Last week’s tragedy in Boston has forced the country — politicians, journalists and civilians — to re-evaluate many of its approaches to domestic terrorism. Ever since his capture, the question of how to approach bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s trial has been met with controversy. After speculation surrounding whether or not Tsarnaev was properly Mirandized after his arrest subsided and the White House announced he would be tried as a civilian and not an enemy combatant, numerous members of the Republican Party spoke out against the decision. While the label of enemy combatant would not allow Tsarnaev to be tried in a military commission, it would allow for more intense interrogation techniques to gather intelligence. These demands for the removal of the suspect’s basic rights guaranteed by our justice system are not only immoral and illegal but also demonstrate a remarkably short memory for the failures of similar techniques used in the last decade.
Last week a report compiled by the Constitution Project, a bipartisan think tank, stated that not only has the United States repeatedly engaged in acts of torture — illegal under international and U.S. law — but also that the highest officials in our government were aware of these programs and permitted, even promoted, their existence. Even more damning, the report stated that no information obtained by these methods benefited U.S. national security. The lessons of this report should be obvious. There is no benefit to treating terrorists, whether they be enemy combatants or domestic criminals, differently than any other defendant in our criminal justice system. The only result is the denigration of our international image, which incites reciprocal fear and hatred of the United States. When citizens of other nations, particularly in countries in the Middle East where the U.S. is already distrusted and feared, see actions and rhetoric that fly in the face of our own professed values and human rights from our government, their fear is much more easily converted to radical action. Terrorists and the recruitment of terrorists thrive on American hypocrisy.
So why are Congressman such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) criticizing President Barack Obama for deciding to treat Tsarnaev like a civilian? What information do they think could be obtained — through means that would render that intelligence inadmissible in court — that could not be acquired through legal methods? They clearly did not act with the Constitution Project’s report in mind, or they wouldn’t think robbing Tsarnaev of his constitutional rights would benefit national security. And Obama, who has covered up for the Bush administration’s use of torture and allowed it to continue in his term, would follow their advice if he knew it could result in information leading to the prevention of future attacks. His decision to try Tsarnaev as a civilian thus should be a clear sign that nothing unobtainable through legal means would be gained through trying him as an enemy combatant.
What Graham, King and other lawmakers are seeking to do through their demands is manipulate the fear of terrorism to score political points — a common practice, and one that needs to end. Torture has been tolerated for years largely by convincing citizens to succumb to fear — fear of future attacks, fear of Islam and fear of the Middle East. Other illegal practices, such as the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without trials, have been similarly ignored for the same reasons. Tsarnaev’s detention as an enemy combatant would be just another excuse to enhance the paranoia. If Tsarnaev’s testimony was top-secret, there would be no way to verify or contradict any claims about his relation with terrorist organizations or future plots. As an “enemy combatant,” the case suddenly becomes larger, as the focus shifts to the unconfirmed potential for future attacks. This alleged threat becomes an easy source of fear, which in turn grants politicians the ability to scare voters with vague and ominous pronouncements. The only difference between Tsarnaev’s trial as a civilian or enemy combatant would be its political implications.
The detention and interrogation techniques used and approved by our government in the global war on terror have long been ignored, covered up or excused. But it’s time that our lawmakers realized these strategies are not only immoral, illegal and ineffective when it comes to protecting our security interests — they are also dangerous. Each time we publicly go against our national values and our belief in our Constitution, as Graham and King have done, we damage our national reputation by portraying ourselves as tyrants willing to ignore human rights for narrow-minded interests. And these wounds to our image not only affect our credibility in international relations with allies and enemies; they also produce the exact kind of “enemy combatant” we fear the most. It’s time to for the use of terror as a political weapon to end — a change that could be the most effective action our lawmakers could take to protect our country’s citizens.
Forrest Brown is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. His column runs Thursdays.
Read More
HARBATH: Compulsory attendance policies are harmful to students
By Julie Harbath | 19 hours agoBy permitting a return to antiquated, inflexible attendance policies, the University is jeopardizing student health and wellness.
ARRAS: The cavalier tendency to say “I do”
By Aoife Arras | 5 days agoIn continually promoting marriage-mindedness, the University and student organizations actually undermine the educational mission of this institution.
VAN DE SOMPEL: “Rules are Rules”
By Mo Van de Sompel | May 27, 2024In reality, rules are contextual, and enforcement is selective.
