The Rights of Prisoners of War in Afghanistan - Thesis Example

Day Month Year The Rights of Prisoners of War in Afghanistan Introduction Seemingly since the dawn of man there has been incidences of war. War is neither pretty nor enjoyable. While designed to resolve differences, it often leaves more destruction in its wake than previously thought possible. One person’s enemy is always another person’s friend, so it is often difficult to make a clear cut distinction as to whose cause if more just. On the one hand, an army can be fighting a group of insurgent rebels, yet those very rebels view the other side as insurgents themselves. This scene is playing itself out in various localities throughout the globe today as progress and innovation have made human societies distrustful of one another. It is in that spirit of distrust that the bloodiest conflicts known throughout history have been fought and decided. It is within this same vein that the current war in Afghanistan wages on after nearly 13 years of conflict. With prisoners being taken on both sides, it is important that certain rules of conduct designed to protect the integrity of battle be followed, yet it appears that this is far from reality. This study takes an in-depth look at the treatment being inflicted upon Afghan prisoners of War at the hands of the Allied forces. It is important to consider that these prisoners are being treated unjustly, without regard for basic human rights, and with little regard for commonly accepted practiced rules of engagement. Background to the Problem It is important to concur a critical analysis of current American policy in Afghanistan, and the various tactics being utilised to intervene in the conflict itself. There are many who object to what is taking place at hands of the American military in relationship to insurgent rights. This includes the rights of prisoners, particularly those at the Bagram Airbase Prison and those being housed at Guantanamo Bay. Many that live in Afghanistan have reported on the methods utilised by the American military in this war, many of which have been determined to be illegal and cruel (Abunimah 13). Military members are often seen to be entering civilian villages and houses to conduct random searches, all the hill women and children are inside crying and screaming out at the injustice of it all. As a result of these action, the insurgency rages on as the Afghan people have begun to develop a fierce anger towards much of the international community. There is an obvious tactic being employed by the United States to capture known members of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, making them de facto prisoners of war. In essence, this strips them of rights granted to other Afghan nationals. Regardless of what these particular individuals are accused to have one, they should still be afforded the same rights and protections as anyone else. America, and much of the West, predicates its system of justice on the premise of innocent until proving guilty. The American Constitution contains a specific provision that prohibits the military from absconding civilian houses for the purposes of war. Even given this reality, they appear to disregard these very principles as they wage an all out war against the perceived insurgency present in Afghanistan (Sprunsansky 70). There have been reports of civilians being detained, houses invaded, and drones firing upon innocent civilians. In the end, any person deemed to be fighting and conspiring against the invading forces can be detained without question and with no time limit given for their release. This is certainly in violation of a universal protocol, even during periods of war, and a focus needs to given to stopping this practice. In order to highlight these injustices, an awareness of current practices and treatment in relation to Afghan prisoners of war is necessary, comparing this to the way American prisoners of war have been treated in the past, in order to encourage the international community to fervently plead with the American forces to return dignity and respect to the Afghan people. Numerous world organizations have come out against the methods that America is currently employing as it detains thousands of war prisoners, primarily from Afghanistan and Iraq. Amnesty International has actually issued its own findings that denounce such treatments methods at the hands of America. The report served as a warning to the government of America that they were violated the very basic democratic rights that they claim to be fighting to protect, and that they are undermining the international structure put into place after World War II designed to govern the treatment of such prisoners in line with international and humanitarian law and principles (Verini 36). The United States has recently been exposed to torturing individuals it has captured during its so-call ‘War on Terror’, which is in direct violation of international standards. While many would argue that the treatment that the prisoners receive is justified and that it is not torture, the facts speak differently. In a democratic system of law, individuals must be afforded certain protections. Even if they are found to be guilty, humanitarian policy existent around the world dictates that they be treated in a dignified and respectable manner. That simply is not what is taking place in regards to individuals from Afghanistan that have been caught in the crossfires of a war that has raged on for far too long (Verini 36). The report by Amnesty International, compiled in cooperation with various other international humanitarian organisations, details a reality that routinely sees American government officials detaining foreign prisoners of war without even charging them with a crime. These prisoners of war are also being denied access to any family members or friends, and they are not given legal assistance. In assume cases, this has gone on for several years as they remain prisoners in places such as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the US Air Base located in Bagram, Afghanistan. This is further troubling given verbal statement issued by high ranking members of the U.S. government insisting that they condemn acts of torture that other countries routinely use to interrogate prisoners, claiming that such tactics are barbarian and contrary to human rights (Nichols 58). When one considers these statements in light of how the American military has been exposed to treating prisoners captured in Afghanistan in recent years, their perspective certainly seem juxtaposed at best, and misguided at worst. Members of Amnesty International, among others, have been able to personally interview some of the detainees that were held at the previously disclosed locations, which does add legitimacy to their claims. It has been determined that many prisoners of this war have been routinely tortured via various means, particularly with the application of the certain stress and duress techniques. Some of the methods utilised include forcing individuals to stand up for an extended period of time, disrupting normal sleep patterns, and other forms of physical punishment (Zupan 11). The sleep disruption is viewed as a way of weakening the individual to the point that they will be less resistant to questioning. It needs to be pointed out that these tactics are often employed on individuals who do not even know what they have been charged with, and those that are later released when the military realises that they have truly done nothing wrong, or that they have no information to offer. This is further proof that the tactics being employed in Afghanistan go against the rules of war and should cease immediately. Individuals should not be subject to such treatment, regardless if whether or not they are actually guilty. As an example, it has been determined that some prisoners being held at either Guantanamo Bay or Bagram Air Base have been placed in cells that have been illuminated 24 hours, or have been forced to wake up every 15 minutes throughout the night in an effort to disorient them (Zupan 11). If a prisoner is found to have been talking to someone else, they would be punished by being forced to stand for an inordinate amount amount time, which is believed to be a form of torture and in direct violation of standing international practices governing the treatment of prisoners of war. All of these factors are made even more troubling by the unique standing that the prison at Guantanamo Bay has. Being away from American soil, prisoners held at this facility are actually considered to be eligible to have a trial by military commission, bypassing the normal judicial process altogether. The reality is that any individual arrested in Afghanistan who is not an American citizen can be held at Guantanamo Bay can be held against their will. In addition, they do not have to be permitted to speak with anyone else, making them incommunicado to the point that many individuals held at the facility are thought to be missing or dead by their friends or family members. They are typically held at Guantanamo Bay for up to several years, in secrecy, with the torture methods previously described being perpetuated upon them, with any sort of due process in accordance with the law. While other countries throughout history have certainly employed similar tactics, such as Argentina and Chile in the 1970s, America has long spoke out against these very methods of detaining prisoners of war. They now justify their actions as being necessary, even going so far as to make the claim that their actions do not amount to torture and that they are not the same as other countries who are found to be in violation of international and humanitarian law (Abunimah 13). This study also points out the discrepancy between prisoners caught in Afghanistan who are American citizens compared to those who are not. American prisoners of war are afforded due process in accordance with the law, permitted to have communication with lawyers and families, and are generally held back in an American facility or on American soil. The American military, however, affords no such protection to the non-American detainee, further compounding the problem. In fact, under the executive order signed by President Bush granting the American military and the CIA power to detain foreign nationals, it has been documented that many individuals the American government feels might be terrorists have been literally swept off the streets in not only Afghanistan, but in countries such as Pakistan and Malawi as well. These individuals have been held in secret facilities and are routinely tortured via various means. In most cases, these individuals are never charged with a crime, nor is an official trial ever conducted. In some cases, this might only last a few days, but it is quite common to hold detainees captured in this manner for several months, only to discover that they have no ties to terrorist organizations after all. Others, however, continue to be held and are transferred out of Afghanistan altogether to either Guantanamo Bay or any of a number of other undisclosed locations that the American military is know to operate globally, such as in Zimbabwe, Morocco, Jordan, or Egypt (Sprusansky 70). Naturally, America has provided numerous justifications for the tactics they have been using against prisoners of war captured in Afghanistan. During the initial years of the Bush Administration, for example, the military labeled these people to be ‘illegal combatants’ and made the claim to the international community that they were actually caught on the battlefield and were known to be actively as siting the Taliban. Many of these charges never stuck, however, and individuals were simply released after a period of time had passed. Regardless of actual guilt, however, the fact remains that these individuals should have been afforded the same rights put into place by the international community after World War 2 (Sprusansky 70). Many of these individuals that were captured were not Afghan nationals, but came from places such as Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and other locations know to have Al Qaeda or Taliban sympathisers. These countries were rarely notified that America had detained one of their citizens, completely bypassing any type of diplomatic action that should have taken place as a normal course of action. This is yet another example of the violations taking place in terms of the treatment of prisoners of war detained as a result of the war in Afghanistan. Constitutional and Geneva Convention Violations It does appear that the United States has used its War on Terror to bypass their own national Constitution, in addition to numerous provisions contained in the Geneva Convention. In essence, it appears as thought the American military has made the claim that this is a different type of war and, as such, is not governed by pervious rules of engagement, nor are the principles that America purports to the rest of the world as being critical to world peace democracy applicable. It is a slipper slope indeed, and is certainly one that they have difficult finding support from with the rest of the international community. There have been numerous actions passed by the Geneva Convention over the past century, each of which the United States seems to have abandoned in their dealings with prisoners of war from Afghanistan. Consider the most basic convention agreement signed back in 1864 that was designed to ensure the protection of the sick and wounded during periods of war. In Afghanistan, many so-call enemy combatants have been held in a severely weakened state for months at a time, often being subject to even more physical abuse that their bodies simply cannot handle. This is in direct contradiction to the Geneva Convention that stipulates even enemies are to be afforded proper medical care and treatment. Perhaps the most glaring violation of the Geneva Convention, however, is in regards to the agreements made between nations in 1949 governing how future wars should be conducted. This includes how prisoners are to be treated. The United States cannot simply get around this by labelling prisoners as ‘enemy combatants’ and expect the world to sit idly by while it does so. America has long predicated its existence on the promotion of fairness and justice in all dealings with people, both domestic and foreign, friend and foe. While they may feel justified in their actions against the prisoners rounded up in Afghanistan as a result of a horrific terrorist attack in 2001, it needs to be pointed out that other horrible events have been perpetuated against various countries over the years. This does give a nation the justifiable excuse to violate the very conventions and treaties that they are signatories to, and that they expect other countries to abide by. It is a double-standard that is in direct contradiction of the democratic principles and ideals that America has espoused all of these years. Detainees held at various American facilities as a result of the war in Afghanistan were not limited to adults. There reports of, and even an admittance from a US depute assistance secretary of defence, that a small number of prisoners under the age of 16 have been imprisoned, primarily at Guantanamo Bay. The reality is that it is often difficult to ascertain the age of prisoners apprehended due to a lack of birth records within the region, but once again this seems to be a way for the American military to justify their actions that are in direct contradiction to the Geneva Convention. There is a stark difference between an adult prisoner and a child, and these differences are well known to any conscious and reasonable adult. As such, there is justification that can be given to detain children without due process of law, and certainly not without affording them the right to communicate with their family members outside of prison. The American side has justified the detention of children, many of whom are truly being held without any evidence, because they make the claim that they are terrorists. The justification is that, child or not, these individuals are extremely dangerous people and are being used as pawns in the dangers war that terrorists are waging against America and the West. Regardless of whether or not these accusations are true, it speaks to the reality that once again America is violating basic international principles. Now they are doing so with the young children, an it is further angering the people in Afghanistan as they are fearful that their own sons or daughters can be rounded up and detained for no reason at all. This speaks to the heart of the issue. Prisoners of War are generally believed to be individuals that are directly involved in the fight and have been captured as such. One country should not be permitted to enter into another and be being arresting individuals, almost on sight, in their efforts to squash whatever insurgent movement might be present in the region. That is what is taking place in Afghanistan, however, as many of the individuals being held in American prison facilities have not even been charged with a crime, and they certainly were not actively partaking in the terrorist movement or war at the time of their detention. Because of this truth alone, the determination can be made that the rights of individuals caught and defined in Afghanistan at the hands of American forces are having their basic human rights violated in almost every sense. While some might guilty of the unspoken accusations levelled at them, countless others are known to be guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is not just members of the international community that have stood in opposition to tactics being employed by the Americans in Afghanistan, particularly in regards to their treatment of prisoners, and the lack of rights granted to them. Many individuals from the upper echelons of American society itself have voiced their displeasure and opposition as well. Just recently a former judge of the high court in the state of New Jersey stated that, “The very core of American history, law, and culture condemns the ideas of punishment before trial, denial of due process and secret government by fiat. Who is an enemy combatant? Today, it can be anyone the president wants, and that is terrifying” (Lazurus 476). This is the truth of the double standard that exists right now in this war on terror. Call it by whatever name you want, the simple fact remains that it is still a war and, as such, there are certain rules that must govern its practice. The world is not designed to be a barbaric society any longer. Even in times of conflicts, modern civilisation has prided itself on conducting fights and battles, be them physically or verbally, with a certain amount of dignity and respect. At the beginning, America was openly at the forefront of this reality, encouraging all countries to engage in democratic practices and to implement a system of justice that was equal and fair for everyone, not just those who sought to do the world no harm. America has no abandoned this ideology, however, in exchange for the very barbaric actions that it had worked so hard to rid modern civilisation of. This makes them no different, in the eyes of many, of the very terrorist organisations that they have been working so hard in the past few decades to get rid of. Historicity of Prisoners of War While prisoners have certainly been held during wars throughout history, there is a recent understand of the flight of a prisoner of war that bears much relevance to this discussion. Consider the words of Winston Churchill, who was actually a form prisoner of war himself, as he said, “Prisoner of War! That is the least unfortunate kind of prisoner to be, but it is nevertheless a melancholy state. You are in the power of your enemy. You owe your life to this humanity, and your daily bread to his compassion. You must obey his orders, go where he tells you, stay where you are bid, await his pleasure, and possess your soul in patience” (Springer 671). In essence, prisoners of war are at the complete mercy of their captors. Yet, even Churchill made clear that even prisoners of war must have certain legal protections governing their status, no matter who they are. Being a prisoner of war does not equate oneself to being a criminal, as they have not undergone a trial and have not been found guilty of any action to that point. As such, prisoners of war need to continue to be treated in a humane way, have any ailments or illnesses treated by medical professional, and have their overall time as a captive be regulated by internationally rules of conduct. This provisions are in place to protect a prisoner during captivity, no matter what type of war is being raised. Throughout history, Churchill and others have argued that prisoners detained during any such type of war must be treated in accordance with these guiding principles. This most certainly entails the rights of Afghan prisoners of war being held by the Americans, yet that has been proven to not be the case in this recent conflict that has now waged on for more than a decade. To be clear, there was a time in not to distant history where people held during a war enjoyed no protection in accordance with law, humane or not. In many instances, prisoners were treated as slaves of the group that captured them, or they were simply executed post haste. In other cases, requests for ransoms to be paid were common place, and while waiting for that to take place, countless abuses were perpetuated upon the prisoners. It was not until the early 19th century that international groups began to meet to hash out a series of agreements that would result in a form treaty being signed designed to govern the treatment of prisoners of war. It is a a result of the barbaric practices that were just mentioned that these various conventions because necessary (Greentree 87). So, in essence, many accuse the United States of regression to pre 19th century behavior in the treatment of prisoners being held as a result of the conflict in Afghanistan. The Rights of Afghan Prisoners of War Part of the struggle with this issues lies in the very concept of who is actually a prisoner of war. There are many on the American side that those captured as a result of terrorist activity are not actually prisoners and, therefore, are not afforded the protections granted to prisoners of war under the various Geneva Conventions. The international community, then, is left to grapple with whether or not such individuals should be treated as prisoners of war, regardless of what atrocities American authorities feel that they have been committed. There are a growing number of individuals, organisations, and countries, however, that argue that regardless of the status of a person detained as a result of the operations in Afghanistan, each person is still to be afforded certain rights under basic policies and guidelines governing the humane treatment of people (Greentree 87). America has long argued that members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not recognised as a state by any signatories to the Geneva Convention. Therefore, the argument is that the war begin fought between American and these two groups actually fall outside of the agreements struck by most nations of the world and, as a result, America is able to treat these prisoners however they see fit. As a result, all individuals detained in Afghanistan are view as unlawful combatants, and not as prisoners of war. They do not deserve, nor should America be expected to grant them, the normal rights and privileges of prisoners of war. This precedent is on shaky legal ground, however, because the Geneva Convention does not appear to specify whether or not the individuals captured and labeled as prisoners of war have to be identified with a particular ethnic or national group identity. Regardless, there are also countless individuals that have been apprehended in Afghanistan that are not readily associated with being either a member of the Taliban or Al Qaeda. There are incidences, for example, of prisoners being detained as a sympathiser of the Taliban or another recognised terrorist group (Verini 36). This would not, however, qualify them to be an enemy combatant under the same line or reasoning previously employed by the Americans, yet their rights continue to be hampered as they are held without charge, and are still afforded a criminal trial to prove their innocence or defend themselves. As we approach the end of this report, it is important to determine whether or not those being apprehended in Afghanistan by the American forces are actually prisoners of war. To receive this designation, it is commonly accepted that those being detained must fall pinto at least one of a set of specified categories of individuals. One of the first commonly accepted categories is that the person belongs to the armed forces of the opposing side. In this case, it is plausible to assume that the Taliban is the other side, so any prisoners detained who were members of the Taliban should be accorded the rights of being a prisoner of war. Of course, there are varying opinions about this, as previously discussed. Similarly, a person is to be consider a prisoner of war if they are deemed to be a member of a militia group that is fighting with the opposing party in the conflict. This would certainly indicate that members of Al Qaeda and other dubbed terrorist groups, included individuals suspected of being with these groups, would classify and should be granted certain rights as well. The main premise of this agreement is that if there is any doubt about the status of an individual detained as the result of an armed conflict, then a special tribunal must be convened to determine their status. In the case of the majority of the prisoners apprehended during the war in Afghanistan, this simply did not happen, regardless of what category the person fit into. In the case of member of the Taliban that were captured during the war, the commonly held opinion is that they belonged to the first category of prisoner of war detainees. If this were to be the case, then they should, at minimum, have access to medical care, a lawyer, and be able communicate with family members. In most instances, this simply did not happen. The American government argued at the time that even if it considered the Taliban to be part of the armed forces of Afghanistan, the believed that they were not themselves complying with the basic laws that governed war time operations (Sprunsansky 70). As a result, America officially disqualified members of the Taliban, and other individuals captured during the war on terror as well, from being classified as prisoners of war. Therefore, there was not reason for a special tribunal to be convened to determine their status. To be clear, there was a time in not to distant history where people held during a war enjoyed no protection in accordance with law, humane or not. In many instances, prisoners were treated as slaves of the group that captured them, or they were simply executed post haste. In other cases, requests for ransoms to be paid were common place, and while waiting for that to take place, countless abuses were perpetuated upon the prisoners. It was not until the early 19th century that international groups began to meet to hash out a series of agreements that would result in a form treaty being signed designed to govern the treatment of prisoners of war. It is a a result of the barbaric practices that were just mentioned that these various conventions because necessary. So, in essence, many accuse the United States of regression to pre 19th century behavior in the treatment of prisoners being held as a result of the conflict in Afghanistan. Conclusion Rights are not to be trampled on, either by individual or countries. While there will always be evil in the world, there is no justification for combatting evil with evil. To be a superpower, and to be respected, one must be willing to rise above all that is going on the world and demonstrate integrity in both deed and voice. To say one thing and then do another is paramount to hypocrisy, and this certainly seems to describe the actions of American in regards to the recent conflict in Afghanistan. It is important to remember that all human beings deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and this includes prisoners of war. While it is prudent to assume that any individuals detained during this war are guilty of the crimes they are suspected of communicating, they should be given the same rights as those granted to American citizens when they are detained in their country. They should be told what they are charged with, have their basic physical needs taken care, be given legal counsel, and be afforded the right to have a trail in an expeditious manner. These are the rights that America has long demanded that the world abide by, yet they have begun to turn their back on these very ideals and principles. It is time to take a hard look at America’s actions in this war, their treatment of prisoners, and what should be done to avoid these atrocities in the future. Works Cited Abunimah, Ali. “Inside the Mideast Prisoner Swap”. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 30.9 (2011): 13. Greentree, Todd. “A War Examined: Afghanistan”. Parameters, 43.3 (2013): 87. Lazurus, Andrew. “Afghanistan”. The Middle East Journal, 57.3 (2003): 476. Nichols, Lionel. “David Hicks: Prisoner of War or Prisoner of the War on Terrorism?” Australian International Law Journal, 15.1 (2008): 55-83. Springer, P. “Prisoners of War on Film and in Memory.” Orbis, 54.4 (2010): 669-686. Sprunsansky, Dale. “Innocent Prisoners”. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 32.5 (2013): 70. Verini, James. “Prisoners Rule”. Foreign Policy, 11.196 (2012): 36. Zupan, Daniel. “Dialysis for a Prisoner of War”. The Hastings Center Report, 34.6 (2004): 11. Read More