prisoners of an abstract war
May. 2nd, 2004 03:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kittenscribbleThe media's currently hyperventilating over the fine line between the executive and legislative branches of government. The question is this: Can the executive branch take prisoner an American citizen and deprive him of all legal rights? We're speaking specifically of such things as representation by attorney, of fair trial by a neutral party, of - basically - the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven.
The executive branch has this to say: the aforementioned American citizens were taken prisoner in a war against terrorism (terrorism's current faces being the Taliban, al-Qaeda, etc). This makes the captives "prisoners of war," and therefore ineligible for any of the delicate legal niceties that we citizens so blithely take for granted in happier times of peace. (Besides, they add smugly, Congress gave us this authority. With which I obviously disagree, but ah well, barn door, horses gone, etc.)
The crux of the matter is this: should a prisoner taken in a "war on terrorism" be treated in the same way as any prisoner of war?
Well, we currently have a "war on drugs." Should suspected dealers and junkies be taken prisoner and held indefinitely without access to trial or representation in the courts? Ponder that, and then think again about this terrorism business. It's a dangerous practice, holding citizens without needing to state a reason, or present proof of their guilt. They could be held, mute, for the rest of their lives.
The madness won't end, you see. There is no one with whom we are going to make peace, so that we can end the war. Even if bin Laden surrenders or is killed, does anybody think that his followers are going to meekly subside? Technically, we'll remain "at war" with these people unless we exterminate them, root and branch. And even after they're gone, the war won't be over.
We're going to be fighting this "war on terrorism" for the rest of the foreseeable future, just like our "war on drugs." We will be at war with terrorists for the rest of our existence. There will be no Treaty of Versailles, no Peace of Westphalia to point to and say, "look, it's all over now; the war's over and all the POWs can be set free."
We live in a new world, and the war is part of our lives. We shouldn't be allowed to call citizens POWs and deprive them of rights just because they're a "special case" -- they're getting less special by the day. If they committed an actual crime, then put them to trial in a neutral court and punish them accordingly, fairly.
It comes to this: our enemies are lawless, so let us set ourselves apart. Let us at least follow the rules that we have set for ourselves.
The executive branch has this to say: the aforementioned American citizens were taken prisoner in a war against terrorism (terrorism's current faces being the Taliban, al-Qaeda, etc). This makes the captives "prisoners of war," and therefore ineligible for any of the delicate legal niceties that we citizens so blithely take for granted in happier times of peace. (Besides, they add smugly, Congress gave us this authority. With which I obviously disagree, but ah well, barn door, horses gone, etc.)
The crux of the matter is this: should a prisoner taken in a "war on terrorism" be treated in the same way as any prisoner of war?
Well, we currently have a "war on drugs." Should suspected dealers and junkies be taken prisoner and held indefinitely without access to trial or representation in the courts? Ponder that, and then think again about this terrorism business. It's a dangerous practice, holding citizens without needing to state a reason, or present proof of their guilt. They could be held, mute, for the rest of their lives.
The madness won't end, you see. There is no one with whom we are going to make peace, so that we can end the war. Even if bin Laden surrenders or is killed, does anybody think that his followers are going to meekly subside? Technically, we'll remain "at war" with these people unless we exterminate them, root and branch. And even after they're gone, the war won't be over.
We're going to be fighting this "war on terrorism" for the rest of the foreseeable future, just like our "war on drugs." We will be at war with terrorists for the rest of our existence. There will be no Treaty of Versailles, no Peace of Westphalia to point to and say, "look, it's all over now; the war's over and all the POWs can be set free."
We live in a new world, and the war is part of our lives. We shouldn't be allowed to call citizens POWs and deprive them of rights just because they're a "special case" -- they're getting less special by the day. If they committed an actual crime, then put them to trial in a neutral court and punish them accordingly, fairly.
It comes to this: our enemies are lawless, so let us set ourselves apart. Let us at least follow the rules that we have set for ourselves.
