Roots of US war prisoners' rights run deep

Hat Tip to Glenn Greenwald of Unclaimed Territory for a pointer to this splendid op-ed by Robert Norton in the Christian Science Monitor.

Norton examines the treatment of prisoners of war in the Revolution, citing Washington and Hamilton, both of whom refused to maltreat either British or Loyalist/Tory prisoners. He admits that some of their motivation was pragmatic, and that today's American leaders don't have to worry about what will happen to them personally if they lose, but then says:

What they overlook, of course, is that the moral high ground is still there to be taken - or lost. And as long as "Abu Ghraib" and "Guantánamo Bay" remain in the international lexicon, tyrants around the world can laugh off criticism of their actions coming from American leaders - after all, America understands that desperate times call for inhumane measures, right?

Certainly the idea that the despots in Central Asia, for example, can cite our behavior to justify theirs means that the moral high ground is, if not lost outright, near to it.

And let's not have that straw man about releasing terrorists. We're asking that they be tried, not turned loose. We're asking that they be held responsible for their actions.

As we will be for ours.