Internment can be defined as the indefinite detention of a person by a government and the denial of the normal legal
processes that would usually be available to them, such as the right to know the charges and evidence against them, the right to a public trial, the right to appeal to a higher judicial authority, etc. While governments often resort to internment in period of national emergency, such as a war or during a terrorist campaign, the practice raises questions about the balance between security and liberty. Following September 11, the Bush Administration interned hundreds of Al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects in Guantanamo Bay under military authority without appeal to the US legal system. The action generated severe criticism from parts of the international community and prompted a series of legal challenges from civil liberties groups that have resulted in Supreme Court decisions recognizing the government’s right to detain illegal combatants but finding illegal the special military commissions established to try such combatants.
Pros
Cons
Governments must have the power to address threats to the nation. Everyone would recognize that laws that apply in peacetime might not be appropriate during war. Captured enemy combatants, for example, should not have the rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury that citizens enjoy. The war on terror is in this respect a war like earlier, more conventional conflicts. Just because our enemies do not wear uniforms or conform to a normal military structure does not make them any less of a threat to our society.
The war on terror is not like past, conventional conflicts, and the administration cannot assume wartime powers simply on its own declaration. The September 11 attacks were horrific, but they did not threaten the existence of the nation—the economy has rebounded surprisingly quickly, and no one believes that even a successful attack on the White House or the Capitol would have ended American democracy. Nor is the war on terror winna- ble—there is no likely endpoint at which we will declare victory and so allow detained “enemy combatants” to go home. So these harsh but supposedly temporary wartime measures will become the norm.
Internment Without Trial |143
We must reach an appropriate balance between security and freedom. Everyone recognizes the importance of protecting rights and liberties, but this cannot be done at all and any cost. The first duty of our political leaders is to protect us from harm, and the voters will rightly hold them accountable if they fail.
Giving the government the power to detain suspects without due process will not make society safer. The proposition’s arguments rely on the accuracy of secret intelligence, which supposedly identifies individuals planning terrorist acts but which cannot be revealed in open court. Recent history suggests that such intelligence is often deeply flawed. Intelligence failures in the cam- paign against Al-Qaeda point to the difficulties Western intelligence services have in penetrating and understand- ing terrorist groups, while intelligence on Iraq’s weapons programs was also clearly flawed. So not only will many innocent people be unjustly interned, many dangerous ones will be left at liberty.
At a time when our society is under threat, protecting our intelligence sources is more important than giving suspected terrorists public trials. Charging and trying terror suspects in open court would require governments to reveal their intelligence sources, thus risking the iden- tification of their spies. These revelations might lead to the murder of brave agents and shut off crucial intel- ligence channels that could warn us of future attacks. Even if courts made special arrangements for present- ing intelligence evidence, terrorists could use the trials to learn more about our intelligence capabilities and tactics. In these circumstances, detention without public trial is the only safe option.
Not only is intelligence often badly flawed, internment simply doesn’t work as a strategy to combat terrorism. It is counterproductive, making martyrs of the individu- als detained. And, as Britain’s experience with the Irish Republican Army has shown, internment can radical- ize detainees. Moreover, the harsh measures undermine the confidence of ordinary citizens in their government, reducing their support for the war on terror. Indeed, if we compromise aspects of our free and open societies in response to pressure, then the terrorists who hate our values are winning.
Tough measures are aimed only at very few suspects— only a few hundred are interned at Guantanamo Bay. Exceptional circumstances call for special measures, but these are so limited in scope that they do not threaten our democratic values.
Rights protect the few as well as the many. Indefinite detention and lack of a normal public trial undermine the key values of habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. Try suspects if there is evidence and deport them if they are foreign nationals, but release them if the government cannot make a proper case against them. The British government said that internment in North- ern Ireland was aimed only at a tiny minority, but thou- sands passed through the Long Kesh detention camp in the four years it operated.
Although a normal public trial is not possible for security reasons, detainees’ rights are still respected. Safeguards are built into the internment process so that each case can be considered fairly, with the suspect represented before a proper tribunal and given a right to appeal to a higher authority. If a trial is held (often to standards of evidence and procedure higher than in regular courts in many countries around the world) and a sentence prop- erly passed, then this is not internment as it has been practiced in the past.
Regardless of the procedures that authorities use as window dressing to justify their actions, internment is open to abuse because trials are secret, with the execu- tive essentially scrutinizing itself. Trials are held in secret with crucial evidence frequently withheld from the accused and his defense team or given anonymously with no opportunity to examine witnesses properly. Appeals are typically to the executive (which chose to prosecute them), rather than to an independent judicial body. In such circumstances, prejudice and convenience are likely to prevent justice being done.
sample motions:
This House believes that internment is sometimes justified. This House would choose the lesser of two evils.
This House supports Guantanamo Bay. This House would detain terror suspects.
Web Links:
The Guardian. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/jan/10/september11.guantanamo> Comment from the
• Guardian
newspaper claiming that the US example “legitimizes oppression.”
International Commission of Jurists. <http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2612&lang=en> Statement in opposition to •
Bush Administration policy on internment.
Internment Without Trial; The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland & Israel. •
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=575481> Paper by Fergie Davis, lecturer at University of Sheffield.
Further reading:
Berkowitz, Peter. Terrorism, the Laws of War, and the Constitution: Debating the Enemy Combatant Cases. Hoover Institution Press, 2005.
Fisher, Louis. Military Tribunals and Presidential Power: American Revolution to the War on Terrorism. University Press of Kansas, 2005. Margulies, Joseph. Guantanamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power. Simon & Schuster, 2006.
Rose, David. Guantanamo: The War on Human Rights. New Press, 2004.
IrAn’s rIght to Possess nuCLeAr WeAPons
Since the revolution against the US-backed shah in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has maintained a difficult relationship with the West. A major regional military power, Iran wields considerable influence in the Middle East, and its emerging economy has grown alongside complicated social and political tensions that mark its relations with its neighbors. Iran has declared its intentions of restarting its nuclear technology program, and it has begun to develop centrifuges for refining uranium—the first step not only toward nuclear power but also, the West fears, toward devel- oping nuclear weapons. Because EU-led negotiations with Iran have failed, the UN, the United States and its allies, and the world as a whole must now determine how to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Pros
Cons
Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which permits the development of nuclear tech- nology for peaceful purposes. Iran maintains that as it is enriching uranium for peaceful purposes only, it is legally entitled to continue its nuclear program. Iran also draws comparisons between itself and three nuclear powers (Israel, India, and Pakistan) who never signed the treaty.
Nothing prevents Iran from enriching uranium for weap- ons purposes. Although Iran has permitted inspections of its nuclear facilities in the past, we have no guarantee that it will continue to do so once it has the capacity to create weapons. Iran’s track record is poor: it hid its nuclear enrichment program from the world for many years prior to the current crisis. Its ongoing activities to influence politics in other Middle Eastern states and its president’s outspoken objection to Israel’s existence are all ominous signs that it might pursue developing nuclear weapons if given the chance.
Iran’s Right to Possess Nuclear Weapons |145
Iran is a democratic state that has a right to determine its own policies—both about nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Moreover, religious leaders in Iran have spoken against nuclear armament while still advocat- ing the development of nuclear energy. In August 2005, Iran’s supreme political and religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa (a religious edict) declar- ing that Islam forbids the development, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons. He also stated that Iran should never possess nuclear arms. Moreover, Iran has the same right to possess nuclear arms as other countries. As one Iranian soldier said to the BBC, “If America has the right to nuclear weapons after dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, why doesn’t Iran have that right?”
Iran’s military and political institutions are unstable and are not accountable to the Iranian public. Real power is in the hands of unelected religious leaders (the ayatol- lah and the Council of Guardians) who can veto policies and parliamentary candidates by invoking sharia (Islamic law). The military also includes Islamic fundamentalists, who, like the clerics, believe that they answer to authori- ties higher than international law. If these groups are given access to the raw materials of nuclear weapons or to weapons themselves, we have no way of predicting how they might use them.
Iran, like 116 other developing nations, is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). The NAM holds that “all countries have a basic and inalienable right to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes,” and strongly opposes what it sees as a double standard— one for developing nations and another for developed nations. Iran has emerged as a leading member of the NAM, and its fight to develop nuclear technology has become a rallying cry for many NAM states. Many devel- oping nations see the distribution of nuclear arms in the world as reinforcing Western hegemony and promoting the interests of the United States and its allies. By allow- ing nonaligned states to acquire nuclear arms, the world can help counterbalance US imperialism and give Third World nations more influence in global politics.
We must not let nuclear weapons proliferate. Iran has a proven track record of supporting terrorism (includ- ing Hezbollah) both in the Middle East and beyond, and the country might provide nuclear arms to such groups. Moreover, just as the rogue Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan illegally sold nuclear technology, so Iran might sell such weapons on the black market if given an opportunity. If the world hopes someday to eradicate nuclear weapons, allowing other states, par- ticularly a state like Iran, to acquire them is senseless and dangerous.
sample motions:
This House would permit Iran to develop nuclear capabilities as it sees fit. This House believes that Iran is entitled to possess nuclear weapons.
This House believes that Iran’s nuclear program is not a threat to world stability.
Web Links:
International Atomic Energy Agency. <http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml> Links to documents, re- •
ports, and newspaper articles on Iran’s nuclear program.
Iran Daily. <http://www.iran-daily.com/1384/2347/html/index.htm> Ayatollah Khamenei’s fatwa forbidding nuclear weapons. •
US Department of State. <http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/60254.htm> Remarks by the undersecretary for arms control and inter- •
national security on the Iranian nuclear threat.
Further reading:
Ansari, Ali. Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Next Great Crisis in the Middle East. Perseus, 2006. Cordesman, Anthony H., and Khalid R. Al-Rodhan. Iran’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Real and Potential Threat. Center for Strategic & International Studies, 2006.
Timmerman, Kenneth R. Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran. Crown Forum, 2005.