What should we squishy human rights advocates do with the terrorists we catch? The Bush Admin policy of permanent detention is unnacceptable, for a number of reasons. Even worse, torture has been used in too many instances now.
You may be surprised to read that I agree with Dale Franks' ideas expressed here:
You know, It always amazes me that, practically every time one of us condemns the acts of torture that some of our people are apparently inflicting on Mideast terrorist types, someone's always quick to accuse us of going wobbly on the War on Terror.
[...]
Look, we've gotten ourselves into a situation where it appears that at least 28 people have died in our custody due to mistreatment. I object to that not because I think the terrorist prisoners are particularly deserving of our mercy. I object to it because it's a violation of the principles we're supposed to stand for. We're supposed to be the world's big defender of human rights. We're supposed to be a symbol of freedom and moral values that put us in opposition to the torturers, bombers and beheaders, not merely a somewhat more restrained version of them. Things like this do immense damage both to credibility and reputation.
[...]
My preferred method of dealing with these terror prisoners would be to get two captains and a major together as a tribunal, declare them to be unlawful combatants, and put them in front of a firing squad. Now, maybe, because we're nice guys, we could let them know that if any of them give us verifiable, useful information, then we'll commute their sentences, and won't shoot them. Otherwise, however, it's a blindfold and a last cigarette for the lot of 'em.The difference of course, is that doing so would be legal. It would be part of the accepted customs of warfare that have been generally agreed upon for over a century. Torturing or beating them to death, without even the convenient fiction of legality, is not.
You see, I don't particularly care whether these terrorists live or die. Actually, that's not true, I'd prefer them to die. But if we are going to take the responsibility of imprisoning or detaining them rather than propping them up before a military tribunal before bumping them off, then that means we willingly accept the obligation to treat them humanely as prisoners. We do not do so because they deserve any such considerations, but because it is our moral duty to do so.
The fact that the terrorists do not accept that moral responsibility is irrelevant. We are not responsible for what others do. We are only responsible for what we do, and our duty to live up to our responsibilities is in no mitigated by whether or not others live up to theirs.
I cut out large chunks with ellipses, so RTWT.
My only objection - and it's not a disqualifier - is that we have a difficult time telling the bad guys from the not-so-bad guys. We should take great pains to ensure we're prosecuting the right guys. But if this is a war, we should treat it like a war. The firing squad is something I suggested a few days a go at Zomby's place. The intelligence value of incarcerated terrorists dwindles with time, and unlike a conventional war, there isn't likely to be a time when we can declare a cease-fire and send all our prisoners home.
h/t to Robert Clayton Dean of Samizdata.
Posted by Walter at January 12, 2005 07:20 AM