|
April 12, 2002
John Chuckman
Tom
Friedman's Fabrications
April 11, 2002
Patrick Cockburn
Battle of St. Petersburg Zoo
Jeff Halper
After
the Invasion:
Now What?
Falk / Krieger
Taming the Nuclear Monster
Steve
Perry
The
Good Life of
Nellie Stone Johnson
Nick Ring
Efficiency and Occupation:
Terrorism vs. Taylorism
Alexander
Cockburn
From
the West Bank to BBQ
to Old Sparky, And Beyond
April 10, 2002
M. Junaid Alam
Blaming the Victims:
Hating the Palestinians
George
Monbiot
World
Bank to West Bank
Fran Schor
US-Sponsored State Terror
David
Vest
Political
Color Schemes
Jack McCarthy
Florida State Radicals:
The Berkeley of the South
Rises Again
Doreen
Miller
A
Tale of Two Warring Tribes
Michael Neumann
Israelis and Indians
April 9, 2002
Bernard
Weiner
Colin
Powell's Table Talk
Matt Vidal
Thomas Friedman,
Another Wasted Pulitzer
Ron Jacobs
Buyer
Beware
Robert Jensen
I Helped Kill a Palestinian
Vijay
Prashad
Memories
of Barbarity:
Sharonism and September
Wayne Madsen
Anthrax and the Agency:
Thinking the Unthinkable
April 8, 2002
David
Vest
From
Birmingham to Nashville:
The Making of Tammy Wynette
Rick Giombetti
Paxil, Suicide and Science
Dr. Neve
Gordon
Letter
to an IDF Colonel:
How Did You Become
a War Criminal?
Dave Marsh
DeskScan:
This Week's Top 10 CDs
Jordy
Cummings
Not
in My Name Anymore
Gavin Keeney
Bush and the Middle East:
Mouth Wide Shut
Edward
Said
The
Future of Palestine
April 7, 2002
Beth Daoud
Accompanying Ambulances
in Bethlehem
Nancy
Stohlman
After
the Invasion:
The Search for Bread
Among the Ruins
Thomas Mountain
"Yellow Peril" In Hawai'i:
Judge Orders Chains and Shackles for Chinese Witnesses
Tariq
Ali
Who
Killed Daniel Pearl?
April 6, 2002
Philip Farruggio
War, Snake Oil and Circuses
Viktor
Litovkin
Russian
Generals Raise Questions About Pentagon Victories in Afghanistan
Patrick Cockburn
CIA Survey of Iraqi Airfields
May Herald Attack
Walt Brasch
Oil
Slick George:
Bush-whacking the Environment
Ralph Nader
Campaign Finance Sham
Sam Bahour
The
Blind Leading the Criminal
Bill Christison:
A Former CIA Official on
Oil and the Middle East
April 5, 2002
Charmaine
Seitz
In
Ramallah: The Grueling Reoccupation Grinds On
Nancy Stohlman
The Invasion of Bethlehem
and Our Tax Dollars at Work
Beth Daoud
The
Siege of Bethlehem:
"What Do You Mean God Is Punishing Me?"
Fareed Marjaee:
Demonizing Iran
Mokhiber
/ Weissman
Philip
Morris to Canada:
"Drop Dead"
Alex Lynch
Tampa Campus Mirrors
Middle East Strife
Alexander
Cockburn
Sharon's
Wars: How the
News Gets Through
April 4, 2002
Ray Hanania
Sharon's Latest Lie About the Church
of the Nativity
Mike Leon
Rightwing
Assault on Madison Progressives Misfires
Tom Turnipseed
Stop the Killing Now!
Nancy
Stohlman
An
American Under Siege in a West Bank Refugee Camp
Christopher Reilly
Kissinger, Chile and Justice
at Long Last?
M. Shahid
Alam
The
Lies of Thomas Friedman
April 3, 2002
Don Henley
Dear Loathsome Trade Hacks
Bernard
Weiner
An
American Jew Talks
About His Shame
David Vest
Sting of Stings
Gabriel Ash
America's Bravest
John Chuckman
Of
War, Islam and Israel
Robert Fisk
The Siege of Bethlehem
Alexander
Cockburn
The
Sins of the Church
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published March 15, 2002
Read Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The New Crusade:
America's War on Terrorism
By Rahul Mahajan
The Memphis Blues Again:
Six Decades of Memphis Music Photographs
Photos by Ernest Withers
Text by Daniel Wolff
The New Intifada:
Resisting Israel's Apartheid
Edited by Roane Carey
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas Valentine
Al Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
|
April 11, 2002
Did the US Break the Laws of War?
Afghan
Prisoners and the Geneva Convention
By Olivier Audeoud
The legal position of the prisoners taken in Afghanistan
by United States' troops is at the heart of a debate that has
been confused by US statements and by a degree of international
compliance in the name of the fight against terrorism.
According to the US authorities, the
detainees transferred to the military base at Guantanamo Bay
on Cuba are "unlawful combatants, who have no rights under
the Geneva Convention". But the Geneva Convention of 27
July 1929 relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, as amended
in 1949, undoubtedly does apply to the Guantanamo detainees.
The Convention, ratified by the US, applies
"to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict
which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties,
even if the state of war is not recognised by one of them."
The term "war" has been explicitly replaced by the
phrase "armed conflict" and this more general expression
clearly applies to the US action in Afghanistan.
According to the preparatory work for
the Geneva Convention, any dispute between states involving the
use of armed forces is an armed conflict within the meaning of
the convention. The US has undoubtedly engaged in armed action
against the de facto authorities in charge in Afghanistan.
The convention applies irrespective of
the duration of the conflict, the extent to which it results
in bloodshed, and the size and standing of the forces involved.
It covers "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" who are captured by one of the
belligerents. This broad form of words was chosen to avoid uncertainties
arising from the diverse nature of combatants. The Taliban and
volunteers in Afghanistan clearly fall into the category of prisoners
of war.
The label of "terrorist" attached
by Washington to some detainees, notably members of al-Qaida,
does not apply and the term "unlawful combatant" is
unknown in international law. The principle is that anyone captured
bearing arms is presumed to be a prisoner of war in the absence
of evidence to the contrary. Only a competent tribunal can determine
the status of the accused (1).
The transfer of prisoners to Guantanamo
Bay compounds the legal confusion over the status of the detainees.
According to the Geneva Convention, "prisoners of war must
at all times be humanely treated" and "likewise ...
must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of
violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity"
(Article 13).
Conditions of transfer are subject to
the same rules: "The transfer of prisoners of war shall
always be effected humanely and in conditions not less favourable
than those under which the forces of the Detaining Power are
transferred" (Article 46).
It must be said that the treatment of
the detainees does not meet those requirements. The refusal to
apply the convention inevitably means that the prisoners have
no rights and this in turn gives the US authorities carte blanche
to interrogate them in whatever way they wish. Prisoners of war
are only required to state their name, rank and number, and they
must be released and repatriated as soon as hostilities cease.
The place of detention was chosen not
only because it was close to US territory but also, apparently,
because the base in question is not on American soil. According
to Washington, the US constitution does not apply there. Also,
the decision to opt for court martial allows them to dispense
with the rights of defence guaranteed under the American constitution.
Under the Geneva Convention, prisoners
are entitled to a fair and regular trial and to means of defence,
and they have the right of appeal (2). But the military court
envisaged by the US administration does not meet these conditions.
In a move that suggests confusion and embarrassment, the US State
Department has stated that the accused may engage civil as well
as military defence counsel, that the hearings may be held in
public if national security is not at issue, that a death sentence
can be handed down only by unanimous decision and, lastly, that
an appeals board may be set up.
Amang all these uncertainties, one thing
is clear: the US is in breach of international law and its obligations
under the Geneva Convention.
Olivier Audeoud
is a lecturer in law at the University of Paris. This essay originally
appeared in Le Monde Diplomatique. Translated by Barbara Wilson
(1) Ironically, the US could have relied
on the additional protocol of 1977, under which "mercenaries"
are not entitled to prisoner of war status, but it has never
ratified it. According to the definition given in the protocol,
a mercenary is "motivated essentially by the desire for
private gain" but that does not appear to apply in this
case. The status of mercenary would nevertheless entitle the
detainees to the rights of ordinary defendants.
(2) States whose nationals are held at
Guantanamo are entitled to give them diplomatic protection and
to require the US to comply with the rules of common law. Depending
on the nature of the charges, which are not yet clear, the states
in question may apply for extradition so that the detainees can
be tried in their own countries.
|