Thursday, May 26, 2005

Glenn Reynolds notes my prediction has been fulfilled, right down to the letter.

Sigh.

UPDATE: Welcome again, Instapundit readers. Thanks for stopping by. To save you some scrolling, here's the prediction (linked above) I made a couple weeks ago:

PREDICTION: Released detainees current and future will falsely claim the Koran-flushing happened, just as their Al Qaeda training manuals instruct them to do. Liberals in and out of the media will cite the detainees and claim vindication, while remaining utterly oblivious to why some people always complain they're working with for the enemy.

IF AN INDICTMENT IS ISSUED AND THE TRIAL, BEGINS, THE BROTHER HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:

1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge.

2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.

9 Comments:

Anonymous aaron said...

If these released detainees were Al Qaeda...then why are we letting them go?

11:57 AM  
Blogger TallDave said...

This point has been brought up to me before re this post, so apparently you're not the only one wondering.

It's very problematic legally and morally to hold anyone indefinitely, even terrorists, if they haven't done anything wrong, even if you strongly suspect they're going to. There has been a lot of argument over whether even admitted Al Qaeda members they can be held at all if we can't prove they've committed any crime or are going to commit any crime.

From the press reports, it appears some prisoners who renounce Al Qaeda and take a vow to not commit terrorist acts are being released. Some of these, however, are not keeping their vows and have been recaptured or killed later.

12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Per the Geneva Conventions, convene a legitimate military tribunal, try them as illegal combatants and upon conviction execute as harsh a sentence as is allowed, including death sentences. The whiners of the world will whine, and then will move on to the next outrage du jour, so ignore them.

12:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, per the Geneva Convention, if they are unlawful combatants and since I've never seen an Al Queda uniform they are such per se, they may be summarily executed on the spot so a trial is not required by Geneva, though it probably is by norms of decency since they are in custody.
megapotamus

12:47 PM  
Blogger jaed said...

In cold fact, the only reason to take the surrender of these people (or risk lives in trying to capture them alive) is their potential value as a source of intelligence data. Every restriction on interrogation - here I'm not talking about laws and regs against torture or abuse, but such things as restrictions against wearing miniskirts or giving prisoners MREs instead of hot food - every restriction on reasonable interrogation techniques lessens that value. So does every denunciation of interrogation qua interrogation. So does every media outlet that uncritically takes the word of detainees, magnifying their propaganda efforts a millionfold.

It follows that at a certain point, and we may already have reached that point, there's no longer any reason to take them prisoner. I wonder whether those who oppose standard interrogation techniques, and compare them to torture, out of tenderheartedness are fully aware that the alternative is killing more terrorists?

1:26 PM  
Blogger opine6 said...

I say kill 'em first, ask questions later. That's what they do to Westerners and Israelis.

Oh, I forgot. We're supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Hard to hold up a standard if we're all dead.

1:41 PM  
Blogger TallDave said...

It is ironic that an enemy who seeks to abolish freedom and impose religious tyranny uses our own commitment to protecting individual freedom against us.

Still, we cannot defeat a dishonorable enemy by becoming dishonorable ourselves. We should strive to be strong but fair.

2:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We can be strong but fair to non-muslims. But muslims no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. They deserve whatever it takes to protect the civilized world from their insanity.

2:51 PM  
Blogger Yanni Znaio said...

Ex SAS guy wrote a couple of books under the pseudonym of Gayle Rivers- his premise was that by "playing without rules", terrorists forfeit the right to be treated according to rules.

He thought they should be hunted down like the dogs they are.

This discussion also plays into Lee Harris' point about civilization vs. ruthlessness.

2:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home