You should have been in charge of the "War on Drugs," the "War on Crime" or the "War against Poverty." Those "enemy combatants" who were drug involved, criminals or poor could have used a good dose of your brand of American justice.
Actually, I would agree with you on this... The war on drugs was (is) closely tied to governmental corruption, as well as terrorism (FARC, Sendero Luminoso, etc..)... I have no problem with targeting those politicians who lined their pockets with drug money, including our own..
However, corrupt American politicians, being US citizens, would have to be dealt with via our domestic criminal code. The same would be said with Criminal organizations and corrupt politicians who have sought to prolong the poverty of our people..
But the war on terrorism is being fought against non-state entities, Al-Qaeda being one of which. And so long as I am convinced that the countries in which they are seeking refuge or safe haven are currently engaged in using THEIR criminal or military resources to fight, capture, or kill them, then I will be relatively content to support their local efforts..
But when I see a state displaying intransigent behavior and an unwillingness to fight such extremist and militant groups, or the individuals and/or groups that are supporting and financing them, then I can only opine that that entire state has chosen to use these terrorists as a means to carry out a proxy war against the US.
Is there something wrong with that?
In a real war enemy combatants ARE entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.
Incorrect. They are only entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention IF, and ONLY IF, their own government is a signatory to that convention. And, if I'm not mistaken, the convention was deliberately written in that manner in order to convince as many nations as possible to have an incentive to sign it.
The Soviet Union was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention of 1929 during WWII. And consequently, only 18% of all Russian troops captured by Germany actually survived the war.
iocc.com
(in the paragraph heading: "Prosecuted Japanese Atrocities")
Yes, go ahead and try to justify torture, holding people without charge, without trial, without a hearing, with no opportunity to defend themselves and for as long as some dimly seen bureaucrat wants.
Y'know.. my view is that we have a SELF-IMPOSED obligation to generally act morally in how we handle detainees.
It's certainly not something that Islamic militants seem to reciprocate towards our forces, now is it?
And what motivation will they ever have to treat our forces properly, within the bounds of the Geneva convention, if we send the signal that their fighters will always be better treated than any US forces that fall into their hands??
That's why I prefer that the US maintain maximum flexibility to deal with terrorist detainees in whatever manner that is deemed necessary to ensure that US forces are protected, and when captured, treated decently.
I certainly am unwilling to give up our right to flexibility without receiving some guarantees in return.
Hawk |
