REPORTS that two Saudi former detainees at Guantanamo have rejoined Al-Qaeda and are in Yemen are shocking but this should not detract from the tremendous success in rehabilitating former terrorist suspects. The program has been a success. It has weaned 218 people off terrorism, off twisted and un-Islamic ideas. It has brought them back into the mainstream. There are 218 terror suspects who are no longer dangerous to society. That must not be forgotten. It would, therefore, be wrong to rush and make changes because rehabilitation did not work with only two former detainees.
However, there is no getting away from the fact that international attention will focus on the two recidivists, not on the 218 successes — especially now that the planned closure of Guantanamo and the fate of the remaining inmates are hot news. There will be many around the world who ask why former Saudi inmates are not kept under surveillance or tagged after finishing the rehabilitation program. In the US and European countries, those who have committed certain offenses, notably sex crimes, are kept under surveillance and tagged after release from jail, the concern being that they may offend again.
Blanket use of tagging and surveillance would be wrong in this case — and, in any event, it is a completely separate issue from the value of the rehabilitation program. Where is the justice in tagging or keeping under surveillance everyone who was at Guantanamo? Some were innocent. They happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Simply because the Americans grabbed them does not make them guilty. Why should they have to be tagged — and for how long? The rest of their lives? In any event, where is the idea that, unless proven guilty, people are innocent or the equally cherished one that a guilty person, once his sentence is served, is integrated back into society and is a free man? With surveillance, the principle is dead.
Unfortunately, we do not live in innocent times. The use of tagging or surveillance has to be accepted in certain cases. It would be folly to pretend there were no bad apples at Guantanamo or that everyone who has been through the rehabilitation process in the Kingdom was actually innocent in the first place. For the sake of society’s well-being, it is vital to ensure that, once rehabilitated, people do not go back to their evil ways as Said Al-Shihri has done. It is also vital to ensure that those who turned them in the first place do not try to turn them again. Surveillance can be for their own benefit. The decision to use it, however, has to be a matter of judgment in individual cases, not a blanket policy. The idea of Big Brother is not appealing but to a large extent we have accepted surveillance as a fact of life today. In so many countries the minute we walk out of the door, we are under surveillance. In London, there are more cameras tracking people than anywhere else in the world. In the US, phones are tapped, e-mails read; even cell phones can be located with near pinpoint precision. Privacy in a digital age does not exist.
Surveillance is not an easy issue, but neither is rehabilitating possible terrorists. The fact that rehabilitation has not worked in two cases does not undermine its value. What it does say, though, is that extra steps are required to deal with those who may be immune to it.
The BBC is wrong over Gaza appeal
THE Times of London yesterday commented on the BBC’s refusal to screen the appeal for funds for humanitarian aid in Gaza.
The death and suffering in Gaza is entirely the fault of Israel. That is a biased statement. The death and suffering in Gaza is entirely the fault of Hamas. That is a biased statement. There has been death and there is suffering in Gaza. That is a simple statement of fact. It is worrying that the the BBC is not able to make this distinction.
The BBC’s decision not to screen the appeal for funds for humanitarian aid is an error. First, it elevates bizarre media preoccupations about the corporation’s image above the need to help people in an emergency. The BBC is choosing an odd moment to demonstrate concern that its Middle East coverage be seen as balanced.
Second, the fear expressed that footage of the conflict might confuse viewers is patronizing. Viewers are easily able to tell the difference between a humanitarian appeal and a news report. And, third, the BBC’s market power is such that it needs to be very careful when using it in such circumstances. It has the ability to deny the consortium of charities access to a large part of their audience. It ought only to refuse such a request when it feels it entirely unreasonable. However, the most important reason why the decision is a mistake is not without irony. The BBC is evidently concerned that to show pictures of the suffering, and plead for assistance, is to take sides, presumably against Israel. But this reveals that they believe that, once you have seen the suffering, you can only take one side. Naturally, this is not true. The point is that people are suffering, terribly. Giving aid to Gaza is something that can and should be done, whoever you think is to blame for the conflict.
