Issue date: 2/9/09 Section: Editorial/Opinion

Guantanamo Bay is an atrocity that has pushed back generations of progress in international relations.

In a world defined by new trends in globalization and communications that create a global consciousness, it is more important now than ever to set precedents of international law to signify a global respect between nations.

The Guantanamo Bay detention facility sets a barbaric standard in history and does NOT strive for global respect.

Located in Cuba, Guantanamo Bay was first used as a prison by the previous Bush administration.

Throughout the Clinton era, Guantanamo was used to house Haitian refugees and Cuban prisoners. It was the recent Bush administration, though, that began using Guantanamo as a base for dealing with suspected terrorists.

In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration began capturing "suspected terrorists," people believed to be in league with Osama Bin Laden or involved in some sort of terrorist activity.

These prisoners are probed for any information that could "prevent terrorism," but any information given by these prisoners is usually debatable and unreliable.

Most recently, the use of Guantanamo came under fire because of the authorized use of water boarding, a form of torture, on its detainees. This means America is breaching its own laws on cruel and unusual punishment, located in the American constitution.

Also, detainees made claims that their writ of Habeas Corpus, or the right to know what one is being held for, was suspended from them.

In the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen, argued that the American government suspended him of Habeas Corpus during his detention at Guantanamo. Rumsfeld and the Bush administration argued that Hamdi was not a prisoner of war, but an "unlawful enemy combatant," the distinction being that prisoners of war are protected by the Geneva Conventions, while unlawful enemy combatants are not. Thus they do not deserve due process of law.

The Supreme Court ruled that the administration did not have the right to suspend Hamdi's right to Habeas Corpus. These are flagrant examples of Guantanamo's lack of respect for the common rights of Americans. Guantanamo Bay also breaks international laws, according to American treaties.

The Geneva Conventions, an agreement that ruled on the treatment of prisoners of war, states that such prisoners should be humanely treated. For example; being given quarters comparable to the capturing party's quarters and being allowed to keep in contact with family members. It also states that prisoners should not be coerced into giving information and should be allowed to appeal their imprisonment.

Guantanamo Bay does not meet these conventions.

The New York Times printed an article Jan. 5 about an ex-detainee named Muhammad Saad Iqbal, a professional Qur'an reader, and his experience

while being held captive by the United States.

The Bush administration, using foreign courts to avoid American justice, was not able to find Mr. Iqbal guilty of a single thing. He was interrogated (completely against Geneva protocol), and even American soldiers concluded he was no threat. However Mr. Iqbal still talks of being moved all over the world, shocked with electrical current, drugged, sleep deprived and many more treatments that are just as disturbing.

Even though Mr. Iqbal continuously told his captors that he had no information, such acts continued over a six-year period of time.

This is not an uncommon story from Guantanamo. All of this blatant ignorance of international law and disgusting treatment of prisoners is a setback of the ethical ideals that America should strive for.

Capturing people that are merely suspects with no evidence, torturing these people - still without concrete evidence of guilt - and denying the prisoners rights such as Habeas Corpus are all examples of the mockery that the Bush administration has made of any kind of global respect.

Luckily, Guantanamo Bay is in the process of being closed, ordered by President Barack Obama.

Now that President Obama has closed down Guantanamo Bay, the most important question is: what should be done with the prisoners of the facility?

President Obama has already stated that it will take a year before the entire ordeal is settled, but what will happen to all of those "suspected terrorists" and "dangerous people" if they are not in Guantanamo?

They will finally be receiving justice. The current Attorney General, Eric Holder Jr., is attempting to get some of the detainees from Guantanamo tried in American courts.

There are more than 250 suspected terrorists at Guantanamo though, and not all of them will be able to be tried in American courts, so what will happen to the others?

The plan is to "repatriate" them, or send them back to their own countries, in order to be tried for their charges.

Once all of the detainees make it back to their respective homes, they will then be tried in court, in a fair and lawful manner that they would probably not have received at Guantanamo.

With this kind of system in work, all of the detainees will be tried and judged in a much shorter time than their stay at Guantanamo will ever be, as well.

What President Obama is doing is a step in the right direction for the interest of America, and especially a step in the right direction for the world.

Sadek is a sophomore political science major and guest columnist for The Spectator.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools