I was struck by the parallels in the film, Breaker Morant, and the issue of how we identify prisoners of war, enemy combatants, and spies. Let alone the whole issue of torture.

Well I have read a good deal of the latest US Army Field Manual regarding prisoners of war, and I for one always felt that a uniformed army was an absolute necessity of formal recognition. Even our own revolution ( circa 1776) quickly responded to this need, and either clothed the combatants appropriately, or offered documents ascribing to such requirements.

Our enemies who would fight us in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, or any number of hot spots, do not ascribe to any military created (legitimate) by a single government  recognized by the UN, or any other body. No uniform, no single association with any formal recognized sovereign government.

Further interesting reading regarding the much bantered Geneva Conventions , and how they work in concert with our military code, have led me to believe that we should not torture anyone, whether they be a recognized combatant, or a scumbag. But it also leads me to believe that most of those captured on the battlefield and currently held at Guantanamo, should have been shot on site.

So, how would you feel if we eliminated Guantanamo, brushed aside any intimation of torture (aside from back to back alternating episodes of Sean Hannity, and Keith Olbermann/Rachel Maddow), but reserved the right to execute on the battlefield, in situ?

And what are your thoughts on where we should move said bad guys? I for one suggest Alcatraz. It is a sham of a tourist attraction, Let’s fire it back up. The prisoners could have weekend passes to awesome things like Beach Blanket Babylon (and could even contribute as creative directors), have long walks in the Castro, and in general just chill a little.

Advertisement