NationStates Jolt Archive

Allow me to present a hypothetical situation: Congress and President Bush have done away with the term "unlawful enemy combatant" and all of its legal connotations. Every person currently in U.S. custody, and all combatants seized in the future, will now be given the classification of "prisoner of war", and will be subject to all of the protections that are normally afforded to such persons under international and domestic law.

For those who oppose the current American policies in relation to indefinite detainment and Guatanamo Bay: would you now condone the practice of indefinite detainment at the naval brig?

Allow me to present a hypothetical situation: Congress and President Bush have done away with the term "unlawful enemy combatant" and all of its legal connotations. Every person currently in U.S. custody, and all combatants seized in the future, will now be given the classification of "prisoner of war", and will be subject to all of the protections that are normally afforded to such persons under international and domestic law.

For those who oppose the current American policies in relation to indefinite detainment and Guatanamo Bay: would you now condone the practice of indefinite detainment at the naval brig?

So long as the people being detained actually fit that classification, then yes. If they're detaining the guy who sells falafels on the streetcorner because his mother once donated to a charity that turned out to be a front for hamas, then no. Basically, my only other stipulation would be that they do so openly, so the public knows where these people are and can see how they're being treated. If they are guilty of war crimes, (or just plain old crimes.) charge them with that.

The biggest problem with considering them POWs is that we've entered a "war" that may never end, and POWs are supposed to be released at the end of the war...

The biggest problem with considering them POWs is that we've entered a "war" that may never end, and POWs are supposed to be released at the end of the war...

Indeed. The ambiguous "War on Terror". Obviously not a term first used on the spur of the moment, wouldn't you say?

Just when does the "War on Terror" end? When Al-Qaida is destroyed? When the "rogue" states are all neutralised? When absolute American hegemony is ensured? What are the objectives in this very loosely defined conflict?

Is Guatanamo Bay a detterant?

Is Guatanamo Bay a detterant?

More like a propaganda coup.

short answer, NO.

if they are going to call people prisoners of war they have to BE prisoners of war. meaning they have to have been in the military of someone we were at official war with.

that excludes most of those detainees

those that it DOES include now need to be treated in accordance with the geneva conventions.