- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Glenn and others are incorrectly criticizing the remarks Holder made about the likes of Atta in the wake of 9/11. Holder was very clear and repeatedly said that such people are *NOT* POWs and he is 100% correct about that!
A person that qualifies as a POW is given protections and rights that go far beyond what non-combatants and illegal combatants are given in a time of war. For example, a POW is only bound to give their name, rank and serial number under interrogation.
He went on to say that even though such people are NOT POWs they should get most of the treatment and rights specified under the Geneva Conventions. I think he was speaking in shorthand to all the people that reflexively think GCs = POW treatment and was saying they should be treated in accordance with common article 3 and under the 4th Geneva Convention, probably as saboteurs and/or spies.
Of course, all of this criticism depends on the assumption that the Geneva Conventions apply to our conflict with al-Qaida. Common Article 2 is quite clear that "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." Al-Qaida is not a party to the conventions and is certainly not accepting and applying the provisions of the conventions to its conduct. Therefore, the GCs do not apply at all to anyone that identifies themselves as belonging to al-Qaida. The only way the GCs come into play at all is in our occupation of countries that are party to the GCs, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
