Or, that is how I’d imagine the headline would go on a lefty blog, if this were George W. Bush enacting an executive order allowing indefinite detention of detainees.  Lest we forget their hysteria over denying detainees the writ of habeus corpus, deceitfully suggesting that it applied to American citizens as well.  Some lefty blogs are giving the news of the EO soft criticism at best, no doubt because it’s Barack Obama doing it.  For my own part, I previously wrote opposing the administration’s consideration of a “preventative detention” system, and this executive order is essentially that, though perhaps not exactly.

Don’t get me wrong.  I fully understand what many of these people want to do to American citizens and American infrastructure.  They want to kill as many as possible and bring America to its knees financially.  I understand that.

However, indefinite detention goes against every principle of justice that America holds dear, including the ones about people being able to make their own defense in a court of law.

We claim to want to bring democracy to the Middle East.  We’ve done it (to varying success) in Afghanistan and Iraq.  We’re seeing democracy in action in a bottom-up style in Iran.  Indefinite detention sends mixed messages to this part of the world.  Namely: “We criticized you for doing these things, but see how we do now.”  As Michael said in his article from earlier today, “…it becomes a bit difficult to criticize other governments for doing the same things, albeit with individuals with whom you agree.”  And he’s right.  I tend to think it is showing of rank hypocrisy.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air brings up an old talking point about this issue (emph. mine):

We don’t release POWs until after the conclusion of hostilities, and we sure as hell shouldn’t be releasing illegal combatants any earlier, incentivizing terrorists for operating outside the rules of war.  The fact that they joined an endless jihad against the US shouldn’t get them any consideration for earlier release dates; when the radical Islamists either surrender or get destroyed, then we can see about releasing them. Until then, they should stay locked up and away from the fight.

What I bolded is exactly the problem.  Finally, someone on the conservative side seems to realize that a War on Terrorism never actually ends, because there will always be terrorism.  Is Ed suggesting that we hold terrorists forever without trial because their jihad will never end?  If so, that idea is unAmerican to me (no I’m not saying Ed is unAmerican, just the idea).

This was always my biggest criticism about how the War on Terror has been conducted.  Some hawks seem to want to cherry pick the Geneva Conventions, ignoring the parts about detainee treatment while supporting the parts about how long to hold POWs.  This, even though they’ve been reluctant to call the detainees POWs in the past, thus making their case for ignoring other parts of the conventions.  You cannot have it both ways.  Either all of the Geneva Conventions apply or they all do not apply.  That said, the Conventions are hopelessly outdated, written in a time when we fought nations, not bands of guerrilla fighters.  They need to be updated, to handle the new realities of war.

What I want is to not release these people, but to put them on trial for their crimes.  If there is not a court system that can take these cases without jeopardizing national security, then one must be made.  I’m still not buying the idea that we will have to hold some people forever because they cannot be tried.  I think it not only jeopardizes our moral standing in the world, but it creates a dangerous precedent.  As I said in my previous article on the preventive detention system, I’m not normally one for slippery slope arguments, but PD enters uncharted territory for America.  It’s my view that we needn’t change the way we’ve always pursued justice just because we’re faced with a tough situation.  Instead, we do what we’ve always done in America, find a way to fix it.

I am willing to accept a limited reinstatement of indefinite detentions, but only until we find a way to try the detainees.  I don’t think preventative detention is an acceptable solution to the problem.  If we can try Khalid Sheik Mohammed (as seems to be the case), who we know was waterboarded, and who was the mastermind of 9/11, we must be able to try the rest.