Thursday, August 15, 2019
Human Rights and Guantanamo Essay
In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay detainees, most of whom have been held in the camp for years, may challenge their detention at the camp in American federal courts. (Medrano, 2006) While this is good news, at the onset this revealed a major flaw in the years-long operation of Camp Delta, the US prison camp in Guantanamoâ€â€the violation of basic human rights, a major ethical concern not only in Guantanamo but all over the world.            A typical cell at Guantanamo, sources say, is like a prison cell in the US, with the standard clothing and toiletries. Because most detainees are Muslims, each cell comes with a Koran, prayer beads, and an arrow pointing to Mecca. Each day even begins with a Muslim call to prayer. (Camp Delta: Guantanamo Bay, 2004) So where is human right violation here?            Human rights dictate that every prisoner has the right to remain silent, undergo a fair trial, be given the basic necessities in life, be protected against all forms of abuse, be able to exercise religious freedom, and be presumed innocent until proven guilty, among others. These are things that are mostly not enjoyed by the inmates at Guantanamo. To begin with, detainees at Camp Delta have been incarcerated there for years without undergoing trial. Most of them have been picked up from the streets, majority from Afghanistan. Some were turned over or pointed at as terrorists in exchange of the dollar rewards. Secondly, torture and physical abuse have been reported. Suicide cases were also existent. Thirdly, prisoners are virtually living in solitude, having no rights to family visit or to live communally. They are also not entitled to exercise the right to remain silent. On the contrary, they are interrogated everyday each week for hours by the military. These after the government branded the detainees enemy combatants but not prisoners of war. Thus, the detainees were deemed to be not entitled by he provisions of the Geneva Convention. But this was reversed in 2006, when a decision was made that the detainees are entitled with full protection of the Geneva Convention, changing the fate of the hundreds left at Guantanamo Bay camp. (Sources: Rights pledge for Guantanamo detainees, 2006)            Ethics dictate that human rights should be followed and respected by everyone, towards everyone. Whether terrorists or not, these detainees are entitled to fair and proper treatment by their captors including such time that they are proven innocent and released, or proven guilty and elevated to a higher penalty. But the discussion of whether the treatment of the prisoners at Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay is right or wrong is highly subjective, and because self expression is a human right it is worth to respect every person’s view on the situation. However, the years of struggle for freedom by the prisoners in this prison camp in Cuba are all justifiable.            If we look at the issue in light of utilitarianism, we will be given the two sides of the coin. The first side is that of the people who are benefited by operation of Camp Delta and many other US prison camps all over the world. In this side, the inhumane treatment of the prisoners is right because it benefits themâ€â€makes them happy. It makes them happy because they are able to champion their country and their government against people who plotted against terrorism in the United States. It makes them happy because they are doing something noble and worthwhile. It makes them happy that they are getting even with people who may have played a part in the killing of many terror victims in the 9/11 attacks and many other terror attacks around the world. If they stop operating Camp Delta and close it down, it will reverse their emotions and give them the negative perception in return. This impending feeling of sadness makes shutting down Camp Delta wrong, as the utilitarian will say.            On the other hand, the situation does not make the hundreds of prisoners and their families happy. Their negative (sad) perception of the situation makes it wrong, as utilitarianism claims that whatever results in the reverse of happiness is wrong.            Psychological egoism agrees. It asserts that a person’s ultimate aim is one’s own welfare. It may appear that psychological egoism speaks about selfishness. The theory says that in fact people are always thinking about their own means and ends all the time. This can be seen with the Guantanamo prison case in hand clearly. In the Guantanamo Bay camp, self welfare was always on cue. Many situations in many news reports and coverage insist on the truth behind this theory in Camp Delta, and egoism was practiced by the authorities and the prisoners alike. Every guard, prisoner, officer, and all others act according to what will benefit themselves and their welfare more. While military personnel may be there for the service of the country, the government, and the countrymen that they are representing, it can also be claimed safely that they are there for the benefits that being a military person gives them and their family. The prisoners may say that they are innocent because they are really innocent, or because they fear that they will be killed if they say something or establish a connection with terrorism. Likewise, the real terrorists may admit what they know and give information for hopes of being freed or being treated more humanely. All of them are acting towards what they think will result in a more positive state for themselves. For instance, the suicide attempt of some prisoners is a result of their desire for a better state. They feel that they are in such a bad situation in the Guantanamo camp that death, be it self-inflicted, is the way out for them to achieve a better life than what they are receiving in prison. Reports saying that prisoners who cooperate and state information about terrorism are given special rights to live communally though under strict control are another reflection: prisoners may be revealing information to receive the privilege. The guards are in turn giving the privilege to encourage the prisoners to speak up, and because they want the information. There were also cases that have been reported where prisoners are given cups for good manners and cooperation, but many prisoners used these cups to throw urine or stool to guards; guards were quick in disciplining these prisoners in return. (Camp Delta: Guantanamo Bay, 2004) In light of psychological egoism, the action and reaction of both the guards and prisoners were theoretically correct as they aim for the welfare of themselves. The prisoners feel maligned, and they wanted to get even. They do this by throwing the cup of their waste to the guards. In return, the guards feel maligned too and will take an action to take control over the prisoners and their action, be it physical or psychological abuse. A matter of pride, and they are all results of one’s desire to save his own welfare. In this light, the action-reaction chain ongoing at Guantanamo are all legitimate and justifiable. So in totality, can the treatment of the detainees at Camp Delta be concluded as inhumane? Are they really not exercising human rights there at Guantanamo Bay? Again, at first thought, yes and no. The answer depends on who is answering the question. A person who values national security and justice for terrorism victims more will rejoice over events at Guantanamo Bay. On the other hand, a person who values parity and human rights more will most likely be moved by the events at Camp Delta and be dismayed. However, two philosophical theories assert that what is happening out there in Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay is wrong and worth one’s dismay. Kantian deontology states that right and wrong is determined by action, so an action is right or wrong regardless of its consequences. The ends do not and cannot justify the means. In a scenario or situation, an assessment of the situation itself is needed to know if it is right or wrong, and even if it made for the positive end if it is wrong it remains wrong. Likewise, a right move despite the negative end still remains right. In the case of treating the Guantanamo prisoners without regard for human rights, it should be assessed if the treatment is right. Ethically speaking, it is wrong because it violates and gives no regard to human rights. Sure, the treatment of these prisoners may lead to useful information about terror attacks and may help combat terrorism altogether. Sure it may promote world peace. Sure it will bring justice to terrorism victims. But all these do not matterâ€â€the violation of human rights is ethically wrong.            In light of virtue ethics, Camp Delta is treating its prisoners inhumanely. The government and its guards set aside patience and humility and hurt people without concrete evidences that these people have anything to do with the terror plots and attacks. The concern for security and to aid the nation’s injured pride for having been targeted by many successful terrorist attacks overshadowed the value of the human person, and that of brotherhood.            Utilitarianism states that the events at Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay Cuba is right and wrong depending on which side of the fence a person is in, and if the events make him happy or not. Psychological egoism seconds this, as a person values himself and aims to protect his welfare. On the contrary, Kantian deontology and virtue ethics state that the prisoners at Camp Delta are indeed being maltreated because, primarily, the action itself is wrong and despite the arguments on expected positive results it is still wrong. Second, the actions against the prisoners act against established virtues. But philosophy and theories aside, ethics dictate that prisoners be treated with respect and be given due process. If the authorities can do this, the majority will be happy, egoism takes its course positively, actions will be deemed proper, and virtues will not be violatedâ€â€and there will be no argument about human rights violations at Guantanamo, or anywhere else, ever. References: Camp Delta: Guantanamo Bay. 2004. Retrieved March 31, 2007, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/16/60II/main573616.shtml Medrano, M. 2006. Supreme Court Rejects Appeal of Guantanamo Bay Detainees. Retrieved March 31, 2007, from http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=1851981&page=1 Sources: Rights pledge for Guantanamo detainees. 2006. Retrieved March 31, 2007, from http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/11/guantanamo.geneva/index.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.