Follow with interest the question of whether "just war" tends less toward war crimes than otherwise.
While it's plain that the "rules of the engagement" quickly get tossed aside as ... not expedient, there are inflections to that based on the type of conflict engaged in. A strict code-of-arms is perhaps something to be more ardently preserved in certain scale and types of conflict, particularly those in which "total war" is not permissible.
It is noteworthy, I think, that one of the mission objectives for OIF was to develop intelligence. In fact, people held at Gitmo are there for the newish reason called "intelligence value", not to prevent them from returning to 'the battlefield' (or only secondarily so).
It is also noteworthy the degree to which this Administration decided from the very outset (within days) that they needed to fight a new way, to make a break with the precepts of the past. The emphasis from the beginning was on doing things differently, the standard, to implement the maximum. There is widespread confirmation of these attitudes guiding behavior(s).
One question I have is why they didn't stop soon after their initial failures, i.e. why the "voco" wasn't rescinded after turning detainee 063's eyes to coal, as Sands reports, with nothing to show for it. This suggests that the approach was embraced almost wholesale, with a certain licentiousness bordering on wanton disregard ...
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Fighting and Fighting Dirty
