Quote:
originally posted by russotto
The detainees in Cuba are still subject to all the US treaty requirements with respect to prisoners of war.
|
The important moral concern is only whether the detainees, by whatever legal characterization, are being treated humanely in accordance with the standards of international law, including the Geneva Convention.
Reading the Geneva Convention, it seems to me to be quite inapplicable for the detainees to be designated PoW for all the purposes of the GC, in the context of the current conflict. The Geneva Convention is not natural law, but a contractual agreement between signatories that provides mutually binding rules that govern how each will treat the opposing armed forces captured during a conflict. There is even a provision that non-signatories should be afforded the rights for their forces, if they agree to reciprocity with the signatory nation. This is clearly not the deal with the Al Qaeda or the Taleban. Afghanistan is a signatory to the GC, of course, but the UN recognized only the Northern Alliance as the official government, in any event.
There are clearly many "rights" of PoWs in the GC that should
not be extended to these detainees, especially the right to release and repatriation, and the right to financial compensation while imprisoned.
I don't think the GC should be read loosely, or interpreted broadly, to advocate greater entitlement for these detainees than generally humane treatment, which they should be afforded even without reference to the GC. Not that Allied forces would be given the same, if captured.
Everyone is entitled to form their own differing opinions, and opposing international lawyers might debate the fine points of interpretation of the
Geneva Convention, but it's certainly worth reading.