Not politics, exactly. Ethics perhaps.
Is America at war, or not?
Generally speaking, I agree with the points in the article. Either someone is entitled to legal due process or they're not; making exceptions to treat one person as a criminal while others are treated as enemy soldiers for the exact same (or lesser) actions is foolish.
That said, it is a different world and a different US than in past wars. I've always felt that detaining indefinitely (instead of executing) without secrecy is an attempt at two different kinds of compromise: open society vs. secure society, and domestic popularity vs. world popularity. Now they're having to undo that compromise, and leaning heavily towards open society and world popularity with a side dish of "America treats everyone fairly" moral stance. Not the smartest course, but politically easier than taking things secret after the half measures set up when this war started.
Many options no longer exist due to the actions already taken. Options now are: keep detaining indefinitely; try as normal defendants; try in secret military courts; and try in war crimes tribunals. In order of how much sense they make, the last one would seem most sensible, the third one worked in the past and could work this time at the cost of ruining popularity on both local and world levels, the first one would work except for that damned moral righteousness, so the least sensible choice it is.
I don't really see why handing the problem of what do to with them off to an international tribunal isn't preferred. It would have been nice if the writer of the article had chosen to lay out what course would be more palatable to him and why as a closing statement, rather than basically say that he will blame anything that goes wrong on those advocating the current course.
Generally speaking, I agree with the points in the article. Either someone is entitled to legal due process or they're not; making exceptions to treat one person as a criminal while others are treated as enemy soldiers for the exact same (or lesser) actions is foolish.
That said, it is a different world and a different US than in past wars. I've always felt that detaining indefinitely (instead of executing) without secrecy is an attempt at two different kinds of compromise: open society vs. secure society, and domestic popularity vs. world popularity. Now they're having to undo that compromise, and leaning heavily towards open society and world popularity with a side dish of "America treats everyone fairly" moral stance. Not the smartest course, but politically easier than taking things secret after the half measures set up when this war started.
Many options no longer exist due to the actions already taken. Options now are: keep detaining indefinitely; try as normal defendants; try in secret military courts; and try in war crimes tribunals. In order of how much sense they make, the last one would seem most sensible, the third one worked in the past and could work this time at the cost of ruining popularity on both local and world levels, the first one would work except for that damned moral righteousness, so the least sensible choice it is.
I don't really see why handing the problem of what do to with them off to an international tribunal isn't preferred. It would have been nice if the writer of the article had chosen to lay out what course would be more palatable to him and why as a closing statement, rather than basically say that he will blame anything that goes wrong on those advocating the current course.