Mona Charen's article is probably the best I've seen to date on the matter of military tribunals.
And she's right up front with the brutal reality of the current situation:
"If asked to choose between trying a terrorist and killing him outright on the battlefield, I'm for killing. And most of the administration probably agrees. Still, we must consider what to do with those who surrender, and President Bush has provided the answer: Try them in military tribunals."
I mean, let's face some facts here. War is brutal. War is the last resort that nations should take when diplomatic solutions have failed. War is going "throat to throat" with your enemy until one of you is killed. And when you're dealing with folks trained to possess suicidal fervor for their cause, you'd better make sure you kill them and every one who thinks like them.
And certain types of warfare are more brutal than others. This is certainly the case when a nation or non-governmental terrorist group launches a attack with deliberately targets the other nation's civilian population.
We didn't ask for this war. There were no official "negotiations" on the part of Bin Laden, or his patrons, to achieve their goals through diplomacy. No. They hijacked 4 of our civilian aircraft and used them in an attempt to kill 50,000 more at the WTC.
So we had war thrust upon us. And as in WWII, the enemy has lost (or have been rendered ineffective). We make the rules. We decide how much "humanity" we're prepared to show an enemy who possesses utter contempt for our lives. An enemy who would kill every last one of us if they had the opportunity. An enemy who would extend NO MERCY to Americans, were they to win.
So forgive me if I call this a "no-brainer", but for those of us who believe we should exercise restraint, and extend our civil rights over such an enemy is utter naivete. This is an enemy who would never grant equal civil right to American "infidels". An enemy that stood to execute two US citizens for alledgedly evangelizing Chrisitianity.
Grant them access to our civil court system, where we have have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they are guilty of a certain crime?? Hell no... There crime is being on the wrong side. A side which applauded their attack upon innocent civilians.
We have no obligation to extend them any courtesy of our civil process. In fact, since they are a terrorist organization, with no international recognition as a nation/state, there could be considered as not enjoying the protections of the Geneva convention.
The only law that war with such an ideology recognizes, is the law of the jungle. Terror versus Terror. Kill or Be Killed.
Hawk |
