Flit

POW NEWS, ALL POWS, ALL

POW NEWS, ALL POWS, ALL THE TIME: POWELL COMES AROUND TO FLIT'S POSITIONI

Secretary of State Colin Powell's contentious position, to state it exactly (as only the Globe and Mail bothers to do), is:

"The Secretary of State has requested that you reconsider that decision," Mr. Gonzales wrote to the President. "Specifically, he has asked that you conclude that GPW [Geneva Convention II on the Treatment of Prisoners of War] does apply to both al-Qaeda and the Taliban."

Mr. Gonzales added, "I understand, however, that he would agree that al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters could be determined not to be prisoners of war, but only on a case-by-case basis, following individual hearings before a military board."

I would have settled for a charge report instead of hearings... or at least some modicum of due process, even one that remained confidential than that in the short term. Other than that he's right. They're PoWs until some kind of military or civilian judicial body agrees that there's a case that they are not, either individually or even collectively in the case of Al Qaeda. Not convicts them. Agrees that there's a case. Big difference.

The other news is that this was all Bush's call from the start. And that he's continuing to fight it even now, on increasingly shaky legal grounds. From today's Washington Post:

The [anonymous] official acknowledged the administration is having a tougher time legally justifying dispensing with hearings on the Taliban members. "It's a much closer question on the Taliban," he said. The administration believes Taliban members aren't POWs because Afghanistan was a "failed state" and they allied themselves with Osama bin Laden, officials said.

No kidding... If that's the best "legal" argument they've got Ramsey Clark may have a chance on that habeas writ...

The truth didn't stop Andrew Sullivan and the attack dogs at the National Post taking a run at Powell, however. Sullivan, like a lot of other people, hasn't read the Geneva Conventions and wrongly insists soldiers must be captured in uniform for it to apply. He also hasn't read Powell's objection closely. Powell's not complaining about their treatment, or saying they should be POWs forever. He's saying they should be presumed PoWs, until their PoW protections are stripped from them in at least a quasi-judicial manner. The Post hasn't read either the Conventions or Powell either, and, missing the point of his objection entirely, seems to think Powell wants to let Al Qaeda off the hook permanently. That, I think we are all agreed, would be a Bad Thing. It's also a straw man.

In other news, Heather Mallick is still an idiot.

PS: Two letter writers wrote in this weekend (What? That discussion board not good enough for ya?) asserting that American soldiers captured out of uniform are also ineligible for POW protections. All I can say is that is NOT what the Geneva Convention of 1949 says. If they're combatants captured under arms on a field of battle, they're covered.

U.S. AERIAL BOMBING: A STATISTICAL

U.S. AERIAL BOMBING: A STATISTICAL SUMMARY

In the interest of combating the disinformation, I've put together a statistical summary of the bombing efforts in America's last six wars, going back to World War Two. There's a lot of work to be done on it, but I think it's still interesting. You can find it here.

Some of the upshots:

--American tonnage of bombs dropped was equal to a World Trade Center-size attack on Afghanistan every four days, but with one-fiftieth the civilian fatalities of that attack;
--Even though the amount of precision weapons in the last three American bombing campaigns has steadily increased, the civilian fatalities per munition has been increasing, too.

Still a lot of "n/a's" on that chart to fill in. Let me know if you know of any stats that might be relevant.

APOLOGIES FOR THE SLOW WEEKEND

APOLOGIES FOR THE SLOW WEEKEND

The unit's keeping me busy this week, unfortunately. I'll post when I can.