Iraq and Afghanistan

Today’s New York Times report on Guantanamo concludes that the mistreatment of prisoners there was (at least until this April) quite general and persistent. It assumes that much of the subsequent mistreatment in Afghanistan and Iraq was due, at least in part, to the habits developed and accepted at Guantanamo. An example of special treatment that their reporter repeatedly heard was the shackling of a prisoner to the floor while filling the room with extremely loud music and very bright strobe lights. This was combined with extremely high air conditioning for up to 14 hours.

Many confuse such treatment with the treatment of enemies on the battlefield where tensions are extreme and raw. But this is in a prison in which the power is completely in the hands of the guards and interrogators. There is little or no excuse for it. Experts do not believe that it leads to good intelligence not otherwise obtainable, particularly if, as was generally the case at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the prisoners have little information to give.

Whatever administration is in power in the United States should take seriously the challenge such barbarity poses to the country, in the opinion of its citizens and the world community. The problem is one that transcends the military services and goes to the behavior of the whole corrections and intelligence community, whether in civilian life or in a so-called “time of war”. We cannot claim to be a defender of freedom and a purveyor of democracy while we are allowing people to act in this way at home and abroad.

I would propose a series of conferences on law enforcement and corrections that included the military services, intelligence agencies, and those responsible for these functions at state levels. We should review existing standards of behavior in these agencies, compare these with international standards, and consider the ways in which these are taught to people “on the front lines” in these agencies. If there are special conditions that require measures that go beyond this base line, these should be narrowly defined and the persons identified who can legally give orders to go beyond this line. Such exceptional treatment should be allowed only for named persons and only for specified periods. The conferences should develop high and relevant psychological standards for persons allowed onto the front lines of corrections and interrogation. The conference should consider methods of improving the existing professional cultures among those charged with interrogation and corrections responsibilities.

In addition to this, the United States needs to rethink its identification of persons it picks up in what it refers to as a “war on terrorism”. Most of the people we picked up in Afghanistan were actually members of the Taliban militia. As such, they deserved to be treated as prisoners of war, with a classification identical to that of persons picked up in the course of military operations in Iraq. There has been a much too quick and vague identification of persons as members of al-Qaida or as terrorist enemies of the United States. I agree that there is such a category. But it should be much smaller than we have made it in this instance. For those so categorized, the answer is to bring them back to the United States and try them for their crimes against the United States on a basis that accords with international rather than national standards. We must remember at all times that by our actions we are being judged by peoples everywhere, those well intentioned toward the United States and those not well intentioned. But we are never going to win the long-term struggle to maintain the reputation of states dedicated to freedom and democracy unless we accept the right of our audiences to judge our actions by their standards as well as ours.