<Had a 9-11 been factored in the treaties, it wouldn't have happened.>
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying a treaty outlawing preventive detention wouldn't have been signed by the U.S., if we had anticipated a 9/11-type attack? That's probably true, as all the treaties on the treatment of prisoners were designed for "conventional" type wars. Wars in which, at the end of the conflict, both sides have a nation to stand up for their rights. And, during the war, bargaining chips (the other nation's prisoners) to enforce compliance with the treaty. No need to "play nice" if there is nobody to enforce the rules.
Nevertheless, we did sign the treaty, and (unlike the ABM treaty) we haven't renounced it, so we are still bound by it. And we would be bound, if we had any respect for the rule of law.
What do you think the opinion of the U.S. would be, if Iran went into a third country, captured U.S. citizens, and decided to hold them indefinitely, saying that they had committed no crime, but (in the opinion of the Iranian government), they were a threat because they might commit hostile acts against Iran? |
