krudge,

I'm not one to defend Ms. Lithwick and Ms. Bazelon--in fact I'd like to accuse them of some very unsavory (and un-lawyerly) conduct for their insulting suggestion that Judge Susan Crawford has but a "filiment of legal integrity." I wonder if either of these "senior editors" had in their possession any credible evidence to suggest Ms. Crawford has anything less than the highest standards of "legal integrity" or professional ethics if you'd prefer. Last time I checked, it was considered exceedingly bad form for an attorney to throw around unwarranted and unsupported attacks on another attorney's ethics.--- Would this warrant an apology--I'll let you be the judge, but I doubt it will be forthcoming.

Nevertheless--I think you misstate the thrust of this article. I don't believe the authors suggested it would be offensive to hold these detainees (call them unlawful combatants if you like) without trial indefinately---assuming a status hearing is held within the meaning of Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention (GPW) the law of armed conflict would apparently permit holding them in humane conditions until the conflict ends.

I'm also not sure the article speaks out agains summary executions. I don't think this was ever an American practice in the past. It also it seems to me that summary executions would violate U.S. military doctrine--not to mention the law of armed conflict. I think even the anticipated domestic backlash against such a practice would prohibit its implementation. Since we are a democracy after all, its entirely legitimate for the military to eschew practices abhorred by the populace. This is true even if some believe summary hangings would be effective. (I happen to think the suggestion of effectiveness is incorrect in the current conflict with the emotional appeal of myrtardom and the speed of information flow...)

What I think the article opposes is putting these accused before a "rigged" trial and calling it justice. I agree with that sentiment--and frankly there's no indication Susan Crawford or any of the military attorneys involved in the Commissions disagree.