Edited by author 06-17-2004 08:41 AM
NTD,

You are incorrect in many ways.

1. "Considering the large number of people incarcerated in Iraq, I imagine there was quite a bit of doubt over their status." The US has said that the Iraqi prisoners *are* subject to the Geneva Conventions. So your premise is wrong. It is the al Qaeda and Taliban who are not. (I happen to believe that even many of the Iraqi combatants are illegal combatants under the law.) Watch your conflation of the Guantanamo prisoners and Iraqi prisoners. Further, your “imagining” that there was doubt as to the prisoners status carries no weight as evidence of such doubt.

2. "People who committ acts of violence and who aren't combatants are criminals and have the right to a fair trial by a regularly constituted court." Not so fast, friend. In war illegal combatants do *not* have this right that you outline. They are not criminals in the conventional sense of the word. They are not entitled by right to trial. Indeed, they may be shot on the spot. You are wrong as a matter of law. But are you setting up a straw man here? Do you really mean to say the prisoners are "not" combatants or that the US is holding common criminals without trial? If so, I am aware of no evidnece of this. Further, why would the GC apply to run-of-the-mill criminals?

3. "It doesn't give you the right to torture and abuse them." Another factual error. This is not US policy. The US condemns abuse and does not torture prisoners. And even the Abu Ghraib "abuses" by rogue prison guards were limited to humiliation and intimidation -- hardly "torture" except to the most frail of mind. See some of Saddam's torture tapes to witness the real thing. Why do you feel it's necessary to expand what happened in a few unsanctioned circumstances in order to indict the US?

4. "It is pretty obvious that the US has violated the Geneva conventions, but whether these violations were random and aberrant or systematic remains to be seen." No it's not so obvious. The US military investigated the allegations when they first arose and is dealing with it under their law. This is not a matter for you and the Geneva Conventions.

5. "[T]he point is they have to be subject to some kind of rule of law not left in a legal black hole ...." The Gitmo prisoners are not in a legal black hole, they are simply not subject to the GC. And they are being treated humanely. I again refer you to Saddam's tapes of torture, the Daniel Pearl tape, and the Nick Berg tape for a little perspective.

6. [US authorities] could have saved themselves from a lot of criticism by establishing some kind of legal framework to govern the holding of these people. " The authorities have done all this. Just because the US says the GC does not apply does not mean there is an absence of a "legal framework." Their conclusion was made *within* a legal framework.

7. "In the absence of any other laws, people look to the Geneva conventions, which are the closest thing." Are you serious? This is tantamount to saying, “In the absence of the applicability of this law, this law shall apply nevertheless.” Why on earth do you think the GC addresses illegal combatants? To fill up space on blank paper? Besides didn't you just say in a privious sentence that you agreed with me that these "quasi-terrorists," etc. should not be treated as ordinary soldiers? Try some consistency.

8. “You are hurting your own cause, which is our cause, which ultimately is western civilization.” So say you. I say we have an opportunity to gather useful intelligence. As far as “our cause being your cause” goes, ask Charles if he agrees.

Besides, I am willing to bet you are against the whole GWOT in the first place, so I doubt that this is “your cause.”