4A - The Michigan Daily - Monday, January 28, 2002 OP/ED (ih]C atrh4r un:40atill 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 daily.letters@umich.edu EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 GEOFFREY GAGNON Editor in Chief MICHAEL GRASS NICHOLAS WOOMER Editorial Page Editors Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. NOTABLE QUOTABLE << An appalling pornographic catalogue of violence - An Algerian security service investigator who was quoted in Britain's the Guardian newspaper on an al-Qaida recruitment video that has been circulating in Britain's mosques. YOU AMERIA~LA&KEEP 05 W rU4 NO FESPECT FbK (ALL 4W A TENDENCY To i lALL (OutSEL'ES AD ThOSE AMMD L~YOU- IUMAj.I EIGHTS! . Wllt NO SPEC1r fo? UMU 60 }. 0 Breaking down Guantanamo AMER G. ZAHR THE PROGRESSIVE PEN 0 s of yesterday, our government is hold- 'mg about 160 peo- ple at the American military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Their physical status seems quite clear. They are imprisoned, in quite ques- tionable conditions. Many, if not all, of their cells are surrounded only by chain-link fences and cov- ered atop by corrugated steel sheets. Physically, they are prisoners. This seems quite clear. Their legal status is, of course, in quite a limbo. International human rights groups, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, have called the individuals kept at Guantanamo Bay "prisoners of war." Our gov- ernment, of course, continues to call them "unlawful combatants" or "detainees." By refer- ring to them in this terminology, they are, of course, not recognizing that these prisoners have any rights under international law, namely the Geneva Conventions. The United States govern- ment, our government, is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, meaning it has agreed to abide by the rules and regulations set forth by the international community. When we actually take a look at the Geneva Conventions, it helps us to narrow the debate on the legal status of the individuals held in Cuba. The Geneva Convention clearly states that an individual becomes a prisoner of war if detained while in uniform of an opposing country or a member of a recognizable militia. This may not make al-Qaida members prisoners of war, but Taliban soldiers probably would qualify. But what is even more pertinent in the Geneva Con- vention is the clear statement of who is to deter- mine the status of detained individuals. If there is any question as to whether individuals detained in combat are prisoners of war, signa- tories to the Geneva Conventions, including our government, are bound to treat them as if they, were. The Geneva Convention then provides for the creation of a council to determine the final status of the detained persons. This provision is extremely important. It means that our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld and our president, George W. Bush have absolutely no authority to be classifying the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. If they have a question, they must look to the Gene- va Conventions to solve the problem. Inter- national law, though, is also not having its finest hour, as we have not yet heard of any plans of the Geneva Convention to convene a council to determine the status of the prison- ers, as it is required to do. We can probably safely assume that if there have been any overtures by officials from the Geneva Con- vention to create a council, our government has been working behind the scenes to pre- vent any such developments. In other words, Rumsfeld has no right under international law, which our government abides by and helped create, to classify the prisoners as "unlawful combatants" or "detainees." It also seems quite silly whenever Rumsfeld or the collection of talking heads on national media begin to say that the prisoners we have detained are being treated much better in our care than they would be if they had remained in Afghanistan. In justifying our treatment of these prisoners, our Secretary of Defense and many commentators have actually resorted to comparing the way we treat prisoners to the way forces and conditions in Afghanistan may have treated. Comparing our practices with that of a rag-tag militia should not be the measuring stick with which to justify our actions to our citizens and to the world. In another interesting twist, it turns out that our military presence in Cuba is quite unique in nature. At most all of our military bases, U.S. law applies. In other words, if you happen to be a non-military individual at an American mili- tary base in Germany, for instance, you have recourse under U.S. law if your civil rights are infringed in any way. Our base at Guantanamo Bay, however, does not function under the same rubric. Since we lease the land we use in Cuba (under a lease which provides that the lease can- not be terminated unless both parties agree, which is why we have maintained a presence there even during Castro's rule), the land of Guantanamo Bay is technically Cuban. This means that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay cannot resort to American law if they believe their civil rights have been abridged; and since they have not been openly acknowledged as prisoners of war, they also have no recourse under international law in the event they wish to make a case that their rights have been violated. They effectually have no rights. Yes, our country is still in a sensitive state and may always be from now on. But the issues arising in Guantanamo Bay are not a matter of nicely treating a bunch of prisoners who are determined to destroy America; rather, the issue at hand is whether or not we are willing to set an example and follow international law, even when it is emotionally difficult to do so. We cannot holler and scream when other countries around the world violate human rights, when we are not ourselves willing to lead the way. If any- one is looking for a reason as to why much of the international community dislikes our gov- emnent, our handling of the Guantanamo Bay prigoner dilemma is the prime illustration.- 0 0 0 Amer G. Zahr can be reached via e-mail at zahrag@umich.edu IV LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 0 WOLV censorship insults the viewers TO THE DAILY: My name is Chris Fici, and I currently co-pro- duce 3 Parking Spaces, a live comedy show that airs on WOLV-TV (Channel 70 in all residence halls) Thursday night at midnight. I'm writing hopefully on behalf of all of my fellow producers at WOLV, in the interest of our freedom of speech and expression against recent censorship attempts being forced upon WOLV. University Housing, which is responsible for funding WOLV, has recently demanded that cer- tain shows on WOLV "tone down" their content in order to follow a certain set of standards that the station has set. These standards can be found at http://www.wolv.org/Constitution.html. In all honesty, some programs on WOLV don't always follow these suggestions to the tee, but it has never caused the station any harm in the past. In essence, any "content which would offend contemporary community standards and lacks seri- ous educational, artistic, or scientific value" is something that is very hard to define, and that should't be defined by a single group like Univer- sity Housing. These same viewers are also free to contact WOLV and complain about what they are seeing, but so far, there has not been any mass attempt by members of the viewing public to complain and force changes in the content of certain shows on WOLV. We like to believe that the intelligence of our viewers should not be and is not insulted. If they do not like what they are seeing, they are free to either change the channel or complain. So far, the programming at WOLV has been met with a very positive and supportive reception from the student community. It is the Housing Department, which does not make up the opinion of the student-viewing public, that dangles the threat of pulling funding for WOLV so certain pro- grams can be censored to their liking, without tak- ing into consideration the opinions of the viewing public and WOLV as a whole. Hopefully, people can see beyond what may be a "cut and dry" issue of rules and standards to perceive a very real threat of unnecessary censor- ship for the people who work very hard to create the varied programming of WOLV. If you would like to express your opinons on this, please e-mail wolv@umich.edu or call (734) 763-8130. CHRIs Fici Transgendered bathrooms protect 'treed To THE DAILY: I sat here at work this morning pondering databases, contemplating what flavor tea to drink, and perusing The Michigan Daily's "Letters" section when I suddenly had to sprint to the (gender specific) bathroom across the hall to vomit. This act of hurling was inspired by a 1/25/02 letter regarding gender-neutral bath- rooms ("Transgender bathrooms make life 'uncomfortable"'). Are we so backwards as to deny people the fundamental right of relieving themselves? I know for a fact that several peo- ple have complained about being physically accosted or verbally abused in the bathroom simply because of who they are. I'm hoping the author missed the point of creating these facilities and assumed that all bathrooms would become big, open, stall-less defecation chambers reminiscent of some ancient Mongolian hole-in-the-earth. Otherwise, he seems overly fearful of including one neutral bathroom in a high-traffic building where any- one can feel free to engage in a natural, neces- sary, involuntary process. I think it's not out of line to say that while the right to urination is not included in any law books, it's safe to assume that such rights are guaranteed in the U.S. In short, I encourage the young author to, like me, continue using the gender-specific restrooms that are already provided. No one is going to handcuff anybody else to a uni-sex toi- let and force him or her to use it at gunpoint. Gender-specific restrooms will continue be readily available for people to use. But I truly hope that there is something less threatening available for my transgendered friends. EVAN HANSEN Alumnus To THE DAILY: The only agenda at work in the establish- om to urinate' ment of gender-neutral bathrooms is that of advancing the right of all community members - even minority community members - to a life free from harassment and bodily harm. Readers should recognize this sentiment in the Bill of Rights, as well as in the Division of Student Affairs' principle of "human dignity for each person." Freedom to urinate and void one's bowels without verbal slurs or physical attack is perhaps even more basic and essential than one's right to free speech. These bathrooms have nothing to do with sexual orientation and everything to do with the basic human rights that have been denied to transgendered people for far too long. There are students, lecturers, professors, deans, and staff on this campus who do not feel safe in gender-restricted bathrooms. For- get comfort; this is an issue of safety. Com- munity members have been physically assaulted for using bathrooms where they were perceived as not belonging. There is no movement to convert all bathrooms to gen- der-neutral, but having some bathrooms available - even one per building - goes a tremendous distance toward the University's pledge of a safe and inclusive environment for all community members. If readers are uncomfortable with a per- son of a different gender in the stall next to them, they might consider asking themselves why, especially since there are thousands of gender-segregated bathrooms available for general use. One might also consider educat- ing one's self as to the difference between gender and sexual orientation. Perhaps then readers will come to recognize the need for these bathrooms and the positive difference they've made in the lives of many. EuAS KAss The letter writer is the president of the Queer Engineers Discourse _J 'O health of everyone surrounding a smoker, is not the only reason why this ban should be passed. Smokers all too often leave disgusting cigarette butts throughout the halls and promote safety ,risks and destruction of property. A resident of South Quad myself, I have experienced a few too varnv fire alarms of which T a m su r ea,,e into this matter. In their Residence Hall Re- Application brochures, they promote Residence Halls as "The Perfect Choice." I, for one, am returning to the resident halls next year, and would like to see University Housing make the dorms a little more "perfect" by eliminating smoig > - .. . . ... .....