TORONTO, 30 January — Sensory deprivation. Isolation. Interrogation. Humiliation. That is the plight of prisoners taken to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. All we see is pictures of hooded prisoners in Camp X-Ray, gagged and bound — pictures taken from a distance because journalists have not been allowed into the camp. American treatment of detainees is clearly in violation of the Geneva Convention and yet, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claims, “There is no doubt in my mind that it is humane and appropriate and consistent with the Geneva Conventions for the most part.”
In answer to the allegation that treatment is not humane, the United States has a simple argument: The Geneva Convention protects prisoners of war whom it defines as enlisted soldiers who are legally fighting for their government. The US claims these Afghani prisoners are “illegal combatants,” and as such have no rights because the US did not recognize the Taleban government. Al-Qaeda fighters are part of a terrorist organization and so forfeit their rights. Fine, no argument there. But surely, the Afghan people fighting for what they presumed to be their government, the Taleban, deserve to be treated as prisoners of war?
And therein lies the problem, if they are treated as POWs, all they have to tell their captors is their name, rank and serial number. They will then have the right to remain silent. Also there is the issue that POWs must be returned once the war is over. That does not serve the American purpose. Those detainees are there to be interrogated, because they are deemed a threat to the American way of life. Every US soldier at Camp X-Ray is probably told every day how every man in his individual cage represents a threat to the very ideals that America was built on.
So where are those ideals now? Where is that respect for individual life? According to the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the US constitution which Americans uphold as sacred, “no cruel and unusual punishments (will be) inflicted.” The 8th Amendment makes it clear that not only American passport holders, legal residents and government officials must be spared. It protects criminals, enemies of the state, suspects and “illegal combatants” as well. It is to preserve the essence of these ideals that Americans claim to go to war. And these ideals are meant to protect all human beings. Then why the double standard?
The American government plays with words, calling these detainees “illegal combatants”. Definitions do not change reality. These are men, captured in wartime, defending the state that they swore allegiance to. They are soldiers and so deserve the rights meant for “legal” POWs. Besides, who is legal and who is not has always been a determination for the courts to make — not the US Defense Department. But the Americans seem to work with selective integrity, and here, quite conveniently, they chose to ignore due process, which they are normally so proud of. The former US attorney general has recently filed a writ of habeaus corpus, telling the Defense Department that it must charge these men with a crime or let them go. As for international law, the Geneva Convention says “captured combatants or civilians” have certain rights — including the right to correspond with their families and that no distinctions are made between “legal” and “illegal” combatants.
And yet, almighty America has decided it will do as it pleases with its prisoners: and to heck with international law. They have humiliated the prisoners by shaving their heads and beards, made them strip, and then wear a uniform that includes goggles to blind them, ear muffs to block sound and hoods to further disorient them. And gloves too. No wonder British tabloid headlines are screaming “TORTURE”. It’s sensory deprivation. Others have used this method as have the Israelis and now America has joined their infamous ranks. So much for civilized society.
The prisoners are held in six-by-eight-foot cages, and floodlights keep them up at night (they take the hood off in the cage). They are held in individual cages so that stronger prisoners cannot influence weaker ones to hold on to their already diminishing morale. Even as you read this article, interrogation rooms are being built at Camp X-ray to extract information — and you can be sure there is nothing transparent about their walls. You will never see what other “cruel and unusual” punishments these men are subjected to unless an international task force demands that America be accountable to international law.
The question to be asked at this juncture is, what if American troops were captured tomorrow? With what moral authority could they demand humane treatment? Would they be able to say that their conditions were unheard of in civilized society? Well, they could, but all their captors would have to do is to show them pictures of Camp X-Ray to remind them that inhumane treatment is not unheard of in the so-called civilized Western world.
There is a degree of discomfort in Canada even as its defense minister dispatches troops to Afghanistan and bids them do “honor to your country.” The media are asking what honor there is in sending men to suffer humiliation and torture. Canadian politicians are also expressing discontent. Canadians do not want to go into Afghanistan under American command, but because of a commitment their prime minister has made to the US, they have very little choice.
Canadian officials have expressed the encouraging view that their troops will go into Afghanistan with the purpose of capturing Taleban and Al-Qaeda fighters, but in actuality, will not seek them out nor will they eventually turn them over to the United States.
No such constraints operate in the case of Britain. Determined to support American actions in every battle or bombardment as they have for the past 20 years, Britain has justified Camp X-Ray. A government spokesman was quoted as saying, after a British delegation toured the camp last week, “There were no gags, no goggles, no ear-muffs and no shackles while the detainees were in their cells.” In response, a human rights activist asked, “Why would anyone need to shackle and blind them in their cells? Other groups have let their hostages remove their blindfolds when they were alone in their locked rooms.” The Americans have shown they are no different, and by association, the British are no less guilty of savagery.