John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban" is home. The rigor of American law and the highly publicized nature of his trial will be uncomfortable, but will also offer him protection. And because he will be tried in an American courtroom rather than a military tribunal, he cannot face charges of treason. The government admits that there is simply not enough evidence.
The press says he was "a very sweet kid" whose "transgression" was the result of a childhood trauma. The smiling face of an 8-year-old Lindh beams from the newstands, reminding us that every person -- however tarnished now -- was once a fresh-faced innocent with a world of possibilities at their feet.
The state and the media have decided that Lindh -- "America's Home-grown Holy Warrior" -- is, for all his sins, a human being deserving of justice and respect for his human rights.
All others captured in the "War Against Terrorism," including several British nationals, are being transported to Cuba. By keeping them off U.S. soil, American law need not offer them protection it offers Lindh. They are being declared "unlawful combatants" -- rather than prisoners of war -- so are not protected under the Geneva Convention either.
Transported blindfolded in shackles and manacles to Guantanamo Bay, they are "housed" in open air cages, six-by-eight feet wide, with 24 hour floodlights. The Red Cross has only now been granted access.
They will be submitted to rigorous interrogation and held for an indefinite amount of time --explains U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield -- since there is not yet sufficient evidence to charge them.
The question of how these people should be treated cuts deeply at our conflicting desires for justice, security and emotional appeasement.
In one sense, surely those who display such disregard for others' rights automatically sacrifice their own when the tables are turned. Surely there are so many innocents in the world, who are currently suffering injustice, that any energy spent on protecting suspected terrorists is misplaced.
While this is not a stance I advocate, it is one I understand.
What I do not understand is why there is such a great discrepancy between the two cases. No suggestion has been made that Lindh's crimes are any less awful than those of the prisoners caged in Cuba. If anything -- the fact that he betrayed his own country should make his sins far more heinous. Why, then, has his treatment been so much better?
Why are we being delivered accounts of Lindh's childhood, of his family life and his religious conversion? Why are we hearing phrases such as "sweet kid" and "holy warrior" rather than "inhuman monster" or "murderous terrorist"? The latter rhetoric is far more standard in media representations of al-Qaeda and Taliban members.
Conversely, why are we not being told about the families and childhood escapades of the prisoners kept in Cuba? Such information is easily available at least for the British nationals. Would we find it offensive to hear those who are possibly responsible for the World Trade Center attacks being referred to in such a way?
In fact, would the character of their incarceration become less tolerable to us if we were shown photos of them as eight year olds and told about their parents' anxiety to have them returned home?
There seems to have been a trade-off in the popular imagination. In essence, Walker's nationality has bought him his humanity. Being American has caused him to be treated, both legally and rhetorically, better than any of the other prisoners. Being British -- or, for that matter, Afghani -- has not been enough to perform the same kind of magic.
On one level, I could protest the injustice of British prisoners -- nationals of America's most active and unfailing ally -- being deprived the privileged treatment of the American.
However, I won't, because I object to the idea that any of these prisoners should be given better or worse treatment on the basis of their nationality. A teacher disciplining her pupils on the similar grounds would be, and should be, fired.
These people should be charged, convicted and sentenced in proportion to their crimes and the evidence against them -- preferably in accordance with international law.
Considering any other factor in their handling would be to suggest that their crimes are not the only reason they're being punished. And this is a thought we can ill afford to contemplate.
Hilary Moore is a third-year Ethnomusicology graduate student from Perth, Scotland.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.