EDITORIAL: The almost 23 years since the 9/11 attacks have seen the US embark on an often fanatical quest to bring the perpetrators of that act of terror to justice. This mission resulted in futile wars being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq, the upending of millions of lives and entire regions, as well as the erosion of civil liberties the world over.
In what had looked to be a denouement to the pursuit of the last remaining 9/11 plotters interned at Guantanamo Bay, the US had reached a plea deal with the attack’s alleged mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two other defendants that would have taken the death penalty off the table in exchange of the trio pleading guilty to all charges, including the murder of the 2,976 people listed in the charge sheet.
The pre-trial agreement understandably proved to be controversial, with the 9/11 victims’ families lamenting the lack of transparency in the process, forcing US Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, to revoke the deal.
And that brings us to the nub of the matter. The entire fiasco has completely exposed the failure of US officials to bring someone as notorious as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to trial despite him being in captivity since 2003. It should be remembered that he was allegedly also involved in the gruesome, tragic murder of journalist Daniel Pearl in Karachi, along with allegedly playing a role in other acts of terror.
It is crystal clear that the use of brutal interrogation techniques – amounting to torture – against him and the other co-defendants will undoubtedly undermine the evidence against them in a trial and hence the tortuous attempts by US officials to come up with a plea deal.
As has been highlighted by global humanitarian agencies repeatedly, those detained at Guantanamo Bay over the last two decades have been subjected to systematic torture and inhuman treatment, with the facility becoming a symbol of state-sponsored cruelty.
It should be noted that between 2002 and 2021, none of the hundreds who had been housed at the facility were ever charged or convicted of a crime, one of the reasons being the difficulties related to the use of inhumane, unlawful means to obtain evidence from the detainees.
While nothing should undermine the tragedy that countless victims of terror have suffered through, it is the US’ own hypocrisy and selective adherence to international law related to treatment of prisoners that have led to a situation where American officials are now scrambling to come up with a credible way to bring people accused of the most serious crimes to trial.
In sharp contrast to this debacle, there is another momentous agreement being celebrated with much more fanfare in the US, with Russia and the West marking the biggest prisoner swap since the Cold War era that saw 26 prisoners from both sides securing their freedom following intense negotiations over a period of several months.
Many of the detainees were classed as political prisoners, including a prominent Wall Street Journal reporter detained in Russia.
The convoluted dialogue process that saw American officials, including President Joe Biden, parleying with multiple countries in extreme secrecy over months goes to show the lengths the US will go to protect the rights of its citizens detained in other countries, while its own history of wilfully ignoring legal standards with respect to rights of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay – which should have been shut down years ago – raises entirely valid concerns about its commitment to universal human rights.
When it comes to the 9/11 plea deal, this selective adherence to international norms and human rights protections has come back to bite the US, and should prompt a critical reassessment of its approach to justice and legal consistency on the global stage.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024