Daily Liberal FAIL Thread

[astralis]

kmchugh,

Sorry, have to butt in here. Check your facts a little more closely, because this is simply false. The US constitution applies to US persons. It does not apply to foreign lands or peoples.

incorrect. non-US citizens have been ruled to enjoy the protections of SOME rights, primarily the 5th and 6th amendments (Miranda rights) and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

[zraver]

Sorry, have to butt in here. Check your facts a little more closely, because this is simply false. The US constitution applies to US persons. It does not apply to foreign lands or peoples. Enemy combatants captured during combat in no way fit the definition of a US person. Hence, the protections of the constitution do not apply. Want an example? No problem.

In WW II, a large number of captured German soldiers were brought to EPW camps in the US (there was at least one in Kansas, my home state). Had the protections of the constitution applied, each of these German soldiers would have had to have a lawyer appointed, at government expense. Each of these lawyers would have immediately applied for a writ of habeas corpus, and would have had their client brought before a judge. Said judge would have been required to release each of these PW's. You see, it is not illegal to be a soldier in a foreign military engaged in combat against the US. Under the constitution, these German prisoners had committed no crimes, and could therefore not have been held.

Edited to add: Now that I have posted this, I see that Bluesman already touched on the same thing. Sorry dude, but I did flesh it out a bit for you.

Since you borught up habeus Corpus in WWII, every EPW was documented by the ICRC and notification sent to Germany/Italy. This was in line with treaty provisions the US was party to. Imagine however, that the US was not party to, or chose to ignore the treaty. Could those POWs have been subjected to torture? the simple answer is no. Nor could they be held for trial for crimes they did not commit, or subjected to military tribunals with the power of life or death. After being rendered hours de combat via surrender they were held in humane conditions until the conflict was over and their status 9war crimes) could be confirmed (Obviously none of the prisoners in the US from North Africa were SS). Then they were released all in accordance with the laws of war.

Habeas Corpus Extends to Gitmo

In looking back over US history, it is clear that granting non-national terrorists the protections of the constitution is part of a long American tradition. One of the early examples is the trial of Santanta a Kiowa and not an America citizen. He led a party that attacked a wagon train. He was held for trial, not military tribunal. John Turner an English citizen and anarcho-communist had his day in court after the government wanted to deport him for his views. Ramzi Yusef and Manual Noriega both arrested or captured abroad were put before the Courts. America has a long tradition of dealing with those who commit terrorism, advocate terrorism or kill Americans via the courts.

Gitmo serves no purpose other than to try and side steps the limits on the Government imposed on it by our founding fathers and and upheld in subsequent Supreme Court Decisions. I think you might also mistakenly believe I am arguing that the constitution gives them rights as in privilege. It does not, what it does do is limit what the government can do to them such as deny counsel, deny a fair trial, hold them in seclusion or subject them to torture. One must not forget that the Constitution consists of two themes. The first is the rights of the citizen. Obviously a foreign combatant does not have these rihts. However the other theme in the Constitution is the constraint put on the government's actions. This constraint of actions applies at all times and to all peoples. If it did not, if exclusions and loopholes could be written into it at will be legislative act or executive decisions, then no constraints exist at all except that which a government abides by out of convenience.

Keeping the government honest to American principles of justice does a small favor for terrorists by not subjecting them to what they would subject us to. But it does an even bigger favor for us by keeping us secure from a far greater threat than a few thousand jihadist. By far the biggest killer of man by mans hand in modern times is not war. It is a government gone mad with power. National Socialism started its pogoms with German Jews. Stalin started with the Kulaks, Pol Pot and Mao followed in their footsteps. Saddam was hung for his actions against his own people. One reason America is free despite the impressive power of our government is because there are certain things our government simply cannot do.

Gitmo was a dangerous step towards weakening the Constitutional safeguards the keep the evil of tyranny at bay. The Second Amendment is not the first line of defense against tyranny, it is the last line of defense. The first line is the behavior we are willing to tolerate from our government. A people who demand the rule of law and civilized behavior will receive the rule of law and civilized behavior. A people willing to to look the other way when an abuse of power occurs risk being abused by power.

[JAD_333]

Since you borught up habeus Corpus in WWII, every EPW was documented by the ICRC and notification sent to Germany/Italy. This was in line with treaty provisions the US was party to. Imagine however, that the US was not party to, or chose to ignore the treaty. Could those POWs have been subjected to torture? the simple answer is no. Nor could they be held for trial for crimes they did not commit, or subjected to military tribunals with the power of life or death. After being rendered hours de combat via surrender they were held in humane conditions until the conflict was over and their status 9war crimes) could be confirmed (Obviously none of the prisoners in the US from North Africa were SS). Then they were released all in accordance with the laws of war.

Habeas Corpus Extends to Gitmo

In looking back over US history, it is clear that granting non-national terrorists the protections of the constitution is part of a long American tradition. One of the early examples is the trial of Santanta a Kiowa and not an America citizen. He led a party that attacked a wagon train. He was held for trial, not military tribunal. John Turner an English citizen and anarcho-communist had his day in court after the government wanted to deport him for his views. Ramzi Yusef and Manual Noriega both arrested or captured abroad were put before the Courts. America has a long tradition of dealing with those who commit terrorism, advocate terrorism or kill Americans via the courts.

Gitmo serves no purpose other than to try and side steps the limits on the Government imposed on it by our founding fathers and and upheld in subsequent Supreme Court Decisions. I think you might also mistakenly believe I am arguing that the constitution gives them rights as in privilege. It does not, what it does do is limit what the government can do to them such as deny counsel, deny a fair trial, hold them in seclusion or subject them to torture. One must not forget that the Constitution consists of two themes. The first is the rights of the citizen. Obviously a foreign combatant does not have these rihts. However the other theme in the Constitution is the constraint put on the government's actions. This constraint of actions applies at all times and to all peoples. If it did not, if exclusions and loopholes could be written into it at will be legislative act or executive decisions, then no constraints exist at all except that which a government abides by out of convenience.

Keeping the government honest to American principles of justice does a small favor for terrorists by not subjecting them to what they would subject us to. But it does an even bigger favor for us by keeping us secure from a far greater threat than a few thousand jihadist. By far the biggest killer of man by mans hand in modern times is not war. It is a government gone mad with power. National Socialism started its pogoms with German Jews. Stalin started with the Kulaks, Pol Pot and Mao followed in their footsteps. Saddam was hung for his actions against his own people. One reason America is free despite the impressive power of our government is because there are certain things our government simply cannot do.

Gitmo was a dangerous step towards weakening the Constitutional safeguards the keep the evil of tyranny at bay. The Second Amendment is not the first line of defense against tyranny, it is the last line of defense. The first line is the behavior we are willing to tolerate from our government. A people who demand the rule of law and civilized behavior will receive the rule of law and civilized behavior. A people willing to to look the other way when an abuse of power occurs risk being abused by power.

Zraver:

Well argued post.

To me, the things that went on at Gitmo and in our rendiiton program were not so much a dangerous abuse of power as was the actual formalizing of it into law. The US has gotten its hands dirty many times down through history, but usually out of sight and with some sense of guilt.

Gitmo, the establishment, was an attempt to make the dirty business legal, to give it form and process, and possibly to give cover to the conscience of a God-fearing president.

I am glad for anything of value we got out of it, if indeed we did, but equally glad to see it die as a bad experiment in how to handle POWs. The AQ plotters should be charged and tried in US courts, and the rest dealt with as POWs.

[zraver]

Thank you

[gunnut]

The citizenry is clueless, most of 'em. They seem to not have made the connection between their one-party hive-mind voting pattern and the complete mis-rule that results. I think they must believe that just one more government program, just one more tax hike, and they'll return California to the shangri-la that it once was.

But of course, they continue to govern like liberals, and they continue to poison the Garden of Eden. It's so bad now that California's credit rating is dead last; Number Fifty among the states. Highest taxation rate, too, but of course nobody has seemed to make any correlation of those two facts.

It's not even so bad yet that they don't consider even MORE madness. If I had more time, I could list some of the items the legislature is considering, and you'd think I was kidding. But I wouldn't be. It's just not funny anymore. And it's going to be truly tragic before the final act plays out, because as bad as it is, the Democrats in control seem not to have any idea their Ship of State has hit a reef and is on fire from stem to stern.

The mega-state, with every advantage of location, climate, resources, wealth, infrastructure, education and sheer POWER that would be the envy of any nation on Earth, and they've brought themselves to the brink of complete ruin and collapse. 'Too big to fail' may have saved a company or two this year, but the country is out of ammo now, and there's no way to save the country's dynamo, the power plant for the rest of America. California is a main beam running through the length of United States economic power, and if it shatters, it isn't just Californians that will suffer. They're going to take us all with 'em, because they've had a really awesome party for the past 30 years.

When the curtain comes down, the shock will be as nothing else the country has seen since Reconstruction.

Well said, Blues.

The legislature here really believes that the state is in trouble not because of liberal rule, but because of NOT ENOUGH liberal rule. The public employee unions take the cake.

Did you know, any of you, know that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has a separate budget from the city of Los Angeles? LAUSD actually has a bigger budget than the city of LA. The deficit is larger also, running at (roughly) half a billion dollars this year. LAUSD was supposed to lay off more than 8000 employees. It found a way to hire more than 6000 back. Another 1700 are in the process of coming back in some capacity. Only 300 or so are actually "laid off." Meanwhile the city of Los Angeles has an unemployment rate of 11.5%.

LA is but a microcosm of the entire state.

Orange County firefighters can now retire at age 50, with a pension up to 90% of the final year's pay (they spike this by working humongous overtime), with free health care for the firefighter and his wife (not the crappy public option that normal people would get under Obamacare)...FOR LIFE!

This system is simply unsustainable.

[indus creed]

Zraver:

I am glad for anything of value we got out of it, if indeed we did, but equally glad to see it die as a bad experiment in how to handle POWs. The AQ plotters should be charged and tried in US courts, and the rest dealt with as POWs.

The low level Al Qaeda/Taliban operatives have no uniform, do not follow Geneva Convention and have no known rules within their organization itself. How can they be accorded a POW status?

[zraver]

The low level Al Qaeda/Taliban operatives have no uniform, do not follow Geneva Convention and have no known rules within their organization itself. How can they be accorded a POW status?

Simple, by extending them POW status. Being a POW does not rend them safe from justice if they are guilty of a war crime. Most Taliban fighters are Pashtun tribesmen, most AQ operatives are Arab jihadist embarked on a religious rather politcal fight. They see themselves as either defending the tribe and its interests or defending Islam. They are not mercs which is what unlawful combatants was meant to cover.

Lets look at the criteria

International Humanitarian Law - Third 1949 Geneva Convention

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

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

(zraver)
(a) do they have a chain of command? Yes
(b) do they have a fixed distinctive sing? I think the beard symbolizing devotion to Islam is far more readily identifiable than a small shoulder flag done in camouflage colors so I would say yes.
(c) Carrying arms openly. For those who don't- no. What about those captured while bearing arms? That then is a yes.
(d) Conduct in accordance with the laws and customs of war. While they might be in technical violation of the law, what about customs? Attacking civilian targets or targets enmeshed within a civilian population, disproportionate response, or failure to properly ID a target? We (the west) are guilty of all those things. There is functionally no difference between a car bomb in a market place that goes off to nail a NATO patrol, and a hellfire strike in a market place to kill a group of Taliban. If we the civilized west cannot follow the laws or war, how can we punish others for doing as we do? True we do not do it as often as they do, but we still do it.

Going by the Third Geneva Convention a goodly number of Taliban and AQ operatives would qualify for POW status. This is espaically true for taliban operatives

--->B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

zraver

While the Taliban never had a seat at the UN, they were effectively the govenring body of most of Afghanistan.

What about those who fail at (c)? Obviously they would not be covered, but does that deny them protections? The answer again is no.

Afghanistan is a signatory party to the Geneva Convetion.

Art. 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;
(c) 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.

This gets kind of murky. Afghanistan was involved in a civil war and the Taliban was not generally recognized as a national government. Thus a case can be made that the conflict is not of an international character (between states) but is a civil war that has drawn in other states. if this reading is correct then even those caught actign in violation of the Geneva conventions are still protected from things like a water boarding (a), being forced to stand naked in front of females (c) and being denied habeus corpus, denied counsel or put before special tribunals (d). Since the detaining power (USA) finds special ad hoc courts not tied into the appellate process and a denial of habeus corpus or counsel to be unconstitutional to its own system of civilized justice.

[indus creed]

Simple, by extending them POW status. Being a POW does not rend them safe from justice if they are guilty of a war crime. Most Taliban fighters are Pashtun tribesmen, most AQ operatives are Arab jihadist embarked on a religious rather politcal fight. They see themselves as either defending the tribe and its interests or defending Islam. They are not mercs which is what unlawful combatants was meant to cover.

Lets look at the criteria

International Humanitarian Law - Third 1949 Geneva Convention

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

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

(zraver)
(a) do they have a chain of command? Yes
(b) do they have a fixed distinctive sing? I think the beard symbolizing devotion to Islam is far more readily identifiable than a small shoulder flag done in camouflage colors so I would say yes.
(c) Carrying arms openly. For those who don't- no. What about those captured while bearing arms? That then is a yes.
(d) Conduct in accordance with the laws and customs of war. While they might be in technical violation of the law, what about customs? Attacking civilian targets or targets enmeshed within a civilian population, disproportionate response, or failure to properly ID a target? We (the west) are guilty of all those things. There is functionally no difference between a car bomb in a market place that goes off to nail a NATO patrol, and a hellfire strike in a market place to kill a group of Taliban. If we the civilized west cannot follow the laws or war, how can we punish others for doing as we do? True we do not do it as often as they do, but we still do it.

Going by the Third Geneva Convention a goodly number of Taliban and AQ operatives would qualify for POW status. This is espaically true for taliban operatives

--->B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

zraver

While the Taliban never had a seat at the UN, they were effectively the govenring body of most of Afghanistan.

What about those who fail at (c)? Obviously they would not be covered, but does that deny them protections? The answer again is no.

Afghanistan is a signatory party to the Geneva Convetion.

Art. 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;
(c) 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.

This gets kind of murky. Afghanistan was involved in a civil war and the Taliban was not generally recognized as a national government. Thus a case can be made that the conflict is not of an international character (between states) but is a civil war that has drawn in other states. if this reading is correct then even those caught actign in violation of the Geneva conventions are still protected from things like a water boarding (a), being forced to stand naked in front of females (c) and being denied habeus corpus, denied counsel or put before special tribunals (d). Since the detaining power (USA) finds special ad hoc courts not tied into the appellate process and a denial of habeus corpus or counsel to be unconstitutional to its own system of civilized justice.

Zraver, I do believe that there may be a case for Gitmo laws being eventually applied to the citizenry and needs to be dealt accordingly. I favor allowing military tribunals but with due process applied. No torture. However, if they(unlawful combatants) are guilty enough to be hanged, then so be it.

Your post however gives ridiculous leeway to the Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

(a) do they have a chain of command? Yes

No. Al Qaeda is not an organization but a loose collection of organizations/cells. There is no common ground for its status as an organisation. As an example, Sir Ian Blair of Metropolitan Police Dept said after the London bombings:"Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working ... but this has the hallmark of that approach.... Al Qaeda clearly has the ability to provide training ... to provide expertise ... and I think that is what has occurred here.".

Taliban itself is not a monolithic organization with central authority. Rather it is a loose collection of tribesmen with similar views.


I think the beard symbolizing devotion to Islam is far more readily identifiable than a small shoulder flag done in camouflage colors so I would say yes.


That pretty much covers almost all grown males residing in an area stretching from Northwest Africa to Bangladesh. You have just profiled vast majority of Muslims as Al Qaeda/Taliban.)


(d) Conduct in accordance with the laws and customs of war. While they might be in technical violation of the law, what about customs? Attacking civilian targets or targets enmeshed within a civilian population, disproportionate response, or failure to properly ID a target? We (the west) are guilty of all those things. There is functionally no difference between a car bomb in a market place that goes off to nail a NATO patrol, and a hellfire strike in a market place to kill a group of Taliban. If we the civilized west cannot follow the laws or war, how can we punish others for doing as we do? True we do not do it as often as they do, but we still do it.

Here the Taliban/AQ melt away into the civilian crowd(often helped and supported by locals) and on that count alone are illegal combatants as they are deliberately forcing(even those who do not want to cooperate with them) the local civilian population to engage their(AQ) enemy.

According to you Taliban beheading the captured enemy is not going against the Geneva convention due to fact that it gets canceled by allegedly deliberate NATO strikes on civilians?

While the Taliban never had a seat at the UN, they were effectively the govenring body of most of Afghanistan.

That statement means squat. Taliban have no use for UN or Geneva or any other such organization except when they need to buy time.


Afghanistan is a signatory party to the Geneva Convetion.

ROTFL! ) Here Afghanistan means Kabul. Even in Kabul it applies to Hamid Karzai and the kind. The tribesmen have absolutely no regard for all these conventions. These militants do not wear uniforms, do not follow any of the Geneva conventions, and certainly do not follow any norms when it comes to warfare.

[zraver]

Your post however gives ridiculous leeway to the Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

(a) do they have a chain of command? Yes

No. Al Qaeda is not an organization but a loose collection of organizations/cells. There is no common ground for its status as an organisation. As an example, Sir Ian Blair of Metropolitan Police Dept said after the London bombings:"Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working ... but this has the hallmark of that approach.... Al Qaeda clearly has the ability to provide training ... to provide expertise ... and I think that is what has occurred here.".

Taliban itself is not a monolithic organization with central authority. Rather it is a loose collection of tribesmen with similar views.

is the Taliban any looser than say the NATO troops? each contributing country fights the war as it sees fit.

I think the beard symbolizing devotion to Islam is far more readily identifiable than a small shoulder flag done in camouflage colors so I would say yes.


That pretty much covers almost all grown males residing in an area stretching from Northwest Africa to Bangladesh. You have just profiled vast majority of Muslims as Al Qaeda/Taliban.)

Not really we are talking about Afghanistan, and aside from the Pashtuns, most run of the mill Afghanis like to be clean shaven.

(d) Conduct in accordance with the laws and customs of war. While they might be in technical violation of the law, what about customs? Attacking civilian targets or targets enmeshed within a civilian population, disproportionate response, or failure to properly ID a target? We (the west) are guilty of all those things. There is functionally no difference between a car bomb in a market place that goes off to nail a NATO patrol, and a hellfire strike in a market place to kill a group of Taliban. If we the civilized west cannot follow the laws or war, how can we punish others for doing as we do? True we do not do it as often as they do, but we still do it.

Here the Taliban/AQ melt away into the civilian crowd(often helped and supported by locals) and on that count alone are illegal combatants as they are deliberately forcing(even those who do not want to cooperate with them) the local civilian population to engage their(AQ) enemy.

According to you Taliban beheading the captured enemy is not going against the Geneva convention due to fact that it gets canceled by allegedly deliberate NATO strikes on civilians?

If side A can break the LOAC and not lose their privileged status, then the same should hold true for side B.

While the Taliban never had a seat at the UN, they were effectively the govenring body of most of Afghanistan.

That statement means squat. Taliban have no use for UN or Geneva or any other such organization except when they need to buy time.

And that statement means squat, we are talking about Taliban militias which are the equvialent of a nations armed forces for the provision in question.

Afghanistan is a signatory party to the Geneva Convetion.

ROTFL! ) Here Afghanistan means Kabul. Even in Kabul it applies to Hamid Karzai and the kind. The tribesmen have absolutely no regard for all these conventions. These militants do not wear uniforms, do not follow any of the Geneva conventions, and certainly do not follow any norms when it comes to warfare.

Afghanistan signed in 1949, was Karazi even born then?

[Bluesman]

I still believe the world - the formerly rational part, I mean - has gone completely mad. Many, many posters on this Board that definitely should know better seem to think we can wage war and handicap ourselves at no cost. They're wrong, of course.

Peters sees what I see. He knows that the insanity of letting terrorists go free while attempting to imprison those on our side that try so valiantly to protect us from them is borne of an instinct to wallow in our imperfections and a minimization of the qualities that make us superior to the animals that we're fighting. He sees no reason that those qualities must be manacles on our arms while we try to maintain them in the face of barbarism. We should be every single bit as brutal as our enemies until they're defeated, then we should be every bit as enlightened as we were before we were forced to defend ourselves from sub-human scum that asked for everything we are able to give 'em, and brought upon themselves the horror that we could unleash.

We've done it before, and there is no reason to expect that somehow to defend ourselves against fascism makes us fascist, even as we used to burn out entire cities full of women and children and innocents and great cultural sites and artifacts. We sought victory ruthlessly, and nobody even had a notion that we'd seek to stop before a total, complete destruction of the evil we were fighting was accomplished. No compromise was sought, and it wouldn't ever have been acceptable.

And SOMEhow, with all the evil we brought, we didn't become evil ourselves. With the massive curtailment of our liberties, we managed to remain free. Why do we think that a Constitution is a suicide pact? Why would anybody with an ounce of understanding seek to hobble the ability of the side that MUST win, the Good Guys, to triumph?

The world is completely crazy, and it may see to it that it is destroyed because of willful blindness.

A WINNING WEEK FOR TERROR
By RALPH PETERS


August 25, 2009 --
LAST week, we learned the answer to the hoary question "What does a Scots man wear under his kilt?" When it comes to terrorism, the answer's "a white flag."

But Scotland's craven release, "on humanitarian grounds," of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the mastermind of the bombing that killed 270 passengers aboard a Pan Am flight two decades ago, was merely the noisiest terrorist triumph during a week of shame.

And noisy it was: Libya's Moammar Khadafy staged a huge homecoming party for the terrorist. (Think that would've happened while W was president?) The gleeful Khadafy rubbed the West's snout in our feckless taste for appeasement.

Appeasement was also the watchword back in the United States, where Yale University Press delighted Islamist extremists by removing all illustrations from a scholarly work about the Danish cartoon debacle -- not just the caricatures of Mohammed.

Elsewhere, the casualty count went beyond book illustrations. In Iraq, Islamist terrorists staged massive suicide bombings in Baghdad. Over a hundred Iraqis died, with more than a thousand wounded. The foreign and finance ministries lie in rubble. The government's reeling.

Our president went to the beach.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban crippled the national elections so severely that the eventual "winner" won't have much of a mandate. Despite madcap ballot-box stuffing, the final tally will probably show that less than half of the eligible population voted -- fewer than one in five in the crucial south.

Afghans put more faith in Taliban threats than in government promises. US and Western officials are struggling to paint a smile on the face of the corpse, but the vote was divisive, not unifying. On Sunday, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, admitted that the Afghan situation is "serious and deteriorating."

That's what happens when, instead of killing our enemies, we try hugs.

Iran? We all know that its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes. That's why, just last week, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad chose a Revolutionary Guard commander, Ahmad Vahidi, as his new defense minister.

Interpolwants Vahidi for running the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires -- 85 dead, 300 wounded. Soon, he may have his trigger finger on nuclear weapons. But no need for Israel to worry: The Obama administration will negotiate with Tehran.

Returning to America, the establishment media continued to portray imprisoned terrorists as victims, while further chastising the bygone Bush administration for rudeness to mass murderers. (Any self-righteous journalist care to spend a night in a cell with one of the butchers whose "rights" have been infringed?)

Then the White House took all major interrogations away from the CIA, further restricting the techniques allowed to stop terrorists.

And now the administration's hard-left Justice Department -- perhaps the most extreme in our country's history -- is on another witch hunt to prosecute CIA patriots who did all they could to keep our citizens safe.

Last but not least, a minor legal case bears enormous implications: A 17-year-old female Muslim immigrant to the US, Fathima Rifqa Bary, begged our justice system not to return her to her family.

She fears she'll be the victim of an honor killing.

Smooching with the boys? Naw. Much worse: She converted to Christianity -- still an offense for which, many Muslims believe, Islam (that "religion of peace") prescribes death. Fleeing from her Ohio home to Florida, she's in protective custody, awaiting a judge's verdict on Sept. 3.

Not all of the details are clear, but the big picture is: A legal resident of our country, where religious freedom is constitutionally guaranteed, fears death at the hands of her relatives and her community because she changed her faith.

If she's sent "home" and murdered, will the crime be written off as freedom of religion?

Coddled by Washington Democrats and Republicans, extremist mullahs here in the United States -- often funded by our "friends" the Saudis -- invoke religious freedom at the drop of a prayer rug. And our elected officials cower.

Well, it's high time for Muslim clerics across this country to issue a public statement explicitly denouncing all violence against Muslims who switch faiths. This is America, folks. If a Methodist turns Muslim, fine. But if a Muslim becomes an Evangelical, that, too, must be tolerated. The Koran is not a license to kill in this country.

(And that dating thing? Murder over that's a no-no, too.)

One year ago, terrorists were on the defensive around the world. Then a new US administration condemned our country while "reaching out" to our enemies.

And here we are.

[gunnut]

Just ask yourselves: What would FDR do?

[zraver]

We've done it before, and there is no reason to expect that somehow to defend ourselves against fascism makes us fascist, even as we used to burn out entire cities full of women and children and innocents and great cultural sites and artifacts. We sought victory ruthlessly, and nobody even had a notion that we'd seek to stop before a total, complete destruction of the evil we were fighting was accomplished. No compromise was sought, and it wouldn't ever have been acceptable.

We did not torture NAZI POWS even if they were SS. There is quite a bit of differance between waging war on the battlefield and using torture off of it.

And SOMEhow, with all the evil we brought, we didn't become evil ourselves.

really, at least part of the reason we dropped the bomb was as a demonstration to the Soviets. That part of the rational to drop the bomb is indeed evil.

With the massive curtailment of our liberties, we managed to remain free.

The Copperheads and Eugene Debs would disagree. As would people like VCharles Schenk and others. Americans have been imprisoned in war time for political views.

Clement L. Vallandigham (US Congressman)
Copperheads- The Copperheads sometimes talked of violent resistance, and in some cases started to organize. They never actually made an organized attack, though. As war opponents, Copperheads were suspected of disloyalty, and their leaders were sometimes arrested and held for months in military prisons without trial — one famous example was General Ambrose Burnside's 1863 General Order Number 38, issued in Ohio, which made it an offence (to be tried in military court) to criticize the war in any way: the order was used to arrest Ohio congressman Clement L. Vallandigham when he criticized the order itself. However, Lincoln commuted his sentence while requiring his banishment to the Confederate states. Most Copperheads actively participated in politics. On May 1, 1863, former Congressman Vallandigham declared that the war was being fought not to save the Union but to free the blacks and enslave Southern whites. The Army then arrested him for declaring sympathy for the enemy. He was court-martialed and sentenced to imprisonment.

Eugene Debs (nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize)

In the early part of his political career, Debs was a member of the Democratic Party of the United States. It was during this time that he was elected as a member of the Indiana General Assembly, which signaled the beginning of his career as a politician. After working with several smaller unions including the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, Debs was instrumental in the founding of the American Railway Union, the nation's first industrial union. As a member of the ARU, Debs was involved and later imprisoned for his part in the famed Pullman Strike, when workers struck the Pullman Palace Car Company over a pay cut. The effects of the strike resulted in President Grover Cleveland calling in members of the United States Army into Chicago, Illinois, which led to Debs' arrest and imprisonment.
Debs' political views turned to socialism after he read the works of Karl Marx. He grew to be one of the most influential Socialists, the reputation helping him to garner five nominations for president. During the latter part of his life, Debs was imprisoned once more after being arrested and convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 during the First Red Scare for speaking against American involvement in World War I.

Why do we think that a Constitution is a suicide pact? Why would anybody with an ounce of understanding seek to hobble the ability of the side that MUST win, the Good Guys, to triumph?

The Constitution does not hobble our efforts. We do not need to torture to win. My oath was not beat the enemies of the United states what ever the cost, but to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. By far the bigger threat to America is not terrorists, but people who would use the actions of the terrorists to gather power unto themselves.

[astralis]

blues,

We should be every single bit as brutal as our enemies until they're defeated,

no, no, NO. the day i see our men and women in uniform become as brutal as our enemies is the day i turn my back on the united states of america. even in the depths of WWII we were never half as brutal as the bastards we fought against-- damned if we do so against a group so incompetent, they cannot even overthrow a tinpot dictatorship.

even as we used to burn out entire cities full of women and children and innocents and great cultural sites and artifacts.

the butchery of the bombings was due to technological limitations- lack of precision munitions and poor knowledge of terrain. and after the war, we just found out that indiscriminate bombing actually MADE THE WAR HARDER as it strengthened enemy resolve.

We sought victory ruthlessly, and nobody even had a notion that we'd seek to stop before a total, complete destruction of the evil we were fighting was accomplished. No compromise was sought, and it wouldn't ever have been acceptable.

there's a world of difference between negotiating with the enemy and being able to look ourselves in the face. in fact, under your standards, even your beliefs can be seen as a compromise against the total destruction of evil. why don't we just subject all muslim countries to a nuclear holocaust? why not create a secret police to round up and shoot every muslim in the US in the head? try prison camps and torture houses? THAT would make us every bit as brutal as the enemy, and would destroy the pool of terrorist recruits. anything less is compromise with terror, right?

[Blue]

I still believe the world - the formerly rational part, I mean - has gone completely mad. Many, many posters on this Board that definitely should know better seem to think we can wage war and handicap ourselves at no cost. They're wrong, of course.

Peters sees what I see. He knows that the insanity of letting terrorists go free while attempting to imprison those on our side that try so valiantly to protect us from them is borne of an instinct to wallow in our imperfections and a minimization of the qualities that make us superior to the animals that we're fighting. He sees no reason that those qualities must be manacles on our arms while we try to maintain them in the face of barbarism. We should be every single bit as brutal as our enemies until they're defeated, then we should be every bit as enlightened as we were before we were forced to defend ourselves from sub-human scum that asked for everything we are able to give 'em, and brought upon themselves the horror that we could unleash.

We've done it before, and there is no reason to expect that somehow to defend ourselves against fascism makes us fascist, even as we used to burn out entire cities full of women and children and innocents and great cultural sites and artifacts. We sought victory ruthlessly, and nobody even had a notion that we'd seek to stop before a total, complete destruction of the evil we were fighting was accomplished. No compromise was sought, and it wouldn't ever have been acceptable.

And SOMEhow, with all the evil we brought, we didn't become evil ourselves. With the massive curtailment of our liberties, we managed to remain free. Why do we think that a Constitution is a suicide pact? Why would anybody with an ounce of understanding seek to hobble the ability of the side that MUST win, the Good Guys, to triumph?

The world is completely crazy, and it may see to it that it is destroyed because of willful blindness.

I can see the points that others here are trying to make, however, I have to agree with Bluesman. The signature I have maintained for awhile now says it as well. My sigs have always reflected this. Remember one of my first, "Saving your ass, like it or not!".

I have read some of the above responses to Blues post and I ask this....How do you know what men on the battlefield did to Nazis or any other enemy....were you there? Many things, as a very educated guess, where accomplished by a few men that were willing to live with the consequences of what may have been questionable actions by saturday morning armchair quarterbacks.

If you can't carry the burden, do not do the deed. Many have done the deed and cannot bear the burden. Why do you think so many Soldiers have commited suicide? You can live with your ghosts or you can't, but the flag still waves.

[zraver]

I can see the points that others here are trying to make, however, I have to agree with Bluesman. The signature I have maintained for awhile now says it as well. My sigs have always reflected this. Remember one of my first, "Saving your ass, like it or not!".

I have read some of the above responses to Blues post and I ask this....How do you know what men on the battlefield did to Nazis or any other enemy....were you there? Many things, as a very educated guess, where accomplished by a few men that were willing to live with the consequences of what may have been questionable actions by saturday morning armchair quarterbacks.

If you can't carry the burden, do not do the deed. Many have done the deed and cannot bear the burden. Why do you think so many Soldiers have commited suicide? You can live with your ghosts or you can't, but the flag still waves.

7th, the problem with Blues postion is that the ends justify the means. This fails on both the battlefield and the home front.

On the battlefield should we act even more like our enemy (killing being ugly no matter what) we would alienate the population, hand our enemies a propaganda and recruiting victory, scare off our allies and further damage public support for the war. Right now we are fighting for two things- vengance for 9-11 and for the people of Afghanistan. Those are the missions, so what ever we do has to be towards achieving them. Turning to brutality to win a battle could very well cost us the war. Because lets face it, if the people of Afghanistan decide we need to go because we are just like every invader- an oppressor then eventually we will go. That would leave AQ with a haven and Afghanistan would remain a de facto terrorist nation capable of supporting more attacks against us.

On the home front, ignoring the constitution gives the government more power. The government likes to hand out tax rebates, incentives and bail outs but it never willingly gives up power. The government also uses precedent in the Courts to expand its power. if waterboarding was deemed legal for use on terrorists, then surely a little arm twisting vs a child abductor is ok. We'll if we can twist the arm of a child abductor, why can't we do it to a drug dealer, after all drugs kill kids. Each step intrudes just a little bit more on YOUR liberty. Given the fact that the last three Courts (Burger, Rhenquist and Roberts) have all been crime control model courts more prone to vote in favor of the Government than of liberty this is a dangerous thing. One has only to look at the devolution of probable cause to reasonable suspicion to because they had a hunch in the US to see how tenuous our liberties are.

Liberty must be guarded most from the Government. it is our most precious thing. Our forefathers fought and died to give it to us, we must be cognizant of its value and make sure than the government cannot extinguish it.