Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs Guantanamo unconstitutional?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 54% | 83 votes | Total: 155 votes | |
| No | 46% | 72 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIn a strictly technical sense, there may be a way of proving that the establishment of Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay does not contravene any specific clause of the American Constitution or its amendments, but you then have to ask why it was placed where it is. Surely this was to avoid any challenges in the US courts as to its legitimacy, and so that actions could be performed there that would not be permitted on the US mainland.
In other words, Camp Delta is where it is for the sole purpose of being beyond the reach of the US Constitution, and in that sense it is unconstitutional.
How ever, despite the legal niceties, it is surely the case that its establishment is an affront to human dignity and panders to the very worst excesses of American paranoia about Islam. It has proved counter-productive in terms of winning "hearts and minds" and is a major cause of anti-Americanism, not only in the Moslem world but generally. It is therefore an embarrassment and a huge mistake.
It was originally populated by captives taken from Afghanistan in the first few months of Bush's "War on Terror". Many young men were rounded up from supposed training camps and other places, with no investigation made as to the guilt or otherwise of the individuals concerned. No doubt there were some people who had fought on behalf of the Taleban, but many others were merely sympathisers, and others were entirely innocent. For example, four young men from the UK had gone to a friend's wedding in Pakistan. They paid a visit over the border merely to see what was going on and found themselves trapped there when the Americans arrived. They spent years in Guantanamo before being released.
Detention without trial is surely unconstitutional, as is mistreatment of prisoners of war.
The punishment meted out to the captives was (and is) nothing short of torture, which is banned in every civilised country in the world. For one thing, it surely counts as "cruel and unusual punishment", which I believe is a protection under the US constitution. The US government even came up with the brilliant notion of avoiding their constitutional duties, and the requirements of the Geneva Convention, by flying prisoners off to countries where torture was not illegal and carrying out their interrogations there.
The fact remains that not only is torture a violation of human rights, it doesn't work either. How can you tell whether information gained under torture is reliable? If a prisoner says something just to make the pain go away, how does that add to your knowledge?
No. The whole way in which the US has handled this business is a gross affront to human dignity and is the act of a stupid government run by a President with the intelligence of a retarded ant. Good governments take actions that further their best interests. To act in ways that alienate even your friends, and to turn moderate Moslem opinion against you, is hardly good government.
Whether Guantanamo is in breach of US law is not the real issue. It is surely a violation of international law and its legacy will continue to harm the West for many years to come.
Learn more about this author, John Welford.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The media has merged two different situations happening in the same place. Guantanamo (or Gitmo as it is known by Marines stationed there) is a US Navy/Marine base that was forcibly taken in time of war. While the question of whether or not we should still occupy this position is up for debate. Keeping control of territory that was "legally" taken in a war is completely constitutional. It may have fallen out of favor in modern times, but it is not illegal.
The other issue that has been morphed into the same situation is the fact that the US government has used the fact that the base is located in a foreign country for dubious reasons. Since it is a military base, things that seem normal in the continental US, don't apply. There is no free access for the press. Or even the basic human rights that a prisoner could expect being incarcerated in say Florida.
After the 9/11 attacks, which the US government used to its advantage in every possible way, the accused terrorists were held at this facility. The key point to that statement is accused. There are still people being held there almost 8 years after the fact that still haven't even been charged yet. The last time I heard we didn't subscribe to the Napoleonic law code. By our laws you are innocent until you have been found guilty. Not held in captivity until enough evidence can be found to convict you.
Even though a US military base is considered American territory, it is still outside our borders. Since Gitmo is a hostile base the rules are different. Humiliation, torture, and religious persecution can all happen and be covered up by that all powerful "top secret" stamp that the military and the government can use. On top of that our newest police state agency of Homeland Security have made it their own theme park.
What has happened at the base are wrong, unconstitutional, and against the concepts that Americans claim to live by. The press has made these actions synonymous with the military base. Curse the actions that have taken place there and the officials that order and condone them, but don't confuse it with what Gitmo is.
For whatever reason you choose to believe in or disagree with, we have kept the area of the base and not returned it to Cuba. That is not unconstitutional. The two are not interchangeable just because as of late the same name is used for both situations.
So the military base of Guantanamo is a perfectly legal aspect of the US military. That makes the question of unconstitutionality easily answered.
Torturing, and holding detainees without formal charges or legal representation is definitely against the constitution, a document that use to mean something but is now changed at the stroke of a pen of certain government agencies. Separate the two items, then it becomes a valid question.
Learn more about this author, T. Scott Randolph.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- War & Peace
- War madness: Is India taking Asia towards destablization?
- Should the U.S. send more troops to afghanistan?
- Should America or other powers charge for liberating the oppressed in other countries?
- Should Tony Blair be the lead Mideast envoy in upcoming peace talks in Egypt?
- Is it possible to control international arms trading?
- Should the US government continue to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through Emergency Supplemental legislation instead of through the Pentagon's base budget?
