Posts with the tag 'Gitmo'
This is what gets serious discussion on the left, as NRO’s The Corner points out:
At the Netroots Nation gathering in Austin, Texas last month — that is the successor to YearlyKos — Dahlia Lithwick, of the Washington-Post-owned website Slate, did an interview with the Talking Points Memo site in which she described a panel discussion she had just taken part in on what is known as the “first 100 days of accountability.” Among Lithwick’s observations:
We’re already falling into this trap of either positing Nuremberg-style war crimes tribunals, or nothing, immunizing everyone from John Yoo up and down…but everybody says there’s a lot of gray area in between that, and that accountability doesn’t necessarily mean Nuremberg, it doesn’t necessarily mean nothing, it means possibly a truth commission, possibly appointing a special prosecutor to look at it…
Lithwick recommended a massive retrospective investigation of the Bush administration, going through every piece of paper, before moving forward:
Certainly long before we make a decision to do what Stuart Taylor suggested this week, which was immunize everybody in advance, or alternatively make a decision to trot them out before a war crimes tribunal before the whole world, we should really find out what happened…
But Lithwick recognized that there are those who argue such an action might be divisive:
We talked a lot about this notion that it’s bad for America, that it will rip America apart if we have hearings or we have criminal trials or if we have war crimes tribunals. And I think it’s really worse for America if we don’t…
The level of insanity here is breathtaking - and while one can attempt to dismiss this as the paranoid ravings of screwball lefties, the problem is that these screwball lefties will have a large say in any potential Obama Administration. These people appear to be quite serious in thinking of President Bush and his Administration (a moderate, center-right, constitutional American government) as akin to Nazi Germany. And do keep in mind that by implication those of us who support President Bush are criminals, too - at least in the minds of the left. These are not people who view me as a fellow American - they view me as a pestilence to be at least thwarted, and destroyed if possible.
It is imposisble for us to reach these people, but we can rest completely assured that we must stop them from gaining power - the plans they have, the lunatic assumptions they hold, are the stuff with which civil wars are made. Essentially, the left wishes to criminalise non-leftist actions and ideas, and as we on the right won’t ever agree to that, push may very well come to shove if the left gains power and seeks to prosecute us for what they consider to be crimes. I wish never to see anyone who is a fellow citizen of the United States as an enemy - but anyone who thinks putting President Bush et al up on war crimes charges - or even attempting to set up a truth commission - is someone who has definitively set themselves up as my enemy. Not a fellow citizen with ideas I think wrong, but an enemy I’ll fight.
Tags: Afghanistan, Conservatism, FISA, Gitmo, Iraq, liberal lies, political ideology, Signals Intelligence Program
August 7th, 2008
I mean, for crying out loud, these people are just nuts:
During Jane Mayer’s event today at New America promoting her penetrating new book, The Dark Side, a topic came up during the Q & A that I’d like to expand on–the possibility of establishing a truth commission for the Bush administration’s transgressions. The idea has been getting some play recently, both from Nick Kristof in the NYT and scattered across some lefty blogs (a funny parody here, another suggestion here). The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission is generally held up as the model for such bodies, which don’t have formal judicial power but instead serve primarily as instruments for the discovery of past wrongdoings by governments.
So far, when each instance of misconduct has been revealed — from the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes and waterboarding to extraordinary renditions and habeas-corpus-free detention of prisoners at Guantanamo — individual solutions have been sought and some individual actors have been put forth to be held accountable. But this approach is piecemeal at best and does not get at the connective tissue and the systematization of abuses.
A truth commission, however, would provide a more holistic approach to the violations that have been committed or ordered by individuals and agencies within the government. A commission would serve as an opportunity to look back and expose where the administration started to go wrong in its decision-making process; allow those whose rights have been violated to be heard; and give Americans on the whole a chance to cleanse our national conscience–and our image abroad.
I guess they really believe their own press releases - these people haven’t entirely been playing a political game (though there’s a huge amount of that in this); they seem to actually believe that we’re out there violating the constitution, torturing prisoners, randomly wiretapping innocent Americans, and generally acting like the worst people, ever. This is what they think about a center/right GOP President who regularly ticked off his own conservative base by reaching across the aisle to work with Democrats. Can you imagine what they’d feel like with a completely conservative President who was determined to fight it out tooth and nail on each issue?
This insanity on the left really has got to stop - this is the stuff with which civil wars are made. You keep talking yourself into thinking that you’re boxed in with no way out, and you’ll then start thinking of turning to violence. I think the only thing keeping the lid on these kooks is the fact they are convinced that Obama will win…but what if Obama loses? People who think we need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission simply will not accept an Obama defeat…they will very swiftly convince themselves that they have been robbed…and thus be convinced that there is no way to work within the normal political framework.
Look, lefties, President Bush really isn’t evil…and he really isn’t dumb…and he really didn’t deceive us into liberating Iraq. All of that BS was cooked up by the leftwing ANSWER right after 9/11…the typical lies communists put together about anything America does. Think about it - President Bush is being accused of the very same crimes as Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Reagan were accused of. Unless you want to believe that all of these men were criminals, you should grow a little suspicious that every time since WWII (ie, since we stopped being allied with communism) that we’ve engaged in any sort of warfare, the US President is accused of using chemical warfare, torturing prisoners, fighting for money, spying on Americans…its all a bunch of nonsense, people. The most transparant and stupid anti-American propganda…garbage even Goebbles would be embarrassed to use. Stop buying it - understand that the people we elevate to the White House are generally decent human beings who sincerely want to do whats best…and the servants of your goverment, especially those in the military, are so honor-bound and professional that they just wouldn’t do the sort of acts they are accused of doing.
Wake up. Stop being kooks. Get a grip on reality.
Tags: FISA, Gitmo, Iraq, Signals Intelligence Program
July 19th, 2008
Can be read here, Torture is a Moral Issue, A Catholic Study Guide (PDF). While I have not considered the document in its entirety, nor spent any long time in contemplation of what it teaches, I’d like to put out a few observations of my own.
In what will surely please the critics of the Bush Adminisration, the document says we must stop using euphemisms in our discussion - no more “enhanced interrorogation” when we really mean something quite harsh. This will please the left - but only up to such time as they actually start thinking about it and realise that this means we’ll also have to stop using “pro-choice” as a euphemism to cover up “pro-abortion”. This is an important thing to keep in mind, because at bottom the issue of torture is a life issue, and thus intrinsic to the whole debate on whether or not human beings have an inherent dignity which must be respected at all times, no matter what the particular human being has done. If we have an inherent dignity then we can’t torture - but we also can’t kill the unborn or, indeed, allow such things as the degradation of pornography to continue unabated (side note: when you start getting into Catholic teaching, dear readers, you’re going to get a lot of things like this: “narrowly focused” is not something which applies to Catholic teaching…the Church isn’t universal for nothin’, ya know?). As a very strong pro-lifer, I have to put myself down, then, as opposed to torture - and this would include the sort of torture which might be used to elicit information on a bomb set to go off.
As we carry on this war against a cruel and wicked foe, we must always conduct ourselves as best we can. Realising that we are fallible humans and, especially, that it is a tricky business to second-guess a soldier in the field, we still must ever strive for the highest standards possible in our conduct. But there are some things to keep in mind:
Irregular combatants are not covered by the Genevea Convention - unless an armed enemy is part of a clearly and immediately identifiable military organization, such a person is liable for a quick court martial and swift execution, all fully in accordance with the Convention. Given this, the fact that we take prisoners at all - and then almost invariably treat them very well while in captivity - is already a sign of our respect for the inherent dignity of those human beings who have chosen terrorism as their means to an end.
While a regular soldier can only be required to state his name, rank and serial number if captured and a civilian law enforcement official is carefully bound by the provisions of the Constitution and long-held US law, an irregular soldier doesn’t really even have a rank or serial number to provide, and to provide lawyers and the full panalopy of US law to captured terrorists is actually unworkable if our goal is to eliminate the terrorist threat. A captures enemy combatant is at our mercy, in a very literal sense.
A captured enemy is still a human and still has an absolute and non-negotiable right to insist that we treat him with the dignity inherent to man and endowed by God - on the other hand, a captured terrorist must not be given a right to remain silent. Once captured, they must tell us all we need to know, or we must in some way compel them to do so. And here we get into that grey area - not really covered in the linked document - of just what is torture. I cannot hold that an act by the interrogator which does no physical harm can be considered torture. Feeling bad about it afterwards isn’t good enough - there has to be a bruise, a broken bone…something, anything to indicate that someone applied brute force to the body of the terrorist. Keeping a terrorist up all night would make him quite exhausted, but it doesn’t actually rise to the level of torture.
The balancing act is to figure out how far we can go, and then work out systems to ensure that we never go any further. Most Democrats are worse than fools in their demands for closure of Gitmo based on flimsy evidence of torture. In the end, we need a prison like Gitmo and we need the ability to ensure that the terrorists give us all the information we require. Providing a statute for the military to work from would be the best idea, but one step at a time - and that first step must be in keeping Gitmo open, and rather unpleasant to be in. But however harsh we might make it and however painful (in a mental sense) interrogations might prove, the dignity of the people incarcerated must be maintained, even for those who accord us no dignity at all.
Tags: Afghanistan, Gitmo, Iraq, Terrorism, torture
June 28th, 2008
NRO’s The Corner gets this question from a McCain staffer:
Moment of Clarity Time: Given the magnitude of Thursday’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo detainees, Democrats should all be asked a simple question: Would you have voted with the majority or sided with the minority? Agree or disagree, Senator Obama has taken a stand and welcomes the ruling. Senator McCain opposes the ruling. What about the rest of the Democratic Party? Chairman Dean? The Blue Dogs..? Yea or Nay?
I agree - lets have this out; get everyone on record loud and clear on how they view this decision, and let the voters decide in November which side most reflects the common sense position of the American people. This is what we have elections for, and I’ll be more than happy to abide by the decision of my fellow Americans.
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Gitmo, John McCain, Terrorism
June 14th, 2008
Since the left thinks we’re being mean to them, and the SC narrowly ruled that they can be treated as other than the war criminals they are, a reader at NRO’s The Corner comes up with a solution to the entire problem:
Let’s free all Gitmo detainees…on a vast, deserted, open and contested Afghan battlefield. C-130 gunship circling overhead for security. Give them all a two minute running head start.
After all, we picked them up on the battlefields of the War on Terrorism, so no objection to putting them back on to the battlefield, and then dealing with them as one deals with any enemy who has not surrendered.
Harsh joking aside, all this SC ruling does it make it less and less worthwhile for us to even take prisoners in this struggle - we’re dealing with people who strap bombs on autistic children and send them off on suicide missions…and the ivory tower types wish to treat this as an episode of “Law and Order”! The world isn’t a theory, good people; it is a very real place where very real people do very real things - and when someone opts to become part of a terrorist outfit, one takes the risk of a horrific death and rough treatment if captured.
Tags: enemy combatants, Gitmo
June 13th, 2008
