Doctors as pawns? Law and medical ethics at Guantánamo Bay.

This symposium poses the question: “Guantanamo Bay: How should we respond?” When I thought about this question, it occurred to me that we talk about “responding” in a number of ways. We respond in games, such as chess or bridge. But the detention policy of the Bush Administration (“the Administration”) is not a game—certainly not from the perspectives of those who are being (or have been) detained at Guantánamo Bay for prolonged periods since the “global war on terror” began. We also respond in conversation. However, we should not permit rhetoric to distract from action on the ground. Statements of interrogation and detention policy are one thing (especially when prepared for public consumption or in response to public criticism); interrogation and detention practices may be quite another. We respond in negotiation. That model, too, makes me uncomfortable. My intuition and my legal training tell me that some things should simply not be negotiable, among them certain absolute commitments to fundamental human rights: freedom from cruel, inhuman, and degrading (“CID”) treatment, as well as freedom from torture. This is, after all, the position adopted in two core human rights treaties: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), and the Convention against Torture and