The war on terrorism and the most recent war in Iraq have raised many questions about the "rights" of terrorists and prisoners of war (POWs). Read the following excerpt and websites to assess the situation surrounding the rights of our enemies. Then, answer the questions below.

Since the recent release of those now infamous photos of naked Iraqi prisoners in humiliating poses next to laughing US soldiers, the international media has been saturated with sharp criticisms and pungent commentaries that have raised the important questions about the treatment of prisoners of war.

The status and treatment of prisoners of war (POW) as well as what constitutes a POW has long been a hotly discussed topic in international circles. In line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the international community passed into law the Geneva Conventions. It was adopted August 12, 1949 and entered into force October 21, 1950. The four Geneva Conventions address concerns of international humanitarian law. Special emphasis was given to the treatment of members of the military, civilians, and prisoners in times of war. The Geneva Conventions, also known as the laws of war, include two additional protocols setting out a comprehensive legal framework aimed at protecting captured combatants and civilians during war. The protection and treatment of captured combatants during an international armed conflict is specifically detailed in the Third Geneva Convention (relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War). Some important and relevant excerpts from this convention include:

• Article 4A: Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces... (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power...
• Article 5: Should any doubt arise as to whether persons...belong to any of the categories...in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
• Article 13: Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated...
• Article 82: A prisoner of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power; the Detaining Power shall be justified in taking judicial or disciplinary measures in respect of any offense committed by a prisoner of war against such laws, regulations or orders...
• Article 84: In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind, which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized...
• Article 105: The prisoner of war shall be entitled to assistance by one of his prisoner comrades, to defense by a qualified advocate or counsel of his own choice, to the calling of witnesses...

Under international humanitarian law, combatants captured during an international armed conflict should be presumed to be POWs until determined otherwise. Persons who do not fall under this POW status, including "unlawful combatants," are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Conventions relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. In short, all detainees legally fall somewhere within the protections of these two conventions. Nevertheless, the rights of POWs vary significantly from those of so-called unlawful or non-privileged combatants. POWs may be interrogated but they are only required to provide their surnames, first names, rank, date of birth, and their army, regimental, personal or serial number under questioning. Unlawful or non-privileged combatants cannot claim these same interrogation protections. Regardless of these differences, both POWs and unlawful combatants are protected from torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment as set out under international human rights law.

While captured Iraqis clearly fall under the prisoner of war status, the captured Al-Qaeda terrorists have presented a different sort of problem. Under a presidential directive announced in February 2002, the US government determined that Taliban "soldiers" would be afforded the full protection of the Geneva Conventions but would be classified as "unlawful combatants," not POWs. Further, the al-Qaeda fighters and other suspected terrorists would not be designated as "unlawful combatants" covered by the conventions, meaning that the rights guaranteed in it would not apply to them. The Bush Administration has established that it is within its authority to decide the status of detainees. The U.S. does not recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government; therefore, they do not fit the requirements to meet POW status. Nevertheless, Washington contends that all detainees will still be treated humanely despite the status they are granted. By not having POW status, however, the U.S. does not have to provide them with the same protections, particularly the right to refuse cooperation with interrogators.

Although these most recent photos that have shocked the world, there is still much debate about what is allowed during times of war and what human rights are just so basic that they can never be justifiably violated. President Bush has since formally denounced the mistreatment of Iraqi inmates by US soldiers as "abhorrent", and in interviews with Arabic TV channels, he insisted that the abuse was not typical and that those responsible would be punished. The new US military chief of prisons in Iraq has even apologized for the "illegal or unauthorized" actions. Nonetheless, the debate and questions should not end here. This important tension between the issues of national security and basic human rights needs to addressed and debated, and not merely swept under the rug. It has important and lasting implication for the international community particularly as we continue to face unconventional threats to security, such as international terrorism.

1		According to the Geneva Conventions, what are the rights of those captured during war?
2		In your opinion, is there a fundamental difference between captured terrorists and POWs? Should they be treated differently? Why or Why not?
3		The bigger tension here seems to be where to draw the line between national security interests and the protection of the most basic human rights as recognized by international law. Where do you draw this line? Explain your answer.