On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Richard S. Crawford wrote: > What bothers me the most is really Secretary Runsfeld's comments on how the > prisoners will be treated. They won't be treated as POW's, he says, > because they aren't *technically* prisoners of war; they weren't part of > military units, they weren't wearing uniforms, etc. My question is: are we > at war with Al-Quaeda or not? Ashcroft has shown himself to be more than > willing to treat Americans as though they were living in wartime, but can > we really toss that out when it becomes inconvenient? That's the sort of > hypocrisy that I really have trouble with.
Is it hypocrisy or just a muddle of metaphors, or both? Our "war" with al-Qaeda and our "war" against terrorism are metaphors for military actions, not wars in the strict legal sense as I understand it (my understanding may be wrong). Are prisoners of these "wars" then to be considered "prisoners of war" under international law, or are they "unlawful combatants," to use Rumsfeld's term? I think that we're in some partially undefined legal territory here, so we can expect US officials to use whatever language grants the US the greatest latitude of possible action. That doesn't mean it's OK to willfully abuse these prisoners. It might mean, however, that we're under no obligation to treat them with anything more than the barest minimum of decency. Marvin Long Austin, Texas
