"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?