The Precarious Situation of Terrorist Detainees
As you all know, one of the most controversial subjects relating to World War IV is the issue of the treatment of detainees. This conflict is unlike any we have ever seen before, and the cast of characters can be described similarly. Ambiguity has entered the mix, because all of our conventions, all of our provisions, all of our experiential preparations, are aimed at a situation that no longer exists. As a result of this, and of our overwhelming military supremacy, we have acquired a population of detainees, whose disposition we are unsure of.
This ambiguity and uncertainty has lead to a number of incidents in which the treatment of detainees raised questions regarding the legality and ethics of our methodology. In plain English, it's getting tough to tell what's okay, and what's not okay. The Bush Administration has chosen a path on middle ground, trying to deny detainees the rights they would enjoy under the Geneva Conventions if they were legitimate participants, while simultaneously affording them the basic rights that all humans should expect. The Bush Administration has endeavoured to walk the fine line between maximum security and the protection of basic human rights. Unfortunately, they have been criticized, almost always without basis, by gutless Euroweenies, the Useless Nations, various "human rights" organizations (read: mostly terrorist appeasers, enablers, and supporters), political opponents, and the mainstream media. As far as public relations go, the Bush Administration is between a rock and a hard place, because as long as they prosecute a war that many uneducated commentators and pundits consider to be "elective" and "unnecessary", there is nothing they can do right.
Well, Congress has made the jobs of the Bush Administration, the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, and the intelligence community both easier and more difficult, all at the same time. Sponsored by maverick Arizona Senator John McCain, once a prisoner of war himself, the bill would put specific limitations on the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody, regardless of location.
Fox News
CNN
BBC
Here are some of my thoughts on the subject.
First and foremost, it's worth acknowledging that the Geneva Conventions are dead, and they've been dead since right after World War II; in fact, given the way that the Japanese treated their POW's during World War II, it may have been dead even before that. The only nations that actually participate in it are precisely the nations that have very little chance of fighting each other. Part of the goal behind the Geneva Conventions was to give everyone the knowledge that if they were captured, they would be treated humanely. The theory was that people wouldn't fight quite so hard, or wouldn't make an effort to fight to the death if they knew they had hope of fair treatment and an eventual release. All one needs to do is watch video footage of Nick Berg's last moments in this life to know that we can pretty much shit-can that entire idea.
Even if the Geneva Conventions were still worth the paper they're printed on, they still don't apply to the folks we're fighting. Yes, there were Taleban "soldiers", but with rights come responsibilities. The rights one can expect from the Geneva Conventions come only if they fight in accordance with its precepts; that means that one must wear a uniform, belong to a chain of command, and have some degree of personal accountability, among other things, if they want to enjoy the benefits. No uniform? No chain of command? Then you shouldn't pick up that rifle or RPG and start shooting, because you're not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
And what are those protections and rights? Many of the people whining the loudest about what these terrorists are entitled to don't realize just what the feds would have to provide if they were going strictly by the Geneva Conventions. For example, did you know that we would have to provide the equivalent of a Marine private's pay to every single Gitmo detainee? And that's being stingy on the basis of their total lack of a coherent chain of command; the actual language requires basic pay commensurate with what someone of their rank would receive in your military. That's right, Geneva would entitle Gitmo detainees to taxpayer money for payroll. It would require us to give them uniforms and allow them to establish a heirarchy amongst themselves, among other things. I'd have no problem doing this with German soldiers in World War II, or Spanish soldiers in the Spanish-American War. I have a big problem providing such perks for Ahmed Six-Pack, who wears no uniform, has no chain of command, uses hollow point rounds and booby traps when he can get them, and will make sure that the last words I hear are him cussing me in Pashtu for getting blood on his best tunic while he cuts off my head with a rusty bayonet.
So where does that leave us? Well, although I'm unsure of Senator McCain's objectivity in sponsoring this legislation, I think that the Bush Administration, the Department of Defense, and the intel community can be helped with a clear delineation of what's good to go, what's not. My fear is that a bunch of senators and congressmen will, as usual, screw the whole thing up; but in theory, I'm not opposed to this kind of measure; of course, I also think that things have been spelled out well enough already. When you've got standing orders about just how a copy of the Quran can and can't be handled, and what methods of interrogation can and can't be implemented, I think things are specific enough; from there, it's not a matter of clarification, it's a matter of enforcement. Insofar as this legislation codifies the existing regulations, I see no problem with it; unfortunately, with back-stabbing Machiavellian hacks like Senators Kerry, Durbin, Kennedy, Clinton, Boxer, and Feinstein, and Congressmen Pelosi and Rangel, we can't really be sure of anything. Particularly when Senator Kerry sold out his own brothers-in-arms by lying under oath in front of a congressional committee, and Senator Durbin accused our current military of being Nazis and Soviets, any bill they sign off on without question that pertains to the treatment of enemy detainees should be subject to a great deal of scrutiny.
If a Republican Guardsman got captured in uniform, fighting legitimately, he's got definite rights. If he got captured in civilian clothes, "surrendering" in an ambush, he's got pretty much none of the specific rights of the Geneva Conventions. It's important that people understand this. The same goes for most Taleban militiamen and all al Qaeda (and miscellaneous terrorist group) personnel.
We're already doing too much to tie the hands of those who are, in one way or another, on the front line of a war that may be more crucial to the survival of civilization than World War II was. President Bush has done what he could, but he can only offer so much supervision. The truth is that the actual "abuse", most of which can't be substantiated at all, is relatively minor, and really doesn't exist as an institutional standard operating procedure; claims that Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush are responsible and accountable for the violations committed at the very basest level of the military pecking order are baseless and absurd.
Bottom line? Let's codify what can and can't be done, so that when we legitimately deny legal representation, pay, military uniforms, and such to terrorists, it's abundantly clear that it's completely legal. We've been doing it on the fly for four years now, we may as well make it official and erase all doubts... Even so, be ready for the Senate and House to completely bungle it up and make a world of problems for our personnel.
NOTE: Abu Ghraib doesn't fall under this topic, contrary to the belief of partisan liberals and other uninformed people. The victims of Abu Ghraib were criminals, not enemy combatants or prisoners of war. Also, the perpetrators of those crimes have been punished, because they blatantly violated American and international law. Any discussion of the above post should not mention Abu Ghraib at all, because they're two different issues.
This ambiguity and uncertainty has lead to a number of incidents in which the treatment of detainees raised questions regarding the legality and ethics of our methodology. In plain English, it's getting tough to tell what's okay, and what's not okay. The Bush Administration has chosen a path on middle ground, trying to deny detainees the rights they would enjoy under the Geneva Conventions if they were legitimate participants, while simultaneously affording them the basic rights that all humans should expect. The Bush Administration has endeavoured to walk the fine line between maximum security and the protection of basic human rights. Unfortunately, they have been criticized, almost always without basis, by gutless Euroweenies, the Useless Nations, various "human rights" organizations (read: mostly terrorist appeasers, enablers, and supporters), political opponents, and the mainstream media. As far as public relations go, the Bush Administration is between a rock and a hard place, because as long as they prosecute a war that many uneducated commentators and pundits consider to be "elective" and "unnecessary", there is nothing they can do right.
Well, Congress has made the jobs of the Bush Administration, the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, and the intelligence community both easier and more difficult, all at the same time. Sponsored by maverick Arizona Senator John McCain, once a prisoner of war himself, the bill would put specific limitations on the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody, regardless of location.
Here are some of my thoughts on the subject.
First and foremost, it's worth acknowledging that the Geneva Conventions are dead, and they've been dead since right after World War II; in fact, given the way that the Japanese treated their POW's during World War II, it may have been dead even before that. The only nations that actually participate in it are precisely the nations that have very little chance of fighting each other. Part of the goal behind the Geneva Conventions was to give everyone the knowledge that if they were captured, they would be treated humanely. The theory was that people wouldn't fight quite so hard, or wouldn't make an effort to fight to the death if they knew they had hope of fair treatment and an eventual release. All one needs to do is watch video footage of Nick Berg's last moments in this life to know that we can pretty much shit-can that entire idea.
Even if the Geneva Conventions were still worth the paper they're printed on, they still don't apply to the folks we're fighting. Yes, there were Taleban "soldiers", but with rights come responsibilities. The rights one can expect from the Geneva Conventions come only if they fight in accordance with its precepts; that means that one must wear a uniform, belong to a chain of command, and have some degree of personal accountability, among other things, if they want to enjoy the benefits. No uniform? No chain of command? Then you shouldn't pick up that rifle or RPG and start shooting, because you're not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
And what are those protections and rights? Many of the people whining the loudest about what these terrorists are entitled to don't realize just what the feds would have to provide if they were going strictly by the Geneva Conventions. For example, did you know that we would have to provide the equivalent of a Marine private's pay to every single Gitmo detainee? And that's being stingy on the basis of their total lack of a coherent chain of command; the actual language requires basic pay commensurate with what someone of their rank would receive in your military. That's right, Geneva would entitle Gitmo detainees to taxpayer money for payroll. It would require us to give them uniforms and allow them to establish a heirarchy amongst themselves, among other things. I'd have no problem doing this with German soldiers in World War II, or Spanish soldiers in the Spanish-American War. I have a big problem providing such perks for Ahmed Six-Pack, who wears no uniform, has no chain of command, uses hollow point rounds and booby traps when he can get them, and will make sure that the last words I hear are him cussing me in Pashtu for getting blood on his best tunic while he cuts off my head with a rusty bayonet.
So where does that leave us? Well, although I'm unsure of Senator McCain's objectivity in sponsoring this legislation, I think that the Bush Administration, the Department of Defense, and the intel community can be helped with a clear delineation of what's good to go, what's not. My fear is that a bunch of senators and congressmen will, as usual, screw the whole thing up; but in theory, I'm not opposed to this kind of measure; of course, I also think that things have been spelled out well enough already. When you've got standing orders about just how a copy of the Quran can and can't be handled, and what methods of interrogation can and can't be implemented, I think things are specific enough; from there, it's not a matter of clarification, it's a matter of enforcement. Insofar as this legislation codifies the existing regulations, I see no problem with it; unfortunately, with back-stabbing Machiavellian hacks like Senators Kerry, Durbin, Kennedy, Clinton, Boxer, and Feinstein, and Congressmen Pelosi and Rangel, we can't really be sure of anything. Particularly when Senator Kerry sold out his own brothers-in-arms by lying under oath in front of a congressional committee, and Senator Durbin accused our current military of being Nazis and Soviets, any bill they sign off on without question that pertains to the treatment of enemy detainees should be subject to a great deal of scrutiny.
If a Republican Guardsman got captured in uniform, fighting legitimately, he's got definite rights. If he got captured in civilian clothes, "surrendering" in an ambush, he's got pretty much none of the specific rights of the Geneva Conventions. It's important that people understand this. The same goes for most Taleban militiamen and all al Qaeda (and miscellaneous terrorist group) personnel.
We're already doing too much to tie the hands of those who are, in one way or another, on the front line of a war that may be more crucial to the survival of civilization than World War II was. President Bush has done what he could, but he can only offer so much supervision. The truth is that the actual "abuse", most of which can't be substantiated at all, is relatively minor, and really doesn't exist as an institutional standard operating procedure; claims that Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush are responsible and accountable for the violations committed at the very basest level of the military pecking order are baseless and absurd.
Bottom line? Let's codify what can and can't be done, so that when we legitimately deny legal representation, pay, military uniforms, and such to terrorists, it's abundantly clear that it's completely legal. We've been doing it on the fly for four years now, we may as well make it official and erase all doubts... Even so, be ready for the Senate and House to completely bungle it up and make a world of problems for our personnel.
NOTE: Abu Ghraib doesn't fall under this topic, contrary to the belief of partisan liberals and other uninformed people. The victims of Abu Ghraib were criminals, not enemy combatants or prisoners of war. Also, the perpetrators of those crimes have been punished, because they blatantly violated American and international law. Any discussion of the above post should not mention Abu Ghraib at all, because they're two different issues.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home