Guantanamo Bay – the American gulag

In this blog, I have been steadfastly critical of the United States military run detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. For the past month, I decided to sit back and review world opinion on this very issue. My last article reported on the release of the UN report released by special rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak which condemned the camp and the treatment of prisoners, and demanded the immediate closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility. At the time, I had predicted that the US propaganda machine would soon come into full force.

I was not disappointed.


Hypocrisy: the US reply to the UN

A few days later, the White House press secretary Scott McClellan was in full double-speak mode. McClellan states:

“The United Nations should be making serious investigations across the world, and there are many instances in which they do when it comes to human rights. This was not one of them … And I think it's a discredit to the UN when a team like this goes about rushing to report something when they haven't even looked into the facts, all they've done is look at the allegations.”

The hypocrisy is simply stunning, almost as much as the acquiescence of the American news media. It is no secret the UN has repeatedly asked for access to Guantanamo Bay for years, and when the US finally agreed, it still refused access to the prisoners. In the investigation of the claims of torture, the US Administration has denied the paramount key for “looking into the facts”.

Says Manfred Nowak:

“Those persons either have to be released immediately or they should be brought to a proper and competent court and tried for the offences they are charged with.”

This sentiment strikes at the heart of the issue. Habeas corpus. If the detainees are suspected criminals, then they should be formally charged before a fair court. If there is insufficient evidence (or as suspected, that in many cases that there is no evidence), then they should either be released or treated as prisoners of war.


FBI criticism of interrogation techniques

In late February 2006, more information of dissent within the US intelligence community came to light. Specifically, memos and emails from FBI officials investigating terrorism suspects in Guantanamo Bay revealed that they “strenuously objected” to the techniques used by the military. Wrote one FBI agent in May 2003:

“Although [General] Miller acknowledged positive aspects of this approach [FBI-approved methods], it was apparent that he favoured Defence Humint Service's interrogation methods, despite FBI claims that such methods could easily result in the elicitation of unreliable and legally inadmissible information.”

There is no ambiguity here. The FBI officials at Guantanamo Bay clearly viewed that the interrogation tactics used by the military as amounting to torture. The common argument against the use of torture from a practical (rather than ethical) point of view is that it results in “unreliable information” and that the information would simply be “legally inadmissible”. Although the United States has played semantics with the definition of “torture”, it is still officially illegal.

Interestingly enough, the man responsible for the Guantanamo Bay detention centre at the time, Major-General Geoffrey Miller, has since been in command of the Abu Graib prison since the exposition of the abuses of prisoners by the US military. Later in mid-2005, discrepancies emerged in Miller’s May 2004 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and testimony he made 3 months later regarding information he did (or did not) give to Defence Secretary Rumsfeld and his aides. Predictably, the “discrepancies” conveniently shielded Rumsfeld from knowing anything about the Abu Graib abuses.


International consensus

The calls to close Guantanamo Bay have been clear and unanimous. Steadfast ally and member number two in the “coalition of the willing” the United Kingdom has repeated made its view known. Prime Minister Tony Blair has stated that:

“[Guantanamo Bay is] an anomaly that sooner or later has to be dealt with.”

Unlike the prime minister, the British House of Commons is somewhat less timid with its views:

“…Britain should make loud and public the Government’s objections to Guantanamo Bay rather than discuss the camp with the US behind the scenes.”

High profiled Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General and Archbishop Desmond Tutu have joined the condemnation of the camp. Although Annan, the consummate diplomat stated rather sedately that the detention centre must close “as soon as is possible”, Desmond Tutu held back no punches. He says:

“Are you able to restore to those people the time when their freedom was denied them? If you have evidence for goodness sake produce it in a court of law.” and “People with power have an incredible capacity for wanting to be able to retain that power and don't like scrutiny.”

Medical complicity in Guantanamo Bay

Forced feeding of the inmates participating in hunger strikes is an extremely disturbing revelation. The code of ethics adopted by medical practitioners world wide, including the United States, specifically forbids force feeding. This was codified by the World Medical Association in the Declaration of Tokyo of 1975. The fifth point states:

“Where a prisoner refuses nourishment and is considered by the doctor as capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgement concerning the consequences of such voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed artificially. The decision as to the capacity of the prisoner to form such a judgement should be confirmed by at least one other independent doctor. The consequences of the refusal of nourishment shall be explained by the doctor to the prisoner.”

Doctors in Guantanamo Bay force-feeding prisoners are committing a serious breach of their ethical duty. An open letter submitted to The Lancet published on March 11, 2006 condemned the practice of force-feeding under restraint the Guantanamo Bay detainees on hunger strike. There were over 250 signatories to the letter; many worldwide medical experts. Says Dr William Hopkins, one of the signatories:

“Doctors force-feeding prisoners at Guantanamo are acting as an arm of the military and have abrogated their medical-ethical duties.”

It has furthermore been revealed that health care workers have been “ethically screened” before deployment to Guantanamo Bay to ensure that they do not have ethical objections to “assisted” feeding. This is an unconscionably practice by the US military.

The relevant professional bodies in the United States should immediately launch an investigation and severe disciplinary measures placed upon any health professional who have breached these serious ethical standards. Consent and patient autonomy are fundamental pillars of medical ethics and cannot be casually brushed aside.

There are two vivid examples of subversion of health professionals into committing “crimes for the state” in modern history; it occurred during World War II in Fascist Germany and Imperial Japan. It seems almost unimaginable that the United States would tread down the same path 60 years later.

Sources:
BBC: US Attacks UN Guantanamo report
SMH: FBI objected to aggressive methods at Guantanamo
BBC: Annan backs UN Guantanamo demand
BBC: Tutu calls for Guantanamo closure
BBC: Doctors attack US over Guantanamo
NS: Doctors decry force-feeding at Guantanamo Bay
WMA: The Declaration of Tokyo (1975)
Lancet: Forcefeeding and restraint of Guantanamo Bay hunger strikers (Lancet Vol. 367, Number 9513, 11 March 2006)