Jim Dixon wrote:
If the prisoners at Guantanamo are POWs, why should they be charged with crimes? It is no crime to be an enemy soldier.
According to the US Government though they are not soldiers. They are "unlawful enemy combattants".
However, customary practice is to lock POWs up until the conflict is over. This certainly is what happened in the two world wars, at least in Europe; it also happened during the Korean and Vietnam wars.
If these are members of al-Quaeda and prisoners of war, should they not be released when and only when al-Quaeda declares the conflict over? Would not a US government releasing them before the end of the war be derelict in its duty?
The war in Afghanistan is over. This is were they were caught. Thus they should be released, no? If they are terrorists and they have proof of this they should put them in front of a court (and I guess that should be a civil court, not a military tribunal as I don't quite see since when the US Army is performing law enforcement duties).
If they are instead unlawful combatants because they have violated the Geneva conventions (because they have carried arms in battle but discarded them and hid among civilians, say) or if they are spies (out of uniform, engaged in espionage), is the US not being somewhat charitable in treating them as POWs?
But they are not POWs by their own account. If they could be charged with any of these crimes above, then what takes two years to actually convict them?
If they are neither POWs nor unlawful combatants nor spies, if they are just terrorists, why is the US obliged to treat them as though they are in the United States? Presumably they were captured outside the US and were not taken into the US after capture. Why does the US military have to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not citizens or physically present in the United States.
Some of them ARE US Citizens. Others are citizens of other states. International Law means that if I (holding a German passport) have to be allowed to contact MY government in order to receive any aid that I might require. This right has not been given. Granted, I would not be protected under the rights of the US constitution, but I do have other rights and those are clearly violated as well.
If any of those at Guantanamo is an American citizen, then of course he should be returned to the States and tried for carrying arms against his country. Treason, isn't it?
Treason would need to be proofen. Considering that no charges have been brought forward after almost two years it is pretty clear (or at least appears to be) that there is no proof that any of these people did anything wrong.
Let us say that by agreement between the US and the Afghan government (which no one seems to deny is the rightful government of the country) terrorists captured in Afghanistan are being held in Guantanamo. Why should US law apply instead of Afghan law?
It doesn't. But if that would be the case than the captured Afghans should be returned to the Afghan authorities, why is this not happening?
I know for a fact that conditions in Afghan jails are nowhere near as comfortable as those in Guantanamo.
May as it be, but that still doesn't make the actions of the US Government right. Or are you telling me right now that Guantanamo Bay and Diego Garcia are part of a humanitarian mission?
An American friend of mine spent six months in a jail in Kabul. If you didn't buy food from the guards, you starved. If you bought coal from them to heat your cell -- tiny windows high in thick stone walls, so no real ventilation -- you were slowly poisoned by carbon monoxide. If you didn't, you froze. It's cold in Kabul in the winter.
Bad conditions, so help the Afghani government to improve the conditions. Michael