From David Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey, both Reagan and George H.W. Bush administration Justice Department members, writing in the WSJ:
Winning a war is a difficult business under the best of circumstances. In democratic polities, the prospects for victory dim whenever there is strong domestic opposition, as there is today with respect to the handling of both Iraq and the broader war on terror.
HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THEIR —
Oops. Sorry. Proceed:
But far from merely challenging a particular military strategy or a discrete set of combat-related decisions, many critics deny that the United States is fighting a war at all. Terrorism, they say, is a manageable problem that modern American society must learn to accept as the price of its pluralistic institutions and role as a global super-power.
Ah yes. The “Islamic Extremism = The Weather Underground” paradign. Of course, the Weather Underground never had state support, didn’t have a theocratic impetus to its designs, didn’t have billions of indoctrinated subjects to recruit from, and never worked actively and constantly to get its hands on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons for the express purpose of killing as many Americans as possible.
But that’s just me nitpicking…
Nothing illustrates this better than the continuing challenges to Guantanamo Bay. Even European officials who have visited the American base acknowledge conditions there—including housing, food, medical care and recreation—are better than in most civilian penitentiaries around the world. What most critics really object to is the entire “laws of war paradigm” that has been employed since 9/11 by the Bush administration.
Some claim, incorrectly but passionately, that the U.S. cannot be at war with a non-state like al Qaeda, and that the classification of al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners as “unlawful enemy combatants” violates the Geneva Conventions. Others care less about the legal questions, but assert that Guantanamo and the “war on terror” have done fundamental damage to the U.S. diplomatic position around the world—sullying
—Sullying. Sully. Sullivaning—
its reputation, straining its alliances and undercutting its leadership of the international community. Notably, the prescription of both the policy and law-driven challengers is to close Guantanamo, and to abandon the “war on terror” in favor of an internationally cooperative law-enforcement approach.
[my emphasis]
This is typically called the “9/10 approach”—which notably culminated in 911. Why some people believe that going back to that approach wouldn’t similarly culminate in another 911 is beyond me, but the argument seems to be that anything we do is likely to culminate in another 911-type attack, so we may as well keep the moral high ground and maintain sympathetic alliances with other Western powers who, given their decided lack of military might, are all but constrained to take the law enforcement approach.
That last bit, of course, tends to be bracketed from such arguments in favor of a law enforcement approach—which tends only to highlight the ostensible likemindedness of law enforcement proponents while avoiding the potentially differing motivations that create the prescriptive nexus.
Rivkin and Casey continue:
The critics rarely acknowledge that using the U.S. criminal justice system would present numerous problems. The most obvious: It would be virtually impossible to prosecute many al Qaeda detainees captured overseas by the U.S. and its allies. This is not because, as alleged by the various human rights organizations, they have been harshly interrogated and any evidence obtained in the process would be inadmissible. The more fundamental problem is the hyper-technical nature of evidentiary and other rules in America’s 21st century justice system. Convicting people based upon physical evidence gathered on overseas battlefields, or relying on testimony of soldiers and intelligence agents who at the time of capture were operating in a stressful combat environment, would be exceedingly difficult. The likely result of trying captured al Qaeda members under criminal justice rules is that many of them would go free and return to the fight.
This is an important point—one that is often made but very rarely answered, particularly when the offered alternative, to execute such out of uniform enemy soldiers on the battlefield, is offered as a compromise.
Of course, this goes back to denying that we are indeed involved in a war. It is, of course, rather a curious thing to deny you are at war when a group with multiple surreptitious state sponsors has continuously and unequivocally declared war on you, but such denial is part and parcel of a worldview that believes it can avoid war simply by wishing it away, or pretending it is something less.
And the only way to operate in ways that aren’t traditional to warfighting—in ways favored by transnational progressives (which provides the impetus for “international courts” and “international law”)—is to deny that a state of war exists in the first place, no matter how much doing so strains credulity and makes a mockery of the avowed proclamations of an active enemy.
As Rivkin and Casey note:
[…] the benefits of adopting the law-enforcement model would be ephemeral at best. There is no doubt that the war on terror in general, and Guantanamo in particular, have cost the U.S. diplomatically. Al Qaeda and its supporters have won—at least for the time-being—this propaganda point. Even some high-level American officials have, according to a recent report in the New York Times, argued that the base should be closed and the detainees transferred to the U.S.
But whatever the immediate diplomatic benefit that might be gained by adopting this suggestion, it is naïve to imagine that closing the Guantanamo detention facilities, and even agreeing to treat captured jihadists as ordinary criminal defendants, would end international criticism of U.S. efforts to defend itself.
After all, many critics’ appreciation for the American civilian judicial system is both new and very much conditional. Long before the war on terror, Europe already was refusing to send criminal suspects to the U.S. if there was any chance that the death penalty would be inflicted. So, in order to obtain the transfer or extradition of terror suspects from these states, the U.S. would have to agree not only that they would be processed through the normal criminal system—accepting the inevitable intelligence cost of presenting all of the evidence against them in open court—it would also have to agree to eschew the death penalty. And, once that point is won, the question immediately arises whether lifetime imprisonment is itself consistent with Europe’s evolving human rights norms.
As for leading non-governmental organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, they have long promoted an agenda that requires the subjection of national justice systems to international institutions such as the International Criminal Court. (It was, in fact, originally proposed as a counter-terrorism criminal court.) The claims of bias and lack of independence such groups have leveled against American military commissions can equally be flung at American civilian courts. That was done in the case of the alleged 20th 9/11 hijacker, Zacharias Moussaoui, who was tried in the Eastern District of Virginia. The critics argue that, although federal judges serve for life, they are all employees of the federal government and have taken an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. The juries that would ultimately determine jihadists’ fates are composed of U.S. citizens, the very men and women who are the terrorists prime and preferred targets. Some “human rights” activists will accept nothing less than internationally supervised tribunals, in which America and its enemies can be equally tried and punished for their alleged “offenses.”
Precisely so. The real motivation behind this “civil liberties” push by many progressives is to erode sovereignty and set up “international” institutions that would presume judicial authority over individual nation states.
And who, pray tell, would run these institutions? Would they be elected? By whom?
No matter. It’s progressive to believe in a single world government, so let not the illiberal aspects of the thing—nor the near certainty that it would be used as a political tool to systematically erode ideological dissent—get in the way. Not when you can VISUALIZE WORLD PEACE!
Conclude Rivkin and Casey:
The critics are correct that the fight against jihadism cannot be won by military means alone. However, the war paradigm is an essential element. The U.S. may be able to punish some captured jihadists as ordinary criminals, but only the laws of armed conflict give it the necessary legal means to reach them before they can reach the American people. For decades, a strong U.S. international posture was justified back home, based on the premise that we would rather fight “them” over there, than on the Jersey beaches. That is as true today as in past conflicts.
True, sure. But sadly, increasingly falling out of favor, thanks to a propaganda effort led by moralizing “civil libertarians” who, more often than not, care less about actual civil liberties than they do about how to affect changes within the systems of US jurisprudence and military authority that will benefit their own transnationalist worldview.
At least, that’s what it looks like to me…
(h/t Terry Hastings)
“Well I’m breaking rocks in the hot sun, I fought the internationally supervised tribunal and the internationally supervised tribunal won, I fought the internationally supervised tribunal and the internationally supervised tribunal won.”
Nah, the words don’t fit the music. I’m staying with the “law”.
Well, in my non-lawyerly view, the only rights that captured “unlawful combatants” (read: terrorist asswipes) have is to tell a military tribunal anything they might happen to know before they catch a quick bullet and earn themselves a shallow grave (or a bonfire, depending) to stay dead in.
Un-nuanced, I know. But then, I am an American, and we’re kinda noted for that.
I’ve always been one of the “Hey, genius! NUKES! Ok?” crowd, you see. I don’t need to be loved by all the tribal primitives in the world, I just don’t want them coming over here and blowing MY shit up.
Stay in whatever hell-hole bred ya, pal, and blow up fellow primitives from now to kingdom come. I could give a rat’s ass.
It isn’t a state of war until I agree that it is a state of war. It isn’t a just tribunal until I sign off on it.
Will to Power, Baby!
“Close Gitmo” to get terrorists onto US soil…avalanche of ACLU, et al., petitions, suits, and challenges…
I think it is a bit of stretch to even assume that the ICC types would mete out “punishment” at all against the people we are fighting. A prime example is the Australian Left’s crying, screaming, excuse making, belching and squeaking about David Hick and the doo doo he got himself in by being a Taliban volunteer(and attempted killer of Indians in Kashmir). He wasn’t a Talib-kill thrill tourist jihadi, he was a victim.
Rumsfeld to the War Crimes Tribunal… Gitmo prisoners to the reparations queue.
If a reactionary leftist read Mein Kampf, would he say , “Oh, Ol’ Adolph didn’t really mean that stuff he wrote.”
?!?!?!?!?!????
Hmmmm.
I recommend we create a new term to describe someone who goes from a rational point of view to something so completely buggered* they need a strait-jacket.
Sullivanosis is here!
*buggered in psychological sense of course.
I like the sound of that, memo. Maybe you should submit that to the Urban Dictionary.
It’s sad, but there are starving children in the world who would be better fed at Gitmo than they are at home.
“Welcome To Gitmo: We are not responsible for your weight gain, spend some more time on the stairmaster tubby.”
Who is “they?” Can we get a link to “them?”
See how that text is in a little block? That means it’s a quote. So you’ll need to ask Rivkin and Casey that question.
Well, I finally found out why the Germans keep losing wars:
Though you might look up a fella by the name of Clinton, who was terrorism as a strictly law enforcement problem.
Hah! Beat me to it, Pablo. Straw Man has a memory problem, I guess.
Straw men stacked on top of straw men?
What happened to the WSJ?
Gitmo is just an embarrassment.
It’s all about Iraq.
Do you think it’s possible that the troops would all keep their pie holes shut if we just shot these apes?
I do not disagree with the basic premise of the West being lost, but ‘fer Krissakes! Kill ‘em all?
No, no , no! We should kill them all.
I like to think of myself as a point of light, but an unarmed point of light. Apparently, Muhammed is too retarded to have his words believed by the intellect, so his words must be enforced by the sword!
Fuck “the truth will out”. There is no “truth” but from the biggerst retarded ape of all time.
I wish I had a God that said: “Kill the motherfuckers if they don’t agree”. How cool would that be? I could then kill everyoned on DailyKos without remorse.
Unfortunately, I believe in peace and love – at least until some flinking ape says: “I will kill you no matter what”. That is where Hippiedom ends. There is something wrong with these people – badly wsrong.
I personnally think that they need more mushrooms.
Thank you very much.
I see the alphie-centric universe makes as much sense as the old terrac-centric solar system model.
How does he perceive the problem? What does it mean to him?
Narcissism or short sightedness – you make the call.
Non sequitur stacked on non sequitur?
What happened to logic?
Alphie is just an embarrassment.
Creepy little fucker.
Gitmo is an embarrasment, we’re being far to soft.
Major John –
Huh? I have substituted sake for mushrooms, so maybe I am missing something here.
No matter.
I am still in awe of you. If I were to believe Kos and his herk-a-jerk buddies, you shouldn’t be able to form a sentence, much less one with any meaning.
Thank you for thumping those dorks who say that the armed forces are made up of brainless idiots who are poor and have nowhere else to turn.
My thanks and respect to you – you make my day.
And, just so you know I’m not being flip, I am signing my real name.
Thank you for your service to freedom.
Tom Schulz
Lost Dog,
“a” makes a short little squirt about Gitmo being an embarrassment (how does he feel) and “It’s all about Iraq” (how does he view the problem.
Those darn fools trying to write something about the wider problems of fighting terrorism – bah, they just don’t see it as alphie does, hence they can be dismissed out of hand.
Thanks for the kind words.
I’d stay away from the mushrooms.
Since we’re pulling out kind words, I, too would like to thank you, Major John, and all the vets who comment here, for your service. It makes me very proud of my country knowing there are such fine individuals in the military.
Just like my late father.
Thanks, everyone.
Well, a good rule of thumb is that if it embarrasses little “a” you know it’s probably the right thing to do. I mean what’s embarrassing about a place that is internationally recognized as being better, more professional, cleaner & more humane than most legitimate & non-embarrassing prisons both within & without the US? Maybe we should just set our standards much lower & try the French correctional institutional standards, then little “a” & the rest of the irrationally reactionary idiots would have something to really complain about or rejoice in – depending upon how much political mileage & embarrassment it could cause the Bush Administration. Nothing like severing all ties to humane treatment in order to appease our “progressive†side & give them what they think they want vs. what is actually better & more humane. Funny how they have the same type of mentality towards healthcare, taxes & nuclear power, what they want is actually less efficient, less available, slower, less humane & more expensive.
Another straw man, PMain?
The question is does America throw people in jail without giving them a chance to confront the charges against them?
Many of the prisoners held at Guantanamo are there simply because we offered a $5000 bounty in one of the poorest countries in the world for any Taliban members turned over to us.
Not surprisingly, quite a few Aghans were stuffed into sacks and handed over to us in exchange for the bounty.
Lost Dog,
Stay away from the sake. There is no hangover like a sake hangover.
Major John,
Thank you. The commentary here is just a lagniappe compared to your service to our country. I’ve never seen you lose your cool, even when confronted with the most vile screeds from some who lurk here. You inspire me to act like a grownup.
Most of the time. The rest I’ll just blame on my Irish half, beer, and the Marine Corps.
They’ve had that chance, alphie, but apparently since you don’t know about it, it never happened.
Gitmo’s not a black hole from which no one ever returns. Quite a few people have been released from there. Some of them have ended up being killed on the battlefield because, gee, they actually were unlawful combatants, and they headed right back to committing war crimes.
The question is does America throw people in jail without giving them a chance to confront the charges against them?
Did our POWs get to confront the charges against them when they were held by the Viet Cong or the Japanese or Germans or North Koreans?
THERE ARE NO CHARGES in war, alph. If you get caught by the enemy as a prisoner, you go to their jail and wait for the war’s end or a prisoner exchange.
But because the guys in Gitmo aren’t hapless conscripts but willing volunteers, fully converted to their cause, they’re many times more dangerous than the average footsoldier in previous wars. Our justice system is designed to deal with citizen criminals, not genocides.
Besides, the Geneva Convention mandates that illegal combatants are entitled to be shot on sight.
Would you like to file a complaint on those grounds, alph?
Another misfire, alphoid?
A question is indeed, does not the American military throw people in jail without giving them a chance to confront the charges against them?
Damn, I hope so.
Prisoners are held at Guantanamo because we wisely offered a $5000 bounty in one of the poorest countries in the world for any Taliban members turned over to us. Good on us.
I’m hoping quite a few Aghans were stuffed into sacks and handed over to us in exchange for the bounty.
Your brain should be stuffed into a sack, alfee. People’d cut that sorry piece of mucus some slack then.
JHoward,
little “a” isn’t upset about the treatment, it purely a fiscal matter for him. Hell, he’s selling out his country for a little bit of attention here for months.
Personally I think that we should use this approach for finding illegal aliens in the country, offer a $100-1000 for information leading to the where-abouts of them. Living in San Diego, I’d be making between 50-60K a day off the undeveloped canyons in my neighborhood alone.
Nice, JHoward.
The trouble is, few of the Gitmo prisoners were captured on the battlefield. They were dragged from their homes or even coffee houses in Pakistan and turned over to us by people who were only interested in the money we were offering. Any warm body would do.
I imagine if the U.S. military made the same offer in some of America’s poorer communites they would start to receive a steady supply of “Taliban” members.
<
Alphie, you amaze me. You would rather have all your close friends killed by apes than to be thought of as insensitive..
You are one scary MoFo, dude. 9/11 never happened as far as you and your sidekicks are concerned.
Check out Neil Boortz. As far as I know, he is still offering $10.000 to anyone who can come up with a quote of Bush saying that Iraq was involved in 9/11.
It’s truly stupifying that the left has to rely on absolute lies to make any point at all.
Grow up, little boy. We were there in the 60’s, and we were just as wrong as you are. I guess it takes more balls than you’ve got to admit that you are uninformed about just about everything. Go with the flow, my man. Maybe you’ll get some p***y.
Forget right and wrong, ALPHIE WANTS PUSSY!!
Go man. We’re all rooting for you. You just don’t have to be an ignorant asshole to get laid. If you do, your “doing” the wrong stuff (not that it matters to a young stud). I do remember my days of dating women who would crow: “Any cockle doo!” Scary stuff for an adult…
‘Nuff said
Everyone knows that members of the Taliban don’t have homes or drink coffee, it’s an outrage!!! I’d imagine if investigated properly, it will show that BU$HCO made it policy merely to appease & protect the financial interests of his corporate pals like Starbucks & Seattle’s Best. Maybe we could call it FOLGERGATE!!!
Random roundups of suspected dissidents and show trials are hallmarks of lefty Stalinists, Lost Dog.
As are bloated, corrupt government projects and mindless worship of anyone in a military uniform.
The American pro war crowd is Stalinist through and through, please stop pretending to be on the right.
You’re giving my side a bad name.
I think alphie is deranged.
Alphie,
Any suggestions on what might be the best way for us to nab suspected Taliban/Al Qaeda folks?
BRD
Lost Dog,
little “a†may have a point, just like the “lefty†Stalinist gulags of the past,
prisonerstotally innocent victims of brutal,my sideneocon tactics contained in that “corrupt government project†(established in 1903 by Democratic President Teddy Roosevelt) aka “Gitmo†have been given no outside contact, no objective or independent verification of living conditions, are allowed no religious services, materials or observant foods, no access to the ocean, no volley-ball courts or soccer balls, no heating/air-conditioning & no outside communications to the media & are kept in the super secret, undisclosed location called Guantanamo Bay in the country of Cuba – which, let’s be honest, is exactly Siberia, but worse.You’re “pretending†to be conservative is nothing more than a mockery of all that is honest & good about little “a’s†side & everyone knows that all “pro-military†idiots possess a mindless worship of & never question anyone that has worn a military uniform – not including John Murtha, John Kerry, Charlie Rangel, Chuck Hagel, Wesley Clark, etc.
They weren’t “random roundups”, they’re not “suspected dissidents”, and they’re not “show trials”, asshole.
And you’re as much a conservative as I am a super model. Unless you want to cop to being a Buchananite; your views are quite close to his, after all.
BRD,
In theory, it would be acceptable for America to use extraordinary methods to “nab” suspects, provided we also employed extraordinary efforts to insure the innocents we “nabbed” were able to win their release promptly and with just compensation.
But, of course, we did nothing of the kind. The neocons went out of their way to deny the suspects even the most basic methods to confront the charges against them.
As with most things connected to the “war” on terror, the closer we look, the more we find brutality and incompetence hiding behind a mask of secrecy.
Here are the transcripts from last year’s aborted combatant status reviews.
Shipping people off to the Siberia of Cuba. Sticking them in jail for four years without any contact with the outside world, then giving them a few minutes to state their case with the usual question by the tribunal being – Can you produce any witnesses?
My favorite transcript is the guy we’ve had locked up for four years because his name matched a name on a list.
He just laughed and said his name is quite common in the Muslim world. In fact, there were three other prisoners currently in Gitmo that have the exact same name.
The “judges” confirmed this, then sent him back to his cage.
Pathetic and embarrassing.
Alphie,
The principle problem I see in your analysis – and, frankly, something that I’ve seen no effective treated effectively nowhere, is the underlying issue of whether or not someone should be processed to determine whether they are a criminal or whether they are a soldier.
One of the unfortunate things that has gotten quite lost in recent decades, is that a soldier’s uniform – and therefore declared status as a combatant – was a safeguard for the soldier and guaranteed them certain protections. There was, therefore an incentive to wear a uniform, as it prevented one, in theory, from being shot out of hand.
However, the recent trend in dialog has actually provided a great incentive for not fighting in uniform – the proclivity to then treat acting as a combatant as a criminal offense.
The longer term results of this, aside from the murky legal distinctions, will include the blurring of the line between combatant and civilian, which will, until resolved, effectively lower the value of the life of those who don’t want to fight, but simply are accidents of circumstance.
BRD
BRD,
I think that in the case of Guantanamo that argument is a bit of a red herring.
Many of the prisoners held there were shanghaied months after the fighting in Afghanistan was over by such notable groups as the Pakistani secret service and our Afghan war & drug lord “allies” and turned over to us for a bit of blood money.
The Supreme Court allows our government to bend the rules under the “strict scrutiny” standard when:
1. The governmental purpose is compelling.
2. The means to achieve the purpose is “narrowly tailored.”
I think few Americans would argue that the capture of terrorists bent on harming us isn’t “compelling.”
It’s the “narrowly tailored” part that’s missing.
BRD. You will also have less prisoners to process.
I presume you have names of these people dragged out of coffeehouses in Quetta, the Shari-Naw district of Kabul or some farm in teh Tagab? Coffee houses, heh. Might have made some semblance of sense if you had said tea, rather than coffee. Well, at least you didn’t say dragged out of a saloon…
I am keenly interested in the names and situations of these, grabbed off the street people. Probably not the same lot I saw in the detention center at BAF. The ones that told us they were going to kill us, eventually…
How about Dilawar and Habibullah, Maj. John?
Those names ring a bell?
They checked into your camp…but they didn’t check out, did they?
Two out of how many, alpo? Or would putting the numbers into context go against your point?
Yeah, alphie, a link to a report about the military investigating and punishing soldiers for the wrongful treatment of detainees proves the military condones wrongful treatment. You got us this time.
On June 1, 2006, PFC Corsetti was found not guilty of all charges. On October 2, 2006, PFC Corsetti was honorably discharged from the United States Army.
A Bronze Star for valor was awarded to Captain Wood following the deaths of prisoners in her custody at Abu Ghraib.
That must have been some investigation, B Moe.
Alphie,
Maybe I’m a bit slow tonight, but what Gitmo argument are you referring to in your response?
BRD
But you guys have to remember, if someone tries to be good and does it imperfectly, they are INFINITELY WORSE than someone who doesn’t bother to try to be good.
Which is why lefties aren’t seen gathering in large numbers at the North Korean border demanding the removal of Li’l Kim.
And besides, the real problem here is PROFILING! I mean, how many Japanese were interrogated when we were looking for Taliban members? It’s RACISM, I tell you.
Which is why lefties aren’t seen gathering at the border of Zimbabwe demanding the arrest and extradition of the Great and Blood-Soaked Robert Mugabe.
Evan Sayet’s description of Liberal thought processes rings amazingly true. Others have observed the same thing, but never quite so succinctly. If discrimination is bad, then being indiscriminate must be good.
And it leads, invariably, to choosing the WORST possible position, because the very IDEA of trying to be good by DISCRIMINATING between right and wrong is abhorrent if your whole life is dedicated to the idea that no one – and no idea – is superior or inferior.
I know situational ethics is the big bugaboo here, but I think it applies. The difference between discrimination and indiscrimination is a function of attention; one either notices differences or they don’t. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Here’s the precept:
Actors that operate contrary to our interests are enemy combatants and must be detained; and
We control the definition of “enemy combatant,” as well as “detention.”
It’s not so much the conduct I object to, it’s the subtle shift in purpose. Remember to lock your doors tonight; I may decide you’re a terrorist.
So if it is one of ours, a trial doesn’t count unless he is found guilty? Who wants to bet if a .detainee is tried and convicted little alphie would be the first to whine he was railroaded?
What a loathsome little cretin you are.
The “trial” of the 15 U.S. military personnel accused of these two murders did find a few guilty, B Moe.
The harshest sentence handed down was 5 months detention.
“Unlawful Combatant” should equal “pirate”. The last three rounds of Islam v. Western civ each ended when Western civ ran out of resources to continue killing muslim males over the age of twelve. You can only chase so far into a wasteland after a crushed enemy when fire is your only light and muscles drive your weapons.
You don’t survive a cancer by knocking it back. It has to be remove or it just returns to kill.
Now it’s 2007. The barbarians are back again and kill daily in dribs and drabs around the world, randomly, with intermittent flashes of mass murder. They’ve even got their own PR and media outlets. PR to explain why it’s our fault we must die, and media to show us how they do it.
And the civilized world can’t seem to remember how to stop the fight. A fair portion of the “enlightened” seem content to carry a metaphorical whetstone in case they run into their personal jihadi.
Anybody here think that this war will end differently? Anyone? We need Jacksons, LeMays and Pattons, not Pelosis and Murthas.
Call me when we begin to fight. It will happen right after we get around to naming the enemy.
cynn: Your first paragraph is confusing. Are you saying that a person who refuses steadfastly to distinguish between occasional abuse of Western systems that results in prosecution and active and regular policy of Middle-Eastern systems that is celebrated is, in fact, just NOT NOTICING the difference?
Or perhaps people who equivocate between the Pope and Osama Bin Laden or Khomenite Mullahs?
I must be misunderstanding you, because that concept beggars the imagination.
As to the rest:
“Enemy Combatant” isn’t some shadowy shifting concept that randomly gets applied to people because they’re “political enemies” or just unfavored. This is a paranoid delusion that is common on the left, but the fact that all the vehement vocal lefties are still vehement and vocal seems to argue against that point.
Every time the detainee issue comes up, I am faced with the laughable contention that the US is violating the Geneva convention because of ABUSES of our system – a concept which would blame any legal system for criminal activity that violates its laws – and yet then demands we ignore the Geneva convention when it comes to the preceding handling of non-uniform combatants (sometimes referred to as “enemy combatants”).
I have plenty of arguments about the way laws have been formulated and handled, but the way they’ve been enforced in this context has been practically gentle. And they bogeyman of random detention of dissidents has risen from paranoia to lie, given the late stage of this administration and the lack of evidence.
In effect, you are accusing someone of a horrible crime which they have not committed, which is, to say the least, rude. They (the administration) have reacted to those repeated accusations with more patience and grace than I would have, which I think has infuriated the left into the kind of vile demonstrations that have recently been highlighted.
This war (and the smaller Afghan and Iraqi campaigns within it) is against an enemy that is diffuse, it does not have a nation in which it can be found and isolated, it does not have a uniform nor does it carry a flag, it is difficult to find until it begins shooting at you, and it has the support of many nations with a great deal of disposable income and very little regard for human life.
In other words, this sucks. And it will continue sucking. And it would suck a damn sight less if we didn’t have a home front to fight it on as well as the other eleven fronts.
We are not perfect, and neither our methods nor our tools are perfect. But our enemy is committed to our destruction, so we had better damned well AT LEAST be committed to our own preservation, and if we can pull the teeth of a few of our enemies, so much the better.
I would be glad if the arguments we had on a daily basis were more about methods, policies and their alternatives and less about who is more like Hitler or imaginary secret police rounding up imaginary dissidents and sending them to imaginary secret prisons.
You’re not dumb, cynn, I hope you can see that you’re simply applying the worst possible assumptions about your “opposition,” the worst possible interpretations of their words, and then treating your interpretation as if it’s objective reality.
I mean, do you really think that the Cabinet closes all the doors, turns off the lights, rubs their hands with glee and begins plotting the imprisonment of critics and celebrities they disapprove of?
Interesting enough little “a” sounds like he is promoting not capturing or containing anyone or he’d rather have all placed into the American Justice System, where the percentage of innocents being held or convicted is statically more significant, the process takes much longer, ignores the Geneva Convention completely & for someone who constantly whines about the cost of the war, ignores the added costs that would occur. Costs more, is less humane & is against US law, while ignoring International Law, sounds like another wasted & stupid little “a†point made to either deride the thread or waste the time of all involved.
alphie has no trouble finding our soldiers guilty of war crimes from halfway around the world. He also has no trouble proclaiming the “insurgents” innocent with the same shamanistic abilities. How do you do it, alph? Tarot cards? Chicken bones? Maybe you could teach our poor, ignorant soldiers these tricks, so they would at least be smart enough to know who they are fighting.
Or maybe you are just on the other side, huh?
I think the answer is pretty clear on that one.
Alphie’s just too shallow to recognize it.
Maybe he thinks he’s deep and ‘sophisticated’ and ‘modern’ in his thinking.
Traditionally, the ‘modern’ phase of a society is followed by that society’s extinction.
Which given said Alphie can be shown to make a great deal of sense.
As for cynn’s concern, there has always been that risk. People worry about the FBI, and so on. Our gov’t is run by ordinary people, and we must find those most competent and least corrupt, or no MATTER what law we decide on it will be used against us.
Freedom of Speech = entitlement to no dissent being a fine example of this.
Also, it may be noted that I am not arguing that no law can threaten us in that way (big brother style) but instead I’m refuting the idea that concern that a law will be used against you is a fair general argument.
There needs to be something particular to the law that one thinks invites abuse, as any law may be abused.
Otherwise its merely an argument of emotion, which may be put in words but won’t be won or lost with them.
alphie,
If you are trying to accuse me of some sort of misconduct, go ahead. Don’t be coy. While I was TF Dragon’s XO, BAF had no problems with any detainees one way or the other. We did, however, build the “million dollar kitchen” as we called it – so the pleasant folks in the PUC could get nice halal meals made on the spot.
You seem to presume their innocence – no matter what, and presume guilt of any accused US soldier – no matter what. Interesting and quite revelatory.
When hardcore Talib and HIG tell me that they will kill me, I really believe they want to do just that.