al-Qaida Gets Geneva Convention Protections
June 29th, 2006 8:59 am
June 29th, 2006 8:59 am
Update: For those of you who may not realize it, this case was brought by Osama bin Laden’s own bodyguard/limo driver. Keep that in mind as you defend his “rights”.
41 Comments
»
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes
Obviously by “al-Qaida” you mean “Gitmo prisoners”, many of whom are probably not terrorists and have little or sketchy evidence against them. This may explain why the Bush administration is reluctant to try them in court.
If we want to claim the moral high ground and separate ourselves from the terrorists, we need to observe basic human rights.
Comment by Constantine — 9:47 am
Its amazing to you that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of upholding the Constitution with regards to treaties (such as the Geneva Convention) being law? After all, Article VI states:
Seems pretty clear to me that the argument against this ruling is ludicrous at best and extremely dangerous to well-being of the Constitution at worst, as it would seek to erode our fundamental law for convenience on a certain issue. One would think that, because of the danger to the Constitution, this decision and the “conservative” position would be one and the same, but traditional conservativism seems to be on its way out.
The only thing amazing to me here is that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court ruled this way. I had expected a 4-4 draw.
Those are my thoughts, let the flaming commence, for those who feel so inclined.
Comment by Forrest — 9:54 am
TexasRainmaker won’t flame you, Forrest. If he really disagrees with your post he’ll delete it.
Comment by Constantine — 10:00 am
I just don’t understand why you guys weep for terrorists and their purported “rights.” You know they want you just as dead as they want me, right? Dhimmitude may be an option for you, but not for the rest of us.
Comment by Jonathan — 10:08 am
Forrest, so when did al-Qaida become a signatory of the accords of the Geneva Convention? How does their radical terrorists fit with the definition of those to whom the accords apply? Minor points, but I’d like to get your view.
And Constantine, I think the moral high ground was claimed by al-Masri last week… just ask Privates First Class Tucker and Menchaca.
Comment by Old Soldier — 10:14 am
“TexasRainmaker won’t flame you, Forrest. If he really disagrees with your post he’ll delete it.”
No, Constantine, your posts were hit by my spam filter because your IP address points to Playboy.com.
I’ve fixed the filter so the world can see your idiocy.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 10:18 am
John, the issue here is not that al-Qaida isn’t a signatory to the Geneva Convention, but that the US is.
Geneva does not state, nor insinuate, that its protections are only for signatory parties. It states that its signatories act within certain bounds, regardless of whom those actions affect. Thats my view. Its imperative that the US maintain standards to which it has agreed to hold itself liable, lest failure to do so inspires more people to take up arms against us, which it inevitably will. Failures like this are not the only reason anti-American terrorists appear, but it is one significant reason. Anyhow, thats my view.
Constantine, I do agree with your first comment, but Jason has never deleted any of my comments before. The closest was when he moved a comment from one post to another, and he immediately sent me an email informing me that he did so.
Comment by Forrest — 10:40 am
Forrest, does not a “treaty” imply more than one party and that the “treaty” is applicable among the parties (signatories)?
In respect to trying terrorists within our civil court system (which I do not think applies), by what civil laws would we indict? Which civil laws (federal, state of local) apply to combatants on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq or any other land?
Do you have any idea the message you are trying to send to our troops? That we recognize that the enemy will inhumanely torture, disembowel, tear your heart out, behead you, stuff your severed genitals into your mouth, and with total abandon desecrate your body, but you must treat captured al-Qaeda in accordance with the accords of the Geneva Convention. If this is your contention, then you need to become a front line infantryman for about twelve months. I believe the rose tint on your glasses will begin to wear off after your first firefight. Heaven forbid that you were captured; you would want the wrath of our full military strength rained down upon their heads in total disregard of any conventions or treaties. Moral high ground is what you assume after the fight is over and you’ve won. This is not a sport, this is for real.
Comment by Old Soldier — 12:12 pm
Is it just me, or does anyone else get the mental image of Jack Nicholson in his “you can’t handle the truth” moment whenever Old Soldier opines?
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 12:50 pm
John, a treaty does indeed imply multiple parties and enforcement of application by signatories, not only among signatories. Geneva states that all combatants will be entitled to the same treatment at the hands of the signatories. If a signatory fails to meet its obligation under the treaty (and thus law, in the US “the supreme law of the land, as described in Article VI of the Constitution), then it is up to other signatories to enforce. You confuse application with enforcement. And you should be very wary of where your argument will take you: it would have prevented the likes of Milosevic from being tried for war crimes simply because he was not a signatory.
I understand that extremely unpleasant, but it is still desireable. However, this position also allows soldiers distinguish between themselves as forces of morality and the members of al-Qaeda they oppose currently.
As Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in his hearings, the rule of law is foundational to defending freedom. If we can pick and choose when to follow laws, freedom will suffer. On a related note, I will fully support the trials of al-Qaeda members when they are presented to the body responsible for enforcing the Geneva Convention.
I’m sorry, but I find that statement detestable. If you abandon your moral high ground when under fire due to its inconvenience, you cannot regain it quickly.
Comment by Forrest — 12:50 pm
“And thankfully, it appears, we have a Supreme Court that can fairly interpret the Consitution instead of acting like political activists hell bent on creating law.”
Hummm, Jason, this is from your post yesterday regarding the Court’s decision concerning Texas redistricting.
Today you disagree with the Court and with those who don’t share your narrow view . . “so the world can see your idiocy.” BTW - If Constantine’s suggestion that we abide by basic human rights is “idiocy” then I hope there are many more idiots out there.
So which is it - is this a Court that fairly interprets the Constitution or a bunch of “activist judges” out of control? I guess it depends if the decision fits into your right-wing mind set.
Comment by Jon P. — 4:37 pm
I’m sorry, but I find that statement detestable. If you abandon your moral high ground when under fire due to its inconvenience, you cannot regain it quickly.
Spoken like a true PC policeman who has never experienced an angry round fired directly at him. Do you have any idea exactly how absurd you come off using “moral high ground”, “under fire”, and “inconvenience” in the same sentence? It’s that kind of PC “morality” that causes the unnecessary death of our fine young soldiers because they hold or momentarily hold return fire when engaged from a mosque. Do you think the enemy is so “moral” as to not exploit what they perceive as our weaknesses (not firing on a mosque, attempting to the extreme to limit collateral damage, etc.)?
Believe me there was no “inconvenient” abandonment of my “moral high ground” when I had to take out a young (presumably early teens) Vietnamese boy who was running at my helicopter with a grenade in his hand. His intent was to blow up my crew and aircraft. The VC frequently used young women and children in their tactics. These radical Islamic terrorists employ every trick and capitalize on every “moral high ground” constraint the PC police insist upon.
I reiterate, this is not a sport, this is for real. I find the PC mantra of, “You boys play nice now, you hear?” absolutely detestable.
Comment by Old Soldier — 4:43 pm
“Hummm, Jason, this is from your post yesterday regarding the Court’s decision concerning Texas redistricting.
Today you disagree with the Court and with those who don’t share your narrow view . . “so the world can see your idiocy.
BTW - If Constantine’s suggestion that we abide by basic human rights is “idiocy” then I hope there are many more idiots out there. ””
Jon, you really shouldn’t try to assume you know the context. I was referring to some other comments he’s made on here, which the spam filter thankfully disposed of (I was able to see them, but unable to restore them - probably for the better - some rantings about calling the President a retard and such)
And please show me the contradiction in my position with the two SCOTUS decisions I’ve posted about. I said nothing about today’s ruling being unfair. I just disagree with the outcome. Thankfully, it appears the SCOTUS has left room for the President to remedy the situation without having to run these terrorists through our judicial system which would expose national security secrets to the public and endanger the lives of innocent jurors who would be picked to serve on the juries.
I don’t think today’s ruling was judicial activism, it was a fair interpretation. An incorrect interpretation, but fair.
Do you enjoy being a mindless reactionary?
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 5:02 pm
John, the case you describe where you had to take out a teenager in Vietnam who posed a very real threat to you and your crew is enormously different than the issue ruled upon by the Supreme Court today. That issue being, of course, the American war crimes tribunals established to try terror suspects held in Guantanamo. It is extremely intellectually dishonest to attempt to make the case that one equals the other, and, frankly, leaves the one making that argument appear somewhat foolish.
My position here is not one of the “PC police”, as you eloquently put it, but rather that the rule of law must not be eroded. The Geneva Convention is American law. I remind you once again of what Chief Justice Roberts stated regarding the rule of law:
I would like to add that your action in Vietnam, as described by you, did not violate the Geneva Convention, so to insinuate that abiding by international law would have prevented you from defending yourself in that situation is also dishonest. That was an uncaptured enemy combatant that you killed (I assume thats what you meant by “take out”) in defense of your and your fellow soldiers.
You are correct in pointing out that I have never served, and thus have never been threatened in such hostilities, but I am friends with many people who have served or will be serving in either Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, one guy my age that lived on my dorm hall 3 years ago was killed in action two Fridays ago in Afghanistan by a roadside bomb. I do verily understand that my friends serving is entirely different than serving myself, but I do have personal connections and interests in seeing that these friends of mine return home safely.
The largest problem I have with your argument is that it relies on emotion to make decisions regarding the law, morality, and effectiveness and discounts logic. While I do not believe emotion should be tossed to the side, the reality is that if governments were guided by emotions solely rather than law and logic, democracy would fail as laws would be ignored and freedom would disappear.
Comment by Forrest — 5:51 pm
Forrest, we have strayed too far away from the subject of the post.
As I understand the current analysis of the situation, SCOTUS does not believe the president has the authority to commission the military tribunals – that the legislature must commission them. I also understand the congress will take up the subject of commissioning the tribunals. In the interim, the terrorists can be confined as POWs without legal representation as long as we are engaged in hostilities. At that time they must be charged and tried (in a military tribunal) or repatriated.
What I adamantly object to is any conveyance of rights under our legal system to these POW terrorists. To extend rights under our legal system to enemy terrorists is to totally devalue and demean our citizens’ rights. That is not part of the SCOTUS ruling, so that too is mute.
Should you ever find yourself in a bullets flying combat situation, young man, I want you to remain cognizant of a moral high ground. On second thought, forget it – I want you and your comrades who will depend upon you to survive the chaos.
Comment by Old Soldier — 6:46 pm
Solier, I think a very big difference opinion that needs to be acknowledged here is that while you believe everybody at Gitmo is a terrorist, many of us have no such trust. Too many innocents were swept up in terrorist-hunting hysteria (as depicted in the film “The Road To Guantanamo”, for example), and without fair trials there’s no way to determine who’s who.
Comment by Constantine — 11:59 pm
While it may be true that there are innocents at Guantanamo along with those who have worked with or provided support to terrorists, that shouldn’t be an excuse for the entire prison to be shut down and everyone sent along their merry way. All the legal jockying has only prolonged the imprisonment of those who may, through trial before a tribunal, be found innocent.
I am of the mindset that the time wasted trying to decide whether Bush alone had the authority to call for tribunal could have better been spent in an actual tribunal sorting through the prisoners and deciding who warrants punishment and who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time
Comment by EaglesWings — 12:21 am
”…that while you believe everybody at Gitmo is a terrorist, many of us have no such trust.”
Constantine, I acknowledge the possibility of there being some “innocents” caught up in the war. There usually is. And for that reason the military tribunals were goodness. Tribunals were commissioned by the president for the purpose of determining if innocents were being held and to ensure the hardcore terrorists were not released. SCOTUS said the president didn’t have the authority to commission the tribunals; that the authority belonged to the legislative branch. Fine, the congress can take it up now and decide to commission tribunals (or not). It will not change the fact that we (the USA) under the GC has the authority to capture and detain as POWs anyone deemed to be an enemy combatant and detain to the end of hostilities without any adjudication.
”Too many innocents were swept up in terrorist-hunting hysteria…”
Do not presume to reference a movie as a support for an argument: I don’t care who the filmmaker is. You and many others seem unwilling to acknowledge that the majority of those in Gitmo are in fact terrorists. There have already been released POWs that have shown back up on the battlefield bearing arms against. This is not a catch and release program with a three strikes criteria – it is war.
I also resent your word picture of the troops in hysteria policing up everyone in sight to be detained as POWs. You obviously are inexperienced and put forth conjecture that I emphatically refute.
Lastly, there is a perception that a military tribunal will end with a volley fired by a firing squad. No POW has been executed to date. The tribunals have been to try to weed out the “innocents”. So, once again, Bush and the military are wrong no matter what they do.
Comment by Old Soldier — 5:27 am
Do you always end your posts by taking a personal shot at those you disagree with? What a cheap-shot. I thought I was engaging in a constructive dialogue with a friend and colleague but I guess I was wrong. It’s sad to see that you are so immersed in your ideology that you not only fail to see the big picture but that you personally attack anyone who does not share your views.
Comment by Jon P. — 6:59 am
“Do you always end your posts by taking a personal shot at those you disagree with? What a cheap-shot. I thought I was engaging in a constructive dialogue with a friend and colleague but I guess I was wrong. It’s sad to see that you are so immersed in your ideology that you not only fail to see the big picture but that you personally attack anyone who does not share your views.”
Constructive dialog? Which part was constructive? Calling my view a “narrow view” or saying, “I guess it depends if the decision fits into your right-wing mind set.”?
I called you a mindless reactionary because you were so anxious to come here and accuse me of things without even knowing the context of the comments which you quoted. Then you throw in the “right-wing mind set” comment for added flair.
And yet you’re back to accuse me of taking a cheap-shot. Thanks for proving my point.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 10:24 am
Soldier, I’m not accusing the troops of doing anything wrong. They’re dutifully carrying out a policy that happens to be morally and logically bankrupt.
When you go to an impoverished country and offer the equivalent of a year’s income as a bounty for turning in terrorists, naturally some people are going to falsely accuse others. When we apprehend people on flimsy evidence and then provide no way to remedy the situation with a fair trial, and further, abuse those prisoners even though they haven’t been proven to be terrorists, we betray American principles of justice and hurt our cause. This is precisely why Gitmo and Abu Gharib have undercut justification for our actions– over and above the fact that torture is immoral, illegal and ineffective.
Comment by Constantine — 1:05 pm
“When we apprehend people on flimsy evidence and then provide no way to remedy the situation with a fair trial…”
Again this case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden.
Hardly an innocent man apprehended on flimsy evidence.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 1:15 pm
All the more reason to have fair trials; he should be easy to convict. In this way we can show the world we’re not afraid to hold open court on terrorists, instead of kangaroo “military tribunals.”
Don’t ignore the fact that he was the test case, but the ruling applies to everybody.
Comment by Constantine — 2:03 pm
“All the more reason to have fair trials; he should be easy to convict. In this way we can show the world we’re not afraid to hold open court on terrorists, instead of kangaroo “military tribunals.””
No, this is dangerous, as proved out by the trial we had relating to the 1993 WTC bombing. Certain information was published in that trial that was used by terrorists to plan the 2001 attack.
To say nothing of the danger posed to innocent civilians who would become jurors on such a trial.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 2:11 pm
“Certain information was published in that trial that was used by terrorists to plan the 2001 attack.”
According to whom?
Comment by Constantine — 2:53 pm
“According to whom?”
From the Washington Post:
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 3:32 pm
“…show the world we’re not afraid to hold open court on terrorists, instead of kangaroo “military tribunals.”
Constantine, to attach the adjective “kangaroo” to “military tribunals” tells me you don’t know what the Hell you are talking about. I strongly resent your obvious disdain for the abilities of our citizens in uniform. Military tribunals are structured in a military courts marshal manner that examines the battlefield evidence and arrives at a judicious decision. The proceedings are designed to ensure classified information is not made public (much to the chagrin of the NTY) and does not unnecessarily jeopardize people (jury, witnesses, etc.); as Jason has pointed out. In the future when you have no subject matter expertise, I strongly suggest you stick to vague generalities. It seems to work for you otherwise.
Comment by Old Soldier — 5:52 pm
I think it’s interesting that Old Soldier is even debating the finer points of split-second combat decisions with people who won’t even volunteer for REMF jobs in the military. And since at least one of you libs freely admitted to having never served — and thereby lack a proper frame of reference for arguing what combat does to people, thereby invalidating, by its very nature, anything you have to say about what’s going on, right down on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan — I’ll leave it up to you liberals to figure out what a REMF is.
Looking at the election returns in New York and New Jersey in 2000 and making a reasonable judgment (which is probably you liberals are incapable of doing, but hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day), about 58 percent of the people killed by terrorists in the WTC on 9-11-01 voted for AL GORE. But they’re still DEAD — and they didn’t get any protection under Geneva, unless you know something about jurisprudence in the Afterlife (and since most libs are atheists, I’m going to guess that answer’s a big, fat, honking NO) I do not.
Is that because we’re bound by Geneva (and the Hague accords) but Al-Qaeda, not a signatory, as has been pointed out, doesn’t play by the rules?
The best way we can eliminate this pointless debate is to stop taking prisoners. And start letting liberals house all the Gitmo detainees. I wonder how Forrest’s mom would look in a burkha. And keep Ahmed away from anything he could use as a weapon — and don’t turn on Western TV, unless it’s Al-CNN.
Feel free to beat me down on my “ignorance,” but you’re still siding with your enemies, no matter what pretty face you try to paint on it.
What was it Churchill said about appeasing evil? Something like how it’s the “policy of hoping the lion eats you LAST?”
Have a nice denial, libs.
Comment by Realist — 9:18 pm
Realist, your argument is, unfortunately, nothing new. Play to fear, however unrealistic the picture you are painting is. And I know what a REMF is, thanks much.
And since at least one of you libs freely admitted to having never served — and thereby lack a proper frame of reference for arguing what combat does to people, thereby invalidating, by its very nature, anything you have to say
I imagine that you find it terrible that our founders found it necessary to give control of our government to someone other than warriors. Perhaps you should go become a warlord in rural Afghanistan, somewhere that you aren’t effectively bound to rule of law.
And start letting liberals house all the Gitmo detainees. I wonder how Forrest’s mom would look in a burkha.
Good attempt to get me to bite out of anger by what is actually nothing more than a serious but idiotic “your mama” joke, but its not going to work. I won’t respond further than this to any illogical, however personal, rhetoric.
The fact is that guaranteeing the rights that American law requires to enemy combatants is far far different than protecting innocent American mothers. But I don’t expect you to see that, all you know is emotional decisions devoid of logic, awareness of potential future consequences, and understanding the roots of terrorism.
about 58 percent of the people killed by terrorists in the WTC on 9-11-01 voted for AL GORE. But they’re still DEAD
And we never had any idea that Al-Qaeda was planning to attack us using planes, and no idea that the WTC was a likely target, did we? Voting in favor of enforcing Geneva, which once again is American law, in no way causes one to responsible for a failure of the American intelligence agencies.
Feel free to beat me down on my “ignorance,” but you’re still siding with your enemies, no matter what pretty face you try to paint on it.
I will beat you down on it. Ignorance should never be allowed to guide policy, ever. My real enemy is your ignorance, because it creates more bin Ladens, and I will never side with it.
Comment by Forrest — 6:56 pm
“Ignorance should never be allowed to guide policy, ever. My real enemy is your ignorance, because it creates more bin Ladens, and I will never side with it.”
Forrest, if those words had been spoken in 1998 they would have rung true. But they are extremely naive and shallow in 2006.
Jason may have been making light of our exchange, however, the truth of the matter is: you can’t handle the truth. You are hiding behind a romantic notion that is not fitting to the reality of this world.
Your advocating to extend civil rights to terrorists by granting open trials in our courts is beyond the pale. Do you understand that in open court proceedings, our tactics, intelligence, and strategy would have to be revealed in the proceedings? Just how much information do you want to give to the very people that would cheerfully torture and behead you - all while taping it for later airing on the internet?
Thankfully, that is not what the SCOTUS decision advocates. God help us if the whinny-assed romantics that want terrorists captured on a battlefield to have access to our civil court system ever get their way.
Comment by Old Soldier — 7:36 am
Forrest, if those words had been spoken in 1998 they would have rung true. But they are extremely naive and shallow in 2006.
Extremely naive? Do you even know what led bin Laden to begin his jihan against the US? The presence of American bases in Saudi Arabia. This isn’t speculation or guessing, as bin Laden has told the world this himself.
Are you aware of how many holy sites of Islam exist in Iraq? From this list, there are 14 cities listed that contain holy sites. Five of those cities are in Iraq. Keeping that in mind, it appears that permanent American military bases are going to be built in Iraq.
This is why I say we are on the road to creating more bin Ladens. Explain to me how that is an illogical conclusion, given that bin Laden began his attacks against the US because we had bases in Saudi Arabia, thus tainting the home of many Islamic holy sites, Iraq has a large number of holy sites, and permanent bases are being erected in Iraq.
Jason may have been making light of our exchange, however, the truth of the matter is: you can’t handle the truth. You are hiding behind a romantic notion that is not fitting to the reality of this world.
So now the rule of law is a romantic notion? You should move to China or Sudan then.
Now, for God’s sake, stop putting words into my mouth regarding what I want for treatment of the terrorists.
I never said that I want to “extend civil rights to terrorists by granting open trials in our courts.” I do not want that, I will not want that, and I did not say that, so stop insinuating that I did. Once again, its extremely dishonest of you to do this.
What I want is for American law to be followed. The Geneva Convention is American law. Are you truly ignorant enough to believe that certain laws can be ignored without grave cost in other areas?
Well, then again, you do appear to believe that the “rule of law” is a romantic notion so perhaps you do not really care for the US to still be guided by it. I’m sure that Jason, as a lawyer, appreciates that view.
Comment by Forrest — 11:55 am
”Do you even know what led bin Laden to begin his jihan against the US? The presence of American bases in Saudi Arabia. This isn’t speculation or guessing, as bin Laden has told the world this himself.”
Yes, Forrest, I know why bin Laden began his jihad against the US. It’s called being a radical Islamic terrorist. Blaming the actions of 9-11 on our presence in Saudi Arabia is called propaganda, deception, misdirection, a ploy to draw empathy from sympathetic media (or in our case pathetic media). Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in Oct of 2000, and he didn’t blame it on our presence in SA. We were not occupiers of Mecca or Medina – our facilities weren’t even close to those cities. It’s pretty sad that you would readily accept the word of a man who’s religion tells him to lie, deceive, do whatever is required to destroy the Infidels. Radical Islamic terrorists are not noble people who can be taken at their word. Even if they give their word to an Infidel, the Qur’an and Hadith exonerate them from have to keep that word. So, mind telling me why we are supposed to believe anything OBL has to say? You’ve read his rantings, how many lies about events has he uttered in those ‘announcements”?
”Are you aware of how many holy sites of Islam exist in Iraq?”
Are you aware I don’t really care how many cities in Iraq are considered holy by Muslims? The majority of those cities were under Jewish or Christian leadership and governance long before Islam was born. Believe it or not there are religions much older than Islam.
”This is why I say we are on the road to creating more bin Ladens. Explain to me how that is an illogical conclusion, given that bin Laden began his attacks against the US because we had bases in Saudi Arabia, thus tainting the home of many Islamic holy sites, Iraq has a large number of holy sites, and permanent bases are being erected in Iraq.”
Remember the part about propaganda, deception, misdirection, a ploy to draw empathy from sympathetic media? If all of this hostility in Islam directed against the West is predicated upon the US’s military presence in SA, then explain the Muslim violence that has been perpetuated for the last 1500 years. Our actions are not what is generating more bin Ladens – Islamic imams and Wahabi schools are the generators; that coupled to the fact that we are Infidels and their goal is to establish Caliphates to rule the world via Sharia.
”So now the rule of law is a romantic notion?”
The rule of law is not romantic when it is meted out with common sense and within the confines of our constitution. Wanting peace by everyone just getting along is a romantic notion that is not based upon reality. Radical Islam will not be appeased, nor should we be tempted to travel down that road. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, appeasing radical Islam is the same as hoping the lion eats you last.
”You should move to China or Sudan then.”
Your arrogance and insolence is insulting. I wore my beloved country’s uniform for 31 years through 3 armed conflicts and many separations from my family, and you have the audacity to tell me I should move to China or Sudan? And you wonder why you can’t have a civil discourse?
”What I want is for American law to be followed. The Geneva Convention is American law.”
No, the accords of the Convention are not American law. Our law requires us to honor our treaties. There is a subtle difference, but no matter, the accords basically exempt terrorist who do not qualify as enemy soldiers. Do you really consider al-Qaeda to be a High Contracting Party to be honored by the Convention accords? Neither you nor I will be the deciding solicitors in this matter.
” Are you truly ignorant enough to believe that certain laws can be ignored without grave cost in other areas?”
This is your second blatantly insolent comment. One more and I will no longer respond to your comments. Our constitution has been decidedly ignored by the highest court in the land – yes, the SCOTUS. Do you agree that Kelo vs. New London was based upon an originalist interpretation of the constitution? How about Roe v Wade and the Fifth Amendment?
You have a few miles to travel before you have all the answers. Along the way it would behoove you to read some explorative material relative to Islam and their relationship to Infidels.
Comment by Old Soldier — 7:16 pm
Soldier, in “military tribunals” practiced at Gitmo, accusations are made of the accused without evidence or witnesses to back up the claim, under the guise of maintaining national secrets. Pretty easy to convict that way. That’s not a real trial.
When the court is informed of witnesses who can prove an inmate’s innocence they make little or no effort to find them, even when they’re easy to find:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1810329,00.html
Bush and Cheney continue to run rampant over all the safeguards our government has put in place by throwing up a “national secrets” smokescreen to cover their crimes. They lost all credibility when it became obvious they lied to get the Iraq invasion and put us in this situation.
I know what I’m talking about. I’m sorry you keep interpreting my disgust with Bush administration policies as disdain for people in uniform. Soldiers don’t set policy.
Comment by Constantine — 12:30 am
John, your statements are astounding. The facts are opposed to many of them, plain and simple.
Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in Oct of 2000, and he didn’t blame it on our presence in SA.
Bin Laden began listinglisting the American presence in Saudi Arabia as one of his chief grievances as early as 1990.
So, yes actually, he did attack the USS Cole due to the American presence in Saudi Arabia. He also mentioned this grievance verbatim in a 1997 interview, which of course was prior to the Cole attack.
Believe it or not there are religions much older than Islam.
What is your point here? The age of a particular religion is irrelevant.
Are you aware I don’t really care how many cities in Iraq are considered holy by Muslims?
The issue here is that Islam is one of the three largest religions in the world. If you really think its wise to ignore the deeply held beliefs of people numbering anywhere from 700 million to 1.2 billion (estimates vary, here is a list of several such estimates), may God forbid that your advice ever reaches the ears of anyone who makes such decisions.
The rule of law is not romantic when it is meted out with common sense and within the confines of our constitution.
Do you read the same Constitution that I do? The one that which, in Article VI states:
I wore my beloved country’s uniform for 31 years through 3 armed conflicts and many separations from my family, and you have the audacity to tell me I should move to China or Sudan?
If you really do not appreciate Article VI of the Constitution, then perhaps you ought to consider moving elsewhere. China and Sudan I used for hyperbole. However Article VI is the law at its most fundamental. You can’t have the Constitution piecemeal, taking what you like and ignoring what you do not.
No, the accords of the Convention are not American law. Our law requires us to honor our treaties. There is a subtle difference, but no matter, the accords basically exempt terrorist who do not qualify as enemy soldiers.
Once again, I point you to these words:
That doesn’t isn’t the law saying we must honor them and thus creating a distinction between law and treaty; it is saying very clearly that treaties are law. There is no other way around that. The Geneva Convention is American law.
If all of this hostility in Islam directed against the West is predicated upon the US’s military presence in SA, then explain the Muslim violence that has been perpetuated for the last 1500 years.
Once again, you put words into my mouth. I never once stated that ALL of the hostility from Islam towards the West is caused by the (former) American presence in Saudi Arabia. If you really want to go back 1500 years, then I would advise that you do some research on this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. I do not mean to say that the West was the party responsible for instigating each of these hostilities, but certainly was culpable for a number of them. And all such conflicts obviously are related to the animosity that still exists today.
Our constitution has been decidedly ignored by the highest court in the land – yes, the SCOTUS.
What are you suggesting here? Abolishing the Supreme Court? Once again, that is a fundamental aspect of the American system of government, as per Article III of the Constitution.
And you wonder why you can’t have a civil discourse?
Putting words into my mouth repeatedly, dishonestly representing my positions, and brushing my view off as youthful ignorance are definitely not civil and will cause a similar response from me. Were I to work for an environment of civility, I would not mislead, misrepresent or blow off the person with whom I were discussing something.
This is your second blatantly insolent comment. One more and I will no longer respond to your comments.
I echo that with putting words into my mouth, intentionally misrepresenting reality (ie. the Constitution) and blowing me off. Deal? And you never answered the question. Please do. Do you really believe that you can erode some laws (in this case, Article VI of the Constitution itself) without eroding the entire system?
Do you agree that Kelo vs. New London was based upon an originalist interpretation of the constitution?
Where does the Constitution state that one must approach it from an originalist perspective? The beauty of the US is that we have an environment of open debate. Mandating specific positions was definitely not an intent of the founders, otherwise there would have been reason for speech protections in the First Amendment.
Now, out of honest curiosity, what is it that you are so attached to in the US? You do not appear to appreciate the Constitution in its entirety, nor the Supreme Court, nor the rule of law in its unadulterated form.
You have a few miles to travel before you have all the answers. Along the way it would behoove you to read some explorative material relative to Islam and their relationship to Infidels.
This is exactly the type of dismissal I loathe from you. Treat me with some respect and you’ll earn some from me. I possess two different versions of the Quran, have read much of it, and discussed it with people who have lived in the Middle East and Indonesia (which is very Muslim). Your views on the Quran are markedly different than those of most in the world. Why do you believe that is? Everyone I know that has lived in Muslim areas would vehemently disagree with you on the positions of Islam.
FYI, for a little background on myself, I am a Christian and have been my entire life. I attended a conservative, evangelical private Christian school for middle school and high school and a Presbyterian-affiliated university and graduated near the top of my class at both schools. I’m no “worldly, secular” heathen. I have friends (some of whom awere Christian theology majors) that lived in Muslim countries such as Lebanon and Indonesia, travelled for months recently in the Middle East (Palestine, Israel, Turkey, Egypt). I intensely discuss matters of theology, comparative religion, philosophy, ethics, morality and politics with these friends on a regular basis. I currently am a software developer, but do not believe this line of work will satisfy for me for long. I have been told I have an analytical gift and am strongly considering entering law school to make use of it. I do not claim to have all the answers, but nothing makes me as angry as being off-handedly dismissed in the way you have and always do. It not typical of me to describe myself like this, because I do not feel that this type of background information should be necessary to earn respect, but perhaps in this case it will help.
One more thing, I do appreciate your military service greatly, especially with the reminder of the upcoming holiday on Tuesday. I have a grandfather and step-grandfather (with whom I am especially close) who also both served (USAF and Navy). I am thankful for their service and hope to give them the respect they deserve for it. I have several friends who are now commissioned officers in the US Army via ROTC programs. I have another friend who recently returned from a tour in Iraq with Marine Corps. Military service, however, does not give one a blank check when it comes to debating other issues, and I would not give that to my family or friends or anyone else based simply on their service.
It may be good to take this discussion offline to email or some other forum if you really wish to continue it. But, if you prefer, I am open to continuing it here. Its your call.
Comment by Forrest — 1:47 am
Forrest, first up; bin Laden and radical Islamic terrorists.
Bin Laden’s blaming the 9-11 attacks and all of his directed aggression since 1990 on the US is purely misdirection. The US military was there first to save Saudi Arabia’s bacon from Saddam, and then to enforce the UN resolutions pertaining to the no-fly zones imposed on Saddam (after the first Gulf War). We were not forces occupying Mecca or Medina and we certainly were not slaughtering Muslims. If bin Laden had a problem (with the US presence in SA) his rightful target of displeasure was the Saudi government, not the people working in the World Trade Center. I cannot believe the logic to your argument would include justifying bin Laden’s actions.
Islam in general: there were two sides to the Crusades. If you believe the Crusades were unprovoked acts of aggression by Christians visited upon innocent Muslims, then you are accepting only one side of history. Deeper research should reveal that the Muslims had militaristically taken cities and towns that had been predominately Christian and some Jew (the advancement of Islam by the sword). The Crusades were launched to evict the invaders and reclaim the cities, towns, etc. That went back and forth for a couple hundred years. Interestingly, when the Muslims overran a city, the citizens were given the choice to convert to Islam, accept dhimmi status or die. When Christians retook cities, they allowed the Muslims to remain as Muslims provided they agreed to remain peaceful. A stark contrast, wouldn’t you say?
While studying Islam you might want to include the Hadith and probably spend a little more time understanding the following verses of the Qur’an.
2:19, “And slay them wherever ye catch them.”
4:84, “Then fight in Allah’s cause.”
4:141, “And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers.”
5:33, “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”
8:12, “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”
8:17, “It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah.”
8:60, “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”
8:65, “O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers.”
9:5, “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.”
9:14, “Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,…”
9:28-29, “O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
9:39, “Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least.”
9:73, “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell - an evil refuge indeed.”
9:111, “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an.”
9:123, “O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.”
22:9, “(Disdainfully) bending his side, in order to lead (men) astray from the Path of Allah: for him there is disgrace in this life, and on the Day of Judgment We shall make him taste the Penalty of burning (Fire).”
22:19-22, “These two antagonists dispute with each other about their Lord: But those who deny (their Lord),- for them will be cut out a garment of Fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water. With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins. In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them. Every time they wish to get away there from, from anguish, they will be forced back therein, and (it will be said), “Taste ye the Penalty of Burning!”
25:52, “So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavor.”
25:69, “Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy.”
37:22-23, “Bring ye up”, it shall be said, “The wrong-doers and their wives, and the things they worshipped- Besides Allah, and lead them to the Way to the (Fierce) Fire!”
47:4, “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.”
48:13, “And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!”
48:29, “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.”
69:30-37, (The stern command will say): “Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin.”
I have no problem with Islam or Muslims in general. I have a significant problem with the radical faction that wants to place the world under an Islamic Caliphate rule imposing sharia. These are the people who wage war against us and these are the people that believe Infidels are not human, that there is no divine punishment related to anything they do to us (torture, killing, etc.). For you to offer any kind of a defense for these radicals in general or specific is unconscionable. Do you believe the group out of Arkansas claiming to be Baptist Christians who demonstrate at the funerals of soldiers killed in action, claiming the soldiers’ death is because God is judging the US in regards to our acceptance of gay people, have a Biblical justification for acting in such a way? I certainly do not. And I am appalled at the deafening silence of the “peaceful” Muslims when it comes to condemning the acts of the rogue (?) radicals of their religion.
Here is a reference you might find interesting regarding Muslim violence. After seriously reviewing the reference to more than 5,000 acts of radical Islamic terrorism since 9-11, perhaps you should re-evaluate your tendency to be an Islamic apologist.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
Now on to the Constitution… a couple references, first.
Article I. Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power… To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Article II, Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,
Article III. Section. 2. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Several times you have commented regarding the “rule of law” and I have indicated you have a romantic notion toward the “rule of law”. Sharia is law which rules Muslims, do you believe it should be applied within the US? The question is absurd, but makes a point; not all law is good. When our SCOTUS justices legislate from the bench they usurp the people’s representation afforded them by the constitution. The justice’s job is to interpret law; it is Congress’s job to enact laws, etc., etc. I believe in law that is founded upon or based in our constitution, contains common sense (the reasonable man application) – not international law. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg have favored referring to international law to decide matters before the SCOTUS. In regards to our sovereignty I consider this close to heresy.
To boil all of that down, yes, I believe in the rule of law that is properly legislated and properly interpreted. When the SCOTUS renders a bad ruling, what is the people’s recourse? The justices are not deities that sit the bench; truth of the matter is they are just as motivated by ideology as you and I. So when a 5-4 ruling is ideologically based, what is our recourse? Nothing, you say? Read Article III, Section 2 again. Congress can intervene; however, right now the ideological leaning of the SCOTUS is suited to the minority party, so regulating the bounds of the SCOTUS would be near impossible.
In regards to the specific issue that started this discussion – the constitution and the Accords of the Geneva Convention, I suggest you read this commentary by Mark Steyn. He presents some powerful arguments in regard to who the Accords apply to.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn02.html
(al-Qaeda and “terrorists” are not covered – something about “High Contracting Parties”.)
”…then perhaps you ought to consider moving elsewhere. (snip) This is exactly the type of dismissal I loathe from you. Treat me with some respect and you’ll earn some from me.”
Forrest, I am probably close to three times your age. Do you have any idea how arrogant and elitist your comment about me “earning” your respect comes off? I want you to do something for me… I want you to copy this comment stream (as it pertains to the “discussion” between you and me) and I want you to encapsulate it and ear mark it to be opened and reread July 4th, 2046. See if at that age you still feel the same way about earning the respect of a person 1/3 your age. This has nothing to do with our differences in how we view the topic of discussion. I have tired of your insolence and blatant disrespect; therefore, I am no longer inclined to carrying on a discussion with you. Unless you gain some civility and respect in the manner in which you address and respond to me, then you needn’t bother to reply to this comment, because I shall no longer respond to you.
Comment by Old Soldier — 8:00 am
John, read the decision in the Hamdan case. The ruling is based largely upon Common Article 3, which is present in each of the 4 Geneva Convention treaties the US signed onto. And I quote:
Paraphrased for the sake of our topic: A High Contracting Party is prohibited (in section 1) from passing judgement on those people detained by one of said High Contracting in a conflict occurring in the territory of a High Contracting Party if the judgment is passed in a court that is not regularly constituted. Other prohibitions in this Clear as day. The High Contracting Parties are bound to treat anyone detained (in addition to others), not simply those of the parties nation/military, according to the rules laid out in this section. That includes section d, which deals exclusively with the passing of judgment.
In regards to the specific issue that started this discussion – the constitution and the Accords of the Geneva Convention, I suggest you read this commentary by Mark Steyn. He presents some powerful arguments in regard to who the Accords apply to.
How activist of you, ignoring the original words and intent of the Geneva Convention, which we have established is US law. I’ll take the actual language of the treaty over Mark Steyn’s arguments every moment of my life. I’d suggest you do the same.
Interestingly, when the Muslims overran a city, the citizens were given the choice to convert to Islam, accept dhimmi status or die. When Christians retook cities, they allowed the Muslims to remain as Muslims provided they agreed to remain peaceful.
I will not accept this assertion without evidence. I do not doubt that this occurred at times, but I reject the notion that it was not an exception to the regular. I frankly do not believe this is true because Muslim governments typically enriched themselves on jizya taxes exacted upon Christians and Jews residing in Muslim areas.
The methodology you are using to back your position on Islam with verses from the Quran is known as prooftexting. Its not a sound form of argument. The same thing can be done with Christian scripture to make the argument that the Christian God encourages his followers to slay enemies, destroy their property, etc. If you really cannot see this, let me know and I’ll pull plenty of verses from the Bible for you to see clearly. I assume this is unnecessary however because you’re likely familiar enough with the Bible (especially many Old Testament sections) to know how prevalent singular verses (or multiple ones taken out of context) like this are.
For you to offer any kind of a defense for these radicals in general or specific is unconscionable.
I am not defending radical Muslims. I oppose them as I oppose violent Christian fundamentalists. Once again, you misrepresent my position. I haven’t said a word in defense of radical Muslims in any of these comments, and for you to insinuate this is, once again, dishonest.
Do you believe the group out of Arkansas claiming to be Baptist Christians who demonstrate at the funerals of soldiers killed in action, claiming the soldiers’ death is because God is judging the US in regards to our acceptance of gay people, have a Biblical justification for acting in such a way?
Build that straw man up, then knock him down.
And I am appalled at the deafening silence of the “peaceful” Muslims when it comes to condemning the acts of the rogue (?) radicals of their religion.
So its “common Iraqis speaking out loudly and taking a stand against terrorists in their country” when they reject boycotts suggested by insurgents, but its deafening silence now?
Forrest, I am probably close to three times your age. Do you have any idea how arrogant and elitist your comment about me “earning” your respect comes off?
You had my respect until you repeatedly misrepresented my position, ignored the reality of Article VI of the US Constitution, ignored valid points I have explained and honest questions I have asked of you, and began to demand respect from me while denying respect for me due to your disagreement with me. Respect entails you do not misrepresent your opponent’s position and the reality of the issues you are debating. In short, you had my respect, but you’ve nearly lost it completely now, and there is little unreasonable about that.
Comment by Forrest — 2:31 am
I have, believe it or not, read through this entire comment thread. Having done that, I don’t see anywhere in this thread that Forrest showed respect for Old Soldier. If that is his idea of respect, I sincerely suggest he look up the meaning of the word.
It’s very easy to see who was outclassed here, and it certainly wasn’t Old Soldier! Way to go, Old Soldier. You are absolutely right.
Comment by Gayle — 6:41 pm
Unless I’m missing something, this case should’ve never even been heard by the Supreme Court.
Not only does the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 afford the US Court of Appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review habeas-corpus petitions from Guantanamo detainees, but it goes on to say quite explicitly, “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider . . . an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba . . .”
And if you’d respond by saying something like, “Congress doesn’t have the right to institute such judicial restrictions,” well, then you’d be wrong. According to the Constitution (Article III, Section 2), Supreme Court jurisdiction is subject to “such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
So arguing over whether or not the Court’s decision was the right one ignores the fact that it’s a decision that should never have been made in the first place.
Perhaps someone who knows a bit more about this sort of thing can tell me where I’ve got wrong . . . but at the moment, it all seems pretty explicit and clear.
Comment by G&R — 8:31 am
G&R, I agree whole heartedly taht the SCOTUS has violated the constitution by taking Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld on. But by what process can the SCOTUS be made to reverse its decision and find they had no jurisdiction. Surely we must not be caught in a Catch 22 situation hereby the SCOTUS has ruled and cannot be challenged… What is the sense of having three branches of government if the SCOTUS is the one and only final authority on all matters pertaining to government?
Comment by Old Soldier — 8:59 am
I recently read this
book (in German, unfortunately there’s no English translation (yet?)). The author interviewed 4 ex-prisoners of Guantánamo. All four of whom are innocent (otherwise they wouldn’t be free now). They’re no terrorists. So please don’t equate “Guantánamo inmate” with “terrorist”! In the book they talk about torture, rape, desecration of the Quran, questioning techniques, isolation, bad interpreters, obscure medication, traumatization, and mental defects. It’s really shocking.
To make myself clear: I’m not weeping for terrorists but for basic human rights! Because that’s what separates us from them (not the religion)!
Comment by Paul — 5:40 am
Paul, interested in some Arizona ocean front property?
Comment by Old Soldier — 5:39 pm