Friday, May 22, 2009

The "Rights" of Terrorists

http://premium.edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/28/ltm.03.html

Are the Terrorists held at Gitmo entitled even to be treated as Prisoners of War (let alone given the protection of the constitution)? Read this 2002 interview by an informed liberal:

Z: The president will be meeting with his National Security team this morning to talk about, well, the apparent discord here. Give us a preview of what this discussion might entail. When you have Secretary of State Powell saying, "Let's abide by the Geneva Convention," and then folks on the other side, we are told, saying "Wait a minute. If we hold them to that kind of status, then all they'll be required to give us is their name, rank and file number."

H: Yes, it seems to me this is an argument that is really consequential. One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people. It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.

And yet, I understand what Secretary Powell is concerned about, and that is we're going to be fighting this war with people who are special forces, not people who are generally in uniform. And if unfortunately they somehow become detained, we would want them to be treated in an appropriate way consistent with the Geneva Convention.

Z: So is the secretary of state walking a fine line here legally? He is not asking that the United States declare these men as prisoners of war right now. He's just saying let's abide by the Geneva Convention in the meantime.

H: Yes, and I think in a lot of ways that makes sense. I think they clearly do not fit within the prescriptions of the Geneva Convention. You have to remember that after World War II, as these protocols were being developed, there seemed to be widespread agreement that members of the French Resistance would not be considered prisoners of war if they had been captured. That being the case, it's hard for me to see how members of al Qaeda could be considered prisoners of war. And yet, I understand Secretary Powell's concerns. We want to make sure that our forces, if captured in this or some other conflict, are treated in a humane way. And I think ultimately that's really the decisive factor here. How are people, who are in our custody, going to be treated? And those in Europe and other places who are concerned about the treatment of al Qaeda members should come to Camp X-ray and see how the people are, in fact, being treated.

Z is Paula Zahn of CNN. H is Eric Holder, now Obama’s Attorney General. So the guy who is now AG thought the terrorists were not even entitled to be considered POWs, let alone as persons protected by the US Constitution. And the only reason to treat them well is in the vague hope our troops will be treated well by them, if captured by them. Maybe that they will use a sharp knife in the beheading.

5 comments:

  1. how much less trouble a battlefield execution would have been....not to mention the money saved.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If Mohamed Atta had survived the attack, and we had captured him, I would have wanted him hung. The issue before his tribunal would have been, as it should be for all our prisoners, "Did this person plan, support, or wage terror against the United States of America or her allies?" If the outcome is yes, and all possible information has been gathered, then it's on to the virgins.

    Look at how we treated the Nazis in 1946 and plan accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you will be glad to know that we are now fighting REBELS. According to the Star Bullutin in the great land of Hawaii. The home of the Islam Day. Read the article.REBELS MY ASS!!!!!!
    http://www.starbulletin.com/news/hawaiinews/20090521_rebels_attack_isle_marine_mercy_mission.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. You have the right to remain silent, here, I'll help (bang!). No serial #, no rank, not a soldier, just a punk. No Geneva convention for punks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Frederick U. Nelson USAF Vet. WW 2 & KoreaMay 29, 2009 at 10:35 AM

    The Muslims hold no American POWs after 6+ years of small unit infantry actions and the last time this happened to us was on the Little Bighorn .
    This enemy systematically murders all it's 'infidel' prisoners and all we care about is how the Gitmo detainees are being treated and nobody seems to know , or care about what is really happening to our troops as POWs.

    ReplyDelete