What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

On 'Illegal Combatants' and Target Practice at our Shoes

It occurred to me while reading this thread that if this person had been treated as a POW, rather than as a carefully non-categorized non-person, he would still be - perfectly legitimately - in custody, rather than wherever he is after having successfully perpetrated a suicide attack in Iraq. The nice thing about POW status (at least in my layman's understanding) is that you don't have to prove that the detainee committed a crime in order to continue to detain him until the hostilities in which he was involved cease. We can't torture him, of course, which is a bummer to some; but we can keep him in custody until hostilities are definitively over.

If it turns out that he is a criminal, at least as I understand it he can be turned over to the proper authorities when that comes to light. And his treatment as a POW, unlike extra-legal treatment as an 'illegal combatant', will not interfere with prosecution or lead to premature release.

It further occurred to me that that - his status as an indefinitely yet legally and morally imprisoned POW, had it been the case - would probably represent an intolerable outrage to both the anti-war Left and the pro-war Right.

(Cross-Posted)

Comments (10)

To have Prisoners of War requires a...war. And we haven't had a Constitutionally declared war since December 8, 1941. Lot's of police actions and military interventions, but no wars.

Kevin,

I'm sorry but, personally, I don't see how the events of 9/11 can be construed other than an act of war against the United States.

People would do well to remember that 9/11 really did happen.

Unfortunately, complacency has set in as far as the general public goes, committing such preposterous acts of illogic as that of actually extending certain rights to the very killers who were responsible for it as well as to those planning to commit similar acts of violence against the American people!

"I don't see how the events of 9/11 can be construed other than an act of war against the United States."

Very true, but what state inflicted it?

Assymetrical warfare will always pose huge moral, legal and military challenges, but that doesn't mean we should "go to the darkside" and not honor those traditions that make us better than our enemies.

A declaration of war by Congress against specific actors and organizations would prove we had the courage of our convictions and offer safeguards against falling into the abyss that comes with a nebulous "war on terror". Our enemies want to draw us into the shadows. Refuse the bait and fight in broad daylight.

Kevin,

With all due respect, I find your subsequent remarks rather surprising given your previously expressed stance on self-defense.

In the past, you stated:

(note: I am not producing your previous comments in their entirety only those of particular relevance in this case)

Two things regarding this issue. 1) there is a false dichotomy between 2 necessary and coexistent virtues, which create a healthy tension within the Christian life. St Francis would no more submit to his own murder by a street thug, than conjure up a predatory lending scheme on behalf of the Assisi Community Bank.

2) a legitimate difference over what is needed more at this point in time;
A - the courage to defend oneself, family and faith from danger.

Posted by Kevin | July 2, 2008 4:52 PM


If anybody were to be "for the war" (i.e., against these terrorists), I would have thought that such persons would include you.

The fact that we face a stateless enemy ever more underlines the need to resort to unconventional measures being that the war waged against America and its citizens is itself, at its very essence, an unconventional one.

To think that certain folks would like to impose such procedural formalities more suited for civilian matters (not to mention, concerns more specifically the rights due only to American citizens) upon what is rightfully a military operation (and should be conducted as such) I find incredibly risible.

To think that certain folks would like to impose such procedural formalities more suited for civilian matters (not to mention, concerns more specifically the rights due only to American citizens) upon what is rightfully a military operation (and should be conducted as such) I find incredibly risible.
My position is that we ought to do in our military operations what is rightful in military operations.

Aristocles, what did I say that leads you to believe I am unwilling to fight our enemies? Is it because I want our conduct to highlight the contrast between ourselves and this death cult from the East?

I have no idea what "the need to resort to unconventional measures" means, but I hope you aren't endorsing; "renditions", "enhanced interrogation techniques" and prolonged occupations in the Middle East.

Prison camps for enemy combatants are both necessary and legitimate and will stand as long as we don't slink back into the depraved practices of Abu Ghraib or some of the abuses that occurred at Quantanamo.

The Supreme Court ruling was the perfect storm of; an overreaching Court riding the crest of moral qualms produced by Abu Ghraib, et al, the weird twilight that held the prisoners as undefined actors, and the Liberal desire to usher our civilization to the grave.

Repelling militant Islamists is going to take greater wisdom and vision than we seen so far. Right now, the other side has been playing rope-a-dope against a leadership that takes Jack Bauer seriously.

Well, Congress authorized various military actions, including Iraq, so I think unconstitutional would be too strong a word here; but the fact is that no war has been declared, as Kevin points out -- mores the pity.

I can recall vividly, watching CNN some hours after 9/11 first happened. Newt Gingrich was on a beeper line with the anchor, and he said, "Congress needs to declare war. A state of was exists between America and its enemies." He was right, and is still right.

So when will he not be right? Will there ever be a time when there aren't enemies?

America will probably always have enemies, John, I agree. But America's enemies don't always attack us, especially by flying jetliners into skyscrapers and into the Pentagon.

Those enemies that do attack us in that or in similar ways ought to be repelled -- and they often are. In this case, those who attacked us were Islamic terrorists rather than a nation. We responded by going after Islamic terrorism, both regime-terror (as regards Iraq) and, so to speak, private-terror (as regards Al Qaeda). But normally it takes a lot more than simply being our enemy to drive us to military retaliation.

That is another way of saying that I think the war on terror is, in the main, a moral undertaking. Sometimes our conduct of that war has failed to be moral, but the project itself seems to me to be justified. For what it's worth, because our enemy is a movement and not a nation, I don't think that just war theory is entirely appropriate because it has developed over the centuries as a moral guideline for war between nations. To me, therefore, while traditional just war theory is helpful, it is not fully applicable.

"For what it's worth, because our enemy is a movement and not a nation..."

We then have to be wiser and more creative in our statecraft, reevaluate the merits of our presence in alien cultures and employ better military responses.

It makes no sense to invade and occupy hostile states in the name of combating "regime-terror", or we'll be waging war on a substantial part of the world. We should remember;"it takes a lot more than simply being our enemy to drive us to military retaliation."

Prudence will prevent us from being lured by a bunch of murderous nihilists into a bloody, expensive sand-trap that boosts their membership drives and depletes our prestige, morale and resources. No one is happier with our being bogged down in Iraq than bin Laden, Iran and every other actor that wants to see us bled white.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.