A Jordanian pilot fighting the ISIS was captured in December 2014
by the Islamic State’s militants. The Jordanian government was on alert ever since,
trying to develop a strategy to rescue the pilot whose life is in great peril. The
IS threatened to slaughter the pilots well as the Japanese hostage if the notorious
Al Qaeda terrorist detained in Jordan is not released. So what can the Jordanian
government do? Re-open a channel of diplomatic communication with the terrorist
state to negotiate a deal? Agree on a prisoner-swap based on “good faith”?
Forget about the pilot and consider him a martyr on the job? Perhaps plan a covert
attack and rescue Mr. Moaz Al Kassasbe?
A report recently being circulated in the media claims that Amman
is indeed considering a deal to swap prisoners. However, should the IS decide
to kill the pilot, the Jordanian government will sentence all prisoners accused
of plotting terrorist attacks, having links to terrorist groups and related in
any shape or form to the IS to death. Iraqi terrorist, Sajida Al Rishawi, who
tried to kill hundreds of innocent people in a failed suicide bomb attack in
Amman in 2005 tops the list. The news articles claim that the government sent a
clear message to IS militants that it can easily and legally end the life of
these prisoners, unless the pilot is returned.
I am not sure if these reports are valid, but for the sake of this
article’s argument, we will assume that the plan is authentic. At first glance,
one would be appalled to learn that a government that abides to the rule of law
and is a signatory to all international charters on human rights and justice
protocols would actually use people as a pawn. Should the detained individuals
be actually guilty of terrorist crimes, then they should be fairly and legally
tried before an impartial court and sentenced to serve sentence assigned by law
according to the crime at hand. Sajida Al Rishawi for instance should not be
used as a trade-off item. If the court found it just and legal to sentence her
to death, the sentence should have been executed back then (or when scheduled)
irrespective of external factors or any other considerations. Should the justice
system become a player in the politics of international affairs and diplomacy,
then its partiality, transparency and respect to justice will be forsaken for
ever. The intelligence agency, a fourth pillar of power in Jordan, must no interfere
in the justice system, as its role must be limited to transferring cases to
courts that must rule fairly and justly.
Not quite partial myself on this nonetheless. Let’s see. A state
that is dedicated to killing masses, enslaving women and children, terrorizing
nations, expelling thousands of people from their lands and committing
atrocities on a daily basis is not a state that responds to reason. Employing
diplomatic measures and ethical codes in dealing with it is gullible and
useless. Doing the right thing is always right, but sometimes right is not
enough. Sinking to the level to IS is ludicrous and insulting, but necessary at
the same time. If Jordan ever wants its pilot back, it has to use the same
tactics used by IS thugs. When Sajida was detained in 2005 for failing to
execute the terrorist attack, I was surprised she was not executed on the spot.
I thought she was ready to kill herself along with hundreds of people; grant
her the wish. Incarcerating her will serve nothing; she will not “repent” nor “adjust
her conduct” nor work on reintegrating into the society as a sane, normal human
being. Holding he prisoner in my innocent opinion back then was just cruel and
pricey. One less crazy person in this world would have been a better scenario.
Recent events proved otherwise. The famed terrorist will be used in
this “prisoner swap deal” or “vengeance act” depending on the IS decision. The
tactic being employed (supposedly) is unethical; it reflects vengeance and deals
with terrorists whilst abiding to no rule of justice or human rights.
Nonetheless, it is necessary and crucial and effective, while no other “legal” and
“respectable” strategy is. Vengeance, indeed, is a loud and impacting message
that is internationally understood. And so is trade off. You kill my guys, I kill
your guys. You free my guys, I free yours or (spare their lives).
It is true that “One should never wrestle with a pig. You get
dirty, and besides, the pig likes it”; but sometimes
you need to get filthy and bloody even if the pig likes it.
Comments
Post a Comment