Amnesty International caused quite a stir last week when it issued its report on the state of human rights in the world during 2004. Headlines like 'Amnesty slams U.S. on human rights' blared through the mainstream media. One might be forgiven for not realizing that Amnesty's report dealt with the human rights' situation in some 149 countries.
Its criticism of "serious human rights abuses" at the US camp at Guantanamo Bay got the most attention, criticism which "offended" the US vice president Dick Cheney.
Now, the alleged abuses Amnesty refers to are not a GI accidentally dropping a Koran, but rather "torture and widespread cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" (of human beings).
In the wake of similiarly serious allegations against US-run prisons in Afghanistan, it makes it laughable to read Vice-President Cheney's comment, "For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously."
Some Americans commit human rights' abuses. While this may not be directly ordered from the top, the lawless, anything-goes mentality of the Bush administration facilitates a climate condusive to excesses. Cheney brushed off the criticism pointing 20th century history, as though that has anything to do with the price of tea in China.
[It's worth noting that the Bush administration cited Amnesty reports quite extensively when it was trying to justify 'regime change' in Iraq. It has also backed Amnesty's criticisms of Castro's Cuba.]
Amnesty criticized US conduct at Guantanamo Bay in 2004 and in 2003 as well as in 2002. This report made particular headlines because Amnesty used the word 'Gulag' in reference to Gitmo.
This is one of tricks pressure groups use. Advocacy groups often use language laced with hyperbole to try to get attention to their cause. Often, this succeeds but at a cost. There are a lot of things legitimately wrong with the whole concept of Gitmo. That's what the public should be discussing.
Instead, the public is arguing about whether Guantanamo Bay is exactly like the Soviet Gulag, similar enough to make the comparison or a patently absurd analogy that discredits Amnesty's entire analysis. The public is not talking about the real issue: what's going on at the internment camp.
My objection to Gitmo is based not so much on what US soldiers are actually doing inside the camp. My guess is that most of them are acting in a reasonably humane way under incredibly difficult circumstances and some of them are not. Let's say it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that every single action of every single soldier were acting in a way that was not only in accordance with international law but in a way that would make their mothers proud. Even if that happened, Gitmo would deserve a scathing rebuke. My objections are based primarily on the abhorrent political and (extra-)legal principles on which the internment camp is based.
As of last summer, the Guantanamo Bay camp housed some 1000 kidnapees. The Bush administration would refer to them as suspected terrorists. The kidnapees can't be called accused terrorists because, to my knowledge, none of them have actually been formally charged with any offense.
This is particularly insidious since in our normal justice system, one is innocent until proven guilty. In Gitmo, they aren't even guilty until proven innocent, because they don't even get a chance to prove their innocence. They rely on the goodwill of their captors to finally decide to get around releasing them. Since they were arrested by American forces outside of lands subject to American jurisdiction and detained against their will without trial or charge, it's hard to call them anything other than kidnapees.
While none have been formally charged, Sixty-four detainees innocent of any terrorist connection have already been released, and officials admit there may be many more to come. The method of interrogation now in use at Gitmo -- a formal system of escalating bribes in return for confessions -- is almost certain to produce bogus testimony, experts say, and the camp's interrogators are mostly young and inexperienced.
This gives like to the argument that such kidnappings are valuable because they provide information that might prevent future terrorist attacks. If you can't rely on the testimony of the kidnapees, then even the purely utilitarian justification for the Gitmo outrage is discredited.
Now I see that the trial of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is expected to start this summer.
This begs the question: If Saddam, who almost everyone agrees is as guilty as sin of gross atrocities, is given formality of being charged and tried within a specific time frame, then how come that same basic justice is being denied to Gitmo detainees? Detainees who've been imprisoned for far longer and whose guilt is far less obvious than Saddam's. Especially considering the dozens of other detainees who've been released.
If the Bush administration or US military has evidence against the detainees, then they must present the evidence to a court or whatever tribunal the administration has concocted. The detainees must get a chance to defend themselves. That's how we really show the US values freedom and liberty, not by some self-righteous presidential discourse. Talk is cheap.
If the detainees are found guilty by a court or tribunal, they should be locked up. If they are not guilty, they must be released. This process must start now.
Gitmo is too powerful a recruiting tool for terrorists, as Sen. Joe Biden noted. The way it's run is antithetical to everything we think America stands for. It makes the kidnapees, some of whom may indeed be guilty of crimes, into martyrs. Refusing them justice validates their martyr status in a way that does no favors to America's reputation. Giving detainees trials would show that the US don't suspend justice when it becomes inconvenient, that we don't kidnap people for random and capricious reasons.
As it stands, people assume we afraid of putting the detainees on trial because we might be embarassed by a not guilty verdict. In fact, we should welcome the possibility for our justice system to show itself independent of politics. We should welcome the chance to demonstrate that this whole war on terrorism is not an anti-Muslim witchhunt but rather a fight against people who are trying to do harm against us. If they are trying to do harm against us, then a trial would be a perfect place to prove this.
This editorial from The New York Times said it best:
Over more than two centuries of peace and war, the United States has developed a highly effective legal system that, while far from perfect, is rightly admired around the world. The shadowy parallel system that the Bush administration created after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has by now proved its inferiority in almost every respect. It does not seem to have been effective in finding and prosecuting the most dangerous terrorists, and it has been a disaster in undermining America's reputation for fairness, just treatment of the guilty and humane treatment of the innocent. It is time to return to the basic principles of justice that served America so well even in the most perilous times of the past. Shutting down Guantánamo is just a first step. But it is a crucial step that would pay instant dividends around the world, not only toward repairing America's reputation but also toward enhancing its overall security.
If one of this generation's most despicible megalomaniacs can be formally charged, given a trial and be confronted with evidence, then surely the ordinary Mohammed, who may have simply been at the wrong place at the wrong time, can be afforded the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment