, and allow the President to jail foreign terrorists in the United States. Guantanamo should be closed, but the solution is not to outsource to other nations the punishment of convicted terrorists. After a fair trial, those who have killed Americans should be punished by the American government.
Harry Shearer: The Word Not Spoken: Bagram
When Fox staged a special Veterans Day version of its NFL pregame show at Bagram AF Base last Sunday, they failed to mention one interesting fact about Bagram: It's the site of America's other Gitmo.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The vanity of the Scottish Justice Minister (if he is to be believed) is astounding. I see many on here talking about how this is the Christian thing to do but they are quite confused.
First of all, forgiving someone is not grounds for their release. You might forgive someone but still believe they should be imprisoned or else we would be releasing Charles Manson and other dangerous people. And the public doesn't forgive a person, individuals do.
Second, this action is so obviously vain and self-aggrandizing that it can't possibly be viewed as Christian unless you forget Jesus' admonition against the hypocrites who pray in public. Does anyone honestly believe that this action has softened the heart of this man and he has forgiven himself? Of course not because he hasn't even acknowledged that he's guilty of a crime.
It is also ridiculous to believe that this will curry favor with the Muslim world. Did the release of the two journalists make us view NK any differently? Or the release of the british sailors by Iran? Of course not, it just made them look foolish, and their legal systems completely arbitrary.
8/22/09
12:52am
Sunny Isles Beach, FL
"Squeaky" Fromme was recently released from prison here in the USA even though she attempted to assasinate President Ford.
So how can we criticize Scottish law?
Attempted murder of 1 person vs successfull murder of over 280 people. Plus she served over 30 years of the sentence. he served, what 8 years?
Yep. You are correct. If the detainees are shipped elsewhere and subsequently released, do we blame
1. Obama 2. the foreign countries who accepted and released them or 3. ourselves. This is one matter which cannot be laid at Obama's doorstep. The American people has spoken when their mouth pieces in Congress and Senate stated that they do not want the detainees on US soil.
The release of this convicted terrorist is disgusting and appalling. He should have died in prison and the person who authorized the lockerbie bombing, the Libyan president, got away with it. In the same vein, it must have felt the same bitter way to innocent Iraqi families who lost loved ones after Bush invaded them when they watched their TVs in horror that we re-elected him in November 2004 and feted him at his second inauguration in January 2005. It must have felt the same to them.
For all who wish to weigh in on the wisdom of this blog offering, I suggest first you read Chamberlain's blog posting 'Lockerbie and Kafka's Aftermath' also available here at HuffPo. Seems the situation might be more complicated than we have been led to believe...
The link for "Lockerbie and Kafka's Aftermath" (by Michael Carmichael, not Chamberlain) is:
http://www
Its amazing, after the arrogance of sub-priming the entire globe PRESSURING COUNTRIES TO FOLLOW THE JUNK THEORIES, legalising torture, inventing WMDs and pre-emptive self-defence war, the monopolised American Media (HuffPo excluded!) is still so focussed on population management. There should be a difference between news and psychological management. This case is not as simple as it seems and if anyone bothered to look at what even conservative open minded people are saying, a more nuanced approach may be developed. But hey its us against them, and you can apply that to health death panels too! What nonsense! Get with the 21st century - the planet is burning up and the US is killing maiming and bullying to maintain this precious way of life and undermining MOST multilateral processes, including trade and climate change, that are more needed than ever. But I guess if this article is the mainstream view, then perhaps this is manifest destiny exported and burned!
Aaron, you just don't get it. Scotland is a sovereign country, they don't care what you think. While you may think the US runs the world they don't. Americans are subject to the rules of the country they are visiting, just like people from the rest of the planet.
I don't recall hearing that prisoners who have been "found guilty of killing Americans" would be released.
It will be the poor saps who were sold into bondage by unscrupulous neighbors and those we have no case against who will be relocated to other countries.
This is a policy that was pursued by the Bush administration, unsuccessfully, and has been the goal for quite some time.
This hysteria about "American Killers" needs to be squashed like the bug it is, just more town hall teabagger nonsense to be put down.
Frankly I think his release was the sane thing to do. I don't see it as a mistake. And I don't think it was hero''s welcome. And frankly for what the term hero means today what if it was? This isn't a testosterone charged teenage case of someone dissed someone else. I commend Scotland for doing the right thing.
I find it strange that prisoners that we imprisoned and tortured are now considered to dangerous to be held are prosecuted on US soil. What exactly are we afraid of? Are they now more dangerous than they were when we first captured them? And this world power can't secure less than 300 prisoners on it's own soil, but we can wage wars throughout the world? Makes no sense.
You represent the Yale Law Journal? Hopefully not for too much longer when they realize your jingo is clashing with the law itself. Just so you know, you painfully simple person:
"There have been no Gitmo detainees that have been convicted in a court of law" Period. The government can't find any witnesses, will not allow their defense lawyers access to information or testimony. The detainees have been abused, tortured and arrested without cause because there is no actual "war". They release a few here and again because of these silly legal statutes that say the innocent are allowed their freedom.
That pretty much makes the rest of your arguments sound as silly as Bill O'Reilly on a bender with the camera on. If you do not care about facts, label the work as the appropriate type of fiction that it is.
And why for the sake of argument, are you concerned about what a Scottish court does for a Libyan national prisoner? The unbelievable arrogance gives the whole room a certain bouquet. I like how you argue for and against your pet issue at the same time and come to no question or conclusion.
Yale must have suffered greatly since they allowed people to pay for an education not earned. You are proof that they do not care. GW Bush was a prime example of no "idiot" left behind.
"The United States stands by helplessly as one of the world's most vicious terrorists is allowed to die in the comfort of his own home."
Yes, I'm afraid that's what happens when someone is tried an sentenced under the laws of a continent that is at least trying to be civilized.
I'm sorry, you do not just have a problem with a Scottish minister, and most probably not only with Scottish law, but with the entire European consensus on judicial punishment, certainly with the general European understanding of human rights, anada again very likely with positive European human rights law. As the latter supersedes national law, it is highly questionable whether anyone in the UK had the discretion not to release a terminally ill prisoner. That is standard practice on this side of the pond.
We do not dehumanize our prisoners, even if they have commited crimes that attempt to dehumanize their victims.
Only the USA persists in its barbarous equation of justice with revenge. The outraged howling I've been seeing in the TV is an utter disgrace to your nation and makes a bad joke of every time you use the words freedom or dignity. Because the USA is a state whose most august legal authorities reserve the right to remove the last ounce of freedom or dignity a human being might have.
Abolish the death penalty and then we can talk. But don't come preaching to Europeans before you've done that piece of homework.
Sir or madam - a great many Americans are convinced that living under the defensive umbrella of the United States for the past 63 years has turned European thought on many, many issues into self-destructive foolishness. What you call "civilized" is not justice. Recognizing a lethal threat to your society and culture and ruthlessly removing it so that it can never be a threat again - THAT'S justice! We don't "dehumanize" murderers - we just have much higher standards about what is acceptable human behavior. Feel free to be as "disgusted" as you like - your disgusted feeling is based on the conceit that you, and only you, are equipped to set standards. You don't have that kind of credibility. And just what the hell do you all know about Freedom or Liberty. You're all buried under the weight of nannyism - your governments just won't leave people alone. The freedom you have is provided under the aegis of the USA - and that is slowly being eaten away by spreading Islamic values while you all stand helplessly by and abet the takeover. And, by the way, a person who savagely kills hundreds of innocent men, women and children has forfeit all claim to freedom and liberty - indeed, all claim to LIFE. So just keep playing in your sandbox while the adults make the important decisions.
First of all, you don't know my attitude to the "defensive umbrella of the United States". What that was about, and whether I appreciate what the US did for western Europe, are on a different page as far as I'm concerned, and I'm fairly sure my attitudes to them are not what you presume.
Secondly, you don't even know whether I am in the part if Europe that enjoyed being west of the Iron Curtain. I might be in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Rumania or Bulgaria. That's 11 countries who were not subject to the morally softening forces you mention, but still none of them has the death penalty.
As to Islamic values, I'm just not paranoid about 4% of the population, of whom a small fraction may have a bad attitude, being a threat to our way of life. A few nutcases may kill people, but tell me a period in history that didn't have a few nutcases who killed people.
I totally disagree with the death penalty due to the possibility of an innocent being wrongly executed. However, this person was sentenced to life in prison. Regardless of our laws, he should not have been released. He showed no compassion for the hundreds he killed, has expressed no remorse and denies involvement. I don't know about Europe, but one of the conditions for early release generally applied by parole boards in the US is that the inmate has demonstrated remorse for his/her actions.
An argument might be able to be made that this "compassionate" gesture may sway the views of some Muslim nations, but more than likely it makes the West in general look week and foolish. This scum was returned to a country which executes people for non-violent crimes.
"I don't know about Europe, but one of the conditions for early release generally applied by parole boards in the US is that the inmate has demonstrated remorse for his/her actions."
For a healthy person, that certainly delays their release, but not for ever; look into the RAF people in Germany; a few of them got out after 24 years. And there were one or two releases on health grounds.
"Life" has not meant "until you die" in most European countries for a long time. As it says in the articles, Megrahi's sentence was supposed to be at least 27 years.
I don't think international politics should be taken into account in judicial decisions.
I agree with what you say. There is no excuse for inhumane treatment of another living creature, let alone another human.
Very well said. I am in complete agreement. Fanned
Adam Smith on the concept of leniency towards the guilty:
" And so far this account is undoubtedly true, that we frequently have occasion to confirm our natural sense of the propriety and fitness of punishment, by reflecting how necessary it is for preserving the order of society. When the guilty is about to suffer that just retaliation, which the natural indignation of mankind tells them is due to his crimes; when the insolence of his injustice is broken and humbled by the terror of his approaching punishment; when he ceases to be an object of fear, with the GENEROUS AND HUMANE HE BEGINS TO BE AN OBJECT OF PITY. The thought of what he is about to suffer extinguishes their resentment for the sufferings of others to which he has given occasion. They are disposed to pardon and forgive him, and to save him from that punishment, which in all their cool hours they had considered as the retribution due to such crimes. Here, therefore, they have occasion to call to their assistance the consideration of the general interest of society. They counterbalance the impulse of this weak and partial humanity by the dictates of a humanity that is more generous and comprehensive. They reflect that MERCY TO THE GUILTY IS CRUELTY TO THE INNOCENT, and oppose to the emotions of compassion which they feel for a particular person, a more enlarged compassion which they feel for mankind. "
--Adam Smith (The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759)
yeah, the 18th century was a great time. let me remember, that was when the catholic majority in my country couldn't own land, couldn't go to university, couldn't hold public office, wasn't allowed to live in towns and a few other nice things.
the british navy was busy flogging its pressganged sailors to death on a regular basis, a good day for isaac newton began with sending a few coin clippers to the gallows, and in adam smith's scotland there was so much mercy for the innocent slopping around that they were flocking (being herded, more like) to the emigrant boats.
you do realize that is a hymn in praise of public hangings?
Move these bad men to Michigan!
Let Michigan accept this waste and be responsible for all the problems that come with them. Keep them out of my state however. Michigan can become a dumping ground for terror.
Go over to the Guardian. The folks there are jumping for joy and bringing up the KKK and the extermination of Native Americans in their defense of his release.
I imagine if the Iraqis had jailed the head of Blackwater and then realeased him on compasionate grounds because he had cancer he would be welcome back (by some) in the U.S. as a hero.
Justice is often in the eye of the beholder.
No one employed by Blackwater will ever be jailed. Bush and his executive orders saw to that. But I see your point.
I don't have any idea what constitutes a hero any longer. Much like I have no idea what a terrorist is.
I imagine that if one of Cheney's death squad members had been caught dong the deed (we have to remember that this man was acting as a government agent), that not only would we refuse to prosecute, convict, and imprison that person, but we would claim that they were covered by no law and that no other state had the right or ability to do the same.
Much like Ms England has paid the price for the torture policies of the Bush cabal, this man has paid the price for the chickenhawks in his own country.
been there.
you sure been rilin' them up good, jimmy boy.
haha I wish. Some of the saner people there actually made me see some serious inconsistencies with the case, but really most of them are just self-righteous about the fact that across the pond they see revenge against murder as morally equal to senseless murder of civilians.
If the prisoners are transferred to the US, how can we be sure that some liberal federal judge won't order them released in the future? What about breakout attempts? At GITMO they surrounded by oceans of water, in USA they could disappear into the country side after a succesful breakout.
And finally, if its immoral to keep them locked up in GITMO, why is it more moral to keep them locked up within the USA? How does movement to a less secure location within the USA improve the situation?
"If the prisoners are transferred to the US, how can we be sure that some liberal federal judge won't order them released in the future?" - The article didn't say they'd never be released, the article said transferring them to the U.S. would keep them within U.S. jurisdiction. I'd rather have U.S. judges liberal or otherwise making the decision, than foreign judges.
"At GITMO they surrounded by oceans of water, in USA they could disappear into the country side after a succesful breakout. "- There has never been a succesful breakout from our supermax prisons. So you scenario is highly unlikely
if its immoral to keep them locked up in GITMO, why is it more moral to keep them locked up within the USA? - You are correct in that the location isn't the main issue. If there is not clear legal framework, and humane prisoner treatment it doesn't matter where the prisoners are kept. Unfortunately Gitmo has a terrible reputation overseas and is used as a terrorist recruiting tool.
Actually they shouldn't be kept imprisoned. They should be prosecuted under US or World Law with all due haste and if found innocent released.
I'd rather have U.S. judges liberal or otherwise making the decision, than foreign judges.
The flaw in that statement is the assumption that they deserve representation in our judicial system. they do not.
The prisoners have not committed any federal crimes. They are non uniformed combatants captured on the battlefield. As such it is LEGAL for the united states to hold them until the cessation of hostilities. It is their misfortune that they chose to start a war in which it will be extremely difficult for the United States to determine when hostilities have ceased. Having initiated combat against us, they should have to live with the unpleasant consequences.
"- There has never been a succesful breakout from our supermax prisons. So you scenario is highly unlikely. Whether its unlikely or not it can't be argued that its more secure to house them in our country than on an island base outside the country.
Unfortunately Gitmo has a terrible reputation overseas and is used as a terrorist recruiting tool. And you don't think that once they are moved to a supermax prison in the USA the detainees won't make the same accusations against the new facility as they did in GITMO? GITMO got its bad repuation due to "journalists" taking the detainees accusations at face value and reporting them as fact. Ignoring the fact the AL Quaedas training manual instructs its members to accuse the enemy of human rights violations in order to raise sympathy for the terrorists agenda.
First, GITMO was established offshore in part so that US laws regarding the treatment of prisoners and detainees would not apply. That is why it is immoral to keep them locked up in GITMO.
Second, no one has EVER escaped from a Federal Supermax prison-EVER! Do you really think these guys are more intelligent and resourceful than Ted Kuzinski?
You say that like its a bad thing. The president was well aware that liberal judges and the ACLU would demand that captured combatants be treated like common criminals and would insist that standards of evidence that appropriate for prosecuting crimes would be applied inappropriately towards these captured combatants.
In effect, we would not be able to convict them of anything due the way in which they were captured (the "evidence" would be deemed inadmissable in court) and would be forced to let them go. Thats no way to fight a war.
So yes to prevent the insanity of trying enemy soldiers in US courts of laws he intelligently chose to keep them out of the jurisdiction of our court system.
Is that what we are afraid of that a judge might release them on legal grounds? Why didn't we hold Tim McVeigh at Gitmo? You are really scared aren't you? Do you know what you are afraid of?
No, but I'm sure with your superior intelligence and morals you'll enlighten me
Tim Mcveigh fell under a lone gunman scenario and he was a US citizen. He was not part of a large foreign army capable of doing grave harm to the United states as al Quaeda proved they could do by attacking us repeatedly over a course of 10 years.
By "liberal federal judge" do you mean Antonin Scalia, who would have the last word on the matter?
Not sure where you're going with that statement. Could you elaborate?
Not Scalia - he's a brilliant jurist. Some Left-wing partisan with poor legal skills - like Sotomayor! Or Ginzburg (now THERE'S an old-fashioned Progressive if I ever saw one).
For many people outside the US, America has lost much of its shine in recent years, particularly when it comes to the subject of justice. In his commentary, Aaron Zelinsky demonstrates that when writing that of those detained at Guantanamo, "There may well be innocent men . . . " and yet their cases have not been examined in how many years?
We also understand that there are circumstances for compassionate release and these seem to mirror those that the Scottish Secretary for Justice has applied in his decision: a terminal illness is "extraordinary and compelling". There is little point in having such provisions if they are not to be used as there is little point in a Geneva Convention that is ignored.
We find the actions of al-Megrahi distasteful and offensive, as most people do, but one of the hallmarks of a civilised country is that when others debase themselves, we can rise above the morass: a civilised country should not seek extra-judicial solutions, which implies justice and mercy above revenge.
it is immoral to behave civilly towards people who refuse to return the favor. You are in effect rewarding bad behavior when you do that.
THink about it. if there are advantages to ignoring the rules of civilized behavior (and there are) and no disadvantages, then why should anyone rationally follow the rules of civilized behavior?
Those who break those rules must be treated harshly in order to prevent the pool of barbarians from growing.
an example. Back in the days of sailed boats. Captured Pirates were routinely hung at sea without benefit of a trial. They COULD have been put in the ships brig and taken back to civilization for trial and sentencing. They were not, because people back then understood that you could not treat civilly those who behave uncivilly and expect to get anything but more uncivil behavior.
After watching how well the 'population management' functions in the US with the UK health system being slammed and people opposing a cheaper, more effective and universal system (EVERYONE IN UK Has health coverage!) it is no wonder that something like the Lockerbie Bombing and the trial will be stage managed - the case against this individual for these horrible crimes has be at best poorly managed with some of the victims families still convinced he did not do it - and as if that is not enough even the former Dean of the Scottish Law School shares this view. See the link from the BBC (which now reports the doubts but which have been persistent from get-go). Those with a little more healthy skeptism will understand that if the critics are right, the rot in the legal goes to the very top! http://new
"it is immoral to behave civilly towards people who refuse to return the favor."
one could also say that revenge is a capitulation to the inferior morality of the offender.
why should a civilized society descend to the moral level of terrorists?
it's not, you know, as though we in Europe didn't know what crimes against humanity are like. remember we spent a large part of the last century going through what many historians call the second thirty-year war. the crimes that weren't done by Europeans to Europeans in the course of the Imperialism, Fascism, Nazism and Communism aren't worth knowing about.
It's also not as though we didn't know what it's like to live with murderers walking free. look at ireland, where men who bombed and shot thousands are free, as part of the peace process. it's not nice for their former victims, but most of them accept it, because the process really has brought peace.
no, it's because we're making an attempt to be more civilized than we used to be, and more so than the sum who would like to drag us back into the pit we only just climbed out of a few decades ago.
Sure, Irishman, let's go back to the Dark Ages when witches were burned at the stake because they had suspicious looking moles, or when suspected traitors were thrown into a hole in the dungeon & forgotten about without a trial. No doubt you are a firm believer in torture as well, yet you have the nerve to pontificate about what is immoral.
"it is immoral to behave civilly towards people who refuse to return the favor"
No it is not - that is what makes you a moral person .
If you only take the easy route and be nice, or friendly, or moral to those who return the favour then you are not actually doing anything. It is when others treat you badly and you still retain your morals and dignity that you accomplish anything and show your civility, compassion and justice is better than thiers.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
