While the reaction to last week’s Supreme Court decision affirming the right of detainees held at Guantanamo to challenge their detention may well be described as a global sigh of relief, the fact that things were permitted to go so wrong in the Land of Liberty remains shocking to many.
Marc Zarrouati writes for France’s Rue 89 newspaper:
“This is an opportunity for us to reflect on the nature of the torturers and in particular, the manner in which torture can be installed so insidiously within the heart of a liberal democracy. … Nothing can justify the use of torture, not even a sense of extreme urgency. No democracy is immune from the slide into prolonged exception or from the legal death of liberty, and certainly not the French Republic, where anti-terrorist legislation is less and less respectful of fundamental freedoms.”
By Marc Zarrouati*
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
June 26, 2008
France – Rue 89 – Original Article (France)
In a ruling made public on June 12th, the United States Supreme Court declared that individuals detained at Guantanamo have the right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before an American civil court. The decision is a scathing blow to the Bush Administration and finally makes possible an investigation by the Justice Department into the conditions of detention and interrogation that have been in force at Guantanamo since 2001.
Just days before The International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, this is good news for supporters of Action By Christians for the Abolition of Torture , who have been fighting for years so that people detained by the U.S. Army as part of its War on Terror aren’t subjected to torture or any other form of abuse prohibited by international convention.
It’s also an opportunity for us to reflect on the nature of the torturers and in particular, the manner in which torture can be installed so insidiously within the heart of a liberal democracy. A key point here seems to be the problematic and unlimited interpretation of emergency measures related to the fight against terrorism. “The costs of delay [by the military justice system] can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody,” it is stated in the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, thus pointing out a chronic failure of the emergency regulations: their persistence well beyond what was initially announced [BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH; majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy .
THE ULTIMATE EXPRESSION OF A SOCIETY
These emergency measures resulted in the suspension of certain legal provisions. So began a situation which entailed the suspension of legal norms of unlimited duration. This explains in part why the question of the legitimacy of this suspension – or adaptation – of the law, has often been approached in the abstract – without reference to time. The measures a society takes to confront threats to its own existence, are the ultimate measure of that society. And just as the attempt to breathe becomes more violent when one is being choked, at moments of crisis, people are more willing to tolerate the perpetration of morally reprehensible acts.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the United States.
