May 16, 2006

Close Gitmo

The British Attorney General adds his voice:

I would suggest that the greatest challenge which free and democratic states face today is how to balance the need to protect individual rights with the imperative of protecting the lives of the rest of the community. The UK Government is constantly being criticised for striking the wrong balance. Sometimes the criticism comes from the right, from those who see the Human Rights Act as a charter for criminals and terrorists which impedes the executive’s freedom of manoeuvre at every turn. Sometimes the criticism comes from the left, from those who see in every Government initiative a threat to civil liberties. Such criticism is inevitable. Furthermore, we must expect that there will be a wide divergence of views on such difficult issues at every level of society including within the judiciary – there are no obvious right answers. As regards an example of a divergence of views within the judiciary, I would take the case concerning the legislation on detention without trial of foreign nationals passed by this Government after 9/11, a case to which I will return later. The Court of Appeal of three judges including the Lord Chief Justice, the most senior judge, found that the legislation was compatible with our obligations. Although the House of Lords found that there was a public emergency threatening the life of the nation, with the exception of one judge, it did not consider that detention without trial was strictly necessary to deal with the emergency. This was a clear set-back but it arose because we were striving conscientiously to deal with the greatest challenge facing our generation.

But although I think it is essential in some cases to be flexible and to be prepared to countenance some limitation of rights in order to ensure collective security, if properly justified and proportionate, there are certain principles on which there can be no compromise. Fair trial is one of those – which is the reason we in the UK were unable to accept that the US military tribunals proposed for those detained at Guantanamo Bay offered sufficient guarantees of a fair trial in accordance with international standards. As you may know having spent time negotiating with counterparts in the United States I was unable to accept that the procedures proposed for the military tribunals were adequate to ensure a fair trial. I am pleased to note that, following this decision, all the British detainees were returned to the UK.

But the existence of Guantanamo Bay remains unacceptable. It is time, in my view, that it should close. Not only would it, in my personal opinion, be right to close Guantanamo as a matter of principle, I believe it would also help to remove what has become a symbol to many – right or wrong- of injustice. The historic tradition of the United States as a beacon of freedom, liberty and of justice deserves the removal of this symbol.

Friends like Goldsmith tell us this not because they hate or resent us, but because they care about us and are looking out for our best interests. Any benefits that Guantanamo has arguably presented have been massively outweighed by the negative impact it has had on our international reputation. Put aside the fake firefights about whether it's a Gulag, or whether the pilaf is good there, or all the other dumbed-down discourse. The bottom line is that Gitmo should be phased out over the next 18-24 months.

By the way, these are the kinds of dramatic moves that would begin to turn around Bush's fading fortunes and perhaps save his capsizing Presidency (add opening a dialogue with Iran, firing Rumsfeld etc). This would signal he's his own man, and that he's striking a bold new course. But does he have the moral wherewithal to belatedly realize this and face such realities, or will he continue to be beholden to the Cheney-Yoo-Addington-Rumsfeld crowd? Probably the latter, alas.

Posted by Gregory at May 16, 2006 05:00 AM | TrackBack (0)