Kidnapping of Afghan POWs Denounced Worldwide

The kidnapping of Afghan Prisoners of War from Afghanistan via Europe to Cuba is a worldwide scandal. We now a wide variety of articles on this story.

World Socialist Website, 1/14/02, Afghan POWS at Guantanamo base: Bound and Gagged, Drugged, Caged Like Animals" by Patrick Martin
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/pows-j14.shtm

Human Rights Watch: 1/11/02: "US: Geneva Conventions Apply to Guantanamo Detainees"
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us011102.htm

British Independent, 1/14/02, "American Forces 'May Be Breaking POW Convention'" by Kim Sengupta
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia_china/story.jsp?story=114337

British Guardian, 1/14/02, "US Doesn't Have the Right to Decide Who is or isn't a POW" by Michael Byers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4334574,00.html

London Observer, 1/13/02:
http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,631883,00.html

London Times, 1/11/02
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2002018584,00.html

San Francisco Chronicle, 1/10/02
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/01/10/international0934EST0523.DTL

Amnesty International:
http://web.amnesty.org/web/news.nsf/WebAll/B0FAC2CB953A35B580256B3D00604D17?OpenDocument
and
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR510052002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\USA

All but the first four are covered in a previous article at:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/01/113767.php

As to the first four:

The World Socialist Website (WSW) gives the most comprehensive account yet of the illegal kidnapping, drugging, hooding and imprisonment in substandard conditions of the Afghan Prisoners of War by the United States. For those of us who easily remember the Vietnam War, this is a terrible replay of the evil deeds perpetrated by the United States and their South Vietnamese puppet forces. Those of us who have read our history or heard it orally from those who do remember know that this is also a replay of the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the United States in Korea during the Korean War of 1950-53, supported by South Korean puppet forces. The WSW refers to various incidents in the US blood for oil war in Vietnam that are comparable to the current US blood for oil war in Afghanistan and the US treatment of prisoners of war.

The WSW points out that some of the prisoners are not Afghan nationals, but are instead nationals of Middle Eastern states, Great Britain, Russia and other countries. In violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Access, the US has notified only the British Foreign Office of one British national among the POWS, but not the governments of the other foreign nationals.

The WSW also discusses the ramifications of US violations of the Geneva Convention.

The Human Rights Watch has this to say about the US violations of international law:

“'The Secretary [War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld] seems unaware of the requirements of international humanitarian law,” said Jamie Fellner, director of Human Rights Watch´s U.S. Program. 'As a party to the Geneva Conventions, the United States is required to treat every detained combatant humanely, including unlawful combatants. The United States may not pick and choose among them to decide who is entitled to decent treatment.'"

"The United States is a party to the Geneva Conventions, the laws governing the treatment of persons captured during armed conflict. Every captured fighter is entitled to humane treatment, understood at a minimum to include basic shelter, clothing, food and medical attention. In addition, no detainee – even if suspected of war crimes such as the murder of civilians – may be subjected to torture, corporal punishment, or humiliating or degrading treatment. If captured fighters are tried for crimes, the trials must satisfy certain basic fair trial guarantees."

The article then discusses the various requirements for a fair trial.

The British Independent of 1/14/02 provides the Red Cross' opinion on the legality of US actions:

"he International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said yesterday that those being held by American forces must be counted as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, and were, therefore, entitled to the full protection offered by it."

"Some of the terms used by America to describe the prisoners, such as "battlefield detainees", have no legal meaning, the ICRC says."

"The ICRC maintains that Afghan and foreign fighters of the Taliban and al-Qa'ida qualify for prisoner-of-war status and should be treated as such until a properly constituted court, in the United States or elsewhere, decides otherwise."

The British Guardian article of 1/14/02 by Michael Byers, an American professor of international law, currently at Oxford, provides further legal background information:

"The Geneva convention also makes it clear that it isn't for Rumsfeld to decide whether the detainees are ordinary criminal suspects rather than PoWs. Anyone detained in the course of an armed conflict is presumed to be a PoW until a competent court or tribunal determines otherwise. The record shows that those who negotiated the convention were intent on making it impossible for the determination to be made by any single person."

"Moreover, the [Geneva] convention has to be interpreted in the context of modern international conflicts, which share many of the aspects of civil wars and tend not to involve professional soldiers on both sides. Since the convention is designed to protect persons, not states, the guiding principle has to be the furtherance of that protection. This principle is manifest in the presumption that every detainee is a PoW until a competent court or tribunal determines otherwise."

"Even if the detainees were not PoWs, they remain human beings with human rights. Hooding, even temporarily, constitutes a violation of the 1984 convention against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Apart from causing unnecessary mental anguish, it prevents a detainee from identifying anyone causing them harm. Forcefully shaving off their beards constitutes a violation of the right to human dignity under the 1966 international covenant on civil and political rights. Forcefully sedating even one detainee for non-medical reasons violates international law. Although strict security arrangements are important in dealing with potentially dangerous individuals, none of these measures are necessary to achieving that goal. If human rights are worth anything, they have to apply when governments are most tempted to violate them."

And perhaps the most important statement of all, and another reason why we must all be concerned:

"The rights of the detainees are our rights as well."

In other words, not only are American military personnel at risk if captured and not treated in accordance with international law, but if the federal government can violate international law, it can violate human rights laws right here at home against American citizens. It has happened many times before in history, and can happen again. As labor says, an injury to one is an injury to all.