As many of you know by now, the Senate passed a very important piece of legislation today that responds to the recent Supreme Court decision in Hamdan. This legislation allows the President to establish war tribunals to try alleged terrorist suspects held in military prisons. In addition, this bill, which passed 65-34, empowers the President to set the rules for how interrogation will be carried out. Here is a summary article from Bloomberg, and excerpt:
Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate joined the House in authorizing President George W. Bush to begin military war-crimes trials of suspected terrorists detained at the U.S. Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
By a 65-34 vote, the Senate approved legislation establishing military tribunals and empowering Bush to set guidelines for aggressively interrogating suspects without violating international prohibitions on prisoner abuse.
Once the House votes to accept technical changes made by the Senate, the measure will go to Bush for his signature. Military prosecutors have prepared war-crimes charges against 10 suspected terrorists seized since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
``We can tell the world at large'' that U.S. detention and interrogation policies ``are not only humane and just but will allow us to protect ourselves from a vicious enemy,'' said South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham. ``We are very close to that day coming.''
For good reason, this bill has strong supporters and equal opposition. After attending a recent debate between two scholars on opposite sides of this issue (George Washington Univeristy Law Professor's Gregory Maggs and Jonathan Turley), I noted several points on each side.
First off, the opposition to this bill argues several important points. Since 1789, the United States has been a world leader against torture. Many have began to question our dedication to human rights because of stories of poor treatment in Abu Ghraib and Guantamo Bay. Hamdan may have restored some of this credibility, but if the newly reinstated war tribunals are not given careful oversight and used responsibly, America could be labeled a torturing state. I am confident; however, that the integrity of America's leaders will not let this happen. Opponents of this legislation are strong in their beliefs as well, and are not afraid to say that they would give up life to maintain integrity.
I am on the opposite side of this opinion. As a support of the War on Terror, I have always felt that it is better to fight this war away from American soil, and do everything we can to protect the citizens of this country on our soil. From the debate, I noted several great arguments for this legislation.
Torture is obviously an unacceptable practice. However, defining torture is difficult. Some of the practices employed by our military have come under question, and the press has never let up on the issue frequently shaming our military and challenging their practices. This constant barrage has, as Professor Maggs put it, forced us to change our practices.
First of all, American soldiers have adapted their approach to taking prisoners. In fact, the change has been to not take prisoners when possible. This is the technique used by many European countries who take no prisoners, or if they do, they release them to local authorities. So instead of the US taking prisoners, we have begun killing them instead to avoid the scrutiny of our treatment of them. Here is an example from the Nashua Telegraph:
KABUL, Afghanistan - The U.S. military is taking as few prisoners as possible in its campaign against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, partly to forestall more complaints about its conduct after at least eight prisoners died in custody, an American commander said Monday.
Next, we have also started releasing more prisoners. Yet when we release them, where do they go? Well back to the ranks so they can again try to kill our soldiers and civilians. As far back as October, 2004, we had already seen 10 released prisoners return to the battlefield to engage our soldiers (Washington Post; Oct. 22, 2004). In my opinion, this is unacceptable.
We could do as some European countries do, and release the prisoners to local authorities. However, how is this any different than executing them without a trial or torturing them. You might be wondering what I mean. Well, check out this excerpt from the JURIST on September 11, 2006 here:
Detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, recently transferred from US to Iraqi control, are allegedly being tortured by prison officials, according to an independent observer who told the UK's Telegraph that screaming was heard coming from the inmate cell blocks, that health conditions there are unacceptable, and that inmates are given inadequate food and no time to exercise. Prison staff have also said that dozens of terror suspects have been transferred in the last week to Abu Ghraib from the controversial Interior Ministry facility at Jadriyah, where US troops discovered 173 malnourished Iraqi detainees in November, some showing signs of torture. Last week, 27 prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib, the first mass execution in Iraq since the downfall of Saddam Hussein.
Finally, my argument continues to be that we are safer because of the defensive measures we are taking. By seeking to eliminate terrorism abroad, we are helping keep it away from our shores. Its hard to prove, simply because you can't prove we've prevented something that hasn't happened. However, I would suggest that 9/11 happened before we established the military prisons. And since then? We've been safe. I certainly do not believe that torture should be condoned. But fair tactics with reasonable oversight should be employed. I am confident that Congress is seeking just that, and I hope and believe that the United States will maintain its integrity while ensuring the safety of our country.
Recent Comments