The Republican Surrender Caucus
posted at 8:59 am on September 20, 2006 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Miranda rights for terrorists?!
The trap; Geneva Contention
Applying Geneva will destroy it
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
This is madness,pure and simple.BDS is obviously contagious and incredibly insidious.
bbz123 on September 20, 2006 at 9:29 AM
That was a great vent… Thx.
Okay, gotta go write all my Reps. in Gov’t. I’m going to rip into them (scathingly/searingly) so that it’s clear where I stand. Recall that for each contact and opinion they receive - they often count it as, some, 100 contacts in their precinct, district or region.
Feel free to do the same - via Web Forms.
ar_basin on September 20, 2006 at 9:32 AM
In the eyes of the terrorist, this is effectively a surrender. But this is just one of the things we are surrendering to right now.
So the white flag today is very appropriate.
{sadly}
But what we are surrendering to is not terrorism so much as political correctness. We have met the enemy, and he is us…
…also …pink is a good color for you, Michelle. At least on my monitor.
Lawrence on September 20, 2006 at 9:33 AM
When McCaine begain frothing at the mouth regarding his beloved illegal aliens I lost faith with this Liberal Democrat calling himself a Republican. He has now quaffed from the Moonbat font one too many times. Could someone please check his wallet for he is a card carrying ‘bat.
As for avoiding battlefield issues. No prob just shoot and kill everyone! “What there is a problem? Oh look Sgt. what a pretty sunset. What? No? The prizoner? Why does he have a bullet hole in his forehead? Oh he was trying to escape. No really.”
Priest on September 20, 2006 at 9:34 AM
During wartime, those caught fighting out of uniform are always considered to be “spies, saboteurs and terrorists” and, after a quick field trubunal, can be summarily shot.
When did we legally geld ourselves our of this rational response to murderous, illegimate madmen? (Supreme Court castratos, anyone?)
The Congress needs to redefine this old fact of war back into the rules of combat:
“If you fight as an enemy combatant, out of uniform, then you shall be considered a spy, a saboteur and a terrorist, and the penalty will be immediate execution, in the field, unless we feel that you can provide us with some vital intelligence. Then, we may commute your death sentence to life in prison, with the possibility of parole if the information is useful enough.”
(You need to mollify and motivate the maniacs with some inducements to prevent a WMD attack, should they know the details of such a planned attack.)
Pussyfooting to oblivion is a sorry-ass epitaph.
profitsbeard on September 20, 2006 at 9:47 AM
Didn’t we elect these people to protect US? I don’t recall the terrorists getting a vote… so why does McCain et all feel the need to protect them like they were registered voters?
I guess it’s like the Dems and the Illegal Alien Vote.
Sure, lets give the criminals all the rights, no rights for the victims. McCain needs to lay off the kool-aid.
E L Frederick on September 20, 2006 at 9:48 AM
So we’ve got a big name ‘Republican’ like John McCain adopting a democrat line…sounds like he’s doing his best to keep the GOP base at home. I hope we don’t nominate this a**clown in 2008. Starting with the gang of 14 nonsense during the judicial showdown, I promised myself I would rather see a democrat elected than John McCain. There is no big difference in how they would govern, except that McCain stabs us in the back instead of in the front. Don’t talk to me about ‘consider the alternatives’. Look at them yourself. He’s a big Kyoto nut. He’s an open borders nut, and he wants to give terrorists access to the bill of rights. Rush had a good one the other day. Will gitmo prisoners under the McCain administration have access to the second amendment? Why not, at the rate we’re going.
austinnelly on September 20, 2006 at 9:59 AM
IDIOCY!! The ONLY countries that will ever honor Geneva are
our ALLIES. Throughout the last 70 or 80 years, our enemies have not followed Geneva. Think about the unimaginable tortures from the Japanese, the German concentration camps, the North Viet Cong, Somalia, etc, etc.
Our enemies will NOT use Geneva , only our allies will. What good is that?
McCain needs a shrink. His flash-backs of giving up everything to the North under torture has his thinking all
fumessed up.shooter on September 20, 2006 at 10:11 AM
I hope this sets the Christian conservative right in the Republican party straight; Rudy Giuliani is the man to support for 2008!
Or Condi Rice if she wants to run.
But please no McCain! Or talking suit Mitt Romney.
modifiedcontent on September 20, 2006 at 10:20 AM
Meanwhile, over at the democrats base main web site, they say crazy stuff like,
“What form of torture would Jesus have preferred? Do you think Jesus would have preferred waterboarding? How about extreme temperature? Solitary confinement combined with super loud rock music? How about forcing people to undress and then form nude pyramids? Or putting their underwear over their heads? ”
“I started thinking about it when reading about Obrador forming a parallel government in Mexico. So I conjured up a little fantasy of how that Parallel Government saved the world from it’s folly.
It all started when liberal groups started to form themselves together and realized that what they had was a parallel government that had the end to war and conflict as it’s goal…”
“Lets cut to the chase here with Iran The leaders of Iran would be crazy if they didn’t covet nuclear weapons.
“We are currently occupying just about every country surrounding Iran while while stealing their natural resources as fast as we can steal them and killing anyone who gets in our way…”
“And their leader is a lot smarter than ours….”
“Amerikan arrogance is the greatest threat to world peace today…”
“Who are we to judge their culture?…”
“23 Reasons George Bush Must Be Impeached- The Short List • Starting an illegal an immoral invasion and war with Iraq…”
“After $8 Billion Spent, The Salmon Are Still Dying…”
“Who would Jesus Torture - bumper stickers. I am SO angry today.”
IF the democrats get control of anything, they will “dialog” with terrorists who want to murder us all through the UN forever, while focusing in on their real idea of utopia for America,
Free money for everyone if they will vote democrat
Free speech for everyone except christians, conservatives, and the Pope
Homosexual marriage forced on an unwilling Nation
and most important, easier and cheaper ways to murder unborn babies.
NRA4Freedom on September 20, 2006 at 10:23 AM
I am an Airborne Infantryman and two-time combat veteran. The people we captured were called PUCs not POWs. PUC stands for Personnel Under Control. As they do not abide by the laws that allow afford them POW status. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine reading some dirtbag jihadi his Miranda rights as I PUC him.
I do have a question, however. If I am reading some guy his Miranda rights am I arresting him? Do I have the authority to arrest foreign citizens now? Would that mean that I have the authority to arrest American citizens now?
JasonG on September 20, 2006 at 10:24 AM
John McCain is not representing the American people any longer.
He advocates Amnesty, panders to Illegals that break our immigration laws,undermines the war against Islamic fascists, and ignores the will of the American people.
Correct me if I am wrong, isn’t that the definition of a traitor?
He is the Benedict Arnold of the 21st Century.
ScottyDog on September 20, 2006 at 10:27 AM
like I said…McCain needs a shrink. He’s unfit to lead.
shooter on September 20, 2006 at 10:37 AM
Whether or not al-Qaeda fighters abide by the Geneva Conventions is irrelevant. We signed the convention. We have to abide by it.
McCarthy didn’t say they wanted to give terrorism suspects Miranda rights, he said that a judge might rule that the vague wording of the McCain anti-torture amendment required it. I don’t buy it. Read it yourself:
The bolded part is the important part. Miranda-esque rights aren’t mentioned in that United Nations treaty.
At any rate, that was pre-Hamdan. Terrorism suspects were ruled to have minimal Geneva Convention protections.
So that ship has sailed.
This isn’t about waging war, this is about prosecuting people for war crimes.
In other words… it would grant them a fair trial — one in which they could examine the evidence and mount a defense. It would grant them the same type of trial you are suggesting was denied to terrorism suspects in Indonesia. Is fairness fit for Indonesia, but not for the United States? For Christian suspects, but not for Muslim suspects?
If granting a fair trial isn’t in the cards, then why even put anyone on trial at all? If the guilt of terrorism suspects is guaranteed (you referred to them as “terrorists”), why don’t we move to the sentencing phase? I see a few commenters above me are already on board with that, although I am proposing it rhetorically.
Mark Jaquith on September 20, 2006 at 10:44 AM
McCain, et. al., still do not fully realize that we’re in the middle of a war with these animals. They somehow have come to the conclusion that if we only sit down and talk with them, treat them civilly, give them their one phone call, court-appointed lawyers, it’ll all go away. We just don’t CARE about them enough.
Priest is right… kill ‘em all and let God sort them out.
dalewalt on September 20, 2006 at 10:59 AM
And you never prosecute people for war crimes until AFTER the war is over; ‘cept the moonbats don’t want us to hold terrorists until after the war (which, c’mon, could take decades). But if we put them on trial, granting them the full protections of the Constitution, they could xfer that knowledge to others, and that knowledge (intelligence methods, resources, etc) could be used against us.
We’re really in a Catch-22 folks. But the answer is NOT to grant foreign-born “terrorist-suspects” (happy Mark?) Constitutional protections.
dalewalt on September 20, 2006 at 11:05 AM
This is a sad end of a patriotic family that has helped protect Americas shores. John’s refusal to recognise a war to the death with an soon to be nuclear armed enemy is hard to reconcile. John and the rest of the trifecta fail to realize that, if we are all dead, there will be no further wars.
EricPWJohnson on September 20, 2006 at 11:21 AM
Mark Jaquith on September 20, 2006 at 10:44 AM pay attention here:
Exactly! We will then HOLD them as either PUC or POW’s and grant them trials AFTER the war has ended.
Got it? After the war on terror is declared, by a president of the United States, to be over.
shooter on September 20, 2006 at 11:30 AM
Sorry, Jaquith,
your lefty sensibilities seem to get the best of you in this forum. Once again, you have compared the military justice system of United States and its application by our government to the justice system of the Indonesian Muslim Nutbag Front. This would be out of bounds even if you were joking.
This puts you in an idealogical tie with the nuttiest of the nutbag left: Chomski, Zinn, the DU dhimmi-dummies, the Kos Kids, Moore, Carter, et al.
Nice…
Jaibones on September 20, 2006 at 11:35 AM
This smells like another “the sky is falling” vent. I am starting to think that W is looking for some retroactive cover for things he shouldn’t have/didn’t have the authority to ok. Oh what a tangled web….
honora on September 20, 2006 at 11:41 AM
You don’t think that the CIA is a Federal agency?
JasonG on September 20, 2006 at 11:42 AM
Great idea Shooter, but that’ll only last until the next Dimocrat (or RINO like McCain) gets elected.
dalewalt on September 20, 2006 at 12:04 PM
youu know what Mark J. why don’t you eefing liberals come out and say “Yes , we do support the terrorists rights & are loyal to Osama Bin Laden” if you liberals hate this country so much , then GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!!!!
Starblazer on September 20, 2006 at 12:08 PM
again, if the liberals come into power in the House / Senate & even the White House, then we might as well convert to Islam
Starblazer on September 20, 2006 at 12:10 PM
honestly. you liberal are just as dangerous as the terrorists
Starblazer on September 20, 2006 at 12:12 PM
correction - Honestly, you liberals are just as dangerous as the terrorists are.
Starblazer on September 20, 2006 at 12:13 PM
Who’s suggesting that? Not McCain. Not I.
Not a lefty. Try again.
No, I called attention to the double standard. Michelle refers to terrorism suspects held by the U.S. as “terrorists” and to terrorism suspects held by Indonesia as “Christians.” She calls attention to the alleged unfairness of their trial, but brushes aside people who suggest that our terrorism suspects be allowed to see the evidence that implicates them. Why are unfair trials proposed by the Bush administration more acceptable than unfair trials proposed by “Indonesian Muslim Nutbags” ? Can you give me an answer that doesn’t use the term “Indonesian Muslim Nutbags” ?
Stop thinking. It’s in the Specter “give them everything they want” bill. It gives retroactive immunity going back to the conception of FISA in 1978.
Still not a liberal. I support the rights of accused international terrorists not to be tortured, and to be given a fair trial. That is our obligation as signatories of the Geneva Convention, and as a moral law-based people with an understanding of the difference between justice and revenge. It’s not because I hate this country… on the contrary, it is because I love this country and its principles more than I hate terrorists. And that’s saying something, because I really hate terrorists.
Mark Jaquith on September 20, 2006 at 12:26 PM
That was NOT miranda they read to Daniel Pearl.
Reality Check on September 20, 2006 at 12:31 PM
only liberals support terrorists rights. liberals are a danger to this country as are the same terrorsist that you liberals want to defend & who want to kill every single american including you. i used to be a democrat untill i watched Fox News since 9/11 & learned the truth about the liberal democrats.
Starblazer on September 20, 2006 at 12:33 PM
remember this liberal - terrorists don’t give a rats -a** about the geneva conventions.
Starblazer on September 20, 2006 at 12:34 PM
Well I guess this pretty much means the Armed Services will have to do away with Basic Training and it certainly makes Infantry training out of the question. From now on I guess all recruits get a Laz Boy recliner, a good book, and climate controlled dorm rooms. No beer of course since that is also illegal until you are 21.
Where does the idiocy end? When a plane or a suicide bomber finally manages to succeed right in the halls of Congress?
Wiretaps = No Go
Tracking finances = No Go
Interogattions = No Go
Profiling = No Go
Why the heck don’t we just give every jihadists a map and 20 lbs of C4?
/Arggghhh no one to defend me but me
LakeRuins on September 20, 2006 at 12:36 PM
It is the secular liberal left that is most defending the rights of Islamic Fascist.
And when the Islamic Fascist take over, the first group they will target for subjugation and death are…
drum roll…
the secular liberal left.
How much more ironic can this get?
.
Lawrence on September 20, 2006 at 12:40 PM
Excellent Vent as usual! As usual I see Mr. Jaquith is saying that because he really hates the terrorists we must show them our country is more principled. Well, Mark if they come after you, do you think they’ll give you GC rights? McCain and Warner have been in combat as have I. I believe Graham was a JAG. Unlike the television show, very few JAG Offiers are ever in combat. As my daughter’s military eye doc said “those of us in the medical corp and Jag corp (his wife) aren’t really in the military, we just fix up and save the lives that the bad guys try to destroy & make sure the right people have the POA’s and correct wills”. Why these Senators are doing this is beyond me. I can tell you this, Mark and all the other liberal trolls that my husband saw what remained of Pvts Menchacha & Tucker and was part of the crew that had to guard their remains until they could become unbooby trapped. All he said was “It was terrible what they did and I don’t want to talk or think about it anymore”. Mr. Jaquith-would you rather KSM not have been waterboarded and innocent people die? Well take comfort in your pious words. I’m sure we’ll miss many terrorist plots now and you and all the others like you can take comfort in the fact that people like KSM had a hot meal while innocents died.
Catie96706 on September 20, 2006 at 12:50 PM
Mark said
Wrong Mark; as terrorists, notuniformed soldiers of another country, the Geneva Convention doesn’t cover their status.
dalewalt on September 20, 2006 at 1:05 PM
Michelle points out that the terrorists didn’t sign the Treaty. I hate to temind her, being that she seems to depise our international commitments, but WE did sign it. Regardless of the rules that our enemies employ, we have commited to the terms of the treaty. She also says that they pertain to two NATIONS fighting. In fact, common article 3 pertains to any and ALL persons captured during any and ALL conflicts, regardless of nation status. They are baseline protections guaranteed to every human-being on the face of the earth. You conservatives that are frothing at the mouth over the insistence that we adhere to a treaty that we signed, know that the terrorists will get theirs once they are put into the general population. Calm down a bit. Justice will be had.
shackler on September 20, 2006 at 1:14 PM
That’s not what I’m saying at all. Why don’t you quote me instead of talking for me? It’s rather hard for me to debate when you’re providing both sides of the argument.
Of course they won’t give me GC rights… but that’s not why we shouldn’t torture our prisoners. It’s not to show them anything. They obviously don’t give a shit. It is for our country’s own benefit that we shouldn’t torture and that we shouldn’t break our laws. We can fight terrorists without succumbing to barbarism and lawlessness, and by doing so, we both protect the people of this country and the things that this country stands for.
If you’re all for torture — and your reliance on “if we don’t, people will die” types of arguments tend to suggest that you are, why don’t you just recommend that we drop out of the Geneva Convention?
Mark Jaquith on September 20, 2006 at 1:15 PM
McVain has overplayed his “maverick” hand this time. I’m so going to love watching him get destroyed in primary after primary in ‘08, as the blogosphere provides us with enough memory that we will not forget his numerous transgressions against both the conservative base and against the country as a whole, all for the sake of his own self-aggrandizement.
Mark “No, I’m not really a liberal who loves to use any excuse to bash Bush and hinder the effort in the war against terrorists… honest!” Jaquith. wrote:
Trust me Mark, terrorists love people like you, because you make their job soooo much easier.
How do you say “useful idiot” in Arabic?
thirteen28 on September 20, 2006 at 1:16 PM
Good point Michelle! Isn’t it reasonable to only apply the Geneva convention to other countries that signed the treaty? It seems like that would clear everything up in one fell swoop.
Kevin M on September 20, 2006 at 1:16 PM
Yes it does. Consult Shackler’s post, right below yours. Consult the Rumsfeld v. Hamdan decision. They don’t have the rights that uniformed soldiers would have, but they are afforded some rights under the Geneva Convention.
Mark Jaquith on September 20, 2006 at 1:18 PM
Shackler said:
Sorry Shackler, but you’re just parroting what you’ve heard before. Michelle’s correct. Here’s a summation of Geneva Convention #3, Article 4, which defines what a prisoner of war is. Care to tell me which of these your average terrorist falls under?
dalewalt on September 20, 2006 at 1:20 PM
The issue here is torture and the fairness of trials, which are only issues once they have been captured. Once captured, they have failed in their job.
Mark Jaquith on September 20, 2006 at 1:23 PM
Oh, and we’re not “frothing at the mouth over the insistence that we adhere to a treaty that we signed”; we’re saying that the terrorists are not considered prisoners of war the Geneva Convention; so the treaty does not apply to them.
Idiot.
dalewalt on September 20, 2006 at 1:23 PM
Wrong Mark, even if they’re captured, they’ve still accomplished at least part of their mission, which is to terrorize
dalewalt on September 20, 2006 at 1:24 PM
Isn’t this what the SCOTUS addressed in June re GITMO?????
honora on September 20, 2006 at 1:30 PM
dalewalt,
Mark Jaquith on September 20, 2006 at 1:31 PM
Well Mark, please explain to me why you believe that the terrorists will adhere to GC. Waterboarding is not torture and sorry if you feel that way. Are we cutting off fingers, one digit at a time, are we pulling out their nails one at a time? Again, I could go on but if you feel that I’m all for torture-where did I say that-I didn’t you’re putting words in my mouth-I was just asking if you would rather see KSM waterboarded (which again all special ops and intelligence officers do go through a lot of aspects of torture including waterboarding) or would you rather see him being given a tea party and a hot meal while we miss something and people die? I don’t advocate torture but it does seem sometimes like it is torture to deal with those of you who are so pious and believe that those of us who disagree with you are some type of gung ho for toruture stooges. As for your
statement that may be true but they may also have some info we could find helpful. Again, would you rather see people die then some terrorists waterboarded. If indeed that is the case-let’s hope it’s not but if it is then again you can take comfort in your piety while innocents suffer.
Catie96706 on September 20, 2006 at 1:32 PM
What’s your point? We should lean towards killing the enemy in the battlefield instead of trying to take them alive? If so, we’re in agreement, but that’s a separate issue.
Mark Jaquith on September 20, 2006 at 1:33 PM
Never mind that, as Michelle already exposed with the Lynne Stewart example, fair trials for terrorists can potentially reap great intelligence benefits for the other terrorists.
Really, suppose we give a “fair” trial to a terrorist, let him have access to all the classified intelligence that was used against him, and then he gets off on a technicality - do you really think he’s NOT going to go back and spill everything he knows to others? Or is that an acceptable risk to you so you can feel good about yourself for standing on the moral high ground?
thirteen28 on September 20, 2006 at 1:38 PM
Miranda rights for terrorists captured overseas!? My jaw just about hit my keyboard.
“Civil” rights for non-civilians? You’re kidding me, right?
Limiting the means by which we can extract information, and then publishing (or leaking to the media) the exact list of “approved methods”, so our enemies may study them and train to resist them? Brilliant.
This armchair quarterbacking in Washington is going to get us killed.
Dave Shay on September 20, 2006 at 1:38 PM
When did you stop beating your boyfriend? When did you start worshiping Satan? Why do you hate black people? etc.
Yes, in fact. It’s slippery-slopism applied to McCain’s anti-torture amendment. McCain has not, to my knowledge (and certainly not in his proposed amendment) advocated either of these things.
Mark Jaquith on September 20, 2006 at 1:46 PM
Mark J. / honora & Shackler are entitled to “their opinions” no matter how stupid / moronic / insulting / pro terrorists they are.
Starblazer on September 20, 2006 at 1:51 PM
oh yeah & also anti-american as well
Starblazer on September 20, 2006 at 1:52 PM
Is that really the best you can come up with? Are you seriously suggesting that the terrorists would adhere to the GC?
Wow. This is stunning naivate.
thirteen28 on September 20, 2006 at 1:55 PM
Don’t try sweet-talking me now. Comes the revolution you’ll be guarding an abortion clinic and giving back rubs to terrorists when not burning flags and ushering at gay weddings. Hope you like sushi and Merlot.
honora on September 20, 2006 at 1:59 PM
I disagree with Michelle here. Being American isn’t only tied to our geogrphic location, it’s tied to our morals and values. I don’t care if those heathens adhere to the GC or not, but the moment we do not to any of our captors we are no better than they are, and we’ve lost sight on what we are truely fighting for…ridding of the world of evil.
I am not opposed to absolutely putting a wave of death and destruction upon those who fight us, but mistreating the prisoners we get is not the right way. That is what seperated us from our Nazi thug foes in World War II.
As a former military member I certainly want to kill these guys everytime they kill any prisoner…but stooping to their level makes us no better than the jihadis…
bentman78 on September 20, 2006 at 2:01 PM
Was it an acceptable risk when Nazis stood trial? Is it an acceptable risk when mobsters stand trial? What if Timothy McVeigh had gotten off on a technicality?
This isn’t some silly nit-picking moral high ground. It’s a fairly fundamental, and broad moral point: do you want justice, with the possibility that there may not be enough evidence to get a conviction, or do you want to just automatically kill anyone and everyone whom the government thinks is a terrorist? Many have already been released because of insufficient (or no) evidence, or because they were arrested based on a name similarity. Should they have been summarily executed?
Execute all suspected terrorists, and accept that some innocent people will be killed?
Or…
Try all suspected terrorists, and accept that some guilty people will be let free?
I’d love to debate some more, but I have errands to run. Keep it civil, and stay away from straw man fallacies.
Mark Jaquith on September 20, 2006 at 2:02 PM
What intelligence data pertinent to an ongoing war was given any of the accused in the instances you cite? And bringing mobsters into is ridiculous, since that is clearly an issue of criminal law, not an issue of war and national security.
Yes it is. It’s you and your McVainiac ilk wanting to feel superior to everybody else.
I want our enemies defeated, whatever it takes.
Way to shift the goalposts there (with a nice mischaracterization thrown in for good measure). I ask you whether or not we should leave a 747-sized intelligence loophole for terrorists to take advantage of, and you come back with suff about summary executions and name similarities.
In other words, you really can’t address the point Michelle made and repeated in my post, so you run away … which further illustrates your moral posturing. As demonstrate even further by this false choice you give, which is not even germane to the question I asked:
Didn’t you say to another poster earlier that you would like to see them get killed on the battlefield? That’s tantamount to choosing option #1, is it not?
There really is no issue on #2 as you have stated it, it has more to do with the procedures of conducting such a trial - and whether or not you allow them to have access to information that is classified and potentially useful to terrorists. I say no, for reasons adequately demonstrated in today’s Vent, and if that means it’s less fair to terrorists, well boo freakin’ hoo.
Practice what you preach, Mr. Compares-Prosecuting-Mobsters-To-War.
thirteen28 on September 20, 2006 at 2:26 PM
Mark, I fully understand your arguments. But I am not willing to accept that some murdering, psychotic, terrorist wackos will be let free. Knowing full well they will simply return to their murderous activities.
We are not talking about U.S. citizens that are accused of a defined legal crime. We are talking about a rogue international network of thugs striving to destroy Western civilization.
These thugs are not citizens under the protection of our constitution and laws. Maybe they fall within your ideal of moral responsibility, but not within mine. They are not signatories to the Geneva Convention. They are not even waging a just or legal war in the context of the Geneva Convention.
They are so far out in left field that we don’t even have rules or laws by which to deal with them, and they are taking full advantage of it. By trying to squeeze these thugs into the existing set rules of law we are playing right into their hands. We are paralyzing ourselves with our own morally superior egotism. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Lawrence on September 20, 2006 at 2:35 PM
As another former military member, I ask what does that have to do with anything in this argument?
thirteen28 on September 20, 2006 at 2:36 PM
Did I mention that Michelle looks ho-oooo-ot in pink?
Lawrence on September 20, 2006 at 2:37 PM
That I’m not a lefty noodleback….
bentman78 on September 20, 2006 at 2:45 PM
Just to clarify from my above response to Mark, trying all suspected terrorists is fine - letting guilty ones go free is not.
thirteen28 on September 20, 2006 at 2:47 PM
Maybe some of you who agree with McCain, et al, can help me with terminology. What acts have U.S. combatants engaged in that you would consider torture?
Would you be in favor of turning over intel that would put American lives at risk?
Bic on September 20, 2006 at 2:48 PM
So what then do you consider “stooping to their level”?
thirteen28 on September 20, 2006 at 2:49 PM
Mark,
I think I see your problem clearly, now. The link you provided to DaleWalt to prove that terrorists are protected under article 3 of the Geneva Conventions specifies … drum roll … civilians.
Now, you can call Al Qaeda-Hezbollah-Hamas-Mujahedeen maggots civilians if you want, but that doesn’t make it true.
Jaibones on September 20, 2006 at 2:50 PM
thanks for proving my point, honora
Starblazer on September 20, 2006 at 3:06 PM
liberals want the U.S. to be “nice” to terrorists around the world, so that they can be “nice” to us & try not to kill americans either.
Starblazer on September 20, 2006 at 3:08 PM
All of this will be moot when Frist filibusters the McVain bs. He already said that the bill is dead if offered as it appears it will be. It will be nice to see McVain dealt a bit of his own medicine. McVain lost his sanity in ‘Nam. Their techniques seem to work well. The thought of that guy, with his seething anger just under the surface, and access to “the button” is a truly scary thought. I hope he gets spanked out of the primary running.
It seems like law enforcement can do more to “suspects” than our own intelligence these days.
and honora-Merlot and sushi? Yuck! Haven’t your palates matured yet, to Pinot Noir, Mourvedre, perhaps Roussanne? Personally I like whites better with sushi, but sushi is gross. Ever since I cleaned a chinook and found a thin worm coursing through its flesh, I knew raw fish, even “sushi grade” was a bad thing to eat. Darwinism, I guess.
NTWR on September 20, 2006 at 4:50 PM
Of course not. I never said that. Ergo my example responses along the lines of “when did you stop beating your wife?” It’s a cheap courtroom trick, and I was objecting to its use on me.
So put them on trial in 4 years, when the information you have on them is no longer of use.
Not if killed in battle. If executed, then yes, but I’m not advocating battlefield executions of prisoners or surrendering hostiles.
If they don’t have access to evidence, they cannot put up a defense. It’s battlefield execution with a mock court song-and-dance routine as an appetizer.
That view could have saved a bit of debate.
Lawrence,
We’ve adapted, somewhat, but you’re right, they don’t quite fit. Rather: they fit, but they have too much wiggle room. I’m interested in solutions, but the current administration’s policy of “shoot first, sort out legality later” is dangerous. Terrorist pose a mortal threat to the people they target, no doubt, but their threat is not an existential threat. At least, not like the ones posed by the Soviets or the Japanese. America is going to endure, regardless of terrorism, so our actions now have to be based on that. It’s frustrating that terrorists don’t obey established rules of combat and that they leverage our freedom against us, but if our attitude is one of “damn the consequences, kill them at all costs,” the fallout will be severe. In essence, we shouldn’t fight like it’s our last fight.
thirteen 28,
And to clarify myself, when I said “guilty” I meant in the absolute sense, not in the “ruled guilty” sense. And if you mean guilty in the absolute sense, we’re back to the pointlessness of trials, because absolute guilt cannot be known.
Jailbones,
You’re absolutely correct… I linked the wrong one. In any case, you should consult Rumsfeld v. Hamdan for the full reasoning. It’s dense… but here’s the meat:
Mark Jaquith on September 20, 2006 at 5:27 PM
Mark, what are you talking about???
Our soldiers have to wait to be fired upon before taking action these days.
Why don’t you ask the Pendleton 8 Marine POW’s about that?
The rules of engagement are crazy when we’re dealing with enemies that consistently use children as human shields.
The big question is; who will defend our enemies during a time of war? The ACLU will, that enemy of the state. That’s who. If it weren’t for them, we wouldn’t have Ginsburg ruling on the Hamdan case, which the more ethical Roberts recused himself of, making it a de-facto liberal win. We wouldn’t have any of these issues if there weren’t traitors among us in the legal system! DISBAND THE ACLU!
NTWR on September 20, 2006 at 5:44 PM
I think you just cut right to the essence of this debate, and why Mark is so hopelessly wrong on it.
Mark and his ilk would give the benefit of the doubt to our enemies who want to kill us and destroy our way of life (including the civil liberties he holds so dear). The rest of us would give the benefit of the doubt to our government over instead of our enemies.
I understand the necessity to be suspicious of government power and to hold government accountable (that’s why we have the 2nd amendment). But when there are those out there that are trying to destory our government, our society, indeed our whole way of life including the aforementioned civil liberties, the burden of proof shifts to the terrorists.
More Mark:
The analogy sucked like a brand new vacuum cleaner. You could have at least explained why you think we should adhere to the GC when we are facing an enemy that is neither covered by the GC nor is willing to abide by any of its provisions.
And what if the war isn’t over by then? It’s already been ongoing for more than 5 years with no end in sight? Is a civil-libertarian such as yourself willing to detain these guys for what could potentially become decades?
If they, as non-uniformed combatants, are captured on the battlefield engaging our forces then their guilt is firmly established from the outset. The trial in such a situation is a the real mockery since it claims to be in pursuit of a fact that is already firmly established.
Do you think the ongoing trial of Saddam is really a search for the truth? Do you not know the real truth that is already out there?
Furthermore, their right to mount a defense is trumped by the right of this country and its citizens to protect vital intelligence in our own defense. OUR DEFENSE TRUMPS THEIRS!! Get it?
Apparently not.
That statement by you more than anything else you’ve said makes it clear how complete and utter your failure to understand this conflict and the nature of our enemy, who will no doubt fight like it’s their last fight to the very end … and who will win if we don’t. Your overconfidence that we can just swat them away like flies that are a nuiscance on a hot summer day sounds like it came right out of the John Kerry school of islamic terrorism as a law enforcment problem.
thirteen28 on September 20, 2006 at 6:23 PM
No one is suggesting summary execution on our part, even though assuredly deserved on their part.They have access to evidence, to suggest otherwise is not true. The question is should they have access to evidence deemed to be vital to national security. The innocent will have no problem in proving they are so. It is only the guilty and for them I have no mercy. They certainly have access to their own exonerating or incriminating evidence. Let them produce it.
This is War. War is hell, you cannot refine it. In trying to refine it we only increase our chance of defeat.
That the Supreme Court has once more created liberal fiction is to be expected until more justices respecting the constitution for what it says, not for an imagined living breathing document find their way to the bench.
The President is trying to work within the parameters of those fictitious guidlines, and Senator McCain and those of his ilk are playing politics without any substance or merit.
There was an excellent discussion on the Dennis Prager show this day. I would suggest you listen to it, instead of offering comfort and aid to our enemies.
MarkB on September 20, 2006 at 6:58 PM
MarkB,
Well said. You are spot on.
Lawrence on September 20, 2006 at 7:38 PM
LAWRENCE-
Actually, after formal, fast field tribunals, I was for executions.
In wartime, the point is to survive.
And, when the enemy follows no rules but destroy the infidels, battling them effectively means that: playing too-strictly by the “civilized world’s rules” may doom you to be so morally circumspect that all you win is a very clean, very smug tombstone. And dirty, but happy terrorist-victors dancing around iyour pathetic cenotaph.
I’ll take a slightly-”morally-tainted” existence (even if it means kicking a terrorist in the balls with steel-toed boots if that would prevent a WMD attack which saves hundreds of thousands… or millions… of lives) over the perfectly pristine pussyfooting death of our Civilization .
profitsbeard on September 20, 2006 at 11:17 PM
Well reasoned argument Mark. My response:
First. “Shoot first” is not the administrations policy. Even down to the rules of engagement for the troops on the ground, they can’t even fire first. The straw-man argument here is yours, my friend.
Second. This is much more insidious than the dangers posed by Stalinist Soviets and Imperial Japan. Soviets and Japan wished primarily to render us subservient on a political scale. Secondarily on an economic scale. This Islamic Fascist terrorist movement seeks to render us subservient on a political scale, a economic scale, a cultural scale, and a religious/existential scale. Right down to the details of redefining the roles of men and women in society and marriage. Even defining a class system for chosen races, subservient races, and races that must be exterminated. And they don’t care if they have to destroy world civilizations to do it. The Soviets and Imperial Japan did some bad stuff, but even they stopped when it came to this level of hate and destruction.
Lawrence on September 21, 2006 at 9:17 AM
I’m not sure that I would consider this “morally-tainted”.
If I’m fighting to the death I’m going want to defeat the enemy in the easiest and most expeditious manner possible.
If I capture him, and lock him up. Then I am willing to be at least humane. But giving him every opportunity to use the legal system to escape is just plain foolish.
I think what we should try with these thugs in Gitmo is to feed them with so much food that they get so fat they can’t pose a threat.
We can certainly coerce intelligence out of people, but a few simple drugs (even alcohol) can get the tongue wagging pretty fast. This kind of interrogation seems a lot more humane than anything else we have discussed.
But, I’m sure Mark will present an argument detailing how this is illegal.
;)
Lawrence on September 21, 2006 at 9:25 AM
I didn’t mean actual shooting… I meant actions, programs. NSA warrantless wiretap program for example.
In their intentions, yes, as you adequately argued. But it takes more than intentions to bring about a goal. They have the will, but not the means.
No no, I like it. Give ‘em a couple shots of Jack D’s, and see where things go. We can call it the Shots for Plots program. ;-)
Thirteen28,
They’re covered by it. You can argue that you don’t think they should be covered by it, and I’d listen to that argument, but the fact is that they are covered. Not fully, but somewhat. And again, their willingness to abide by the GC is irrelevant. You could argue that maybe it should be relevant, and that if an enemy violates the GC, we should be able to violate likewise, but that would require a change in the GC.
I’m just arguing based on the state of the GC now.
Well, we should definitely be letting go the ones we won’t be able to prosecute when this is over (and have done so, for many already). But if we think that we can prosecute a given terror suspect once it is all said and done… yeah, we should hang on to them. Better that they wait for a fair trial, don’t you think?
Were that the case, yes. It is not the case. We’ve already let several people go who had no Taliban/al-Qaeda connections.
They don’t have the weapons required to beat us militarily. They don’t have the numbers required to subjugate us.
I understand their intentions well. It’s not going to happen. That’s why they’re fighting like they’re losing… because they can’t win.
Mark Jaquith on September 22, 2006 at 2:55 AM