Halloween Traditions

Webster's Dictionary defines torture as the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure. Now five years have passed since terrorists attacked the United States. Reasonable people can honestly disagree about what needs to be done to combat these terrorists who are bent on killing Americans. However, a conscientious discussion of policy options must begin with a clear understanding that these terrorists are in fact enemy combatants, not prisoners of war, and are not subject to protection from torture under The Geneva Convention of 1949.

In a parallel development, the irregular legal status of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay arise from the inability to apply ordinary rulesÐ'--in this case the rules of warÐ'--to the special requirements of fighting terrorism. The "prisoner of war" designation is denied al Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan, partly because they did not meet the usual requirements for that status of fighting in uniform and operating within the regular military structure of a recognized country. (Powers 2) The argument in today's society is one of great concern to all American citizens. How far is too far for the Government to go when punishing these so called terrorists? There is a very fine line drawn between the difference in a lawful combatant and an unlawful combatant. For example, in April 2003, Yaser Hamdi, a Taliban fighter captured by American forces in Afghanistan in 2001, an appeals court claims that Hamdi was denied his rights under the Geneva Convention regarding prisoners of war. The same approach was also taken by a Washington D.C. Court of Appeals in March of 2003 regarding Afghan fighters detained at the US Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (Rabkin 1) Both outcomes were generally the same; if our own courts can defy norms of customary international practice, why should American judges worry about whether their rulings encourage other countries to reinterpret customary law? (1) However, the first priority of the American legal system and Government should be to protect American people at all cost. Thus, holding these terrorist prisoners until a proper trial can be held for them or using any means necessary, to include torture, to gain information regarding previous or future attacks on Americans should be permissible.

Ordinary criminal courts are not designed for trying terrorism suspects nor are normal due process rights are not deemed appropriate for criminals apprehended on foreign battlefields. However, there are instances in which acts of terrorism can be handled under ordinary criminal law. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing are just two instances in which ordinary criminal law could be enforced. So, if these terrorists can be tried in a criminal court in the United States, why can other terrorists who attack Americans, whether on foreign soil or not, not be tried and prosecuted under the same constitutional rights.

From trying terrorists in criminal courts to determining whether or not they are "enemy combatants" poses the next issue: the Geneva Convention of 1949. When the first suspects were captured in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan in 2001, new policies were needed to deal with them. (de Nevers 99) The Bush administration had consistently argued that these suspected terrorists or "enemy combatants" did not deserve the same protections and rights afforded to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. De Nevers states that today's terrorist threat is only one form of war that may