Six Floors of Detainee Operations in the Post-9/11 World

Q3 Arts and Humanities Parameters Pub Date : 2005-03-18 DOI:10.21236/ada432745
T. Ayres
{"title":"Six Floors of Detainee Operations in the Post-9/11 World","authors":"T. Ayres","doi":"10.21236/ada432745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\"All you need to know is that there was a before 9/11 and an after 9/11. After 9/11 the gloves came off.\" --Corer Black, CIA (1) Before 9/11, many nations battled terrorists and mufti-clad insurgents in places like Ireland, Israel, and Algeria and subsequently detained these nontraditional combatants. These nations deliberated the applicability and relevance of the Geneva Conventions (2) and frequently decided to conduct their detainee and interrogation operations by other standards. (3) The United States had faced similarly ambiguous combatants in past conflicts, choosing \"to extend basic prisoner of war protections to such persons ... based upon strong policy considerations, and ... not necessarily based on any conclusion that the United States was obligated to do so as a matter of law.\" (4) After 9/11, however, the United States ceased viewing its efforts against terrorism as a police enforcement action and embarked upon a Global War on Terrorism. (5) The Bush Administration asserted this was \"a new kind of war\" that justified reconsidering the manner in which the Laws of War would be interpreted and applied. (6) According to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, \"The reality is, the set of facts that exist today with al Qaeda and the Taliban were not necessarily the set of facts that were considered when the Geneva Conventions were fashioned.\" (7) Certain provisions of the Geneva Conventions were even considered \"quaint.\" (8) The United States has, by its post-9/11 policies and actions, demonstrated that the standards for conducting detainee operations, and perhaps the Geneva Conventions themselves, are ripe for reform. The war on terror is in its fourth year, yet there has been little academic or political agreement on what detention and interrogation techniques are ethically advisable and legally allowed. US detainee operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo have been labeled a \"gray zone\" by one analyst. (9) US classification of detainees in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay as \"unlawful combatants\" has aroused voluminous and vociferous academic debate, (10) complicated because there are no internationally accepted, clearly delineated detention and interrogation standards for treating \"unlawful combatants.\" Even in Iraq, where the Administration conceded the Geneva Conventions applied, the overall post-9/11 paradigm shift prompted the Army's command to conduct a deliberative analysis of acceptable interrogation and detention techniques. (11) The Department of Defense is currently undergoing a more comprehensive formal initiative, with the Army acting as the lead agent. (12) To describe the complexity of conducting modern military operations in an urban environment, US Marine Corps General Charles C. Krulak used the metaphor of a \"three-block war,\" (13) an environment wherein soldiers or marines simultaneously fight a high-intensity conflict in one block, suppress a simmering insurgency in another block, and facilitate humanitarian aid in a contiguous third block. Military forces conducting operations must anticipate encountering an array of friendly, hostile, and neutral persons within the three blocks. Detainees from these three blocks may be interrogated for strategic, operational, or tactical reasons. Just as recognizing the nature of the \"three-block war\" enables commanders to conduct successful operations in that environment, clarifying lines of demarcation within the new gray zone of detainee operations is essential. Delineating the categories of potential detainees is the starting point. Determining the limits on interrogations and other legal responsibilities for each category of detainees is the logical next step. The Geneva Conventions provide the basis for considering different categories of detainees; they also provide the legal, ethical, and moral framework for differentiating treatment among the categories. Publishing a post-9/11 framework and clearly communicating that the United States faithfully adheres to a well-enunciated and reasoned, if new, standard can substantially support US policy and strategy. …","PeriodicalId":35242,"journal":{"name":"Parameters","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Parameters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21236/ada432745","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

"All you need to know is that there was a before 9/11 and an after 9/11. After 9/11 the gloves came off." --Corer Black, CIA (1) Before 9/11, many nations battled terrorists and mufti-clad insurgents in places like Ireland, Israel, and Algeria and subsequently detained these nontraditional combatants. These nations deliberated the applicability and relevance of the Geneva Conventions (2) and frequently decided to conduct their detainee and interrogation operations by other standards. (3) The United States had faced similarly ambiguous combatants in past conflicts, choosing "to extend basic prisoner of war protections to such persons ... based upon strong policy considerations, and ... not necessarily based on any conclusion that the United States was obligated to do so as a matter of law." (4) After 9/11, however, the United States ceased viewing its efforts against terrorism as a police enforcement action and embarked upon a Global War on Terrorism. (5) The Bush Administration asserted this was "a new kind of war" that justified reconsidering the manner in which the Laws of War would be interpreted and applied. (6) According to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "The reality is, the set of facts that exist today with al Qaeda and the Taliban were not necessarily the set of facts that were considered when the Geneva Conventions were fashioned." (7) Certain provisions of the Geneva Conventions were even considered "quaint." (8) The United States has, by its post-9/11 policies and actions, demonstrated that the standards for conducting detainee operations, and perhaps the Geneva Conventions themselves, are ripe for reform. The war on terror is in its fourth year, yet there has been little academic or political agreement on what detention and interrogation techniques are ethically advisable and legally allowed. US detainee operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo have been labeled a "gray zone" by one analyst. (9) US classification of detainees in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay as "unlawful combatants" has aroused voluminous and vociferous academic debate, (10) complicated because there are no internationally accepted, clearly delineated detention and interrogation standards for treating "unlawful combatants." Even in Iraq, where the Administration conceded the Geneva Conventions applied, the overall post-9/11 paradigm shift prompted the Army's command to conduct a deliberative analysis of acceptable interrogation and detention techniques. (11) The Department of Defense is currently undergoing a more comprehensive formal initiative, with the Army acting as the lead agent. (12) To describe the complexity of conducting modern military operations in an urban environment, US Marine Corps General Charles C. Krulak used the metaphor of a "three-block war," (13) an environment wherein soldiers or marines simultaneously fight a high-intensity conflict in one block, suppress a simmering insurgency in another block, and facilitate humanitarian aid in a contiguous third block. Military forces conducting operations must anticipate encountering an array of friendly, hostile, and neutral persons within the three blocks. Detainees from these three blocks may be interrogated for strategic, operational, or tactical reasons. Just as recognizing the nature of the "three-block war" enables commanders to conduct successful operations in that environment, clarifying lines of demarcation within the new gray zone of detainee operations is essential. Delineating the categories of potential detainees is the starting point. Determining the limits on interrogations and other legal responsibilities for each category of detainees is the logical next step. The Geneva Conventions provide the basis for considering different categories of detainees; they also provide the legal, ethical, and moral framework for differentiating treatment among the categories. Publishing a post-9/11 framework and clearly communicating that the United States faithfully adheres to a well-enunciated and reasoned, if new, standard can substantially support US policy and strategy. …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
9/11后世界的六层拘留行动
“你只需要知道9/11之前有一个,9/11之后有一个。9/11事件之后,人们开始动手了。”在9/11之前,许多国家在爱尔兰、以色列和阿尔及利亚等地与恐怖分子和多衣叛乱分子作战,随后拘留了这些非传统的战斗人员。这些国家审议了《日内瓦公约》的适用性和相关性,并经常决定按其他标准进行被拘留者和审讯行动。(3)美国在过去的冲突中也遇到过类似的模棱两可的战斗人员,选择“将基本的战俘保护扩大到这些人……基于强有力的政策考虑,并且……并不一定是基于美国有义务这样做的任何结论。”然而,在9/11之后,美国不再将其反恐努力视为一种警察执法行动,而是开始了一场全球反恐战争。布什政府声称这是“一种新型战争”,因此有理由重新考虑如何解释和适用战争法。(6)根据国防部长唐纳德·拉姆斯菲尔德的说法,“现实情况是,今天存在于基地组织和塔利班的一系列事实不一定是日内瓦公约制定时所考虑的一系列事实。”(7)《日内瓦公约》的某些条款甚至被认为是“古怪的”。(8)美国在9/11事件后的政策和行动表明,实施拘留行动的标准,或许还有《日内瓦公约》本身,改革的时机已经成熟。反恐战争已经进入了第四个年头,但对于什么样的拘留和审讯手段在道德上是可取的、在法律上是允许的,学术界或政界几乎没有达成一致。一位分析人士称,美国在阿富汗、伊拉克和关塔那摩的拘留行动属于“灰色地带”。(9)美国将阿富汗和关塔那摩湾的在押人员归类为“非法战斗人员”,引起了广泛而激烈的学术争论。(10)由于没有国际上公认的、明确界定的对待“非法战斗人员”的拘留和审讯标准,问题变得复杂。即使在政府承认适用日内瓦公约的伊拉克,9/11事件后的总体模式转变也促使陆军指挥部对可接受的审讯和拘留手段进行审慎分析。(11)国防部目前正在进行一项更全面的正式倡议,陆军作为牵头机构。(12)为了描述在城市环境中进行现代军事行动的复杂性,美国海军陆战队将军查尔斯·c·克鲁拉克(Charles C. Krulak)使用了“三街区战争”的比喻,即士兵或海军陆战队同时在一个街区进行高强度冲突,在另一个街区镇压沸腾的叛乱,并在连续的第三个街区促进人道主义援助的环境。进行军事行动的军队必须预料到在三个街区内会遇到友军、敌军和中立人员。出于战略、行动或战术的原因,可以对这三个区域的在押人员进行审讯。正如认识到“三区战争”的性质使指挥官能够在这种环境中成功地开展行动一样,在被拘留者行动的新灰色地带内澄清分界线是至关重要的。划定潜在被拘留者的类别是第一步。确定每一类被拘留者的审讯限制和其他法律责任是合乎逻辑的下一步。《日内瓦公约》为审议不同类别的被拘留者提供了基础;它们还为区分不同类别的待遇提供了法律、伦理和道德框架。发布一个“后9/11”框架,并清楚地表明,美国忠实地遵守一个表述清晰、理由充分的新标准,可以在很大程度上支持美国的政策和战略。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Parameters
Parameters Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊最新文献
Was the Russian Invasion of Ukraine a Failure of Western Deterrence? Contributor's Guidelines From the Editor in Chief Ukraine’s Lessons for Future Combat: Unmanned Aerial Systems and Deep Strike Parameters 2023-24 Winter Demi-Issue
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1