Suspect Logic

VP Avatar

The Guardian’s “comment is free” site had a post a few days ago by Moazzam Begg, a Briton of Pakistani descent, now famous for his detention for three years at Guantanamo Bay. Begg is the author of a book called Enemy Combatant, in which he details his experiences.

While his account of his experiences confirm what I have read elsewhere about the whole system of detention, interrogation and torture in the so-called war on terror, I have found the responses to Moazzam Begg’s writing and public utterances to be quite striking. While there are many people who are sympathetic to him, there is also a strong current of animosity towards him. The UK Telegraph is one source of skepticism about Begg’s claims of innocence. The commenters on his post at the Guardian’s site, among others, point out the following: he was a member of a street gang called the Lynx in the mid 1990s; he was arrested for social benefits fraud in 1994; a search of his home revealed night vision goggles and flak jackets; he was associated with a fellow called Shahid Akram Butt who was convicted of benefits fraud in Britain and later of terrorism in Yemen; he was running an Islamist bookshop called Maktabah al Ansar which sold titles like The Virtues of Jihad; he had attended training camps in Afghanistan in the 1990s and provided financial support to jihadi fighters in Bosnia and Chechnya; he was present in Afghanistan in late 2001 just prior to his arrest in Pakistan; a copy of a money order bearing the name Moazzam Begg was found at an Al Qaeda training camp. Begg has not denied much of this, except to claim that the name match was a case of mistaken identity.

If you view this evidence from the point of view of law enforcement, there seems to be very good reason to be quite suspicious of Begg. The logical leap from being suspicious to saying that “The only way Begg should have left Gitmo is in a coffin ..”, as a reviewer of his book did on Amazon.com, is deeply flawed, but is unfortunately made too easily by too many people. Mere suspicion is not cause for indefinite detention and even less so for torture and killing. By all means, haul suspects before a court of law and use the full force of the legal machinery to punish them if they are guilty. Even the most heinous serial killers are charged and given their day in court, but the Bush administration keeps arguing that the suspects at Guantanamo have to be treated differently. The most basic injustice inherent in Guantanamo is the attempt by the US government to bypass the legal system entirely.

As Begg has pointed out in interviews, the US government never charged him with anything, and released him finally in January 2005.

Category:

Reader Comments


3 responses to “Suspect Logic”

  1. The Washington Post has begun the series “Angler” chronicling the sinister role of Vice President Cheney in designing this draconian method of detaining terrorism suspects. Of course there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the VP (not you!) was not the only one comfortable with these ideas. His boss, the Justice Department and even certain academics went along with this extra-judicial, extra-constitutional notion of frontier justice.
    It is indeed ironic because many of the Gitmo detainees are probably guilty as hell and would have been proven so in a court of law. Yet we didn’t have enough confidence in our own judicial system to rely on it to punish the guilty. Instead, we took the shadowy, lawless path which has severely diminished our credibility and even our respectability in the world.

  2. What you point out, VP, is a slippery slope that threatens the entire legal edifice built up over centuries. The reviewer on Amazon.com, despite his homage to the founding fathers (elsewhere in other reviews), really betrays a mob justice mentality. In this he is not too different from Mitt Romney, the leading Republican presidential candidate for ’08, who said in a debate last month: “My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo,” adding that detainees should not have access to lawyers or to U.S. constitutional rights, because “they are terrorists.” These guys don’t seem to understand that “a government’s commitment to human rights is measured by the way it treats its worst [or suspected to be] offenders.” In a fresh Orwellian twist, there is now talk about shutting down Gitmo and relocating it to Afghanistan.

  3. It was interesting to me that commenters on the thread below the Guardian article try here and there to make the same point point as you. But those reasonable comments are completely ignored in the larger discussion, just as they are by our so-called “leaders.” How is it that this simple question is so successfully and repeatedly evaded?

Leave a Reply to Ruchira PaulCancel reply

Contact us:

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning.

Discover more from Shunya's Notes

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading