Lincoln issued an order to the southern forces: for every negro soldier executed upon capture, one captive confederate soldier would be executed.

This order, and its practice, stopped further warcrimes.

Spies, saboteurs and terrorists- as at Gitmo- are a different class of prisoner from mere uniformed soldiers. They require a layer of top secret security to prevent them from transmitting strike orders.

And they can either be executed as too unstable a threat, -or imprisoned until the might be used in some meaningful prisoner exchange (if they can restrain their homicidal impulses) …or the unconditional surrender of his imperialistic cult.

They’re serious.

Time we were.

So yes, I believe that Habeus Corpus is a natural human right. I believe that it is immoral for a government to imprison someone, take away their freedom, based on an assumption of guilt. Call me crazy, but I still believe that freedom is worth something, and not just so it can be afforded to Americans, but so that it can be afforded to all people.

Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 3:05 PM

So, let me get this straight: Let’s say our troops (who are representatives of our government) detain a man after he engaged in an ambush on them. He’s not wearing a uniform. He can’t say where his unit is, or even that he belongs to a military unit at all. So, based on the strong suspicion that he qualifies as what the laws of war describe as an “unlawful combatant” the troops bundle him off to Gitmo, where a military tribunal will determine his status.

[As an aside, note that throughout history when some dude in civilian clothes gets caught fighting uniformed soldiers, his "due process" has been a quick-and-dirty proceeding near to where he was apprehended; his "judge" would be the commander of the unit that took him, and his "jury" would be the soldiers who'd say, "Yeah, that's the guy."

Whereupon he'd be promptly stood up against a wall and shot.

Or as John Wayne so succintly and memorably put it in The Green Berets, "Out here, 'due process' is a bullet!"]

Returning to our scenario, while at Gitmo waiting for the tribunal, our detainee gets treated pretty much like we’d treat any prisoner of war captured in uniform:

- He reads the Koran we provided him with, and prays five times daily on the prayer rug we gave him.

- He complains to the medic who regularly checks on his health about how he’s getting fat from all the Halal food he’s being fed three times a day.

- Oh, and the soccer ball we provided him and his buddies for use during their recreation periods isn’t inflated enough. He complains about that, too.

Where’s a civil rights lawyer when you need one?

- Yet in the World of Nonfactor, by not summarily executing this man where he was captured in civilian clothes, but instead treating him like a regular POW, we’re committing a human rights violation by denying him “Habeas Corpus” … simply because Nonfactor evidently believes that our Constitution’s Bill of Rights applies to everyone, everywhere.

Why, the founding fathers said so themselves! Didn’t they? I must’ve been sleeping in class the day we covered that in Constitutional Law back in law school.

I must’ve been napping again when we got to that part of the “Law of Land Warfare” training I received when I was a Civil Affairs Officer. Dang!

I’m sure that if I’d only stayed awake, or perhaps if Nonfactor had been my instructor, I’d have learned how to avoid battlefiled human rights violations:

1. Don’t deprive anyone of his freedom, even if he’s just tried to kill you.

2. Don’t “assume guilt.” Maybe he had a good reason why he was shooting at you; maybe you remind him of someone who owes him money or something. How are you to know? Don’t assume anything.

3. Write him a ticket, make sure he understands the charges and knows when and where his arraignment is. Since you can’t “deprive him of his freedom based on an assumption of guilt,” just hope he shows up at the appointed date and time.

- If he doesn’t show? Well, hey, at least you can still look at yourself in the mirror knowing that the founders would be proud of you for carrying out their intent.

4. Better yet, get somebody like Nonfactor to do all of the above for you. Try not to laugh too hard when he gets shot in the face at some point in the process, because he might think you’re violating his rights.

Millions will die unless we smash these guys without mercy.

Why is this a red herring? You are preposterously arguing that US criminal law should apply to terrorist combatants caught on the battlefield. Miranda warnings are part of that law. It appears that even you balk at the ridiculous implications of your position.

It’s ridiculous to conduct war like it’s police work. You can’t send in lawyers to read the Germans their Miranda rights before the army lands on Normandy Beach. You can’t collect evidence of every German soldiers guilt as the battle rages. You can not have jury trials for every combatant captured where evidence is presented and the possibility exists of releasing such combatants to kill more Americans. Your position is so hammer-headed stupid it’s a wonder you can present it with a straight face.

Nonfactor: “So yes, I believe that Habeus Corpus is a natural human right. I believe that it is immoral for a government to imprison someone, take away their freedom, based on an assumption of guilt. Call me crazy, but I still believe that freedom is worth something, and not just so it can be afforded to Americans, but so that it can be afforded to all people.”

Was it immoral for us to imprison the Japanese and German prisoners until WWII was over? Is it immoral to imprison a jihadi captured on the battlefield after killing a special forces medic with a grenade until the jihad is over? Why?

Non sequitur. Habeus corpus applies to US citizens, not enemy combatants in a war. We did not have to present evidence for German and Japanese prisoners captured on the battlefield to justify their incarceration. We do not need to present evidence for terrorists captured abroad making war on America to justify imprisoning them. You are incorrectly applying US domestic law to a situation covered by international law.

Why are you arguing that terrorists should have more rights than legitimate combatants who are held for the duration of a war?

It appears that you are inventing rights for terrorists so as to hamstring our defense against them.

Would you like to name one who is not a terrorist? The military has whittled down the population of prisoners at Gitmo to the hard core. The rest have been released or sent home, which they dreaded more than Gitmo, except for some Chinese Uighars who are in a legal limbo.

Nonfactor: “My argument is that the founding fathers would believe that all people are deserving of natural human rights (life, liberty, and property).”

You are incorrectly applying the rights of citizens to illegal enemy combatants. They are two distinct classes. When we send the military to war against such people, the Constitution does not recognize the enemy’s right to life, liberty, nor property. The whole point of making war is to deprive the enemy of their lives, liberty, and property. How can you not know this?

The founding fathers had no trouble hanging British Major John Andre as a spy when caught in mufti carrying incrimininating papers during the Revolutionary War, a far lesser offense than actively trying to kill American civilians of which the terrorists are guilty. Based on the founding father’s standard, any treatment gentler than hanging for terrorists is generous.

Tantor: “Under the Geneva Convention, such combatants are considered spies who can be summarily shot.”
Nonfactor: “So we’re a nation that should follow the Geneva Convention now? And implicit in this quote is the belief that all people in Guantanamo Bay are terrorists, simply not true.”

When have we not followed the Geneva Convention? Who are these innocent Gitmo prisoners of whom you are so fond? The world wants to know.

Nonfactor: “I’ve addressed this. People in most United States jails have it pretty good by those standards, but you won’t find me clamoring to be sent to jail. The criticism from me is not what physical things they have, but about what political freedoms they’re afforded.”

They deserve no political freedoms because they are terrorists who perpetrate violence outside international law. Curtailment of your political freedoms is the risk you take when you bomb civilians to propagate your religion. How odd it is that you worry about the infringement of political freedom of jihadis when the Islamist program is all about the infringement of political freedom. You’re on the wrong side of this argument.

Tantor: “What if we were to apply the leftist demands for trials and such for these terrorists to other conflicts?”
Nonfactor: “I smell a red herring.”
Tantor: “Should we have brought all the German and Japanese…”
Nonfactor: “I was right.”

Actually, you’re wrong. If you think terrorists should not be held to the same standard as legal combatants, state your case instead of dodging the argument. Why do you think terrorists deserve MORE rights than legal combatants such as the German and Japanese prisoners of WWII? Why do you think they should be released before their side has ceased hostilities? Why do you think the jihadis should not be required to comply with the Geneva Convention?

Sorry, I don’t usually answer red herrings so obvious…

everyone has the right to go before a judge and be proven guilty before they are locked up in a prison for an indefinite amount of time.

You believe in due process but to cite an accepted rule of that due process is a red herring? It is an inconvenient truth that your beliefs include ideas whose application would be unpopular, inefficient and inconsistent with the entire history of warfare. Would alleged terrorists captured on the battlefield have the right to subpoena the soldiers that captured them and recall them from the front to cross examine at their trials? Would soldiers need to secure warrants and have probable cause in order for evidence to be admissable at these trials? To demand due process and ignore the fact that there are rules associated with the processes which you demand is naive.

On the plus side, soldiers would no longer need body armor, they could just use all the paper they will have to carry in order to fight the GWOT to stop the bullets.

I think the Democrats would free most of the detainees and grant the rest the full rights of US citizens to trial, given the chance.

Why stop there? They’re practically Americans already.

I really think we’re getting to the point where we are going to have to defeat the left definitively in the political arena in order to be able to focus on actually winning the war against the Jihadis.

Same war, different fronts.

Okay, this is getting really old. How many times do I need to repeat for you: “all people in Guantanamo Bay are not terrorists.”

Not all pizza shop owners in Cherry Hill are terrorists either. I’d prefer to find out who’s who by interrogation at Guitmo, rather than waiting for thousands of people to die or 60 story buildings falling over.

These liberal dopes are upset over the treatment of prisoners at Guitmo, yet they celebrate the sentencing of Libby to 30 months in jail for committing perjury in the investigation of a crime that was never a crime, and hence never should have been investigated.

Lady Justice is deaf, dumb and blind.

In the end, you believe that they should be given a trial by jury. Do you also believe that they should be given Miranda warnings on the battlefield?

Sorry, I don’t usually answer red herrings so obvious.

I would be hesitant to assert that the founding fathers would agree that “rights” are not specifically reserved for Americans, when the founding fathers did not extend “rights” to all people living in the US at the time that the Constitution was adopted.

rw on June 6, 2007 at 2:49 PM

I agree, and I’m one of the first to say I don’t take Jefferson as a complete moral authority when even he didn’t renounce his slaves on his deathbed, but unlike modern feminists I’m not willing to abandon all principles of traditional Liberalism because the people who purported it were racist or sexist. There are still good ideas in Liberalism, and if you view the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Federalist Papers as documents of philosophy you can see that the authors of these documents (despite whether they lived the philosophy or not) believed that all people had natural human rights extending to life, liberty, and property.

So yes, I believe that Habeus Corpus is a natural human right. I believe that it is immoral for a government to imprison someone, take away their freedom, based on an assumption of guilt. Call me crazy, but I still believe that freedom is worth something, and not just so it can be afforded to Americans, but so that it can be afforded to all people.

Oh, you’re right. Habeus Corpus is such an inane thing to be “complaining” about. Forget being proven innocent or guilty before you’re freedoms are taken away from you–it’s trivial!

In the end, you believe that they should be given a trial by jury. Do you also believe that they should be given Miranda warnings on the battlefield? The GWOT should not be fought like an episode of Law & Order. To do so would be to turn the entire history of the laws of war on its head.

I would be hesitant to assert that the founding fathers would agree that “rights” are not specifically reserved for Americans, when the founding fathers did not extend “rights” to all people living in the US at the time that the Constitution was adopted.

So we should give terrorists rights reserved for Americans?

Bad Candy on June 6, 2007 at 2:32 PM

That’s my point. I don’t believe things like Habeus Corpus are “rights” reserved specifically for Americans (and I think if you read Madison and Jefferson you’d see the founding fathers agree). I believe everyone has the right to go before a judge and be proven guilty before they are locked up in a prison for an indefinite amount of time. And I also don’t believe that every single person locked up in Guantanamo is guilty.

Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 2:20 PM

So we should give terrorists rights reserved for Americans?

Again what rights are being denied to them ? Habeus Corpus ? Is that the ONLY thing you can find to complain about ?

William Amos on June 6, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Oh, you’re right. Habeus Corpus is such an inane thing to be “complaining” about. Forget being proven innocent or guilty before you’re freedoms are taken away from you–it’s trivial!

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who is a member of the Judiciary Committee, said, “The denial of habeas corpus is a mistake.”…

She needs to worry more about denying ‘habeas corruptus’ than habeas corpus.

You’re thinking of human rights in a very physical sense; immature by most philosophical standards. How about you read John Locke or Madison or even Jefferson for an idea about what human rights are. And if you’re daring you can read a bit of Rawls too and figure out that human rights aren’t just how much food you have or how much money you make.

Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 2:06 PM

Again what rights are being denied to them ? Habeus Corpus ? Is that the ONLY thing you can find to complain about ?

forgot we didn’t allow human rights to non-citizens.

I think you need to explain what you consider “Human RIghts” before you blurt stuff out.

The democrats have already made it clear that they will release these guys BECAUSE they believe they have been tortured and abused at gitmo. Even though there is no proof of that.

Democrats accuse the Administration of painting those at gitmo as Guilty. I wish the democrats wouldnt rush so wholeheartly into the idea that these guys are innocent.

amerpundit on June 6, 2007 at 1:56 PM

You’re thinking of human rights in a very physical sense; immature by most philosophical standards. How about you read John Locke or Madison or even Jefferson for an idea about what human rights are. And if you’re daring you can read a bit of Rawls too and figure out that human rights aren’t just how much food you have or how much money you make.

I disagree with your implicit argument that the way for foreigners to acquire the Constitutional rights of Americans is to kill an American.

That isn’t my argument. Straw man, ahoy! My argument is that the founding fathers would believe that all people are deserving of natural human rights (life, liberty, and property). My second argument is that all people in Guantanamo Bay are not terrorists simply because they are in Guantanamo Bay.

Under the Geneva Convention, such combatants are considered spies who can be summarily shot.

So we’re a nation that should follow the Geneva Convention now? And implicit in this quote is the belief that all people in Guantanamo Bay are terrorists, simply not true.

Even so, it draws criticism from the profoundly uninformed, such as yourself.

I’ve addressed this. People in most United States jails have it pretty good by those standards, but you won’t find me clamoring to be sent to jail. The criticism from me is not what physical things they have, but about what political freedoms they’re afforded.

What if we were to apply the leftist demands for trials and such for these terrorists to other conflicts?

I smell a red herring.

Should we have brought all the German and Japanese…

I was right.

America is quite correct to hold the jihadis at Gitmo for the duration of the conflict.

Tantor on June 6, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Okay, this is getting really old. How many times do I need to repeat for you: “all people in Guantanamo Bay are not terrorists.” To deny that is intellectually and factually dishonest.

I forgot we didn’t allow human rights to non-citizens.

What’s your idea of human rights? We feed them well, allow them access to representation, give them trials, allow them to practice their religion, allow them to read, let them exercise outside, take care of their medical needs, talk to them…how about we just give them cars, too. What else do you want?

I disagree with your implicit argument that the way for foreigners to acquire the Constitutional rights of Americans is to kill an American. The argument being made here is that terrorists do not enjoy the protection of the Geneva Convention because they violate its provisions with respect to identifying themselves as combatants by wearing a uniform, carrying their arms openly, not targeting civilians, etc. Under the Geneva Convention, such combatants are considered spies who can be summarily shot.

America has chosen to keep them alive and imprison them under conditions European prison inspectors say are better than their prisons. Those conditions are far better than Arab prisons. Even so, it draws criticism from the profoundly uninformed, such as yourself.

What if we were to apply the leftist demands for trials and such for these terrorists to other conflicts? Should we have brought all the German and Japanese prisoners we captured in WWII to trial and if there was not sufficient evidence according to the rules of criminal law to prove that they had fired upon our GIs, should we have sprung them loose to return to their countries? America kept those legal combatants imprisoned for the duration of the conflict. If you think they should have been released, please explain why?

America is quite correct to hold the jihadis at Gitmo for the duration of the conflict. That probably means until they die since they are mindlessly hostile to the non-Muslim world. So be it. When they make war on America outside the framework of law, the risk of that war should fall entirely on them, not America. They have placed themselves in this legal limbo, not America.

However, I am curious for your explanation as to why such illegal combatants who defy every provision of the Geneva Convention should be given more rights than legal combatants in declared wars with recognized governments? Why do you favor the jihadis cause more than the Nazis or Hirohitos?

The Geneva Convention was established to moderate the cruelty of war. The irony is that the Left is attempting to extend the protections of the Geneva Convention to terrorists who sneer at it, to make terrorism a legitimate way to make war. In so doing, they turn the spirit of the Geneva Convention on its head, arguing for exactly what it was designed to thwart. The Left is absolutely wrong in this effort, legally and morally. They are simply arguing that we accept barbarism.

Whose side are they on? Sure isn’t ours….