Gautam Mukunda wrote: > That would satisfy the confidentiality requirements > and still do a very good job of sorting the innocent > from the guilty. That seems to me to be what the > government has in mind. Eventually.
I don't understand this eventually bit. These people have been incarcerated for almost two years now. How much longer do you intend to hold them without even trying to determine if they are actually Al-Qaeda terrorists or people in the wrong place? > I understand > Rumsfeld's statement about holding people permanently, > and legally he's actually on pretty clear ground. If > the Second World War had gone on indefinitely, that's > exactly what would have happened to POWs. I assume the official stance is that the war on terror isn't over and therefore there is no hurry to try these people. But the war against terror has actually manifested itself as war between nations. So, why can't the people picked up on the battlefields of Afghanistan be accorded trials now that the US is no longer at war with Afghanistan? Like you say, some of them may not be Al-Qaeda operatives, just people fighting for their homes. Isn't it about time that is determined instead of just assuming that most were rightfully detained? > And, again, > people captured in Afghanistan have _fewer_ rights > than POWs. They aren't protected by the Geneva > Conventions. They're really not protected by anything > except the good graces of the American government. Don't the Geneva Conventions cover the rights of the illegal combatants? > The issue is demobilization. We could release German > POWs after the war because Germany was demobilized. > They would go back home to their families and live > relatively normal lives. Al Qaeda hasn't even been > defeated yet, but eventually it will be. Its members, > though, are never going to be demobilized. They don't > need (heck, they don't have right now) formal > structures to continue to be dangerous. I don't think anyone is asking you to release Al-Qaeda members, merely to determine that the people you are holding *are*, in fact, Al-Qaeda. > This is an > entirely new problem. > No one, so far as I am aware, > has dealt with anything much like this under a > democratic framework. It is too soon to say with any degree of certainty but we seem to have started doing that. The SC's judgement in the Parliament attack case and the release of Gilani and Guha does seem to indicate a more stringent respect for the rights of the accused. Still, it's just one case. > India's > record in Sri Lanka with the Tamil Tigers might be a > precedent, I guess, but the Indians weren't all that > big on prisoners, either, IIRC, and they had the Sri > Lankan government to help with the issue. We certainly had the Sri Lankan govt's help on the issue and it basically translated into a media clampdown and no official complaints. Our record there was bad, much worse than the official record. If you meet a Sri Lankan who lived there in those days, ask them. I did and it was rather illuminating once they got over their initial politeness. > India's > record in Khalistan and Kashmir is so horrendous that > we definitely don't want to take any lessons from > there. Oh please don't say that. Our record in Kashmir and Khalistan is so horrendous, so replete with unbelievably stupid mistakes, short-sightedness and callous arrogance that you *need* to take lessons from it. It would help you understand and avoid the obvious pitfalls. In both cases, the problem had been artificially created and we responded in time-honoured fashion: with brutal, overwhelming might. The support for the extremists mushroomed. We got more brutal and repressive. I can't really summarise the events in the two states in a few sentences but they are certainly worth a look. This de-humanising of the other, answering terrorism with armed might, treating entire communities with suspicion, a gradual erosion of human rights - I have seen it all before, in close detail and I have seen its effects too. It is worth reflecting on why the Indian state was able to completley crush out terrorism in Punjab through repression and why the strategy failed in Kashmir. There is a change in Kashmir too. For the first time in 14 years, the portents are promising. Still, it is a slow process and would take years of concentrated effort.Too soon to say where Kashmir is headed and how. > Our closest parallel, as I think about it, is probably > Israel. Anyone know more about the situation there > than I do? I believe that the Israelis do, in fact, > hold people indefinitely without trial for pretty much > the reasons that I have articulated. Of course, the > Israelis also allowed torture under exigent > circumstances (defined _very_ loosely) up until last > year. I'm not comfortable with that (although read > Mark Bowden's article in _The Atlantic_ for a > description of the parameters of what we probably do, > and should, allow). I'd say Israel's current army chief of staff and four ex-security chiefs would know more about the situation there. And Yoshe Ma'alon and four of Israel's ex-security chiefs think that their policy is counter-productive and intensifying the cycle of hatred and destruction, breeding militancy instead of preventing it. They are also worried about the effect the policy has had on Israel's polity and economy. > They have a better record than > India, though, and a threat comparable to or worse > than ours. I don't quite understand what you refer to here. What does Israel have a better record in? Human rights? Establishing peace? Neutralising the threat? Preventing further attacks? <snip> > The answer to your question, Dan, is that I pretty > much agree with the government's position as I > understand it. We need to be able to hold > non-citizens for quite a while, just as we would have > during the Second World War. The fighting in Iraq and > Afghanistan is not even over, so the state of war in > the countries where we captured them is still going > on. That's obfuscation, Gautam. Is your government at war with Afghanistan or Iraq? Or has the war been declared over? Would these people be held until peace is established in these countries? Let us assume that peace isn't established in Afghanistan for a decade. So would everyone be held for another decade? And the people who turn out to be non-al-qaeda, would you find their resentments justified? What about the resentments of their friends and family? A decade is a pretty hefty chunk out of a person's life, y'know. > Eventually we will have to use military tribunals > to sift through the remaining prisoners. Until then > we should use administrative procedures as quickly and > thoroughly as possible to release those we are holding > now who are no longer a threat (which we appear to be > doing). That's what it seems to me the government > currently intends to do. Rumsfeld's statement, it > appears to me, was mainly meant to buy time to allow > this process to sort itself out. How long a time period do you find fair for 'eventually' sifting through the prisoners? Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
