Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Who Guards the Guardians? Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/who_guards_the_guardians#29801 Post contents: Even agents of bona fide governments with whom we are war do not get POW status if they do not follow the law of war, such as by not wearing uniforms, blending in with civilians, and the like. Al Qaeda's in double trouble because they do none of these things on which POW status depends, and they also are a non-state actor which is a prerequisite to lawful combatant status. This is why we tried and hanged the civilian-clothes-wearing Nazi saboteurs in WWII. This is why Nathan Hale was hanged by the British as a spy. POW protections are part of a broader attempt to make war less destructive by creating clear lines of demarcation of uniformed, lawful combatants and ordinary civilians. Combatants that try to have it both ways--wearing civilian clothes and also fighting as combatants--are accorded little protection under the law of war and rightly so. Their activities endanger ordinary civilians who one could reliably assume in times past were not also combatants. The law of war gives lawful combatants a privilege: their actions in war are not "murder" "theft" and the like under civilian law. They are privileged to take part in combat without being tried for murder. But the price for this privilege is adherence to the law of war, which al Qaeda makes no minimal attempt to do. It infamously decapitates its prisoners, including civilians like Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl. Their is also something a bit facile about all this hand-wringing. Either al Qaeda are lawful combatants against whom there should be no qualms about imprisoning until the end of hostilities. Or they are civilians guilty of murder, assault, theft and the like in connection with their combat activities in Afghanistan and elsewhere. It can't be both, but that's essentially what their defenders want. They want them to be given civilian rights to trial and status determination so they are not held, as POWs could be, for the duration of hostilites, but these same critics never say as civilians it's A-OK to try them all for attempted murder for shooting AK-47s at our troops and others in Afghanistan. I think the only consideration in all this should be U.S. interests and maximization of intelligence value. Once they're interrogated, they should be kept for the duration of hostilites or hanged at the discretion of the executive after bare minimal process. It's not like when you find an armed Arab in Afghanistan there's much doubt as to what he's up to and why he's there. Sent at: 2008 12 02