Annotated Links

http://www.spj.org/gc.asp: This site was one of the most useful tools i encountered. Whenever i had a problem understanding some of the legal terminology or a part of the Geneva Convention was confusing me, i would go to this site for clarity.

http://www.usafa.edu/isme/JSCOPE03/Casebeer03.html: This article proved to be a turning point for me and my opinions about the rights of terrorists involving torture. His understanding of current laws and regulations was by far superior to many of the other articles which I read and his arguments are well supported.

http://www.jamestown.org/: This site provided me with an unbiased presentation of world news relating to terrorism. This is the first place I discovered the difficulty in convicting a terrorist in an international court of law and where I learned about the many operations that go into financing terrorism.

http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/iraq/tagubarpt.html: This site provided me with much information regarding court cases, specifically the investigation of the 8ooth military police brigade. I provided me with the transcript of the court proceedings which proved difficult to understand, but in general the information provided, including facts and statistics, was very useful.

http://www.amnesty.org: This is the site of Amnesty International, the foremost group opposing torture and maltreatment of prisoners of all kinds. While I do not necessarily agree with all that they state on their web page, it was an essential source for me to understand the mindset of both sides of the argument.

Implications and Hope

The resolution of how to treat accused foreign terrorists is going to remain in the forefront of American politics and public debate so long as there are still people actively trying to harm American citizens. Without some sort of resolution defining their treatment, each new president is likely to overturn the mandates of the previous administration and enact their own doctrine. This will lead to an unprecedented slowing of the judicial process, as those who have been convicted might be granted a second trial and those who are awaiting trial will be forced to wait even longer. We currently suffer from a lack of a solid definition to work with. “Terrorist” is not an internationally recognized group so there is no real way to create rules for a faction that does not exist. Without some consensus on the issue, policy toward accused terrorists will be chaotic at best. Furthermore, we run the risk of weakening ourselves through constant infighting and instead of preventing future attacks; we open ourselves up to them. I’ve spent so much time planning for the worst possible outcome, that I think I will address the alternative and positive one. If the issue remains unresolved, the terrorists will have no idea what the next administration may have in store for them. We have already seen that terrorists take advantage of laws to protect themselves, so maybe if those laws are constantly changing it will thwart more of their plans. In the end that is mainly a hope as I would much rather we stand united than hope that our separation proves a blessing.

How Long is too Long

How long should the US be able to hold someone accused of terrorist activities before they are either indicted or released? (I am assuming that once indicted the judicial proceedings will commence as quickly as is possible) The two sides of the issue are as follows: some believe that the accused are to be indicted immediately upon their arrest or they are free to leave, (Mirroring the American judicial system) while others believe that they are allowed to be held in custody as long as it takes for the prosecutors to gather evidence against them. I have a major problem with the first view and it is the same one which I have held for the entirety of this blog; that we should not provide an accused foreign terrorist with the same rights as an American citizen. If we are forced to indict every accused person upon their arrest or release them after 24 hours, we will be placing many dangerous people back out into the world where they can continue to do harm. I recognize that in allowing the detainment of accused persons without indictment we will likely be holding innocent people for an extended period of time. However, in the current climate of the world, it remains in our best interests to do so. We would be better off protecting our troops, American citizens, from harm rather than defending the rights of a foreign national. As for holding them indefinitely and without reason I also disagree. I believe that there needs to be a military review panel that goes over the intelligence gathered with each accused person and they decide whether that person should be held until they can be tried or immediately released.

Rights of the Accused

Recently I was asked what rights I thought should be given to accused terrorists as well as whether or not they should be subject to torture and I thought it would make an interesting blog post. I’ll answer the second question first. NO. No accused person should be subjected to torture in order to compel a confession or gain information. This is a new mind set for me so bear with me. During the Inquisition, many persons confessed just to end the suffering caused by torture. A false confession or made up intelligence is of absolutely no use to anyone. Apart from that reason, I have seen how there are alternative ways of acquiring information that can be just as effective. As for those who are convicted terrorists, as in they have been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then treatment such as torture might be warranted only in specific situations in which a threat in immanent and all other means have been exhausted. Now as to what rights are given to the accused is a little more complicated. I believe that they should be treated as persons accused of war crimes. They are not entitled to protection by the Geneva Convention as they are not soldiers and those interrogating them should be bound by the laws that bind American police detectives i.e. they cannot be physically harmed by the interrogator or humiliated in public. As for their trial, I agree that they need to be proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt, but by military tribunal not a civilian court and that their appeals must be directed through specific channels. In short, no Miranda rights and a limit on appeals.

This link is from a news article that describes the Bush doctrine dealing with terrorist legal treatment