By Michelle Hu
<[email protected]>

A couple of months ago, the youngest person imprisoned for purposes of national security was released from a New York City jail.

Mohammed Jawad was captured in Afghanistan under suspicion of throwing a grenade at American troops, which was proven to be an incorrect accusation.

He was 12.

Now, as he returns to his family a young man, they barely recognize him after years of separation. Not only that, but he is now a main target for recruitment by radical Muslim organizations.

As he spent the better part of his childhood behind bars in the United States being questioned for a crime he never committed, he never was able to receive the education necessary to see the West as anything but an enemy. Now, uneducated and hardened after years of imprisonment and torture, he is most susceptible to join the forces he was condemned of participating in and furthering the conflict.

The issue of national security has never been an easy one to navigate. There exists an extremely fine line between despotism and safety, and oftentimes crossing over into the repressive side means a sacrifice of American values.

Last year, one of the reporters on HiLite recounted a significant event in her life on her college applications. As a young Pakistani girl, she was given a Social Security number similar to someone who was suspected of being a terrorist. As a result, airport security screened her specifically (she was 11 at the time) on the grounds that she was on the Homeland Security list for suspected terrorists.

In cases such as these, the actions of the American government encourage the hatred of radical groups to continue and escalate. Consider this: Americans would be outraged if another country held prisoners hostage under false pretenses. So why are we stooping to that level?

The (weak and ineffective) argument is that these national security policies, which often involve torture, allow law enforcement to keep the peace by incriminating suspects and catching more of them.

The reason why this argument holds no standing in America is that too many civil liberties are being infringed upon. This nation has historically and still holds the policy of “innocent until proven guilty,” and these shameful examples of so-called“national security” clearly demonstrate that the suspects were guilty until proven innocent.

It isn’t difficult to realize that any prisoner, especially one who is most likely innocent and hopes to return home, would confess to false crimes after being tortured or held without a sentence.

That’s why the new policy for prisoners in Afghanistan’s Bagram Air Base Prison to question their detainment is a victory for democracy and civil liberties.

I applaud the Senate’s decision to extend American values to citizens in a region where US troops attempt to set up a democracy.