Piers Mostyn

The US Supreme Court has found that article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to all detainees, whether prisoners of war, civilians or so-called unlawful combatants in the “war on terror”.

They are therefore legally entitled to humane treatment “in all circumstances”. Trials must be under “regularly constituted courts affording all the judicial guarantees”. Torture, cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment are prohibited.

Although the court’s decision has no direct impact on the continued use of Guantanamo, it has profound ramifications for the whole “war on terror” and the use of such showpiece gulags.

In early 2002, when the first batch of 20 men were flown out to the Guantanamo camp on Cuba, shackled, handcuffed and blinded by blacked-out goggles – Bush proclaimed that the Geneva Conventions had no application.

Since then over 750 inmates have passed through the camp. Over the years the indefinite detention of these detainees without trial has been determined as cruel and degrading treatment by leading human rights organisations who have called for the camp to be closed.

A study by New Jersey Law school found that 90 per cent of the detainees had nothing to do with terrorism. The supposed plan was for the men to be tried before quasi “military tribunals”, which the court has now denounced as a total abrogation of basic rights. But only 10 were even charged.

Those from Britain who have been returned to this country have been released into the community despite government powers first to detain without trial and then to impose house arrest against those deemed a “threat”.

Three years ago the Red Cross took the unusual step of making public its concern that the regime was having severe psychological repercussions. Hundreds of detainees have engaged in attempts at self harm.

By 2003, 20 per cent were on anti-depressants because of isolation, humiliating interrogations, sleep deprivation and despair. Last month three succeeded in committing suicide.

The response of high level officials – “this is a good PR move” and “an act of asymmetrical warfare” – was denounced by Amnesty International as “showing a chilling disregard for human life”. The comments were then hurriedly disowned.

The beginning of the end came in 2004 when, in an earlier case, the Supreme Court ruled that inmates were entitled to challenge their detention in US courts.

There seems little doubt that, for all its narrowness – technically only applying to the small number charged to appear before one of the tribunals – this judgement undercuts the whole operation.

The logic should apply to all detainees held by the United States in the “War on terror” – including all those at Guantanamo, Bag ram, “ghost detainees” at secret prisons and the use of coercive interrogation techniques.

If carried through to its logical conclusion all these detainees have to be bought before a lawful court – civil or court martial – or be released.

But there is no possibility now that 95 per cent of them would ever be tried – there was never the evidence or what there is completely tainted (for instance in deriving from torture or other unlawful treatment).

Of course there is little chance of a mass release in the short term. Bush has been ignoring the 2004 ruling for two years – condemned by Bill Goodman of the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights that represents 200 Guantanamo detainees as “breaking American law and undermining America’s stature in the process”. Nonetheless this is a political defeat, given how much Bush has staked on the issue.

Some have claimed that Guantanamo and the “military tribunals” were a rushed policy that went wrong. But there is little to support such claims. It was a well-thought out strategy that was deliberately continued in the face of universal condemnation for years.

Its function was to serve as a lesson to anyone standing in the way of the new imperial order, particularly Muslims. A modern equivalent of Vlad the Impaler, impaling bodies on stakes on the outskirts of town in Transylvania or Catholic priests swinging from gibbets at cross-roads in 16th Century England.

The detainees were seen as hostages to be held until “victory” – or such moment when their release would be symbolic of US power rather than weakness. Exactly the same thinking lies behind the Israeli detention of thousands of Palestinians, many without charge or trial.

The mistake made was in thinking that victory would come soon and that opposition would be insignificant. The combination of a debilitating drawn out war in Iraq and Afghanistan, growing opposition at home and a global radicalisation against military imperialism has turned Guantanamo into a rallying point for protest.

The Supreme Court decision, reflecting the British House of Lords decision on internment without trial in 2004, was really about the limits of untrammelled US imperial power, about the character of the “war” and those subject to it. It didn’t result from some new outbreak of liberalness.

This is a wing of the US state that has shown itself to be a cornerstone of the right. The judgement reflects profound splits in the ruling class over the whole strategy. It is part of the same dynamic that saw a brace of ex-generals speak out over the war and even neo-cons criticising Rumsfeld.

All are propelled by much deeper divisions, widespread and increasingly visible across society.

So when Bush said, as he did several times prior to the ruling, that he’d like to close down the camp, he was just waiting for guidance from the court as to whether trials should be civil or military – he was bluffing.

Of course it won’t be the end of such detention. But the field of manoeuvre for US imperialism has certainly narrowed – as the furore over the collaboration of European states like Britain with the “extraordinary rendition” flights has also shown. It all depends on the continued mobilisation of mass opposition, particularly in the USA itself.

Freed Prisoner Speaks Out

Tami Peterson

Former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg spoke to a packed room of around 80 people at Oxford house in Bethnal Green at a meeting organised by Youth Respect in Tower Hamlets on June 28th along with two recently elected Respect councilors.

He began by addressing the recent deaths in Guantanamo, maintaining that neither he nor the families had any reason to believe that these were in fact suicides and not murders. Regardless of this, the one thing that was clear was that the responsibility for the deaths lay firmly in the hands of the US government.

Begg spoke about his conversation while in Camp Echo with a guard known as “Kelvin” who was from the US Virgin Islands. He recalled that Kelvin, while technically being an American, was not treated as such by the other guards but instead looked down upon. Moazzam drew parallels from US history when he said to Kelvin “You know the last time that people with dark skin were forcibly brought to this part of the world in chains was during the slave trade. Those were your ancestors.” The young guard agreed.

Moazzam questioned the charges of “war crimes” brought against Bin Laden’s driver Hamdan (who recently won his appeal to the US Supreme Court on military tribunals) by pointing to actual war crimes which have been carried out in the Balkans and making the point that Hamdan was never told what the charges were for. Since Hamdan was at one point a member of the Taliban, he was charged with “attempted murder”. This was based on the US military contention that because he had been a member of the Taliban before the invasion of Afghanistan, even though he was not armed or a member when arrested, he could’ve attempted to murder Americans in Afghanistan had he been a member at the time of the invasion. It is this strange logic with which the supposed “war on terror” is being fought.

Moazzam had just come from visiting two families of British residents who remain in Guantanamo, one of whom has had a child born since he has been in and a daughter who remains afraid of anyone in uniform, asking her mother “Are they the ones that took my father?”

He again reiterated that because the US government does not have a definition of the crimes committed, no punishments can be given and prisoners wait in eternal limbo.

Begg then talked about his experiences of torture at the hands of various guards in Bagram air base in Afghanistan. This is where he witnessed two prisoners being beaten to death and said that it was worse to watch another’s beating and humiliation than to bear your own. He told of old men being denied hearing aids and children as young as 11 years old being detained there.

He said that “thinking soldier is an oxymoron” because most American soldiers there believed in “Operation Enduring Freedom” and that they were fighting for the freedom of their country. Moazzam made an important observation in that it was not ever America’s freedom that was at risk however much its security may have been. He maintained that a country’s freedom is only ever at risk when the government that you live under begins to diminish that freedom. He then looked at the absolute failed logic of the “war on terror” and questioned why something that was designed to stop terrorism has helped to create more terrorism than existed before.

As in his book “Enemy Combatant”, Begg told of the conversations and sometimes contradictory views of those who were guarding someone who was considered to be one of the “most dangerous terrorists on the planet.” One of the guards referring to Guantanamo remarked that it was “One of the blackest pages in the history of our country.”

He told the story of a guard who he knew straight away was a “Bible thumping, redneck, Republican”. He was also a Vietnam veteran and on his guarding of Begg the two would discuss the Vietnam war. He would recount stories of horrible atrocities that he and his fellow soldiers had committed in Vietnam and how he was opposed to it then saying that he would give people his meal packs and treat them the way he wanted to be treated. He would often get angry with the younger soldiers in Guantanamo for treating prisoners badly and would call them “punk ass kids”, considered himself “old school” and was upset by what was taking place. Moazzam then relayed that this guard had been removed from Guantanamo for “fraternization with the enemy.”

He went on from this to note the importance of groups like the Veterans Against the War in the United States and how there were many who had been in the military and didn’t approve of what is happening now.

Speaking before the recent Supreme Court ruling effecting Guantanamo, Begg expressed a great deal of scepticism about the fact that Bush has said he would like it closed. He noted that a number of lucrative contracts had been signed and that on top of Camp X-Ray, Camp Delta and Camp Echo, a “Camp 5” was being built while he was imprisoned there and that they are in the process of building a “Camp 6”. That these buildings are new, massive and “high security” made him doubt that they would be closing the camp anytime soon.

Moazzam further looked at the history of the British government and the IRA and noted that the only way that terrorism was stopped was when people started talking to one another.

Finally Begg relayed that his love for history means that he will stop at castles throughout Britain whenever he gets the chance. He found himself in a 19th century castle and was drawn to a sign leading him to rooms labeled “Prisons of War”. Upon descending into one of the cells he began to hear banging and clanging. He then began to hear American voices and was starting to worry he was having a genuine flashback when he noticed it was only a group of young American tourists. Begg then said he thought to himself “If they only knew.”

For more information and updates on the remaining 500+ prisoners who are still in Guantanamo visit www.cageprisoners.com