I've read a few interesting essays during my studies, and one book, that advocated de-sensationalizing terrorism by treating its adherents like ordinary criminals. It's an interesting thought exercise, though practically speaking it's completely pointless, as was demonstrated recently.
It doesn't work for a few reasons. Firstly, criminals generally know they are breaking laws, and thus the justice system is merely trying to reinforce an idea already held. Generally, when one robs a bank or steals a car, one knows that it is not an acceptable action. Terrorists, on the other hand, are attacking the laws themselves. They do not believe that they are doing anything wrong. To the contrary, they believe they are acting admirably and in accordance with a moral imperative. Terrorism is a weak man's way to prosecute a war. Merely the act of prosecuting them is a victory for terrorists- we waste time, energy, and money trying to tell them what they already know: we don't agree with them. They don't care, which would be why they became terrorists in the first place. In any other war, if you take prisoners, you hold them until the war is over, specifically to avoid having them go to Lashkar Gah and become commanders.
Secondly, our justice system as it stands isn't particularly effective at getting petty criminals to change their ways, so why would it work for terrorists? Our recidivism statistics aren't very reassuring. Quite frankly, the rational way to deal with this without stooping to the terrorists level already exists. You simply follow the Geneva Convention to the letter. Build some nice camps à la Stalag 17 in northern Québec, and put the detainees to work planting trees or something equally menial. Put the lovely things so far off the beaten track that they have to ship sunlight in by mule train.
Feed them 3 squares a day, house them, and tell them they can see a lawyer the minute Mullah Muhammed Omar signs a surrender in the Afghan parliament.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
That was kind of the idea with Guantanamo, but the trick is keeping the moral high ground. It's hard to explain the the foot soldiers that it's important not to beat them and to treat them as worthy adversaries, especially when the propaganda machine is in overdrive. You can't have the Two Minutes of Hate, and then expect the bottom rungers to not want to put the boots to some jihadis.
ReplyDeleteYou've been there! When you were 18 didn't you want to kick ass? We all did.
If we'd taken the calm rational approach in 2002 then this would have worked, but I feel like it's too late for this now. Abu Ghraib left a big stain, and now the people don't trust the military with prisoners anymore. Perhaps rightly so.
The problem with Guantanamo was the mixed messages. They kept trying to have their cake and eat it too. Its a detention camp! But we're nice to them, they get to play sports and we wear gloves when handling the Koran!
ReplyDeleteObviously we don't want to beat them. But Guantanamo wasnt the answer, because it wasnt a single purpose detention facility. You want the moral high ground? Stop calling them "detainees" and start calling them PWs. Sure, they dont technically qualify, but thats the point. You call them PWs, you put them in an old-school PW camp in Alaska, and you get to tell civil rights groups to fuck off. No more ambiguity.