Japanese-Americans fought bravely in Europe for the Allies during World War II, as did many Japanese in the Philippines. Those fighting in Japanese-controlled territory were almost unfailingly tried for treason by their home country. Should these soldiers have been treated differently from any other American combatants?
In the Vietnam War, American prisoners, including now-Sen. John McCain, were subjected to torture and starvation at the hands of the North Vietmanese for fighting in a foreign country. Should these detainees have faced such abuses for participating in combat they believed was just? Any claim besides a negative would of course be condemned as a barbaric, backward stance.
Then consider this: Why is American-turned-Taliban John Walker Lindh facing charges handed down by a federal grand jury Tuesday? Why have there been whispers of executing Walker Lindh for his involvement in Afghanistan? Why does America refuse to recognize 158 “”unlawful”” combatants now imprisoned at a U.S. military base in Cuba as “”prisoners of war”” who all have proper civil rights guarantees?
The hypocrisy of the prisoner-of-war situation is apparent upon inspection. The United States is indefinitely holding more than 100 men at the Guantanamo Bay base in Cuba. The Department of Defense refers to these men as “”detainees”” rather than “”prisoners of war.”” There are legal implications of such a status: guaranteed civil rights, the ability to hear charges against them, and a return to their respective countries once hostilities stop. The contention of the Department of Defense is that since these men were fighting not for a country but for al-Qaeda, their actions were unlawful and thus the preferred title is “”unlawful combatants.””
Oddly enough, international hostilities have legal and illegal sides by this argument. OK, let’s play by that.
American troops have fought in many “”wars”” without any legal declaration of war by Congress: Think of Colombia, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Bosnia and Iraq. Does that mean American troops captured under such conditions should not be afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention of 1949? That they should not be treated humanely and not be allowed to return to the United States after hostilities cease?
Proponents of U.S. policy would argue that since we’re always on the side of morality and justice, combat we engage in should be classified as legal by the international community and our soldiers therefore afforded the same protections outside of congressionally approved combat.
Yet the United States was criticized by the United Nations for its military incursions into South America during the 1980s, and for air strikes against Iraq in the past decade.
The United States makes a policy of not seeking international approval for its military actions, for fear of being beholden to them. Proof of this can be seen in the recent conflict in Afghanistan.
The United Nations would have supported the commencement of hostilities in Afghanistan; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush administration said they would not do so because U.S. military incursions required no support or approval from the international community. The only times the United States actually adhered to international standards of conduct governing hostilities — by bringing the issue before the United Nations and getting the approval of member states — were the Korean and Persian Gulf wars.
As a result, the classification of the “”detainees”” as “”unlawful combatants”” is absurd. U.S. soldiers could easily have been labeled “”unlawful combatants”” in every conflict since Korea with the exception of the Persian Gulf War.
Regardless of how humanely the prisoners in Cuba are treated, the situation sets a dangerous precedent for the international community because it implies the country doing the detaining, rather than international convention, should dictate the rights and conditions afforded to the prisoners.
Furthermore, while the United States argues for humane treatment of China’s detention of its own citizens, it has placed its own “”detainees”” in open-air cages made out of a square of fencing covered by a tin roof.
International standards for humane treatment of all prisoners, foreign or domestic, is key to a civilized international society, and the United States’ open flouting of any standard is shameful and dangerous.
So why is the United States any different in its handling of its prisoners than the rest of the international community? Horrendously enough, it comes down to two words: “”We can.”” No country whose nationals are imprisoned in Cuba has the economic clout to impose sanctions on the United States for disregarding international law. If a civilized society is governed by the fact that it adheres to moral principles rather than what it can and cannot get away with, the United States has obviously failed the test.
The Walker Lindh situation seems to be the more ambiguous of the two. After all, this man has raised arms against his own country. The difficulty, however, is that he has not done so on U.S. soil. How can America have any jurisdiction over his actions in Afghanistan?
There is a clear difference between terrorism and war, with the former taking place on domestic soil. This, as Noam Chomsky aptly points out, makes the United States a terrorist in a great many countries.
To treat Walker Lindh differently from the rest of the fighters for the Taliban because of his origins is absurd. Though ironically enough, his present situation — faced with lifetime imprisonment and many lawmakers calling for his head, yet with real charges against him in front of a real court — is better than that of his 158 colleagues.
So what should be done in accordance with international law? Men who fought for the Taliban and al-Qaeda should be returned to their countries of origin when hostilities cease, with the proper consequences of government monitoring from their respective countries of origin.
Meanwhile, as a principled and moral country that believes in universal standards of humanity, the United States would do well to afford them the same conditions as any other inmate on domestic soil.
The United States can also set an example with Walker Lindh. Here we have a man who has committed no domestic terrorism, has not shown himself to attempt such an act, and who is obviously cut off from any terrorist support network. Imprisoning him for several years while the terrorist mess clears up, followed by a deliverance to his family or to whatever Muslim country he wishes to emigrate. Allowing him to live out the rest of his life like any other retired soldier would be the humane and rational thing to do.
Unfortunately, the United States has yet to show that it can act in such a manner with respect to armed combat.