Logic and Rationality: Detained Indefinitely

23 October 2002

Regarding Gitmo detainees, the Washington Times reports today that "Pentagon civilians and military officers 'have come to a grudging acceptance' that it is too risky to send such dangerous people back to nations that could eventually release them."

The foreign citizens of Gitmo prison have been held, in some cases for close to a year, not as POWs where they are covered under the Geneva Convention, nor as people charged with a crime in this country where they might have access to counsel.

They are detainees. They are being detained. Indefinitely. It's all legal, just ask the government lawyers. And questions of constitutionality don't apply because they aren't in the U.S. They are in little piece of U.S.-controlled Cuba. That's different.

So quitcher gripin'!

So we have Gitmo. We also have some valid concerns about the International Criminal Court, alternately known as the World Kangaroo Court, and President Bush is adamant about protecting U.S. soldiers and citizens around the world from being charged and tried under such a system. Article 98 is great! Flee the ICC!

We don't want our soldiers fighting a war on terror or anything else to be subject to the ICC's kangaroo (no offense to the Aussies) justice. It is a worthy goal. Shows we care about our soldiers (even if the Americans they are most want to keep out of an ICC courtroom are over fifty and don't work in offices with wheels, wings, forecastles or tracks).

America, up to now, has been admired for its excellent sense of justice and freedom. We are multicultural in large part because people all over the world who value freedom and justice like to become U.S. citizens. When it comes to constitution-based protection of civil liberties, our record may not be perfect, but it is a model envied by most of the world.

The seeming unwillingness to figure out a way to send folks back home after a year or more of detainee status, uncharged, drained of useful intelligence, is bad enough. But in fact - we are refusing to send them back to allied and partner governments in the war on terror - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Pakistan and last I checked, Yemen. I guess if we can create a new definition for POW, we can create new meanings for partner and ally.

So, the Pentagon's civilian and military leadership says grudgingly, "It's just too risky."

Not like taking over Iraq, watching other secular leaders in the region crash and burn politically, inciting demagogic nationalistic movements, purging Palestinians from the West Bank, raising the global ire of the Arab street, and driving moderate Muslims into a global grudging silence. That's not risky. Quitcher damn gripin'!

Oh, I just remembered.

When the enemy of the day captures some of our soldiers, we expect our Article 98 exemption from the ICC to be fully honored. We want full Geneva privileges, and teams of U.S. government lawyers are already inbound. And please make sure their hotel is stocked with Evian, if you will. Thanks!