Thursday, April 15, 2004
The New York Times > National > Convictions Dropped for Muslim Chaplain at Guant´┐Żnamo Bay

A better headline would have been "Another L'affaire Dreyfus." I do not understand this. If he was arrested for espionage, I would expect that they had a little bit of evidence at least that he was upto something as sinister as spying. Then, if they decided that their proof was not strong enough to prove spying, then they could have preferred a related lesser charge - something like conduct unbecoming of a soldier or something. But they could only come up with downloading pornography. Now, let us assume that he was guilty of that crime. How did that lead them to arresting him for espionage?

To add insult to injury, it turns out that even that accusation was false (or unprovable). To make things worse, they now say they are dropping the charges "citing national security concerns that would arise from the release of evidence against him." I am increasingly worried that this term is becoming a fig leaf for covering up so many shameful snafus in the government.

Okay, suppose, national security is the reason, I would presume the case should be espionage (Or does accessing porn really threaten national security now?). If so, why are they not putting him up before a court marshal? If they cannot do that, why? If, one day, they catch a real spy, are they going to let go of him simply because they cannot try him?

I think it's clear... they screwed up, and now are covering up by using the most popular bugaboo of this administration.


Comments: Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger