Skip to main content

View Diary: The Real Reason Khadr's Case Is In A Military Commission (14 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  heh. (0+ / 0-)

    You WILL win the "since when is it illegal to fight back?" argument.

    Not in a military tribunal.

    Since when did the United States Armed Forces recognize any right to fight against the United States Armed Forces?

    •  Since forever (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Garrett, tbetz, oxon

      Neither the US as a nation, nor its military, have ever treated armed resistance during a war as a war (or other) crime.  International law recognizes that soldiers kill each other in wars.  Thus it is not the crime of murder to shoot an enemy during a battle in wartime.  In this sense the enemy does indeed have the "right" to fight against US armed forces.

      The (weak) argument here is that outlined in the comment -- that he is not fighting in a war because the Taliban was not a legitimate army according to the laws of war.  Thus, if he did attempt to kill US forces, it was a crime, not an act of war.

      I said "weak" because it is absurd to deny that we are at war with the Taliban, and they were the "lawful"government of Afghanistan before we invaded. Maybe the "out" for the Government is that he was assisting Alb Quaeda, not the Taliban, and that Al Quaeda is illegitimate under any interpretation of international law.

      Don't get me wrong.  I think this is a foolish prosecution.  I am against military commissions under these circumstances.  But it's helpful to take the governing legal principles into account in considering these matters.

      As to reading rights -- well, I would argue you can't have it both ways.  Either he was a legitimate combatant at war, in which case what he is accused of would not be a crime, or he was not, in which case he should be treated as a criminal in our judicial system, with all the associated rights (such as Miranda).

      "[W]e shall see the reign of witches pass over . . . and the people, recovering their true spirit, restore their government to its true principles." Jefferson

      by RenMin on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:52:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In which case (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oxon, RenMin

        we've always reserved the right to lock 'em up forever, or until we declare the war over.

        Of course we're not dealing with a court of law here anyway, so all bets are off, and all precedents meaningless.

        •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tbetz, oxon

          If he was engaged in war, he is a POW and we can keep him -- but there are strict limits on how we can question him, which it appears we violated.  Big shock -- Bush administration guilty of war crimes.

          "[W]e shall see the reign of witches pass over . . . and the people, recovering their true spirit, restore their government to its true principles." Jefferson

          by RenMin on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:01:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site