Sacrificial Lambs: Ritual Justice in the 'Global War on Terrorism'

In the terror related cases of Lynn Stewart, Jose Padilla, Sami al-Arian and others, it's clear in each case that the prosecution of each person was out of scale with what they were being charged with and that, more importantly to my point, their treatment was not only not necessary to seek justice, but counterproductive.

It's tempting to take these cases and try to make some case about the general erosion of the rule of law or an out of control justice system. But a collection of individual cases do not a broad pattern make. There is something else going on here. So the question I want to ask is: What does the government get out of treating a handful of people, who may or may not be guilty of anything, so horribly?

I'd like to suggest: Ritual Sacrifice.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps that was meant as a stoic warning. But it appears to have been taken as a magic formula.

There are three cases that we need to review.

Case One
Over two years ago, I wrote about the neglected case of Lynn Stewart. Lynne Stewart, a civil rights attorney, was convicted of providing material support for terrorism by assisting her client, Egyptian Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the “Blind Sheik”), now serving a life sentence for conspiring to commit acts of terrorism in New York City in the months after the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. Stewart continues to insist on her client’s innocence of the charges against him and was in the process of assisting with an appeal. And she now insists that she has done nothing wrong either.

The basis for the government’s claim against her was that, seven years ago, Stewart gave a press release to Reuters from her client stating that he no longer favored a cease-fire between The Islamic Group and the Egyptian government. The problem is that Stewart had been required, in order to gain access to her client, to agree to a Special Administrative Measure (SAM) issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons denying her the ability to communicate with the outside world on behalf of her client. The penalty, as she understood, was to potentially be denied any additional access to her client.

On October 16, 2006, Lynne Stewart was convicted and received a 28-month sentence, but is free on bail pending appeal.


Case Two
Jose Padilla, a US citizen, was arrested in May 2002 in Chicago. He was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to the protection of United States law. On January 3, 2006, he was transferred to a Miami, Florida jail to face criminal conspiracy charges.

After a protracted battle over Padilla's right to challenge his detention without charges left his status unresolved, the government changed course and decided to indict Padilla on criminal charges, releasing him from military custody. Padilla and four others were charged with "conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country ... for the purpose of opposing existing governments and civilian factions and establishing Islamic states under Sharia (Islamic law), and material support for terrorism," according to the indictment. None of the original allegations put forward by the U.S. government three years ago, including an allegation of a plot to use a 'dirty bomb', the claims that held Padilla in the majority in solitary confinement throughout that period, were part of the indictment

While in military custody, Padilla was kept in a Navy prison in Charleston, South Carolina.

He was kept in a 9-by-7-foot cell with no natural light, no clock and no calendar. Whenever Padilla left the cell, he was shackled and suited in heavy goggles and headphones. Padilla was kept under these conditions for 1,307 days. He was forbidden contact with anyone but his interrogators, who punctured the extreme sensory deprivation with sensory overload, blasting him with harsh lights and pounding sounds. Padilla also says he was injected with a "truth serum," a substance his lawyers believe was LSD or PCP.
According to his lawyers and two mental health specialists who examined him, Padilla has been so shattered that he lacks the ability to assist in his own defense. He is convinced that his lawyers are "part of a continuing interrogation program" and sees his captors as protectors.

On August 16, 2006, the court dismissed one of the three counts and partially dismissed another. The case is currently caught up in a competency hearing to determine if three years of torture might have impaired Padilla's ability to assist in his own defense.


Case Three
Sami al-Arian, a professor living in Florida and a Palestinian activist was arrested at the direction of Attorney General John Ashcroft on charges related to terrorism and conspiracy.

He spent two and a half years in prison, in solitary confinement under atrocious conditions. To confer with his lawyers, he had to hobble half a mile, hands and feet shackled, his law files balanced on his back.

His attorneys presented no witnesses or evidence relying on the Constitution and the threadbare nature of the government's case. He was acquitted on all charges. Nonetheless, the government was determined to appeal. Considering his treatment, his lawyers advised al-Arian to take a plea for time served and leaving the US with an understanding that he also not be called as a witness in any other matter. The government lawyers agreed and the plea was submitted. But the judge did not accept the plea and sentenced him to the maximum allowed, an additional 11 months in prison.
But the ordeal was not over, possibly seeking to entrap him in a perjury charge, al-Arian was called to testify in a grand jury case against an Islamic think tank. He is currently being held in contempt for refusal to testify and is in his sixth week of a hunger strike in protest.


There are, of course, other cases. There are the poor souls still in Guantanamo, most of them there because someone had a grudge against them and the US was desperate to believe whatever story was told to them by the people turning them in. Whatever they might have known is now no longer current information. And turning people emotionally and mentally into furniture is not really likely to produce information of any value, even if old news.

Then there's the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian born Canadian, “rendered” to Syria for torture by the US. Syria concluded that he had no terrorist links and he was released and returned to Canada. The Canadians investigated and found no basis whatsoever for his detention. The Commissioner of the Inquiry, Justice Dennis O'Connor, cleared Arar of all terrorism allegations, stating he was "able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada."


Mind you, I'm not really going to get into the actual guilt or innocence in any of these cases. So, for purposes of discussion, go ahead, if you like, and assume them guilty of something. It's still clear in each case that the prosecution of each person was out of scale with what they were being charged with and that, more importantly to my point, their treatment was not only not necessary to seek justice, but counterproductive.

It's tempting to take these cases and try to make some case about the general erosion of the rule of law or an out of control justice system. But a collection of individual cases do not a broad pattern make. There is something else going on here. So the question I want to ask is: What does the government get out of treating a handful of people, who may or may not be guilty of anything, so horribly?

I'd like to suggest: Ritual Sacrifice. Certainly there is an element of playing out these cases for domestic consumption. If no one were being prosecuted or even held for terrorism, then the most ardent supporters of Bush's 'Global War on Terrorism' would most certainly be unsatisfied. And we might detect a note of desperation in the government's urgent need to come up with a success in the GWoT. But that doesn't really explain Padilla's or Arar's torture. It doesn't really explain why the US sought to turn Stewart's trial into a trial about Osama bin Laden.

There is, I think, an element of ritual here. There's an idea that our nation is 'dirty' and must be 'cleansed' of 'terrorist' elements. Of course, all of us want actual terrorists and their supporters stopped, arrested and tried. But if that really were the motivating force behind the treatment of these individuals, then we'd expect a more rational and less counterproductive approach. I think we are left with the only conclusion that these individual's actual guilt or innocence is immaterial to the Bush administration. They are sacrificial lambs. In a real way, their torture is meant as a warning. And in a symbolic way, their torture is meant to ward off Evil.

This theory fits with the largely symbolic nature of the rest of the Bush administration's prosecution of the GWoT and the war in Iraq. While counterproductive towards the actual goals of making the US more secure and bringing democracy to the Middle East, the bloodletting is nonetheless shrouded in noble rhetoric and incantations of freedom and security. As if by saying Freedom is on the March often enough and with the right sacrifice will produce that Freedom.

Even more so in the individual cases being discussed here, the punishment being exacted even before charges or trial appears to be an attempt make the nation more secure through the ritual torture of The Other.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps that was meant as a stoic warning. But it appears to have been taken as a magic formula.

Now Podcasting! Click to listen!