15 Jun The “Enemy Combatant” Book Tour
15.06.06
|
The NYT has a fascinating article today detailing the story of Moazzam Begg, a UK citizen who was detained by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Guantanamo for nearly three years.
Mr. Begg, the NYT reports, is on a tour promoting his book (pre-order it here) describing his experiences in U.S. detention (he says he wasn’t tortured, but does say he was seriously mistreated). Most importantly, however, he says he has nothing to do with any terrorist organization and was wrongly detained by the U.S.
President Bush personally released Begg at the insistence of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, but over the objections of U.S. military officials who maintain to this day that Begg is a dangerous terrorist sympathizer/supporter/activist. The Begg problem highlights the dilemma facing the U.S. in its prosecution of the war against Islamic terrorism.
According to the NYT, Begg has admitted knowing, working with, and associating with a number of known Al Qaeda terrorists. He lived in Pakistan and admits that he visited camps across the border in Afghanistan that were hotbeds of Islamic radicalism. After the Taliban came to power, he moved to Afghanistan and associated with a number of known terrorists linked to Al Qaeda. He doesn’t deny he knew them, but simply denies he was part of their terrorist organization.
Based on the article, there is plainly not enough evidence to convict Begg of terrorist activities in a civilian trial. Hence, once Begg was returned to the UK (thus avoiding the U.S. military commission), he was released by UK authorities.
On the other hand, from a military intelligence matter – you can obviously understand why the U.S military services see him as part of the “enemy” whom they are supposed to be fighting against. If, during World War II, someone like Begg had been admitted working and associating with known German agents in the same way he admits to associating with Al Qaeda agents, the U.S. government could plainly have grabbed him. But the U.S. is not at war with the UK (quite the opposite) and it is unclear what the U.S. can legally do in this instance. Al Qaeda is not a country.
It can’t be right that the U.S. can do nothing and wait for Al Qaeda folks and their sympathizers to actually fall into the civilian criminal justice system. But it is obviously a problem if the U.S. simply grabs foreigners and detain them indefinitely. What to do? I’m not entirely sure. All I can say now is that I think it would behoove everyone who fairly wrestles with these questions to admit that there is no easy or simple answer here.
Topics
General
Regarding the expression, ‘the war against Islamic terrorism:’
[….] ‘We need a phrase that is more exact than “Islamic terror”. These acts may be committed by people who call themselves Muslims, but they violate essential Islamic principles. The Qur’an prohibits aggressive warfare, permits war only in self-defence and insists that the true Islamic values are peace, reconciliation and forgiveness. It also states firmly that there must be no coercion in religious matters, and for centuries Islam had a much better record of religious tolerance than Christianity.
Like the Bible, the Qur’an has its share of aggressive texts, but like all the great religions, its main thrust is towards kindliness and compassion. Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, and forbids the use of fire, the destruction of buildings and the killing of innocent civilians in a military campaign. So although Muslims, like Christians or Jews, have all too often failed to live up to their ideals, it is not because of the religion per se.
We rarely, if ever, called the IRA bombings “Catholic” terrorism because we knew enough to realise that this was not essentially a religious campaign. Indeed, like the Irish republican movement, many fundamentalist movements worldwide are simply new forms of nationalism in a highly unorthodox religious guise. This is obviously the case with Zionist fundamentalism in Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian right in the US.
In the Muslim world, too, where the European nationalist ideology has always seemed an alien import, fundamentalisms are often more about a search for social identity and national self-definition than religion. They represent a widespread desire to return to the roots of the culture, before it was invaded and weakened by the colonial powers.
Because it is increasingly recognised that the terrorists in no way represent mainstream Islam, some prefer to call them jihadists, but this is not very satisfactory. Extremists and unscrupulous politicians have purloined the word for their own purposes, but the real meaning of jihad is not “holy war” but “struggle” or “effort.” Muslims are commanded to make a massive attempt on all fronts – social, economic, intellectual, ethical and spiritual – to put the will of God into practice.
Sometimes a military effort may be a regrettable necessity in order to defend decent values, but an oft-quoted tradition has the Prophet Muhammad saying after a military victory: “We are coming back from the Lesser Jihad [ie the battle] and returning to the Greater Jihad” – the far more important, difficult and momentous struggle to reform our own society and our own hearts.’ [….]—Karen Armstrong, The Guardian, July 11, 2005
There is a review of Begg’s book: “It’ll all be over one day,” in the London Review of Books, Vol. 28, No. 11 (8 June 2006), 10-12.
‘I think it would behoove everyone who fairly wrestles with these questions to admit that there is no easy or simple answer here.’ The Bush administration appears to have found an easy answer to at least one question, to wit:
UPDATE: Pentagon Orders U.S. Reporters to Exit Guantanamo
Please see stories in EDITOR & PUBLISHER (link at TalkLeft), Los Angeles Times, etc.
Regarding the expression ‘the war against Islamic terrorism,’-II:
Please see, Ladan Boroumand and Roya Boroumand, ‘Terror, Islam, and Democracy,’ in the Journal of Democracy Volume 13, Number 2, April 2002: 5-20.
And for a useful discussion of terrorism, please see Alexander Spencer, “Questioning the Concept of ‘New Terrorism,'” Peace Conflict & Development, Issue 8, January 2006, available from http://www.peacestudiesjournal.org.uk
On ‘I think it would behoove everyone who fairly wrestles with these questions to admit that there is no easy or simple answer here,’
Please see: Rosa Ehrenreich Brooks, “War Everywhere: Human Rights, National Security, and the Law of Armed Conflict in the Age of Terrorism,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 153, 2004 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=573321 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.573321