The practice of parole

Posted by Karl on May 7th, 2008
2008
May 7

As I was writing my latest post, I kept thinking about the American Civil War (War Between the States, if you insist) and the practice of parole. During the Civil War, prisoners of war were regularly paroled on the condition that they would not then take up arms in the war again. Of course, not every person who accepted parole acquitted himself with honor, but many did.

Today, American servicemen are prohibited from entering into parole agreements. The Code of Conduct for the Armed Services states, “I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.” In some ways this makes sense, and the refusal of special consideration from the enemy is the source of honor for American war heroes like John McCain.

The idea of parole is built on honor. Essentially, it is a gentleman’s agreement that “if I let you go, you’ll just go home and stop fighting.” Of course, the flipside is, “if you don’t agree, I can keep you in captivity until the cessation of hostilities or until this position is overrun and I can no longer keep you.”  Each side benefits as long as each side upholds his end of the bargain. It seems to me that when the United States is engaged in a war against a foe that possesses honor, American soldiers should be able to accept parole agreements and the United States military should be free to extend parole to enemy combatants.

Maybe I am simply fantasizing about a set of conditions that can never occur. Certainly, the idea of parole has been demonstrably repudiated by the likes of Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi. And, clearly, our war with Islamic extremists (or probably any other religiously motivated enemy) would not qualify for this sort of treatment as we have already seen that they will not treat our soldiers with honor when they are captured. But it seems that parole might be an option with some enemies. On the other hand, there could be the feeling that those who are captured are showing a lack of brotherhood with their fellow countrymen by making deals with the enemy. I guess I’m just thinking out loud. Should soldiers be allowed to accept parole?

“Innocent” detainee kills 7 in suicide bombing

Posted by Karl on May 7th, 2008
2008
May 7

Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, a former detainee of the United States military who was once housed at our facility at Guantanamo Bay, was released to the custody of Kuwaiti authorities on November 3, 2005. He, along with four other codefendants, was tried in Kuwait:

The defendants pleaded innocent when the trial opened in March. Their lawyers argued there was no evidence to convict them and that Kuwaiti courts had no jurisdiction to try them because they had not done anything illegal in Kuwait.

Defence attorneys also said testimonies provided by the US could not be used in a Kuwaiti court because they did not have the signatures of the detainees or interrogators.

The Kuwaiti court found all five of the men innocent as charged and they were released.

On April 26, 2008, three suicide bombers detonated themselves in Mosul, Iraq killing nine innocents and injuring 31 others. Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi was one of the terrorists in the attack.

Meanwhile, Amnesty International is calling for the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the repatriation of the detainees there. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 enemy combatants are currently held at Gitmo. I don’t relish the idea of 500 radical terrorists making their ways to Mosul and Baghdad and Kirkuk. The potential death toll in killed bystanders is just too high.

Republicans for Obama

Posted by Bill on May 7th, 2008
2008
May 7

Good morning!  An open thread for Wednesday.  If you are a conservative or a Republican and plan to support Obama in the general election, we would love to hear from you.  Why Obama?  And how does your support for him jive with your “conservative” or republican views?