Moral dilemmas & modern threats
From the Blog PkColumnist.com: Moral dilemmas & modern threats - IN times of war, striking a balance between security needs and the dictates of human rights is often tricky. Even states with long established democracies struggle to keep their people safe while maintaining their adherence to the rule of law. This becomes especially true when governments are fighting abroad where it is easier to demonise foreign foes and inflict the kind of indiscriminate violence we witnessed in Iraq. The problems inherent in this kind of situation were brought home in a recent article titled `Balancing Civil Liberties` by Richard Bernstein in the . Bernstein discusses the case of Ahmed Khilfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian Muslim accused of being part of the twin terror attacks on the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salasm in 1998. Apart from being associated with Al Qaeda, he was also a bodyguard for Osama Bin Laden. Arrested in Pakistan in 2004, he was held for two years in a secret CIA detention centre before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2006. During his interrogation, he confessed to most charges, and named the man he bought explosives from. This person agreed to testify against Ghailani, and it seemed the prosecution had a watertight case. Except it didn`t: when the case was moved to a New York court, the judge ruled that the testimony of the witness would not be admissible as the confession had been extracted under duress. Of course, without this key witness, the whole case might collapse, and a possibly dangerous terrorist could walk free. Andrew McCarthy is a critic of the whole idea of trying suspected terrorists in normal courts. He is quoted by Bernstein in his article: "The political fact is that unless you capture a terrorist in the act, there`s always going to be some ambiguity about that person." It is precisely this ambiguity that has generated endless debate between human rights groups and security establishments around the world. We have been grappling with this issue ever since 9/11. The role Pakistan has played willy-nilly in the war against terror has exposed us to the charge of sacrificing the human rights of our citizens at the altar of American interests. The whole sorry episode of Pakistan`s `disappeared` is a case in point. In most instances, these cases relate to individuals suspected by sundry intelligence agencies of being involved in extremist groups and subversive activities. Knowing that they had insufficient evidence to charge them in an open court, these agencies took the decision to detain them illegally in secret facilities dotted around the country. Here, it is alleged, they were usually tortured, and occasionally killed. In a series of landmark hearings, the present chief justice of the Supreme Court issued orders for their release. Reluctantly, security agencies freed some, while denying they had custody of the rest. For the first time, the state was forced to admit that it was running a number of illegal detention centres, and citizens, many of them totally innocent, were released. This was Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry`s finest hour, and it has been downhill ever since. Another episode that highlights the disconnect between security needs and human rights is the ongoing drone campaign that has taken on new urgency and ferocity. Here we have remotely piloted aircraft that have been attacking alleged terrorists, killing and wounding many, but also causing significant collateral damage in the process. ghairat Human rights activists here and abroad, as well as the local (or Pakistani pride) brigade, have roundly criticised this form of vigilante justice in which the accused are executed without any pretence at due process. In addition, this campaign has taken a toll of the women and children these killers shelter behind in the tribal areas. Clouding the issue is the fact that these drones are perceived as operating with the tacit permission of two successive Pakistani governments. Indeed, we have even given the Americans a base in Balochistan for the use of these aircraft. The question is whether it is ethical to kill suspected terrorists without a trial. But what is the alternative? We insist on the sovereignty of our borders (even when we can`t control who crosses them), and refuse to accept American troops on our soil. So what are the Americans supposed to do to protect their forces who are being attacked by militants who operate from Pakistani territory? For all their bravery and all the lives they have laid down, our troops cannot clear areas their generals won`t allow them to enter. And even if they did try, it is not clear that we have enough military resources to take on the many jihadi groups sheltering in North Waziristan. Given this stark reality, how do we and the Americans take on this threat? And even if by some miracle, our security forces were able to arrest a number of these killers, would they be found guilty in our courts? After all, these same courts take years to pass judgment in far simpler cases. If they insist on the usual stringent requirements for evidence, chances are high that most of the accused would be freed. As it is, those arrested under terrorism laws are often given bail to cause more mayhem, and the conviction rate is appallingly low. This takes us back to the balance between security and human rights. While upholding the right of the accused to all the protection of the law, our judges are ignoring the right to life of other citizens. Faced with this conundrum, our police and security forces have often resorted to executing suspects. The recent film capturing what appear to be Pakistani troops gunning down suspected terrorists in Swat is another example of the moral dilemma posed by the terrorist threat. Meanwhile, jihadis are not burdened by such considerations. They have slaughtered thousands without discriminating between combatants and civilians. Indeed, the latter are their preferred targets as they are unprotected. The question then is whether they are entitled to the protection of laws they despise? Clearly, a state is judged by a higher code of ethics than gangs of killers, even though they claim to fight under the banner of Islam. Nevertheless, if they are to be defeated, we need to be clear on what — if any — rights they are to be accorded in this battle for survival. . Read Full Post
0 comments :
Post a Comment