Here is a link to a new Salon article on Bush’s plans to execute some detainees, as was discussed in the previous “Death Camps” thread.
I’m raising the issue again (I ended up not having time to discuss it the first time around) to ask the following question:
Suppose a government decides that certain people are undesirables, and should be eliminated. The government then sets up a bureaucratic apparatus intended to research the facts of each suspected undesirable, in order to verify that it is indeed in the best interests of the government to eliminate them. The bureaucracy operates in secret, and makes all decisions on its own. The accused is represented only by a member of the bureaucracy, who is present to serve as a devil’s advocate, in order to ensure the accuracy of the fact-finding process. If this department deems that it is, in fact, desirable that a particular person be eliminated, then they are efficiently killed. There is, of course, no possibility of appeal. After all, it’s not like this is an actual trial- it’s just a government deciding who it wants to get rid of. Once the government has decided, why go over the decision-making process all over again?
Is this any different than what Bush is doing? (Please, only substantive differences, rather than differences of wording.)
And if not, then is it appropriate? Is it at all different from a Court of Star Chamber?