interesting perspective by ralph peters on our treatment of terrorists. the overall idea is that we should kill them in battle instead of capturing them. it makes a lot of sense. excerpt here.
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there’s no way to dispose of them.Killing terrorists during a conflict isn’t barbaric or immoral – or even illegal. We’ve imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven’t been stymied by others, but by ourselves.
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans – but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies – beyond the pale of law.
i’ve never understood the inclination to give terrorists the same rights as prisoners of war. the rules of engagement have changed. we can’t apply the same rules in this case. not only that, but as peters points out, the enemy we face does not fit the description of prisoners of war laid out in the geneva conventions. i’m not an expert in international law, but i do think that modification of this and similar treaties is necessary to deal with the current threat we are facing with terrorists and those affliated with terrorists.
i’m not suggesting that there should be no guidelines for terrorist treatment. there should be a clear idea of what is acceptable and what is not in interrogation of enemy combatants, terrorists, or legitimate prisoners of war. we just can’t get into this politically correct mentality where we don’t take the threat to our country and to other countries seriously. we are getting to the point where we are looking to international law to determine what the united states is allowed to do.
this bothers me. the increasing dependence on international law to determine the actions of the united states, a sovereign nation, is a disturbing trend. the responsibility of the united states government should first be to its citizens, and its primary duty is to ensure america’s safety and security. if the UN or the EU or any foreign body makes treaties or laws that threaten to take away our ability to defend our country from our enemies, the united states shouldn’t be obligated to sign on to any such treaties. i’m not sure what is so hard to accept about such a proposition.
we can set guidelines for interrogation, but we also must keep in mind the nature of the enemy the world faces today. we may need to modify existing treaties and our current laws to effectively deal with the terrorist threat. we just can’t allow those who are confirmed to be terrorists back into iraq and afghanistan to cause more chaos. it’s hard enough for us to win in those two countries as the situation stands right now.
Technorati Tags: terrorism, interrogation, geneva conventions
It amazes me that granting terrorists geneva convention protections is even part of the dialogue during the global war on terror. It just goes to show how many stupid people there are in the world.
To be eligible, combatants must be part of an uniformed, organized army. Combatants must abide by the rules of war and must not target civilians.
Terrorists meet none of these qualifications.
With regard to Guantanamo Bay, had SCOTUS’ ruling on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld come five years ago, and the interrogation techniques been so stringent, would we have been able to extract information from these detainees? No. Would we be going on five years without another terrorist attack here in America? Doubt it.
Peters point is excellent. Kill the terrorists on the battefield. Don’t take the chance that you’ll capture anyone alive. Shoot to kill and get it over with. No mercy. I blogged about it @ R.F.L., so check it out.
I share your trepidation about conjoining American law with international law. But I think you and I know what the future holds, my dear, so it is more than a trend.
Shelby Steele has a theory about white guilt being the reason that America doesn’t fight wars to win. We try to be all politically correct, avoiding civilian casualties to our own detriment, showing ‘restraint,’ while trying to win ‘hearts and minds,’ instead of just killing the bad guys with overwhelming force.
It’s a great read. I’ll email you a link.
Not stupid people. Stupid liberals. LOL. The terrorists have changed the rules. We have to have a policy that fits the nature of the enemy. I think Bush understands this.
Even so, I think you are right that we haven’t used the level of force necessary to wipe out the enemy decisively. I hope that changes, because I don’t know how long that the American people will support staying the course in Iraq if we don’t finish the job pretty soon.
I don’t know about “white guilt” being the problem here. I think it’s just political correctness, which is insidious enough by itself. It’s a interesting theory though. I’ll take a look at the link.