Guilty till proven innocent? Or is there some "collective guilt" presumption for everybody we don't like in Afghanistan,
Excuse me?? Do you really understand want you're saying, or the precedent you're trying to argue for establishing?
If these guys are legitimate combatants, they can be held, without bail, trial, or sentencing, until the "war" is declared "over".. That could be for years. Futhermore, possessing POW status does not protect them from war crimes charges, if found to have deliberately targeted non-combatants.
If they are illegitimate combatants, there is some discretion with regard to their status, namely that those who have not been found to have targeted civilians, could be given POW status, or set free, while the others who did could be tried as international war criminal.
I think we're doing the right thing in NOT trying to place some blanket status on them all. And we're certainly being generous in not (yet) turning them over to the Afghani people, who would likely put them to death (look at the conditions of those prisoners still held in Mazar-I-Sharif)..
I want to milk them for as much information as we can get from them, and if they cooperate sufficiently, if might lead to their release and/or deportation to their country of origin (where they will be dealt with by their own government).
Again... we should ALL be careful about "labeling" these thugs as legitimate combatants. For one, it creates some semblance of legitimacy for there extremist cause, and attacks against civilians. Secondly, it denies us any flexibility in how their final disposition is established.
And thirdly, but IMO, most importantly, we must use discretion in how quickly we're willing to acknowledge one group or another as legitimate combatants, as that can open a proverbial Pandora's Box, with regard to other groups trying to assert combatant status as the rationale for perpetrating their crimes.
I can see Ted Kazsynski demanding POW status for his eco-war against technology. The KKK claiming POW status for their war against Blacks and Jews.. The list just goes on and on. Or some serial killer claiming such a status by declaring that his murders were an act of way against society...
But that would be ludicrous.. There has to be some "fine line" that must be drawn, and logic dictates that if an organization seeks to primarily target civilians they must be denied legitimacy. Otherwise, the entire concept of trying to separate "rules of war", or war crimes, will be rendered moot. The result will be that there are no rules, and no standard of conduct that can be enforced.
But the bottom line is also that the winner makes the rules. And since this attack occurred on US soil, and predominantly targeted US citizens, I think it ridiculous for the US to kowtow to the Europeans, who have been playing footsie with terrorist for years (if only to avoid being targeted by them).
Hawk |
