Becoming a captive after being defeated in a war apparently is bad, but being not treated as a "prisoner of war [POW]" is even worse. While mankind has unquestionably become more civilized with respect to "humanitarian treatment for POWs" today on the basis of the principles in international law in comparison with ancient times when POWs were slaughtered or enslaved, we should watch out for the possible regression in this regard. 
	
	
 Each Side Has a Different Story with Respect to the Treatment for POWs 
	
	
 It is reported that the US Armed Forces are regarding the captives interned in Guantanamo as dangerous terrorists and Islamic Muslims. They say that these captives not only receive humanitarian treatment, their religious belief is also respected. 
	
	
 One US military officer in charge of the prisoners' camp said that the most of the prisoners are young people in their 20s or 30s, and that they are locked up separately in cells 2.5 square meters each. He said the US Armed Forces have given each prisoner living necessities, such as towel, toothpaste, soap, and shampoo; and each prisoner has a twin bed with soft mattress to sleep. Besides, he said, each prisoner has a "Koran" and can even receive a mat for prayer. Lisa Ewing [name as transliterated], a female US police officer who watches the POWs said to reporters: "Each day we wake them up when it is time for prayer and bring them breakfast." 
	
	
 The first-day menu for the prisoners shows that they had a package of vacuum-packed Italian vegetable noodle and a package containing peanuts, granola bars, and a box of colorful, sugar-coated cereal, a favorite of American young people. The menu also includes oatmeal, raisin, potato chips and a pretzel. While these foods are strange to the prisoners, the United States has indeed abided by the dietary rules that Muslims have to follow. Of course, there is clean water for the prisoners to drink. 
	
	
 Under the request of organizations, such as the International Red Cross, and the media, the United States let them go to Guantanamo to inspect the situation of the detainees there. Thus, the prisoners' living conditions in that day were basically transparent. 
	
	
 If the above reports were true, then the treatment for the prisoners would be beyond reproach. Certain American people also maintain that the US way of treating the prisoners is not reproachable. Christopher, a physician working in the prisoners' camp, said: "We really treat them well." 
	
	
 The international community, however, has different descriptions and views on this issue. 
	
	
 A medium has this description for the Guantanamo prisoners' camp: The 2.5-square meter cement cell is way below the standards of cells built for American prisoners. Fully-armed watchful US prison guards and naval personnel make the rounds of inspection in the camp. The prisoners, dressed in orange one-piece overall, are hand-cuffed. Their movements are quite confined. Whenever they are allowed to take a walk outside their cells, take a bath or go to the toilet, their hands are still tied, and they are supervised on the two sides by two US soldiers. They are not allowed to look around, talk, hear, or touch anything; nor are they allowed to move freely. 
	
	
 A British newspaper maintains that the "X-ray prison camp" in Guantanamo is full of "cruelties" and "torture." British Secretary of Foreign Affairs Straw said: "All detainees, regardless of their identities, should receive the treatment in line with the humanitarian spirit and the principles of international law." Ann Crawd [name transliterated], chairwoman of the UN Human Rights Commission, pointed out: "The United States shall not play with human rights and may not violate the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War that we have signed." 
	
	
 US Strategy -- a Strategy for Testing the Next Moves 
	
	
 The US move of disclosing the state of the detainees in Guantanamo and allowing international organizations and the media to inspect is a wise one, otherwise the international community will have all sorts of misgivings about the treatment for the detainees. But people still question why the US Government refuses to characterize the detainees in Guantanamo as prisoners of war while claiming that the treatment for them is in line with the Geneva Convention on POWs. Basing on the media reports, the US Government has many things to consider on this issue. 
	
	
 Evidently, after the September 11 pains, the US Government is harboring deep hatred for these prisoners. Now that these prisoners are in its hands, it is not likely that the US Government will let them off easily. It may even want to seek revenge and use them to reassert its authority. If it chooses to characterize these detainees as POWs, then it must release some of them sooner or later and it is very likely that these people will again attack the United States with terrorist means. 
	
	
 However, respect for human and their rights is an expression of mankind's progress, and the United States always underscores these values and ideas. Because the prisoners have the dual identities being the enemies and the weaker parties, the US Government must not act as if it is venting its personal grudge against them while detaining them. 
	
	
 These prisoners not only are citizens of the belligerent country, but also are citizens of nonbelligerent countries, even citizens of the United States' allies, such as Britain. Thus, the United States cannot simply consider this issue as "contradiction between the enemy and itself," it must also consider international relations. 
	
	
 Therefore, on the issue of defining these prisoners' "status," the United States must test the attitudes of the international community, especially the attitudes of European countries. Before the war, the United States appeared as an upholder of justice; while it still wants to handle problems like an upholder of justice after the war, it must win support. 
	
	
 What appears does not seem to be what the United States wants, however. 
	
	
 The Detainees' Status -- an Issue Concerning Their Life and Death 
	
	
 After visiting the Guantanamo prisoners' camp, many international organizations and media are accusing the United States of being too harsh for the prisoners. They say that that there are too many restrictions in the camp, the cells are too small...Mary Robinson, senior UN special commissioner for human rights, said: "We must urge the United States to pay attention to respecting the obligations prescribed in international law." 
	
	
 However, these are merely superficial issues concerning the Guantanamo detainees. The core issue is whether the Taliban and al-Qaeda members are "POWs" or "unlawful combatants." 
	
	
 Avna Kidlon [name as transliterated], senior policy advisor to Amnesty International, said: "The status of the detainees is an issue concerning their life or death. If the United States insisted that these prisoners are to be tried at a military tribunal, it is almost certain that they will be sentenced to death. This violates the international norms and is not in line with the proper procedures." 
	
	
 This is the crux of the issue. 
	
	
 US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said that the Afghanistan's Taliban and "al-Qaeda" members are "unlawful combatants," not "POWs," and so the United States would not treat them as POWs and they would not enjoy any rights prescribed in the Geneva Convention on POWs. 
	
	
 Apparently the international community does not support the US viewpoint and measures. 
	
	
 This is the first time in war history that "terrorists" have become war prisoners. While the international community does not have any universally acknowledged definition for "terrorist," there is also not any established provision in international law for assessing the punishments for "terrorists." In particular, there is not any precedence to be used as reference. 
	
	
 One thing the international community feels incomprehensible is that why are these Taliban and "al-Qaeda" members not considered as POWs since, before the war they were organized combatants, the battles they fought were also organized resistance, and they were obviously captured in battles during the war? 
	
	
 Moreover, the Taliban and "al-Qaeda" members came from many countries in the world and the "POW" issue involves the laws and dignity of many countries. What worries the West and some other countries most is that, if the United States refuses to treat these detainees as POWs, then their soldiers may be treated the same way as the Guantanamo prisoners should they be captured by the Taliban remnants and other radical organizations when they take part in the United Nations' peace-keeping missions. 
	
	
 Without a doubt, the United States' "willfulness" is what has greatly annoyed some countries and international organizations. Before the war, US President Bush, in his war mobilization speech, declared that the country was in a state of war. What followed was the Afghanistan war. After winning the war, the US Government has come up with many other excuses to deny the captives' POW status. 
	
	
 Thus, even though Uncle Sam's certain worries are justified, his hegemonic way of setting the rules all by himself is hardly convincing. If the United States chooses to disregard the Geneva Convention the way it follows this time, the legality and sanctity of international law will be substantially reduced. If similar problems occur in the future, other countries will have no universally-acknowledged rules to follow. 
	
	
 Taking these factors into consideration, Powell, a soldier-turned statesman and a moderate, advised Bush: We might as well give the Guantanamo detainees the POW status. 
	
	
 Promulgated in 12 August 1949, the Geneva POW Convention became effective on 21 October 1950. The United States is one of the signatories. The convention has specified the treatment for POWs and their privileges. Now let us compare the convention's provisions and the media's descriptions of the detainees in terms of their dignity, lodging, clothing, activities and trial. 
	
	
 The current treatment for the detainees: 
	
	
 The prisoners were brought to the prisons in a brutal manner. The pictures clearly show that the prisoners in orange one-piece overall are blind-folded by thick black cloths, their hands and feet are tied up, and they were kneeling on the ground. 
	
	
 Each prisoner is interned in a cell that is 2.5 square meters in size. This little cell will house two or more prisoners with the arrival of more captives in the future. The camp's temperature has exceeded 32 degrees Celsius. 
	
	
 The prisoners' hands and feet are shackled. The prisoners in the orange one-piece overall not only cannot move freely, but they may not be able to breathe normally. 
	
	
 The entire camp is surrounded by fences. There are watchtowers at its four corners. When the prisoners are let out for exercise, take a bath, or go to the toilet, their hands must still be tied up, and two US soldiers will accompany them. These detainees are instructed not to look around, not to talk, not to listen, and not to touch anything. In short, they are not allowed to move freely. 
	
	
 One military tribunal will try these prisoners. There will not be a jury, and these captives may not appeal. 
	
	
 The Convention's provisions are: 
	
	
 POWs shall be protected under all circumstances. They shall receive humanitarian treatment, and they shall especially not be subjected to any outrage, coercion and humiliation, or harassment by the curious public. Reprisal against the prisoners of war shall be prohibited. 
	
	
 Housing conditions for POWs should be the same as those of the troops stationing in the Detaining Power in the same area. This provision shall be applicable in POWs' dormitories, such as the total area and the minimum cubic space. 
	
	
 Clothing, underwear, and footwear shall be supplied to POWs in sufficient quantity by the Detaining Power; and they must be adequate for ensuring POWs' health. 
	
	
 POWs shall have the opportunity to exercise. The exercise should include sports, games and outdoor activities. All the captive camps should have enough room for this purpose. The use of tobacco shall be permitted. 
	
	
 They shall be tried with US soldiers in the same court for war crime. There should be a jury, and they are entitled to appeal. 
	
	
 Attachments: zm0131cc.pdf