Ever since its inception, the terrorist prisoner-of-war camp at Guantanamo Bay has been a center of controversy for not only foreign governments, but also independent human rights organizations.
The situation took a turn for the worse last month when Newsweek published an article about supposed desecrations of the Koran by prison guards at Gitmo, which caused a hailstorm of violent riots in the Middle East. While the story was eventually retracted, the controversy continued with newer reports by Amnesty International that compared the jail to a Soviet-era gulag. Given the shocking twists and turns of this situation, it comes as no surprise that the controversy around Gitmo has turned into another political debate, which in Washington, D.C. just means senseless bickering.
The Democrats reacted with their trademark strategy, which included a lot of criticism but no solutions. The crux of their argument is that the camp should be shut down so as to curb these abuses. But, the Democrats did not articulate a plan of action after the end of Gitmo. This is counterintuitive because the federal government would then be forced to release all of the inmates, many of whom are known terrorists who continually plot the demise of the United States. Opening up a new camp will not solve the problem because it will be the same people running the same exact camp with the same exact inmates. We cannot afford to close down Gitmo.
Like every partisan debate, the Republicans also reacted without any thinking in defending Gitmo. Representative Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chair of the House Armed Services Committee, argued in a televised press conference that prisoners are treated very well, citing the lemon-fish and oven-baked chicken feasts that inmates are served. Here is the problem: I don't really care how well prisoners in Gitmo have it.
Amnesty International pointed to very specific human rights violations in the report it released, which had nothing to do with the quality of food but rather with the sexual nature of the interrogation techniques used. For all I care, prisoners could be served a seven-course meal everyday and still be abused in the interrogation room. Republicans simply did not answer the criticism with this defense.
But perhaps the most atrocious argument many Republicans have made is that inmates in Gitmo do not deserve rights or lawyers simply because they are terrorists. Vice President Cheney argued in an interview on FOX News' "Hannity & Colmes," "The important thing here to understand is that the people that are at Guantanamo are bad people."
Given that detainees were rounded up under mass chaos of war, we cannot be sure that everyone who passes through Gitmo is a proven terrorist with intentions to kill. Not everyone there is guilty. Many inmates could have been mistaken for killers in the confusion that is inherent in fighting a battle. The U.S. government is obligated to treat all of its prisoners with respect. The logic that we are allowed to treat detainees horribly because they want to kill us is disgusting. Republicans have become so tied up in supporting their President that they have ceased to intelligently think about their defense.
While it is apparent that there have been abuses, the best and most civilized way to solve this problem is with an independent committee overseeing Gitmo's activities. More importantly, while I don't advocate full legal representation for prisoners, I think there needs to be some legal counsel available. Prisoners at Gitmo do not know the legal proceedings that they are about to go through and it is only fair to them that they are fully aware of what rights they are afforded.
This point becomes even more valid when there is a possibility of innocent inmates at this camp. But, I don't anticipate anything will be done about this situation. The Democrats will continue to attack. The Republicans will continue to tune out.
In the end, it will be politics as usual in this great land we call home.
Uven Chong is a mechanical engineering sophomore. Reach him at uven.chong@asu.edu.
