COMBATANTS OR CRIMINALS?

Toby Harnden writes about the 10 punches Dick Cheney landed on President Obama's jaw during their dueling speeches about terrorism and torture.

Colbert I. King writes about why Federal prison officials can't be trusted to control Al Qaeda prisoners, since they can't control the guys they are already holding.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann say the terrorists won't even get to the prison system, since they'll end up being released by Federal judges.

In the end, the real dispute continues to be between the concept of treating terrorists as criminals, or treating them as wartime enemies. If terrorism is a problem of criminality, then those caught committing such act should face a judge in a courtroom, with rules of evidence and proper procedure. If terrorism is an act of war, then terrorists should face the business end of an American soldier's weapon. If he lives, he should be held according to a special set of rules. This, of course, is part of the problem. Our rules for dealing with criminals are pretty well set, with a couple of centuries worth of precedent and tradition. Our rules for dealing with prisoners of war are also pretty well set, with at least a century of precedent and tradition. Unfortunately, since terrorists are operating outside the boundaries of traditional war between nation states, since they do not wear uniforms, are not paid, armed and trained by a national government, they are not covered so neatly under the rules, which is why the Bush Administration struggled to come up with a procedure for dealing with them. President Obama cannot wish away this problem with soaring rhetoric. I do not believe these terrorists can be dealt with adequately by the existing legal system, nor can they be fought as if they were criminals. This is war. The terrorists are the enemy. If a framework does not exist for dealing with a stateless enemy, then one should be developed.