POW treatment

[Cyrus]

We have on one hand the various prisoners at Guantanamo and on the other hand the Coalition prisoners.

Let's forget for a moment that one set of prisoners was captured by an invading enemy, while the other set of prisoners was captured by the country being invaded. Let's assume that they are all legit POWs.

I wonder if the West would be satisfied if the Iraqis were to treat their American prisoners the same way (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,921410,00.html) Americans are treating the Guantanamo captives.

[Jimbo]

Faulty assumption, the US has been careful not to designate the captured terrorists as POWs. In fact whether correctly or not it is considered that they do not even fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention. So your question has no relevant answer.

[Parmenides]

Isn't that the essence of new speak. The USA tortures and beats to death Taliban POW's, but claims that they aren't POWs. The USA also illegally invades Iraq and whines about the rules of war. If I were the relatives of the living POW's, then I would want proof of life. The Iraqi'a did those families a favor.

Everything in dictator Bush's world is backward. War is Peace. Prisoners are free men. Deficits are surpluses. His desertion from the Texas National Guard is an act of bravery.


Good fascists like you must just love it.


Let's nuke Russia and get the damn thing over with!

[IrishHand]

Let me get this straight...It's ok for us to call it a "War on Terror", and then use that "War" as a pretext to invade two sovereign nations (Afghanistan and Iraq). However, the people captured and imprisoned during this "War on Terror" aren't POWs. Of course, they aren't Americans either. So under what convention or laws do you believe we're justified in apprehending these individuals, and then summarily violating both the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Convention by deporting them and imprisoning them?

[IrishHand]

Excellent article, which is of course why I've given up completely on the US media in the past several months in favor of European media. Even the UK media appears to be vastly more objective and effective than mainstream US media.

[BruceZ]

Oh that's monstrous. Of course we would be greatly relieved if we thought our POWs were being treated as well as those at Guantanamo. I don't hold out a lot of hope for this.

As for the US whining about Geneva Conventions and rules of war, are you suggesting we should stop whining and ignore them? If we did that the war would be over in about 5 minutes.

[adios]

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. Neither al-Qaeda nor the Taliban qualify while US soldiers clearly do. Quite simple really.

[Jimbo]

"Let me get this straight...It's ok for us to call it a "War on Terror", and then use that "War" as a pretext to invade two sovereign nations (Afghanistan and Iraq). However, the people captured and imprisoned during this "War on Terror" aren't POWs. Of course, they aren't Americans either. "

I do believe you outlined the situation correctly, except for the pretext part, congratulations.

[Cyrus]

Jimbo went legalistic on me: "The US has been careful ot to designate the captured terrorists as POWs." Eh wot?! One of the tenets of the Convention is that it doesn't matter what one side or the other says or designates. POWs are POWs. "In fact whether correctly or not it is considered that they do not even fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention." Considered by whom?? By their captors? What their captors think or designate is irrelevant. If one wants to adhere to the Geneva Connvention, one doesn't designate his prisoners as anything else than POWs.

BruceZ claimed that the Iraqis are treating the American POWs worse than the Americans are treatign the Afghanis at Guantanamo : "We would be greatly relieved if ... our POWs were being treated as well as those at Guantanamo." Bruce, after seeing the pix from Guantanamo (and that's just the pix that were allowed out!) I somehow don't think that the American soldiers can get anything worse. How many days incommunicado is it now, thirty, sixty? Who keeps score.

Tom Haley quoted the official line that the prisoners at Guantanamo do not qualify as POWs : "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. Neither al-Qaeda nor the Taliban qualify while US soldiers clearly do."

I don't understand. The prisoners captured in Afghanistan enjoy the protection of the Geneva Convention as far as I know. Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, 1949, states clearly : <ul type="square"> * Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.[/list]

Article 13 of the same Convention, 1949, is more sweeping :

<ul type="square">* The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war.[/list]

Then the Geneva Convention, 1950, specifies the categories of wounded and sick, thusly :

<ul type="square"> * The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick
belonging to the following categories:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as
members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own
territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such
militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance
movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his
subordinates;
(b)that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d)that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws
and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members
thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war
correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of
services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided
that they have received authorization from the armed forces which
they accompany.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the
merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the
conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any
other provisions in international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the
enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces,
without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units,
provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of
war.
[/list]

If you folks can point out the legal text that excludes the Afghanis from POW status, I'd be grateful. In the meantime, my question remains : Would we want the Iraqis to treat American POWs as the Americans have treated Afghani POWs?

[Cyrus]

You say that IrishHand described your position accurately. Then the meaning of every word depends on what you want it to be ! "War" sometimes means armed conflict and sometimes whatever suits your fancy.

Great. You don't need to consult that damn disctionary ever again.

[Jimbo]

You say that IrishHand described your position accurately Nope I don't believe I wrote that at all Cyrus. You and IrishHand need to take a reading comprehension class together. Perhaps bringing a dictionary along with you wouldn't hurt either.

[IrishHand]

lol - another genius reply relying heavily on semantics. I'll make it easy for you, since you apparently missed it.:

IrishHand: Let me get this straight...[then a summary of your position]
leads to
Jimbo: I do believe you outlined the situation correctly, except for the pretext part, congratulations.
which leads to
Cyrus: You say that IrishHand described your position accurately.

"The situation" you were referring to was my sarcastic summary of your position (hence, the "let me get this straight" directed at you).

[Jimbo]

That was never my stated position IrishHand ( it was a paprphrase from today's news conference with Donald Rumsfield), ergo your initial mistake compounded by Cyrus then again by you. Sort of like a never ending circle-jerk when debating with you.

[Michael Davis]

The Taliban is an opposing country, al-Qaeda is a recognized militia, and the definition of uniform is pretty subjective.

[Jimbo]

"The Taliban is an opposing country"

Just what are the geographical boundries of this country you just created?

[Michael Davis]

Unreal. I let your butchering of paraphrase go.

[IrishHand]

And again! Another genius reply. When in doubt, ignore how many holes have been poked in my positions - break out the personal insults!

[adios]

Was the Vichy government in France legitimate, was the government of East Germany legitimate, in fact were all the government behind the Iron Curtain legitimate? The Taliban is a rogue band of outlaws who seized power in Afghanistan illegally. al Qaeda has no claim in representing Afghanistan whatsoever. I don't understand the liberal penchant to support outlaws, murderers and puppets as legitimate representatives of government.

[IrishHand]

Whether you believe them legitimate or not, they are in fact those nation's governments. The Geneva convention makes no distinction for the legitimacy of a government. Using your brutal logic, during any military engagement, it would be open season on the armed forces of any government you don't consider "legitimate" since they would not be entitled to the protections of the Geneva convention.

You seem to forget that human rights are about humans, not the nature of the government controlling the countries in which they live.

[John Cole]

Cyrus, in the long run, the answer to your question, sadly, may be "Yes."

John

[MMMMMM]

John, I'm not sure exactly what you intended to convey by your brief reply...so I'll just add that given the history of Saddam's state-run torture/murder machinery, our POW's might actually be rather lucky if Saddam treats them the same as we are treating the prisoners at Guantanamo.

After the war, I expect we will begin hear more testimonies from countless Iraqis regarding Iraqi crimes against humanity, and about torture and murder as routine political tools of the regime. I suspect that the volume, scope and breadth of these accusations will be quite overwhelming. As after WWII when the world was shocked when it learned the extent of Nazi crimes against humanity, I suspect the world will again be shocked at the revelations which will surface regarding the Iraqi regime's sadistic brutality, even despite the fact that the world already knows such things are being done in Iraq. I'm not saying the number of such atrocities was as great in Iraq as in WWII Germany, but I do think the world will again be significantly surprised, shocked, dismayed and disgusted--and this well beyond expectations.

[brad]

http://amnesty.org.il/11sep/afgh10.html

"The Geneva Conventions apply to every one of the prisoners held at Guantanamo and those detained in Afghanistan. The Conventions require that when there is a dispute over a prisoner's status, a 'competent tribunal' must make the final determination on a case-by-case basis. The President cannot fulfill that role," said Vienna Colucci of Amnesty International USA. "This partial compliance with the Geneva Conventions is a half-measure and continues an arrogant policy of pick and choose with regard to the laws of war."

[John Cole]

M,

I guess my short reply was meant to look both ways, and, yes, you have the first part right.

John

[John Cole]

M,

Although of the subject, I thought you might find this article interesting reading. The author explores the ethics of using "data" obtained by Nazi doctors. Other readers of this thread might find his discussion on the use of the word "data" illuminating.

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html

John

[Stu Pidasso]

I wonder if the West would be satisfied if the Iraqis were to treat their American prisoners the same way Americans are treating the Guantanamo captives.

I have seen pictures of what appeared to be dead American soldiers partially stripped of thier clothes and bullets in thier foreheads(as if they were executed). I have seen video of Iraq excuting prisoners captured during its occupation of Kuwait. I have seen video of a journalist being decapited by his captors only because he was a Jew. I shed a tear for an American soilder who was executed by "militia" in Afghanistan after he fell out of a helecopter. I awoke one morning to see terrorist sluaghter of 3000 of my country men.

I wonder how people can think,as your post seems to imply, that the Taliban, Al Queada, Saddam Hussien, and the Baath Party are morally equivalent to America and its government. I am truely satisfied that we stand on a much higher moral ground than our enemies. There is no point in answering your question becuase our enemies have already shown, they are not going to treat our POWs as well as we treat theirs.

Stu

[BruceZ]

Bruce, after seeing the pix from Guantanamo (and that's just the pix that were allowed out!) I somehow don't think that the American soldiers can get anything worse.

Oh come on. Are we beating, raping, and torturing the prisoners at Guantanamo? That is what happened to our POWs in the last war, and I don't see why this one would be any different.

[brad]

'Oh come on. Are we beating, raping, and torturing the prisoners at Guantanamo? That is what happened to our POWs in the last war, and I don't see why this one would be any different. '

could u post a link i thought pow's were treated good in 91 war. i could be wrong.

altough in afghanistan 2 prisoners beaten to death and many in transit to cuba died en route (suffocated in metal box containers).

im sure theres enough wrong to go around though.

[BruceZ]

That heavyset guy with the bruises on his face who appeared on Iraqi TV was beaten and subjected to torture, as were other POWs who have been interviewed. I don't have a link, but I'm sure you can find one. They were interviewed on TV this past week.

[Cyrus]

I understand that it is useless to argue with you about the meaning of words if you have decided to arbitrarily change that meaning. But I enjoy conversing with royalty, even of the red persuasion!

IrishHand described your position like this: " It's ok for [Americans] to call it a "War on Terror", and then use that "War" as a pretext to invade two sovereign nations (Afghanistan and Iraq). However, the people captured and imprisoned during this "War on Terror" aren't Prisoners of War." You responded that the above statement "outlined the situation correctly".

I took that to be an endorsement of IrishHand's description but then you say, oh, no, we need to take, both IrishHand and me, a reading comprehension class.

Since I cannot afford to take one at my age, would you be kind enough to point the error in my understanding? It all still looks positively Orwellian from the cheap seats, Your Majesty.

[brad]

to be honest all i remember from 91 is that one female soldier who was captured and everybody was surprised because she wasnt raped and stuff.

now that u mention it i think i do remember one guy being beaten up and shown on tv in 91.

[BruceZ]

That guy didn't even want to say exactly what happened to him because he didn't want to upset the families of the current POWs. I heard some of the things in an earlier interview, and it was really bad. I can't remember exactly, but I believe there were broken bones and some other stuff that almost sounded like permanent damage. Another POW said he was bound, beaten, and whipped for hours on end by interrogators that he could not see because he was blindfolded.

[Cyrus]

(Sigh) I am stil not getting closer to getting any kind of answer from you guys.

The United States has stepped outside international law, as it currently applies, and invaded another country. The United States is currently keeping prisoners taken during an (other) armed conflict for more than three months, if I remember correctly, whose status of incommunicado makes that, by itself, a clear violation of the Geneva Convention rules. I quoted at length those rules at another post in this thread. Check it out if you want.

The whole text of your post is a desperate attempt at shifting the moral ground. It's a cop out. You must think that anyone who dares question American morals or the nobleness of United States foreign policy is a fan of Saddam Hussein and a supporter of al-Qaeda. Well, you are just plain wrong. You do not realize that the people who currently object to America's follies are the same people who were always against Saddam Hussein and his butchers, and against the Taliban, back in the days when Rumsfeld et al were busy selling arms to the guy and when the Taliban were "freedom fighters". You are barking up the wrong tree, I'm afraid.

[John Cole]

Please invoke, no more, no less, Hupmty Dumpty, Cyrus.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, I recall reading some months ago that the USA issued a statement saying it had implemented a policy of treating the Guantanamo prisoners in full accordance with the Geneva Convention even though not legally required to do so.

Comments?

[Cyrus]

"I recall reading some months ago that the USA issued a statement saying it had implemented a policy of treating the Guantanamo prisoners in full accordance with the Geneva Convention even though not legally required to do so. Comments?"

I tend to take the word of American officials much, much more at heart than the word coming out of regimes such as the Afghanis' or the Iraquis'. However, the record doesn't bear out the above statement by the U.S.

The Geneva Convention clearly states that POWs must be inspected by neutral relief authorities and must be accorded legal protection as to their rights. Now, I'm all for detaining at length suspects for terrorism and, although the Taliban captured on the mountains of Afghanistan cannot know anything but perhaps where bin Laden is, I support extraordinary measures such as an extended period of interrogation and the application of intense pressure to obtain information. Yep, I do.

But we are now something like more than two months after those Taliban were captured and no one knows what goes on down there! The official line is all we have to go by. Would we be satisfied if the Iraqis kept American POWs incommunicado for two months and claimed they were treating them alright?

[brad]

'armed conflict for more than three months, if I remember correctly'

no its like 15 months now

[brad]

http://amnesty.org.il/11sep/afgh10.html

"The Geneva Conventions apply to every one of the prisoners held at Guantanamo and those detained in Afghanistan. The Conventions require that when there is a dispute over a prisoner's status, a 'competent tribunal' must make the final determination on a case-by-case basis. The President cannot fulfill that role," said Vienna Colucci of Amnesty International USA. "This partial compliance with the Geneva Conventions is a half-measure and continues an arrogant policy of pick and choose with regard to the laws of war."

[Stu Pidasso]

The whole text of your post is a desperate attempt at shifting the moral ground. It's a cop out. You must think that anyone who dares question American morals or the nobleness of United States foreign policy is a fan of Saddam Hussein and a supporter of al-Qaeda.

Heres a quote from your original post that leads me to believe you are a supporter of Al Queada and the Taliban.

Let's forget for a moment that one set of prisoners was captured by an invading enemy, while the other set of prisoners was captured by the country being invaded. Let's assume that they are all legit POWs.

In this statement you are saying the US had no legitamate right to take prisoners in Afghanistan, but for the sake of debate you postulate the prisoners we took are legitamate POWs nonetheless. Its a position I would expect to come from a Al Queada/Taliban supporter.

You describe us as an "invading army". This is clearly an inaccurate description with a negative conotation. Coincidently, its how the Taliban described us just before they lost their civil war with the Northern Alliance. Its a description I would expect to hear from a Taliban/ Al Queada Supporter

Why did you just not ask the question, "Would you be satisfied that Iraq was properly treating Coalition prisoners if that treatment was equivalent to those imprisoned in GB Cuba?

[Cyrus]

I do not doubt that Iraqis can be and have been quite barbarous, whether under orders by Saddam or by their own free will. But have you taken the trouble to actually read the Guardian article? It is a mainstream British newspaper. Here's the link again: Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,921410,00.html)

If, after reading it, you still believe that American POWs in Iraq should be treated the same way as the Americans have treated Taliban POWs in Afghanistan and Guantanamo, I would be interested to read your justification.

<ul type="square">(Extract from article:)

...
As Jamie Doran's film Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death records, some hundreds, possibly thousands, of them were loaded into container lorries at Qala-i-Zeini, near the town of Mazar-i-Sharif, on November 26 and 27. The doors were sealed and the lorries were left to stand in the sun for several days. At length, they departed for Sheberghan prison, 80 miles away. The prisoners, many of whom were dying of thirst and asphyxiation, started banging on the sides of the trucks. Dostum's men stopped the convoy and machine-gunned the containers. When they arrived at Sheberghan, most of the captives were dead.

The US special forces running the prison watched the bodies being unloaded. They instructed Dostum's men to "get rid of them before satellite pictures can be taken". Doran interviewed a Northern Alliance soldier guarding the prison. "I was a witness when an American soldier broke one prisoner's neck. The Americans did whatever they wanted. We had no power to stop them." Another soldier alleged: "They took the prisoners outside and beat them up, and then returned them to the prison. But sometimes they were never returned, and they disappeared."
...
[/list]

[Cyrus]

"You are saying the US had no legitamate right to take prisoners in Afghanistan, but for the sake of debate you postulate the prisoners we took are legitamate POWs nonetheless."

I'm saying that the U.S. had every legitimate right to take prisoners in Afghanistan but that those prisoners should be considered as POWs. Plus, if there's a dispute about the POW status, this too should have been resolved according to the Geneva Convention, i.e. by a neutral third party such as a U.S. court of justice.

As to who's got a more legitimate claim to be considered a POW, the Taliban at Guantanamo or the Americans in Baghdad, it's not me but legal scholars (see article in The Guardian) who believe that the Taliban are more legit. I accepted that both are POWs, though, not just for the sake of argument but because they both are!

"You describe [the American armed forces] as an "invading army". This is clearly an inaccurate description with a negative conotation."

I do not see why it is inaccurate. There is an invasion. There is an army. The army itself says it is liberating and not conquering -- fine. We shall see what they will eventually do. If they are liberators or whatever we cannot know now. For the moment, and according to international law, the United States and Great Britain's armies are invading the territory of a sovereign nation. No two ways about it.

"Why did you just not ask the question, "Would you be satisfied that Iraq was properly treating Coalition prisoners if that treatment was equivalent to those imprisoned in GB Cuba?" "

If that is a better question according to you, fine, and please let me answer it: No, definitely no! I would NOT want the American POWs to be treated by the Iraqis as the Americans have as far as we know treated the Taliban in Cuba. What we know is that the Taliban have been deprived of a huge number of their rights as POWs. (Again, check the article.) I would NOT accept for a second that Iraqis would parade to the TV cameras American POWs blindfolded, knees &amp; hands tied behind their backs, and kneeling on the ground. Would you?

[BruceZ]

Yes I read it. I would be thrilled if the American POWs were treated as the ones at Gitmo. I don't know where this author got his information, but my understanding is that they are fed, given time to exercise, a copy of the Koran, and time to pray. As for sleep deprivation, they must be given 4 hours of sleep a day the same as a soldier, and the hours don't have to be contiguous. Controlling a prisoner's body clock by regulating sleep and light is an important part of breaking down an individual so they start talking without using torture. I have heard from Special Forces people with 10 years of experience in interrogation who say that there's no way our armed forces personnel can either use torture or allow others to use it, and that there are more effective ways to get information from a prisoner by establishing a relationship with him and controling his environment. The methods they use are critical for obtaining the information we need to fight the war on terror. As for releasing these people at the end of hostilities, well, the war on terror isn't over yet is it?

The Northern Alliance is a different story. They will use torture. They are our allies, but they are not our friends. It sounds to me like this info came from a Northern Alliance guy trying to cover his butt, so I don't know whether what they claimed happened in Afganistan is true or not, or whether the Special Forces guys had knowledge of the torture and killings until after they happened. If they did, I believe this is exceptional. In an organization as large as the military, there will always be a few bad apples. We just had one kill some of our own people with a grenade. Some US soldiers on military bases have been found guilty of raping local women. That doesn't mean these things are widespread, or that they are the accepted military policy. In Iraq, we know torture is common, widespread, and it is the policy of the leaders.

[Stu Pidasso]

I'm saying that the U.S. had every legitimate right to take prisoners in Afghanistan but that those prisoners should be considered as POWs. Plus, if there's a dispute about the POW status, this too should have been resolved according to the Geneva Convention, i.e. by a neutral third party such as a U.S. court of justice.

What does the legal status of the Guantamino captives have to do with how Iraq is treating our POWs?

I do not see why it is inaccurate. There is an invasion. There is an army. The army itself says it is liberating and not conquering -- fine. We shall see what they will eventually do. If they are liberators or whatever we cannot know now. For the moment, and according to international law, the United States and Great Britain's armies are invading the territory of a sovereign nation. No two ways about it.
Most of the the Guantamino Bay captives were captured in Afghanistan, not Iraq. While its true we put forces on the ground in Afghanistan, they could hardly be called an invading force. Did your own post confuse you?

I would NOT accept for a second that Iraqis would parade to the TV cameras American POWs blindfolded, knees &amp; hands tied behind their backs, and kneeling on the ground. Would you?
The Geneva Convention does not restrict what free press can and can not show. It does restrict what states can and can not show. Iraq has state run media, the US does not. This is why the US accuses Iraq of violating the Geneva Convention, but does not accuse Al Jazeera(We just accuse them of very poor taste).

While I have seen images of the Guantamino captives and their conditions, Those images have been from afar. In fact, the last images I saw, the captives had better living conditions than many of the guards. I have not seen any of the Guantamino captives being interoggated, while I have seen our POWs interrogated. I would like our POWs to have all the rights afforded to them under the convention. I know thats not going to happen. Considering what I expect is going to happen to them, I'll be happy if they come home alive.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

If, after reading it, you still believe that American POWs in Iraq should be treated the same way as the Americans have treated Taliban POWs in Afghanistan and Guantanamo, I would be interested to read your justification.

I think everyone here agrees there is no justification for the mistreatment of POWs. On the otherhand, sabatouers, spys, and terrorist can be summarily executed. Although there may be some instances where the United States mistreated some POWs, The nation as a whole has a track record of fulfilling its obligations to POWs under the Geneva Conventions. We also have a record of treating spys, sabatours, and terrorist with more humanity than is proscribed under international law.

Iraq has a track record of not fulfilling its obligations to POWs. They will shoot a spy and kill the rest of his family too.

Stu

[Cyrus]

"What does the legal status of the Guantamino captives have to do with how Iraq is treating our POWs?"

Only that some posters here have disputed that the Taliban kept at Guantanamo (sp) are legitimate POWs. Washington also disputes this, officially. I pointed out the provisions in the Geneva Convention that provide for the resolution of such disputes. Yes, the Americans held in Iraq are obviously POWs too, in my book. For both sets of prisoners the full text of the Geneva Convention protocols applies. We have not seen evidence that the U.S. is complying though abt the treatment of the Guantanamo POWs. All we have are the assurances of Washington.

Whether you or anybody else trusts Washignton and takes what the American officials say at their word, or not, is irrelevant. The Geneva Convention provides for issues that are resolved between nations that have gone way beyond mistrusting one another!

"Most of the the Guantamino Bay captives were captured in Afghanistan, not Iraq. While its true we put forces on the ground in Afghanistan, they could hardly be called an invading force."

You seem to be posting in a haste. I was referring, if you care to check again, to the troops now in Iraq. But have it your way : You don't want to call the troops in Afghanistan or Iraq as an "invading army". Well, how would you describe them then? Careful with the political hype, though.

"I would like [the American] POWs to have all the rights afforded to them under the [Geneva] convention."

So do I. And you still have not told me : Would you like the American POWs to be treated exactly as the Afghani POWs have been treated so far?

..More than a dozen posts now and all I'm getting from you folks is chaff. /forums/images/icons/frown.gif

[Stu Pidasso]

Only that some posters here have disputed that the Taliban kept at Guantanamo (sp) are legitimate POWs
I believe they are unlawful combatants. I do not recognize Al Queda terrorist as legitamate POWs. I believe a person can be both a member of the Taliban, and a member of Al Queda. I believe my government only brought people to Guantamino who it believed were more than just simple Taliban soldiers(which is why the left thousands of captives in Afghanistan). If it becomes evident that a person was simply a Taliban soldier with absolutely no ties to Al Queda that person should be repatriated. I heard within the last week or so that some prisoners were just released from Guantamino because interrogations have shown they were not part of Al Queada, and represent no threat to us or our allies.

Washington also disputes this, officially. I pointed out the provisions in the Geneva Convention that provide for the resolution of such disputes.
Does the Convention spell out who can be a party to a dispute? I certainly don't think the convention intended to recognize the views of Internet posters or newspaper editors. Is the government of Afghanistan disputing the status of these individuals? Are any governments with citizens held in Guantamino disputing the status of these individuals? Just who is Washington in dispute with?

I was referring, if you care to check again, to the troops now in Iraq.
Ok I'll check again. You started this thread by saying:

We have on one hand the various prisoners at Guantanamo and on the other hand the Coalition prisoners.

It appears from your text you want to discuss two sets of prisoners. One set is prisoners held at Guantamino Bay, the other set is coalition prisoner held in Iraq. A reasonable person with knowledge of recent world events would conclude that nearly all the prisoners at Guantanamo were captured during military operation in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and that coalition prison come from the coalition armies comprised mostly of Americans and Britons. Coalition prisoners are known to have been captured in Iraq, by Iraqis.

The next line of your originating thread:

Let's forget for a moment that one set of prisoners was captured by an invading enemy, while the other set of prisoners was captured by the country being invaded.

The set of prisoners captured by an invading army can only refer to the prisoners at Guantamino. I deduced this because neither the Taliban nor Iraq has done any invading in the recent past. Since the prisoners captured by the invading army can only refer to the prisoners captured in Afghanistan you are basically saying we invaded Afghanistan. I do not dispute that we are in the process of invading Iraq, I do dispute your characterization of our military operation in Afghanistan as those of an invading army.

Stu

[Cyrus]

"I believe [the captives at Guantanamo] are unlawful combatants. I do not recognize Al Queda terrorist as legitamate POWs."

Yes, Washington officials, just like you and scores of others, possibly a majority of Americans, do not accept that the persons captured in Afghanistan are POWs. No matter : This is incorrect, under the protocols of the Geneva Convention, which the United States (thus far, at least) formally adheres to. The Geneva Convention clearly provides POW status for such captives as those taken in Afghanistan. You may call them "terrorists" or whatever, and you may even be absolutely correct in this, but it is irrelevant. Sorry, but this is how things work under the Convention !

And resolving any disputes is not supposed to be done by White House proclamations. There is a specific process for resolving disputes --- which the U.S. has declined to follow.

"Does the [Geneva] Convention spell out who can be a party to a dispute? Just who is Washington in dispute with?"

Check the Amnesty International website, for starters. This is a recognized relief agencey, the kind that must be specifically and obligatorily allowed by the Geneva Convention access to all the captives whose status is disputed. Amnesty International has formally disputed Washington's claims about Guantanamo captives. (http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/April2002/guantanamo) The silence from the White House has been deafening.

Run a search on the web yourself, if you doubt any of this. I have already provided enough links.

[Jimbo]

Cyrus wrote "The Geneva Convention clearly provides POW status for such captives as those taken in Afghanistan."

Personally I agree with Cyrus that the "detainees" in G-Bay do fall under the auspicious of the Geneva convention. What I do not necessarily agree with is to whether or not they have been mistreated.

[MMMMMM]

There is another matter regarding these detainess which this thread has not yet addressed, and it is this:

Regardless of the legal classification of the detainess at Gitmo, they are fundamentally different than "normal" POWs in one very important aspect.

In a war, once the other side is defeated, or a ceasefire agreement has been agreed upon, the POWs are generally considered to be not much more of a threat. The leaders and soldiers know it is over and the POWs can generally be sent back to their countries.

Not so with al Qaeda terrorists. If they are "sent back" (to wherever) they will simply regroup and attempt to attack again. These individuals are ideologically committed for life, such is the nature of their fanaticism (and the Gitmo prisoners represent some of the most hardened al Qaedans). Thus, not only is there no surrendered or truced "home country" to "send them back to," but sending them back would be foolish as well.

In other words they must never be released. Their fanatical ideological commitment to violence against the West has doomed them to this sad fate.

Now: If the USA were to designate them as POWs, they would probably have to be released to their home countries at some point. However we are not fighting a country from whence these al Qaedans came, we are fighting an organization. These combatants did not even represent a country.

Tough luck to the fanatical al Qaedans who have been captured. Sorry guys. I don't believe the USA is going to release anyone who is just going to attack us again, even if it means designating the prisoners as "illegal combatants" instead of "POWs."

[IrishHand]

Of course, you're right. We should probably just save ourselves the time and hassle and kill every suspected terrorist or associate of suspected terrorist organizations.

[Parmenides]

I think that you are lying when you claim to be a naval officer. Oh, wait a minute. The military does have lunatics like you that murder fellow Americans rather than the enemy.

[adios]

regarding the POW status of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. I can't believe you guys are so took in by Cyrus's bull-honky. He posts the Geneva Convention text says is that all you've got and then goes on to ignore all reasonable arguements stating that the Taliban and al-Qaeda clearly don't have POW status. I don't thinks it's debatable issue as they are clearly not when you read the pertinent article of the convention. Remember Cyrus stated that WWII was a desirable outcome of diplomacy. Anyway here's the link and note the credentials of the author who renders the opinion. I dare say that they are much more formidible than any Cyrus claims to have:

WHAT IS AN "UNLAWFUL COMBATANT," AND WHY IT MATTERS: (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html)

[Jimbo]

Hi Tom,

I read Article 4 several times and each time came up with a different interpretation. Here Article 4 in it's entirety for everyone to read and discuss:

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

[B-Man]

Excellent article. This excerpt cuts to the heart of why the distinction is so important (which M also stated in another post):


===
There is a further reason why the Administration is eager to deny prisoner-of-war status to the al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Article 118 of the Geneva Convention requires that prisoners of war be "repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities." Thus, if the captives are prisoners of war, they must eventually be returned to their home countries.

That prospect is troubling. At the end of a war between conventional foes, it is expected that repatriated fighters will resume their civilian lives. Individual veterans might continue to harbor ill will towards their former enemies, but for the most part, peace between nations tamps down such feelings.

But there is good reason to worry that Taliban and especially al Qaeda fighters will not so readily have a change of heart. Members of al Qaeda do not act out of patriotic duty to obey the commands of a military leader, but out of an ideology that instructs them to attack and kill American civilians as a means of entering the kingdom of heaven. It is doubtful that any formal cessation of hostilities would lead them to abandon what they regard as a jihad.

Moreover, unlike traditional soldiers, al Qaeda members do not need an army in order to act. As we have learned, they can act in small groups or even individually. For this reason, too, repatriation seems far more dangerous for an al Qaeda member than for a traditional soldier.

[adios]

Jimbo,

Basically in the link I posted he rips the arguement apart that they are legitimate POW's by interpreting article 4. Now I realize that the law, in this case international law, is often shall we say not clear cut. So I'll admit that I was rash in saying the issue isn't debatable. However, it is an issue of law and legal scholars interpretations are much more valuable than opinions I have. So all I'm saying is that something that is not as clearcut like article 4 i.e. it is open to interpretation I look for to interpretations that are much more informed than my own. However, Cyrus doesn't even acknowledge that there is another interpretation than his. His approach is to ridicule, obfuscate and put down opinions that don't concur with his. I'm quite sure that there is a legal opinion from at least one noted scholar that would agree that they are indeed POW's. I'd like to find it and I'll keep trying.

Tom Haley

[adios]

The issue of repetration crossed my mind as well. For those who think the USA is treating the detainees poorly here's a thought experiment. If they're POW's they can be detained until the "War on Terror" has been concluded. Since terrorism is ancient I would think that a logical extension is that they will be detained for the rest of their lives.

[Cyrus]

I'm glad that you have acknowledged at least some validity in my claims! After examining more carefully the text of your own link, and then comparing it with the text of the Geneva Convention protocols, it should be obvious to everyone that there is at least a substantial case to be made for the POW status of the Guantanamo captives.

Now, of course, if you want to invent a new term and name them Prisoners of the War on Terrorism, or something, and place them outside all current jurisdiction and treaties, that's just fine and in accordance with the prevalent Washington adage, i.e. Might Makes Right. Nolo contendere, sir.

Personally I find Jimbo's position the more honest, and also the more honorable, one : We must acknowledge that those "folks" are POWs and treat them accordingly, even if they happen to be a hateful bunch. Our enemy usually is.

As to whether I claim to be something or other, I never claimed to be a "legal scholar" or any other kind of expert. I provided arguments and occasionally some links that seem to support them. I even invited you to educate me with evidence supporting your arguments.

--Cyrus

PS : You wrote that "terrorism is ancient". Going back to Eve's treatment of Adam, is it?

[Cyrus]

Tom Haley wrote "Remember Cyrus stated that WWII was a desirable outcome of diplomacy."

Tom, I believe that you are prefectly capable of reading and understanding English. Your statement is an outright lie and you know it.

[brad]

afaik so called patriot 2 act, ready to be passed after next terror attack, realizes your tongue in cheek post.

[Cyrus]

"On the other hand, sabatouers, spys, and terrorist can be summarily executed."

Hmmm. I'm not sure you really want that either. I mean we all know of many instances where members of the U.S. Special Forces or its intelligence agencies, dressed in mufti, have been captured inside foreign countries, and that includes countries against which the U.S. was hostile or even belligerent, eg Nicaragua.

I would wager good money that, if such Americans were to be captured, you'd prefer that the captors set aside the provisions for "saboteurs, spies and terrorists" and deal with them through diplomatic channels.

[MMMMMM]

I will just opine this:

Morally speaking, they seem to be POWs;

Legally speaking, I don't know;

Practically speaking, they cannot be released.

[adios]

Morally speaking in my mind they're nothing more than common crimminals. Legally in my mind they aren't POW's. Morally the right thing to do is a trial(s) where they're afforded legal representation. In my mind there is a distinction between the crimes that al-Qaeda has committed and the Taliban has committed although I believe they're both guilty of crimes against the USA and Afghanistan. If they are POW's, the question of repatriation comes into play. I would expect the "War on Terror" to last for quite some time so their repatriation I would expect to never happen. If they're not POW's in the War on Terror then what war are the POW's from?

[MMMMMM]

I think should probably have been more clear.

By "morally speaking" I don't mean giving them the legal designation of POWs; rather I mean that they are still humans who have been captured while believing they are fighting for a just cause (which cause is however horribly misguided and destructive). They are engaged in violent jihad; that is their war against the West. They are indeed criminal, deluded, and IMO spiritually devolved. However I guess I feel that since they (insanely) believe in what they are doing, that morally speaking, they are in essence now prisoners in that "war" they see themselves fighting. Perhaps my feeling of empathy for the sufferings of all humans, however bad those humans might be, influences me too.

I definitely don't think they should be legally designated POWs if that might mean they could be freed and sent back from whence they came. Legally speaking, also, I do not feel competent to weed through all the material addressing the issue of whether they are technically POWs or unlawful combatants.

Practically speaking, we can't afford to let them go, just as we cannot let a murderer go free even after serving his time if he plainly vows before the parole board or the world to murder again as soon as he gets the chance. The fanatical commitment of al Qaedans to deluded and violently aggressive ideology/actions condemns them to imprisonment or death because it simply does not make sense to let someone go who swears he will kill you, and means it.

So I pity them, morally speaking. How tragic that we must for all intents and purposes now end their lives either literally or by eternal imprisonment. How tragic can be delusion! Their delusion, or perhaps call it stupidity if you will, has caused immense misery for themselves as well as others. Again note how great a role is played by illogical thinking in the causes of human suffering. If they simply could think more clearly (which admittedly could be difficult to do under long-term indoctrination and certain circumstances), they wouldn't believe all this fanatical religious nonsense and therefore wouldn't create so much suffering.