Enemies closer: Why we should relocate terror suspects to the United States
Podcast: Download
By James Lochbaum
Article ID: 1342
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is a Naval base established at the end of the Spanish-American War. It has since become a sort of frontier outpost in a country that, while not openly hostile, is certainly not friendly. Bagram Air Base is a lifeline between the United States and its far-flung troops in the third world country of Afghanistan. Beyond their “wild west” frontier status, these two bastions of American power abroad have something else in common. They each incarcerate numerous so-called “suspected terrorists” away from the prying eyes of American citizens and, to some extent, the world community.
The controversy over such detention facilities has been nearly constant and comes from all corners. Human rights groups rail against the lack of due process of law, living conditions, and prisoner abuse. Recently, with the Obama administration’s proposal to close these facilities, new concerns have been raised. One of the biggest is being what to do with over 200 detainees that still remain in Guantanamo Bay. While reviews of evidence by the Justice Department has led to the release of a small number of detainees (1), it’s still realistic to assume that there will be many prisoners convicted and sentenced. There is also the issue of securely detaining the inmates until such a time as trials can be arranged. Therefore, these detainees must be transferred to secure facilities.
The U.S. has made significant progress regarding the representation and application of due process of law in places such as Bagram. But the focus is mainly on military law (2). While this is appropriate for those suspects who are captured as enemy combatants, there are a large number of prisoners who are captured outside of combat. These prisoners should be tried in a civil criminal court. Why? To answer that question, let’s first take a look at the perspective of a “terrorist.”
Terrorism is the systematic use of violent or destructive acts, used to cause terror as a means of coercion (3). This being an incredibly broad definition, it includes many groups. The key word is “systematic.” There are many legal and illegal organizations that could be labelled as “systematic”. But terrorists are organized and structured around social, religious, and economic goals (to name a few), and these goals are achieved through a planned and calculated use of violent or destructive acts. Almost every act of terrorism requires breaking the law. This would lead many people to conclude that civil criminal courts should be able to handle terrorism cases. But, this reason alone is not sufficient.
The opposition would say, just because terrorists commit crimes, doesn’t mean they should be tried in civil criminal courts. Terrorists are uniquely dangerous because of their organization and commitment to political goals. Therefore, they should be given special attention. This has led many nations, not just the U.S., to effectively declare “war on terrorism” (4). It is this notion that leads to dangerous conclusions – the notion that terrorism can only be dealt with through war. This implies that the military should be given jurisdiction. After all, it is a “war”, right? This leads to infringements of civilian government. The Guantanamo and Bagram prisons are but symptoms.
Such special treatment of terrorists is dangerous. First, it institutes political change. When a terrorist group is seen as an enemy that has declared war on a country or region, it has effectively been elevated to the status of a political power. This is a prime goal of many terrorist organizations. Second, it provides these organizations with a ready recruiting tool. When Al-Jazeera reports that, for instance, a “US court rejects Uighur Freedom” (5), it plays directly into the hands of radicals who use the press to fan the flames of radicalism and recruit others to their cause. Last, these measures often weaken domestic support and cause divisions within a country’s citizenry. The ACLU is presently involved in numerous cases against the government in regards to US detention facilities abroad. The publicity from these kinds of cases made for major talking points during the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election.
To treat a terrorist as a criminal and try them in a civil criminal court alleviates a number of these problems and has its own advantages, particularly for the United States. When a government tries a terrorist as a criminal, they strip away the political identity that such groups try to create for themselves. When a government refuses to use such pejoratives as “terrorists”, or “terror suspects”, and instead labels them as “criminals”, this unifies and calms their citizens. Most people would agree that criminals who commit violent and destructive acts should be brought to justice. When this is done within the nation’s established legal framework, it instills confidence and nullifies enemy propaganda efforts.
This approach has received some attention in Britain. Sir Ken Macdonald summed up this strategy in a public address:
“We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.” (6)
There is also the matter of cost. The United States currently houses 1,525,924 inmates within its borders (7), the highest incarceration rate of any developed country (8). With overcrowding a major problem in US prisons, the country can ill-afford to build and maintain special detention centers outside of the country.
One of the strongest reasons that American citizens are reluctant to bring detainees from facilities like Guantanamo and Bagram is more emotional than rational. It is the attitude of “not in my backyard”, the idea that all detainees in these facilities are dangerous and that bringing them into the U.S. makes us more vulnerable. This seems like a logical response, but is actually flawed in several ways.
In order to function, terrorist groups require people with a wide variety of skills. They need accountants, doctors, drivers, planners, and all manner of people whose jobs do not entail committing violent acts. Obviously, aiding such criminal groups is illegal, and those who do should be held responsible. These supporters, when captured, are relatively low risk inmates. These supporters make up the majority of most terrorist cells.
Some are concerned about these detainees escaping inside the United States. Admittedly, there is no way to guarantee that one-hundred percent of all detainees can’t escape. However, consider how much more difficult it is to catch an escapee in an unfriendly country, like Cuba or Afghanistan. Terrorists who escape from detention facilities abroad would be more likely to avoid apprehension, and more likely to reestablish contact with their groups. In the U.S., apprehension would be much easier, since the manhunt would consist of local, state, and federal resources. An escapee in the United States also faces an environment that is much less conducive to his operations and goals.
There is no denying that there are extremely violent terrorists who must be incarcerated with the utmost concern for security. Sending these individuals to the United States is almost a separate concern compared to their less violent counterparts. But if there is any nation that is equipped to handle these types, it is the United States. With dedicated professionals that specialize in prisoner transfer (such as units the U.S. Marshals Service) and a robust Federal Bureau of Prisons, the United States Justice Department can, and does, handle the transfer and incarceration of 650,400 violent criminals every year (9).
While there is no “perfect answer” to the problem of detaining suspected terrorists, it is clear we need a better solution. Placing terror suspects in the civil criminal justice system deprives them of their valued political status. It keeps American citizens safer as terrorist networks are deprived of recruiting tools. It allows for maximum transparency in the legal process. This all proves the old adage is not out of date: “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”
References
1) “6 Detainees Are Freed as Questions Linger“, William Glaberson. New York Times. June 11, 2009.
2) “US To Expand Detainee Review in Afghan Prison“; Schmitt, Eric. New York Times. September 12, 2009.
(3) It is interesting that there is no internationally agreed-upon definition of terrorism. However, I use the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition.
(4) The phrase “war on terror” was used historically in the 1880′s by European governments attempting to stem the threat of anarchists. It was later used by the British as a moniker for the British Zionist groups in the British Mandate of Palestine.
“The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September 11″; Rapoport, David C. Anthropoetics vol. 8, no. 1(Spring/Summer 2002).
(5) “US Court Rejects Uighur Freedom“; Al-Jazeera English. February 19, 2009.
(6) “There is No War on Terror in the UK, Says DPP“; Bannerman, Lucy. The Times. January 24, 2007.
(7) Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck, Ph.D. (November 2006). “Prisoners in 2005″ (PDF). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. pp. 1.
(8) Ibid pp. 1
(9) Ibid pp. 9
Podcast
Support
Email alerts
RSS
Facebook