Saturday marked my own tenth anniversary in this happy Corner, with a posting arguing that al-Qaeda detainees should be classified as POWs. (Click here, and then scroll up for the pile-on from Jonah and Rich.) I don’t think subsequent events have invalidated my point. Our stubborn insistence on defining al-Qaeda and the Taliban and associated vermin as “unlawful enemy combatants” has caused us no end of political trouble, both domestically and abroad, making their long-term detention less likely. We’re already treating the detainees like Col. Hogan, with gilded Korans and halal kebabs, so let’s just call them prisoners of war and lock them up until militant Islam’s war against us is over. That would also make it politically more viable to try before military commissions those guilty of war crimes, like murdering toddlers in pizza parlors, and executing them. Likewise, when we parole some and they return to the fight and are captured, executing them for violating the terms of their parole would be more sustainable politically.
Our problem seems to be that we fear treating irregular fighters as soldiers will create a kind of moral equivalence between us and them, unlike uniformed soldiers fighting for a state. (The Israelis do the same thing, as did the Brits with the IRA.) But was Qaddafi’s army really more “honorable” or legitimate than its irregular opponents just because they wore uniforms? This whole distinction is based on an outmoded model of war. Small war is the main kind of conflict we’re going to be involved in for the foreseeable future. True, the Gulf war and the first phases of the Iraq and Afghan wars were conventional wars (barely so, in the case of Afghanistan), but most of our fighting has been against what we insist on calling unlawful combatants — in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia, Uganda, the pacification phases of Iraq and Afghanistan. Classifying as “soldiers” those combatants with some kind of organization and seeking some kind of political aims isn’t designed to make them feel good — it’s designed to make it easier for us to defeat them.
Ten years ago, I said you were wrong. Today, I say you're right. Call me a flip-flopper.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI understand your position (still), but I disagree. However, I would like you to understand that my position is that the ones that can offer useful intelligence should be held indefinitely as "unlawful enemy combatants" and the others should be executed by firing squad.
Just like pirates should be hung by the neck until dead, then disposed of at sea. It's all of a piece with the morality issue we're debating in the Paterno article on the front page - if we don't have the courage as a society to do what's right, we quickly devolve to doing what's required. And when we don't know what's required, we just... do nothing.
And soon our civilization ends. Not with a nuclear kaboom, but with an ugly whimper.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcellent post!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark,
The simple fact remains that there are Democrats and other assorted leftists in positions of power that shouldn't be trusted with the welfare of violent domestic criminals, let alone international terrorists. They don't play by our rules. They don't even believe in our rules. No, not the terrorists, the leftists is who I am talking about. There will be the same "political trouble" that you spoke of, only this time to end "Bush's undeclared war" and free the POWs. I don't trust their judgement and you shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Our problem seems to be that we fear treating irregular fighters as soldiers will create a kind of moral equivalence between us and them"
There is no 'seems' about it. When you declare someone a legal POW there are all sorts of laws of war that take effect. Mr Krikorian thinks that if we had declared these people POWs, we wouldn't have had all the political troubles. What is his evidence? He doesn't have any- just an implication that in his alternative universe, declaring these people POWs would have made the French, Amnesty International and the various other entities invested in the humiliation of Bush suddenly say he was A-Ok.
We do know that if the United States attempted interrogating a "POW" as opposed to an Unlawful Combatant, we would be in violation of International Law, to which the US is a signatory. POWs may not be put through interrogation- we are only allowed to detain them until the cessation of hostilities.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight you are, Overt.
The main reason to not confer POW status on these, well, let's call them Jihadist "irregulars", (other than the fact that they're not, technically speaking, POWs) is so that we can legally interrogate them.
But now, of course, that the Obama regime has unilaterally thrown away our interrogation capability, the question has sadly been rendered moot, and as long as we're lumbered with this regime Mr. Krikorian might be right.
However, despite what so many moaning minnies here amongst the NRO commentariat may think, I believe that we'll have a relatively sane and right-thinking administration back in place next year, who will reinstate serious interrogation by the Agency, and so therefore we should muddle through as we are until then.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat country are al Qaeda operatives the official army of? The USA does not even have to recognize the legitimacy of a government to treat its soldiers as EPWs. But al Qaeda is not a country, therefore its combatants are not soldiers, therefore we do not have to treat those taken prisoner as EPWs. Their closest equivalent in military law is the crew of Captain Kidd or Blackbeard. In ten years you have learned nothing. Please start now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOvert and Hendrik 6 are both correct. The fact that we are treating them like Hogan's Heroes instead of Mohammed's Murderers is indicative of our Judeo-Christian value system. Some see it as a weakness but it is really our strength.
I'm not as nice as some. I think we should take the middle road. Put them in the Gitmo prison as unlawful combatants for a defined period of time, say 1-year. Wring them out to dry for that year and get all the info they might have. Then, we release them. I personally vote for Antarctica but there might be an active volcano brewing somewhere that might be more appropriate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse