7-9-06 Prisoners of War
It's a very long and tedious adventure to try and find out how domestic and international law can be applied to prisoners of war. As with any legal matter, it takes lawyers to figure out what applies. But if you spend only an hour or so looking at various major doucments and legal commentary, the status of a prisoner of war is pretty clear when you're dealing with the narrower issue of how they should be treated.
In the matter of people who have been "detained" by the US government in the Global War On Terror, however, there's obviously two sides to this story.
One side, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld side, says that Jihadists, terrorists, insurgents, and generally this whole indistinct collection of loosely organized, non-uniformed, underground fighters are "illegal combatants". This is a new term which, clearly, is used to describe the detainees in a way that exempts them from any legal protections, whatsoever. The basic idea is that a "terrorist" should be treated like the piece of shit that he or she is.
It's difficult to argue with this basic premise. The object of this stance is to strike as much fear as possible into the hearts and minds of these terrrorists, to make the prospect of pursuing their goals against the American people a matter of serious consequence. It's no secret that those who would harm us will do so by using our own infrastructure, our own laws, and taking advantage of the freedoms we enjoy. It can be seen and understood that, without the course taken by the government, the GWOT is impeded in many ways.
The first flaw in this reasoning, however, is that the terrorists' aims against America are ultimately against the American people. The American people are targets because of the conduct of the American government. This goes back in time, prior to 9/11. On the other hand, the flawed reasoning behind Osama Bin Laden's fatwah, in 1998, calling for the indiscriminate killing of Americans is that the American people have the power to elect officials who will stop supporting Israel, stop ignoring the rights of Islamic peoples around the world, and stop giving free reign to the international corporations. Our votes hardly have that level of power, for many reasons.
Osama Bin Laden, we need to remember, was a CIA sponsored operative in Afghanistan during the Russian war in that country. The US government sponsored Saddam Hussein in Iraq's war against Iran. With these and other very complicated origins, the current GWOT can't be discussed as a simple problem wherein the US government is hampered by domestic and international law. The problem here is the US government's conduct over many years.
Consequently, the GWOT and the opposing forces, however anyone wants to describe them, have both brought us to this juncture where the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan vs Rumsfeld can be seen as a terrible blow to America. It's a terrible blow because it re-introduces a constraint for "our side" of the battle.
On this side of the argument, the terrorists have a victory in that our own laws can be used against us. This is hardly a viewpoint that I can dismiss out of hand, because a very important part of this whole thing involves the world-wide PR between nations, the standing that America does or does not have with other nations, and ultimately the underlying sense of our nation's actions coming from a position on moral high ground.
The other side of the story is a simple one, however. The moral high ground cannot be maintained when our basic principles of human rights are abandoned. The terrorists may conduct themselves in a psychotic manner, but America cannot respond "in kind" without losing everything we stand for in the world. The Supreme Court decision, on this side of the story, is neither a blow to the GWOT or to America. It is, instead, an event that marks the brakes being applied to America's four and half year descent from the moral high ground.
In the Global War on Terror, led by an avowed "War President" who has invoked the executive branch's "War Powers", prisoners taken can hardly be considered anything other than Prisoners of War.
In the matter of people who have been "detained" by the US government in the Global War On Terror, however, there's obviously two sides to this story.
One side, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld side, says that Jihadists, terrorists, insurgents, and generally this whole indistinct collection of loosely organized, non-uniformed, underground fighters are "illegal combatants". This is a new term which, clearly, is used to describe the detainees in a way that exempts them from any legal protections, whatsoever. The basic idea is that a "terrorist" should be treated like the piece of shit that he or she is.
It's difficult to argue with this basic premise. The object of this stance is to strike as much fear as possible into the hearts and minds of these terrrorists, to make the prospect of pursuing their goals against the American people a matter of serious consequence. It's no secret that those who would harm us will do so by using our own infrastructure, our own laws, and taking advantage of the freedoms we enjoy. It can be seen and understood that, without the course taken by the government, the GWOT is impeded in many ways.
The first flaw in this reasoning, however, is that the terrorists' aims against America are ultimately against the American people. The American people are targets because of the conduct of the American government. This goes back in time, prior to 9/11. On the other hand, the flawed reasoning behind Osama Bin Laden's fatwah, in 1998, calling for the indiscriminate killing of Americans is that the American people have the power to elect officials who will stop supporting Israel, stop ignoring the rights of Islamic peoples around the world, and stop giving free reign to the international corporations. Our votes hardly have that level of power, for many reasons.
Osama Bin Laden, we need to remember, was a CIA sponsored operative in Afghanistan during the Russian war in that country. The US government sponsored Saddam Hussein in Iraq's war against Iran. With these and other very complicated origins, the current GWOT can't be discussed as a simple problem wherein the US government is hampered by domestic and international law. The problem here is the US government's conduct over many years.
Consequently, the GWOT and the opposing forces, however anyone wants to describe them, have both brought us to this juncture where the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan vs Rumsfeld can be seen as a terrible blow to America. It's a terrible blow because it re-introduces a constraint for "our side" of the battle.
On this side of the argument, the terrorists have a victory in that our own laws can be used against us. This is hardly a viewpoint that I can dismiss out of hand, because a very important part of this whole thing involves the world-wide PR between nations, the standing that America does or does not have with other nations, and ultimately the underlying sense of our nation's actions coming from a position on moral high ground.
The other side of the story is a simple one, however. The moral high ground cannot be maintained when our basic principles of human rights are abandoned. The terrorists may conduct themselves in a psychotic manner, but America cannot respond "in kind" without losing everything we stand for in the world. The Supreme Court decision, on this side of the story, is neither a blow to the GWOT or to America. It is, instead, an event that marks the brakes being applied to America's four and half year descent from the moral high ground.
In the Global War on Terror, led by an avowed "War President" who has invoked the executive branch's "War Powers", prisoners taken can hardly be considered anything other than Prisoners of War.
posted by Jeff Barnard at 10:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home