Yves Roucaute: Anti-Americanism drives the hysteria over Guantanamo
[Mr. Roucaute, a professor of political science and philosophy at Nanterre University, is author of "Le Néo-conservatisme est un humanisme."(P.U.F., 2005).]
The old Continent is wilting in the global war against terror, just as it did when faced off against fascism and then communism. When at today's summit with U.S. President George W. Bush the European Union will once again take its ally to task over Guantanamo, it will expose its own, not America's, most serious moral crisis of the post-Cold War era. A philosopher -- a French one no less -- can try to set the facts straight and offer some Cartesian good sense.
Faced with dark forces that want to destroy our civilization, we might recall that the U.S. is not only Europe's ally but the flagship of all free nations. If America can sometimes make errors, the sort of anti-Americanism that drives the hysteria over Guantanamo is always in the wrong. Guantanamo, though, is not an error. It is a necessity.
Demagogues, and European parliamentarians are among the shrillest, claim that it's inconceivable to keep prisoners locked up without trying them in courts of law. With this simple statement they annul -- or, better, ignore -- customary law and legal tradition as well as basic human-survival instincts. Whether they are legal or illegal fighters, those men in Guantanamo had weapons; they used them; and they will likely use them again if released before the end of the conflict. This is the meaning of their imprisonment: to prevent enemy combatants from returning to the battlefield, the only humane alternative to the summary execution of enemy prisoners practiced by less enlightened armies. Which French general would have released German prisoners in 1914, before the end of that great war, at the risk of seeing these soldiers mobilized again? Which American general would have organized the trial of 10 million German soldiers, captured during World War II, before Berlin's unconditional surrender?
The release "without charges" of, so far, a third of Guantanamo prisoners doesn't mean that those still imprisoned are innocent, as some claim. Similarly, the release of Waffen SS members "without charges" was no admission that they should have never been imprisoned in the first place -- or that their comrades who were still locked up were victims of undue process. Only those Nazis who committed crimes against humanity or war crimes, and whose crimes could be proven in a court of law, were tried at Nuremberg.
The demagogues further complain about Guantanamo's isolation and the secrecy around it. Isolation? When Hitler attacked Britain, was Winston Churchill wrong in sending captured German soldiers to isolated camps in Canada from which they would be released only five years later, after the end of the war? He forbade the exchange of information between the prisoners to make it impossible for them to direct networks of Nazi sympathizers and spies inside and outside the prison. This was a rather sensible measure and one that is also necessary to combat Islamist terrorists, who plan their attacks in loosely connected networks and have demonstrated their capacities to expand these networks in French and British prisons.
Secrecy? This is a common practice in warfare, designed to obtain information without letting the enemy know who has been caught or when. It lets us try to infiltrate and confuse terrorist groups. It saves thousands of lives without harming the prisoners....
Read entire article at WSJ
The old Continent is wilting in the global war against terror, just as it did when faced off against fascism and then communism. When at today's summit with U.S. President George W. Bush the European Union will once again take its ally to task over Guantanamo, it will expose its own, not America's, most serious moral crisis of the post-Cold War era. A philosopher -- a French one no less -- can try to set the facts straight and offer some Cartesian good sense.
Faced with dark forces that want to destroy our civilization, we might recall that the U.S. is not only Europe's ally but the flagship of all free nations. If America can sometimes make errors, the sort of anti-Americanism that drives the hysteria over Guantanamo is always in the wrong. Guantanamo, though, is not an error. It is a necessity.
Demagogues, and European parliamentarians are among the shrillest, claim that it's inconceivable to keep prisoners locked up without trying them in courts of law. With this simple statement they annul -- or, better, ignore -- customary law and legal tradition as well as basic human-survival instincts. Whether they are legal or illegal fighters, those men in Guantanamo had weapons; they used them; and they will likely use them again if released before the end of the conflict. This is the meaning of their imprisonment: to prevent enemy combatants from returning to the battlefield, the only humane alternative to the summary execution of enemy prisoners practiced by less enlightened armies. Which French general would have released German prisoners in 1914, before the end of that great war, at the risk of seeing these soldiers mobilized again? Which American general would have organized the trial of 10 million German soldiers, captured during World War II, before Berlin's unconditional surrender?
The release "without charges" of, so far, a third of Guantanamo prisoners doesn't mean that those still imprisoned are innocent, as some claim. Similarly, the release of Waffen SS members "without charges" was no admission that they should have never been imprisoned in the first place -- or that their comrades who were still locked up were victims of undue process. Only those Nazis who committed crimes against humanity or war crimes, and whose crimes could be proven in a court of law, were tried at Nuremberg.
The demagogues further complain about Guantanamo's isolation and the secrecy around it. Isolation? When Hitler attacked Britain, was Winston Churchill wrong in sending captured German soldiers to isolated camps in Canada from which they would be released only five years later, after the end of the war? He forbade the exchange of information between the prisoners to make it impossible for them to direct networks of Nazi sympathizers and spies inside and outside the prison. This was a rather sensible measure and one that is also necessary to combat Islamist terrorists, who plan their attacks in loosely connected networks and have demonstrated their capacities to expand these networks in French and British prisons.
Secrecy? This is a common practice in warfare, designed to obtain information without letting the enemy know who has been caught or when. It lets us try to infiltrate and confuse terrorist groups. It saves thousands of lives without harming the prisoners....