March 31, 2003
GUANTANAMO OR THE SWORD?:
By Flouting War Laws, U.S. Invites Tragedy (Erwin Chemerinsky, March 25, 2003, LA Times)On Sunday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld quickly invoked international law in condemning Iraq's treatment of American prisoners of war and its use of civilians as human shields. As soon as the Americans were shown on television, Rumsfeld denounced Iraq for violating the Geneva accords, which govern the treatment of prisoners of war.But Rumsfeld's hypocrisy here is enormous. For two years, the Bush administration has ignored and violated international law and thus has undermined the very legitimacy of the treaties and principles that constitute the law of nations. Though we all hope, of course, for the quick and safe return of the American prisoners of war, the fact is that -- unfortunately -- Iraq and other nations may feel much freer today to violate international law in the way they treat war captives and the way they wage war.
One clear violation by the United States is taking place in Guantanamo Bay, where for the last 15 months the U.S. has held more than 600 captives in clear violation of international law.
Under the third Geneva Convention, those who were caught in Afghanistan are deemed prisoners of war if they were fighting for the Taliban. International law prescribes the way they can be questioned, how they are to be treated and when they are to be repatriated. The U.S. government has ignored all of these requirements.
Rumsfeld has asserted that those held in Guantanamo are "enemy combatants" and thus the rules for prisoners of war do not apply. International law draws a distinction between "prisoners of war," who were soldiers fighting for a nation, and "enemy combatants," who were not acting on behalf of a country; enemy combatants are accorded fewer protections than prisoners of war. Under well-established principles of international law, only those who fought for Al Qaeda and not the Taliban government are enemy combatants. The Geneva accords are clear that there must be a "competent tribunal" to determine whether a person is a prisoner of war or an enemy combatant.
This is nonsense. No one is going to accept "repatriation" of these guys. And if we did send them back to Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan or wherever, they'd most likely be executed--the Saudis hate them and the Afghans have nowhere to put them. We've no problem with that, but is this what the "humanitarians" want? Posted by Orrin Judd at March 31, 2003 4:23 PM
As I have said before, adherence to the Geneva Convention, as regards American prisoners, has always been zero in Asia, all parts. It cannot possibly get any worse.
The Amrican policy toward prisoners has been unwavering from the very beginning. During the early days of the Revolution, the British threatened to hang rebels. One for one, said Washington, and he was believed.
Consequently, treatment of American prisoners, while harsh, was humane int he broadest sense.
This worked, to an extraordinary degree, whenever we had prisoners to retaliate on. It did not work against
Japan (no Japanese POWs) and it does nto work agaisnt regimes that don't care what happens to their prisoners, which includes, at a minimum, Russia, China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq, Iran.
Every time someone stands up and shouts, "Geneva Convention!" it behooves us to shout back, "Never existed!"
OJ:
I wonder how the author would explain the horrific treatment the Iraqis handed out to our POWs during Desert Storm, which occurred before these horrible insults to the international community he is so excercised about.
Jeff:
I guarantee he has a way of blaming us.
OJ:
I'm sorry, I lost my head. How vile of me to insist on logic, coherence, and historical continuity. How patriarichal and imperialist of me.
Don't worry, Jeff--you too are a victim of the phallocracy.
Posted by: oj at April 1, 2003 7:37 PM