Lawfare remains a terrible Idea, but not too terrible for the Obama Administration

[rodney_g_graves]

One could hardly ask for a worse example of 9/10 thinking, nor a more understated headline:

Not Right
The Obama administration grants Miranda rights to detainees in Afghanistan.
by Stephen F. Hayes
06/10/2009 2:05:00 PM
The Weekly Standard

When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. “I’ll talk to

Comments

[jetfx]

As if the previous administration's treatment of detainees was a great success. Nothing about the "War on Terror" is so radically different that the normal rule of law has to be suspended in order to deal with these people. You're aware that what has happened is anathema to the current justice system, but you're okay with such a precedent as letting the government prosecute people outside of the justice system, based entirely on the government's word that these people are dangerous. Doesn't that scare you a bit? It scares me more than the low threat of terrorism.

As a matter of fact, it was

[rodney_g_graves]

Major plots were discovered and disrupted.

Enemy combatants were held under the Customary Laws of Warfare and subjected to the provisions of those laws regarding their status as illegal combatants. In addition, as long as hostilities continue between the NGA's and the United States, their captured combatants were allowed to be detained (thus removed from the battlefield).

The Federal Courts and the protections they offer are for Untied States Persons (Citizens and legal residents). The terrorists do not deserve such protections and our courts would be best served by keeping the war on terror completely separate under the universally applicable (wherever and whenever hostilities are taking place, to include the funding, planning, and preperation for such hostilities) Customary Laws of Warfare.

Here endeth the lesson.

Re: As a matter of fact, it was

[jetfx]

"Here endeth the lesson."

Hardly. For one thing, the "Customary Laws of Warfare" have been codified by the Geneva Conventions, which the US is party to, and Part 1, Article 5 of the 4th Geneva Convention states that all "persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be." None of the treaties contain the term "illegal combatants", as the 3rd Geneva Convention covers POWs and the 4th covers civilians, so no detainee is outside the law. On top of this, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, a document binding on all members of the UN, states in article 5 that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," in article 9 that "No one shall be

As a matter of fact, it was

[rodney_g_graves]

and remains, a great success.

You err when you state that the Geneva Conventions codify the Customary Laws of Warfare. The Geneva Conventions are a formalization of the Customary Laws of Warfare as they pertain to Prisoners of War. They are thus a subset of the Customary Laws of Warfare, but by no means a codification of the whole of the Customary Laws of Warfare.

You should also note that Geneva IV pertains to non-combatants. Terrorists are indeed combatants, and thus fall under Geneva III.

Further note Article 4 of Geneva IV which reads:

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.
As combatants operating on behalf of NGO's (Non-Governmental Organizations, viz al Qaeda, the Taleban, et al) they represent and are protected by no state, and thus would not be protected by Geneva IV even were they not combatants