Experts say detainees not POWs

Washington Times ^ | Thursday, January 17, 2002 | David R. Sands

[JohnHuang2]

Human rights groups have complained strenuously, but some international legal experts say the Bush administration is on solid ground in denying prisoner-of-war status to members of the al Qaeda terrorist network captured in the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan.

Much more problematic, legal scholars say, is the apparent decision to deny POW status to captured soldiers of the ousted Taliban regime, who are entitled to a higher level of protection under international agreements despite the fact that the United States and most other governments never recognized the Taliban government.

[JohnHuang2]

Quote of the Day by Alberta's Child

[Restorer]

Rights groups also note that the Geneva Conventions specify that in cases of doubt, a prisoner taken in a military conflict should be presumed to be a formal POW "until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Sounds logical to me. So convene the tribunal and determine their status. Shouldn't take long. It's not like they have the civil rights of an American citizen.

[cincinnati_Steve]

The Red Cross is on my blacklist, as of now. No more blood, no more money. Generations of donations end here. Get your lucre elsewhere, you communist pigs. We will do what is necessary, and to hell with you.

[poet]

I'm really confused now. If what they did to the towers in NY was an act of war as has been stated time and time again, how can they not be POWs if they were captured in a massive military operation? What does "illegal combatants mean?

[JohnHuang2]

The attacks of September 11 were acts of war, clearly, but al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, not a nation-state, hense captured combatants, adhering to the strictist definition, are not POWs.

[poet]

If they were captured in our country I could accept that, but, they were in their own country a part of which they controlled. Was any gov't of Afghan recognized as the official gov? Wasn't it made up of warring tribal factions?
I have a "gut" feeling that perhaps a "little arm twisting" is planned for these slime which is not permissable under the Geneva conventions of war.

It is either a war or it is not. I don't want to be abitrary, however, aren't we setting a precedent here which can be applied against us at a future date?
This just doesn't set right with me. Sounds a little clintonesque

I have called this a "police action" in many replies and this just adds to that supposition.
BTW, for the record, I do back the Pres in his handlng of this.

[nopardons]

Korea was a " police action"; this is not !

Most of the members od al Qaeda are NOT Afghanis. Ergo, your misstatement, that the were captured in " their own country " is a falacy .

[poet]

Point well taken. However, we have been told time and time again that this is war and to expect more warlike attacks. So, it is either a war or it is not.

The question could be resolved if Congress had an "on the floor" vote and defines "all" of the enemies instead of the "sense of congress" resolution they issued.
It seems to me that we are playing a semantic game here just like the liberal press is doing to protect the little rat traitor from treason charges. Is he an "illegal combatant" and, if so, why is he going to get a trial?

[nopardons]

War usually conotates aggression taken against a nation /s and its forces. The Barbary Pirates thingy, which was a war,was NOT declared a war by Congress, is the closest thing to fit what is going on today. Because this is all so different / new , we reall don't have an adequate word for it.

As to little Johnny Jihad, this is a sticky sitation.He is, by all lights, a TRAITOR. It just isn't really traitorous by legal language . Did you ever read " A MAN WITHOUT A COUNTRY " ? That's close, but no cigar. As a country, we really have not ever had this kind of a moronic traitor case before. It's all new territory .

[poet]

Why don't we just call it a war, define the enemy and not just the "field general" bin laden and his lieutenants, but, "all" of the enemy.
We have exploded billions of dollars worth of bombs and, for all practical purposes, leveled a country and we are at a loss for a definition?
We have ground troops over they some of whom have died and we are at a loss for a definition?
We have passed a restrictive law in our own country and we at a loss for a definition?
It's almost 3am and I'm going to rest now before they come to take me away.

[unending thunder]

Why do we tell anyone where they are? Just lock them up, throw away the key, somewhere. Japs in WW2 were sent to Montana?

Who gives a flying F ?

Lock up one bleeding heart liberal for every Taliban as well.

No, make that 50 liberal bleeding hearts.

[nopardons]

Hey ... I'm on YOUR side ! : - )

[Caipirabob]

We should be detaining a few of these Human Rights groups, too.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

" By saying that the status of the prisoners at Gitmo are "in limbo," this article is repeating the legal lie put out yesterday by Amnesty International and days before by the International Red Cross. There is clear law about the status of these prisoners, and the government's use of the phrase "illegal detainees" reveals that status. There is a 20-page, unanimous Supreme Court decision, written in plain English, that makes crystal clear the status of these prisoners and the trials that await them. ……" posted on 1/17/02 4:40 AM Pacific by Congressman Billybob

[Eternal_Bear]

Al Qaeda irregulars clearly served under the auspices of the Taliban regime. That should entitle them to the status of POW's but it doesn't absolve them of any criminal activities. POW's can still be tried as war criminals so I'm not sure why Rumsfeld is so ambiguous on this.

[RetiredArmy]

I just love how the liberal-socialist-commie-nazi crybaby whinebag slimeball asswipes love to back the poor, downtrodden, murders of 3,000. I say we give these liberals to the Taliban and let them deal with them.