Extralegal

________________

One fact to emerge from Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) is that the U.S. wants to follow a "war model," but doesn't want to apply the Geneva Conventions (GC's) in its execution. In that vein, it designated a new adversary, the illegal "enemy combatant."

But what to do with the detritus of war -- those arrested and swept up in wholesale prisoner snatches, kidnappings, renditions and the like? Before the PWOT and Jack Bauer, we operated within a worldwide accepted legal framework; we investigated, charged gathered evidence and presented it in courts.

In 2009 we don't have a clue what to do. After closing Gitmo, then what?

One thought is to add terrorism to the GC's and regulate the capture, rules of evidence, trials and procedures for dealing with that threat. Another possibility is a United Nations definition and international legal approach to solving the dilemma.

Something must be done to break the logjam, but the Bush administration was too indolent to clearly define the facts pertaining to terror threats. The terms insurgent, enemy combatant, coalition forces, warfare, terrorist, unconventional war and guerrilla war have become so muddled as to be useless.

The terms must be defined in order to properly litigate or enact international legislation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as a type is not just a threat to America, he is a threat to all civilized societies. But without clear and basic legal approaches we cannot defend ourselves realistically.

We will be the ones always operating in a shocked and awed mode, though the threat is clear and present.