<Student’s name>
<Supervisor´s name>
English Date: December 9, 2013
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base of the US Navy nowadays is no longer just one out of many American military facilities overseas. Since the War on Terror started after the tragedy of 9/11, it has become a symbol of this war, and quite a controversial one. Being located right at the gates of the USA, it has been and still is attracting considerable attention of the global community. Usage of Guantanamo Bay for detention and interrogation of persons, primarily from the Middle East, which are considered potentially or actually dangerous for the national security of the country, conditions and quality of their custody as well as validity and legitimacy of methods used for assessment of such threats are of considerable interest from various points of view. The primary objective of this paper is to distinguish the primary points of moral and ethical nature concerning present and recent activities at Guantanamo Bay and provide impartial analysis of the existing problems and possible solutions.
There are certain commonly perceived mistakes that should be avoided while trying to assess the current situation with Guantanamo from the moral point of view. First of all, there may be a considerable discrepancy between publicly accepted concept of morality in general, and specific interests of the national security, in particular. There is no such thing as doing politics and protecting the country and keeping one’s hands clean. Secondly, Guantanamo is not an abstract facility in a non-existing destination, and the fact of its existence as well as the practices which are being currently applied there should not be considered apart from the existing international and American political, social, legal and military context. Finally, the idea of morality, although many perfectionists and dreamers may think otherwise, is not universal. The systems of values of Christianity and Islam, for instance, are very different, the same is true for the systems of values during the time of war and peace. It is undoubted that the War on Terror is going on at a global scale, and few nations may remain completely secure and indifferent in this regard.
It would be reasonable to perform analysis of moral issues at Guantanamo Bay at three different levels. First of all, it would be interesting to try to get into the heads of the local enforcers, assess their motivation and mechanisms of protection against possible moral and ethical controversies. Besides, I think it is reasonable to have a closer look at the organizational challenges and their relevance to morals and ethics. Can the “enhanced interrogation” be avoided? Is there a way to reach same or better results without using morally doubtful techniques? These questions are definitely worth being answered. Finally, there is also a national (or even international) level of this problem. It should be clarified to which extent the system of military detention facilities, of which Guantanamo Bay is one of the most prominent examples, complies with the international legislation concerning prisoners of war and/or terrorists.
In order to clarify the postulates, which are going to be applied within this research, and determine the main directions of the train of thought, I would like to propose three primary hypotheses concerning the issue of morality in Guantanamo Bay and perform further analysis which may strengthen or refute them:
- There are effective psychological mechanisms that allow to overcome the cognitive dissonance between once acquired system of moral values and necessity of specific activities which may contradict with it;
- Although there is a discrepancy between official guidelines and actual practices at an organizational level at Guantanamo Bay, such discrepancy may be carried out of the area of morals and become a purely functional one;
- There are effective formal and informal loopholes to undermine the significance, both moral and legal, of the system of the respective international agreements for the purpose of national security within perception of its enforcers.
At the personal level the issue of morality originates from the necessity (within the existing paradigm of behavior) to cause disturbance, both physical and emotional, and continuous pain and suffering to the persons being detained and interrogated. There are two major contradicting psychological mechanisms that refer to this issue (Aquino, p. 386) – moral disengagement and moral identity. The former is in fact an artificially generated condition which protects individual from getting deep into compassion and sympathy of others, in this case – of suspects. There is a shield of some manner which protects the mind of enforcers from the dissonance between what they have been taught throughout years back in the States, and what they, due to various reasons, have to perform at Guantanamo. This mechanism also serves as an efficient mean of justification of one’s general behavior and concrete deeds. Luban (p.9) defines this way of thinking as a “Hybrid War-Law Approach”. The understanding of the proceedings at Guantanamo Bay as a part of a military operation also justifies the concept of a preliminary strike concerning suspects and potential terrorists even if their guilt is yet to be proven. It also helps with neutralizing the mechanism of moral identity, unity with detainees on general humanitarian grounds. In other words, this approach allows the staff to perform their daily duties regardless of the existing dissonance between their personal emotions and professional obligations.
At the organizational level there is also a dissent between the formal procedures and reality. This discrepancy in certain particular cases may be so vivid and obvious that certain researchers even take the liberty of comparing the existing methods at Guantanamo Bay with those of the notorious Soviet KGB (Malinowski, p. 150). They point out at formal violation of official guidelines, e.g. U.S. Army Manual of Interrogation (Ibid., p. 152) and even claim Guantanamo Bay to be “a Limbo of Rightlessness” (Luban, p.10). In order to address these accusations it would be reasonable to mention that the issue of morality at Guantanamo Bay is just a top of an iceberg and a weak reflection of the real purpose of the facility. Although it may sound somewhat challenging, it was necessity that turned a naval base into a detention and interrogation facility. It is also true that the vast majority of military and adjacent professionals are not sadistic by nature and would never consider enhanced interrogation techniques as a strategic goal per se. The number of insurgents conspiring or already acting against the national interests of the United States of America, the necessity for constructive and effective mechanism of obtaining and processing intelligence information have shaped the existing system of Guantanamo. It may be said that there are more efficient methods of interrogation purely free from elements of physical and moral exposure (Malinowski, p.151), but I would say that in this particular case the aim justifies the means. Intelligence and counterintelligence services of various countries do not hesitate to exercise similar or even more severe means of data extraction, and they are aware of the importance of their job. America here is no exception, as it is undoubtedly the greatest and one of the most envied powers in the world.
The urge for such a system is also reflected at a national and international levels. There were debates concerning methods of treatment of Al-Qaeda and Taliban activists in the early 2000s (Anderson, p.591). There were three options available: arrange hearings before international tribunals (this approach was used, for instance, in case of Yugoslavian war criminals), let US district courts handle the wrongdoings of terrorists against US citizens and their property, and create special military commissions within the US military. The third option was most appealing in terms of efficiency and speed, therefore it was approved by the respective military order of President Bush (Ibid., p. 592). The establishment of such commissions was also justified due to the fact that the detainees were legally perceived as “enemy combatants” (Cole, p.22) instead of prisoners of war, therefore depriving them of legal defense under the Geneva Convention. This fact gave scholars and general public reasons to believe that the existing system should be modified towards openness and compliance with the international law (Padmanabhan, p. 21). I find this position somewhat shaky. On the one hand, it is the God-given right of the public to feel secure and receive certain feedback from the authorities concerning current incentives towards fostering the system of national security. On the other hand, as Chancellor Otto von Bismark once said, “those who love sausages and laws should never observe how either of those two is being produced”. In my opinion, there is a difference between expressing public concerns about the efficiency of the War on Terror, but at the same time the people for whose sake the fighting is being done must realize the importance of getting the job done promptly and effectively instead of paying excessive attention to specific details. What is currently being done in Guantanamo is being done for the people of America as well as for securing their own future.
As it may be seen from the information provided above, it is possible to distinguish certain elements of the problem of morality in Guantanamo Bay. These data allow us to verify the validity of the proposed hypotheses.
I would say that Hypothesis one proves to be valid. Ethical and moral dilemmas may be and are successfully overcome by the base personnel in order to perform their daily duties. This appears to be the main way to keep things functioning. The job may be considered dirty in terms of pure, abstract morals, but this appears to be the lesser of the two evils.
The second hypothesis also appears to be viable. Although the methods and their perception may appear unusual for the American public, it is obvious that no organization would use enhanced techniques beyond necessity, and in Guantanamo such necessity is well justified.
The final hypothesis is true. US Government successfully stepped over ambiguous and contradictive international legal standards and did its best to leave the issue of detainment at Guantanamo Bay entirely within American jurisdiction.
There is no unanimous opinion concerning the forms and limits of moral issues at Guantanamo Bay. Nevertheless, I did my best to provide a weighted and motivated view on the situation, in general, and its specific components, in particular.
References:
- Anderson, Kenneth. What To Do With Bin Laden And Al Qaeda Terrorists?: A Qualified Defense Of Military Commissions and United States Policy On Detainees At Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 25 (2001-2002), p. 591-634.
- Aquino, Karl. A grotesque and dark beauty: How moral identity and mechanisms of moral disengagement influence cognitive and emotional reactions to war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 43 (2007), p. 385-392.
- Malinowsky, Tom. Restoring Moral Authority: Ending Torture, Secret Detention, and the Prison at Guantanamo Bay. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 618 (2008), p. 148-159.
- Padmanabhan, Vijay M. Norm Internalization through Trials for Violations of International Law: Four Conditions for Success and their Application to Trials of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Cardozo School of Law. 2009.
- Cole, David. Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terror. The New Press. 2003.
- Luban, David. The War on Terrorism and the End of Human Rights. Georgetown University Law Center. 2002.
