New law emerges from Guantanamo

Recent protests over the treatment of Taliban and Al Qaida prisoners being held on Guantanamo island have sparked reaction worldwide. The American administration said that the Geneva Convention cannot be implemented in this case since it does not perceive the detainees as prisoners of war.

U.S. Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, described the detainees as "unlawful combatants" and said in reference to the detention conditions: "It's not going to be a country club, but it is going to be humane."

The American position received criticism from the European Union as well as a number of organisations.

Amnesty International said that the published photos of the detainees are similar to torture methods used in 1970s Eastern Europe. Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated that the Geneva Convention should be applied since the armed conflict in Afghanistan is of an international nature.

British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has warned American President George Bush that the criticism voiced could turn the Guantanamo prisoner issue into a political one. The following is a look at reactions in the Arab press on this issue:

Dangerous precedent

It is not fair that the American administration insists on refusing to treat the prisoners at Guantanamo, especially the so called 'Afghan Arabs', as prisoners of war, writes Dr. Badriya Abdullah Al Awadi in Al-Qabas (Kuwait).

These are rights that are granted by the Geneva Convention and, accordingly, the prisoners have a general right that should be protected.

The convention's clauses, says Al Awadi, protect the minimum level of human rights that should be applied by all parties when in a conflict, regardless of religion, creed, gender, colour or any other criteria.

The American administration's position on this issue is a dangerous precedent and sets a trend in international relations, says Al Awadi. This is a first in how prisoners of war are treated during armed conflict.

It certainly makes countries disrespectful of the principles of international law which stands as the basis of respecting a person's humanity during war and when they are captured, adds Al Awadi.

But the danger of this matter is not merely in the fact that the American administration refuses to treat the prisoners as POWs. Instead, it is in George Bush's order to create military courts to prosecute all the non-American prisoners for committing acts of terror, says Al Awadi.

This will endanger the rights of such prisoners since such trials are held in secret and the accused are not allowed to view the evidence brought against them, adds Al Awadi.

Since many of the captured are nationals of a number of countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, we should seek to protect their rights as guaranteed by the Geneva Convention, says Al Awadi.

These prisoners have the right to a fair and neutral trial, as all international conventions guarantee, as well as the principles of Islam stipulate the respect to human dignity in times of peace as well as war.

This should be respected regardless of the crime they have committed against their Arab nation and humanity at large, says Al Awadi.

It is surprising though, the negative stance taken by lawyers and human rights organisations in the Arab world, in particular towards the rights of the Arab prisoners in Guantanamo.

It is a wonder, says Al Awadi, to see such a passive reaction from such organisations while countries like Sweden and Holland have begun on a course that would guarantee the rights of its Muslim citizens who are detained in Guantanamo.

It is indeed a questionable situation. Why should the prisoners of the war in Afghanistan be denied their rights? questions Al Awadi.

For whose interests are Arab governments and Arab professional legal organisations in the Arab world opting for a suspicious silence, on violations of the human rights of a Muslim Arab fighter in Afghanistan, who has become accused and ostracised even before being found guilty in a fair trial, in his home country or outside, adds Al Awadi.

New law

The American administration's position on the Guantanamo prisoners reflects a wider issue, writes Abdullah Al Ash'al in Al Hayat (based in the UK). It uncovers a mentality that seeks to establish a new law that governs the world.

This is because to fight terrorism reflects a state of emergency under which official authorities are no longer responsible for the implementation of any laws that are traditionally implemented otherwise, says Al Ash'al.

American experts of international law must know very well about the stipulations of the Geneva Convention, says Al Ash'al. They know very well that the convention clearly defines who is a prisoner of war and what their rights are. At the core of the Convention's clauses, says Al Ash'al, is to treat the prisoner with kindness.

Washington, says Al Ash'al, is looking at the whole matter with a couple of aspects in mind. First, how to treat the captured fighters, which Washington does not believe is anyway governed legally.

Second, the description of the legal status of the prisoners who U.S. Defence Secretary Ronald Rumsfeld has described as 'outlawed fighters'. A number of American official sources have said that the Geneva Convention is outdated and its time has passed. It belongs to an era following World War II and is, therefore, no longer applicable today.

What this means, says Al Ash'al, is that the U.S. believes that there are two sets of laws. One that has been implemented, or the status quo, while the other is the one that is being carried out following the September 11 attacks, which is to become the future law. This is what Washington is trying to bring about with its behaviour in terms of dealing with the Guantanamo prisoners, says Al Ash'al.

Yet, the issue of the legal rights of the Guantanamo prisoners brings under the spotlight a broader issue, writes Al Ash'al. It raises a number of questions.

Does Washington have the right to transfer the prisoners outside of Afghanistan, and how were they captured in the first place, and under what conditions? What is the legal basis of flying the prisoners to Guantanamo? Have the prisoners been captured on the battlefield, or have they been taken because they belong to the Taliban and Al Qaida?

Does the international community's support of Washington's war on terrorism gives Washington a legal right to act as it wishes without any scrutiny? questions Al Ash'al.