Congress Further Erodes Basic Human Rights

The supposed “international war on terror” has many disturbing facets, the aggregate sum of which appears to be an uncontrollable beast bent on profit (for those who control it) and destruction (for those whom (a) oppose it or (b) happen to be in regions from where these benefits are expected.) Yet besides this nation’s outrageous use of war against societies whose only crime (one that cannot be excused apparently) was to be physically present on land that is flush with world-coveted natural resources, such as oil for example; and resources from which outrageous profits are made; is our nation’s treatment of indigenous resistance to military, economic and cultural domination, now dehumanized as “terrorists” though one can find in history many synonymous categorizations.

But probably an equally worse crime, and one that is arguably more morally compromising for those who condone it (our society) either by (a) inactive opposition against it or (b) overt support for it, is are military/government’s overall treatment of detainees, alleged as “enemy combatants,” treatment that is counter to the spirit of the Third Geneva Conventions, the international treaty that binds nations to decent and respectful treatment of enemy soldiers. As if this weren’t bad enough, Congress has passed recently (Sept. 28 & 29, the House and Senate respectively) legislation that will further erode detainees basic human rights as are outlined in these agreements, and legislation that will restrict detainees judicial appeals of their crass condition to only what are best described as “kangaroo courts,” adhoc military tribunals, rather than allowing them due process under previous provisions in the law (as was upheld by the Supreme Court in June, and to which the Bush administration has been consistently trying to thwart), and legislation that is counter the spirit of habeas corpus, one of the most lauded advancements in our collective human social conscience to result from Western Liberalism (not liberalism in Ann Coulter terms, but liberalism that includes ideas like “the rights of man” and from which our democratic system is descended.)

But first let us consider present conditions on Guantanamo. Detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have been subjected to some of the harshest and most cruel imprisonment conditions publicly disclosed by the US military. Reports of “sleep deprivation,” “waterboarding” (mock drownings) “hyperthermia,” as well as numerous reports of US military personal desecrating the Koran have all led other governments, non-governmental organizations and human-rights activists to censure, or in the very least openly question the US’s activities toward detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Interrogation techniques that would otherwise qualify as torture, illegal under the same Geneva Conventions, are euphemized rather as “aggressive interrogation techniques.” In response to detainees’ hunger-strikes, doctors at Guantanama Bay, despite ethical questions raised, have force-fed detainees by inserting tubes down their throats. Allegations then quickly surfaced of detainees being force-fed as a form of punishment, in which case they were fed to the point at which they either vomited or defecated in their seats. Such conditions have led some prisoners to suicide, and the International Red Cross has publicly raised concerns about the mental health of detainees as a result of their treatment in Guantanamo and their prolonged detainment there.

As a result of the recent legislation passed by Congress, detainees at Guantanamo will loose their right to habeas corpus, a right that would merely allow innocent detainees, reported to be as young as 14 and as old as 71 the right to challenge their imprisonment. Additionally, this legislation will, according to Kate Zernick of the New York Times, “…broaden the definition of enemy combatants beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include noncitizens living legally in the United States as well as those in foreign countries and anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense.” And according to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the current legislation will “grant the President the privilege of kings, allowing him to imprison any critics as alleged 'enemy combatants,' never to see the inside of a court room or to have the chance to challenge their detention or their treatment.” The Center openly questions “What would we say if another country passed a law making it legal to snatch US citizens and detain them indefinitely?”

We don’t have to speculate much to answer the above question, and we can assume the majority of us would be opposed to similar treatment. But if this is true the passing of this recent legislation by Congress reveals us to be hypocrites and is yet another indication of the dismantling by the government of basic human rights in this so called prolonged “war on terror,” a euphemism for the use of force and perpetual detainment against recalcitrant populations in regions of “strategic importance,” or rather regions rich in resources valuable for the ruling-class in the United States. This again raises serious moral questions for members of a society that permits such cruel and inhuman treatment against fellow human beings. Of course once we lose our domination on history, such actions, or inactions on our part, will prompt scorn and official rebuke in future generations. But such considerations are also of little consequence, as at present moment innocent people are subject to physical torture and endless misery. The blame for this hideous stain on the much soiled history of the US is bi-partisan, and therefore our opposition to it should excuse the responsible parties and be a non-partisan, non-electoral ploy, but a true morally-based movement.

The dismantlement and closing down of Guantanamo Bay remains one of the great, unresolved challenges facing our society today, but until we start taking action against it, and begin in the very least to pressure lawmakers, more and more concessions on our collective basic liberties will be made by both Republicans and Democrats, excused under what is now the almost comical guise of “fighting the war on terror,” but something that is less humorous when one considers its consequences.