Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! We only shake you down once a year, but when we do we really mean it. It costs a lot to keep the site afloat, and our growing audience, well over TWO million unique viewers a month, eats up a lot of bandwidth — and bandwidth isn’t free. We aren’t supported by corporate donors, advertisers or big foundations. We survive solely on your support.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

What To Do With Our "Detainees"?

by Tom Malinowski

Thirty years ago, American prisoners of war were being brutalized in North Vietnam, and an outraged American government sought to shame their captors into respecting the Geneva Conventions. The treatment of Americans never came close to being humane. But, as Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) has said of his POW ordeal: “I’m certain we would have been a lot worse off if there had not been the Geneva Conventions around.”

That’s an important story to remember as Americans debate whether the Geneva Conventions should be upheld in the treatment of prisoners from Afghanistan. It reminds us that the issue is not about whether we sympathize with accused terrorists who probably don’t want our sympathy anyway. It is about protecting a set of rules that protect all people, including American servicemen and women taken captive in war. It is about preserving America’s right to complain when Americans are mistreated overseas.

To his credit, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged last week that the conventions do apply to all of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, reversing earlier statements to the contrary.

What do the conventions tell us about how these prisoners should be treated? The al-Qaeda detainees probably are not entitled to formal POW status because they did not fight for a regular army, wear insignia that identified them as soldiers, or respect the rules of war. If so, they could be tried for war crimes or terrorist acts in the President’s proposed military commissions, as long as the trials respect due process.

But the Taliban detainees probably should be called POWs. They fought for the regular armed forces of Afghanistan. Rumsfeld has suggested that this rule may not apply to the Taliban because they weren’t internationally recognized as the government of Afghanistan. But the Geneva Conventions don’t make that distinction. Nor has the United States: In the Korean War, for example, neither the United States nor the United Nations recognized the communist government of China, but U.S. forces treated Chinese prisoners as POWs.

If any of the detainees are POWs, the Geneva Conventions oblige them to give only their name, rank and serial number. But that doesn’t mean the military can’t interrogate them about other things, including possible future attacks. And the United States can still prosecute them for war crimes in a military court martial.

Who determines whether they are POWs or “unlawful combatants,” as the Defense Department has called them? Rumsfeld cannot make that call himself. When there is any doubt about a prisoner’s status, the conventions require that they be considered POWs until a “competent tribunal” decides otherwise, and so do U.S. military regulations. The Defense Department should respect its own rules by convening such tribunals without delay.

Whatever the prisoners’ legal status, the Geneva Conventions entitle them to be treated humanely. In many respects, the military has taken this responsibility very seriously, while taking understandable steps to protect itself from dangerous prisoners. The main problem has been the confinement of prisoners in metal cages open to the elements – conditions Americans would surely condemn if American prisoners were subjected to them overseas.

For all the debate on this issue, the Defense Department has essentially acknowledged the conditions are inadequate by pointing out that the shelters are temporary, and promising to build permanent facilities. That effort needs to be accelerated.

There is an easy way for the administration to settle the debate. The Red Cross is now inspecting the facilities in Guantanamo and will be making its recommendations privately to the Defense Department. Rumsfeld should release those recommendations, and he should pledge now to follow them.

If the administration does that, it will clear up much of the controversy and confusion. It will be showing that nations can bring terrorists to justice without sinking to their level. And it will ensure that the next time American servicemen and women are imprisoned overseas, the Geneva Conventions will still be there to protect them.

Tom Malinowski is Washington advocacy director of Human Rights Watch

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 29, 2016
Robert Fisk
The Butcher of Qana: Shimon Peres Was No Peacemaker
James Rose
Politics in the Echo Chamber: How Trump Becomes President
Russell Mokhiber
The Corporate Vice Grip on the Presidential Debates
Daniel Kato
Rethinking the Race over Race: What Clinton Should do Now About ‘Super-Predators’
Peter Certo
Clinton’s Awkward Stumbles on Trade
Fran Shor
Demonizing the Green Party Vote
Rev. William Alberts
Trump’s Road Rage to the White House
Luke O'Brien
Because We Couldn’t Have Sanders, You’ll Get Trump
Michael J. Sainato
How the Payday Loan Industry is Obstructing Reform
Robert Fantina
You Can’t Have War Without Racism
Gregory Barrett
Bad Theater at the United Nations (Starring Kerry, Power, and Obama
James A Haught
The Long, Long Journey to Female Equality
Thomas Knapp
US Military Aid: Thai-ed to Torture
Jack Smith
Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US
Gilbert Mercier
Clinton vs Trump: Lesser of Two Evils or the Devil You Know
Tom H. Hastings
Manifesting the Worst Old Norms
George Ella Lyons
This Just in From Rancho Politico
September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
Gareth Porter
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]