Al Qaeda not POW status

Although less discussion has been heard in recent weeks, a literal war of words is quietly being waged both here and abroad. What is the subject of this ongoing debate? The treatment and lack of classification of al Qaeda prisoners in Cuba. As the leading nation of the free world, our country prides itself on the superiority of our legal system and the right to a fair trial based on the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, however, lives may very well be at stake if POW designation and the legal rights that correspond are granted to the prisoners. \nThe "detainees" in Cuba have yet to be charged with a crime although they are being held for an indeterminate amount of time. While international organizations and even officials of allied countries such as Great Britain have publicly criticized the U.S. concerning its treatment of captured al Qaeda and Taliban fighters, the accusation of human rights violations seem to be an attempt to take the moral high ground. \nMonstrous crimes not withstanding, all those detained by the United States are entitled to humane treatment, as the U.S. has carefully maintained. Upon arrival at the camp, the detainees were given medical examinations, showers and clean orange jumpsuits. An "accessory pack" was provided to each, containing such treats as cereal, granola bars, nuts, toiletries and not one but two towels, so that a makeshift prayer mat could be used if so desired. \nPresented to any homeless person worldwide, these provisions seem more of a luxury than a violation of human rights. They sleep on mats in single-occupant cells enclosed by wooden roofs and chain-link fences. In observance of Islamic practice, they will be fed a pork-free diet and will be allowed to practice their religions at will. \nIs this the kind of treatment imparted to most "prisoners of war" (though they are yet called as such)? We only have to look to the tragic case of Daniel Pearl to see otherwise. He is no more an example of a "soldier" in an organized war than they are. \nAl Qaeda fighters do not deserve the designation of "Prisoner of War" because they were not members of an organized army representing a country with whom we are at war. Soldiers have a legal obligation binding them to kill when necessary, not at whim, and according to the established rules of war.\nThe al Qaeda fighters gave up those rights when they chose to not wear uniforms, hide their weapons from view, and act as saboteurs. It is easy to see how the distinction can become vague; we're fighting a declared war, yet our opponents are not "soldiers." \nFundamentally, though, we are fighting a vast conglomeration of mercenaries that lack a country to pay homage to, and a government that is commissioned to address the crimes and activities carried out by these individuals. The "war" our country is now facing is, in, short, unlike any other in history. Looking at the situation through the eyes of the past won't get us anywhere.\nThe real solution, it seems, is to cease to try to classify new situations with old terms. We are, in fact, facing an unprecedented enemy, the likes of which we have never seen before. Equal measures should be taken. Let the punishment and all its trappings fit the crime, though for now, "illegal combatants" it shall remain.