Democrats seize Gitmo ruling to push for more rights for captured terrorists
posted at 1:02 pm on June 6, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It’s becoming impossible to argue that the Democrats even care about national security or the safety of citizens. They’re not simply mistaken or misguided–they just don’t care.
Exhibit A: The Senate just passed the Kennedy amendment to the noxious Bush-McCain-Kennedy immigration bill. That amendment relaxes much of the standards by which immigrants are judged threats or not. It’s a bad amendment to a bad bill, but it passed 63-27. Some Republicans voted for it, but apparently all of the Democrats did.
Exhibit B: The Democrats have seized on the Khadr case, which a military judge tossed this week over a lack of clarity in the law governing how captured terrorists are to be tried in court, to expand the rights of detainees at Gitmo. This move looks like a welfare bill for ACLU lawyers.
A day after two military judges ruled against the Bush administration’s system for trying terrorism detainees, Democrats seized on the rulings on Tuesday as evidence that Congress should restore the right of those held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their detentions.
Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is the majority leader, said he would be willing to bring such legislation to the floor. The Senate Judiciary Committee is preparing to approve such a plan on Thursday.
Uh, their “rights?” They’re not US citizens. Not that Reid understands what that means anymore.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the rulings on Monday in two cases added urgency to the push to restore detainees’ right to file habeas corpus suits. Congress eliminated that right last year while redesigning the military tribunals after the Supreme Court struck down the first plan.
Mr. Leahy criticized the administration for insisting on an approach to the tribunals “which even conservative courts say no to.”
Leahy’s assertion is flat-out ridiculous, as Andy McCarthy explains:
Imagine for a moment a statute that said a court could only try cases involving citizens of New York. Let’s say that, to make certain he had jurisdiction over a case, the presiding judge referred the narrow question of the defendant’s New York citizenship to a magistrate, who then made a finding that the defendant “was a U.S. citizen who had lived his entire life in Albany.” What Colonel Brownback has essentially done here is throw out the case because the magistrate didn’t come out and say, “the defendant is a citizen of New York,” even though, if you actually look at what the magistrate did say, it is pluperfectly [sic] obvious that the defendant is a citizen of New York.
That’s really all that happened here. The CSRT found that Khadr was an “enemy combatant” by employing procedures under which such a finding cannot happen unless the person is found to be an unlawful enemy combatant. But because the CSRT procedures don’t require the tribunal to say the magic word “unlawful” — just to find the real-world fact of unlawfulness — Colonel Brownback has found the CSRT wanting.
Exactly. Now, back to the Democrats.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who is a member of the Judiciary Committee, said, “The denial of habeas corpus is a mistake.”…
Ms. Feinstein said there should also be a vote as part of that bill to close the Guantánamo detention center. “After this year, I don’t think Guantánamo makes a great deal of sense, if it ever did at all,” she said.
What would the senator prefer be done with the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Democrats never get around to answering that question.
Looking at all this action, Curt at Flopping Aces says Gitmo isn’t going anywhere. I’m not so sure. 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. Put a Democrat in the White House in 2008 and they’ll be given that chance.
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
Unfortunately, they’re not alone. They’ve got The Maverick™ on their side.
Slublog on June 6, 2007 at 1:11 PM
I agree with you here Bryan, I just don’t think the Dems could sit there and NOT close Gitmo after years and years of railing against it, and the reprehensible demands that they face trial in a standard US court.
I think they know it’ll be unpopular, but they’ll do it at first chance because its one of the few things they genuinely believe in, and the media will cover them in a way that it won’t hurt their numbers too bad.
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.
Bad Candy on June 6, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Well, let’s hope the Dem’s force through the close of Gitmo before the Repubs force through the Immigration Bill or all the Gitmo detainees will file for z-visas. And get them.
Dusty on June 6, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Exactly. I’m not sure what further rights they want the terrorists in Gitmo to have. They have access to the International Red Cross and defense attorneys. They get fed well, get to exercise for an hour, can read the Koran and pray, have prayer rugs, and they have a full service library. Several guards say they’ve eaten with the terrorists. An article not long ago said the detainees were awaiting the arrival of the new Harry Potter book.
They won’t, because they don’t have an answer. In the name of being fair to everyone, including those who want nothing more than to kill us, they’d release the detainees, and abandon national security. Then, when there’s another attack on our soil, they’d blame Bush for emboldening the enemy by placing their members in Gitmo.
Maybe. But, the Democrats don’t have a great record on doing what they promise even their base. Exhibit A: Gas prices are higher than ever. Exhibit B: The war is being funded without timeline for surrender. Exhibit C: One of their prominent members was indicted on 16 counts of corruption. Exhibit D: For some reason, the Gonzales floggings seem to have come to a halt.
amerpundit on June 6, 2007 at 1:26 PM
I forgot we didn’t allow human rights to non-citizens. Seriously, Bryan, is the meaning of that statement that you don’t have any “rights” if you aren’t a United States citizen? The founding fathers would definitely disagree.
And I’d remind you that everyone in Guantanamo Bay is not a terrorist, to claim otherwise is a logical fallacy.
Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Airplane,
shove detainee out, er jump, issue parachute to prisonerIn that order.
LakeRuins on June 6, 2007 at 1:29 PM
See above. Not all those in Guantanamo Bay are terrorists.
And so do most prisons but I’m not saying prisoners have it better off than I do. I happen to place my freedom above all.
Democrats fault.
If not for the Democrats we wouldn’t be in this mess in Iraq.
Democrats fault.
This one you’re just factually wrong, the media just isn’t reporting it as heavily. Oh, but Democrats fault.
Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Bad Candy: “but they’ll do it at first chance because its one of the few things they genuinely believe in”
And then they’ll be an incident with one of these “released” terrorists. Remember, they won’t be grateful to America for their release. They’ll be a filled with hate towards us just like they were when we captured them in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
They’ll continue to plot and fight and conive, and someday, they’ll land a body blow upon us.
Then we’ll have every Democratic Senator and Congress currently in Congress to publicly blame. And blame them, America will.
georgej on June 6, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Didn’t KSM say, upon his capture, that he’d see them (us) in court?
KelliD on June 6, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Well, If the Dems get the Presidency, avoid visiting obvious terrorist targets. (Namely NYC, Washington, Chicago, LA, and Boston.)
Jones Zemkophill on June 6, 2007 at 1:38 PM
No, we pulled people off the street that were simply selling their goods to the widely loved neighborhood grandmother and her 3 grandkids.
You’re missing the point. They’re not US citizens. They’re not soldiers. They’re non-national insurgents. May I remind you that the Geneva Convention applies to uniformed soldiers, who where their weapons openly, and don’t aim to kill civilians.
If they couldn’t change the gas prices, and control oil companies, they shouldn’t have promised they would.
They swore left and right that they would give the President a “rubber stamp” or “blank check”, and future funding would include timelines.
No, it must be the Republicans fault. BTW, he was the Congressman who diverted NG units headed to help civilians, to help him remove stuff from his house. Yet, while being investigated for corruption by the FBI, they placed him on major committees.
Where’s the no-confidence vote? If there was something major going on there, you can bet the media would jump on it.
amerpundit on June 6, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Phpt. You’re giving the American public way too much credit.
The Dems will spin that back to it being Bush’s fault for detaining these folks in Gitmo in the first place.
The public will see it as the detainees being good, wholesome folk who were turned evil in Gitmo.
Keep in mind, the American public made “2 1/2 Men” a hit.
yo on June 6, 2007 at 1:38 PM
would=wouldn’t
amerpundit on June 6, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Where is congress on the rights of our soldiers being held prisoner?
LakeRuins on June 6, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Yeah, remember those two guys, who were reported to have been living in worse conditions than Gitmo detainees.
amerpundit on June 6, 2007 at 1:42 PM
You can tell the enemy observes the Geneva convention, by the body of our soldier floating in the Euphrates.
amerpundit on June 6, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Perhaps the dem’s will suggest a “registered terror offendor” program, whereby the terrorists are required to register, so that we all know who is living next door to us when they release them out into our streets. Their home counties won’t take them back so when we close Gitmo, let’s just give them all z visas and ask them to report to trial on the scheduled date. At least we won’t have to worry about renewing all the z-visas, because some of them will blow themselves up right away, taking some of us with them, so we won’t be around to b*tch about it anymore. Gooooooo dems!
JustTruth101 on June 6, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Nonfactor: “I forgot we didn’t allow human rights to non-citizens. Seriously, Bryan, is the meaning of that statement that you don’t have any “rights” if you aren’t a United States citizen? The founding fathers would definitely disagree.”
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.
Tantor on June 6, 2007 at 1:52 PM
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?
amerpundit on June 6, 2007 at 1:56 PM
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.
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.
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.
I smell a red herring.
I was right.
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.
Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 2:05 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.
Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 2:06 PM
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.
William Amos on June 6, 2007 at 2:08 PM
This is war Anakin and they are an unfortunate if innocent but neccessarry casualty. Lifes a bitch.
tomas on June 6, 2007 at 2:08 PM
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
She needs to worry more about denying ‘habeas corruptus’ than habeas corpus.
James on June 6, 2007 at 2:10 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!
Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 2:20 PM
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 2:37 PM
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.
rw on June 6, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Sorry, I don’t usually answer red herrings so obvious.
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.
Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Same war, different fronts.
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.
fogw on June 6, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Why stop there? They’re practically Americans already.
Lehosh on June 6, 2007 at 3:33 PM
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.
rw on June 6, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Nonfactor: “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.”
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?
Tantor on June 6, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Nonfactor: “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!”
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.
Tantor on June 6, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Poster: “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?”
Nonfactor: “Sorry, I don’t usually answer red herrings so obvious.”
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?
Tantor on June 6, 2007 at 4:11 PM
I think people think it is immoral to keep people prisoner or whatever you want to call them because they know the war will never end. Not until millions have been killed and it doesn’t matter anyway.
Millions will die unless we smash these guys without mercy.
tomas on June 6, 2007 at 4:19 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.
Spurius Ligustinus on June 6, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Nonfactor better get off his azz ’cause it’s going to take a lot of work and sacrifice to bring freedom to all people. Let’s see. Oh yea. We’re the only ones free and that’s only been for 250 years. So at the historical rate of spreading freedom all people on Earth should be free by 9016. That’s if Nonfactor gets off his azz and does something about all that compassion for mankind he’s carrying around. Or is he just carrying water for folks like Rosie?
Griz on June 6, 2007 at 5:43 PM
This is one more mistake that Bush made. He should have milked the terrorists for info and executed them.
Tim Burton on June 6, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I just read that during the Civil War, when blacks were first allowed to serve in the military in fighting units, Lincoln was told by abolitionist Frederick Douglas, that southern troops were simply shooting black captive soldiers, and not taking them prisoner.
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.
profitsbeard on June 6, 2007 at 10:27 PM