Friday, February 17
Camp 101
HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE, US POLICY
So the UN wants the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay closed (pdf report), and the US has objected. There are a large number of arguments at play here, so I'm going to start with what *isn't* at issue.
- First, this is not a dispute over whether we should be lenient on terrorists. In fact, virtually everyone the world over agrees we shouldn't, and I'm one of them.
- This is not a debate over the innocence or guilt of the captives. They could well all be violent criminals that need imprisoning for life or innocents caught in the wrong place at the wrong time; I've not seen the evidence for or against.
- This is not a question of US constitutional law. As far as I'm aware, the US constitution does not forbid the US government, armed forces, or citizens from killing, maiming, torturing, dehumanising or otherwise abusing foreign nationals in other countries.
- This is not a question of whether the detainees should be forcefed. To be honest, that's a big ethical question that every prison in the world. The US High Commissioner made an issue of the UN report mentioning force feeding (which, incidentally, is illegal in some parts of the US), and characterised the report by its handling of the issue: in fact, the objection was the very last to be dealt with, and in no way central to (or characteristic of) the report.
- The human rights records of other nations is not relevant. I'm happy to point out my own country's problems, and I'm not condoning them; what's more I haven't linked to Iran or Zimbabwe, because there's no need: we all know that terrible oppression takes place there, and no-one (Mugabe and Ahmedinejad excepted) is doubting that.
These are, of course very important concerns, which deserve debate in their own right; they're just not relevant to the closure of the prison at Guantánamo Bay. I mention these because some commentators point these issues out to obscure some very clear facts. Firstly, the detainees are not convicts. That is to say, they have not been found guilty of terrorism, or of aiding terrorists. I cannot overstate this point: until you can show someone has done wrong, you cannot punish them. For by the current precedent, an American soldier could walk up to you or me tomorrow - wherever you happen to be - and say "I think you are a terrorist. As a terrorist, you have forfeited your rights, so there's no reason why I can't throw you in prison for the rest of your life." As of then, you will be just another "unlawful combatant".
Second, the US has signed up to international law prohibiting inhumane treatment of prisoners. This means that the US administration is operating illegally. Will it be held to account? Hardly. Given the economic strings the US pulls, never mind the military power, the international rule of law is in its hands already. A few nationalists will object to the international community 'interfering in the US' sovereign rights'. This instance, however, is clearly in the international domain: the detainees are non-US citizens accused of crimes outside the US, arrested outside the US, and being held outside the US - in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if none of them have even set foot in the US. If there is any case in which international law applies, this is it.
Third, US policy is to declare war in the name of freedom and justice. That implicitly commits the US to respect freedom and justice in its own actions. It is pure hypocrisy to criticise the abhorrent practices of Saddam Hussein whilst defending the selfsame practices when committed by the Bush administration in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. However repugnant you may find the Iranian justice system, Iran is not invading other countries on the premise that it has come to spread freedom.
Finally, it's a question of ethics. Precedent, constitutions and legal technicalities be damned, can you honestly claim that this is moral thing to do? Is it right that these men be imprisoned and in such atrocious conditions? Perhaps the utilitarians among you will argue that yes, it's necessary in the interests of security - if guilty these be dangerous people. But a conventional prison that does not indulge in torturing its residents is surely secure enough. The other utilitarian argument is, of course, that this is a deterrent. But surely the greater deterrent would be to punish harshly once the men have been found guilty, and make it clear that it is terrorism that puts you in prison, not being a muslim or just bad luck? As it is, the prison is only acting as an incentive for muslims, among others, to oppose the US.
HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE, US POLICY
So the UN wants the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay closed (pdf report), and the US has objected. There are a large number of arguments at play here, so I'm going to start with what *isn't* at issue.
- First, this is not a dispute over whether we should be lenient on terrorists. In fact, virtually everyone the world over agrees we shouldn't, and I'm one of them.
- This is not a debate over the innocence or guilt of the captives. They could well all be violent criminals that need imprisoning for life or innocents caught in the wrong place at the wrong time; I've not seen the evidence for or against.
- This is not a question of US constitutional law. As far as I'm aware, the US constitution does not forbid the US government, armed forces, or citizens from killing, maiming, torturing, dehumanising or otherwise abusing foreign nationals in other countries.
- This is not a question of whether the detainees should be forcefed. To be honest, that's a big ethical question that every prison in the world. The US High Commissioner made an issue of the UN report mentioning force feeding (which, incidentally, is illegal in some parts of the US), and characterised the report by its handling of the issue: in fact, the objection was the very last to be dealt with, and in no way central to (or characteristic of) the report.
- The human rights records of other nations is not relevant. I'm happy to point out my own country's problems, and I'm not condoning them; what's more I haven't linked to Iran or Zimbabwe, because there's no need: we all know that terrible oppression takes place there, and no-one (Mugabe and Ahmedinejad excepted) is doubting that.
These are, of course very important concerns, which deserve debate in their own right; they're just not relevant to the closure of the prison at Guantánamo Bay. I mention these because some commentators point these issues out to obscure some very clear facts. Firstly, the detainees are not convicts. That is to say, they have not been found guilty of terrorism, or of aiding terrorists. I cannot overstate this point: until you can show someone has done wrong, you cannot punish them. For by the current precedent, an American soldier could walk up to you or me tomorrow - wherever you happen to be - and say "I think you are a terrorist. As a terrorist, you have forfeited your rights, so there's no reason why I can't throw you in prison for the rest of your life." As of then, you will be just another "unlawful combatant".
Second, the US has signed up to international law prohibiting inhumane treatment of prisoners. This means that the US administration is operating illegally. Will it be held to account? Hardly. Given the economic strings the US pulls, never mind the military power, the international rule of law is in its hands already. A few nationalists will object to the international community 'interfering in the US' sovereign rights'. This instance, however, is clearly in the international domain: the detainees are non-US citizens accused of crimes outside the US, arrested outside the US, and being held outside the US - in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if none of them have even set foot in the US. If there is any case in which international law applies, this is it.
Third, US policy is to declare war in the name of freedom and justice. That implicitly commits the US to respect freedom and justice in its own actions. It is pure hypocrisy to criticise the abhorrent practices of Saddam Hussein whilst defending the selfsame practices when committed by the Bush administration in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. However repugnant you may find the Iranian justice system, Iran is not invading other countries on the premise that it has come to spread freedom.
Finally, it's a question of ethics. Precedent, constitutions and legal technicalities be damned, can you honestly claim that this is moral thing to do? Is it right that these men be imprisoned and in such atrocious conditions? Perhaps the utilitarians among you will argue that yes, it's necessary in the interests of security - if guilty these be dangerous people. But a conventional prison that does not indulge in torturing its residents is surely secure enough. The other utilitarian argument is, of course, that this is a deterrent. But surely the greater deterrent would be to punish harshly once the men have been found guilty, and make it clear that it is terrorism that puts you in prison, not being a muslim or just bad luck? As it is, the prison is only acting as an incentive for muslims, among others, to oppose the US.
# posted by Phugebrins @ 16:31 
