Obedience

There is a chilling paragraph in Mr. Ali Soufan's Op Ed (My Tortured Decision, New York Times, April 23, 2009: A25). He says, "My C.I.A. colleagues who balked at the techniques ... were instructed to continue."

That took me back nearly 40 years to when I first read about Stanley Milgram's experiments on obedience. In those days we believed that his findings would resonate down the ages so that no one would hesitate in doing the right thing even when pressured to do something wrong by a superior.

How wrong we were.


Sent to New York Times

Weakened oversight

You are being too kind to the Bush administration. Your failed to juxtapose two important stories on the same page:

President weakens espionage oversight (Boston Globe, March 14, 2008: A1, A8)
FBI improperly justified privacy abuses, inspector finds (Boston Globe, March 14, 2008:A4.

The details of the second story indicate how important it is to have effective oversight mechanisms in place.

By weakening espionage oversight, President Bush has weakened the country.

Sent to the Boston Gobe

US Judge Questions Lawyer on Suit by Tortured Canadian

Thank you for continuing to follow the case of Mr Arar (U.S. Judge Questions Lawyer On Suit by Tortured Canadian, New York Times, November 10, 2007: A5).

Once again the US government is trying to evade its responsibility for what happened to Mr Arar who was arrested while changing planes at Kennedy airport and suffered extraordinary rendition to Syria where he was tortured.

As well as trying to hide behind the States Secret defense, the Government is now said to be arguing that Constitutional protections do not apply to Mr Arar because "the Constitution did not apply to noncitizens who suffered injury abroad."

I am no lawyer, but surely this is a specious defense. The first injury that Mr. Arar suffered was his arrest at Kennedy Airport. That surely is US territory so surely the Constitution applies?

I would call upon the US to do as Canada did and give Mr. Arar his day in court. In addition, at some point the US Supreme Court should take upon itself a review of the States Secrets defense. It was created illegitimately and needs thorough judicial review.

Sent to New York Times

Habeas Corpus

What is it that the 42 Republican Senators (and Senator Lieberman) do not understand about the nature of suspicion (Senate Blocks Detainees’ Rights Bill, New York Times, September 19th, 2007)?

The people detained at Guantanamo are suspected of terrorism. They have NOT been proved to be terrorists -- many maybe are; but many may not be. The essence of suspicion is that it is rife with uncertainty.

That is the point of habeas corpus: to provide a hearing where suspects may challenge the basis of their being placed in that category. No government with right on its side need be afraid of habeas corpus.

Unless habeas corpus is restored in a timely fashion, the terrorists will have won another victory.

Sent to New York Times

Gitmo cleaned up

I am impressed with Col Morris Davies' ability to make Gitmo seem like a model prison and the justice system in place as truly reflecting international standards (The Guantanamo I know, New York Times, June 26, 2007, A25).

Of course, he can only do this by providing a very ahistorical account.

First, the very fact that the US government lost the Hamdan case means that prior to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, detainees did not receive the protections of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention or Article 75 of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. It
seems to me that justice rendered only because a court insisted on it is a very poor sort of justice for which Colonel Davies and his military lawyer colleagues should be ashamed.

Second, Col Davies claims that "[the prisoner] is entitled to assistance to secure evidence on his behalf." This is patently untrue -- or was up to a year ago. In June of 2006, your sister newspaper, The Boston Globe, published a story pointing out that detainees were not given the help they needed (Detainees not given access to witnesses, Boston Globe, June 18, 2006, A1). This catalogued the failure of the United States' Authorities to find witnesses who might
have been able to exonerate some of the prisoners held at Guantanamo.

I cannot understand how those responsible did not try with every fibre of their being to find those witnesses. Instead they took a lackadaisical approach that seems typical of the Bush administration.

As with Katrina, it is hard to know whether the neglect of the duty owed to the prisoners was deliberate and malign or mere ineptitude.


The story of Gitmo is darker than that painted by Col. Davies. The time has come to close it.

Sent to New York Times

Uighurs and Mr el-Masri

Why have we become a nation characterized by callous indifference? Over the last two years the United States has dealt with a number of foreign individuals with an incomprehensible disregard for their well-being.

Last Sunday, the Boston Globe reported on the fate of 5 Chinese Uighurs (Globe, June 10, 2007, page A7). This followed a similar story about a year ago (Globe, May 18th, page A8). These were people captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and interred at Guantanamo Bay for several years. They had all been cleared of terrorist connections by a military tribunal but were kept, as innocent people, at Guantanamo because they could not be returned to their native China which they were fleeing. Instead they were sent to Albania where they live in misery in a refugee camp.

Why could the United States not have generously have resettled these people here in the United States? Instead they kept them at Guantanamo until February 2006 when the courts were about to hear their appeal to be released; they were then shipped to Albania where they are living in a Refugee Center in that impoverished country. One would think that after disrupting their lives, the United States would be eager to make amends by resettling these people in safety in the United States.

But this is not the only case of irresponsible treatment by the United States. Consider the fate of Mr Kahled el-Masri who was the victim of a mistaken identity. He was seized by the CIA in Macedonia, held by the CIA for five months in a prison cell in Afghanistan to which he had been rendered, and when it was discovered that the CIA had the wrong man he was returned to Macedonia and dumped on the side of an abandoned road. Note that: dumped on the side of a road, not taken to a decent hotel, not fed and given clothes, and not given help in re-establishing his life. To add insult to injury, his lawsuit against the CIA was dismissed on national security grounds. Who decided on this treatment. Is it just some insensitive lower level bureaucrat or did the decision emanate from the highest levels of the CIA?

Then there is Mr. Maher Arar, a Canadian of Syrian descent. He too was unjustly arrested, when in transit between Tunis and Ottawa while returning via New York from a holiday with his wife and children. In his case, after interrogation at Kennedy airport, he was rendered to the Syrians were he was kept in appalling conditions for a year until it was decided that he had no links to al-Qaeda. He was then returned to Ottawa. Unlike the Canadian Government which held an inquiry as to the role Canadian Police and Consular officials may have played in his arrest, a United States court also dismissed his case against the United States Government on National Security grounds.

All these people deserve better. The Uighurs should be brought from Albania and settled in the United States - if we can host 11 million illegal immigrants, adding five refugees whose lives we have upset is the least we can do. Mr el-Masri and Mr. Arar deserve to have their day in court or, failing that, there should be an inquiry (with some evidence given in secret) as to the reasons for their appalling treatment.

Sent to the Boston Globe

The Constitution and Gay Marriage

In his letter to the Globe (Letters, May 27th, 2007. D10) Peter Frank says that "legislators are not voting on whether they agree with the marriage amendment. They are merely saying whether they think people have the right to vote on this volatile issue."

"Merely" is not the word to be used in this context. The question is whether the rights of our gay and lesbian neighbors can be abrogated by a vote of the people. I think not. The State constitution is designed to protect the unpopular.

And let us leave religion out of this. We are talking here about the right to a Civil Marriage -- the kind of marriage you get at the courthouse or from a Justice of the Peace, not the kind you get in a church, mosque, or synagogue. The U.S Constitution mandates the separation of Church and State. It should be applied rigorously in this case.

Our legislators should not vote on the basis of their religious beliefs. They should not vote in favor of the amendment because the Archbishop told them to, or their Minister told them to, or even because their constituents told them to. The members of the legislature should vote unanimously against this amendment because it has the potential to deprive some of our fellow citizens of their civil rights.
Sent to Boston Globe

Lawyers' Access

Today's headline, US Asks Court to Limit Lawyers Access at Guantanamo (New York Times, April 26, 2007, A1, A20), underscores the urgency for repeal of that section of the Patriot act which removed the right of Habeas Corpus from the detainees.

Congress should act immediately before this administration further sullies America's good name and gives more fuel to those who wish our country ill. The current administration's ill advised forays into legal territory have seen the abrogation of our responsibilities under international law (the torture memoranda, the Geneva Convention) as well as bringing the administration of justice into disrepute domestically (the politicization of the role of US attorneys).

At least Congress should and can act in a timely fashion on Habeas Corpus.

Sent to the New York Times

Deafening silence from CEO's on Stimson

Your editorial (Apology not accepted, January 19th, 2007) talks of the President's deafening silence on Cully Stimson's comments about lawyers defending the suspected terrorists interned at Guantanamo.

Another group that have been silent are the CEO's of America's biggest companies. I have not heard any outcry from these CEO's or the organizations representing them stating their refusal to succumb to Stimson's attempt to blackmail them.

That I find truly worrying.

Sent to New York Times, January 21., 2007.

Attack on Lawyers and updating "They Came for Me"

First came Deputy Assistant Secretary Stimson's remarks suggesting that Corporations should cease to patronize law firms which did pro bono work for suspects held at Guantanamo. This was followed by the administration's firing of U.S. attorneys who, in some cases, have pursued corruption cases too successfully.

These attacks on lawyers must be resisted. The situation today is all too reminiscent of the situation described in the poem Martin Niemöller is said to have written in 1946:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The attack on lawyers is just one more chapter in the overall attack on civil liberties by the Bush administration which can be reflected in an update of the poem:

"First they came for the enemy combatants, and I did not speak out -- because I was neither an enemy nor a combatant;

Then they came for those seeking or providing abortions, and I did not speak out -- because I neither sought nor provided abortions;

Then they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Muslim;

Then they came for the gays and lesbians, and I did not speak out -- because I was neither a gay nor a lesbian;

Then they came for the buyers and borrowers of books, and I did not speak out - because I neither bought nor borrowed a book;

Then they came for the remaining non-Christians; and I did not speak out because I was not a non-Christian;

Then they came for the non-Evangelicals, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a non-Evangelical;

Then they came for the lawyers, and I did not speak out - because I was not a lawyer.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Really civil liberties are inseparable -- an attack on any of these groups is an attack on us all.

Sent to Boston Globe

Patrick and Gay Marriage

Your columnist, Eileen McNamara, decries the ineffectual intervention of Deval Patrick in the gay marriage debate (This battle's worth a fight, Boston Globe, January 3, 2007). Part of the problem might have been in his assertion to use "whatever means appropriate" (which presumably includes voting for adjournment) rather than focusing on getting legislators to vote down the substantive question.

A vote to adjourn was a dead letter after the Supreme Judicial Court said that failing to vote on the substantive issue would violate the legislative oath to uphold the constitution. He should have focused on the substantive issue; he should have lobbied hard with the 62 who supported the amendment.

But that's easy to say with 20/20 hindsight.

I agree with the principle that the Constitution is designed to protect the rights of minorities, not to restrict them. Democracy easily turns into demagoguery and it is demagoguery to insist that our gay and lesbian friends and neighbors should not have the right to marry.

We must work hard over the next two years to ensure that all members of the legislature come to accept that message.

Sent to Boston Globe. January 3, 2007