TightWind is written by Kyle Baxter. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

After being accused of quartering a supporter of al Qaeda, American citizen Syed Fahad Hashmi was extradited from Britain and placed in solitary confinement:

The federal government established SAMs in 1996 for gang leaders and other crime bosses with demonstrated reach in cases of “substantial risk that an inmate’s communication or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons.” After September 11, the Justice Department began using SAMs pretrial, with wide latitude to wall off terrorism suspects before they had been convicted of anything.

Fahad was allowed no contact with anyone outside his lawyer and, in very limited fashion, his parents—no calls, letters, or talking through the walls, because his cell was electronically monitored. He had to shower and relieve himself within view of the camera. He was allowed to write only one letter a week to a single member of his family, using no more than three pieces of paper. One parent was allowed to visit every two weeks, but often would be turned away at the door for bureaucratic reasons. Fahad was forbidden any contact—directly or through his lawyers—with the news media. He could read only portions of newspapers approved by his jailers—and not until 30 days after publication. Allowed only one hour out of his cell a day, he had no access to fresh air but was forced to exercise in a solitary cage.

The government cited Hashmi’s “proclivity for violence” as the reason for such harsh measures—even though he had no criminal record and was not charged with committing an actual act of violence or having any demonstrated reach outside of prison. Given the number of people convicted of a violent crime behind bars in the United States, “proclivity for violence” seemed an implausible justification for the harsh measures.

After nearly three years of solitary confinement, he plead guilty to providing material support to terrorism in April 2010. He was never allowed to review evidence held against him, because it was deemed classified.

The federal government alleged that he provided support to al Qaeda by allowing an acquaintance to stay at his apartment in London with luggage filled with “military gear”—raincoats, ponchos, and water-proof socks, apparently—that later delivered it to al Qaeda in Pakistan. This acquaintance, by the way, testified against him in court.

He was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He is now being held at Colorado’s Supermax prison, in solitary confinement.

Perhaps, as the government argued, Hashmi was radicalized and was attempting to support terrorism. It’s certainly possible; while pursuing his degree in political science in New York, he advocated Muslim religious law as a “utopian” society and called the U.S. the world’s largest terrorist. I don’t deny that he may very well have been a threat, and imprisoning him based on these rather flimsy charges may have prevented greater crimes.

But I don’t know. It may also be that an innocent man—a man who advocated a political system I strenuously disagree with and that runs counter to our system, yes, but an innocent man—is now being held in solitary confinement, serving out a 15-year sentence. The only people who know are Hashmi and the federal government officials which have access to the evidence held against him, evidence we have never seen.

The government is asking us to trust them; I am generally inclined to do so on issues related to terrorism, but this isn’t acceptable. Not only is this a slippery slope, but we may have already slid down it: there may very well be an innocent man rotting away in prison. That’s too much power for the federal government to hold. We are not very far away from the situation in China, where the government uses state secrets laws to throw dissenters in jail. The only thing which prevents the federal government from abusing “Special Administrative Measures” (SAMs) and classified evidence rules is their own moral rectitude, and if that is all we have, we are in trouble indeed.

We are at risk of a government with arbitrary power, where the law does not define their power and constrain it, but rather enables them to do as they please.