“Take it from this old KGB hand: The left is abetting America’s enemies with its intemperate attacks on President Bush.” Ion Mihai Pacepa, WSJ Opinion Journal:
Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler–as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.
The communist effort to generate hatred for the American president began soon after President Truman set up NATO and propelled the three Western occupation forces to unite their zones to form a new West German nation. We were tasked to take advantage of the reawakened patriotic feelings stirring in the European countries that had been subjugated by the Nazis, in order to shift their hatred for Hitler over into hatred for Truman–the leader of the new “occupation power.” Western Europe was still grateful to the U.S. for having restored its freedom, but it had strong leftist movements that we secretly financed. They were like putty in our hands.
The European leftists, like any totalitarians, needed a tangible enemy, and we gave them one. In no time they began beating their drums decrying President Truman as the “butcher of Hiroshima.” We went on to spend many years and many billions of dollars disparaging subsequent presidents: Eisenhower as a war-mongering “shark” run by the military-industrial complex, Johnson as a mafia boss who had bumped off his predecessor, Nixon as a petty tyrant, Ford as a dimwitted football player and Jimmy Carter as a bumbling peanut farmer. In 1978, when I left Romania for good, the bloc intelligence community had already collected 700 million signatures on a “Yankees-Go-Home” petition, at the same time launching the slogan “Europe for the Europeans.”
During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America’s presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren’t facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.
The final goal of our anti-American offensive was to discourage the U.S. from protecting the world against communist terrorism and expansion. Sadly, we succeeded. After U.S. forces precipitously pulled out of Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some two million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Another million tried to escape, but many died in the attempt. This tragedy also created a credibility gap between America and the rest of the world, damaged the cohesion of American foreign policy, and poisoned domestic debate in the U.S.
Unfortunately, partisans today have taken a page from the old Soviet playbook. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, for example, Bush critics continued our mud-slinging at America’s commander in chief. One speaker, Martin O’Malley, now governor of Maryland, had earlier in the summer stated he was more worried about the actions of the Bush administration than about al Qaeda. On another occasion, retired four-star general Wesley Clark gave Michael Moore a platform to denounce the American commander in chief as a “deserter.” And visitors to the national chairman of the Democratic Party had to step across a doormat depicting the American president surrounded by the words, “Give Bush the Boot.”
Competition is indeed the engine that has driven the American dream forward, but unity in time of war has made America the leader of the world. During World War II, 405,399 Americans died to defeat Nazism, but their country of immigrants remained sturdily united. The U.S. held national elections during the war, but those running for office entertained no thought of damaging America’s international prestige in their quest for personal victory. Republican challenger Thomas Dewey declined to criticize President Roosevelt’s war policy. At the end of that war, a united America rebuilt its vanquished enemies. It took seven years to turn Nazi Germany and imperial Japan into democracies, but that effort generated an unprecedented technological explosion and 50 years of unmatched prosperity for us all.
Now we are again at war. It is not the president’s war. It is America’s war, authorized by 296 House members and 76 senators. I do not intend to join the armchair experts on the Iraq war. I do not know how we should handle this war, and they don’t know either. But I do know that if America’s political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi predicted just before being killed: “We fight today in Iraq, tomorrow in the land of the Holy Places, and after there in the West.”
On July 28, I celebrated 29 years since President Carter signed off on my request for political asylum, and I am still tremendously proud that the leader of the Free World granted me my freedom. During these years I have lived here under five presidents — some better than others — but I have always felt that I was living in paradise. My American citizenship has given me a feeling of pride, hope and security that is surpassed only by the joy of simply being alive. There are millions of other immigrants who are equally proud that they restarted their lives from scratch in order to be in this magnanimous country. I appeal to them to help keep our beloved America united and honorable. We may not be able to change the habits of our current political representatives, but we may be able to introduce healthy new blood into the U.S. Congress.
For once, the communists got it right. It is America’s leader that counts. Let’s return to the traditions of presidents who accepted nothing short of unconditional surrender from our deadly enemies. Let’s vote next year for people who believe in America’s future, not for the ones who live in the Cold War past.
Ironically, most of today’s useful idiots have come to believe that they are brave, independent thinkers, too smart and too intellectually savvy to buy into the shabby manipulation of jingoists, arch consumerists, “corporate interests,” and “patriots,” at whom they sneer like Elizabeth Edwards at a plate of fish sticks — even as they attempt to redefine patriotism to track with their own illiberal attitudes and cynical distortions of truth that they justify in a sort of homage to their own (perceived) superiority.
All, they tell themselves, in the name of the greater good.
To these people, Pacepa — the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to have defected from the Soviet bloc — is a relic, a Cold War dust farter to be pitied for his wide-eyed acceptance of the Madison Avenue-bred “Americanism” that has so brainwashed him. His demand that we present a unified front during wartime is so, well, 1940s: like a newsreel, or war bonds.
How petit bourgeois.
He, you see, must be the dupe — or perhaps he’s been turned by Karl Rove in order to problematize the liberal left’s foundational truths by suggesting they were largely fabrications and manipulations — or else those he describes have themselves been duped, then let loose to corrupt the ideals that have long provided the US with its strength.
What a shame it would be to have wasted so many years of nuance defending what it turns out was nothing more than a carefully orchestrated propaganda effort designed and implemented in order to weaken US national resolve and sow dissent through various institutions under the sway of “progressive” thought, creating the internal conditions for the ascendancy of “elite” totalitarianism in the guise of the Nanny State.
I mean, that would just suck, wouldn’t it? — to find that your entire worldview turns out to be nothing more than some Ashton Kutcher bit played out on a grand scale by people, many long dead, who spent half their lives drunk on potato vodka?
Talk about an intellectual buzz kill…
At any rate, Pacepa’s essay (not my commentary, which I admit is a bit on the hyperbolic side) seemed relevant, given the various positions we’ve seen staked out over Foer and Beauchamp Magical History Tour.
So take it for what it’s worth.
(h/t Dan Collins)
There’s a great book about this whose name unfortunately escapes me at the moment. Starts all the way back in the 1930s with Willi Munzenberg (I think he’s in the title) and the deliberate effort by the Soviets to implant destructive, enervating memes in the West, many of which persist today.
The foundations of American leftist thought were built on lies by people secretly trying to destroy America, and the left not only still hasn’t woken up to that fact, but is still using the same means.
It is extremely unfortunate that those who must “hear, see, read and understand” are completely incapable of same. I fear for my country for the very first time in my life. I have watched what the tinfoil hatted leftist loons have been able to achieve with the stupidity of the populace and the greed of the politicians of every ilk from city to federal and the bureaucracies that support them.
BTW, Pacepa writes:
Today, Gov. O’Malley is busy advising Dems on how to recapture the center, calling “a war against Islamist radicals who would destroy our way of life” a challenge “as great as we’ve ever seen.” And attacking Bush as obsessed with partisanship.
BECAUSE OF THE… y’kow.
TallDave: it’s called (or at least the one I read is called) “The Red Millionaire” and Munzenberg’s name is indeed in the title. He also features prominently in “Double Lives: Stalin, Munzenberg and the Seduction of Intellectuals” as well as being mentioned in at least a couple of Ron Radosh’s books. But there was no concerted effort by the Soviet Union to cultivate fellow travelers in the West, of course.
I just finished a John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr book the other night where some idiot professor referred to Julius Rosenberg as “a non-traditional patriot”. You can’t help but laugh at something that convoluted.
Here’s an actual NYT headline from today:
Bush Still Wields the Threat of Terrorism
You know, I would have thought it was the terrorists who were wielding that threat, but it’s so counterintuitive that it MUST be true.
Hmmm… Looks like a lot of the commenters on lefty blogs would have sided with the Tories during the American Revolution.[Check out Shakespeare’s Sister] Makes me believe they’re just BORN LOOOZERS. Or maybe they just don’t like the USA?
If it weren’t for a strong American executive, we’d be conducting these conversations in German or Russian—although neither of these benevolent opponents would have liked the Internet, would they?
Basically the American left is anti-American, pro-European multicultural & without a clue as to how important it is to defend our national heritage.
“I fear for my country for the very first time in my life.”
Really, Sue? I get a touch more sanguine about the future every year. For one thing, there’s no Comrade Uncle Walty sitting under Sauron’s Eye every evening spewing leftist cant to an audience without any rebuttal available to the general population. His folksy successor got his butt run out of town on a rail and ‘NOTHING FOLLOWS’ replaced him. Sulzberger is running the leftist house organ straight into the ground and Rupert is about to drop a huge hammer on him to better scatter the pieces.
The nicest thing (to me, at any rate) is that this latest little kerfluffle was fought out among Gen Jeffers for the most part – no Boomers were used in the actual production. As long as there are Gen Jeffers capable of articulating a vision that contrasts sharply with the tired leftist drivel generated by brain dead morons who don’t even understand the genesis of their dystopian vision, I see no reason to despair.
If I toss in the fact that more and more people are willing to actually question the patriotism of the Copperheads, to the extent that Copperhead leadership is stumbling around like Roberto Duran with Sugar Ray tapping on his chin, then I get down right cheerful about the future. We really mustn’t forget that “don’t question my patriotism” might well have been on the lips of the notably decorated war hero Gen. Benedict Arnold, just prior to his rather hasty departure from the national scene.
Senior Potato Head in Venz. seems to have the Soviet KGB model down cold. Especially the co-opting of moron celebrities like Sean Penn and Harry “Day-o.”
Cult of personality indeed. I wonder how the Koskiddies are handling the whole Obama “Let’s Invade Pakistan! (flex)” nonsense?
Dan Collins – Haven’t seen your wit around here recently. Everything alright?
As a Marylander, I am just SO pleased that our esteemed Martin O’Malley got a shout-out there. Boy, aren’t we proud of that hypocritical do-nothing dicksneeze.
Also, as a Marylander, I respectfully request that you, Rick, and others not identify Copperheads with today’s leftist traitors.
Thanks, JD–
Yeah, I just moved and won’t have cable till Friday, and I won’t have a landline (on principle). A few hours after the cable gets hooked up on Friday, though, I’ll get home from work and immediately set out on the 20 hour drive to Wisconsin to visit the folks, then we’ve got to go to the NIH, then arrive home late on the 22nd. In short, I’ve only been able to get online at work. And I’m continually interrupted by . . . tasks. Tasks and customers. It’s enough to drive one mad.
Rick, you make a convincing case for optimism. As Pacepa has revealed (numerous times in various articles) the Communists were actively seeking the desctruction of the US by any and all means, inclusing and particularly through agit prop. They were assisted by various useful fools and fellow travellers many in acedemia and media. After the downfall of the USSR these people didn’t go away, they’re still working there magic. Richard Landes has termed these as demopaths and their dupes at his site .
This op-ed really gives insight into the mentality of someone who could become a communist spy. The theme here is reverential support for the national leader. As he admits “For communists, only the leader counted,”, while launching into an attack on those who would dare question the American leader.
Clearly this clown doesnt get the first thing about democracy. He claims that the American people “loved” Harry Truman back in the day. Heh – I guess they werent reading polls out there in Romania, nor reading the Republican commentary on Truman.
The funniest point is where he lumps into his critique all those who regarded Jimmy Carter as a mere “peanut farmer”. Attention conservatives – he is including all of you in his attack! (funny how he forgot to mention the attempts to bring down Bill Clinton, or any of the rhetoric employed against him.
This guy does not understand the first thing about freedom, free speech, or the dynamics of democracy. That he is trotted out by the WSJ as a foot-soldier in the defense of this president would be mind-boggling, were it not for the fact that it is the WSJ.
The retard who runs this site seems to find all this “relevant” to something or other. What an intellectual waste-dump.
Uh, Joe, if you’ll read a bit more closely (and with the spittle wipe from your screen), you will see that he also omitted Reagan and Bush I from the list that the Soviet agit-prop machine ground away at. You’ll no doubt be shocked to know that this is because he defected from the USSR in 1978, and thus cannot vouch first-hand to the continuation of those programs during that time.
So, Joe, I guess we won’t be seeing you around anymore, huh?
Joe Citizen,
Obviously, this person knows much less about the subject than you do. If he really had known anything at all about free speech, he ought to have known to shut up before insulting intellectual giants such as yourself. So here’s your opportunity to prove your chops by demonstrating exactly where in his essay he betrays his stupidity as regards freedom (being Romanian, he would obviously not have much to say on the subject), free speech (which someone this ignorant oughtn’t be practicing), or the dynamics of democracy.
Bring it on, Shitizen.
It doesn’t get any clearer than that. Kudos to Pacepa in coming forward and admitting what many of us who watched the cold war knew- “truth” and truth are two completely different things. There are facts and then there are “facts”.
And you don’t think the Islamofacists have a couple of these old soviet guys on the payroll, teaching them how to do this stuff effectively ? Thank god Muslim extremists present no threat or I’d be alot more worried.
Just for grins, check out your local library system for “Confessions of An Economic Hit Man”. Our county system has thirteen, for about 350,000 people. Across the state, it was 12, for a smaller population.
Others have half a dozen.
It’s crap. Check out the Amazon reviews of the thing.
The ‘crat who purchases books said it’s done by demand. Compare to, say, any one Harry Potter book.
You think they bought them by the dozen, or did a case show up by itself, courtesy of George Soros?
Don’t forget that the U.S. wasn’t “the biggest threat to world security” until after the fall of the Soviet Union. Prior to that, there were a few lefties ensconced in the universities and hiding out from the FBI, but few Americans or Europeans or anyone else thought we were particularly evil, because the USSR stood in such stark contrast to us.
Now that we’re the lone superpower, everyone thinks we’re evil, even though we haven’t been acting particularly different since 1990. I mean, we’re no longer engaged in Cold War strategies and junk, but the elimination of the USSR didn’t set us off in a frenzy of conquest, as would have happened in any other situation where two superpowers balanced each other out.
It’s these spoiled Americans with their short memories who don’t get that totalitarianism is very much interested in asserting itself from time to time, and that like pulling weeds or sweeping the kitchen floor, fighting them is a task that is never finished.
I beg to differ…Noam Chomsky and a host of his parrots were best sellers prior to 1991.
TW: reshaped present for a truthier future!
Please be kind to Joe. he hasn’t been the same since his Dad walked out on us 20 years ago.
Pacepa provides a good insight into ‘Gramscian damage’ in action
The link below discusses it.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=260
No surprise that today’s American (or should I say anti-American left) have taken their tricks directly out of the old communist playbooks.
Since their beliefs are so similar. Neither is their arrogance & elitism.
Under Lenin, I suspect that some may have actually beleived that they were the ‘vanguard of the proletariat.’ While today’s so called progressives are simply the vanguard of decadence
But wait…
Isn’t the left’s narrative just as valid as any other???
Gotta love the argument that someone who risked his life to leave a tyranny is ignorant of freedom.
And, “Joe”, there’s a difference between disagreeing with and spitting on.
I left that bitch, er I mean beyotch, because of that motherfucking stupid kid! Did you read his post? That’s his mother’s influence…OBVIOUSLY.
(Joe, really, your post was pretty bad. Rob C. summarized your complete fucktardedness perfectly)
[…] a whole bunch of right-wing blogs are linking to this with robust approval without noticing the essential […]
Tim P is right: Grascian Damage is an incandescent post. Hit that link!
er, Gramscian.
Espcially recommended to the idiot trolls who don’t realize they’ve been brainwashed. You know, the reality community.
tw: rational moderns
ahem,
Then tie it to this one.
There’s a certain authoritarianism in confusing the holder of an office with the one in the office.
Or maybe not. in which case:
ZOMG PAULA JONES KGB STOOGE !!!11!
As we continue to move towards becoming a banana Republic, I knew it was just a matter of time before these types of propaganda would start to be planted in the media. The article basically states that if you criticize our esteemed Leader, president of the Homeland, you are basically aiding the enemy. Then this translate into “you are dangerous” because your criticism helps in damaging the country’s reputation. The propaganda guys at the Pentagon or whatever “secret” misinformation unit of our government has to do a better job at hiding their planted news and propaganda. This piece is just too obvious!
Sad thing is, I can’t tell if Luis is a parody or really believes what he spews.
I think he believes it. Luckily, I anticipated the reaction in my post.
I’m getting good at sniffing out the conspiracy theories before they take shape.
When Luis gets offed by government stormtroopers — or shuttled off to a reeducation camp — we can start to worry.
I don’t believe the argument here is that criticizing “Dear Leader” is beyond the pale. It’s that the criticism should be substantive, and it shouldn’t, during war, provide our enemies with propaganda. Saying that Bush is more dangerous than al Qaeda, or trying to paint him as a deserter, is not the same as criticizing him.
It is, instead, demonizing him.
The tenor of American political discourse can only grow worse under such conditions.
I’m sorry that it’s an empirical reality that demonizing the President as CiC benefits our enemies. But it does. So you have to decide, at some point, whether you believe the failures of the President — and your desire to make them known — merit that corresponding benefit enjoyed by those counting on Americans to lose their resolve.
Personally, I find nothing wrong with criticizing the President. But as I’ve written before, when the attacks are knowingly false, claiming “patriotism” is no longer sufficient cover to make it so.
Luis Mendoza: Case in point. It’s so funny. You can type but, apparently you can read.
Other link not to be missed of an article from The New Criterion: Lying for the Truth.
So which is more a characteristic of a banana republic — saying we should support our elected officials when they’re executing the policies our representatives approved, or violating parliamentary procedure so a “vote” goes your way then deleting the record of the vote?
And, yeah, openly repeating falsehoods — aka lies — goes far beyond disagreeing or even disliking the president.
er, can’t
I know I’m having a hell of a lot of trouble reading the screen these days…
Great points Rob. When Luis is hoisted to the top of the nearest pole, I’ll “feel” his message. Luis, it is really simple. Criticize the president’s policies (hell, I do), but just don’t be a sniveling coward hiding behind hyperbole such as quite a few of his detractors in the congress/blogoshphere. Your banana republic may just be coming to an end in Jan of 2009. Does that comfort little old you?
Mendoza!!! Sorry couldn’t resist, Gen. Pacepa’s insights into historical patterns are to be taken into account. As the Securitate’s envoy in the Middle East; from where he revealed the fraudulent nature of Arafat’s
movement, the psychological operations that bolstered the Vietnamese and
other popular movements; par for the course, are the Mitrokhin documents
and the details behind the disinformation campaigns directed in India, Iran, Italy; as well as the US; with Phillip Agee and his kGB guided
broadsheet; which Sidney Blumenthal , Anthony Lake & Morton Halperin
‘unwittingly’ abetted.. In Cuba, the trick being used against Matt Sanchez is called the ‘coletilla’; which means if there is anything objectionable
about the source; which can range from homosexuality tocounterrevolutionary
orientation; you can dismiss it. The NY Times, tried it with their diagram
of supposed Republican backers of Swift Boat Veterans.Michael Moore, with his research assistant Craig Unger, did it with regards to the War on Terror and the associations with some Saudis; the fact that they occurred a decade or more ago; is irrelevant. The Clinton’s did it famously with their Communications Conspiracy of Influence campaign. The connections rarely go the other way; John Kerry’s ties to the Winter Soldier/VVAW proto-militia;
or even his BCCI ties through his campaign chairman David Paul. Joe Wilson’s ties to Saudi moneymen like the Alamoudi’s, Clinton and Castro counsel Greg Craigs’s lobbying for the Mev’s Haitian oligarchys; even John Edward’s employment by an offshore hedgefund with a portfolio stacked with
subprime mortgages, really hasn’t gotten much notice.
Luis has to be a visitor from Mahablog, because that’s almost word for word the way she put her “point”.
How arrogant one must be to accuse a man who left (and helped build!) a tyranny the size and cruelty of the Soviet Union of wanting to bring tyranny to our shores. What jaw-dropping gall.
“Also, as a Marylander, I respectfully request that you, Rick, and others not identify Copperheads with today’s leftist traitors.”
Sorry dude, it is still the one and the same Democrat party, founded by Slavers at the beginning of the 19th century, and continuing a 150 year long tradition of pissing in the soup.
Mr.Pacepa, a belated welcome to America, glad you made it.
JeffG wrote:
Or reading a confession of his horrid crimes with a rather haunted look on his face? No, wait. They only do that to important dissidents.
As a political refugee from the former Soviet Union and now as a proud US citizen I would like to say: My fellow Americans you don’t appreciate what you have in this country because you cannot compare.
So, G-d bless America, my home!
Eugene – We are happy to have people like you amongst us. Proud to have you. Luis, not so much.
I believe the modern term for that is “sensitivity training”.
I second JD’s comment, Eugene — as a nation, we’re better off with people like yourself.
[…] nice. Posted by Ian S. […]
Isn’t it somewhat sad when there are people who were born and raised half a world away understand America better than many of it’s native sons? This is terribly common among Russian/Soviet bloc emigrants.
Eugene, glad to have you.
————————–
#
Comment by Jimmie on 8/7 @ 9:58 pm #
Luis has to be a visitor from Mahablog, because that’s almost word for word the way she put her “pointâ€ÂÂ.
How arrogant one must be to accuse a man who left (and helped build!) a tyranny the size and cruelty of the Soviet Union of wanting to bring tyranny to our shores. What jaw-dropping gall.
————————–
Jimmie, I have no idea what Mahablog is. The propagandist nature of the article just jumps out at you immediately. It is mind-boggling that anyone with half a brain would not see that immediately, regardless of party affiliation. What’s ironic is the gull of the author (or WSJ editors) to title a propaganda piece as “Propaganda Redux.”
As to the “banana republic” comment, let me just make one point that illustrate this clearly. One of the first signs of a banana republic is when it goes down the path of conducting Kangaroo, show trials. Go get yourself the August issue of GQ Magazine and read the article “The Defense Will Not Rest.” Major Tom Fleener (a Republican conservative) of the United States Army Reserves says: “It truly affect us all. Once you start putting on show trials, you can’t go back.” He is talking about the ridiculous show trials the administration is trying to legitimize in Guantanamo.
Putting ideological political (unqualified) hacks at important posts in our government in order to politicize and alter scientific reports; removing health information from government Websites that doesn’t jive with a dogmatic fundamentalism approach of the administration. My friend, those are acts of a banana republic. The question is: Are the American people going to let it happened.
It’s so funny to see that the right wing fanatics always resort to the cheap shot name-calling, and intimidation tactics when one disagrees with them. The problem I see is that this works with the spineless Democrats in Congress and always end up running for cover. I will challenge anybody to a real substantive debate about the erosion of our civil rights in this country, and the increasing influence of the religious/conservative right. I’m willing to keep the debate focus on the actual issues, not on calling anybody names. By the way, I proudly served in the U.S. Navy, and one of my proudest moments in those years of my youth was when I raised my hand to swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. As it often happens in History, the few that are standing out now, bravely exposing themselves to abuse will be vindicated.
Finally, unlike most right wing fanatics, I don’t repeat anything anybody says. I read and get my news from very different sources, and make my own conclusions. My mind is always open for new information, and I can be convinced of something is you present an argument in a coherent way. Anybody up to the challenge?
How about if I start with noting how anything a left wing fanatic says is crap? You seem to find that tactic impressive. Then let’s move to Guantanamo:
Which side has been demanding trials for the detainees there? Which side insists on affording Constitutional protections to prisoners of war (a generous appellation)? It isn’t the right.
————————
#
Comment by JD on 8/7 @ 11:20 pm #
Eugene – We are happy to have people like you amongst us. Proud to have you. Luis, not so much.
————————–
JD, who are “we”? Let’s see if this holds up to logic. When you say “we” are happy to have people like you…, but “Luis, not so much”, it somehow implies that the “we” refers to “Americans.” Since I am also an “American”, using logic, that means that I am also in the “We.” Since I don’t agree with you, and because of our values and respect for our Constitution, Americans can have diverse views about issues (for example, having a different opinion about an article), therefore your statement is nonsensical. Since you can’t make a statement on behalf of all Americans: we the people. Let me know if, logically speaking, I missed anything.
————————–
#
Comment by Pablo on 8/8 @ 12:01 pm #
How about if I start with noting how anything a left wing fanatic says is crap? You seem to find that tactic impressive. Then let’s move to Guantanamo:
Which side has been demanding trials for the detainees there? Which side insists on affording Constitutional protections to prisoners of war (a generous appellation)? It isn’t the right.
————————–
Pablo, you are going to have to do better than that. Detaining a man and holding him indefinitely without recourse to a real legal defense is never right. It goes against everything America stands for. Thousands of leaflets were dropped in many tribal areas in Afghanistan promising millions of dollars in rewards for turning in “enemy combatants.” It is very likely that tribal warlords picked up innocent people and turned them in to collect the bounty. That’s just one example on how the twisted logic used in your argument falls apart; there are many others.
So, if arguably, there is the possibility that some of the detainees may be innocent, but they don’t have an opportunity to present their case, and the so-called “War on Terror” is infinite, for ever, and since the President claims he can hold prisoners for as the war lasts, then the policy can’t be justified.
Next point; try a little harder.
I take this to mean Luis would rather be ignored. And he came all the way over here to tell us so.
Luis, please tell me how our civil liberties are being eroded. Thanks in advance. And after you tell me this, please tell me what your plan would have been in regards to foreign policy, specifically the middle east, and domestically in regards to terror from Jihadists. One other thing, please tell me how the administration should have handled enemy combatants. I understand that you are against Guantanamo and its “show trials”. Again, thanks in advance.
——————-
#
Comment by McGehee on 8/8 @ 12:53 pm #
It’s so funny to see that the right wing fanatics always resort to the cheap shot name-calling, and intimidation tactics when one disagrees with them.
I take this to mean Luis would rather be ignored. And he came all the way over here to tell us so.
——————————–
McGehee, that’s unintelligible! Go up and read the posts (and vitriol) some people wrote about my statement that I thought the article was a propaganda piece. Use your own logic and reason skills and come back and tell me what you think.
Luis, your first sentence:
My logic and reason skills tell me that is the kind of rhetoric that can only come from someone unwilling to consider the possibility that Pacepa could possibly be telling the truth.
Now why are you taking after me instead of answering Obstreperous Infidel’s questions?
One qualifier, if I may, for my questions to Luis. Even though, jihadism has been a problem for some time now, I guess I should have asked my questions in regards to 9/11. Basically, I know what President Bush’s foreign policy and domestic policy has been (and I haven’t been in agreement with all of it), but to the contrarians(and that’s fine, providing you have an alternative), I need to see an alternative proposal. Again, Luis, thanks in advance for your reply.
—————————
#
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 8/8 @ 1:33 pm #
One qualifier, if I may, for my questions to Luis. Even though, jihadism has been a problem for some time now, I guess I should have asked my questions in regards to 9/11. Basically, I know what President Bush’s foreign policy and domestic policy has been (and I haven’t been in agreement with all of it), but to the contrarians(and that’s fine, providing you have an alternative), I need to see an alternative proposal. Again, Luis, thanks in advance for your reply.
—————————
You guys must be kidding! Please, where is the intellectual force on the right? Terrorism is a crime. When someone commits a crime, you apprehend them, and bring them to trial. You prosecute; you present the evidence; and if the person is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, you convict and assign the proper punishment. Period. End of story. That is the only way to guarantee our values as a country.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin
Now, I’m done with this subject. That’s my answer. You may totally disagree with me, I understand that, but that’s part of what America is all about. Is not about dogma. I happen to believe that my position is more aligned with true American values.
Next issue …
———————————-
#
Comment by McGehee on 8/8 @ 1:10 pm #
Luis, your first sentence:
As we continue to move towards becoming a banana Republic, I knew it was just a matter of time before these types of propaganda would start to be planted in the media.
My logic and reason skills tell me that is the kind of rhetoric that can only come from someone unwilling to consider the possibility that Pacepa could possibly be telling the truth.
Now why are you taking after me instead of answering Obstreperous Infidel’s questions?
———————————-
McGehee, I’m not dogmatic. Yes, obviously there is the possibility that Pacepa’s article is honest and not a piece of propaganda. It just that I have been waiting (incredulous) that this type of article will start appearing all of the sudden.
Sometimes I watch the “Daily Show” and Bill Maher on HBO, and in the current climate, I wonder when the drumbeat to silence dissent and commentary would start. This is exactly the type of article I am expecting to start surfacing. It has all the elements. In fact, if I was in a writing class and the professor ask me to write a propaganda article, I would have use the same formula. But as to your point, well taken, yes, I admit it could be an honest-to-goodness article with no propaganda (secret man) behind it. You are correct about that.
Luis, the defender of democracy, has spoken!
Hear that, all of you, and go back and digest it!
Luis shall hear no more of this topic!
So, the entire history of taking prisoners during a war is wrong?
What is right? Should we just kill them on the battlefield? Never take them in the first place?
What should we do with enemy combatants who will gladly kill us in war should wwe capture them?
You’ve got to do better than that. You’ve got to provide a realistic solution.
Okay, you’re not dogmatic — you’re prejudiced.
———————–
#
Comment by Pablo on 8/8 @ 2:10 pm #
Pablo, you are going to have to do better than that. Detaining a man and holding him indefinitely without recourse to a real legal defense is never right.
So, the entire history of taking prisoners during a war is wrong?
What is right? Should we just kill them on the battlefield? Never take them in the first place?
What should we do with enemy combatants who will gladly kill us in war should wwe capture them?
You’ve got to do better than that. You’ve got to provide a realistic solution.
—————————-
I’m beginning to get worry here about the easy soft balls. If you are in a battle field shooting and being shot at, killing happens. If you happen to capture an enemy combatant in the battle field, once under your care, that enemy combatant then enjoys certain internationally-recognized rights (even for non regulars). Then you follow those laws and conventions. Regardless of the circumstances, you don’t hold any man without charge and without due process of the law (even military law) indefinitely.
Yes, Luis. It is not at all surprising that you missed something. I woud never profess to speak for all Americans, but at the same time, all Americans should be proud to have people like Eugene amongst us. I was speaking, without their approval, on behalf of the proteinwisdom community, sans trolls.
I was going to continue to disect, but the rest of the claptrap was as predictable as a the sun rising in the east.
Luis – Enemy combatants may be detained for the duration of the conflict, without trial, to keep them from returning to the battlefield where they would pose a danger to the men and women of the US armed forces.
—————————
#
Comment by Lurking Observer on 8/8 @ 2:08 pm #
Luis, the defender of democracy, has spoken!
Hear that, all of you, and go back and digest it!
Luis shall hear no more of this topic!
——————————
This reminds me of the nerd hiding behind a corner throwing pebbles and somebody and running back to hide. Cowardly taking cheap shots instead of engaging in a substantive discussion.
Yes, and those rights include the right to not be put on trial, but not the right to not be held while the war continues, or, in other words, indefinitely.
What is your solution to this that comports with your vision?
————————
#
Comment by JD on 8/8 @ 2:24 pm #
Yes, Luis. It is not at all surprising that you missed something. I woud never profess to speak for all Americans, but at the same time, all Americans should be proud to have people like Eugene amongst us. I was speaking, without their approval, on behalf of the proteinwisdom community, sans trolls.
I was going to continue to disect, but the rest of the claptrap was as predictable as a the sun rising in the east.
Luis – Enemy combatants may be detained for the duration of the conflict, without trial, to keep them from returning to the battlefield where they would pose a danger to the men and women of the US armed forces.
————————
JD, as an American, I think that people who are new to the country and haven’t have time to become familiarized with “our” values and rich history of standing against oppression, I happen to believe that people who would advocate silencing dissent are actually misinformed. Your opinion is not more valid than mine, and vice versa.
The fact that you have to resort to cheap shot name calling and insinuations (proteinwisdom, sans trolls) is a clear indication of your lack of character, and inability to hold your ground at an intellectual level.
Your last statement (“Enemy combatants may be detained for the duration of the conflict, without trial, to keep them from returning to the battlefield where they would pose a danger to the men and women of the US armed forces.”) may apply to people you capture in the battlefield while they were shooting at the armed forces. About people who were turned in by third parties claiming the detainee was an enemy combatant? How do you ascertain whether the person is innocent. Your logic on this doesn’t hold.
Pablo, you are going to have to do better than that. Detaining a man and holding him indefinitely without recourse to a real legal defense is never right. It goes against everything America stands for.
Up until fairly recently, spies were shot out of hand. Yes. Even by the United States and all it stands for. So. Considering the culture of Afgahnistan and environs, being held without trial for a long period can be viewed as life extention.
————————————
#
Comment by Rusty on 8/8 @ 5:40 pm #
Up until fairly recently, spies were shot out of hand. Yes. Even by the United States and all it stands for. So. Considering the culture of Afgahnistan and environs, being held without trial for a long period can be viewed as life extention.
————————————
I’m beginning to think that these extremely weak arguments are some sort of a joke. So Rusty, am I to assume that if someone went to your house and arrested you and put you away for ever without recourse to the law, that that would be Ok with you? If you say it is Ok for another man (who could be innocent), then you are saying that it would be Ok for you as well. Please clarify.
Terrorism is a crime.
Bzzt. Wrong, right off the first, basic assumption. While domestic terrorism may be treated as a crime, foreign terrorism is an act outside even the laws of war.
Terrorists can, with full compliance with the Geneva Conventions, be shot on capture. You could kill their wounded and still abide by the GCs. Why? Because by their acts they remove themselves from the classes of people protected by the Geneva Conventions.
You hold hearings to determine their status, whether they were combatants or not, and if so, whether they were lawful or unlawful combatants.
Oddly enough, that’s exactly what’s been done.
So, terrorists who aren’t American citizens are afforded the same protection under the law as you or me? Funny, didn’t know that.
Maybe this question is difficult for you, Luis, but again, which civil liberties have been eroded? What is your foreign policy? What steps would you take to keep out the terrorists? Pre 9/11 plans? Maybe, this will help you. I wasn’t for going into Iraq. You answered ONE question (a question I never asked either), like an asshole by the way, and I thank you for that. I actually have said in this same site that the few actual American citizens who were held without being charged actually were screwed. I think the cases, if the govt was correct (and I no doubt they were), would have been pretty easy to try and come up with a conviction. I thought they should have been tried with a crime as quickly as our justice system allows.
Again, we’re talking about foreign terrorists captured in foreign lands. I get it that you think that doemstic terrorists should be charged with crimes and tried for those crimes as soon as the the justice system allows. I agree. Now, how about the other questions. Again, thanks in advance.
No Luis, Rusty was describing the actual truth about the Geneva Conventions. The fact you react this way does suggest a joke, but not by Rusty.
Non sequitur.
You … do know about logical fallacies, right?
————————–
#
Comment by Rob Crawford on 8/8 @ 6:59 pm #
Terrorism is a crime.
Bzzt. Wrong, right off the first, basic assumption. While domestic terrorism may be treated as a crime, foreign terrorism is an act outside even the laws of war.
Terrorists can, with full compliance with the Geneva Conventions, be shot on capture. You could kill their wounded and still abide by the GCs. Why? Because by their acts they remove themselves from the classes of people protected by the Geneva Conventions.
————————–
Once a man is captured whether he falls under the definition of a “regular” or “irregular” fighter or terrorist, killing that individual would be a violation of the Geneva Convention, which also addresses “irregular” fighters, and of international laws. First point
Luis – Thanks for being civil, right up to the point where you question the intellectual brain power of every single person that bothers to respond to your nonsense. The use of the non sequeter and strawman appears to be your stock in trade, and you are not nearly as good at it as some of the more common trolls. Where did I attempt to silence dissent, and why must the Left whine about stifling dissent every time somebody disagrees with them. Despite my best efforts to stifle your dissent, you are still quite free to post your blather here, for all to see.
Repeatedly, people have asked you what your positions are. I am going to assume that you are intellectually honest, and actually have positions that amount to more than “not what rethuglikkkans think”. Let’s hear them.
———————————–
#
Comment by Rob Crawford on 8/8 @ 7:01 pm #
About people who were turned in by third parties claiming the detainee was an enemy combatant? How do you ascertain whether the person is innocent. Your logic on this doesn’t hold.
You hold hearings to determine their status, whether they were combatants or not, and if so, whether they were lawful or unlawful combatants.
Oddly enough, that’s exactly what’s been done.
————————————
That is not what’s being done. Here are some quotes from a real authorities on the issue: Military men in uniform serving our country right now.
Here’s the link to the article:
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5782&pageNum=1
——-
“It took me a while to figure out the system is rigged,†Bill Kuebler was saying one day last spring, more than a year after he’d been ordered to defend a man against his will. “When it hit me how ridiculous and unjust and farcical this is? That was it. That was the moment I realized it was all a sham.†– William Kuebler, Navy Lawyer assign to represent a defendant in Guatánamo
—
“The concept of compelled representation has always bothered the crap out of me,†Fleener says. “You just don’t force lawyers on people. You don’t represent someone against his will. It’s never, ever, ever done.â€Â
The reason it’s never done is that it undermines the concept of a fair trial. When a man’s life or liberty is at stake, he gets to decide who will speak for him. That’s the way American courts work, have always worked. To eliminate that right is to begin to transform a trial into a pageant. And the other commission regulationsâ€â€the use of secret evidence and third-hand hearsay, excluding defendants from parts of their own trials, charging them with invented crimes after they’d been interrogated in isolation for yearsâ€â€only further that transformation.
—————
“I hated the fact, still hate the fact, that we were making up a trial system to convict people after we’d already decided they’re guilty,†Fleener says. “I hated that as a country, we were doing that. I didn’t like the fact that we were violating the rule of law, and that what we were doing as a country was just…wrong.â€Â
Google the article “The Defense Will Not Rest” for a complete account by two highly respected Navy lawyers
Luis – That may be their experience, however, you have failed, utterly failed, to establish that the detainess of which you speak are entitled to access to the American judicial system. That is the first of many hurdles you must clear prior to proceeding.
—————————
#
Comment by JD on 8/8 @ 9:36 pm #
Luis – Thanks for being civil, right up to the point where you question the intellectual brain power of every single person that bothers to respond to your nonsense. The use of the non sequeter and strawman appears to be your stock in trade, and you are not nearly as good at it as some of the more common trolls. Where did I attempt to silence dissent, and why must the Left whine about stifling dissent every time somebody disagrees with them. Despite my best efforts to stifle your dissent, you are still quite free to post your blather here, for all to see.
Repeatedly, people have asked you what your positions are. I am going to assume that you are intellectually honest, and actually have positions that amount to more than “not what rethuglikkkans thinkâ€Â. Let’s hear them.
—————————
JD, Ok, fair enough. I’ll restate my positions. I think if you read my previous post you can see them clearly, but here I go again…
First, I start with the point that if you notice, there have been other countries that have been targets of terrorist attacks recently: Spain, and the U.K.
As far as I know (you can correct me if I’m wrong), my understanding is that in those countries, they have handled the perpetrators within their criminal justice system; charged, prosecuted, and convicted.
As far as I know, I’m not aware that these countries are knows to have performed “extraordinary renditions” and taken prisoners to secret prisons where they have been tortured.
This has damaged America’s reputations immensely around the world, and I believe it will take a very long time to gain the respect of the world back.
Today, Gordon Brown, the new Prime Minister of Britain, asked that 5 Guantanamo prisoners who were longtime British residents, to be freed. This illustrate that even our closest allies in the war, have a different approach regarding the indefinite imprisonment of people.
Most of the people right now in Guantanamo were capture far away from any battle field, and according to reports and articles I’ve read, there is a big possibility that many of them may have nothing to do with terrorism.
My position is also that once you as a country and as a people, are Ok with people being tortured, and people being held indefinitely, and people being tried in sham kangaroo courts, just because they happen to be foreign, it is a very dangerous slippery slope. I understand that you and many readers may not agree with this, and may be very comfortable with those actions.
Finally, I believe that not doing these things (torture, holding people indefinitely without recourse to the law, etc.) in any way affects our ability to fight terrorists.
I hope you find this answers sensible enough and in good taste, even if you completely disagree with me.
——————————-
#
Comment by JD on 8/8 @ 9:52 pm #
Luis – That may be their experience, however, you have failed, utterly failed, to establish that the detainess of which you speak are entitled to access to the American judicial system. That is the first of many hurdles you must clear prior to proceeding.
——————————-
JD, “utterly failed” is a strong term. Maybe you are not convinced, but I hope you will see that I’m making my points in a logical way. Let me know if you agree or not.
Regarding providing the Guantánamo detainees with access to the American Judicial system, they are already under a “type” of American judicial system, albeit, a newly created, and illegitimate one (in my opinion, and in the opinion of these two highly respected Navy men quoted priviously).
If you notice, as I stated above, none of the other Western European countries that have been the targets of terrorists attacks, and attempts have elected to conduct “extraordinary renditions”, taken people to secret prisons to be torture, etc. They have dealt with these offenders and alleged terrorists with their established judicial systems.
I will make an argument that they are doing the right thing, and we are not. Again, is an argument; it’s my position. I understand you can completely disagree with it.
Luis – I was very careful with my word selection, and utterly failed seemed quite appropriate. Can you point me to one time in the history of modern warfare that enemy combatants were allowed access to the civil or criminal court system of the country that captured them?
Define tortured. Extraordinary rendition was practiced under the Clinton administration. If you can tell me with a straight face that you thought he was shredding the Constitution, I will at least give you points for trying.
World opinion means little. If you want to find out world opinion, have Amnerica withdraw all of its troops from the other continents, and force all of the rest of the world to provide for their own defense. Have the UN fund themselves. So the rest of the world is not very gracious. Tough.
Congress, under the guidance of Pelosi and Reid, does not want the people at Gitmo to be relocated to American soil, or transferred to our allies overseas. Should we just release them? Execute them? Let them back out to kill American military members?
I do not accept your premise that they are kangaroo courts, that we torture as a matter of routine, and that we are crossing some bright line in imprisoning enemby combatants.
Terrorism is not criminal. It is a cowardly act of war, by people that have no consciense, no regard for human life, and no spine to stand up and fight mano-a-mano. Dealing with terrorism as a criminal action is fine, so long as you are willing to accept the fact that Americans will continue to die as a result of terrorism, and we will come in after the fact to investigate and clean up. I am not comfortable with such a postion.
———————————————–
#
Comment by JD on 8/8 @ 10:25 pm #
Luis – I was very careful with my word selection, and utterly failed seemed quite appropriate. Can you point me to one time in the history of modern warfare that enemy combatants were allowed access to the civil or criminal court system of the country that captured them?
Define tortured. Extraordinary rendition was practiced under the Clinton administration. If you can tell me with a straight face that you thought he was shredding the Constitution, I will at least give you points for trying.
World opinion means little. If you want to find out world opinion, have Amnerica withdraw all of its troops from the other continents, and force all of the rest of the world to provide for their own defense. Have the UN fund themselves. So the rest of the world is not very gracious. Tough.
Congress, under the guidance of Pelosi and Reid, does not want the people at Gitmo to be relocated to American soil, or transferred to our allies overseas. Should we just release them? Execute them? Let them back out to kill American military members?
I do not accept your premise that they are kangaroo courts, that we torture as a matter of routine, and that we are crossing some bright line in imprisoning enemby combatants.
Terrorism is not criminal. It is a cowardly act of war, by people that have no consciense, no regard for human life, and no spine to stand up and fight mano-a-mano. Dealing with terrorism as a criminal action is fine, so long as you are willing to accept the fact that Americans will continue to die as a result of terrorism, and we will come in after the fact to investigate and clean up. I am not comfortable with such a postion.
———————————————–
JD, to your first question, yes I can point you to an instance: right now.
“Every enemy combatant with a British passport, for example, has been released at the request of the United Kingdom, which preferred even it’s alleged terrorists not to be detained and interrogated without charge.” GQ Magazine, Agust 2007, Page 151
Waterboarding is torture; shackling somebody hand and feet together, having them in a wet floor laying on their own feces while being bombarded with loud music and keeping bright lights on is torture; cutting someones fingers off is torture. Those are just some miscelenious descriptions.
When you are in a war with a country and you have a theater of operations, a battle field, and you capture enemy soldiers in the battle field, that is different. But even they are tried under a true military tribunal where the rules of evidence are respected.
Extraordinary rendition is wrong, no matter who practices it. I have no problem criticizing the Democrats. For example, I think that what they did last week authorizing the warrantless wiretaps was a cowardly act.
Regarding world opinion, point well taken. It looks like you are not too concern about it. I happen to think that we can protect our interests, be forceful and strong in the world, and also be diplomatic. I believe the people we have running the country now don’t have the skills. Again, my opinion.
The last argument about terrorists, I think it does not hold. Just because “you” call someone a “terrorist” doesn’t necessarily means so. That’s why you have habeas corpus, even in the military. You bring a guy in: Ok this guy is a terrorist, and here’s why: “we were monitoring a plan to blow up a bridge; the conversation was recorder; this is what he said; here’s the tape of the conversation; here’s the video; here are the weapons we confiscate in his possession; and these two soldiers are the witnesses, and here are their written statements.” At that point that person become an alleged terrorist; then at one point they are tried.
If a warlord picks a completely innocent guy from a field and turns him in for a bounty, and the U.S. soldier only has the testimony of the warlord, then the situation is different.
If you can’t prove that a man has committed a crime or that he is a terrorist using conventional rule of evidence procedures, at some point that man has to be set free. That is the price you pay for having a country rule by laws.
If you allow a Supreme leader the complete right to detain anybody without any review or check and balances, and hold that person indefinitely and not allow that person to proof his innocence, then you are bestowing that leader with King-like powers.
Once you do that, I believe it is a slippery slope towards an oppressive regime. All of the sudden the first thing you notice is that little by little propagandist news start showing up about the necessity to respect the leaders; to not criticize the leader because you are hurting the country. Then the true patriots that are standing up for what is right and defending our Constitution are demonized and persecuted… so on and so forth.
Luis – You answered a question that I did not ask. I asked for an example of enemy combatants being given access to the civil court system of the capturing country during the war they were captured in.
We disagree on what constitutes torture by a significant degree.
“When you are in a war with a country and you have a theater of operations, a battle field, and you capture enemy soldiers in the battle field, that is different. But even they are tried under a true military tribunal where the rules of evidence are respected.”
False. We are under no such requirement. We can detain them until the end of the hostilities to prevent them from returning to the battlefield to resume the fight against our servicemen and women.
Are President Bush’s diplomatic skills great, or even good? No. However, I have yet to see one affirmative accounting of how diplomacy could have worked with Saddam, or should have worked, or how we should approach the Iwannanutjob in Iran. Not Bush is not a position. When diplomacy fails, one has to be able to inflict the stick.
The inability to call people what they are, in this case, terrorists, is symbolic of the left. It is not me calling them that. They call themselves that, amongst other things.
The rest is opinion, based on opinion, and speculation and interpretation. I will not change your views, and will not attempt to.
——————————————
#
Comment by JD on 8/8 @ 11:16 pm #
Luis – You answered a question that I did not ask. I asked for an example of enemy combatants being given access to the civil court system of the capturing country during the war they were captured in.
We disagree on what constitutes torture by a significant degree.
“When you are in a war with a country and you have a theater of operations, a battle field, and you capture enemy soldiers in the battle field, that is different. But even they are tried under a true military tribunal where the rules of evidence are respected.â€Â
False. We are under no such requirement. We can detain them until the end of the hostilities to prevent them from returning to the battlefield to resume the fight against our servicemen and women.
Are President Bush’s diplomatic skills great, or even good? No. However, I have yet to see one affirmative accounting of how diplomacy could have worked with Saddam, or should have worked, or how we should approach the Iwannanutjob in Iran. Not Bush is not a position. When diplomacy fails, one has to be able to inflict the stick.
The inability to call people what they are, in this case, terrorists, is symbolic of the left. It is not me calling them that. They call themselves that, amongst other things.
The rest is opinion, based on opinion, and speculation and interpretation. I will not change your views, and will not attempt to.
——————————————
JD, the first error you are committing is that you believe the concept of “War on Terror.” Let me ask you something: Are you aware if in the history of warfare countries have gone to war against a concept, a description of an action? “War on Terror” first and foremost is a propagandist tool, and secondly is a misnomer. You go to war against a country, not against a concept.
Everybody agrees that the terrorism problem is going to be around for many many years. Some people say that it could take place indefinitely. Where I think the logic of the argument fails is that first, you are attributing something to an act that does not qualified to be called so; a misnomer. Secondly you are wanting to apply a behavior that happens during conventional war (holding prisoners during the duration of hostilities), to a “War on Terror”, which as I said, there is no such a thing. So the justification of the argument falls under its own weight.
Regarding Saddam, yes there are a lot of miscreant leaders out there, including Muggabe in Zinbawe, and Chavez in Venezuela, and plenty of others. Why is it our responsibility to remove them?
Regarding your statement that I have an inability to call people what they are, in this case terrorists, didn’t I present to you a logical counter point to your view? In your case you are willing to accept that a man is a terrorist on the word of an authority (Bush, in this case). In my case I want to make sure that there are checks and balances and a fair procedure that allows the innocent to present their case, because it offends me if an innocent person is held prisoner unfairly. I think we both have a right to hold our views on this without resorting to the name-calling tactic: liberal, etc.
Regarding Iran, there are almost 200 countries in the world; why is it us that must go to war with them. If they ever dear to attack us, they’ll be blown to kingdom come.
Presumably, from what I read in your argument, you think we should also attack Iran at some point.
————————————–
The rest is opinion, based on opinion, and speculation and interpretation. I will not change your views, and will not attempt to.
————————————–
Haven’t I presented documentation and sources to back up my arguments? I think I’ve done that. But you seem to still think that is all just base on opinions. Fair enough.
I am an open-minded person and welcome the opportunity to be convinced to change my mind on any subject once a rational argument backed up by facts is presented.
I explained my position based on respect for the Constitution of the United States and our traditions (as I see it). So far you have not convinced me that I should justify “extraordinary rendition,” torture (my opinion), and holding a man indefinitely without charging him.
Seems Luis considers himself something of a thinker.
So bold.
I find it sexy, frankly.
Like a laser, his mind is.
Yum.
——————————–
#
Comment by Jeff G. on 8/8 @ 11:50 pm #
Seems Luis considers himself something of a thinker.
So bold.
I find it sexy, frankly.
——————————–
Jeff, we are all thinkers! That’s what we do the minute we wake up in the morning. I’m into girls, but thank for the compliment(?) anyways.
Although I think he should look up “begging the question” and “circular argumentation.”
Just for shits and giggles.
Still, though. Bold.
I’ve gathered enough scalps for one week. You guys are own your own here.
Got a Robert Mitchum movie to watch, and a Guinness to finish.
Enjoy debating — in a “serious” and “logical” manner — whether or not we as a country are marching toward a theocratic banana republic run by right wing constitution shredders.
Because serious questions deserve serious answers. And shredding — well, that’s almost never good.
Unless you’re on a surfboard or some such.
Luis – Interesting that you reference you own contention as proof of your contention. Is the War on Terror an ideal name? Nope. How about we call it the War Againt Militant Islamic Nutjobs?
Did I say that there were no other “miscreants”? Why is it our responsibility? Why is everything our responsibility? The world looks to us, and we take action. The UN had passed 13 or 14 resolutions scolding Saddam, and Oil for Food continued to line his pockets, all while he cozied up to those that would blow up Jooooooos and allowed AQ to operate training facilities in his country, that he ruled with an iron fist. Chavez – bad. Mugabe – bad. Neither of which even begins to represent the threat that the world felt Saddam was, and the potential threat he could be were he to act in concert with AQ.
I made no such assertion about Iran. My aunt is Iranian, and I have a differing perspective than many. However, given the stated objectives of Ahmeninutjob, do we wait until they have nuclear weapons? Do we wait until they nuke Tel Aviv off the face of the earth? Where would you draw the line? What would you be willing to concede in negotiations with them?
Torture – the meaning of this word has been defined down to such a point that it is almost meaningless. Being subjected to uncomfortable situations is not torture. Being subjected to loud music is not torture. Being offended is not torture. Until the term is used in its proper context, there is no reason to debate it.
Rendition – Congress is unwilling to keep them on US soil, and unwilling to turn them over to our allies. What do you suggest we do with them?
Enemy combatants and terrorists – You and I will never agree that this is a crime, or that these peaceful goat herders should be released back into the fight against our men and women.
I appreciate you trying, and being civil. I find your views dangerous, but at least you have manners when you present them.
Luis – Is liberal perjorative? I used it in a descriptive manner, and was not aware that defining the opponent’s political views was name calling. I will readily admit to being a conservative. Why is it that the Left is unwilling to admit their positions?
This whole terrorism is a crime thing really bugs me. It is the pinnacle of reactionary thinking. We respond AFTER a bunch of Americans are killed. Unacceptable, when the President is tasked with securing the safety of our people. If you are willing to sacrifice the lives of the residents of DC, or New York, or LA, just so we will not be out proactively fighting terrorists, then that is on you, and as I said before, dangerous. I am not willing to make that trade.
——————————————–
Luis – Interesting that you reference you own contention as proof of your contention. Is the War on Terror an ideal name? Nope. How about we call it the War Againt Militant Islamic Nutjobs?
Did I say that there were no other “miscreantsâ€Â? Why is it our responsibility? Why is everything our responsibility? The world looks to us, and we take action. The UN had passed 13 or 14 resolutions scolding Saddam, and Oil for Food continued to line his pockets, all while he cozied up to those that would blow up Jooooooos and allowed AQ to operate training facilities in his country, that he ruled with an iron fist. Chavez – bad. Mugabe – bad. Neither of which even begins to represent the threat that the world felt Saddam was, and the potential threat he could be were he to act in concert with AQ.
I made no such assertion about Iran. My aunt is Iranian, and I have a differing perspective than many. However, given the stated objectives of Ahmeninutjob, do we wait until they have nuclear weapons? Do we wait until they nuke Tel Aviv off the face of the earth? Where would you draw the line? What would you be willing to concede in negotiations with them?
Torture – the meaning of this word has been defined down to such a point that it is almost meaningless. Being subjected to uncomfortable situations is not torture. Being subjected to loud music is not torture. Being offended is not torture. Until the term is used in its proper context, there is no reason to debate it.
Rendition – Congress is unwilling to keep them on US soil, and unwilling to turn them over to our allies. What do you suggest we do with them?
Enemy combatants and terrorists – You and I will never agree that this is a crime, or that these peaceful goat herders should be released back into the fight against our men and women.
I appreciate you trying, and being civil. I find your views dangerous, but at least you have manners when you present them.
——————————————–
JD, the other day an ex-soldier (U.S.) was caught with a bunch of explosives which is believed he was planning to use in terrorist attacks against the U.S. See link below:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/bounty-hunter-d.html
If the guy happens to be Christian, should we now also have another term: War Against Christian Nutjobs? About that?
The justification to attack Iraq was completely made up. This administration took power knowing they were going to go to war against Iraq. I believe that, and I believe that in due course it will be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The decision to attack Iraq, and the way the war has been executed, I believe, is one of the biggest failures and mistake this country has ever committed, in its history.
Regarding Iran, I think a wise leader (commander in chief) will know what to do at the right time. Again, why doesn’t France, or the U.K., or Italy, or Spain, get all bent out of shape about it? Why does it have to be us? There is a long and complicated history between the U.S. and Iran, and any solution to the rivalry will be complicated as well.
Regarding torture, you don’t start on the path, well that’s just “a little torture”, or this is almost torture, or this is just a few degrees short of torture. Justifying having some guy with a black mask at some remote hell hole somewhere in the world, with black leather gloves, tying a guy up and dunking in in water, making sure he brings him up, or stops pouring water down his nose and mouth just in time to avoid injury is sick. And it doesn’t work as an intelligence toll anyway, according to most experts in such a things.
I understand your point regarding enemy combatants and terrorists. You are unconcerned about whether an innocent person is being held. I guess it would have to happen to you personally or to someone close to you in order to appreciate the concept.
And we finish full-cycle, you making my point. You say you find my views “dangerous”, even thought the ability to hold my views is what the U.S. constitution is all about. On the other hand, I also find your views extremely dangerous to the rule of law and our traditions, but I would not dear to try to silence you. We engage in healthy debate, and people would make their own minds.
Your statement that my views are dangerous are no more valid than my stating that yours are, as you have no hold on the concept of what is right in this situation, anymore than I do. We have our points of view, and they differ.
——————————
#
Comment by JD on 8/9 @ 12:19 am #
Luis – Is liberal perjorative? I used it in a descriptive manner, and was not aware that defining the opponent’s political views was name calling. I will readily admit to being a conservative. Why is it that the Left is unwilling to admit their positions?
This whole terrorism is a crime thing really bugs me. It is the pinnacle of reactionary thinking. We respond AFTER a bunch of Americans are killed. Unacceptable, when the President is tasked with securing the safety of our people. If you are willing to sacrifice the lives of the residents of DC, or New York, or LA, just so we will not be out proactively fighting terrorists, then that is on you, and as I said before, dangerous. I am not willing to make that trade.
——————————
JD, this is “stock and trade” of the way a lot of conservatives argue. If you don’t agree with their view, the issue is not only an honest disagreement, you are also dangerous, and possibly a traitor. I am disappointed that this tactic gets the Democrats in Congress to run for cover. That’s why they don’t have the respect of the people.
You use terms like “reactionary thinking”, “if you are willing to sacrifice the lives of the residents of D.C.”, etc. It’s nonsense. On the other hand, I think that what is really dangerous is to have a government run by incompetents, fundamentalist, dogmatic, and unethical people getting us into an unnecessary war that have resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, and the deaths of tens of thousands of people, including our soldiers.
On top of that, generate the hate of more an more people around the world, including most of the people of the countries who have been traditionally our allies. Yes, maybe we would have gone to war against Iraq anyway, but the way it was done was a complete fiasco. I think there is a book titled that, Fiasco, by Thomas Rick. It sums it all up.
—————————–
Luis – Is liberal perjorative? I used it in a descriptive manner, and was not aware that defining the opponent’s political views was name calling. I will readily admit to being a conservative. Why is it that the Left is unwilling to admit their positions?
—————————–
Not at all; I consider myself a liberal Democrat, and I think it’s a badge of honor.
Then your first point is wrong. There is no protection given to unlawful combatants under the parts of the Geneva Conventions the US signed and ratified. Combatants are expected to openly carry arms, wear some sort of distinguishing uniform, obey a chain of command, and refrain from war crimes such as targeting civilians.
Terrorists don’t openly carry arms, don’t wear distinguishing uniforms, and make it a point to attack civilians. That puts them far, far outside any GC protections.
Unless you can cite a part of the treaty — a part the US signed onto, mind you — that says otherwise. I’ve been making this point for six long years, and no one’s managed to cite anything that disagrees.
“I’m beginning to get worry here about the easy soft balls.”
Somebody should make T-shirts.
“If the guy happens to be Christian, should we now also have another term: War Against Christian Nutjobs? About that?”
Sigh…No, Luis, because he most likely wasn’t doing it in the name of his religion. And if he was, then he would be very easily marginalized by the overwhelming majority of Christians and demonstrably shown that what he attempted to do was in complete contradiction of the teachings of Christ. In other words, in no way, shape or form would he have been operating under a Christian model. Maybe, you just really don’t know the true origins of Islam and it’s swell founder, mo. It’s obvious you don’t know anything about Christianity and it’s founder, Jesus. Well, I am glad you finally dropped the pretense and showed everybody your hand. Moral Equivalence, blah, blah, blah…
Sad part is that I do agree on certain points that Luis makes, but it still boils down to the same old stuff. A strong case of BDS.
TW: scalding kingship
Perfect for Luis’ description of King George
———————————–
#
Comment by Rob Crawford on 8/9 @ 3:39 am #
Once a man is captured whether he falls under the definition of a “regular†or “irregular†fighter or terrorist, killing that individual would be a violation of the Geneva Convention, which also addresses “irregular†fighters, and of international laws. First point
Then your first point is wrong. There is no protection given to unlawful combatants under the parts of the Geneva Conventions the US signed and ratified. Combatants are expected to openly carry arms, wear some sort of distinguishing uniform, obey a chain of command, and refrain from war crimes such as targeting civilians.
Terrorists don’t openly carry arms, don’t wear distinguishing uniforms, and make it a point to attack civilians. That puts them far, far outside any GC protections.
Unless you can cite a part of the treaty  a part the US signed onto, mind you  that says otherwise. I’ve been making this point for six long years, and no one’s managed to cite anything that disagrees.
———————————–
Rob, let’s see who’s wrong about this. Here’s some info. for you:
In June 2006 the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the applicability of the Geneva Conventions and in particular Common Article 3 to a Guantánamo detainee, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who was facing trial on a charge of conspiracy before a special military commission. The special military commissions were established by presidential order in November 2001. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 3 that the commissions violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions because they did not provide the “judicial guarantees†required by Common Article 3.
—
Common Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘ hors de combat ‘ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
OK, so the Supremes re-wrote the Geneva Conventions. That just means the Geneva Conventions are officially dead, at least in their intent. There’s now no penalty for making war crimes a policy — you’ll still be given the treatment afforded lawful combatants.
Personally, I think that’s wrong. But apparently the Supremes didn’t.
—————————
#
Comment by Rob Crawford on 8/9 @ 8:34 am #
OK, so the Supremes re-wrote the Geneva Conventions. That just means the Geneva Conventions are officially dead, at least in their intent. There’s now no penalty for making war crimes a policy  you’ll still be given the treatment afforded lawful combatants.
Personally, I think that’s wrong. But apparently the Supremes didn’t.
—————————
Rob, I think I’ll end my contribution to the debate here. If I can get you to argue with the Supreme court instead of me, then I’ve done my job.
It has been a very interesting and challenging debate. I think that one key theme that surfaces from it is whether one believes in America’s excetionalism, where we are a beacon of hope and opportunity, and rightiousness for the rest of the world, or we are just a country among many that although proud and powerful, can also be humble and instrospective.
To bring it to personal level, we all wake up in the morning and “know” we are “important” and we see the world from our perspective, as there is no other way. But to have the capacity to know that in reality “I” am not exceptional; “I” am just one person amongst many. And by realizing that, it is easier to “try” to put yourself into somebody else’s shoes. One of the most immoral things a country can do is to imprison an innocent man without recourse of the law. That has been established for over 400 years (The Habeas Corpus Act was passed by the British Parliament in 1679).
That’s it, I’ll end up here; don’t want to be called a thinker again. By the way, I like the T-shirt idea; maybe it should just say: THINK.
Adios
Jesus, smell that self-importance coming off of Luis like a musk!
Self-congratulatory, self-righteous pap, the lot of it. No argument that doesn’t in some way wend back to Luis’ own sense of righteousness, no opponent not defined and judged in relation to that righteousness.
Yes, Luis. You certainly are a liberal democrat. You’ve learned to mouth the words, but you haven’t for a moment thought them through.
But if makes you feel good to cram unlike kinds into pre-written categories in order to satisfy your sense of OUTRAGE, knock yourself out.
But don’t think doing so makes you independent minded. In fact, you engage in the easy and the comfortable, while those of us here — who care a great deal about civil rights more than simply in the abstract and perfunctory way you seem to — do the hard work of deciding when, why, and if, the time has come to recognize that new challenges will throw into relief the heretofore unremarked upon problems with existing legislation, requiring tough choices be made.
What irks me more than anything is when someone like you stumbles in here assuming that, for whatever reason, we have not yet encountered arguments such as yours — as if you are bringing us revealed truths that will help illuminate the darkness in which we have so long dwelled.
But the fact is, I have addressed every one of your contentions and assertions at length.
As I say, you have learned to follow a certain trajectory, to memorize an argument based on an acceptance of the premises from which it extends.
But when someone challenges the premises, you are lost. You simply fumble about a bit, then, after a while, you restate those same premises as if in the interim they’d somehow become magically uncontested.
There is nothing to be gained “debating” someone when the terms being debated aren’t agreed upon.
If you are interested in proceeding, do some research. I have a search function. Look up what the arguments here have been with respect to “torture,” etc.
And drop the defensive stance about being called a traitor. Or better yet, take it up with Robert Kennedy Jr.
Jeff, it was truly my intention to finish this debate with my last post, but your strong-worded message deserves an answer.
I am a subscriber of the Wall Street Journal and read it every morning, including the editorial page. I usually disagree with the editorial page 100%, but I like to read them because I am curious to know the rationale of the conservative side, and I think their views are widely read.
When I went to the WSJ online to look for this article, “Propaganda Redux” I saw a link to this Website at the bottom of the article, so I assume that it was open to everybody, and it wasn’t a private club. Then I posted my message about my belief that the article was propaganda, and then people started attacking my views in a vitriolic manner.
I was a little surprised because I was looking for a place where you can debate issues in a respectful and intelligent way. But I find a debate with someone who has complete opposite views that mine to be more challenging and interesting. That is why to this day I haven’t been to any liberal-, or democratic-minded site, lie moveon.org, or the daily kos. I don’t even know what their Websites look like.
From what I hear about them in the news, I know I pretty much agree with most of their stances, but I would find it boring to go to their forums and spend time bashing the republican conservatives. I may still do that. My experience recently at a couple of online sites where political views are discussed is that the level of venom, anger and vitriol to somebody who shares my views is really worrisome. I’m not talking about personal safety per se, but about how strong the divisions are, and how it is almost impossible to hold these kinds of debates.
Regarding these exchanges here, yes I have to admit that I was trying to push back a little and trying to move the debate along, and away from personal attacks.
As I stated previously, I am not dogmatic about any position, meaning that if I hold a belief today, and I engage in a debate with somebody that is able to convince me that I am wrong, I would gladly change my position. I consider that “growth.”
I don’t use any book, or article, or talking points, or political platform for any of my opinions and beliefs. They are the results of thinking things through and of using my own judgement to formulate an opinion.
I would welcome the opportunity to debate with you in the future, and I am willing to follow any rules you may put forward, as I trust you are an intelligent man and will know what those rules should be for a fair debate.
I hope you notice that although your letter to me is strongly worded, and there are strong characterizations about my intellect, or lack thereof, I have chosen not to reply to you in kind. I hope you will see that as a sign of good will.
Regarding the subject of discussion, I really truly believe that I tried to explain to the best of my ability (maybe it wasn’t enough) why I hold the beliefs I do regarding civil rights issues, treatment of prisoners, etc. It was done in good faith, and I tried to backup my arguments with sources I thought to be reliable. I don’t know any other way to do it.
Again, if we ever run into each other again online, I’ll be glad to debate any issue with you in a respectful manner and without personal attacks.
(By the way, I think my computer IP addressed may have been blocked from your server. I’m not sure if that means I’m being blocked because my views are not welcome here. Is that’s the case, I’ll make sure not to come back.)
You debated civil rights issues? Where? You stated that you thought that enemy combatants, whether foreign or domestic, should have habeas rights. I agree in regards to domestic, but disagree in regards to foreigners caught on the battlefield. I got that much out of you. But again, what about your views on foreign policy?
————————
#
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 8/9 @ 12:40 pm #
You debated civil rights issues? Where? You stated that you thought that enemy combatants, whether foreign or domestic, should have habeas rights. I agree in regards to domestic, but disagree in regards to foreigners caught on the battlefield. I got that much out of you. But again, what about your views on foreign policy?
————————
Ostreperous, my desktop computer was blocked from the Website, so it would be hard for me to continue the discussion, especially if my handhell is also blocked. You are welcome to go to my webste, http://www.y5k.org, and we can continue there. Or, if my IP address is unblocked, I’ll be glad to be back here.
You haven’t been blocked, Luis. I had a site outage for some time this morning. Your comments are coming through, which means I assume you can now reach the site?
As to the rest: you have admitted you came here to debate, which is laudable. But part of debating is understanding your audience. You begin by bringing up the Christian right (there are several regulars here who would classify themselves as social cons, but most would not) and banana republics, and by making sweeping statements about what conservatives believe and how they argue, yet you do so without bothering to understand the venue you are in.
Similarly, and as I tried to hint at earlier, your arguments proceed from assertions that you have a bad habit of assuming are uncontested. So of course they seem to follow, especially once you select the appropriate kernel assumption onto which to anchor them.
My suggestion to you, if you really wish to debate these issues with ‘conservatives’ (I am a classical liberal, incidentally), is to do the work of understanding our positions. Once you show you’ve done that, you’ll find that the people here are more than happy to debate with you, because you will have signaled good faith.
Being polite — while nice — doesn’t do so.
But you are mistaken if you believe that just because a site is open to public commentary, we must necessarily take every commenter seriously. Respect, on the conservative side, at least, is something you earn.
You don’t get points just for showing up.
Luis:
Let me echo Jeff from a different perspective. I’m one of those Christian Rightwing Fundamentalist Social Cons™ that frequent this site. I have debated several issues in which I am at odds with both the hosts and several other commentators here. What is most inspiring about being involved in this community is the variety of positions and ideas as well as the very capable commentators, some of whom will write comments put many other sites’ posting to shame. However, this place is predominantly conservative/Libertarian/Classical Liberal so if you come to extol the Progressive/Liberal meme, be prepared to argue history, facts and conclusions. Either assuming bottom line principles as revealed truth or broad brushing the community well generate a level of both hostility and irreverence.
I, for one, welcome spirited debate with anyone from the other side as long as I’m not assumed to be some kind of ‘thuglican godbothering fascist cartoon character.
Fair enough?
Jeff, and BJTexs,
Thank you both for your intelligent notes. I asked for the rules, and you have given them, and I find them fair.
When I first logged in to the Website, one post that got my attention immediately was number 13, by Joe Citizen. One third into the article (Propaganda Redux) I had already made an opinion which I stated before. When I read Joe Citizen’s post, I was almost shocked because it exactly expressed my sentiment (although I wouldn’t have used such a colorful language).
Then I saw the replies (more pointed, banter, and colorful language, I would call it), and did notice that the site has a conservative bent. Then I decided to post my original post (No. 31). If you notice nowhere in that post do I mention Republicans, nor Conservatives. I did that on purpose wanting to make a strong point about my assessment of the article, but trying not to be offensive to the predominately conservative people here. This is just to clarify that I didn’t jump in the water completely blind.
Then the colorful language began, like “getting shot by government troopers” or being “shipped off to re-education camps”, etc. So given this, and because I am not intimidated by such language, I engaged with the objective of taking the debate to a serious place–a give an take of points, facts, and opinions–where I thought we did.
Yes I was being condescending here and there, but I thought I was engaging with the same tenor of my interlocutors.
I like to debate, and I can engage in banter, low-brow name calling (my least favorite), sarcasm, and I don’t remember ever being intimidated at any one of them, but my preference is to debate at an intellectual level, not because I am an intellectual, but because I value the concept of growing intellectually.
Now, as to the points in your last two messages, I don’t ever go anywhere to extol a point or an agenda. When I Speak is not because I am repeating a mantra, or a liberal dogma, or meme; it’s because I believe in what I’m saying. I believe it because I have come to develop those belief from thinking things through using analysis and examination of issues.
Regarding respect, I consider it equally important to be respected not because of a desire to fit in, but because of my innate believe in treating people with respect and consideration, even ideological opponents, as to somebody earning my respect for same.
Finally, my statement regarding Banana Republic, is not a cheap shot or feelgood insult to anybody in particular (notice I didn’t even Republicans or Conservatives) in my first post, but I truly believe that I am seeing certain things in government that to me look like the beginning stages of one, and “kangaroo” courts is just one of them.
I’ll hang around and will get more familiarize with the culture here. I’ve looked at some other articles and posts, and between some banter, insults here and there, and the typical sarcasm you may find in other places, I also see a very high level of intellect and serious discussion.
—————————–
#
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 8/9 @ 12:40 pm #
You debated civil rights issues? Where? You stated that you thought that enemy combatants, whether foreign or domestic, should have habeas rights. I agree in regards to domestic, but disagree in regards to foreigners caught on the battlefield. I got that much out of you. But again, what about your views on foreign policy?
—————————–
I think I have discussed the issue of the treatment of prisoners, whether domestic or foreign, and regardless where they were caught. My salient point is every man has the right to present a defense based on generally accepted rules of evidence, whether civilian (where appropriate, or court martials). If you were to have a few minutes and glance through this article (see link below) I agree 100% with the bent, approach, and conclusions of it.
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5782&pageNum=1
Regarding my views on foreign policy, let me first say that I’m just a simple guy over here working but likes to read stuff and learn, so I am no expert on it. But if you have a specific question about it, I will be glad to take a shot at it.
BJTexs, thanks for the note. I do have something I would like to ask you about, given that you are a Conservative. It is a follow up to my comment about the direction I think our government is taking, and I would like to get your observations on it. About two years ago I posted a message at a forum about how I believed that the country was moving towards a slow-motion Coup D’état. Then about a year later, to my astonishment (since I thought I was just kind of on a conspiracy theory search of my own), an article was published on April 2006 edition of Harper’s Magazine titled: “American coup d’etat: Military thinkers discuss the unthinkable”. See the link to the article at the bottom of the page.
I’ll try to be brief in this opening of this subject (which again is related to my comment about the banana republic). In my liberal progressive mind, this is what I see happening: A lot of seemingly unrelated events and trends taking place in our government, like positioning Supreme Court judges that tend to support the concept of “Unitary” principle of Presidential power, warrantless wiretaps, purging of government officials that don’t share the same ideology (i.e., the issue related to the firing of Federal Attorneys), removing certain content and information from government Websites because they do not conform to a certain ideology, and the issue I have been discussing here, curtailment of Hebeas Corpus, and the ability of the President to brand any person as an enemy combatant, and to be detained indefinitely and without recourse to serious judicial review.
What I see happening is that the Middle East is going to explode into a regional war (would make Iraq look like child’s play). Then, if God forbid, there is another attack (of considerable magnitude) in the U.S. (my understanding is that most security experts believe that is not a matter of if, but when), the situation is going to result in a very high level of fear an unease in our population, at which point, what I believe to be a ready-to-go plan, ready to be implemented (here’s the conspiracy thing, I admit), where all the pieces listed in the previous paragraph come into alignment and use; then that results in an oppressive regime of some sort. Finally, I think that (and I try to be very careful here) that there is an element in society that will see these things as Armageddon, and therefore will be more amenable to accept whatever curtailment of civil and Constitutional rights the government wants to impose.
What do you think about this scenario? In my case I see it coming as sure as the day. But I’m open to reconsider.
“American coup d’etat: Military thinkers discuss the unthinkable”.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/04/0080995
Luis –
The only way you could see that, is if you wanted to see that.
I had a longer response, but I tried that last night, and got dizzy from the circular arguments that were ultimately based on your well thought out but unfounded beliefs. Add this conspiracy theory to that category.
—————————
#
Comment by JD on 8/9 @ 5:43 pm #
Luis –
The only way you could see that, is if you wanted to see that.
I had a longer response, but I tried that last night, and got dizzy from the circular arguments that were ultimately based on your well thought out but unfounded beliefs. Add this conspiracy theory to that category.
—————————
JD, Ok, back to the colorful language, and cheap shots. I was trying to lookup what is it that your doing, and came up with this: Ad Hominem: appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason).
Now that you recovered from the dizziness caused by a complete crushing, and pulverization of your position, maybe we can get a Phoenix rise from the ashes.
Now, a little more serious: Again, and for the 20th time, my argument and my position is (as I remember) that every prisoner (caught in the theater of operations; terrorist suspect; turned it by a 3rd party) should have access to a proper legal system based on discovery resulting from well established rules of evidence. For a citizen that could be the civilian justice system; For an enemy combatant (regular or irregular, including terrorism suspects) it should be military court martial.
Furthermore, my view and opinion is backed up by Major Tom Fleener, United States Army, and William Kuebler, U.S.Navy (see the GQ Article).
This is an honest-to-goodness attempt at being very clear (not circular argument) and direct. If you care to comment on it and let me know where you disagree we’ll get somewhere.
Regarding the scenario I put forward about the Coup D’état, point well taken. You think that something like that could never happen. That’s great. That’s precisely why I posted it to get others opinions, and given the fact that the idea was entertained in the Harper’s article, I think is a valid subject.
I really shouldn’t jump in here like this, but I think that Luis is sincere (if misguided, just to get the snark out of the way), and I can understand why a whole bunch of you think it’s just More Of The Same Shit. I don’t know when (if ever) I’ll get back to this conversation, but I’d like to note a few things for the record:
Luis: Your assumption of Writ of Habeas Corpus — which you believe should apply to everyone — only applies (at least, as far as the US government, and military, is concerned) to United States Citizens; many people on the Left, whom the crowd here tends to refer to as Transnational Progressives (although by many other shorthand designations), believe that Human Rights Are Universal, which actually flies in the face of nearly all of recorded history (not just here in the US), and these particular Transnational Progressives also firmly believe that the Idea Of Nationalism is passe (sorry, don’t know the html for the accented e), and should be dispensed with.
The main reason that most of the commenters, and JG himself, give these ideas short shrift is because they are also mainstays of Communism (Marxism, whatever, your mileage may vary), which is the absolute antithesis of nearly every one of the ideals that the United States of America was built upon, but which the TransProgs firmly believe is The Future Of Mankind.
It’s kinda like saying, about Marx’s greatest idea, “From Each According To His Ability, To Each According To His Need” (again, no clue how to italicize), that “Hey, babe, I ain’t got no Abilities, but I sure got plenty of Needs; so, Take the Rich Man’s Money and Give It To Me” … which is, of course, the fundamental flaw in Marxism: There’s no Incentive to Work Hard.
And quoting GQ magazine is not going to gain you any points here either: I’ll assume you’ve looked around PW some more, and by this time have come to understand what is meant here by the Main Stream Media (MSM), and how it is the primary objective of a Journalist (never a “reporter”, by the way) NOT to “inform” the public (this is what Reporters used to do), but rather to INFLUENCE the public: I’m certainly not the only one here who has thought that the New York Times really ought to change its masthead motto from “All The News That’s Fit To Print” to “All The News We Think You Should Have Access To.”
But, take heart: You will find the gang here to be astonishingly tolerant, and always ready to help (just look at some of the trolls this group has put up with, and continues to put up with, in the — to me — insane belief that the trolls can be reasoned with); Liberal Democrat you may be (q.v. the more-recent essay about The Narrative and how Leftists are going crazy because The Narrative is proving to be wrong), and firm Believer in The Narrative you may also be — even if it’s only because you’ve logically thought your way onto a parallel track — but you will find a whole lot of logical thought here, and if you are at all susceptible to Reason (no, not the magazine), you may indeed find yourself questioning your Liberal Democrat beliefs.
After all: If even Dick(head) Durbin (my Senator too, Major John) can suggest that The Surge Might Actually Be Working, then ANYTHING’s possible….
TW: tenderness etc. Well, I wasn’t really TRYING to be tender…. (Dammit, JG, this thing IS scary….)
Challeron, now that’s what I’m talking about! Still a few jabs here and there, like “misguided”, and a few others, but a very forceful reasonable argument. I think you hit a lot of very key points, and I consider you a “radical”, meaning that you went to the root of the philosophical differences, although I don’t agree with the Marxist leap, but I can definitely see why it is seen that way. I will answer your post later tonight. Thanks, and send me a bill for taking the time to educate me :-)
Luis – No, that is not ad hominem. I did not insult you, or go after you personally. I pointed out that your arguments were circular in nature, and were premised on flawed premises.
Take this one for example – “every prisoner (caught in the theater of operations; terrorist suspect; turned it by a 3rd party) should have access to a proper legal system based on discovery resulting from well established rules of evidence.”
It is all well and good that you think that they SHOULD be afforded access as you describe. However, our laws, the Geneva Conventions, and the US Constitution disagree with you. Apparently 2 former JAG lawyers agree with you. I you believe that they should, have Pelosi and Reid put that as a priority on their legislative agenda, and see how quickly they bring up granting that type of status to illegal enemy combatants.
Harper’s may well believe that to be likely. However, their over wrought paranoia about such things does not make them any more likely.
Sorry about the colorful language. You will note that I have refrained from cussing towards you, as I am prone to doing so, and in general, have been quite civil. I appreciate the civility you have shown, absent the few annoying “I win’s” you have tossed out there.
Challeron – Well said.
—————————
#
Comment by JD on 8/9 @ 8:40 pm #
Luis – No, that is not ad hominem. I did not insult you, or go after you personally. I pointed out that your arguments were circular in nature, and were premised on flawed premises.
Take this one for example – “every prisoner (caught in the theater of operations; terrorist suspect; turned it by a 3rd party) should have access to a proper legal system based on discovery resulting from well established rules of evidence.â€Â
It is all well and good that you think that they SHOULD be afforded access as you describe. However, our laws, the Geneva Conventions, and the US Constitution disagree with you. Apparently 2 former JAG lawyers agree with you. I you believe that they should, have Pelosi and Reid put that as a priority on their legislative agenda, and see how quickly they bring up granting that type of status to illegal enemy combatants.
Harper’s may well believe that to be likely. However, their over wrought paranoia about such things does not make them any more likely.
Sorry about the colorful language. You will note that I have refrained from cussing towards you, as I am prone to doing so, and in general, have been quite civil. I appreciate the civility you have shown, absent the few annoying “I win’s†you have tossed out there.
Challeron – Well said.
—————————
JD, I think we are getting somewhere here. In the message I was referring to (regarding “Ad Hominen”), your first statement, “The only way you could see that, is if you wanted to see that”, implies that you have determine that my observations about the possibility of “that” happening, ever, is so absurd, that only a person that would delude himself into believing in, would do so. If you read my message you will notice that I’m asking for an opinion about it, and that I am willing to listen to it being refuted, if somebody cared to. The Harpers’ reference was just to illustrate that other people have thought about it too. But as I stated before, I never go just by reading something somewhere.
Regarding the circular argumentation, my take is that you are saying that I am engaging in it because I already have a belief in the conclusions, and I am just using superflous arguments (althought well presented) to validate that conclusion, since those conclusions are unfounded (correct me if I’m wrong).
What is the crux of the argument? I put my opinion forth, and tried to use fact-based sources to support my opinion (Supreme Court, Article 3, the GQ magazine article). It is my understanding that that is how you conduct a debate. But if you think I’m wrong regarding the presentation of an argument, and sources to back up the argument, perhaps you can also educate me a little bit about how it is done.
Now, if you examine your argument, it is possible that you will notice that first, you are absolutely right about your position, when you say “our laws, the Geneva Conventions, and the U.S. Constitution disagree with you”, which I thought it has been established that they don’t when I presented the information about the Supreme Court case, and listed Article 3 provisions.
Then you proceed to dismiss outright the views of the two distinguished military lawyers in the GQ Magazine article, and call an article in Harper’s magazine “over wrought paranoia”, also out of hand, as if it were so just by saying it.
So we are to conclude that you are either 100% correct, which maybe highly likely being a conservative, or that you are a zealot that will not budge on any argument regardless of how the argument is presented, and any sources used to back up the argument, or that the truth lies somewhere in between your position and mine.
Finally, these issues regarding enemy combatants, extraordinary renditions, alleged torture, indefinite confinement, as you may know, have been hotly debated during the last few years with cases going up the Supreme Court, and with some wins for the administration’s positions, and some loses. The dust is not settle yet, so the conclusion remains to be seemed. The outcome could be anywhere from the administration being completely victorious and vindicated, to people being impeached and charged with war crimes (two extremes, but each possible). So that’s where we stand today.
Luis –
““The only way you could see that, is if you wanted to see thatâ€ÂÂ, implies that you have determine that my observations about the possibility of “that†happening, ever, is so absurd, that only a person that would delude himself into believing in, would do so.”
I try not to imply things, I attempt to absolutely state what I mean, though my inelegant use of the language sometimes keeps that from happening. I simply meant that one would have to be inclined to see that, given the amount of leaps of logic, faith, and assumptions required to arrive at that conclusion.
Your argument is predicated on your belief that these people SHOULD be afforded our Constitutional protections. History and the documents themselves suggest otherwise.
I did dismiss their views, as they are outliers in comparison to the bulk of substantive rhetoric that has been set forth on this topic, ad nauseum. Jeff Goldstein produces far more scholary and intellectual discussion than GQ ever will. The most recent Supreme Court decision was very narrow in its scope, and though I disagree with it, I understand their reasoning. Nothing in that decision leads me to believe that is the standard that they would hold all of the detainess to.
Persuade me. Show me why Salim, taken from the battlefield in Khanduhar, fighting from amongst civilians, deliberately targeting US military as well as civilians, and not fighting under the flag of any country, and not fighting in an identifiable uniform should be subject to not only the Geneva Conventions, much less the US Constitution. It is your job to persuade me. I am not trying to persuade you. Show me what should be done? Release them back to the battlefield? Execute them, and never take them prisoner in the first place?
I like you, in comparison to the others that drop by here, but you have yet to change my mind. But, being contrary is not a position, which has been a sticking point for me for some time. The Left offers no position, no alternatives, other than not-Bush to any of these things. If you want to convert people, you have to give them an affirmative position that is superior to the position they currently hold. So far, all you have shown me is that you and I do not see eye to eye. I can live with that.
We are to assume that I am 100% right, of course. Isn’t it obvious by now? ;-)
PS – I pray every night, right before I lay my head down on the pillow, that Pelosi and Reid attempt to impeach Bush, or some kangaroo international court attempts to charge the administration with war crimes. I pray for that right after I pray for the Colts, University of Illinois basketball, and Tiger Woods. LOL
———————
PS – I pray every night, right before I lay my head down on the pillow, that Pelosi and Reid attempt to impeach Bush,
———————
JD, finally we both agree on something 100%. That makes two of us.
Yes, Luis, but our desired outcomes are quite different. I cannot imagine a scenario that would play well for the Dems if they tried to impeach a sitting President over a war where our troops are still engaged in battle. From a purely partisan perspective, there is absolutely no upside for the Dems, and could really sabotage any advantages that they may have at the ballot box. But, if russian roullette is your game …
———————-
Persuade me. Show me why Salim, taken from the battlefield in Khanduhar, fighting from amongst civilians, deliberately targeting US military as well as civilians, and not fighting under the flag of any country, and not fighting in an identifiable uniform should be subject to not only the Geneva Conventions, much less the US Constitution.
———————-
JD, by this time it is obvious that we will never be able to see eye to eye on this. One of us would have to move to one of these two positions: (1)Complete certainty (without any doubt whatsoever)that Salim did those things, and you are certain because you don’t believe there is a possibility that, regarding Salim, the powers and authorities that claims those things are beyond reproach and could never do wrong or mistakenly take an innocent man into custory; or (2) a natural mistrust of “authority” which leads you to demand a “check” on the possibility of an authority acting in a tyrannical manner.
If we can’t budge on these two postures, then there is no hope in moving forward to try to reach a compromise (an evil word, I know).
Finally, and again (even if branded as misguided again), I am totally convinced that your position is untenable since history has shown that tyranny does happens, and aside from the possibility of the use of abusive power, there is the possibility of errors, corruption, false accusations, etc.
My position is that since “I know” that abuse of power does, or can occur, and other things like mistakes, corruption, and false accusations may also take place, then I “recognize” that there is the possibility that an innocent man can be imprisoned. My concern has nothing to do with having sympathy whatsoever with someone that “actually” committed an act of terror or is an enemy combatant. It has to do with being vigilant of “my” government and prevent the rise of a tyrannical state that would then affect us all, eventually; an I believe that stance, as a citizen, is more in keeping with our traditions as a country.
Regarding this issue, I think we went as far as we could, and agree that there can be no reconciliation of our positions. I’m fine with that.
———————
#
Comment by JD on 8/9 @ 10:37 pm #
Yes, Luis, but our desired outcomes are quite different. I cannot imagine a scenario that would play well for the Dems if they tried to impeach a sitting President over a war where our troops are still engaged in battle. From a purely partisan perspective, there is absolutely no upside for the Dems, and could really sabotage any advantages that they may have at the ballot box. But, if russian roullette is your game …
———————
I knew what you meant, and you know what I mean.
JD, let me clarify something about my position on Impeachment. I don’t hate President Bush. I have tremendous respect for that office. I believe that the President came to power with a full knowledge that he was going to go to war with Iraq. I’ve read several books about the subject, and newspaper articles. In fact back when the drumbeats of war were starting to sound, I remember reading the WSJ editorial, who were bent out of shape hopping mad because there were several leaks from the CIA basically saying that there was nothing there. I remember reading one in particular where they claimed (if I recollect correctly) that it really wasn’t the intelligence agencies position to “interpret” intelligence; that that was the job of the Administration. During that time I was doing a lot of reading following the issue, all the leaks, etc., and “I knew” the justification to attack Iraq was weak, and/or even made up. Ok, before you get me on that, let say, I had made my opinion about it. Furthermore, I believe that during the meetings Cheney had with oil industry executives during the energy task force meetings, maps were unfolded showing all the oil fields that would provide business to those companies (I read about it, and will be glad to reference it). There were seminars with U.S. businesses where you saw the presenter talking all excited about the huge amounts of money they will be making in Iraq. For a multitude of reasons, I am convinced, at least at this point, that the Administration made up reasons to go to war. If that is proven, then I think that rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Again, I truly believe these things not out of partisanship and hate for the President, or Republicans, but as a reasonable person, I think that that is what happened. As things unfold, and if I see other evidence that leads me to believe that I was wrong, then I will readily admit that I was wrong.
Luis – I understand your position, I just think it misguided. We do not require aboslute certainty to take somebody from the battlefield as an enemy combatant. Knowing the men and women of our Armed Forces, I am comfortable in allowing them to make those decisions, and I trust them to do so judiciously. Will they always be right? No. But, we are not talking about the American criminal justice system, guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Think of it more along the lines of a requirement for a search warrant, or probable cause. Their lives are on the line, and rather than summarily executing them, which they are entitled to do under the Conventions, we take them into custody. Better imprisoned until the end of the conflict than dead, no?
I never once said that this would be without errors, or without abuse. Any system, no matter how it is designed, is subject to same. Our entire system is subject to same. Frankly, I have more faith in the military and their dispensation of justice than that of the civilian Courts. I have never held that an innocent will never be imprisoned. Once again, you are comparing our criminal justice system to decisions made on the battlefield, under fire. They simply are not comparable.
How would you suggest that we handle these decisons? Make each combat unit have a prosecutor, defense attorney, and a judge attached to the unit, and they can hold battlefield probable cause hearings? Or, allow them to proceed through the military tribunal process, or to you, the kangaroo court. Your fundamental mistrust of the military clouds your perception, in my not so humble opinion.
I am cool with agreeing to disagree. I am amenable to any argument that makes me question my position, but that burden is on you, and nothing you have presented is anything other than what we have gone over countless times here.
I believe that the President came to power with a full knowledge that he was going to go to war with Iraq.
My 5-year old daughter believes in the tooth-fairy and unicorns. That does not make them real.
Much like with the Harper’s article, one has to be inclined to believe in the conclusion to make all of the leaps of faith and logic required in the scenario you laid out. If this was all about the oil, why aren’t we swimming in oil right now? The conspiracy you lay out, and that is all it is, a conspiracy theory, is fit for a Baldacci novel, or a Morrell thriller, but does not resonate with people that are not willing to impute bad faith motives to all of the actors involved.
Man, I had thought you reasonable, but wrong. This is Michael Moore territory.
CHALLERON:
I’m going to try to address your message point by point.
First, I plead guilty. You were right on the money on this one. I’m one of those fellows who is into “seeking knowledge”, connecting with “the spiritual realm” (the oneness thing), and believe in the concept of one world, one people. Because of it, I make no judgement on any man based on nationality, color of skin, religion, economic status, education level. Once a man opens up his mouth and starts talking, and once I see the actions of such man, then I will make my judgement: this man is a decent, brave, ethical, responsible ma; or this man lacks character.
Second, I have tremendous respect and love for the United States of America. Even thought no country is perfect (I’ve travel a lot to Latin America, and once to France), this country has shown to be a beacon of hope and opportunity to people around the world. No other nation welcomes so many people from different countries, religions, and races, and it somehow manages to provide opportunities for all. People who work hard, try to live an ethical and responsible life, believe in getting an education, have a tremendous chance to succeed. I served in the U.S. Navy (’87 – ’91), and I consider it one of the best things I did as I young man (I’m 41 now). I have a tremendous respect for the U.S. Constitution and for our system of government.
Nevertheless, I believe that there are many areas where we can improve as a country, and I believe that a progressive, liberal approach is the best way to do that, with the knowledge that between the competing forces of Republican conservatives and liberal Democrats, a happy medium can be reached without excessive influence from either side. That is the genius of our system of government, with checks and balances.
I believe in a free market, entrepreneurship, hard work, study, taking responsible actions to better yourself, and knowing that there are consequences to the actions we take; positive, and negative.
Right now, in the current political climate, I am concerned of the rise of a Fascist state which I define as a government taking orders from corporate conglomerates, and heavily influenced by religious dogma. I mean no offense to religious people. I just think that religion and government should never be mixed.
Regarding the “mainstream media” I think it is basically a joke. When I watch the news channels, especially cable, I have to then get a “fix” of reality by watching the parody presented every night at The Daily. John Stuart, at The Daily Show is a genius at pointing out the utter absurdities we see every day on TV news. As news outlets have been moving more to the hands of fewer and fewer huge corporations, the quality of it has continued to deteriorate to the point that instead of educating and informing, it dumbs down, and misinforms. I think that one of the greatest examples of a propagandist TV channel is FoxNews. I believe that when certain people act in outrage at how “liberal” the media is, it is really manufactured (or influenced) outrage, a smokescreen (here I go with y conspiracy theories again).
Regarding “Marx”, I think there should be a certain level of a “social safety net” as to help to prevent large parts of the population from falling into abject poverty, which could destabilize a nation. I believe in helping people that need help. And I believe we should have a national health system (like the UK, France, Canada, and every other industrialized country).
JD: Why is the burden on me? Let me see if I get this straight: You are arguing a point of view, which has been repeated throughout our debate several times. I am arguing a point of view the same way. I completely disagree with you, and you with me, and we can both find reasonable people (a camp) to back up each of our positions. Your position is not any more valid than mine, so we both share an equal burden.
Saying that “you know the men and women of our armed forces” is a weak argument, I’m sure you would admit. You don’t know anything about them. You believe in what their are doing in, and support them, but you don’t know. There are going to be great, ethical, and brave soldiers, and there are going to be people like the one associated with the Abu Ghraib prison, or the ones that covered up the circumstances of the death of Pat Tillman (with late assertions that he could have been murdered by his own).
Regarding your admission that there may be error, I believe that you are helping my argument, which is that an innocent man should have recourse to the law in order to prove he is innocent. I’m not talking about necesarily a civilian court, as there are provisions for that under the military law (UCMJ). The issue right now is that the administration has created a new judicial system, even outside the UCMJ, and that’s where the crux of the matter lies.
Regarding my suggestions about how to handle these issues, see the text below from a report to Congress titled Treatment of “Battlefield Detainees” in the War on Terrorism.
The theme of it is that (1), detaineess should not be held indifinetely, and (2) that when tried, the tribunal must followed internationally recognized laws (including rules of evidence). The document also covers the treatment of terrorism suspects.
Here’s the link to the entire report:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31367.pdf
——-
The detention and treatment of the suspected enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay has been a consistent source of friction for the Bush Administration since it began transporting prisoners there in January, 2002. After criticism from human rights organizations and many foreign governments regarding the determination that the Geneva Conventions of 1949 do not apply to the detainees there, President Bush shifted position with an announcement that Taliban fighters are covered by the 1949 Geneva Conventions, while Al Qaeda fighters are not.
—
The Bush Administration deems all of the detainees to be “unlawful combatants,†who may, according to Administration officials, be held indefinitely without trial or even despite their possible acquittal by a military tribunal. The 9/11 Commission, apparently finding the international discord over the treatment and status of the detainees to be harmful to the U.S. effort to thwart terrorism, recommended the development of a common coalition approach toward the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists.
—
After the Hamdan decision was announced, the Department of Defense issued a memorandum announcing that Al Qaeda detainees were to be considered to be covered by the protections of Common Article 3, and that DoD regulations pertinent to detainee operations, other than those pertaining to military commissions, were understood to comply with Common Article 3.14
—
Some 335 detainees (including three children under the age of 1615) have been released from the detention facilities at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and approximately 130 detainees have been deemed eligible for transfer. The Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision and Congress’ approval of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (“MCAâ€Â) may have largely resolved the issue of detainees’ legal status; however, the treatment of detainees who remain in custody continues to be a source of contention with human rights groups.
—
Some allied countries and human rights organizations criticized the President’s decision as contrary to international law, arguing it relied on an inaccurate interpretation of the Geneva Convention for the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW). The U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights (UNHCR) and some human rights organizations argue that all combatants captured on the battlefield are entitled to be treated as POWs until an independent tribunal has determined otherwise. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights Working Group on Arbitrary Detention deemed that the U.S. detention of “enemy combatants,†without determining their status in accordance with international law, may be arbitrary.24 The UNHCR released a report criticizing the U.S. detention policy as inconsistent with U.S. obligations under international law, including humanitarian law and human rights treaties.
—
The European Parliament adopted another resolution in 2004 calling for detainees to be charged, tried, and treated in accordance with international law. In June of 2006, the European Parliament adopted a motion urging the United States to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.29 The Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council adopted a resolution in June, 2003 calling the detention of persons detained in Guantánamo Bay, Afghanistan, and elsewhere “unlawful,†noting in particular its concern that children are among the detainees,30 which it reiterated in April 2005.31 The Organization of American States’ Inter-American Commission adopted precautionary measures with respect to the United States, urging it to take “urgent measures†to establish hearings to determine the legal status of the detainees.
———————–
#
Comment by JD on 8/9 @ 11:37 pm #
I believe that the President came to power with a full knowledge that he was going to go to war with Iraq.
My 5-year old daughter believes in the tooth-fairy and unicorns. That does not make them real.
Much like with the Harper’s article, one has to be inclined to believe in the conclusion to make all of the leaps of faith and logic required in the scenario you laid out. If this was all about the oil, why aren’t we swimming in oil right now? The conspiracy you lay out, and that is all it is, a conspiracy theory, is fit for a Baldacci novel, or a Morrell thriller, but does not resonate with people that are not willing to impute bad faith motives to all of the actors involved.
Man, I had thought you reasonable, but wrong. This is Michael Moore territory.
———————–
JD, Stay with me here, let’s not get lazy: “My 5-year old daughter believes in the tooth-fairy and unicorns. That does not make them real.” I clearly stated that I based my believe on analysis of information from multiple sources, which would lead a person to believe or hold an opinion based on said analysis. I am sure you do claim that your 5-year can make a similar analysis, yet.
“Much like with the Harper’s article, one has to be inclined to believe in the conclusion to make all of the leaps of faith and logic required in the scenario you laid out.” –> Again, I’m not making leaps of faith; I explained clearly how I came to believe in the possibility of the rise of an oppressive government, and put my thesis forward for comment. I think a better tack would be to say that you completely disagree with my conclusion, as it happens everyday in life with multiple issues. When you say, “leap of faith” it connotes reaching a conclusion based on an irrational argument, since faith requires one to suspend rationality.
Regarding the novels, I agree that the topic could be turned into a good novel; maybe someone will pick up the idea.
One more time: I view the topic in the same vein as the folks discussing it in the Harper’s article; as a possibility. If you pay attention to recent news events you may be aware of the huge controversies regarding the visit of Alberto Gonzalez to the hospital bed of then AG Ashcroft in a (controversial) attempt to have him sign up on something that has been deemed to be illegal; the controversies of the illegal warrantless wiretaps; the issue of whether phone companies will be suit for participating in possibly illegal and unconstitutional activity regarding the wiretaps; and the tug of war with congress regarding Presidential power. I think a major theme here is that there are people that worry about a President exerting power in an unconstitutional way. At one point there was even a memo produced by Gonzalez saying, basically, that the President’s power could not be curtailed by anyone, and it even justified torture. When the memo was revealed in the media, they backed down from their stance.
Given all these things, I do worry about Presidential power running amok. But that theme is actually rampant right now in our national discourse. I understand that you completely disagree with it, but I don’t think you can say it is 100% unfounded.
———————–
Man, I had thought you reasonable, but wrong. This is Michael Moore territory.
———————–
JD: After the extensive debate we have had, and after my careful presentation of my positions, including fact-checking, articles, reports, etc., I think that this statement is another example of intellectual dishonesty. Any reader can see that, regardless of their political stand. Regarding Michael Moore, I think the guy is a hero and a true Patriot, although I don’t always agree with him on everything.
Oh, please. Whenever he’s overseas, he’s cheerfully slamming the US to win the adulation of the idiots in his audience. If he’s what you consider a “patriot”, your vision of a patriot includes outright hatred for both the nation and its people.
“If he’s what you consider a “patriotâ€Â, your vision of a patriot includes outright hatred for both the nation and its people.”
Your opinion is noted. I like that he advocates for the working people, exposes lies about the war, and advocates for universal health care. I’m not too crazy about what he did to the NRA old guy during an interview where he was obviously not “with it.” Didn’t like that. But overall, the guy has his heart in the right place, my opinion
Luis
Using lies… but hey, it serves a higher truth, right?
All, they tell themselves, in the name of the greater good.
…the greater good…
Sorry, reminded me of a line from Hot Fuzz. The plot of the movie, incidentally, ties in very nicely with the discussion going on here!