Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002
Prisoner of War Trials?
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
There has been a lot of talk lately about what kind of trial the United
States is going to have for captured Al Qaeda and Taliban members. What I'd
like to know is: *Why are they going to be given a trial at all?* Aren't
they prisoners of war? Do we normally put prisoners of war on trial? Did we
do that with the prisoners of war for the Gulf War, or any other war? Are
prisoners of war normally held captive until the end of the war and then
let go? If the majority of prisoners of war are normally set free after the
war, do we normally put the leaders of the defeated enemy on trial to hold
them longer?
I can understand putting on trial Al Qaeda members captured within the
United States or its jurisdiction, but I don't understand why there would
have to be a trial in any other circumstance -- if this is to be handled
like a real war. Am I missing something?
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:49:56 -0800
Prisoner of War Trials?
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
A few days after sending out these series of questions I began to hear
similar questions being asked on the Fox News Channel and throughout talk
radio. From the answers presented by their experts, they are not being
classified as "prisoners of war," but rather as "detainees" and "unlawful
combatants." One of the experts implied they are going to be held
continuously on suspicion of terrorism, given a trial to determine if they
are terrorists, then locked away for a long while if found guilty.
While the term "unlawful combatants" was not explained, I gather they are
being called this because they were not fighting as regular military and
were not wearing a uniform. Evidently, this classification (rather than
prisoner of war) gives us greater flexibility on how to handle them.
