Illustartion by Josh Hagler

The other night as I lay in my bed flipping through the channels, I came across the subject of my column this week. Four out of my five news channels were covering the controversy surrounding the 144 detainees dwelling in Camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

So I decided · ehh · why not?

Fast forward to international news Web sites. This weekend, the United States released pictures showing the captives in orange jump suits, kneeling down, with their arms shackled and wearing blacked-out goggles and earmuffs.

The image sent panic waves across the human rights groups all over to find out exactly how the detainees are being treated.

Overall, they are getting fair treatment. They have the right to practice their religion, and have proper cultural meals, toiletries and other basic privileges. The shackling and blindfolding seem adequate considering the potential danger these inmates might produce.

One of them has threatened to kill an American before he leaves, and another has bitten a guard. Even the primitive, 6-foot by 8-foot cells are supposed to be temporary until other arrangements have been made. No group is claiming that the detainees are going through any kind of malnourishment or other ill treatment.

So it really is not bad for these miscreants who have intentionally taken part in one of the most inhumane acts of this century. What is the problem?

The question that first went through my mind was: Why are they called detainees? What kind of a word is that? It turns out that the word "detainees" is saving the United States from calling the prisoners what they really are - prisoners of war. The Pentagon's handling of the prisoners has raised many questions due to its hesitancy to tell the whole truth.

The identity of these men and how they are being handled is still left to speculation. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that while America "for the most part" is treating the detainees "in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva Convention," it need not do so, because the detainees are "unlawful combatants" who "do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention."

That is not true.

The Geneva Convention, ratified by the United States and other countries, gave the prisoners, or detainees, or whatever you feel like calling them, certain rights - and they are not receiving these rights at the moment.

Also according to this doctrine, it is wrong for Rumsfeld to call the men "unlawful combatants" because most of the international community say the prisoners must have a hearing before a military tribunal. Each prisoner must be charged with some kind of crime and not just be held because America feels that they have the moral high ground. While it is true that we do have the right to keep these men, it is also in accordance with international law - which we must abide by - to charge them with terrorism or whatever else it may be.

In 1997, the Pentagon standardized the conduct for such a three-member panel of military officers and called each prisoner to testify. Until that happens, they are POWs by international law and the government must respect these laws completely, not just "for the most part."

Also the Geneva Convention specifies that POWs cannot be "exposed to public curiosity," which is what some critics think of the photographs the Pentagon released earlier this week. Another rule is that only military courts can try POWs. The Pentagon would like to try them in civilian courts and maybe even get them court marshaled.

Military hearings would probably show that these men are denied POW status according to the Geneva Convention, thus permitting the United States to go about other legal ways of questioning and handling these prisoners. Even if they are not POWs, these men still have certain rights that the United States agreed to when signing the Convention on Torture, which says that deportees cannot be sent to nations where they could be abused.

Until then, it is important for the United States to follow the international laws out of respect for other nations, as well as its own reputation. Actually, maybe going about the matter legally will spare any criticism and diffuse future terrorist acts. Perhaps this event is pointing out the failures of the Geneva Convention or reasons why it should be amended to suit new scenarios.

However, it is imperative that we follow the rules we have already meticulously committed ourselves to, and demonstrate that we are active participants in the free and civilized world.