Column

Quiet hero lets truth speak loudly

By ROBYN BLUMNER
Published July 8, 2007

Heroism comes in many forms. To be sure, courage is demonstrated through feats of great physical risk on and off the battlefield. But to me, the greatest heroes of the modern era are those who stand for integrity and character when under intense pressure to do otherwise.

Songwriter Bob Dylan said a hero is "someone who understands the degree of responsibility that comes with his freedom." Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham is a hero in this sense. He likely changed the course of history for the better, and he did it armed with a simple statement of truth.

While it is difficult to know exactly what prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse itself on the last day of its term and agree to consider the rights of Guantanamo detainees after it reconvenes in October, the impact of Abraham's filing is a good bet.

In a declaration submitted to the high court by detainees' counsel, the Army reservist, lawyer and military intelligence officer criticized the legitimacy of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. These are the hearings that the Bush administration has been passing off as reasonable due process in determining whether the Guantanamo prisoners are being properly held. Abraham's words have special resonance because for six months he was assigned to the CSRTs and has an insider's knowledge of the way they operate.

Bottom line: They are about as reliable for separating the bad guys from the innocent as a child's game of telephone is in relaying accurate information.

The only reason the Bush administration gave prisoners in Guantanamo any form of hearing is that the Supreme Court said in 2004 that it couldn't get away with "because we said so" as a legal basis for indefinite detention. But the process established is so deeply flawed and unfair that it is little more than a sham.

The hearings deny the accused a lawyer, providing instead a personal representative, who may or may not say anything during the proceedings. Unlike normal trial proceedings, the burden is on the detainee to prove his innocence, yet he can be roundly denied access to any evidence that might help him do so.

In 2004 and 2005, Abraham worked as a liaison officer coordinating with government offices including the Defense Department and intelligence agencies. His job was to gather information on the detainees for use in the CSRTs. He says he was asked to confirm that government agencies did not possess any "exculpatory information, " or material that would indicate the detainee's innocence. But Abraham was routinely stonewalled and denied access to relevant material. What he was allowed to see, despite his security clearances, was "prescreened and filtered, " Abraham says. It was simply not possible for him to say whether or not exculpatory evidence existed.

In addition, Abraham says, the three-member CSRT panels were generally provided generic and incomplete information by staff compiling the case files.

When Abraham was assigned to a CSRT panel with two other officers, he experienced firsthand the paltry nature of the proof offered. "What were purported to be specific statements of fact lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively credible evidence, " Abraham says.

Abraham and his fellow panel officers found "no factual basis" for finding the detainee an enemy combatant.

Apparently, this was not the right answer. Abraham said his superiors "immediately questioned the validity of our findings" and the panel officers were ordered to reopen the hearing.

When they again came to the same conclusion - that the detainee was not an enemy combatant - Abraham was dogged at every subsequent meeting with his superiors with questions about "what went wrong." He was not assigned to another CSRT panel.

I venture that his 26-year career in the military isn't looking too healthy these days either.

But Abraham's self-sacrifice will pay dividends for the rest of us, by bringing light to a dark corner of American policy.

In April, when two groups of cases from Guantanamo detainees asking for habeas corpus rights were turned away by the Supreme Court, three justices objected, expressing a desire to take up the issue. But four votes are needed to take a case, and Justices Anthony Kennedy and John Paul Stevens (who was probably just being strategic by siding with Kennedy) said that the court should wait for the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to rule first.

Only a few months later, after the submission of Abraham's declaration, the court changed its mind (a decision that took five votes and hadn't been done in the preceding 60 years). It looks like something nudged Kennedy and Stevens off the sidelines. Something made them decide to consider these foundational constitutional issues and not let another year go by.

My money's on Abraham and his simple, courageous truths.

[Last modified July 7, 2007, 21:46:49]