Human Rights and the GOP Rank and File

Published on July 1, 2007 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

There's been a lot of talk about Guantanamo Bay. I find it quite disturbing that so many from the Republican camp believe that our government can do absolutely anything it wants to Gitmo detainees because they are terrorists, especially and most tellingly, without having to PROVE those allegations in a court of any standing.

What disturbs me the most is the issue of human rights. Do you believe in human rights as our founding fathers did? The simple, plain truth of the matter is this: IF you believe that human rights should not be afforded to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay because "they are terrorists", then you don't believe in human rights, you believe in human PRIVILEGES. You believe that power emanates from the government, not the people, and while that may be held to be true in other nations, it is not true of the philosophical basis on which the US is built.

Why is this so important, so critical as to "crusade" about? Because a privilege can be revoked at the discretion of the one granting it; a right cannot. So if human rights are voidable for those at Guantanamo Bay, then every single American should be on the alert. Oddly enough, a strong contingent of Bush Buddies are demanding for the rights to teach Bible in the schools, to allow churches to teach that homosexuality is wrong, to display articles of their faith on the courthouse square. This select group of people believes that their rights to religious expression are inviolable. And they are right!. But although exceptions to this may exist (please speak up if this is the case), I have yet to personally encounter one who equally believes in the rights of the Baptist Church and the Gitmo detainees. Every single Republican I have encountered who believes in the rights of the churches to express their faith denies rights to Gitmo detainees.

I believe that in this manner the single greatest threat to the United States Constitution may well be the citizens of these hallowed shores. What world wars could not do, what a civil war and a civil rights movement could not do, we are doing to ourselves. We are unraveling the very fabric of our Constitution thread by thread by denying basic rights to the most vulnerable. And it is to our national shame that we are so doing.

Comments (Page 3)

Leauki

on Jul 09, 2007

I'm not sure which human right has been violated in Guantanamo.

And I have not heard any Republicans state that they believe that the US government can do absolutely anything it wants to the detainees.

I would need a source for those statements.

It is perfectly legal, according to the same authority that defines human rights, the UN, to keep prisoners captured in a war until that war is over. You are not allowed to torture them, but whether that really happened in Guantanamo is another question.

(If I remember correctly the UN inspectors refused to go look at the camp and then announced that it was possible that the US tortures detainees, hence the US tortures detainees.)

Now, there are the Geneva Conventions, the third of which protects prisoners of war, if such prisoners were a) legal combatants and

fighting for a party to the treaty. The detainees in Guantanamo are neither legal combatants nor fighting for a party to the treaty (the Taliban publicly and vehemently rejected the Geneva Conventions, applying "Islamic law" instead. I understand that their "Islamic law" specifically prohibits treating prisoners like human beings for some reason).

The detainees have human rights and the law governs as it should. There just happens to be no human right that says that one cannot be kept a prisoner by the party one took up arms against and there is no law prohibiting detaining prisoners-of-war (or even innocent bystanders in a war, like Japanese-Americans) during the war.

And that doesn't even touch the subject of what else could be done with the prisoners. Sending them back home will likely result in torture and/pr death for many of them. THAT would be a violation of their human rights (and probably the odd law).

Leauki

on Jul 09, 2007

When we begin prosecuting this as a war, we can treat it as one. But a war has specific, definable objectives, this one does not. It will be over when a talking head with the presidential seal behind his head says it is over and not before. It is not a war against a nation, but against an ideology and as such a war that cannot be won.

This particular war has the specific, definable objective of making sure that the new government of Afghanistan will be able to control all of Afghanistan. Should the Taliban surrender, that particular war is over.

You might argue that the Taliban won't surrender, which is quote possible, but that doesn't mean that such an event would not be a specific definable objective. The war in Europe was over when the German military surrendered, the war in Afghanistan will be over when the Taliban surrender. Until then the prisoners of Guantanamo are prisoners of war without the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jul 09, 2007

It is perfectly legal, according to the same authority that defines human rights, the UN, to keep prisoners captured in a war until that war is over.

See, here's the problem, Andrew. In a normal scenario that would be the case, yes. But I assure you, the UN was not planning on an indefinite, unwinnable war. We are at war with an ideology, not a nation, and you can't win a war against ideologies without genocide. Is the war on drugs over? Why aren't we holding nonAmerican captives of THAT war captive indefinitely without trial? I'll tell you why: because the international community would slam our borders shut by denying all exports and imports because we would have been holding these people for 20 plus years without a trial.

I've already conceded tribunals as an acceptable, albeit imperfect, solution. But I refuse to rubber stamp a government whose actions run wholly contrary to everything I hold dear!

danielost

on Jul 09, 2007

Is the war on drugs over?

we are treating this one as a crime. also these people are not out to call American soldiers they just want to smuggle drugs into the country.

we are treating the war on terror as a war.

the UN was not planning on an indefinite, unwindable war.

i don't believe we asked the UN for permission to fight this war.

Leauki

on Jul 11, 2007

In a normal scenario that would be the case, yes. But I assure you, the UN was not planning on an indefinite, unwinnable war. We are at war with an ideology, not a nation, and you can't win a war against ideologies without genocide.

Guantanamo is very much related to the war against (the previous regime of) Afghanistan. That war is not over, largely because the enemy, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, have not surrendered yet (and might not ever).

Wars in the past have always been against an enemy who would surrender at some point. That is the difference. Otherwise the enemy here is just as definable as the Nazis were.

Perhaps it is time to find a solution for Guantanamo. But that solution must be found based on the fact that this war might take longer than previous wars, NOT on the claim that Guantanamo constitutes some sort of human rights violation. Guantanamo is not worse than imprisoning Japanese Americans or German prisoners of war.

If there is a problem with Guantanamo it is a problem of when to end it, not whether it was right to do it.

Leauki

on Jul 11, 2007

i don't believe we asked the UN for permission to fight this war.

Actually, you did. And permission was granted.

It doesn't matter anyway, because the UN are not the governing authority here. We merely referred to them because they do provide one definition of human rights. (China, Iran and a few places provide alternative definitions.)

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!