Falling into the terrorists' lawfare trap
Wesley Clark and Kal Raustalia fall hard for the terrorist as criminal trap and criticize the unlawful combatant label used by the administration. They could not be more wrong.
There are several false premises in their article. The first is the suggestion that we are honoring them as soldiers by doing so. Nothing could be further from the truth. If they were honorable soldiers they would not be unlawful combatants, they would be POWs and entitled to rights under the Geneva Conventions.
It is the courts that have decided to give these unlawful combatants Geneva Conventions rights that they are not entitled to.
If we follow the lawfare, terrorist as criminal, route we damage ourselves more than we damage the terrorist organization. We have to turnover our sources and methods of gathering evidence against them. We also have to give them Miranda warnings and lawyers who will thwart our ability to gather intelligence from the captured terrorist.
The only logical way to handle these people is to deem them unlawful combatants in a status review hearing then hold them for the duration of the conflict at places like Gitmo.
Going back to the failed Clinton administration approach to fighting terrorism is a recipe for more 9-11s.
James Taranto also takes on the authors case and finds it wanting. "The rhetorical argument can be dispensed with in a single rhetorical question: What do these guys think unlawful means?" Read the rest to see how he destroys the substantive argument.
There are several false premises in their article. The first is the suggestion that we are honoring them as soldiers by doing so. Nothing could be further from the truth. If they were honorable soldiers they would not be unlawful combatants, they would be POWs and entitled to rights under the Geneva Conventions.
It is the courts that have decided to give these unlawful combatants Geneva Conventions rights that they are not entitled to.
If we follow the lawfare, terrorist as criminal, route we damage ourselves more than we damage the terrorist organization. We have to turnover our sources and methods of gathering evidence against them. We also have to give them Miranda warnings and lawyers who will thwart our ability to gather intelligence from the captured terrorist.
The only logical way to handle these people is to deem them unlawful combatants in a status review hearing then hold them for the duration of the conflict at places like Gitmo.
Going back to the failed Clinton administration approach to fighting terrorism is a recipe for more 9-11s.
James Taranto also takes on the authors case and finds it wanting. "The rhetorical argument can be dispensed with in a single rhetorical question: What do these guys think unlawful means?" Read the rest to see how he destroys the substantive argument.
Comments
Post a Comment