Algerian victims of armed fundamentalism
The Letter to the Center for Constitutional Rights makes some compelling points.
The Center for Constitutional Rights was the only human rights organization to support the victims of fundamentalist armed groups as it did in the case brought by Rhonda Copelon against Anouar Haddam [spokesman of the Islamic Salvation Front],while other human rights organisations ignored these victims and abandoned them, on the ground that they were not victims of the state but of non state actors.
That state of affairs would seem to risk creating an impression that victimization by non state actors is somehow less bad than the other kind. Non state actors can still be highly organized and effective, as everyone knows.
Today, CCR is betraying these same victims by representing the interests of Anwar al-Awlaki, an important promoter and organizer of crimes against humanity and a leader of Al Qaida in the Arabic Peninsula, without even saying who he is and what positions he has taken. Awlaki is currently at liberty and continues to organize attacks and crimes, and to incite hatred and massacres.
It’s true. Check out CCR Legal Director Bill Quigley’s account at the Huffington Post.
Anwar al-Awlaki is a US citizen and Muslim cleric living somewhere in Yemen. The US has put him on our terrorist list and is trying to assassinate him.
That description is incomplete, and by being incomplete, it says something. If there is room to say Awlaki is a Muslim cleric, then there is room to say more. As it would be misleading to call Al Capone a Chicago liquor retailer, so it is misleading to call Awlaqi a Muslim cleric. Quigley later manages to say that Awlaqi is “controversial” and accused of being a terrorist, but that too is incomplete.
Perhaps he’s just playing the role of a defense lawyer in an adversarial process, but that’s his job in the courtroom, not in journalism.
The letter asks a piercing question.
We cannot believe that you are not familiar with the writings of al-Awlaki that condemn innocent people – often Muslims – to death. Do you only defend Muslims when it is the American government that threatens them, and not when Muslim fanatics do?
Maybe that simply is their brief: holding the US government to the constitution, which is binding on the government in a way that it isn’t on citizens. But if that’s the case, their advocacy becomes very limited, and possibly even harmful.
This is complicated. The assassination policy is obviously fraught with dangers, but those dangers aren’t the only dangers there are. The letter gives a needed other perspective.
The C4CR are the defense lawyers – to Nasser Awlaki on his noxious son’s behalf.
With all due respect to the Women Living Under Muslim Laws, the Centre for Constitutional Rights has a particular interest in things the American government does. If it were the Centre for Universal Defence of People, say, I’d get their point. However…
(http://ccrjustice.org/about – sorry: linkamajigger not working.)
I know the CCR are the defense lawyers (or are the organization that provides the defense lawyers), but the quoted passage wasn’t from a legal brief, it was from an article on the Huffington Post. It was a bit of journalism. If lawyers for either side are just automatically representing their clients when they write for the media, I’m not sure they should be writing for the media, at least not without a formal disclaimer to that effect.
And what do you mean “however”? Since they include the UDHR, they are the Centre for Universal Defence of People.
I hadn’t checked their about page; that actually strengthens WLUML’s case rather than weakening it. I thought the “Constitutional” part did mean they were US-focused, but the UDHR citation means they’re not.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: Algerian victims of armed fundamentalism http://dlvr.it/8tSsv […]
Comment #1 – Perhaps. But I fail to see the harm of setting out his case. What would have been gained from saying “Anwar al-Awlaki – U.S. citizen and theocratic fuckwit”? What’s been lost by not doing so? Perhaps the words “Muslim cleric” were superfluous but unless we’re to argue that it has positive connotations – I wouldn’t, I doubt you would and only a crash-dieter’s-dinner sized slice of the U.S. opinion pie chart would – they needn’t recommend or detract from the man.
Incidentally, the WLUML accuses Awlaki of “organiz[ing] attacks“. I’d suggest – with respect, again, to a worthy group – that making such a bold assertion while a “case” of sorts is ongoing is rather more irresponsible than giving someone’s job description. Nor is the C4CR “presenting [him] exclusively as [a] victim“. I believe that they support his right not to have his brain splashed across half of Yemen, not his freedom to applaud attacks, and, as he may or may not have done, organise them. Suggesting they’d represent him “under the cover” of human rights work is either malicious or foolish.
Comment #2 – Yes, but that seems to refer to protecting the UDHR within the U.S., or outside where U.S. agents are involved…
http://ccrjustice.org/past-cases
(I could be wrong, so feel free to pull up examples which prove differently.) It strikes me that, if that was true, they could pursue Awlaki on the basis of his being a U.S. citizen. As he’s already got the world’s biggest military superpower on his ass, however, that would seem superfluous.
I don’t think you can expect lawyers to say things about their clients in the media that they wouldn’t say in court, as those comment could seriously harm their case.
I completely understand the instinctive reaction of objecting to his defense, but I think the actions of the government do need a serious counterbalance. Governments are not supposed to execute their citizens without trial, period. The extrajudicial actions of the US set precedents that will last long after the threat of Muslim fundamentalism fades. State-sponsored assassination of its own citizens in foreign countries should be beyond the pale, because if it is not, it is a short ride down a slippery slope to other abuses by the state. If assassination is on the table, by what principle can one object to Guantanamo and CIA black sites and torture?
It’s the job of organizations like the CCR to defend based on principle, and not on the particulars of the case. I hate the KKK, but I’m glad that the ACLU defended their right to march in Skokie. I hate serial killers and rapists, but I’m glad that the US system demands they have legal representation at trial, and will even provide it at taxpayer expense. It is precisely these kind of features of the US system that do not exist in the fundamentalist countries, and It frightens me that Western democracies may be willing to sacrifice those principles. I don’t believe we can abandon our principles to save them.
I was wrong (http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/case-against-avi-dichter), retract that point and apologise. (In fact, though it pains me to admit it, I’d copied-and-pasted from the C4CR’s “about” page without reading the full sentence and seeing the UN reference!) The WLUML’s claim – that if the C4CR is going to oppose Awlaki’s killing they should somehow “support” the people his preachings have threatened – still rings false to me, however. First because, as Quigley writes, the case “is not [about] Awlaki but about [his] government disregarding the rule of law“; secondly because their opposition to Awlaki would be pointless while the mean machine that is the U.S. army is already chasing after him and third because he says the issues “should be decided in a court of law” and recommends that they should “find him to bring him to justice“. What more is needed?
From Bill Quigley’s article above dated Aug 3, 2010:
These are all issues that should be decided in a court of law. That is why we are filing this suit.
His father, Nasser, said it best. If the government has proof his son violated the law, then they should charge him in public and let the law take its course.
If the government can find him to assassinate him, they can find him to bring him to justice.
From the WLUML link above dated Nov 14, 2010:
At no time did the CCR, in its unconditional defense of Anwar al-Awlaki, publicly call for and emphasize that while no one should be assassinated, it remains imperative that criminals of his like be brought to justice.
It seems to me like the authors of the SIAWI letter have either not read any of the CCR/ACLU public statements and/or are unfamiliar with a basic aspect of what it is they are advocating.
Well, you may be right, Ben. The signatories are extrapolating from the situation in Algeria, and perhaps that’s a mistake. In Algeria the Islamists were many and powerful, so they were able to act more like a state than Awlaki is. And yet and yet…in the wake of the AI/Moazzem Begg problem, it makes me uneasy.
I’m more or less with BenSix on this one. It’s an uncomfortable situation for sure… in any case, I would not expect someone acting as a defense lawyer to express nuance not even to the press.
Does anyone honestly believe that this is a possible outcome? There are, in fact, two possible outcomes. (1) Anwar al-Awlaki dies. (2) Anwar al-Awlaki remains free. It can be argued, and perhaps should be argued, that advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights requires accepting (2). I suspect that what angers SIAWI is that CCR is declining to accept responsibility for the argument.
<i>Perhaps he’s just playing the role of a defense lawyer in an adversarial process, but that’s his job in the courtroom, not in journalism.</i>
The Huffpo article isn’t journalism. Lawyers write articles on behalf of their clients in the press. That doesn’t make them journalists, or subject to the particular ethics of the journalistic profession. They shouldn’t lie, but they don’t have to give all the information about their clients they have. In fact, they can’t do that. They also can’t and shouldn’t admit unproven allegations against their clients, either–and that open letter is short on links to actual evidence. I don’t know how substantiated those charges are, but if they’re not proven, then the CCR certainly should not admit them (the whole point is that they need to be proven!) or spend time describing them (the specific charges are irrelevant; the moral point here is the need for proof and accountability).
And no, it’s not misleading not to mention what Al-Whatever says about Muslims, because it’s <i>not relevant to the CCR’s case.</i> It’s also not misleading to call him a Muslim cleric, because that’s (at best) a passing mention, it’s neither part of their case nor an emphasized point, and it’s not an endorsement of any kind. Complaining about that is really making far too much of something very minor. If anything, the term “Muslim cleric” suggests controversy or danger. “Cleric” is a scary and loaded word. The friendly way of referring to Muslim religious authorities is “imam.” If Al Capone’s lawyer in passing called him a liquor retailer, I wouldn’t complain. If his case rested on Capone being JUST a harmless liquor retailer, then I might complain–but here, the CCR’s case rests only on this man being a U.S. citizen. As they repeatedly emphasize.
And how exactly is the Center for Constitutional Rights supposed to “defend” Muslims when radical violent Muslims attack them? File a brief with Osama bin Laden alleging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments? Or even the UDHR? (Which, no, does not make them the Center for Defense of All People–the UDHR can be a relevant document in American constitutional law, without accepting it as binding or appealing to an international legal system). The CCR is limited to defending people within the system of law and order, whether international or domestic, and Muslim terrorist groups are outside that system. Yes, their advocacy is limited. But it’s not harmful unless you think he should be assassinated, or unless you can make an argument for why and <i>how</i> lawyers who defend the human rights of dangerous people against the state MUST also defend the potential victims of these dangerous people against non-state actors. I think any such argument is foolish. Legal advocacy for human rights must take place within legal systems, and can’t be used against people who acknowledge no such system. While I sympathize with the people behind this letter, the argument boils down to saying that people like this man should not be defended or else the terrorists win. The objection to “Muslim cleric” or the failure to call him a Very Bad Man is a small point; the real point is that he is being defended at all. It’s buried beneath a lot of non-specific hand-waving about how “support” for victims of fundamentalism is necessary for human rights advocates, but not a lot of specific complaints or suggestions other than “don’t defend an important principle as applied to this guy, or if you do, hamper his defense and your cause by publicly stating unflattering information about him.”
Possible? Sure, Ken–if they can kill him, why not capture and try? Is it likely? No–but it’s unlikely because of the very legal structures the CCR is trying to change.
Ophelia, the problem with Begg was that he was being touted as a “human rights defender” (and not merely as a victim of a human rights abuses). I see nothing here to suggest that al-Alawki is being touted as a defender of anything good. Perhaps the signatories are, as you suggest, analogizing too much to Algeria. Again, I sympathize strongly, but the analogy is still incorrect.
As I see it, the CCR should contest the assassination of a U.S. citizen by the state, and they are right to focus on facts relevant to why he should not be assassinated. Other facts or allegations might be relevant in a different context, but not in the context of stopping his assassination. It would be wrong for them to undeservedly praise him. But saying he is a “Muslim cleric” on the U.S. government’s kill-list is hardly praise. For most of America, that’s an admission of guilt.
I also apologize for my attempted use of HTML tags in previous comments. I forget I’m in visual editor at times.
Harmful how?
Actually the FSI were only the beginning. By the mid 90s another group, even more fundamentalis this time ( if you can imagine that) had appeared sporting the acronym GIA ( Groupe Islamiste Armé ) or some such.
The common figure for the period is 100,000 dead, but the real number may, in fact, be more than twice that.
Even terrorist scumbags deserve due process. If the government has enough evidence against him that they can justify assassinating him, they have enough evidence to convict him in a court of law. Unless, of course, they used torture or illegal wiretaps to gather this information.