US Legislature’s Focus is Too Narrow on Terrorism Trials
The September 28, 2006, New York Times posits that “Congress took major steps…toward establishing a new system for interrogating and trying terror suspects as the House approved legislation sought by President Bush and the Senate defeated efforts to alter the measure.” Unfortunately, the majority of our Legislators and other government leaders are looking at the issue through an overly focused lens.
As far as the Global War on Terror is concerned, it is vitally important that any judicial steps taken with terror suspects and detainees are strictly in accord with our traditional constitutional principles and ideals. The only way to truly defeat terrorism is to eliminate the oppression and neglect endured by the people of the world who are subsequently driven to support extremist beliefs and actions.
Only the radical extremists benefit from violations of our constitutional principles and the Geneva Conventions. It allows them to claim truthfully that the self-described US liberators are actually oppressing people and treating them differently than the US would have its own people treated. This clearly works against US credibility and the credibility of democracy in general, and interferes with alliance building while arguably driving supporters into the ranks of the enemy.
We should support and applaud the efforts of Legislators like John McCain (R-AZ), who knows what oppression and torture are first hand. His eloquent position is worth quoting at length as he points out that torture and inhumane treatment, “…not only offend our values as Americans, but undermine our war effort, because abuse of prisoners harms – not helps – us in the war on terror. First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop. Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy – if not in this war, then in the next. And third, prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in the war of ideas, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can’t let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.”
Our success in the Global War on Terror is directly affected by our treatment of detainees, prisoners, and innocent bystanders. We are in a political competition with the extremists of the world and the constituents we are competing for are judging our merits by watching our every action.
In the Times article, Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) is quoted as saying, “We are dealing with the enemy in war, not defendants in our criminal justice system…In time of war it is not practical to apply the same rules of evidence that we apply in civil trials or courts martial for our troops.”
It is interesting to note that 43 retired generals and admirals have felt compelled by their moral outrage to challenge President Bush's proposed legislation on interrogating terrorist suspects.
Many subject matter experts in counterinsurgency would also beg to differ with the Bush Administration. They would even argue that never is it more important to uphold the principles of democracy, justice, and the Geneva Conventions than when dealing with an insurgency.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has labeled our current and proposed treatment of detainees and prisoners as “un-American, unconstitutional, and contrary to American interests…”
He couldn’t be more right.
Some policy makers claim that anyone who doesn’t agree with the Bush Administration’s view, that is, anyone who agrees that we should provide just and humane treatment for enemy prisoners of war—followed by reasonable and fair trials, is giving into the enemy and potentially increasing the terrorist threat.
They couldn’t be more wrong.
Our Legislators on both sides of the isle must rethink what the end state of the Global War on Terror should be. It should be an end state in which the rest of the world—especially the oppressed and neglected, view the United States as the beacon of justice that we claim. These people should be flocking to our side, and not just to our borders, and certainly not to the ranks of our enemies. However, in order to do that we must redefine our global strategy and adjust the tools we use accordingly.
We must remember that our decisions affect an increasingly globalized constituency. Unlike the coming US mid-term elections, every constituent we lose in the socio-political war on terror becomes a potential supporter of the brutal enemy we face, and that is exactly what puts our troops in harm’s way and jeopardizes victory in the war on terror.
As far as the Global War on Terror is concerned, it is vitally important that any judicial steps taken with terror suspects and detainees are strictly in accord with our traditional constitutional principles and ideals. The only way to truly defeat terrorism is to eliminate the oppression and neglect endured by the people of the world who are subsequently driven to support extremist beliefs and actions.
Only the radical extremists benefit from violations of our constitutional principles and the Geneva Conventions. It allows them to claim truthfully that the self-described US liberators are actually oppressing people and treating them differently than the US would have its own people treated. This clearly works against US credibility and the credibility of democracy in general, and interferes with alliance building while arguably driving supporters into the ranks of the enemy.
We should support and applaud the efforts of Legislators like John McCain (R-AZ), who knows what oppression and torture are first hand. His eloquent position is worth quoting at length as he points out that torture and inhumane treatment, “…not only offend our values as Americans, but undermine our war effort, because abuse of prisoners harms – not helps – us in the war on terror. First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop. Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy – if not in this war, then in the next. And third, prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in the war of ideas, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can’t let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.”
Our success in the Global War on Terror is directly affected by our treatment of detainees, prisoners, and innocent bystanders. We are in a political competition with the extremists of the world and the constituents we are competing for are judging our merits by watching our every action.
In the Times article, Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) is quoted as saying, “We are dealing with the enemy in war, not defendants in our criminal justice system…In time of war it is not practical to apply the same rules of evidence that we apply in civil trials or courts martial for our troops.”
It is interesting to note that 43 retired generals and admirals have felt compelled by their moral outrage to challenge President Bush's proposed legislation on interrogating terrorist suspects.
Many subject matter experts in counterinsurgency would also beg to differ with the Bush Administration. They would even argue that never is it more important to uphold the principles of democracy, justice, and the Geneva Conventions than when dealing with an insurgency.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has labeled our current and proposed treatment of detainees and prisoners as “un-American, unconstitutional, and contrary to American interests…”
He couldn’t be more right.
Some policy makers claim that anyone who doesn’t agree with the Bush Administration’s view, that is, anyone who agrees that we should provide just and humane treatment for enemy prisoners of war—followed by reasonable and fair trials, is giving into the enemy and potentially increasing the terrorist threat.
They couldn’t be more wrong.
Our Legislators on both sides of the isle must rethink what the end state of the Global War on Terror should be. It should be an end state in which the rest of the world—especially the oppressed and neglected, view the United States as the beacon of justice that we claim. These people should be flocking to our side, and not just to our borders, and certainly not to the ranks of our enemies. However, in order to do that we must redefine our global strategy and adjust the tools we use accordingly.
We must remember that our decisions affect an increasingly globalized constituency. Unlike the coming US mid-term elections, every constituent we lose in the socio-political war on terror becomes a potential supporter of the brutal enemy we face, and that is exactly what puts our troops in harm’s way and jeopardizes victory in the war on terror.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home