[lit-ideas] Re: Waterboarding Bodies Mattered


--- On Fri, 4/24/09, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Waterboarding Bodies Mattered
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, April 24, 2009, 9:37 PM





That certainly is one way to look at it. Another way is that 9/11 constituted 
an act of war by an international affiliation of combatants who, not 
representing any nation, were therefore not protected by any nation. Since it 
was an act of war, they were subject to capture by any means necessary.

*No doubt an attack by on organization that is either international or 
a-national created a speficic situation. However, the US reaction to it could 
have been different, and remains problematic. For one things, the 
interpretation of the attack as 'an act of war.' Wars have traditionally been 
fought between nation-states, or groups of states. It is not clear how you can 
have a war between a nation-state and a non-state organization. Also, if the 
attack is seen as an act of war, then I suppose that it could not be a 
terrorist attack, since attacks on population centres have been seen in World 
War II for example, by both sides. The captured attackers, or potential 
attackers, would then have to be treated as combatants and granted rights 
accordingly, as stipulated by Geneva conventions.
It seems to me that the US should have attempted to create (or improve) the 
pertinent legislation on international level, instead of treating the matter 
entirely within its own legal system, particularly if the attack is seen as an 
act of war rather than purely a criminal action.
 
O.K.

Other related posts: