THE NEW PRISONERS OF WAR AND THEIR TREATMENT

Now today our President again spoke out (sigh) and this time he addressed members of congress regarding his proposed new legislation concerning enemy combatants, after the Supreme Court dealt his administration a blow a few weeks ago. As many are aware of, after the campaign in Afghanistan started way back in 2001, the term "Enemy Combatants" was coined, a term hitherto not known not many observers of world news. This new groups of people caught and subsequently detained during wartime actions, have zero protection under the Geneva Convention that the United States was so instrumental in establishing, as these rules regulate some basic conduct regarding prisoners of war during armed conflict. This was a very important step to bring some 'civility' to the dirtyness of warfare seen in WW II. Having declared people caught on the battlefield of Afghanistan Enemy Combatants, has allowed the United States to transfer these people into political and legal lala-land which then consequently led to some grey zones with regard to their treatment while being held captive. As I mentioned before, the Geneva Convention doesn't apply for these individuals. After the aforementioned blow to the administration regarding prisoners held at Gitmo, Cuba, the president had to come up with something new to justify military tribunals for said captives.

Today then, the President asked Congress to pass some sort of legislation that governs the treatment of these men held at Gitmo as well as the possibility of trying them in front of a military tribunal, I am not sure what that all means, the military tribunal stuff, but it doesn't sound good. Democrats along with European Countries and Human Rights Groups have long pushed for Gitmo to be closed and now they have been pushed into a catch 22 situation by probably Karl Rove in either agreeing to this legislation (as in stating that they are indeed against terrorism) or vote against it, and then consequently be labeled as anti-terrorist, anti-American, traitors or worse.

It never ceases to amaze me how this administration can come up with more legislations to make their failed policies on every level of the spectrum look remotely good. Geez, if one had just captured those men in Afghanistan and treated them as POWs, they would have been given the protections of the Geneva Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm), and we would not even have this discussion at all. Why on earth does it need to be spelled out that another human being should not be subjected to hypothermia or fake executions? Isn't that what happened in the Nazi concentrations camps before and during World War II? But God forbit, we can't even bring up this one up without being labeled a traitor and America Hater. I really wonder what the state of this union has become that we even have to discuss how to treat another human being, another prisoner of war, when we expect that our own in captivity be held according to standards. I am sorry , but I really do not believe that any of this makes my husbands and his fellow service members any saver should they, God forbit, end up as a POW or Enemy Combattant.

Additionally, if we have the evidence against these individuals that they indeed planned horrific terrorist actions against America and her allies, then we sure should be able to try them in a court of law following established procedures for criminal cases. But then again, the question arises if we are then punishing people for a crime that they have not yet committed, but maybe planning, which would be the same as trying someone in a court of law for thinking about robbing a bank. Just a note, do neither advocate terrorist attacks or robbing a bank for that matter. I think that if the evidence is enough to try and convict someone, lets do it, lock them up and throw away the key. We need to follow signed treaties and conventions, not be circumvening them as it suits our needs at any given time. Doing so, in my humble opinion, only emboldens the enemy to commit more horrific acts against westerners in their control (e.g. beheadings). If the United States says, she is a nation of laws, that we need to set and example and follow the laws that we have in the books instead spending time creating more. If the United States claims she is morally superior to others, then she needs to set the example that the rest of the world wants to follow. Again, I do not advocate treating terrorists with velvet gloves, quite the opposite, but not torture or degrading treatment. I do believe that the laws we have are enough to allow for prosecution and conviction of terrorists.

P.S. on Sunday 10 September 2006

I was just watching the Early Edition on CNN, their legal analyst gave some more information that these proposed tribunals do not need to present evidence to the accused, or better yet, that the accused have no right under said proposal to see the evidence against them. Didn't W. say last week that we are a "nation of laws" and don't we have laws governing that any accused can see the evidence against them? Well, apprently they do not apply, heck, we are going to shoot a bullet through your head, hang you, fry you or gas you, but you have NO right to know why we do it. I am just grateful for all the JAG lawyers in the Pentagon and for Senator Graham (a Republican) who are opposing this proposed legislation. Let's stick with the laws we have, they are good laws, and not invent new ones that allow us to sidestep established legal procedures and subject who knows whoever into some never before charted and very dangerous legal la-la land.