Exchange of prisoners?
The recent explosives-lobbing between Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon has got me thinking about the rules of war. Specifically, under what conditions do you consider your foes to be enemy soldiers, to be shot on sight in combat, but treated honorably as prisoners of war; or alternately, criminals, to be captured alive without harm to local civilians, and given a fair trial before any verdict or punishment, but not entitled to anything like equal status with your own cops. Imagine the mafia taking a couple policemen hostage and then demanding a "prisoner exchange" for convicted dons and hitmen held in prison. They'd be laughed at, and rightly so.
It's possible that neither category, guerrila soldier or criminal, adequately covers modern international terrorists. We may need a new set of rules of engagement and rules for treatment. It occurs to me that the Bush administration is trying to do this, in a horribly secretive and therefore unaccountable way. We need an open discussion on what ethics apply, and how we balance the human rights of our enemies with those of bystanders and our own people.
It's possible that neither category, guerrila soldier or criminal, adequately covers modern international terrorists. We may need a new set of rules of engagement and rules for treatment. It occurs to me that the Bush administration is trying to do this, in a horribly secretive and therefore unaccountable way. We need an open discussion on what ethics apply, and how we balance the human rights of our enemies with those of bystanders and our own people.