Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)

[Freematt357 at aol.com]

December 15, 2003

Uncle Sambs Guantanamo Prison:
Outside the Rule of Law



By Brigid ObNeil*

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/031215ONeil.html


The latest news from Guantanamo Bay is beginning to sound like a modern-day
Simpsons episode. After two years of imprisoning more than 600 alleged enemy
combatants without charge or counsel in a Cuban prison camp, the
Administration
announced earlier this month that two detainees -- one a U.S. citizen -- would
be permitted limited access to an attorney. As any Simpsons buff will tell
you, itbs a classic Mr. Burns move: put on a show of improving work
conditions
at the nuclear power plant by dressing Homer in thermal underwear.

While it might be an amusing tag line typical of the most noxious character
in the Simpsons repertoire, itbs a sad metaphor for the U.S. governmentbs
abysmal treatment of designated enemy combatants.

News of the American prisonerbs counsel came one day before the Justice
Department filed a brief at the Supreme Court, adding to suspicions about the
Administrationbs motives. Their brief asks the court to affirm the
governmentbs
indefinite detention of Americans declared b
enemy combatants,b
 without
counsel
or the ability to dispute the allegations. The Constitutional liberties at
risk in this case, including the right to a fair trial and due process,
constitute a grave danger for Americans and foreign nationals alike. And
nowhere is the
startling consequence of Constitutional b
concessionsb
 more apparent than
the
state of Guantanamo Bay.

>From the beginning, Guantanamo Bay was wrought with strife. The Geneva
Convention, with its guarantee of certain fundamental rights for all prisoners
of
war, was quickly sidelined by the Administration in favor of its own rules for
the treatment and investigation of detainees. In the absence of any rule of
law, it didnbt take long for the media to pick up reports of inhumane
treatment
-- or what one former intelligence officer brazenly called,
b
torture-lite.b

These reports include: firing rubber bullets at those in restraints, beatings
for anyone who b
made a call to prayer,b
 sleep deprivation, and forced
confessions. The situation became so dire that the International Committee of
the Red
Cross (ICRC), the only non-government organization to visit the camp, broke a
long-standing policy of silence and called the prisoner circumstances an b

intolerable situation.b
 After reading the latest official statements on the
health
of the detainees, it becomes shockingly clear why the ICRC took such an
unprecedented move. According to national news reports, 35 detainees have
attempted
suicide, 110 have been placed on a suicide watch list, and 1 out of every 5
detainees now receive medication for what one military official can only
describe as b
clinical depression.b


In response to such damning reports, the Administration contends that the
detainees are dangerous terrorists and thus do not deserve any legal
protections,
much less liberal sympathies. But after two years of investigations at the
camp, the Administration has yet to charge any detainee with a crime or bring
a
case before a military tribunal. Thus, the public has no way to determine what
alleged crimes these men are charged with committing, much less whether or
not they are guilty.

In the absence of any formidable opposition to the Executive Branchbs
actions, the Supreme Court has finally stepped into the ring. In a matter of
months
the Justices will decide two cases that will rule on a host of alleged
constitutional abuses. In the first case, Padilla v. Rumsfeld, the Court will
determine whether a U.S. citizen has the right to an attorney before
disappearing into
a military stockade without charges or contact with the outside world. The
second case, involving the two appeals of Rasul v. Bush and Odah v. U.S., will
decide if Guantanamo detainees can have access to civilian courts to challenge
their detention. The most pressing issue in both cases calls into question the
newly claimed Executive Branch power to detain any person indefinitely and
without any recourse to judicial review.

Given the blatant lack of any legal protections for these alleged combatants,
it is no wonder that former prisoner-of-war Senator John McCain expressed
concern this week about what he saw after a recent visit to Guantanamo. Even
prisoners suspected of serious crimes deserve fair and open legal proceedings
--
after all, our very Constitution was founded on the right to due process and a
presumption of innocence. By holding suspected enemies to our highest rule of
law and honoring established international treaties, we set a precedent for
the treatment we expect of U.S. troops in enemy hands. To undermine this rule
of
law risks the very livelihood of our Constitution and threatens the way our
citizens are treated both at home and abroad. No minor concessions by the U.S.
government can change the impression that the secrecy and lack of due process
for detainees at Guantanamo Bay resembles that of the Soviet gulags of old.
And it doesnbt take the antics of a Mr. Burns or the gullibility of Homer
Simpson to figure it out.

*Brigid ObNeil is a researcher at the Center on Peace & Liberty at The
Independent Institute in Oakland, California. For further articles and
studies, see
the War on Terrorism and OnPower.org.