Lugar Condemns Plan To Jail Detainees for Life

First of all, I want to state up front that I've always had a lot of regard for Senator Lugar. I consider him one of the "grownups" in the Senate.

That being said, I have a real problem with his objection to jailing al Qaeda fighters, al Qaeda death squad members and terrorists for life.

According to Reuters:

A leading Republican senator yesterday condemned as 'a bad idea' a reported U.S. plan to keep some suspected terrorists imprisoned for a lifetime even if the government lacks evidence to charge them.

Sen. Richard G. Lugar called indefinite holding of terror suspects 'a bad idea.'

Sorry, Senator Lugar, this is a war, not a crime scene. Wars are conducted on battlefields not in court rooms. Further, terrorists, by definition, are these illegal combatants (i.e., war criminals.)

They have to be war criminals because every terrorist tactic I can think of is illegal under international law. War criminals become war criminals by violating the laws of war.

I have written a lengthy analysis elsewhere proving that the war criminals forfeit whatever rights they might enjoy once they become prisoners. I will now quote the U.S. Navy regarding whether the laws of war protects war criminals:

Combatants who are also civilians must inevitably tread so close to the line separating deception from treachery that the law can offer them scant protection. It is, furthermore, difficult to imagine any legal regime under which this would not be true, for the simple reason that, in defining that line, law is the central issue.

[..]

A terrorist or other "illegal combatant" who trades upon his adversary's respect for the law is, in effect, using the law as a weapon. He cannot simultaneously use it as a shield, and he may well deprive those around him of its aegis as well

It seem perfectly clear to me. Captured terrorists are SOL.

Anyway, I totally agree Lugar’s position that the U.S. government must abide by her constitution and so on but I look askance at Lugar’s invocation of dubious constitutionality as a basis of criticizing this proposal:

…we ought to have a very careful, constitutional look at this.

Well I encourage Senator Lugar to “look very carefully” at the constitution for guidance in this matter, but this search shouldn’t take too long. Our constitution only consumes four sheets of parchment and, as far as I can see, is simply silent about the “rights” of non-Americans, animals, vegetables, minerals and foreign terrorists.

Put another way, Lugar doesn’t have a leg to stand on if wants to justify his opposition to this proposal in terms of our constitution.

Changing the subject slightly, I feel like dinging Reuters for invoking the authority of certain anonymous “influential senators” for the purposes of insinuating that the whole idea is unconstitutional. First of all, Reuters has an anti-American bias in general and is biased against our war with Islamic fanatics in particular. Second, invoking the alleged words of some anonymous dissident is an ancient technique for reporters and editors to inject their personal viewpoint into “news”.

This second, technique is a favorite of The New York Times editorial board. In February of 2003, when the U.S. was on the verge of the invasion to remove Saddam, Ann Coulter snickered:

For one year, I don't believe the Times has managed to interview a single person who supports war with Iraq in a nation ablaze with war fever .

A man from Mars—astounded at the NY Times inability to encounter at least one person from America’s majority—might recommend a surefire technique for finding someone who’s opinion differs with the NY Times’ editorial board (i.e., leaving the building.) The rest of us know perfectly well that the NY Times is committing politics and not journalism.

Similarly to the NY Times, Reuters wants to insinuate that incarcerate terrorists is somehow unsporting by quoting “influential senators” to be “[denouncing] the idea as probably unconstitutional.” Hmmm… So certain anonymous “influential senators” believe that jailing terrorists indefinitely is “probably unconstitutional”, huh? Well I believe this is “probably” just their opinion. Personally I rely on the Supreme Court for rulings on points of constitutionality and “influential Senators”.

See ya at the Supreme Court, you “influential Senators”.

As an aside, I wonder which political party the defenders of terrorists belong to? It makes me recall that during the 1988 Presidential debates that Michael Dukakis’ response when asked by CNN's Benard Shaw if he would begin to see the merits of the death penalty should his wife be raped and murdered. Mike Dukakis, who in Shaw’s scenario was presumably still standing over his raped and murdered wife, began asserting “his opposition to the death penalty” and before an astounded nation he—in effect—transformed himself into the defense attorney for his wife’s rapist and murderer on national TV. I could almost see him absently wiping his wife’s blood from his shoes.

Getting back to Reuters’ certain anonymous “influential senators”: could these defenders of anybody but Americans and America be from Dukakis’ party? Who knows? It’s unfortunate that Reuters “forgot” to name names.