The Pentagon has finally stated that the old rules on prisoners no longer apply. They continue to use the term "detainees" for those in Guantanamo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib as opposed to the term "prisoners". From the start, those prisoners had the label "enemy combatants", so as to deprive them from the Geneva Conventions.This continuous rewriting of the rules as the game progresses will only cause more resentment towards the USA, and damage to its image worldwide.
- Family
- Friends
- Nokat نكت
- Writings
- Technology
- Places
- Interests
- Miscellany
Comments
Anonymous (not verified)
I don't see what the problem is
Tue, 2006/04/11 - 13:12The "rules of war" and the protections granted by the Geneva convention apply to "lawful combatants". Civilized nations have agreed on these terms in an attempt (arguably futile) to minimize the horrors of warfare. These protections are afforded to those who abide by the rules laid down in the Geneva rules. Anyone who steps outside these rules cannot expect to benefit from the protections.
From Wikipedia:
"Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
I'm not saying this reasoning has not been abused, just that it is sound. Terrorists who plant IEDs are not lawful combatants and therefore cannot be called POWs when they are captured.
Khalid
Selective, unilateral and wrong
Tue, 2006/04/11 - 18:36The problem with this reasoning is:
- It is selective and suits the current US Administration. More often than not, what does not suit it gets ignored or interpreted away, without regard to treaties or international law.
- It is unilateral. Unilateral actions by the powerful enrage anyone of reason.
- It does not exist. Under the Geneva Convention, one is either a combatant, entitled to Prisoner of War status, or a civilian, entitled to certain rights by the occupation force. There is not third status. The US invented this third status to circumvent the above classification.
- It is a double standard. Look at how Iran nuclear ambitions are frowned upon, yet the US unilaterly keeps ignoring or rewriting the rules against international outcry.
- It is applied to fighters and not to terrorists. How many in Guantanamo Bay were captured in Afghanistan fighting, vs. how many were planting bombs?
The attitude of the US of being above the law is the key issue here.
Anonymous (not verified)
I sympathise with your views
Sat, 2006/07/01 - 20:38I am more concerned with the direction the US is going than I am with terrorism. I believe that "terrorism" is an excuse to remove all our civil liberties. Both middle-eastern and western countries are merely pawns in a greater scheme.
The Government feels most justified from a public relations point of view in taking our civil rights, when it is in a position of "saving" us from evil - the propaganda machine creates our view of evil so we will fight it and not being in a position to fight we succumb to all manner of intrusions into our own freedom.
Intelligence agencies have the skills and resources to engineer anything they want. Personally I believe the Moslem could be my brother but a third force wishes to make him my enemy. Should I then fall into his net and protest Islam?
Historical examples are rife.
Men of good heart are forced into fighting the wars of our "masters"
Please keep writing and express your views.