What do people think of the way the US is handling the prisoners of war from the Afghan conflict? Leaving aside the issue of possible torture for a minute, what do you think about prisoners being held indefinitley without trial? Personally, I'm on the fence. It doesn't seem right the way the prisoners are being treated, but it's hard to see waht alternative the US has. In a conventional war, prisoners are held until hostilities have ceased, and then released. Usually they'd then just go home to their families and get on with their lives. The nature of the current conflict is different though. It may never be over, and prisoners who're released are likely to take up arms again. Thoughts?
Habeas corpus and the right to fair trial are essential to our freedom. The minute we give them up for any reason we cease to live in liberty, and instead are all subject to the threat of indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial. The due process of law should be applied to Guantanamo; if any of the prisoners are found guilty of violating any laws they should be brought to justice. Otherwise as POWs they should be released in line with the Geneva Conventions, which do apply to these people, and of which the US is in breach. There is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant"; the protections of POWs under Geneva are applied to all who fight. As for this war being different; Afghanistan was a fairly conventional war of aggression - an invasion of a sovereign state and the toppling of its regime by means of traditional conflict with an army of irregulars. When it comes to terrorists acting autonomously rather than as part of an irregular army the process of criminal law should be applied. The idea that it is ever right to lock people up with no access to justice is a scandal: the whole point is that those doing the imprisoning may be mistaken in their judgement, so their judgement should be subject to accountable scrutiny.
Personally I think the fact that it is outside US jurisdiction is indicitive of how the states view international law. They couldn't give a hoot about it, hence their latter attack on Iraq. I also find it disgusting the notion of a state proclaiming to be the land of the free, that views itself as superior to all...as long as one is part of that state you are humanity and democracy incarnate, if not non of the apparatus of common decency, law, in fact any human rights apply what so ever. In fact isn't this just how the Romans viewed people outside of Rome, wild animals that they could dispose of as they saw fit? Let's be real here. It was only a few months before 11th of September tragedy that the Americans were entertaining the Taliban in the States trying to organise pipeline deals. And since when has the actions of a few justified the incarceration of the many? Oh shit, yeah...America has a history of this behaviour within her own borders. Bring it on neo-cons....
I don't think there's any question about the (lack of) ethics on the part of the American government. However, I fail to see an adequate response in this situation. It's all very well to say "subject them to trial", but how would this work? Their only provable crime would be defending their sovereign state - which is their right. So they'd be set free. And yet set them free, and they will in all probability go and take up arms against America again. I don't see any absolute rights or wrongs in this situation. I should say though that I'm considering this from a purely theoretical point of view, as there's a whole load of other factors that make Guantanamo a blot on the civilised world......
Firstly their continued captivity without trial is based upon an assumption of guilt; these people are to be presumed innocent because they have not been tried. Secondly their participation in defending Afghanistan against external aggression is as you say not a crime in international law and if there is no evidence of them having comitted a crime they should be freed. If they were to take up arms and become involved in the criminal activity of terrorism then that would need to be subject to a separate law enforcement and judicial process. There are dangers to being free. I'm not prepared to give up my right to habeas corpus and fair trial by condoning Guantanamo, just because there is a risk these people might go on to commit crimes. That's not the way freedom works. You can't keep a burglar in prison indefinitely just because there's a possibility he may start burgling houses again! The same with a murderer, the same with a potential terrorist. If he is innocent according to the due process of law then he must be freed.
I'm fairly certain that the majority of those incarcerated have never before set foot out of Afghanistan/Pakistan. 'Our' forces invaded them. I still don't understand the link between 16 or so Saudi nutters and a prison full of Taliban nutters..if in fact that's who they are, any more than I see a link between 16 or so Saudi nutters and Saddam Hussein. This whole situation depends upon our taking the word of the American Forces which personally I refuse to do until they start being open, which throughout this whole sorry farce they have refused to be. Surely most of the answers to the Sept 11th situation lie in Saudi Arabia? In terms of the detainees taking up arms against America in the future....most likely they now would.
I'm typing this without knowing all of the facts, but we've got people being held without trial on similar terrorist accusations at Belmarsh Prison in South London. http://www.channel4.com/news/news_story.jsp?storyId=609994 http://www.fairtrials.org.uk/index.html
How is it different really? America have been dealing with geurilla warfare for a very long time and should really be quite used to it by now but I haven't heard of them publicly denying people POW status before. The only big difference I can see is that there was an attack on their home ground. I'm not a historian though, and I'm often wrong!
How can you possibly set yourself up as the nation that defends freedom yet deprive people of the fundamental freedoms that your society so loudly seeks to defend?... Fly...
hmm, America sets itself up as the nation that defends IT'S citizens freedom, not the rest of the world. Fair play it doesn't do a very good job of that but it's better than what they try to do to the rest of the world at least
One of the big lies that America used to justify its invasion of Iraq was that it was going to bring freedom and demoracy etc to this nation that had been trampled under the boot of tyranny... Of course, it is a massive lie... but it continue to claim to be the nation that will bring law to the lawless etc... So get on your horse and ride into the wild sunset... with your infantry behind you... Fly...
