War on Terror and Human Rights - Essay Example

War on Terror and Human Rights Different nations in the world have known the sad meaning of terrorism in the recent past. There has been emergence of terror groups whose sole purpose has been to destabilize governments and other organizations in pursue for political interests. These terror groups are involved in terrible criminal offences such as mass killing by bombing, destruction of property, taking hostage of people, interrupting transport means especially hijacking ships, and planes. Nations affected by terror and the world at large has risen to fight terrorism. Establishment of strategies on how to fight and minimize terrorism has been the focus lately and this has been termed the war against terror. Sadly, though, the war against terror has contributed to the growing abuse of human rights (Shah, 2011). Suspects of terror attacks have faced the worst of human right violation. America is trying its best to stop terror attacks after they were bombed in 2001 and many people lost lives. This forced America to launch a search for the bombers thought to have being members of an established terror group named al-Qaeda. The capture of such dangerous individuals who were taking away innocent lives would prevent future attacks. Trial and prosecution to these suspects was necessary as per justice. The American law is clear on legal procedures that suspects should be put through, but these were not followed. Their cases have taken too long without legal hearing. They have no lawyers to represent them in court. It appears as though there was declaration of guilty without trial. This violates their basic human rights; they are entitled to a fair trial and remain innocent until proven guilty. The judicial system is ignorant about this, however (Williams and Baum, 2010). Some people argue that these terror suspects deserve to be locked up in such conditions because of the pain they inflicted on relatives of the 2001 victims. They may be offenders right but everyone remains innocent until proven guilty by a tribunal. They have the right to have lawyers and they deserve an opportunity for a tribunal trial. No matter the suspicions of terror acts, they are humans and entitled to some rights as provided by the law. The sooner they are tried, the better but they do not deserve condemnation before trial. Denial of the access to a lawyer aims at ensuring they lose their cases if they are ever tried and then be condemned to a death penalty as it commonly occurs (Keyes, 2010). Sadly, some of the terror suspects are minors, children under the age of eighteen. These minors face the wrath of overstaying in prisons, no trial and there are no logical explanations as to why they are facing the suspicion. Their cases do not add up! They are not tried either and they waste the time of their youth in prisons, are exposed to torture and have no hope for tomorrow. They are condemned to live in such prisons to time indefinite! As much as we need to get rid of terrorism, does that warrant society to deny minors their basic rights? It is evident that justice needs to be done to these children! It is possible to think that we need to lock these children up if there is evidence linking them with terrorism. However, society and the judicial system should bear in mind that they are entitled to just trial and fair treatment. The international law is clear about this and it should not be bending. In any democratic judicial system, these children deserve a chance to tell their story before a tribunal. The terror suspects held up in Guantanamo are subject to physical, emotional, and psychological torture. Their heads are banged against walls giving them serious injuries. The rooms in which they are detained solitary rooms, and they were kept away from the rest of the world. Humans are social naturally and denial of an opportunity to interact results to emotional instabilities. These suspects deserve moral support from family and friends and they are not allowed to receive visitors. Provisions by the law demand that these people be allowed at least a visit by family. Unfortunately, their families do not even know where they are detained and in cases where they know, they are denied a chance to visit. Supporters of this unfair system of dealing with terror suspects argue that access to the world would give them an opportunity to plan fresh terror attacks. However, they have not been proven guilty in the first place. The physical torture is not justified either, it leads to medical complications and at times, it pushes the suspects to plead guilty even when they are innocent. These are the days of democracy; a system of injustice to terror suspects is a subject to hot debate and dropping. According to a reputable humanitarian organization, some of the terror suspects in Guantanamo committed homicide under certain medical conditions that warrant a fair treatment. They did not have a control of their senses then, and the law is clear about such cases, they are not considered first class cases of murder. Some detainees deserve other further hearings for their cases to be judged but this is apparently not happening. Under such conditions therefore, these detainees do not deserve the condemnation and inhuman treatment. The American government has promised to address these issues, but not much is evident currently. The grievances of these suspects need a listening ear to have their fate determined in a just manner. Every human being deserves that. It is argued by some people that these detainees should never be released into society for fear of what they might do in the future. If proven innocent, it will be against the law to detain them. It is oppressing to detain someone without sufficient evidence linking him or her to the crime. Some suspects are victims of mistaken identity but nobody is willing to hear their story (Alice and Benedek , 2004). Many Americans feel that their security should be the primary goal in the war against terror. However, any government seeking to protect its people should also bear in mind that its justice system should uphold the values expected by the international law (Weinberg, 2008).. In such cases therefore, the international law deserves respect and should apply without discrimination. It has been noted that in some cases whereby voluntary lawyers offer to help the desperate detainees, these detainees are fed with lies and slander against the lawyers so that they reject the legal help. These detainees end up losing their cases and this is denial of justice. The reputation of the lawyers is destroyed by slander and that in itself is an injustice. According to Weston and Claude (2006), sometimes in the pursuit for justice, others face injustice. The American government should adopt new strategies in the war against terror. It is desirable to articulate changes in prisons, which brings the essentiality of protecting international law. Torture in prisons is an issue to oppose vehemently. Therefore, as analyzed in this paper, the cases need fresh hearing, leading to humane conditions especially for minor cases. In cases where evidence is lacking, there exists no need for detention. Detainees should be allowed representation by qualified lawyers. It is inappropriate to deny any human being the rights they are entitled to when undergoing trial. These detainees need to catch up with family once in awhile and therefore family members should be allowed to visit. As clearly debated above it is evident that the war on terror is contributing highly to abuse of human rights. It is worth noting that rights define everyone as a human worth of fair treatment. They should always be upheld. Justice systems should not compromise when it comes to pursue of justice. They should put into place new strategies for handling terror suspects without subjecting them into inhuman treatment. It is evident that the international law needs respect, putting it into application without exceptions for the respect of human right. References Alice, Y. and Benedek, W. (2004). Anti-terrorist measures and human rights. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Keyes, C. (2010). Trial of Guantanamo terror suspect to resume in October. Retrieved on November 16, 2011, from http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-31/us/guantanamo.khadr.trial_1_military-trial-gall-bladder-surgery-prosecution?_s=PM:US Shah, A. (2011). War on Terror. Global Issues. Retrieved on November 15, 2011, from http://www.globalissues.org/issue/245/war-on-terror Weinberg, L. (2008). Democratic responses to terrorism. New York: Taylor & Francis. Weston, H. and Claude, R. (2006). Human rights in the world community: issues and action. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. Williams, J. and Baum G. (2010). Deadlock possible in trial of Guantanamo terror suspect. Retrieved on November 16, 2011, from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/15/nation/la-na-guantanamo-trial-20101116 Read More