There’s a lot in the blogosphere debating the rights and wrongs of treating the "knicker-bomber" -- who tried to bring down a place with 300 passengers, with a bomb in his underpants -- Abdul Mutallab, as an ordinary “alleged suspect”, reading him his rights and having him “lawyer up”, which is what has happened under the Obama Administration.
It didn’t have to be that way.
He could have been held in military jail and treated as an enemy combatant. Two views below. Which is right? I would have thought the first was right, some time ago: that is, that doing it Obama’s way was correct, read him his rights, make sure the US is seen to be living up to its values, that it’s taking the moral high road. Now, I’m not so sure. Hell, I’ll say it right out: I’m on the Krauthammer side of this one now.
Surely we’re at war; otherwise why are we in Afghanistan and Iraq (whatever one thinks of the rights or wrongs of starting those wars), and so surely if one of the representatives of those enemies attacks us, we have the right to interrogate him. And surely there’s space for interrogation that doesn’t go to waterboarding lengths.
My father interrogated Japanese prisoners of war in WWII and he told me they got plenty of info from them, without ever needing to torture, but sure as hell they didn’t give them lawyers.
See below, the liberal and the conservative views on this issue:
(I) The liberal view
Michael Kinsley, “What’s our Line” New York Times, January 5
…. So why not draw the line to put an Abdulmutallab or a Shaikh Mohammed on the “war” side and treat him as an enemy combatant? Well, first, recognize that this has become a judgment call so the answer is no longer obvious or mandated by logic. Second, recognize that the national border is a “bright line,” and if people captured within the United States are going to be treated as if they were somewhere else — provided that they are certified terrorists — things are going to get complicated quickly.
[Comment: why? I can't see the difficulty of treating differently guys who would down a plane full of people, on the basis of the ideology they say makes them make war on us]
What about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist charged with killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November? He was influenced by an Islamic cleric, but seems to have been fighting his own demons rather than participating in a larger plot. And he’s a citizen. What about Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? What about the Columbine high school killers? Are they terrorists? Is American justice too good for them?
[Comment: what about them?? They're not jihadists and so are not our enemies; they are indeed common criminals and appropriately handled by that system. That's not too hard to figure out; not too hard to make the "bright line" the one between the enemy -- the jihadists -- and ourselves]
American justice is not a “get out of jail free” card. Obviously guilty murderers rarely escape punishment here. We have nothing to be ashamed of, little to fear and much to be proud of in choosing to err on the side of treating captured foreign terrorists as we would treat any upstanding American who tried to blow up an airplane full of people. Read it all
[Comment: an “upstanding” American?? Who tries to blow up planes??]
(II) The conservative view
Charles Krauthammer, “A terrorist war Obama has denied”, Washington Post, January 1.
….Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians -- and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.
Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point -- surprise! -- he stops talking. … Read it all.
….Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians -- and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.
Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point -- surprise! -- he stops talking. … Read it all.
