Note how terribly they are being treated.
Q. There have been a number of concerns raised about the treatment of the captives we hold in Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba. Are we incarcerating people inappropriately?
A. The predictable media blitz surrounding American-held captives at Guantanamo Bay has required the Department of Defense to vigorously defend security procedures at that military facility against a flurry of criticism by European governments and human rights groups.
To date, 158 detainees are being held at the naval base "Gitmo" (Note: U.S. presence there dates back to the Spanish-American War in the summer of 1898. For the history of the base, see
http://www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/history.htm) Additional transfers have been suspended while construction crews work around the clock to expand permanent facilities that will eventually house as many as 2,000 prisoners.
Due to religious considerations, it probably was a mistake to have shaved the detainees prior to transfer in an effort to cleanse them of lice. The Pentagon certainly regrets releasing one picture taken by a Navy photographer as the first group of detainees arrived at the base Jan. 11.
However, I think the "outcry" is unfounded and primarily the result of the notorious British tabloids, Islamic groups in London, and political critics that have specific agendas to pursue. I think the majority of the American public, and the world, understands that inhumane treatment of prisoners is not the American way. The Navy and Marine Corps personnel assigned to Camp X-Ray are a highly trained, professional security police force and they are doing a good job.
The terrorist captives are in an environment that appropriately demands maximum security. These people are as dangerous as any criminal we hold in other maximum-security prisons. They are receiving exercise periods, warm showers, toiletries, water, clean clothes, blankets, three meals a day, prayer mats, excellent medical care, writing materials and private visits from the Red Cross. A Navy Muslim chaplain is available to minister to their religious needs if requested, and calls to prayers are broadcast over the camp PA system, with a sign indicating the direction of Mecca.
No one who has personally visited the camp, to include human-rights monitors from the International Committee of the Red Cross and a British team of investigators, has reported any complaints of inhumane treatment. A group of U.S. senators will visit the camp this week to report their findings to the public.
I might also note that if roles were reversed, if any U.S. soldiers had been captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan, I believe the potential for inhumane treatment of those prisoners would have been quite high.
Q. Some European governments and human rights groups are faulting the United States for not classifying the Afghan war captives at "Camp X-Ray" in Guantanamo as Prisoners of War, with full rights under the Geneva Convention. If this is a war on terrorism and we have captured terrorists, shouldn't they be designated Prisoners of War (POWs)?
A. U.S. officials say that all are being treated as though Geneva standards apply.
The strategy, rules and procedures that the U.S. will follow will be announced within a week. The decisions regarding the classification of the detainees will have significant ramifications concerning policies of prosecution.
The Bush administration has been very careful to refer to the prisoners as "unlawful combatants" or "battlefield detainees," and not prisoners of war. This is a complicated issue that has the Justice, State and Defense departments submitting recommendations concerning legal precedents for prosecuting and holding suspected terrorists. General Counsel William Hayes and a team of military attorneys have been at Guantanamo Bay to get a better understanding of the demographics of the detainees.
The interrogations are on-going, with the hope that more information will be obtained that can save innocent lives. For instance, it was reported this week that a captive senior al Qaeda leader provided information about an alleged plot to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Yemen with a truck bomb. This led to a decision to close the embassy consular office and tighten security around the facility. Information learned in Afghanistan has helped thwart possible attacks in Singapore and Bosnia. Under international law, POWs are required to divulge no more than basic information such as their name, rank, identification number and date of birth. In our quest for more information from these terrorists, I think the hesitancy to immediately label all detainees POWs and intentionally limit our ongoing interrogations is understandable.
U.S. officials say that the captives are not covered by the Geneva Convention because they were bands of people and not an organized military activity. I think this applies more appropriately to al Qaeda detainees than Taliban fighters. Under the third Geneva Convention, POWs may only be tried in the same courts and according to the same rules as soldiers of the country that is holding the prisoners. The administration is trying to determine if that is the optimum procedure to follow in all cases, and I don't think it is. It would mean that al Qaeda suspects could not be tried in any special military tribunal, but only by regular U.S. military courts using the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That would give the prisoners a right to appeal possibly all the way up to the Supreme Court.
American al Qaeda prisoner Sulayman Al-Lindh a.k.a. Abdul Hamid, (the media uses the name John Walker Lindh) has just arrived in the Alexandria, Va., county jail to face criminal charges in a civil court, and will have all rights and privileges of a United States citizen.
POWs would normally be returned home at the end of active hostilities; to me, it is unclear what would constitute an end to the war on terrorism. Further, in some cases returning detainees to their countries could result in their severe mistreatment or death, which would be in violation of international law.
Releasing the names of the captives is also troublesome. Many will not divulge their true names; many have aliases. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made a point when he said, "If people know who is in custody, then they know what kind of information conceivably might be available to us."
This is new, murky, unchartered territory for everyone. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has said the detainees are being held for questioning and some will be sent to tribunals, some to criminal courts, some back to their home countries. A lot of the peculiarities of detaining terrorists were simply never envisioned when the Geneva Convention was drawn up. It will be a case-by-case basis for each detainee as hard decisions are made, and procedures and policies for prosecution are announced next week.
