Calls for discontinuing the detention facility for POWs.
Calls for trials for “detainees”.
I don’t get it.
No one ever complained before that prisoners of war were being held in detention centres until the end of the war. No one ever complained that POWs didn’t get trials.
So should coalition forces stop taking prisoners ?
They’re not Prisoners of War. That’s part of the problem. They pretty much don’t have any legal status, according to Bush.
Why is detainees in quote marks? Are people in Guantanamo not being detained? Hey, they’re not as strict as I thought!
Is your question “Why didn’t people in past wars complain about the taking of POWs?” If it is, I think there’s a couple of reasons;
They’re not officially POWs.
There’s a strong belief that a lot of people in Guantanamo are actually innocent. In past wars, identifying the enemy was easier since they wore uniform. Not so here. And there’s no central enemy power to apply to to say “Hey, are these your guys, here?”
Conditions in Guantanamo. People may feel that holding these people is fine, but torture and poor living conditions is not. It’s worth pointing out that instead of your somewhat extreme “stop taking prisoners at all” many people have suggested holding them in the U.S., where they would be entitled to better protection.
Plus I would imagine there were people who DID complain about POW taking in previous wars. I’d be surprised if it was an entirely new pheneomenon. It’s just more widespread now because of the reasons mentioned above and the media.
Can we take POW’s if we are not at war? Because we are not at war, are we?
For one thing what does “until the end of the war mean”? There’s nobody we can sign an armistice then repatriate them to. Plus we aren’t treating the detainee’s as POWs. During WWII for instance we followed the Geneva conventions to the letter. POWs recieved the same standard of lodging that the Army gave soldiers of equivalent rank. Hell captured Nazi generals were given their own cottages.
If GWB would like a non-USA consultant, I would be very willing to run the place like a holiday camp - and would turn 1/3rd over to the CIA as useful operatives, 1/3rd into the witness protection scheme and about 10% would probably need ‘losing’.
The residue would probably rather like to stay put.
Do you have a citation for anyone calling for the release of POWs? Bush and company have explicitly claimed, since the summer of 2003, that the detainees are NOT POWs. That is the position of the U.S. government.
These are people who were (generally) kidnapped in Afghanistan and removed to a location that is NOT a POW camp, where they have been subjected to a number of conditions that are expressly forbidden regarding POWs under the various Geneva and Hague conventions.
To talk about not releasing them because one does not release POWs until after a war is to make the claim that Bush and company have been lying to us about their status and that they really are POWs (for which Bush and company would be legitimate targets for legal action regarding the abuse of Prisoner conventions).
The same was true during WWI, at least at the camp which was located in my hometown. The only complaint the prisoners expressed after their release regarding the conditions in which they were held was regarding the “crushing boredom” of prison life.
The museum in which I work houses a lot of the beautiful crafts that they made during their incarceration, including incredibly detailed model ships. They had their own garden in which they grew vegetables and flowers (and had competitions with medals for the best from each.)
I am not arguing that the detainees should be released, nor that we should take unecessary risks with their security. However, I believe they should be given the legal status of POWs and the according rights. They should be able to contact their families and kept in human conditions which respect their human rights.
Okay, please erase any reference to Gitmo. Too many other issues involved.
What I really want to debate is how how we deal with prisoners that coalition forces have taken in Afghanistan in a war that appears to have no end. You can’t hold prisoners forever, most prisoners have committed no crimes to prosecute and it would seem to be a problem for a soldier to hold off killing a surendering combatant knowing that this person would be free to kill some future American or coalition fighter.
OK. I’ll just modify your title, for you.
That would be a good representaton of what this thread seems to be about.
That seems to be the plan for this administration. Those taken in Afghanistan can be held until the end of hostilities there, and the ones taken in Iraq can be held until the end of hostilities there. So far, it appears this administration’s position is that it can, in fact, hold prisoners forever.
One big problem is that the “war on terror” is never going to end. We can hope that the hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan do, eventually, and we have some solid, capable, and fair government to turn them over to. But, as far as I can see, there is never going to be an end to fighting against “Al Qaeda”.
This presents the US with a unique opportunity to create some international law, to set a standard of fairness, democracy, and liberty for the world in how we treat our prisoners. So far, we have indefinite detentions, Abu Ghraib, and an inordinate amount of innocent persons detained in Guantanamo. We’re not off to a great start.
Ideally, what I would like to see is the detainees who took part in hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq turned over to those governments. I’d also like to see those detainees who are determined to be too dangerous to be turned over to other governments, to be charged, given due process, and locked up forever.
Nitpick: There was at least one exception. The U.S. Navy captured a crippled U-boat – now on display at the Field Museum in Chicago. The captured crew were held incommunicado until the end of the war and the Reich was never even informed they were still alive (clean against the Geneva Conventions); the U.S. wanted them to think the U-boat had simply been lost at sea, and to keep them in ignorance that the Allies were now cognizant of the latest details of U-boat technology.
Thankyou.
My understanding is that the majority of those picked up in Afghanistan were not Afghanistani - it is a bit difficult to classify them, perhaps the closest is as mercenaries.
Somehow I don’t think that the Geneva Convention extends to mercenaries.
It is also a bit tricky packing them off home, as their ‘homes’ are not that keen on having them back. An Egyptian or Saudi prison would be pretty unpleasant.
Putting things in context, when the Taliban surrendered to three CIA operatives, and the Northern Alliance turned up, things got out of hand and the NA were keen on killing all ‘strangers’. In other words, those prisoners from Afghanistan are pretty lucky to be alive.
As for Iraqi prisoners in Iraq and Afganistani prisoners in Afghanistan, ultimately they’ll fall into the hands of their local government. The outcome for them is not that pleasant.
Personally I don’t think that they have any ‘rights’ - and consider the uman rites stuff on the same level as rodent rights - but we in the West do have certain standards of behaviour, one of which is that people should be treated fairly reasonably, and not used as playthings by moronic sadists.
Nitpick: “Afghans” not Afghanistanis.
It does. At least, that’s how I read this:
Pretty inclusive. The sticking point here is not the status/motives of the combatants in question, but the “Party to a conflict” part, and whether a nonstate organization like al-Qaeda counts.
Correction: That U-boat is on display at the Museum of Science and Industry.
Please, I’d like to read more about the demographics of those captured in Afghanistan.