Guantanamo
Whenever I try to justify U.S. foreign policy to someone from another country, I can do pretty well talking about development aid, free trade and our efforts to liberalize markets. I even have some success defending the Iraq fiasco. But all he needs to do is mention "Guantanamo" for the conversation to fall flat. What can I possibly say to justify that?
This is reason enough to shut the whole place down. But we must do more than that. As Amnesty International argues, Guantanamo represents the "tip of the iceberg" of our international law violations during the war on terror. We must shine a bright light on all that the CIA and the Department of Defence have been doing to prisoners around the world. We need a full Congressional report detailing all of the brutal ins and outs of the process whereby men were rounded up in Mauritania or Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan, shipped around the world, interrogated and tortured. Perhaps this will harm our prestige in the world even more. But it is a necessary price. We cannot, we must not, allow a president of the United States, or any representative or employee of the government, to get away with violation of international law. If we do, we have come a long way down a slippery slope that leads to a revocation of the rule of law altogether. The rule of law is an elusive concept, but suffice it to say, it is whatever was missing in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and today in Kim Jong-Il's North Korea. Allowing for a secret violation of a treaty to which we are a party allows for secret violations of any kind of law we can write. Secretly reinterpreting the generally understood terms of a treaty is just as bad.
Clearly, the U.S. believes that its prisoners fall under neither "prisoners of war" nor "protected persons" (i.e. civilians) as defined and protected by the Geneva Conventions. Iraqi and Afghan citizens certainly are at the very least protected persons, since we openly declared war on those countries. All people who are held "in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals" are protected, unless they are "nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State...while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are" (Convention IV, Part I, Art.4). Iraq and Afghanistan are not neutral, so their citizens are protected. The Conventions stipulate that "No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties" (IV, III, 31).
As for nationals of a neural state which which we have normal diplomatic relations, the Convention assumes that we can sort them out through normal diplomatic channels. In the case of countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Mauritania, the countries have capitulated to the U.S. rather than defend the rights of their citizens. (All countries in question have signed the Geneva Conventions of 1949.)
Nevertheless, it is hard to make the case that "enemy combatants" of all kinds and from all nations should not be afforded protection as prisoners of war. Convention III defines most prisoners of war in terms of a "Party" to a conflict, which the the U.S. can legitimately claim does not exist. But the definition also affords protection to "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war" (III, I, 4). I think it is not difficult to make the case that insurgents respect the laws and customs of war. Your average foreign insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan is far different from Mohammad Atta and co., if not in temperament, then in means of combat. And in this case, means of combat makes all the difference.
Targeting civilians is, of course, not allowed. But many of the insurgents we've picked up are simply irregular soldiers fighting urban guerrilla warfare the best way they can. They should be afforded protection as prisoners of war. And if they are, they are entitled to, among many other things: "premises [that are]...entirely protected from dampness and adequately heated and lighted"(III, part III, art.25), and "In the event of transfer, prisoners of war shall be officially advised of their departure and of their new postal address" (III, part III, art.48). As Amnesty International reports, some detainees have been held at "a secret prison near Kabul that was know as the 'prison of darkness' because detainees were subjected to darkness and loud music around the clock." If the detainees can be shown to be prisoners of war, this flagrantly violates the Conventions.
Perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps the U.S. has stuck to the letter (if certainly not the spirit) of the Conventions. Perhaps a deep Congressional investigation would ultimately vindicate recent U.S. policy and practice. If so, so much the better. But if not, we have to show the members of the current administration, and all future administrations, that ultimately they cannot hide crimes forever. In America, secrets do not stay secret. That is our only defense. It is unfortunate to admit, but the best and perhaps only way to ensure that an investigation of the sort I'm imagining takes place is to elect a president who will direct it on his or her own initiative. In this matter at least, the executive branch is dangerously unchecked. When the Supreme court struck down the legitimacy of the military commissions used to (eventually) try detainees (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 29 June 2006), Bush simply convinced the (still Republican) Congress to pass the Military Commissions Act legalizing them.
We need a president who will not only shut down Guantanamo but will also ensure that everything that's been going on comes wholly to light. Barring this, we need some more radical alternative...
This is reason enough to shut the whole place down. But we must do more than that. As Amnesty International argues, Guantanamo represents the "tip of the iceberg" of our international law violations during the war on terror. We must shine a bright light on all that the CIA and the Department of Defence have been doing to prisoners around the world. We need a full Congressional report detailing all of the brutal ins and outs of the process whereby men were rounded up in Mauritania or Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan, shipped around the world, interrogated and tortured. Perhaps this will harm our prestige in the world even more. But it is a necessary price. We cannot, we must not, allow a president of the United States, or any representative or employee of the government, to get away with violation of international law. If we do, we have come a long way down a slippery slope that leads to a revocation of the rule of law altogether. The rule of law is an elusive concept, but suffice it to say, it is whatever was missing in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and today in Kim Jong-Il's North Korea. Allowing for a secret violation of a treaty to which we are a party allows for secret violations of any kind of law we can write. Secretly reinterpreting the generally understood terms of a treaty is just as bad.
Clearly, the U.S. believes that its prisoners fall under neither "prisoners of war" nor "protected persons" (i.e. civilians) as defined and protected by the Geneva Conventions. Iraqi and Afghan citizens certainly are at the very least protected persons, since we openly declared war on those countries. All people who are held "in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals" are protected, unless they are "nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State...while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are" (Convention IV, Part I, Art.4). Iraq and Afghanistan are not neutral, so their citizens are protected. The Conventions stipulate that "No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties" (IV, III, 31).
As for nationals of a neural state which which we have normal diplomatic relations, the Convention assumes that we can sort them out through normal diplomatic channels. In the case of countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Mauritania, the countries have capitulated to the U.S. rather than defend the rights of their citizens. (All countries in question have signed the Geneva Conventions of 1949.)
Nevertheless, it is hard to make the case that "enemy combatants" of all kinds and from all nations should not be afforded protection as prisoners of war. Convention III defines most prisoners of war in terms of a "Party" to a conflict, which the the U.S. can legitimately claim does not exist. But the definition also affords protection to "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war" (III, I, 4). I think it is not difficult to make the case that insurgents respect the laws and customs of war. Your average foreign insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan is far different from Mohammad Atta and co., if not in temperament, then in means of combat. And in this case, means of combat makes all the difference.
Targeting civilians is, of course, not allowed. But many of the insurgents we've picked up are simply irregular soldiers fighting urban guerrilla warfare the best way they can. They should be afforded protection as prisoners of war. And if they are, they are entitled to, among many other things: "premises [that are]...entirely protected from dampness and adequately heated and lighted"(III, part III, art.25), and "In the event of transfer, prisoners of war shall be officially advised of their departure and of their new postal address" (III, part III, art.48). As Amnesty International reports, some detainees have been held at "a secret prison near Kabul that was know as the 'prison of darkness' because detainees were subjected to darkness and loud music around the clock." If the detainees can be shown to be prisoners of war, this flagrantly violates the Conventions.
Perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps the U.S. has stuck to the letter (if certainly not the spirit) of the Conventions. Perhaps a deep Congressional investigation would ultimately vindicate recent U.S. policy and practice. If so, so much the better. But if not, we have to show the members of the current administration, and all future administrations, that ultimately they cannot hide crimes forever. In America, secrets do not stay secret. That is our only defense. It is unfortunate to admit, but the best and perhaps only way to ensure that an investigation of the sort I'm imagining takes place is to elect a president who will direct it on his or her own initiative. In this matter at least, the executive branch is dangerously unchecked. When the Supreme court struck down the legitimacy of the military commissions used to (eventually) try detainees (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 29 June 2006), Bush simply convinced the (still Republican) Congress to pass the Military Commissions Act legalizing them.
We need a president who will not only shut down Guantanamo but will also ensure that everything that's been going on comes wholly to light. Barring this, we need some more radical alternative...
Labels: Guantanamo, policy
posted by Brian at 7:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home