Allahpundit asks why Obama is beginning the walkback/sacrificial process on Gitmo.
I presume that it's a rhetorical question.
By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 | A Child wearing an adult's clothes | Barack Obama | Gitmo | The Polls Make the Man — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
After all, Allahpundit's a smart guy; and besides the answer to why this little time bomb was slipped into the narrative...
And that is that we don’t have to treat these folks as US citizens. We don’t have to treat them in the same way that we would treat a criminal suspect in the U.S., but we should abide by the Geneva conventions. We should at least follow through on the same principals we followed though when dealing with Nazis during Nuremburg[*], that is not only the right thing to do but it also actually will strengthen our ability over the long term to fight terrorism."
...is fairly obvious:
13. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that non-citizens suspected of terrorism who are being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be allowed to challenge their detentions in the U.S. civilian court system. (Supporters of this ruling say it provides detainees with basic constitutional rights.) (Critics of the ruling say only special military tribunals should be allowed, because hearings in open court could compromise terrorism investigations.) What's your view - do you think these detainees should or should not be able to challenge their detentions in the civilian court system?
Should 34
Should not 61
No opinion 6
6/15/08
So, really, all that's left is the decision of which Obama staffer will regrettably need to be sacrificed in order to expiate Obama's dishonor. I imagine that health care for that campaign is deceptively easy to come by; after all, it's not like anybody lasts long enough to collect...
Moe Lane
*I personally find it adorable when progressives pretend to know something about history: don't you?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | DNC Default Update: "Whoa, whoa, whoa! Nice shootin', Tex! " — Comments (14) »
Allahpundit asks why Obama is beginning the walkback/sacrificial process on Gitmo. 32 Comments (0 topical, 32 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Shoot them in the back of the head, execution style, right where we capture them.
___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!
I think that that would violate fewer of their rights than indefinite captivity without recourse to a court would.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Sure, okay.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Captured foreign combatants that are not part of an organized group that takes responsibility for the actions of its members, do not wear a uniform (or "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance"), not carrying arms openly, or caught in violation of "the laws and customs of war" do not have any right not to be shot on the spot. The United States is not obligated to make them prisoners of war. If they want to avoid being shot or hanged, they can stay civilians. Attacking causes them to lose the protections associated with that.
This is what it is.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I would say that all of us have a Right to Life.
Shooting someone in the head violates that fundamental Right.
Now, we get into issues of how a guy was not wearing a uniform and using asymmetrical/terrorist tactics against uniformed soldiers and was captured.
Would these soldiers have the Right, according to the conventions, to shoot this guy in the head?
Of course!
Would this violate this guy's Right to Life? Yeah.
Am I worried about this? Not particularly.
If someone points out that shooting the guy in the head would violate none of his rights in response to my saying that shooting him in the head would violate fewer of them would I respond with "hem haw okay sure" rather than write a post like this one? Probably.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Since you apparently want to drag in abortion rhetoric, he Chose to give up his Right not to be shot out of hand (something that civilians actually have guaranteed to them, thanks to the Conventions) when he decided to take up arms against another military force. Should he be captured, it behooves him to make certain beforehand that he Chose membership in a group that would not automatically invalidate any claim of his to the Rights associated with being a Prisoner of War (which include the Right not to be shot out of hand).
It's all about taking personal responsibility for the ownership of oneself, in other words.
Can I go now?
Moe Lane
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I was more thinking about the Nature of Rights and Rights, by their Nature, can't really be taken away. They can be violated, for sure... but I don't know if they can be removed.
Can they be contracted away and this guy, by his actions, is effectively signing an implied contract that gives away his Rights?
Meh. I don't know. I'd have to think about it. As it stands now, however... I think I'm of the opinion that Rights don't go away... but I'd have to think about it.
Oh, sure. If you want to go, feel free. I ramble a lot.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Moe,
The Geneva Conventions contemplated more statuses than POW and civilian. In fact, Article 5 to the Third Geneva Convention provides for a hearing to determine whether an individual is a POW, a civilian, or an unlawful combatant. Article 5 of the Fourth Vienna Convention requires that where an individual "is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State." But, the convention also provides that "[i]n each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."
In light of this language, I think it might be an overstatement to claim that the captured individuals can be shot on the spot. And in any event, the United States has more options than shooting them or making them prisoners of war.
...which, contra the antiwar movement, does not actually mean "automatic." Somebody caught rigging an IED in a civilian isn't in doubt of his illegal combatant status. Neither is a jihadi captured in civilian clothes while shooting up a military convoy, or a school. As for Article V of Convention IV... sure, once we take their surrender, we can't shoot 'em without a trial*. I missed the section where American troops are obligated to accept surrenders: could you give me the link?
In other words, I'm very sorry to have to tell you this, but the Conventions were actually set up to make it easier to kill armed insurgents, via the method of distinguishing as many types of them away from both legitimate POWs and civilians. We keep them alive not because we're nice, but because we want the information in their heads, and we have a method for extracting it that still leaves a functioning human being at the end of it. Or we did. Thanks largely to the antiwar movement, we may not have that any more - so we'll just shoot them when we catch them. At least, I hope. Because shooting them isn't actually the nastiest option.
Gee, thanks.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
*We actually reserved the right to shoot people for more than the Convention generally allows, but that's a minor issue.
Civilian populations. There are also points about using hospitals, places of worship, schools, museums, etc as operational or logistical bases to mount excursions from. So the conventions placed very dire consequences (declared war crimes) on individuals who act as a civilian, around civilians around the places mentioned above and made it easier for the organized forces to dispatch the offenders. (See: Protocol I, Art(s). 44(3), 48, 51, 85(3))
“Feigning of civilian or non-combatant status is perfidy and prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I. Art. 37, Sec. 1)" I remember while in officer training that the penalty was summary execution, but I cannot find it.
...Lean not on your own understanding...
Thanks in advance.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
"Thanks largely to the antiwar movement, we may not have that any more - so we'll just shoot them when we catch them. At least, I hope."
Watch what you wish for (anti-war movement) you just might get it!!! they won this battle the rest of us will win the war!
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
...really want to have to shoot out of hand 19 year old idiots who have been stuffed full of jihadist nonsense, given a plane ticket and a rifle, and sent out to face the pinnacle of human military development and training. We want to shoot the sons of bitches who recruit them, the sons of bitches who train them, and - most, most, most especially - the sons of bitches who send them out to die.
But better ten Middle Easterners die - or a hundred - than one progressive feel bad about himself, I suppose*.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
*That's a sneer, by the way. I only mention it because far too many people have that attitude for real, although rather fewer of them will admit to it in public. :)
to pass on to another child REALLY ought to go as well but I get your point....but I always say you cannot beat this ideology you MUST kill it! There is no moderation in the thought process of this enemy! It is literally kill or be killed.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
The anti war crowd wants lots of young Middle Easterners to be shot by Americans. The purpose is to produce another Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a VC photo.
If a thousand or ten thousand have to die so they can have a photographic club to beat America with, its well worth the cost in their eyes.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Of course I agree with you that Article 5 to the Third Geneva Convention is to be used only when there is any doubt about an individual's status, and taking the scenarios you posit in your first paragraph as you give them, there wouldn't be much need for an Article 5 hearing. But, the requirements for a militia can be pretty fluid, particularly the "fixed distinctive sign" requirements, which can be as simple as a scarf or a patch. Indeed, even regular units can sometimes be difficult to recognize at a distance. See photograph Special Forces on Horseback.
In other words, one could be a member of a militia and committing a war crime (such as shielding, etc.) or one could be an unlawful combatant due to the failure to carry arms openly and it might not be at all clear when the individual is first captured what the appropriate status of the individual might be.
On your point about accepting surrenders, if the individual in question is a lawful combatant, even if the person has committed a war crime, it is my understanding that failure to accept that person's surrender is, in fact, a war crime. If the person is a civilian that has committed a war crime, such as participating in hostilities, so long as that person has actually surrendered by throwing down their arms, I'm pretty sure that it would still be a war crime not to accept that person's surrender. If you know differently, please correct me. Of course, I recognize that knowing when someone has actually and truly surrendered and isn't just committing perfidy makes the question of accepting surrender (particularly when they have already committed other war crimes) very difficult.
This may be a bit of hindsight here, but I wish that the Bush administration had handled this whole situation very differently. I've spoken with a fair number of JAGS, and they agree with me that the UCMJ would have been a far better tool to use to prosecute these individuals than the military tribunals proposed by the administration. Had we given article 5 hearings to determine status where necessary and then used the UCMJ to prosecute war criminals, there simply would never have been any occasion for their attorneys to seek habeas relief on their behalf. But because the administration refused to use the tools it already had at its disposal out of a misguided sense that those tools couldn't or didn't apply, we have arrived at the situation where we are now and it is much harder, if not impossible, to put the genie back in the bottle.
At first glance if you deprive someone of life its a twofer. If you deprive someone of liberty it is at worst a temporary state.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Now, of course, in my private life I would probably rather my Liberty be nickeled and dimed away than, say, be shot outright.
But, hey. Suburbia. Whadyagonnado?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
That choice is your true liberty.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Yeah. It's the Liberty to... something or other.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!
If not, "Indefinite" seems a good enough word.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
That's news to me.
___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!
Have a cause of litigation against the U.S. government by the supreme courts twisted logic ?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
For aiding and abetting.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Ironic, isn't it, that the same people who want to give full U.S. Constitutional rights on enemy combatants caught on the battlefield trying to do harm to others, also disagree with the U.S. mission to give the opportunity for those same rights to the peaceful citizens of Iraq. This is just totally ridiculous! Agreed?
I have read a lot, but have never heard this side of the argument made.
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Can't Feed 'em? Don't Breed 'em! --
brought Eichman to the 9th circuit court to be tried. . . .
http://samuelatgilgal.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/obama-praises-radical-sup...
He's bestowing Geneva Convention rights to terrorists which has never been the policy of the United States. Talk about radical departures, that and the recent SCOTUS decision are about as radical as you can get.
Those rights are designed to ensure those that fight honorably are treated honorably, including Nazi and Japanese soldiers in camps during WWII. Geneva Convention rights mean you cannot be interrogated by what ever mild means the Democrats even believe in to extract operational information about future illegal operations. It's nothing but name, rank and serial number for Geneva Convention covered foot soldiers, which includes unlawful combatant terrorists in Obama's book.
Then there's the whole 1993 WTC argument. Putting the suspects in court with discovery actually reveled we had Osama's cell phone tapped which he responded to by going dark, causing us to lose intel on his future attacks, a string of which happened through the 90s. That was brilliant.
God save the Republic if this clown gets elected and there's a 9/11 on his watch, as if "if" is even a question. I'm not sure it will survive such a calamity on his watch. Talk about blood in the water for the terrorists.
A total fool. This is what a Harvard law degree gets you? The inability to distinguish between lawful and unlawful combatants and the fact that they're not on the same moral plane and do not deserve the same treatment. It's an insult to those that fight honorably.
These fools are busy tearing down the very firewall that protects them in their cocoon comfort and illogic.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974