WAR: Pentagon Drafts Controversial New Guidelines for Detainees

The U.S. military is in the process of drafting new rules for the detainment of "enemy combatants." The U.S. contends that this type of prisoner does not fall under the P.O.W. category and is now writing guidelines intended to reduce the possibility of abuse and outline specific details concerning the protocols for detainment.



This new multifaceted doctrine binds together some potentially dangerous theories. My primary concern with this is that the U.S. has the power to deem groups of people "terrorist groups" and that after doing so, they reserve the ability to deny several basic rights and freedoms from these people.

The problem is judicial - how can these groups of people be condemned as a whole? Any large group of people is made up of individuals and their personal identification with the larger group is never absolute, it can have different degrees. For instance, many Nazi party members didn't stand for all of the principles that the Nazis as a whole subscribed to.

Another, related, major concern is the question of where to draw the line between a political activist party and a terror group? Who draws that line?

Related News Links:
www.reuters.com
hrw.org
www.washingtonpost.com

[edit on 8-4-2005 by Zipdot]

This may be of interest:
NEWS: U.S Considering Allowing Detainees More Rights


seekerof

Although these stories are related, they are not the same at all. Please visit my links.

I'd invite one to review the rules of the Geneva convention, to see exactly why such people would not classify as being covered under POW status.

Even though the Geneva convention applies to more than just those who signed it, in order to be covered by it, an enemy force must behave in a certain manner to have the rules applied. If they fail to behave in this manner (i.e. kidnapping and beheading innocents is a no no, not wearing identifiable uniforms, etc.), then they LOSE the protection of this convention, as well as POW status.

Absolutely. My fear is that street gangs can be considered terrorists under this new system, and basically that means street gangsters are automatically categorizaed as "enemy combatants."

Beyond street gangs, I wonder about borderline-nonviolent radical political party members in the U.S. For instance, I know people who call themselves anarchists (although of course that's not a political party, but yaknow, whatever) and though they don't light things on fire, some anarchists do. Hmm, maybe that's terroristic. Maybe an outspoken, peaceful, teenage activist will have his rights taken away because of his speeches.

Basically, I fear that this will indirectly limit free speech or make people afraid to speak about certain political topics in public.

Or, at least this has the potential to happen if taken to the extreme, but I believe it is being taken to the extreme in small, time-released increments. It began with the Patriot Act and where it stops, nobody knows.