Translated material
Shave or not to shave?
On Tuesday, the highest officials of the United States, who already in the liver sits in the gantanamo, went on the offensive. The Minister of Defense Don Ramsfeld appeared at the next briefing in the Pentagon specifically for this purpose. "The accusations expressed from a safe distance that American military personnel treat the detainees somehow wrong, is a pure fake," he said. According to the minister, all reports, photographs and articles on this subject are made by people who are "not aware, poorly aware or incorrectly aware." The prison staff continued Ramsfeld, treated the prisoners humanely and in full accordance with the international conventions: "None of the detainees were caused by any harm, none of them were subjected to bad appeal in any form."
Further, the minister listed the benefits of civilization used by prisoners: “They have a warm shower, toiletries, water, clean clothes, blankets. They regularly receive food prepared taking into account cultural features, they have been given rituals for prayer and allowed to perform the rites of their religion. Modern medical care that they use significantly exceeds what they had in what they had in what they had in Afghanistan, if I am not mistaken, have something about eight for eight feet and seven and a half feet in height;
At the same time, the minister emphasized, these people are extremely dangerous. One of them, Ramsfeld told, threatened to kill the Americans, the other bit the guard. Therefore, the prison staff is forced to take enhanced precautions.
Nevertheless, human rights activists are worth their own. They argue that the conditions containing captives do not meet the standards accepted in American prisons; What forced shaving that prisoners were subjected to is an act of humiliation prohibited by conventions. But the most important thing that the US officials require is to finally determine the legal status of those who in Washington to be called "detained on the battlefield" as soon as possible.
Having recognized in practice that, although not fully, the action of the Geneva Conventions applies to captured Taliban, the US government cannot recognize their prisoners of war formally - after all, prisoners of war who have not committed military or criminal offenses should simply dissolve home at the end of hostilities. Such a scenario, apparently, is discussed in the highest spheres - as one of the options for solving the problem in Washington, they are increasingly calling the extradition of prisoners in the country of their citizenship. The Saudi Arabia government, in particular, insists on such a decision regarding the Saudis, who are now captured by about 200 people. Accordingly, the Afghans must return to Afghanistan.
But the fact is that the violent repatriation of prisoners also contradicts the Geneva Conventions. After the Second World War, the United States and Great Britain, wanting to blur Stalin, decided to return not only the Red Army soldiers who fell into German captivity, but also never had Soviet citizenship of former subjects of the Russian Empire, who fought on the side of Germany and captured by the Allies. At the same time, both Washington and London, of course, were well aware of what fate was destined for these people in their homeland. After the October Revolution, the government of Soviet Russia did not join the Hague Convention on the laws and customs of war. The Bolsheviks did not sign the 1929 Geneva Convention. At the beginning of the war, Nazi Germany, through the mediation of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the governments of Sweden and other neutral countries, has repeatedly turned to the Soviet Union with a proposal for mutual observance of the Hague and Geneva conventions. “There are no Russians in captivity,” Stalin finally answered and thereby condemn the Soviet prisoners to terrible suffering. After repatriation, the echelons with these sufferers proceeded straight to the Gulag camp. Subsequently, the British and the Americans recognized their decision as a mistake. After the Korean War of 1950-1953, thousands of captured Chinese soldiers refused to return to their homeland, and the American government recognized this right for them.
The Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war were invented not for the sake of the enemy soldiers, but for the sake of its own: a state that violates international norms in this area is not entitled to count on a humane attitude towards its military personnel who were captured.
The most interesting thing is that even if the warring countries agree on mutual non -compliance with the laws and customs of war, this agreement will be invalidated by international law - for violators of the current conventions, liability will occur in this case. Undoubtedly, in Washington they energetically analyze the situation and try to get out of it. There is one among the issues that arise: what will happen if any of the military personnel of the base of Guantanamo refuses to comply with the order of the commander who violates, from his point of view, the rights of the prisoner? If such a serviceman is devoted to the court, the court will have to recognize the illegality of the order. Given the attitude of a company requiring a fair trial to the American Talibu John Waker, the administration with anxiety expect such a turn.
Companions of Ben Ladena fly to the country of Che Guevara - Grani.ru, 01/10/2002
Taliban prisoners under the protection of international law (certificate)
Cool Walker: Problems of Justice in American Classes - Brani.ru, 05.12.2001
Morning of the Taliban execution - Grani.ru, 11/30/2001