Nassau's immigration detention centre versus Guantanamo Bay detention camp

Our Gitmo?
Tribune242 Insight
Nassau, Bahamas


There are few places in the world more notorious today than the detention camp attached to the US Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Described by Amnesty International as "the gulag of our times", it has become a symbol for arbitrary detention, abusive treatment, degradation, torture. For many who esteem America's role as a promoter of human rights, it also represents betrayal and hypocrisy.

To draw a comparison with Nassau's immigration detention centre might seem a bit far fetched. One was for several years at the very heart of the global War on Terror, a testing ground for the acceptability of new "interrogation" techniques, and a powerful challenge to the standard interpretation of the Geneva Convention. The other is a modest facility on a little island, designed to hold a few hundred illegal immigrants until they can be repatriated.

But as I considered the latest accusations of abuse and poor conditions at the Carmichael Road Detention Centre, it occurred to me that they are both underwritten by the same fundamental attitude toward human rights - that they are optional, and can be dispensed with in certain situations or for certain people.

Consider Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette's response to last week's reports of overflowing and stinking toilets, insufficient food and bedding, and sexual assault at the Detention Centre. Promising he would investigate only some of the allegations - specifically, the part about the toilets - Mr Symonette added that "if conditions are uncomfortable then people shouldn't break the law."

Then consider Dick Cheney's 2005 comment that no other country would treat people "determined to kill" its citizens as well as America had treated Guantanamo detainees.

The assumption in both cases was that the people in these camps are guilty as charged - despite the fact that not a single one of them had actually been formally charged with anything and certainly hadn't been convicted.

The Bahamian constitution establishes that all persons accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty. It also says every accused person has the right to a public trial. Yet every suspected illegal immigrant detained in this country is denied both these rights, and subjected instead to the murky procedure known as "processing" - which, if it entails anything at all beyond immediate deportation, is presumably even less impartial than, and certainly just as secret as, Guantanamo's much vilified military tribunals.

In assuming the guilt of detainees at their respective camps, Messrs Cheney and Symonette not only ignored the law in their own countries, but also long established international law - not to mention the tradition of individual rights that stretches back to the very foundations of western civilisation; presumption of innocence was enshrined in ancient Greek and Roman law, and established in the Book of Deuteronomy.

Biblically inclined readers will know this is also the book which established retributive justice, the concept that the punishment should fit the crime - another cornerstone of our ethical heritage. Mr Symonette's seems happy to ignore, unless he actually believes those guilty of fleeing terrible conditions - including, in Haiti, a cholera outbreak - have committed a crime heinous enough to deserve the alleged conditions at the centre, including hunger, severe beatings and rape.

Mr Symonette again echoes the former US vice president in his insistence that conditions are better than we have been led to believe. When last interviewed, he said there are "no outstanding issues at the detention centre." According to Mr Cheney, Guantanamo detainees were "living in the tropics. They're well fed. They've got everything they could possibly want."

Both men could feel safe in making these claims, even in the face of sustained condemnation by international human rights groups, as there was no way for average citizens to uncover the definitive truth for themselves.

What cannot be hidden so easily, however, is the fact that both facilities trample on another right of historical pedigree: namely habeas corpus, the right of an imprisoned person to demand that the legality of his or her incarceration, and in particular its length, be examined by a court.

DIFFERENCES

So much for the similarities between Guantanamo Bay and the Carmichael Road Detention Centre; what of the differences?

One particularly telling distinction concerns the reaction of the public in each case. The Bush administration suffered a huge backlash over the treatment of Guantanamo detainees, as many Americans agreed with-soon-to-be president Barack Obama that it represented a "sad chapter in American history."

In the Bahamas, by contrast, the public seems to have no problem whatsoever with the way immigrant detainees are allegedly treated.

Whenever claims of abuse or neglect are raised, they are either met with silence, or worse, with cheers of approval.

This explains the attitude of virtually every local politician who ever fielded questions about detainee treatment. The public's reaction leads them to believe the average Bahamian is petty, insular and viscous enough to actually enjoy the brutalisation of another human - man, woman or child - provided that person is a foreigner.

It also explains why, of all the claims that surfaced last week - underfed detainees being offered vermin-infested porridge, overcrowding and lack of beds, rapes and denial of medical treatment - the only one which animated Mr Symonette into promising an investigation was our source's "horrifying experience" in the men's bathroom, where faces was "everywhere".

"There just looked like so much potential for disease to spread throughout the place," the detainee told us.

The minister's reaction was presumably influenced by the outbreak in Haiti of a strain of cholera so potent that if untreated, victims can die in as little as two hours.

Overflowing toilets in an area shared by many people is exactly the kind of situation in which cholera is spread. If this were to happen, it is unlikely the disease could be contained at the centre.

Now that would be a real political disaster with a general election approaching, unlike a handful of foreigners being mistreated.

Those sensitive to spiritual explanations might feel a plague of Biblical proportions could indeed be on the cards - a just punishment for our callous disregard for our fellow man.

To the more practically inclined, it should be obvious that all those who are unwilling to accept this characterisation of the Bahamian people must stand and be counted, must make our politicians aware we will not accept the stain on our collective conscience which the detention centre represents.

We must demand the release of a report on conditions at the centre commissioned more than a year ago but never made public, and push for the establishment of a truly independent investigative commission that includes journalists and human rights activists, and is empowered to inspect the facility and speak with detainees.

What do you think?

email: pnunez@tribunemedia.net

December 13, 2010

Tribune242 Insight

Bahamas Blog International