Two things, both related to torture of prisoners

I just read this story on the LATimes web site where they quote several retired admirals and generals in their opposition to the administration's position on torture.

Don't believe me, and don't believe the LATimes, either. You prefer to believe what they tell you in a TV attack ad that trumpets: "Terrorists have no rights!" For the record, I saw/heard that ad the other night right before turning off the TV and going to sleep, and the implications of its position upset me enough to keep me awake for over an hour.

But this is not about me. Let's consider.

I view terrorists as criminals that should be charged, tried, and punished. I am willing, though, to agree that they (once caught) are enemy combatants--prisoners of war. Either way, I believe there are standards and statutes that govern how they should be treated. As accused criminals, they should be charged and tried, and if found guilty, punished according to the law. For me, this excludes holding them indefinitely without recourse. And if we prefer to label them prisoners of war, then there is the Geneva Convention (to which the US has agreed) that should govern our behavior.

Terrorists have no rights, says the ad. Under which totalitarian government would we say this was true? John Wayne Gacy, a serial killer, had rights that our courts were careful to protect. Because in not granting him rights, we risked having to let him go, which we deemed a Bad Thing. But you say: these "terrorists" aren't US citizens, so we are not obligated to handle them under our law. Hmmm. Under whose law should we be obligated to handle them, if not ours? They are foreign nationals, but we have them in our custody. They have broken our laws (assuming they are guilty, which is my next point), so they really should be tried under our laws. Our laws, as I have pointed out, that have protections for even the most heinous criminal.

Terrorists have no rights. Let's talk about that label: terrorist. Under which provisions of our law is it permissible to declare someone guilty without even a trial? What about the presumption of innocence? And if the evidence is overwhelming, then a guilty conviction should be fairly easy to accomplish. Until then, I don't see how we can make the assumption that an individual is a terrorist just because someone else said they were.

On both of these points the attack ad fails. First it asserts these people have no rights (which is false) and then it asserts they are criminals (which has yet to be proven). Oh, I agree there are a large number of evil people who want to kill us, and we must protect ourselves. But at what price? There are those who are telling us that the price is the suspension of our system of law and standards of treatment when it applies to these accused criminals (prisoners of war?), but are they right? I am sure they are not.