Why are we walking to Guantanamo?

We walk to Guantanamo to state without compromise our rejection of torture and abuse and loudly proclaim our defense of human dignity. We come as Christians in the tradition of Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker to fulfill our Gospel’s mandate to visit the prisoner. We recognize that peace walks have long been a part of the struggle for freedom and justice, from Gandhi to Martin Luther King. We hope that our belief in nonviolence is apparent as we walk, mindful of the atrocities done in our name, with humble and repentant hearts.

Why did we have to come to Cuba to make this statement?

Putting detention camps at Guantanamo Naval Base is an effort to hide both the prisoners and their ill treatment from ordinary Americans like ourselves. We come as witnesses so that such degradation can be brought to light and denounced. Coming to Cuba is only a fraction of the work that must be done to walk away from our country’s message of contempt and fear and towards justice for these prisoners and their families. In order to visit the prisoner, we must go to the prison.

Aren’t we being naïve?

History has taught us that the torture and humiliation of those we name as enemies breeds more distrust, anger and hatred. The creation of the Geneva Convention, with its absolute condemnation of torture, is a testament that such treatment is always a failure. It is not naïve to believe that all people share the fullness of humanity and to act out of that belief.

Who are the detainees?

More than 750 detainees have been sent to Guantanamo Naval Base since 2002. They are from approximately 40 countries, primarily from Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Afghanistan. Donald Rumsfeld states that Guantanamo holds the “worst of the worst”. While it is true that Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the 20th hijacker, is now being held there, it is also true that Mohammed C. was brought to the camp at age 14. (www.amnesty.org. “Who are the Guantanamo Detainees?” July, 2005) Nearly 250 detainees have been released.

Are you saying all the detainees are innocent?

No – we do not know. Guilt is a matter of proof – it is a fundamental rule of law that everyone is innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Where there is reason to believe that people have participated in committing or planning acts of terrorism they should be investigated, charged and promptly and fairly tried and, if found guilty, punished. But in the context of the so-called “war on terror” senior members of the US administration have shown contempt for this presumption of innocence by collectively labeling detainees as “terrorists” and “killers”.

If governments presume guilt, and accordingly in effect punish by means of torture and ill-treatment before any trial takes place, it potentially endangers the freedom and bodily integrity of all of us. Any of us could be detained by mistake, or “exposed” as a high-value terrorist by a spiteful neighbor, as has actually happened to some who were then tortured or ill-treated for information they did not possess. Do we really want a government to have so much power over us? (Amnesty International)

What is torture? What is ill-treatment? What’s the difference?

Torture is defined in the UN Convention against Torture as the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering for purposes such as obtaining information or a confession, or punishing, intimidating or coercing someone. The term is applied to those forms of ill-treatment that are particularly severe and are deliberate.

It is not possible to make a sharp distinction between those forms of treatment which amount to torture and those which amount to other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (ill-treatment). But from a practical standpoint, any such distinction is not significant because all forms of torture and ill-treatment are absolutely prohibited under international law – and it is not simply a matter of law. The universal legal prohibition is based on a universal philosophical consensus that torture and ill-treatment are repugnant, abhorrent, and immoral. (Amnesty International)

But doesn’t torture often work?

If people are tortured or ill-treated to get information out of them, some will talk. Some won’t. Of those who talk, many will say anything to stop their suffering – truth, lies, half-truths. Throughout history, people have been tortured into denouncing their religion, or confessing to witchcraft or to crimes they did not commit. Others have refused to talk and some have died still refusing. Can we nevertheless get useful intelligence out of people by torturing and ill-treating them? Torturers and torturing governments say they can.

Can we defeat insurrections, rebels and terrorism by resorting to torture and ill-treatment? The lesson of history is that we can’t. Irrespective of whatever information we may obtain, we can be sure to create pain, suffering, humiliation, fear, and anger, and ultimately hatred, in the tortured person and the community they come from. (Amnesty International)

Isn’t torture or ill-treatment, if used only in the most compelling circumstances, sometimes the lesser of two evils? Wouldn’t it be acceptable to ill-treat one person if that could save thousands of lives?

Throughout history, attempts have been made to justify torture and other ill-treatment in the name of some superior goal -- the common good, freedom, or religious or other ideals. But we cannot defend principles and ideals by actions which undermine them. The right to be free from torture and any other form of cruelty, degradation or inhuman treatment is perhaps the most universally accepted of human rights. If the ban on torture and ill-treatment is flouted, what hope is there for the protection of other human rights?

The absolute and unconditional prohibition of torture and ill-treatment leaves no room for any balancing act between the rights of different individuals, or between the rights of individuals and the common good. Inhumane acts of all kinds, whoever commits them, are unconditionally prohibited in international law and accepted moral standards and are absolutely banned by the international community.

The only way that human rights can be effectively protected is by respecting the principle that every individual possesses certain inherent fundamental rights that cannot be taken away – not even in the name of “the common good”, states of emergency, national security, or religious or other ideals. Otherwise no one is really safe. (Amnesty International)

But aren’t there extreme circumstances where those international legal prohibitions no longer apply?

The prohibition of torture and ill-treatment is a rule of customary international law. It applies to all states irrespective of whether they are party to international treaties setting out the prohibition. It applies in all circumstances, with no exceptions of any kind, and cannot be suspended in any circumstances, even in times of war or public emergency. The prohibition is explicit throughout international human rights law. Torture and ill-treatment are also prohibited in all circumstances under international humanitarian law, the body of law applicable in armed conflict. This means that states have recognized that even in time of war such practices must be prohibited even if some military advantage may be gained. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which covers the most serious crimes under international law, prohibits torture and ill-treatment as a crime against humanity and as a war crime.

Because torture and ill-treatment are wrong, always and everywhere, all governments should publicly denounce them in the strongest possible terms, and take practical steps never to allow torture and ill-treatment to happen at home or abroad. They should also bring to justice, in a fair trial, those who commit or participate in acts of torture or ill-treatment, just as they should bring to justice those who commit crimes against humanity and attacks on civilians. (Amnesty International)

What happened in Abu Ghraib is not the norm. Why does Amnesty International make out it is US policy?

Amnesty International’s research has led it to conclude that the abuses which took place in Abu Ghraib are not an aberration. They are part of a pattern where versions of interrogation techniques developed for use in Afghanistan and Guantánamo later emerged in Iraq. Such techniques include hooding, sensory deprivation, isolation and stress positions as well as techniques of humiliation, degradation and fear such as forced shaving, forced nakedness and the use of dogs for intimidation. The range of individuals and locations where torture and ill-treatment have been reported show that these allegations are not a few instances of an isolated problem.

This is not surprising because, for around two years, the administration’s position was based on advice set out in secret legal memorandums from the Justice Department, restricting the definition of torture, and arguing that the President could authorize torture for reasons such as military necessity. The USA continues to take the position that detainees at Guantánamo and in Afghanistan are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. These policies, adopted at the highest levels of government, have undermined the USA’s compliance with the international prohibition on torture and ill-treatment. Moreover, torture and ill-treatment have been facilitated by the policy of detaining thousands in prolonged incommunicado or virtually incommunicado detention, some in secret detention facilities, without access to the outside world. (Amnesty International)

Hasn’t the US government explicitly rejected torture? So what's the problem?

It is important that states and leaders denounce torture and ill-treatment. However, words alone are not sufficient – it is actions that count. While President Bush has consistently condemned torture, legal officers of the US government have issued memorandums seeking to adjust the definition of torture by interpreting it in the narrowest way possible. For example, President Bush proclaimed to the world in June 2003 that the USA was committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and was leading that fight by example. But at that time the US administration’s policy was based on a secret August 2002 Justice Department legal memorandum, albeit repudiated by the administration almost two years later following the Abu Ghraib revelations, which advised on how US interrogators could escape criminal liability for torture, on how to narrow the definition of torture, on how officials could get away with using cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that purportedly fell short of torture, and on how the President could override international or national prohibitions on torture.

In the struggle against torture and ill-treatment we do need words. But words not accompanied by resolute action, or condemnation by governments which are at the same time seeking to find ways to circumvent the international legal ban on torture and ill-treatment, amount to little more than ritual denunciations. (Amnesty International)