Jack Reno at edge raises an interesting point in response to this morning's lead editorial in the New York Times:
Posted by Vanderleun at October 16, 2003 8:12 AMTHE TIMES OPINES:
"The men held at Guantnamo naval base in Cuba are prisoners of the United States, and they should be treated in the highest tradition of American justice.....Why are the men still without trial, still without rights? The Bush administration has two justifications. One is, in essence, self-defense: in the war on terrorism, in which the security of the United States is in mortal danger, normal rules cannot apply. The other, more narrow, is about legality: the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not combatants in traditional or legal terms, and are therefore not eligible for the protections due to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. [New York Times: Opinion]"
Why are the men still without trial?" The Times conveniently misses the fact that the men are prisoners of war. In general, POWs are not released before the end of hostilities. As far as I know, that hasn't as yet happened. POWs are sometimes exchanged for the opposing sides POWs but, as far as I know, that hasn't happened yet. POWs are not tried as individuals unless there is some reason to believe they are guilty of specific war crimes.
What is being proposed by the Times other than a feel-good moment for the editors? That the men be tried and sentenced? For what? For being on the losing side of a war that is still in progress?
As far as I know we don't try men for that as criminals but detain them until the fighting is over. The fact that the war's end is unclear is not unusual. War's end is always unclear. What is clear is that these men, again, are not criminals but enemy combatants. Surely the Times doesn't want them tried and sentenced for such a thing. Trying a POW as a war criminal is known as a "Show Trial" -- and while the Times would probably relish the opportunity to cover 660 show trials, it would not be in "the highest tradition of American Justice" to hold them.
And since the War on Terror is never-ending, they will be locked up forever. Without charge. And without any way of determining if they played any part in a terrorist organization.
Don't you love it when your country looks like a hypocrite?
Posted by: Mithras at October 16, 2003 11:00 AMLet's see.
1) A particular war - the Terror War, for example - like all wars, will take an indeterminate amount of time. Conceivably, it will go on for a long time.
2) As in most wars, one side or the other or both takes prisoners.
3) Therefore, we must release said prisoners to resume their part of the war effort, because increasing the enemy's strength in this way will make the war last longer, which is good because it is said to be "never-ending", and the prophecy must be fulfilled.
Pardon - I seem to have gotten lost in the middle of this Moebius strip of logic.
Posted by: jeanne a e devoto at October 16, 2003 9:15 PM
HOME