Jim Stein asks an important question
in the Newsweek article: What Will US
Forces Do With ISIS Prisoners? Stein critically examines the current policy
or lack thereof that the U.S. is taking to preempt issues with ISIS detainees. The
Pentagon currently claims no policy as for what to do with any potential
prisoners of war from ISIS. Essentially, the White House is turning to Iraq to
take the lead on the war against the Islamic State. It appears that the U.S.
will just be acting as the ‘brawn’. According
to the Newsweek article, it is currently unclear where the U.S. stands on how
involved they will be in this war. Though the U.S. theoretically has a
“no-combat-boots on the ground” policy, it is now widely known that American
forces did try to save James Foley. The country’s position is “confusing and
contradictory.”
Similar to the its
behavior post-9/11, the U.S. is preparing to retaliate against ‘the enemy’
without preparing for long-term repercussions such as detaining prisoners. If
the U.S. doesn’t form a policy for holding ISIS prisoners there will be another
Guantanamo situation, or worse, another Abu Ghraib tragedy. Stein points out
the glaring issue: How will the U.S. be able to eventually put the prisoners on
trial if intelligence is gathered through Iraqi torture, even if it is not
directly at the hands of the U.S.? Stein proposes killing ISIS leaders and top
lieutenants via drone strike rather than capturing and interrogating lower
level ISIS members.
Wittes contests on
the Law Fare blog that if the U.S.
only participates in drone strikes they will not be in engaging in the capture of ISIS troops. Wittes also suggests
that Iraqi forces will take responsibility for the prisoners and the U.S. will have
to look the other way. He states that there should only be concern if the U.S.
increases their ground mission and transfers any detainees to Iraqi forces.
Jonathon
Horowitz responds to Wittes’ comments on the Just Security blog site, claiming Wittes
minimized several issues of Stein’s Newsweek article. He criticizes Wittes’
statement that the U.S. needs only to “look the other way as abuse of captives take place that our forces would
not tolerate.” Horowitz explains how the Leahy Law asserts that the U.S. cannot
offer assistance to states that have violated certain human rights (including
torture) even in the most extreme situations. Other issues also arise with
joint-interrogation and the non-refoulement principle, also referred to as the extradition
process. The Convention Against Torture prohibits states from extraditing a
person to another state where there is reason to believe the person could be
tortured. Horowitz finishes his post by warning against making the same
mistakes from Afghanistan and Iraq, urging people not to dismiss the issues discussed
in Stein’s article, and to be prepared for the possibility of more ISIS
detainees.
I think
that Horowitz is appropriately concerned about the foreseeable future of the
U.S.’s role in detaining ISIS members. We have discussed in class the legal repercussions
the U.S. could face after the treatment Al Qaeda-related detainees at the hands
indirectly or directly of the U.S. This issue reaches further than just a human
rights violation because there are now an unknown number of detainees that
won’t be put on trial and can’t be released in the U.S. or their own countries.
Trials can’t be conducted because the U.S. can’t use evidence gathered by means
of torture, nor will the U.S. engage in trials that could potentially endanger
national security. Stein and Horowitz state that the same issue will occur with
ISIS. Wittes predicts that it won’t come to this because the U.S. isn’t
involved in the ground fight and will leave detention to Iraq. However, this
claim is naïve as the U.S. is very involved with ISIS detainees because of
their investment in defeating ISIS. It is very likely that the U.S. will become
more involved in the interrogations, and by allowing Iraq to take charge in
interrogation the U.S. will be violating the Leahy Law and Convention Against
Torture act as Horowitz discussed. The U.S. is aiding the Iraq forces with ISIS,
but it could be argued that the U.S. is actually working alongside Iraq for a
common goal. However, the U.S. is aware of Iraq’s interrogation methods and is
still turning to Iraq for interrogation. These potential or even current issues
have been identified. It is now the United State’s responsibility to develop a
lawful and practical approach to detain prisoners.
1 comment:
Molly, this is an excellent blog post. You do an excellent job addressing a compelling issue with several divergent sources. Your analysis and your comments are also very well done. Great job.
Post a Comment