american nick berg…

I couldn’t have said it better myself….

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Re: Dave “Can you support your citation that there were no British prisoners of war in the Revolutionary War or that all captured British or Tory troops were summarily executed without any form of trial?”

(1) Where did I say there were no British prisoners?

(2) Where did I say ALL captured British or Tory troops were executed? (Note that the premise of Tory “troops” is a bit of a trick question as there were few civilian military {Tory} combatants, due to the fact that if a Tory wished to fight Washington’s army along side the trained British troops, they would have been required to enlist and don the uniform. An exception of course, would be Tories who might be aiding the British officers with temporary support: information, supplies or as guides.)

(3) Some of those captured may have been taken prisoners but only if they surrendered, or were for whatever reason unable to continue fighting.

(4) Where did I say that those captured did not receive “some” form of trial? Battlefield justice would have been the general “trial” method. The Revolutionary army officers knew quite well that many of their fellows captured by the “Redcoats” would have been executed with expediency. King George and the British did not consider such executions as war crimes. The injured revolutionaries may have been give some treatment for their injuries until they were fit enough for their executions. This was not unusual for the time.

Remember Dave, that you were the one that brought the founding fathers into this discussion to speculate on their viewpoints. When you waver from the subject to bring in obscure (or barely related) speculative elements, you are the one being unhelpful to the discussion. I just figured I’d join you in your little saunter into to left field, because the American Revolution and the creation of this country are a favorite historical period of study. (Most fascinating was the Antifederalist’s and their writings, I wrote a political science paper on the subject. ;-D )

We all are quite aware that the Geneva Convention was not in effect 100+ years before it was written. You may put your strawman back in your pocket.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Who are the idiots that thinks we should be dealing with terrorists? Who are the idiot leftist pacifists who thinks we should not go to war against terrorism? You think it is the U.S. foreign policies that are wrong? Think again.

SCHOOLGIRLS ATTACKED WITH ACID IN AFGHANISTAN – 12 NOV. 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2MkoTZZ0Ns&eurl=http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Dave Hussein Noble: If you are clear about the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration why do you continue to cite Gitmo as evidence of some judicial deficiency using the Declaration?

Surely one who understand that the Constitution is the ultimate blueprint for the judiciary knows that the Declaration is moot on whether tribunals or some as yet undefined judicial process would be more judicious.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Well Dave Noble… you don’t want to fantasize about how they would have treated stateless, murderous thugs trying to take over territory because they were fighting British troops.

So let’s talk about how they treated the British POWs…. not likely to be to your “justice for all” imagination. They kept them for indentured servitude… using them on farms. Labor, in exchange for room and board. Missing that lofty Constitutional bit for a national enemy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“All men are created equal…”

I hate that statement, because it is not true. Some people are born beautiful, intelligent, healthy, wealthly, etc. Others ar born ugly, idiot, sick and poor.

Every man is only equal in rights and liberties. That’s it, that’s all.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Dave Noble:

Are you sure that you want us to be bound by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions Dave?

Are you sure?

If so, then we agree.

The Geneva Conventions are very, very clear about what is to happen to those who are fighting on the battlefield not in uniform, or hiding among civilians.

I have no problem at all in applying them precisely as they are written. No problem at all. Because I know what they say. In fact, one of my biggest criticisms of the way the war has been fought has been our failure to follow the GC’s to the letter.

I’m in favor of loading up and returning all of the inhabitants of Gitmo to the place of their capture.

Then the US military can implement the GC’s and we won’t have to worry about the Gitmo issue any more.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Ditto, Mata,

The Geneva Conventions did not exist during the American Revolution. Then why even consider the Founding Fathers speculated actions with respect to the terrorists? You took us down that inapposite trail, Mata, not I. Lets not fantasize about how the Founding Fathers would have treated the Guantanamo detainees if they had caught them on the battlefield. BTW, are either of you under the impression that those captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan were all “terrorists,” or believed to be such by their captors. I would note that though the Taliban harbored AQ, that does not make every member of the Taliban per se a terrorist.

“Were we to hypothesize on the question of what to do with enemy civilian combatants during the US revolutionary war (i.e. “Tories”, waging war on and against General Washington’s forces), we would review the history of what happened during that war, and how the Revolutionists felt about the Tories, the British occupation forces, and the oppression of the colonists. On the battlefield, they would have most likely have either shot them where they stood, or executed them later.”

Ditto, respectfully, that is just the kind of unhelpful (not to me, but to the discussion) speculation I refer to above. Can you support your citation that there were no British prisoners of war in the Revolutionary War or that all captured British or Tory troops were summarily executed without any form of trial? The bottomline is that we are bound by the Geneva Convention
today, so this line of discussion is sterile.

My question remains: Is justice an archaic concept in the War on Terror? My answer is an emphatic “No,” both in terms of basic morality and the intent of the Founders. All men are created equal and all men deserve justice. The working out of what constitutes justice in the context of the Guantanamo detainees is, as I noted, a complex problem, not amenable to bumper sticker thinking, emotion, or idealogy. The question is how do we simultaneously do justice and protect our security? Any future schema for dealing with the Guantanamo detainees proposed by the new Administration should be judged by that standard.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Re: “…But, the American people in polls after poll during the election by large majorities said that the country was on the wrong course….”

The polls clearly show that the American people primarily voted to change the economic situation of the nation. (NOTE: 52% of the popular vote is not a mandate for a presidential candidate.) The voters did not elect Obama to blindly “change” any and everything the Democrats desire. The American people have not asked the Democratic party to “Remake” the country, but only to take over the reins and steer for a while.

Re: “…the distinction between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I am aware of the legal status of the Declaration. Please see my post above. I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree that denying the detainees justice would violate the founding principles of our country.”

If you are trying to equate this issue to what the founding fathers would have felt regarding Iraq and “justice” for the enemy combatants; I would point out that the Founders were against involving our nation in the aggressive posturings between nations, and especially in foreign wars. Were we to hypothesize on the question of what to do with enemy civilian combatants during the US revolutionary war (i.e. “Tories”, waging war on and against General Washington’s forces), we would review the history of what happened during that war, and how the Revolutionists felt about the Tories, the British occupation forces, and the oppression of the colonists. On the battlefield, they would have most likely have either shot them where they stood, or executed them later.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Aye is right. Terrorists cannot be classified as P.O.W.’s., they were not lawful combatants captured and held for fighting for their country, they committed war crimes. During times of war, our P.O.W.s are never afforded all the rights of a foreign captor’s citizens. Even citizen tourists who leave this country to visit others and break their laws rarely receive such treatment. Habeus corpus is one thing, but the question as to whether the terrorist detainees should be awarded full Constitutional rights of this country is patently absurd.

There is a standard procedure already in place. War Tribunals are the world-wide accepted venue for trying those suspected of war crimes. They are usually held in the individual’s own country or a neutral country. By forming a new court system to try them in the United States, Obama is ignoring long recognized world custom. The world is speaking out against this on principle. It doesn’t matter to them whether such a new justice system would be too lenient or too strict. But that it does not allow for proper oversight and provides no mention concerning an appeal process. That is why it is wrong.

Mata is also correct in that our military are prohibited by law from summarily executing anyone who disarms themselves and surrenders. Even the most reprehensible of captives. To do so is considered a war crime.

Perhaps some of you who faun over Gitmo prisoners and whose hearts bleed for them missed the al Qaeda decapitation videos that were aired on al-Jazeera, such as that of Nick Berg?

As for torture; The water-boarding and humiliated of Gitmo captives was nothing compared to those endured by our P.O.W.s such as (WARNING: GRAPHIC LITERARY VIOLENCE DESCRIBED); Having glass rods inserted into their urinary tracks and then shattered, their sexual units being attached to electrical devises and the voltage kicked up, female captives being repeatedly raped, captives of both sexes being sodomized, limbs and digits broken, and should all interrogatory tortures fail, being summarily executed in full sight of other P.O.W.s to serve witness to what happens to those who refuse to co-operate.

Those were the forms of torture utilized on our P.O.W.s. by other countries in the past. Now allow me to educate non-military on something they may not be aware of. In order to prepare some of our own military members who were at high risk of being captured. They are willingly subjected, under close supervision, to techniques such as water-boarding, sleep deprivation, exposed to constant music playing, humiliation, solitary confinement, and other techniques to help them prepare for what might happen should they be captured. They were also thoroughly briefed on other types of misuse they might endure at the hands of a morally corrupt enemy. Some others willingly subjected themselves to these techniques to help our intelligence agencies find effective, emotionally and physically non-permanent methods to extract extremely critical information from captives. As was described to me by other vets who willingly participated in the past, such practices started around the time of the Vietnam War. Aside from a few military personnel took things beyond what was deemed “acceptable” and for which they are paying the price, for the most part there was nothing used on terrorist detainees that had not first been performed on volunteers from our own military.

One final point, Dave, as well as most Democrats, frequently refer to this country as a Democracy. It is not and was never designed to be so. If it were there would be no place for Executive or Judicial Branches. And a “pure Democracy” of the type they seem to desire falls under the definition of Communist one-party system. This country was designed to be a Republic. I advise you to review the definitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

Don’t take it the wrong way; Even Abraham Lincoln, a distant relative of my own got that wrong, IF he were using the word in the truest sense of it’s meaning. And that is the fundamental divide between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans prefer the checks and balances remain in place as a means to prevent this country from sliding into the morass that is Socialism. Democrat would prefer to change that system. And never the two shall meet.

To David, Voter, Brandon, and others, that is why Mata, Mike, and yes even Craig will never concede to remaking this government as you might wish it to be and why they are so very vocal in their protests. Republicans do not want Democrats pushing this country too far towards the slippery edge of that cliff and will fight it tooth and nail to their dying breaths. As will I, though I count myself an Independent, and countless others.

Change is one thing, your candidate has won the right to change our country’s direction and we concede that point, but he has not won the right to overhaul it. And that is something we cannot abide.

Like or Dislike: 0  0