"It's our way of telling the world that we aren't barbarians . . ."

Well, duh. What kind of moron could disagree with that?

William Lind, a conservative writer on military tactics, has described insurgencies as 4th Generation warfare. He believes the moral high ground is one of the single most important elements in winning 4G war. It's hard to be better, but don't start a war you can't figure out how to fight.

I just finished listening to Ron Suskind give a bookstore talk with follow-up questions on C-span. He made it quite clear that 'ends' never justify 'means,' no matter what the threat. He also talked about 'demonizing' the enemy rather than 'knowing' the enemy. All in all, it was wonderful to hear some wisdom for a change.

Goldberg is to lazy thinking what Coulter is to crazy thinking; neither merits a response. Ever.

Jonah Goldberg == jack ass

Well, I'm a Democrat, and I'll say it: anyone we capture on a battlefield should be subject to the minimum standards of decency outlined in the Geneva Conventions. That includes terrorists.

But the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists because they are non-state actors. The Geneva Conventions only apply to nations and to armed conflict not of a international character. Since terrorists aren't fighting on behalf of a nation and the war against terrorism is n internationl war, than the terrorists do not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions. As usual liberals like Kevin Drum and Michael Moore just don't understand the law.

"Here occurred an incident to which I have frequently referred with pride. In breaking open a quatermaster's storehouse to get supplies for this barricade, the men found bundles of the much-prized Mexican blankets, and also of very serviceable shoes and pack saddles. The pack saddles were freely taken as good material for the proposed barricade; and one of my men, as his shoes were broken and stones had hurt his feet, asked my permission to take a pair from one of the boxes. This, of course, was freely accorded; but not one of the very valuable and much-prized Mexican blankets was taken.

from an autobiographical statement in Belford's Magazine dated 1890 by Colonel Jefferson Davis about his Mississippi Rifles during the war with Mexico

I'm a Democrat and I believe that every prisoner of war deserves the protection of the Geneva Convention.

Wow, I agree with SCOTUS on something. Wierd.

We should not, however, extend the Geneva Convention standards of decency to Jonah Goldberg.

Jihadists believe 'all of Islam' is a single unified nation.

Well I think captured terrorists should be subject to goth rituals and emo sexual practices.

Note to Jonah:
Disregarding the Geneva Conventions clearly hasn't worked, and done terrible damage to this country and what we stand for.
So if you aren't going to oppose disregarding on moral grounds, try practical ones on for size.

As usual, Al doesn't understand English. Kevin never said that the terrorists constituted a nation. He said that the terrorists should be treated according to the minimal standards of decency as defined by the Geneva Conventions: he's using the Geneva Conventions as a standard. And I agree with Kevin. We should uphold decent standards even if we aren't forced to by law.

This post has more, including a quotation that points out the Bush Administration's contradictory positions on whether the war on "terrorism" is or is not a war.

"It's our way of telling the world that we aren't barbarians . . ."

Well, duh. What kind of moron could disagree with that?
Posted by: Joel on July 2, 2006

Jonah Goldberg?

can AL speak english

Here's the thing I don't understand -- if we were fighting a war with Nazi Germany, I don't think there would be any debate about the fact that Nazi POWs were subject to the geneva conventions. So is Goldberg saying that the terrorists are worse than Nazis?

You don't beat terrorism by breaking the law.

The Republicans wouldn't know this of course since it's never been part of their life experience to work hard and play by the rules. To them it's something completely foreign -- 'french' even.

Nothing like having an enemy that will fight to the death because they know that capture means torture.

Sun Tzu: Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.

To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape.

I'd feel a lot better about supporting the issue if some of the other "side(s)" treated our captured soldiers and all non-combatants with the same non-barbaric standards.

Thank you, Kevin. You have staked the high moral ground in what I believe is soon to be widely seen as the defining issue of our time, and probably of the November elections.

Out of both desperation and, in many cases, core belief, the right is lurching even harder toward the punishment-uber-alles approach to fighting terrorism, and it will have huge appeal to the Neanderthal wing of the Republican party -- hell, to the Neanderthal urges in each and every one of us; but it's time to make a stand.

Thank you for this small yet hopefully contagious contribution, Kevin.

Nowhere in the Geneva Conventions are public trials, lawyers, and limitations on lenght of imprisonment discussed.

"But the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists because they are non-state actors. blah...blah...blah. As usual liberals like Kevin Drum and Michael Moore just don't understand the law."

For all your false bravado, you seem to insist on mis-applying it. The point isn't "the law", it's about why we have them. It's called civilization. Try it sometime.

I am a Democrat, and I believe that every human being captured by the U.S. should and must be accorded the standards of the Geneva convention. It doesn't matter to me whether our "enemies" fail to follow these procedures - we are better than that.

and I would add to Kevin's comments...

How do you define a terrorist if you are going to make special rules for them?

And trolls...be careful...you might wrap a few people in your definition you don't intend to...

Regarding al-Qaeda and terrorists generally as non-state actors may be true as their primary criteria of self-identification, which is certainly the corporate feudalist view since it helps to undermine the idea of national sovereignty, but it is wrong both, because of that, and because these groups rely entirely on support, endorsement, and the logistical assistance of countries or national groups and work directly in the interest of those groups, in the way of contractors.

In other words they are mercenaries, or gangsters, or both; but, as either contractors or independent purveyors of an act of politics by other means I think it's unlikely that any court but a court of Republicans, whose interests are destroying national sovereignties and organized societies, would see them as anything but covered by the Geneva Conventions since those treaties were created to regularize what had been the legally indefinite status of people in war.

And, even if we really aren't at war, there have been so many acts of war in the circumstances in which these people in Guantanamo have been captured that the distinction, for them, is uselessly slender.

So, do Republicans now say, we are not at war with 'terror'?

In other words they are mercenaries, or gangsters, or both; but, as either contractors or independent purveyors of an act of politics by other means....

Hmmmm....mercenaries...contractors...mercanaries...contractors....

where have I heard about such actors in recent conflicts...

Anyone?...help me out here...

I just finished listening to Ron Suskind give a bookstore talk with follow-up questions on C-span.

The weekend 24hour non-fiction book review show on C-Span2 is the best thing on television by a mile. It is to the MSM political talk shows what the olympics is to professional wrestlig.

Pencarrow, why should we degrade our standards of civlized behavior in response to those who aren't civilized? The United States is supposed to stand for something. We're supposed to be the good guys. I'd like us to start being that again.

And of course, the key fact is that the Geneva convention doesn't require you to give everybody POW status, only to uniformed soldiers. Of course, if you make prisoners who are not wearing a uniform, you eventually have to make some charges and give them a civilian trial. You simply can't pull legal categories out of your ass, especially when they give the power to keep people detained indefinitely without charges. If other countries (like, I don't know, the UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, etc.) were able to defeat terrorist organizations without throwing their constitutions down the drain, you would think that the USA should be able to.

Al must have a pager attached to his WM feed. Kevin posts, Al reports with talking points within 15 minutes, complete w/the incredibly shopworn, spurious, vacuous "X is like Michael Moore" parrot squawk. Al, do you get overtime on a job like this, or are you actually volunteering to debase yourself on a 24/7 basis?

Excuse me, Kevin.

All the terrorists captured on the battlefield ARE being treated well at Gitmo.

I will mail a check for $1 who writes a post that Jonah Lucianne posts on the UberJunge Corner as an example of how unhinged the liberals on this blog are.

The point of the Geneva Conventions, as I understand it, is not to say that prisoners of war who are members of an enemy nation's army are deserving of decent treatment while nonstate enemy combatants are not, but rather that every human being deserves decent treatment, even members of an enemy nation's army. Of course, rhetoric aside, captured nonstate enemy combatants are human beings, so they also deserve decent treatment.

Same with the Bill of Rights, for that matter. These are human rights, not American citizen rights. The Constitution guarantees those rights to American citizens not because they are more deserving of these rights than noncitizens, but because American citizens are human beings over whom the U.S. government has jurisdiction. Since noncitizens are also human beings, when they come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government they should receive these rights too.

If we are in a war, then anyone we capture in that war gets Geneva conventions. Otherwise, we are not at war.

The Marine Corps published a manual 60 years ago written by their best interrogator who pointed out that treating prisoners decently works far better in interrogation than torture does. It's really irritating to think that we have taken such big steps backwards.

I think absolute yes/no answers lack nuance.

I can think of some practices that i would never employ, and others that i might on a tit-for-tat basis.

I tend to think that America should not lower the ethical bar, but that we should not simply allow the other guy to play by a shorter set of rules than we do.

Was it barbaric to have 1,000 B-17/B-24 bombers dropping thousands of tons of high explosives on civilian centers for months on end? Or fire-boming civilians or even Hiroshima/Nagasaki?

& that was our greatest generation you know.

Submarines were once considered barbaric...were expected to surface and warn merchentmen before sinking them. We went to war in WWI in part because Germany didn't play by that rule. But we sure didn't play by that rule against Japan in WWII.

Poison gas was deemed outside the rules of war (a term only man could have dreamed up). But had Hitler/Hirohito employed it in WWII, i have no doubt that we would have responded in kind.

A Nuclear/Chemical attack during the cold war? Was it barbaric to be prepared (for over 40 years) to incinerate 100,000,000 Russians in 30 minutes?

Did it begin in Korea that we started allowing our opponents 'safe havens' that we certainly didn't have? Are there earlier examples?

OTOH, i cannot imagine any circumstances where we would display the barbaric practices of the Japanese to our POWs,or the North Koreans or the Vietnamese. Particularly since they were not part of 'winning the war'.

Today we face an enemy who respects no 'rules of war'. To simply treat this enemy identically to one who does adhere to concepts like the Geneva Conventions seems on the face of it, foolish.

Simple brutality to no purpose cannot be condoned and must be punished swiftly for this shows that we are not barbaric. We have AMERICAN standards. We need to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror. I'm far less concerned with being able to look Sweeden in the eye.

At the same time, to play by rules that the other side ignores is to cede an advantage to them. One that may mean more crosses in Arlington.

The democratic thing, the AMERICAN thing to do is to review the Geneva conventions and to decide, as a people, do we think that all/some/none of those provisions should be ignored in the current circumstances.

We should neither assume that rules written 50-80 years ago for a far different world, for far different wars are 100% applicable to this war.

Nor should we chuck the conventions in the trash. They represent perhaps the best stating point for deciding what standards America should adhere to in this war.

So Goldberg and his ilk believe nations without a military like Afghanistan, can be invaded and if they resist and claim selfdefense the Geneva conventions don't apply, they are not entitled to humane treatment because they have no uniforms, tanks, planes, missiles and so on.

The Geneva Conventions are about humane treatment no more no less.

With all the modern weapons we use against these pathetic looking men, sometimes only teenagers , we are not big enough to treat them humanely.

Well, Republicans are not known to be generous, but they are good christians.

The abuse started at the very beginning in Afghanistan with the hoods and gogles and handcuffs, transporting people to unknown places, people who never learned to read or write.

Every man belonged to AQ, just because they were Afghans. The country was rubble and we made sure it was turned into powder.

How would we react if we were treated like that? Would we not claim selfdefense and fight back even without uniforms? It would be called resistence, not terror.

Oh yes, I would hate the people who did that to me too, and yes would fight too. There are plenty of guns in the country also.

JakeB: 9/11 changed everything. All the previous pronuncements and received wisdoms on matters of national security are now inoperative.

minimum standards of decency outlined in the Geneva Conventions.

The problem is that they are an "outline". It isn't clear who has the burden of proof, and how much proof is required. Nor is it clear that the trials have to be "timely", or "public".

Assuming that prisoners are not entitled to between-meal snacks, how much food deprivation is permissible? Is it torture when the prisoners start complaining? Is it torture to let them continue a hunger strike, or to interfere with the hunger strike?

I think that congress will be sorry if they have to debate these issues while the enemy in Iraq is torturing and mutilating its civilian and military captives, and while the enemy is intentionally blowing up unarmed civilians far from any military targets.

The Geneva Convention and the War on Terror are secondary to what is really going on here, which is the continued campaign to paint the Dems with weak "character values" --so no matter what happens, you don't trust them. Of course, this worked well through the last few elections. The Dems were always sidetracked to explain the material issue of the debate, instead of paying attention to the underlying character-value demonstration. They always ended-up looking bad.

But it is possible that the Republicans have finally made a mistake. Indeed their enormous glee to pounce upon this Supreme Court decision, suggests a precipitate and desperate miscalculation. They are starting out too early. This is in violation of the "three-month rule" of public emotions: In about three months, this "Geneva Convention" meme will be so stale it will put people to sleep. As for now, any response the Dems make should be about CHARACTER VALUES.

During WWII we treated captured German soldiers so well some number of them broke out of jail and stayed. I don't suppose that will happen at Gitmo.

The whole point of the US is that we're better than they are. But that's not true of Republicans. 9/11 changed nothing.

Pencarrow, why should we degrade our standards of civlized behavior in response to those who aren't civilized? The United States is supposed to stand for something. We're supposed to be the good guys. I'd like us to start being that again.

And I wholeheartedly commend you for your view.

But I suppose not everyone can feel the same sense of "goodness".

Many persons feel strongly about a sense of "fairness", or fair-play, and if they don't perceive that our side is being treated "fairly" vis a vis how we treat others, they will likely be less supportive of the SCOTUS decision.

Of course, considering such social anomalies like road rage and parent behavior at child soccer games make me question the level of "civilized" behavior we're trying to promote :-)

Can Al speak English?

Not to the extent that he can tell a floor from a ceiling....

Life-long Democrat agreeing that terrorists should be afforded Geneva Convention protections mostly because it's not about them - it's about us.

Obviously we must be ruled by laws and standards of decency. This is not a playground. The Geneva Conventions are a least a standard for minimally acceptable conduct in wartime and are codified. Instaed, the administration are following an improvisational, maleable justice, which has often dissolved into outright cruelty and has no basis in law. Justice is not a pay-as-you go experiment, else it exists not at all. We have apparently captured more than a few innocent bystanders and deferred just treatment and hearings for them indefinitely. We have tortured mentally challenged people. I believe deviations from these standards and the UCMJ are the reason this administration will eventually face war crimes trials. I think we have seen the radical right wing devolve into fascism before our eyes. A reckoning always follows national humiliation.

Kevin,

We accorded treatment under the Geneva conventions to soldiers of the Third Reich and the Empire of Japan.

But for today's babyboomer Republicans, these presumed terrorists sitting in Guantanamo and elsewhere -- who have no navy, no air force, no ground troops, no artillery, no planes, no long range rockets, no submarines, no battleships, no aircraft carriers, no territory, and no munitions manufacturing capability -- are so much scarier than the Germans or Japanese circa 1941-45. We can't take any chances with them.

A society run by babyboomer Republicans with a Southern base is a society based on fear. Treating a captured enemy with decency during wartime requires a certain moral courage. You won't find that moral courage among babyboomer Republicans.

If Republicans want the U.S. to no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions and want the U.S. to give formal notice that is withdrawing from the Geneva Conventions let them say so.

What Goldberg is arguing is essentially that, altghough he spins it as something else.

If you accept the framework that the conflict is between good and evil, why would you give rights to the "evil ones"?

And this is the mentality the Bush administration is counting on.

I'd feel a lot better about supporting the issue if some of the other "side(s)" treated our captured soldiers and all non-combatants with the same non-barbaric standards.
Posted by: pencarrow

Are you saying that, because we do not behead them without a trial, we're *already* on a higher moral ground they are? That waterboarding someone to death (also without a trial) is not as bad as torturing someone to death with a had-drill?

That's probably true, but it's not high enough ground for me to be resting on safely; Mount Ararat it's not.

So yes, I'll join Kevin in praising the Supremees'decision to grant the terrorists POW status and the Geneva Convention's protection. Then try the hell out of them, even unto death. But *try* them first; *prove* that the ones mouldering in Gitmo are guilty...

Well, I'm a Democrat, and I'll say it: anyone we capture on a battlefield should be subject to the minimum standards of decency outlined in the Geneva Conventions. That includes terrorists. It's our way of telling the world that we aren't barbarians; that we believe in minimal standards of human decency even if our enemies don't. It's also a necessary — though not sufficient — requirement for winning this war.

I hope other Democrats are smart enough, decent enough, and dedicated enough to beating terrorism to say so too.

Well, I'm not a Democrat, and I will say it too!

Great post Kevin. Short and to the point.

Time for a blogswarm?

Regards, Cernig @ Newshog

It doesn't matter to me whether our "enemies" fail to follow these procedures - we are better than that.

Republicans govern the way they do business; it's a race to the bottom. In their world, standards and ethics are obstacles to winning (albeit useful as PR if no one checks closely), so unencumbered parties automatically win, and the real challenge is to find as many loopholes & escape hatches as possible in order to give their dirty tricksters free rein.

As I so often say about the GOP in real life, that's just the kind of people they are.

I'm a Green, and I believe that anyone we capture should be subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

Take a gander at Michael Winterbottom's The Road to Guantánamo when the chance comes up in your town. One of the most striking things about it, after you get over the shock of seeing Americans so steeped in doing wrong, is the almost comically disproportionate use of force everytime heavily armed marines manhandle their jumpsuited peasant captives.

The ritual brutality -- everything from stress positions to beatings and the blasting of death-metal music music -- appears weirdly medieval until you realize that this shit is happening now, and in our name.

the movie presents its three British protagonists as being guilty of little more than bad timing, but even if they were more heavily Talibanized in real life (for the couple of weeks they were in Afghanistan), the movie makes it clear how much energy and manpower has gone into Rumsfeld's dogged determination to throw away the moral high ground for at least a generation to come. (Ask John McCain about that, you trolling motherfuckers.) Heckuva job, Rummy.

Next time Jonah spouts that nonsense on TV, the host should ask him which of the Geneva conventions should not apply, and explain the advantage of not adhering, in each case.
He probably hasn't even read them.

We accorded treatment under the Geneva conventions to soldiers of the Third Reich and the Empire of Japan.

But for today's babyboomer Republicans, these presumed terrorists sitting in Guantanamo and elsewhere -- who have no navy, no air force, no ground troops, no artillery, no planes, no long range rockets, no submarines, no battleships, no aircraft carriers, no territory, and no munitions manufacturing capability -- are so much scarier than the Germans or Japanese circa 1941-45. We can't take any chances with them.

Which of these two groups actually managed to take out parts of New York and Washington?

"It's our way of telling the world that we aren't barbarians . . ."

No, it's got nothing to do with what we tell the world. It's our way of making sure that we execute people who are guilty. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist and he's dead now. Would Goldberg be happier if he had been lynched?

Quite honestly, I don't care if terrorists are subjected to the basic rights as defined for prisoners of war under the Geneva convention.

Legally, "terrorists" are either (i) prisoners of war or (ii) criminals. If they are not (i) then they must be (ii). If they are criminals, then they must be given a fair and open trial after being caught. Either way, they must be afforded basic rights.

The Bush administration fails to follow international (and US) law for the detainees of Gitmo.

Many persons feel strongly about a sense of "fairness", or fair-play, and if they don't perceive that our side is being treated "fairly" vis a vis how we treat others, they will likely be less supportive of the SCOTUS decision.

Pencarrow, such people have a confused and reified understanding of "sides".

We do not accord Geneva Convention treatment to "terrorists". We accord it to people in US custody. Some of them may be suspected of being terrorists; none of them have been proven to be terrorists, either by a court or by a military tribunal.

Those in US custody range from people very clearly known to be members of Al-Qaeda to unlucky schmoes picked up by other intelligence agencies on dubious information (or none at all) and handed over to the CIA.

Decent people have to make this point clear to the American public. All kinds of people wind up in US custody as part of the "global war on something having to do with Muslims and violence", or whatever they're calling it this month. We need to accord them the minimal protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions because a lot of them are innocent schmoes. To separate the dangerous guys from the schmoes, we need to have a careful and transparent system of tribunals which meets the standards outlined in the Conventions for just such a situation, and that system needs to be approved by Congress and needs to let the defendants call witnesses and bring up evidence in their own defense.

We are a society of laws. That is what makes us strong and safe. Governments which do not obey their own laws -- fascist states, communist states, dictatorships, even mob-rule democratic Peronist governments of populist strongmen -- have all proven weaker than ours; they collapse in the face of shifting conditions. Constitutional republics survive.

DennisBoz:

Now that you've pontificated and lectured to the rest of us about standards of decency (while leaving lots of wiggle room so as to justify neocon barbarities), could you explain to us what you mean by 'this war'?

Is there really a war?

I don't think Goldberg should be worried about Democrats supporting the Geneva Conventions - we need to make him worry about Republicans who pretend to be Christians, supporting torture, rape and killing of innocent civilians, and limitless detentions without trial - the friggin' hypocrites!

WWJD - What would Jonah defend???

I'm a Green, and I believe that anyone we capture should be subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

I agree. Anyone the Green Party captures should be subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Except those bastards in the Constitution Party. They can rot in Hell.

If there were real terrorists in gitmo, the Bush people would have let us know, if for no other reason than to get all the PR milage possible. They got nothing, they had even some children and some old men in the place. Now it is such a mess and they don't know how to get rid of it. Will let the next president to the cleanup, Bush at his usual best.

Jonah might try reading the Geneva Conventions. I make it simple over at Angrybear.

RNC:

Which of these two groups actually managed to take out parts of New York and Washington?

I seem to recall that one of these "groups" (as you put it) caused a spot of bother in and around Hawaii on December 7th 1941, and the other was well on its way towards turning my people into lampshades and bars of soap. I love New York; I lived in New York; 9/11 as bad as it was was not the Holocaust. Get a fucking grip.

Exasperanto

"could you explain to us what you mean by 'this war'?"

ya know...the thingy where the US military drops bombsies and shoots bulletses at other human beingsies. I think it was in the paper once.

"Is there really a war?"

I'm pretty sure there is...or else there would be no one talking of the Geneva conventions (or Bush as a war criminal).

At the same time, to play by rules that the other side ignores is to cede an advantage to them.

See, that's why the police always lose to the Mafia, and our country is a lawless no-man's-land of thugs and hooligans running wild in the streets.

Oh, wait - it's not. It's safe. Wonder why that happened? Couldn't be that having police who have to obey the law had anything to do with it.

but there are some crosses

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/images/ANC_surroundings/PAGES/image22.html

Right on man. Sullivan makes the simple point that "small government" conservatives have been all to eager to throw away the tradition of Burke in favour of almost scary faith in executive power. This is anathema to what the constitution was all about, no matter what your political leanings.

Try them, treat them as POWs, or identify some other acceptable status. This medicalized torture is the kind of thing you would expect from the North Koreans.

It's an embarassment, it's genuinely offensive to free people, and Goldberg's not winning any points for cleverness by making light of it.

Legally, "terrorists" are either (i) prisoners of war or (ii) criminals. If they are not (i) then they must be (ii). If they are criminals, then they must be given a fair and open trial after being caught. Either way, they must be afforded basic rights.

Posted by: terry k on July 2, 2006 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

How about (iii) none of the above? Terrorists are not prisoners of war because they do not adhere to the laws of war, i.e., members of an organized army of a nation that is a party to the treaty, wear uniforms, etc, to be POWs under the Geneva Convention. They are not criminals because they have not been charged with a crime. By their own choice, they are avowed enemies of the US, similar in nature to pirates. The navies of the world would hunt down and kill such people on sight. We should do the same.

Yeah Chicounsel, unless you funded them and renamed them privateers, then they were your good buddies who shared their plunder with the government who hired them.

Okay here are two questions for you: 1) Where in the Geneva conventions does it define an army as having to be attired in a specific uniform? 2) How is the assinine idea that they are not criminals until charged and then never charging them so you can avoid having to allow them a trial legitimate in ANY way? It is a circular argument that has NO merit at all and makes one wonder if you are even serious.

I guess there might be one more question to be asked here - are you, like most chickenhawks, advocating a war that you are unwilling to volunteer to fight in?

The claim about pirates being summarily executed is one of those things that gets repeated but appears to be false. Pirates got trials. According to http://www.cindyvallar.com/punish.html: "British Admiralty courts tried maritime cases, including those involving pirates. Most PIRATE TRIALS were held at Old Bailey’s," the criminal courthouse in London. At http://www.historycooperative.org/proceedings/seascapes/benton.html, it states: "The voyage and TRIAL of William Kidd offer a particularly good window into both the legal perceptions of and reactions to piracy and its local variations."

In any event, the more relevant analogy does seem to be the German soldiers in WWII who lost POW status by entering the US covertly and not in uniform with intent to engage in sabotage. But we didn't just kill them, we gave them a trial (after which they were executed).

Thanks much, DennisBoz. I ask a serious, relevant question and you give me an ass response. You're calling fear-mongering, politically-motivated chaos a war and I was challenging you to explain how that works.

Stupid right/winger. You've sold your soul.

A primary purpose of the Geneva Conventions is mutuality -- to protect American POWs. Bad as they were, at least the Nazis kept our POWs alive. By comparison, al Qaeda horribly tortured and mutilated the two Americans they captured last week.

Some posters here seem to think that there's a risk that if Americans mistreat prisoners, we may be no better than al Qaeda. That's sloppy thinking. Even if our behavior is far below ideal, our morality is still head and shoulders above the barbarians we're fighting.

Winning the war against al Qaeda is the key. If we can treat prisoners well and still prevail in Iraq and elsewhere, then I'm all for it. But, if we fail in Iraq, the bloodbath there will be a thousand times worse than anything America has ever been accused of doing.

They are not criminals because they have not been charged with a crime.

Oops, you forgot to make sense. The government can't simply decline to charge someone, then declare that they are therefore not entitled to any of the protections afforded to accused criminals and can be tortured at will. Eric Paulsen is right: That's absurd. To be a terrorist, someone must have participated in terrorist activity (e.g. conspiracy to commit a terrorist act). Terrorist acts are illegal; they involve things like murder, kidnapping, and destruction of property. And, yes, pirates are criminals; the only thing that has historically made them different from other criminals is a jurisdictional problem due to their crimes taking place on the high seas. But treaties resolve these issues, esp. in the case of air pirates. In any case, all the major terrorist acts of the last 20 years have taken place on national territory, and their perpetrators have been tried as criminals. (As well as the perpetrators of the Achille Lauro hijacking, which took place on the high seas.)

On the other hand, Eric Paulsen is wrong: the Geneva Conventions say that to be treated as a POW, you have to wear a uniform. If you don't wear a uniform, you can be charged with crimes such as sabotage.

I somehow suspect, however, that if American Green Berets were captured in disguise and treated as criminals guilty of sabotage, the US would raise a hue and cry over the failure to grant them Geneva Conventions status.

Jonah Goldberg: the very definition of a "concern troll".

When Republicans hand out advice to Democrats, the best thing to do is exactly the opposite. That some haven't learned this basic fact of life yet is very discouraging.

I'd agree with those above about using the Nazis in this. "We gave the Nazis the protection of the Geneva Convention. We can give it to terrorists." I think that's a pretty clear way of explaining it.

Some posters here seem to think that there's a risk that if Americans mistreat prisoners, we may be no better than al Qaeda. That's sloppy thinking. Even if our behavior is far below ideal, our morality is still head and shoulders above the barbarians we're fighting.

The critical question is not whether we ARE head and shoulders above them, but whether we are SEEN TO BE head and shoulders above them. Being SEEN to adhere to the rules is a critical part of winning global hearts and minds, and thus of winning the war on terror. There is an accurate perception around the world that the US no longer respects international law. We cannot change that perception except by changing our behavior. Any tiny advantage the US may have gained in its interrogation operations (in fact there appears to have been nothing gained at all) by refusing to abide by the Geneva Conventions is as nothing compared to the tremendous damage we have done to our reputation, to the respect we enjoy internationally, and to the willingness of other nations to trust us, believe in us, and cooperate with us. Not to mention the tremendous divisions this policy has caused domestically, permanently alienating liberals who once supported the President's efforts to fight terror.

Beat down terrorists!

About me:

我向大家推荐:中国 上海旅游 网，打造上海旅游领域专业搜索平台，提供全球上海旅游品牌公司及产品展示。上海 旅行社 公司专业生产旅行社 产品，欢迎选择旅行社 。上海 武夷山酒店 公司专业生产武夷山酒店产品，欢迎选择武夷山酒店。上海 福彩3D 公司专业生产福彩3D产品，欢迎选择福彩3D。北京 上海机票预定 厂向广大客户提供上海机票预定产品及上海机票预定服务。上海 传奇世界 公司专业生产传奇世界产品，欢迎选择传奇世界。北京 打折机票 厂向广大客户提供打折机票产品及打折机票服务。要想寻找上海国际旅行社信息请访问 上海国际旅行社 网，各种上海国际旅行社应有尽有。要想寻找云南旅游信息请访问 云南旅游 网，各种云南旅游应有尽有。北京 旅行社 厂向广大客户提供旅行社产品及旅行社服务。中国 国际旅游 网，打造国际旅游领域专业搜索平台，提供全球国际旅游品牌公司及产品展示。北京 火车时刻表 厂向广大客户提供火车时刻表产品及火车时刻表服务。武夷山旅游 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的武夷山旅游,丰富武夷山旅游行业资讯助您成交。上海 上海机票 公司专业生产上海机票产品，欢迎选择上海机票。上海 上海旅行社 公司专业生产上海旅行社产品，欢迎选择上海旅行社。要想寻找特价机票信息请访问 特价机票 网，各种特价机票应有尽有。北京 旅行社 厂向广大客户提供旅行社产品及旅行社服务。中国 丽江 网，打造丽江领域专业搜索平台，提供全球丽江品牌公司及产品展示。九寨沟 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的九寨沟,丰富九寨沟行业资讯助您成交。要想寻找特价机票信息请访问 特价机票 网，各种特价机票应有尽有。中国 租房 网，打造租房领域专业搜索平台，提供全球租房品牌公司及产品展示。北京 国际旅行社 厂向广大客户提供国际旅行社产品及国际旅行社服务。北京 武夷山 厂向广大客户提供武夷山产品及武夷山服务。

Eric:

In answer to your first question, the following is from Article 4 of the Genvea Conventions:

A. Prisoners of war ... are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

"2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this terrirory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

"(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

The wearing of uniforms is a longstanding customs of armies to be covered by subsections (b) and (d) of Section A.2.

In response to your second question, if terrorists are criminals, then you are limiting yourself to prosecuting them after the fact. After all, until they commit an "illegal" act, the law can't touch them. Right?

The "criminals" who carried out the 9/11 attacks are dead. What "crimes" have the al qaeda terrorists in Iraq committed that would be subject to prosecution in the US courts? The Fifth Amendment requires the Feds to get an indictment by a Grand Jury to charge a person with a crime. What evidence can be presented to the Grand Jury for them to charge these terrorists with a crime? The Sixth Amendment requires that those charged have a right to a speedy trial with the effective assistance of counsel. Assuming that those at Gitmo did not get their Miranda rights when they were caputured, are they now free to go since all evidence against them would have to be thrown out? To think that the criminal justice system is the proper venue for dealing with such persons is the more asinine idea.

Finally, yes, I did not volunteer to serve in the armed forces. But so what, I thought we had civilian control over the armed forces. How does that fact that I did not serve affect the logic of the argument presented?

"Well, I'm a Democrat, and I'll say it"

No, you didn't say it. You said something quite different.

(In fact, your position is the same as one George Bush's).

Jonah's point was well-made.

What "crimes" have the al qaeda terrorists in Iraq committed that would be subject to prosecution in the US courts?

Murder.

Assuming that those at Gitmo did not get their Miranda rights when they were caputured, are they now free to go since all evidence against them would have to be thrown out?

The Supreme Court has lately been inclined to allow law enforcement to use evidence that was gathered without proper Miranda or search-warrant procedures, provided the police thought they were doing their best or something. So it might be possible to try many of them as criminals; in any case, the Bush Administration deserves to be pilloried for not having thought of this in advance, and for creating this fucked-up legal no man's land because they couldn't be bothered to devise a workable legal system.

More important, the Geneva Conventions also contain provisions for people taken into custody in wartime who are not POWs. Those provisions, contained in Article 3, are the ones which Hamdan requires the US to follow.

With all due respect Kevin, neither you or Jonah are well informed on this.

Congress can't override the Supreme Court's TREATY interpretation, they would have to abrogate Geneva.

See the Georgetown Law blog on this. Jonah listens to John Yoo wjo is a clown show on the law.

No, you didn't say it. You said something quite different.

What Goldberg asks Democrats to say is incoherent and vague. "I want terrorists to fall under the Geneva Convention" -- what does that mean? What would "I want Jonah Goldberg to fall under the United States Constitution" mean? How does a person "fall under" a legal document? A legal document can grant a person a certain type of status, or require certain kinds of behavior towards a person; or a government can decide to afford a certain kid of person a status codified in the document. Goldberg's statement required clarification, and Kevin clarified it.

Armando, you have me confused here. The mode of possible legislative action is not mentioned and not relevant. It seems to me Kevin is saying we shouldn't abrogate Geneva and should treat SCOTUS's broad interpretation as welcome news that can only help our position in the war. It's a position and a rational I support.

The answer is clear and should be resounding. This administration perverts and dishonors this country.

There's our own Bill of Rights, not to say the whole Constitution.

There's the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

There's the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention written with the experiences gained during a very diverse world war with regular forces and irregulars on both sides, resistance (partisan/liberation) forces, spies, abuse of POWs, torture of regulars, irregulars and civilians, and, of course, all the very many millions of general population caught up in the war in all sorts of ways -- as forced labor, refugees, ghettoing, area bombing, etc., etc.

The framers had a much closer tie to all those events than most of us today to the realities of war. I have no trust in the Geneva Convention being improved on in today's world climate, least of all by the US.

The US is clearly in breach of many laws governing war and being an occupying power.

2 more things:

1) So is Israel in Gaza. Nice blinkers, Kevin. The US should be more upright but we can't see or hear what is going on with one of our friends.

2) ex-liberal -- you never were. It is so transparent. Change your name.

"...Some posters here seem to think that there's a risk that if Americans mistreat prisoners, we may be no better than al Qaeda. That's sloppy thinking. Even if our behavior is far below ideal, our morality is still head and shoulders above the barbarians we're fighting....

Posted by: ex-liberal on July 3, 2006 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK

Talk about sloppy thinking. When you pull the moral strictures away, you no longer stand above them. That's how much of the world sees this administration already. They will listen very carefully to see if the US will become truly hypocritical.

Do Terrorists get Geneva conventions?

...Well, answer this, Mr smarty-pants: Do you? Do our troops?

If your answer to any of those is 'yes', then terrorists should be treated the same - or better; our laws.

Brooks is pretty kooky. First ignorant of sayings, now thinking that Murder is something the Feds can prosecute...

...In another country, even.

I guess you want to prosecute all those Brits for driving on the wrong side of the road, too?

JakeB: 9/11 changed everything. All the previous pronuncements and received wisdoms on matters of national security are now inoperative.
Posted by: nut on July 2, 2006 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

9/11 changed very little for survivors. Our ports are still unprotected. Our nuclear power plants are still unprotected. Our power grids are still unprotected. Chemical plants are still unprotected. Petrochemicals are still transported over civilian highways through cities unprotected.

And Osama bin Laden is still free.

Oh, but we are spending billions per week on trying to secure some oilfields that belonged to another country. But then, our administration is nothing but oil barons and in The Chimpster's case, a failed oil baron.

No...really. Not much has changed since 9/11. You are a fool if you believe it has.

More nuance.. Goldberg's quote contains this definition of terrorists:

..whether terrorists who cherish the killing of innocents deserve the same protections as our men and women who wear the uniform," this official said.

So there's a distinction between killing innocent civilians and targeting the military. Those who target the military without a country, like the insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the American militia during the Revolutionary War would be considered "illegal combatants," not terrorists. Not morally equating our Founding Fathers to ex-Saddamists or the Taliban, but the early American militia didn't have a "country," nor did they wear a uniform of one. Illegal combatants fall into a gray area, which SCOTUS wanted to be more clearly defined. The ones who are terrorists are those who engage in things like suicide bombings in a civilian area. It seems to me people who allegedly engage in those activities, like the recently arrested Canadians, are already handled by civilian law enforcement.

Civilians are killed in every war. Sometimes, like in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki they are targeted en masse by Americans. Sometimes, like at My Lai and in emerging cases around Iraq, they are targeted discriminately.

How we want Americans treated when they are captured is how we should treat terrorists. True, al Qaeda has not signed on to the Geneva Conventions (al Qaeda is not a nation). So international criminal statutes may be more applicable.

Adhering to international standards of treatment offers the best hope for all nations. It shows the triumph of rule of law over barbarism. America needs to be a leader on this, not take the low road. Leadership takes courage, something this secretive, political machine of an administration has yet to demonstrate.

The whole point is that you can't just arbitrarily designate who is a terrorist and who is not. That's what rules of evidence and due process of law are supposed to determine. If it was self-evident who is a terrorist and who not, we wouldn't be having this discussion, at least not in this frame. Until due process is carried out, how is anyone to know that an accused is really a terrorist? We've already seen how poorly justice can be served, and wrongful convictions ensue, even when we abide by all or most of the constitutionally mandated due process rights, so how are we to have any confidence that anyone the president designates as a terrorist really is a terrorist, especially after all we've heard about their accuracy in this matter, and how they've rounded people up (through tips by paid collaborators ratting out competitors, rivals or enemies) in terms of process, not to mention the people who have been tortured and killed who the administration would no doubt want us to believe were proven terrorists before this occurred.

The whole point is that you can't just arbitrarily designate who is a terrorist and who is not. That's what rules of evidence and due process of law are supposed to determine. If it was self-evident who is a terrorist and who not, we wouldn't be having this discussion, at least not in this frame. Until due process is carried out, how is anyone to know that an accused is really a terrorist?

Jimm, that you even have to make this point is in itself a source of wonder.But it is, quite evidently, a point that needs to be made.

(and where did these people develop such childlike faith in the powers that be?)

Brooks is pretty kooky. First ignorant of sayings, now thinking that Murder is something the Feds can prosecute...

...In another country, even.

You learn something new every day. Especially if you're not too smart.

Feds prosecute murder in another country

John Ashcroft, Attorney General

Washington, DC
March 14, 2002

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: Good afternoon.

Today I'm announcing a grand jury's indictment of Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, a British citizen currently in custody of Pakistani authorities, for acts of terrorism against two United States citizens. Saeed is charged with the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl and the 1994 kidnapping of a United States citizen in India. A grand jury in the district of New Jersey has returned an indictment charging Saeed with hostage-taking and conspiracy to commit hostage-taking, resulting in the death of Daniel Pearl.

In addition, we are today unsealing an indictment filed in November of last year, charging Saeed with the 1994 armed kidnapping of Bela J. Nuss, an American tourist, in India.

If Saeed is found guilty of the crimes he is charged with committing against Daniel Pearl, he could receive the death penalty. Conviction in the Nuss case carries the maximum penalty of life in prison.

Brooks is pretty kooky. First ignorant of sayings, now thinking that Murder is something the Feds can prosecute...

...In another country, even.

You learn something new every day. Especially if you're not too smart.

Feds prosecute murder in another country

John Ashcroft, Attorney General

Washington, DC
March 14, 2002

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: Good afternoon.

Today I'm announcing a grand jury's indictment of Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, a British citizen currently in custody of Pakistani authorities, for acts of terrorism against two United States citizens. Saeed is charged with the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl and the 1994 kidnapping of a United States citizen in India. A grand jury in the district of New Jersey has returned an indictment charging Saeed with hostage-taking and conspiracy to commit hostage-taking, resulting in the death of Daniel Pearl.

In addition, we are today unsealing an indictment filed in November of last year, charging Saeed with the 1994 armed kidnapping of Bela J. Nuss, an American tourist, in India.

If Saeed is found guilty of the crimes he is charged with committing against Daniel Pearl, he could receive the death penalty. Conviction in the Nuss case carries the maximum penalty of life in prison.

"Some posters here seem to think that there's a risk that if Americans mistreat prisoners, we may be no better than al Qaeda. That's sloppy thinking."

THAT is sloppy thinking? Yeah, tighten up your thinking about human decency, you compassionate bastards. You're just not seeing things straight.

BTW, I guess no one has seen Road to Guantánamo.

If Democrats want terrorists to fall under the Geneva Convention let them say so. My guess is most won't, if they're smart.

If Republicans want everyone with a one in a hundred chance of being a radical (Muslim, weather undergrounder, pro-lifer) with a potential for terrorism waterboarded, stripped naked, dragged across a concrete floor, chained to the floor, naked, without blankets, in an Afghan winternight let them say so. My guess is most won't, if they're smart.

Maybe its because letting people die of hypothermia is great for revenge but not so good for getting intelligence.

Hell, lets all just start stating our principles unequivocally! Lets cut the "extraordinary rendition" and “enhanced interrogation” crap. I mean seriously “enhanced interrogation”??? (“war on terror”, “detention facility” ”unlawful combatants” “helping the terrorist” “hate our freedoms” “campaign contribution” “terrorist surveillance”,“partial birth abortion”, “diplomacy” “regime” “being “with us”” “being “with the terrorists””)

Oh and I would like neocons to just say out loud they think the people who put suicide bombers in two passenger planes simultaneously, one theater, one school and then top it of with a bunch of carbombings at subway stations and a day long shooting spree are freedom fighters.

Repeat after me: “The freedom fighters of the Beslan school hostage taking”, Now lets move on to the Mojahedin-e-Khalq.

My guess is most won't, if they're smart.

I am afraid I just can't pull of the quite the same veiled threat of demonetization, smear and overall swiftboating to scare people away from taking a principled stand.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1429

Geneva Conventions should be adhered to, but in terms of trial I do have some sympathy for the dilemma they have with people who are obviously unrepentant and dangerous, but for whom they don't have enough evidence for a proper trial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, etc. Nobody wants them let loose; what do you do?

My understanding of this Supreme Court decision is that the prisoners could be tried by court martial. I don't understand what's wrong with this(aside from the fact that the combatants would get a few more rights under this process.)

Aside from that, what's wrong with a court martial???? I trust the military code of justice. Don't conservatives?????

exasperanto

"Thanks much, DennisBoz. I ask a serious, relevant question and you give me an ass response."

When you want to be serious and relevant, try not opening with the pontificating/lecturing bit.

And ask a question a bit more specific than "could you explain to us what you mean by 'this war'?" would be helpful so i'd have a clue as to where you're going.

I thought i'd offered a post, considering historical analogies to point out the complexity of the issue, offering a thought as to how we could better move forward, and all you can ask is, is there a war? My apologies Sir for missing the serious part.

"You're calling fear-mongering, politically-motivated chaos a war and I was challenging you to explain how that works."

Could you explain to us what you mean by this 'fear-mongering, politically-motivated chaos'?" :)

"Stupid right/winger. You've sold your soul."

at least you credit me with having once had one. I'll take what i can get. ah yes, more name calling and insult. Clear markers of one interested in dialogue.

Goldberg is, as usual, a jackass. Of course terrorists would fall under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, given the way that the US has allegedly pursued them.

One more thing. What I find interesting in this whole brou-ha-ha regarding the SC's decision in Hamdan is the obvious fact that Republicans really aren't interested in the rule of law. Despite their protestations to the contrary, of course. They're mostly a bunch of hypocrits.

Rights are inalienable, without reference to nation of origin or uniform. The United States never has authority to abrogate those rights, on our land or off of it.

The United Staters Constitution says that treaties signed by the United States have the force of US law. There is no exception in the Geneva Conventions for torture of anyone, in uniform or not.

Jonah Goldberg hates America, just like George Bush does.

It may be useful to remember that Bushco is applying the label "terrorists" to innocent people rounded up in sweeps of the streets of Baghdad and to Canadian or European citizens "extradited" accientally. The label "Terrorist" has also been applied to Taliban soldiers captured in Afghanistan (and how are these NOT POW??) and Iraqi (not Al Qaeda) government officials imprisoned after the fall of Baghdad.

In deciding to use military action to defeat "terrorism" after 9/11, Bushco was obliged to pad the numbers of "enemy terrorists?"

Would US citizens have supported a "War Against Terror" if we understood that the number of "terrorists"--ie, individuals who trying to inflict senseless violence on innocent civilians to promote a political agenda--numbered in the thousands?

Why can't the Democrats just day "We believe in America and the Republicans don't?"

After all, all most people want is to have the Constitutional processes applied even in times of war. I have faith they will result in convictions for the guilty (probably even some of the innocent) but the Bush administration doesn't seem to have faith they will work and I wonder why not.

The USA should go further than the Geneva Conventions. As others have said, it is a practical matter.

For example, the Canadians in Afghanistan treated a captured Taliban leader well and went a step further by treating him medically for his severe hepatitis.

Result: he switched sides and now helps them. There is a lot more room for such behaviour for the USA. Good treatment is classic American, and would get good results.

This new fascist/torture ideology has got to go for moral, legal and deeply practical reasons.

Conservatives can't govern a modern state.

And, of course, Geneva conventions should be adhered to. I know that in the primitive reptilian Republican mind "US brutality" = "strong, wise, good" and "THEIR brutality = barbarian evil" but fortunately the SCOTUS disagreed with the Republicans this once.

The Democrats need to defend the rule of law. As Kevin Drum says, "we believe in minimal standards of human decency even if our enemies don't."

The current crop of Republicans are evidently people who will claim to be Christian while ignoring Christ's direction to "love your enemy." Having simple minds, they can't discriminate between "Do unto others AS YOU WOULD HAVE others do unto you" and "Do unto others AS OTHERS HAVE DONE unto you." In the subtle difference between the subjunctive and the past indicative lies the chasm between civilization and barbarism.

Its not just the Geneva Conventions, but also the United States UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice) that precludes torture.

No person may maltreat another by US law. There is no provision in the UCMJ that any class of people may be tortured. Once any person is taken into custody, be it by civilian or military authorities there are both moral and LEGAL requirements as to the minimum rights that person has.

Any member of the military who violates these minimum rights is violating the law. Any person who conspires to violate these laws, is violating the law. The Supremes upheld not only the Geneva Convention, but also the applicability of the UCMJ in this regard. Even if one were to reject the Geneva Conventions, there is still US law that must be followed.

For example, the Canadians in Afghanistan treated a captured Taliban leader well and went a step further by treating him medically for his severe hepatitis.

This is what you guys used to do. From the El Paso Community College site:

When the first enemy prisoners started arriving in the States, they did not know what to expect. What they found amazed them: clean barracks, good health care, canteens full of consumer goods not seen in Europe in years and food so plentiful that they wrote their families to stop sending gift parcels. Such treatment soon stirred the American press and Congress to criticize the War Department for pampering the enemy, but the War Department defended its policy by pointing out the strategic reward of treating prisoners well: enemy troops were surrendering.

With regard to prisoners, the U.S. strictly followed the rules of the Geneva Convention.

But now apparently it's a brand new, John 'BooHoo' Yoo America.

P.S. Why, why, why does anyone pay any attention to Jonah Lumpenmensh's opinings/whinings on security? (As far as I can see he's just some guy who's consistently wrong.)

Framing for this issue:

"America does not stand for torture."

Who the f*** is jonah goldberg other than Lucy-the-Nixon-spy's son.

Another phony baloney Republican.

Jonah Goldberg is a mindless animal.
Much like the Republican establishment the country is living under.

whoaoh, kevin calls goldberg and his ilk barbarians.

Its not right to categorize captured enemy combatants or suspects as "terrorists". Firstly, its inaccurate, because the circumstances of capture are not usually so clear, and secondly it's a Right Wing framing of the issue.

"America does not stand for torture."

not true. that's the old America that no longer exists. the new America, a.k.a. repug nation does in fact stand for tourture. it does not help the cause of reconstituting old America, by consistiently denying what in fact America has become under repukelican rule.

In addition, whatever points Goldberg thinks he is making in his article, his focus on the polical rather than the humanistic aspects of the situation reveal clearly what he thinks are the important issues.

It's easy making foolish political pronouncements and predictions, but harder to actually look into the legal and social aspects of this issue. Of course like most Right Wing propogandists, Goldberg chooses the easier and politically expedient route.

So if we're treating captured terrorists as POWs under the Geneva Conventions, we get to detain them for the duration of the conflict, right? Sweeeeeeeet!

pluege's got it right.

And trying to sell current-day America with a phrase like

'America does not stand for torture'

ain't gonna wash with those of us not of God's Own Country. Like the sentiment though and wish it were true and that you guys were closer to the UK than China in this regard.

I haven't had a chance to read through this thread, so my apologies if I'm repeating, but the issue is, do we consider the insurgents terrorists? Undoubtedly, some are. However, many are fighting to reclaim their country. When we supported the muhajadeen in Afghanistan in the 80's, did we consider them terrorists? No, they were freedom fighters.

I'll say up front that I don't agree with the tactics of the insurgency, especially the targeting of civilians, but who can deny them their right to fight to win their country back? If a superpower invaded the US, under the auspices of "liberating" us, who wouldn't fight to reclaim our country (other than Al, Chickenhawk, and the other fighting keyboardists)?

It gets problematic because of al Qaeda's inevitable infiltration of the insurgency. Unfortunately, that is the nature of the beast. After all, to the chagrin of the rightards, didn't the French help us out during the revolution?

OK folks, we seem to be in agreement that the Conservatives are unAmerican barbarians. Now tell your neighbor that both basic Christian belief and commonsense tell us that we have to treat everybody captured in the war on terror with dignity and respect and, for the Christians among your neighbors, with love.

If you are really true to the consensus of this thread you will say what you believe without fear to followers of the unAmerican barbarians at the next opportunity--today or tomorrow when you meet with family for the 4th of July. You will say it quietly, but with confidence and persistence. See what happens. I bet you change some minds. Not all, but some.

Let's retake the moral high ground for America.

pluege, I drink America Classic, and we don't stand for torture.

Jonah is from New America, which is even worse than New Coke.

Conservatism used to be about universal values regardless where the chips fall. Oakeshott and Burke knew their uncompromizable foundations. Now they would be regarded as appeasers and supporters of terrorism by the corrupt, bloated swift boaters. All this folly has been foretold so much earlier: the human race has an unsatiable hunger for power and misrule.

Good film to watch RE: Insurgencies

RE: captured soldiers and a fellow partisan who was "implanted" with a tracking device that the soldiers used to locate the "insurgents".

Jed Eckert: [at the execution of Daryl Bates and Stepan Gorsky] Do you want blindfolds?
Stepan Gorsky: This violates the Geneva convention.
Jed Eckert: I never heard of it!
Stepan Gorsky: Dogface! I show you how Soviet dies!
Robert: I've seen it before, pal.
Danny: [who is tied up in the distance, with the horses] This isn't happening! Jed, let him go! He was one of us!

Jed Eckert: Shut up, Danny! Shut up!
Robert: He told them where we were!
Jed Eckert: He did. Now get your rifles.
Matt Eckert: *No!*
Jed Eckert: WHAT DID YOU SAY?
Matt Eckert: *We're not doing it!*

Stepan Gorsky: [to Daryl] Boy, say at me you are friend, so I will not die alone.
Matt Eckert: What's the difference, Jed?
Robert: I'll do it.
Matt Eckert: Shut up, Robert!
[to Jed]

Matt Eckert: *Tell me what's the difference between us and them!*

Jed Eckert: Because WE *LIVE* HERE!
[kills Stepan; Robert kills Daryl]

Point is, treat your enemies as the scum of the earth without any legal protections, and inherent in that statement is "God help any of your people that end up in their care".

Our way or telling the world we're not barbarians is when we send millions of dollars to Africa to fight aids, when we send millions of dollars and have two former presidents raise more funds to LEAD the tsunami effort, when we are the first on the scin Turkey and Pakistan to assist with earthquake relief, when we welcome most all immigrants and provide them with a new life, and when we treat actual POW's more humanely than any other country (including Gitmo detainees).

Affording jihadists Geneva Convention protections only tells the jihadists that their fight is legitimate in eyes of civilization and encourages them to fight on only to be given better living conditions if captured. It's a win-win for them. More evidence that the left DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THIS FIGHT.

And please, more of you follow brain-dead Kevin's example and shout it out to the electorate that jihadists are people too.

"God help any of your people that end up in their care" Ray Waldren

Ray, buddy, where have you been? Remember Nicolas Berg? We capture Saddam, give him a shave, a shower, food, shelter, a lawyer and due process and Nick gets his head cut off. So do we need to be nicer to more thugs?

Another example of the left COMPLETELY BRAIN DEAD ON JIHADISM.

DO. NOT. GET. IT.

Ron, so I guess the moral high ground is letting jihadists live out their life in comfort while continuing to over look the death of over a million unborn babies a year.

Good to know where you stand.

MeLoseBrain?
I'll say up front that I don't agree with the tactics of the insurgency, especially the targeting of civilians, but who can deny them their right to fight to win their country back? If a superpower invaded the US, under the auspices of "liberating" us, who wouldn't fight to reclaim our country (other than Al, Chickenhawk, and the other fighting keyboardists)?

My cursory understanding of the Geneva Conventions...

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.

The exceptions are medical and religious personnel...

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.
Combatants who do fall within the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions enjoy the following protections:

* Prisoners of war must be treated humanely. Specifically, prisoners must not be subject to torture or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind. They must also be protected against violence, intimidation, insults and public curiosity. The public display of POWs is also prohibited.
* When questioned — in the prisoner's native language — prisoners of war must only give their names, ranks, birth dates and serial numbers. Prisoners who refuse to answer may not be threatened or mistreated.
* Prisoners of war must be immediately evacuated away from a combat zone and must not be unnecessarily exposed to danger. They may not be used as human shields.
* Finally, and most importantly, prisoners of war may not be punished for the acts they committed during the fighting unless the opposing side would have punished its own soldiers for those acts as well.

So what does it mean for us when people don't fall under the Geneva Conventions? And I do not believe members of Al Qaeda do. Or insurgents that use women and children as human shields, shoot from hospitals, and blow up women and children, which is what insurgents do in Iraq.

Can we torure them? No, in my opinion. Can we publicly display them and threaten them in questioning? Heck yea. In short, treat them as the criminals they are.

..while continuing to over look the death of over a million unborn babies a year..

Interesting. Is it possible to die even if you are not born? What the hell does it mean?

To be logical, you have to change the semantics of your propaganda.

Having simple minds, they can't discriminate between "Do unto others AS YOU WOULD HAVE others do unto you" and "Do unto others AS OTHERS HAVE DONE unto you." In the subtle difference between the subjunctive and the past indicative lies the chasm between civilization and barbarism.

I vaguely remember an old comedy routine-- poking fun at the South, naturally-- that ended with "do unto others BEFORE they do unto you." It was a punch line, but now...

More evidence that the left DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THIS FIGHT.

I question whether you really understand America and what it is supposed to stand for.

Either you believe in our system of government or you don't. Your willingness to push law and
treaties aside just because they seem inconvenient demonstrates how little faith you have in democracy.

What kind of example are we setting for the fledgling government in Iraq when we run from our values the minute things get tough ?

Aren't we supposed to be better than the terrorists ?

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.

So the resistance groups in WWII wouldn't fall under the Geneva Conventions ?

nut, exactly when life begins is at the core of what seperates our values. And yes, it is a death.

Stephen, if you don't think that we are more humane than the jihadists, with or without affording them Geneva Convention accords, then you are definitely the one that doesn't understand what America is all about. Pathetic really.

Stephen
"...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."

So the resistance groups in WWII wouldn't fall under the Geneva Conventions?

That is correct, near as I can tell. I'm sure the lawyers here will clarify.

Rewind the tape and consider how we would, or should, treat a (failed and) captured kamikaze pilot.

The guy tried to employ a terror tactic, right?

Stephen, considering that most of the ammendments and revisions to the Geneva Convention accords were adopted in 1949, probably not.

dennisboz:
"The democratic thing, the AMERICAN thing to do is to review the Geneva conventions and to decide, as a people, do we think that all/some/none of those provisions should be ignored in the current circumstances."

Just curious - How would this be accomplished ?
Who would do the reviewing ? How would we decide " as a people" ?
Would this be an "American Referendum on Torture" put to public vote in the up coming Congressional elections ?....
Personally I'd love to see this happen...I'd really like to know where the majority of Americans stand on this whole issue not just the opinions of "blog-people"
Are Americans truely on a different, "higher", moral plane then others or are we just more of the same old,same old....

"We who are but weasels fighting in a hole"

Favorable Opinions of the US

1999 2006
UK 83% 56%
Japan 77% 63%
Indonesia 75% 30%
Turkey 52% 12%

(Pew Global Attitudes Project: June 13, 2006)

Just stop fucking torturing.

Wonderin, did you actually read what you typed. There is no such thing as a "captured" kamikaze pilot. They died upon impact. Nice try though.

snicker-snack, you first.

Jay, your idiocy amazes me. There are many instances of kamikaze pilots who did not actually deliver themselves as a payload. Some returned to Japan, others perhaps chickened out and bailed out.

Another question, then, if you're afraid to answer the one I asked. Since you seem to be willing to apply the same tactics as terrorists, shouldn't we simply start beheading some of our Gitmo detainees, filming the beheadings and sending them out on the internet.

Stephen, if you don't think that we are more humane than the jihadists, with or without affording them Geneva Convention accords, then you are definitely the one that doesn't understand what America is all about.

America is a nation of laws. Either you believe in it or you don't.

Stephen, considering that most of the ammendments and revisions to the Geneva Convention accords were adopted in 1949, probably not.

The Geneva Convention, and the rules concerning the treatment on POW's. existed before the revisions adopted in 1949.

wonderin, if they returned to Japan, then are they captured? If they bailed out, were they captured? And I am the idiot? When you as a hypothetical question, at least make it sensible?

Stephen, you were the one a few weeks ago going on and on about how America is one of the worst violaters of human rights this planet has ever scene. That America abuses it's authority and power in this world anmd is the reason there is so much strife and anguish on this planet. But now you're trying to convince me that we a re suddenly this model country of laws. YOU ARE A FIRST CLASS HYPOCRITE.

Do you even pay attention to the bile you spew on a daily basis.

Goldberg's statement is a good example of what's wrong with right wing politics. It doesn't matter whether a particular point of view is good policy, it only matters whether it can be used to bash the other side.

Goldberg hasn't bothered to engage in a rational analysis of whether the terrorists ought to be covered by the Geneva Convention, or the consequences for the "war on terror". All he cares about is whether the right can bash the left with it, and whether the left will be stupid enough to let them.

Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.

Okay, Jay, let me spell it out in grade-school terms: let's assume that a kamikaze pilot chickened out just before he flew himself into a destroyer during the Second World War and managed to ditch his aircraft into the sea without killing himself. Half-conscious, he's hoisted aboard the warship.

How do we treat him?

Also, do we start beheading Gitmo detainees or not?

"...whether the left will be stupid enough.." Paul

That's a given.

wondering, you're just too stupid to carry on a debate with, sorry.

Stephen, you were the one a few weeks ago going on and on about how America is one of the worst violaters of human rights this planet has ever scene.
I never said that
You are mistaking me with someone else.

But now you're trying to convince me that we a re suddenly this model country of laws.

Are you saying that we aren't a nation of laws ?

If we aren't shouldn't we try to be ?

Goldberg doesn't DEFINE terrorists.

He wants to label Palestinians as terrorists, together with all Muslims and anybody else who questions the new nazis of Tel Aviv.

A Jew in publishing serves ONE master - it isn't truth, but his allegiance to his people.

That makes Jews very very bad journalists... and terrible Senators and Congressmen... how come we have so many of them?

WE've been AIPACked -- for a half century

Ron, so I guess the moral high ground is letting jihadists live out their life in comfort...

Good to know where you stand.
Posted by: Jay on July 3, 2006 at 10:00 AM

Yes Jay, you know where I stand. I am an American. I was born an American. I was raised an American. I will die a proud American.

From where I stand you might have been born an American, but you have surrendered any claim to be called one. I guess the best thing to call you is Republican.

By the way, I never said a word about abortion. I never said comfort. There is a difference between dignity and comfort.

I will say it again barbarian, "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."

Nice try, Jay. You really know how to take the high road, don't you? I think you're simply afraid to show your true colors. Because you want to start beheading Gitmo detainees, don't you? You want to torture the living daylights out of anyone that you think is a "terrorist."

If you're under 42, Jay, you can still sign up to go fight in Iraq, you know.

Well considering that we are following the rules of engagement in this war while the enemy is not, considering that Saddam is afforded due process of justice and considering that Gitmo detainees are afforded Korans, religious meals and shelter, I would say we are following laws.

Now considering that jihadists do not comply to Genveva Convention accords which would allow them protection there under, are you saying that we should violate the Geneva Convention standards an afford those protections to them?

Isn't that breaking the law?

Rewind the tape and consider how we would, or should, treat a (failed and) captured kamikaze pilot.

The guy tried to employ a terror tactic, right?
Posted by: Wonderin

Wrong. Japanese bombed our ships all the time. Some of the bombs happened to be manned.

He was in uniform, treat him by the Geneva Conventions.

...let's assume that a kamikaze pilot chickened out just before he flew himself into a destroyer during the Second World War and managed to ditch his aircraft into the sea without killing himself. Half-conscious, he's hoisted aboard the warship.

How do we treat him?

That would be the uniformed kamikaze pilot who is a member of an organized military force, flying a clearly-marked military aircraft into a military target, right?

Geneva Convention.

Now let's talk about the guy in civilian clothes carrying a backpack full of explosives and shrapnel into a marketplace full of civilians.

tj, fuck off with your anti-semitic shit.

(And yes there are Likudniks in the US press. There are also anti-Castro Cubans and anti-Turk Armenians and anti-earth-tone Catholics)

Tank Man

"Just curious - How would this be accomplished ?
Who would do the reviewing ? How would we decide " as a people" ?"

Sunday Morning Talk Shows, The Internet, Talk Radio, even The View i guess. Certainly the most important place would be in the national elections. Based on the campaign positions of those running for rep/sen/pres we get the sense of the nation via who wins. And they'd poll the hell out the issue which helps too.

"Would this be an "American Referendum on Torture" put to public vote in the up coming Congressional elections ?...."

The national referendum is the election result. Either we elect people who would give Geneva to terrorists, Give some of Geneva to terrorists, of give none of Geneva to terrorists.

"Personally I'd love to see this happen...I'd really like to know where the majority of Americans stand on this whole issue not just the opinions of "blog-people""

Of course that would require politicians willing to clearly state their views and a populace that spends more time thinking about this than what Angelina will wear to the Oscars this year. So...never mind.

"Are Americans truely on a different, "higher", moral plane then others or are we just more of the same old,same old.... "

Higher than some others certainly.

arnie
Now let's talk about the guy in civilian clothes carrying a backpack full of explosives and shrapnel into a marketplace full of civilians.

That would be a valiant insurgent (a minuteman!) engaged in open battle with the US military.

Arnie, even the Jordanians treated the woman wedding bomber who couldn't blow herself up with dignity and due process. The Jordanians better than the Americans?

Anyway suicide bombers are treated everywhere as criminals in the land they attempted to attack.

At Gitmo we are talking about a bunch of folks who fought and were captured by American and Afgan soldiers. Some of them Al Quada. Some of the Taliban. Some of them innocent? Hell, you don't know. You just assume they are all guilty.

No Ronnie, they are not all guilty, that's why many of them have been released already. Is there no end to your blind partisan rhetoric?

Jay: life begins when you can think for yourself. I suggest you have yet to really live. When you enable evil, be it barbaric treatment or through Taliban-like laws against those with whom you disagree, then you have become evil. I do not believe in abortion. I believe in education and easily available birth control to help protect those without common sense. I do not see prolific births as a party recruitment tool--I see it as a threat to planetary health and a sure road to miserable catastrophe from wars, famine, plague and ignorance.

I believe the United States must be a beacon to which other nations are drawn, not a pariah with high tech weaponry--under ostensible control of people whose livelihood is oil and armaments.
The conventions we signed, and the UCMJ we empowered are sufficent for this police action. The key is humane treatment and the reasonable assurance that a time will come when we should release the innocent.
I would posit as well that these terrosists you decry are nothing more than religious extremists like yourself. Some "pro-lifers" kill for the sake of their extremism too.

The way to changing the hearts and minds of former enemies is to show them they were wrong about our nation--Japan and Germany prime examples. Sometimes it means loving your neighbor as yourself by sending aid and providing basic rights to captured prisoners--a form of civility institutionalized in the code of hospitality as old as law itself.

Jay, the only one who is blind is you. Truly sad the way you have surrendered to the terrorists. Truly sad the way all of you barbarians have folded like a cheap tent. I pity you, for you will die an animal, no better than those you fight.

Red State Mike and others,

Then you're okay with the tactic employed by the guy who blew himself up in one of our chow halls, taking many of our soldiers with him? He was wearing an Iraqi military uniform.

Let's get back to the Gitmo detainees. I want to know if you guys would be willing to behead a few of them - tit-for-tat sort of thing.

"...life begins when you can think for yourself....." Sparko

So when does life begin for you?

I am still waiting for life to begin for Howard Dean and most of the left then.

And I guess life will never begin for Michael Moore, Al Franken, Maureen Dowd, etc. etc.

Thank you for that sparko. I will laugh about that for a long time.

I agree with you, except for your phrase "dedicated enough to beating terrorism."

If democrats are ever going to be able to tell a coherent story which makes sense of the world and gives them some credibility with voters, they must find a way to expose the "War on Terror" as the farce that it is. There is no "War on Terror." Bush has brilliantly invented and defined the words of our national security debate, leaving everyone else scrambling to agree with empty phrases like "beating terrorism."

Before the Democratic party can win politically and propose a meaningful defense of our nation, the language of this conflict must be changed. We were attacked by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. They are our enemy and should be fought at every opportunity. But the "War on Terror" will never be won and permanant militarization is an unnecessary and dangerous goal.

Then you're okay with the tactic employed by the guy who blew himself up in one of our chow halls, taking many of our soldiers with him? He was wearing an Iraqi military uniform.

No. It'd be the same as if he was wearing a US military uniform.

Let's get back to the Gitmo detainees. I want to know if you guys would be willing to behead a few of them - tit-for-tat sort of thing.

No. Are you saying we should not ask any more questions of them other than name, rank, serial number and birth date? No pressure to answer further questions? That's what the Geneva Conventions call for.

I wonder if, years from now, some historian will say "They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by calling 9/11 an international crime committed by 19 men and their close associates, then hunting down those who were not already dead. This use of war doctrines to respond was a dreadful error, and all of the mess from 2001 forward can be traced back to that big mistake."

Red State Mike, Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention is what the Supreme Court found applied. It's not about POWs, and it does not require that questioning be limited in the way you say.

"No. Are you saying we should not ask any more questions of them other than name, rank, serial number and birth date? No pressure to answer further questions? That's what the Geneva Conventions call for."
Posted by: Red State Mike on July 3, 2006 at 11:12 AM

Of course not. I'm saying that torture is an ineffective tactic for gathering such information from prisoners, aside from it being immoral. I'm saying that the evidence shows that when people are treated humanely, skilled interrogators are better able to extract actionable intelligence much more effectively than when someone is tortured.

I'm saying that instead of torturing prisoners a la Abu Ghraib, we should instead focus our efforts on countering the "education" that many people in the Islamic world are getting in the radical madrassahs. We can't win hearts and minds when we're stomping the daylights out of bodies and souls.

I'm saying that kicking down doors in the middle of the night, shouting at people who don't speak English, arresting people on little or no evidence, detaining people for months, if not years on end, is wrecking our chances of dealing effectively with radical Islamic jihadism.

It's stupid, short-sighted and plainly ineffective.

Wonderin
"No. Are you saying we should not ask any more questions of them other than name, rank, serial number and birth date? No pressure to answer further questions? That's what the Geneva Conventions call for."
Posted by: Red State Mike on July 3, 2006 at 11:12 AM

Of course not.

Well then, please be more precise in saying we need to apply the Geneva Conventions to the insurgents and terrorists. Because that means more than just that we don't torture them. And I disagree with what implicitly seems to be a belief with some that only the Geneva Conventions keeps us from torturing them.

I'm saying that kicking down doors in the middle of the night, shouting at people who don't speak English, arresting people on little or no evidence, detaining people for months, if not years on end, is wrecking our chances of dealing effectively with radical Islamic jihadism.

Radical Islamic Jihadism had been doing quite well for a number of years prior to us starting our door-kicking-down phase.

It's all about carrots and sticks.

"Affording jihadists Geneva Convention protections only tells the jihadists that their fight is legitimate in eyes of civilization..." Jay on July 3, 2006 at 9:52 AM

No, saying you are in a war against them already did this, which was one of the reasons many of us did not want this described as a war against terrorism in the first place, it gave them a level of legitimacy they did not deserve. But instead of caring about that the GOP and Bush and trolletariat members like yourself were more interested in the domestic political advantages a war gives the governing party along with the ability to claim powers not normally considered acceptable in America.

Which is why yet again you and yours have done more to help the terrorist cause globally than you have in fighting/weakening it. Kevin is quite right on this one. You do not treat your enemies with consideration for their humanity for their sakes, you do it for your own. The more accustomed one becomes to things like torture in one venue the easier it becomes to justify its need in other venues.

The rule of law is the cornerstone of civilization and those that abandon it for the sake of expediency, especially political expediency which has been the case in GOP/Bush America have thrown away the right to be seen as civilized. Sending money to help in Africa does nothing to change this ugly fact, the fact you even tried to use this to claim otherwise shows just how poorly you understand your own heritage as an American.

General:

Kevin Drum has it exactly right in this. Americans love to claim they are the leaders of the free world, well the rest of the free world does not see America that way anymore precisely because of things like Gitmo, torture being justified, abrogation of Geneva protections, and Abu Ghraib. I would for example remind people that the Geneva protections were supposed to apply in Iraq according to Bush himself, yet we have time and again seen it violated there as well as in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

America must renounce this descent into lawlessness and hypocrisy regarding the importance of human rights. America must also acknowledge the ugly fact of what it has done over the last five years as well before she will regain any of her lost moral authority as even a civilized nation let alone any kind of leader of the free world. That is what the Bush/GOP willingness to abandon the rule of law for partisan political purposes has wrought and all Americans are wearing the stain on their honour because of it and the unwillingness to strongly challenge this perversion of civilization.

What kind of moron could disagree with that?

Cue the trolls...

anyone we capture on a battlefield should be subject to the minimum standards of decency...

What and stop with the ever-effective naked twister and "Eight is Enough" human pyramid building??

"Radical Islamic Jihadism had been doing quite well for a number of years prior to us starting our door-kicking-down phase.

It's all about carrots and sticks."
Posted by: Red State Mike on July 3, 2006 at 11:33 AM

Indeed, radical Islamic jihadism did extremely well against the Soviets in Afghanistan, for example, helped along in a considerable way by us, of course. I suppose that we were in "carrot" mode at the time.

Now that it seems we've shifted to "stick" mode, I would suggest that radical Islamic jihadism might be doing considerably worse if we weren't torturing people. When people realize that we will torture them, perhaps they won't be so willing to accept our carrots?

Indeed, radical Islamic jihadism did extremely well against the Soviets in Afghanistan, for example, helped along in a considerable way by us, of course. I suppose that we were in "carrot" mode at the time.

No, we were in "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mode.

Now that it seems we've shifted to "stick" mode...

I think freeing Afghanistan and Iraq of the Taliban and Saddam as hardly being "sticks".

...I would suggest that radical Islamic jihadism might be doing considerably worse if we weren't torturing people.

Bah. All they have to do is make unsubstantiated claims on Al Jazeera that we are torturing people, and keep the outliers like Abu Ghraib front and center 24/7 to fire up the populace. Like taking candy from a baby (and then of course using it for a human shield).

This war's being fought in the press as much as in the streets. And don't underestimate the ability of the Islamic world to make up BS and believe it as "gospel". Recently Egypt showed a multi-part miniseries on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, presenting it (Jews drink blood of infants, etc.) as hard facts.

I agree, by the way, that we should not torture, and that it is more about preserving our own standards than it is about giving them the treatment they deserve. They will believe exactly what they want to believe. And when they start emigrating from our country rather than immigrating, I'll believe that they actually believe it.

perhaps they won't be so willing to accept our carrots?

James Baker on accepting carrots.

Ali G.: How does youse make countries do stuff you want?

James Baker: Well, the way you deal with countries in foreign policy issues, I think that's what you are asking me?

Ali G.: No doubt.

Baker: It's with carrot and sticks.

Ali G. (taken aback): But what country is gonna want carrots even if dey is like a million tons of carrots you is givin' over dere?

Baker: Well, carrots... I'm not using that that term literally. You might offer foreign aid. Money. Okay? Money!

Ali: Ahh, money is better than carrots even if a country love carrots dat is like dere favorite national food, if they get given like billions of tons.

Baker: Don't get hung up on carrots. That's just a figure of speech.

Ali: Would you eveah send carrots?
(Incredulous pause.)

Ali G.: I mean, is there any situation?

Baker: No!

Ali G.: What... about... in a famine?

Baker: Carrot themselves? No!

Radical Islamic Jihadism had been doing quite well for a number of years prior to us starting our door-kicking-down phase.

1. The Israelis were doing our door-kicking for us for about 30 years there. 2. Favorable opinions of US in Turkey have dropped from 70 percent to 23 percent since the door-kicking began, and an Islamist party has won the elections. Similarly, Hamas is now the elected government of Palestine.

It's all about carrots and sticks.

How well do YOU respond to carrots and sticks? Do you appreciate being treated like a mule? Do you think others do? Have you considered the possibility that, faced with the US dangling a carrot and wielding a stick, someone might decide to say, "Fuck you!" and smack us in the face as hard as they could, and see what new carrot and stick we come up with then? Isn't that what you would do? If someone invaded and occupied your country and then set up a series of carrots and sticks to guide you into their desired behavior pattern, would you obediently nosh the carrot to avoid the stick? Or would you start kicking as hard as you could, screaming "Out! Out! Out!"

James Baker on accepting carrots.

Heh. I was wondering if anyone got the reference.

Brooksfoe
How well do YOU respond to carrots and sticks? Do you appreciate being treated like a mule? Do you think others do? Have you considered the possibility that, faced with the US dangling a carrot and wielding a stick, someone might decide to say, "Fuck you!" and smack us in the face as hard as they could, and see what new carrot and stick we come up with then?

You mean like Zarqawi? Those we hunt down and kill.

Isn't that what you would do? If someone invaded and occupied your country and then set up a series of carrots and sticks to guide you into their desired behavior pattern, would you obediently nosh the carrot to avoid the stick?

If I was in Iraq and not one of the favored class, i.e., I was a Kurd or Shiite, I might just be glad to be invaded and have the evil overlords thrown out.

As far as the Sunnis who are pissed off they are out of power, if they don't like the carrots, just keep ratcheting up the stick until maybe carrots don't taste so bad.

Or would you start kicking as hard as you could, screaming "Out! Out! Out!"

At some point reality has to set in. And just how do you think business has been conducted over there for the last few years? What carrots did Saddam bring to the table in order to convince Shia to fall in line? Any at all? Or was it all sticks all the time?

Of all the people on the planet to know about the effectiveness of sticks, it is the Sunnis in Iraq. It's how the ran things. If they don't like it now, too bad for them.

Wow ... interesting thread. Never have I seen lamer troll arguments. This is not about whither interrogations, POW status, "enemy combatants" or the fact that our adversaries don't abide by the playbook of Western civilization.

This is about fundamental human decency. Look -- if you're religious, God either created all of us, or he didn't. We either believe in unalienable human rights, or we don't.

This is a values issue. If we play it right, we can win with it in the reddest of states. Democrats should not run away from it out of fear of looking "soft on terrorism."

Jay exposes the ugly side of this debate. It really is about cherishing a supposed right to do to them what they've done to us. It's not about effectively fighting terror, it's about privileging malice. People who support torture are -- let's say it -- evil.

I don't care of a terrorist has taken blue-eyed infants, dipped them in a vat of fuming acid and played lawn cricket with their skulls. It is entirely irrelevant.

Bravo to Kevin for framing the core issue here so clearly. Articulated thusly, opposing Bush on detainee treatment is a net gainer for Democrats.

Nobody wants to be seen as supporting inhumanity.

Bob

I'm a democrat. Sign me up for "everyone is subject to the Geneva conventions." Frankly, the idea that conforming to the Geneva conventions somehow impedes our fight against terrorism makes little sense to me. In my mind, treating prisoners poorly (whether at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or elsewhere) is absolutely devastating to our efforts to win the higher ground.

There are a lot of potential terrorists in the world. Torturing our captives turns some of them into actual terrorists.

rmck1, please point to the specific example of where I advocated torture.

In the absence of that, I will again know that you are lying out of your ass, which you do on a daily basis.

Human decency is providing due process for Saddam, providing Korans and religious menus for detainees, and following the rules of engagement. That's human decency. Advocating and fully supporting a program that allows for the death of over 1 million unborn children a year is NOT HUMAN DECENCY.

Defend that one moron.

Keep we try to focus on the born! Just for the sake of arguement.

'Can' we, can we. Not 'keep' we.

Ug, too much weed today.

First, someone noted a while back that we can hold POWs for the duration of the war. True. If Qaeda prisoners are POWS, we can hold them for the duration of the war. If they are something less than POWs -- enemy combatants -- I don't see how we would lose our right to hold them for the duration of the war. So the Bush administration can hold those in Gitmo and elsewhere without giving them any trial. The whole controversy arises because the administration ALSO wants to try some of these people to convict them of some crime. Could some conservative explain why this is necessary? I mean necessary for effectively defeating Al Qaeda, not necessary for good political theatre.

Second, a treaty is a promise. I don't know whether all provisions of the Geneva Convention apply to our conflict with Al Qaeda, but all the SCOTUS said is that one particular provision -- "Common Article 3" -- does. Unlike some provisions, it explicitly applies even to conflicts that are NOT between two nations who signed the GCs. By adopting this provision, the US promised to refrain from "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." Maybe conservatives will say that we should never have agreed to this or should now abrogate the treaty. But I don't see how you can claim the US is not legally obligated to give trials of a certain quality to all our enemies *IF* we want to sentence them for their atrocities.

It appears that the Bush administration likes to come up with supposed "tools" against the war on terror that (a) don't actually help defeat Al Qaeda, (b) violate the law, and therefore (c) put Democrats in the position of saying, hey, why are you gratuitously breaking the law? The answer is: just to make you complain about it so we can win elections. Which is precisely what Goldberg is saying. Breaking the law is not an unfortunate necessity to prevent terrorism; it is the whole point of a domestic political strategy.

Jay:

I lie on a daily basis? (Note the clever ad-hom.) Oh that's really cute, Jay, considering how much shit I took here on your behalf when you were roundhouse accused of being a child molester.

Are you this loyal to your friends, too?

Like the child molester thread, I went back up and carefully reviewed your posts. You started out arguing that the inhumanity of our opponents should weigh into how we treat them.

Then, of course, you started backtracking by insisting how humane we treat detainees anyway. You might have a quarrel or two with those Michael Moore-leftist organizations the International Committee of the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch ...

As for (look -- a puppy!) abortions, it's my view that even a viable fetus is not a person.

End of discussion.

Bob

Just in at the BBC - useful article on how the British are attempting to respond to and prepare for future attacks. As a matter or course, perhaps we should pay closer attention to what people are doing in societies that have suffered from terrorist attacks for years...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5140958.stm

leisure guy:....the Bush Administration's contradictory positions on whether the war on "terrorism" is or is not a war.

apparently one judge saw that too...

"J. Michael Luttig, the federal appeals court judge who was on President Bush's short list for the Supreme Court but recently clashed with the administration over a terrorism case, has resigned from the bench." - Wash. Post 5/11/06

"The clash, underscores the increasing skepticism among even some conservative jurists toward the Bush administration's sweeping theories of executive power, and culminated yesterday in Judge Luttig's resignation." - Wall Street Journal 5/11/06

I'm a democrat. Sign me up for "everyone is subject to the Geneva conventions." Frankly, the idea that conforming to the Geneva conventions somehow impedes our fight against terrorism makes little sense to me.
Posted by: Liberal Chris

Do you understand that we don't give criminals in our own country the benefit of the Geneva Conventions? There is more to them than "thou shalt not torture."

There are a lot of potential terrorists in the world. Torturing our captives turns some of them into actual terrorists.

This statement be Liberal Chris is a crisp explanation of why I'm an ex-liberal. Chris implies that terrorism may be partly our fault -- partly a normal response to American misdeeds. I once agreed, but no longer.

The US provided more aid to Afghanistan than any other country, yet 9/11 was planned from that country. The US went to war in the Balkans on the side of the Muslims, yet we were the main target of Osama bin Laden.

Al Qaeda opposes the west for their own internal reasons. I agree that the US should try to act properly when feasible, but the terrorists are not our conscience. Nice behavior won't deter terrorists, nor will nasty behavior encourage them.

I am curious about something. The Bush administration is responding with greater ferocity and barbarity, amounting to what is turning out to be genocide, using terrorism as a justification than Milosevic did against the Kosovans using terrorism as a justification. Yet Milosevic was hauled off and scheduled to stand trial for war crimes. Is there a double standard being applied here?

ex-liberal:

Yeah, well, cluelessness is an equal opportunity annoyer :)

The CIA has a concept you might be interested in.

It's called blowback. Perhaps you've heard of it.

It's not a moral equation. It's a behavioral observation.

Bob

I hope other Democrats are smart enough, decent enough, and dedicated enough to beating terrorism to say so too.

Well if Senator Charles E. Schumer is any indication of how the cowardly, spinesless Dems are going to act then it doesn't look good. I really don't know what New Yorkers see in that cowardly Senator. Schumer is weaker on congressional issues than ex-Senator Tom Daschel, so maybe Schumer would like to run as an Independant too in his next election.

The high court middle hands Dems something and Dems can't even handle even middle road issues.

bblog
I am curious about something. The Bush administration is responding with greater ferocity and barbarity, amounting to what is turning out to be genocide, using terrorism as a justification than Milosevic did against the Kosovans using terrorism as a justification.

Any liberals want to dispute this claim?

Ex-Liberal:

First, if you want to be rational and effective about the fight against Al-Qaeda, then you can't just rule out of bounds any argument that says the US is doing something counterproductive. If you just label such a claim as illegitimate "blame America first" thinking, rather than evaluate it, then you will not maximize your chances of prevailing.

Second, even the Bush administration used to talk about winning "hearts and minds" in Iraq (when it still seemed possible). The idea behind this general strategy is that, while some people have already decided to become our enemies, some are on the fence. I agree we can't "persuade" terrorists or other extremists by setting a good example, but we can still persuade the undecided to reject the extremism. Isolating the terrorists is vital to defeating them.

That's why these new poll numbers about world wide decline in approval of the US are truly bad news. In most nations, including our allies, the citizenry sees the US as a greater threat to world peace than Iran's nuclear program! Do you have to be a liberal to think that's bad?

Red State Mike:

In the post-cold war world, we've become a hyperpower (or Uberpower, if you'd prefer).

It's entirely inevitable and appropriate that we're held to different standards than the rest of the world -- for both good and ill.

Bob

Clearly, The Bush Drunk is the most egregious terraist in the world. Morally speaking, his tactics are no different than Bin-Laden's. He is killing women and children.

Do you understand that we don't give criminals in our own country the benefit of the Geneva Conventions? There is more to them than "thou shalt not torture."
Posted by: Red State Mike on July 3, 2006 at 12:58 PM

However criminals in the American legal system have Miranda and all the legal protections that come along with it from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, unlike POWs. You better than most should understand that the Geneva Conventions do not provide as many protections against prosecutorial misconduct than do your own criminal laws. That you put this argument forward as any defence of the status quo really underscores just how poorly you actually grasp the fundamental issues of both law and morality/ethics involved here.

RiMac:

Very good points.

We never would have prevailed in the cold war if the rest of the world didn't see the qualitative moral superiority of our system.

That's why we tied ourselves down with international law, NATO and the UN in the aftermath of WW2, when we had the only intact industrial base and a nuclear monopoly.

We could've acted like Bush assholes then -- with their identical macro-level justifications.

We chose to cooperate instead. The dividends that paid out were enormous.

Bob

I am curious about something. The Bush administration is responding with greater ferocity and barbarity, amounting to what is turning out to be genocide, using terrorism as a justification than Milosevic did against the Kosovans using terrorism as a justification. – bblog

Any liberals want to dispute this claim? – Red State Mike

As a liberal, I hate the Bush administration with a passion, but Bush is not Milosevic. He is not Hitler; he is not Stalin; he is not Saddam; he not Bin-Laden. He is merely, in my view, the worst president ever.

Red State Mike thinks there is a difference between being blown to pieces by a guy playing dress up and having your throat slit by a guy in jeans. Well maybe, but the fact is that you are dead either way. And, let's be honest, the guy using children as human shields is a monster, but so is the guy who drops bombs from his plane that cost more than it would take to feed and clothe for a month the entire population of the city to which he is laying waste.

In the end, Red State Mike's arguments can't be taken seriously at any level. Not understanding the oath he took, he blindly followed orders to kill people without considering the legality of those orders. It is the bad soldiers like Red State Mike who are the torturers and whose existence is an embarrassment to the citizens of the United States.

scotian
However criminals in the American legal system have Miranda and all the legal protections that come along with it from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, unlike POWs. You better than most should understand that the Geneva Conventions do not provide as many protections against prosecutorial misconduct than do your own criminal laws.

Scotian, when someone says "The Geneva Convention applies to everyone" that makes zero sense. The Geneva Conventions themselves say that the protections of the Geneva Conventions don't apply to everyone. It identifies who it doesn't apply to. And when you read it, it sure sounds like it doesn't apply to the insurgents.

That you put this argument forward as any defence of the status quo really underscores just how poorly you actually grasp the fundamental issues of both law and morality/ethics involved here.

Spare me the sanctimonious parting shot BS. Are you saying that when we capture an insurgent who has blended in with the civilian populace thereby hiding his combatant nature, hid his weapon, used civilians as shields thereby placing them in danger, and then purposefully blown up civilians, that we should only ask for and expect his name, rank, date of birth, and serial number in accordance with the protections of the Geneva Conventions?

Red State Mike thinks there is a difference between being blown to pieces by a guy playing dress up and having your throat slit by a guy in jeans.

Actually, the Geneva Conventions explictly call out the difference between a guy playing "dress up" and one hiding in civilian clothing. Why are you in such a hurry to throw the Geneva Conventions in the trash can? Don't you believe in the rule of law? Or do you think you get to make them up as you go along?

As a liberal, I hate the Bush administration with a passion, but Bush is not Milosevic. He is not Hitler; he is not Stalin; he is not Saddam; he not Bin-Laden. He is merely, in my view, the worst president ever.

An argument could be made that Bush is worse than Milosevic. Read the history of the conflict in Yugoslavia. The Serbs were responding to a history of atrocities that dwarfs anything Hussein participated in. They were responding to a real terrorism. Yet it has been clearly established by the CIA that Iraq had no connection to Al-Quada.

Red State Mike:

I understand and duly respect your understanding of the GC as a soldier who's had to abide by them. Of course there are critical differences between a uniformed soldier and a terrorist who uses asymmetrical warfare techniques ordinarily out of the purview of armies.

But the controversy is about GC Article III if I'm not mistaken -- which grants a baseline standard of decent treatment to *all* parties in a military conflict.

And let me ask you: Do you think waterboarding is an appropriate interrogation technique?

Bob

soldier = airman

bblog:

That's a pretty slanderous comment against Bosnian Muslims especially -- considering that Balkan Muslims (converted during the Ottoman Empire) are pretty culturally assimilated, socially tolerant -- and decidedly not Wahabi fanatics.

Sounds to me like you're pushing the Serbian partisan line.

Bob

rmck1
But the controversy is about GC Article III if I'm not mistaken -- which grants a baseline standard of decent treatment to *all* parties in a military conflict.

I agree.

And let me ask you: Do you think waterboarding is an appropriate interrogation technique?

No

Red State Mike:

No argument. Carry on.

Bob

The history of the Yugoslav conflict is much more complicated than that. I am not justifying Milosevic's actions. But since the history is much more complicated and complex than the situation with Iraq, I am asking why Bush is being held to the same standard as Milosevic. Read this, for example:

Marko Atlagic, a Serb who entered parliament on behalf of the multi-ethnic Croatian Socialists’ Alliance during that year’s groundbreaking election, said Franjo Tudjman’s victorious Croatian Democratic Union, HDZ, soon embarked on a campaign of “Croatisation”.

The new authorities, he said, were determined to break from Yugoslavia and displayed nostalgia for the period during the Second World War when Nazi Germany installed a puppet regime to rule a fascist “Greater Croatia”, which included parts of Bosnia and Serbia.

In the wake of the HDZ victory, he told tribunal judges, fascist iconography became prevalent and Serbs and their property were subject to violent attacks.

Milosevic is charged with playing a key role in a plan to cleanse a third of Croatia of its non-Serb population in order to make way for a new Serb-dominated state. In the process, hundreds of civilians are said to have been murdered, thousands imprisoned and over 170,000 driven from their homes.

In an effort to explain how Atlagic’s testimony related to the legal charges against him, Milosevic told the court that many of the actions by Serbs in this period were carried out in self-defence.

Atlagic said that portents of what was to come were already in evidence in the late Eighties. In 1989, he said, Tudjman announced during a speech in Germany that when he became president of Croatia, the ground in the Krajina region – long claimed by Serbs as a part of their heritage – would be “red with blood”.

According to the witness, such rhetoric was not limited to the president-to-be. At one rain-soaked rally in the run-up to the 1990 election, he recalled, Stjepan Mesic, who was shortly to become prime minister, declared that once an independent Croatian state had been formed, the entire remaining Serb population would be able to stand under a one umbrella.

Once in power, Atlagic said, Tudjman presided over efforts to create an independent Croatia devoid of Serbs. The witness labelled this alleged plan a “joint criminal enterprise”, in reference to the legal wording widely employed by prosecutors at the tribunal, including in the case against Milosevic.

He said the plan included an immediate “purge” of Serbs from sectors such as the police and the territorial defence service.

Atlagic said slogans like “We Shall Expel the Serbs” and “Hang the Serbs from Willow Trees” also became “ubiquitous” around this time, appearing on kiosks and on the facades of buildings. Far from reacting to such provocative behaviour, the authorities apparently “considered it quite normal”, he said.

The witness testified that by March 1992, more than 4,000 houses had been set on fire in Western Slavonia and some 160 Orthodox holy sites had been damaged or destroyed in attacks.

Some Serbs, he said, even went so far as to change their names in order to try to mask their identity and stay out of harm’s way. None, he claimed, did anything that might be construed as provoking the Croatian authorities.

But since the history is much more complicated and complex than the situation with Iraq, I am asking why Bush is being held to the same standard as Milosevic. Read this, for example:

That should be "why Bush is not being held to the same standard as Milosevic."

I implicitly argued that we must consider how U.S. policies affect the prevalence and nature of global terrorism. The common conservative response is that to ask how our policies affect terrorism is to "blame america." in my opinion, this is an entirely flawed response.

every decision we make in the war on terror is ultimately geared toward cutting terrorism, either by killing or capturing existing terrorism or foiling terrorist plots or whatever. when we decide to, say, bomb an al qaeda training camp, we are weighing the likelihood that we will hit an important target against the risk of collateral damage. both sides of that equation relate to our goal of cutting terrorism: if we inadvertently bomb civilians, not only do we (obviously) fail to kill terrorists, we also increase anti-U.S. sentiment that increases support for (and membership in) the terrorist camps.

i don't see how it is in any way different to ask whether or not our policies in guantanamo and elsewhere are really worth it. what do we gain from eschewing the geneva conventions? what do we lose? to me, this equation isn't even close. but more importantly, the suggestion that it is somehow wrong to weigh the other side of the equation - the possibility that our actions could inadvertently fuel the very problem we are fighting - is absolutely bizarre.

bblog:

I'm a tad familiar with that history -- and indeed you *are* pushing the Serbian line. I'm not saying the Croats weren't equally monsters; Tudjman is as much of a nationalist, racist shithead as Milosevec for sure.

But -- just to use one example -- nothing whatsoever justifies the relentless shelling of the beautiful, multiethnic Sarajevo into rubble by the Serbs.

You got that? Nothing. That's why it's a war crime.

Is Bush guilty of war crimes? Well, I think there's a reason we never signed on to the ICC, because certainly many people see him that way. I think Rumsfeld can be arrested if he ever sets foot in Germany.

Bob

Liberal Chris:

I concur completely.

Bob

I don't think I am pushing any line. I am citing facts. Again the argument is that if Milosevic's justifications were partly bogus, then Bush' justifications are completely bogus. Yet one was imprisoned and then died in prison. As for the shelling of Sarajevo, that is nothing compared to the destruction of Fallujeh, the seige of Ramadi, and the DU dust that is expected to kill another million people in the coming years.

The moral high ground is the first thing conservatives walk away from, always. They lead the charge for us to show the enemy that we are just as cruel and brutal as they are.

After all, they started it, didn't they?

All of their enemies are not overseas. We would do well to remember that.

The moral high ground is the first thing conservatives walk away from, always. They lead the charge for us to show the enemy that we are just as cruel and brutal as they are.
Posted by: zak822

For the first time in...forever?...there have been democratic elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. Tossing out the Taliban and Saddam was *hardly* walking away from the moral high ground.

bblog:

Well, you're definitely pushing a line. You wrote an extensive post quoting testimony about Croatian atrocities against the Serbs. That's hardly a balanced picture, considering the atrocities the Serbs prosecuted in their turn. And considering that Serbia was the biggest power, it ultimately did the most damage and bullying.

And it's weird, because Milosevic is only answerable for the conduct of his own side. It's a little like hearing Bush using the atrocities of Saddam to justify the invasion ...

The thing we learned from Nuremburg is that war crimes exist on an absolute moral plane. You can't determine whether the Middle Passage slave journey was any worse of a holocaust for Africans than the Nazi Holocaust was against the Jews. Listening to those debates is, to be perfectly frank, entirely nauseating. And morally pointless.

Is Bush a war criminal? Again, on a moral level, I'm not inclined to disagree with you, so I don't see why you feel the need to keep pressing the case.

On a legal and political level, it's fairly obviously why he's not being prosecuted for it -- not, of course, that this makes it right.

Bob

Red State Mike:

Well, Mike, I have to disagree with you on that one, because what we're jump-starting in Iraq and Afghanistan has precious little to do with genuine democracy.

Until such time as those societies grow transparent institutions and hold contract relations to be more binding than ascribed status relations -- we're just doing what the West did in the age of colonialism.

That Haiti has a parliament doesn't make it a functional democracy. Rinse and repeat throughout the developing world.

Bob

I sdtill think you misunderstand. I am not saying Milosevic was right. I am saying that if Milosevic was wrong and unjust then Bush is far more so. So no, I am not pushing any line that absolves Milosevic.

bblog:

The Iraq invasion unquestionably violated the UN Charter and thus the cornerstone principle of international law.

Bob

Is Bush a war criminal? Again, on a moral level, I'm not inclined to disagree with you, so I don't see why you feel the need to keep pressing the case.

On a legal and political level, it's fairly obviously why he's not being prosecuted for it -- not, of course, that this makes it right.

Well, this goes to show that with the US as the sole superpower, the level of hypocrisy is getting out of hand. World order simply cannot be sustained with such blatant disregard for justice and fair play. Other nations see through it and will revolt and seek to subvert an imposed order that is detrimental to their interests.

bblog:

Again, I'm not inclined to disagree.

Bob

How come only the Canadians understand that the respnse to 9/11 should never have been called a war in the first place? I mean, I read through the mess of twisted verbiage, muddled thinking and stretched definitions on this issue, and I just wonder why so few people have challenged the original framing of the "war." It seems like only Scotian has mentioned it.

GOLDBERG IS A JEW - that takes him out of the discussion.

Speaking of which - I am an independant - hate bushbots and neocons - how ever will the DEMS come up with an anti war - islam appeasing candidate when the party is owned by Jews?

You people can haggle all day on these threads - but the truth remains... the only anti war - pro palestinian candidate the DEMS will muster will be another KERRY suit.....

A suit -- that's all you will get til you address the treasonous nature of American Jews in the political process.

this is a NO BRAINER -- of course jews like coulter and goldberg will speak of Muslims as cockroaches... they are fucking jews for christ sakes!

what a bunch of dummies

karen:

As politely as I can ...

GO FUCK YOURSELF

Bob

Wow, I thought suggesting that this never should have been considered a war was a little out on the edge, and then Karen comes along and shows us all where "out there" really is.

It's a long way out there.

Go karen!!

There will NOT be an anti war candidate in either party because Jews control the process.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT -

And don't anybody call me the A word... I admit it freely.

Anybody with a soul recognises that Israel is the neo nazi engine for our foreign policy.

Jews have taken over both parties in this country and THAT is why there is no VIABLE anti war candidate.

We are the pawns in THEIR ethnic cleansing.

Two separate situations have become hopelessly muddled in this thread.

Situation 1. The "war" in Iraq:

An insurgency of disgruntled Baathists and unemployed soldiers allegedly accepting the help of foreign Muslim jihadists in order to resist an invading force.

A fledgling three-way civil war.

An American military with more talent for brutality than winning hearts and minds now reduced to travelling about on heavily-armed patrols.

Situation 2. Al Qaeda-style terrorism:

Bin Laden-sponsored, Taliban-sanctioned global jihad with training camps in Afghanistan.

Religious schools preaching death to infidels.

Jihadist organizations throughout the Muslim world (Malaysia, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Chechnya, Egypt, Morocco, etc.)

Loosely connected network of "cells" hiding out in Western cities plotting various attacks.

Of course, there is more to both situations than I could possibly know or even speculate. I'm just trying to come up with basic outlines in order to show that the two situations aren't really connected by anything other than a Muslim presence. The fact that both situations contain the USA as an antagonist doesn't connect them. Prior to 2003 Iraq was not threatening the USA, Bin Laden was. Yet the bulk of American effort, money and sacrifice is aimed at Situation 1, while Situation 2 has been put on hold, if not outright ignored.

So, which is it, trolls? If you're going to defend torture and the abrogation of the rule of law, could you please tell us in which of the two so-called wars these tactics are better applied. And how. And why.

Or is it both? Or do you even make a distinction between the two above situations? Do you even understand that the 'war' on terrorism is being lost in order to fight another 'war' that can't be won? Or that unquestioned confinement and torture of possibly innocent Muslims will do nothing to make either situation right?

>2500 American soldiers killed. Thousands more Muslim innocents killed. In obvious futility. And the best the right can do is call liberals soft on terrorism. Not that there's any proof anywhere for that charge. But, hey, it seems to get lots of traction in the media.

Hence, numb-asses like Jonah Goldberg.

The cognitive dissonance on the left is because the party is owned by Jews.

Terrorism is when somebody throws a rock at IDF.

Rule of Law is when said IDF bombs a beach

Goldberg gets away with this because American Grass eaters have been brainwashed into thinking Muslims are subhuman dogs.

For this we can thank the Mossad and the bushbot neocons who orchestrated 9/11 -- AND almost enlisted a latin American contingent of Islamophobes when, a month after 9/11 - 3 Israelis were arrested trying to bomb the Mexican congress.

That never made the evening news in the American? papers. Have any of you wondered why?

tj:

You and "karen" are quite obviously sock puppets. We've seen this li'l Punch and Judy routine before. It's quite boring as you have nothing to say you haven't already said a bazillion times.

Nobody here supports rabid-dog anti-semitism.

If you can't criticize Israeli policy with facts or logic, then your hate- and projection-filled "input" is completely worthless.

Now Heil fucking Hitler you asswipes and go back to StormWatch where you belong.

erica:

I have qualms about the war metaphor, myself, but it's hard to rebut considering things like a war on poverty, a war on childhood disease, a war on world hunger, etc.

It's also difficult because I do believe we had no choice but to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan and take out the training camps used by the 9/11 perps.

Had we tried genuine nation-building in Afghanistan, had we hunted down and caught bin Laden, the war metaphor would appear more apt, I think.

Instead, we got a literal war in Iraq for our trouble.

And no connection to global terrorism save an ever-ready recruitment poster for it.

*sigh*

Sorry for losing my rhetorical cool with "karen" earlier.

Bob

"Gillian" is obviously a sock puppet as well.

Nobody uses the term "bushbot" here save for the Hitler Fan Club contingent.

Bob

Bob - if I am a whacky minority - why are Jewish groups foaming at the mouth over the rise of anti semitism.

I admit it. I loath Jews. I loath their ethnocentric con games and their hypocrisy. But i am obviously not alone.

Israel is not our friend AND their crazy cousins have taken our government and military hostage to their aims in the Middle East.

None of this is rocket science - so what is it that you disagree with? THAT SOMEBODY SPEAKS UP??

What ever is a sock puppet?

I speak for no one but myself and 50 years of reading, learning, and watching Jews take over my country using name changes and aryan guilt.

I am not a republican, or a democrat. Both parties are actually the sock puppets you despise.

Both parties are owned by Jews.

exasperanto
An American military with more talent for brutality than winning hearts and minds now reduced to travelling about on heavily-armed patrols...

Great, another Washngtonmonthly military hater, sepaking from a position of profound ignorance.

...Of course, there is more to both situations than I could possibly know or even speculate.

Amen to that.

Exasperanto, have you ever looked at a map of Iraq? Or read the milblogs to get a view from Iraq that has not been filtered by the pro-tail between the legs crowd? Hint: you'll find stuff that both supports and cuts the legs out from your arguments.

Do not confuse the Sunni triangle and Anbar province with the whole of Iraq.

the karen/tj/Gillian entity:

You don't know what a sock puppet is? Oh that is funny. Just what do you think the odds are that three separate people would show up with an opinion that our most assinine regular trolls would be ashamed to acknowledge?

Racial/ethnic/religious hatred is never justified, end of story. For every Lieberman with IDF cock in his mouth there's a Russ Feingold, who's been fighting the Bush approach on the so-called War on Terrorism since the day after 9/11.

But why am I attempting to make a rational argument to a bunch of rabid haters?

Just. Go. Away.

Bob

Feingold is the stealth Jew. There is ALWAYS A stealth Jew - who postures against Israel.

I have no idea who Gillian is - or Karen for that matter.

I sometimes peruse these threads and support others ... by the way

There is no shame in jew hatred these days.

Check out the English Papers -- they revile the Jews openly.

Jew hatred should be worn like a badge in these times. they are the new nazis

tj:

You're a lying psychopath. Your rhetoric is identical to "karen" and "Gillian." Not merely ideas -- rhetorical quirks. The way you capitalize words and make paragraph breaks. The use of terms that nobody else does like "bushbot."

And you are clearly exhibiting projective identification.

Look it up in the DSM-IV.

Bob

tj:

Russ Feingold was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act -- and you call it "posturing"?

How bloody convenient.

The concept of "stealth Jew" (google it and you'll be deluged with anti-semitic websites) is wonderfully grotesque rhetorical fallacy, isn't it. It means that you can hate all Jews equally by dismissing the ones who don't fit the ugly caracature.

Even *they* have a role in the Global Conspiracy.

Israeli Peace Now is likewise entirely insincere, no doubt.

Like I said, bro -- you're a fucking psychopath.

Bob

Jason:

I don't support moderation, but at moments like these it's damn hard to make a case against it.

Bob

Bob,

I wish that for every Lieberman there was a Feingold. But I don't think there's much more to be done on this thread...

The sentiment expressed by Goldberg is not surprising. What are the chances that he has studied the Geneva Conventions, that he understands them, that he appreciates why our military has supported them from day one? On the off chance that he has and he does, he must know that his loyal readers have not and probably never will.

This is just another example of how ideologue conservatives, who are not well versed in the origins and foundations of American government, are even more ignorant and dismissive of the origins and foundations of international law. They flat out do not know what they are talking about.

Make sure your kids do their civics and social studies homework. There’s more to the world than math, science, and dollar chasing.

"...if you don't think that we are more humane than the jihadists, with or without affording them Geneva Convention accords..."

There's no "with or without" here; we will only be judged by our actions, not our pure hearts. Everyone thinks they have great intentions -- does that make it okay for them to kill your children. We don'ty get a free pass to the morality theme park just for being Americans. Or even if we do, we still have behave ourselves on the rides.

"Milblogs" like that fellow Bill Roggio, who admitted that he has been fed information from CENTCOM? Or your garden variety nutcases funded by Pajamas Media?

Bzzzt! Roggio is not a milblog, since he's not in the military. Don't know what Pajamas Media thing you are talking about.

Mudville Gazette links to many milblogs, along with non-milblogs.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/

Nice snapshot of how our soldiers feel about "We support the soldiers but want to lose the war" folks.

Red State Mike:

I don't think any serious person -- including diehard antiwarriors like myself -- wants Iraq to fail.

But one thing is for certain: It is the Iraqis who have to win this thing -- not us.

We're either being helpful -- or we're being counterproductive.

I don't think it's a slam-dunk argument either way ... but I do think the latter position has an edge on the merits.

Bob

Red State Mike: from your link: "‘We are having to train our troops to not shoot until we are certain that we are being shot at.’

My question for you is this: who do you think put those soldiers in that position? And that has been their situation from day one because we sent them to invade a country with a hapless military that was not a threat to us. Thus, we don't feel free to level every building, shoot anyone in sight because our nation's security was not at risk.

Kerry and Murtha are did not initially, and are not now, setting the rules of engagement. To suggest that they are is insulting to the soldiers.

Most soldiers fighting in Iraq will eventually (many already do) recognize that Iraq was not a threat to us. You want to blame their situation on Kerry, Murtha, and the media?

You just really need to take a look at who is actually running this country. It ain't Kerry and Murtha.

Red State Mike, you've killed how many people? You think that your playing dress up makes your victims feel better? It doesn't. They are just as dead as if you had strapped your bombs on your chest and had the courage to murder them in person.

The idiocy of suggesting that I have discarded the Geneva Convention even as you deny its protections to those you don't like just because you can find a legalistic reason is, or should be, self-evident. These are basic standards that any soldier with a modicum of decency would fight to uphold. Any soldier who opposes granting these standards to accused "head choppers" disgraces the uniform.

What bloodthirsty criminals like Red State Mike don't understand is the difference between hating the creeps who cheerfully murder individuals and those who do so only because there is no other possibility. I doubt there are many here who are "military haters." Most of us are just sick of seeing the "bomb them first, comb them often" individuals running the day. Especially bullies whose rationale is "he shot back at me as I engaged in an act of war."

Here's a clue, those who are hiding in civilian clothes and using children as shields - give them airplanes, high powered bombs, and dress-up clothing. They will be glad to use them. They fight that way because they don't have a sugar daddy to steal from children to provide them all those things.

My name is Charles. I don't know tj or Karen or Jillian.

I wander by here occasionally to find out if the dems still have their head up their collective colon.

They do. Each of the above has tried to bring some truth to this board. They are ridiculed as sock puppets.

We are an occupied nation. Jews in America have an allegiance toward one another that they do no reveal to non Jews.

And I also believe 9/11 was a set up. It worked. The nation now hates Muslims. This is typical Israeli Mossad mischief.

While I do not profess open Jew Hatred - I certainly understand how good people could begin to question the morality of this minority gone mad.

The idiot above who stated "But the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists because they are non-state actors." Is wrong. They have oviously never read the 4 primary conventions or the various "Protocol Additional" that add to them.

When the poster goes on to say "The Geneva Conventions only apply to nations and to armed conflict not of a international character." The poster is DEAD wrong. They apply to all sorts of situtions including occupation, and people who spontaniously take up arms to resist an invading force or occupation. And no, they don't need to wear uniforms to qulify. And yes, all people in the war zone are covered by one or more of the conventions: Fighters, wounded, civilans, detainies etc.

Try reading at least two of the conventions:

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

The key is that people in a war zone, fall under one or the other. This is explicitly true in cases of occupation.

And while we are at it, try reading:

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

So if you think people slip through the net of the first two conventions, and are not covered by the above, then try this language from:

The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol1.htm

2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.

4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation .....

What bit of " AND COMBATANTS remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law" don't you get?

NOTE: The documents are long. They refer back and forth to numbered paragrapths, so you will probably have to print them out and get out the highligher. You will need to read them a couple of times before you understand just how explicitly encompassing they are.

heavy
Any soldier who opposes granting these standards to accused "head choppers" disgraces the uniform.

Oh, this from someone whot has *never* worn the uniform and has no clue what is and isn't asked of someone who has.

STFU

JM_runs
When the poster goes on to say "The Geneva Conventions only apply to nations and to armed conflict not of a international character." The poster is DEAD wrong. They apply to all sorts of situtions including occupation, and people who spontaniously take up arms to resist an invading force or occupation. And no, they don't need to wear uniforms to qualify.

This is from convention III Article 4 (my bold, same as in where I quoted you)

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Maybe they aren't required to wear uniforms, but this portion of it requires something equivalent. And don't miss part (d); that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Red State Mike assumes something he knows nothing about - he assumes that anyone who puts on a uniform becomes a thug like himself. Were he not a stain on the dignity of the uniform of the United State of America he would, himself, STFU. But instead he gleefully supports inhumane treatment of others because he thinks he sees wiggle room in the Geneva Conventions. By supporting barbarity he demonstrates himself to be one with the head choppers.

How about answering my question: how many human lives have you snuffed out? How many broken bodies have you left for grieving widows to identify? How does your body count compare to Jeffery Dahmer's?

heavy...

STFU

RSM: you can't invade a country, defeat the country's military, occupy the country, provoke an insurgency, then call everybody you capture or decide to arrest a terrorist to whom the Geneva Conventions do not apply. That won't ever come close to washing.

Our own military officers have estimated that the vast majority of our prisoners are not terrorists, or even insurgents. The whole world knows this and it really hurts the United States, including the U.S. military.

lojfrc...
RSM: you can't invade a country, defeat the country's military, occupy the country, provoke an insurgency, then call everybody you capture or decide to arrest a terrorist to whom the Geneva Conventions do not apply. That won't ever come close to washing.

But the Geneva Conventions specifically dictate who they do and do not apply to. It seems kind of disengenuous to apply the Geneva Conventions to someone that the Geneva Conventions *themselves* say they do not apply to. See my post above, and decide if an insurgent who hides his appearance, hides behind civilians, and kills them in markets meets the standard for the full GC protections.

Parts of the conventions discriminate. Other parts of the conventions cover everybody.

Our own military officers have estimated that the vast majority of our prisoners are not terrorists, or even insurgents. The whole world knows this and it really hurts the United States, including the U.S. military.

Your statement kind of implies that we are not treating the vast majority of prisoners by the Conventions. The proportion in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib is pretty small. Howver they were treated before, they're treated fine now. I promise they prefer our treatment over the Iraqis or their home country (usually). And we've had a "catch and release" program for quite some time.

Here's a choice piece of reading for someone who thinks the military doesn't know what it is doing.

http://michaelyon-online.com/media/pdf/Twenty-EightArticles-Edition1.pdf

One more tidbit...

Our own military officers have estimated that the vast majority of our prisoners are not terrorists, or even insurgents. The whole world knows this and it really hurts the United States, including the U.S. military.

Frankly I don't care what they think of us today, other than how it impacts our chances for the final outcome. And that is what matters, the final outcome. If we play "nice" and the outcome sucks, we suck. If democracy crawls out of the primordial ooze that is the middle east (and if it does it will be because of us), we are heroes for the history books.

What's the matter Red State Mike, afraid to reveal how many people you've slaughtered? You think that the other Bush defenders would think less of you? Trust me, they won't. Like you, they like people who kill people. Most of them, like you, try to separate the gleeful murderers you exemplify from the head choppers because they want to play at being civilized, but you know better don't you?

You know that if you were a powerless peasant, rather than a well-fed monster, you would look to your rules and figure out how they could justify chopping heads. It's just a matter of resources. You were well paid to sit on your ass and imagine that you were doing something noble as you dropped bombs to rip human beings limb from limb. You enjoyed a good meal when you got home from anonymously slaughtering living, breathing persons. And when it was over you cheerfully went back for more. And now, having made a wasteland, you revel in the fact that there is ever more destruction for you to enjoy – now from the sidelines.

If you had any decency your trail of death and destruction would haunt you. If you had any honor you would be looking around to find some way to prevent others from suffering your fate. If the uniform meant anything other than a chance to murder you would have questioned the orders to drop bombs on people who weren’t a threat to our national security. But you didn’t and don't. You are a head chopper with an airplane. You don't defend yourself because, unlike when your sugar daddy gives you a plane and a load of bomb so you can murder from afar, you are defenseless.

Until you can think of ways to make the world better that don’t involve murder:

STFU

I really don't think you understand. Whatever the Iraqis manage to accomplish in the future, the U.S. will not be given credit. Nobody can say what would have happened had we not invaded. There is no respect for the invasion or the thousands killed as a result, the thousands made destitute, the thousands made refugees.

Iraq is destroyed, wrecked. The history books will not be written by folks interested in telling this tragic story as it occured, not by feel-good ideologue conservatives who cannot acknowlede error.

Meant to say "The history books will be written by folks interested in telling this tragic story as it occurred...

Part of me feels sorry for Red State Mike. So much of him is caught up in his costume that he forgets to be a human being. But just when I start to feel sorry for him I see his blind support for this unprovoked, unnecessary invasion and I feel the need to tear him down by reminding him of his connection with the human race.

People like Red State Mike are a constant reminder of the phrase “we just did as we were told.” A phrase that allowed seemingly good people to create untold horrors. Removing Hussein was nominally a good thing. But it was not an unmitigated good. Getting Hussein out of Kuwait was a good thing. But frankly it too was not exclusively one. These things are, or should be, self-evident. In the present case, what does it mean to hold elections if they must take place under martial law? Where is the evidence that the death rate is at or below that of pre-sanctions Iraq?

If we had a military composed of individuals willing to think for themselves there would have been a wholesale refusal to engage in an unprovoked assault on a sovereign nation. But we don’t. We have a military composed of Red State Mikes, people willing to put orders ahead of thought, people willing to kill others just because they were told it was desired.

Were the military composed of thinking individuals it would not be a threat to world peace. But as it stands it only requires that a demagogue tell sufficiently pleasing stories before it will go and wreak havoc on innocents. The people of Iraq were innocents before George W. Bush declared war on them; they are still.

Some of the prisoners were released to France and Britain, re-arrested and retried

Name the ones 're-arrested and retried' in Britain. As opposed to the ones given a brief questioning and released.

My cursory understanding of the Geneva Conventions

Obviously doesn't include Common Article 4, which sets a baseline for treatment regardless of POW status.

Piss off Jason. Red State Mike is responsible for his actions. His actions include the dropping of bombs on human beings. The UCMJ requires only that you obey "lawful orders." The invasion was not lawful.

Red State Mike deserves any and all opprobrium directed at him given his stated desire to be the one who killed the innocent woman and her child because of her proximity to a known terrorist. That is, he has stated that he would like to be a "baby killer." Sure, there was a terrorist there too, but that's only one of the victims. How quaint of me to care. Oh, and while I didn’t call him that, what does one call someone who has killed babies? A hero?

Hey, remind me what national security reason we have for killing people in Iraq? Remind me how much better things are in George W. Bush’s Iraq than they were under Hussein’s Iraq? Better hospital care? Better infant mortality? Fewer death squads? Anything? Since you bring up Vietnam, how is our little adventure in Iraq any better?

Yes, civilian control of the military is a good thing. I'm not arguing against it. But invading Poland wasn't self-defense. Neither was the invasion of Iraq. My problem with the military is its inability to say no. It didn’t say no to Panama, it didn’t say no to Grenada, it didn’t say no to Vietnam or Cambodia; when will they take the UCMJ seriously?

Am I proud of the people who exposed the criminal acts? Yes. Yes I am. Those people are a credit to the uniform, true patriots. Unlike Red State Mike, they saw something wrong and did something about it. Theirs were truly brave acts.

A better leader would never have asked for the soldiers to commit the criminal act of invading Iraq. A better military would have refused to do so. Every soldier made a choice. Why do you, Jason, want to strip them of their humanity?

Bottom line: the standing army has become an attractive menace. It has one purpose – to kill people under orders. This is a good thing when there are no other options. Those forced to fight at that point deserve our sympathy, our compassion, and our help to get them over the horrible things they had to do. Those who enjoyed it particularly need our help to bring them back to the human race. Some of them don’t see the need; that’s Red State Mike.

Let me be clear, because some of you appear to have trouble understanding the written word:

The military is not to blame for the war.

George W. Bush is to blame for the war.

Soldiers are human beings and are responsible for their actions.

None of these things are controversial.

I have a particular beef with those who, knowing the horrors of war (albeit from the relative safety of an airplane cockpit), cheerlead for more of it.

RSM:

No, I'm not a military_hater. I'm a brutality-hater and a torture-hater. You can even put me down as a torturer-defender-hater. I think you could have seen this for yourself if you had bothered unjerking your knees.

You know nothing about what I might know yet you accuse me of *profound* ignorance. You don't counter any of my points, you just assume that your life experience (which seems to have made you inordinately angry) is superior to mine.

Anyway, tell you what. I'll go read your milblogs if you try honestly and logically answering the questions I asked at the bottom of my last post (the one you quoted).

Isn't this thread dead yet?

Just getting warmed up, Ron.

On this, the fourth of July, I would like to point out that I do understand Red State Mike is doing his best to serve his country well. This is to be commended.

One thing often lost in the rancor is that most of the posters honestly believe that having their view prevail is good for the United States. The fight isn't over who loves their country, but over what best reflects her aspirations.

I would like to point out that I do understand Red State Mike is doing his best to serve his country well.

A nobler goal is to simply try and be a decent human.

The minute my country Canada starts to believe it's something special I will worry for it.

snicker snack
The minute my country Canada starts to believe it's something special I will worry for it.

Really? That is flat-out sad. Your country is special. It is one of the relatively few modern successful democracies on the planet, and as evidenced by the immigration/emigration levels, obviously the rest of the planet thinks so too.

Exasperanto, I didn't reply to you because you made a bunch of assumptions that were false (military more brutal, trolls support torture, etc.) and so therefore all further arguments were built on foundations of mud.

Thanks Mike for your kind words. And I do take a quiet pride.

But I think we got where we are by going quietly about our business. I don't want to ever see us full of ourselves. There's still work to do.

snicker-snack, the world needs more people, like you, willing to put humanity first and nation second. Demanding that a nation live up to its ideals is true patriotism.

This is all Charles Bronson's fault. Our leaders fancy themselves as a vigilante superpower, with a 'death wish' of biblical proportions.

In reference to something that came up last week,

The recent discovery that homosexual men are more likely to be born to women who have had a number of earlier male babies, raising the expected percentage of gay men from 3% to 5%. This made me think that in the past when everyone had much larger families, the percentage of gay men must have been generally 5% of the population and I can't think of any obvious evidence of any notional "homosexual agenda" conspiracy theories existing before the present era.

So, I think there must be a formula for when a minority group is less than, say, 4% of the population, yet are not obviously disenfranchised in some way, that popular conspiracy theories about them, like 'homsexual agendas', or Jewish secret cabals will spontaneously evolve among the gullible, and people with little sense of personal control or directedness.

Great thread. Shows one of the strengths of America. A bunch of people debating something they know little about, but with great gusto.

The liberals don't know what the Geneva Conventions say, but think they sound like good things and a nice attack on Bush, so they are all for applying them to terrorists. Some, who also don't know much about the Geneva Conventions, want to support Bush by arguing the finer points of the argument about whether they apply. Still others think the war on terror is a popularity contest and are concerned about polls on American popularity in various countries.

The reality is that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to terrists, but America obviously has some principles that we need to apply in the treatment of terrorists. So put the silly debate about the Geneva Conventions to one side, and lets state how we intend to proceed with terrorists as, I think, the Bush administration has done and, if someone disagrees with the approach, let's have an honest debate about it.

Who says they are terrorists? Do you wingnuts actually believe that every single one of the people in Gitmo is a terrorist? Do you reject out of hand the possibilty that a significant number are people sold out for a few bucks by someone they knew? The point is, someone has to prove they are terrorists by a legal standard that can pass Constitutional muster. If you don't want to do that, then you have to declare them POWs, and in that case, the Geneva Conventions are the law of the United States -- since we signed the treaty. Those are your two choices. Military tribunals as proposed by Bush are what you got in Chile and Argentina in the 1980s, not something you want to emulate.

What you can't do is lock them up and keep them in limbo forever with no constitutionally acceptable recourse. Because if you do that it lowers you to the level of the former Soviet Union. Of course, the wingnuts are in favor of no limits at all on presidential power, including the right to censor newspapers (and/or to kill their publishers and reporters) so the viewpoints of idiots like Joshua Goldberg and his ilk are not surprising. But they are laughable in any serious democracy.

Soviet Union or Chile under Pinochet?

Or the traditional values of the United States as outlined by the founders in a host of writings?

I think Demnocrats can run easily on the second set of values, even if the Thing that Came From Lucianne's Vagina somehow managed to get a writing gig at a major newspaper.

My last post begs one other question:

In what way does violating the Geneva Conventions for prisoners that we hold enhance our national security? Does it not instead guarantee that any of our personnel who are captured can expect to be tortured?

I can't believe we are having this debate at all, but if wingnuts want to run for office on a policy of shredding nearly all of the principles on which our country was founded, well I suppose we can't stop them.

Brian:

First, you make it seem like you might know something about the Geneva Conventions by your disdain for what others have said about them, and then you pronounce "The reality is that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to terrists." Oh really? Well, the US Supreme Court just held that one part of the GC's -- "common article 3" -- does apply to individuals the US suspects of terrorism, such as Hamdan. Perhaps you disagree with the decision, but it is part of "reality."

Second, we've been having a genuine if heated debate. For example, I brought up the fact that Bush has squandered American credibility with our allies and potential allies. You say: "Still others think the war on terror is a popularity contest and are concerned about polls on American popularity in various countries." Well, obviously, the war on terror is a lot more than a popularity contest, but I can't believe anyone interested in WINNING the war would disregard how the rest of the world views our methods of fighting it. Throughhout history, allies have been useful in war. For democracies, the views of the people will affect how much the country's leaders will risk cooperating with the US.

Third, I did raise a question about the Bush policy that has nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions. Why are we trying Hamdan? Without trying him, we can hold him for the duration of the war. At least, that's what the Bush administration assumes and I think they are right. So why do we need to try them? Other than good theatre for a domestic popularity contest?

mhr: Liberals, however, prefer to concentrate their attention on the alleged misdeeds of the United States. It's now part of their DNA.

Listen, there are quite a few people in the military who value the Geneva Conventions and don't want to see us violating them. What have you got to say to them? Some BS ad hominem attack like your specious rant above, or a cogent arguement why we should abandon the GCs?

But as retired Col. Scott Silliman observes, the ruling will give an additional boost to those detainees who have gone to federal court claiming that they are innocents being wrongly held. Silliman is the executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University.

Silliman said: "This ruling today tells the president, 'If you are going to fight the war on terrorism and prosecute those you capture, you’ve got to comply not only with the law of the land, as Congress establishes it, but also international law -- the law of war -- which includes the Geneva Conventions."

Many in the military applauded the Hamdan ruling -- among them, Brig. Gen. James Cullen, who formerly served as chief judge of the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals. He said the tribunal procedures set up by the Bush administration "smack of a kangaroo court."

"A kangaroo court will not meet the standards to which we are bound under the Geneva Conventions," Cullen said. "If our soldiers are captured under those circumstances, we don’t want them subjected to kangaroo courts."

mhr, et al idiots: how many terrorists are there in Guantanamo and what did they do?