Daily Update

updated 12:30 p.m. ET July 23, 2003

Affirmative reaction

When news first broke shortly after Sept. 11 that suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo, Cuba would be tried in closed military tribunals, critics both home and abroad boomed that the proceedings would violate international laws.

The debate resurfaced last week when the Bush administration announced that the first trials &#8211 to be held in a court house currently under construction there &#8211 may soon get underway.

Though overshadowed by the shootout killing of Saddam Hussein's sons, Tuesday's reports that two British detainees will receive special legal guarantees has some fingers pointing at the president for giving "special treatment" to his allies.

The US announced Tuesday that it will not seek the death penalty for Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg, who are both held on terrorism charges there. They are among nine Britons at the detainment center, which holds some 680 prisoners from 42 different countries.

Negotiations between the US and Britain began with Prime Minister Tony Blair's trip to the US last week, after headlines in Britain &#8211 where the death penalty is illegal &#8211 revealed renewed outrage over the upcoming proceedings. " Unjust, unwise, un-American" declared the cover of The Economist, generally considered a pro-American magazine.

Now talks have begun with Australian officials over two of its detainees, David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib. "It is highly unlikely the Americans would say one thing to the British and put a different proposition to us," Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Dow told The West Australian newspaper. "We have made it clear to the Americans that, whilst they do have the death penalty in the US, in this country we remain opposed to the death penalty."

The US government has not specifically revealed why guarantees will be met for certain suspects. Some observers have criticized the Bush administration for showing favoritism to its partners in the war against terrorism, and warned that inequitable justice could provoke tensions.

"This is going to get incredibly untidy if separate deals are cut," Eugene Fidell, president of the private National Institute of Military Justice, told The Washington Post. A senior defense official, who requested anonymity, told the newspaper that the decision was not based on favoritism, but reflected a review of the evidence. "In this particular case, the evidence doesn't warrant the death penalty," he said.

Joanne Mariner, on the FindLaw legal commentary site, compares deals cut with the British and presumably the Australians, with the fate of Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen also held on terrorism charges. "It may turn out that the fatal weakness in Zacarias Moussaoui's case is not that the defendant is an admitted member of Al Qaeda, but rather that he's French. It should surprise no one, therefore, that the British and Australian public have raised an outcry over the Guantanamo substitute for justice. Where we see foreigners, they see fellow citizens."

Meanwhile, the family members and supporters of British prisoners at Guantanamo are not satisfied with the US decision not to seek the death penalty, saying that the concession falls short of ensuring a fair trial. "What hasn't been addressed at all is that the US military commissions are not going to satisfy international standards for a fair trial," Louise Christian, Abbasi's lawyer, told The Mirror. "We are desperately disappointed that the British government hasn't been able to get them out of Guantanamo and sent back here."

British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith reported significant progress, however. He said the two British detainees and their defense lawyers would not be monitored or reviewed by American authorities. In addition, the trials would be open to reporters and subject to security restrictions. But many issues remain unresolved, particularly the issue over where the trials will be held.

The US decision to try terrorism suspects in military tribunals has been criticized in both the US and abroad. Political commentator Noam Chomsky, in an interview with the alternative Info Shop News, said "The treatment of people, what's going on in Guantanamo is a gross violation of the most elementary principles of international humanitarian law since World War II."

Nat Hentoff has also criticized Bush's stance on justice for suspected terrorists. He writes in The Washington Times, "With military tribunals in the offing at our naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the president will be adding to his controversial authority to solely decide the imprisonment of those who may be involved with terrorism." He points to the decision of Lawrence S. Goldman, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, not to act as counsel at Guantanamo since the situation makes it "impossible for a defense attorney, civilian, or military to provide a zealous defense or to act ethically," Goldman has said.

But the Bush administration, and many supporters, firmly believe that the military tribunal is critical to the safety of the country &#8211 and in no way anti-American. Former federal judge Robert H. Bork argues in Commentary magazine that "a judicial system with rights of due process is crucial to a free society, but it is not designed for the protection of enemies engaged in armed conflict against us."

"In reality, military courts may achieve just and equitable results more frequently than the run of civilian juries," Bork writes. "The image of military tribunals as drumhead courts manned by stony-faced officers ready to convict regardless of the evidence is a fantasy."

Also...
• Iraqi rebels savor problems of Bush, Blair ( The Washington Post)
• Careful: the FB-eye may be watching ( Creative Loafing Atlanta)
• Canada to recall ambassador over photojournalist killed in Iran ( Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
• Assault on Monrovia continues, newspaper says Taylor's departure soon ( Voice of America)
• Judge tosses out key terrorism charges against New York lawyer ( CNN)

• Feedback appreciated. E-mail Sara B. Miller.