Are Some Rights Negotiable When it Comes to Fighting Terrorism?

¶ … human rights are negotiable when it comes to fighting terrorism. Different nations at different times have espoused varying policies regarding what rights are accorded to parties accused of criminal activity, typically within the boundaries of their undisputed geographical and legal jurisdictions. With the increasing levels of global cross-border travel and residency over the past century, certain international bodies have evolved to help establish protocols, guidelines and a body of law for detention and treatment of suspects in the international arena. These measures are designed to ensure consistent, appropriate treatment of persons accused of criminal activity that may span national and to help ensure the basic rights of all human beings regardless of their origin or the location of the activity in question.

In the absence of clear and universally accepted international authority, the enforcement of human rights standards in the international forum has been subject to variability resulting from the political and military influence of the nations involved in individual issues. In addition, the level of adherence by national governments to their own moral, ethical and even legal standards has proven inconsistent when tested in the international arena with national interests at stake. This was exemplified by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States and the ensuing aftermath. Since this momentous event, the question of whether a government is permitted to suspend its obligations to protect human rights has become a serious matter. The question has taken on particular prominence in light of questionable lapses and breaches since 2001 by the United States and other nations, which have operated under the ostensible justification of responding to the so-called terror threat with an unregulated "war on terror."

Following World War II, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the United Nations lent official credence to the human rights of civilians and combatants in international conflicts. In particular, the third and fourth Geneva Conventions detail standards for the humane treatment of prisoners of war, as well as the rights of civilians impacted by wartime conflicts. The Geneva conventions are still considered the cornerstone of modern humanitarian law and laws of war, despite having been severely questioned and tested by the actions of the United States Bush administration and its allies in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. The Conventions were challenged in 2002 when the Bush administration asserted that suspected members of al Qaeda and the Taliban would be excluded from human rights protections provided by the Conventions. Unfortunately, the 1949 Conventions and their protocol additions did not include sufficiently clear definitions of combatants or guidance for handling terrorist organizations. Over the ensuing years, the United States engaged in numerous highly publicized and controversial abuses ranging from the invasion of Iraq, egregious treatment of prisoners of war in installations like Abu Ghraib, crimes against civilians, torture of suspects, and the detention of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay facility without charge or due process. As a result, American leadership and reputation related to international law and human rights were severely compromised by the Bush administration's aversion to the spirit and letter of the Conventions.