[MikeD]

OK, question time, because I've been thinking a lot on this and can't find a clear answer myself.

There are, regardless of the reasons why, lots of people in the world who are 1) actively trying to commit or support acts of war on the US and 2) have self-defined themselves as individuals at war with the US.

They may commit these acts abroad or in the US, but their intent is the same. When captured, these people may be tried under US criminal law...and then possibly not convicted or, even if convicted, released after a period of time (during which they've learned a lot of great stuff from being incarcerated with lots of other bad people from all walks of criminal life...cool...).

Or, they can be treated as EPWs (enemy prisoners of war), which is fairly consistent with their own self-definition and our interpretation of their actions. This is true even if their acts are committed in the US; their acts are intended to attack the US as an entity...acts of war, not mere criminal acts. (I'm trying to think of a good way to draw a defining line between a criminal act and an act of war based solely on the act, but I think that's impossible...I think the individual's intent and associations would have to be considered to make the call...)

Now, an EPW is released when the war is over and their national government has ceased hostility. So what do we do with these people who belong to no national government and will continue their acts of war with redoubled intensity once released?

Honestly, I can't think of an answer except for permanent incarceration or the death penalty. It's pretty depressing that it's all I can come up with, but what's the intelligent alternative to Guantanamo and extraordinary renditions?

I can think of a million reasons why these things suck and why they're bad for PR, but seriously, we're dealing with committed people who view our society's heterogeney and any societal/legal protections we afford as weaknesses to exploit.

Thoughts? (I'd like to discuss this, not just yell at one another...just been putting the brain to the grindstone on this one lately...)

MD

 

[Westy]

Freeze them in carbonite.

 

[MikeD]

Freeze them in carbonite.

Done and done. Hell, maybe we can trade them for Imperial credits or space-bucks.

You are indeed the genius I've always claimed you were.

MD

 

[Changleen]

Feed 'em Mc**** till they're addicted and stupid. Release into society.

 

[Changleen]

Seriously, why are they different from domestic terrorists?
Would changing the conditions that cause them to hate the US alleviate the problem to some degree?

 

[Westy]

Would it be cruel and unusual to sentence them to life sentences and release them into the general jail population? Unless we ended up with large numbers where they could organize they would probably not survive. If I was a Islamic terrorist I'd rather spend a year in Gitmo than a week at Rikers Island.

 

[MikeD]

Seriously, why are they different from domestic terrorists?

Never said they were or that Americans/domestic terrorists should be treated differently. I guess a main difference, however, is that for US citizen, an act of war against the US is already punishable by the death penalty under US law. Still, EPW status could apply to them, too, if we could define the line between a criminal act and an act of war. (edit: scratch that...EPWs by definition are not Americans. A treasonous American citizen is simply a treasonous American, even if he's fighting for a foreign force.)

Would changing the conditions that cause them to hate the US alleviate the problem to some degree?

Certainly. But that's outside the scope of the discussion...I'm looking at practical answers to current problems. Plus, it may be an academic point by now...the momentum of anti-American extremism may have become an independently-generating phenomenon.

Then again, the actions of Al-Queada in Iraq recently have done a lot to destroy their ability to operate within a sympathetic or at least apathetic/permissive Muslim mainstream.

There's a two-pronged approach to dealing with the problems the US is facing. One prong involves proving the US's strength and force of will to a population that respects only power and the ability to enforce will by any and all means, most likely involving the killing of a lot of people.

The other is a long-term shift to a softer approach to a position in the world that doesn't get so many people angry at the US in the first place. Done without the first prong, however, this approach is likely to generate even more problems in the short term, as 'success' of the worldwide insurgency in shifting America's policy engenders more opportunistic and sympathetic violence towards anything and anyone connected with the US.

MD

 

[Changleen]

There are methods of 're-education' that could be used. Brainwashing basically. Failing that, life inprisonment sounds better to me than killing them all, that's only going to lead to more and more until you basically have to lock up the entire Muslim world.

 

[Changleen]

Then again, the actions of Al-Queada in Iraq recently have done a lot to destroy their ability to operate within a sympathetic or at least apathetic/permissive Muslim mainstream.

I really hope you're right about that!

Ironic how the Euro torture prison thing is having a similar effect on the US eh? What's that saying about becoming your enemy?

 

[MikeD]

Would it be cruel and unusual to sentence them to life sentences and release them into the general jail population? Unless we ended up with large numbers where they could organize they would probably not survive. If I was a Islamic terrorist I'd rather spend a year in Gitmo than a week at Rikers Island.

Possibly. But there are lots of people in jail with a chip on their shoulders about the US gov't who'd be willing to listen to anyone who could promise them revenge...and a lot of lost souls looking for a cause in there, too.

I don't think it'd be a good idea to let them be exposed to the ideologies of extremism and then have many of them set free at the end of their sentences.

 

[MikeD]

Failing that, life inprisonment sounds better to me than killing them all, that's only going to lead to more and more until you basically have to lock up the entire Muslim world.

I don't know. Talking to a lot of guys returning from Iraq, they speak of the different attitudes towards life and death that they encounter over there. #1, killing someone is a sign of power and strength, and not killing your enemy is a clear indicator of weakness of character...it's really more of a moral failing. #2, large prison facilities full of Muslims don't look too good on TV, as we all know.

Then again, neither do mass graves, Saddam Hussein-style, and no one's going to believe that the dead had a fair trial. And we've put ourselves on a moral pedestal, so we do have a fine line to tread.

 

[Changleen]

Build a time machine, go back to the 80s and stick some rat poison in GW's coke.

Actually maybe that already happened.... That would explain a lot...

 

[Westy]

Possibly. But there are lots of people in jail with a chip on their shoulders about the US gov't who'd be willing to listen to anyone who could promise them revenge...and a lot of lost souls looking for a cause in there, too.

I don't think it'd be a good idea to let them be exposed to the ideologies of extremism and then have many of them set free at the end of their sentences.

While a noble thought why would we care about such things? We expose millions of minor criminals to a system that trains a significant percentage of them into much better criminals. Prisoners have few rights, it would be easy to identify and prevent the release of "converted" terrorists.