Each of the four articles pertaining to the prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay had a very disconcerting attitude towards the United States and the Bush Administration. The controversy lies in the treatment of the captives, and weather or not they can be classified as prisoners of war. The Geneva Convention in 1949 gave certain standards for treatment of POWs, however, it is still being debated as to weather or not the men involved in the September 11 terrorist attack are in fact POWs, and if the United States is actually engaged in war. If the war on terrorism, as it has been labeled, is an actual war, then the manner in which the prisoners are being treated could in be seriously questioned. As of now, Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General John Ashcroft have been referring to the prisoners as unlawful combatants, and not subject to protection given by the decisions made at the Geneva Conventions due to the fact that they represent no legitimate government. Even Colin Powell has taken the stand that the captives in Guantanamo are not prisoners of war. However, in his article Captives and the Law, Anthony Lewis has pointed out The Geneva Conventions of 1949 say they must be considered prisoners of war unless a competent tribunal finds otherwise. The extensive debate on this issue finds United States allies in the war on terrorism, such as Great Britain, in concurrence with the critics on the treatment of the captives. It seems that international law is an area open to interpretation, and much needed reform. Interest groups such as the Red Cross and Amnesty International have taken an active role in ensuring that the prisoners are treated humanely, since human rights are also a topic in this debate. William F. Schultz, who wrote the article The Fate Of Qaeda Prisoners, and is also a member of Amnesty International, feels the United States is wrong in the manner in which the captives are being treated. Schultz fee...
