[Sinner]

Originally posted by Wenchie
He shouldn't

He should however be allowed the same rights as a P.O.W
He should be charged, sent home for prosecution or released if no charges are laid.

Indefinite detention without charge is hardly fair.

Ah, POW's are not sent home for prosecution. Geneva Convention "Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" (Article 118). So they can argue and should, the POW's will be held until there is no more theats of terrorism, which will happen years and years past all their and our lives. They arguement could then turn, they are poor and misled Muslim youth who joined up to fight the Northern Alliance and not terrorist at all, which is fine but they will have to prove that in a court. If today they become POW's, I bet non will get their freedom. Some could be terrorist and if they trained with a terrorist organazation, well, I will give the USA govt the benefit of the doubt and they can remain in cages for all I care. David Hicks---POW or not should remain locked up until terrorism against the USA and the World is no more.

They are not considered POWs because then the USA could not question them. They are not going anywhere but back to a cage.

Also if he is a POW he can not be charged because it is not illegal to be a solider.

One of the main moral arguments offered to support this position is that there is a certain degree of respectability surrounding prisoner of war status. Normally, although prisoners of war are detained, they are not considered criminals since soldiering is not an illegal act. However, many states have had difficulty in applying the laws of war to non-international conflicts, especially as the opponent tends to be viewed as a criminal and without the right to engage in combat operations.[17] In the view of these states, applying the rules of international humanitarian law seems to imply a degree of moral acceptance of the right of any particular group to resort to acts of violence, at least against military targets.[18] The United States in particular has held this position for at least 25 years, arguing that application of the rules of war might actually favour guerrilla fighters and terrorists, affording them a status that the US believes they do not deserve. On January 29, 1987, President Ronald Reagan argued that US repudiation of the Additional Protocols was an important move against “the intense efforts of terrorist organizations and their supporters to promote the legitimacy of their aims and practices.”[19].

A second moral argument is offered by Jeremy Rabkin in the National Interest who claims that the method of fighting used by “Islamist radicals” eliminate any moral grounds for affording captured prisoners POW status. He argues:

Islamist radicals do not think of war as a conflict between states from which ordinary humanity should, as much as possible be spared… The aim is simply to punish a whole society for its sins. The preconditions for reciprocal restraint are wholly absent.[20]

Therefore, this argument holds that by openly violating the laws of war and attacking civilians, the perpetrators of these acts have removed any basis for treatment along the lines of the Geneva Conventions.