Victory brings its own dilemma. Having vanquished the Taleban regime in Afghanistan and destroyed its sanctuary for terrorism, the United States is caught in a dispute about how it should treat captured prisoners. Are they prisoners of war with the rights protected by the Geneva Convention?
Terrorism is not warfare as
recognised in international law. The evil of terrorism lies in its very refusal to fight in conventional military forms. It does not wear uniforms, identify itself, its bases or vehicles and pit itself against the nominated warriors of its chosen enemy. It often takes aim at non-combatants, setting out to kill, maim and terrify civilian populations. There could be no greater example than the attack that prompted the American retaliation on the Taleban.
Now the US is holding nearly 150 captured Taleban soldiers, some of whom are members of the al Qaeda terrorist organisation. Their comforts and rights, perhaps understandably, have not been the Bush Administration's prime concern. Nor is there much evidence that they are being badly treated. They are being held for interrogation in tiny cells - "shark cages" some call them - open to the elements and lit throughout the night, at an American military base in Cuba, of all places.
It does not sound pleasant but it is probably much better than the Afghanistan caves they were hiding in. The heat and malarial swamps of the Caribbean can be no worse than winter in the hills of Afghanistan where American forces are encamped, trying to clean out the last of the al Qaeda. The captives at Guantanamo Bay are receiving three meals a day, including an Islamic lunch, and daily medical checks. It is hard to argue with the contention that they never had it so good in Kandahar.
In any event, there have been no reports of complaints from the captives, as distinct from the International Red Cross and civil libertarians, including a former US Attorney-General, Ramsey Clark. He objects to the detention of people on no charge, which seems unduly legalistic in the circumstances.
The Red Cross, having spoken to the prisoners, complains only that official photographs of them have been released. The convention says prisoners of war should not be exposed to "public curiosity". If that is the worst of it, there is not much to worry about.
Still, it is healthy that the Administration is under close scrutiny to see that it treats its captives in accord with civilised standards. If the war was a defence of civilisation, as President Bush often categorised it, he would do his cause no credit if in victory, prisoners were treated inhumanely. They might not be a respectable professional military foe deserving of Geneva's protection but the standards by which the US would want to be judged are not those of terrorism.
At least one member of the Administration, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has urged his colleagues to treat the captives as prisoners of war, with all the attendant rights, until the status of each individual is determined by a hearing before a military board. The purpose would be to distinguish Taleban forces from the terrorists. It might not be a simple matter of separating Afghans from the Saudi, Egyptian, Pakistani and other recruits of al Qaeda.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who initially said he had no interest in the comfort of the prisoners, has since been moved to see their conditions for himself. Yesterday he effectively dismissed Mr Powell's concerns. The US plainly needs all the intelligence on the terrorist network it can glean from interviews of the captives. It is not disposed to give them the right of prisoners of war to confine their response to name, rank and number.
The US has held prisoners of war in past conflicts and has done so honourably. But it has known mistreatment of its own troops at the hands of the Japanese in the Second World War, the Chinese in Korea and the Vietnamese in that war.
It is respect of law and human dignity that distinguishes liberal democratic societies from self-appointed fanatics who set themselves against it. The US must ensure that it rises above the level of those who attacked it, not for their sake but for its own integrity.
Story archives:
Links: War against terrorism
Timeline: Major events since the Sept 11 attacks
<i>Editorial:</i> Little for prisoners to complain about
Victory brings its own dilemma. Having vanquished the Taleban regime in Afghanistan and destroyed its sanctuary for terrorism, the United States is caught in a dispute about how it should treat captured prisoners. Are they prisoners of war with the rights protected by the Geneva Convention?
Terrorism is not warfare as
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
