Rumsfeld Reveals Lawless Policy

by jd Sun Jun 19, 2005 19:02

independance movements are rarely, if ever states. Their raison d'etre may be to found a state but inevitably the reason they exist is to end an existing colonial state and to replace it with a 'free' version.

Therefore mike, your argument that the 'war on terror' is some kind of new paradigm is just not true. Nevertheless, most of those in Gitmo were lifted in Afghanistan, or so we are led to believe. These guys were fighting with the Taliban who had formed the govt of that country for several years and were recognised as such by the international community. To claim that these fighters were part of some sort of 'free companies' is just not true and rumsfeld knows it. Guantanamo exists to create new jursprudential facts on the ground. This is not about the ambiguous nature of a cunnning vicious enemy but about the desire of the US state to escape the net of its own, and the international, justice systems.

by Mike Sun Jun 19, 2005 00:06

"The real problem is not Guantanamo Bay. The problem is that, to a large extent, we are in unexplored territory with this unconventional and complex struggle against extremism. Traditional doctrines covering criminals and military prisoners do not apply well enough."

OK folks, where we have to start is with recognizing that there ARE "traditional doctrines" but that neither Rumsfeld (along with the rest of the US administration) NOR we wish these applied. According to the "traditional" rules "soldiers" of a non state entity are neither criminals (not to be held according to rules for criminals) nor are they soldiers subject to the protections of the Geneva convention because they are not serving some STATE.

Imprising them in "Gitmo" is wrong by the tradiitonal doctrine -- but standing them up against the wall and shooting them not. THAT is the prescribed traditional treatment of captured soldiers of "free companies". And that is the problem with the "tradition" which arose whe the only non-state soldiery were pirates on the sea and freebooters on land.

These are something else. A religious organization is not a state. On the other hand, organizations such as Al Qaeda or Hezballah are not freebooters. We actually DO need some sort of revision of the traditional "rules of war" to specify the correct treatment of prisoners who are soldiers of some sort of non-state entity of this sort.