![]() ![]() As the Supreme Court was handing down its Hamdan opinion last June, holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the War on Terror, I was delivering a lecture at the Naval War College making precisely the same point. In my view, perhaps the most tragic blunder in the War on Terror has been the abuse of detainees. Detainees who are charged with crimes are entitled to procedural safeguards to ensure a fair trial, but Article 84 provides they “shall be tried only by a military court.” ![]() During World War II, we detained more than 400,000 Germans and Italians in POW camps across America-without access to lawyers or judicial hearings. Under the Conventions, POWs may be detained without trial for the duration of hostilities. Even if they were covered, they would have no right to legal counsel or a day in court. No serious expert believes al Qaeda terrorists are entitled to the full protections of the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Some of the most criticized government programs in the War on Terror are fully consistent with legal norms, while others-defended by some able lawyers-can’t easily be reconciled with America’s legal obligations. Sadly, too many Americans on both sides of current policy debates remain ignorant about important aspects of this highly specialized field, and that contributes to our current national disunity. The War on Terror has spawned many questions about the interplay between security and personal liberties-questions that fall under the general heading of “national security law,” a field originated at the UVA School of Law 35 years ago and now taught at most American law schools. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |