#10 I'm going to have to say I halfway agree with Aris here.
I say halfway because the left here has used allegations of torture and recorded instances of nonsanctioned torture by US troops (that would have never come to light if the army had given in to the blackmail and dropped the prosecution of the troops involved) to basically push for the idea that captured combatants must fall into one of only two categories: either they are prisoners of war accorded all the protections of the Geneva Convention, or they're criminals deserving of a trial in the same "Court-TV" distorted system of "if the glove don't fit you must acquit," while much of the evidence that would be used in their trial is of a classified nature, would put sources at risk, et cetera.
I am also of the opinion that the above legal analysis happens to be wrong. With few exceptions having to do with the opening stages of an invasion (I believe it's the first three days or so) by a foreign power, _according to the geneva conventions_, then they are unlawful combatants.
Now unlawful combatants _do_ have rights. They have a right to a trial at a military tribunal, and they have a right to representation during this trial. And if found guilty there must be at least a six _month_ delay between the finding and the execution of their sentence, which is usually death.
NOW... if you want to make a case for not executing them... you could. I think the case for such, and for holding until the end of hostilities (with the caveat that communication be much more limited than is normally the case with POW's, given the nature of modern terrorism) is probably much stronger for Joe Insurgent from some town in Iraq than for some "insurgent" from Yemen who gets caught planting a roadside bomb in Anbar. (The former does get more leeway under the conventions than the latter, although you may want to consult with a real JAG lawyer, which I am not).
OTTH, from my point of view, reviewing if these guys are under indictment already in their home countries and handing them over if they are is to me not in our interests.
I do NOT think that the unnamed middle eastern countries the unlawful combatants are remanded to are exactly truthful to the US about what information they obtain during their interrogation sessions.
Take, for instance, the spate of bombings in the Sinai over the past couple years. The "official" explanation is that they're all the work of Bedouin extremists, but the bombings mainly target foreign tourist groups (European and Israeli) that the Bedouin in particular have little history of animosity towards, and the Bedouin don't have very much power in mainstream Egyptian society, BUT MEANWHILE there exist terrorist groups in Egypt that are more urban in character that do have animosity towards those groups, (The Islamic Brotherhood, for example, which was the antecedent group to Al Qaeda itself, involved in previous attacks, and was even involved in the first WTC attack) and do have a history of trying to blow up tourists.
If they're not telling the truth about that what makes you think they'll be telling the intelligence agencies the truth about interrogations? |
The head of MI5 has submitted evidence to the House of Lords indicating that her agents are prepared to act on intelligence obtained under torture in the fight against terrorism. In a seven-page statement to the law lords, Eliza Manningham-Buller said experience showed that material received from foreign authorities as a result of what she called "detainee reporting" had "proved to be very valuable in disrupting terrorist activity".