Holding people in secret, incognito, and indefinitely by claiming that they enemies of the state sets a very bad precedent.
Possibly... But when it comes to uncovering their connections to other terrorists, without those people being made aware that they have been "fingered" also is a vital part of disassembling such networks.
Granted, I'm not very keen on any use of physical torture, but I do believe that when people act outside of international law (Geneva convention) but as part of a non-state political entity (Al-Qaeda), we find ourselves in a grey area between war between beliggerents and organized political criminal activities.
And it's that very grey area that has permitted the Bush administration's "legal eagles" to make such determinations.
Btw, POWs, while not held in secret (or not supposed to be) can be held indefinitely while the war is still underway.
And terrorist organizations are not known for surrendering, so this war will likely go on for a long time.
Where we probably both agree is that US citizens participating in such terrorist activities should be subjected to the US legal process, tried, convicted, and then sentenced.
But I prefer they be tried by military tribunal, and not a jury trial, since they perceived themselves as combatants against the US.
Hawk |
