A war fought in the name of civilised values and international law imposes similar obligations on those who conduct it.
This has been one of the most convincing arguments in favour of the international coalition assembled to support the United States in its war against terrorism, following the September 11th attacks on New York and Washington. That coalition is now coming under strain because of the way the United States is treating the prisoners taken following its pursuit of the al-Qaeda organisation in Afghanistan. By refusing to afford them the protection of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, it is in danger of undermining support it gained during the last four months.
This is more a matter of legal principle than of the precise conditions under which the prisoners are held, although these are also questionable. The prisoners have been brought to the US base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, at the insistance of the Pentagon and the US military, in order to prevent them having recourse to US legal rights. By describing them as "battlefield detainees" or "unlawful combatants" rather than as prisoners of war, the US authorities have also avoided the rights associated with the Geneva Convention agreed in 1949, which its government normally supports. It therefore becomes easier to interrogate them or try them using the military tribunals set up under emergency legislation. These have much less stringent rules of proof and evidence and could impose the death penalty. Were the Geneva rules to apply, they could only be tried by US court martial procedures, which include an elaborate appeal system.
Certainly, this was no ordinary war and these are no ordinary prisoners. It is debatable whether the al-Qaeda organisation can be classified as an identifiable army. There will be little sympathy for the individual prisoners involved, given their grisly record in Afghanistan and commitment to a continuing campaign of terrorism against the US and its allies. But some of the physical conditions imposed on them are gratuitously penal, while the decision to shave their beards offends their beliefs and signifies an intolerance their sympathisers will be quick to exploit.
The impression such treatment will give to friends and foes alike, should be taken much more seriously by the US government. How does this selective adherence to international law square with the message normally conveyed to authoritarian regimes which the US annually ranks according to their civil and legal freedoms, as well as their support of terrorist movements? The Geneva Convention contains well-established procedures for handling the ambiguous status of such prisoners. It will be up to friendly governments to drive these points home with the Bush administration. While it is welcome that the Red Cross has been given independent access to the prisoners to establish how they are being treated (though not to report publicly), this is not a satisfactory substitute for treating them as prisoners of war.