Login : Register Home : Tags

Guantanamo Bay

How terrorism became legal

Anglosphere

This week, in a landmark case, the US Supreme Court awarded terrorists extraordinary legal protection:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.

All across the world, liberals rejoiced. And that while this ruling is, of course, major insanity.

I'm very much in favour of some sort of legal framework for illegal combatants. But it is absurd that in a time of war, non-US citizens should get protection under US law. It is also absurd that terrorists should get protection under the Geneva conventions, even when said conventions explicitly exclude them. To me, extending the application of law outside of the intended scope is by no means correctly interpreting law. But then again, I am no statist nor a sympathiser of terrorists.

Pirate's Cove has a very nice summary of various responses.

Arjan on Gitmo legislation

Anglosphere

It's always nice to read words I agree with: it saves me a lot of time to formulate opinions and thoughts myself. Instead I can just add a hyperlink. On his ZachtEi, Arjan is damn right about Gitmo:

My position on Guantanamo Bay is well known: since the prisoners there don't fall under the protection of the Geneva convention, and habeas corpus doesn't apply, Congress should adopt laws which classify them as - well, as something other than nothing - and which guarantee some sort of due process. They've had four years to do so and I think it's about bloody time they got on with it.

I've pointed out the absence of Geneva protection myself, even quoting the darned thing. I didn't call for legislation at the time as my particular post was a defence of Bush and not Congress, but I totally agree with Arjan's position.

Mind you, he's still quite critical of so-called "innocent bystanders":

Yeah, I like to go hiking in dangerous, remote areas of the world too, especially when Al Qaeda training camps are within walking distance and America is about to start bombing the shit out of it. Napalm reminds me of the sunny sugar cane fields of Jamaica. Puh-leeze.

I have also heard apologists say something like this: Afghanistan is poor so people can't afford distinctive uniforms as required by Geneva, while when foreigners invade your country it is normal to have a first reaction in the form of shooting at them. I'm still curious where exactly missile launchers are cheaper than clothes. Perhaps in Paris, where the poorest of the poor can afford ten thousands of molotov cocktails a year, even at today's petrol prices.

© Copyright 1995-2008 Robert John Kaper. All rights reserved.

Tom has more friends but mine are prettier! (#1/1)