The torture of war criminals is not only a violation of human rights but also a strict violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Red Cross did an investigation of American “Black Site” prisons in 2006-7, concluding that the US treatment resulted in cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees. The report was shared with the US government but not given to the public due to the humanitarian group's strict policy of neutrality in conflicts. Last week, Mark Danner, a journalism professor, obtained a copy of the report and published extensive experts of it through the New York Review of Books.
The findings in the report are horrendous. The ICRC interviewed many detainees from Guantanamo. They all reported nearly identical treatments though they were questioned separately, adding to the credibility of their reports. Their allegations range from sleep deprivation, intense temperature change, water boarding, and severe beatings. The Washington Post summarized the interrogation reports in this way: “During interrogations, the captives were routinely beaten, doused with cold water and slammed head-first into walls. Between sessions, they were stripped of clothing, bombarded with loud music, exposed to cold temperatures, and deprived of sleep and solid food for days on end. Some detainees described being forced to stand for days, with their arms shackled above them, wearing only diapers.”
These torture techniques clearly had a huge impact on the health of the detainees. In a federal court filing, Abu Zubaida was reported to have had 175 seizures that were directly related to the abuse he suffered. The Washington Post and Danner repeatedly remind audiences that the Red Cross’s use of the term torture has significant weight and should be highly respected. Therefore, their conclusion that the U.S. tortured people in these prisons has huge significance.
People might be tempted to think that we have moved past this issue—that because our new president has outlawed such practices, we no longer need to worry about them or feel culpability as a result of them. Unfortunately, I think this would be a very wrong attitude to hold. Guantanamo has yet to be closed and many other secret prisons have not even been broached to the public. So long as they exist, there is reason to fear that once again the United States could condone acts of torture when circumstances of fear arise.
For more information or to see the report (last one), follow these links: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/15/AR2009031502724_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009031602358
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0316/p99s01-duts.html
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22530
Showing posts with label Guantanamo Bay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guantanamo Bay. Show all posts
Friday, April 3, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
The Hope for Change for Bagram
Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile
Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11 (1): Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
Guantanamo has long been the basis of debate for human rights activists. Yet recently, there is an air of relief as our new President has proclaimed that within a year, the prison will close. Though I share this relief, I am concerned with the fate of not only Guantanamo, but also the Bagram Prison in Afghanistan. As of now, Obama has yet to say much on his plans for this detention center. In a very limited time, he must decide if he wants to approve of the 60 million dollar prison complex that Bush proposed to replace the current one, and if he will give four prisoners in Bagram the ability to challenge their detention as has been done for prisoners in Guantanamo.
I am very concerned about these decisions. This detention center has been reported to have worse conditions for prisoners than Guantanamo, and as the Bush administration has allowed no reporters or human rights organizations inside, we can only image that to be true. These prisoners are being held without rights or the ability to question their charges for indefinite period of time. On top of this, with as little transparency into the prison as is currently allowed, one need not question deeply to imagine the conditions the guards have created for the prisoners. As we have learned from psychology, even good people are corrupted under unregulated power. All it takes is looking back on the Stanford Prison Experiment to see that it does not take evil people to do evil things. Situations are very powerful determinants of behavior. Yet if we know this, then why do we continue to put any people—regardless of their values—in situations where corruption is a foreseeable event. At Bagram in 2003, two men were “coercively interrogated” to death, and the prison was known for using many interrogation techniques that many consider to be torture on a regular basis. Though it is said that the prison has improved after 2003 due to intense public pressure, we must foresee similar events in the future, and decide that they are unacceptable. In my opinion, the only way to prevent their occurrences is make the prisons more transparent, where workers are held accountable by public censure, and more just, where prisoners are given the human rights that should never be denied to anyone.
We have seen the atrocities that have happened since 2001 in these secret detention camps, and the wise know that these atrocities will only continue without increased transparency. Yet, we have not put the pressure on our new president to ensure that these violations stop. It is not only in Guantanamo that they occur, it is all prisons where suspects are held secretly without habeas corpus, without trial, and with very minimal rights. President Obama has been given until February 20th the make a decision about the four prisoners seeking to question their detention in Bagram. I hope that he decides, as as was done for prisoners in Guantanamo, that the values that our country were built upon are never worth sacrificing.
Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11 (1): Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
Guantanamo has long been the basis of debate for human rights activists. Yet recently, there is an air of relief as our new President has proclaimed that within a year, the prison will close. Though I share this relief, I am concerned with the fate of not only Guantanamo, but also the Bagram Prison in Afghanistan. As of now, Obama has yet to say much on his plans for this detention center. In a very limited time, he must decide if he wants to approve of the 60 million dollar prison complex that Bush proposed to replace the current one, and if he will give four prisoners in Bagram the ability to challenge their detention as has been done for prisoners in Guantanamo.
I am very concerned about these decisions. This detention center has been reported to have worse conditions for prisoners than Guantanamo, and as the Bush administration has allowed no reporters or human rights organizations inside, we can only image that to be true. These prisoners are being held without rights or the ability to question their charges for indefinite period of time. On top of this, with as little transparency into the prison as is currently allowed, one need not question deeply to imagine the conditions the guards have created for the prisoners. As we have learned from psychology, even good people are corrupted under unregulated power. All it takes is looking back on the Stanford Prison Experiment to see that it does not take evil people to do evil things. Situations are very powerful determinants of behavior. Yet if we know this, then why do we continue to put any people—regardless of their values—in situations where corruption is a foreseeable event. At Bagram in 2003, two men were “coercively interrogated” to death, and the prison was known for using many interrogation techniques that many consider to be torture on a regular basis. Though it is said that the prison has improved after 2003 due to intense public pressure, we must foresee similar events in the future, and decide that they are unacceptable. In my opinion, the only way to prevent their occurrences is make the prisons more transparent, where workers are held accountable by public censure, and more just, where prisoners are given the human rights that should never be denied to anyone.
We have seen the atrocities that have happened since 2001 in these secret detention camps, and the wise know that these atrocities will only continue without increased transparency. Yet, we have not put the pressure on our new president to ensure that these violations stop. It is not only in Guantanamo that they occur, it is all prisons where suspects are held secretly without habeas corpus, without trial, and with very minimal rights. President Obama has been given until February 20th the make a decision about the four prisoners seeking to question their detention in Bagram. I hope that he decides, as as was done for prisoners in Guantanamo, that the values that our country were built upon are never worth sacrificing.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Closing GITMO
Now that the election is over, many are looking to the president-elect Obama, hopeful that he will be a strong voice for human rights. Many political observers are debating whether and how Obama will close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. (It's important to note the distinction between teh detention camp and the Naval Base. Most discussion simply uses the general term GITMO or Guantanamo Bay, but is in fact just referring to the detention camp.)
Politico's Arena has an excellent discussion on the topic. Most of my thoughts here are reflective of various opinions from that discussion.
Advocates have diverging plans, most with the same one or two goals. Those goals are protecting the rights of prisoners and the United States setting an example and sending a message to the rest of the world.
The violation of rights lies in the disrespect for due process that has been given the prisoners. While many of them may be dangerous, just as dangerous is the prospect of allowing a government to imprison a person without giving them a fair hearing. Furthermore, others argue that fair trials will excuse too much evidence, as if the rules are simply meant to be prohibitive for the sake of obstructing prosecutors. Rather, the case for not admitting much of this evidence is that it is unreliable. I've noted before, information gained from torture techniques, such as waterboarding, cannot be counted upon, and hinders further interrogations. So, protecting the rights of prisoners gives everyone a better degree of safety, from strengthening rule of law for when we need it applied to us and from improving our intelligence.
The second reason to close Guantanamo is the message we send to the world. First of all, many countries have begun to look upon America with less respect, especially in light of the
treatment of Guantanamo detainees, among other human rights violations. Closing Guantanamo
will help us improve relationships with the world at large and strengthen our alliances. Second, we can make a stronger claim to the moral high ground and use this to pressure other governments to improve their human rights situations. Finally, respecting the rights of the prisoners ensures greater safety for any of our soldiers who are taken prisoner.
I hope this has adequately addressed the "whether we should" question of closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. I'll make another post soon on how that might be done.
Politico's Arena has an excellent discussion on the topic. Most of my thoughts here are reflective of various opinions from that discussion.
Advocates have diverging plans, most with the same one or two goals. Those goals are protecting the rights of prisoners and the United States setting an example and sending a message to the rest of the world.
The violation of rights lies in the disrespect for due process that has been given the prisoners. While many of them may be dangerous, just as dangerous is the prospect of allowing a government to imprison a person without giving them a fair hearing. Furthermore, others argue that fair trials will excuse too much evidence, as if the rules are simply meant to be prohibitive for the sake of obstructing prosecutors. Rather, the case for not admitting much of this evidence is that it is unreliable. I've noted before, information gained from torture techniques, such as waterboarding, cannot be counted upon, and hinders further interrogations. So, protecting the rights of prisoners gives everyone a better degree of safety, from strengthening rule of law for when we need it applied to us and from improving our intelligence.
The second reason to close Guantanamo is the message we send to the world. First of all, many countries have begun to look upon America with less respect, especially in light of the
treatment of Guantanamo detainees, among other human rights violations. Closing Guantanamo
will help us improve relationships with the world at large and strengthen our alliances. Second, we can make a stronger claim to the moral high ground and use this to pressure other governments to improve their human rights situations. Finally, respecting the rights of the prisoners ensures greater safety for any of our soldiers who are taken prisoner.
I hope this has adequately addressed the "whether we should" question of closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. I'll make another post soon on how that might be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)