After operating for four years, Guantanamo Bay prison is finally coming under serious scrutiny by organizations around the globe. Last week, a U.N. panel created through the Human Rights Commission declared that the time has come for prisoners to be released. Other world powers, such as Amnesty International and governments in the Middle East, agree that because most Guantanamo Bay detainees haven’t been charged or prosecuted with a crime, the United States should free the nearly 500 prisoners still being held.
According to the U.N. report, terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have undergone brutal interrogation techniques at the hands of the U.S., including force-feeding and excessive violence. Most importantly, the report once more brings to light the fact that most prisoners have not been formally accused of a crime, and therefore have had no chance to defend themselves or hope for a future release date.
In response to the U.N.’s request to shut down Guantanamo Bay, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld publicly announced that allegations of prisoner abuse are being properly handled, that “several hundred terrorists, bad people” are being rightly held, and that Guantanamo Bay should most certainly not be closed. Rumsfeld admits that mistreatment of prisoners has occurred, but stands by his argument that such problems are in the past and have already been dealt with through proper means.
President Bush has yet to make a definitive statement as to whether or not the terrorist detainee camp will indeed shut down.
Although the president had few qualms about ignoring the wishes of the United Nations when he pre-emptively took military action against Iraq in 2003, this time Bush should seriously consider what the U.N., as well as the rest of the world, has to say. When weapons of mass destruction didn’t turn up in Iraq, the U.S. looked more than a little foolish for insisting that quick, unilateral action was imperative enough to warrant ignoring the wishes of the U.N.
The nation is at war with terrorism, according to the White House, and the administration argues that the government needs exceptional power during war to hold “enemy combatants” – its euphemism for U.S. citizens and others held by the government at Guantanamo and elsewhere. Yet holding prisoners without charges and using questionable interrogation tactics runs counter to the ideals this nation was founded upon.
For example, the U.S. hasn’t signed the treaty submitting to the International Criminal Court, a body established in 2002 that has “jurisdiction with respect to the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes,” according to the ICC Web site. One argument then-Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security and current U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton has made against signing the treaty is that it lacks “checks and balances” for U.S. personnel accused of such crimes. How ironic, considering the lack of legal rights the U.S. grants to terrorism suspects.
Bolton has also asserted that the court’s jurisdiction is “broad” and “vague,” terms that might apply to the U.S. conception of enemy combatants.
Perhaps the greater issue at hand is whether the U.S. still has any use for the U.N.; if we want unilateral support for our international policies, we need to show similar respect for the global community. Some of our nation’s recent actions suggest that we are unwilling to accept international scrutiny. This is a perfect opportunity to take the moral high ground and gain other nations’ respect.