@21. Jeff Weimer:
Your thoughts on this seem to assume a few things that are simply not true.
I think you overstate your case.
1) That U.S. constitutional protections apply to foreign combatants, whether or not they fight for a country.
I spoke to the plight of detainees. I am not willing to assume that all detainees are “foreign combatants”. I understand that different standards may apply in different individual cases.
2) That current legal rules of evidence apply to the battlefield. Just how are we going to scrupulously maintain “chain of evidence” in a firefight?
I spoke to the importance of a court of law. Military and civilian courts could both fulfill this function. However, you are assuming that all detainees were foreign combatants detained on the battlefield. What is the basis for your assumption?
3)”Criminal charges” assumes the broke a law. Whose law? Ours? how can you enforce that in a foreign country? They merely shot at us, and we captured them instead of killing them.
The laws of war would be appropriate, if in fact the detainee was captured as part of a war. There are clear standards for determining who is a legal combatant and who is not under the Geneva conventions. You again assume that all detainees shot at us. That’s a big assumption.
4) Granting asylum? They weren’t escaping persecution when they left their countries, but only after becoming terrorists. They have no basis for asylum. Of course, we don’t want to send them to certain death, therefore we keep them in Gitmo.
If we label someone a terrorist, and can’t prove it, we bear responsibility for that prejudicial act. The basis for asylum is the potential for persecution – political asylum has a long tradition, and it doesn’t usually involve imprisoning applicants indefinitely.
5) The only sufficient evidence for the military to detain them is that they engaged in battle with us. Nothing more, nothing less.
Unless this evidence is brought before a proper tribunal, it is nothing more than the say-so of the military. You are assuming again, not I.
6) That this is a law-enforcement problem. Posse Comitatus FORBIDS the military
The formulation of my statement is to identify the law-enforcement problem within the larger military context.
I find it rather disturbing that many (you included) wish for us to bend over backwards in the treatment of our enemies, literally to the point we endanger ourselves unnecessarily. Your type wishes us to be perfect – and perfect is the enemy of good.
We should follow the laws and treaties that we have assented to. This does not mean bending over backwards to be perfect – it means making a concerted effort to do the best that we can. We should not settle for “good enough” – because for someone who spends the rest of their life in secret detention without cause, it’s not.
You have assumed that all detainees are foreign combatants, detained on the battlefield for firing shots at US forces. You have assumed that none could possibly be eligible for asylum, and that there is sufficient evidence of their wrongdoing – despite no independent assessment being made of any such evidence. Furthermore, you assume that the entire process must be conducted outside of judicial oversight, despite the clear role of our courts in providing a check and balance against the executive branch. Yet you accuse me of making unsupported assumptions in support of my position that we should follow the law.
Now, I think that we could have possibly avoided these problems if we would have merely declared we would treat them IAW Geneva. In some ways we treat them better, in others we don’t follow. If we would have done so from the beginning, there would be nothing anyone could really say about how we treat them, as it was in accordance with international treaty.
That was basically what I was arguing. Good to see that we agree on what should have been done in the first place. I’m simply advocating that we should also follow these conventions now.
Of course, THEY don’t care about Geneva – remember Jihadi BEHEADINGS of non-combatants such as Berg? Another assumption you make – that there is a moral equivalence between us and them.
Geneva is a standard that we agreed to on our own. You are correct that terrorist entities don’t adhere to these standards – but the nations of the world agree that Geneva is a binding agreement. We don’t gain license to violate our international obligations by simply going to war with a stateless entity. It’s not about moral equivalence – it’s about our honor. Do we honor our commitments or not?
Peace.
DS
