Nathan Alday, my friend and fellow member of the Mississippi State University Speech and Debate Association (yes, a shameless plug), wrote a thoughtful analysis of the United States’ refusal to grant prisoner of war status to the detainees at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in the previous edition of The Reflector. Though perhaps well-meaning, Alday’s analysis was faulty. He contends that the United States ought to grant detainees status as accused criminals or POWs for four reasons.
One, the United States ignores the Geneva Convention in its treatment of the detainees. Two, detainee status violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Three, failure to grant POW status puts Americans at risk. Four, the criminal justice system can adequately handle the detainees. Each of these points suffers from fundamental weaknesses that cast serious doubt on Alday’s argument.
The insinuation that the United States has violated the Geneva Convention would be compelling save for one minor detail-the truth. Article Four of the 1949 Geneva Convention outlines for “members of militias and members of other volunteer corps” (read: al-Qaida) four conditions, that must be met for prisoners to qualify for POW status: “Being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates,” “having a fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance,” “carrying arms openly” and “conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”
There is no need to argue that al-Qaida terrorists violate at least three of those requirements. Moreover, the fact that the United States has accorded the detainees every single right under the Geneva Convention (a compromise policy developed by Colin Powell) renders the entire debate moot.
As for Alday’s constitutional argument, a complete reading of the Fifth Amendment would assuage his fears of infringed due process. The amendment bans detainment without a grand jury hearing “except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger”-precisely what the United States now faces.
Alday next asks, “If the United States refuses to respect the rights of the ‘detainees,’ why should a foreign government respect the rights of American soldiers or citizens?” Such a question is mere rhetoric-and specious rhetoric at that. Given the human rights record of the “Axis of Evil,” the suggestion that America’s declared opponents would treat United States POWs lawfully is ludicrous.
The final line of reason put forth by Alday is that the United States criminal justice system should handle the detainees. This argument adopts the flaws of all his previous arguments. By stating that justice can be obtained “without abridging the rights of the prisoners and gambling with the rights of Americans abroad,” Alday rests his final contention on his flawed previous three. Additionally, placing accused terrorists in a traditional courtroom brings an unacceptable security risk both to the court and to the public.
Both international and domestic law justify maintaining detainee status for accused terrorists. Attempts, though well-meaning, to alter this status ignore fact.
Smith Lilley is a senior political science major. Send comments to [email protected].