ask us Canadians about Dieppe ...

American Rangers died in the Dieppe debacle, too, and I can almost hear Edward "Old Blunderbuss" Kennedy: "This war has been mismanaged from the beginning. Mr. Stinson, don't you think it's time you resigned?"

And I can hear Teddy's old man, Joseph Kennedy: "Britain is finished."

Excellent compilation of information and views, most of which I completely agree with...particularly the point that the anti-war left is using Gitmo to grandstand. They could care less about Mohammed the terrorists.

The clear messages, the time invested

Muchas Gracias Joe.

Excellent, Joe!

Your last section reminded me of Churchill's "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" speech.

Churchill, too, was derided in his day. For warmongering when there was "no threat," for "wanting" war when "the people" wanted peace. For pursuing war when Russia and Germany were allied (and the unions enthralled to the COMINTERN opposed war). For "mismanaging the war."

"You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim?

"I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal."

Amazing how those words still resonate today. No "exit strategy." No "timetable for withdrawal." Just one word: Victory.

"Churchill, too, was derided in his day. For warmongering when there was "no threat," for "wanting" war when "the people" wanted peace. For pursuing war when Russia and Germany were allied (and the unions enthralled to the COMINTERN opposed war). For "mismanaging the war." "

Do WWII analogies hold up to this war? Was Saddam actively rolling over and annexing the Middle East? Aren't there other more threatning entities out there? (Kohemeni, K. Jong Il, China 'the ever expanding growing superpower'?) I am not against the war BTW and agree that leaving would only leave chaos.

Anon

Lets see, he tried to annex Iran, annexed Kuwait so yes the analogy for churchill is correct

Don't look now, but didn't the notion of private property just go away? Must have been the fault of Al Qaeda.

So much for victory.

anon:

Churchill opposed the rise of Hitler from the get-go. So, we're not talking opposing him in 1940, after he had already conquered Poland, the Low Countries, Norway, and France, but 1937.

What had Hitler done in 1937?

-He hadn't conquered Austria (that would be 1938).

-He hadn't started mass killings (only Dachau was in operation at that point, and that was somewhat different from the death camps post-Wannsee).

-He hadn't even started full-blown pogroms (while progressively reducing the civil rights of Jews, many date the outbreak of open persecution to Kristallnacht, 1938).

He had repudiated treaties, dispatched troops into the Rhineland (on the claim that it was German territory) and was expanding his military (but many foreign observers refused to believe that this had been going on for very long).

Sound familiar?

So, Churchill was sounding the tocsin and insisting on forceful confrontation without an "imminent threat."

Why, exactly, should we need "perspective" and all the other relativist malarkey about Guantanamo? We don't even know why the people there are there! Show me the record of even one of the tribunals. One. Until that happens, the accusation of Guantanamo becoming a gulag is spot on.

Rob McMillin: Show me the record of even one of the tribunals. One.

Here you go, Matlock, here's two.

Those are for free, but if you want transcripts of secret Grand Jury deliberations it's going to cost you some serious money.

Meanwhile, here's where you can get a copy of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago to get yourself educated with.

Have you considered writing the speech Chester reccommends on the 28th of June?
One suggestion ditch the idea of Axis. North Korea is not an ally of Iraq and Iran in a political sense. Their ability to interact as a politically compatabile unit is the key. this they can not do.

"of course those who believe in central planning as the path to their ideal society will also believe you should run a perfect war. They're two sides of the same rotten coin. Throw in their basic hostility to the military and the USA as a whole,"

hardly anyone believes in central planning any more - not Tony Blair, not Schroeder, not Chirac, not anyone of importance in the Democratic party, and, AFAICT, not even the Chi coms. Straw man.

Rob, ill agree your a spot, thats about all ill give you.

Lurking, Yep, and wasnt Hitler Time Mag, Man of the Year 1938 ?

T.J.M.,, Yup, the left of the court did just that, I think Connor and Kennedy take turns left-screwing the american people by voting with the left of the court.

A moral travesty occurred yesterday in the case of Kelo v. New London. In a tragic obstruction of justice, the Supreme Court ruled that the government is allowed to use its power of eminent domain to transfer private property from one owner to another.

And in the medical pot case, again it was the conservatives that defended the constitution while the center left destroyed it

Thomas .. "If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined,” while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison)."

Face it, leftist are commies, and moderates suck the chrome off trailer balls,,, as long as the supremes have "govt knows best" and "Stalin and Che, my Heros" on there our freedoms are in danger.

The only dependable defenders are William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas.

hardly anyone believes in central planning any more

I can name five: Justice Stevens, Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer.

"Here you go, Matlock, here's two.

Those are for free, but if you want transcripts of secret Grand Jury deliberations it's going to cost you some serious money."

I would think it would cost serious money.

Grand jury deliberations for a military tribunal??

Anyone know what came of the tribunal of these two?

"I can name five: Justice Stevens, Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer."

If you think that the city of New London taking property to give to a private developer to build a shopping mall is (whether constitutional or not) an example of the ideology of central plannning, Id like to have some of what youre smoking. For medicinal purposes only, of course.

LH: As of yesterday morning, my property became the plaything of legislative majorities whenever they feel they have a more rational use for my property. I would call that enabling provisions for future central planning, or proto-fascism.

Every person held at gitmo has been charged, and has had a hearing before a military tribunal. Most were charged with being an enemy combatant, and found guilty. Those not found guilty were released, and some of those have been captured or killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting for the enemy.

In no way should our legal system extend to these people who have only one goal, and that is to kill as many of us as they can.

>>In no way should our legal system extend to these people who have only one goal, and that is to kill as many of us as they can.

This is circular. How can we be sure that the guys in Gitmo are "these people" without the legal system, or some other transparent system of judgement? "Son of Al Qaeda", who I trust a whole lot more than the US military, estimated that ~80% of those in Gitmo had nothing to do with any past or planned attacks against US civilian or miliary personnel.

Go read up on "Son of Al Qaeda" (google the frontline transcript). Return. Discuss.

"Do WWII analogies hold up to this war? Was Saddam actively rolling over and annexing the Middle East? Aren't there other more threatning entities out there?"

Might be noted that our first target was Vichy French holdings in North Africa, followed by Sicily, and Italy. Were'nt there more pressing entities out there?

Mark,

Your comment reminds of another comparison w/ Churchill.

Upon the surrender of the German army in North Africa, Churchill observed that "This is not the end, nor is this the beginning of the end. But, perhaps, it is the end of the beginning."

Compare and contrast w/ House Minority Leader's observation that the war in Afghanistan is now over.

One wonders whether, by that construct, German and Italian POWs should have been returned upon the surrender of the Afrikan Korps?

"How can we be sure that the guys in Gitmo are "these people" without the legal system, or some other transparent system of judgement?"

What do you suggest? Obviously you dont trust the military tribunals now in use, so what sort of system would you be more comfortable with? Jury trials? Who are their peers? Americans or Saudi/Pakistani/Afghan nationals? Can they call witnesses to their defense? Demand classified documents?

This comes down to the simple matter of not trusting the military or the government to decide who the people shooting at them are. Why allow them to roll around places like Iraq and Afghanistan shooting whoever they decide is a threat without 'transparent systems of justice' if you wont even let them decide who to keep locked up in sunny Cuba? The next major war, will you demand this radical legal system for every POW? Hundreds of thousands potentially?

You realize that what you are suggesting entitles these unlawful combatants to more rights than legal POWs retain? Is that fair to the people who fight by the rules? Does it not encourage future enemies not to fight by the rules? Whats the point of following Geneva Conventions requirements if after capture you are actually treated no different or better having committed crimes? Isnt there a dangerous incentive built into this?

"One wonders whether, by that construct, German and Italian POWs should have been returned upon the surrender of the Afrikan Korps?"

Or given lawyers.

Well, TJ, I read "Son of Al qaeda" and I don't see any reason to trust him "a whole lot more" than the US military. I don't see any reason to trust him at all; he's just a guy talking. He could be lying, he could be misguided, he could be both entirely sincere and 100% correct, who knows? There's nothing there to let you form a reasoned judgement.

Saying that you trust the assertions of one guy who lived at Gitmo for 3 months more than the military (which has at least a process--perhaps a flawed and biased one, but a process) for sorting the guilty from the innocent says nothing other than you, personally, strongly dislike and mistrust the US military, and think that a whole bunch of people are lying or wrong, and this one guy is telling the truth. That strikes me as implausible.

It's like deciding whom to send to prison based on the assertion of one former gang member, because after all jury deliberations are secret and might be controlled by the "system." You might be right, but only a fool would bet that way.

Oh, yeah:

TJ, Khdar self-identifies as a CIA informant. How do you know he isn't still under their control and doing these interviews as part of some elaborate psy-ops campaign?

Unlikely, sure. But no more so than your notion that he and only he knows and is telling the truth.

If Son of Al Qaeda's opinions based upon the detainee's self-interested descriptions of their past activities is so much more credible than the U.S. military's, then why does TJ want the U.S. military to try the detainees?

More importantly, if Son of Al Queda is so much more credible than the US military, then why wasn't TJ living under the Taliban?

>>More importantly, if Son of Al Queda is so much more credible than the US military, then why wasn't TJ living under the Taliban?

Because Son of Al Queda seems to have been smart enough to quit the Taliban. If I trust SoAQ, and SoAQ was disgusted enough with the Taliban and AQ enough to rat them out, why whould I want to join them?

>>I don't see any reason to trust him at all; he's just a guy talking. He could be lying, he could be misguided, he could be both entirely sincere and 100% correct, who knows?

Let's just say that if Son of Al Qaeda is caught lying it will be one of the first times. The US military has been lying for much longer, and about a great many more things. They've gotten quite good at it. If I were to list the lies I currently know about, it would fill an entire blog. In fact, I'm in the process of preparing such a blog now.

>>This comes down to the simple matter of not trusting the military or the government to decide who the people shooting at them are.

Back up. We're talking about people who SURRENDERED. Of course the miltary guys are aren't going to ask questions or make determinations while the bullets are flying. Once the shooting stopped, the military clearly had no problem boxing up the survivors and shipping them to Cuba (of all places). If any of those caught had been pretending to be civilians, likely there are witnessess (the platoon, other prisoners) who could testify to that fact in open court. If they were involved in murder plots against people in the US, surely the New York DA would want to take a swing at them with any available evidence. If secret evidence was needed, surely some civilians and judges could be vetted with security clearances. Etc.

Somehow all of this was just too much bother, whereas storing these guys indefinitely at taxpayer expense is just fine.

There are good reasons not to trust the military on this one. Military and administration officials have claimed that Gitmo isn't subject to US law because Gitmo is part of Cuba. Does that mean I can go shoot a Marine while visiting and not be charged with murder? Likely not. This kind of reasoning tells me that the military has something to hide, that they're going to be doing things they don't want to have to answer for later. If the USG was on the level here, they'd be housing these guys in old POW camps here in the US, not covertly flying people to Syria and Egypt.

Look, I want those responsible for wrecking the WTC to have the foundations for the new WTC poured on top of them. Those killed in battle are beyond mortal justice. Those sitting in Gitmo aren't. If any those in Gitmo are innocent, they should be freed and compensated. Those in Gitmo who were fighting the invading US forces should be considered POWs until certified otherwise by civilian tribunals, at which time the appropriate punishments should be handed out.

All this and more is laid out in gory detail in all those pesky treaties the USG signed. I doubt those treaties are worth the paper they are printed on, since the USG figures it is powerful enough to do whatever is feels like. That's cool, as long as I don't have to hear any whining when the Red Team breaks their treaties.

T.J. your comment contains multiple objectively false statements.

First of all, the military set up Guantanamo Bay because of an early court decision during the war on terror that suggested that enemy combatants that were taken into custody in the United States had to be dealt with in the criminal justice system. This is common knowledge and your attempt to invent some ulterior motives is dishonest. Not least because Guantanamo Bay is regularly visited by the Red Cross.

Our detention of enemy combatants on Guantanamo Bay violates absolutely no treaties we've signed at all. We are completely entitled to hold captured enemy. There is no such thing as "innocent". They either are enemy combatants or they are not. They need not be "guilty" to be held. These are the real, actual international laws of war - not the made up fantasy that exists only in the minds of those whose only purpose is to frustrate our war on terrorism.

In fact, your own suggestions in your comments do violate treaties. Your suggestion that the tribunals be civilian is in fact a direct violation of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War. Likewise subjecting prisoners of war to civilian trial is a violation. There is a reason for that provision that obviously escapes you.

Your entire comment demonstrates that you don't have a clue what you are talking about on this subject.

If secret evidence was needed, surely some civilians and judges could be vetted with security clearances.

Two things, TJ: If we start having secret, non-open court hearings and evidence within our justice system, you will be standing outside the courthouse yelling "Star chamber!" You'd object even more strenuously than you're objecting now.

Second: so will I. What you propose is a fundamental and radical (not to mention unconstitutional: speedy and public trial) chance to our system. Better that these guys (foreigners captured on the field of battle) be outside our system than we corrupt severly it to handle them.

If any of those caught had been pretending to be civilians, likely there are witnessess (the platoon, other prisoners) who could testify to that fact in open court.

I think the issue is whether or not the detainee was
(a) commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) had a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
© was carrying arms openly; and
(d) was conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

I wouldn't trust there to be bystanders to provide evidence on these issues, so ultimately you would have the word of the military versus the word of the detainee. So, either the military had the obligation of gathering corroborating evidence or taking photographs and names of eye witnesses in a combat zone -- in which case the program is what Robin calls "catch and release." Or the word of the military is going to be trusted; in which case, I am not sure what the tribunals accomplish.

Guantanamo was selected because it was not believed to be within the jurisdiction of any federal court. That proved to be overly optimistic. Its any open question whether more typical POWS in future wars will be able to bring suit against the US government over their status. For all we know right now a million North Koreans are being trained, not with rifles, but with speed dial to the ACLU.

Secondly, there is absolutely no requirement in the Geneva Conventions regarding civilian tribunals. How can there be when most of the signatories were totalitarian states?

ejectejecteject!'s Sanctuary article cuts through all the leftist BS being defended by TJ and others. Fighting without a uniform is enough all by itself to void all claims to due process, mercy, or the Geneva Convention -- it constitutes a specific and explicit deliberate legal waiver of all such claims, in fact. If such a combatant isn't shot out of hand on the spot, his subsequent fate and treatment are entirely at the discretion of his captors. Given the horrors and civilian atrocities routinely commited by AQ and the combatants and bombers in Iraq, anything up to and including death by torture would be legal and justified.

The Gitmo prisoners who are fattened up and held or released, sometimes over their own objections, are some of the most coddled wartime prisoners in the history of warfare.

>>Two things, TJ: If we start having secret, non-open court hearings and evidence within our justice system, you will be standing outside the courthouse yelling "Star chamber!" You'd object even more strenuously than you're objecting now.

Uhh, we have that now. The wiretapping authorization courts are a big black hole. More on this later.

>>Fighting without a uniform is enough all by itself to void all claims to due process, mercy, or the Geneva Convention -- it constitutes a specific and explicit deliberate legal waiver of all such claims, in fact. If such a combatant isn't shot out of hand on the spot, his subsequent fate and treatment are entirely at the discretion of his captors.

Ahem. Here's Article 3 again:

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

© Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

>>Note from TJ: This means that if OBL himself surrenders to USG military forces, he will then be "taking no active part in the hostilites" and it will be a violation of USG law to shoot him in the head out of hand.

If this is unacceptable, then the US Senate can formally withdraw from the treaty.

>>Or the word of the military is going to be trusted; in which case, I am not sure what the tribunals accomplish.

At least the miliary guys would have to lie with a straight face to a federal judge not part of their command structure. That might deter some people from making stuff up.

>>In fact, your own suggestions in your comments do violate treaties. Your suggestion that the tribunals be civilian is in fact a direct violation of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War. Likewise subjecting prisoners of war to civilian trial is a violation. There is a reason for that provision that obviously escapes you.

First, those captured on the field would need to be stripped of their POW status as a result of some legal proceeding (probably military would be OK here.) THEN they would need to be tried for whatever crimes were committed, and this tribunal better be civilian, or the military is the judge in a case that they are a party to.

T.J., do you not understand the words "armed forces" and what they mean? This is the critical distinction between a POW and an illegal combatant.

You do understand of course, which makes your deception in these matters that much more shameful.

Uhh, we have that now. The wiretapping authorization courts are a big black hole. More on this later.

Way to change the subject, TJ. There's a huge difference between a warrant for a wiretap and a conviction that results in incarceration or a death sentence. Since we weren't talking about the right to wiretap prisoners at Gitmo, FISA has nothing to do with this.

Now perhaps you'd like address the actual point: do you really want to seriously corrupt our justice system to deal with foreigners captured on the battlefield, or might it be better to keep them outside of it to protect our own freedom?

Tj's last paragraph in #34 is also again false. The Geneva Convention requires POW's to be tried for war crimes by the military. Not civilian courts.

This is because the Convention recognizes that civilian courts could be swayed by an ignorance of the customs of war - much like you demonstrate.

And the idea that the military can't hold a trial because its "a party" is a concept that is not recognized by the Convention or by the UCMJ. Nor is this a problem under the US Constitution, there is a large body of decision upholding the system of administrative judges outside of Article III jurisdiction. Discussion of this subject can be found in any good constitutional law text under "Article I courts".

>>T.J., do you not understand the words "armed forces" and what they mean? This is the critical distinction between a POW and an illegal combatant.

Look again. It's "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities INCLUDING members of the armed forces, etc., etc."

You want it to say "Persons taking no active in the hostilities LIMITED TO members of the armed forces, etc., etc." but it doesn't say that. Maybe it should say that, but it doesn't.

This means that the protections listed below that sentence apply to ALL who have surrendered.

>>You do understand of course, which makes your deception in these matters that much more shameful.

I would think you would know by now the seriousness with which I take my views, as insane as you may think them to be. I have no interest, ZERO, in intentional deception. I may be wrong, but not by design.

I don't think you're insane. There are a lot of calls for trials these days with little discussion of their nature.

As best as I can tell, when somebody is specific, they cite this provision in the Geneva Conventions:

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

(Art. V)

Is this the tribunal you want?

"1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities"

There is a strong argument that illegal combatants captured who withold information are continuing to take active part in hostilities.

Mark:

I think the key caveat might actually be in the first phrase in Article 3:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties. . .

Article 3 might have more relevance to the trial of Saddam with respect to internal uprisings.

That said, I'm more interested in the practical questions about what is the nature of the tribunal sought, what are the issues to be determined, what is the evidence to be considered, etc.

Agreed. By TJs rationale there can be no interrogation if "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;" is the standard. Is imprisonment humiliating? Is it degrading to be put in a cell?

I'm still waiting to hear the practical alternatives here, and what guarantees that even those would not be attacked in turn as insuffient. The bottom line is the people hyperventalating right now arent going to stop until these people are either freed or given over to some international entity, who will promptly free them.