Violation of Human Rights at Guantanamo Bay

Résumé du document

After 09/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration declared war to Al Qaeda. As Commander in chief of the Armed Forces, President Bush authorized the detention of non-American citizens considered as "enemy combatants" (Fogarty 2005, 54). A classified report prepared by Defence Department Lawyers in 2003 indicates that the US Naval base in Guantanamo Bay was an appropriate place to send those enemy combatants, as it was not under the jurisdiction of the USA (Fogarty 2005, 55). The first detainees arrived at Guantanamo on January 11, 2002 "blind-folded and shackle on the floor of cargo planes" (Olshansky 2007, 85). Most prisoners came from Arab countries and were hand over by Pakistani authorities to the USA. According to a survey, 57% are accused of associating with Al Qaeda or Taliban, while 43% are accused of hostilities against the US (Hegland 2006, 33).

Extraits

[...] West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press 52-65. - Fogarty, P.Gerard. Guantanamo Bay undermining the Global War on Terror?” Parameters 35.3 (autumn 2005): 54-. ProQuest. American University Bender Library, Washington DC.8 October 2007. - Hegland, Corine. is at Guantanamo Bay”. National Journal (4Feb.2006): 33. ProQuest. American University Bender Library, Washington DC.8 October 2007. - Hentoff, Nat. worst of the worst”. The Village Voice (8-14 March 2006): 24. [...]

[...] 2005): 8. ProQuest. American University Bender Library, Washington DC.7 October 2007. - Olshansky, Barbara. Democracy Detained : Secret Unconstitutional Practices in the U.S. War on Terror. New York City: Seven stories press - Ralston, Jeannie. “Serving Time at Guantanamo. No Man's Land”. National Geographic.com April October 2007 http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0504/feature8/index.html - Roth, Kenneth. “Human Rights in the War on Terror”. Boston.com Sept October 2007. - Schulz, William. [...]

[...] values on Human Rights must outweigh the nation's desire for retribution” (Fogarty 2005, 64). The violations committed in Guantanamo have given “excuses” to terrorist groups to act. Why should the convention of Geneva be respected for American prisoners it the USA itself does not? The USA wants the best protection for American Citizens, but it cannot be asked to other countries to respect rules that the American Administration violates. Conclusion The US policy concerning Guantanamo Bay has weakened the position of the country on the international stage. [...]

[...] These practices are qualified by the five UN Human Rights experts as torture. However, “Torture and inhuman treatment are absolutely prohibited in all form of armed conflicts by the customary and conventional rules of international humanitarian (Olshansky 2007, 115). Moreover, detainees are denied of any mean to defend their case in front of a Court. In 2004, the Supreme Court rejected the argument of the government that Guantanamo detainees had no access to US courts. The decision is called Rasul v. [...]

[...] On the international stage it was clear that this logic was untenable. Actually, the Bush administration did not want to consider these detainees as POWs because they would not have been able to interview them as they did. Prisoners would have been allowed to only give their name, their rank and their serial number (art 17 Third Geneva Convention) (Caseldine-Bracht 2007, 54). If the POW status was applied, prisoners would received the same protections than US soldiers under a court martial process (Fogarty 2005, 58).Under the article 3 of the Convention, POWs “must all the time be humanely treated”, the article 13 indicates that they have to be protected from violence, intimidations, insults and public curiosity, article 22 says they must not be interned in unhealthy areas (Olshansky 2007, 119). [...]