Saturday, June 26, 2004
Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and All That
The last few days have seen another explosion of news about American imprisonment and torture policy since 9/11. The questions are not going to go away. And it important for our ability to operate successfully in the world in the future. And this is important for all mankind. Let us look again briefly at the issues.
First, we have to cut out attempts to work out a way that the rules do not apply to us, at least when individuals are "safely" in our control. We are in the world and the world's opinion counts, for them and for us. It may be that torture does not pay in terms of information gained. But whether it does or not, we must bite the bullet and ignore the gains that bending the rules might bring. Note that above I said once persons are in our control, such as in a detention or a prison camp. The situation on the battlefield itself is somewhat different for two reasons. First, this is where it is said in Iraq that the most useful intelligence is gained. Second, the people involved on our side are servicemen fighting for their lives. In this situation, threatening a person who has just surrendered to find out where arms are cached or where his fellows are is probably an inescapable part of human nature. Very often in this situation the surrendering person is simply killed and he knows this. We can define such as response by our soldiers as murder and reduce the incidence of such killing, but perhaps we cannot and should not stop all intimidation in this situation.
Second, we need to rethink the conditions under which persons can be held for long periods. We seem to think we are fighting a "war" against terrorists. Yet we do not have a definition of when such a war might end. This has led us to institute what are in effect indeterminate sentences without trial. Ultimately, neither world nor American opinion will accept this. On the other hand, perhaps half of those held at Guantanamo Bay would go back to trying to kill Americans if they were set free. They also may see themselves as involved in an indeterminate war. This implies two things. First, we must develop procedures that can more surely and more quickly determine who is in this dangerous group and who is not. If not, then they should be released back to the place in which they were captured. If they have been incarcerated for any length of time, then they should be compensated for this time.
The problem then becomes what to do with those who appear to be "dangerous". They should be tried in American courts (not special courts) as conspirators or worse. They should be given a chance to prove their innocence (read "peacefulness"). If proven guilty then they should be sentenced to a period of time long enough to separate their lives from the battlefield as we define it in this strange "war".
The last few days have seen another explosion of news about American imprisonment and torture policy since 9/11. The questions are not going to go away. And it important for our ability to operate successfully in the world in the future. And this is important for all mankind. Let us look again briefly at the issues.
First, we have to cut out attempts to work out a way that the rules do not apply to us, at least when individuals are "safely" in our control. We are in the world and the world's opinion counts, for them and for us. It may be that torture does not pay in terms of information gained. But whether it does or not, we must bite the bullet and ignore the gains that bending the rules might bring. Note that above I said once persons are in our control, such as in a detention or a prison camp. The situation on the battlefield itself is somewhat different for two reasons. First, this is where it is said in Iraq that the most useful intelligence is gained. Second, the people involved on our side are servicemen fighting for their lives. In this situation, threatening a person who has just surrendered to find out where arms are cached or where his fellows are is probably an inescapable part of human nature. Very often in this situation the surrendering person is simply killed and he knows this. We can define such as response by our soldiers as murder and reduce the incidence of such killing, but perhaps we cannot and should not stop all intimidation in this situation.
Second, we need to rethink the conditions under which persons can be held for long periods. We seem to think we are fighting a "war" against terrorists. Yet we do not have a definition of when such a war might end. This has led us to institute what are in effect indeterminate sentences without trial. Ultimately, neither world nor American opinion will accept this. On the other hand, perhaps half of those held at Guantanamo Bay would go back to trying to kill Americans if they were set free. They also may see themselves as involved in an indeterminate war. This implies two things. First, we must develop procedures that can more surely and more quickly determine who is in this dangerous group and who is not. If not, then they should be released back to the place in which they were captured. If they have been incarcerated for any length of time, then they should be compensated for this time.
The problem then becomes what to do with those who appear to be "dangerous". They should be tried in American courts (not special courts) as conspirators or worse. They should be given a chance to prove their innocence (read "peacefulness"). If proven guilty then they should be sentenced to a period of time long enough to separate their lives from the battlefield as we define it in this strange "war".
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
