Mandy Suhr

Staff Writer

A January 18 decision by President George W. Bush to refrain from considering captives held in Cuba and Afghanistan as prisoners of war (POW) has stirred a debate for the last couple of weeks in Washington D.C.

The New York Times reported that, ``The handling of the prisoners in Camp X-Ray has given the United States a self-inflicted wound.''

The question that has our enemies, along with our allies, concerned regards whether or not the rules set out at the Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the treatment of POWs apply to al Queda and Taliban captives.

American government officials agree that the prisoners are not POWs because their aim was to kill American civilians.

However, as Vice President Dick Cheney statedduring an interview on Fox News, ``there is a legal issue involved as to whether they [the detainees] should be treated within the confines of the Geneva Convention. That legal issue is being debated between the lawyers. It'll go to the president.''

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, assured reporters, after his trip to inspect facilities in Guantanamo, Cuba, that the captives are not POWs, and that that decision will not be altered.

Some human rights groups believe that the administrations' conclusion that the detainees are not prisoners of war was made far too hastily.

Without consulting the public, President Bush decided that, because the prisoners were involved in terrorism, they were exempt from POW status, according to officials.

Amnesty International members were not pleased with Bush's explanation.

One Amnesty activist, Vienna Colucci, commented: ``An official can't simply say the Geneva Conventions don't apply. The conventions apply to anyone taken out of a conflict,'' as reported in the Washington Post.

To these objections, Bush administration officials claim that the captives are being treated humanely and ``in a fashion consistent with the Geneva Conventions.''

Human rights groups are not the only ones who disagree with America's actions.

As reported in the New York Times, the captive issue could lead to further resentment abroad as America lectures other nations about international standards that they themselves do not adopt.

The Geneva Conventions say clearly that if any doubt exists over a prisoner's status, ``such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.''

One official told the New York Times that Rumsfeld or Bush could act as tribunal and declare the captives barred from POW status. He went on to say that the tribunal could declare all al Queda members non-POW's without case-by-case hearings.

This same justification is not as easily made when it comes to the Taliban. The Bush administration has said that the members of the Taliban are not POW's because they allied themselves with Osama bin Laden in the ``failed state'' of Afghanistan, as reported by the Washington Post.

The reason for the Bush administration's determination to ban these captives of POW status lays in the desire of information. Under the Geneva Conventions, a prisoner of war only must state their name, rank, and serial number during an interrogation, regardless of the questions put forth.

Rumsfeld explained, as reported by the New York Times, that the military wants to be able to obtain information from these detainees that will prevent terrorist attacks in the future.

The question being debated in the Washington, then, is not whether these captives are POWs, but rather why they are not POW's and where the Geneva rules fit into play for captives who are not POWs.

There is friction between the State Department and the White House at this time over whether or not the Geneva Conventions should apply in this situation, despite the title given to the prisoners.

The State Department is concerned that if the U.S. does not follow these guidelines, its foreign relations will suffer.

At this time, under Bush's rule, the 158 prisoners in Cuba and another 300 or so in Afghanistan are not considered prisoners of war.

President Bush, in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, while not speaking specifically of the prisoner situation, did devote over half of his speech to the war on terror.

It appears as if he believes that obtaining information from these captives will be a part of victory in that war.

Questions like the one regarding these captives will continue to arise as this new kind of war emerges.