This arrived in the e-mail box tonight:
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Help them Phone Home
For the entire week of Monday December 27 through Friday, January 7th., the Glen Ridge Republican Club, in conjunction with the Bloomfield Chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, will be collecting prepaid phone cards for donation to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These phone cards are in great demand in the war zones as they allow service men and women a free call home.
Cards can be bought in nearly any convenience store, super market or drug store. The cards should be the kind for international phone calls. The cards can be dropped off at the Ridgewood Ave. Train Station or Glen Ridge Borough Hall. For more information call Brian P. Fisher at 973-680-9585.
The Democrat Club, meanwhile, will be distributing this.
Pretty much outlines the difference huh?
Anyway,
Wanna seeThe Democratic Party commit Hare Kari on television?
Then tune in to CSPAN at 1pm where Senator Barbara Boxer (along with some house democrats) will officially challenge the electoral count and the election thus preventing the certification of the election until a vote in congress.
Hasn’t happened since 1887.
Should be good. Looks like a lot of Republican’s will get good footage for their 06 campaign ads.
Oh, dear, are the Republicans *just* now getting over their November hangovers and remembering the troops? It must’ve slipped their minds — no photo op, no vote, no convention to motivate them.
We Dems, on the other hand, were there back when it mattered, when our brothers sisters sons and daughters might have wanted to phone home to share the holidays with us — in whatever way they could.
Say,
Here is some good news:
https://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_go_co/democrats_mcauliffe
How were you there when it mattered? By having your presidential candidate vote for an appropriations bill for our troops before he voted against it? By having your candidate say he√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢d still vote to justify this war? Or was it when your candidate came back from his own war (in which he served admirably) to lambaste his brothers as war criminals? Or when he supported Clinton sending troops to Kosovo? I√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m constantly amazed at how hypocritical you and your candidates are. At least Dean was the real deal (but alas, he was “unelectable” . . .)
Even Better News.
https://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01032005.html
ROC, how have you(sic)been?
time of Death (of Democratic party) 1:22 due to self inflicted wounds.
Looks like Hillary lost her nerve.
Been a big day for the Dems. Challenging the election. Beating up on the AG nominee for being too hard on terrorists and begging McAuliffe to stay on.
Got thier fingers on the pulse of the zeitgiest again!
Oh, gosh! (yawn)
We’re the ones buying and sending body armor and food to our loved ones in the military service, while the rhetorically supportive party sends them inadequate meals by Halliburton, and unarmored transport.
We’re the ones who challenged the “WMD” excuse, which has of course subsequently devolved to a memory — now we’re spreading democracy, as God asked us to.
(By the way, I’m not Godless, but I am sure God didn’t ask us to kill tens of thousands to exercise His will.)
Dissent, of course, to repeat the rhetoric, is patriotic. It’s what we always hear “they” were over there fighting for — our right to free speech. But somehow it’s wrong for an experienced soldier to return with critical first-hand knowledge of what’s gone wrong. Better tell that to my dad, then, but watch what hand you’re standing near when you do it.
My support of the group that sponsored phone cards **50 days ago** has nothing to do with the Democratic party, so I am afraid I cannot answer your challenge of hypocrisy.
I vote along the lines of conscience, for what I believe in even when it inconveniences me, and if a Democrat (or democratic group) furthers those beliefs, so be it. When a Republican group evern does so again, they’ll see my dollars and win my vote. I won’t hold my breath. The conservatives I grew up with are dying off and what rises up in their place strikes me as selfish, cruel and tragically censorious.
Kisses…
So let me get this straight (your logic is as twisting as a T. S. Elliot poem . . . )
“I vote along the lines of conscience, for what I believe in even when it inconveniences me . . .” So, you voted for Kerry because you support the current war in Iraq? Sorry, I misunderstood! I thought you were one of those typical hypocritical Dem’s who like to paint themselves as “progressive” though their ideas are so mired in the past and steeped in the status quo they can’t see through see through their current miasma.
My bad.
Ah, it must be hard for you to understand the responsibility inherent in affirming my citizenship by dutifully giving tax dollars to fund services I do not use. It must be hard for you to grasp that I do, in fact, want the government to invest my American membership dues to ensure our safety on the public highways, through police protection, and clean water, food and housing for the indigent elderly, and medical care for the poor.
It inconveniences me to not have full use of every single dollar that passes through my paycheck, but it’s for my own good. And yours. But, perhaps that’s too twisty for you?
I do not support the war, but I do what I must to ensure my loved ones and their comrades return home safely. I hope you won’t joke about that – in my family, it is decidedly unfunny to mock the troops’ predicament.
Sorry, I am a little flustered by your colorful language. it’s like a flashback. what’s a painted progressive? what’s a mired miasma? what’s a steeped status quo?
ROC – it might be more fun to tune in to CSPAN and watch Mr Torture’s job intereview.
I can’t fault anyone for collecting and distributing phone cards to our troops. Republican or Democrat. It’s a good idea.
LOClsv,
I have been listening. I think Lee Casey said it best today:
“Every conservative I know of who has supported the Administration’s detainee policies was shocked and angered by the abuses which took place at Abu Ghraib. Those with access to the media have said so publicly. The men and women who perpetrated those abuses behaved in an unacceptable and criminal manner, outrageously mistreating men for whose welfare they were, at least at that time and place, responsible. Further, they did great harm to their country’s interests in time of war. Their punishments should be harsh, and there is every reason to believe that this will be the case. The same is true of others who have abused prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere, including deaths in custody. In fact, the U.S. has a very elaborate and efficient military justice system designed to address just such problems during wartime, and it is working.
If these points do not get a lot of discussion among conservatives, it is because they are not in issue — they are agreed. Beginning every discussion with, “I abhor torture” or “I abhor Abu Ghraib” is just politically correct pablum and a waste of pulp. You don’t need to say everything you know in everything you write, and, usually, it’s better not to.
What [some] really appear to be saying, however, is that the revelation of these abuses should have changed our minds with respect to the Administration’s detainee policies. Well, they might well have done exactly that if there was any evidence that it was the policies which caused the abuse. There is none. It is only if you accept the proposition that the policies themselves, denying Geneva POW status to unlawful combatants and using stress methods of interrogation, are inherently abusive that some sort of connection appears — and most of the Administration’s supporters simply do not accept that proposition. My guess is that what is really so scary to this individual is that there are people out here who do not tow the “progressive” line, and who cannot be intimidated into silence by the kinds of ridiculous ranting that Judge Gonzales has had to endure today. That should be scary to the Left. ”
Oh, c’mon ROC. You have to agree that the memo Gonzales asked to be written was collosally bad judgement, whatever the connection to the actual abuses.
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘torture’ is.”
In an ethically driven society this sort of newspeak justification should be abhorrent. When it strikes on something central to the person’s function, they should no longer be entrusted with that function.
“U.S. has a very elaborate and efficient military justice system designed to address just such problems during wartime, and it is working”
Go after the little guys, right. Its like the war on drugs. How many low level criminals can you lock up after you realize thats not going to solve a thing.
Get the big players and take them down hard–The one’s cultivating a culture of torture. From the TOP on down.
Well at least you know HE didn’t write the memo! Ahead of 97% of your average blueish phrenic expositor!
Considering the importance of getting information from these captured taliban you can (perhaps) understand why the administration wanted a definition of torture so as not to cross the line, but approach it closely.
Now Mssrs. Kennedy and Biden think that making the poor chaps stand too long with out potty breaks crosses the line. Ok. Noted.
Any morality requires the acceptance of risk. Saying we’ll be moral only when there are no risks means we are not moral at all. It’s funny you think we should impose one part of our morality (liberty) abroad without its compatriot (justice.) If you think that democracy is a value that must be available in Iraq, don’t you think that what we regard as its necessary legal superstructure (ie. habeas corpus, the bill of rights, etc.) should also be available?
In a nutshell, if you wouldn’t tolerate it here and on us, why would you tolerate it anywhere? Americans practiced torture on opposing soldiers during the civil war, but we now find that abhorrent and indefensible. If you think we will find the practices in Iraq and Guantanamo indefensible when we look back at them, isn’t it right to execrate them now?
And you think torture is going to mine any signigicant information from the Taliban, remember them.
The most sophisticated intelligence machine in the world.
-One that has to wire up the genitals to get some?
-One that missed the 9/11 forewarnings, opps?
-One with a color coded terror alert system….
Come on, you trust these dopes
Torture
This can’t be the radical Muslims we know, can it?
BANDA ACEH, Indonesia (Jan. 6) — An extremist Islamic group with alleged links to al-Qaida has set up a relief camp in the tsunami-stricken Aceh province on Sumatra island, raising concerns its fiercely anti-American members could stir up sentiment against U.S. and Australian troops helping to distribute aid.
linkage linkage linkage. You guys are all or nothing. The torture that went on is wrong and should and will be punished. But is making those thugs uncomfortable during interrogation bad? Maybe interrogation is bad in itself?
Habeas Corpus? for POWs? You’re crazy. Where are you getting a legal basis for that? Never has that been applied to POWs. Never. So what makes these POW’s so special they should get extra legal protection?
Remember these are the folks who (with their teeth) *Bit* CIA Agent Michael Spann to *death* at Mazir-i-Sharif.
Lets just think about that for a sec. Bitten to death.
And you and your party wring your hands about extending them US constitutional protections.
Good luck with that approach. No thanks.
p.s.
I adress my comments to Lex.
Or re-read—-
BANDA ACEH, Indonesia (Jan. 6) — An extremist Catholic group with alleged links to United States has set up a relief camp in the tsunami-stricken Aceh province on Sumatra island, raising concerns its fiercely anti-Islam stance could stir up sentiment against local Muslims troops helping to distribute aid.
p.p.s.
“Send a Phone Card to Your Boy in the Army”
Maybe we sould send a blue ribbon! Lets hear it for the Marines!
https://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/main5/81846E3645B6298285256F7D006744CD
“We had captured some really bad people” who had information that might save American lives, Gonzales said.
Q: What does the public need to know about your experiences as a Marine?
A: The cause of the Iraqi revolt against the American occupation. What they need to know is we killed a lot of innocent people. I think at first the Iraqis had the understanding that casualties are a part of war. But over the course of time, the occupation hurt the Iraqis. And I didn’t see any humanitarian support.
The people at Guantanamo aren’t POWs, are they? That’s the problem. Despite generally being for the war in Iraq and certainly for the war in Afghanistan, I have trouble with the adminstration imprisoning people without any legal status whatsoever.
They weren’t POWs, so weren’t subject to the Geneva Convention (conveniently, since the Geneva Convention outlawed “interrogation camps” in response to Nazi brutality.) They weren’t on US soil, so didn’t have the right to habeas corpus or an appeal to law. They were in a law-free zone. The administration was trying to create a place where they had power with no responsibility. They were trying to create a power of men, not laws. Perhaps troubling is an understatement.
I’m not arguing that everyone in the world have the rights enumerated in our constitution etc., just that if you believe in the morality of our rights, then their abrogation (abnegation?) should be a moral outrage. To borrow a conservative argumentation tool: to believe that Guantanamo and the US soldiers and administrators there are exempt from US law is unamerican and unpatriotic. And to believe that the techniques used to garner intelligence are okay because the tortured might be associated with terrorists is unchristian (unless you’re a Seventh Day Adventist, I suppose.) So, aside from seeing this administration stance as wrong, I also see it as highly hypocritical.
Lex,
They are obvioulsy in a grey area between POW under the Geneva Convention and any other kind of legal status.
They don’t qualify under the GC because they don’t fit the criteria.
If you bring them here they get due process and 100% of them walk because it is hard to prove crimes on the battle field beyond a reasonable doubt.
So they are in Gitmo awating Millitary Tribunal. Sounds reasonable to me. They have been held less time than POWS in WWII were.
In fact some have been released.
So (as is typical with the Left) you are knocking what IS being done WITHOUT offering an alternative.
So, Lex what would you do? eh?
p.s.
I think we have to face that these are different situations of war that have ever been faced.
The administration is struggling to adapt and FACE it. The Left is stuck in older paradigms and contents itself with attacks against the Administration and meerly shrugs at the real (clear and present) danger.
No wonder Kerry lost.
p.p.s.
When was the last time you heard voices of the Left spend any where near as much time concerned with how to WIN the war as they do worrying about the legal status (and potty priviledges) of KNOWN terrorists? Huh?
You can’t win a war!!!!!
You can’t win a war!!!!!
“If you bring them here they get due process and 100% of them walk because it is hard to prove crimes on the battle field beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Ah, so our legal system, based on 800 years of common law going back to the Magna Carta, just isn’t good enough for you. How unpatriotic. Don’t you realize the risks that come with criticizing our legal system during a time of crime?
“I think we have to face that these are different situations of war that have ever been faced.”
I don’t understand why you make this statement. What in Iraq is so different? What in Afghanistan is so different? What, even, in acts of terror on home soil is so different (in the history of war, that is, not in the history of the US)?
“When was the last time you heard voices of the Left spend any where near as much time concerned with how to WIN the war…”
I didn’t think the Pentagon needed any tactical advice. It seems clear that the administration needs ethical advice.
War sucks!!!!!!
This is price to win your war Right of Center.
BAGHDAD, Jan. 7 — Seven U.S. soldiers were killed when a massive roadside bomb exploded under an armored vehicle in Baghdad and two Marines were killed in Anbar province on Thursday, the military said. It was the deadliest day for U.S. forces in Iraq since a suicide bomber struck a mess hall Dec. 21.
https://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/12/31_center-corporate-policy_war-profiteers.htm
ROC maybe you should post in these companies forums!!!!!!!
https://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/12/31_center-corporate-policy_war-profiteers.htm
ROC maybe you should post in these companies forums!!!!!!!
Lex,
If you can outline a legal basis to grant detanees (some quasi POW) legal status in these circumstances I am all ears.
They don’t fit the definition of the GC.
So what (I ask once again) would you have the Administration do?
In no other wars have combatants been been offered trials in US courts so why now?
Well, how about following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and give them a fair and public trial by an independent tribunal? That seems easy enough, no?
The military tribunals proposed by the administration are riddled with problems; even some of the US military lawyers involved in them have pointed out their unfairness.
– The President will decide which evidence can be withheld from the defendant;
– They have the power to convict based on hearsay, authorise indefinite detention without trial, and hand down death sentences without the right to appeal to a more independent and impartial court;
– Even if defendants are acquitted the executive reserves the right to detain them indefinitely.
Frankly, I think these tribunals would be easy to fix if the administration were more concerned with justice than in controlling the outcome. These tribunals are the textbook example of a kangaroo court. And even these were only allowed after significant public outcry and court challenges.
Oh and before you use the “leftist” canard again, let me quote Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “I think we’ve dramatically undermined the war effort by getting on the slippery slope in terms of playing cute with the law…”
How many German or Japanese combatants in WWII (or pick your war) were offered any kind of trial at all?
Why should it be different?
In the past all that was required to hold a combatant until the war was over was the fact that they pointed a gun at you. No trials (Kangaroo or otherwise). Held indefinately until the war was over.
Can you run by me why these guys should get it any better than the huns?
“Lindsey Graham”
Well there are exceptions to every rule. You guys are sooooooo sensitive to labels.
Ok. Ok. *most* of the voices against Gitmo, and the war and the administration are folks of a non-rightish persuasion.
Better?
“Why should it be different?”
Because we supposedly learned something from WWII about the continuing presence of barbarity in our nature and signed the Geneva Conventions in 1949 to institutionalize it and make it part of our law?
But, even if the GC had been signed prior to WWII, it would not have necessitated trials for POWs. No trials are needed to detain POWs until the cessation of hostilities.
So, nice try at changing the subject.
The issue here is treatment of non-POWs, because if they *were* POWs then they would have certain rights under the law, like “No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.” (Article 17, Geneva Conventions) and we’re certainly not leaving go at name, rank and serial number.
There are an awful lot of blowhards chiming in above on issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the seemingly worthy cause of sending phone cards to servicepeople in Iraq. And it’s nice that this web site is sort of the area equivalent of Hyde Park’s Speakers Corner in London. But it’s also annoying how little most of the respondents above actually ever seem to know about prior treatment of POWs, as in WWII or Korea, and about how the Geneva Convention so rarely ever applied in practice. (And I write this as someone whose father was in fact a guard of German POWs in WWII down in Texas.) For starters, try something like “Prisoners of the Japanese,” by Gavin Daws, “German Prisoners of War in The United States” by (I believe) Arnold Steinkammer, or any good general history of either the Korean War or the Eastern Front. The United States has always, compared to other nations, been an exemplar in the fair treatment of POWs. “The continuing presence of barbarity in our nature,” as Lex calls it, has in fact been very little in evidence in the past, and when compared today at places like Guantanamo to, say, the acts of those loving jihadists who both tape beheadings and even invite news crews to watch roadside slaughters, is still little in evidence. The United States Army and Marine Corps and the CIA combined are hardly the moral equivalent of the SS, or of the Imperial Japanese Army or of Stalin’s forces. Let alone of such kind, loving modern groups like al-Aqsa, Hamas, etc. This shouldn’t be forgotten. It certainly shouldn’t be forgotten in Barista-ville, where so many people seem to take a moral verbal high road that is too often uninformed when it comes to details, are weirdly willing (nay, proud) to view themselves as above it all. And for all the WWII GI’s “recollections” of taking German POWs “somewhere down the road” in order to shoot them, by the way, such recovered memories are usually viewed, properly, by historians, as sort of gasconades after (way, way after) the fact. Or the battle. They’re usually apocryphal tales, in other words, something which has in fact been attested to again and again by taped interviews with German POWs during and immediately after WWII. War is hell, granted, but so, often, are the subsequent exchanges of so many well-meaning people who really seem to know so little about war, or history, in the first place. Surely, too, it wouldn’t compromise any poster’s integrity or virtue to thus chip in on some phone cards for Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The GC was not agreed to by the US (despite current modern belief) to thwart OUR “barbarity” against the enemies we capture, but to promote fair treatment of OUR soldiers captured by the other side.
It is an agreement. If you (the enemy) agree to certain standards we will reciprocate. Among the conditions are soldiers wearing uniforms, not targeting civilians, fighting for a nation state which is a signatory to the conventions, etc. Those conditions are not met by our current enemies. So the GC does not apply. They are certainly not treating our soldiers in a manner required under the GC. (as beheadings and biting to death are not permitted)
The GC is supposed to provide an *incentive* to adhere to the ‘rules of war’. (and more broadly in a civilised manner)
So what to do?
Lex says give them trials with the right of habeus corpus and I suppose other standards of American Justice. What would this mean? Could we hold Abdullah until the cessation of hostilities? He was found in a foxhole with a mortar, a rifle slung over his soldier. Did anyone *witness* his actions? See him shoot anything? If he were tried under normal American civilian standards it seems unlikely he or many others could be held. It is hard to gather evidence on the battlefield. Therefore he is acquitted and returned to his foxhole.
So what is the incentive here? Well, precisely NOT to behave in accordance with the GC because then you are not a POW and you will therefore get a HIGHER standard of justice will likely soon be returned to the battlefield ready to continue.
Now while this may make us “noble” in the minds of some it seem dangerous to me.
The rightful course is something in between. We are not bound by the GC and they should not get civilian American Justice.
It seems Lex (correct me if I am wrong) calls for independent outside authority because he does not trust our own military and its processes to administer military justice.
I disagree.
They should get Military Justice administered by Military Tribunals. After all that is how we try OUR OWN soldiers when they break the law. If it is good enough for our own soldiers then it is good enough for terrorists caught on foreign battlefields.
The number one goal with these prisoners (IMHO) is to protect our soldiers still in-theater (like cshel’s son) and secondarily the combatant-prisoner’s rights.
Cathar –
You are right in that I don’t believe the US has ever sunk to the level of the SS or Stalin in its methods. It’s unfortunate that you think that is sufficient. Anything short of genocide is A-OK, because there are worse people in the world? So that’s what Bush meant by “moral values!”
ROC –
You didn’t really read my argument, did you? First off, I agree the GC was signed because of the actions of others, not our own. But, having agreed to it, we should adhere to it. In any case, I believe that its standards are those that the American people respect and admire. Torture is emphatically NOT an American-condoned activity, obviously.
Second, I didn’t recommend habeas corpus and the American judicial system, I said they were the only legal alternative to the GC available. There should be no “law-free” zone under US control–it would be an abomination of our principles. The GC requirement for a fair and public trial by an independent tribunal is enough.
Third, of course I have a problem with the military running the tribunals, how could anyone not? The military has an interest in the outcome. (Reminds me of the Mouse’s Tale by Lewis Carroll: “‘I’ll be judge; I’ll be jury’ said cunning old Fury; ‘I’ll try the whole cause and condemn you to death.'”) That’s why the GC demands an independent tribunal. Not independent of the US, just independent of the prosecuting authority. I can only imagine why you would find that unreasonable.
Giving the POWs the rights afforded by a court martial (such as given to our own soldiers) would obviously be a vast improvement to the military tribunals they are actually using, not sure why you threw that misinformation in there.
As to protecting our soldiers, which I also agree with, continued detention of POWs during hostilities obviously does that.
“You didn’t really read my argument, did you?”
Well of course, the argument being made by you, it must have been perfectly posed. I accept any and all responsibility for misunderstanding.
“First off, I agree the GC was signed because of the actions of others, not our own. But, having agreed to it, we should adhere to it.”
Again WHY does it apply to those at Guantanamo?
Look at:
https://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/intro.html#soldiers
Choice quotes:
“In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them. ”
“Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups √¢‚Ǩ‚Äù and thus endanger the civilian population √¢‚Ǩ‚Äù are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention. ”
“no longer protected”
“Torture is emphatically NOT an American-condoned activity, obviously.”
If we knew terrorists had a dirty bomb planted in a NYC building ready to kill thousands and had someone in custody who knew its whereabouts I would favor some rough treatment indeed.
“Second, I didn’t recommend habeas corpus and the American judicial system, I said they were the only legal alternative to the GC available.”
You are not recommending it but think it should apply because there is no other alternative? Is that what you are saying? I’d rather have defined a different status subject to military tribunal.
“There should be no “law-free” zone under US control–it would be an abomination of our principles.”
Yes. Correct and that is why no one is advocating it!!
“The GC requirement for a fair and public trial by an independent tribunal is enough.”
“public trial by an independent tribunal” Where are you getting that? “A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court” is what is says. But who cares since Terrorists Guantanamo don’t qualify for GC status. In fact a trial at all is *only* required when prisioners will be charged with a *crime*. For example charging them with the murder of a civilian. To hold them until the end of the war, charging them with a crime is not necessary.
“Third, of course I have a problem with the military running the tribunals, how could anyone not?”
The framers and signatories of the GC didn’t.
“That’s why the GC demands an independent tribunal. Not independent of the US, just independent of the prosecuting authority. ”
Can you show me where you are getting this?
https://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/convention3.html
“I can only imagine why you would find that unreasonable.”
Maybe because it doesn’t exist? (Or I can’t find it anyway). Or is it just another ad hominem√Ǭ†kind of thing?
“Giving the POWs the rights afforded by a court martial (such as given to our own soldiers) would obviously be a vast improvement to the military tribunals they are actually using, not sure why you threw that misinformation in there.”
Courts Martial? (this from the guy who says ‘You didn’t really read my argument, did you?’) I said “military tribunal” meaning that their treatment is in the same judicial (military) ‘universe’ subject to *military* not civilian standards of justice which differ greatly.
Whoops, you’re right, I’m confusing my GC with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The GC doesn’t require independent tribunals because, of course, the GC doesn’t require trials at all to detain POWs. Whether or not the GC applies to the detainees is open to question in many cases. Al Qaeda, definitely not, the Taliban, perhaps. My point is that you have to follow the rules. If you deny that the GC is valid, then some other set of rules. And the rules should be just; the tribunals the administration set up are not just, IMHO.
“Or is it just another ad hominem kind of thing?”
Why, yes, it was :). It makes the argument more interesting. At least I didn’t call you a blowhard, like cathar called me. I try to make my ad hominems a little less obvious.
Maybe you can enlighten me (seriously) on when US soldiers receive a court martial v. being put in front of a military tribunal (I know that courts martial *are* military tribunals but I think you’re making a distinction I am unaware of.) My point was that US soldiers who are court martialed have rights (to evidence, etc.) that the Guantanamo tribunals deny to the detainees in their tribunals (which I outlined above.) Courts martial are just, as these things go (I hear, IANAL.)
“Whoops, you’re right, I’m confusing my GC with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
You must mean the NON-binding, NON-force-of-international-law statement of aspirations the UN passed in 1948.
About as effective as most UN pronouncements, no doubt!
All I can say is thank goodness we are not required to prove at trial the necessity of continued confinement for each *individual* combatant in war.
“The GC doesn’t require independent tribunals because, of course, the GC doesn’t require trials at all to detain POWs. Whether or not the GC applies to the detainees is open to question in many cases. Al Qaeda, definitely not, the Taliban, perhaps.”
You do know that the Taliban dressed like civilians, drove toyota trucks and whenever there were trouble would run and hide amongst the civilian population. There were no ‘Regular’ Taliban forces. So, since the chief aim of the GC was the protection of civilians and the requirements for the coverage of cobatants was in order to provide incentive for compliance. I believe there is the strongest of cases that the Taliban should NOT be included. Nor should Iraqi insurgents. The regular Iraqi Army, yes. The insurgents and terrorists, most certainly not.
“My point is that you have to follow the rules. If you deny that the GC is valid, then some other set of rules.”
Which rules? That is the problem here. The rules are getting worked out in our courts, much to our credit. What I really suspect is that you would rather somebody besides America get involved to aid us in making the new rules.
I think we are moral enough and quite capable of treating these prisoners in an appropriate manner.
“And the rules should be just; the tribunals the administration set up are not just, IMHO.”
Why? What specifically do you not like in how they are set up?
“It makes the argument more interesting. At least I didn’t call you a blowhard, like cathar called me. I try to make my ad hominems a little less obvious.”
Less obvious and more cutting. A ‘blowhard’ is a slight pejorative√Ǭ†√Ǭ† (and then only maybe). But what was I? A sanctioner of torture by implication. A bit more deep a cut, no?
While you complain of the Right calling the Left UnAmerican (something which *I* never do, by the way). You have no trouble calling me a torture advocate. Interesting.
“Maybe you can enlighten me (seriously) on when US soldiers receive a court martial v. being put in front of a military tribunal (I know that courts martial *are* military tribunals but I think you’re making a distinction I am unaware of.)”
I am not trying to compare and contrast the to. My point is that the rules of evidence and conviction are very different in civilian justice and military justice. The accused enjoys a degree less protection in Military Justice. What ever basis these prisoners should be judged on should be a military model and not civilian.
But as I have said before, I don’t think there should be any trial at all to hold them until the war is over. It is not required. To the degree we permit tribunals to determine prisoner status is to our CREDIT.
We are not required to observe the GC for Guantanamo prisoners, but to the degree we do, bully for us.
“The rules are getting worked out in our courts, much to our credit.”
I agree. Much to America’s credit, but not the administration’s. To the degree that the executive has to be coerced into something by another branch of government, that’s a failure of leadership.
“What I really suspect is that you would rather somebody besides America get involved to aid us in making the new rules.”
Now *that’s* an ad hominem. You know me better than that. I believe we will work out the right set of rules to govern these detainees, I just don’t think it will be the willing work of the current administration.
“You have no trouble calling me a torture advocate.”
Well, aren’t you? “Been a big day for the Dems… Beating up on the AG nominee for being too hard on terrorists… Got thier fingers on the pulse of the zeitgiest again!” you said sarcastically near the beginning of this thread (which I took as a reference to their questioning him re the “terror” memo.) But, then, I guess it’s back to what “torture” means. I tend to the slippery slope argument when it comes to force-driven interrogation although I think the GC goes too far in banning all interrogation (that’s just unrealistic.) If you think that torture in its broad sense is wrong, then my apologies.
The administration wanted to know how far legally they could go with regard to torture and the GC (should it be applied to Guantanamo Prisoners) They asked the justice Department to define the acceptable outlines of behavior.
The (no famous) memo went farther in its *legal* definition than anyone will accept. It was not a recommended policy change. The administration *rejected* that definition and did not make it policy.
You characterize that as a ‘failure of leadership’.
ok.
I would characterize the failure of the opposition of offer up (as usual) any alternative but rather occupy themselves by engaging in politically motivated demagoguery. Except, of course, when they are too busy challenging a national election for no other reason than to make governance more difficult.
We know the truth here. The Dems will not filibuster Gonzales, they don’t want to. Never planned to. They only want to dust him up enough to prevent Bush from eventually nominating him to the Supreme Court.
Some leadership, eh?
One party is trying to determine exactly *how* rough (or not) is acceptable treatment for incarcerated terrorists in order to protect the US and its soldiers in a war and the other party is content to try to make it as difficult as possible to get anything accomplished.
Well? To each his own definition of leadership I suppose. At least the Democrats are consistent in their popular appeal!
“Don’t cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?” Guy Womack, Graner’s attorney, said in opening arguments to the 10-member U.S. military jury at the reservist’s court-martial.
Gotta love those cheerleaders for the right!!