As I was driving down to Palo Alto early this morning, this was the lead story on the BBC World Service Radio:
Iraq's government has backed a draft law that enables the release of thousands of suspected insurgents held captive by US and Iraqi forces.
The amnesty law is thought to specify offences for which prisoners who have been held without charge can be freed.
Parliament must debate the law on Sunday before it is ratified.
Hearing it read (while paying more attention to freeway traffic), my first impression was that Iraq had "discovered" habeas corpus, because I do not think the news reader ever used the word "amnesty," concentrating, instead, on the proposed release of prisoners being held without charge. The text version throws a different light on the whole matter, and it is not a particularly pleasant one. If these are prisoners currently being held without charge, for what are they being granted amnesty? I found it a grim reminder of the sour note that began the administration of President Gerald Ford, when he issued a blanket pardon for Richard Nixon that effectively covered any crimes he had or might have committed while in office. If my initial reaction from the radio account was that Iraq might teach the United States a thing or two about due process of law, my reaction to the text account is that they are learning from our current practices all too well!
No comments:
Post a Comment