America not holding POW's

America is refusing to call the Al Queda and Taleban Prisoners prisoners of war. Doing so would entitle them to rights under the geneva conventition.

Anyone else think this is fucked? More proof they consider them selves a law unto themselves.

Perhaps, but international criminals have rights under international law also, and I hazard that these rights are similar to those under the Geneva convention?

Mmmm, the status of the 'war' thing is a little strange. I doubt that a lot of countries would grant prisoner of war status to their, uh, opposition, in this same situation. Not saying it's nice, but still. And - what changes in their treatment would result from said installment of status?

Everything I've read (since posting) has said that the US had been granting them POW rights under the geneva Convention anyway, and that the only reason they're not calling them POWs is that POW status entitles someone to immediate release at the conclusion of the war.

And who can say when the "War on Terrorism" is ended, and do we want Al Queda members released onto the streets - no questions asked?

Hmm. I guess I can understand the US' stance on this one, at least.

This is from my dad South Africa Defense Force Service Book.

The Geneva Convections for the protections of war victims, 1949

1. Article 4 of the third convection defines the catergories of persons who, being captured in an armed conflict are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war. These are inter alia members of armed forces, militia, volunteer corps, resistence movements in occupied territory under certain conditions and civillians holding military identity cards. If doubts exists about caputured persons, they must be given the benefit of the doubt and initially be treated and POWs. The most important roghts of the POW are:-

a. to hamane and respectful treatment, to be protected from acts of violence, intimidation, outrages upon personal dignity , humiliation, public curiosity and reprisals;

b. a prisoner of war must only furnish his name, rank, number and date of birth and produce his identity disc. NO other information must be divulged

c. POWs must be left in possesions of their effects, equipment badges of rank and decorations, excepts arms military equiment and documents;

d. prisoners of war must immediately be evacuated from the combat zone, be supplied with sufficent food and clothing and afforded medical attention, if necessary.


So according to that, it is highly unlikely that Al Queda members are POWs so they are therefore not entitled to be treated as POWs. How would the find out more about the terrorist network

On the other hand the Taleban, as members of the armed forces of what was for all intents and purposes the sovereign government of afganistan (just as with taiwan), are most definitely POWs and should be treated as such, or the US is in directly violation of The Geneva Convections and those responsible should be charged with war crimes.

If you don't play by the rules it's not worth playing.

Nuff Said

Theyre not being held as international criminals either. Theyre being trialed under a military court which means basically america can do what it wants. Defence counsel's dont have access to evidence presented by the prosecution and no press whatso ever will be allowed

yes this is highly dodgy in terms of international law. It is for precisely this reason that the US has attempted to block the creation of an International Criminal Court: they wanted to retain the "right" to try anyone they wanted on their own terms, and to allow their military to act internationally on US-only terms. The treatment of these POWs would've inspired hatred of the offending military power if these had been US POWs - remember all the concern at the spy plane personnel downed in China? ("have they got televisions and pop tarts?" etc etc