The attacks on the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon were attacks on the freedoms and values for which the United States and the Western world stand, President Bush declared shortly afterward, and many people in Europe repeated it after him. 
	
	
 There is a great deal of truth in that, but in the light of what has happened afterwards, the question arises as to whether the Americans and their allies themselves are not sometimes inclined to sacrifice these values for the "good cause." There is no doubt that a military operation and intensified security measures were imperative after the terrible tragedy of 11 September. That al-Qa'ida terrorists and Taliban fighters are not very concerned about the human suffering that they have caused is also generally known. However, the ends -- dealing with those opponents -- does not justify all the means. 
	
	
 There is, in the first place, the case of the military action in Afghanistan. Apart from the reasons or justification for such an action, all the combatants' war conduct must be constantly tested against the standards of international humanitarian law; that is, the rules which curb the use of force during a military operation. Back in 1949, it was agreed by nearly all the states in the world that the sufferings of war must henceforth become more bearable, especially for those who are not directly involved in the conflict. These rules, laid down in the four Geneva Conventions, provide, among other things, for the protection of sick and wounded servicemen and prisoners of war. In addition, attempts must be made to prevent any unnecessary suffering by both military personnel and civilians by, for instance, imposing restrictions on the use of weapons. 
	
	
 But the greatest attention is paid to the fate of the civilian population: In principle, the latter can never be the object of a military operation. Hence, humanitarian law requires that in all circumstances a distinction be made between military targets and those not involved in the armed conflict. The two supplementary protocols to the Geneva Conventions, adopted in 1977, increase, among other things, the protection of the civilian population. Many countries are parties to them, but the United States has not ratified these protocols, so that the additional protection they offer is difficult to enforce in a conflict in which US troops are taking part. 
	
	
 Although it is doubtful that all the news reaches us from Afghanistan, a great many press reports suggest that humanitarian law was violated regularly over the past few weeks. This has happened despite solemn pledges to the United Nations that the United States "is committed to minimizing civilian casualties and damage to civilian property." 
	
	
 Hence you can hardly speak of a "targeting error" when a Red Cross warehouse, although clearly recognizable by the large red cross painted on the roof, was shelled twice by US aircraft. Such a building enjoys the highest possible protection, and can and should never be the object of an attack, unless it is clearly established that it is being used for military purposes. 
	
	
 In other case, too, it seems doubtful that the crucial distinction between military and civilian targets was made systematically. Newspaper headlines such as "United Nations Confirms US Bombing of Village and Mosque" and "100 Killed in Bombing in Eastern Afghanistan" speak for themselves. According to witnesses, these were attacks in an area where neither al-Qa'ida troops nor Taliban had been observed. Even if these attacks were directed against a clear military target, the large number of civilian casualties would still never be justifiable, because whoever plans a military attack must take all precautions to prevent such a tragedy. 
	
	
 Not only with the protection of the civilian population does something sometimes go wrong. Secretary Rumsfeld's statements (on 20 November 2001) that "the United States is not inclined to negotiate surrenders, nor are we in a position, with relatively small numbers of forces on the ground, to accept prisoners," and that "my hope is that they will be either killed or taken prisoner (by the Northern Alliance)" also suggested that death would be the only way out of the conflict for the Taliban and al-Qa'ida fighters. That would amount to a flagrant violation of humanitarian law: whoever ceases fighting for whatever reason is entitled to protection. It is all the more to be deplored that such statements come from somebody who, as a senior commander, serves as an example to others regarding the observance of rules of humanitarian law. 
	
	
 Now, nearly two months later, concern about the fate of the captive Taliban and al-Qa'ida fighters has further increased. Moving the captives to the Guantanamo Bay military base on Cuba is rightly whipping up a storm of protest. Humanitarian law leaves no doubt that those who fall captive in their opponent's hands are entitled at all times to decent treatment, even if they do not qualify for prisoner of war status. Transporting these people, shackled hand and foot and with hoods over their heads, shaving their beards -- which form part of their religious identity -- and their "accommodation" in half-open and cages that are much too small can probably never pass this test... 
	
	
 The consequences of 11 September are also making themselves felt far from the battlefield. Shortly after its decision to take military action, the Bush administration also decided to provide the press with only sparse information about the course of the operation. Because press freedom -- the jewel of the US Constitution -- can be restricted for reasons of national security. The right of citizens to such information about their government's actions is crippled by the fact that it is being accepted for the present without much complaint. 
	
	
 Under the protest of international and US human rights organizations but with the approval of large sections of the population, antiterrorism measures are being adopted in great haste. Foreigners suspected of maintaining (loose) ties with terrorist organizations can be detained indefinitely. There is uncertainty about the precise number, but it is certain that over 1,000 men from the Middle East have already been arrested. 
	
	
 In the media, the possibility of questioning presumed terrorists very roughly is also being considered aloud. The need for timely and accurate information about possible new attacks is naturally particularly great, but whether the global ban on torture can be abused on that account is another matter. 
	
	
 What raises even more questions is the order that President Bush issued last November. Through that, the United States can detain and try anybody who is not a US citizen and who is suspected of being a member of al-Qa'ida or of being involved in international terrorism in one way or another. Only special military commissions can try them. It is stated in black and white that it is hardly feasible for these commissions to apply the normal principles of law and rules of evidence. Consequently, evidence will be accepted that "a normal person" deems to have the value of evidence. Hence guilt need not be established "beyond reasonable doubt," nor is there any mention of a presumption of innocence. Appeal is not possible, but the death penalty is. On the other hand, US Taliban or al-Qa'ida fighters, such as the recently captured John Walker Lindh, will be tried by ordinary US criminal courts. 
	
	
 There also seems to be a difference among the foreigners: In all likelihood, captured British fighters will be sent to Britain after questioning. Presumed war criminals such as Milosevic enjoy all the guarantees of a fair trial, but the Taliban and al-Qa'ida fighters at Guantanamo will get a trial which falls far short of the basic standards of the US Constitution and the treaty on civil and political rights ratified by the United States. 
	
	
 Not in the United States alone are the screws being tightened. A number of other countries have sharpened their laws following 11 September, from increased detention possibilities to stricter legislation on asylum and immigration. In December 2001, the UK proclaimed a state of emergency and passed the Antiterrorism, Crime, and Security Act. Whenever there is a suspicion that a foreigner is involved in international terrorism, he will be arrested and imprisoned. If it emerges that the person concerned cannot be removed from British territory because he is in serious danger in his own country, he can be detained almost indefinitely under this law. 
	
	
 Other states have used the US tragedy to polish their own image. Out of well-understood self-interest, countries such as Russia, China, and Israel joined in the Bush administration's anti-terrorism campaign, because it enabled them to compare their domestic situation with the US situation and ask for moral support for the fight they have been waging against terrorism for years. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called Palestinian leader Arafat "Our Usama Bin Ladin." 
	
	
 The fight against terrorism is undoubtedly justified, but, as with every struggle, it also holds true that the fundamental principles of human rights and humanitarian law must be respected. Observance of these rules will not insure that the fight against terrorism is lost; it will prove respect for human dignity, of which the West is rightly a champion.