From Enemy Combatant to Tortured Terrorist

The case of Binyam Mohamed raises so many divergent thoughts that’s its impossible to even take a single view on the deeper issues that lie at the heart of the matter. However, one thing is true and indisputable; his detention and subsequent ill treatment were wrong. There are a lot of things that can be said and a lot of emotive words that can be dredged up to describe how wrong it was. However, one thing is clear, and that is that there is no justification for what the US ant its allies embarked upon as they sought to address the issue of people captured or arrested during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

There is no doubt that Binyam Mohamed was arrested on reasonable grounds for suspicion. Maybe there might be a case for suggesting that the intensity of operations may have made the investigation of any claims against any such detainees a low priority. However, natural justice would suggest that there was a need to ensure that any detainees had their cases dealt with expeditiously. It was always possible some of them might have been innocent, and therefore there swift release would have been essential to maintain the rule of law. It is also possible that others may have been a rich source of intelligence in the fight against terrorism. It would have been tactically astute then to seek information from them that might have helped the campaigns and reduced fatalities.

It does seem that the US was content to treat any captured people as though they were guilty and deprive them of any due process. To all intent and purposes it appears the intention was to exercise as much retribution on any such prisoners as was possible to get away with. The general treatment of detainees has been completely against any notion of natural justice and in violation of any rules of law. If these people were innocent of the any crimes then their continued detention has been inhumane and immoral. If they were guilty of any crimes then the US owed it to the duty to public safety to put them on trial and have them dealt with through due process.

The case of Binyam Mohamed does leave one extremely conflicted. This is a man who fled political repression in Ethiopia and sought asylum in the UK. It would appear that he traveled to Pakistan with the intention of exploring the possibility of getting involved in some form of militia activity. He must have known that attending a military training camp could only likely lead to some form of terrorist activity. So it would appear that he was on the verge of joining what would have amounted to some form of radical movement that would have been promoting violent disorder. While he appears not be guilty of any specific terror related crimes, it seems he was harbouring intentions that are likely to, or could possibly have led him down that path. Maybe he was a young man burning with religious zeal or he just found himself swept up by a set of circumstances that compelled him to act. Whatever it was he found himself confronted by an enemy who were ready to do whatever it took and by any means necessary to combat the threat they perceived. There has always been a complacency amongst terrorists that they can sneak in and out of countries commit atrocities and then be treated ‘softly’ by the local justice systems if they are caught. Afterall when you have embarked on a campaign that demands an eye for an eye the rule of law is more concerned that you are treated fairly when you have been charged with multiple murders, you might be entitled to believe the costs are worth it. Unfortunately, the tide has changed and now terrorists can be rest assured that they will reap the whirlwind they have sown should they be caught. Binyam Mohamed certainly had his burning zeal tortuously extinguished. Unfortunately in doing so the moral high ground that had been occupied by the fight against terrorism has been seriously eroded.