“Detainees in the Global War on Terror: Guantanamo Bay and Beyond” Debated
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Wherever you stand in the political spectrum, I’m sure you will agree that hearing differing views and considering a variety of solutions to complex issues can only be a positive thing, especially for college students. The question of what to do with prisoners of the Global War on Terror is one such complex issue; and that is the issue that was debated when the Academy’s Institute for Leadership presented its Homeland Security Law Lecture, “Detainees in the Global War on Terror: Guantanamo Bay and Beyond” at Leamy Hall on February 1st.
The panel discussing this topic included Harvard Law School Professor, David Kennedy; Former member of the Reagan Administration, Mr. David Rivkin; Mr. Todd Gaziano of the Heritage Foundation, and Fulbright Scholar, Professor David Caron (CGA ’74) of Berkeley. The debate was moderated by WNPR’s Ray Hardman, and broadcast live on Connecticut Public Radio.
“It is the nature of leadership and good institutions to pause and reflect,” stated Professor Caron. “I thank the Academy for organizing tonight’s discussion, difficult as it might be.”
Caron described threats to society as falling fall within one of three legally defined boxes — “two of the boxes — law enforcement and war —are institutions regulated by law. The third box is the emergency-rule box.” The emergency rule box is where the detainees and their treatment fall. Caron asserted that we Americans have been and should continue to be, suspicious of emergencies without end and long-term uses of discretionary power.
Caron closed his remarks by telling the future leaders, “it is essential that a leader in a nation of laws recognize the importance of viewing law as a touchstone, not as a roadblock. … Law, particularly fundamental laws in a nation of laws, is not only a command written in a book, it is a message from the past to you. It is an act of communication from our mothers and fathers, and our teachers: everyone who has worked to build a nation that can possibly stand apart from the savagery that has so marked history.
“The law is a message from the past that — all things being equal — one course of action is better than another. It is the conversation that is America. This conversation through time is the essence of civilization.”
Mr. Gaziano made a strong argument focusing on the U.S. being at war and the need to keep the detainees from returning to the battlefield. He affirmed the need to protect both American soldiers and civilians. Arguing for keeping the rules for dealing with detainees from being defined in too much detail, Gaziano told cadets, “Some flexibility is necessary in war.”
Professor Kennedy expressed his belief that holding the detainees at Guantanamo could, due to the unfavorable light in which such detentions are held through out the world could be “does more to harm than to help the war effort.” He wondered what plans the Administration had to “unbuild” once the Global War on Terror had ended, was there a plan for eventually releasing detainees?
In such a “new type” of conflict, Kennedy felt there were many gray areas in the merger between law enforcement and military; possible potential areas of concern, without well defined boundaries between the two.
David Rivkin sided with Gaziano in most of his statements and in support of current administration policy. He expressed faith that information was being gathered from interrogations at Guantanamo, stating, “The interrogations — including some of the more harsh techniques — are acceptable if they are producing information.” Mr. Rivkin questioned the assertions of detainee mistreatment by Administration critics. “It ain’t that bad,” he contended and described some of the amenities enjoyed by detainees.
Obviously the panelists each brought a wealth of experience and knowledge to the table resulting in a lively, informed, and balanced debate on this topic of national importance. In answering cadet questions at the end, of the debate they expressed their differing opinions with wit and respect.
When asked by reporters after the debate, cadets expressed personal views across the political spectrum, but all appreciated the opportunity to hear varying perspectives and considered the various sides of the issue at hand with open minds. Quoted in The Hartford Courant on February 2nd, Cadet George MacDonnell, ’06, affirmed, “We don’t just toe the party line all the time. We’re open to new ideas.” We should expect no less of our graduates. It is programs like this that provide access to ideas that keep cadet minds open and full of questions. — JAW
More About the Panelists
Prof. Kennedy has practiced law with various international institutions, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Commission of the European Union, and with the private firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen and Hamilton in Brussels.
Mr. Rivkin is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the Council on Foreign Relations. He is a prolific writer and has published numerous papers, articles, book reviews, and book chapters on a variety of international, legal, constitutional, defense, arms control, foreign policy, environmental and energy issues.
As Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies for the Heritage Foundation, Mr. Gaziano focuses on legal and judicial reform and such constitutional issues as ensuring that all citizens are accorded equal treatment under the law.
Professor Caron’s scholarship covers many aspects of international law and organization, with work focusing on public and private international dispute resolution, the United Nations, and general theory of international law. He is also a founding director of the Ocean Governance Study Group.
Panelists also had the opportunity to speak with cadets in seminar class settings, which provided for additional discussions.
|