Sir, - I refer to a headline in your edition of January 28th: "Rumsfeld adamant detainees will not be given POW status".
The United States has ratified the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war. Article 4 of the convention specifies categories of belligerents who are entitled to POW status.
It is almost certain that Taliban prisoners would be eligible for POW status as they are "members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict" (Article 4A(1)).
Whether or not they eventually qualify for POW status or not is a moot point. Where there is a dispute over prisoner status, however, detainees are automatically entitled to POW status until a "competent tribunal" decides otherwise.
Article 5 states: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Thus it is not Mr Rumsfeld's prerogative to decide the status of these prisoners and he is clearly in breach of the convention.
In 1977 three protocols were added to the convention to recognise the change in the nature of global conflicts, particularly in relation to guerrilla armies. It is almost certain that the Al-Qaeda prisoners would qualify under these protocols. However, they were not ratified by the United States. They were ratified by 189 other countries.
It is also worth mentioning that the Geneva Convention is not the only protection that detainees can claim. Under the terms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the US ratified in 1992, detainees are entitled to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, be brought before an independent tribunal, to remain silent and to have access to legal counsel. These are the standard rights which we take for granted in the West.
It may be said that the victims of the September 11th atrocities did not receive these rights, but are we to descend to the level of the people we rightly condemn for these barbarous acts?
We are after all, morally superior to these terrorists, are we not? - Yours, etc.,
D.DONNELLY,
(Lt-Col, ret'd)
Balbriggan,
Co Dublin.