-----
Q: Let's move to the Geneva Conventions. A lot of people are concerned that terrorism suspects don't have any kind of habeas corpus.
A: In order to be covered by the Geneva Convention, you have to fulfill certain requirements. Number one, you have to be in uniform. Number two, you have to be part of a military unit subject to military discipline. Number three, you have to be engaged in combat with other military units and not primarily striking at civilians. So there are a number of criteria in the Geneva Convention that are not met by everyone on the battlefield. Then there's another category of people going back to the Revolutionary War—people who were in those days called spies. If they were not in uniform, they were subject to being summarily executed.
Q: You mean they were executed without even a military tribunal?
A: I think there were some. Also, a "tribunal" could be a military commander ordering the hanging. I think that's what happened to some of them.
Q: You're advocating summary execution.
A: Well, yeah, that happens in the military. Illegal combatants are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
Q: So we call them "illegal combatants," without using any legal basis to determine whether they're illegal or not.
A: Well, we do. We have military tribunals.
Q: But not always, apparently.
A: My understanding is that illegal combatants are subject to military tribunals. But in any event, they have been captured on the field of battle, and anyone captured on the field of battle is either one of these two categories. And both categories can be detained until the end of hostilities.
Q: When we talk about being detained until the war is over, we're talking about a war that could go on for half a century.
A: Absolutely.
Q: Doesn't detaining someone that long compete with some of the values in the Constitution?
A: No, it doesn't.
Q: We value a speedy trial, as a culture. That's why we put it in the Constitution.
A: We value a speedy trial for criminals. But a person who's been apprehended and captured on the field of battle, that status itself identifies them as either a prisoner of war or an illegal combatant.
Q: Unless they live there.
A: Well, how many people do you have standing around the field of battle?
Q: It depends the battle. Certainly it's possible.
A: And of course, that's why the president has applied the military tribunals. So that people have the ability, if they claim their innocence, to demonstrate it. But the reason why you detain the people is that you don't want them going back and taking up arms against our soldiers.
Q: Shouldn't we extend them the right to a public trial for that purpose?
A: Why would we? Why would you do that to somebody who's not entitled to it under any law? Why would [we] extend the laws to people who are trying to kill Americans?
------
As the interviewer points out later, many criminals in the US are trying to kill Americans as well, yet they have the right to a fair trial. And without a fair trial, how is one to know if that's really who they are?
These are the same arguments that tin-pot dictators all over the third world have made over the last 50 years: "our enemies don't respect human rights, why should we?" "You have no human rights when you're dead." And so on. Resistance to these arguments, even in the face of terror, is what distinguishes truly civilized, democratic societies. You can respect human rights and still be strong and ruthless your pursuit of the bad guys; in fact, violating them is a sign of weakness.
Andrew Sullivan also points out Meesese's disingenuousness with respect to torture, in the same interview. Sullivan also links to this great speech, worth quoting again:
This week, again, the Government of the United States, a land founded on a commitment of justice for all - my country - tells us that detainees in its campaign against terror have "no rights." ... The act abolishes the writ of habeas corpus, which Thomas Jefferson called one of the essential pillars of the American Republic. It gives the president the potentially despotic power to remove anyone from the protection of the law simply by carving upon his body a label � the words "unlawful enemy combatant."Finally, as pointed out in TPM:
.... Once more, the model that is adhered to is not the rich criminal or military justice system of the United States, but the model of Franz Kafka's Penal Colony. What attitude towards justice does this reveal?
I am not here to argue for release or freedom for those detained in the campaign against terror. I am arguing for justice. That is something quite different. It may well be that Majid Khan is a serious criminal responsible for crimes against humanity. It may well be that he used or promoted the use of terror as a device. If that is so, he should be charged and given a fair chance to defend himself. This trial, fairly run, will vindicate my nation's counterterrorism efforts. It will show those who are held for heinous criminals, if they are heinous criminals. It would promote the view in the world that my nation has and pursues a just cause, and treats those in its power with justice, though the justice be severe.
Meese is not a has-been from the Reagan years. He has been a key advisor to the current White House on the nominations and confirmations of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. This is a man who is widely considered to be at the pinnacle of the powerful conservative legal movement. This is what we have come to.
