How many people know that Irene Kahn is a Muslim? Could that influence her comments? And why isn't the mainstream media asknowledging that?

I could care less what her religion or other motivations are. It's her actions and words that are despicable, which is enough for me. They tell me all I need to know about the woman's agenda, and that of the organization she leads.

Look at it this way: Teddy Kennedy is a Roman Catholic American, and has expressed the exact same type of moral equivalency rhetoric that Irene Khan has.

For that matter, so has Southern Baptist American Jimmy Carter.

Irene Khan being a Muslim is a large part of her incredible hypocrisy.

I have found that Muslims are incredibly hypocritical people. They absolutely cannot even consider that they might have any flaws. If you ever meet a seemingly reasonable Muslim in the US, try talking to them. Even if he is a doctor or something, it is impossible for them to consider that they might have flaws of their own. If you even suggest that Islamic poverty in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc. might have something to do with not allowing half of their population (women) to work, drive, vote, or use the telephone, they will not even consider thinking about that. Irene Khan is a woman, but does not consider Saudi Arabia to be a 'Gulag' for women..

For example, Muslims are not bothered when Muslims kill other Muslims, like :

1) Pakistan genocide in Bangladesh, 1971 (1 million killed)
2) Iran-Iraq War 1980-88 (2 million killed)
3) Saddam gassing Kurds, invading Kuwait
4) The Taliban stoning women
5) Algerian Civil War (30,000 killed)

None of these massive atrocites bother Muslims. They are more bothered by even the tiniest things that the US does.

Just look at the Newsweek/Koran debacle. They riot and kill 15 people over a rumor that a Koran was abused. We see them burn a US flag for the hundredth time. Has any American rioted over OUR flag being burned? NO.

It will take decades to deprogram these people..

It doesn't make the eschatological Ummah sound very appealing, does it, GK?

Anyone talked to a firm believer in any other religions besides Muslim lately? GK's observations could apply elsewhere, as well.

And no, Gulag is too strong a term for Gitmo, but we are violating our own laws. Which bothers me a lot.

And so did our own Civil War, sure would be nice if all those soldiers had sacrificed their lives for something pretty. Like a nation of brotherly love.

We may or may not be violating our own laws at Gitmo. Lawyers make me ill quibbling about technicalities. What we aren't doing there is violating the principles we believe in, regardless of what the Irene Kahn's of the world say.

The folks at Gitmo cannot be released and we need to determine exactly how and under what circumstances we will detain them and their friends permanently. I don't see any way but tribunals and I'm annoyed they haven't begun them to formalize the situation.

Cordially,

Uncle J

Military Matters

pretty, Ruth?

PRETTY???? It's not how it looks that interests me - it's the substance of the issue at stake.

I want something rather more substantial than pretty when risking soldiers' lives.

IMO such substantial things are at stake right now.

And so did our own Civil War, sure would be nice if all those soldiers had sacrificed their lives for something pretty. Like a nation of brotherly love.

Hmm.. Moral equivalence to the illogical extreme, eh?

They burn US flags daily. When have Americans ever rioted about that?

They riot about a LIE about a Koran? What about the fact that we even provide them Koran's in Gitmo in the first place? I don't think Gulags have such luxuries.

I don't find even the most fanatical Christians, Hindus, Jews, or Buddhists conducting (in the last 30 years)

1) Suicide Bombing
2) Stoning of women who got raped, for 'dishonor', and depriving women of just about any rights
3) Rioting from the rumor of destruction of a holy book
4) Destruction of archaeological treasures like the Buddha's in Afghanistan

Non-Muslim groups have done all of this in the past, but today, it just does not occur outside of the Muslim world (or the animalistic ACLU-Berkeley-NYT world).

I could be wrong, but I'm inclined to think that the average conservative American Christian would gladly burn both a Bible and and American flag together with his own hands if he thought it would save 15 lives.

Once upon a time, I was someone who was proud to be a member of Amnesty International. I'm naturally not pleased to see a dime-a-dozen loon like Kahn using it to amuse herself and her witless Amen Chorus, but on more reflection I should have seen it coming long ago.

AI's declared political impartiality and specific focus was the foundation of the respect it had once. "AI does not support or oppose any government or political system." You just had to know that something like that couldn't last.

There were a lot of honest people who believed it and believe it still. But a political vacuum will be filled and apparatchiks like Irene Kahn are the ones who fill them - it's what they live for.

Most of the people I knew in AI who were political were libertarians or leftists. But the leftists would invariably turn smirky when it came to human rights in Cuba and the Warsaw Pact, and the real gulags. I hope they're happy now. They couldn't say the damn word "gulag" once, now they can savor it.

There weren't many conservatives among the AI people I knew. Conservatives didn't trust AI. I always thought they were wrong and somehow it still annoys me that they look right now.

Rob Lyman said :

'I could be wrong, but I'm inclined to think that the average conservative American Christian would gladly burn both a Bible and and American flag together with his own hands if he thought it would save 15 lives.'

Yes, I would.

I burn a Bible and a US flag to save a broken finger, let alone a life.

#3 GK

You mentioned,

For example, Muslims are not bothered when Muslims kill other Muslims, like :

1) Pakistan genocide in Bangladesh, 1971 (1 million killed)
...

In this particular case, the Muslims are not bothered because the primary victims of the Pakistani Genocide were not Muslims, but rather Hindus. This site (link) states that 1.8million were killed of which at least 1 million were Hindus. Look at lines 42 and 43 in this table.

Now as to why India does not make this information public is probably a case study in massive dhimmitude.

JM,

So you are suggesting :

1) Out of 1.8M killed, 1 million were Hindu's, and 800,000 were Muslim. That is still a lot of Muslims killing Muslims.

2) You hint it is OK for Muslims to kill Hindus (just like it is OK for Al-Qaeda to kill 3000 Americans).

You have done a good job in proving the moral degeneracy of Muslims, even if your intentions were the opposite.

Chris Wallace is interviewing William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, on Fox News Sunday. I'm an MSNBC guy myself, but that might be interesting.

Bill,

We are in complete accord on this one. Ms. Khan's hyperbolic rhetoric was a shameful, yet instructive, exercise in demagoguery. I especially appreciated the historical background on the gulag system you provided. If there is a silver lining to this incident, it is that it provides an opportunity for sorely overlooked facts to get brought to our attention once more.

I have two posts on my blog about this matter that might interest you.

Bush Bad! Amnesty Good!

and

Hyperbole from Amnesty

thoughtfully,
starling

I hope Wallace is tough in his questioning. Schulz is the one who wants foreign governments to arrest our officials. Besides being a stupid statement, this is dangerous. Wallace should ask him about this as well as his contribution to Senator Kennedy senate campaign and Kerry. I actually think his comments were worse than Khan's.

Glen.

You can also see that mechanism as the reason the most cold blooded creatures always end up in power of leftist states.

The leftist religion isnt the only motive for power, but islam and socialism are the modern ones.

And Ruth, you could always moove to france, plenty of Brotherly Love there eh ?

You roast marshmellows on the embers of the Jewish temples, you could march in their PC agitprop leftist cause celibre parades and get your ass beat up by the thugs you are marching to represent.

(hehehe funny, that last one, wasnt it)

Must really suck to be you, twisted up with so much angst.

Just dont trashmounth the place in too close proximity to those of us who are aware of our historically remarkable and damned rare good fortune, not all of us are consitently mindfull of our policy of tolerance infinate of the ungratefull ingrates that share our sanctuary.

Finding us in moment of weakness could leave you with a smarting cheek.

See Marshal 'Quiet Man's' reprimand for this post below, #30

#15 GK

My basic point is that Muslims really don't care if they kill Hindus or, for that matter, fellow Muslims. If you look closely at that table I linked, you will find that the numbers of Hindus killed are probably far higher. The Bangladeshis don't make a big deal out of it today because in comparison to the total deaths, the number of Muslim dead was small and it likely did not affect the average Muslim Bangladeshi as opposed to the average Hindu Bangladeshi.

What I really object to is the whitewashing of Hindu deaths in 1971. Care to take a guess about what my religion is?

The current hullabaloo about Iraq and Afghanistan is because of a pliant Western media that is prepared to believe the worst about its own society.

You have done a good job in proving the moral degeneracy of Muslims, even if your intentions were the opposite.
My intentions were nothing of that sort. :) I actually think that Islam itself is degenerate, and Muslims, as followers of the ideology CAN be degenerate, but are not necessarily so. I don't think that all Muslims are degenerate - but a distressingly large number, perhaps a majority, are.

Raymond,

Chill out. Not tolerant of threats of violence here, howsoever veiled. Gotta go - but can I have a fellow Marshal look at this?

And if you want to take Ruth to task, do it - but address her arguments directly.

JM,

Yes, India should be making a periodic fuss about the deaths of Hindu's in 1971. India just does not know how to play this game.

Look at how Israel gets maximum mileage out of historical injustices towards it. Look at how China is still trying to get Japan to 'apologize' about WWII, while ignoring China's own atrocities since then.

India is simply not wise about playing the geopolitical game. Period.

Look at how Israel gets maximum mileage out of historical injustices towards it.

LMAO!

JM

Perhaps about 10#, is the conventional wisdom.

As for the rest, I reflect on the oppressive surroundings they live in, even if the country itself is not oppressive.

For a moderate to speak out takes courage, and that courage is often followed with his, and often his whole familly's loss of life.

Those that live amongst us here in the USA seems a well behaved lot, and part of that i think. is our willingness to police their neighborhood against aggressors.

In Europe, they seem far less willing to keep order in those communities, dont follow up on rapes and honor killing and so on.

Perhaps its due to their small numbers in the realtive here.

But we just dont seem to have the problems they are having in Eurabia.

In Iraq, we will see if a freedom culture is possible for them, however a hard road that is.

Very good work on the Gulag and explaining exactly what it is and was. For those who prefer a more literary look try Solzhenitsyn's books Cancer Ward or the First Circle.

RB:
I confess, I use lowkey verbiage, as I prefer for the facts to persuade, not the bombast.

Well, I agree too, that pretty isn't war's goal - and perfection is a pretty high aim. But if I were to strive for less, would that be admirable? I think not.

Is AI's pinnacle that Rumsfeld used its figures a whole lot when justifying action against Saddam? But no, using bombast like 'gulag' to gain its ends isn't admirable.

Unfortunately, claims against the US are given much greater credibility because of the record amassed by the administration. There, by making war on the basis of WMD's that can't be found, firing those who give true figures ($300 mil for war in Iraq, of course O'Neil's claim has been surpassed now), giving false figures to get a vote authorizing Medicare (for a bottom line that has been radically exceeded), and on and on, there is a responsibility for diminishing its own and the US' reputation.

While it's an easy accusation to point fingers at the 'loyal opposition' for terrorism's strength, if you listen to other than right wing press you will find that making war based on lies has much greater guilt in creating enemies of the US.

JK:
Again, I appreciate your striving for a higher tone in this site. Raymond doesn't bother me, I haven't read his posts since he called me a 'baby killer' for making suggestions how he might save lives. I'm glad he has somewhere to get his rocks off without resorting to beating up people he disagrees with. I'm sure the internet is a true behavioral benefit in this regard in other cases besides his.

Bush and the Saudi's agree the veracity of Amnesty International Reports is suspect. But hardly the same angle.

"Amnesty International’s report claiming mass murder in Darfur is as untrue as the claims by the United States on Iraqi WMD used as a pretext to attack and occupy Iraq."

The whole story at Arab News;

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=64806&d=3&m=6&y=2005

Certainly a different point of view. Is Arab News Saudi? I noticed that most of its ads were related to Saudi Arabian.

I heard a rep of the Sudanese govt claiming that the Junjiweed had been originally called on by Sudan to help put down the rebellion in Darfur, now it made no sense to punish them for doing just that.

This isn't going to be very popular here, but I think, on the whole, the concern that the U.S. is developing a gulag system of prisons -- not that the U.S. is a gulag as some have incongruously said -- is very, very concerning. Places where people can be detained for years without trial? Where secret charges and secret evidence hold men indefinitely? This is soul-corrupting stuff. Sure, there are countries doing much worse. That's not the point. The U.S. shouldn't be headed down this road at all.

Ruth #26,

Since you are not bothered by what Raymond wrote, I'm leaving his post #19 stand. Otherwise, it would have gone deleted.

However, Raymond, you have crossed the line on that post. Personal threats -- however vague -- are not permitted on Winds of Change, under any circumstance. It doesn't matter what my opinion is regarding the topics you are discussing. Civility, on this blog, is the order of the day -- everyday.

I am leaving Raymond's #19 post in place so that we all can see what is not permissable on Winds of Change. Any personal threats and demeaning language will be removed, the author blacklisted. There is a difference between valid disagreement and base, threatening behavior. I hope Raymond's #19 makes that obvious.

=C=

Marcus Cicero, AKA Marshal 'The Quiet Man'

Rob McMillin:

What may not be popular here is if you refer to U.S. policy by reference to gulags or gulag systems.

People are not being imprisoned. Enemy combatants are being imprisoned. Same as every war. Their detention is not premised on a trial -- they may not have committed any triable offense. Their detention is premised on the end of hostilities.

Regarding secret charges and secret evidence, I have no idea what you are talking about. Must be one of those non-secret secrets.

MC: you are quite right to leave it, and I am not the least bothered.

thank you for keeping high standards in running this site.

PDShaw: holding people without letting them defend themselves is something unworthy of this country, IMHO.

A recent book by someone who was trained in Arab language and wound up at gitmo interrogating prisoners was reviewed on CSpan. He had found out that bounties were offered in exchange for those accused of being terrorists. This rather indicates some of those charged are guilty of bad relationships rather than terrorist practices. Sorry I don't remember the author's name other than Erik ____, and haven't time presently to run down that or the title.

Ruth, your statement simply is wrong for two reasons. First, it isn't "unworthy" to hold people captured in a combat zone - its what is expected. What you don't seem to understand is that if we didn't "hold" people, what the troops would do is kill more of them. Secondly, they can indeed "defend" themselves - by convincing the tribunals that they are not combatants.

With respect to the bounties, one of the Guantanamo detainees is quoted in testimony before a tribunal that he had been "sold" to the Americans but also admitted that he was a Taliban fighter.

Remembered the title, it's something like "Inside the Wire".

RR:
It's my understanding that the detainees haven't been allowed to talk with counsel, and though tribunals have finally been instituted by action of the Supreme Court, that military tribunals are not exactly correct application of the justice system, and not every prisoner has been allowed access to them.

I also don't want the guilty released, but I don't have the impression that this is so big a danger that we don't need to charge, allow counsel, and give hearings to the prisoners at Gitmo.

And I really think and hope this is too moral a nation not to allow full justice to all of them.

Ruth, I'm puzzled why you keep erroneously attempting to apply criminal justice standards. You do not seem to understand what is going on.

Its especially amusing given how often I hear people falsely claim that we are ignoring the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention actually provides that prisoners of war should not be tried in civilian courts.

The detainees not only have no "right" to be tried in a criminal justice system, but the Geneva Convention deliberately keeps prisoners of war out of the criminal justice system for their protection. Those who are not guilty of war crimes have nothing to be determined in the tribunals other than whether or not they are combatants. Those who are enemy combatants but have committed no other crime can and should be held. So even your use of the terms "charge" and "guilty" is completely inappropriate.

Nonetheless, because of the nonsensical Supreme Court ruling allowing the detainees to file habeus corpus petitions in US courts, the DoD is allowing attorneys to apply for security clearances and be allowed to travel to Guantanamo Bay. This has been happening for months.

Ah, I forgot the tribunals ordered by the Supreme Court. Given the limits on putting detainees on trial explained by Robin Roberts, it is very unclear what exactly should be expected. My reading of the decision was that a majority of the court wanted some sort of procedure to allow a detainee to challenge his/her classification. But the procedure would be left up to the military.

So the detainee gets a hearing. What evidence is he/she going to put on? How does one prove that one is not an enemy combatant? Eye witnesses? Character witnesses? Can witnesses be subpoenad from Iraq. Should U.S. soldiers have bagged the weapons for forensic testing; checked for powder marks on the detainee? Secured the crime scene?

Query: Can the hearings be publicized or would that violate the Geneva Convention as well?

Frankly, if you apply U.S. standards of criminal justice, they will all go free. That's clearly not what the Court meant. So you get some kind of show hearing. That won't satisfy critics on either side.

however vague

how about non existent

If that was a threat, im Thomas Jefferson.

There are lots of way to exprest "you make me wanna slap you" and they have never been an issue here or elsewhere.

I think its overblown, its a reaction to the imagery I used, not the existence of some threat.

Your overeacting, the both of you.

Ruth:I prefer for the facts to persuade, not the bombast.

But your assertion itself is bombastic, the idea that our military consider captured combattents of any stripe as subjects for our legal system, is just that, ad adsurdm.

Unfortunately, claims against the US are given much greater credibility because of the record amassed by the administration.

This is also bombast.

It wasnt the only reason, the reason was thought to be valid by the whole world.

You and the rest of the left edit out those part of reality you dont like, it wasnt the only reason in his speaches.

Was the world wrong about WMD, looks that way, but wrong isnt LIE, and to say so is a LIE. Its the left that is LIEing

And the left knows it wasnt the only reason, and acting as if it was, another LIE.

And finally, after you dig up mass graves of kids, crimes against humanity .....

So you and the left depend on LIEs and the LIEs of omission for your entire position.

All of this in context does nothing to discredit your target, and everything to discredit You and the left.

The fact that you seem obtuse to the picture it paints just makes it all the more ugly.

Rob:That's not the point. The U.S. shouldn't be headed down this road at all.

Whats your alternative ? thinking about all the alternatives justifies what we are doing now.

We have a leftist lawyer sitting in jail for helping them, perhaps we can send her to gitmo, she can serve her clients from her office in own cell.

Robin:if we didn't "hold" people, what the troops would do is kill more of them.

within the scope of Geneva we can but a bullet in their brain in situ, no uniform, no Geneva protection. Combatents dressed as civilians can be shot on the spot, because they are putting civilians in danger.

The Geneva Convention actually provides that prisoners of war should not be tried in civilian courts.

Those who are not guilty of war crimes have nothing to be determined in the tribunals other than whether or not they are combatants. Those who are enemy combatants but have committed no other crime can and should be held. So even your use of the terms "charge" and "guilty" is completely inappropriate.

Yes, and there is no shortage of war crimes in this war. the targeting of civilians, torture and beheadings etc

But none of this has any effect on the left, the motive is aid to the enemy, the enemy within, all coming at us like millions of liliputians, to hamper our ability to defend ourselves.

How much longer will the ruse live before all, even to the most simplton idiot, can see what clear to the rest of us.

Look how old the "Bush Lied" bullcrap is, been explained to them how many billions of times ?

And for nought, because this is about agenda, not about the truth or morals, that to the left, are only opertiunistic tools of oppertunity

PD Shaw:Should U.S. soldiers have bagged the weapons for forensic testing; checked for powder marks on the detainee? Secured the crime scene?

Given the leftist track record, what makes you think they will not demand all these things ?

Remember the days when our chums warned us, about things we dismissed as absurd, so "out there" beyond our far higher standards of rationality thet that we dismissed them as laughable.

They all came true, and it hasnt been funny.

So, think again, are not the left demanding all these things ?

Im saying they are, and soon as they can drag is there little by little, they will.

The goalposts will move further left, and further left and further left again, relentless and unending.

Heres a clue for the rest of us, if they are not rolled back they are rolling forward, there is no such thing as stasis.

Its time to reverse the leftist ratchet back to the right. they will scream and roll on the floor flailing around with the vapors.

They have expended language and dispensed with reality.

I suppose its time to just get on with it, and let them do the Corrie doser dive, so be it.

There is a serious problem with the attempts to get the Guantanamo Bay detainees treated as simple criminals. And that is that if successful, they would end up with advantages over conventional troops who were prisoners of war. That is actually the opposite of the original purpose of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions were intended to create incentives for combatants to stay within the laws of war. While one can debate the success of that purpose, if a force that does not observe the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions has advantages given to it by naive civil judges, then we'll have more terrorists instead of less. We'll have more nations using terror and not less.

Robin, looking at theur economic model ( and the failure thereof) what makes you think the left understand the notion of incentives ?

Our problem is that we argue on the basis of rationality, and our leftist adversaries act on the basis of agenda.

They are working our institutions to destroy them.

Once you finnaly accept that, their actions make sense.

I do understand that, Raymond.

They say islam practices "tolerance".

Gimme a @#$%*! break.

RR:

Honestly, don't you, down inside there where there are feelings of pride in your country, want this country to be above mistreatment of prisoners?

As to judicial treatment, I am glad to note that Sen Specter will be holding hearings to determine such things as whether military tribunals are justice, "enemy combatant" status is acceptable, (not now given legal standing), and if normal legal process has been denied. This may settle some of the points you and I have disagreed on.

See here

I don't believe that holding enemy combatants until the war ends = mistreatment.

I don't believe that treating unlawful combatants as unlwful wartime combatants instead of as O.J. Simpson or as legitimate POWs = mistreatment.

To the contrary, I think that's justice.

"Enemy combatant" status has long legal standing, and so do unlawful enemy combatants. For good reason - see Bill Whittle's Sanctuary for a longer explanation.

I most certainly do NOT equate it to the gulag. I find that monstrous - The Big Lie returned to life and use in politics.

Finally, I think folks who want to treat terrorists like POWs (or like O.J.) have a death wish. And while they're free to off themselves in any manner their heart desires, they aren't free to sacrifice me or mine on their altars of (as I see it) self-deception and narcissism.

Ruth, as Joe said, you seem to be finding "mistreatment" where there simply isn't any at all.

It simply cannot be "mistreatment" to hold combatants. War is not a game of "tag" where you release the other side's forces at the end of each round of play.

But more troubling to me, you don't seem to be dealing with the consequences of your ideas.

If I may direct away from Ruth a bit, because the malady seems to be widely shared among the Blame America / NION bunch ...

Not dealing with the consequences is typical because they have not made any mental effort on the alternatives...

Anyone that acts, is always looking at a range of choices of action, even onto choosing not to act, which itself has ramifications and effects.

Once you havce decided to act, its a given, that not acting, has a worse outcome, than the action you chose, just the same as those actions you chose against, in choosing the action you did.

The actor has already measured all of these things, hell you cant even get between the fridge and the potty without your brain doing a lot of that automatically.

The Carping ankle biter, bitching at you from the bleachers has done none of that mental work, so they have not thought about and measured all of those alternatives including the cost of not acting.

So their complaints always show that deficit, an apparent intelectual laziness the actors cannot afford

They have nothing to measure failure or success against, as they have not measured the costs.

Such is the luxury of those that offer no alternatives, and the folly of those that are critical before making that assesment.

Those that act have already decided that passivness is not cost free, the nipping carp hook themselves because they fail to examine those things.

Bzzzzt Reality chack ...

After you see years of it like some sureal cartoon, that opinion becomes unsustainable.

If the same people could learn, but they dont, im convinced its agenda-forward. They didnt need to learn anything, they already knew.

lets continue ....

PD Shaw: Should U.S. soldiers have bagged the weapons for forensic testing; checked for powder marks on the detainee? Secured the crime scene?

Me: Given the leftist track record, what makes you think they will not demand all these things ?

And they will, they dont need to consifer costs, because the demand has as the goal to deliberatly inflict those costs.

They want those costs to be inflicted on the USA, like a million Lilipution strings, to tie us down so that we cant defend ourselves.

American power must be defeated, that is the goal, in oblivion to everything, to force us to fight intentually crippling ourselves, to make our projected force less effective, and raise the cost of action high enough so we will choose not to act.

So once you grok that, suddenly the silly, un explainable ( no body is THAT stupid ) positions they take make sense.

So I take the contraian view, they .. DO .. know the consequences, they DO know they are undesirable and costly, and that is the whole point.

And its not just here, it all over, cutting us from our resources, declaring our nat gas reserves as national parks to be put in control of the UN by treaty, the LOST treaty and so on.

America is the target, and they want her crippled, the enviro nuts, those wanting to strangle small business, the family. etc.

Then what looked so stupid isnt so stupid, evil, deserving of loathing and contempt, but not so stupid.

As to: "Enemy combatant" status has long legal standing, and so do unlawful enemy combatants

JK and RR: We haven't determined that that's even what the Gitmo prisoners are, they haven't had hearings, they haven't been allowed to make their own case.

But if they are unlawful enemy combatants, we don't have standards to determine how they are to be treated.

No one's talking about releasing them without finding out first what they are, it's about giving them the ability to make their status heard.

We gave that right to Hinckley, who attempted to assassinate Reagan. To Sirhan Sirhan. To MLKing's assassin, (forgot the name, JoeBobRay or something). To Squeaky Fromme. To Manson. It's basic because we are a nation of laws.

The consequences of violating our own laws is enormous, it loses us the respect of not just the world, but of our own people, here, in the US.

Ruth, you are way behind the news. The military tribunals have been meeting for months.

But once again, you make the completely ridiculous comparison to criminals. That mentality is completely out of place. And in fact, while you think that making these references to assassins gives your position some great rhetorical flourish, that is lost on me because instead it says that you are not paying attention to anything Joe or I are saying.

Those not in uniform and found holding a gun have the status that we can line them up and shoot them .. and thats their status.

We are being a bit more considerate than that, after all, we are Americans.

But thats their status ... as for the tribunals to decide who to set free, who to hold and who is lined up and shoot ... thats up to us.

But if they are unlawful enemy combatants, we don't have standards to determine how they are to be treated.

There's an additional complication: IIRC foreigners i.e. non-Iraqis in Iraq and non-Afghanis in Afghanistan, who enter the country and take up arms against the U. S. military don't appear to be covered by any of the Geneva Conventions. If you can bring up contradictory citations I would very much appreciate seeing them. If they're not covered by the Conventions, then they definitely are covered by General Order 100: they're not prisoners of war and need not be treated as such.

Now, if President Bush orders that such prisoners be treated as prisoners of war, that's certainly within his powers.

We haven't determined that that's even what the Gitmo prisoners are [enemy combatants], they haven't had hearings, they haven't been allowed to make their own case.

What else could they be? I can imagine only two possibilities. They are enemy combatants caught in the act of trying to kill U.S. troops or in the accomplice of those who are OR they have been kidnapped by the U.S. military.

So how do we go about to determine which it is? The detainee says they're innocent. Give the detainee a lawyer and the lawyer will say they are innocent. How will the detainee prove that they are not what the military claims them to be? What evidence could they bring besides their own personal charm and that of their lawyer?

I don't have any idea what a trial could hope to prove.

There is not such thing as innocent or guilty

If we dont shoot them, we keep them.

When the war is over, and they are no threat, we might free them ... wholly up to us...

Terrorists are usually shot on the spot

The famous life photo that the pro-communist-mass murder by vietmihn the left cheered. like John Kerry saying the man that mass murdered with a %5 death quota was "george washington, proving john kerry is an inhuman commie ingrate ,, is a terrorist that just got caught planting a bomb ... he was shot on the spot, and we have the nice photo of the bullet going thru his brain ...

Perfectly proper way to treat a terrorist.

Bullet thru the brain ... do it with him in handcuffs perfectly proper.

Course we might have some questions to ask .. but ....

Thats their penaly for putting civilans at risk, by dressing as civilians .. they dont actually need to target civilians. the targets can be military

And what do they earn ? bullet thru the brain.
Right on the spot, if we so wish ...

I said,to establish ...what the Gitmo prisoners are, they haven't had hearings, which RR renders as The military tribunals have been meeting for months.

We're talking about two entirely different operations here. Tribunals were set up by the military at the SC's order that some form of legal action be held. They are not hearings. Prisoners were being held without charges.

As to assasins being a rhetorical flourish, can't say, I'm trying to talk with you and you're reacting with THAT'S RIDICULOUS level responses. My use of particular examples is to point out that contrary to claims, the simple release of some one being held is not the inevitable outcome of a legal hearing.

DS: seriously are you using an order that Lincoln made to conclude that calling some one an unlawful combatant means you can execute them? Sounds like another country to me.

PDShaw: I don't have any idea what a trial could hope to prove. Then you don't support a system of laws?

Ruth,
The reason you are not connecting with Robin, Dave, and Joe is because you keep insisting that the Gitmo detainees are entitled to the same rights as citizens charged with normal crimes.

You do understand that the military has it's own justice system right? And you also understand that the Supreme Court has ruled that the military has juristiction over these detainees right?

Until you and they agree on these details then arguing about anything else will be fruitless. I see more misunderstaning from your arguments than from the others. Can you at least explain why you think the Supreme Court is mistaken in their ruling?

I don't have any idea what a trial could hope to prove. Then you don't support a system of laws?

In my view, a trial or hearing is a truth-finding system that weighs competing evidence. Access to evidence is a big problem. If neither you, nor I, can figure out what a trial would prove and how it would do it, then a hearing is simply an appearance of truth, which may amount to a lie.

I support a system of laws -- I don't think you like the distinctions that the law draws. I worked one summer at a death penalty appellate defender's office in Louisiana. One death row inmate had been tortured and confessed his crime in a Mexican jail after visiting relatives across the border. His confession was not excluded -- there is no U.S. law against foreign governments torturing suspects. That is the letter of the law, crushing the spirit of the law, but that is what the rule of law means. I'll shed far more tears for the executed man than the detainees waiting out the war in prison.

lurker: Thanks for your comments, I wasn't aware of giving that impression. While I contend that the prisoners at Gitmo are a military category, what I can't exclude is the info that many were turned over by bounty seekers. Which are the ones needing to be carefully considered, IMO.
I think the SC went about as far as it could, and am glad its efforts to ensure hearings have resulted in more justice than previously.

PDShaw: As above, it's the unjustly accused I am very concerned about. Thanks for sharing - sorry if that sounds a little cheap. Yeh, the guilty ought to be punished, it's the ones we rounded up - as in the recent Operation Lightning, lots of innocents included - who we have to be really careful to show the upside of justice.

From WaPo editorial on efforts to review same, and establish modus operandi:

"Establishing an independent, bipartisan commission would also be beneficial for U.S. relationships abroad. The abuse of terrorist suspects in U.S. custody has undermined the United States' position in the world. This is a time when we should be making extra efforts to reach out to Muslims and to ask them to work with us in the war against terrorism. Instead, our failure to undertake a thorough and credible investigation has created severe resentment of the United States."

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601512.html

babalu

Has a good rant at the leftist creaps (redundant) at AI.

Somewhere in Cuba, there are prisoners of conscience, political prisoners, sitting in their excrement infested 3 foot by 6 foot completely enclosed cells rotting away for maybe owning a typewriter or for writing a poem or, far worse, for expressing their opinions.

I still look forward to the day when the left pay for every kind word they have written and spoken about the planet earths most vile creatures, the creators of historic depth of depraved inhumanity to man.

Ruth, the unjustly accused with warm guns from shooting at us ?

Just who do you think we sent to Gitmo ?

(vs those set free on the spot)

Its just more sliming the country, from the leftist religion that is the defacto most inhumane and twisted.

Today there exist real gulags, with real innocents rotting without hope in them, response from the Left ?

Ohh but they have free heath care !

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004070.php

When leftists tell you that Castro may have his faults but he provides for the Cuban people with his marvelous health system, try to remember these pictures. I wouldn't send a stray dog to a facility like this to get put to sleep, let alone receive treatment. And this is what Castro considers a jewel in the crown of the Cuban HMO program. Be sure to read Val's entire post, and if you read Spanish, check out Gentiuno's article for more details.

And then reflect back on the real gulag, that the left know about, but dont talk about, because they think the bourgeois like me belongs in them.

A sure sign of pure evil, not blind to evil, but knowing, and plotting, and dreaming of the day when their iron boot is on your neck, as they brag about Castro with a smile, and jabber about the USA they hate, because it isnt like cuba.

For anyone who still does not understand how ludicrous the 'Gulag' comparison is and why the detainees are not POWS, you need to read this article.

Well done. Congratulations!

LHM
An American Expat in Southeast Asia

THIVS works to promote volunteering, Adventure, Gap Year, Workcamps, cultural immersion as a powerful force for global change.