Inside the Wire
Sometimes I read lots of things by authors I already agree with. Once in a while I like to challenge my thinking by picking up something that seems to represent a different point of view than my own. Such was the case with a book called "Inside the Wire" by Eric Saar. At first I thought it might be some hyperpatriotic treatise on homeland security, but it wasn't that at all.
Saar worked in military intelligence as an Arab linguist. He volunteered for a six month stint at the prison camp for "detainees" at Guantanemo Bay in Cuba. At first he bought the administration's line that these were all "bad people" who deserved to be there. The longer he worked in the camp, the more he came to see that at least some of the men there were as innocent as they claimed to be.
Turns out the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan would pick up men they identified as Al Quaeda or Taliban fighters and collect a bounty on them. The prisoners were then shipped to Guantanemo without further ado. They were housed in those big ship containers that had been cut in half and turned end to end. Held without charges, without hope.
Surely some of the people in the camp belong there, but we betray our ideals when we treat the prisoners like that.
posted by Career Guy @ 9:19 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
Treat prisoners how?
In May 2003, before much of the current hullabaloo over alleged human rights violations (International Red Cross, Amnesty International, et. al.), Slate reported that detainees were in fact gaining weight on what was described as "a relatively spartan menu that revolves around Asian-accented stews of beef, chicken, and fish". Recent stories at various outlets have detailed a significantly upgraded menu consisting of oven-fried chicken, rice pilaf, fruit and pita bread. And it is known that some released detainees have in fact returned to the battle field against American troops in Afghanistan.
So, we treat them like kings--better by far than they can manage to live in their home countries--and still, once released, they are prone to returning to their killing ways.
What exactly is the downside of Gitmo? I see none. Except that some of the detainees should already have been executed.
Hmmmm. So we can keep prisoners in isolation, interrogate them under borderline torturous conditions, and hold them indefinitely without any access to lawyers and the courts as long as we feed them? Surely, a country founded on the principles of the United States has an obligation to behave better than that.
When you create special classifications for prisoners that exempt them from the protections afforded by the Geneva conventions and hold them indefinitely without any judicial oversight, you're creating more problems than you solve. By far the biggest is that you're doing the hostile party's recruiting for them. Talk to the British about how well these practices worked for them in Northern Ireland.
Why isn't there a fair, transparent process for adjudicating the cases of these prisoners? It's been nearly four years. Surely, by now the formidable military and government departments should have come with a process that could bear the scrutiny of the world. What are they afraid of?
-ann, at least you're willing to admit that the interrogations only "border" on torture, but truly aren't in any meaningful sense of the word. If you'd like to see what real torture looks like (and not just the kind where some Islamofascist murderous thug has to suffer his air conditioning being turned off in his pristinely clean cell for a bit), take a look at some of the links in this Michelle Malkin post. It's not just about the food, dear. We treat those detainees like kings in most countries can only dream of being treated. And for what? So that, when we release them as the looney lefties want us to, they'll all end up back in Afghanistan, fighting and perhaps killing our sons and daughters on the battlefield. They've all received military tribunals, and of the vast majority (something like 520 out of 558) have been determined to have been correctly and properly classified as "enemy combatants".
The country I live in, and which my father served in the Air Force, is a country founded on the belief that those who want freedom can have it, and those who want to murder others are liable for their own lives if they act upon those desires. And those "enemy combatants" have so acted. Try them, convict them, kill them. That's the American Way.
Last I checked, being treated like a king did not entail nearly round the clock confinement, solitary conditions, severely limited contact with family and no way to address legitimate grievences. I also cannot accept that secret military tribunals where the accused has little if any representation or rights are legitimate. (If American soldiers were classified as enemy combantants in a foreign country and treated this way, would
it be acceptable?)
Clearly this is an "agree to vehemently disagree" area. I do not accept this is the "American Way", certainly not any American Way that I would want perpetrated in my name.
American soldiers could expect to be afforded the protections and sanctions of the Geneva Conventions, which these enemy combatants expressly DO NOT have a right to be afforded, as they are not uniformed members of the military of a nation which is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. To in some way equate our soldiers with these evil murderous thugs is tantamount to slander and anti-American rhetoric of the lowest order. I will assume you were unaware of the clear distinctions which the Geneva Conventions make when you made that statement. Else I would have extremely ill will toward you.
Ann, you keep talking about the "American Way", "access to lawyers," "adjudicating their cases," and so forth...are you confused about something? These are not American citizens accused of a crime...these are illegal enemy combatants, and while they are not entitled to anything beyond a military tribunal and a firing squad, they receive the following--
# A brand new Qur'an in the specific, native language of each individual was provided to each "enemy combatant".
# Each illegal enemy combatant detained at Guantanamo is given three nutritious halal meals (culturally-appropriate and in accordance with Islamic dietary law) per day. The meals include all optional condiments.
# Each illegal enemy combatant detainee receives Muslim feast meals at special times in accordance with Muslim feasts and holy periods during the year.
# Each illegal enemy combatant detainee has unrestricted access to Muslim Imams and religious instruction.
# Each illegal enemy combatant detainee has a Quibla, a large green and white sign in his cell which points toward Mecca.
# Each illegal enemy combatant detainee hears Islamic loudspeaker calls to prayer five times daily.
# Each illegal enemy combatant detainee received a brand new Muslim prayer cap.
# Each illegal enemy combatant detainee received a brand new prayer rug.
# Each illegal enemy combatant detainee received brand new Islamic prayer beads. Each illegal enemy combatant detainee received Islamic holy oil.
# Each illegal enemy combatant had ALL of this done and paid for him at US taxpayer expense and this is far, far in excess of requirements delineated by Geneva Convention Cat. III protocols on the treatment of Prisoners of War.
American soldiers COULD NOT be classified in this way, because they would clearly be working as members of the American military...if American civilians decide to go and act as mercenaries in some country, they would get this type of treatment and would deserve it.
In many ways, this is an entirely pointless discussion. You will never convince me that you're right, however much you believe that you are and I will never convince you that I am right, however much I believe that I am. But, for the sake of argument...
Article 5 of the Geneva Convention states that where there are questions of status of a prisoner of war, "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
I will grant you that fighters for Al-Quaeda don't meet the criteria but Taliban fighters, as part of the formerly recognized government of Afghanistan certainly could require POW status. I do not believe that secret military tribunals meet the Geneva convention criteria. (Consider the situation where a civilan contractor to the US military is picked up by a foreign government during hostilities - would you accept a secret military tribunal as competent in this case?)
Now, back to the matter of Al-Quaeda fighters. As "The Wire" demonstrates, the Northern Alliance was in the habit of just rounding up men and declaring them Al-Queda fighters just to reap the benefits of the bounties. How could a hypothetical poorly educated farmer caught up in such a situation possibly hope to prove a negative, to prove that he was not an Al-Queda fighter?
John McCain himself said that even Eichmann got a trial. Proving to the world that we act with care and deliberation should not be considered a bad thing. It could dispel a lot of myths about the American administration.
Article 5 of the Geneva Convention states that where there are questions of status of a prisoner of war, "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Perhaps you are still unaware that EVERY SINGLE DETAINEE at Gitmo has, in fact, received a military tribunal, at which their status was determined.
I'm bowing out, for the very reason you stated: you will never be convinced that you are wrong.
Reading these comments reminds me of why being an American these days is so frightening. Our country is so divided.
Is there a middle ground?
Suzanne
The vast majority of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, didn't move--the division is almost entirely a product of the Democrat leadership straying so far from the "mainstream" (which is why they can't seem to understand that Bush's nominees are, in fact, very much in the mainstream).
I'm sure not going to open up the whole can of worms regarding exactly what the American mainstream is and who is or is not in it. I'm sure Jeff and I wouldn't agree on what mainstream is. I'm equally sure that we'd both have polls and stories and links and all manner of other competing proof.
But what is encouraging, is that we can discuss these things in a mostly civil fashion and can walk away from the debate when it becomes counterproductive.
To me, the middle ground is in agreeing to disagree.
Hoo-ray for democracy!
Post a Comment
<< Home