June 3, 2004

BUT OJ AND KLAUS ARE STILL GUILTY (via John Resnick):

Rules of war enable terror (Alan M. Dershowitz, May 28, 2004, Baltimore Sun)

The time has come to revisit the laws of war and to make them relevant to new realities. If their ultimate purpose was to serve as a shield to protect innocent civilians, they are failing miserably, since they are being used as a sword by terrorists who target such innocent civilians. Several changes should be considered:

* First, democracies must be legally empowered to attack terrorists who hide among civilians, so long as proportional force is employed. Civilians who are killed while being used as human shields by terrorists must be deemed the victims of the terrorists who have chosen to hide among them, rather than those of the democracies who may have fired the fatal shot.

* Second, a new category of prisoner should be recognized for captured terrorists and those who support them. They are not "prisoners of war," neither are they "ordinary criminals." They are suspected terrorists who operate outside the laws of war, and a new status should be designated for them - a status that affords them certain humanitarian rights, but does not treat them as traditional combatants.

* Third, the law must come to realize that the traditional sharp line between combatants and civilians has been replaced by a continuum of civilian-ness. At the innocent end are those who do not support terrorism in any way. In the middle are those who applaud the terrorism, encourage it, but do not actively facilitate it. At the guilty end are those who help finance it, who make martyrs of the suicide bombers, who help the terrorists hide among them, and who fail to report imminent attacks of which they are aware. The law should recognize this continuum in dealing with those who are complicit, to some degree, in terrorism.

* Fourth, the treaties against all forms of torture must begin to recognize differences in degree among varying forms of rough interrogation, ranging from trickery and humiliation, on the one hand, to lethal torture on the other. They must also recognize that any country faced with a ticking-time-bomb terrorist would resort to some forms of interrogation that are today prohibited by the treaty.


The most important change--which has basically been enacted already--is missing here: any nation harboring terrorists, funding them, or developing WMD forfeits its claim to inviolable sovereignty.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 3, 2004 3:58 PM
Comments

I'd be interested in his views on which people fall into this category and what's to be done about them.

In the middle are those who applaud the terrorism, encourage it, but do not actively facilitate it.

Doesn't that description fit a substantial percentage of his colleagues on the faculty at Harvard?

Posted by: djs at June 3, 2004 4:16 PM

I hate it when liberals say something totally adult and sensible. (and better than most conservatives do)

Posted by: h-man at June 3, 2004 4:17 PM

When was their ever a "traditional sharp line between combatants and civilians" anywhere other than the bizarro world where the Treaty of Westphalia is something other than a joke?

Posted by: brian at June 3, 2004 4:53 PM

brian:

Hiroshima--we nuked the civilians

Posted by: oj at June 3, 2004 5:12 PM

And how many did we incinerate in Tokyo, Dresden, etc? I used to think I was a Jacksonian, but recently I think Shermanian would be a better description.

Posted by: brian at June 3, 2004 5:17 PM

brian:

By the way, don't get me wrong, I'm a democratic warrior, I favor killing civilians in wartime:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1011/

Posted by: oj at June 3, 2004 5:30 PM

The only way to protect your own prisoners is to promise retaliation against the other guy's prisoners you hold.

That's not liberal or conservative, it's the policy enunciated by Gen. Washington.

It works, though, only if the other side cares whether you kill its guys or not.

As Dershowitz notes, no Asian country has ever cared, and our prisoners have been tortured because of it.

They really aren't like us.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 3, 2004 8:27 PM

The rules of war provide for the death penalty for those involved in espionage, intentional homocide as well as "serious" sabatoge. Sound like al Queda and it's supporters to you? If they and their sponsors keep it up, a Nagasaki-like response on our part would seem to be more than justified.

Posted by: Tom Corcoran at June 4, 2004 11:02 AM
« DITHERING: | Main | HARD ON THEM DOESN'T MATTER IF SOFT ON US: »