A growing number of voices are sharply questioning the sub-animal treatment being meted out to Muslims captured in Afghanistan by the U.S. and its proxies. While such voices are largely muted within the U.S., some world figures are risking their futures in speaking out against this violation of human rights. These voices argue that transporting prisoners in chains to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and keeping them in open cages strikes people from all parts of the political spectrum as a denial of civilized values. It undermines, they insist, any claim the U.S. and its Western allies may have to moral superiority.

The U.S.-led coalition against terrorism depends on a moral distinction that it is trying to raise distinguishing between terrorists and adversaries. The international cooperation that it embodies has been crucial in providing intelligence about the U.S.’s adversaries, leading to the arrests of suspects globally. All this will be jeopardized if the U.S. is seen to violate international standards in the treatment of prisoners.

U.S. President George W. Bush has not only dropped an atom bomb on the Geneva Conventions governing treatment of prisoners during war, designed to protect their rights, but also America's own constitutional guarantees for defendants. The reality of what is happening to Afghan prisoners is a scandal of international proportions. Brutalized, often tortured, these are men who have been stripped of their most basic rights under international and U.S. law, rights guaranteed at the International Tribunal in the Hague even for the alleged architects of the genocide in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

One example of mental torture U.S. captors are subjecting prisoners held in Cuba is "sensory deprivation". Pictures released of the men show them blindfolded, tightly shackled and forced to wear facemasks, ear covers and gloves, denying them use of key senses. Amnesty International said the pictures were "shocking" and showed the men were being "softened up" for interrogation.

Jack Straw, British foreign secretary, has asked for an explanation and reminded the U.S. of its human rights obligations. Straw, responding to a growing chorus of condemnation from human rights groups and British politicians, issued a statement saying: "Prisoners, regardless of their technical status, should be treated humanely and in accordance with customary international law."

The growing outcry over the treatment of al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners was joined by Justice Richard Goldstone, head of a new taskforce set up by the International Bar Association to examine how international law should deal with terrorist groups in the wake of the September 11 attacks. 

"At the very least, if they are going to be tried they should be tried with a U.S. Federal Court," Goldstone said. "What I cannot understand is why the Bush administration is frightened of its own American judges.

"These prisoners are being asked to make confessions without any knowledge of what crimes they may be charged with, which seems to be against every principle of the rule of law."

The Archbishop of Wales, the Most Reverend Dr. Rowan Williams, the leading contender to become the next Archbishop of Canterbury - spiritual leader of the world's 77 million Anglican Christians - has not only attacked the West's war against terrorism, denouncing military action in Afghanistan as "morally tainted" but also the sub-animal treatment of prisoners in Camp X-Ray.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's remark that he does "not feel even the slightest concern over their treatment" represents a failure to understand why international standards in the treatment of prisoners are important. It is not just for the sake of the prisoners, but also because observance of international standards generally, and the coalition cause, may be in jeopardy if the U.S. ignores basic norms.

The U.S. implausibly insists that it is not a party to the war, that, in other words, it claims it is merely assisting anti-Taliban forces rather than prosecuting a war. Rumsfeld has argued: "They will be handled not as prisoners of war, because they're not, but as unlawful combatants. The, as I understand it, technically unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention. We have indicated that we plan to ... treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva Conventions, to the extent they are appropriate."

The U.S., Afghanistan and virtually all states, are parties to the 1949 Geneva Prisoner of War Convention III. Article 2 says that the convention applies to "all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict ... between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them". So the existence of a formal state of war - an issue much discussed in the media - is not necessary for application of the convention.

Perhaps the U.S. argues that "anti-terrorist operations", thus justifying the cruel treatment, are not covered by Article 4 of the Convention, which spells out who is entitled to prisoner-of-war status, stating that prisoners held at Camp X-ray do not meet these criteria. Lawful combatants entitled to PoW status, comprise the organized armed forces of a state. They also include "members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a party to the conflict," provided they fulfill certain conditions: there must be a command structure, arms must be carried openly, and operations must be conducted in accord with the laws of war. Even if members of regular armed forces are under a regime that is not recognized as the lawful government of the state, they qualify for PoW status.

This argument may satisfy some in the case of prisoners of the unrecognized al-Qaeda organization, but even Article IV cannot be used to exclude the Taliban because they were recognized by three member-signatories of the Convention, and even the U.S. used to do business with them, rewarding them for controlling drug production and enforcing order in disorderly Afghanistan.

And Article 5 of the Geneva Convention provides that, in cases of doubt, prisoners shall be treated as PoWs "until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal". This article does not specify the nature of the "competent tribunal", but the Pentagon has already announced a regular procedure for it.

Ironically, the U.S. has repeatedly voted in the U.N. Security Council for observance of the Geneva Conventions even in conflicts, such as civil wars, to which their full application is debatable: it did so on a resolution on Afghanistan on August 28, 1998. The United States' failure to presently follow this obvious and simple procedure is typical of its cavalier attitude in this crisis.

In 1999, Serbian forces arrested three U.S. soldiers during the NATO war over Kosova. The U.S. immediately and rightly demanded (and secured compliance) that they be treated as PoWs - even though they did not meet all of the normal criteria. It is argued that if the U.S. allows the impression to grow that it cares little about international standards on prisoners, it risks encouraging a general lowering of standards. However, the reality is that the U.S. got its way because it had to firepower to sustain its demand.

Ironically, the British, who have been obliged to question their war leader, the U.S., about conditions at Guantanamo are hiding equally horrifying treatment in their own backyard. Opposition politicians have called for an immediate investigation into conditions at the Belmarsh high-security prison in southeast London, where seven Muslim suspects have been held without charge since their arrest in December 2001. The Belmarsh detainees are locked up for 22 hours a day and do not see daylight; they have also been denied prayer facilities except for 15 minutes on a Friday, that too, without an imam. The detainees - not convicted of any offence - have been denied access to lawyers and had their basic human rights violated.

Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said, “The war on terrorism was meant to be a war on behalf of civilized values. It is crucial that the values we hold dear are upheld. Otherwise, this military victory will be undermined by a moral defeat. We are concerned for the treatment of Muslim prisoners in Belmarsh. Their dietary and their religious requirements should be respected above all.”

Ruling through Terror

The niceties of the legal and philosophical argument, however, hardly matter. What does matter is that the U.S.’s inhuman actions shift the focus of moral outrage from the carnage at Ground Zero in New York City to the condition of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Since support for the war against terrorism is crucial to winning it, that change in focus is dangerous. A senior British government source has described Rumsfeld as a “magnet for trouble”.

Critics of the American policy point out that the war on terrorism, far from being "won", has only just started: to neutralize al-Qaeda, and groups like it. The U.S., they say, will need public support for a war that it says can go on for years. These critics question that is it really worth risking that support in order to keep a few Muslims in chains and open-air cages at Guantanamo?

The U.S. right wing seems to take a different approach, arguing the Muslim street is quite because it has seen the ferocity of U.S. air power in Afghanistan. Not only the Muslim street, but also indeed Muslim rulers are bowed down and obediently accept diktats without a murmur. And, of course, no Muslim government has spoken on behalf of its own citizens. Thus, the right wing wants to make the prisoners held in Cuba an example for the world that anyone who dares oppose the U.S. would be treated in a sub-animal manner, and no laws or international conventions would matter.

Brigadier-General Mike Lehnert, in charge of security at Guantanamo Bay says: "We are being guided by the Geneva conventions." The term "guided by" serves two serious purposes. First, if they were officially categorized as prisoners of war, the U.S. would lose their right to interrogate them beyond establishing their name, rank and military number. These men are being held, first and foremost, to help hunt for new facts that can be fitted into the far-from complete mosaic of al-Qaeda. This is why Washington has not yet released the names of those it is holding.

But there is a second, subtler reason the detainees are not declared prisoners of war. The U.S. is out to avenge September 11, and this is a war of example. The world has seen how U.S. military power has wrecked al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. It is now seeing what happens to those who are taken prisoner. Rightly or wrongly, the U.S. calculates that others tempted to take up arms against it may have second thoughts.

The articles posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors. Views Archive Advanced Search Views & Analyses