P.O.W.s or Criminals-- It's That Simple
In an about-face, Smirk has decided that the Geneva Conventions do apply after all to the Guantanamo detainees (and other military detainees currently in U.S. custody as well). This decision came in the wake of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which reached the Supreme Court, whose decision was handed down and publicized at the end of June.
Personally, I think it's about time. You want the world to follow how the U.S. does things, you want to model "your" democracy for others to emulate? Then you need to be a shining example. Holding people indefinitely without charges goes against our long-established legal precendents and the strictures of our system. Not all of the Guantanamo detainees needed to be held-- and those of them that are definitely terrorists did not get their day in court.
Why coddle "terrorists," you say? There's no need to coddle them. Either they are prisoners-of-war under the Geneva conventions and long-standing international military tradition or they are terrorists. If they are terrorists, they are criminals-- at least that's how I see it. What do you do with criminals? You try them, you convict them, you sentence them. You don't hold them for months and years at a time without charging them. What do you do with prisoners-of-war? You treat them according to Geneva, and you deport/repatriate them as soon as you can.
I'm glad this has happened-- the decision in Hamdan demonstrates that the President and the gummint is never completely above the law. Additionally, I really wouldn't want this to come back and bite us in the ass someday-- some future point in time when some other country decides that because we've ignored the Geneva Conventions, it's okay for them to do the same. It could very well be that American soldiers are the ones at that point who are held for years without rights, without being charged.
The next big question is, how will Congress deal with how to process detainees, and try those that need to answer for whatever crimes they may have committed? I'm not sure, but Salim Hamdan's lawyer, Neal Katyal, wrote an article for the online journal Slate, in which he argues that military courts-martial would work just fine. I'm not 100% versed in military law, and it could be that Congress will come up with something else that works just fine, but as Katyal points out, why re-invent the wheel?
Regardless, it looks like the Guantanamo folks are finally heading towards having their day in court.
* * *
I'd like to take a moment here to reflect upon and honor the Indian victims of the bombings in Mumbai (Bombay). Regardless of who ultimately is found responsible for this, and regardless of the origins of the conflict(s) that precipitated such acts of violence, it is always a tragedy when innocents die. My heart is with the people of India, and with the people of Mumbai.
Personally, I think it's about time. You want the world to follow how the U.S. does things, you want to model "your" democracy for others to emulate? Then you need to be a shining example. Holding people indefinitely without charges goes against our long-established legal precendents and the strictures of our system. Not all of the Guantanamo detainees needed to be held-- and those of them that are definitely terrorists did not get their day in court.
Why coddle "terrorists," you say? There's no need to coddle them. Either they are prisoners-of-war under the Geneva conventions and long-standing international military tradition or they are terrorists. If they are terrorists, they are criminals-- at least that's how I see it. What do you do with criminals? You try them, you convict them, you sentence them. You don't hold them for months and years at a time without charging them. What do you do with prisoners-of-war? You treat them according to Geneva, and you deport/repatriate them as soon as you can.
I'm glad this has happened-- the decision in Hamdan demonstrates that the President and the gummint is never completely above the law. Additionally, I really wouldn't want this to come back and bite us in the ass someday-- some future point in time when some other country decides that because we've ignored the Geneva Conventions, it's okay for them to do the same. It could very well be that American soldiers are the ones at that point who are held for years without rights, without being charged.
The next big question is, how will Congress deal with how to process detainees, and try those that need to answer for whatever crimes they may have committed? I'm not sure, but Salim Hamdan's lawyer, Neal Katyal, wrote an article for the online journal Slate, in which he argues that military courts-martial would work just fine. I'm not 100% versed in military law, and it could be that Congress will come up with something else that works just fine, but as Katyal points out, why re-invent the wheel?
Regardless, it looks like the Guantanamo folks are finally heading towards having their day in court.
* * *
I'd like to take a moment here to reflect upon and honor the Indian victims of the bombings in Mumbai (Bombay). Regardless of who ultimately is found responsible for this, and regardless of the origins of the conflict(s) that precipitated such acts of violence, it is always a tragedy when innocents die. My heart is with the people of India, and with the people of Mumbai.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 10:43 PM
<< Home