Let's Read the Law

The sineman has written extensively on the subject of detainees, their rights, and prosecution in a post titled Constitution Bushwhacked.




He writes that the legislation (as he understands it) does the following:

It establishes military commissions to try the so-called “enemy combatants,” based on evidence that can be obtained without search warrants and that does not have to be revealed to the person charged in order to be rebutted.

And:

It eliminates the right of habeus corpus so people can be imprisoned indefinitely without charge with no recourse to any court and not knowing, even, the reason that they are being held.

First of all, you may want to read the legislation for yourself. The sineman neglects to point out that the legislation explicitly applies to what it defines as unlawful combatants only. That definition is in 100% compliance with International Law.

I wrote about this extensively a couple of weeks ago. Let me be clear, I do not want to "torture" people. My writing is an exercise in research and critical thinking that seeks to facilitate decision making with respect to the issue as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction. In one of my very first posts, I advocated public trials for terrorist detainess.

First, in The Spirit and The Letter, I write about the specifics of the Geneva Convention as I see them. It is my opinion that some (many? most? all?) of the people we're discussing are not protected by the conventions (as POWs or otherwise), in part, due to their failure to properly distinguish themselves from civilians and, are indeed guilty of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and should be tried on those as well.

In the same piece, I recognize that many people will not accept a legal "loophole" as some will call it as justification for harsh interrogation. With that in mind, I briefly examine the origins of the Geneva Conventions and address the issue of The Spirit of the Law (as the title suggests).

In another writing, I discuss the very real possibility that other very unpopular programs may very well preclude the need for harsh interrogation.

The sineman also writes:

It was made retroactive to a convenient time to avoid complication with the scandals of our earlier treatment of detainees

Why is the legislation made retroactive? To avoid scandal or so that it will apply to detainees currently in custody? If it wasn't made retroactive....it would only apply to detainess captured after the bill was passed.

There are other critical sections of the law that are omitted. For example:

§ 948s. Service of charges
The trial counsel assigned to a case before a military commission
under this chapter shall cause to be served upon the accused
and military defense counsel a copy of the charges upon which
trial is to be had. Such charges shall be served in English and,
if appropriate, in another language that the accused understands.
Such service shall be made sufficiently in advance of trial to prepare
a defense.

If I list them all, nobody will read this. You need to read the document for yourself.

I guess I could sum my thinking up like this: In previous conflicts our predecessors sacrificed in significant ways to achieve victory. I see that in this case, we have a choice, we can sacrifice some of our rights, or some of our sense of holding the moral high ground. In reality, I don't think it's that bad. I think we need to hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Keep in mind the nature of sacrifices others have made throughout history...Which would you choose?