home

Enemy Combatants and Guilt By Association

by TChris

The administration's case against Murat Kurnaz boils down to guilt by association, and demonstrates why the administration's Combatant Status Review Tribunals are an inadequate substitute for judicial review of "enemy combatant" detentions. Kurnaz -- a German-born Turkish citizen -- was arrested in Pakistan and turned over to the U.S. military, which transferred him to Afghanistan for interrogation before sending him to Guantanamo. He's been imprisoned there for three years as an enemy combatant.

But an investigation of Mr. Kurnaz's case reveals no evidence that he ever fought against the United States or planned to.

The administration initially believed that Kurnaz was an associate of Mohamed Atta, who likely piloted a plane into the World Trade Center. Lacking evidence to support that suspicion, the administration now relies on evidence that Kurnaz received food and lodging from Tablighi Jamaat while he traveled in Pakistan. The administration contends that Tablighi Jamaat supports terrorism against the United States, a proposition disputed by some terrorism experts. In any event, basing a three year imprisonment on guilt by association is unconscionable.

The administration also claims that Kurnaz traveled to Pakistan with Selcuk Bilgin, a man who -- according to the tribunal that reviewed Kurnaz' detention -- later carried out a suicide bombing. Guilt by association again, but there's a larger flaw in the administration's case: Bilgin (according to German investigators) is very much alive, and therefore could not have carried out a suicide bombing.

Yet military tribunals are unconcerned with the niceties of evidence or proof, as demonstrated by a tribunal's finding that Kurnaz is indeed an enemy combatant. It relied on "classified material" to arrive at that conclusion. The perils of basing a loss of liberty on secret evidence became clear when Kurnaz' detention was reviewed by a federal judge.

[A] Federal District Court judge, Joyce Hens Green, in reviewing Mr. Kurnaz's case early this year, found that there was only a single document, called R-19, that incriminates Mr. Kurnaz as a member of Al Qaeda. About this material she concludes, "Not only is the document rife with hearsay and lacking in detailed support for its conclusions, but it is also in direct conflict with classified exculpatory documents."

The tribunal, it turns out, simply disregarded evidence that didn't fit its theory about Kurnaz' danger to the U.S.

Judge Green's summary of the classified file was briefly unclassified earlier this year and reported on by The Washington Post in March. It contained several intelligence reports that exonerated Mr. Kurnaz of the very charges the Guantánamo tribunal made against him.

The administration resists judicial review of detentions, claiming that its own tribunals are sufficient to provide due process. Never mind that our government is based on a separation of powers that allows one branch of government to provide a check against the excesses of another branch. The administration's desire to keep all the power to itself -- to decide itself who should be held indefinitely, with no review by an independent judiciary -- is contrary to the fundamental structure of our society. Kurnaz' case demonstrates the evil that inheres in allowing the administration that kind of unchecked power.

< Iraq Judge Spin: Saddam Down in the Dumps | Biden Calls for Closure of Guantanamo >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Enemy Combatants and Guilt By Association (none / 0) (#1)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    We "our" all Guilt of association with Bush, and millions will pay for that crime. watch what is going down now inside the government, can we say third world plans for you.

    Re: Enemy Combatants and Guilt By Association (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    People - Does the phrase "Crime Against Humanity" shake a few cobwebs loose? Where are our legal scholars? (*Er, not you, TL, rhetorical question, and you've enough on your plate) Really, people...if what Bush is doing is so wrong, hasn't he broken one law on his march to hell?