Abstract This paper discusses the human rights of prisoners of war. Particularly, the paper focuses on the rights of detainees of the United States government in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The paper discusses the differences between the application of the US Constitutional law by the US Courts and the relevant international human rights law for dealing with the detainees. It concludes by discussing the implications for the United States of their policies.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Analysis
Conclusion
From the Paper "As regards the writ of habeas corpus, in case the US Courts found authority, there are chances that it will possibly be debated that the President's Military Order dated 13 November 2001 has kept in abeyance the right of the prisoner to apply for habeas corpus. As per the provisions of 7(b) (2) of the Military Order, it lays down that the person shall not have the power to look for any solution or keep any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to possess any such solution or any events or keep record of any events on the behalf of the person in any court inside the United States. But the Constitution of the US maintains that the right of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be discontinued for the time being except in cases of mutiny or incursion, the exigencies of public safety might demand it."
Abstract This paper takes a look at the status of the Guantanamo Bay detainees as depicted in various news reports. The paper reports how, according to 'Amnesty International', many of these alleged detainees are in fact, not "enemy combatants" but ordinary people being held "in a legal black hole, many without access to any court, legal counsel or family visits". The paper takes a look at the history of the situation, and events leading up to the crisis in Guantanamo Bay.
Outline:
Introduction
History of Guantanamo Bay
The Issues
Torture and Abuse of Prisoners
Discussion
From the Paper "Although President Bush has said publicly, "the United States reaffirms its commitment to the worldwide elimination of torture... freedom from torture is an inalienable human right, and we are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law," his administration has actually fostered and encouraged it. Harold Koh (2005) suggests that after the 9/11 attack the administration had the opportunity to set up a democratic long-range plan for controlling terrorism. Instead, the administration looked for shortcuts, and torture was one of them, "a substitute for multilateral police work; the uncertainties of intelligence gathering; the expense of guarding ports, reservoirs, and transportation centers; and the financial regulation necessary to cut off the funding of terrorist groups" (p. 7)."
"Koh (2005) testified before the Senate that the torturing at Guantanamo Bay is done with government authorization. Members of the Bush administration developed a torture policy and a legal rationale for torture was created. In his message to the Senate, Koh states: "Torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment are both illegal and totally abhorrent to our values and constitutional traditions. No constitutional authority licenses the president to authorize the torture and cruel treatment of prisoners, even when he acts as commander-in-chief"(p. 8). He went on to say that mistreatment of prisoners also violates the Geneva Convention agreement, under which our own troops are protected from similar treatment. "
Tags: US, UN, security, council, military, court, POW, terrorism, America
Abstract The paper examines Jane Mayer's "The Black Sites", Jonathan Turley's "Rights on the Rack" and the Seton Hall "Report on Guantanamo Detainees" that shed light on the nature of those prisoners classed as 'enemy combatants', the role of 'black sites' in the torture and confinement of these prisoners, and lastly the issue of US torture of these detainees. The paper highlights the evidence that shows how under the cover of describing their prisoners as 'enemy combatants', the United States government has supported and encouraged its interrogators in the torturing and psychological abuse of non-combatant civilians of other nations.
From the Paper "So far, the Government has offered little evidence that the people being held have been involved in fighting against American soldiers: their own Summary of Evidence for each prisoner makes clear that the label was pre-determined "The United States Government has Previously determined that the detainee is an enemy combatant" (Seton Hall). The Study demonstrates that more than half of the people detained under the category were not involved in hostile acts against the US army, and suggest that, rather than being captured in battle as one would expect from the description of them as Enemy combatants, around two-thirds of the prisoners were derived from Pakistan or the Pakistani Authorities."
Abstract This paper discusses the ethics of government secrecy in the Bush Administration. The paper discusses the Freedom of Information Act, the post-911 immigration detainees, government withholding information from the public post-911, and Cheney's refusal to disclose the names of those in his energy task force. The paper puts these actions into an ethical context by quoting Machiavelli and Hobbes.
From the Paper "United Nations analyst Ian Thomas tried to get a thirty-year old map of Africa from the National Archives in March 2002 in order to plan a relief mission. He could not get the maps because the United States government no longer makes them public. An environmentalist, John Coequyt, was denied access to an online database of listings of chemical plants that violate pollution laws from the Environmental Protection Agency. Kate Martin, a civil rights lawyer, asked for a court order the names of the foreigners detained since the September 11th terrorist attacks and was told by the Justice Department that that information was secret."
Abstract The paper analyzes the incarceration of the foreign criminals before they are returned to their home countries. It mentions the fact that many of their homelands refuse to take them back, and so these offenders cannot be released in the U.S. either. The paper looks at the issues faced by the INS in dealing in a timely fashion with the criminals, since the system has not been created to cope with such a load.
From the Paper "The issue is not a new one and has plagued the system for some time. On the one hand, there is pressure for the INS to do more to deport criminal aliens; on the other hand, there is pressure to do so in a timely fashion and to avoid jailing too many criminal immigrants in this country. It was reported in 1993 that between 1988 and 1990, 489,000 aliens scheduled to be deported could have been locked up, but the INS at the time had only 6,600 beds, forcing it to release more and more suspects. The General Accounting Office reported that in 1982, 24 percent of those apprehended were detained, while by 1990, only nine percent were held. In the mid-1990s, there were some 62,000 people under deportation proceedings in the New York district, while only about 750 a year were deported. This would mean it would take 80 years just to clear out the existing backlog (Popkin and Friedman 32)."
Abstract It is the purpose of this essay to demonstrate that by treating all "detainees" from Afghanistan under rules governing terrorists rather than those of Prisoners Of War as defined under the Geneva Conventions, the United States is effectively making null rules that help to make the inhumane human, to make the damages of war a little less brutal. The United States is making a mistake, one that it cannot afford.
Abstract This paper explains that over 500 detainees from countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan have been brought to the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba by the U.S. government under the assumption that they are dangerous terrorists and a threat to the United States. The author points out that (1) they were brought to Cuba because it is not U.S. soil thus the military can deny them the rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution, such as due process, independent counsel and a speedy trial, and (2) they do not even have rights under the Geneva Convention since the U.S. has not declared them prisoners of war, instead labeling them "enemy combatants". The paper contends that the fallout from this situation at Guantanamo Bay has been that the world now sees the U.S. as a hypocrite following constitutional rights only when it is in the country's best interests.
Table of Contents
Constitutional Amendments of the United States of America
Introduction
Justice for All
Convenience of the "Enemy Combatants" Label
What's Going on at Guantanamo Bay?
The Abused as Abusers
International Quagmire
Crusade for National Security
The End is Near?
From the Paper "There are even conflicting reports from the same agency. The Red Cross released a report in 2002 stating that there was no torture going on at Guantanamo and then later did an about-face and condemned the treatment of those same prisoners (Cole). Some prisoners who were released talked about physical and mental torture, being isolated for months at a time, being led around with a dog collar, being attacked by dogs, having to wear women's clothing and of being subjected to the desecration of the Quran in front of them (having pages ripped out and flushed down the toilet). Many of these "tortures" have been confirmed by the US government, namely the FBI (Ardiente), with a shrug and grin, as if they are a practice so common (or relatively innocuous compared to what else they might do) that they are confused as to why anyone would be upset by them."
Tags: constitution, denial, enemy-combatants, hypocrite, muslim
Abstract This paper explains that the ICJ Camp X-Ray case regards the status of detainees at Camp X-Ray and their treatment. The author points out that the case involves Saudi Arabia v. U.S. regarding non-Americans captured by the United States Government (USG) during the conflict in Afghanistan and detained at USG naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The paper reports the reasons for the ICJ's rejection of the argument of Saudi Arabia.
From the Paper "This opinion sets forth the judgment of the International Court of Justice ICJ in the Camp X-Ray case, Saudi Arabia v U.S. regarding the status and treatment of non-Americans captured by the United States Government USG during the recent conflict ..."
Tags: Guantanamo Bay, International Court, Saudi Arabia
Abstract In this article the writer discusses various ways that the media and the Goverment use language to describe terrorism and the war against it. The writer studies language used by the Bush Administration to enlist Americans in his war on terrorism.
From the Paper "While no single definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance, terrorism can be defined as the use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians as a political social religious or ideological weapon to change the status quo through fear or coercion. Terrorism can be state sponsored or can be committed by non-government sponsored individuals or groups. William Greider suggests in 'The Nation' that when President Bush called Americans to enlist in the war on terror, very few Americans understood the consequences of this call to ... "
Abstract The paper contends that the Bush Administration has refused to address the root causes of terrorism and has chosen instead to rely upon military force, detaining and abusing prisoners in Guantanamo. The paper asserts that the Bush Administration's actions contradict their claims of spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world. The paper maintains that as long as these actions are not rectified, terrorism will increase and the world will continue to be destabilized.
From the Paper "The twentieth century was plagued by fascist militarism, brutal dictatorships, global military confrontation, and regional wars, which were triggered by economic injustice, religious intolerance, countless ideological rivalries, and seething ethnic and racial hatreds. These same factors have produced terrorism in the twenty-first century, for we have not left behind the consequences of twentieth century enmities and conflicts. They continue to incite disaffected groups to unleash terrorist attacks such as 9/11, which in turn incited the Bush Administration to take extreme measures in the hope of preventing
future terrorist attacks."
Abstract The paper argues that military tribunals are necessary and perfectly acceptable in post-9/11 America because there are constitutional and legislative precedents which allow for them. The paper asserts that as long as the President follows basic international laws vis-a-vis the treatment of prisoners who are detained and brought before American military tribunals, he is under no obligation to grant them the same constitutional rights and protections American citizens would enjoy in a civilian court-room.
From the Paper "Of course, critics of the existing military tribunals are legion - not least of all because the tribunals have in place laws that seem diametrically opposed to the procedural (even substantive) laws that have under-girded Anglo-American law for centuries. When the Bush Administration first set forth its guidelines for military tribunals near the end of 2001, the public outcry was considerable for the simple reason that the new measures seemed remarkably free of any rules at all. For instance, the Bush policy precluded any review of tribunal decisions by an independent court; as well, the rules of evidence were such that any material submitted for the tribunal's consideration was admissible just so long as it had "probative value to a reasonable person" (Knowland, para.8). Going further, convictions and sentencing required only a two-thirds vote and not unanimity."
Abstract The paper reviews several articles on prisoner abuses in Guantanamo Bay. The paper looks at prisoners' conditions, tortures, military trials and legal reviews that the Bush administration contend are in order. The paper concludes that the situation negates the American image as the guardian of democracy, human rights, justice and fairness and moral leadership in the world.
Outline:
Introduction
Methodology
Literature Review
Analysis and Conclusion
From the Paper "Guantanamo Bay Naval Station is located in the Oriente Province at the Southeast corner of Cuba. It was installed in January 2002 to hold "enemy combatants" captured in Afghanistan and those suspected of connection with al-Qaeda.
"What has really been happening in Guantanamo? What does it say or reflect about the true crime, justice and violence conditions in the US? It is of utmost interest to any freedom-loving individual in the world to know the answers. The US is the most powerful nation in the world. It has promoted an image as the guardian of democracy, justice and fairness and human rights. The situation in Guantanamo should test that image and moral leadership."
Abstract This paper examines the presence of the unconstitutional practices of the United States' government, citing several Supreme Court cases as examples. The author argues that the government its overstepping its bounds by holding detainees without providing them with counsel or the opportunity to defend themselves. The paper illustrates this argument with the Korematsu case in which American citizens of Japanese descent were excluded from areas that were considered critical in terms of national defense and possible espionage, and the case of of "Rasul vs. the United States" in which four citizens from Britain and Australia were brought to the American military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba during the War on Terror and denied access to attorneys while being held indefinitely. The paper discusses these cases and argues that the accused deserve the right to be heard in court and to contest any ruling against him or her, and without that, the Constitution of the United States will mean nothing.
From the Paper "The decision is therefore deemed as consistent with the rules under which such decisions are made. Although this is based upon a legal technicality, decisions that are made in this way provide evidence that the Supreme Court is concerned with protecting all petitioners appearing before it in an impartial and lawful manner. Regardless of how likely guilt is, and regardless of the crime, the accused deserves the right to be heard in court and to contest any ruling against him or her."
Tags: constitutional practices, supreme court, law, case study
Abstract This paper discusses the sharp contrast between Canada and Turkey with regard to the civic rights of their citizenry. The author explains that the Charter of 1982 solidified those rights in Canada, by protecting citizens from unreasonable searches, unjustifiable detentions and importantly, against the possibility of law enforcement's abusing its powers. Turkey, on the other hand, has been cited for human rights abuses on countless occasions. The author explains that despite the fact that the Turkish constitution clearly prohibits arbitrary arrest, detention, search and seizure, in actuality all of the above are commonplace occurrences in Turkey. The paper concludes that it is important to recognize that the civic rights of citizens are upheld by virtually all national legislatures, but when it comes to their application, Canada applies the provisions and charter in question while Turkey does not.
From the Paper "The rules which govern arrest, detention and seizure in Turkey are grounded in the country's constitution. The Turkish Constitution clearly outlines the civic rights of the citizenry and outlines the limitations on police authority. As Kinzer (2002) explains, arbitrary arrests are prohibited with no statements of exception. Law enforcement must have a clear reason for arresting citizens and must establish, before a judge that the citizen in question has violated the laws of the nation and accordingly, that there are legitimate grounds for the issuance of an arrest warrant."
Tags:detainee, Amnesty International, torture forced control accountability privacy
Abstract On Sunday January 18 2004, Two prison detainees Ricky K. Wassenaar and Steven J. Coy took hostages and made an attempt to escape from the Morey Unit of the Lewis Prison Complex at Buckeye, Arizona. The paper examines the background to the incident and attempts to analyze the preparedness of the penal system to such incidents and the reaction of prison authorities in this specific incident. Suggestions for improvement that could either prevent or shorten another hostage situation are also provided.
Outline
Introduction
The Incident in Brief
Analysis of the incident
The Prison system and preparedness
The Drawbacks
The mitigation and avoidance
The crisis plan
Conclusion
References
From the Paper "We have to remember that the prison housed more than one hundred dangerous prisoners and the security system still was such that two convicts could hold two officers to ransom and then continue to go into the control area with simple weapons and thus create a hostage situation. The problem mostly stems from human negligence of established procedures or in implementing the proper security measures as required. The unfolding of events as reported by the reports presented and the contemporary news shows that there was practically little resistance to the attempt, and secondly there was a situation where the convicts could get at the radio codes, security check routine and even use the alarm to their favour. These observations show that the system design in terms of the physical, personnel and the procedural structures were faulty. Of course after the incident the system may have been corrected, and the longest stand off perhaps served the purpose of strengthening prison security all over the state. The long arm of justice took in the inmates who staged the kidnapping and the two inmates Ricky Wassenaar, was later tried and pronounced guilty of offences like "kidnapping, sexual assault and aggravated assault" and was sentenced to sixteen life sentences and an additional thirty seven years in prison. He is incarcerated at the Ohio State Prison. Steven Coy who pleaded guilty to the charges has seven life sentences at the maximum-security prison in Maine. The sentences were awarded on 18th January 2005. ("From Her Desk", n. d.)"
