First, whatever issues we have with the whole process of detainment, with the existance of Gitmo, at least the Hamdan case proved the possibility (and perhaps indicated the probablity) that those detained will get a fair trial. Granted, this assessment ignores a more thorough application of the term 'fair.' Thoroughness would extend the term to the whole issue of detainment, ruling out for many the possibility of a 'fair' trial at this late moment regardless of what happens in the trials themselves. The existence of a trail only after such drama precludes any possblity of fairness.
But, as I see it, the Hamdan case proves something valuable. At least (some) Americans are still capable of (and disposed to) administering justice even after the Bush regime has so egregiously forsaken justice everywhere it reached its greedy hand. The last seven years has pushed American minds and hearts (even those like mine which tend toward understanding if not forgiveness when it comes to the maintenance of order) away from a long-solid faith - that America is essentially just; that it works for the expansion of justice in the world; that, as a government, it accepts the dignity of individual human lives, whether or not they happen to be American; that our system of government and its attendant institutions are part of a mission that seeks to see good done in the world. I've had to question these assumptions for more than a quarter of my life. So, regardless of all the other issues it raises, I'm happy to see the Hamdan trial proceed and conclusion as it did since it hints at a renewal of 'justice' as a possibility (if sadly no longer an assumption) of American life.
For those who believe, like my friend, that Hamdan should never have been subjected to his ordeal of detainment; that his role was unworthy of such a major trial; and that its outcome was nothing more than a continuation of years of mistreated, let's not forget that Mr Hamdan was indeed guilty of something quite serious. He at the very least neglected to prevent American deaths when he could have, if he did not indeed contribute to their deaths by aiding the activities of Bin Laden, &c. Whether or not he knew the locations and the timing of Al Qaeda attacks on America/American interests, he knew that Al Qaeda, the people he worked for, were guilty of killing Americans and were likely (if not clearly certain) to do it again. Thus, he could have prevented American deaths - though I understand why he didn't. He even said the reason he stayed in the employ of such a group was that he could find no other job that paid enough to support his family. I don't doubt this. But in the end, what Hamdan did is a crime, and it was for that crime and (rather remarkably) only for that crime that he was convicted. He was no conspirator; if 'terrorist' is the word we apply to Bin Laden or Zarqawi, he was no terrorist; the court understood this and ruled accordingly. Moreover, after his sentence of five and a half years was issued, his time at Gitmo was rightly recognized as time served.
Whether or not Gitmo should exist should not be too much a part of any consideration of the Hamdan trial and its results. I know my friend thinks the very existence of the prison camp is deplorable. And while I agree that it is deplorable in actuality, I can't go so far as to call it unnecessary. In this I've clearly made (some) peace with having at times to accept hard and harsh facts; and admit otherwise deplorable responses as valid and acceptable. I would like to know what my friend suggests we should have done with 'enemy combatants,' with people who we captured fighting against our country (as we have in so many other wars) and who needed to be 'locked up' (i.e., out of action) for the duration of hostilities - and hostilities have not ended. These people (not all of them, of course) would still be hostile towards America and would simply turn around and fight against our soldiers or blow up our civilians once more. I have no doubt that American lives were saved by having kept 'enemy combatants' locked up (deplorably) over the last seven years. Moreover, I'm sure a good number of them provided valuable intelligence which led to a greater understanding of Al Qaeda and of conditions in Afghanistan if not the exact whereabouts of wanted terrorists.
I do hope, however, that the Bush administration realizes (though it almost certainly will not) that Mr Hamdan is no such person and that he should be released - though (and this is just one of the many issues raised by such a long and 'deplorable' detainment) one wonders where he would go and what he would do.
But, as I see it, the Hamdan case proves something valuable. At least (some) Americans are still capable of (and disposed to) administering justice even after the Bush regime has so egregiously forsaken justice everywhere it reached its greedy hand. The last seven years has pushed American minds and hearts (even those like mine which tend toward understanding if not forgiveness when it comes to the maintenance of order) away from a long-solid faith - that America is essentially just; that it works for the expansion of justice in the world; that, as a government, it accepts the dignity of individual human lives, whether or not they happen to be American; that our system of government and its attendant institutions are part of a mission that seeks to see good done in the world. I've had to question these assumptions for more than a quarter of my life. So, regardless of all the other issues it raises, I'm happy to see the Hamdan trial proceed and conclusion as it did since it hints at a renewal of 'justice' as a possibility (if sadly no longer an assumption) of American life.
For those who believe, like my friend, that Hamdan should never have been subjected to his ordeal of detainment; that his role was unworthy of such a major trial; and that its outcome was nothing more than a continuation of years of mistreated, let's not forget that Mr Hamdan was indeed guilty of something quite serious. He at the very least neglected to prevent American deaths when he could have, if he did not indeed contribute to their deaths by aiding the activities of Bin Laden, &c. Whether or not he knew the locations and the timing of Al Qaeda attacks on America/American interests, he knew that Al Qaeda, the people he worked for, were guilty of killing Americans and were likely (if not clearly certain) to do it again. Thus, he could have prevented American deaths - though I understand why he didn't. He even said the reason he stayed in the employ of such a group was that he could find no other job that paid enough to support his family. I don't doubt this. But in the end, what Hamdan did is a crime, and it was for that crime and (rather remarkably) only for that crime that he was convicted. He was no conspirator; if 'terrorist' is the word we apply to Bin Laden or Zarqawi, he was no terrorist; the court understood this and ruled accordingly. Moreover, after his sentence of five and a half years was issued, his time at Gitmo was rightly recognized as time served.
Whether or not Gitmo should exist should not be too much a part of any consideration of the Hamdan trial and its results. I know my friend thinks the very existence of the prison camp is deplorable. And while I agree that it is deplorable in actuality, I can't go so far as to call it unnecessary. In this I've clearly made (some) peace with having at times to accept hard and harsh facts; and admit otherwise deplorable responses as valid and acceptable. I would like to know what my friend suggests we should have done with 'enemy combatants,' with people who we captured fighting against our country (as we have in so many other wars) and who needed to be 'locked up' (i.e., out of action) for the duration of hostilities - and hostilities have not ended. These people (not all of them, of course) would still be hostile towards America and would simply turn around and fight against our soldiers or blow up our civilians once more. I have no doubt that American lives were saved by having kept 'enemy combatants' locked up (deplorably) over the last seven years. Moreover, I'm sure a good number of them provided valuable intelligence which led to a greater understanding of Al Qaeda and of conditions in Afghanistan if not the exact whereabouts of wanted terrorists.
I do hope, however, that the Bush administration realizes (though it almost certainly will not) that Mr Hamdan is no such person and that he should be released - though (and this is just one of the many issues raised by such a long and 'deplorable' detainment) one wonders where he would go and what he would do.
No comments:
Post a Comment