International Information Programs
Office of Research Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction

December 9, 2003

December 9, 2003





**  Editorialists view the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear arguments on jurisdiction over the Guantanamo cases as a "landmark."


**  Washington's policy of holding prisoners for indefinite periods of time without any legal recourse goes against democratic values.


**  The Guantanamo prisoners should be either charged and brought to trial, or released.




Euro writers cautiously hailed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to review the cases of some Guantanamo detainees--  Liberal Der Standard of Austria argued that "the judges are not interested in continuously having their role undermined" and "the U.S. constitutional system, which is far more efficient than its critics repeatedly claim, is clearly alive and kicking."  Madrid's conservative daily ABC opined that the decision "opens a breach in the Guantanamo wall."  In Germany, centrist Der Tagesspiegel portrayed permitting one Guantanamo detainee to see a lawyer as proof that "the Supreme Court is at the heels of the Bush administration."  Berlin's right-of-center Die Welt, however, cautioned: "It is thinkable that the conservative court will approve the government's position."


All writers decried the open-ended detentions at Guantanamo Bay, arguing that the situation is "intolerable in a democracy"--  Left-leaning writers in particlar stressed the contrast between the U.S.'s reputation as a "beacon of openness" and it's actions in Guantanamo.  The socialist Insight of Ghana judged, "We do not see what can justify the long detention of suspects without charge and trial.”  The left-of-center Irish Examiner held the Guantanamo model to be "more characteristic of a banana republic rather than of a country which proclaims itself to be democratic."  Even Brazil's center-right O Globo saw evidence that "many English people accuse Bush of betraying the English democratic ideal." 


Analysts called for the U.S. government to bring charges against the prisoners, citing their rights under 'democratic societies'--  Highlighting legal arguments, editorialists argued that the treatment of the Guantanamo detainees is without basis under most Western systems of law.  Argentina's leading Clarin emphasized that the prisoners are "deprived of their most elementary legal resources...particularly, that of challenging in court the veracity of any accusation."  Social democratic Dagsavisen of Norway acknowledged "that some of the prisoners are...terrorists who deserve punishment.  But if that is the case, they must be judged under satisfactory conditions and have a right to defend themselves."  Liberal Dagens Nyheter of Sweden argued that "prisoners in Cuba should either be released or tried in an open and impartial court."





EDITOR'S NOTE:  This anlaysis is based on 31 reports from 17 countries, from 5 November-7 December.  Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.




BRITAIN:  "Rights Vs. Security"


An editorial in the independent Financial Times argued (12/4):  "The stakes are rising over treatment of those detained by the U.S. in the so-called war against terrorism....  The legal arguments are sharpening because the courts are increasingly challenging the government over the detainees....  Yet fundamental constitutional rights, such as the guarantee that an accused can call witnesses in his defence, should not be brushed aside--especially with capital offences.  It would be still more outrageous for access to witnesses to be denied because they are held abroad--an invitation to move detainees overseas to keep them out of the courts....  There may be dangerous people held at Guantanamo but the shambles surrounding their detention, interrogation and possible trial makes it harder to bring them safely to justice.  Further pressure from the U.S. courts could help the government out of this mess by requiring the release of more detainees and ensuring the trial of the remainder in conditions that do not ride roughshod over basic rights."


"Camp Delta Is A Legal Black Hole For U.S."


Lord Brennan QC, former chairman of the English Bar commented in the independent Financial Times (11/24):  "The U.S. government seems unmoved by the plight of the Guantanamo detainees.  It is about to spend $25m to give Camp Delta the capacity for up to 1,100 prisoners.  Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser, last week made clear that there is unlikely to be any change in policy any time soon....  The Camp Delta phenomenon is intolerable in a democracy.  The land of the free is not some geographical legal nicety; it embraces a concept of American justice inextricably linked with American power, wherever it may be exercised."


"The Negation Of Everything That The United States Professes To Stand For"


An editorial in the center-left Independent argued (11/19):  “The state visit of President George Bush has come to signify all that has gone wrong with transatlantic relations....  The Prime Minister...has been let down by Mr. Bush over the post-war strategy for Iraq, over the Middle East and, most urgently, over the disgrace that is Guantanamo Bay....  There is much that we do not know about the prison regime at Guantanamo Bay, for the simple reason the US authorities--traditionally a beacon of openness compared with their counterparts in Europe--have kept international observers out....  The prison camp at Guantanamo Bay is an absolute negation of everything the United States professes to stand for.  There is no openness.  There is no accountability.  There is no justice....  Mr. Bush said he envisaged a solution to the Guantanamo conundrum that Mr. Blair would be “comfortable” with....  No solution to the shame of Guantanamo should be about comfort or compromise.  It is about human rights, state obligations and the sanctity of the law in a democracy held up as an ideal for the rest of the world.  Anything less is much a travesty of our common values as Mr. Bush’s three-day stay in Britain is a travesty of a state visit."


"Guantanamo Ruling:  Supreme Court Could Rescue U.S. Prisoners From Legal Limbo"


An editorial in the independent Financial Times opined (11/12):  “There is now a ray of hope that the open-ended incarceration of the 660 non-U.S. prisoners at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay will be challenged.  The Supreme Court is to consider appeals filed on behalf of some of the prisoners against rulings by two lower courts....  Because the base is leased--though in perpetuity--this has allowed U.S. government lawyers to argue that technically it is not sovereign U.S. soil.  The creation of this legal limbo into which to dump prisoners is a blot on America’s otherwise proud human rights record....  By considering the cases the Supreme Court is clearly indicating its view that it--not U.S. politicians--should be the proper arbiter of how far the U.S. legal writ runs....  One safeguard would be for Mr. Bush to announce--perhaps on his state visit to Britain next week--that he would allow appeals to civilian courts from any verdicts passed by his military commissions."


GERMANY:  "The Supreme Court At Their Heels"


Washington correspondent Malte Lehming stated in centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (12/5):  "The rule of law prevails in the United States, but in its fight against terrorism, the government has suspended a number of legal principles.  A case that is really outrageous is the treatment of prisoners in Guantánamo....  Now finally something has been set in motion in this scandal.  One of the prisoners in Guantánamo and one of the two U.S. citizens got the right to see a lawyer.  Why?  Because the Supreme Court is at the heels of the Bush administration.  Three weeks ago it said that it would take over the case.  The sudden conciliatory measures of the Bush administration may be tactically motivated to induce the supreme judges to take a lenient attitude.  Nevertheless, it is a first sign that the steady pressure was not in vain."


"Guantánamo Bay"


Guenter Nonnenmacher observed in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (12/2):  "Washington now seems to have understood that the captivity of the more than 600 prisoners in a quasi 'law-free' area in Guantánamo Bay is damaging the U.S. reputation abroad.  What the security agencies can learn from the prisoners who are being kept without a trial, who have no access to lawyers and no contacts with family members, all this does not balance the loss of confidence, which is being inflicted on the American state.  Protests against Guantánamo Bay came not only from well known groups, but also from close U.S. allies like Britain and Spain.  But the decisive factor for the changing practice--a large number of them are to be released soon or transferred to their home countries--was made by the Supreme Court which, contrary to the legal position of the administration, said that it its responsible for the case.  It really gives us cause for thought to see how adamantly a government has defended the violation of elementary, legal rules for years."


"Rule Of The Law"


Center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine commented (11/12):  "U.S. President George Bush promised the world a new order:  'Peace and security, freedom and the rule of law.'  This was in 1991 and was closely linked to the arguments in favor of the first Iraq war.  His son George W. Bush is also promising a new world order but with different words.  George W. Bush talks more defensively but is acting more offensively than his father.  That is why he has trouble finding support outside the country's borders.  The declared goal of this president to free the world from terrorism is more fantastic than the idea of a new world order, and more reckless is the selection of the means to use.  The U.S. government's treatment of the prisoners in Guantánamo is not 'the rule of law,' but, on the contrary, the deprivation of the law from those who are subject to the law.  Thus far, U.S. courts declared that they are not responsible despite their tendency to rule on everything.  Maybe the Supreme Court will change this attitude.  If not, America will put an overstretched definition of security above the law, i.e. power."


"Rule Of Law"


Uwe Schmitt judged in an editorial in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (11/12):  "Whatever the reasons for the Supreme Court to hear the case of 16 prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, the end of their ordeal and the ignominy of the U.S. rule of law is by no means certain.  It is thinkable that the conservative court will approve the government's position....  But the Bush administration cannot help [but] take note of the implicit criticism of the court that an outlaw status exists in Guantánamo.  The judges may have been worried that the U.S. Constitution could be damaged.  There may also be concerns in the U.S. military that other countries could take revenge on U.S. GI's in a next war, but the least likeable reason could be the tendency to give in to international pressure and criticism....  There are arguments for the adjustment of valid martial law norms to asymmetric wars, but there are no good arguments in favor of the lawlessness among U.S. jurisdiction."


ITALY:  "The Prisoners Of Guantanamo Are Protected By The Supreme Court"


Eugene R. Fidell, attorney and President of the National Institute for Military Justice argued in left-leaning, influential daily La Repubblica (11/11):  "The first, thin fault line is opening in the dike which protects the intangible Camp Delta, the U.S. prisoner camp in Guantanamo Bay (Cuba).  And the legitimacy of its regime of segregation is once again under discussion.  The U.S. Supreme Court...has, in fact, decided to address the appeal which asks it to state its opinion on the claims regarding the juridical extraterritoriality of the detention camp."


"Guantanamo Is Illegal--The Prisoners' Appeal Discussed In Supreme Court"


Ennio Caretto noted in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (11/11):  "The U.S. Supreme Court will decide if the detention of Talibans and suspected Al Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo, Cuba is legal.  After two years of prison, the over 600 Muslims, among whom are British and Australian citizens, will be able to obtain a [Supreme Court] statement by June of next year.  A group of attorneys from London presented a petition that defines the island concentration camp 'un-constitutional.'  The dispute threatens to widen the gap between the U.S. and the rest of the world on the treatment of prisoners, condemned by the Red Cross.  It could even ruin Bush's visit to London next week."


AUSTRIA:  "Hostile Combatant On U.S. Soil"


Christian Pippan, Visiting Fellow at the New York University School of Law, wrote in a guest commentary in centrist Die Presse (11/26):  “Since 9/11, the search for an appropriate balance between the freedom and safety of U.S. citizens has become a decisive factor in American political life.  Another effect of 9/11 is that Washington is more vehemently than ever convinced that the worldwide promotion of democracy and rule of law is an important part of maintaining national security.  Washington often refers to the American constitution model in this context, in which the mutual control between the governmental powers plays a central role.  However, if the President now assumes the right to stow away any person accused of supporting a terror network in a military prison--for an unlimited period of time--it is becoming increasingly hard to believe in the reliability of this model.  Its allegedly exemplary status is threatening to be reversed into the opposite.”


"Clear Sign Of Life"


Foreign affairs writer Christoph Winder commented in liberal Der Standard (11/12):  “On Monday this was announced that the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court have decided to examine whether the detainees at Guantanamo will be able to resort to the U.S. federal courts in the future....  This decision of the Supreme Court is remarkable in several ways:  It shows that the judges are no longer scared of confronting the Bush administration, which--under the guise of fighting terrorism--had always claimed the right to treat the prisoners of Guantanamo any way it liked.  The sudden change of mind of the judges must also be seen within the context of the separation of powers, where the balance has shifted considerably towards the executive branch over the last two years.  It seems that the judges are not interested in continuously having their role undermined by the government.  This also means that the U.S. constitutional system, which is far more efficient than its critics repeatedly claim, is clearly alive and kicking."


IRELAND:  "Spotlight Turns On Camp"


Marion McKeone, U.S. editor, commented in the centrist weekly Sunday Tribune (12/07):  "The Bush administration appears poised to grasp some of the thorny issues raised by the detention without trial, charge or access to lawyers of some 600 detainees at Guantanamo Bay....  But the past week has seen the beginning of a change in attitude towards the prisoners amid clear signs that as many as 140 detainees may be released over the next eight weeks, including eight British nationals....  Washington sources say the administration is mindful of the difficulties that could be caused by appearing to offer preferential treatment to citizens of western allies over citizens of Muslim states such as Pakistan or Egypt.  'There has to be an appearance of some consistency here', one said....  For several weeks now the Bush administration has been seeking a solution that would address the concerns of coalition partners and the courts without appearing to have backed down on the issue."


"When Bush Talks Of Democracy, Just Remember Guantanamo Bay"


Pat Brosnan commented in the left-of-center Irish Examiner (11/21):  "George Wubya's allegiance to democracy is fragile and very selective....  The policy of members of his administration is to consider any criticism of President Bush, especially in relation to Iraq, as an unforgivable attack on America itself.  Of course, it's not.  The problem is that for countless millions of people around the world who admire what America has always stood for, it was disconcerting to see Mr. Bush trample over the United Nations in his stubborn drive to invade Iraq....  Seeing that this multilateralism was one of three pillars he revealed for world peace, we should not be too sanguine about his commitment to them and, if anything, we should be even more worried about world peace.  At least while he's in the White House....  What we saw on the streets of London was not a form of paranoid anti-Americanism, but a protest to underline the fundamental injustice of the invasion of Iraq and what flowed from it.  One thing that helps to shatter our belief in Mr. Bush's love of democracy is the appalling way suspected terrorists are being held in Guantanamo Bay with absolutely no rights....  Whatever about their guilt or innocence, the conditions under which they're held are more characteristic of a banana republic rather than of a country which proclaims itself to be democratic."


NORWAY:  "A Disgrace For A State With Rule Of Law"


Social democratic Dagsavisen commented (11/28):  “The treatment of prisoners [at] Guantanamo by the U.S. is a disgrace for a country that would like to be regarded as a state with Rule of Law....  Conditions on Guantanamo cause disgust all over the world....  It might well be that some of the prisoners are dangerous warriors and terrorists who deserve punishment.  But if that is the case, they must be judged under satisfactory conditions and have a right to defend themselves.  Protests against what is happening on Guantanamo have been far too low-voiced.  It is about time that the most loyal allies of the U.S. clearly voice their concern.  Are you listening, (Foreign Minister) Jan Petersen?”


SPAIN:  "The Judges Look At Guantanamo"


The conservative daily ABC opined (11/12):  "Nothing justifies the confinement of the prisoners in Guantanamo in a regime of legal and personal annulment, as a group stripped of the most basic rights of defense, that everyone deserves no matter who they are...because of the esteem and respect that every democracy and state owes itself.  All of this is disproportionate and, to European eyes, intolerable....  The U.S. is creating a precedent that it should see as a grave danger to its moral and political leadership.  The affinity of democracies is based on common risks and dangers, perfectly identified with international terrorism, but also on common values and principles.  Bush's Government has to accept this double-sided relationship with its allies....  This is a strategic mistake because it gratuitously harms the strength of the reasons that democracies have to affirm their superiority over terrorism and their rights to eradicate it unconditionally....  The discussion that the U.S. Supreme Court proposes opens a breach in the Guantanamo wall and for this reason is good news, even though that breach exposes an inconceivable spectacle in an admirable and great democracy."


"Guantanamo, At Last"


The left-of-center daily El País commented (11/12):  "The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court [to examine the case of the detainees at the base of Guantanamo]...marks a change and is a milestone, without prejudging what it will say by next summer....  The sentence of the Supreme Court...will serve to make it clear whether U.S. jurisdiction is applicable or not."


"Rights In Limbo"


The centrist daily La Vanguardia stated (11/12):  "The inconceivable legal situation of these prisoners (in Guantanamo) is intolerable and the Supreme Court's admission of the prisoner’s lawyers actions constitutes a first victory for the defenders of human rights....  The Bush's election campaign now has another worry besides the situation in Iraq:  the incredible and inhumane legal situation of the prisoners in Guantanamo."


"A Legal Limbo"


Conservative daily ABC editorialized (11/5):  "Although the cases of Guantanamo have been used as propaganda to discredit the U.S. and its allies policy against terrorism, the matter is much simpler:  the United States, with a democratic and model judicial system in many aspects, can't allow a necessary, urgent and complicated fight against terrorism [to] be tarnished by an effort to send reassuring messages to its own public opinion at the expense of legal guarantees that everybody, including terrorism suspects, has to have....  To apply the death penalty to those accused of terrorism, as in other cases, is not effective or morally acceptable for those who are fighting terror in the name of freedom and judicial security for all of us."


SWEDEN:  "Maintain Legal Rights"


The Stockholm conservative morning daily Svenska Dagbladet editorialized (12/4):  "Pressure has increased on the government in the wake of the latest media reporting of a possible release of, among others, the Swedish citizen Medhdi Ghezali who, for two years, has been detained in Cuba.  The bounds of decency have long ago been crossed and something must happen now.  The fact that the U.S. refuses to see any alternative to holding Ghezali detained under the pretence that he is uncooperative is unacceptable.  The Swede is not formally accused of any crime, and is not linked to terrorist activities.  If the Bush Administration does not realize that the only way to wriggle out of this precarious situation would be to either let the Cuba prisoners have their cases tried in court or else release them, the international community must step in.  Sweden should therefore, as soon as possible, rally the EU member states in a joint action to exert pressure on the U.S.  The EU cannot possibly allow its citizens to be detained without suspicions, without having a shred of evidence, and without giving them the chance to have their case tried in court."


"The U.S.' Black Hole In Cuba"


The independent, liberal Stockholm morning daily Dagens Nyheter ran an op-ed by editorial writer Nils Funcke that stated (12/4):  "Today the Swedish citizen Mehdi Ghezali has spent time in a black hole for 691 days without knowing what he is accused of, and without having a lawyer to talk to....  The U.S. is maintaining that the Cuba detainees have links to al-Qaeda.  They are therefore not considered to be civilians or POWs, but rather illegal combatants for whom neither civilian legal principles, nor the Geneva Convention or other laws of war, are applicable....  But protests against the detention are growing by the month.  Internationally the issue has become a disadvantage to the U.S., and Secretary of State Colin Powell cannot travel anywhere without having to address questions on the Guantanamo Bay issue....  I have myself no idea whether Ghezali is guilty or not.  But the matter is ultimately that he and the other 660 prisoners in Cuba should either be released or tried in an open and impartial court.  Ghezali is not the one who should prove his innocence; the U.S. is the one to prove that he has committed a crime.  For the sake of international law and the U.S. Constitution."




EGYPT:  "Separating Lines"


Samir Ragab, Editor-in-Chief of small circulation pro-government Al Gomhouriya opined (11/24):  "The U.S. arrests whomever it wants and discretely ships them to Guantanamo....  The former Iraqi regime members...have not been presented for trial....  News agencies say 14,000 Iraqis are now jailed in American prisons in Iraq, with a total media blackout....  This means the situation does not much differ from that of Saddam Hussein who hid Kuwaiti prisoners in mass graves...and slaughtered Iraqis.  Where are the human rights organizations that used to turn the world topsy-turvy over fragile allegations?  Were they American made?"




AUSTRALIA:  "Guantanamo: Two Views Of Justice"


The liberal Sydney Morning Herald editorialized (11/27):  "After almost two years in legal limbo in the cages of Guantanamo Bay, David Hicks is about to have his fate determined....  Movement towards a resolution of these cases is, however, scant cause for satisfaction.  [The Australian government] seems comfortable with the idea that if a prisoner is not put on trial he will continue to be held until what the U.S. calls war on terror is over.  Yet it is not always clear what the war on terror is, much less when it might end....  Many politicians speak as though Mr. Hicks and Mr. Habib are guilty without trial, or are not worth considering."




INDIA:  "Taliban: The Second Coming"


Wilson John opined in the centrist Pioneer (11/26):  "There are now clear indications that an eager Pakistan is busy reclaiming what it had lost during the brief period of confusion in the U.S. in the wake of the September 11 attacks--an active role in Afghanistan.  The resurrection of the Taliban is, therefore, a desperate attempt on the part of the Bush regime and the general in Islamabad to find that unicorn called victory.  One small but significant sign was the release of five Pakistanis from the notorious Guantanamo Bay on November 22, and 20 Pakistanis from the Sheberghan jail in northern Afghanistan on November 23.  Although the Hamid Karzai Government claimed that the release was an act of clemency for Ramadan, the act was in fact part of Washington's renewed bid to cobble together a new group of former Taliban leaders with the active support of the willing and jubilant ISI and Pakistani Army."




GHANA:  "Acts Of Lawlessness"


Bi-weekly, urban circulation, avowedly socialist Insight stated (12/1):  “Two of the most prominent British judges have spoken out against what they describe as the lawlessness of the United States of America.  The judges were speaking about the detention of al-Qaida suspects [at] Guantanamo Bay in Cuba outside the jurisdiction of any court anywhere in the world.  The judges insisted that all people no matter what they have been accused of are entitled to a hearing and representation by counsels of their choice.  It is our hope that the authorities of the U.S. will listen to these words of wisdom and begin to act in ways which will do credit to their wild claims of being respecters of human rights.  We do not see what can justify the long detention of suspects without charge and trial.”




CANADA:  "The Law In Guantanamo"


The leading Globe and Mail commented (11/12):  "By insisting that the 660 prisoners at its naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are beyond the reach of judicial review, the United States has done more than strengthen security at the expense of liberty.  It has thrown out a basic democratic norm, the time-honoured right of habeas corpus.  It is therefore welcome news that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear whether civilian courts have the jurisdiction to consider prisoners' challenges to the lawfulness of their detention.  The core value at stake is that the state be subject to the law, rather than a law unto itself."


ARGENTINA:  "Guantanamo Ruling: Threat To Individual And Collective Liberties"


Oscar Raul Cardoso, leading Clarin international analyst, opined (11/11):  "The step-by-step degradation of individual and collective liberties in the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks is taking place at such a pace that even a basically conservative Supreme Court such as the U.S. tribunal couldn't overlook for a long time the threat that this direction poses to the constitutional guarantees and even to the most basic humanitarian rights.  This is the first message that one can infer from the Supreme Court's decision to listen--against the position of the Department of Justice--to the legal claims of some of the 660 detainees in Guantanamo....  For the past two years, the Guantanamo detainees--but also, some of the terrorists detained in U.S. continental jails--have virtually become 'non persons', deprived of their most elementary legal resources:  the protection of habeas corpus, the right to know the terms of the accusation and, particularly, that of challenging in court the veracity of any accusation.  But it's not only the damage inflicted to the Guantanamo pariahs--many of them, teenagers.  There are also other arbitrary procedures against foreigners...justified in the need to fight terrorism.  However, the foreigners' case is but the tip of the iceberg in this 'social control' campaign that Bush wants to impose on U.S. society.  David Cole, a lawyer who recently published an interesting survey 'Foreign enemies:  double standards and constitutional liberties in the war against terrorism' explains this and says, 'What we do to foreigners today very often paves the way for what we will do to U.S. citizens tomorrow."


BRAZIL:  "Collateral Damage"


Center-right O Globo opined (11/28):  "Following the U.S. example, Great-Britain has decided to face the unpredictable threat of terror granting more power to the State at the cost of individual liberties....  In this dangerous course no one sins for caution.  Any excess committed in the name of security is enough to disfigure the concept of a democratic society and tarnish an admirable tradition of freedom and legality....  One example of unacceptable abuse resulting in irreparable damages is the treatment Americans give to war prisoners in Guantanamo....  There the subdued are at the mercy of the winners without the protection of legal devices, which represent the highest achievements of civilization."


"The English Message"


Center-right O Globo asserted (11/23):  "In no other place in the world do demonstrations against the U.S. seem more misplaced than in England....  What explains Bush's lack of popularity amongst the English?  Obviously there's the Iraq war issue that mobilizes pacifist groups all over the world.  There's also the intent to hit PM Tony Blair, to whom many don't forgive for having lead the country to a costly, unjustified military adventure....  But apparently that's not all.  Curiously many English people accuse Bush of betraying the English democratic ideal.  With the treatment given to war prisoners in Guantanamo and other demonstrations of disrespect to principles of co-existence, Bush would be destroying the U.S. image such as the pattern of a democratic society....  The English took advantage of Bush's visit to tell him in three days what the rest of the world has been trying to tell Americans for the last three years."


CUBA:  "Guantanamera At Bush’s Rhythm"


An op-ed by journalist Reinaldo Spitaletta in Medellín daily El Colombiano stated (11/12):  “For the 'hawks' the imperial power of North America, those prisoners are just enemies of 'freedom' and 'democracy'....  According to General Geoffrey Miller, in charge of the prisoners...the idea is to turn Guantanamo into a killing field....  Yes, this is another sad period of time in world history that evokes the crimes and horrors by the Nazis."


GUATEMALA:  "Bush the Harmful"


Columnist Gustavo Berganzain wrote in influential El Periodico (12/5):  "With Bush, the U.S. has openly violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention by maintaining hundreds of prisoners of war confined in Guantanamo.  The detainees are not only isolated, with no possibilities to communicate with the outside world, but they are also being deprived of their right to an impartial trial."


Commentary from ...
Middle East
East Asia
South Asia
Western Hemisphere

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

Back To Top

blue rule
IIP Home  |  Issue Focus Home