The session has just started. You are invited to join us with your questions.
After the session, you can view the whole dialogue in "recent sessions."
Yours,
IslamOnline Live Dialogue Editing Desk
Answer
-
Name
Mokhter
- Bangladesh
Profession
Faculty
Question
How can we evaluate the treatment of the Iraqi POWs by the Occupying forces? Do we see any example of this sort of treatment in human history? What was the the Prophet Muhammad's treatment of POWs like? What does Islam say about the treatment of POWs?
Answer
Under the rules of international law, especially the Geneva and Vienna Conventions, the occupying forces have a duty to protect the interests of their detainees and prisoners and those in their custody. These interests include the basic human rights of dignity, health, food and other basic rights, as well as other rights, which are also important, such as communicating with their family, ensuring that their loved ones have access to them.
By failing to protect these rights, the US Army has violated the rules of international law and the international conventions. As to the treatment we have seen on TV and in the media, these treatments don't only lack protection of human rights but they also amount to crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide. In both latter instances, these crimes are punishable under all rules of law including the domestic law of the United States.
Under the rules of international law, in terms of the crimes against humanity and genocide crimes, it is not only the perpetrators who are responsible, but their commanders, right up to the highest person, who are accountable. Under this rule Milosevic was put to trial, not because he possibly committed this crime but also because his soldiers committed these crimes. And under the same rule, Saddam Hussein is being charged to be trialed.
So the question is why would the world try Milosevic and intend to try Saddam Hussein while President Bush, as the commander in Chief of the US Army, is immune from prosecution. The US at present is trying to put the blame on the junior soldiers of the army instead of trying the senior officers right up to the post of the commander in chief.
As far as the question as to whether this has been done before or not, the answer is, it depends who knows what. If you ask the Palestinians, they will confirm to you that Israel, to a certain degree and in many incidents, is committing these crimes or similar crimes to them. Probably in some cases in previous wars there were crimes like that. But I think you must understand that the US has hundreds of people who are detained in Guantanamo Bay and being treated less than humans. They have been deprived of all basic rights for the last two years. We must also remember that it is not the abuse of those individuals alone, we must realize and everybody must recognize that there are possibly 10,000 Iraqi detainees who have been in custody for almost a year without the right of knowing what their crimes are, having legal representation or being put on trail. So we have tens of thousands of people who are detained but not charged or not tried. This is a travesty of justice.
The final bit of the answer of the last question about Islam, under Islamic law, prisoners must be treated as human beings. There are many ayat in the Quran as well as hadith of the Prophet which dictate the prisoners must be either treated humanely or released.*
* Host: For a detailed response on the Islamic treatment of POWs, please refer to our Fatwa section.
Name
Felicity A.
- United Kingdom
Profession
Question
Dear Mr Al-Mukhtar,
Greetings.
I am wondering by what law the 'Coalition' of the largely unwilling, except
for the US and UK, have a right to - having illegally, as I understand it -
invaded Iraq - arrest, disappear and murder a government guaranteed
'sovereignty and territorial integrity' in the first UN Resolutions after
the Gulf war?
I am wondering how it is that an entire sovereign government - what ever it
has been accused of, can be simply 'disappeared' and what laws apply.
Further, is there a list of prisons in Iraq; who is held there, their names,
ages, addresses, state of health lodged with appropriate international
bodies?
I further wonder if the occupiers are even less accountable than the former
regime. Maybe I am cynical, but the regime was ousted and the country and
civil society destroyed because of allegations that they did not account on
various points to the UN. Will the US and UK be required to account to the
UN for their actions - or to the International Criminal Court? Is there a
body that can order the prisons opened immediately, since few seem to have
been charged with anything but have suffered near Nazi-like abuse, it would
seem.
I wonder if any independent bodies are looking into the other fourteen prisons
for which General Karpinski (in charge of Abu Ghraib) was in charge of (and
of which we have heard nothing.)
Lastly, unrelated to prisoners: I wonder by what law, invaders can change a
country's flag, schooling system, currency, stamps (even there are no post
offices working), in fact the whole social structure.
Thank you for your time, I am simply very confused.
felicity, London.
Answer
Dear felicity
There was a time when the world was run by (GUNBOAT DEPLOMACY) The world is now run by thugs who are using fire power to terrorize the world
“By what law?” you ask Obviously the law of the jungle !!
OR WORSE.
You see, in the law of the jungle there are decent animals which kill for food or security. But NOT for GREED.
International law has been discredited by the USA and its subservient junior partner in the form of our own Tony.
The UN issued resolutions justifying the killing of Iraqis. Sanctions which amounted to a middle ages siege killed at least 1,500,000 Iraqis. Accepting that Iraq breached international law by occupying Kuwait, the response in law would be to liberate it. NOT TO KILL 1,500,000 Iraqis (mostly children and civilians). This action is contrary to the principles of law.
THE PENALTY MUST FIT THE CRIME.
Self defense can not be worse than the crime.
No vengeance.
Name
Richard
- United States
Profession
Question
What are the chances that the personnel involved in these crimes will be truly brought to justice? I bring this up due to the fact that the United States views itself as not subject to the jurisdiction of any international court. If these crimes were committed by another country against the USA or it allies, the USA would be calling for an investigation and possible charges of war crimes against the country committing these crimes.
Answer
Unfortunately, we are living in a world which is run by the super power, and the US can dictate its terms to the whole world. This is evident in the workings of the United Nations as well as the conduct of the Coalition in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other cases.
The possibility of bringing those criminals to justice regrettably is very limited. They will be probably investigated, and a long time will pass before some administrative penalty is imposed on those criminals. On the other hand, the system, that is the US system, which has allowed - if not advocated - this behavior will remain immune.
It is disheartening to see that the general and officers who have ordered or allowed these atrocities to be committed by the soldiers are the same people who are now being put in charge of investigating these crimes. Of course, there will be a whitewash; the standards they apply to the world are different from those which are applied to the US.
If these crimes were committed in any prison in any country in the world, the US would have obtained UN resolutions to either bomb these countries or put them under sanctions, and you can see good examples of this in the treatment of many countries like Libya, regarding the Lockerbie case, and Syria.
The sanctions on Iraqi for 12 years are an extremely vivid example whereby the US claimed that the reasons for invading Iraq were the absence of rule of law and that the previous regime was torturing prisoners. At the end of the day we have pictures and evidence of the abuse of human rights by the Americans, whereas we have only claims of torture by the previous regime. That does not mean that there was no abuse of human rights in the past, but we have evidence of current abuses, and we have claims of past abuses, and this certainly makes the present regime even worse that the previous one.
Name
jta
- Austria
Profession
artist
Question
How do feel, when you question western armies about international laws, when Arab fighters forget about all the matter completely? They even would not accept them for their doings, not to think about Muslim countries, who ride a rough shod on international laws in peace time.
Answer
In the first instance, the claim that Arab armies and Arabs do not follow rules is unfounded and incorrect. There are a number of cases of warfare, including when the Americans invaded Iraq in 1991. The Iraqis treated the American prisoners in accordance with international law as recognized by the ICRC. The same thing happened with previous wars.
But even if I am wrong on this and even if the questioner is correct about the Arabs not adhering to the law, that does not mean that the "civilized" West should apply the lower standards of those who don't apply the law.
The Western World says that Christianity is the religion of love while Islam is the religion of war. Obviously this is an incorrect statement, but taking it at face value, then the Western armies, and in particular the US army, which is made up of quite a lot of Christians, have to show the compassion and love their beliefs call for.
Finally, two wrongs don't make a right. So it is not an argument which should be advanced by those who are taking military action, i.e. America, the West and possibly Europe. It’s not possible for them to rely on the argument that those who are now being killed and occupied did not follow these rules in the past.
Name
sharif
- United Kingdom
Profession
student
Question
Salam, I was wondering if 'contractors' who are brought in by an occupying army are considered civilians by international law and also Islamic law. Secondly, do you think Berg's execution is genuine, and what implications does it have in shaping public opinion?
Answer
Regarding contractors, they may be civilians in their normal lives, but they are under the command of the military and they have no immunity in international law. International law provides immunity for civilians who are not connected with the military occupying force. This is also granted to journalists and humanitarian aid workers such as the Red Cross, but most certainly not to those who are working under the orders of the military.
This is in general terms. Looking at the situation in Iraq, those who have come with the occupying forces, such as the four who were killed in Fallujah, are mercenaries who are contracted by the occupying power. They are legitimate targets for the resistance to the occupation.
In support of this view, the occupying administrator, Bremer, in one of the earlier regulations he issued in Iraq, recognized that such “contractors” are in fact part of the occupying forces and granted them immunity from being tried before the courts of Iraq. This is under what is called Order number 17, which has the title of "Status of the Coalition, Foreign Use of Missions, Their Personnel and Contractors."
Bremer recognized by this order that those people are part of the occupying forces, defining the contractors as "non-Iraqi business entities or individuals not normally resident in Iraq supplying goods and services and/or services to/on behalf of the coalition forces or the CPA under contractual arrangements." So all those people are legitimate targets for the national resistance.
I don't know whether the video is genuine or not. It looked to me as if it is genuine. In terms of its implications, there are at least two extreme reactions to it. The first reaction is that it is abhorrent and unacceptable behavior. And the other extreme is that it is a punishment directed at the Americans as a reaction to their crimes.
The first extreme point of view may result in hardening attitudes in the West and making people angry and claiming that is what they are fighting, i.e. terrorism. The other attitude would be based on the fact that such an action will make many people who would have otherwise worked for the occupying forces hesitant and reluctant to do so, and would serve as a warning for others that those involved with the occupying forces will be dealt with severely.
Between these two extremes, there are certainly a variety of other views. I personally think that while I disapprove of the beheading of this man, I think it will create fear in the hearts of those who would have otherwise gone to Iraq. I also think this will certainly not make the Iraqi situation any worse, as the situation is so bad at the moment that the Americans and the British and the rest cannot make it any worse.
If we judge by the previous incident, that is when four mercenaries were killed and burnt in Fallujah, the American response was one of revenge, whereby they killed 800 civilians in Fallujah and made almost 5000 people homeless and injured at least 2000 people, a reaction which is not acceptable by any standard. But the Americans did it.
The question is: Will the Americans do the same again? Are they likely to go and kill 10000 Iraqi civilians in revenge for Nick Berg?
Name
Silence
- United States
Profession
Artist
Question
The men who participated in the torture of the prisoners will be punished, as an example to the people of the world, only as an example to show how fair and how equally just we are here in the USA. Is it time to leave the East? Where are the weapons of mass destruction to which the President committed this war on terror? Where is justice in prisoners kept for so long without trial? Is this all an act of vengeance to satisfy our government in proving we are of great military power? Are we even defending ourselves by occupying other countries and attempting to change what is theirs to change?
Answer
If we are trying to be just, then we must try those who commanded the soldiers and not only penalize the soldiers, as the world did with the Nazis in Germany and to Milosevic, and as it will do to Saddam. Therefore it is not only the soldiers who should be penalized, but also those who command them, such as Rumsfeld and their Commander in Chief George Bush.
As for the presence of WMDs in Iraq and using them as an excuse to occupy other people’s territory and keep thousands of detainees without trial, regrettably the present US administration is still make these claims forcefully and untruthfully.
But what amazes me as a non-American is the questions of how could the ratings of Rumsfeld go up after he has admitted that they have committed these crimes. Everywhere in the world, when politicians commit crimes the people of that country chose to dissociate themselves from these politicians, except in the US, where this is the second time that a politician commits crimes and his ratings go up. One is Rumsfeld and the second is President Clinton with the Monika Lewinsky episode.
Name
Marwa
-
Profession
Question
I need to figure out whether the Prosecutor of the ICC is empowered to investigate crimes that occur 1) on territory of states not signatories to the ICC and administered by states not party to the ICC, 2) in situations where the authorities are actually in the process of conducting investigations and prosecution said crimes.
Answer
The answer is simply no. The ICC does not have the power to investigate or try such crimes.
However, the crimes which are being committed in Iraq are in contravention to the Geneva and Vienna conventions, in addition to other international laws. And these rules are in fact incorporated into the domestic laws of the USA and the UK. These crimes remain crimes and must be tried. The US and British justice systems will be put into question if they fail to uphold the rule of law.
But the more important issue is not the technical legal side, but rather the credibility of these two major states. The reason is that international relations now look at the principles of freedom, human rights, rule of law and democracy, and if these two major states are seen violating these principles, then their call to the world to follow those same principles will ring hollow.
Name
Naima
- Pakistan
Profession
Question
Do you think the claim made by American soldiers, that they didn't read the Geneva convention manual and thus had no idea on how to treat the Iraqi POW's, can be justified for what they did there in Iraq with those POW's?
Moreover, why no action being taken in the Arab and Islamic world, against the American occupiers over the prisoners' abuse?
Answer
Ignorance of the law is never a defense. So if the soldiers have read or have not read the Geneva Conventions, that is no defense. You don't need a Geneva Convention or a law to know that the crimes they have committed are wrong. Those soldiers did an appalling act which is contrary to even normal human behavior. Those soldiers are criminals in law and must be penalized – not only them, but their commanding officers as well as those who are in charge, such as Rumsfeld and other commanders, especially Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt.
As far as taking action by Arab countries against the Americans, first, they could not technically do so because their courts couldn't take legal action against the US, and secondly, most of the regimes in those countries are, if not collaborating with, afraid of the US, so they have no independent view of their own.
Name
Abu Adnaan
- United Arab Emirates
Profession
Question
Salaam guest,
It is not now that Abu Ghraib has become notorious. Abu Ghraib post-occupation is merely a continuation of the same elements of torture and abuse that were carried out during Saddam's time, Saddam who is at the moment representing the victims of the pre-occupation Abu Ghraib in this, the new "free" Iraq.
Answer
First of all, Iraq is not free. Iraq used to be free but run by a dictatorship. At present Iraq is occupied and is being abused by the new dictators. Dictators who abuse their own people are much better (if there is such a comparison) than an outside foreign abuser. For the torture being carried out at present we have the evidence, both in terms of people, pictures and full admission. With the previous torture, we do not have the evidence; we have statements of people who we don't know how whether true statements of exaggerated ones. But in any event, it is wrong to make the comparison between a torturer in the past and a torturer in the present, because we cannot do anything about the past but we will try the person who had committed crimes in the form of Saddam Hussein.
Statements like this one – trying to justify the present crimes because there were previous crimes – implicitly make the crimes at present acceptable, i.e. trying to justify the present crimes because there were previous crimes. That is wrong, because these crimes are ongoing, according to the person who calls himself the minister of human rights in Iraq, and because even the general who was in charge of the prison is not being tried for these crimes but the Americans are only investigating junior soldiers.
Name
Abdur Raheem
-
Profession
Question
Assalamu alaikum
What are the prospects for Iraqis victim of abuse and torture suing the UK at the International War Crimes Court?
Can the US be tried in an Iraqi civillian court?
And can Rumsfeld and others be tried in supplying chemeicals to Saddam in the 1980s?
Answer
In the first instance, states including the USA have immunity from trial in all courts of all the world, so no court can try the government of another state in terms of criminal conduct.
Claims for damages are available before the civil courts of the world that have jurisdiction over the party who has caused the harm. What this means is that all those who suffered under the US or British forces' occupation can sue before the American or the British courts for damages.
It is not realistic to think that people can sue in the Iraqi courts for damages from the US or Britain. But the main point to make is that all those people who believe they have a right must continue to pursue their right until they get it. The example to cite here is when the Jews have, in the year 2000, obtained compensation from the German government for the overtime payment in 1945. For the readers who don't know this event, the Jews claim that some Jews who were working under the Nazis in 1945 worked after the normal working hours but they were not paid for overtime.
