High Security Detention Camps of Abu Gharib in Iraq Research Paper

Abstract

This paper is going to take a critical look at high security detention camps of Abu gharib in Iraq, Guantanamo in Cuba that are used by the united states of America to detain terrorists suspects. The terrorists captured all over the world after September 11 were taken to Guantanamo bay Cuba where they have been suspected to torture which contradicts the Geneva convection. The paper goes on to examine the Abu Ghraib detention camp in and Iraq, and further explore the implication of rendition policy of the United States. In addition this paper will also examine the Geneva convection and hoe the policies of America relate to it. More so, a critical look of long term effects of the united states contravening the Geneva convection will be analyzed and a conclusion made that America need to respect rule of law and that the Geneva convection is important aspect in protection of POWs

Introduction

The Bush administration in 2002 made a determination that members of Taliban and al Qaeda who were captured should be treated as enemy combatants. The pentagon and the white house together with the justice department agreed that the captured prisoners had no rights in federal law or under the Geneva convections. The findings were endorsed by President Bush. The United States new that, it was going to fight along and fierce “war on terror” than before. Gaining quick access to intelligence was viewed as vital and important, to achieve this, the administration knew that they had to gain information through interrogation means that could only be done when neither covered by united states or the civil rights movements or the Geneva convection (Greenberg and Dratel, 2005).

Abu Ghraib prisons in Iraq

Abu Ghraib is an Iraq city that came to be known for the torture and also prisoner abuse scandal where Iraq detainees were tortured by United States military this was revealed through a number of photographs that appeared in world news media the pictured showed prisoners being sexually abused or humiliate or tortured by the United States soldiers. These lead to world wide out cry and change of policy by the military. Though, the scandal was being treated as committed by a few “rogue” soldiers, it was later discovered that it as widespread and many other cases were reported (Greenberg and Dratel, 2005). This put the United States under sport light on how it is treating the detainees in the Abu Ghraib camp.

Guantanamo Bay prisoners

In the year 2002 the United States started to imprison Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners that it captured in Afghanistan or anywhere else in its “global war on terror” at the American Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GITMO) as with the case of the prisoners in the Abu Ghraib in the year 2003, reports, shortly started to surface alleging that prisoners at the GITMO were being treated badly, and in some cases they were being tortured. The reports made the United States administration credibility and image to be questioned by various agencies as they criticized the way prisoners were being handled at the GITMO. The council of Europe’s parliamentary assembly in 2005 said that the United States administration had betrayed its set principles, and Guantanamo Bay was A SHAME, it urged the United States to apply international human rights laws to all detainees from Afghanistan.

Rendition of suspects

Rendition is a tool that is rarely used by the central investigation agency (CIA), it can be defined as the policy where by suspects are taken into United States custody, to taken to another third party to be interrogated or imprisoned. The prisoner in this case need not have spent any time in United States soil, and therefore is not given access to the United States courts. This policy also has lead to a lot of outcry by human rights groups, the groups allege that, this suspects on most cases are send back to countries where they are tortured as these prisoners are not afforded protection by international law or by the United States laws. For many people, the policy of rendition violets the very rights that America stands for, and thus it undermines the image of America when it most needs it. Rendition goes against the Geneva convection and thus, brings to question the moral of carrying it out. The provision puts the burden of proving that a suspect will be tortured to the person.

This rendition clearly goes against the Geneva Convention against torture as stated in article 3 that declare that there should be no torture and other cruel, dehumanizing and or degrading treatment or punishment it particularly blocks this practice; by stating that;

1. No nation should force out, return or repatriate a person to other nation where there is considerable evidence for believing that the person will be in great danger of being tortured.
2. For the sake of establishing whether there is such evidence, the capable authorities should take into consideration all relevant contemplation including, where necessary, the existence in the nation concerned of any consistent example of gross, individual or mass abuse of human rights.

The Geneva convection

A lot of attention has been given to United States governments in recent times in regard that terror suspects sometimes called “enemy combatants” should not be given protection that is normally given to prisoners of war (POWs) that is outlined in the Geneva conventions. The administration argues that terrorist threat has lead to a new war and the Geneva convection does not cover this kind of war. The United States points out that in some cases the conventions are “obsolete.” The argument has brought a lot of controversy, leading to various scholars to debate the merit and demerits of such approach. There may be limitations in the Geneva convections in current form in addressing the current war challenges as it focuses on limited types of wars. However, the solution to the problem can not overlooking the Geneva convection like the United States is doing. In addition, the solution should not be narrowed down to terrorist threat alone. In stead the United States and the rest of the world should regenerate the Geneva convections so that it can take into account all the various challenges that are being posed by modern day wars.

The United States itself has a long and strong significance in extending Geneva-type shelter to various spectrums of wars. It is clear that the Geneva convection offers the best available protection for American soldiers in conflicts areas and beyond. If this protection is removed or rules on war are ignored then, the Americans soldiers are going also to be in great danger. More so, fighting terrorism needs international cooperation, the convection offers a good base for building this international cooperation. In addition it is apparent that, the United States requires regaining moral support and credibility with a lot of countries to win terror war. Making the convections more strong and broad will solicit a grater support from the international community in war on terror, rather than neglecting the convections, it will make the United States long term policy to be also rejected with other nations that feel that the United States is being self centered in the international policies.

The Geneva convections and the U.S policy

The 1949 Geneva convections were built on various earlier international convections concerning the behavior of war. The convection offers to protect victims of war and stipulate that the nations should be able to assist the wounded. These then later extended to include prisoners of wars (POWs). What is being recognized today as the Geneva convections are four convections that were signed in 1949, that focused on injured or wounded soldiers, naval forces, POWs and also civilians were included. The convections outline who should be regarded as a member of these groups and stipulate the rights that they should be awarded, most of these rights focus on the protection and humiliation or any harm. The convection also outline that the civilians should be differentiate from combatants.

The Geneva convection after September 11 in the United States

The United States based on two main arguments to make conclusion that POWs from war of terror were not covered by the Geneva convections protection. The two reason were based on memo from Alberto Gonzales who was white house advisor who argued the Geneva convection did not apply to al Qaeda since it was not a nation, since there were not party to any international agreement that governs the war (Seymour, 2005). The second argument was that since Afghanistan was a state without a central government, the Taliban should not get the protection of Geneva convection. This was because, the Taliban were not recognized by the international community. Another argument was that the Taliban detainees did not fail into convection definition of soldiers thus, did not deserve the status of POWs.

Long term consequences

The long term effects brought about by America disregarding the Geneva convections in its policy may not be felt in recent times. The most critical issue that in declaring the convection not applicable to detainees of war on terror, it reversed the progressive made in supporting the Geneva convection and undermined the very protection of law of war for the United States soldiers in specific and also general war (Seymour, 2005). This thus, has the implication that, other countries may in future fail to uphold the Geneva convection and the United States will have no legal or moral authorities to refrain such countries. Not even if they have captured the United States soldiers. In the case of Abu Ghraib scandal, where prisoners were touched in disregard of Geneva convection the authorities in white house continued to say the Geneva convection “did not apply precisely” in Iraq (Galula, 2006). These violations of the international convections in long term will make the international convection be irrelevant because no country will want to follow them. If such a situation arise it will be hard to control the situation, the policy that are being put up today by the United States will greatly affect the future. Another impact of contravening the Geneva convection and continuing to torture detainees in various detaining camps will erode the credibility of the justice system of the United States. The law if not respected can not lead to justice, getting information from prisoners under torture brings the question of validity of such evidence. This in long run will make the national and international community to doubt the very justice of America (Galula, 2006).

Conclusion

The United States as a duty to protect liberty and justice, these principles are true and right for all the people. No one nation owns these objectives and no nation should be exempted from them. In its role as protector of these aspirations the United States has carried out some policies that have gone wrong from the start, and implementing them have proved to be costly. The United States should not encourage torture of prisoners in those camps because it is contravening the Geneva convection, and not obeying the convention will lead to other countries disobeying the convection. The United States long term polices will be adversely affected, as the super power the country should uphold rule of law.

References

1. Burke, J. (2004): Al Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam (London, UK: I.B. Taurus.
2. Caan, C. and Serwer, D (2005): Is this Any Way to Run an Occupation? Legitimacy, Governance, and Sustainability in Post-Conflict Iraq (Washington D.C.: The United States Institute of Peace.
3. Dana, P and Gellman, B (2002): U.S. decries abuse but defends interrogations; Washington Post.
4. Galula, D. (2006): Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers,
5. Greenberg, K and Dratel, J. (2005): Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib edited by Jessica Howard New York, US: Cambridge University Press.
6. Seymour, M. L (2005): Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy, the American Political Science Review
7. The White House (2002): The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
8. Seymour M. H (2005): Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib (New York, NY: Perennial.
9. Risen, J and Neil A. L (2004): “Scrutiny worries CIA interrogators,” New York Times,