Newsletter No. 354
Editorial-Opinion
August 7, 2006

 

JAPANESE DAILIES SPEAK OUT ON GUANTANAMO

About a month ago, both the Asahi and the Mainichi produced editorials calling for the closing of the Guantanamo detention facilities.

As with so many other issues, Tokyo has been reluctant to criticize Washington over its clear violations of both domestic and international laws, and the creation of fictional new legal categories such as “illegal enemy combatants.” At least some sections of the Japanese press are finally making some small protest against these violations.

Particularly welcome was the Mainichi’s recognition that U.S. policies put Japan in danger as well. This is a point that Tokyo has been very reluctant to acknowledge or speak about.

The Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Should Be Closed
Asahi Shinbun
July 2, 2006

Mr. Bush, President of the United States, said that “the biggest mistake in Iraq was the physical abuse of war prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison.” He should have added one more fault: “the mistake of Guantanamo.”

America took hundreds of Afghans into custody on suspicion of terrorist activity in 2001, the time of Afghanistan War, and sent them to the prison in the U.S military base in Guantanamo, Cuba. The U.S. Supreme Court has now handed down a serious judgment on Guantanamo. The judge presiding in the case of the prisoner who went to the special military tribunal handed down a judgment that “the court itself was against the law.”

The U.S. position was that the prisoners in Guantanamo were “not captives or criminals, but illegal combatants.” They neither applied the Geneva Convention nor prosecuted them as prisoners. The U.S. simply detained the Afghans extraordinarily.

Abuse of prisoners was discovered and America has been criticized by the world. In such a state, the United States has finally created a special military tribunal and taken some recourse to the law. A defendant was challenging this arrangement.

The U.S. Supreme Court judged that these restrictions were against the law by looking at domestic legislation on the protocols of regular military tribunals. The judgment was handed down because the respondents were not guaranteed the full rights of defendants under the special military tribunal system. And it was against the Geneva Conventions.

This is only a verdict against an accused person. However, it can be said that what was really challenged was the existence of the detention center itself, where basic freedoms were not preserved. Should someone come under suspicion of being involved in terror; then try them. Should they not; then treat them as prisoners. By nature, captives are sent to where they are supposed to be depending on their legal status.

However, fighting against terrorists who have networks all over the world has a different complexion from hitherto known wars. It is true that the prisoner-criminal dichotomy cannot be appropriate all the time. It is necessary to erect new legal frameworks. Even in such a case, the agreement should be made internationally. In the meantime, we have no choice but to follow the international law.

It goes far beyond things in Guantanamo. The suspicion of that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been running secret stations in Eastern European countries and holding terror suspects has not been cleared up yet. The Human Rights organs of Europe declared that seven countries, including England and Sweden, are suspected of detaining suspects without due process and handing them over to America.

Should the deviation from the “rule of law” be accepted, international collaboration against terror would be eroded. And it would be increasingly difficult to keep global unity. In order to prevent that, the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, the symbol of this aberration, should be closed immediately.

On that basis, the world has to reaffirm its union with people fighting against terror in the Muslim states.

The Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Should Be Closed
Mainichi Shinbun
July 2, 2006

The Guantanamo Bay detention facility can be called “the burden of the United States.” It has not been proven that mistreatment and the torture of prisoners in the detention station on the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo, Cuba, hasn’t been carried out. As a result, UN agencies, European countries, and human rights groups have requested the shutdown of the detention center. Not knowing when they will be judged, there are about 460 prisoners there. Some have been in custody without being charged.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declared an epoch-making judgment against “Guantanamo.” The military tribunals on the base compound violate the Geneva Conventions and the domestic laws of America. They also regard Mr. Bush’s order for the establishment of the new courts as a violation. That does not mean the Supreme Court is ordering the closing of the prisons themselves. The whole concept of putting someone related to terrorism into custody, and their trials, have a serious problem. Guantanamo is facing pressure for basic reforms. On this occasion, Washington should respect the judgment and seriously think about closing the detention center.

We have been asking the facility to improve at least its transparency. Detention stations where a lot of Muslims are held tend to be considered a symbol of “Islamic suppression,” no matter what is the real intention of America. These facilities are surely magnifying the antipathy of Muslims to America and its allied countries.

It is impossible to haul all the suspicious characters and keep them under restraint forever. Assuming that such becomes ubiquitous in society, it would be difficult to keep international cooperation and the righteousness of the “war on terrorism.” As America says, if the war on terrorism is a global battle, then the bad reputation of the detention center on an island of the Caribbean Sea affects Japan too. It also involves the safety of the Self-Defense Forces (SDF).

It has already become obvious that the facility has a problem. Unfair actions like the abusive treatment of prisoners have been corroborated by a survey done by U.S. officials themselves. The American side has taken certain remedial actions in response to the field report of the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHCR) in February 2006. However, three prisoners who had been on a hunger strike against long restraint committed suicide.

The Supreme Court decision was made on this occasion. The U.S. authorities had called inmates of Guantanamo “enemy combatants,” and they have never defined if the prisoners fell under the category of POW or not. So what the U.S. Supreme Court has decided means a lot.

It seems that Mr. Bush would like to preserve the military tribunals in Guantanamo by new legislative proceedings. U.S. Defense Secretary Mr. Rumsfeld is adamantly opposed to closing the center. Yet, it is possible to sit in judgment on the suspects at a civilian court. It is not necessary to stick to the position of sending possible culprits to the island where media cannot come, and judge them at a military tribunal.

At a joint interview of Japan-U.S. summit meeting, questions from the American press corps centered on this judgment. The court decision, which has pointed to the “arrogation” of power by the president, will affect other policies, such as the presidential acknowledgement of eavesdropping without a warrant.

Fighting against terror is consequential; even so, out-of-control leaders may find a loss of public support. Taking advantage of this judicial verdict, the Bush administration should reconsider its fight against terrorism.