h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.guardian.co.uk
Whaddya know.
Even Dubya has seen the light...
Though I can't the link to work more specifically, but it's there on the front page...'Bush U-Turn on X-Ray'.

I can't make it work either, but Blues Shark is right - you can't miss it.

I don't know what persuaded him, but it's the right decision.

I'm more confused than ever - so the Taliban *are* covered by the Conventions, but *aren't* prisoners of war - and the Al-Qaeda are neither...

How does that work exactly - I thought that if you weren't a prisoner of war, then you weren't covered...

The Law of War covers everyone. Just as the law against murder covers everyone. It's just that people who are recognized as Prisoners of War have a special status. They have substantial rights once captured.

Unlawful combatants, are also covered by the Law of War. The law states that a tribunal must determine their statutus, which seems to be a bit tardy. Furthermore they can't be punished unless there are further legal proceedings against them.

A link to a Grauniad story. Not the one that Blues Shark mentioned - I can't find that, but a follow up.

http://shorterlink.com/?HG0BWQ

Apparently, I was wrong; they haven't been recognized as POW's. I don't know what the White House is doing.

The legal situation seems fairly straightforward to me. You capture these people. You interrogate them, and you set up tribunals to determine their status. If necessary, you hold further tribunals or courts-martial to determine if they committed war crimes and if they deserve punishment.

It doesn't seem all that complicated.

The only thing that disturbs me is that the US appears to be putting horse before cart.
If these people are POW's, they can't be questioned beyond name rank, number. If they aren't POW's, you can ask 'em anything you like.
How can you interrogate them before determining their status?

The other thing is this need by the US not to allow them into the US judicial system - which seems really odd to me.

You can ask them anything you want, they're only required to give name, rank, date-of-birth and other identifying information.

The approriate place to deal with people alleged to be war criminals is a military court of some form or another.

I'm a bit unsure about Bush's position.

Bush has said that Taliban *can* be considered POWs but Al-Quaida fighters can't.

The US and her allies are at war with Terrorism (ie terrrorist organisations). Although the Taliban was the de-facto government of Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 it was never internationally recognised. So surely, by Bush's logic, Al-Quaida fighters should be POWs and Taliban (as fighters in a non-recognised government) should not.

Man, I'm confused

The U.S. can do pretty much whatever they want, and there is very little that England, the U.N., or anyone else can do about it. I say this not pridefully, but realistically. Unlike England we don't have much in the way of internal dissent right now in regards to these 'war policies;' certainly, 'radical fringe' groups like the one I belong to are not enough to shame our government into acting differently. And in regards to outside criticism -- look, we haven't paid our full U.N. dues in years. By 6 months after taking office, Bush hadn't even appointed an ambassador to the U.N. -- showing how much he cares. And in portraying entire countries as evil and discouraging dissent, do you really think this guy is going to change his mind?

"We're the cops of the world, boys.. we're the cops of the world."

I don't know why anybody is surprised that Bush is acting as he is. He is promoting the interests of those who back him - oil interests, large corporations. He made no secret of his views when he was Governor of Texas. I happen to disagree profoundly with his views, I did before he was elected, I do now. What seems to be forgotten is that many in the US also disagree with him - he did not exactly get a resounding majority of support in the presidential election as I recall. He has support for the action in Afghanistan, at the moment, but I wonder how deep that support is, and how long it will last. I would be surprised if that support extended beyond the military aspect into general political and econmomic policy. It didn't for his father.

simone b is right - there is nothing that the rest of the world can do about it, other than to urge those American citizens that we know to oppose Bush. Nobody will ever change his mind, but the American citizens can vote him out. We must hope that more and more American citizens wake up to what their government is doing in their name, and force them to behave more responsibly. They did it before, in the 1960s, they can do it again. That's democracy.

The important thing to stress re: americans is that opposing Bush is *not* opposing the war on terrorism. Also, whatever Bush says, they have every right to question how he conducts the war and disagree with it. To say otherwise is to go against the fundamental ideas of the US constitution.

I didn't make it clear, but the current administration idea is that the Taliban members are not POW's but are subject to the laws of war. I believe this is because they were part of the de facto government of a nation that is a signatory to the laws of war, but they didn't fight in compliance with the law of war.

The administration does not believe that the law of war does not apply to the al-Qadea fighters because they are not part of a the military of any government.

I believe that the law of war applies to anyone engaged in a war regardless of whether or not they're signatories. The law of war is recognized as universal.

The proper way to deal with these detainees is to hold tribunals to determine individually if they should be treated as prisoners of war as the law of war requires.

Personally, i don't think there should be a law of war at all. Civil law is fine. I you kill someone - you should have to prove it's self defence. Every soldier should be held responsible for his crimes and made to account for them, and all their managers must be made to account for those working under them.

In practice it would mean trying the heads of our military and our government for any un-necissary killing (on either side). Seems reasonable to me.

That's absurd. What court would have jurisdcition? The local government might not exist after the war in any meaningful form. If a new government is in place, their laws would be ex post facto. How would the court compel the attendance of witnesses or defendants for that matter? Where are your witnesses to most of these crimes? Are they alive even?

The law of war is there to act as a code for all soldiers, but its mostly used to try the most serious of violations. I think it's pretty satisfactory.