Not PoWs, not simply criminals
Arguing that Guatamano has done the US much more harm than good. Meanwhile, a case of how al-Qaeda treats prisoners. There is a genuine dilemma here: the jihadis respect no conventions of war, yet are too organised to be regarded as mere criminals. The traditional position was either one wore a uniform and was treated according to the conventions of war. Or one didn’t, and was executed.
The position that folk who respect no conventions of war - indeed, indulge in extreme and systematic brutality - nevertheless are to be protected by such conventions undermines the convention system, because there is no penalty for not following them. No penalty for indulging in extreme and systematic brutality. Yet, apart from questions of basic morality, there clearly are corrosive effects in not putting moral limits on one’s own behaviour. And there is the further difficulty that people are often caught in sufficiently ambiguous circumstances that what they have individually done is not clear.
The jihadis are not prisoners of war in the full sense of “this is the benefit of following the rules” yet are not mere criminals either. They are criminal warriors. We refuse to follow the traditional pattern and cannot seem to agree on a new one. (Partly because many folk refuse to acknowledge there is any dilemma at all. Often because the only issue that appears to get them worked up is American sins: thereby evading whether - or even implicitly denying that - jihadis are full moral agents to be held responsible for their actions.)
The traditional pattern evolved for a reason. Developing a substitute is clearly a fraught process.
The position that folk who respect no conventions of war - indeed, indulge in extreme and systematic brutality - nevertheless are to be protected by such conventions undermines the convention system, because there is no penalty for not following them. No penalty for indulging in extreme and systematic brutality. Yet, apart from questions of basic morality, there clearly are corrosive effects in not putting moral limits on one’s own behaviour. And there is the further difficulty that people are often caught in sufficiently ambiguous circumstances that what they have individually done is not clear.
The jihadis are not prisoners of war in the full sense of “this is the benefit of following the rules” yet are not mere criminals either. They are criminal warriors. We refuse to follow the traditional pattern and cannot seem to agree on a new one. (Partly because many folk refuse to acknowledge there is any dilemma at all. Often because the only issue that appears to get them worked up is American sins: thereby evading whether - or even implicitly denying that - jihadis are full moral agents to be held responsible for their actions.)
The traditional pattern evolved for a reason. Developing a substitute is clearly a fraught process.