|
That was a textbook tactical situation where the prompt interrogation of captured enemy combatants led to successful battlefield results, ultimately saving the lives of many American soldiers, perhaps mine included. We treated prisoners as intelligence assets to be promptly exploited, not as criminal suspects absurdly presumed to be innocent prior to some kind of moronic trial for show
(from the article)
The definitional conflict that makes all those collected on the battlefield trying to harm Americans as "criminals" instead of "POW's" places us in this dilemma. We have criminalized all acts of aggression toward America. There are no "acts of war" or legitimate combat operations conducted by AQ, the Taliban, and the other various players.
Nazi Germany was clearly a criminal enterprise but we fought a war against the combatants. When captured, we called them POWs. As POWs they were entitled to safeguards but they were fair game for intelligence and exploitation. As the war progressed the California POW camps filled with Italian POWs who were a fairly docile and cooperative group. Italian Soldiers out of the fight waiting for the world to come to it's senses, honorable men out of the fight. They were not criminals awaiting trial.
The North Vietnamese worked hard to get captured American to admit to criminal activity to justify torture and the withholding of Protections of the Geneva Convention. This backfired on the world stage and it added to our fighter's resolve to carry on the fight by different means.
Now the target of the attack is a problem for my reasoning, here. Clearly, a civilian aircraft is not a military target and is an act of terror. I'm not happy with calling that an act of war but neither an I happy with calling it a crime because in our system those accused of crimes have fourth and fifth amendment rights.
|