It'd be a crime to forget
Guantanamo. Most of the time its continued existence is a sort of low-level hum of outrage lurking behind other thoughts about the War on Terror. However, articles such as this are a reminder that this prison is an embarrassment to the West.
posted by Peter at 13:44
3 Comments:
If the allegations about the conduct of the prison guards are true, then the treatment is an embarrassment.
But I don't see what's so embarrassing about the existence of the prison itself. The lawyer in the article makes much of the lack of criminal charges, but that begs the most important questions of whether there ought to be charges and what those might be. Possible cases of mistaken identity notwithstanding, how do you charge enemy combatants? With what? Under what law? Who then has jurisdiction?
The normal practice is to hold enemy combatants without charges until the conclusion of hostilities to prevent their return to battle. That rather recent determination replaced the practice of executing captors or making them into slaves. I grant the nature of this new conflict complicates the normal procedure, but I don't think that means we just turn enemies loose.
I do worry that if our soldiers have good reasons to believe the men they capture on the battlefield will be released to fight again, then the temptation to deny quarter and execute enemies there and then will be too great.
captives, not captors... oops
Well said.
Post a Comment
<< Home