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.

I didn’t mean actual shooting… I meant actions, programs. NSA warrantless wiretap program for example.

Second. This is much more insidious than the dangers posed by Stalinist Soviets and Imperial Japan.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

Were that the case, yes. It is not the case. We’ve already let several people go who had no Taliban/al-Qaeda connections.

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.

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.

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

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.
;)

. 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.

Mark Jaquith on September 20, 2006 at 5:27 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.

[...] Miranda rights for terrorists?!
The trap ; Geneva Contention
Applying Geneva will destroy it
Download Vent for your iPod
…

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 .

Well said. You are spot on.

The opponents of clarifying this gross vagary are claiming that any attempt to define article 3 section C is tantamount to altering the Geneva Convention itself. However the Geneva Convention has already been fundamentally altered by the United State…..

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.

The big question is; who will defend our enemies during a time of war?

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:

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.

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.

So put them on trial in 4 years, when the information you have on them is no longer of use.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

the current administration’s policy of “shoot first, sort out legality later” is dangerous.

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!

Is that really the best you can come up with? Are you seriously suggesting that the terrorists would adhere to the GC?

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.

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.

So put them on trial in 4 years, when the information you have on them is no longer of use.

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?

Not if killed in battle. If executed, then yes, but I’m not advocating battlefield executions of prisoners or surrendering hostiles.

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.

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.

I want our enemies defeated, whatever it takes.

That view could have saved a bit of debate.

Lawrence,

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’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,

Just to clarify from my above response to Mark, trying all suspected terrorists is fine – letting guilty ones go free is not.

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,

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.

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:

Common Article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory who are involved in a conflict “in the territory of” a signatory.

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.

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.

That I’m not a lefty noodleback….

So what then do you consider “stooping to their level”?

Try all suspected terrorists, and accept that some guilty people will be let free?

Just to clarify from my above response to Mark, trying all suspected terrorists is fine – letting guilty ones go free is not.

As another former military member, I ask what does that have to do with anything in this argument?

That I’m not a lefty noodleback….

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…

As another former military member, I ask what does that have to do with anything in this argument?

Try all suspected terrorists, and accept that some guilty people will be let free?

Mark Jaquith on September 20, 2006 at 2:02 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.

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?

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.

This isn’t some silly nit-picking moral high ground.

Yes it is. It’s you and your McVainiac ilk wanting to feel superior to everybody else.

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?

I want our enemies defeated, whatever it takes.

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?

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:

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?

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.

I’d love to debate some more, but I have errands to run. Keep it civil, and stay away from straw man fallacies.

Practice what you preach, Mr. Compares-Prosecuting-Mobsters-To-War.

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?

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.