5.23.2007

james loney: "i won't testify against my abductors"

This is a brave man. This is a hero of justice.
"I cannot participate in a judicial process where the prospects of a fair trial are negligible, and more crucially, where the death penalty is a possibility," writes James Loney, who was kidnapped in Iraq in 2005.

May 23, 2007
James Loney

On Nov. 26, 2005, I was kidnapped in Baghdad. My associates and I, all members of a Christian Peacemaker Teams' delegation, were held by Iraqi insurgents for four months. Tom Fox, a 54-year-old American, was found dead on the streets of Baghdad on March 9, 2006, of multiple gunshot wounds. Two weeks later, Harmeet Singh Sooden, 34, and myself, 42, both Canadians, were rescued along with Briton Norman Kember, 75, by British and American soldiers.

In November last year, we were told that an unspecified number of men alleged to be our kidnappers were in U.S. custody.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Scotland Yard want us to testify in a trial to be conducted in the Central Criminal Court of Iraq (CCCI). An RCMP officer told us, "The death penalty is on the table."

Faced with a momentous, life-and-death decision, we learned everything we could about the central criminal court.

The New York Times offered a rare glimpse into the opaque world of the CCCI. In one day of observing the court's proceedings, journalist Michael Moss witnessed five 15-minute trials in which all of the defendants were found guilty and handed harsh prison terms.

Many of the defendants who appeared in court never saw a lawyer. The court's proceedings are normally closed to the public and there are instances where the U.S. continued to detain people even after their cases were dismissed.

A recent report from the UN Assistance Mission to Iraq says the criminal court "consistently failed to meet minimum fair trial standards." Former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark calls the CCCI a "meat grinder."

"It reminds me of the reign of terror in Paris," Clark says. "You guillotine some, imprison others – it's unclear who's more fortunate."

Amnesty International says at least 100 people have been executed and up to 270 more have been condemned to death by the Iraq criminal court. But, as in the days of Saddam Hussein, nobody knows how busy Iraq's gallows are.

According to Time magazine, "Hangings are conducted in secret, at a heavily fortified location in Baghdad ... Only a few officials are notified beforehand and the vast majority of the names of those executed are never made public."

Citing the lack of transparency around the death penalty, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has requested that all death sentences be commuted. The Iraqi government has refused, arguing capital punishment is a "public deterrence" and its suspension would "undermine our policy on crime."

Many of those sentenced to death did not receive fair trials. Citing televised pre-trial "confessions," some procured through torture or ill-treatment, and insufficient access to lawyers, Amnesty is calling for an immediate moratorium on capital punishment in Iraq, and for the United States and Britain to refrain from handing over any condemned prisoner to Iraqi jurisdiction.

One criminal court case that has received public scrutiny involves Mohammed Munaf, an Iraqi-American sentenced to death by the CCCI on Oct. 12, 2006, for orchestrating the kidnapping of three Romanian journalists in 2005.

According to Munaf's Baghdad attorney, Badie Arrief Izzat, the trial was attended by two American officers. The judges were ready to dismiss the case because no one was coming forward to press charges.

Lt. Robert Pirone told the court he had been authorized by the Romanian government to make a formal complaint on behalf of the kidnap victims, all Romanian. The other American officer, a general, insisted the men were guilty and should be sentenced to death.

After a private meeting demanded by the two officers, the judges imposed the death penalty on Munaf and five other defendants in the case. According to lawyer Izzat, the entire proceeding lasted 90 minutes; no evidence and no witnesses were presented to the court.

In a subsequent statement, Romanian Justice Minister Monica Macovei said, "The (Romanian) embassy has not authorized any American official to represent the Romanian government during the Iraqi judicial procedures, with respect to Mohammed Munaf."

Pirone is the same liaison officer managing the case against our alleged kidnappers.

A classified Pentagon report says, "Iraq's judiciary is technically independent but unable and unwilling to assert itself or provide a balance to Iraq's powerful political parties."

Or its powerful occupier, it seems.

I recently informed the RCMP that I will not testify.

I cannot participate in a judicial process where the prospects of a fair trial are negligible, and more crucially, where the death penalty is a possibility.

The death penalty is the legalization of blood vengeance. It is a cruel, degrading and irrevocable judgment.

Take away the fancy legal rationale and the dignified court proceedings and what remains is an act of murder, plain and simple, no different than what was done to Tom Fox. Capital punishment is a manifestation of the very violence it claims to deter.

Those who kidnapped us and murdered Tom were swept into a vicious cycle of violence and retribution for violence that was put in motion in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq and its continuing occupation.

"What would you do," the captors asked me, "if the Americans invaded Canada? Would you not fight back, become a mujahideen?"

The U.S. entered Iraq with guns saying Iraq was a threat. Insurgents took up guns in turn to get rid of the U.S. and its guns. Both sides are caught in a blind death spiral where the only options are to kill or be killed.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu liked to say there is no future without forgiveness.

Norman, Harmeet and I have forgiven our captors. Our reason is very simple. We've had enough with bombs and guns and gallows.

We want to see an end to all killing, regardless of the reason. Capital punishment is simply the legal face of the dead-end cycle of violence and retribution for violence that is destroying Iraq.

We want to see something genuinely new and different, a future that begins with the power of forgiveness.

4 comments:

loneprimate said...

I think it's the ability to put the shoe on the other foot that truly separates liberals from conservatives, in most cases. Conservatism is about protecting your own rights and guarding your own perspective. Liberalism is about trying to find common ground.

I admire James Loney’s stand. I was particularly struck by the question he posed: what would we do if we were invaded? Wouldn’t we resist, wouldn’t we fight back? As a society, of course we would. Why do we expect less of others, and demand more of them than we would of ourselves?

As for his principled stand against the death penalty, the logic of it is made clear. In appealing to it, you truly become what you beheld. The only difference is you join hands with everyone else when you commit the act.

If there were more Christians like Loney who really followed the word of Christ instead of just waving the Bible around like a paperback sword, then being a Christian might not seem so odious nowadays.

L-girl said...

Ooo, a paperback sword! Nicely said (as always).

James said...

I think it's the ability to put the shoe on the other foot that truly separates liberals from conservatives, in most cases.

How many times have people who've tried to explain the US's opponents' reasoning and motivation been accused of "sympathizing with the enemy"? The very act of trying to understand why someone opposes you is seen as traitorous. Instead, people invent simplistic and wildly wrong reasons like "they hate our freedoms".

One recent example of this: Giuliani's attack on another GOP candidate for suggesting the US foreign policy in the Middle East has something to do with antipathy towards the US in the Middle East.

(And, for icing on the cake, Giuliani presented himself as someone who "lived through 9/11" -- as if that was somehow unique to him)

L-girl said...

In general the right does not deal in nuance or complexity. Everything is boiled down to simple slogans (or even simpler, images). That's part of why it's so appealing to so many people.