Democracies cannot dispense with hypocrisy any more than dictatorships can
with cynicism.
- Georges Bernanos, We French
The entire country waits with bated breath to see what will happen next. In
one case it is only a matter of time. In the other, we will have to patiently
wait to find out what sanctions will be imposed by civilized countries on the
uncivilized conduct of George W. Bush.
The case requiring patience is the case in which Mr. Bush mimicked the Egyptian
president, Hosni Mubarak. The Egyptian case involves Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a sociologist
and government critic, who holds Egyptian and U.S. citizenship. Last month Mr.
Ibrahim was sentenced by an Egyptian court to seven years in prison for activities
that included registering people to vote and supporting the rights of Egyptian
minorities. Mr. Bush was upset with the imposition of that sentence and promptly
notified Mr. Mubarak of his displeasure. He let it be known that the U.S. was
withholding additional aid Egypt was seeking. According to Sean McCormack, a White
House spokesman, "The United States will meet its Camp David aid commitments"
but, "at this time we are not contemplating any additional funds beyond that commitment."
Egypt was seeking an additional $130 million this year following Congressional
approval of an increase of $200 million for Israel in aid to fight terrorism.
The sentence imposed on Mr. Ibrahim, as Mr. Bush made clear, is deeply distressing
to all people concerned with human rights. What the United States has done to
Yaser Esam Hamdi is deeply distressing to all people concerned with human rights
except Messrs. Bush and Ashcroft.
Mr. Hamdi was born in Louisiana and raised in Saudi Arabia. The administration
has labeled him an "unlawful enemy combatant" and is denying him the right to
legal representation and other rights accorded American citizens when arrested.
His treatment has angered, among others, Judge Robert G. Doumar of the Federal
District Court where Mr. Hamdi's case is pending.. In a ruling in which he ordered
U.S. attorneys to turn over documents supporting their argument that an American
citizen should be jailed without charges and access to a lawyer, he wrote: "This
case appears to be the first in American jurisprudence where an American citizen
has been held incommunicado and subjected to an indefinite detention in the continental
United States without any findings by a military tribunal, and without access
to a lawyer."
In the hearing that resulted in that ruling, the judge repeatedly accused the
U.S. attorney of dodging his direct questions and questioned the fairness and
legality of the government's argument, asking at one point whether the treatment
accorded Mr. Hamdi was "what we are fighting for." Mr. Hamdi's attorney has not
been permitted to meet with or speak with his client.
We can only wait nervously to see what form retaliation from other countries
will take in protest of our treatment of Mr. Hamdi since none, of which I know,
is giving us foreign aid that can be withheld. Hence, civilized countries will
have to devise other ways of expressing their displeasure.
Mr. Hamdi's treatment is not the only example of the administration's disregard
of accepted legal principles. The execution of Javier Surez in Texas is another.
His treatment, prior to his execution is, in some respects, worse than Mr. Hamdi's
jailing since it is harder to make amends for an execution that might not have
taken place under different circumstances, than a wrongful jailing.
Mr. Surez was a Mexican national who killed an undercover policeman during
a drug deal in 1988. He was carrying a green card at the time of his arrest. According
to an international treaty that has been signed and ratified by the United States
(one of the ones that Mr. Bush has not yet decided to abrogate, perhaps because
he is unaware of its existence), everyone who is arrested by a foreign government
is guaranteed the right to seek help from the consular post of his own country.
Mr. Surez was never told of this right and U.S. officials repeatedly told Mexico's
consular office that Mr. Surez was not a Mexican citizen, something the officials
knew to be a lie. Although undeniably guilty, the Mexican government believes
that with representation provided by the consular office Mr. Surez might have
received a life imprisonment instead of a death sentence.
Mr. Surez is not the first to be deprived of his rights under this treaty.
Two Mexicans, a Paraguayan, a Canadian and two Germans, have been executed during
the last few years, none of whom was given timely access to consular services.
Those of us who wonder what form retaliation for denying consular access to
foreign nationals by the U.S. will take may get their answers as soon as a foreign
country arrests an American citizen and denies him or her access to consular assistance.
Mr. Bush's disapproval at such treatment of one of his own will surely be heard
around the world even though it will be difficult for him to suggest that such
treatment of an American citizen is any more egregious than the treatment received
by Mr. Surez.
It is easy to see why Mr. Bush is upset with Mr. Mubarak and the Egyptian government
for their treatment of Mr. Ibrahim. It is easy to see why people concerned with
human rights in this country are upset with the treatment received by Messrs.
Hamdi and Surez at the hands of Messrs. Bush and Ashcroft. Perhaps Mr. Bush and
Mr. Mubarak can get together and each explain to the other why what they have
done should not offend those who are concerned with human rights. Then they could
explain it to the rest of us. It would almost certainly be enlightening.
Christopher R. Brauchli is a Boulder, Colorado lawyer and writes a weekly column for the Knight Ridder news service.
Copyright 2002, The Daily Camera
###
