One Set Of Rules For All Detained: Just and Ultimately In Our National Interest

Recently, a female Palestinian terrorist was killed while placing a bomb on an Israeli street corner. If she had done so but survived, it is likely that the Israeli authorities (whose Supreme Court has held it might not torture suspects) would not treat her that well, if they felt it would be valuable to obtain information. A similar philosophy is behind the Bush administration's preliminary opinion that Al Qaeda members now held in the US detention center in Cuba do not fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention (or some similar comparable agreement) as combatants. The logic is that they belong to no legally recognized government, target civilians, and do not in general fit the commonly understood characteristics of combatants. Furthermore, they are dangerous terrorists, some of whom already killed people in a prison riot, and cannot just be sent back to their native lands like usual POWs.

Therefore, it is aggravating to some that other nations and some groups in this country feel they are being mistreated. Their mistreatment, which I question has really been proved, is a somewhat separate issue as compared to their status. As to their status, I think it is really splitting hairs to not recognize people fighting us as combatants, just because we don't like them and/or they are more dangerous than some others. Wars target civilians, including many of ours from the early Indian wars on; some include movements that are not recognized as nation states (for instance, the Confederacy was not recognized as a nation by the Union or foreign powers), and some prisoners are rather dangerous individuals or ones from whom we need information (e.g. German POWs during and after WWII). In an age where the US is loath to attacks of foreign governments and enemies "wars," fine lines and splitting hairs is of dubious legitimacy.

The "legality" of a war or combatants at times depends on whose ox is being gored, and some of the "non-wars" we fought in since WWII could and was seen as illegitimate by many people. For instance, "Black Hawk Down" portrays a US military mission in Somalia to seize two key supporters of a warlord, who we didn't particularly like, but whose legitimacy was not that weaker than one who we left alone. Our servicemen was treated as legal POWs under the Geneva Convention, but such generosity is not always going to be supplied by nations and groups who are at war with us. The arbitrary nature of all of this is partly shown by the fact that Saudi Arabian demands that their nationals currently in detention be treated properly is respected because it is our ally. It also is a major source of terrorists that blew up the World Trade Center.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, perhaps realizing international opinion and the likelihood that our actions will come into play when our soldiers and civilians (such a few charged and convicted of espionage by the Soviet Union) are seized, suggested a compromise. Why not determine prisoner status by a hearing on a case by case basis? The most troubling issue with Bush's policy is its basic ad hoc, unprincipled feel to it. It is as if they are making up things as they go along, applying rules that fit our perceived self-interest. Yes, terrorists are not run of the mill POWs, but how do we know who's who without a proper filtering process? Some type of independent review to make sure self-interest isn't determining the result? And, why the ability to try them as war criminals … and thus worthy of less respect than POWs … is not enough?

The need for some safeguards was shown by a recent case of mistaken identity that resulted in the seizure of a group of fighters that were thought to be Taliban forces. Likewise, an earlier incident involved US forces killing North Alliance forces thought to be the enemy, though the facts are a bit hazy. The chance of error, especially when our national interest makes error appear acceptable for higher ends, shows the importance of safeguards and basic rules that apply to all. Terrorists were always some part of war; they are a greater problem in today's world. This must be addressed, but not by ignoring basic rules of war and international law that still remain valid.

Finally, one is left with the ongoing realization that there is not point to ignoring rights that are basic not to our citizens, but to humans in general. Human rights, which are at times are hard to protect given no fully accepted World Court is available to truly protect them, seems to me what ultimately what the Geneva Convention and similar international law agreements are all about. The spirit of such policies is what counts, especially in times when old fashion wars seem passé. Furthermore, not only is a selective respect of such rights unreasonable, it is bad policy. What we sow we will eventually reap. Also, POWs can be questioned, tried for crimes, (if innocent, what right do we have to hold them?), and held until some agreement is determined on what to do with those who are stateless. This "trust us, we know what are we doing to stop these evildoers" rhetoric has to stop … people don't trust you, and you don't always know what you are doing. We, as the world watches, are trying to defend our way of life here … let's not forget that justice for all is an essential component of it.

The Bush administration, again influenced by pressure inside and outside his administration, scaled back somewhat its hard line policy on detainees. It will as a matter of practice, but not official policy, treat members of the Taliban as POWs. Nonetheless, since they are being treated well anyhow (something again I feel without more cannot be denounced as a lie), this really is just a cosmetic change. No, it's not, though the unofficial nature of the move makes it much less impressive in the long run. This ad hoc business has got to stop; the administration (with its share of hard line conservatives known for being less than stellar on rights of the accused) has to realize the importance of basic rules that apply to even them.

Furthermore, their case against the Taliban is much weaker than against Al Qaeda and other terrorists, who admittedly are not your run of the mill foot soldier. The Taliban, on the other hand, was the official (or de facto, since most nations didn't officially recognize them as such) government of Afghanistan. Many of their foot soldiers were members of the young uneducated masses with no prospects but to side with one of the many factions in their nation's civil war. Unless the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to nation's that support violations of international law (and war would be rather pretty if at least one side did not fit this description), not treating Taliban soldiers as POWs opens a broad exception that would threaten to swallow the rule.

The administration's foot dragging and hard line policy yet again makes them look bad and untrustworthy. Though it is heartening that ever so slowly the Bush Administration realizes international concern for human rights is not just anti-American rhetoric, it is rather tedious that it requires so much pressure. As religious conservatives, President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft should know the teachings of Jesus as to how a truly righteous man does not just help his friends -- pagans do that -- but their enemies as well. Some who are criticizing our actions are hypocrites for doing so; nonetheless, this does not make their apparent respect for our traditional of freedom and fair play any less correct. A compromise that clearly gave Taliban official status as POWs (except for those who are shown to be involved in terrorism or war crimes) would have helped a lot to show the Bush administration got this message. As is, skepticism continues to seem to be the best policy.