|
Again, I ask, what "right to a fair and impartial trial"? What is the source of this right? Nuremberg and ICTY are tribunals to try criminals for violations of the laws of war and international humanitarian law. They were/are part of a well-meaning effort to craft an international legal regime, but they created no right for a combatant to avail himself of any legal system. We took hundreds of thousands, millions, of enemy prisoners in WW2. None had any criminal rights until and unless charged with a crime separate from their status as combatants. Their treatment was governed by international conventions, not criminal law.
You create a false dichotomy that we either treat the enemy as criminals and act in accordance with criminal law, or we act extrajudicially and assassinate them (or whatever you think "dealt with extreme prejudice" or meet... with barbarism" means). We act judicially, i.e., in accordance with the laws of war, and take the battle to our enemies, killing or capturing them as the circumstances require or allow. If we capture them, it is our choice, again in accordance with the law of war, whether to further treat them as criminals. Then, and only then, do the rights of criminal defendants attach.
|