Chrisy58’s Weblog


Salem Witch Trials, Guantanamo Have a Lot in Common

Published on Thursday, June 26, 2008 by the Idaho Statesman

Salem Witch Trials, Guantanamo Have a Lot in Common

by Greg Hampikian

The Idaho Shakespeare Festival should be congratulated on a timely and entertaining reminder of what justice is not. Sitting in the audience recently, seeing “The Crucible” for the first time, I was heartstruck by both its historical accuracy and its immediate relevance.

The Salem witch trials are perhaps the best example of what happens when special courts are convened in times of panic. Imagine being charged by anonymous rumors from witnesses you can not confront. Consider what it was like trying to explain a false “confession” obtained by your own repeated dunking, or pressing (having stones placed on your chest until you confess or die).

See the play, and then read the Supreme Court’s ruling last week shutting down the Special Administrative Courts for detainees at Guantanamo, some of whom were “water boarded.”

It is eerie to consider the parallels between the court at Salem and the now defunct special courts. The one in Salem also was appointed by the executive, a royal governor, and it combined standard and novel methods of jurisprudence. It was not a universally accepted process and, as Arthur Miller’s brilliant work chronicles, there was sufficient opposition in Andover, Mass., to shut down the proceedings there.

Of course, Miller’s play was inspired by his own experience with another reactionary proceeding promulgated by Sen. Joe McCarthy. The playwright had been named by a fellow writer as a communist sympathizer in the 1950s. After Miller refused to appear before McCarthy’s Senate committee, he was blacklisted and sentenced to jail.

One of the worst consequences of terrorism is the assault on justice that follows from public panic. A lot has changed in 300 years, but we must be ever vigilant to guard the ideas embodied in our Constitution.

When Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham asked Gen. Thomas Hartman whether our own airmen also should be subject to waterboarding, the general said that he was “not prepared to answer that question” — this from the man who is the Guantanamo Bay legal adviser for the Military Commissions Office.

Most professional interrogators are against torture for both humanitarian and practical reasons. Torture does not get you the truth; victims of assault will say whatever is needed to stop their tormentors.

This side effect of “aggressive interrogation” is the reason the Swiss government proposed a long-delayed exoneration last week. The case involved a confession obtained by a non-lethal means: hanging by the thumbs with stones tied to the feet. During such an interrogation, Anna Goeldi admitted that she was a witch who had caused a young woman to spit out needles and go into convulsions. Miss Goeldi was beheaded in 1782.

There are those who believe that our government should use extreme measures to get convictions. To them, I say that if we measure the justice system only by the number of guilty people who are convicted, then we must consider the Salem witch trials a resounding success, since 100 percent of the witches in Salem were convicted. Rather, I suggest that the founders of our nation wisely add safeguards to decrease that other measure of the justice system — the number of innocents convicted.

Greg Hampikian, Ph.D., is director of the Idaho Innocence Project, professor of Biology, and Criminal Justice at Boise State University.

© 2008 Idaho Statesman


1 Comment so far
Leave a comment

The protions of this post regarding torture are right on target – professionals do not need it, and the results are not reliable.

The waterboarding comment – please. When will someone actually do research. I have tried and there is no proof that water boarding has ever occurred at Guantanamo. Amnesty says because it happened elsewhere it was a matter of policy. I have looked there are “hearsay” reports of it but no factual basis to indicate it has ever occurred. One would think when Eric Saar published Behind the Wire if waterboarding was occurring he would have written about it; or Chris Mackey would have in the Interrogators, the book discusses the Guantanamo detainees while they were still in Afghanistan. We are quick to complain about “hearsay” evidence when it come to judgement of the detainees, why it hearsay accepted when judgement of our government is involved?

Lastly, “The Crucible” misses the whole point. International Terrorism is not criminal until the act occurs, most democratic countries are ill-prepared to legally deal with this because to counter terrorism requires the suspension of civil liberties. For example, the 9-11 attacks, the criminal act is the aircraft striking the buildings or field and the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people. The perpatrators were on board so trying them is a moot point. Of course the outcry was for justice and why didn’t the governement know about this. Well here’s the catch 22…. to know about the 9-11 attacks the government would have had to survielled the attackers, wiretapping them, etc. What would have been the justification? Imagine the outcry for imposing on their civil liberties.

Countering terrorism is a matter of identifying the threat and focusing on its the capability and intent, not guilt or innocence. If the threat has both capability and intent to attack the US or our interests do we stand by and await the attack so we can scoop up the peratrators and try them or do we preemptively strike to neutralize the threat? Guantanamo is the preemptive strike, the US and coalition forces captured the al-Qaida and Taliban forces in order to ensure another 9-11 could not happen. CNN last summer ran a series on al-Qaida 2.0 that discussed how AQ took five years to reconstitute itself back to its 2001 capabilities because of international counter terrorism efforts.

The detainees are not criminals, the only thing they are guilty of is taking up arms against the US or supporting those who did (capability and intent). So do we let them all go and hope we catch them after the next attack?

The question that should be before us is how do we as a democratic society protect our civil liberties while securing our society? The answer to that would solve Guantanamo.

Comment by jack




Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>