PDA

View Full Version : Are Terrorists POWs?



thedrifter
11-03-05, 05:30 AM
Are Terrorists POWs?
By John Yoo
USAToday.com | November 3, 2005

Suppose that the United States captures a high-level al-Qaeda leader who knows the location of a weapon of mass destruction in an American city. Sen. John McCain's amendment would prevent the president from taking necessary measures — short of torture — to elicit its location.

To protect the United States against another 9/11-style attack, it makes little sense to deprive ourselves of important, and legal, means to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. Physical and mental abuse is clearly illegal. But should we also take off the table interrogation methods that fall short of torture — such as isolation, physical labor, or plea bargains — but go beyond mere questioning?

While the impulse behind the McCain amendment is worthy, it would not have prevented the abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, which were unrelated to interrogations. Those abuses resulted from sadistic behavior on the "night shift" and were illegal. The Geneva Conventions — which already prohibit the torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners — clearly apply in Iraq.

McCain's only real effect would be to limit the interrogation of al-Qaeda terrorists. They are not prisoners of war under Geneva, but a stateless network of religious extremists who do not obey the laws of war, who hide among peaceful populations, and who seek to launch surprise attacks on civilian targets. They have no armed forces to attack, no territory to defend, and no fear of killing themselves in their attacks.

Information is the primary weapon in this new conflict. Intelligence gathered from captured operatives may present the most effective means of stopping terrorist attacks. We should not deprive our military and intelligence agencies of the flexibility to prevent another attack, one perhaps using weapons of mass destruction, on an American city by a terrible and unprecedented enemy.

John Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, served in the Justice Department in 2001-03. He also is the author of Powers of War and Peace.

Ellie

junker316
11-03-05, 02:38 PM
Suppose that the United States captures a high-level al-Qaeda leader who knows the location of a weapon of mass destruction in an American city. Sen. John McCain's amendment would prevent the president from taking necessary measures — short of torture — to elicit its location.

To protect the United States against another 9/11-style attack, it makes little sense to deprive ourselves of important, and legal, means to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. Physical and mental abuse is clearly illegal. But should we also take off the table interrogation methods that fall short of torture — such as isolation, physical labor, or plea bargains — but go beyond mere questioning?

Now let's suppose that this method supports those that are trying to harm our society....during what arena are we playing? The one that states that we are to allow every-one in the world that wants to hurt us to live with us and terrorize us witht he mehtods they grew up on or the one that states that we are to defend our nation?

rktect3j
11-04-05, 10:29 AM
I do not feel like playing the "what if" game. I mean hell, "What if grasshoppers had machine guns?... Birds wouldn't screw with em." So who cares it isn't plausable. So I decided to look up the definition of POW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war


A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, or PW) is a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict. Laws exist to ensure prisoners of war are treated humanely and diplomatically. Nations vary in their dedication to following these laws.

Which should let you know that captured terrorists are not POWs. So I read on a bit and came to this little tidbit.


Qualification as POW
In principle, to be entitled to prisoner of war status the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war, e.g. be part of a chain of command, wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practice these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly, yet are typically granted POW status if captured. However, guerrillas or any other combatant may not be granted the status if they try to use both the civilian and the military status. Thus, the importance of uniforms — or as in the guerrilla case, a badge — to keep this important rule of warfare.

I think the debate is over. Captured terrorists are not POW's and are not afforded any rights under such status.

junker316
11-04-05, 10:34 AM
Good job rktect3j...thanks for the info.
I do not feel like playing the "what if" game. I mean hell, "What if grasshoppers had machine guns?... Birds wouldn't screw with em." So who cares it isn't plausable. So I decided to look up the definition of POW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war



Which should let you know that captured terrorists are not POWs. So I read on a bit and came to this little tidbit.



I think the debate is over. Captured terrorists are not POW's and are not afforded any rights under such status.