Every time there is a chance for the United States to escape from the trap it has created for itself in Guantanamo Bay, it slams the door shut.
The Pentagon’s decision this week to seek the death penalty for six men it accuses of the 9/11 attacks, and to try them under the hugely disputed version of military courts that it has devised, is one of the stupidest mistakes that the Bush Administration has made.
Everything about Guantanamo is an affront to the values the US says it is defending in the War on Terror. The principle of holding hundreds of people there without charge, for years; the fluid rules of the “military commissions” used for the very few who will be tried; the torture that the Administration acknowledges has been practised on these six: all these are an assault on the US Constitution.
To see the most powerful country in the world scrabbling on the edge of a nearby island, with whose leader it is not on speaking terms, for the sole purpose of evading its own laws and principles, is an embarrassment.
My first reaction was surely this was in the NYTimes. I support that these accused terrorists being held at Guantanamo. Never do the paper say the reason, which is to keep them out of the legal system here in the US, which certainly would drag on and on, AND give them all the opportunities their victims never had. I strongly suspect that the accused “torture” is a figment of the left’s imagination, and get tired of the US, and particularly the Bush adminstration, being accused of torture, etc. Better there than on the loose, as they probably would be if they were moved to the US. As far as I am concerned, they have no rights until proven otherwise, and why don’t we read about what the terrorists are doing down there, as far as assaulting others, not to mention their demands, which are, for the most part, met.
Agree with you, Alice. Terrorists are non-uniformed, non-soldiers, dangerous, fanatic free agents who would immediately return to their hateful mission to kill Americans and others. We are all safer with them locked up. Sorry if somebody can’t see that this is the high road. If it was the enemy holding Americans, they would be tortured, probably beheaded, on the Internet. These guys would look you right in the eye and stick a knife in your gut without hesitation.
Aside from the absurd assumptions and misunderstandings in the article is a complete absence of why we need to jump through these absurd legal hoops to handle terrorists. The answer of course is a series of extra-constitutional court rulings. It is fun, and instructive, to image the situation in WWII had we the same set of rules in effect as we do today.
I have to wonder about the intelligence of Miss Maddox. She cannot imagine how a wire from a spiral notebook could be used as a weapon?
The world sees European elites like her as craven cowards. They are, and sanctimonious too.
This is why Islamists in European countries have become so culturally aggressive. They think the triumph of Islam over these decadent societies is “unavoidable”.
There are a lot of people down here in Texas who have been waging war on American civilization, too. Crime is a terrible thing and a threat to our way of life. Given the reasoning in the previous comments, what is to keep the President from declaring everyone accused of a crime as enemy combatants?
Then we prosecutors wouldn’t have “to jump through these absurd legal hoops,” (like providing speedy trials before a jury) because the Federal Executive could do whatever it wanted to those people without any judicial review.
Indeed, as a loyal American and Republican, I have to ask myself what is to keep President Bush from declaring anyone who claims he can’t appoint himself to a third term as an enemy of the people and locking them up, too? That would certainly save us from Obama, Clinton, and McCain.
“Given the reasoning in the previous comments, what is to keep the President from declaring everyone accused of a crime as enemy combatants?”
Dale, come on. This statement is fatuous. What is to keep? For one, the Constitution. American citizens cannot by definition be “enemy combatants.” For two, international law. By that I mean REAL international law (which takes ONLY two forms, treaty and “immemorial custom”), not the version which liberals and globalists throw around these days, and whose definition seems to be “whatever the UN and effete European elites want.” Under international law, any non-American who wages war against us as part of an organized regular or irregular force with a distinctive visible uniform or badge is in no danger of being labeled an “enemy combatant.” (Article IV of the Geneva Convention). Only spies and terrorists, who commit acts of violence with the express intent of blending in with civilian populations, can be designated enemy combatants.
Dale,
Hyperbole and hysteria and insane leaps of logic do not make for intelligent conversation.
“Bush Haters” say a lot of things that have no basis in reality. We are in a battle where the combatants are civilian Terrorists, who, as Charles says above, are “non-uniformed, non-soldiers, dangerous, fanatic free agents who would immediately return to their hateful mission to kill Americans and others” if released or put into the ‘criminal justice system’ — which is not designed for war criminals.
W. does follow the rule of law, he IS following the rule of law. You may disagree with his interpretation, but so far, the courts have not seen fit to disagree.
Dale, there is a difference between war, and a convenience store robbery in Del Rio.
Given the reasoning in your comment, I can picture your marching up to the Japanese embassy after Pearl Harbor, an indictment of General Tojo in hand, and standing there wondering why everyone there was laughing so hard.
‘American citizens cannot by definition be “enemy combatants.†‘
Tell that to Juan Padilla, an American citizen apprehended on American soil. As for your international law argument, the Geneva Convention, etc., only have force in the United States because we have treaty obligations. It is very well established that the President, who is constitutionally charged with conducting foreign policy, is free to abrogate treaties.
I’m not suggesting that any misuse of executive authority is likely, or even that it has actually occurred, only that it seems to me extremely dangerous to promote the idea that there is any area in American life where one person has the unfettered power to do anything he likes without appeal or possibility of review.
The court recognized that Padilla, as a U.S. citizen, could not be an enemy combatant, and he was transferred to the jurisdiction of the courts and charged with criminal counts. I would have liked to have seen him charged with treason, found guilty and executed, but apparently that has not been the case.
I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that the President can abrogate treaties. Under U.S. law, a valid treaty entered into is “supreme law of the land.” A President’s violation of a valid treaty can be redressed in the courts.
The system will work. It has been working. Those non-citizens fighting against us not as part of some recognized army or even paramilitary, who use the cover of civilian life, and who do not themselves observe the rules of war, may lawfully be designated enemy combatants. This is properly an executive branch decision. I have yet to see someone point me to a truly innocent person somehow caught up in the much-ballyhooed “nightmare” of “enemy combatant” status. Indeed, all indications are that the people at Guantanamo should be thankful they have not been summarily shot after capture on the battlefield.
The point of the court system in the U.S. is to make sure that the government cannot lock up or punish someone without being able to make a reasonably good case that they’ve done something to deserve it. Hence, the accused must be held to be “innocent until proven guilty,” and a lot of the legal system flows directly from that principal.
The flaw in all of the arguments above is that they talk about what can or should be done to “terrorists” or “enemy combatants.” But the people at Gitmo are alleged terrorists. Are they actually terrorists? Who knows? The Bush administration is taking the position that accusation equals guilt, and they get to make the accusations.
That’s not what America is about.
Dale,
Great. I suppose then that the Japanese government should seek to have the Battle of Midway overturned because we used sigint to beat them.
#11 – The Club Gitmo guests were picked up on battle fields around the globe. They are no different than POW’s in any war. They were there. Nobody really cares whether they were allegedly there or what they were allegedly doing. They are not innocent until proven guilty. Some, foreign citizens who have been released from Gitmo, have re-attacked American forces overseas. Yes, the Bush Administration is taking the position that they “get” to make the accusation – whom do you otherwise suggest ? The U.N.? I understand that Detroit, an American city, is now more dangerous than Baghdad, as are parts of the Mexican-Texas and Mexican-Arizona border. Border Patrol officers are now facing booby traps. 25% of the citizenry in California’s state prison system are illegal Mexicans. So how do we then treat these disparate elements within our midst ? Bush can handle it. Has Obama made even one suggestion about how to handle anything on any subject yet ?
Bronwen Maddox alone sees America ” in the dock”. She is a perpetual hand-wringer. A couple of years ago she whined in the New Statesman about whether the Brits were properly involved in the bombing of Dresden [ we’re talking 1939-45] , where so many innocent civilians were killed. Give it a rest, Bronwen. Suggest you visit the Royal Marines Barracks for your next Timesonline story and ask them about their accomplishments in Afghanistan, which are considerable.
I’m all for Gitmo and have no sympathy for enemy combatants who are not uniformed members of the military forces of a soverign state. They are criminals, terrorists and deserve none of the consideration due captured enemy soldiers.
I also believe the firebombing of Dresden was a war crime.
We became involved in a war 9/11 and we are still involved in it. We take prisoners and put them in the Gitmo prison. At least we are not guilty of beheading them or slitting their throat. That is more than I can say about a group of middle-eastern thugs who murder and blow up innocent people as well as killing their prisoners of war. By the way I will label a person a suicide bomber if they only kill themselves but when they take out one or more others then the label “homocide bomber” is more appropiate. Even my local newspaper seems to have forgotten the difference between the words homocide and suicide.