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

Self-Analysis

When I first started writing this blog, I had a very clear mindset as to what I was going to write about. In many ways I was even biased, as is apparent in my initial post. My initial interpretation of the rights of terrorists was that they should not be given any semblance of rights like those of American citizens. My initial posts followed this view point and failed to take into account that by denying them fair treatment, we are only further polarizing the issue in our country. As I continued my research, I found out more and more about the problems with limiting their rights.

I have learned much about the international laws that govern the treatment of POWs, the rules of war, and the distinctions between POW, criminal, and terrorist. As my knowledge of the topic grew, my views were altered to fit my new realizations. Prior to this blog, I was indeed a proponent of using torture against accused terrorists, whether this was legal or illegal, in order to acquire information that could save American lives. However, my view is now more intellectual and supported instead of emotionally charged. After studying the Geneva Convention, I realized that certain methods of interrogation were allowed by the rules of war in certain circumstances; however I also came to understand that in the majority of the time, these circumstances did not apply. One other revelation obtained through my research was that up to this point, I had classified all terrorists as men who took up arms against those they saw as inferior. I had failed to realize that terrorists, like most other groups, are multifaceted and require more infrastructure than I had previously thought. I discovered that there were many people who I consider to be "white collar terrorists" whose job it was to finance other operations.
As for the rights mandated to be read to terrorists upon their apprehension, I still disagree that they should be given the same rights as citizens. They are accused of committing actions with no regard for the sanctity of human life and thus should not be protected by the nation that they attack. Nevertheless, my initial opinion that they should have no rights has softened. Through conversation with my peers on my blog, I have come to realize that we must do what we can to protect those that might be innocent so long as it does not jeopardize national security.

White Collar Terrorism

Not all terrorists charge into buildings or markets with the goal of killings civilians. There are white collar terrorists as well. What do I mean by this? I mean those who use charities and legitimate businesses as fronts to finance terrorist activities elsewhere. In the past few years European nations have been plagued by charity fronts for Hamas terrorist actions in Israel. A major problem in all of these cases has been the acquisition of substantial enough evidence to convict them. The fronts have protection under the law and they exploit that protection to a maximum. Evidence is hard to come by when the accused hires the best lawyers in the nation to defend them. In the Swedish trial of charity representative
Khalid al-Yousef openly agreed that he had sent money to Palestinian groups who were directly connected to Hamas though he had no knowledge that they were connected at that time and also when it was proven that his charity did have knowledge of a Hamas connection, Khalid al-Yousef stated that he did not know that the money was going to finance terrorist activities. He was acquitted. I don’t know about you, but I find something extremely wrong with this situation. I am not advocating for a lessening of the burden of proof for a conviction, but I am pointing out that there is a major problem. I welcome any comments on how my readers would propose to rectify this situation.

Theory

The rectification of these two polar opposites seems highly unlikely at this point. One side calls for an outright end to all torture and interrogation and the providing of rights akin to that of an American citizen while the other side calls for harsher punishments and a more aggressive policy towards accused terrorists. In the past decade I can only find one occasion in which both sides were united against a common threat and that was in the months following September 11th 2001. It is painful to think that an atrocity of that magnitude is only action that has been shown to unite us and I pray we do not require another tragedy to come together again. For now the best strategy to unite these polar opposites is to come back to the things we have in common: our love of country and our desire to protect ourselves and each other from harm. Once we realize that we are indeed on the same side, we can go about finding a solution to this problem. This means however, that we will have to become intelligent citizens and not fall prey to media or political bias. Many of the most polar issues of this debate have only been accentuated by rhetoric that largely neglects or manipulates the facts. As a people we essentially believe in the same basic principles and if we can put aside our biases and passions, we can come to a consensus as to what needs to be done.