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 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.