Every time there is a chance for the United States to escape from the trap it has created for itself in Guantanamo Bay, it slams the door shut.
The Pentagon's decision this week to seek the death penalty for six men it accuses of the 9/11 attacks, and to try them under the hugely disputed version of military courts that it has devised, is one of the stupidest mistakes that the Bush Administration has made.
Everything about Guantanamo is an affront to the values the US says it is defending in the War on Terror. The principle of holding hundreds of people there without charge, for years; the fluid rules of the “military commissions” used for the very few who will be tried; the torture that the Administration acknowledges has been practised on these six: all these are an assault on the US Constitution.
To see the most powerful country in the world scrabbling on the edge of a nearby island, with whose leader it is not on speaking terms, for the sole purpose of evading its own laws and principles, is an embarrassment.
But the pity is that, in charging these six men, the US should have the world on its side. On September 11, 2001, it had the world's appalled, instinctive sympathy. It could have retained that by trying the suspected architects of the assault in its established courts, under principles of justice that go back to its founders.
Instead, it has put itself in an indefensible position by subjecting its captives to new courts, under unclear rules. The Guantanamo trials, already the world's slowest legal process, will implode under waves of justifiable legal challenge, and the world will regard the US, not the 9/11 suspects, as in the dock.
I spent a week in Guantanamo in April 2006, when the pre-trial hearings of the first ten to be charged began. We had seen four years of pictures of men in orange jumpsuits but this was the first chance to hear them speak. The predicament that the US had created for itself was evident from the start.
Every detail of the courtroom was military; the seals of the five services hung on the wall; the judge, or “presiding officer”, was a navy captain; the prosecutor was from the Air Force; the defence team from the Army; all were in dress uniform. But in this environment of perfect control - even the metal spiral bindings were removed from notebooks, in defence against God knows what imagined threat - the legal proceedings were chaos.
Two prisoners promptly sacked their Pentagon-appointed lawyers, saying they rejected the court's legitimacy. The judge ordered the defence lawyers, who were also military, to continue; they said that they should put their client's wishes above his orders. The court adjourned while the state Bar associations ruled on whether the defence lawyers could defy a senior military officer; they began (very slowly) giving back different answers, as the 50 states are prone to do. Other lawyers leapt up from the audience to offer to defend the defence lawyers, should they be court martialled. The prisoners, on their first outing from the cells in four years, looked stunned.
These problems have been brewing since the first captives arrived in January 2002 at Guantanamo, the deep bay on Cuba's southern flank that the US claims the right to use under an historic lease. For four years, although the US shipped in more than 700 prisoners, it held no one of more significance than Osama bin Laden's driver.
The Administration lost a Supreme Court case in 2004, on behalf of those detained without charge, and had to drop its claim that the base was not US territory and was outside US law. In the 2006 Military Commissions Act, it watered down two contentious aspects of the trials that had brought fierce criticism from Britain: that suspects could not hear evidence against them, if it was deemed classified; and that evidence obtained from torture could be admitted. US diplomats developed a good line in claiming that if only other countries would take these unpleasant men, then it would shut the base down in a flash, which glossed over the lack of ways for prisoners to challenge their captivity.
But the stakes rose in September 2006, when the US flew in 14 “high-value” prisoners, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11, seized in one of the sporadic moments of co-operation with Pakistan. It acknowledged that the 14 had been held in the CIA's “black prisons” in secret locations abroad, its first admission that these existed.
This week, when the Pentagon declared charges against six, including Khalid Mohammed, it ensured that a blow-torch of attention was directed at the unresolved failings, heightened by its vow to seek the death penalty, that old rift with European allies.
Defence lawyers have had no time to gather evidence. Defendents' rights to challenge evidence or to call witnesses are still unclear. Most troubling, the prosecution plans to get around the objection that the men have been tortured by arguing that the CIA interviews have been repeated without torture by the FBI, who used time-tested rapport-building techniques, officials said, including giving the men Starbucks coffee.
This is indefensible. From the start the US should have tried its captives in its established criminal or military courts. Those it could not charge it should have released. It would have had the world's respect, as well as sympathy. But in setting aside its own principles so easily, it has done profound damage to its standing.
Bronwen Maddox is chief foreign commentator of The Times
We, the U.S.A, constantly tell ourselves and everybody else that we are the greatest nation on earth and that other countries should be like us. First, let me state that the U.S.A. is indeed a great nation... among numerous other great nations. Second, no nation is even close to perfection and all nations have many problems to resolve. The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are our problem and we have created this problem ourselves. Accusing and insulting other countries will not help solve our problem. One of the pillars of our country is the rule of law. This means that we must follow laws that have been established by Congress, who represents the people of the U.S.A. Our system of laws is not the problem. The problem is the current administration, which believes it is above the law or can have its own set of parallel and malleable laws.
Fred Slocum, Raleigh, North Carolina
The point is not to argue over whether the United States or Great Britain or anyone else has "blemises on its national conscience" ... but whether we have these in the United States and how to go about making things right.
The point is also not who the accused might be - whether "terrorists" or "thugs" or "stateless combattants" - but who we choose to be. That's always been the point. There's a lovely piece that comes out of Israel and it is ... roughly paraphrased .. that Democracy enters into any conflict with one hand tied behind its back .. and that this is both its strength and its weakness.
I prefer to believe that in November of 2008, the citizens of the United States will vote overwhelmingly to return to the bedrock principles of the Rule of Law ... and again honor the essential foundations of our own Constitution that bagan with the Magna Carta ... or perhaps even earlier in Mesopotamia?
Susan Kidder, San Rafael, California, USA
When the time comes that the UK has no problems or blemishes on it's own National conscience, then I say Ms. Maddox will perhaps have a right to complain about US policies. Until that time I say to Ms. Maddox, "Mind your own business and start writing about dubious UK policies. I'm sure there are several that need addressing." I read a lot of US newspapers online and not one of them publishes articles giving suggestions to the UK Government on how to conduct it's affairs. We here in the US would appreciate the same courtesy.
Penny Henneman, Bridgewater, USA/Massachusetts
In previous wars, most countries avoided the situation of what to do with terrorist thugs -- they executed them quickly. The US could have done that also -- we did not. What would Russia, China, or Cuba have done?
These terrorists are stateless combatants, compounding the problem. Most national governments do not want these murderers back.
The Geneva Convention does not deal with this issue. Perhaps rather than whining about how evil we are to have betrayed some mystical image of the US, we should have called a new convention to draw rules to deal explicitly with these types of individuals.
Guy Thompto, Saukville, USA, WI
I believe as we are entering this new global community we must stand together as opposed to isolating ourselves from each other. The way in which our enemy will defeat us is by dividing us. Yes, 9/11 was an attack on US soil, however wasn't it also an attack on the values and ideals that we as Western nations hold so dear (freedom, democracy, basic human rights)? As they say - together we stand, divided we fall.
Chris Specht, London , (Australia)
It is very sad how defensive Americans are on these comments. And that is the whole point Bronwen is making with her article - that America could have taken severe action against terrorist scum but stayed within her constitional laws in doing so and would then have nothing to be defensive about.
Instead the US decided to go against every international and US constitional law and has stupidly managed to create sympathy for the people locked up without charge.
The US has abandoned her justice system, morals and democracy....all in the name of making the world safe for democracy. Seriously, do Americans not see the hypocrisy of that?
It is very simple: gather the evidence, bring terrorists to normal trial and then lock them up for ever. If you don't have any evidence then on what basis are you holding people?
Adam, London, UK
I have two words to say to Ms. Maddox; Nevil Chamberlain!
M. E. DeLaRhodus, Baton Rouge,
To those Americans who encourage us to 'mind our own business' I'll skip the many points I have about your Foreign policy in the last 7 years and go for something simple
Our troops are fighting and dying alongside American troops in Iraq and Helmand, so we have a right to speak our piece on the issues that have brought them there.
Andy Rolfe, Sheffield,
Guantanamo is where we are holding hundreds of terrorist murderers. We cannot simply let them go or they will start killing innocent American civilians again. For all of the friendship we have offered Brits and Europeans it's amazing and infuriating to hear them asking us to hold our own lives in contempt.
David, Vancouver, Washington
England, currently, is in an absolute and total shambles; politically, socially and economically - you would do well to clean up the mess in your own backyard before you point fingers 'across the pond'.
Kara Davis (ex-pat), San Diego, California
Chris, you assume that these prisoners are guilty already, without a trial. That's the whole purpose of a democracy. To have a fair trial to see if these prisoners are in fact guilty or innocent.
Mike, New Jersey, US
The American government should be utterly ashamed of itself, as should any American who defends such an obvious attack on the principles upon which their own country was founded. If the people in Guantanamo don't deserve human rights then neither do any one of us. And it just goes to show the truth, that these people may not even be guilty - surely if they were guilty beyond doubt and it could be proven then the government would have had no reason not to try them in a civil court, in full view of the media and the public. As it is the US government's secrecy on the matter speaks volumes.
Erik Pan, sheffield, 51st state
Bronwen Maddox has once again proven herself an insightful and pertinent commentator on world events. I cannot agree more. How the entire US justice system has not simply imploded from its contradictions is entirely beyond me.
Helen, Loughborough,
What i like about Ms Bronwen Maddox's articles, is that she tells it as it is. It does not matter if the truth hurts, keep up the good work.
Great article!
jayil, london, uk
Stateless hybrid warriors who've declared war on the West and are bent on destroying it do not deserve the benefits of democracy. You want to fight dirty we can too. No Abe Lincoln for these fellas.
Chris, New Jersey USA,
Would everyone please watch FAREINHEIT 911 once again.
It's not the amercian people, it's the huge propaganda machine that controls the people, and their top 2% untaxed earners. I worked in the US for three years and have seen it first hand. It is frightening what they are told. AND BELIEVE.
Americans: It's only the outsiders who see the truth. You are being had. Remember, a true patriot questions it's government's actions, s/he doesn't lie down and say "Yo, go bush!"
David, Madrid,
This is for James in Ohio. 2,996 people are listed as dead or missing from the 9/11 attacks. 532 non-Americans are among that number. 141 are European. 9/11 was not an attack on the U.S. alone but on all countries who share western values. This is evident from the spate of bomb attacks on public transport systems in Madrid and London since. The perpetrators of these attacks hate everything western. A Danish cartoonist is in hiding because he drew a picture of the Prophet. A Dutch film director is stabbed to death in the street for making a film that apparently offended Muslims. The U.S. is not alone in this war, you just think you are. One thing is certain, you can't fight this war on your own and you won't win it on your own. And you won't win it by abandoning your principles.
Phelim Scallon, London, UK
...And in this country, we have just let a bunch of terrorists (oh, excuse me ... suspected terrorists) walk free. Go figure!
God bless America. (We have to make do with Rowan Williams. And we know which way that's going!)
JJS, London,
It's okay for America to Napalm Vietmam's civilians because they don't like their ideology It's okay for them to arm and support the Saddam Hussein's of this world, as they did, then to launch a war against them when it doesn't go the way they want.
They have almost (we share some complicity in this) singlehandedly created the terrororists with their arrogant belief that they are entitled to dictate how centuries old civilisations should think and behave. And then, in a breathtakingly hypocrital move, they believe they can try and kill people outside of the checks and balances of their own law system.
In the name of democracy and peace? Please!!!!
Tony, England,
refreshing to see Ms Maddox, coming to her senses about this whole charade.
The US is behaving like a tin pot dictatorship persecuting people instead of prosecuting those who committed 9/11.
The irony is that it won't make one iota of difference in Afhganistan, Iraq or in the US's conflict with the Muslim world.
Akram, London,
Sympathy ? Thanks awfully, but we need none.
Bob Hall, New York, United States
On the contrary. It was a brilliant move, sloppily executed, with insufficient forethought, a typical but unfortunate failing of the Bush administration.
Ben Milam, San Augustine, Texas
Hey is it not possible for the UK to have a similar place to Guantanamo. Little detention centre in say outer Hebrides, for terrorists, rapists, murderers, those who go on the X factor.
C Darken, Nantwich, UK
Having been involved in the US military legal system (as a Legal Yeoman, US Navy), how can one expect a military defense council to aggressively attack the military (as a defense council should)? The Gitmo system is inherently flawed.
Pete Swinford, Lafayette, Indiana, USA
In reality everything about Guantanamo is an affront not only to the values the US but to the civilsed World today. Everyone wants to see justice in such terrible cases as 9/11 but it must be real justice and out in the open for all to see. Only then will US justice have credibility to its good people. The Bush administration is acting as bad as the terrorists and clearly this is not the wish of the ordinary US people who would far rather see clear open justice in this case rather than a puppet military secret court in Guantanamo which is illgal prison camp.
Brian Douglas, Iasi, Romania
Bizarre comments here. Are the contributors desperate to demonstrate the very attitudes that have so damaged the US's reputation with the rest of the world.
To sacrifice your strong principles to expediency is a sign of weakness; not strength.
We (Europeans) wanted America to be the shining city on the hill and regret that the current administration has chosen the easier path.
Difficult to push a moral agenda when your actions demonstrate that morality can be sacrificed with so little thought for the illusion of short term advantage.
Alan , Ilfracombe, UK
If I had been held at Guantanamo for 6 years I think I would say almost anything if it held the prospect of my own death. And would probably even believe it to be true.
Steve L, London, UK
How the USA has conveniently forgotten that it was Jimmy Carter's administration that began financing the Islamic Mujahadeen *before* the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
As for the comments from Yanks accusing us of not caring about '9/11', how many of you shed any tears for the IRA's victims? How are those chappies from Noraid nowadays?
Paul, Coventry,
Of course the real question, which no one seems willing to address here, is how many Americans do you think actually CARE what the rest of the world thinks about America?
Out of 300 million American citizens, probably not all that many, and then those that do are probably either democrats, socialists, or other disgruntled axe grinders. I'd even hazzard to guess that most Americans consider the rest of the world to divided into countries who either: 1) lost to the United States, 2) had to be rescued militarily or economically by the United States, 3) had to be protected by the United States at some period during their history (e.g. the Cold War), 4) are diametrically at odds with the United States, or 5) supply oil or could cause interruption in its supply. Criticisms from any of the first three are pretty much ignored with a wink and a pat on the head.
In the immortal words of some wise sage, "If you care too much about what other people think of you, you will be their slave.
Scott, Durham, NC, USA
The stench of hypocrisy? If the Bush administration and Guantanamo are so dismal (and I agree they are) then why did the British re-elect Blair? Blair was in no small part a great enabler of Bush's policies on the world stage.
Having lived in Britain between 1999 and 2002 it always seemed to me that this so called "sympathy" was rather shallow from the outset. Bronwen must also be living in a time warp. Should not this article have been published a few years ago? The latest events re: the the federal charges against the six Guantanamo detainees were as predictable as they were regrettable in terms of the process. There should have been no more respect to lose from the jaded paragons of justice that grace our broadsheets. Instead, give a sigh and a yawn and wait for 2009 when there will be a new administration. It's possible it could be a black man who voted against the war and wants to shut down GITMO. Would that improve world opinon? I doubt it would in a genuine sense.
Keith, Santa Monica, California
I am certain our solders and journalist would have traded their demise for water boarding, any day.
Dan Bowman, St. Louis, Mo.,
And what makes you think that the UK would handle it any better? A headline in this issue: "Terror Laws in Tatters". Your Court of Appeals is letting extrmists go free.
Mind your own business and let us mind ours.
Shari, Dallas, Texas / USA
9/11 was not the work of all Qaeda. Look into it enough and you find glaring holes in the story. Problem , Reaction, Solution. It enabled the 2nd Bush administration to pursue and complete what the 1st Bush couldn't do -take Iraq. Afghanistan is a failure. Iran and Pakistan will be the next. And whilst the mainstream media continue to demonise Islam, the general public will accept the gross infractions of civil liberties- against all sides. We may not be penned up in shackles in Cuba but our every view,word and deed is recorded and scrutinised in the Big Brother security state ,whilst we are fed the lies of the dirty bomb,liquid bomb,the ricin bomb and the need to have Iris iD and a chipped population.
Patrick, The Hague, Netherlands
We have come to the conclusion that the world's sympathy comes at too great a cost. We can live without it.
JL RONISH, seattle , usa
Actually we could just turn the six back over to their home countries. They would kill them far faster and cheaper than any US judicial process. Or we could just put them in the general prison population- they would last about a week there. Maybe Sing-Sing or Rikers Island in New York ? They would be especially welcome there.
There have been lots of stupid mistakes made all over the world since this affair began. Its too complex and had too many moving parts for there not to be. Its sad but true.
Finally, two weeks after they're hung no one will remember their names. When was the last time anyone spoke about Sadaam Hussein ?
James Ball, Lovettsville, VA/USA
If a country declares is not and has no intentions of following the terms of the Geneva Conventions during a time of war, then that country has aborgated its signature on those conventions.
The Geneva Conventions have always applied to countries at war which, in almost all cases (except historically the USA), have been countries facing extreme threats of destruction.
If a signatory abrogates its signature on the Geneva Conventions, the troops of that country are receive only the protection granted troops and militias from non-signatory countries and ethnic groups.
That doesn't necessarily make all US troops war criminals under international law, but I believe it would make them all illegal combatants under the definitions of the US federal government is imposing on foreigners.
Anne H, Manitoba, Canada
Of course the real question, which no one seems willing to address here, is how many Americans do you think actually CARE what the rest of the world thinks about America?
Out of 300 million American citizens, probably not all that many, and then those that do are probably either democrats, socialists, or other disgruntled axe grinders. I'd even hazzard to guess that most Americans consider the rest of the world to divided into countries who either: 1) lost to the United States, 2) had to be rescued militarily or economically by the United States, 3) had to be protected by the United States at some period during their history (e.g. the Cold War), 4) are diametrically at odds with the United States, or 5) supply oil or could cause interruption in its supply. Criticisms from any of the first three are pretty much ignored with a wink and a pat on the head.
In the immortal words of some wise sage, "If you care too much about what other people think of you, you will be their slave."
Scott, Durham, NC, USA
The US is not giving these men trials following the same rules that US service men are tried under. Confessions gained by torturing US troops are not admissable in US military courts. The lawyers of US trooops are entitled to see evidence and to cross examine all witnesses.
There are international courts to try war criminals in.
European countries use them to try war criminals who have killed far more than 3,000 civilians (recent examples being the former Yugoslavia).
This is no more fair than a Japanese, North Vietnamese or German court trying and sentencing US soldiers in the days of WWII.
The US and US citizens have labeled such actions by nations criminal for the past 50 years.
If the US were really the Christian nation it claims to be, it would not be taking actions it labels as criminal when other countries do them. If the US wants justice for war criminals, it should let competent international courts hand it out.
Anne H, Manitoba, Canada
I just read this article which was forwarded to me by a friend and, as a New Yorker, I have to say I agree whole-heartedly with Ms. Maddox. We, as a state and a nation, did suffer a horrific blow but our reaction in it's wake is appalling to many of us. Many people I know feel a sense of guilt at opposing our current administration. We are told daily that the government is working for our protection, that lives are being given on our behalf and that we would be un-American to do any less than support our President without question. I hope that in the months and years to come we as a people will regain our collective sanity, but please understand and realize that there are many of us trying to effect a change from within. We are not all as apathetic or as blind to the contradictions we're living under as it may appear to the world. Thanks.
Kris, New York, USA
Oh well. This is what happens when 3000 US innocent citizens are slaughtered. Get over it. Should I list the problems of the court systems of the world?? It would take me 3 days. "the rest of the world" cant even take care of the atrocities in Darfur or the former Yugoslavia. The world attacks the US because it has a vested interest in doing so. No more no less.
Phillip, NY, NY
We Americans are just so broken up that we are no longer getting the sympathy of Europe. Your sympathy is such a valuable thing.
William Worsley, Arlington, Virginia
I still retain the greatest sympathy for all that the victims and their families endured on 9/11 I doubt that the grief is any less bearable. 9/11 was an outrage against innocent people. I abhor all terrorism. The aftermath of 9/11 is equally shocking. There has been a seismic shift in some peoples attitudes. There are many questions that remain. All I know is the people of New York were attacked. There has to be some kind of justice for them. There should be justice for all victims of terror. Pity an entire human race which cannot make Peace as often or as well as we make war. New Yorkers did nothing to deserve such an outrageous act of terror.
lisaxian, london, england
in case of any executions in the new case against alleged plotters of the 9/11 attacks we will see the mother of all PR desasters for the USA and a golden opportunity for Al-Kaida & Co to widen their appeal
Carlos Kleiber, London,
America has become a hideous parody of everything it claims to believe in.
B, London,
GM certainly has a point, reminding us that oil and international commerce determines US foreign policy. But that's just why we should be grateful to the USA, for that bear the cost of protecting the commercial lines, with their huge US navy, hence allowing people around the world to trade freely and for all willing nations to prosper. In fact, they act as a benevolent force to maintain law and order as far as possible.
And I do absolutely not see how it is an "absolute fact" that US foreign policy have created the terrorist we face. Or it means just that, by maintaining some kind of order they bar the would be islamist totalitarian ruler to conquer power and help getting the world back to the conditions that helped start WW1 and WW2.
Guitmo : how do you expect to treat these terrorist ? They can't be prisonner of war, folks that fight for the country and go back home after the war, for they are ideological killers, eager to kill again. And they can't be treated as com'n criminal
Gallatin, yaounde, cameroun
Of course America wants the terrible deeds of 9/11 addressed and the world would support them. What the world does not, very rightly, support, is torture and secrecy. The only possible reason for a military court is that the government's case is weak and they know it would not survive the rigorous scrutiny of a civil court. The armed services, as the old cliche goes, are not paid to think, they are paid to do what they are told. They will do, on this occasion, what the government requires them to do. And the world already knows what the result of the trial will be. A rigged guilty verdict is already seen by the world as a foregone conclusion. That is why America has, very deservedly, lost the world's respect. It will retrieve it now only by placing the accused in open court with international observers.
eric campbell, harrogate, uk
Oh dear! When will we Americans stop missing the point. other countries are trying to make. Americans kill other Americans at the highest rate in first world countries, and it is the only developed country to have the death penalty other than Japan, but we only worry about non-Americans killing Americans. America is the violent country that Americans should worry about. We kill far more Americans than terrorists ever will.
The threat to Americans is from Americans. We are a violent country that exports violence.
Hopefully, USAID will teach all other countries in techniques like waterboarding, so that it can be used on captured Americans to ensure the speedy route to trial that the Constitution offers. Such are the values we want the rest of the world to adopt. How much else of the Constitution has Bush suspended?
Hypocrisy is what bothers the rest of the world.
Howard, West Palm Beach, Florida
Americans make a big deal about 3,000 civilians dying on 9-11.
First, if 3,000 people per day had died during WWII, it would have taken 45 years for WWII to have killed the 50,000,000 people who died in it to die.
Secondly, American civilians generally see 9-11 as a completely unprovoked attack. They do not realize that the US had been engaging in on-going hostile military actions against "the ethnic groups" or "the peoples" the 9-11 aggressors were members of.
This is not to excuse 9-11. One war crime doesn't excuse another.
That the US kills innocent civilians in smaller repeated, almost habitual, criminal actions, rather than a single big criminal act, or that the US is a democracy, and a majority of its voters support/supported such activities, spreads and multiplies the blame.
Our NATO ally should put a priority on applying the law to its citizens, and avoiding any future criminal acts against foreigners that may provoke retribution.
Keith T, Winnipeg, Canada
No one is objecting to the perpetrators of 9/11 receiving justice, but what Americans seem to have abandoned is the simple truth that everyone is innocent until proved guilty. And and that torture is the best recruiting sergeant for these fanatics . Lose this and you have paved the way for a dictatorship, but perhaps it is too late ,
John, Leeds , UK
America's naive foreign policy over the last 40 years have created the terrorists that we face today. This is absolute fact. The US have made a complete hash of things in their quest to control as much as the worlds oil supply as they can.
Anyone who even begins to disagree that the US's foreign policy has ever been about anything but oil and international commerce is very naive and seriously deluding themselves.
It was Saudi's who carried out the 9/11 attacks, this is undisputed fact. And yet why is Saudi Arabia still such a strong ally of the US? Why have the Saudi's donated $10million to both Clinton and Bush's presidential libraries?
If the US want to pretend that they are saving the world from oppression and human rights abuses does nobody here even think it would be a good idea for the US to practice those same human rights in it's own country before telling the rest of the world how they should be running their country?
This is why there is no sympathy left for the US.
GM, Brisbane,
The announcement specified they would tried under the same rules as US military personnel are. If there is solid reason (beyond the usual "the US must be lying and anything they due is evil" montra we get from the left), it would be useful for the column to have pointed that out so one can judge. Otherwise it seems reasonable to use a process that the US is willing to send its own people through.
They are facing the death penalty, but that is something the US disagrees with Europe on. Presumably the requirement for better relations isn't the US simply giving in on every issue we disagree on.
D. Summers, Meno Park, California, USA
I am confused, the good person should ask, first and foremost what would Shari law conclude should be done for these men if they were Americans who had by complicity been involved in the murdering of 3,000 Shari Law’s patrons, under the exact circumstances as those accused stand to justice for. That is the true measure and standard not asked here. Why is World Consensus, this fallacy of selective presumption, to be the ultimate gage for a nation’s interests, is the second question not asked here?
Did Imperial Europe measure up, to such a standard, in its heyday? Did Russia give the Chechens fair justice? Did the Taliban, Saddam, or Tehran measure up in such venues, of noble intent, as is implied as the standard here? Where was, no, is, the world’s condemnation in these places? Is it only those expect to be morally correct that elitist utopians assume must stand accountable often to their detriment in this world? It seems, by author’s presumptive measure, that is so. Why I ask, do su
Feral Grognard, Plano, USA
With its President's declaration that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to countries at war who are defending themselves, the US has abrogated its signature on those conventions. Members of the US armed forces can no longer be regarded as soldiers serving a signatory of that convention. (This is the fear that British generals had in following Tony Blair's orders to attack Iraq.)
The hypocracy is monumental.
If the Americans want to bring war criminals to justice, they have far more suitable defendants in uniform and in the current White House, going back as far as My Lai.
I hope that John McCain or Barack Obama, their next president, will take the steps necessary to restore US national honor -- bringing US war criminals to justice. (This does not mean the death penalty. The rest of the world is not so blood thirsty. It may mean as little a year or two in jail.)
Keith T, Winnipeg, Canada
I could not agree with you more, Sarka. The contempt and hatred towards Americans in England began long before 9/11. In my opinion, Europe is not an ally of the US. We are only an ally to them when they need us, otherwise all we get from them is ridicule, scorn, and complete joy at any miseries the US and the American people face.
Mary Russell, Atlanta, USA
Thank you, Bronwen Maddox. You put it with admirable clarity.
After a six-year revenge rampage, often against people who didn't even have anything to do with Nine-Eleven, people who were sold to them outright, and people whose only "crime" is that they are Muslim - cf. the rabble-rousing concept of "Islamofascism" - the US is beginning to sober up, and to realise that self-serving fantasies of the usefulness of torture don't hold water, nor does the idea that some people "don't deserve rights" and therefore you can do to them whatever you like, and feel "entitled and justified". But "Starbucks to make up for torture" is still a mind-boggling copout. The US has done serious wrong and betrayed its own principles big-time, and now it's time for remorse and restitution - and the rule of law, not blind revenge.
Julia Iskandar, London, England
C'mon, Bron, the "sympathy for the US" was a blip. Irrational anti-American sentiments were alive and well in Europe way before 9/11. In fact, it was one of the first things that shocked me deeply when I arrived in England in 1969. Could not believe the moronic anti-American venom flowing freely through the Universities, cafes and other gathering places for the intellectual elite. Tanks rolling through the streets of my native Prague were routinely and airly dismissed, millions of dead and opressed souls suffering in the "other Europe" denied any weight . They did not matter. In fact, we were constantly questioned as to "what was so terrible" in our homeland that compelled us to leave, while the supposed horrors and atrocities of the US were offered as mantras and held as revealed, self evident truths. Nothing changed. Euro- self righteousness rules. The US are no angels by any means, the current government stinks, but the relentless hypocrisy of knee jerk US bashing is just stupid.
Sarka, currently San Francisco, California
Yo Bronwen..How many of these prisoners will you take in your house ???,, Tell the 3900 plus 'folks' killed on 9/11 that they were 'just in the wrong place'....Now, will you walk the walk and take in these prisoners ???...Get the U S of A out of the UN and the U N out of the U S of A...NATO and SATO as well...
Mr Tim, san marcos, U S of A /Ca
As an American I support every action that has taken place with these self described jihadist. War is not a popularity contest. Americans like me are not seeking sympathy or respect from the rest of the world. We are seeking the total destruction these men and men like them. They deserve nothing but what they promote. I served in the military and am proud of my service. I no you wont believe this, but the world is a safer place because of men like me.
Pat, Chicago, USA
Rather a naive point of view.
Has Bronwen Maddox actually visited the sphere of causality she alludes to, apart from the one instance of jump-suited Guantenamo?
Start at Ground Zero in New York, and then go onto Afghanistan (take a long walkabout in Kabul and then mingle with the troops in Kandahar and Tarin Kowt).
There is nothing so smug and superior as a hermetically sealed British journalist.
P.S. I am English.
Rob, Dubai, UAE
BORING!! Please tell me why I should give a damn about what the world thinks when 3000 AMERICANS (let me repeat: AMERICANS) died on 9/11. Had 3000 Euros died, then maybe you could have a say. Otherwise, please butt out! Don't lecture us on our Constitution.
James Jones, Columbus, USA/ OHIO
The price for the world's sympathy and support is too high. Maddox argues that if America had just followed our laws - and of course the problem is that our laws for dealing with terrorism are undeveloped - that America would have been loved.
Probably not. No one remembers America's former ambassador to Britain almost breaking down in tears as a hostile British television audience virtually shouted at him that America had deserved 9/11 - just three weeks after the event. Nobody remembers that after Le Monde's famous "We are all Americans Now" headline, that the paper was flooded with letters to the editor saying, in so many words, "Oh no we're not!"
The world - especially Europe - only likes its superpowers bloodied and humbled. The instant the superpower fights back, it is despised.
That Guantanamo has not been handled well is arguable. That America would have been loved had it handled it better is pure pap. Americans have to die for the world to speak well of us.
James Geoffrey, Livonia, Michigan USA
Well said John. I have no idea which planet Bronwen and her ilk live on, but I know where I'd rather see these creatures - they are in the right place and in the right juristdiction, thank you very much.
GB, Hong Kong,
I aggree
jon smith, london, uk
Send these characters to the UK --I am sure Gordon Brown can arrange it---after 5 minutes of interrogation by the UK police they would be set free with Vanessa Redgrave bailing them out. They could then be given leave to live in the UK--money to live on-- a car and cell phone allowance and state paid accomodation. Yes these are the kind of people that Labour Britain needs.Time to get out and protest to make this happen.
john, clifton nottingham, UK
John,
I think you miss the point the whole world was on the USA' s side after Sep 11th, that has changed now due to the extreme stupid mistakes that their leaders have made.
I am sure these prisoners have cost the USA government the same as what the UK government spends on its problem citizens...
Al Smith, Calgary, Canada