• Deprived of money or valuables without a receipt (and these must be returned at the time of release).
• Given individual privileges other than for reasons of health, sex, age, military rank or professional qualifications.
• Compelled to do military work, nor work which is dangerous, unhealthy or degrading.
Jurisdiction.
To begin, I address the issue of jurisdiction. The fact that Guantanamo bay is physically in the country of Cuba makes no difference. They are still holding the "terrorists" prisoner on United States soil. Because we are holding the "terrorists" as our prisoners of war, they should both get the rights that any other person deserves. Thus, ultimate jurisdiction lies within the power of the United States, but along with that comes many other restraints and requirements that we are disobeying. If this double standard doesn't stop now, who knows when it will?.
Habeas Corpus.
Two striking arguments are brought forth on the issue of Habeas Corpus. To begin, there are two routes that can be taken, one by following the Geneva Conventions and the second by the United States Constitution. The United States doesn't want to abide by either program because certain consequences come with each course of action. For instance with the 3rd Geneva Convention the prisoners must be released when the hostilities cease. .
There are two ways of looking at this scenario with the Geneva Conventions. The "war on terrorism" can go on for many years; the result would be holding these "terrorists" as prisoner for many years to come and use the Geneva Conventions as an escape goat. The second view is that the war isn't even a valid war, and that these prisoners should be released promptly because it is an injustice to our entire system that defends its perfection amongst all other systems of law. The United States realizes both the risks involved with both of the situations.
Many critics, in fact, point to some of the blunders of these policies-such as Guantanamo Bay and the Iraq War-as severe violations of human rights. ... Even during the Presidential Election of 2012, Republican candidates Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul sparred over the legality and benefits of the law, demonstrating how the debate continues into the present. ...