The king of the Powell Guys, Colin Powell himself, has adopted the Guardipendent line and has formally "urged" that the Camp X-Ray prisoners be granted POW status. (Link via Drudge.) What is he, running for EU president?
The memo was drafted by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, who disagrees with Powell's position: "nevertheless," he writes, "you should be aware that the legal adviser to the secretary of state has expressed a different view." Responding to these arguments:
"It should be noted that your policy of providing humane treatment to enemy detainees gives us the credibility to insist on like treatment for our soldiers," Mr. Gonzales wrote. "Moreover, even if GPW is not applicable we can still bring war crimes charges against anyone who mistreats U.S. personnel. Finally, I note that our adversaries in several recent conflicts have not been deterred by GPW in their mistreatment of captured U.S. personnel, and terrorists will not follow GPW rules in any event...."Noting that the president has called the war on terrorism "a new kind of war," Mr. Gonzales wrote, "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, script (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments."
The Washington Times has, for reasons of its own, chosen not to divulge "what appear to be the State Department's arguments for reversal" of the President's policy. But reading between the lines here, it seems that they center around concerns that this policy could be used as a justification for mistreatment of US soldiers by future adversaries. As many have pointed out, US personnel are routinely maltreated by our more unscrupulous foes (and with little international outcry) Geneva Convention or not. Of course, we should treat our prisoners humanely. We should also endeavor set a good example, but by no means should we imagine that doing so will in any way restrain people like al-Qaeda in future conflicts, or indeed in this one, which is not over yet.
If I construe it correctly, Powell's other point, which has also been stressed by the Guardipendent Squad, is that, according to the GC, when in doubt, prisoners should be automatically classified as POWs until their status can be reviewed by a tribunal. This is certainly a defensible position (though I suppose those who disagree with it would say that there are no "doubts") but only insofar as it doesn't compromise security in the interim. It just doesn't seem possible. And while we're waiting, we could lose valuable information that could help in preventing future al-Qaeda atrocities. (Anyway, the Guardian would of course denounce such tribunals as well, should they ever materialize. Whatever the US policy is, they'll find a way to denounce it: that's their schtick, bless 'em or damn their eyes, depending on your point of view. The question is, should the Secretary of State be playing to this particular peanut gallery?)
It's clear that al-Qaeda is not exactly the kind of force that the POW provisions of the GC were designed to address: there may be some points in common, but it's not a perfect match. To proceed as though it were a perfect match is to throw common sense out the window. As Charles Johnson says:
If ever there were a time for hard-headed pragmatism, it's now. I really don't care much about the legalistic arguments; it's clear the Geneva Conventions were not designed to deal with aberrations like Al Qaeda. By all means, treat them humanely, but some of the rights and privileges they'd be granted as POWs are not only ridiculous but dangerous.The most important thing is to find out everything we can from them, so we have a fighting chance, because this is not over. Al Qaeda and their many Islamo-fascist bloodbrothers are not through with us yet.