While nations have been combating terrorism for decades; the global war on terrorism is considered to be a recent endeavor. After the terrorist attack on the US on September 11, 2001 President George W. Bush decided to use his position and the wave of nationalism that resulted after the attack; to start what he called the “War on Terror”. Bush decided to adopt the Marcus Cicero philosophy of war that suggests the only acceptable war is one of justified vengeance and self defense (Ethics, 2009). This war began as a supposed attempt to seek out and bring justice to those believed to be the instigators of the attack and their leader Osama bin Laden. These goals were soon forgotten then quickly transformed into: bring democracy to Middle Eastern countries, destroy terrorist networks there, overthrow and capture Saddam Hussein, and unofficially… to make a hell of a lot of money. It is now 8 years later and what has been accomplished so far? The international community is still fighting global terrorism; a pseudo democracy has been introduced to a few Middle Eastern countries (sort of); thousands of casualties; billions of dollars spent by the many; billions made by the few, and perhaps the greatest effect is how this war has influenced human rights and civil liberties on a global scale. This is perhaps one of the more tragic consequences of this war, and has created such a profound effect that is has changed how nations of the world interact with each other. Exactly what effects the global war on terrorism have had on human rights and civil liberties requires a thorough examination, and will be better understood if both human rights and civil liberties are explored separately.
Civil Liberties
The term civil liberties is one of those terms that the public at large doesn’t fully understand; so to remedy this perhaps it’s best to analyze it first. If one were to ask a person walking down the street what they thought liberty meant, generally you would receive a response of either a confused look, or an answer of right(s) and/or freedom(s). It is one of those phrases that most people know is important, but very rarely know what it is referring to. Often when one hears the word liberty; it is in reference to some type of freedom for the people, so the latter answer is not far from the correct meaning. The problem that arises is that freedom implies that anything can be done; such as screaming fire in a movie theater, or trying to take a gun on a plane. Therefore liberty must refer to a more realistic definition of freedom; one that includes society and those people whom reside in it. Meaning liberty must be freedom within reason; freedom within boundaries; still freedom but taking into consideration the rest of society and acknowledging their freedoms also. So while one may have the freedom to scream fire in a movie theater or take a gun on a plane people must realize there are rules and consequences to those actions; meaning if there is no fire, or the person who tries to bring a gun on the plane is not authorized to do so; the result will be serious consequences.
When the word civil is examined; it often is in reference to order, or structure in relation to citizens, and when discussing citizens that implies they are a group of people belonging to a type of ordered or structured body... or a government. And how does a government provide structure and order to its people; with laws and regulation. So when combined civil and liberty could be defined as the relationship of lawful freedoms between a government and its citizenry, or to define it more simply civil liberties are the rights and freedoms of the people from its government as established by the government and its citizens. For example freedom of speech, right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers, and freedom of religion are all considered to be civil liberties. Unfortunately the global war on terrorism has had an interesting effect on civil liberties abroad… in short, they have been overlooked on a global scale; how and why are the more intriguing questions.
There have been many discussions concerning civil liberties and how they have become much more restricted since the beginning of the global war on terrorism, but for Americans at least; this is nothing new. The Presidents of the United States have a general tendency to restrict individual rights and cut back civil liberties during times of war; regardless of whether or not those actions are necessary. For example, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Habeas corpus being a legal document designed to protect the rights of detainees allowing them to come before a court quickly, and requiring those who are detaining them to prove that they are doing so lawfully. This act allowed the Lincoln administration to detain people that they believed to be either dangerous, or potentially dangerous throughout the war. Another example came during WWII when President Roosevelt and his administration seized and interned nearly 100,000 Japanese-Americans for the entirety of the war; after the bombing by the Japanese navy on Pearl Harbor. He also authorized; under the guise of national security; wiretapping and eavesdropping to be conducted on whomever the government suspected were threats or potential threats… beginning to sound familiar? This unfortunate trend seems to carry as long as nations; specifically the US in this case; are at war. Eventually these actions are repealed, declared unconstitutional, and the excessive enforcement of these civil rights violations generally diminishes to some degree (Zalman, 2007). While the repression of civil rights is nothing new in a time of war, this particular war has brought about what could be considered much more extreme repression of rights. A few very powerful example of this were generated in the United States such as the Military Force Bill, and the Patriot Act.
After the attacks on the world trade centers in New York there was a flood of questionable bills and acts there were passed into law in the US; all of which were introduced at a time where the social and political environment of the country was united in a desire to get “justice”, as a result it was seen as unpatriotic to raise too many questions. One bill that was introduced and passed into law 7 days after the September 11th attacks was the Authorization for Use of Military Force bill. In summary, this bill allowed the President to “…use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons (Authorization for Use of Military Force bill, 2001).” While this bill went generally unnoticed by the public; the next bill was quite the opposite. On October 26th, 2001 President George W. Bush signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act; more commonly known as the USA Patriot Act. This act had a variety of effects such as expanding the definition of terrorism to also include what is referred to as domestic terrorism, or allowing the jurisdiction of the act to expand the powers of law enforcement agencies. It also allowed for an increase of various law enforcement agencies ability to conduct searches and surveillance of electronic communications such as phone calls, phone messages, and e-mail all without a court order. The bill also granted permission for searches and seizures of records; for example medical, financial, business, or any other records of those considered to be either terrorists or suspected terrorists, or of those who have a connection or suspected connection to terrorists. It also increases law enforcement and other immigration authority’s powers for detaining (potentially indefinitely) and deporting immigrants suspected of possible involvement with terrorist acts. Authorized “sneak and peek” search warrants; meaning after they enter a private residence without the knowledge or consent of the owner, and if anything is found the officers then acquire a search warrant making it legal for them to use that evidence recently obtained against you… after the fact (Doyle, 2002). While these are only a few of the powers granted by the Patriot Act they are the ones that were so loudly contested or declared to be illegal and a gross violation of our civil liberties. Some argue that the in times of emergency the courts tend to comply with whatever the current administration at the time believes necessary, and in the case of the US it results in abandonment the principals laid out in the Bill of Rights; which bypasses their role as protectors of civil liberties (Hardin, 2004). Most consider the only need to bypass the law would be in cases where the evidence was most likely circumstantial, or in cases where things would need to be done quickly. As a result one’s civil liberties, such as the right to a fair trial; may be put into jeopardy, and grievous errors may occur. It’s comparable to the argument over the use of torture, is it ethical to violate one hundred people’s civil liberties if in one occasion it helps to thwart one act of terrorism?
Aside from the decreased regulation of law enforcement agencies in the name of fighting terrorism; security has also been affected greatly by the global war on terrorism. For anyone who has braved international travel; these effects are quite evident when traveling through airports. Since the 9/11 attacks that started the war on terrorism; governments have increased their nation’s security in regards to entering their nation, and they have accomplish this in a variety of ways; some of which have been criticized as violations of civil liberties. One example this increase of security can be found in the US and various other nations, and that is the use of a No Fly list; whose meaning is very clear. If a person had ever given a speech publicly that could been viewed as anti-government or criticizing the President; or if one has ever been associated with any types of demonstrations, rallies, marches or any other form of organized protests (legally or illegally) you were not allowed to travel on a plane in the US. One of the biggest critics of this was Amnesty International, arguing the surveillance of citizens, committing no illegal acts, and being placed on a terrorist watch list is a violation of civil liberties and human rights (Shah, 2007). Supposedly the no-fly list violates the civil liberties of those who peacefully participate in protest that are completely legal, and are being treated by as if they were terrorist suspects; essentially being punished for something that was not illegal. The unfortunate consequence of this is that it encourages people to avoid any public acts of opposition to the government… Big Brother doesn’t approve of that sort of behavior. Another criticism of security that helps to violate civil liberties that can be found not only in use at an airport, but also by a majority of law enforcement agencies worldwide; is the use of racial profiling. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU; racial profiling is “the practice of using race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion as the primary factor in deciding who to subject to law enforcement investigations.” This is practiced so much, and has become so predictable that slang has arisen do describe these kinds of situations DWB (driving while Black), and FWA (flying while Arab). The ACLU argues that what results from this practice is the enforcement of stereo-types about specific ethnicity, religions, and can create forms of accepted racism, and when those forms are expressed and upheld within government; in turn those actions can lead to legislation which allows for the violation of civil liberties (Urge Congress to Stop Racial Profiling, 2009).
Human Rights
Unlike civil liberties; one would think human rights is a phrase that is self explanatory and more widely understood. Essentially human rights are a set of beliefs that people universally have basic freedoms and rights they are entitled to; whether they are accepted or practiced universally is another matter. Human rights tend to be defined by the society people live in, so if child enslavement is common place in a society it wouldn’t be viewed as a violation of human rights in that society. In an effort to establish a universal definition and global acceptance of what human rights should be, on December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document was created to be used “… as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948).” In summary, the declaration states that all people are to be treated equally, possess certain rights and freedoms, should be treated fairly and justly, allowed security, and that all these rights should be protected under national and international law. It is no surprise that this document was established shortly after World War two, given after the atrocities that were seen to have taken place during that war. Perhaps it was the belief of the assembly that if all people were treated equally perhaps the desire for war would diminish, or disappear all together… somewhat naive, but noble ideals. Regardless of the intent; human rights have always been difficult to uphold and even more-so to enforce globally, and the global war on terrorism has not helped to strengthen them at all; especially when the treatment of “detainees” has been involved (Ripley, 2004).
One of the more prominent issues that have arisen since the start of the “war on terror” has been the treatment of those detained during this war due to suspected terrorist links. All those people who haven’t been hiding out in a cave for the past 8 years; at one time or another; has heard, seen, or read about the foremost accusations of treating prisoners of war illegally, and going against the rules set by the Geneva Conventions. Also various nation states; the United States being one of the nation’s most mentioned; have been accused of committing acts of torture. The accused nations have, for the most part, denied committing any illegal acts, and have yet to see any significant high ranking officials be brought up on charges, or arrested concerning their treatment of people detained during the war on terror. Why haven’t charges been brought against the high ranking officials of these governments such as former President Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, or former Prime Minister Tony Blair? Why haven’t these officials been arrested? Aside from being citizens of the most powerful and influential countries, they have access to some of the most powerful legal minds on the planet working for them; and their reasoning behind these acts was well formed, and is the following…
Violating the Geneva Convention’s Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners of War
According to the established guidelines concerning prisoners of war created during the Third Geneva Convection the definition of a prisoner of war; as relevant to the war on terror; is:
“… (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war (The Geneva Conventions, 1949)…”
One argument made by the United States Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was that Geneva Convention did not take into account the idea of terrorist organizations or independent military groups waging war on other countries; essentially that it was not entirely relevant to the current situation. Another argument made by the US Justice Department was that “…the Taliban had no right to prisoner-of-war status because it did not wear uniforms, did not operate under responsible commanders, and systematically violated the laws of war (Ripley, 2004).” Technically these are all true; the Taliban does dress like civilians which allows them to hide in plain sight, making it much difficult for other armed forces to respond in fear of accidentally harming innocent civilians. These actions put normal people at risk; showing that they have little or no regard for collateral damage or innocent casualties, but that accusation can be made in reference to both sides. That is why the Bush Administration constantly referred to the detainees as “enemy combatants”, they were not technically prisoners of war. What this allows for is that since they do not fall under a protected definition they are not protected by the articles of the Geneva Convention, and therefore torture is not illegal; grossly immoral yes, but illegal no. But it’s not as if the United States or any other government are committing torture anyway… or so they claim. Although all this proves is that the “enemy combatants” were not protected under the Geneva Convention, but regardless the act of torture is still illegal… or is it?
Committing Acts of Torture
A few years after the global war on terrorism began; information started to be released about the possibility of people being tortured in various prisons by the United States and allies. There were many accusations such as the allies allowing for suspected terrorists to be flown to secret United States controlled “black site” prisons in other counties, or when the now infamous Abu Ghraib abuse photos were leaked to the media investigations. The result was that questions about human rights and enemy combatant treatment during the war were allowed to become more prevalent. Upon further investigations it was discovered that the United States and its allies had been using what is called enhanced interrogation techniques to obtain information for captives. Some of those techniques used were:
- Isolation
- Sleep deprivation
- Sensory deprivation
- Stress positions
- Sensory bombardment
- Forced nakedness
- Sexual humiliation
- Cultural humiliation
- Being subjected to extreme cold
- Simulation of the experience of drowning, such as water boarding (Soldz, Reisner, and Olson, 2007).
The revelation of these techniques caused outrage throughout the international community, accusing the US government of committing torture; especially within humanitarian organizations. But do these acts fall under the definition of torture? Under the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act established by the United Nations in 1994 to be considered torture”… physical pain must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. And inflicting that severe pain…must have been the specific intent of the defendant to amount to a violation of the statute (FRONTLINE, 2005).” Of course the Bush Administration, and nearly every other government involved, denied that these interrogation techniques could be classified as torture. They brought out the definition of torture as described in the before mentioned act. They stated what they did wasn’t nearly as harsh as torture, argued that they were not trying to cause pain but obtain information so it technically didn’t count, claimed that what they were doing helped them to obtain useful information, and in hopes of diminishing the problem they began “resigning” officials from the administration as martyrs to appease the public. Regardless; this was still a losing battle for the US government, and in 2005 President Bush reluctantly signed Detainee Treatment Act; which created a stricter set of guidelines for the US and the treatment of prisoners; saying that he would get rid of it if he ever felt it was necessary to do so for the safety of the country. The Army Field Manual clarified the new approved techniques which were essentially some of the same interrogations techniques previously mentioned such as solitary confinement, a more mild form of sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and a techniques referred to as fear-up which is essentially self explanatory (The Army Field Manual, 2009). While there are still various humanitarian groups and other organizations calling for the stop of all enhanced interrogations techniques; overall the theme of torture has slipped from mainstream media coverage. And with the proposed closure of prison centers such as Guantanamo Bay; seemingly those allies combating the global war on terrorism have cleared the torture gauntlet in within their nations, as it were. It is unfortunate however; the ripple effect that has been created seems to have increased human rights abuses on a global scale.
With all the atrocities that have arisen with the United States lead war on global terrorism another effect on human rights has emerged, and that is the effect of providing a precedent for other nation states to do the same. With America attempting to fight terror by essentially any means necessary; many countries used that time as an opportunity to further their own agendas such as cracking down on opponents, antagonistic religious groups, separatist groups, and overall “enemies” of various nation states. One good example of this would be Russian and their war in Chechnya. On September 12th, the day after the September 11th attacks; then President Vladimir Putin insisted that Osama bin Laden was a foe Russia and the US had in common, and that he had ties to Chechnya. Putin also claimed that the West should have seen from the war in Chechnya just how dangerous Islamist extremists are (Opportunism in the Face of Tragedy, 2009). There are also many nations that have used the war on terrorism to try and create closer ties with the more powerful countries that are leading this war, or at the request of the US in attempts to acquire funding; one way they do this by assisting with the “detention, interrogation, and transfer of terrorist suspects” (Mariner, 2009). There are many cases where Egypt had assisted the CIA by detaining prisoners, and either interrogating them or just handing them over to the CIA, after which they would generally be taken to either a black site (a secret prison) or to Guantanamo Bay (Mariner, 11/03/2009). These are only few examples of nations that have used the global war on terrorism as an opportunity to commit gross human rights violations under the guise of fighting terrorism. You would think the powerful nations of the world would think twice before setting a precedent that allows others to commit such violations, and it also stuck a serious blow against the fight for human rights.
The global war on terrorism has had a profound effect on civil liberties and human rights. Not only has it show that during times of war civil liberties are perceived as a threat to the state, but it also shows that human rights take a back seat in during these times also. Treating human rights and civil liberties as if they are fleeting undermines their existence and defeats their purpose. These rights and values exist because people want to assure that those living in a democratic society are continually protected, and as such they should not be only applicable when governments see fit to recognize them. What have nations accomplished by taking these actions; has terrorism been defeated; has democracy been brought to the Middle East; is the world a safe place? All that appears to have been accomplished is that more “justified” violence has been spread throughout the world. Perhaps it’s time to find another way to fight terrorism, because it seems that maybe Martin Luther King’s theory about violence was right… that violence only creates more violence.
Bibliography
“The Army Field Manual: Sanctioning Cruelty?, Torture and Terror, Amnesty International Australia – Working to Protect Human Rights.” Amnesty International Australia – Working to Protect Human Rights. 19 Mar. 2009. Web. 22 Nov. 2009. .
“Authorization for Use of Military Force.” FindLaw – Legal News & Information. 18 Sept. 2001. Web. 24 Nov. 2009. .
“Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act, No. 22 of 1994.” Article 2. 3 Oct. 2002. Web. 22 Nov. 2009. .
Doyle, Charles. “The USA PATRIOT Act: A Sketch.” CRS Report for Congress (18 Apr. 2002): 1-5. Web. 24 Nov. 2009. .
“Ethics of War.” BBC – Homepage. Web. 02 Dec. 2009. .
“FRONTLINE: the torture question: analysis: redefining torture?” PBS. 18 Oct. 2005. Web. 22 Nov. 2009. .
“The Geneva Conventions of 1949.” International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). 3 Sept. 2009. Web. 22 Nov. 2009. .
Hardin, Russell. “CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE ERA OF MASS TERRORISM.” The Journal of Ethics 8 (2004): 77-95. Print.
Mariner, Joanne. “The Global Impact of U.S. “War on Terror” Abuses.” Find Law. 11 Mar. 2009. Web. 23 Nov. 2009. .
Mariner, Joanne. “The Global Impact of U.S. “War on Terror” Abuses Part II.” Find Law. 25 Mar. 2009. Web. 23 Nov. 2009. .
“Opportunism in the Face of Tragedy.” Terrorism. Web. 23 Nov. 2009. .
Ripley, Amanda. “Redefining Torture.” Time. 13 June 2004. Web. 22 Nov. 2009. .
Shah, Anup. “War on Terror.” Global Issues. 15 Apr. 2007. Web. 23 Nov. 2009. .
SOLDZ, STEPHEN, STEVE REISNER, and BRAD OLSON. “The Pentagon’s IG Report Contradicts What the APA Has Said About the Involvement of Psychologists in Abusive Interrogations.” Counter Punch (7 June 2007). Web. 22 Nov. 2009. .
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Welcome to the United Nations: It’s Your World. Web. 22 Nov. 2009. .
“Urge Congress to Stop Racial Profiling.” American Civil Liberties Union. Web. 24 Nov. 2009. .
“War on Terror ‘Curbing Human Rights'” BBC News. 16 Jan. 2002. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.
Zalman, Amy, and Marvin Zalman. “Order and Liberty in a Time of Terror.” Terrorism. 2007. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.
