Read other letters about this article
Glenn, I took a course in the laws of war from Telford Taylor and have done both some legal work and independent research on the Geneva Conventions, so I wanted to chime in on this one particular point:
I think you're getting a bit down in the weeds on this issue of conferring POW status to Gitmo detainees and in a way that suggests Holder was at one point a little soft on the Geneva Conventions. The POW distinction is really not that significant to the issue of humane treatment; its relevance is primarily related to legal liability of the captured individual for the acts he has committed. POW status is something that is conferred upon "lawful combatants." An unlawful combatant, in the most general terms (I don't have the conventions in front of me, so bear with me), is someone who is not part of the armed forces of a sovereign nation, someone who is not in uniform, who is not himself adhering to the laws of war and should fairly be considered a murderer rather than a soldier following orders in warfare.
Regardless, however, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions guarantees humane treatment for all captured combatants, both lawful and unlawful. Being designated an unlawful combatant does not take away certain basic rights.
What occurred shortly after 9/11 is that the Bush Administration announced that *none* of the captured combatants at Gitmo Bay would be considered lawful combatants. Powell and the State Department Legal Adviser's office took the position that, while Al-Qaeda members may not be considered lawful combatants, the Taliban members should have been, as they were members of a military acting as directed by a sovereign nation. They were thus entitled to POW status.
None of this discussion, however, should have taken away from the basic principle of humane treatment embodied in Common Article 3. Quibbling over POW status somewhat obfuscates this very central point.