2008 Woodie Awards
Human rights to take backburner?
Laura Bedrossian '07
Issue date: 10/5/06 Section: Commentary
Torture may be defined by many things. Being forced to eat Grandma's homemade, rock hard fruit cake on Christmas Eve or perhaps the seemingly endless amounts of homework and inevitable lack of sleep that accompany school are torturous for some. My own breaking point is my little sister's singing voice when "teamed" up with the likes of Paris Hilton. However, the more traditional ideas of torture such as the definition found in the American Heritage Dictionary, the "infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion" is the definition that isn't usually on everyone's minds. We're in the 21st century and have transcended those ancient thoughts and practices, or so I thought, until our own country had recently passed a bill that infringes upon everyone's basic human rights.
I've heard and read so many differing opinions on the whole issue. But last week, the White House-approved terror-detainee legislation-the 2006 "Military Commissions Act"-was given the green light. Some say that it is necessary for the bill to be enacted so that we can quash the threats to our country while stating that the bill also maintains the "spirit of Geneva"-the Geneva Convention that is. Others state that the bill provides for an invasion of our basic human rights by denying prisoners a fair trial and the right to habeas corpus, among other issues.
The bill was a compromise between both sides with language that gives the president a leading role in deciding which interrogation methods are permitted by that provision of the treaty. It also prohibits detainees from going to court to protect their rights to challenge their imprisonment or seek civil damages for mistreatment-a basic right we Americans are accustomed to. Drawing even bigger protest is a provision that would bar detainees from challenging their detentions in court, a right usually afforded defendants in military and civilian courts.
Furthermore, according to Amnesty International, the bill strips persons held in the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba of the ability to file a writ of habeas corpus. Many of these prisoners have been held for almost five years without knowing their charge.
I've heard and read so many differing opinions on the whole issue. But last week, the White House-approved terror-detainee legislation-the 2006 "Military Commissions Act"-was given the green light. Some say that it is necessary for the bill to be enacted so that we can quash the threats to our country while stating that the bill also maintains the "spirit of Geneva"-the Geneva Convention that is. Others state that the bill provides for an invasion of our basic human rights by denying prisoners a fair trial and the right to habeas corpus, among other issues.
The bill was a compromise between both sides with language that gives the president a leading role in deciding which interrogation methods are permitted by that provision of the treaty. It also prohibits detainees from going to court to protect their rights to challenge their imprisonment or seek civil damages for mistreatment-a basic right we Americans are accustomed to. Drawing even bigger protest is a provision that would bar detainees from challenging their detentions in court, a right usually afforded defendants in military and civilian courts.
Furthermore, according to Amnesty International, the bill strips persons held in the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba of the ability to file a writ of habeas corpus. Many of these prisoners have been held for almost five years without knowing their charge.