Suchergebnisse

One route out of continental Europe for Jewish refugees seeking to escape Nazi and Vichy persecution was via Franco's Spain. Yet hundreds of these refugees were imprisoned soon after arriving in the country. From prison, men of military age tended to be sent to a detention camp for weeks, months or up to three years. This camp was known as the 'Campo de Concentración de Miranda de Ebro', and conditions in it were harsh. Why were Jewish men sent there? They were interned in the camp because senior Spanish officials created a series of policies that spelt out what officials and officers should do with different categories of foreigners who had entered the country without all the necessary documents. These policies did not target Jews. They were influenced by large population movements within France and from France into Spain; by the pro-Axis and pro-Allies leanings of senior officials; and by pressure that the British, American and German ambassadors in Madrid put on the Spanish government. Between September 1940 and January 1943, the policy determined that provincial governors were responsible for deciding what to do with newly arrived foreigners. Provincial governors' membership in the Falange, a Germanophile party, may have influenced their decisions. While interned in the camp, many Jewish refugees saw their visas to their final destinations and boat tickets out of Europe expire, and they endured hunger, illness, separation from their family and other conditions that were detrimental to their health.

From Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib, the history of the United States's handling of combatants in the Global War on Terrorism is filled with episodes that have diminished its reputation and influence in the world. Most military and intelligence professionals now agree that presenting a more positive vision of American values is critical to success over terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. Developing a coherent and effective human rights policy raises important questions: about the efficacy and legality of torture and extraordinary rendition, the use of military instead of civilian courts to prosecute suspected terrorists, and whether some prisoners can be held indefinitely without charge or trial. Considering both morality and strategy, the next president should issue an executive order that categorically forbids torture, end the use of secret detention, close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, and seek to release or transfer to home countries detainees who cannot be prosecuted by the United States.

From Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib, the history of the United States's handling of combatants in the Global War on Terrorism is filled with episodes that have diminished its reputation and influence in the world. Most military and intelligence professionals now agree that presenting a more positive vision of American values is critical to success over terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. Developing a coherent and effective human rights policy raises important questions: about the efficacy and legality of torture and extraordinary rendition, the use of military instead of civilian courts to prosecute suspected terrorists, and whether some prisoners can be held indefinitely without charge or trial. Considering both morality and strategy, the next president should issue an executive order that categorically forbids torture, end the use of secret detention, close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, and seek to release or transfer to home countries detainees who cannot be prosecuted by the United States. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright The American Academy of Political and Social Science.]