« New York! New York! | Main | April fools from Google? »
March 28, 2005
Gitmo
The problem with being at war with an adjective, rather than a people, is that it is possible to never claim that the war is over. Indeed, Terrorism has been around forever, and probably will be around forever. In the strictest sense, a War on Terror cannot be won. What we are really trying to do is cause a certain subset of Fundamentalist Islamic thought to no longer exist. The fact that this subset uses Terror as its chief weapon does not define it, or cause it to be more of a problem than if they were trying to invade Texas, it merely defines our response to it...
One of those responses has been to take thousands of Prisoners and hold them indefinitely. This is of questionable legality at best-- even the bush administration admits that it is only the unique nature of our hold on Guanatamo Bay which makes the whole thing doable. Even putting aside that question, however, leaves a more basic one: how long are we going to hold the people we’ve incarcerated there?
We have claimed for ourselves the right to indefinitely hold anyone, as long as we hold them there. This doesn’t strike me as in keeping with the best practices of what it means to be an American. Holding people forever is wrong, and sends the wrong messages about American respect for rule of law. Being caught on a battlefield is not a crime-- and the Afghan campaign is long over. If we suspect that they are terrorists, we need to try them fairly. If they are guilty, they will be convicted. If they are innocent, we must let them go...
The least thing in the world we can afford is for large amounts of our prisoners to start dieing of old age. The consequences of that would be catastrophic...
Posted by Andrew at March 28, 2005 01:58 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.punningpundit.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/683
Comments
To quibble... The name of a war, is not the war itself. The war of the roses had nothing to do with flowers.
Defining an actual enemy, or goal, gives no actual time-line, in and of itself. Even defining your goal with a deadline, is not a garuntee that it'll end. The Cold War, Vietnam (not even a "war"), World War 2, the War to End All Wars, the hundred years war, the War of the Roses, etc.
Even when a war is officially declared over, it's often not.
Now we have to define winning... Is genocide winning? Is forcing your enemy to stop using certain techniques winning? Is winning getting the world to agree you won? Is winning accomplishing as much as possible, with as little life lost? Is winning getting a population to change, or at least stop practicing, it's suicidal beliefs? Is winning simpy changing a populations beleifs?
Pick one, and there's an example in history of it counting as winning, and one of it counting as losing. In most any definition of winning, there's an example somewhere of it working, and of it not working.
World War II could have easily been called the war on Facism. The cold war was certainly the war on Communism. There's been any number of religeous wars, that could be called the war on Jews, or the war on Christians. There've been wars a plenty over economic issues, philosophical issues, political issues, etc. The Civil War is often called the war against slavery. It's also known in some parts as the War against Northern Agression. Please spare me the lecture on States Rights, Civil rights, etc.
Let's take the Cold war. Did we know when it would end? Did we know IF it would end? Would it ever be fully resolved without one side or the other changing? Was military action absolutely necessary, and did it ever have a chance of being decisive?
Ask those same questions on the WOT. If you're honest, at least with yourself, you'll get the same answers.
As to prisoners... I'll not argue whether it's right or wrong to hold enemy combatants, until the end of the conflict. I will point out that that question has already been answered. Many times. Prior to the current President. By Presidents of both sides of the spectrum.
Posted by: Rand. at March 29, 2005 10:19 AM
Hold/leash me as long as they want, if i get to be tortured by pepermint patty via abu ghraib
Posted by: amberite at March 29, 2005 04:52 PM
Well, if Bush called it a War on Al-Qeida, we never could have gone into Iraq under the pretense of stopping terrorism.
Posted by: Alexa at March 31, 2005 03:54 PM
Why wouldn't we have gone into Iraq? There were Al-Qeida members there. If the moonbats were correct, and Bush really did make war illegally, for oil, for revenge, or any other reason they give, then it would have been a much better excuse to go for them.
Posted by: Rand. at April 1, 2005 06:17 AM