The US government detained innocent filmmaker, Cyrus Kar, from Los Angeles in an Iraqi prison for 54 days. Mr. Kar and his cameraman were in Iraq filming a documentary on Cyrus the Great. They were detained after a taxi in which they were riding passed through a check point, and was found to contain around 35 washing machine timers. These timers could be used by insurgents to make bombs.
The driver of the taxi, who was also detained, admitted that the timers were his, but Kar and his cameraman were still detained. Kar, who happens to be a US veteran, was left in solitary confinement for 54 days and released Sunday, after the ACLU threatened a lawsuit.
Kar seems to have taken it well, saying he has “the highest regard for our men in uniform,” but he also says that “they knew from the get-go that we were nothing more than filmmakers.” He alleges that “they put us in a cell and forgot us.”
I don’t believe that this innocent citizen was intentionally left in prison for almost two months. This is just an example of one unacceptable side effect that occurs due to inefficiencies that naturally happen with huge bureaucracies, like our government. Every soldier stationed at this prison probably knew that Mr. Kar was innocent, yet he wasn’t released. Why? There is certainly paperwork involved, approvals from higher ranking officials required, and numerous other bottlenecks in the process.
This instance proves that the system for processing detainees does not work, or at the very least that processing and releasing the innocent is not a priority. This gentleman was only released Sunday because the ACLU and newspapers started talking about it. How many Iraqi’s, who are known to be innocent, have been detained for longer than this?
This process is clearly broken and has got to be fixed. There is simply no excuse for holding a person for one minute after his innocence has been proven. I’m sure anyone would agree with that statement, regardless of their party affiliation.
Why, then, do we not see a priority being placed on fixing it? This has been an ongoing problem, in Iraq as well as in Guantanamo. Again, I fear the answer lies in bureaucracy. How many people have to discuss what needs to be changed? Who has to approve the changes? How many people have to be involved to discuss how to implement the changes? Because of the sheer size of this government, it could take years to put in place a change that everyone agrees should happen.
It’s important to note that this is not just a problem with Iraq and the defense department, it is a problem throughout our government. During the Jefferson admistration, secretary of state James Madison negotiated the Louisiana Purchase with a core of less than a dozen employees in the state department. How long would it have taken them to fix this problem?
Bureaucracy is definitely a problem. The thing I disagree with is where you said that “there is simply no excuse for holding a person for one minute after his innocence has been proven.” I thought a man was innocent until proven guilty. Unless there is hard evidence against someone, they shouldn’t be held at all, even for a minute. No one should have to prove their innocence before being released from prison. If they can’t be proven guilty, they shouldn’t be there in the first place. Perhaps there were other reasons for holding the filmakers for so long, like making sure they weren’t in possession of any undesirable footage that could make its way into the media and do further damage to public opinion about the war.
Comment by Aaron Singleton — July 17, 2005 @ 2:34 am
Of course, you’re absolutely right. Innocence should never have to be proven, and no one should ever be held without solid evidence.
In reality, whether we like it or not, if US soldiers find a taxi with 35 timers in the trunk, they’re putting everyone they found in that cab in a cell until they sort things out. I don’t particularly agree with that, but most people aren’t going to have a problem with it.
My point was to try to get people to realize how broken our system has to be to let almost two months go by without “sorting things out”. When a US citizen is sitting in a cell in Iraq for this long with no evidence at all that he committed a crime, inefficient isn’t even the word for it.
How can this government even pretend that it can stay ahead of (what I imagine to be) small, nimble organizations like terrorist cells, when the bureaucracy is so thick that it takes months to process and release clearly innocent people?
Comment by Danny — July 20, 2005 @ 12:40 am
We tend to take our form of law for granted, in Europe and the middle east Napoleanic Law applies where you are indeed guilty until proven innocent. (Simplified) There is no excuse for this man to have been held that long and it smells of a setup. They do not want uncontrolled journalist and videographers in Iraq. The problem with all this is the Napoleanic assumption of guilt is coming home, more an more often police and the court system practice this on US citizens and the press is more than happy to follow.
Comment by stopthenwo — July 22, 2005 @ 10:25 am
People who vaunt the legal systems in western countries forget the fact that these legal protections end the minute these countries set foot elsewhere.This has been the case always in history and is no different now. The French had their renaissance and the concepts of equality sewn in the fabric of their soceity, at the same time they were commiting the greatest atrocities in the colonies.The restrictions which are placed by the judiciary system are very easily bypassed overseas as there is no one monitor the activities of the US military and civilians.When punishment and eventually lawsuits are taken out of the equation , this is bound to happend. Its good that Cyrus got out in 2 months, it could have been a lot worse if he was incarcerated in Abu Gharaib.
Comment by Sriram — August 26, 2005 @ 6:20 pm