George Jonas Makes Interesting Intellectual Point on Omar Khadr, Irrelevant in Time of War

In the National Post, George Jonas wrote a column on the fact that confessions from detainees may be true, but are always coerced.  This is an interesting, and well argued point...

...That remains totally irrelevant.
The thorny issue with detainees in current conflicts is that since they do not abide by Geneva Convention rules, they cannot be Prisoners of War.  Prisoners of War have a clear status, are combatants, and are accorded a plethora of rights essentially based on "if we treat their prisoners well, they will reciprocate".  On the whole, this worked fairly well.  In one of those absurd gentleman's agreements, everyone accepted that you would feed and care for your enemies, while guarding them.  They would, as stipulated by their oaths of service, do their level best to escape.  The guards would try to catch them, and only kill them as a last resort.  After all, I can trade one Wermacht Captain for an RAF Captain, right?  The two officers sign parole, go home to their families and sit the rest of the war on the sidelines.  All very civilized.

Except that even in the "Golden Era" of prisoner exchange, some people didn't play ball.  In WWI, T.E. Lawrence and his Arab Horde famously disregarded these conventions, as did the Turks.  The Germans and Russians merrily butchered each other in the brutal winters on the Eastern Front, Geneva Conventions or not.  The Japanese simply didn't care (as the whole idea of the Geneva Convention is ludicrous to the culture that produced Bushido), and after the Llandovery Castle incident, there are persistent rumours that even the notoriously even-handed Canadians executed their fair share of prisoners.

All this to return to a point I have made before: laws are a contract.  To be protected by a law, you must adhere to its conditions.  Laws are also a product of culture.  To maintain your cultural integrity, you should always try to adhere to your own ethics even if the enemy does not, which is why I do not advocate summary execution for insurgents captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Not only is it a stupid thing to do, but it is also wrong.  Once we have them in custody, however, applying our laws becomes tricky.  You see, we are fighting an enemy that rejects not only our law but the fundamental principles on which we base them.  They like the loopholes though, and so will throw out the baby but keep the bathwater.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself pointed out that every day he is kept in custody is a blow against the Great Satan- every dollar wasted, as even if he "confesses" to a crime, he is not admitting a wrong.  He is merely continuing to fight in the only way he can now that we have captured him.

Due process is important, but this is war.  When due process becomes a hindrance to fighting this war, we are merely aiding our enemies.  "Guilt beyond reasonable doubt" and pristine, coercion free confessions are ideals to be tried for and unquestionably applied as often as possible.  But, as in the case of Omar Khadr, when the circumstances of your apprehension by definition prove that you are guilty of a war crime (participating in armed conflict without wearing an identifiable uniform or carrying ID), trying to protect all of your "Charter Rights" becomes dangerous absurdity.