On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Jeffrey Miller wrote: > Speaking of which, I wish they'd make up their minds - we're either at > war and they're POWs or we're not and they're not.
I don't have what I consider a hard-and-fast answer, but here are some thoughts: For the sake of a legal (as opposed to moral) definition of obligation, my impression is that it's not just a question of whether we're at war with them, but whether they are at war with us according to the "rules of war." In a moral sense, we are effectively at war with AQ, but in a legal sense we're not at war because they aren't a state and the definition of war implies state-vs-state, not state-vs-gang o'thugs. Morally we're obliged to treat prisoners humanely, but legally it might be another matter. In other words, if our war is only metaphorical war, then our prisoners are only metaphorical POWs (but still real prisoners). If our war is a "legally binding" war -- that is, meeting the definition of war used as a precondition for applying international treaties regarding warfare -- then our prisoners are truly POWs in a legally binding sense. However, the bits of the Geneva Convention quoted on list suggest that the rights of POWs (or alleged POWs) are subject to an if-then clause. IF the prisoners are from a group that meets certain criteria, THEN members of that group are entitled to a certain level of humane treatment under international law. If members of AQ don't meet those critera, then they have no protection as POWs under law and may not even be POWs in any legal sense. If smashing airplanes into civilian population centers by an ostensibly private group of people doesn't fall under the category of a state conducting a war according to the treaty, and if AQ's organization and behavior in general excludes them from the sorts of entities subject to the treaty, then that group may well forfeit any of the human rights due POWs asserted by the treaty. Legally they are not POWs, and their definition might even be up for grabs at this point. "Allegedly mass-murdering citizens of non-US nations," perhaps, in which case their human rights are determined by only two things: 1. the consciences of their US captors, and 2. the efforts their own or other states might want to make on their behalf. Long boondoggle short: the formula "if war then POWs" might not have any application in our current physical and legal circumstances, hence the confusion. Marvin Long Austin, Texas
