This issue has garnered much debate recently since it has been released that the Christmas Day Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, is to be tried in US Federal Courts on criminal charges. The debate has continued since now there is speculation that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the September 11 attacks, is to be tried in civil court. If these men are tried in criminal civil courts, they will be given many more rights than would be afforded them by military tribunals. Conflict surrounds this issue because even as President Obama said, "We are at war against a very specific group - al-Qaida and its extremist allies that have metastasized around the globe, that would attack us, attack our allies, attack bases, and embassies around the world, and most sadly attack innocent people regardless of their backgrounds and regardless of their religions." President Obama's move to try the terrorists in civil courts even though he admits that we are at war with these terrorist groups has conservatives in opposition. As reported by Global Security, Republican Senator Chris Bond said, "Yes, it is a war, a war of terror these radicals have declared on America and the West," Senator Bond and others see fit to try these terrorist under military tribunal so that the United States can exert its war powers and try them to the fullest.
Although we are definitely at war with the terrorists, as pointed out by the top EU diplomat in the US, Angelos Pangratis, terrorism does not fit within the legal guidelines and definitions of war. Pangratis went on to say that counterterrorism is the first priority in building the future and security for our nation and its citizens, however the fight against terrorism must be fought within the guidelines of international law. This is most certainly true, as is evident in our military engagements with terrorist forces. Our military must follow strict Rules of Engagement when combatting terrorists, they are limited by the Geneva Conventions.
In light of the growing debate on whether terrorists can be tried as criminals or as enemy combatants has led for a call to amend the international law to fit terrorists into the category of enemy combatants. As Michael Swetnam of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies said, "We are at war with al-Qaida and other radical groups and the international law, in its slow plodding way, may catch up in another decade or a century or two, but that will not stop people from dying and us from fighting them." Regardless of whether the terrorists are charged in criminal courts or military tribunals, justice will be served to these extremists, a fact that both conservative and liberals alike can find solace in.
Like you said, I think this comes down to the definition of war. The Geneva Conventions have it defined such that the U.S. War on Terror does not fit the description, so terrorists cannot be tried as criminals. My personal opinion is that the definition of war should be amended, but that will be extremely difficult to gather the support, votes, and signatures of other countries. Another problem that could arise is that amending the definition may leave too much of a gray area, so that some future fight may be considered a war, even though it may not be widely accepted as such.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not the accused terrorists should be tried in military tribunals or criminal courts, I think, depends on the amount of intel that we have on them. If it's a very obvious terrorist leader or one who has blatantly committed a crime, they do not deserve the resources required to hold the criminal trial, and military tribunals should be sufficient. Yet for many of the suspected terrorists, their activities are not confirmed at the time of the trial, obviously, and they deserve the rights of a criminal trial until they are proven guilty.
ReplyDeleteI think you need to consider the difference between how a "war on terror" can even be tactically conducted before you can classify 'terrorists' as 'enemy combatants' or 'criminals.'
ReplyDeleteWhat I find is so significant about this war is that, even more so than guerilla warfare, the battle is over an emotional, intangible victory ("over terror" vs. "over the West") rooted in shared ethnic and (largely) religious historically. The intangible nature of this commitment makes it that much harder to conquer, and -- as you identify -- any action is also constrained by the international community's accepted rule of law.
To break such internationally accepted precedents would give the already intangible, and now (exponentially more dangerous) viral, extremist movements of our adversaries even more wood for their fire. It would be all too easy for one of our enemies (i.e. al Qaeda) to point to such an American breach of international law as a sign of America's intention to selfishly bully the world's less advanced countries.
Second, we must assert in our diplomatic rhetoric just as much as in our military tactics who we consider to be a terrorist, and to clarify that this conflict is solely with militant extremists who attack Americans’ safety or vital interests, and not between the American people (or worse, the Western world) and the Arab community. This is kind of ‘extra-cultural-sensitivity’ (if you will) is especially significant in situations with language barriers, as anyone who played telephone as a kid knows, the message changes from the time it is made until the time it is received. The news media, especially, are responsible for these interim adjustments when they frame stories.
That said, once all of these diplomatic advancements have been made, I personally agree that is fully necessary for any war against terrorism to “be fought within the guidelines of international law.” However, I believe the aforementioned communication with the Arab world and demonstrations of goodwill must occur prior to amending any international law, both to demonstrate U.S. integrity and to strengthen the transparency of our communication.