Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I agree that military prisoners should be given the benefits of the Geneva Convention, though those benefits would be seriously limited to persons not actually serving a government and in uniform.
|
That's the rub, isn't it - if you say, I think correctly, "either domestic criminal law applies or the law of war/geneva conventions apply," when you apply the Geneva Conventions you discover that they expressly deny protections to terrorists, spies, and others not meeting certain criteria (including people serving in fighting forces that do not have clear lines of command and responsibility, and people serving in forces of gov'ts that do not themselves comply with the Geneva Conventions, fighters trying to blend into or hide in civilian populations, etc.). In which case, it is very hard to argue that the G has done anything wrong by dumping everyone in Guantanamo (the treatment at abu grahib is of course another matter). In fact, it is pretty consistent with the USG's treatment of spies and saboteurs captured during WWII, except this time we aren't executing them after military hearings.
If one decides one doesn't like that and domestic criminal law must apply, we can't take action against terrorists until an illegal act has been committed, and our ability to detect non-public precursor illegal acts is severely limited.
eta: Gatti - I dunno. That's why I'm asking. I agree a bright line would be nice, but is probably unrealistic. Where the line is almost certainly depends on how people at a given historical moment comparatively weight the risks of eviscerating contsitutional (or other) protections v. risking the safety and lives of our citizens for the sake of our principles. That balance, obviously, swings back and forth all the time, and perhaps that is the way it should be.
