Loading...
 

Don't Panic! February 06 2002

Terror tips for the terrified

What's all this controversy about the al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay naval base?

The international media, many governments and some human rights organizations immediately condemned the United States upon seeing photos of the al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba. Rather than depicting them sipping cocktails at a Buena Vista Social Club show, the pictures showed the prisoners shorn of their religious beards, shackled and blindfolded in chain-link fenced cages conditions that apparently violate the Geneva Convention's rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war.

But the U.S. claims that the prisoners are not "prisoners of war" but rather "unlawful combatants." Because one of al-Qaeda's stated missions is to kill American civilians, we argue that captured al-Qaeda fighters do not qualify as POWs under the convention. The government's official term for them is "detainees." (In case you're curious, my official term for them is "assholes.")

The debate isn't merely over legal terminology. One of the main reasons we have the prisoners — oops, I mean detainees — at Guantanamo is to interrogate them. We want to find out about other terrorist plots and identify hidden al-Qaeda agents around the world. If we declare them POWs under the Geneva Convention's rules, we can't interrogate them.

Critics contrast our treatment of the Guantanamo prisoners with the treatment of American Taliban John Walker Lindh. Lindh is in jail in Virginia awaiting trial in a civilian federal court. The Guantanamo prisoners may be tried and even executed in secret by a military court.

But critics who cite Lindh's treatment are ignoring two important distinctions. First, Walker is a U.S. citizen and is thus entitled to Constitutional protection. Second, Walker has been on the cover of a lot of important magazines and newspapers — and if there's one law that Americans always follow, it's the one that guarantees good treatment of celebrities.

But even in government circles, there's debate over whether the prisoners should be granted Geneva Convention POW status. Some in the State Department (Colin Powell is rumored to be among them) want to grant the al-Qaeda fighters POW protection so that captured American special forces might be granted the same. So far, that argument hasn't swayed our policy.

Meanwhile, captured al-Qaeda fighters held in Afghanistan's overcrowded, disease-ridden Shibergan prison keep asking to be shipped to the vastly more comfortable Guantanamo jail. I'm starting to think that maybe some of these guys didn't really think this jihad stuff all the way through.

So what exactly is the Geneva Convention? Well, in 1949 the world's diplomats gathered at a Holiday Inn in Geneva, Switzerland, eventually agreeing to a set of rules that spell out the requirements for the humane treatment of prisoners of war. They probably celebrated the agreement by drinking a lot of schnapps and — if it was like most conventions — hitting a strip club.

Some of the convention's requirements strike me as rather inappropriate in this case. For example, it requires that prisoners be allowed to prepare their own food. Should suicide bombers really be given kitchen implements? The convention also requires that prisoners receive cigarettes and musical instruments. Do we really want to send a message to the young musicians of the world that joining al-Qaeda is the ticket to the two things — other than groupies — they crave most?

E-mail your questions to andisheh@ creativeloafing.com.??



More By This Writer

Article

Monday July 2, 2012 10:14 am EDT
Fourth of July has devolved into a mindless national block party. Here's what we should do about it. | more...

Article

Wednesday September 7, 2011 04:30 am EDT
Ten years later, a TV terrorpalooza rings hollow | more...

Article

Tuesday September 7, 2010 09:11 am EDT

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andishehnouraee/4966908103/

My favorite foreign policy column cliché of the previous decade is, without a doubt, the Friedman Unit.

It’s a reference to New York Times foreign policy columnist Thomas Friedman. Fair and Accuracy in Reporting noted that, between November 2003 and May 2006, Friedman used some form of the phrase “the next six months is crucial in Iraq”...

| more...

Article

Thursday August 26, 2010 02:42 pm EDT


The last U.S. combat troops left Iraq on August 19. War over. Woohoo!

Take that, you stupid 9/11 terrorists who had absolutely nothing at all to do with Saddam Hussein or Iraq. Boo ya!

No. Wait. Upon further review, it turns out the war isn’t exactly over.

The combat troops are out, but there are still roughly 50,000 non-combat troops in Iraq. Iraq still has the third largest foreign...

| more...

Article

Tuesday August 24, 2010 12:04 am EDT

As someone who had to turn on the closed captioning during The Wire, I totally get this.

The Associated Press:

ATLANTA — Federal agents are seeking to hire Ebonics translators to help interpret wiretapped conversations involving targets of undercover drug investigations.

The Drug Enforcement Administration recently sent memos asking companies that provide translation services to help it find...

| more...
Search for more by Andisheh Nouraee

[Admin link: Don't Panic! February 06 2002]