Undermining the Global War on Terror

Legal combatant targets are immediately distinguished in a process called Distinction. Its aim is to only engage valid military targets. What constitutes and indiscriminate attack is when it strikes military objectives and civilians without any kind of distinction. This kind of distinction requires the defenders to keep apart the military objects from the civilian objects. (Fogarty, 2005). Consequences of not following the LOAC principles to the In the ongoing war on terror, the Bush Administration upholds the US civic ideals must not frustrate an effective defense.

Since there are limitations with regard to the US criminal law, the government came up with Military Commissions so that the detainees are designated. Here is the issue of military necessity which implies that it will require combat forces to engage only on those actions that are important to accomplish a legitimate military objective. Thus, the attacks are limited only to military objectives. This means that the military can zero in on the facilities, equipment and forces which, when defeated, can lead to the quickest surrender of the enemy (Fogarty, 2005).

I am actually offended and sad that there are abuses against detainees. The article selected here elaborates on the Guantanamo Bay and the many other human rights violation. Amnesty International included the United States among countries that have massive human rights violation. The United States was clustered together with countries like Sudan, China, Turkey, and Colombia where human rights where human rights violation were clearly an issue (Maran, 1999).

This paved the way for the revitalization of human rights campaign in the United States. Despite the efforts of the government, the United States has been criticized as having double standards in cases of human rights in the sphere of international relations. There is a need to consider that it is the basic human right of the prisoners to prove that they are in fact not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing. However not giving them the rights to prove it is in fact holding them captives without any proof of reasonable cause.

In addition to this, many people believe that many of these captives especially those coming from Afghanistan are not really combatants but rather mere citizens of Afghanistan. What worsened the case is the increasing speculation of maltreatment and abuses being received by these prisoners. This is all the more aggravated by media’s sensationalized handling of the news. According to the defense of the administration, the U. S Courts do not have jurisdictions over the petitions of the prisoners regarding their habeas corpus.

This means that these prisoners cannot appeal for their habeas corpus rights because their habeas corpus petitions are not under the jurisdiction of the United States (Andrews, 2004). There is a need to consider that it is the basic human right of the prisoners to prove that they are in fact not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing. However not giving them the rights to prove it is in fact holding them captives without any proof of reasonable cause. In addition to this, many people believe that many of these captives especially those coming from Afghanistan are not really combatants but rather mere citizens of Afghanistan.

What worsened the case is the increasing speculation of maltreatment and abuses being received by these prisoners. Also, it is important that the prisoners of war be accorded a humane treatment since we also require that they treat our military members in the same manner if they were captured, thus, we must exercise the same kind of consideration of their rights.

Main Article: Fogarty, Gerard. 2005. Is Guantanamo Bay Undermining the Global War on Terror? Article Retrieved June 15, 2008 at: http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfiles/media/wsws28April04.htm