[lit-ideas] Re: 3 SUICIDES AT GUANTANAMO
- From: Eric Yost <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:52:04 -0400
Findlaw correspondent Joanne Mariner (deputy director of the
Americas division of Human Rights Watch) asks, "With
rational people now discussing the possibility of terrorists
detonating nuclear bombs, is it so terrible to keep
suspected terrorists locked up?"
____
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has indicated that
some of the detainees, even if acquitted in criminal
proceedings, may remain in detention "for the duration of
the conflict." When asked to specify when, in his view, this
would be, he replied, "when we feel that there are not
effective global terrorist networks functioning in the world."
Secretary Rumsfeld's statements have at least an arguable
basis in the laws of war. According to the Geneva
Conventions, captured combatants may be detained without
charges until the end of active hostilities. The
justification for this rule is that a government involved in
an armed conflict has an obvious interest in ensuring that
enemy soldiers are kept away from combat for the duration of
the conflict.
In an ordinary war, it is fairly easy to determine when
hostilities have ended. This current conflict, however, as
least as framed by the Pentagon, is no ordinary war. There
has been enormous debate over when the war began - was it
with the attacks on New York and Washington, or with the
commencement of the U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan? -
and there is equal controversy regarding when it can be
deemed to have ended.
In other words, at what point must the "war on terrorism" be
understood simply as a rhetorical formula, like the "war on
drugs" (or, back in the idealistic past, the "war on
poverty")? And an even more preliminary question is whether
terrorism, even in its most extreme manifestations, should
be recognized as a form of war.
As Rumsfeld's comments suggest, the Bush administration's
views on this issue are fairly unequivocal. U.S. officials
claim that the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade
Center were acts of war; that the war on terrorism is a real
war, not a rhetorical device; and, apparently, that the
Guantanamo detainees may be held without trial until the war
on terrorism is over.
Human nature being what it is, terrorism is probably an
inevitable characteristic of the modern world. Developments
in technology, communications, and the media make terrorism
easier and more attractive than ever before. While the
United States may succeed in stamping out particular
terrorist groups, and preventing particular terrorist acts,
it is hard to imagine that the United States will ever
succeed in eradicating terrorism per se.
Thus, as Georgetown Law Professor David Cole put it, to say
that we will hold the Guantanamo detainees until the war on
terrorism is over means that "we're going to keep them for
eternity because there are going to be terrorist
organizations as long as there is a common cold."
So the question is, given what is at stake, is eternity too
long? It must be acknowledged that the Bush administration's
readiness to resort to extreme measures such as indefinite
detention without trial is, to a great extent, a reflection
of the seriousness of the terrorist threat. With rational
people now discussing the possibility of terrorists
detonating nuclear bombs, is it so terrible to keep
suspected terrorists locked up?
full article at:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20020528.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
