I’ve posted before about targeted killing, and written about it for publication, as well. I’ll be on NPR’s All Things Considered today, in a story by correspondent Ari Shapiro, talking about targeted killings in relation to detention and interrogation. (Now that I’ve seen the story, I see with pleasure that it also quotes Matthew Waxman, Vijay Padmanabhan, John Bellinger, and Monica Hakimi. Cool lineup.) My point is pretty straightforward – uncertainties in detention and interrogation policies, particularly for mid-level operatives in the CIA and intelligence agencies, partly created by the courts and partly created by other actors such as DOJ, have increased the incentives to kill rather than capture. Not always by use of Predator missiles, as the Somalia raid using helicopters firing on a vehicle a few weeks ago pointed up, but an incentive to kill from a distance rather than seek to capture and interrogate for intelligence value. I haven’t heard the story, which was pre-taped, but I have a high opinion of Ari Shapiro as a journalist, and I’m sure that apart from whatever little bit is my part of the story, there’s good stuff there. But anyway there’s a link to it and a snippet at the NPR blog. (Cross-posted to OJ and CTLab.)
ShelbyC says:
Never understood it myself. You can kill an enemy combatant without any judicial involvement, but if you capture him appearantly you have to give him access to courts and all sorts of other things. So if a judge order you to free a detainee, can’t you just free him, then kill him? Doesn’t make much sense to me.
October 8, 2009, 12:21 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Wow, a feel-good law that actually results in worse harm to its purporated beneficiaries while still providing more money to lawyers. Who would have thought that could happen?
October 8, 2009, 12:45 pmGene Madison says:
It all comes down to the Jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and in all honesty, I don’t see where any such power was delegated. All people have a right to live, and nobody should be allowed to infringe upon that right, unless defending their own life from an offensive attack.
Unfortunately, there is no rule of law, we’re being governed by the Royal Rule of Precedent. Contrary to the Rule of Law, Contrary to Liberty, Contrary to Righteousness.
October 8, 2009, 12:49 pmcirby says:
…or unless they’re violating the specifics of the Hague Conventions, in which case they’re screwed. After a short initial period, they go from being a disorganized resistance to a non-uniformed insurgency, and modern rules of warfare don’t protect them much at all.
Many of the people who have been captured (no, not arrested, captured) in Iraq and Afghanistan are, by the terms of the Hague conventions, allowed to be summarily tried and executed (no, not in a US court, by the side of the road by a military tribunal). Armed forces engaged with illegal insurgents are not required to make any special attempt to capture or avoid killing them.
October 8, 2009, 12:58 pmGene Madison says:
The hague convention doesn’t have authority upon them, but it does on us. But this isn’t the first time in our history this situation occured. Our own revolution, when the Redcoats thought they had us beat, mountain dwelling, british despising scotish americans didn’t bother with uniforms, and turned the revolution around for us.
Invading forces can never be on the side of good. We never declared war against the Talighan gov’t, we just attacked them for not handing over Bin Laden, though they offered to comply if evidence could be produced linking him to 9/11, which never existed. Go figure.
October 8, 2009, 1:16 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
I don’t think many people disagree with this, but it’s a straw man. The real issues are, first, the rights of the detainee at the tribunal—is it a kangaroo court, or will defendants be able to make a real case that they are not combatants? (While “many” captives are illegal combatants, some clearly are not and have been seized by mistake.) And, second, whether it is permissible to torture illegal combatants, to which the answer is No.
It seems to me much easier and far less risky to our own personnel to kill someone from a drone than to capture him alive. Isn’t that the most important reason?
October 8, 2009, 1:18 pmMalvolio says:
Really? So the Allies were in the wrong at Normandy?
October 8, 2009, 1:31 pmjccamp says:
Is this a surprise? How many times have the various agencies (and agents) looked toward the detainee centers/prisons/whatever we-call-them, (figuratively) smacked themselves in the forehead, and wondered aloud ‘Why, oh why, did we ever take them alive?”
We can’t interrogate them, we can’t keep them, we can’t try them, they’re not POW’s, they’re not civil law prisoners…they are giant pains in the ass. Everybody within 10 miles is getting sued; military defense lawyers are showing photographs of intelligence agents to terrorists; prisoners of war in foreign countries suddenly have Constitutional rights; Holder is investigating the CIA. It’s sheer lunacy. The detainees have turned into symbols and pawns in a greater struggle, partly based on ideology and politics, partly a power struggle within the Federal bureaucracy over who controls the information flow (which DOJ and the FBI are busy winning). So, there should be no wonder whatsoever that the military and the intelligence community are emphasizing killing, not capturing, the bad guys.
Personally, and especially under the present circumstances, I think it’s a great idea.
October 8, 2009, 1:33 pmSarcastro says:
This is why I’m all about the death penalty with probably cause. The key is to never second guess yourself.
October 8, 2009, 1:36 pmbyomtov says:
We can’t interrogate them, we can’t keep them, we can’t try them, they’re not POW’s,..
Of course we can interrogate them. We just can’t torture them. And we can surely treat them as POW’s if we like.
That’s the flaw in the post’s argument about incentives also. Gee, obeying the law makes life tough.
October 8, 2009, 1:47 pmRPT says:
“Is this a surprise? How many times have the various agencies (and agents) looked toward the detainee centers/prisons/whatever we-call-them, (figuratively) smacked themselves in the forehead, and wondered aloud ‘Why, oh why, did we ever take them alive?””
Based on the actual facts and evidence regarding most of the detainees, the answer is that the agents/agencies were duped, or acted foolishly on their own, to capture people who had nothing to do with any insurgent or terrorist activity. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time or were falsely accused by people looking for revenge or a cash bounty. That’s the record.
October 8, 2009, 1:57 pmGene Madison says:
Depends on how you look at it. Were we invited by the French? It appears as if this was the case. Overall, it depends on who invades first, which was Germany if I recall properly. Assuming what history tells is accurate, Operation Overlord was welcomed by the struggling french government.
If only the german military would have thought of mixing in with the local population during the invasion, they might have been able to catch us offguard.
Golly mister, the constitution restricts the federal government within it’s jurisdiction. If we’re to assume the war power gives us Invasion/overthrow powers without declaring war on that nation, then we must have jurisdiction, and our government is bound to abide by the constitution, since Afghanistan would be a territory of the United States once the Taliban was thrown from power.
But… who needs the rule of law. It’s always okay for someone else to have his rights violated without trial, and because of that, you invite the same being inflicted upon you. That is Justice.
Perhaps next we’ll declare war on partisanship, and start rounding up the real troublemakers. Partisanism & Terrorism shall be abolished, and all those found supporting either, will be executed for treason on the spot. On the bright side, i bet we’d see less conspiracy theory websites.
October 8, 2009, 2:02 pmDennis N says:
I’ve long advocated a position similar ro ShelbyC’s for the Gitmo prisoners. Release them all. They revert to being enemy combatants. Shoot them as they walk out the gate. “You go first, Ali.” “No, you go, Hassan.”
But if you remove the utility of having prisoners, there is less reason to take prisoners. If prisoners are more dangerous than they are worth, you don’t let them become prisoners. It just takes a tiny movement of the index finger.
October 8, 2009, 2:50 pmwfjag says:
I really, really hope you weren’t a history major. In 1944 the US was at war with France — whose seat of government had been moved to Vichy. The US had, prior to Overlord, also invaded French colonies in North Africa. While it isn’t referred to much today — since most folks like to forget their Nazi connections — there was significant resistance by the French Army and Navy and quite a few Americans died. Facts like that were overlooked in movies like “Patton.” After VE Day, all French citizens recalled being members of the Resistance, and many later wrote histories to prove it.
This is in contrast with the invasion of Grenada ordered by President Reagan. Through the mysteries of International Law, the Head of State for Grenada was (due its status as a former British colony and the fact that the elected head of the government had been overthrown and killed in a coop led by the leaders of the New Jewel Movement) Her Royal Majesty’s representative to Grenada. After a quick call to 10 Downing St., he consented to the invasion by US troops.
Was invading Kuwait in 1991 justified? According to Saddam, Kuwait was the “19th Provence” of Iraq. However, according to the Kuwaiti Royal family, Kuwait had been independent since the late 18th century. Not being an expert in Ottoman Imperial law on the status of the various parts of its empire, including what is now Kuwait, I didn’t pay much attention to either argument. But, I guess to you, it would be the only legitimate basis on which to decide.
And, what about 1861 to 1865 in US history. Were the 11 CSA states (13, if you count Kentucky and Missouri) justly “invaded”? Their elected representatives had voted to leave the Union.
Basing your decision on whether an invasion is justified based on whether the invaders were “invited” by its government is an unsteady reed on which to support your conclusion.
October 8, 2009, 2:56 pmcirby says:
Gene Madison:
The Hague Conventions are the thing that prevents us from doing whatever we want to enemy soldiers and noncombatants, but it sets certain guidelines for coverage.
Being a combatant out of uniform after an initial period removes you from protection, whether your country signed or not.
October 8, 2009, 3:06 pmPubliusFL says:
So the Allied invasion force became the side of evil instead of the side of good when it crossed into Germany (the Germans certainly never invited them in)? Or if who invades first is what really matters, recall that the Iraq “invasion” was a resumption of hostilities interrupted by the cease-fire reached in 1991 in the course of repelling Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, so Iraq counts as the first invader there too.
October 8, 2009, 3:11 pmThe Drill SGT says:
I’m going to ignore the subject of capture and detaining by Intel agencies and talk briefly about what happens inside a rifle squad in combat. (been there, done that, got the medal).
your average squad leader is a Staff SGT, about 25 years old. A lot younger than the turn-out SGT in the 80′s cop drama “Hill Street Blues”. SGT Phil Esterhaus. Bottom line for our squad leader is the same as it was for Phil. “Remember, Let’s be careful out there”
so here is what he’s thinking:
1. It’s harder and less safe to capture these suckers than it is to kill’em.
October 8, 2009, 3:15 pm2. If we capture them, one of our guys may get hurt, and the Jihadi is gonna be back on the street sooner or later.
3. The Ol’Man didn’t explicitly say that he wants prisoners on this mission, so.
4. “Guys, Let’s be careful out there. Don’t take any chances. 2 in the chest and 1 in the head.”
ArthurKirkland says:
Most of this discussion seems irrelevant to the practical issues confronting the United States, whose preference for shabby shortcuts generated a substantial population of prisoners accepted — often in exchange for payment, almost invariably unarmed and shackled at transfer — from sketchy sources instead of observed and captured, armed and engaged, by trained and trusted American military personnel on a battlefield.
Plus, there’s the ‘invaded the wrong country and botched the occupation, provoking legitimate outrage by the natives’ issue.
October 8, 2009, 3:25 pmGene Madison says:
I hadn’t realized that human rights only extended to our friends. Perhaps we could go back an take back several of the convictions of German war criminals, since the Polish Jews, Russians, Americans, etc. etc would have fallen under enemy combatants.
While I’m not a historian, I do understand our rule of law, and that should be supreme, regardless of the precedents set by politicians in the past.
And how do we distinguish between civilians defending their homes from invasion, and a combatant out of uniform? The ability for these people to communicate is much more limited than we’re used to. I’m pretty sure most natives are very well aware of invaders throughout their history, and I would react the same way under similar circumstances. I can only imagine how frightening it would be to have a foreign military appear, and the difficulty there would be with the language barrier.
I believe in erroring on the side of caution, especially when going to war, invading a nation on a war against terror, and overthrowing a government, without declaring war against them.. I don’t see how that is constitutional.. but Precedent makes it okay, and ignorance sustains it.
A life is a life, regardless of the circumstances, the 9/11 deaths of innocent people was heinous, but our vengeance is ruthless and savage. How is what we’re doing now, any different from what Britain had been doing prior to WWII? And how long do you think it will take before we provoke a hatred for the next “Hitler-esk” leader? History is repeatitive, perhaps that’s why certain parts disappear from the records over time.
October 8, 2009, 3:35 pmJack Diederich says:
The title got my hopes up. I know several startup founders that won’t allow “key man” insurance policies to be taken on them because it gives people an incentive to kill them especially when a business is on the edge and feelings are high.
October 8, 2009, 3:58 pmGene Madison says:
Or perhaps the advice of George Washington should be a consideration. Factions in a Republic have a tendency to align with foreign influences. These influences create an incentive to interfere in the affairs of other nations. It was this type of interference that the founding fathers despised, since it amounts to contracting our military for free to do their dirty work.
If we don’t want to be attacked, we need to stop attacking. If we don’t want to be destroyed, we need to stop destroying. We don’t want anyone taking away our right to live, so why in the hell would we take that right away from others?
Stop getting involved in the affairs of other nations. Let every nation learn to deal with their own problems, else we’ll never have peace. Ignorance is our worst enemy, because we ignore the lessons of the revolution, and allowed the same kinds of people to continue where they left off elsewhere.
October 8, 2009, 4:19 pmDennis N says:
That is the stupidist and most reprehensible statement I have heard.
It is refuted by all of history.
If you have anything of significance, and do not want to lose it, you must defend it. If you are not willing to defend what is yours, you don’t deserve to own it.
October 8, 2009, 4:22 pmKirk Parker says:
Gene,
In what way was the AUMF not a declaration of war?
October 8, 2009, 4:23 pmJames T. Carrington says:
Jack, you are clearly the venture capitalist that my group will avoid presenting to in the future… Giving my sales managers all the wrong ideas.
October 8, 2009, 4:24 pmGene Madison says:
Those who give up liberty in exchange for security, deserve neither. Are the Natives within the land we’ve invaded not entitled to defend themselves from us? Unfortunately, that is the point. We do not belong there. The United States Government had the oppurtunity to provide evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11, and the Taliban would have extradited Bin Laden for those crimes, but Bush said no.
People seem to think we’re in Afghanistan to free the people from the taliban, but what right do we have to determine their lives are worth the risk? Weren’t we pissed when we were attacked by people many never heard of? These are tribes… not much different from the Native Americans at the adoption of our constitution. It’s one thing to defend what is yours… it’s another to take out a people defending what is theirs.
Perhaps the arrogance of righteousness blurs the image in your mirror.
October 8, 2009, 4:46 pmSandy MacHoots says:
We don’t. The idea is that armies fight and civilans don’t. That’s why you try not to shoot civilians. But if some of the civilians are shooting at you, and you can’t tell combatants from noncombatants until you’re under fire, you have a problem. You can’t expect soldiers to respect the rights of civilians if some civilians are trying to kill them. So the civilian — who is endangering noncombatants — must either put down the weapon or put on a uniform. Otherwise, they’re not protected either by the rules that protect uniformed soldiers or the rules that protect noncombatants.
It’s an interesting question whether the 19th century view of warfare that gave rise to all those international rules really meshes with the reality of the 21st century.
October 8, 2009, 4:47 pmGene Madison says:
From what I understand, a nation cannot declare war on an ideology, only other nations. As I perceive it, it’s like issuing an arrest warrant for Democracy, or Infidels. Can a person enter into a direct contract with lust? And how exactly would lust signature be acquired? Can we go to war against partisanship? Against comedy? Against free speech?
The Warrant in this case is invalid for lack of substance.
October 8, 2009, 4:53 pmmidasear says:
Been there, done that. Experiment was run, ~1919 to Dec 7, 1941. End result very unpleasant.
October 8, 2009, 4:54 pmGene Madison says:
So because the CIA had offices in the WTC, plain clothed agents, then those who died in that attack were just victims of circumstance. It’s not the fault of terrorists that the CIA made it so difficult for them to be singled out.
The federal government was constituted in order to provide a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Not for anyone elses, not to protect people outside of the Republic.. The federal governments powers are supposed to be limited by the preamble, as it establishes the intents and purpose of the Constitution.
I believe the same comment was made during the Watts riots in California. Police couldn’t be held accountable for shooting people during the riot, it amounts to self defense, and “better them than us!”
October 8, 2009, 5:03 pmsecond history says:
And targeted killing is a bad thing? To me it is the preferable option.
October 8, 2009, 5:30 pmMark Buehner says:
Its like the old saying goes- if your brother in law claims credit for planning the destruction of Manhattan, check your sources. What a crock. By that logic what right did we have to attack the Japanese? Just because they admitted to attacking Pearl doesn’t prove they actually did it.
October 8, 2009, 5:41 pmMark Buehner says:
Obviously. Who do you think planted the explosives?
October 8, 2009, 5:45 pmGene Madison says:
It was unpleasant, my Great Grandmother immigrated from Poland to Germany, at the time she was a Polish Jew, however, due to all the persecution, in Germany, she converted to catholicism, and immigrated to America. But the persecution wasn’t coming from Germans, it was coming from Western Jews, primarily from Britain. It seemed that were very racist, and during the time of the “Jewish Question” which began in the late 19th Century, the Westerners wished to avoid tainting their gene pool with the laboring less intelligent Jews.
Good thing she left when she did. Seems the Polish Jews were the primary victims of the holocaust, which resulted in the creation of Israel in order to preserve their racial line.
History is often inaccurate, since those committing such immoral acts, often keep their involvement to themselves. Even now, there is a great distortion of the facts, that people have no idea what they are fighting for. If the present is so ignorant, how difficult would it have been in the past?
A life is a life, and our soldiers are being put into harms way to conquer a people, and tell them what kind of government will work best for them. There have been years and years of white people invading, which creates the appearance of racism. Attacks were carefully orchestrated in order to get us to do what we did. As a reward for doing as our masters tell us, our financial system received $Billions in investments, which amounted to $4.7 Trillion a few months ago, and expected to hit over $10 Trillion by 2010. But if it wasn’t for the Sovereign Wealth Fund, the federal goverment would be a failed state.
The problem is, foreign influences, and a corrupt congress, obligating themselves to those contributors that helped secure their next term.
October 8, 2009, 5:56 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Becuase it is an “Authorization of Use of Military Force” and not a “Declaration of War” ?
Asymetrical warfare was been around for a long time, well before the 19th Century. If there is any problem with “all those international rules” it is that they apply to “nations” – particularly those nations who were powerful enough to be involved in their making in the 19th century.
October 8, 2009, 5:58 pmGene Madison says:
Don’t we still have the crashed Japanese military planes that were shot down, or kamakazied, as well as a message that was sent out, saying Japan was attacking? That is a bit different than two of our own commerical jets being flown into the WTC. To be honest, the only real comparison I can come up with, is the fire at the parliament building in germany, which was used to get people behind hitlers military actions.
October 8, 2009, 6:05 pmcirby says:
Gene Madison:
You might note that the Hague Conventions are aimed at protecting people who would be our enemies, not our friends.
The moment someone picks up a rifle and shoots at an occupying soldier (some time after an area has been officially captured by an occupying force and the local “official” army is defeated, usually a couple of weeks), they give up those “human rights.” If they want to keep their “human rights,” they can simply identify themselves as a local militia (a standard armband or uniform will do nicely, according to the well-known rules), and either surrender or die fighting.
A noted above, the “shoot or execute nonuniformed combatants” rule is to PROTECT actual civilians, not to protect militia members from being shot at. Consider also that in most of the places we’re having problems, it’s not the locals who are doing the bad deeds – it’s imported fighters who try to blend in with the locals.
You might also note that, according to the Hague Conventions, Saddam’s government abdicated their rights under that treaty by allowing soldiers to fight from and occupy hospitals and storing ammunition in schools – both are big violations, on a par with using chemical weapons(!).
October 8, 2009, 6:07 pmArkady says:
As if incentives are needed by line troops. My brother was an Marine intel officer in Vietnam. If he wanted a prisoner to interrogate, he said he and his guys had go out and get one. The Snuffys wouldn’t bring one in.
October 8, 2009, 7:22 pmSnack McSnarkerston says:
To be honest, most of your arguments in this thread reek of Trutherism. Do you really find a way to compare the rise of Nazi Germany with the Al-Qaeda attack on the WTC? That is quite ridiculous, and your other thread points are not free from much ridicule either…
October 8, 2009, 7:24 pmGene Madison says:
I responded to a direct question, and the 9/11 attacks were compared to Pearl Harbor. Only difference was, Japan was a country, unlike these mysterious CIA assets which are known to disturb the peace for our own benefit. (At least leading up to 9/11). Being that US property was used to destroy US property, I stated the closest comparison was when germany’s parliament building caught on fire. He blamed it on terrorists.. and voila.. the people followed hitlers every word.
While I might not be up on the latest movies that you might have seen that you believe is superior to what I know, but I do my own reading into history, rather than accepting some creative license as an indisputable fact.
Don’t doubt the people who seek the truth, doubt those who find it.
October 8, 2009, 7:38 pmOwen H. says:
Amazing, truly amazing. the assertion is that if soldiers and operatives can’t torture detainees for intelligence, they’ll just kill them instead of capturing. But if they make that choice, they didn’t expect a lot of good intel from them begin with. They’d rather lose all chance of getting intel than follow the rules.
As an aside, when did the Conspiracy stop being Libertarian?
October 8, 2009, 8:22 pmRicardo says:
What I’ve never understood is why people (like Dick Cheney, for instance) assume that instant death at the hands of a drone is a worse outcome than being kept in a rat-infested dungeon for the next 40 years completely cut off from the outside world. I personally think the latter is much worse than the former.
Moreover, the laws of civilized countries have long since recognized the distinction between killing someone during a state of war and imprisoning that same person. That’s why there are so many legal protections for prisoners of war, many of which predate the Geneva Conventions.
October 8, 2009, 10:10 pmSandy MacHoots says:
I think you missed a key assumption of the question. Interrogators would prefer suspects to be captured alive so that intel could be gathered, even if restrictions on methods yielded relatively little information. It’s still better than nothing. If a judge releases the suspect back to the battlefield, the interrogators aren’t at risk, because they’re usually back in some safe place.
The soldiers who capture the suspect are in a very different position. If the suspect will be incarcerated until the end of the conflict, the soldiers run no additional risk by capturing him rather than killing him. But if they believe a judge will release the suspect back to the battlefield, they will be personally at risk. Under those circumstances it is reasonable to believe that they would avoid risk by shooting first and asking questions later.
I don’t think there are any libertarian aspects of war, since it is by definition interfering with other people’s rights.
October 8, 2009, 10:11 pmRicardo says:
That is exactly why there is a procedure in place to assess the evidence against a detainee and to determine whether or not he poses a threat to U.S. national security before releasing him. A bona-fide battlefield detainee who was fighting on the side of the Taliban in Afghanistan would not qualify. A shoe-shiner in Karachi who is scooped up by the ISI and transferred to U.S. custody because a friend-of-a-friend thinks he maybe possibly knows someone who is Taliban might well qualify. Most of the detainees who have been released are closer to the latter than the former case.
October 8, 2009, 10:24 pmreadery says:
Yet another readery far-fetched hypothetical becomes a policy reality.
October 8, 2009, 10:58 pmjccamp says:
“A bona-fide battlefield detainee who was fighting on the side of the Taliban in Afghanistan would not qualify.”
How about a man running from a battlefield and carrying an AK-47? According to the much quoted Seton Hall report, everyone in the NW Frontier area carries a Kalashnikov. Quoting: “Possession of a rifle in Afghanistan does not distinguish a peaceful civilian from any terrorist. The Kalashnikov culture permeates both Afghanistan and Pakistan.” And people running from a battle shouldn’t necessarily imply that those fleeing were participants. They might just be fleeing the violence, you know, from the bad U. S. guys. (another quote from the report: “…the Government’s definition of a…hostile act is not demanding…i.e.’The detainee fled, along with others, when the United States forces bombed their camp.’ “
So, given that the other side doesn’t wear uniforms and tends to hide among the civilians, how would you identify that “bona-fide battlefield detainee?” Do you really think we’re going to have eyewitnesses able to identify the suspects? Fingerprints? Maybe DNA? Or is the answer d) None of the above. We find someone and develop intelligence that the person is the enemy, and now we have to put on an adversarial trial – or the functional equivalent – then act horrified when the CIA or the military can’t proof the guy with the rockets in the back seat of his car, or the fellow who admitted being a Taliban, is actually a threat.
That does seem to be the bedrock issue. The military is expected to meet some burden of proof when trying to keep captured combatants or those who provide support to combatants as POW’s, which, contrary to another post, we simply cannot do. They are some kind of hybrid prisoner, more akin to a criminal suspect in the U S than a conventional POW from other conflicts, except we are capturing them in circumstances not likely to produce much in way of traditional court evidence. In past wars, there were sanctions for not wearing a uniform in battle. In this particular conflict, we have created an incentive for the enemy to hide among the civilian populace.
“Most of the detainees who have been released are closer to the latter (innocent shoe shiners) than the former case (caught on the battlefield).”
This is accurate if you mean those actually released outright (less than 5% I think), but not those transferred to another country’s custody (something like 45%). The nearly half of the original Gitmo detainees who have been sent to other countries represent people who were NOT caught running around a battlefield with a gun, but were caught under circumstances that could reasonably lead one to a conclusion that they were the enemy. Or not, depending on what one might define as a reasonable level of proof. But I think to term this large group as equivalent with “A shoe-shiner in Karachi who is scooped up by the ISI and transferred to U.S. custody because a friend-of-a-friend thinks he maybe possibly knows someone who is Taliban” is hyperbole.
Here’s a link to that Seton Hall report. I suggest anyone reading it would see it is clearly biased and unscientific in its conclusions. The authors have an agenda, and they support their POV admirably. But it’s hardly balanced.
October 8, 2009, 11:28 pmRicardo says:
jccamp, I’m not sure what your argument is. Are you claiming this is the first armed conflict in modern times where some fighters have not worn uniforms? And that this completely unique form of fighting requires the creation of a “hybrid” category between POW and criminal suspect?
Existing law already provided for the detention and/or trial of combatants who did not wear uniforms. There is no need for a hybrid category unless you want to confuse the issue or simply cast the law aside because it is expedient to do so.
When I spoke of those released, yes, I meant those who were actually released, not those transferred to the judicial or military custody of other countries. I thought that was clear. This discussion started because some people think that actual armed combatants are being released to roam free in their home countries — the actual cases of actually released prisoners shows this fear is unfounded.
Finally, while it seems you have rather strong opinions on the Seton Hall study you refer to, I’ve never read it, haven’t referred to it and I don’t see how its supposed biased and unscientific nature are directly relevant to the discussion.
October 9, 2009, 12:46 amKirk Parker says:
Gene,
And from where do you derive that understanding? Clearly not from reading the documents in question–or, heck, even the titles (e.g. “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002″.)
October 9, 2009, 1:26 amKirk Parker says:
SuperSkeptic, could you kindly point me to the place in the Constitution where it specifies the wording or language required in a declaration of war? Because I can’t find any such…
October 9, 2009, 1:27 amSandy MacHoots says:
You’re saying there are none? Or you’re saying there are not enough to worry about, because they won’t kill all that many soldiers? I sympathize with you, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the soldiers on the battlefield didn’t. I suspect they trust accuracy of the U.S. legal system about as much as the rest of us do.
Which law? I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
No, I think he’s suggesting that this is the first conflict in modern times where the U.S. judiciary was given a role in deciding exaclty which battlefield prisoners are dangerous, and in which such prisoners are given high-powered lawyers from the ACLU and big national law firms. In previous wars we’ve either shot them or locked them up until the war was over.
The “most” is comforting. You really think that a soldier on the battlefield is going to trust a judge with that decision?
October 9, 2009, 2:05 amGene Madison says:
A declaration of war isn’t just a piece of legislation, it’s a declaration of grievance, similar to a pleading, except since there are no courts who would have jurisdiction over both nations, Justice may only be obtained through war, which was one of the reasons plundering was so popular back in the day. The war would continue until a treaty of peace could be reached, which was expected to address the complaints, and provide justice.
My understanding of a Republican form of government, is that we are governed by the rule of law, not by Royal Precedent. That being so, I can find no powers delegated that would allow for the President to invade, overthrow, or assasinate the leaders of any nation. Nor does congress have the authority to delegate any of its own powers, powers of the other two branches, or any power not mentioned in THE Constitution. In order for an amendment to be Constitutional, it must comply with the Intents and purpose established by the PreAmble. If “We the People” didn’t authorize an amendment, it can have no power or authority over the SUPREME will of the people.
Authorization to Use Military Force is not a declaration of war, and outside the limited powers of congress.
October 9, 2009, 2:25 amRicardo says:
Sandy, there are several different categories of detainees:
1. Those captured on a literal battlefield while fighting U.S. forces
2. Those captured on or near a literal battlefield but were not found to have been actual fighters (one case involved a boy who was apparently selling dates from a cart when fighting suddenly broke out in his neighborhood — the boy was treated very well by U.S. forces, all of whom realized the obvious: that he had no business being detained in Gitmo)
3. Those not captured anywhere near a literal battlefield but who are collaborators with or members of an organization hostile to the U.S.
4. Those not captured anywhere near a literal battlefield who are innocent
The ones being released seem to be mostly actual or suspected cases in #4. You attempt to conflate all these categories doesn’t do your argument any favors.
If you can point to any cases of #1s being released with the assistance of the dreaded ACLU and big national law firms, please share. I can’t say that out of the hundreds of people who have been detained in Guantanamo and the thousands more in Bagram, Abu Ghraib and other prison camps that a few actual battlefield detainees have been given freedom on orders from the civilian courts or the President. So any actual numbers or evidence would be appreciated.
#3s absolutely deserve to be detained and punished but they still deserve a day in something resembling a court to challenge the allegations against them. Whether or not we wind up releasing suspected or actual #3s, it is completely irrelevant to what should be on the minds of “soldier[s] on the battlefield.”
October 9, 2009, 2:40 amneurodoc says:
You believe there is/was no evidence to link Osama bin Laden to 9/11?
October 9, 2009, 10:14 amKirk Parker says:
Gene,
Can I have a peek at this rule book you’re reading?
October 9, 2009, 10:28 amGene Madison says:
Law of Nature
Law of Nations
Federalist Papers
Convention Notes
Constitutional Law
Common Sense, which seems to be in short supply these days.
Most attorneys are skilled in the manipulation of law, which falls under the “Royal Precedent” Ideology, but precedent cannot be supreme. (Though it is often accepted as such.)
Any legislative, executive, or Judicial exercise of power contrary to the Constitution is Unconstitutional. But if the public is ignorant of it, then the Constitutional Supremacy is of no use.
October 9, 2009, 2:21 pmneurodoc says:
If you will: i) await Gene Madison’s answer to the question I posed him (“You believe there is/was no evidence to link Osama bin Laden to 9/11″); then, have a look at his website http://tritiumae.wordpress.com/, I think you will begin to understand his very exceptional point of view and get much more than a peek into his “rule book.”
(see also Snack McSnarkerston’s question to him about “Trutherism” 10/8 @ 7:24PM and what sounds like confirmation by Gene Madison that he is indeed a Truther. What more needs to be said?)
October 9, 2009, 2:33 pmKirk Parker says:
neuro, sorry, I think rather that somebody needs to hit me with the DNFTT-bat.
October 9, 2009, 2:37 pmneurodoc says:
No need to apologize to me, since some might think I too should be smacked with the DNFTT bat. I do have a quasi-professional excuse, though, that being that psychopathology interests me, some kinds in particular, one of those being minds that give credence to 9/11 Truther theories. I don’t have the patience to hear them elaborate on those theories, which I trusts can be found out there on the net, but I am interested to hear how it fits in with their world views and other belief systems.
October 9, 2009, 2:54 pmGene Madison says:
According to the FBI, Bin Laden could not be linked to the 9/11 attacks. His “Most Wanted” poster excludes 9/11 for why he’s a person of interest. You can find it here.
Kinda odd we’d be hunting him for 9/11, without evidence of his involvement. If the federal government was looking for someone in the U.S., evidence of involvement, especially when the lives of innocent people are involved.
In the Timothy Mcveigh case, without any evidence linking him… should government ‘take him out’ if they’re pretty sure it was him? Believing in Justice doesn’t allow me to inflict harm upon anyone without the proper evidence. If I am going to put my life at risk for my country, i’d like to make sure we’re pursuing the correct guy(s) before destroying everything that gets in the way.
October 9, 2009, 2:54 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Again, the “mostly” is comforting. I wasn’t trying to conflate categories to make an argument. I could add other categories, such as (5) those captured on a literal battlefield who are not fighting but who are supplying intelligence (spies). But the distinction between the categories is easier to make in theory than in practice, especially where the definition of “battlefield” is extremely fluid. Maybe our soldiers routinely go around detaining people they absolutely know to be innocent, but admitting that I know nothing of the stories of any of the individual detainess, I would generally tend to doubt it. If everyone agrees that someone is certainly innocent, why is he still being held? Because we’re just evil and enjoy locking up shoeshine boys?
I know nothing of any of the detainees, released or not, although the Lockerbie bombing thing doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in courts. But that’s not my point. My point is that you’re asking soldiers in harm’s way to trust that judges, in adversary legal proceedings where the burden is on the prosecution, will never make mistakes. Maybe the courts will be perfect. But if they get at least one wrong, at least one dangerous person will be returned to the field, and one little boy or girl may not have Daddy around anymore.
Well, you’re a better man than I. You wouldn’t take your own safety, and those of your comrades, into account when deciding whether to kill or capture. I applaud you. Me, if I have to choose whose kids will never to to see Daddy again, I’d probably vote for those of the suspected combatant, not mine. And I wouldn’t expect soldiers to be any more noble than I am. Though they might be, of course.
October 9, 2009, 3:04 pmneurodoc says:
What significance do you attach to what is on that wanted poster, in particular, “IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.” That wanted poster is your basis for claiming, “According to the FBI, Bin Laden could not be linked to the 9/11 attacks. His ‘Most Wanted’ poster excludes 9/11 for why he’s a person of interest.”?
Also, you say, “If I am going to put my life at risk for my country, i’d like to make sure we’re pursuing the correct guy(s) before destroying everything that gets in the way.” Have you ever served in the military in a combat specialty or any other, or have you otherwise put your life at risk for your country? If not, are you contemplating doing so in the foreseeable future? Or does that statement reflect no more than a Walter Mitty daydream of yours?
October 9, 2009, 3:07 pmneurodoc says:
BTW, I meant to ask if you were intimating earlier that you believe that Osama bin Laden was not involved in 9/11 but that the US government was, perhaps planting bombs in the WTC towers? Please make explicitly clear your theory of it all in the space of a few sentences.
October 9, 2009, 3:12 pmGene Madison says:
Actually, it was the FBI that specifically stated that there was no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11, in response to the question regarding the Wanted Poster.
As for his participation, I can’t say whether or not the Government was involved, or anyone else for that matter. If there is evidence linking him, I’d like to know more details. We shouldn’t jump to conclusions in any case, and should be able to find a resolution without going to war. If there were some government ‘conspiracy’, it’s more likely to have been carried out by some foreign intelligence/government agency.
October 9, 2009, 3:40 pmGene Madison says:
What is the definition of the word “truther”?
I believe politicians have a difficult time with “Truth”. I believe all people are created equal, and no single person is supreme over any other.
I question everything, as we all should. Without question, there can never be accountability. If you wish to label me rather than think, that is your choice, and a very easy way out.
October 9, 2009, 7:47 pmjccamp says:
Ricardo –
Nearly half of all of the Gitmo detainees have been transferred to the custody of other countries. The main reason the U S has transferred these prisoners is because the U S could not meet its own court-imposed standards for maintaining custody of these people, for lack of admissible evidence which could be submitted within a court/tribunal/whatever we call them. However, the detainees were considered too dangerous to be released outright, so the U S arranged for their transfer to other countries. This strikes me as nothing but a hypocritical CYA, so the U S can claim some shocked indignation when the same bad guys show up again somewhere, trying to do harm to American interests.
I wonder what percentage of WWII Axis prisoners captured by U S armed forces would meet the current day standards imposed by our own courts, had they been in mufti and not wearing German or Japanese uniforms? I’m trying to imagine an 1944 SS stormtrooper ditching his uniform, getting captured anyway and heaved into a POW camp, and then getting pro bono assistance from Eric Holder’s law firm to sue the U S for his freedom and damages.
The thrust of the OP is pretty clear: “…uncertainties in detention and interrogation policies, particularly for mid-level operatives in the CIA and intelligence agencies, partly created by the courts and partly created by other actors such as DOJ, have increased the incentives to kill rather than capture.”
Of course that’s true. We have imposed ridiculous standards on those front-line fighters to somehow observe and document, for later courtroom use, means to prove captured enemy combatants are really bad guys. The same front-line patriots are being sued, vilified, investigated, and generally maligned. Heaven forbid that some over-worked, fatigued, stressed soldier or CIA agent smacks a bad guy in the mouth in an effort to save U S lives. It becomes a simple decision to shoot the bad guys rather than try to capture them, and less trouble all the way around for those on the ground.
October 9, 2009, 8:44 pm