Sponsored Content

Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

« The PRC's online murder/torture game [Purple Avenger] | Main | 5 Senior Taliban Die of Loneliness and Explosive Force, But Mostly Explosive Force »
August 04, 2007

Law Lesson: About Those Trials [Gabriel Malor]

One of the things I’ve noticed over the last three or four years of national debate about the War on Terror is that it is oddly common for people to ignore international law—even when it supports their arguments. This has been a pet peeve of mine for a while, simply because I do not like to see anyone leave a good argument lying on the table.

With the hope that you never leave an argument alone simply because it’s about a sticky subject, here are some simple, straightforward, and useful facts about international law that may help you out the next time you’re stuck at the watercooler talking about current events.

Current Event That Prompts Discussion: Round about October, the Supreme Court will be hearing the consolidated cases of Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. U.S. Those are two (of many) pending cases of combatant-detainees at Guantanamo. Expect an increase in chattering about indefinite detentions and criminal trials.

Leftist Commentary #1: It has been five years since Guantanamo has been opened, and not one person has been convicted of anything. Not one person has been convicted, even though these are the worst of the worst, as described by Rumsfeld in 2002.

(You may also have seen this line of argument in in the NYTimes and the Washington Post, and will probably see it again.)

Your Answer: Under international law (specifically, the Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War), we are prohibited from putting combatants to trial for acts of combatancy. This assumes that some portion of Guantanamo detainees are POWs (an assumption made by many on the Left). POWs cannot under any circumstances be put to trials for the act of fighting for their countries. Rather, POWs can be held until the cessation of hostilities. [See more on cessation of hostilities below. –Ed.]

It’s likely at this point that someone (maybe you?) will inquire about unlawful combatants. Well, for those detainees who are not considered POWs, but rather unlawful combatants, international law provides that they can be detained like POWs, but that they can also be prosecuted for the crimes that made their combatancy unlawful. Note, however, that such prosecutions are a possibility, not a command. In other words, unless they have POW protections the U.S. can choose to hold them, choose to try them, or choose to release them.

Leftist Commentary #2: But how can we hold prisoners indefinitely? That could conceivably be for the rest of their lives! That’s got to be illegal, right?

Your Answer: Of course it’s not illegal (it helps your argument if you say this like it was so freaking obvious that you may just by dying of boredom right there next to the watercooler. Roll your eyes a little for some added drama). All wars are wars of indefinite length when they are still ongoing. For example, German or Japanese prisoners in 1944 could plausibly have said "our detention is indefinite; we could be here for the rest of our lives."

For the purposes of international law, combatants can be held until the cessation of hostilities. Now this does not rely on archaic (and irrelevant) ideas about whether a war is "officially declared" or "officially ended in cease-fire." Cessation of hostilities occurs when there is no possibility that a released prisoner will return to his forces and continue fighting. In other words, combat must be over between the U.S. and with whatever belligerent the prisoner was fighting for.

For added points, or if you just want to sound like a law geek, you could direct your Leftist friends to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. There, the Supreme Court applied the issue of cessation of hostility to a detained Taliban fighter and determined that he can be held until the U.S. is no longer fighting the Taliban.

(Incidentally, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld in 2004 and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006 were largely hailed by the media and commentators—even members of the dextrosphere—as losses for the Bush Administration. That is simply not true. Don’t believe it. And if I have time before the Open Blog Weekend is over, I will explain why.)

So the next time you're jawing about Guantanamo, keep in mind that international law is on your side, no matter how smug your Leftist debate partner may feel about it.

digg this
posted by xgenghisx at 11:44 AM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
Martini Farmer: "Frosty 23 here in Bourbon Country this morning. ..."

recent kollidge gradumate Miklos JUST CAN'T EVEN: "We need common sense gun laws, that would make it ..."

Ben Had: "Because it's the economy, Chase is closing 3,00 ..."

sock_rat_eez - these lying bastardi e stronzi have been lying for decades [/b][/u][/i][/s]: "exactly, fd gives ya a real sense of the system ..."

fd: ""Because of the child's age, juvenile reform laws ..."

Village Idiot's Apprentice: "We need common sense gun laws, that would make it ..."

Ben Had: "Brawlmer, if it hasn't happened yet give it ..."

fd: ""What is the youngest age that you would expect to ..."

rhennigantx: "Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona just said wi ..."

San Franpsycho: "Didn't SanFranpsyko's wife, on their 30th annivers ..."

Village Idiot's Apprentice: "What is the youngest age that you would expect to ..."

Just Wondering : "Birdbath status? ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64