'An ant is what it is, and a grasshopper is what it is, and Christmas sir is a humbug!'
-Scrooge
When I teach students about a disease, I always start with a definition. I do not see how something can be debated without understanding what it is. Yet many emotionally manipulative statements are made in social and political discussions without data, let alone definitions. This is certainly the case with respect to terrorist trials. Various cases are cited and emotions run high. Here are a few definitions and the cases commonly cited.
Society has laws and mechanisms for violation of law, called crimes. War is a formal state, defined by the Geneva Convention, in which uniformed combatants engage in conflict. Virtually all acts of war would be crimes if committed in the civilian arena, but there are specific acts which are war crimes, most of these defined either in the Geneva Convention or in case law afterwards at the Nuremberg Trials. The Geneva Convention explicitly does NOT cover non-uniformed combatants. Deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime, but the summary execution of spies is not. Execution of uniformed combatants who surrender is a war crime, thus the conviction of Nazis for the 'Commando Order', ordering uniformed commandos operating behind German lines to be shot regardless of surrender or uniform.
In WW2, there were two cases of german spies operating in the US. One was a ring of 33 spies operating in civilian clothes to pass information. They were arrested as civilian criminals and sentenced to a total of 300 years in prison. The second was a group of 8 men in two units landed on Ponte Vedra Beach in Florida, whose mission was to destroy power and communication targets. They were not in uniform, but were tried as spies in military tribunals because of the military nature of their operations, and sentenced to death.
The shoe bomber. Richard Reid, is an American citizen who attempted to commit an act of terrorism. He has been tried as an American citizen, convicted, and is in supermax prison. The 1993 attacks on the WTC were treated as a civilian incident of terrorism by foreign nationals. As an act of civilian crime, not a military act, the perpetrators were tried in civilian court, convicted and are in prison.
Organized terrorism represents a category not covered in the Geneva Convention, and none of the above precedents directly applies to the attackers and planners of the WTC attacks. The attack was planned abroad by a group committed to state destruction, not local terrorism. The perpetrators were foreign nationals, without uniforms, the act on US soil.
The Bush administration asserted, rightly, that the Geneva Convention does not apply to these individuals if the act is one of war. The administration further asserted this was not a civilian crime, since it was part of a broader effort to destroy the US, again rightly. What is missing is a definition of what the perpetrators are, as opposed to what they are not. Absent a declaration of what they are, a definition, there is argument about whether they should be tried in a military or civilian court. Bush has already stated we are in a war situation, tantamount to a formal state of war (a nicety dispensed with since 1941).
The Bush administration did not technically have to go before either congress or the World Court to get an opinion about what these men are. As commander in chief in a war situation, Bush may assert their status, since they are clearly not covered by the Geneva Convention. It would have been much easier to operate with congressional backing, but not necessary.
The closest equivalent to this situation is the German incursion in Florida in 1942. While the bombers were not sent by a government, they are part of an international level attempt to destroy the US. Further, the deliberate targeting of a civilian structure and population is without question a war crime, which is tried by a military tribunal.
All the above argues in favor of a military tribunal, not a trial in US civilian courts.
Besides the fact that history, precedent and facts support a military tribunal, it is remarkably bad politics to try and give these individuals access to the rights and privileges of a country they are working to destroy. Abu Graib and other events have no bearing on this. We will not look like monsters in the eyes of the world for trying these individuals in a military setting; rather, we look like fools for dithering about it so long, and seriously considering giving these individuals rights under our laws.
In '10 North Frederick', by John O'Hara, a man deliberately seeks out another man who has insulted his wife. He finds him in a volunteer fire house, and beats him unconscious in front of the other firemen. He then says 'let him tell you why I did it'. The other men did not interfere, thinking that when a sober man goes so far out of his way to beat another man, there must be a reason.
I do not see how any country can seriously object to the exercise of our authority in trying and punishing the perpetrators of a violent act in a military tribunal.
Ted
-Scrooge
When I teach students about a disease, I always start with a definition. I do not see how something can be debated without understanding what it is. Yet many emotionally manipulative statements are made in social and political discussions without data, let alone definitions. This is certainly the case with respect to terrorist trials. Various cases are cited and emotions run high. Here are a few definitions and the cases commonly cited.
Society has laws and mechanisms for violation of law, called crimes. War is a formal state, defined by the Geneva Convention, in which uniformed combatants engage in conflict. Virtually all acts of war would be crimes if committed in the civilian arena, but there are specific acts which are war crimes, most of these defined either in the Geneva Convention or in case law afterwards at the Nuremberg Trials. The Geneva Convention explicitly does NOT cover non-uniformed combatants. Deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime, but the summary execution of spies is not. Execution of uniformed combatants who surrender is a war crime, thus the conviction of Nazis for the 'Commando Order', ordering uniformed commandos operating behind German lines to be shot regardless of surrender or uniform.
In WW2, there were two cases of german spies operating in the US. One was a ring of 33 spies operating in civilian clothes to pass information. They were arrested as civilian criminals and sentenced to a total of 300 years in prison. The second was a group of 8 men in two units landed on Ponte Vedra Beach in Florida, whose mission was to destroy power and communication targets. They were not in uniform, but were tried as spies in military tribunals because of the military nature of their operations, and sentenced to death.
The shoe bomber. Richard Reid, is an American citizen who attempted to commit an act of terrorism. He has been tried as an American citizen, convicted, and is in supermax prison. The 1993 attacks on the WTC were treated as a civilian incident of terrorism by foreign nationals. As an act of civilian crime, not a military act, the perpetrators were tried in civilian court, convicted and are in prison.
Organized terrorism represents a category not covered in the Geneva Convention, and none of the above precedents directly applies to the attackers and planners of the WTC attacks. The attack was planned abroad by a group committed to state destruction, not local terrorism. The perpetrators were foreign nationals, without uniforms, the act on US soil.
The Bush administration asserted, rightly, that the Geneva Convention does not apply to these individuals if the act is one of war. The administration further asserted this was not a civilian crime, since it was part of a broader effort to destroy the US, again rightly. What is missing is a definition of what the perpetrators are, as opposed to what they are not. Absent a declaration of what they are, a definition, there is argument about whether they should be tried in a military or civilian court. Bush has already stated we are in a war situation, tantamount to a formal state of war (a nicety dispensed with since 1941).
The Bush administration did not technically have to go before either congress or the World Court to get an opinion about what these men are. As commander in chief in a war situation, Bush may assert their status, since they are clearly not covered by the Geneva Convention. It would have been much easier to operate with congressional backing, but not necessary.
The closest equivalent to this situation is the German incursion in Florida in 1942. While the bombers were not sent by a government, they are part of an international level attempt to destroy the US. Further, the deliberate targeting of a civilian structure and population is without question a war crime, which is tried by a military tribunal.
All the above argues in favor of a military tribunal, not a trial in US civilian courts.
Besides the fact that history, precedent and facts support a military tribunal, it is remarkably bad politics to try and give these individuals access to the rights and privileges of a country they are working to destroy. Abu Graib and other events have no bearing on this. We will not look like monsters in the eyes of the world for trying these individuals in a military setting; rather, we look like fools for dithering about it so long, and seriously considering giving these individuals rights under our laws.
In '10 North Frederick', by John O'Hara, a man deliberately seeks out another man who has insulted his wife. He finds him in a volunteer fire house, and beats him unconscious in front of the other firemen. He then says 'let him tell you why I did it'. The other men did not interfere, thinking that when a sober man goes so far out of his way to beat another man, there must be a reason.
I do not see how any country can seriously object to the exercise of our authority in trying and punishing the perpetrators of a violent act in a military tribunal.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment