It has been a few years since Osama bin Laden, or Usama bin Laden depending on your preference, has made a public appearance anywhere or a photo of him has been released showing him alive and well. Nevertheless, with technology at the level that it is, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) convinced that the world's most-wanted man is alive and out there somewhere, they have released the above digitally age-enhanced images of Osama bin Laden and another 17 most-wanted fugitives. The digitally and age-enhanced images are available via the US State Department and the Rewards for Justice program. They are also available on the FBI site in their most-wanted terrorists section.
The fact that there is an image of Osama bin Laden with a head of hair and his beard shaved off and in western style clothes seems to suggest that the FBI has no idea where the fella is at, and concede that he might be living somewhere where a suit and tie would help him blend into the crowd.
So, if you see this man, or any of the others, you should probably contact your nearest law enforcement office and the FBI. You should probably also expect that they do not, and will not, want to go quietly so a citizen's arrest is probably not a good idea. All are considered to be armed and dangerous.
I found this cartoon here. The original can be found here.
It will be interesting to read any comments. Although, I am not expecting any comments. However, the cartoon could be construed to be offensive or it might reinforce the beliefs of many that perhaps the terrorists are misinterpreting religion and in fact facing the wrong way.
The cartoon could have been drawn for any religion. Nevertheless, there has been a tendency since 9/11 to link Islam with terror, and I think that this cartoon says something about that connection or lack thereof.
The idea of issuing a fatwa (edict) against terrorism is an appealing one. If for no other reason than it would serve to distance the more moderate adherents to the faith from the more radical. However, the big question is how binding are these fatwas on Muslims and what are the real world punishments for failing to adhere to them?
More importantly, how should Muslims respond to competing fatwas or competing interpretations of what is acceptable with respect to violence perpetrated in the defense of the religion of Allah? There are plenty of Muslim organizations, and Muslims, throughout the world that are seeking to issue fatwas against terrorism as a means of distancing the faith from the criminal acts of a few. The YouTube video below relates to a fatwa issued in India.
This post is not suggesting that terrorism is a Muslim issue alone or that only Muslims perpetrate terror. However, the post is dealing with the issue of fatwas and terrorism, and this is a discussion within the framework of Islam and the interpretation of what is forbidden (haram) and what is permitted / legitimate (halal).
This is an interesting question. I thank Harry over at Multibrand for, in essence, challenging me on the issue, and also Tikno over at Love Ely for pointing me to the Indonesia version of a 2004 Fatwa on terrorism issued by the Indonesian Ulema Council (Majelis Ulama Indonesia / MUI).
In the Indonesian context, a fatwa is not binding in a strict legal sense. The government may consider them and may even adopt them if they are so inclined. However, adoption would require the codification of the fatwa into law. This is something that happens to a certain degree in matters relating to Islamic finance where the MUI plays a role in determining what financial products are legitimate under the rules of Islam. These are then codified in laws and regulations enacted by the state.
Furthermore, Indonesia already has an Anti-Terrorism Law (Interim Law No. 1 of 2002 / Law No. 15 of 2003) so is there a need for a fatwa forbidding conduct which is already prohibited in the criminal legal sense? For an interesting paper on the subject you can read Simon Butt's paper by downloading it from here.
I have taken the time to translate the MUI fatwa and would be happy to send it out if anyone wanted a copy in English. I am reluctant just to post it here because I am hopeless at formatting and "stuff" within the blogspot framework.
The fatwa is interesting because it does not forbid in an absolute sense the killing of oneself in the defense of the religion of Allah. Yet, the fatwa goes to considerable lengths to try and point out that random suicide bombings with undefined targets is absolutely against the teachings of Islam.
The primary difference in the fatwa between terrorism and jihad is that terrorism is used for destructive purposes and to cause chaos and fear whereas jihad is a legitimate struggle to defend the faith. Unfortunately, the violence perpetrated in both cases can be the same, but the intent of the perpetrator is what makes the difference. If the perpetrator is amaliyah al-istisyhad or undertaking the action in search of syahid, then this is acceptable. In contrast, where the perpetrator is one who kills themselves and others because they are a pessimist has therefore sinned in the eyes of God and has committed a crime that can never be permitted by Allah or Islam.
Therefore, the violence is a matter of perception with respect to whether it is legitimate or forbidden. Yet, the fatwa states that the act of suicide bombing is an act of despair and is therefore forbidden under the laws of Islam irrespective of whether it is done in a time of peace or a time of war or in an area dominated by Muslims or in areas dominated by other faiths.
But, in the next point of the fatwa a suicide death where the losses inflicted on the enemies of Islam are greater than those inflicted upon Islam would constitute amaliyah al-istisyhad. However, this is seemingly modified by the phrase dar al-harb which is reasonably translated as regions at war. Yet, it can also be translated to places where Muslims are in the minority and are therefore in constant struggle to practice their faith.
What is interesting about the MUI fatwa was that it was issued in 2004 and even today it is not widely known and has not been widely discussed. It is interesting because wider and more open discussion of the fatwa and terrorism could have made a significant contribution to the understanding of the "problem" of terror and how the Indonesian Muslim community is seeking to deal with it.
There are plenty of sites dedicated to debunking fatwas on terrorism as nothing more than fakes of ways of diverting attention from the real intents and purposes of terrorism. To each their own.
For the world's supposed shining bastion of democracy and freedom, the United States of America, it seems that "enhanced" interrogation techniques are just another day in the office for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
The US Army Field Manual has been amended to add three techniques to list of 16 permissible techniques and to expressly prohibit 8 other "enhanced" techniques. Unfortunately, it appears that this does not apply to the CIA.
Nevertheless, after successfully negotiating the House and the Senate in the US, a Bill that would ban certain interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding as used by the CIA, is set to be vetoed by President Bush.
The question though in theory should be a moot one as the US Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 bans all cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment for all detainees in US custody including the custody of the CIA.
I am not naive enough to believe that there are not people capable of twisting the rules in order to create loopholes and a quick search of the Internet will highlight why. It has been US practice to set up secret prisons and other detention facilities and usually outside of the territory of the US and use torture as well as other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment to get 'results' from interrogation. The practice of extraordinary rendition is illegal under international law in spite of argumanets to the contrary.
But results obtained under enhanced interrogation techniques such as these are unreliable. It is not rocket science and it is therefore pretty easy to understand that if you are being physically, psychologically, or emotionally abused that it is not long before you will tell your tormentor anything that you think they might want to hear.
The balance between protecting your citizens from harm and extending the basic human rights protections that are to be enjoyed by all, even those who seek to harm you, is a difficult one. But the simple and principled morality of this argument is that torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment is wrong under all circumstances. Therefore, the answer to this dilemma suddenly becomes much clearer, you just cannot justify these kinds of enhanced interrogation techniques.
This is what is banned: forcing the detainee to be naked; perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner; placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes; beatings, electric shock, burns or other forms of physical pain; waterboarding; use of military working dogs; inducing hypothermia or heat injury; conducting mock executions; depriving the detainee of necessary food, water or medical care.
I would imagine that there is a simple answer to the "why do they hate us?" question.
This post is not intended to explore all the academic angles of the debate. Maybe I will post that lengthy piece later!
The Military Tribunals to be held and Guantanamo Bay has seen the Prosecutors list six detainees that have now been charged and indicted with conspiracy, murder in violation of the laws of war, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, destruction of property, terrorism, and material support for terrorism. Four were also charged with hijacking or hazarding an aircraft.
The six are:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind;
Walid bin Attash, who allegedly trained two hijackers;
Ramzi bin al-Shibh, an alleged would-be hijacker but denied a visa to enter US;
Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, alleged financier of the plot;
Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, who allegedly provided material support (money and clothes); and
Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged 20th hijacker
The US military has said that the hearings are to be held in a manner that will allow the defense to have access to and contest all of the evidence that the prosecution intends to adduce before the tribunal.
This would seem to be contrary to earlier statements and attempts in other similar cases where the US government has tried to claim among other things the necessity to keep some evidence secret as revealing its source will directly impact on national security. It seems unlikely that the prosecution would not be attempting the same methods to circumvent traditional rules of evidence and the rights to a fair trial in these cases as well.
The defendants have the right to appeal and this process would ultimately lead to the US Supreme Court. However, the issue that is most likely to be the subject of appeal is any confessions from the defendants that are admitted into evidence. By the US government's own admission they tortured Khalid Sheik Mohammed through the use of waterboarding (simulated drowning) and it is likely to be submitted by the defense that the US government permitted the use of 'enhanced' interrogation techniques against the others.
Enhanced interrogation techniques here must be understood to be treatment that borders on torture, or perhaps even falls within the gambit of torture, but under some suspect White House Counsel or US Justice Department memo that states that the President may authorize such treatment to be carried out.
The US government has backed away from these memos publicly but whether it has done so in practice is unclear. The US government will maintain that all the interrogation techniques that the used at the time were legal at that time and were therefore valid. In essence, even if these techniques have since been declared illegal, invalid, or have become of quesionable legality, it does not matter because at the time they were legal under US law.
My early posts clearly indicate that I am not for the death penalty. I am for justice! Terrorists need to be punished and they should rot in jail for the rest of their natural lives. But justice must not only be seen to be done but must be done. Therefore, it is crucial that the process be credible, be justifiable, and be legal! Without this any conviction would be a hollow one and the imposition of the death penalty unjustifiable.
I accept international law allows for the death penalty to be imposed in death penalty states, but the process must always be above reproach. If the State is going to sanction the killing of human beings then the process must evidence that all opportunites were afforded to the defense to make and state their case.
There are many among us who would never believe that a democratic government would act in such a way as to kidnap their own citizens and interrogate them for hours and use other illegal tactics to coerce them into becoming an informant. But then there are the conspiracy theorists, cynics, and other more knowledgeable souls who are not only not surprised but have been saying the government is regularly violating national and international laws in the so-called war on terror.
In an interesting development in Australia, the Secretary of the Attorney General's Department has filed a complaint to the Judicial Commission of NSW to investigate a Judge, Michael Adams of the NSW Supreme Court, who ruled evidence obtained by the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) inadmissible on the grounds that it was obtained unlawfully.
The complaint seems to stem from the judge's characterization of the officers involved as providing testimony that was unconvincing and untruthful. It appears the Head of ASIO feels that his fellas did not get a chance to address the criminal conduct they have allegedly committed. But, to the contrary, they have and the judge found it to be unconvincing and at times untruthful.
It will be interesting to see where this goes as there has been a change of government and it is not clear whether the new government and the new Attorney General will continue to pursue this. In any event the Judicial Commission will investigate but it cannot discipline judicial officers. The complaint seems destined to have the opposite effect to what is intended as if it proceeds it is likely to shine the light even more brightly on the actions of those in Australia's security and intelligence services and the methods employed by them and the impact this has on the civil rights of ordinary Australians.
Shine that light into the dark abyss that the war on terror has become...a good fight is a clean fight!
