The US Supreme Court has found that article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to all detainees, whether prisoners of war. civilians or socalled unlawful combatants in the "war on terror".
They are therefore legally entitled to humane treatment "in all circumstances". Trials must be under "regularly constituted courts affording all the judicial guarantees" Torture, cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment are prohibited.
Although the court's decision has no direct impact on the continued USe of Guantanamo, it has profound ramifications for the whole "war on terror" and the use of such showpiece gulags.
In early 2002, when the first batch of 20 men were flown out to the Guantanamo camp
snacked. cuffed and blinded by blacked-out goggles - Bush proclaimed that the Geneva Conventions had no applicaDON.
Since then over 750 inmates have passed through the camp. Over the years the incentire cerennon or these detainees without trial has been determined as cruel and degrading treatment by leading human rights organisations who have called for the camp to be closed.
A study by New Jersey Law school found that 90 per cent of the detainees had nothing to do with terrorism. The supposed plan was for the men to be tried before quasi "military tribunals", which the court has now denounced as a total abrogation of basic rights. But only 10 were even charged.
Those from Britain who have been returned to this countrv have been released into the community despite government powers first to detain without trial and then to impose nouse arrest against those deemed a "threat".
Three years ago the Red Cross took the unusual step of making public its concern Lial ne legine was daving severe psychological repercussions. Hundreds of detainees have engaged in attempts at self harm.
By 2003, 20 per cent were on anti-depressants because of isolation, humiliating interrogations, sleep deprivation and despair. last month three succeeded in committing suicide.
The response of high level officials - "this is a good PR move" and "an act of asymmetrical warfare" denounced by Amnesty International as "showing a chilling disregard for human life". The Commens were then hurriedly disowned.
The beginning of the end came in 2004 when, in an earlier case, the Supreme Court ruled that inmates were entitled to challenge their detention in US courts.
There seems little doubt that, for all its narrowness -technically only applying to the small number charged to appear before one of the triDunals - this judgement undercuts the whole operation.
The logic should apply to all detainees held by the United States in the "War on terror" - including all those at Guantanamo, Bag ram, "ghost detainees" at secret prisons and the use of coercive interrogabon reconcues.
If carried through to its logical conclusion all these detainees have to be bought before a lawful court - civil or court martial - or be released.
But there is no possibility now that 95 per cent of them would ever be tried - there was never the evidence or what there is completely tainted (for instance in deriving from torture or other unlawtul treatment)
Of course there is little chance of a mass release in the short term. Bush has been ignoring the 2004 ruling for two years - condemned by Bill Goodman of the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights that represents 200 Guantanamo detainees "breaking American law and undermining America's stature in the The judgement reflects profound splits in the ruling class over the whole strategy. process". Nonetheless this is a political defeat, given how much Bush has staked on the ISSUC
Some have claimed that Guantanamo and the "military tribunals" were a rushed policy that went wrong. But there is little to support such
claims. It was a well-thought out strategy that was deliberately continued in the face of universal condemnation for years.
Its function was to serve as a
lesson to anyone standing in
the way of the new imperial order, particularly Muslims. A
modern equivalent of Vlad the Impaler, impaling bodies on stakes on the outskirts of town
in Transylvania or Catholic priests swinging from gibbets at cross-roads in 16th Century England.
The detainees were seen as hostages to be held until "victory" - or such moment when their release would be symbolic of US power rather than weakness. Exactly the same thinking lies behind the Israeli detention of thousands of Palestinians, many without
charge or trial.
The mistake made was in thinking that victory would come soon and that opposition would be insignificant. The combination of a debilitating drawn out war in Iraq and Afghanistan, growing opposition at home and a global radicalisation against military imperialism has turned Guantanamo into a rallying point for protest.
The Supreme Court decision, reflecting the House of Lords decision on internment without trial in 2004, was really about the limits of untrammelled US imperial power, about the character of the "war" and those subject to it. It didn't result from some new outbreak of liberalness.
This is a wing of the US state that has shown itself to be a cornerstone of the right. The judgement reflects profound splits in the ruling class over the whole strategy. It is part of the same dynamic that saw a brace of ex-generals speak out over the war and even neo-cons criticising Rumsfeld..
All are propelled by much deeper divisions, widespread and increasingly visible across society.
So when Bush said, as he did several times prior to the ruling, that he'd like to close down the camp, he was just waiting for guidance from the court as to whether trials should be civil or military - he was bluffing.
Of course it won't be the end of such detention. But the field of manoeuvre for US imperialism has certainly narrowed - as the furore over the collaboration of European states like Britain with the "extraordinary rendition" flights has also shown. It all depends on the continued mobilisation of mass opposition, particularly in the USA itself.