Australian counterterrorism expert Leah Farrall has posted her latest correspondence with former senior Taliban official Abu Walid al Masri, which treats his questions and criticisms of Western -- largely American -- anti-terrorism policies. Farrall graciously emailed me and a couple of other bloggers the translated text of their exchange and asked us to respond. Al Masri has been critical of al-Qaeda in the past, but in his correspondence with Farrall, he nonetheless defends the 2002 Bali bombings perpetrated by the AQ-affiliated Jemaah Islamiyah as "the result of a feeling of bitterness and despair on the part of perpetrators."
I'll leave arguing with al Masri over the substance of the West's counterterrorism policies to Farrall herself, but I just want to point out how singularly focused al Masri is on questions of due process. Out of the 12 numbered questions al Masri asks Farrall, 10 involve due process. Al Masri asks why the U.S. imprisons people based on secret evidence, why all detainees don't get fair trials, and why the U.S. has tortured detainees. He brings up secret prisons and bounty hunters. He also alludes to America allowing "security departments in the underdeveloped world to do their dirty work, such as severe torture," which I assume refers to extraordinary rendition.
My understanding is that the Taliban system of implementing "justice" isn't exactly popular, but the U.S. should be holding itself to a higher standard than that, and ultimately their objectives are different. As Marine Gen. Doug Stone, credited with turning around the detention system in Iraq, explained at an event back in November, the U.S. is engaged in an "historic debate about the rule of law and human rights," taking place on "the battlefield of the mind," not just a physical conflict. America's hypocrisy on the rule of law and due process only harms its own national security interests.
While the Obama administration has managed to emerge from the Cheney assault virtually unscathed, that element of the debate seems to have been ceded to the other side. As Marc Lynch wrote:
Like the failure to close Guantanamo, the issue isn't that it will or won't change the minds of al-Qaeda jihadists. It's that the failure badly hurts U.S. credibility with the mainstream Arab and Muslim audiences that he most needs to reach, entrenching a twin narrative of Obama being no different from Bush and not matching his words with deeds, while giving extremists an argument against the U.S. that resonates widely.
Back in October, Stone asked, "What if exactly what we're doing in detention is exactly what the enemy wants? Is that not aiding and abetting the enemy?" We've stopped asking that question. Judging by al Masri's focus on the lack of due process for terror suspects, that's a serious problem.
-- A. Serwer
