by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright January 23, 2002
All Rights Reserved.

ack on his heels, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is taking heat for the military's treatment of 158 Taliban/Al Qaeda prisoners airlifted to the U.S. Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Calling the detainees "unlawful combatants," Rumsfeld dismissed criticism that they're receiving substandard treatment. U.S. and foreign civil rights groups complained that the makeshift accommodations don't conform to the 1949 Geneva Convention, spelling out appropriate conditions for "prisoners of war." Eight-foot wire cages don't meet minimum standards, dubbing the temporary facility "Camp X-Ray." Quibbling over labels also doesn't convince the press that the captives aren't POWs. Hurting its cause, the Pentagon released an embarrassing photo, depicting captives kneeling down with earmuffs, masks, and shackles. "Let there be no doubt," said Rumsfeld, "the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay is proper, it's humane, it's appropriate and it is fully consistent with international conventions," answering critics, but not changing too many minds.

     Avoiding the POW label and calling the captives "battlefield detainees" denies certain rights and permits interrogation under the current Geneva Convention. According to the 1907 standard, known as Hague 4 under Article 1, to qualify as POWs, captives must (a) follow a chain of command, (b) have a "fixed distinctive emblem recognizable from a distance," (c) "carry arms openly," and (d) abide by international laws of war. POWs can only be asked, name, rank, serial number and birth date. Under this clause, authorities can interrogate captives and collect important intelligence. So far, civil rights groups aren't convinced. The Pentagon failed to mention Hague 4, Article 2 contained the following exception: "The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously takes up arms to resist invading troops." While not perfect, it fits Taliban/Al Qaeda combatants who wear traditional Islamic garbs without a "fixed distinctive emblem recognizable from a distance." Most Afghan fighters—including the Mujahedeen—don't wear uniforms with identifiable logos.

     In Los Angeles, a coalition of clergy, academics and civil rights groups, led by criminal defense attorney Stephen Yagman, petitioned U.S. District Court Judge A. Howard Matz to have Taliban/Al Qaeda prisoners brought before a court and charged with certain crimes—in other words, given the right to habeas corpus. While a long-shot, Yagman's action still raises questions about constitutional guarantees—though few Americans harbor much sympathy for the Afghan captives. The Pentagon can't have it both ways: Either the captives are POWs or they're entitled to habeas corpus. Playing with words doesn't solve the controversial decision to fly 158 Taliban/Al Qaeda combatants—including 3 Brits—12,000 miles to Castro's island paradise to face military tribunals. "If the British subjects are not accused of crimes in the United States, they should be tried in the United Kingdom," said Kevin McNamara, a Labour Party official, objecting to existing conditions and U.S. equivocation about prisoners" status.

     British Prime Minister Tony Blair wasn't too troubled by conditions at "Camp X-Ray," despite press reports suggesting inhumane treatment. Soaring to 90 degrees, prisoners were reported to be mopping their brows—something few Americans were concerned about. Even with the prison still under construction, independent U.K. observers gave the facilities an OK rating. "No detainee has been harmed. No detainee has been mistreated in any way. And the numerous articles, statements, questions, allegations, and breathless reports on television are undoubtedly by people who are either uninformed, misinformed or poorly informed," said Rumsfeld, emphatically defending the military's handling of the makeshift prison. While the embarrassing photo raised eyebrows, prisoner abuse isn't the issue. More people—and the press—are stuck on whether the "detainees" actually qualify as legitimate POWs. As long as authorities gain valuable intelligence, it's unlikely they'll be reclassifying captives anytime soon.

     Refusing to give in on the POW issue, the Pentagon adds more accelerant to an already incendiary press. Maintaining their current status antagonizes civil rights groups—like Yagman's—seeking any excuse to grab headlines. Fanning the flames, "We are giving them the treatment that is appropriate under the Geneva Convention," said Rumsfeld, refusing to reclassify detainees as POWs, but reassuring the press that Taliban/Al Qaeda fighters are receiving appropriate treatment. "I think that the legal questions I'm going to leave to the lawyers," pretending that the Pentagon's hands are tied until completing legal machinations. In reality, the Pentagon decided that national security required intense interrogation of "battlefield detainees," precluding certain rights as POWs accorded by the Geneva Convention. Where the Pentagon got into trouble was bringing prisoners to a high-profile Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, guaranteed to shift the media spotlight in the wrong place. Instead of directing attention toward capturing Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Pentagon's wasting precious time defending its treatment of POWs.

     Prosecuting the "war on terrorism" involves more than showcasing the latest hi-tech hardware and gadgets. As the Pentagon should have learned in Vietnam, good public relations are essential to meeting military objectives. Flying Afghan prisoners 12,000 miles to Guantanamo Bay and then creating a makeshift prison was a bad miscalculation. Why the Pentagon chose Guantanamo Bay is anyone's guess. Suggesting that the captives were too dangerous to go anywhere else makes no sense, especially if other facilities were already up and running. Showcasing the spoils of war sometimes backfires when other countries are looking over your shoulder. "In the fight [against terrorism] we need to uphold our norms and values," said Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Jozias van Aartesen, suggesting that the U.S. military fell below international standards. "That applies to prisoners today," said van Aartesen, highlighting the bad publicity now dogging the Pentagon. With Bin Laden and Omar still on the loose, the U.S. didn't need any more distractions.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily Journal. He's director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in political consulting and strategic communication. He's author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.