"Marvin Long, Jr." wrote: > > 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:
I appreciate the tenor of your reply - my reply is the same.. not a position paper, just 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. That's what bothers me - I'm equating morality with legality, or at least, I'm seeing our leaders doing that in other realms related to this 'war' - "We're at war, so we have these legal powers" or "We're at war, so we need these legal powers" I'd like to see us (the US) have a consistent moral stand in this - what possible reason could we have for not affording them the full rights of POWs and human & sensitive treatment? Note that I'm not saying that humane treatment isn't the case, but between the military tribunals, the questions surrounding the issue of human treatment raised by watchdog groups (who admittedly are more than a little rabid, for good reason) we need transparency, openess, and compassion. Either we are morally correct in this or we're not - its hard to say how just we're being if we're hiding those actions. > 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. There seems to be a disconnect in the public presentation of this war. We fought to bring down the Taliban not because they were horrid for their state, people, and region, but because they wouldn't turn over our number 1 suspect. It since has been turned into "The Taliban and AQ were responsible for this act of war." Why wouldn't state sponsorship of an act of war not make it an act of war? If we're doing the "detainee vs POW" dance to get around a restriction put in place by the GC that our (US) government finds politically or militarily difficult, I find it just as difficult to excuse. What about flipping it around? What if the Taliban/AQ/Forces of Evil managed to shoot down a helicopter and took the pilot prisoner, and didn't treat them as a POW as outlined in the GC? Wouldn't we be as mad as a nest of hornets? -j- -- Te audire no possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.
