In its 2002 International Report, Amnesty International harshly criticized the United States’ treatment of detainees at Camp X-Ray in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In the report, Secretary-General Irene Kahn stated, “in the days, weeks, and months that followed [September 11], governments around the world eroded human rights in the name of security and anti-terrorism.”

The argument arises over the wording of the Geneva Conventions, specifically whether or not fighters should be considered members of Afghanistan’s “regular armed forces,” which would grant them P.O.W. status, and greater legal protection. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch claim the Taliban to be the government of Afghanistan, and thus their soldiers were the regular forces. U.S. officials stated that while the United States never recognized the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan, these fighters were entitled to some protection because Afghanistan signed the treaty, and the Taliban was the controlling regime. However, since the soldiers did not meet specifications of a “regular army,” including certain military dress and operations, the label would not be that of “Prisoners of War,” but rather “Unlawful Combatants” which limits their protection against U.S. procedure. Al-Qaeda fighters and other detainees receive no official status or protection under the Conventions because they represent no country and are simply “killers,” as President Bush described them.

Disputing the classification of the prisoners, an editorial in the New York Times entitled “Let Them Be P.O.W.’s,” stated that not classifying Taliban troops as such would conflict with the “spirit of the [Geneva] Convention,” implying the protection of individual soldiers when simply performing their duties. However, the signers of the 1949 treaty didn’t anticipate this type of a war, which is not fought between states, but rather between one State and a group of private, clandestine, and loosely-associated terrorist organizations. Thus, such formalities are inapplicable.

Obviously, there is some ambiguity in the language of the Geneva Treaty, or else there would be no debate. Many of the prisoners of Camp X-Ray are the worst of the worst, and many hold valuable information useful for the protection of the U.S. and others as the War on Terrorism continues. It would be foolish for the U.S. to limit its ability to interrogate them, especially when technically possessing the legal authority.

Regardless, groups such as Amnesty International fight for the prisoners’ protection and use provocative rhetoric, stating that the White House has only “selectively recognized” the Conventions. Executive Director William Shulz added, "There has always been some excuse for why human rights needs to take second place or even third or fourth place to other concerns. . . . Today the excuse is national security.”

These simplistic viewpoints virtually ignore the atrocities to which the detainees contributed. It is a fundamental principle of civilized countries that while personal freedom is essential, the good of the whole must take priority, especially in times of peril. What reasonable person wouldn’t “trade” some human rights for national safety? Isn’t that why we all endure the inconveniences of tighter security measures? Unfortunately, people have to make sacrifices at times, including the detainees at Camp X-Ray, to ensure greater overall security.

But this is not to concede that the U.S. is even violating any rights of the prisoners, who are treated very humanely with more luxuries at the safe, clean U.S. Navy base than in their primitive and hazardous homelands, where survival is a struggle. Several officials have visited Camp X-Ray to vouch for this, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (who even interviewed prisoners in private regarding their treatment), British Prime Minister Tony Blair and a committee of ten U.S. Congressmen.

Unfortunately, their reassurance has received little attention. Following the release of a photo of prisoners at Camp X-Ray, in which detainees were blindfolded and manacled beside their “cages,” human rights protests over their treatment sprung up everywhere. The Sydney Morning Herald captioned the photo, “U.S. Wrath.” U.S. officials stated that such measures were employed only initially, and only when prisoners were out of their cells. But there is no need to apologize for this not-so-harsh treatment. How do people expect the prisoners to be treated when they have sworn hatred of the U.S., and have proved they will stop at nothing to kill its citizens?

Unfortunately, the Pentagon has had to respond to political pressures to treat the prisoners more “humanely” and has provided cushy measures for detainees, all to deflect criticism by human rights groups. Prisoners are now escorted in golf carts and receive superb medical care and three culturally-sensitive hot meals per day. While the prisoners threaten, deride, and spit in the faces of the guards, the guards are not allowed to respond in kind. Hunger strikes had put more pressure on officials, creating debate over whether or not the prisoners should be force-fed. Two hundred prisoners out of fewer than 400 participated in the strike. Doesn’t this widespread militancy and protest say something about their instinct to rebel and be subversive? That there is need to control them? Still, Guantánamo is now nicknamed “Eggshell City,” as officials are acting overly-cautious in their treatment of detainees, further interfering with the interrogation processes.

As we have tragically learned, our security system is not a seamless one. Attorney General John Ashcroft said, “Extraordinary times take extraordinary measures” Everyone must make the necessary sacrifices to promote safety, especially our known and sworn enemies. We cannot risk innocent lives for the supposed “civil” rights of such an uncivilized and ruthless group of people.

David Gardner is an intern at Accuracy in Media.

For questions or comments, please contact Intern@AIM.org.