Post by bingbong on Aug 13, 2007 21:37:25 GMT 12
If We Treat Terrorists Like Criminals (4 Letters)
Article Tools Sponsored By
Published: August 13, 2007
To the Editor:
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Op-Ed Contributors: Why Terrorists Aren’t Soldiers (August 8, 2007)
Re “Why Terrorists Aren’t Soldiers” (Op-Ed, Aug. 8):
Gen. Wesley K. Clark and Kal Raustiala are right to view terrorists as criminals rather than unlawful combatants. The 9/11 hijackers were not soldiers; they did not commit an act of war. What they did was murder, which is a criminal act, albeit on a horrific scale.
The most effective and lawful way to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks is through a police approach, conducted in concert with law enforcement agencies around the world. The United States and its allies should address transnational terrorism through the force of law rather than the law of force.
Tobias Winright
St. Louis, Aug. 8, 2007
The writer is an assistant professor of moral theology at St. Louis University.
•
To the Editor:
Wesley K. Clark and Kal Raustiala argue that “terrorism should be fought first with information exchanges and law enforcement,” and that terrorists “ought to be pursued, tried and convicted in the courts.” This is exactly the “terrorism as crime” mentality that dominated counterterrorism policy in the years before the attacks on Sept. 11: to wait for an attack to occur and then start gathering evidence for a criminal prosecution.
Bringing terrorists to justice will always be a priority. But in the age of catastrophic terrorism it is equally important to ensure that attacks do not occur, and that will require tools of prevention, not just prosecution.
Stuart Gottlieb
New York, Aug. 8, 2007
The writer teaches counterterrorism at the Graduate School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University.
•
To the Editor:
Wesley K. Clark and Kal Raustiala rightly criticize the Bush administration for the decision to treat members of Al Qaeda as unlawful combatants, but they come to the wrong conclusion when they advocate treating them as criminals.
The problem with the unlawful-combatant designation is that it lies outside existing laws of war, and allows the government to hold these people without any of the rights of either prisoners of war or accused criminals. General Clark and Mr. Raustiala would at least address that problem, but their solution would also expose American military personnel held captive abroad to prosecution as criminals.
The only solution is to treat Al Qaeda captives as prisoners of war, with all the rights implied in that status, thereby giving ourselves the right to demand similar treatment for our personnel taken captive elsewhere.
John Peeler
Lewisburg, Pa., Aug. 8, 2007
•
To the Editor:
Gen. Wesley K. Clark and Kal Raustiala make some interesting points regarding the implications of treating captured terrorists as soldiers. But they do not address a central concern with application of the criminal law to terrorists, that sometimes criminals must be freed because probative evidence against them cannot be introduced because it was not legally obtained or because government does not want to compromise a sensitive source or method.
The writers should say whether they are prepared to free top members of the leadership of Al Qaeda should they be captured if their defense is able to find legal flaws in the evidence against them. The writers suggest that terrorists should be treated like pirates, but it’s not clear from the historical record that United States or international law has generally provided pirates the due process protections of the criminal law.
David Cosson
Washington, Aug. 8, 2007
The writer is a lawyer.
Article Tools Sponsored By
Published: August 13, 2007
To the Editor:
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Op-Ed Contributors: Why Terrorists Aren’t Soldiers (August 8, 2007)
Re “Why Terrorists Aren’t Soldiers” (Op-Ed, Aug. 8):
Gen. Wesley K. Clark and Kal Raustiala are right to view terrorists as criminals rather than unlawful combatants. The 9/11 hijackers were not soldiers; they did not commit an act of war. What they did was murder, which is a criminal act, albeit on a horrific scale.
The most effective and lawful way to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks is through a police approach, conducted in concert with law enforcement agencies around the world. The United States and its allies should address transnational terrorism through the force of law rather than the law of force.
Tobias Winright
St. Louis, Aug. 8, 2007
The writer is an assistant professor of moral theology at St. Louis University.
•
To the Editor:
Wesley K. Clark and Kal Raustiala argue that “terrorism should be fought first with information exchanges and law enforcement,” and that terrorists “ought to be pursued, tried and convicted in the courts.” This is exactly the “terrorism as crime” mentality that dominated counterterrorism policy in the years before the attacks on Sept. 11: to wait for an attack to occur and then start gathering evidence for a criminal prosecution.
Bringing terrorists to justice will always be a priority. But in the age of catastrophic terrorism it is equally important to ensure that attacks do not occur, and that will require tools of prevention, not just prosecution.
Stuart Gottlieb
New York, Aug. 8, 2007
The writer teaches counterterrorism at the Graduate School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University.
•
To the Editor:
Wesley K. Clark and Kal Raustiala rightly criticize the Bush administration for the decision to treat members of Al Qaeda as unlawful combatants, but they come to the wrong conclusion when they advocate treating them as criminals.
The problem with the unlawful-combatant designation is that it lies outside existing laws of war, and allows the government to hold these people without any of the rights of either prisoners of war or accused criminals. General Clark and Mr. Raustiala would at least address that problem, but their solution would also expose American military personnel held captive abroad to prosecution as criminals.
The only solution is to treat Al Qaeda captives as prisoners of war, with all the rights implied in that status, thereby giving ourselves the right to demand similar treatment for our personnel taken captive elsewhere.
John Peeler
Lewisburg, Pa., Aug. 8, 2007
•
To the Editor:
Gen. Wesley K. Clark and Kal Raustiala make some interesting points regarding the implications of treating captured terrorists as soldiers. But they do not address a central concern with application of the criminal law to terrorists, that sometimes criminals must be freed because probative evidence against them cannot be introduced because it was not legally obtained or because government does not want to compromise a sensitive source or method.
The writers should say whether they are prepared to free top members of the leadership of Al Qaeda should they be captured if their defense is able to find legal flaws in the evidence against them. The writers suggest that terrorists should be treated like pirates, but it’s not clear from the historical record that United States or international law has generally provided pirates the due process protections of the criminal law.
David Cosson
Washington, Aug. 8, 2007
The writer is a lawyer.
