The World Book Encyclopedia defines war as fighting carried on by armed forces between nations or parts of a nation. President George W. Bush said in his remarks about the terrorist attacks, "We are at war." It becomes clear that the recent U.S. involvement in Afghanistan is without a doubt a war. World Book Encyclopedia also defines a prisoner of war as a person taken by the enemy in war.

So I ask, would those prisoners captured by U.S. armed forces during

the war in Afghanistan, who are members of the armed force that was the United States' enemy, be prisoners of war? Of course they are, surely any rational individual can recognize this fact. Prisoners of war are given rights under international law as outlined in the Geneva Convention of 1949. However, the prisoners held by the U.S. military in Cuba, who were detained during the war in Afghanistan, are not considered by our government to be prisoners of war. So I must ask. I ask why are they not prisoners of war? Were they not members of any enemy army, captured in war? The only reason why they would not be considered prisoners of war is because that way the military can deny them their rights under international law. For example, on their voyage to Cuba, many of the prisoners had bags placed on their heads. This is specifically outlawed by the Geneva Accords. This act of the U.S. military is clearly in violation of international law. Attorney General John Ashcroft even said the conditions in Cuba are better then their previous conditions in Afghanistan. This may well be the case, but that is no excuse for a violation of international law. The U.S. should be a leader and treat prisoners of war as what they are.