Case Study: Teachable Moment?

There are all kinds of wonderful opportunities in the news to talk about epistemology, sources, evidence, etc. Teachable moments, when our students' attention is focused on something we can actually use. Sometimes we just readabout them. Sometimes we experience them.

Back in June, my Congressional representative, Ed Case (D-HI 2), was part of a congressional delegation which visited the Guantanamo Bay detention center. He came back and immediately reported to his constituents, that what he saw was"nowhere close to abusive" and that the internees included"the most dangerous of the dangerous. This is the distillation of the worst people we face out there." I thought he overreached in his conclusions, and dashed off a note to my local paper (and cc'd a copy to the Congressman's office):

Editors:

I'm frankly embarrassed by Rep. Case's unreserved endorsement of Guantanamo Bay's detention centers based on a single junket. He didn't see any evidence, he said, of the abuse reported by Amnesty International, the Red Cross, the FBI; what did he expect? He was expected; he was there for a short time; he had, by his own admission, no contact with the prisoners (which didn't stop him from drawing hard conclusions about their character, intentions and affiliations); he visited the lower security section only; he didn't visit any of the dozens of other overseas detention centers, etc. It was a show piece, a dog-and-pony show, a Potemkin visit, propaganda.

These are serious issues -- torture, security, law and justice -- and half-baked PR exercises do not serve the American people. We deserve to know what is being done in our name. We need intelligence and diplomatic policies which enhance our security and our standing in the world without simultaneously undermining it. And we want our elected representatives -- and unelected administrators and officers -- to be accountable, and to hold the government accountable to us.

They ran it. Almost a month later, I got an e-mail from my rep, a remarkably detailed and directly relevant response (compared to most communications from Congress), which is reproduced here in full:

Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:07:59 -0400
From: Representative Ed Case [ed.case@mail.house.gov]
Subject: Reply from Congressman Ed Case

Dear Dr. Dresner:

Thank you for your email regarding my trip to view our detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I joined this bipartisan congressional delegation because there are significantly varying viewpoints and representations on what the situation is there and I wanted to see for myself and ask my own questions in order to form some views based on personal experience. I think this is an appropriate and even indispensable role for a member of Congress, and I wish more of my colleagues did so.

Well, I can't fault him for that. I think members of Congress should draw their own conclusions based on the best available evidence. He ran on a platform of independent thought, fresh ideas, etc. He's mostly voted party line, though, and when he's crossed over, I've largely disagreed with him. He continued:

First, I am always concerned when I travel as part of a congressional delegation that I am not being presented all of the facts or else being presented facts that are favorable to one viewpoint, and I carried this skepticism to GTMO as well. I do believe I was, however, able to see what we wanted to see, ask the questions we wanted to ask, and gain the information we wanted to gain. I have no doubt that some of the information was shaded to make a point, but to believe that the situation there was radically different than what I saw, I would have to accept a massive and well-integrated effort by our military and civilian partners, from the most senior brass to the most junior guards (who I spoke with one-on-one), to systematically deceive the Congress, including the administration's staunchest allies. I don't accept that.

Why not? Here's the crux of the matter: this was a staged visit by very influential persons well after reports of problems."Shaded" doesn't even begin to cover it. And the"staunchest allies" don't care if they're getting a show: it's"most strident critics" who they need to convince. His access was as limited as his specific skills in this area. For what it's worth, he was an eyewitness to something that I cannot get to. The question is, what's it worth?

This is some of what I heard and saw:

(1) Detention facilities far better than the original" cages" from immediately after 9/11 (which we also saw, and which I agree were unacceptable) and at standards comparable to modern U.S. prisons.
(2) International Red Cross presence at the detention facilities themselves and full access by Red Cross officials to detainees.
(3) Full access by detainees to attorneys with respect to habeas corpus proceedings.
(4) Good food and medical care for detainees.
(5) Interrogation of detainees using non-physical questioning.
(6) Well-trained guards.
(7) Prompt discipline of personnel in the few instances in which personnel deviated from guidelines for detainee treatment.

In short, I did not see a situation reflecting systematic abuse of detainees nor one in which detainees were denied access to basic necessities or to legal rights.

The fundamental problem is one of generalization. I don't deny that he saw what he saw. My problem is that I don't accept that it means things are OK. There are three broad categories of problems that are not resolved here: past conditions and treatment; conditions and treatment elsewhere; conditions and treatment in portions of GTMO which he was not permitted to observe. The first is the source of the complaints which he claimed, in his public statements, were contradicted by his experience. From an evidentiary standpoint, there's no connection. The third he ignores entirely, though again, it calls his conclusion (or at least the volume at which he broadcast it) into question. The second is addressed below:

This is not to say that everything is fine; it's not. We have several unanswered questions with respect to the classification and legal status of detainees which arise from trying to apply the general"rules" of warfare and treatment of prisoners of war to the new type of indefinite, stateless warfare that is terrorism. Foremost among them are the questions how long detainees can be detained without having their status adjudicated in some sort of judicial hearing and how long they can be detained. I do not accept the current administration's position that the answer is indefinitely in both cases, and therefore agree with current initiatives in Congress (Sens. McCain and others) to provide a common definition of rights and responsibilities in these situations.

Here we agree: there's an existential and ethical problem with these detention centers that goes beyond the merely administrative. Though some of the issues he raises here -- jurisdiction and adjudication in particular -- casts doubt on the glowing report he gave above, at least in the sense that he intends that report to counter criticisms -- which include procedural questions --from rights organizations and detainee representatives.

Thanks again for letting me know of your perspective on this very difficult issue. I welcome your further thoughts.

With aloha,

ED CASE
United States Congressman
Hawaii, Second District

Count on it. Mr. Case just came back from a trip to Iraqannouncing that"There is too much of a power void still in Iraq. To contemplate the consequences of a simple withdrawal by our forces and others, leaving Iraq where it is today, would be chaotic." He's right, but we need to talk about false dichotomies....