\jeff{krimmel}

An Accusation Does Not A Terrorist Make

I wrote the other day about an innocent Canadian man the United States sent off to Syria for a year to get tortured, all because the government thought this man was a terrorist. Well, it turned out the man was not a terrorist and had done nothing illegal. Our government sanctioned the torture of an innocent man. This episode didn’t even elicit a “Whoops, my bad,” from this administration.

Too many lessons can be drawn from this one story to list here. One such lesson is something Glenn Greenwald posted about on Monday:

This principle is just axiomatic — the fact that someone is accused by the Bush administration of being a terrorist or suspected by the administration of working with terrorists does not, in fact, mean that they are a “terrorist.”

But all evidence points to the president and his most fervent supporters clearly missing this idea. As soon as an accusation of terrorism is pinned on someone, this someone is forever more a terrorist. End of story. Advocating for basic due process protections for accused terrorists is the same as wanting to give freedoms to terrorists. Oh, except for that one guy we sent to Syria. That was a one time thing, though.

Mr. Greenwald continues:

Those who believe that the Government should have to prove that someone is likely a terrorist before eavesdropping on their conversations — or those who would like to ensure a reasonably fair trial before we imprison and execute people for being guilty of terrorism — are no more “pro-terrorist” than those who favor the Bill of Rights are “pro-murderer” or “pro-pedophile.” People are only guilty once they are charged and their guilt is demonstrated, not when the Government secretly concludes that they are guilty.

Why do I think the president and his most fervent supporters are confused about this? Well, let’s first take a look at something the president said today:

“The agreement clears the way to do what the American people expect us to do — to capture terrorists, to detain terrorists, to question terrorists and then to try them,” said Bush.

See? These people are terrorists for at least three stages of the process before we even try them. That guy we sent to Syria, he was a terrorist when we captured him, he was a terrorist when we detained him, and he was a terrorist when we “questioned” him. Sure, he wasn’t actually a terrorist when the evidence was made public, but he’s still 75% terrorist! That asshole.

Here is a statement from the president’s national security advisor, Stephen Hadley:

“A provision dealing with classified evidence makes sure that no sensitive intelligence will have to be shared with terrorists or their lawyers,” White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley told reporters.

But how do we know they’re terrorists before they see the evidence against them? And we know empirically this administration has accused innocent people of being terrorists before. So, we have a situation where an innocent person can be accused of being a terrorist through the government’s use of secret evidence, and this person will not be able to see this secret evidence used against him or her.

How would the guy we sent to Syria even have stood a chance here? He could have had a lawyer, but as soon as his lawyer requested to see the evidence against his client, the administration would have claimed that evidence is classified and hence unfit to release for examination by the accused. What’s the point of even having military tribunals in this case? Why doesn’t the president just torture everyone he thinks is a terrorist, and as soon as he gets whatever information he wants from them, just execute them? Why even bother with meaningless legislation he will proceed to ignore anyway?