Exporting Rights Violations

Exporting Rights Violations
America should be cautious lest it reaps what it sows

By SAMAD KHURRAM

The Bill of Rights—the essence of American civil liberties—contains crucial provisions for protecting free speech, due process, and a fair and speedy trial among other things. The U.S. Constitution, in turn, was arguably a precedent for Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One might assume that as the descendants of this tradition, the people and the government of the United States would believe in the universal application of human rights around the world.

However, the opposite is the case–at least for now. Ever since the War on Terror began, the Bush administration has been infringing on the civil liberties and rights of American citizens. It started off with a bill with an unnecessarily long and now infamous name: the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. After a series of bills, the Military Commission Acts was adopted in 2006 and gave the U.S. President absolute powers to label a non-American citizen an enemy of the state, imprison him without charging him with a crime, and deny him the right to due process. In view of the fact that this act is obvious breach of the Bill of Rights, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has called it a rejection of core American values.

Since this does not affect American citizens’ right to habeas corpus and a fair trial directly, perhaps they should not be worried too much about it. Many would argue that with the unprecedented complexities of determining enemy actions in the War on Terror, the ordinary procedures of establishing crime may not be effective and that some liberties must be forsaken for increased homeland security. Perhaps allowing the government to monitor your phone calls is prudent if it prevents future terrorist attacks.

However, American citizens should be aware of the record of its government’s record abroad when there is no constitutional or judicial oversight over their actions. A government that disregards human values abroad, engages in torture, and arbitrarily detains people without a fair trial would have serious credibility question marks. How could citizens trust such a regime for their protection?

The Bush administration is such a regime. As Guantánamo Bay enters its seventh reprehensible year, it seems unlikely that truth about it will ever come out. The only reports of what happens inside of Guantánamo are leaked memos and words of some of captives who are lucky enough to be released. Most of these in detention inside Guantánamo are likely to remain there forever—lest they come out and speak of their torture ordeals, claims an attorney at the ACLU.

Guantánamo is only one small part of a series of serious human rights violations around the world. The CIA has been actively involved in an “extraordinary rendition” program under which possible suspects are arrested and flown to territories outside U.S. jurisdiction and interrogated by U.S. and foreign officials. The ACLU claims that one German citizen, El-Masri, was kidnapped by the CIA, taken to a “black site” in Afghanistan, tortured for two months, and eventually abandoned on a hillside in Albania without any explanation or charges.

And this is not an isolated example. Just in Pakistan, over 4,000 people have been arrested in connection with suspected terrorism. Half of them were handed over to foreign countries, and some of them resurfaced in Guantanamo Bay after being missing for months. Many of them were picked up without the knowledge of their families and hence were simply termed as “missing people”. After having her husband disappear mysteriously, a brave woman, Amina Janjua, was able to identify that her husband was indeed in the custody of the intelligence agencies in Pakistan. She challenged his detention, as well as that of the other Pakistanis, to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court was hardly able to get a handful of these people brought to court, but then President Musharraf of Pakistan sacked over 60 of the judges of the High and Supreme courts of Pakistan. Most Pakistanis see this coming with American blessing and anti-American sentiment in Pakistan is at a record high.

As a result of the lack of due process, transparency, and judicial oversight, policy assessments and analysis have become increasingly suspect. Are these often pre-emptive arrests preventing terrorism? Are they really needed? Policy debates are difficult without access to information and media inquiries.

Furthermore, the Bush Administration does not take into account the fact that detainees are real humans who have real families. By denying these captives a fair trial, the U.S. government is only further antagonizing many people—each of these extraordinary renditions may result in thousands of people turning against the U.S. If one of the reasons behind terrorist attacks against the U.S. is anti-American sentiment, one must wonder why such an antagonizing step is constantly used.

Not everyone is as noble as Amina Janjua. Some will equate justice to revenge, and in the absence of a judiciary they can trust will take matters in their own hands. The Bush Administration would be partially responsible if a family member of any of these “missing people” ends up attacking a U.S. embassy.

Samad Khurram ’09 is a government concentrator in Winthrop House. His column appears on alternate Tuesdays.

Four FBI Agents Hurt in Islamabad Bombing

ABC News Reports: Top FBI Agent in the Country Was Among the Wounded

By RICHARD ESPOSITO, BRIAN ROSS and GRETCHEN PETERS

March 16, 2008. Four FBI agents were wounded -- none critically -- in a bomb attack on a popular Italian restuarant in Islamabad this weekend, the bureau announced today. The attacker tossed a small bomb or hand grenade directly into the restuarant courtyard, which is known for serving alcohol to Westerners.

Multiple sources said that the attack was under investigation to see whether it was based on the terrorists having learned in advance of the agents' presence. In Washington, meanwhile, officials downplayed the possibility that the attack specifically targeted the agents based on advance intelligence. They cited the relatively small size of the attack -- one in which injuries to the agent's were relatively minor -- as part of their rationale. Also the explosive does not appear to have been tossed directly at the agents' table.

The top agent in the country, U.S. Embassy FBI attache Ray Biteski, suffered serious ear damage, an assistant attache reportedly suffered a concussion and two agents are reported as suffering minor injuries. The two who suffered minor injuries were treated and released. Biteski and a second agent were med-evaced to Europe. This was the first bomb attack on U.S. citizens or government personnel in Pakistan since a church bombing in 2002.

ABC's Pierre Thomas contributed to this report.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4460837

Nawaz Sharif tells the Americans a truth they hate to hear

Monday, February 25, 2008

ISLAMABAD: US Ambassador Anne W. Patterson met former Prime Minister and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Nawaz Sharif here at the Frontier House on Monday. During the meeting, the envoy exchanged views with the PML-N leader on the new political scenario and the ongoing fight against terrorism following the February 18 elections, party sources said.

Nawaz Sharif said the ongoing war on terror is not in favour of Pakistan; accordingly, the new parliament will decide upon the strategy of fight against terrorism in future.

According to the sources Nawaz Sharif briefed the envoy about the party's agenda including restoration of pre-emergency status of judiciary, supremacy of the parliament and strengthening of democracy.

The ambassador greeted Nawaz Sharif over the party's victory in the parliamentary elections held a week ago, the sources said.

Later talking to media, Nawaz Sharif said Pakistan gives great importance to its relations with the United States. He said that his party condemns all kind of terrorist activities but was of the view that negotiations provided a means to address the causes and find a solution instead of relying on force alone.

Nawaz Sharif said that if Pakistan could hold talks with India to resolve long standing disputes then there was no reason not to engage in dialogue with those involved in terrorist activities.

Responding to a question, he said the PML-N remains committed to restoring pre-emergency status of the judiciary and added that the heads of other political parties "are also with us on this stand."

Nawaz Sharif said that his party gives full respect to the mandate of PPP in the center while PPP would support PML-N to form government in the Punjab. The PML-N leader said that his party had not opened its doors for PML (Q) as the masses "have rejected the policies of Q-League." He said the PML-N believes in politics based on principles.