Hostage Takers

What does conservatism today stand for?
It stands for war. It stands for power.
It stands for spying, jailing without trial,
torture, counterfeiting without limit,
and lying from morning to night.
There comes a time in the life of every believer
in freedom when he must declare,
without any hesitation,
to have no attachment to the idea of conservatism.
--Rally for the Republic, Lew Rockwell
_________________

Many argue that it was a mistake to announce Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's scheduled appearance in U.S. Federal Court in New York City.

A Wall Street Journal editorial says, "Given [Attorney General] Holder's misguided decisions to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a Manhattan civilian court, and to limit interrogation of the Detroit Christmas bomber to 50 minutes, the quality of his counsel is a major concern. (The "al Qaeda Seven")," But what is at issue goes far beyond the logistics of the trial.

The editorial goes on to praise the substance (if not the presentation) of Liz Cheney's "Keep America Safe" ad, which questions Justice Department lawyer Daskal who "argued that detainees who have not been charged with a crime should be set free, even though 'some of these men may cross the border and join the battlefield to fight U.S. soldiers and our allies.'"

It seems clear to an old Ranger without benefit of a legal education that here is the crux of the issue: If a Gitmo detainee cannot be charged as a criminal due to tainted or inadequate evidence, or because they are not a terrorist, then it follows they should be released back into the wild. A Federal Catch-n-Release program.

Allowing that many of the released prisoners would return to the battlefield (as the opponents of release claim), then it follows:

[1] The detained are military types and NOT terrorists; at the very worst, they are members of the military wing of al-Qaeda. If either case is so, then they were captured on the battlefield and will return there. This is not a legal consideration.

If the U.S. fears the repatriation of less than 200 battlefield enemies, then we are surely a paper tiger.

[2] The Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) has been a dismal failure on all levels.

Legally, the U.S. Congress can pass laws that criminalize material support for terror groups and for associations with al-Qaeda and attendance in al-Qaeda training camps. This simply blocks U.S. citizens from participation, as U.S. jurisdiction does not extend to the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. But it does not address the basic problem of terrorism, as citizens of other nations are not bound by our laws.

Anybody outside U.S. borders may join any organization they desire and will not meet with our laws unless they enter our jurisdiction or conspire to attack U.S. targets. The Gitmo prisoners do not fit the bill, as they were largely captured on the battlefield largely within the borders of their own country, and had no intent or capability of projecting their violence onto our shores.

The combatant detainees are fashioned as aggressors, although most were fighting defensively against an attack by the sole world superpower. In our aggression we have created a legal and military morass. We claim to be at war, yet our adversaries are not Prisoners of War -- how is this? The detained are then denied legal access and treated like Michael Vicks dogs, yet we accept this desecration of international law as another day at the office.

The logical conclusion is that these people kept in endless detention in an endless non-war are HOSTAGES. No other legal or military definition is as apt. The national keeping of hostages is in violation of the Hague Convention.

A hostage-taking nation cannot expect to maintain respectability. We are judged not by what the terrorists are or do, but by our own actions. The perpetrators of this miscarriage of justice may never be held to account, but their violence to our reputation may be irreparable.

How do our leaders fail to see the untenability of the situation? Reality, unlike U.S. law, has a universal jurisdiction.