Amnesty International USA, a branch of the crusading human rights organization, just launched its 86 Gitmo Campaign. October 17 (yesterday) marked the 1-year anniversary of the Military Commissions Act (which "tries" detainees in military commissions) and January 11 marks the upcoming sixth anniversary of the first detainee being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba (aka GTMO or "Gitmo"). These 86 days will be spent protesting, organizing, and mobilizing to persuade the US government to shut down this detainment facility. Events were held right here on the UW-Madison campus yesterday in conjunction with this national campaign.
Why are so many people protesting Guantánamo Bay? Why should we be shutting it down?
Guantánamo Bay, Cuba – or as the US soldiers stationed there call it, Gitmo – has been the focus of much opposition from a wide expanse of sources. Almost six years after it opened, the US military facility at Gitmo currently holds about 300 men on suspicion of terrorism or links to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. The problem, however, is that the Bush Administration has done little to prove that those men actually belong there and has done little to ensure that the most basic human rights are preserved on this piece of US soil. For the sake of the preservation of the constitutional principles we so dearly cherish and the Geneva Convention that protects us all from many atrocities of war, we must stand up and demand the closing of Gitmo, the “gulag of our times.”
The Bush Administration has treated the Geneva Convention as mere suggestions, rather than the declaration of international tenets of human rights that it is. Take the story of Omar Khadr, for example. A Canadian national, he was arrested in 2002 and declared an “unlawful enemy combatant.” Housed at Gitmo, Khadr was not provided legal access until 2004. He has only been allowed to speak to his family once via telephone – no visitors allowed. Finally in 2007 he was charged before a US military commission. Omar Khadr was 15 in 2002.
Khadr’s case is typical of the reports of human rights violations we hear day after day coming from Guantánamo Bay. Not only are children being treated in methods that explicitly violate the Geneva Convention (not to mention the US judicial system) but practically everyone is being held without being charged with a crime. Some of the detainees may be civilians, not even “enemy combatants.” And yes, “enemy combatant” is the term of choice; President Bush will not call these individuals imprisoned during a time of war Prisoners of War. “Enemy combatants” can be held without charge until the end of hostilities, and who knows when that will be considering the “war on terror” has no clear end. It very well may be forever. And even when they’re charged, they’re not guaranteed a lawyer for their defense! The right to a speedy trial? Due process? Apparently the Bush Administration is choosy with which constitutional principles it wants to support.
The world is beginning to notice the human rights concerns at Guantánamo Bay. The UN investigated allegations of torture. Human Rights Watch, a nongovernmental organization, writes brief after detailed brief on these concerns. The International Committee of the Red Cross found evidence of torture upon inspection. It’s no wonder that Amnesty International has called Gitmo the “gulag of our times.” Where is our country’s leadership in this horrid situation? Dick Cheney scoffed at Amnesty International, saying, “I frankly just don’t take them seriously.” And President Bush, well, he called them “absurd.”
Fortunately, there are better leaders in our country. In 2007 Democrats in the Senate tried to urge action on the prisoners’ behalf. Due to this pressure from Americans and also other governments – including Great Britain – and the UN, Gitmo is slowly being emptied and the detainees returned to their homes.
The truth is that the Bush Administration’s management of Gitmo has set a dangerous precedent for any other government to forego the rule of law in their own “counterterrorism” measures. How can we possibly claim the moral authority to stop human rights violations in North Korea or Burma when we ourselves are restricting those same rights back home? Why should Americans allow second-class justice on American soil? It is time for change at Guantánamo Bay. We as a society must stand up and restore the United States to our former place in society as the champion of democracy.
**edited 10/18/07 at 11:37 pm, merely to add more links**
4 Comments:
I don't even think we need to return them to their homes. If they're found guilty, they should be at the mercy of our justice system. But that's the big "if," I suppose.
My minister spoke last weekend about the universality of human rights. There is a place for cultural tolerance and difference in this wold, but that doesn't mean women in Saudi Arabia shouldn't have the right to vote.
That universality applies to us as well. Anyone detained by the United States should be treated as though they had the protection of our Constitution. To some, that might sound extreme, but ask yourself, if the situation were reversed, would you want it any other way?
Like you just said, Oliver, IF they are found guilty. IF they are at the mercy of our justice system - or any justice system for that matter.
(I don't consider languishing in a cell for years without a lawyer part of any civilized justice system.)
Great post Suchita! And you were looking fiine tonight in that sexy pinstriped suit. If your brilliant commentary didn't intimidate me, I might have said hi.
Small point, but Gitmo isn't technically on U.S. soil. That's the whole point of it being where it is. It allows the government to detain 'enemy combatants' there without providing them the due process of habeus hearings (and there have been a few Supreme Court cases over the last few years to 'justify' it).
But the court will be considering this year whether the detainees have a constitutional right to habeus claims in the U.S. District courts. Keep an eye out, because it seems likely that the court will rule in the detainees favor. If Kennedy agree, anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home