Earlier this week in Lower Manhattan, Abu Anas al-Liby pled not guilty in front of a U.S. federal judge for charges of terrorism. Al-Liby is currently under indictment in the U.S. for alleged participation in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, which killed more than 200 people. In the coming months, he will be the subject of a federal criminal case. The ease and predictability of even this due process proceeding surpasses the unstable and interminable work of military commissions. In the years following 9/11, Guantánamo Bay has been stripped of its legitimacy as a practical institution.
In the wake of these events, former UN Ambassador John Bolton proclaimed frankly that al-Liby is “not entitled to due process anymore than any combatant which takes up arms against the United States.” This claim is nonsense after clauses within the Military Commissions Act were ruled unconstitutional. In 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed in Boumediene v. Bush that constitutional detainee rights apply to both citizens and foreigners of any combat status. Nevertheless, Ambassador Bolton and others continue to accuse the federal system of incompetence in processing terror suspects.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told CNN that the federal trial of al-Liby is “not a proper way to gather intelligence in the war on terror.” Similarly, Ambassador Bolton stated that “this man needs to go to Guantánamo Bay for months or years for very painstaking and elaborate questioning.” One can reasonably assume that Ambassador Bolton intends for the man to be tortured. However, the utility of such a method is in considerable dispute.
A report carried out by the Intelligence Science Board at the National Defense Intelligence College found that “psychological theory and some related research suggest that coercion or pressure can actually increase a source’s resistance and determination not to comply.” Subjecting al-Liby to torture is at best counterproductive.
The wanting nature of these interrogation techniques arises doubts as to the prison’s practical value. In the tumultuous years since 9/11, there have been seven convictions carried out by military commissions at Guantánamo, compared to 494 in federal courts. Additionally, the government spends $2.7 million annually per prisoner at Guantánamo, while imprisonment in the federal system costs $29,000. These figures are an exposure of incompetence at Guantánamo Bay. Not only are federal courts suitable when prosecuting terror suspects, they are preferable.
The trial of al-Liby before a federal judge does not only befit international standards of human rights, it is also a prudent and competent measure. Guantánamo Bay remains scandalously open, yet the American detention camp in Cuba has proved itself inefficient.
A version of this article appeared in the Thursday, Oct. 17 print edition. Peter Keffer is a deputy opinion editor. Email him at [email protected].
