Norges exempel

Många internationella medier lyfter nu fram Norge som ett exempel för världen när det gäller sättet att behandla ett nationellt trauma. Med respekt för demokratins och rättsstatens principer låter man Anders Behring Breivik få sina gärningar prövade av en domstol. Hur annorlunda är inte detta förhållningssätt i jämförelse med de hysteriska reaktioner som attentaten mot World Trade Center utlöste. The Guardian kommenterade saken i en ledare häromdagen:

To its credit, Norway has refused to rise to Breivik’s provocation. There is nothing that fanatics who see themselves as warriors want more than to provoke an over-reaction. That was the mistake that the United States made after 9/11. Even though Breivik’s acts are abnormal and abhorrent, Norway has rightly put him on trial in the normal way, has emphasised that he has rights, and has allowed him to have his say in court, however painful that may be. This is absolutely the correct way to assert the strength of democracy and the rule of law in the face of acts of terror of all kinds. This is not a war. It is a challenge to the rule of law, and it must be met with an assertion of the rule of law, not by its abrogation.

New Statesman är i sin kommentar inne på samma linje. Medan ledande politiker i USA och Storbritannien utnyttjade terrorn den 11 september 2001 till att inskränka medborgerliga rättigheter och (i USA:s fall) skapade ett rättslöst inferno i Guantánamo har Norge valt att möta sin egen inhemska terror med mer demokrati och mer öppenhet, för att citera statsminister Jens Stoltenbergs ord. Men medan rättegången pågår får man enligt New Statesman  inte glömma att den ideologi som den åtalade demonstrerar inte uppstått ur ett vacuum:

It is convenient for some to dismiss Breivik’s views as the ramblings of a mad narcissist and a psychopath. But strip away his more outlandish rhetoric and there is little to separate them from those frequently expressed on the pages of the conservative press. It was Breivik’s actions, rather than his beliefs, that distinguished him from other right-wing ideologues. His tropes of choice – the rise of “Eurabia”, the insidious influence of “cultural Marxism” – will be familiar to anyone who has read the work of Melanie Phillips or Mark Steyn, two of the writers cited in Breivik’s manifesto. The neoconservative author Norman Podhoretz titled his work on “Eurabia” World War IV. Breivik merely pursued such ideas to their extreme conclusion. As Voltaire wrote, “those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities”.

Terrormisstänkta – utan öppen rättegång

Det ser ut som en tillfällighet att New York Times samtidigt med skildringarna av den öppna processen i Norge publicerar en artikel av advokaten David A. Schulz som beskriver problemen med de slutna rättegångarna i speciella ”military commissions” för dem som på lösa grunder hållit fängslade i Guantánamo. Han påpekar att slutenheten och vägran till insyn bland annat motiveras av rädsla för att de anklagade ska vittna om den tortyr som de utsatts för under tidigare förhör (water-boarding, pistolhot, ”stress positions” etc.):

In recent weeks the lead prosecutor for the military commissions, Brig. Gen. Mark S. Martins, has made the case that military tribunals are uniquely suited for the prosecution of a narrow class of terrorism suspects and that the use of these tribunals should be recognized as consistent with commitment to the rule of law. But the world will never accept the Guantánamo verdicts if significant testimony is closed for fear of embarrassment over detainee mistreatment.

The thought of a Guantánamo defendant taking the stand to testify about his treatment, in his own words, may not be appealing for many reasons. But we must be prepared to lay out all the facts, wherever they lead, if we are to demonstrate to the world that the verdicts ultimately rendered at Guantánamo are justifiable, however they turn out.

Oslo ligger verkligen långt från Guantánamo Bay.