But we aren't talking a situation on the battlefield we're talking about after someone has been captured which changes it completely. You keep saying that the person is an enemy combatant so has no rights but how do you or I really know that they are? Your information about them might be wrong, it could be mistaken identity or maybe you're just lying in your accusation. For someone to be labelled an enemy combatant or a terrorist instead of just being an accused enemy combatant or terrorist they need a trial. That basic principle applies to the most heinous of terrorist offences just as much as it does the most trivial of ordinary offences. It's to prevent someone malicious calling someone they don't like a combatant and then being able to imprison them forever without accountability, and also to prevent genuine mistakes. We can't ever have a system where anyone (no matter whether it's a thief or the worlds most violent terrorist) can be labelled with a name that allows you to imprison them indefinitely without trial. I might not agree with parts of the law but what makes me proud of it is that no matter what the person is accused of and no matter how much "we all know they're guilty", everyone has the right to a fair trial. If we move away from that even just in exceptional cases we become a society where guilt is arbitrarily determined by public opinion and accusations, not really different to Salem.
If Jihadi John is ever captured I want him to have a fair trial with access to legal advice and be allowed to give his side of the story. We all know he's guilty but our opinions can't come into it when we're talking about the impartial application of justice. He'll never be able to justify what he did so he'd be found guilty anyway but at least he'd be found guilty in a fair trial and not convicted by popular opinion. As a former police officer I would have thought you'd want the same. Terrorism is different to "normal" criminal offences but the way we handle it through the justice system is not. If you accuse someone of being an enemy combatant, that doesn't mean they are one it just means you think they are. If you want them to be locked up indefinitely you must first prove to me and the rest of society that they actually are an enemy combatant. Your word, however honest you might be, is not good enough. An accusation must never be enough to convict on its own.
We do give suspects here their rights, and we don't lock them up indefinitely without trial.
It is one reason why such people come here.
The US has decided in the past to take stronger action against the people involved, and if they're getting the right people, then I find it hard to have sympathy with them. We have seen this week what the lengths are that these terrorists are prepared to go to, and then if caught, they expect us to treat them with respect, and abide by civilised rules.
We sometimes need people who will deal with these people the way they deal with others (although in the west we don't go anywhere near that far).
The type of people who engage in, and support the kind of terrorism we are seeing get no sympathy from me if they get some rough treatment abroad.
As for Jihadi John, I don't want to see him in court spouting his shite, I want to see reports of him killed in action as soon as possible.
What do you think about the idea of POW camps in WW2, for example?
I mean, we've only got "the word" of those who captured POWs that they were actually enemy soldiers.
Were POWs rights being infringed by imprisoning them in POW camps?
There is a difference because the POW camps were a limited time of imprisonment and it was planned that they'd be returned to their home country when the war was over. Politicians are saying the "war on terror" could go on for decades and they haven't said what they would class as the war being over whereas WW2 had a clear endgame; Once the Axis powers fell it was over. Even if the plan was to return all captured enemy fighters at Guantanamo back to their home country when the war on terror is over, we don't have a clear goal of when exactly we'll define it as being over and with the vagueness of it, it could be extended indefinitely. That's far too long for someone who hasn't actually been convicted, to wait for a trial/return to their country.
Course, we have stuff like the Geneva Convention to help with this stuff by dictating that combatants wear uniforms to identify themselves as such and ensure that they are treated in accordance with the GC.
How you treat the enemy reflects more upon you than it does them, even if they were wearing civilian clothes to ambush you. If you believe in justice, you'll treat them fairly no matter what they did. If you don't care about justice, you'll use some convention as an excuse to justify summary arrest/execution.
I know that our guys in civilian clothing will likely be treated very harshly if captured but we're meant to be the good guys which means we should treat everyone fairly even if they fight dirty. By all means fight dirty to capture/kill them but if you have captured them it's no longer a war situation, it's time for you to prove their guilt.
Comments
We do give suspects here their rights, and we don't lock them up indefinitely without trial.
It is one reason why such people come here.
The US has decided in the past to take stronger action against the people involved, and if they're getting the right people, then I find it hard to have sympathy with them. We have seen this week what the lengths are that these terrorists are prepared to go to, and then if caught, they expect us to treat them with respect, and abide by civilised rules.
We sometimes need people who will deal with these people the way they deal with others (although in the west we don't go anywhere near that far).
The type of people who engage in, and support the kind of terrorism we are seeing get no sympathy from me if they get some rough treatment abroad.
As for Jihadi John, I don't want to see him in court spouting his shite, I want to see reports of him killed in action as soon as possible.
There is a difference because the POW camps were a limited time of imprisonment and it was planned that they'd be returned to their home country when the war was over. Politicians are saying the "war on terror" could go on for decades and they haven't said what they would class as the war being over whereas WW2 had a clear endgame; Once the Axis powers fell it was over. Even if the plan was to return all captured enemy fighters at Guantanamo back to their home country when the war on terror is over, we don't have a clear goal of when exactly we'll define it as being over and with the vagueness of it, it could be extended indefinitely. That's far too long for someone who hasn't actually been convicted, to wait for a trial/return to their country.
How you treat the enemy reflects more upon you than it does them, even if they were wearing civilian clothes to ambush you. If you believe in justice, you'll treat them fairly no matter what they did. If you don't care about justice, you'll use some convention as an excuse to justify summary arrest/execution.
I know that our guys in civilian clothing will likely be treated very harshly if captured but we're meant to be the good guys which means we should treat everyone fairly even if they fight dirty. By all means fight dirty to capture/kill them but if you have captured them it's no longer a war situation, it's time for you to prove their guilt.