SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
Need to create a login? Want to change your email address or password? Forgot your password?
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Much of the debate about possible trials of Guantánamo prisoners in a federal court and much of the struggle in proceedings at Guantánamo has a dark subtext. The Obama Administration and supporters of the Bush Administration are intent on suppressing evidence that prisoners were tortured and avoiding accountability for those who tortured. To this end, the government pleads for secret evidence, attempts to ban the public from hearings, and disguises individuals involved in the interrogation process as “interrogator x.” All of these efforts reflect a trashing of centuries-old traditions requiring the public presentation of evidence and accountability for all, including those who give evidence. Today, a court in England has gone to great lengths to remind us of our shared legal heritage. The Guardian reports:
The court of appeal has ruled that the government cannot use secret
evidence in the case being brought against it by Binyam Mohamed
and five other former Guantánamo Bay detainees over torture
allegations. The court of appeal has dismissed an attempt by MI5 and MI6 to suppress evidence of their alleged complicity in the torture and secret transfer
of British residents to Guantánamo Bay. In a devastating judgment, it ruled that the unprecedented attempt by the security and intelligence agencies, backed by the attorney general and senior Whitehall officials, to suppress evidence in a civil trial
undermined deep-seated principles of common law and open justice. MI5 and MI6 said evidence in the case, in which the Guardian, the Times
and the BBC intervened, should be kept secret from everyone except the
judges and specially appointed and vetted counsel.
In their ruling, Lord Neuberger, master of the rolls, Lord Justice
Maurice Kay, and Lord Justice Sullivan said that accepting the case of
the security and intelligence agencies would amount to “undermining one
of [the common law's] most fundamental principles”.
“A further fundamental common law principle is that trials should be
conducted in public, and the judgments should be given in public. In our view the principle that a litigant should be able to see and
hear all the evidence which is seen and heard by a court determining
his case is so fundamental, so embedded in the common law that, in the
absence of parliamentary authority, no judge should override it, at any
rate in relation to an ordinary civil claim …”
The full opinion can be examined here.
The decision was rendered on the basis of the common law, the legal tradition that was incorporated as a part of United States law in 1789 and also served as the basis for the law of the original American states. The principles noted by the Court of Appeal were all incorporated into the common law by the time of the American Revolution and thus all also belong to American law.
The Court of Appeal’s decision to resolve the matter on the basis of seventeenth-century precedent, and not current international law doctrines, has an obvious impetus, which is to remind the Americans of a shared bond. Unfortunately, even as the decision was being announced in London, the American government was doing its best to establish different rules for Guantánamo. At present, it looks like the torture secrets of the Bush-Cheney era will be exposed in the courts of England, while in America they will be kept secret.
More from Scott Horton:
Conversation — March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm
Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.
i. stand with israel
I listen to a lot of conservative talk radio. Confident masculine voices telling me the enemy is everywhere and victory is near — I often find it affirming: there’s a reason I don’t think that way. Last spring, many right-wing commentators made much of a Bloomberg poll that asked Americans, “Are you more sympathetic to Netanyahu or Obama?” Republicans picked the Israeli prime minister over their own president, 67 to 16 percent. There was a lot of affected shock that things had come to this. Rush Limbaugh said of Netanyahu that he wished “we had this kind of forceful moral, ethical clarity leading our own country”; Mark Levin described him as “the leader of the free world.” For a few days there I yelled quite a bit in my car.
The one conservative radio show I do find myself enjoying is hosted by Dennis Prager. At the Thanksgiving dinner of American radio personalities (Limbaugh is your jittery brother-in-law, Michael Savage is your racist uncle, Hugh Hewitt is Hugh Hewitt) Dennis Prager is the turkey-carving patriarch trying to keep the conversation moderately high-minded. While Prager obviously doesn’t like liberals — “The gaps between the left and right on almost every issue that matters are in fact unbridgeable,” he has said — he often invites them onto his show for debate, which is rare among right-wing hosts. Yet his gently exasperated take on the Obama–Netanyahu matchup was among the least charitable: “Those who do not confront evil resent those who do.”
Average number of Americans who are injured by chain saws each year:
A farmer in Kenya bit a python who tried to eat him.
A former prison in Philadelphia that has served as a horror-movie set was being prepared as a detention center for protesters arrested at the upcoming Democratic National Convention, and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump fired his campaign manager.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Matt was happy enough to sustain himself on the detritus of a world he saw as careening toward self-destruction, and equally happy to scam a government he despised. 'I’m glad everyone’s so wasteful,' he told me. 'It supports my lifestyle.'”