Camp X-Ray within the US base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is perhaps very appropriately named. Is what is happening there revealing something ugly and unacceptable? Could it be that at Camp X-Ray, the Americans are behaving with a callousness which diminishes their claim to be fighting terrorism in the name of the core values of US democracy?
Yesterday, the International Red Cross was inspecting the wooden-roofed eight-by-six foot chain-link cages, in which eighty prisoners from Afghanistan are being held. US troops are reportedly preparing similar accommodation alongside so that Camp X-Ray could finally hold up to 2,000 prisoners. The report of the Red Cross inspectors would not normally be made public but merely be handed over to Washington, for comment and action. If, however, it is unfavorable and is then leaked, it will add further weight to the protests of human rights organizations and UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson, who has already claimed that the treatment of these detainees is inhuman.
Had the US chosen to treat them as prisoners of war, it would run up against the Geneva Conventions, which are very specific about the amount of questioning to which a captive can be exposed. However, had the suspects been treated as criminals, more detailed interrogation would have been permitted but they would also have received the protection of criminal process which, it appears, would not suit Washington’s plans. So the Bush administration has come up with a new definition, that of an "unlawful combatant", which, it maintains, reflects the fact that international terrorism is itself a new phenomenon, which demands new legal solutions. Taking the "new solution" a stage further, the White House is proposing that the trial of the suspects be conducted before military, not civilian, judges. But that adds the complication of reinforcing the view that these men are, in fact, prisoners of war.
The end result is that the prisoners end up with none of the protections that those accused of crimes would get under any system of law. Though the administration has said that the eventual trials will be held in public, their likely location in the Cuban base outside the jurisdiction of US domestic law raises doubts about its "publicness". The US will need to demonstrate that these suspects are not being hurried through a drumhead court-martial, far from the public gaze.
But there is a far wider issue. The US says it is fighting the world’s war against international terrorists. If that were so, the Twin Towers and Pentagon crimes should be seen as attacks upon the international community, which they actually were. Then, the task of prosecuting those suspected of being connected with these terrible acts should have been that of an international tribunal, perhaps based upon the already existing legal structures in The Hague.
Of course, even if Washington were prepared to accept the jurisdiction of a world court, it would understandably be suspicious of the immense delays and complications in trying upward of 2,000 suspects. However, hole-in-the-wall justice in isolated Guantanamo Bay will probably do long-term damage to the causes it is supposed to represent and protect.
