I have battled to understand the logic in your first paragraph Ted. As I said earlier, if there is the prospect of innocents being swept up in this mess, then that is surely a very powerful reason NOT to simply detain all prisoners without some form of legal determination.

The tenet of your whole post is that the possible detention of a few innocents is trivial in the greater arena of war. Maybe so, generally speaking. But it is certainly not trivial for a country that prides itself on upholding democratic values. Guantánamo Bay has become a powerful symbol of injustice and abuse in the US administration’s 'war on terror'. It continues to do them enormous damage worldwide. There is nothing trivial about it. In fact it has become one of the most significant issues in the whole conflict since 9/11.

“But the US military maintain a system of review that has resulted in the release of detainees.”

Really? By all indications, releases to date have got very little to do with individual guilt or innocence.

“I would hope that any innocents would be discovered as such and set free.”

Well! You do want to see some sort of determination of innocence or guilt afterall. Thank goodness for that. So surely the way to do it would be through proper legal process…. and sooner rather than later…. and certainly not an absurd 4 or 5 years after they have been dumped in that hole.

We can have no faith at that the authorities aren’t detaining people that they think are innocent, or that some of those now released weren’t held for an extra year or two after it became clear that they were innocent.

“war is a messy, imperfect business.” Yes, but neither this nor anything you have written should be used as an excuse for interminable incarceration, or for some of the foul treatment dished out in that place

Ludwig:

You state "if there is the prospect of innocents being swept up in this mess, then that is surely a very powerful reason NOT to simply detain all prisoners without some form of legal determination."

Wrong.

The first priority of soldiers in the field to defeat the enemy. And they accomplish this by killing and capturing their foes in numbers large enough to carry the day. The hurly burly reality of the battlefield means that this process cannot be conducted with the clinical precision worthy of a civilian courtroom. It is inevitable that, despite the best efforts of the most moral military, some non-combatants will be killed and some innocents will be incarcerated. Anyone who is deemed to be even a potential threat will find himself with hands tied behind his back with plasticuffs.

For a variety of reasons, the US military has no interest in incarcerating hapless bystanders. So a weeding out process takes place during which intel officers try to figure out who the bad guys really are. But when dealing with a terrorist organisation that hides behind the skirts of the civilian population, this is a difficult task. But once again, the primary objective of the combat forces is not to ensure the procedural protections of a civilian courtroom. Rather, their interest is to ensure that their people won't be shot or blown up. It is a much rougher standard that is mandated by the much less forgiving environment of combat.

The fact is I don't need any "excuse" for interminable incarceration. Despite the Hamdan ruling's major flaws, the Supremes explicitly recognized the legality of detaining enemy combatants until the conclusion of hostilities. That's what nations do to their captured enemies during wartime. And this is war.

If you don't want to end up in Gitmo, don't volunteer to join bin Laden's holy war. And that is precisely what David Hicks did. He danced to the jihadist tune, and now he must pay the piper. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

It seems to me Ted that you lump incarceration far removed from the battlefront with battlefield activities in an inseparable manner. But they are very different things.

Of course the battlefront is essentially lawless. But that does not mean that there has to be a lack of determination of culpability of prisoners captured therein, when they are incarcerated in an entirely different environment.

How can you say that my statement: “if there is the prospect of innocents being swept up in this mess, then that is surely a very powerful reason NOT to simply detain all prisoners without some form of legal determination" is wrong?

You concede that: “It is inevitable that….some innocents will be incarcerated”.

But then: “The fact is I don't need any "excuse" for interminable incarceration”. And you go to call them all enemy combatants….despite your concession that there could well be innocents amongst them.

You say: “So a weeding out process takes place during which intel officers try to figure out who the bad guys really are.” Does it? Are you sure, or are you just assuming that it does, or perhaps it is just wishful thinking.

And then you end up with; “Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.” You have fallen back into the mode of ‘everyone who does the time must have committed the crime’, or ‘they’re in Guantanamo, therefore they must be guilty’

You seem to be presenting a mixed message. You show some consideration of the prospect of innocents being incarcerated……but then you fall back on the hardline overview that doesn’t consider innocents or mitigating circumstances.

Ludwig

I have been following this thread with some interest and commend you on responding to Ted lapkin with such patience and perseverance.

As I interpret Ted's opinions, he believes that different rules apply in situations of war. If this view was generally accepted then how can people be tried for war crimes after the battles have ended?

For us to evolve as a civilised species we must be held accountable for our actions in a reasonable and timely manner. The detainees at Guantanamo have not been treated in either a reasonable or expedient way.

I notice how Ted fudges around the question of innocents being caught up in such circumstances. I believe that his hatred of those he believes guilty exceeds reason and empathy. He has already declared Hicks as guilty prior to a fair trial. Hicks has been given worse treatment than civilian rapists or murderers - just for being a bit of a dill.

As a woman who has experienced rape I would rather Hicks be released than any rapist ever. I don't understand why people like Ted exhibit far more antipathy towards people like Hicks than they do to criminals who HAVE been tried and found guilty.

For the cruel-minded, haters-of-democratic-high-ideals folk, like Leigh, and those who think all USA conservatives are malicious, war-mongering, undemocratic bullies please read the following quote from Melvin Laird, Secretary of Defense from 1969 to 1973, Counselor to the President for Domestic Affairs from 1973 to 1974, and a Member of the House of Representatives from 1952 to 1969.

"For me, the alleged prison scandals reported to have occurred in Irag, in Afganistan, and at Guantaninamo Bay have been a disturbing reminder of the mistreatment of our own POWs by North Vietnam.
The conditions in our current prison camps are nowhere near as horrific as they were at the "Hanoi Hilton," but that is no reason to pat ourselves on the back. The minute we begin to deport prisoners to other nations where they can legally tortured, when we hold people without charges or trial, when we move prisoners around to avoid the prying inspections of the Red Cross, when prisoners die inexpicably on our watch, we are on a slippery slope to the inhumanity that we deplore. In Vietnam, I made sure we always took the high ground with regard to the treatment of enemy prisoners. I opened our prison camps wide to international inspectors, so that we could could demand the same from Hanoi. In Irag, there are no POWs being held in camps by insurgents. There are only murder victims whose decapitated bodies are left for us to find. But that does not give us license to be brutal in return."

What were US soldiers doing on foreign soil in the first place? Hmmm.

9/11 was just an excuse. If Hicks had been protecting the tank from the Russians, he'd be Bush's best example of a freedom fighter. It is all a load rubbish.

I have a lot of respect for the Americans whose values are rock solid and hold to the high ground.

Frank:

Thanks for your kind words, our disagreements notwithstanding.

Ludwig:

The logic of your Gitmo argument would seem to be that we should not incarcerate anyone in a system where there is any possibility of error. But your line of reasoning could easily be applied to the criminal justice system as well.

I am absolutely 100% certain that there are innocent people who have been wrongfully imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. Like any other human enterprise, our judicial system is fallible because the people who run it are inherently imperfect. But society has determined that the importance of protecting its law abiding citzenry from the depredations of criminals is more important than the inevitability of a few innocents being unjustly punished.

My argument is that this self-same principle that we all accept in regard to our regular criminal justice system, applies with redoubled force during times of war. Because the scope of wartime danger is much more severe, then the measures that we must adopt to protect ourselves must be that much more draconian.

So unless you are willing to spring the likes of Ivan Millat from prison, I don't think that your argument survives strict logical scrutiny.

Scout:

You obviously are unaware of my views on criminal justice. Let's just say that if I were a judge, I'd be known by the cognomen of "Maximum Ted." I despise jihadists and rapists in almost equal measure.

But if I were you I wouldn't be so quick to yearn for David Hicks release. He volunteered to fight on behalf of a cause that relegates women to 5th class status at best. If Hicks had his druthers, you'd be barefoot, pregnant and in a burka. You could forget about any sort of career. You'd be subject to honour killing at the slightest suspicion of any sexual impropriety or rebellion against patriarchal authority.

Think Afghanistan under the Taliban - the movement on whose behalf he took up arms.