Will we miss the good old days when John Aschroft was Attorney General? My latest L.A. Weekly column swatting Alberto "Speedy" Gonzales -- the guy who can't wait to roll back our rights.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, November 17th, 2004 at 7:53 pm and is filed under Main.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Long time lurker, but thank you, Eric, for forcing me to finally make a comment.
I could just hear the eyes of the Bushites rolling at my (and Marc’s) concerns about the deterioration of civil liberties in “this time of war.” To a lot of people (like the president)those that were captured four years ago and brought to Cuba are nothing but scum-sucking dogs and enemies of the USA.
They were arrested and stuffed in an orange jumper with “enemy combatant” stenciled across the back.
Don’t you get it? This administration — with the help of Gonzales — conjured up a label that strips all rights from a human being.
Simply puts, that sucks.
Chances are that most of those men held in Guatanamo are badmutherfuckers who are a genuine danger to the USA. But wouldn’t it be nice to know how? Wouldn’t it put your mind a little at ease to see one charge brought up against one of these men?
Wouldn’t it be nice to know that the government caught some really bad dudes to make our country safer? I would like to know. That affirmation would make my day.
This standard of holding people as enemy combatants (removing the checks and balances of a legal system) should be disturbing to anyone who cherishes and believes in the values of a democracy.
It is inhuman (not to mention fundamentally un-American) to hold these people without charging them with a crime, without giving them representation and without trying them in front of an impartial court.
And Gonzales had a large part in this, and soon he might be keeping an eye on all of us. And maybe I’m being paranoid, but who knows where that will lead.
And as for you, Eric Blair, if you only want to insult and demean, there are Yahoo! message boards for that. If you want to add something to the debate, I’d like to hear it here.
Thanks Leslie for posting the link to the work-wife piece on Slate! It’s spot on. And rather re-assuring to find Im not the only one who sensed an erotic bond between Bush and Rice…
To Eric.. hold ur horses, pal. Any regular reader of this blog knows I have been relentless in slamming those who make facile suggestions that Bush is Hitler etc.
HOWEVER, the sort of activity that seems condoned in the chilling memos of Mr Gonzalez is precisely the sort dealt with at Nuremberg. That is — unless you believe that the US was right in upholding Intl Law in the fight against Nazis but that now we must not only forego the Geneva Convention but we also must condone torture?
Where do u suggest we draw the line, my friend? Once you excuse yourself (our orselves) from the rule of law you put urself on the very slippery slope toward the moral jungle.
Bob.. thank you for coming out of lurkerdom and I encourage you to keep posting as we can always use some fresh voices here. Your challenge to Eric is correct. From this point forward Im going to be very severe in limiting the discussion on this blog to real discussion. Shouters, exclaimers and trolls will be ruthlessly exterminated with no restrictions from Geneva or Paris, thank you!
The attacks on our liberties – freedom of association, to travel – are under attack from much more insidious places than the Attorney General’s office.
See the City of Chicago’s plan to increase the number of surveilance cameras around the city, see the increased number of high-definition cameras on the highways that can read license plates even at high (and illegal) speeds, buy yourself a Speed-Pass and have your movements tracked to the second by the Turnpike Authority, think about how your movements can be tracked by your credit card use, and don’t forget about RFID tags that they PROMISE won’t be used to track you by the merchandise you buy.
We are all potential Enemies of the State, at both the Federal and State level, but you have nothing to worry about if you haven’t done anything wrong. It’s really just for your own protection.
Relavent Rush Limbaugh quote of the day, “These people aren’t subject to the Geneva convention. This is war for crying out loud.”
Rush then goes on to explain that the Geneva convention was designed to prevent jay-walkers from french-toast-eating tax-and-spend types who hate Christians and America, like John Kerry.
Oh Marc, Marc, Marc! How harsh! Don’t you know, these Bush people are deeply moral folks hold themselves to a “higher personal ethic.†Just ask them. Take for example yesterday’s Congressional rule change: It was ALL ABOUT the importance of due process…..for Tom de Lay.
PS: As soon as I post this I’m writing a thank you note, to Connecticut Republican Congressman Chris Shays for having the huevos to vote no on this despicably hypocritical move, although he was next in line to be chair of the House Ethics Committee, a position he clearly understood he was giving up by voting his conscience.
PPS: “….re-assuring to find Im not the only one who sensed an erotic bond between Bush and Rice…” Trust me, you’re not the only person. Watching Condi’s face at the press conference at which her new appointment to State was announced by Bush was…..interesting.
And then there was the “my husband†Freudian dinner party moment…that was not a slip really, more like she let loose with the entire lingerie department. I don’t, by the way, say any of this to make fun of Ms. Rice. Aside from my dislike of her policy perspectives and her obvious unwillingness to contradict her boss on anything at all, I see her as an extremely bright woman with a complicated and somewhat poignant psychology.
First, did those who protest Guantanamo protest the way the North Vietnamese held and tortured our POWs? Raise your virtual hands please.
I think it is appropriate for enemy combatants to not have access to the American justice system. They are not Americans and not on US soil. But there should be hearings procedures, operated by the miliitary, to find the truly innocent, and free them.
As you contemplate the “rights” of these individuals, remember that we have had the right, starting at capture, to summarily execute these illegal combatants, within the laws of war.
Also note that at least one of those we turned loose has already been involved in making war on us since release.
To make this more fun, let’s discuss torture. There are times when torture might be important (say, if the information reasonably expected to be gain could save many lives). Imagine that you know a nuke is coming into a US city, and you have captured someone who has the information to stop it, who won’t give it to you, but appears sysceptible to torture. What do you do?
It is hard to track people by RFID tags. One issue is that you have to be very close to the reader (the reader broadcasts the power used by the tag).
The other issue is combining the databases. If you wear a Walmart shirt into a K-Mart, they won’t recognize the code. They also have no reason to record it, and if were required to do so, you can be sure a whistleblower nerd would let out the word, as nerds tend to be hypersensitive about personal privacy (politically they tend to be libertarian).
So while there are some privacy implcations for the tags, they are ultimately less than using a credit card, where (at least when I worked at VISA) there are a very small number of places which all transactions go through.
Given the fact that I was 16 when the POW’s came back and was more worried about zits and girls, I’d have to say no.
However, as an adult my position on the use of torture is consistent: it is unacceptable under any circumstances.
Now putting away your lame strawman argument, a law such as the Geneva Conventions should inure to the benefit of all sides. What would you call someone who expected a law to benefit their side while referring to their observation of the same law to their enemies as “quaint?”
1. No rational person supports the torture of American soldiers. I just couldn’t get hold of my Viet Cong-ressman to complain. Also, I wasn’t alive.
2. Some designated enemy combatants are in fact Americans. Some were captured on American soil.
3. By laws of war clearly you do not mean the agreed upon laws of war (Geneva convention), instead you slide down a slippery slope toward permitting the murder of civilians.
4. Yes there are hypothetical situations where torture could be useful. No, it does not make good policy.
I need a new job.
p.s. thanks for the gallantry on your blog
p.p.s. for those interested in the Tom Delay rule change, talkingpointsmemo.com is the place to be.
My alternate source of information, The Onion, has a picture of Bush and Gonzales with the caption “Ashcroft loses job to Mexican.” Well, at least Bush didn’t outsource the State Department to India.
The Geneva Convention does not cover those who make war without a uniform or appropriate identifying method. They have no rights. They can be shot on sight.
As for combatants who are Americans, it seems clear to me that they have stronger rights than illegal combatants, and the same is true (unfortunately) for non-Americans captured on our soil.
As far as torture, I put out the example simply to show how extreme real world situations can get.
I was trained in enduring torture. The manner of the training was not pleasant. We were advised that the North Vietnamese did not adhere to the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners. That information was correct. Fortunately I didn’t find out first hand.
Mavis, I tried to tame the attack dogs on my blog. Usually they find themselves presented with the clueless, whom they shred. Sorry they went after you – it was habit.
“The Geneva Convention does not cover those who make war without a uniform or appropriate identifying method. They have no rights. They can be shot on sight.”
Yes, I remember your types arguing that during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. I think it was Elliot Abrams who said something along the lines of, “Because the Mujahedin do not wear uniforms and don’t identify themselves to their occupiers, therefore they have no rights as human beings and should be shot on sight”.
Even if the Geneva Conventions do not apply (and by the way, Article 5 of the Conventions states that “”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 for POWs, “such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal” the president or SOD deeming anyone as not qualifying for POW status under the Conventions is not a “competent tribunal”), the Conventions Against Torture do.
Has anyone here actually read through the entire memo in question? I mean, really? Its rather interesting in the way the administration is actually trying to figure out what can and cannot be done.
The devil is obviously in the details, and for those of you, like RP, who do not tolerate any sort of torture, could you please spell out in detail exactly where interrogation stops and torture begins?
Has any one here ever actually had to interrogate POWs? I learned a little bit about it in the service, enough to know I don’t want that job. And I don’t ever want to be interrogated either.
I think that the American nationals taken as ‘enemy combatants’ were all turned over to the US courts, since they’re more easily digested by the system.
What to do with the rest of them? Some have been released, and at least one of those was subsequently killed in Pakistan by Pakistani security forces in some terrorist incident.
The military tribunals have at least a precedent, but the fact that all those people have not been disposed of seems to me to indicate that a final course of action has not been decided upon.
In short, despite BP’s complaints that all rights have been stripped from those guys, the government just has not figure out which ones apply yet. I can’t say I’m getting too worked up about them.
I’m not sure that speed passes or those cameras are ‘attacks’ on either free association or travel. I mean, nobody, but nobody (including me) would use Speed-pass if they issued tickets based on when you went through tolls. Think about it. They never will do that. Everybody would just stop using the system.
Now, if you wanna get insidious, you make it madatory for everybody have the tags on their cars and then you issue tickets. God, wotta revenue generating monster that would be. The jury, so to speak, is still out on RFID, although the purely logistical (as opposed to marketing) reasons for using the things is becoming too much to resist.
As for the silly political theater of those party rules, did Rosedog, (or any other of you), give the Republicans credit when they passed that rule in the first place? –I think it was in response to Rostenkowski’s troubles, IIRC. I thought it was dumb then. Its dumb now. Most politics is dumb.
Woody.. I love it.. Gonna check out The Onion photo in a moment. Thanks.
John Moore and Eric Blair: this is a simple equation as put so nitidly by Randy Paul. You’re either for torture or against it. Personally, Im against it. Having lived in several real life dictatorships I — unlike you– am actually quite proud the US Armed Forces has lawyers who must sign off on the rule of engagement. Im proud we have courts martial that are willing to try soldiers who break international law. It’s what separates us from the jungle. Im not pleased that those rules are often broken. But at least we have them. And fortunately, not even the Bushies are eager as you folks seem to be to suspend civil rights. Thank God you hold no state power.
But I’m not really ‘eager’ to suspend civil rights, despite what you might think. I did once take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I haven’t given up on that.
I’m for torture in very limited circumstances. I’m against it in general. So don’t give me this “you’re either for it or against it.” If you are against it when torture of an evil person will save 1,000,000 lives, you are sick.
As for suspending civil rights and your irrelevant time with the dictators, you apparently believe that civil rights exist where I think they do not. I believe all citizens have full protection of the constitution. So what civil rights that actually exist am I in favor of removing, and from whom? And how does it have anything to do with a dictatorship (I have spent irrelevant time in one dictatorship)?
I do not think we should run around breaking international law. That’s why we have ROE’s. However, in the case of ununiformed combatants, they can be killed. That IS the law. In World War II, that’s what we did to the German commandos who dressed up in US uniforms during the battle of the bulge: we shot them outright.
So don’t try to paint this as a difference between people with no care for international law, and Saint Marc who does care.
I’m also aware that the last opponent we fought who cared about international law was the Nazis. The Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, North Vietnamese and VC, Iraqis and Afghanis didn’t.
To me, that says some of the rules of war may need to be modified or extended to deal with the common case where the enemy, as a matter of policy, violates them. I believe that currently, in that case, the enemy loses all protection of international law. Likewise, appropriate rules need to exist for asymmetrical warfare.
In Vietnam, the enemy had no interest in fighting by the laws of war. They used atrocities (against other Vietnamese) as a matter of policy, and in large numbers. They had no interest in justice for prisoners. What is the appropriate response for that?
The general idea of the rules of warfare is appropriate for World War I – two civilized European powers who fight under the rules. Extending that to Iraq becomes a rather strange exercise. I believe that enemies that violate the rules of war on purpose should pay for it. Otherwise these rules are an exercise of the good guys only. Some of the rules are just humanity, and we should be humane even with a vicious, rule-breaking death-cult enemy. Likewise, some are to protect civilians caught up in the war. Obviously we want to protect them. But the rules for protecting enemy combatants… since they are all in violation, we are bound by no rules on the battlefield, and only bound a little bit if they are prisoners.
By the way, we rarely break the rules of war, contrary to what some propagandists say. That was the big gripe Vietnam Veterans had with John Kerry – his implication that we broke those rules as a matter of course. I know of two cases and one suspected case in Iraq, so far.
November 17th, 2004 at 8:05 pm
Nurenburg?? What, Bushitler again? Or is it Gonzaleshimmler now?
Pathetic. No wonder they call it the LA dog-trainer.
November 17th, 2004 at 9:26 pm
interesting piece on Condi, Bush’s “work-wife”
http://www.slate.com/id/2109876/
November 17th, 2004 at 9:39 pm
Long time lurker, but thank you, Eric, for forcing me to finally make a comment.
I could just hear the eyes of the Bushites rolling at my (and Marc’s) concerns about the deterioration of civil liberties in “this time of war.” To a lot of people (like the president)those that were captured four years ago and brought to Cuba are nothing but scum-sucking dogs and enemies of the USA.
They were arrested and stuffed in an orange jumper with “enemy combatant” stenciled across the back.
Don’t you get it? This administration — with the help of Gonzales — conjured up a label that strips all rights from a human being.
Simply puts, that sucks.
Chances are that most of those men held in Guatanamo are badmutherfuckers who are a genuine danger to the USA. But wouldn’t it be nice to know how? Wouldn’t it put your mind a little at ease to see one charge brought up against one of these men?
Wouldn’t it be nice to know that the government caught some really bad dudes to make our country safer? I would like to know. That affirmation would make my day.
This standard of holding people as enemy combatants (removing the checks and balances of a legal system) should be disturbing to anyone who cherishes and believes in the values of a democracy.
It is inhuman (not to mention fundamentally un-American) to hold these people without charging them with a crime, without giving them representation and without trying them in front of an impartial court.
And Gonzales had a large part in this, and soon he might be keeping an eye on all of us. And maybe I’m being paranoid, but who knows where that will lead.
And as for you, Eric Blair, if you only want to insult and demean, there are Yahoo! message boards for that. If you want to add something to the debate, I’d like to hear it here.
November 18th, 2004 at 1:31 am
Thanks Leslie for posting the link to the work-wife piece on Slate! It’s spot on. And rather re-assuring to find Im not the only one who sensed an erotic bond between Bush and Rice…
To Eric.. hold ur horses, pal. Any regular reader of this blog knows I have been relentless in slamming those who make facile suggestions that Bush is Hitler etc.
HOWEVER, the sort of activity that seems condoned in the chilling memos of Mr Gonzalez is precisely the sort dealt with at Nuremberg. That is — unless you believe that the US was right in upholding Intl Law in the fight against Nazis but that now we must not only forego the Geneva Convention but we also must condone torture?
Where do u suggest we draw the line, my friend? Once you excuse yourself (our orselves) from the rule of law you put urself on the very slippery slope toward the moral jungle.
Bob.. thank you for coming out of lurkerdom and I encourage you to keep posting as we can always use some fresh voices here. Your challenge to Eric is correct. From this point forward Im going to be very severe in limiting the discussion on this blog to real discussion. Shouters, exclaimers and trolls will be ruthlessly exterminated with no restrictions from Geneva or Paris, thank you!
November 18th, 2004 at 3:39 am
The attacks on our liberties – freedom of association, to travel – are under attack from much more insidious places than the Attorney General’s office.
See the City of Chicago’s plan to increase the number of surveilance cameras around the city, see the increased number of high-definition cameras on the highways that can read license plates even at high (and illegal) speeds, buy yourself a Speed-Pass and have your movements tracked to the second by the Turnpike Authority, think about how your movements can be tracked by your credit card use, and don’t forget about RFID tags that they PROMISE won’t be used to track you by the merchandise you buy.
We are all potential Enemies of the State, at both the Federal and State level, but you have nothing to worry about if you haven’t done anything wrong. It’s really just for your own protection.
November 18th, 2004 at 9:28 am
Relavent Rush Limbaugh quote of the day, “These people aren’t subject to the Geneva convention. This is war for crying out loud.”
Rush then goes on to explain that the Geneva convention was designed to prevent jay-walkers from french-toast-eating tax-and-spend types who hate Christians and America, like John Kerry.
November 18th, 2004 at 10:03 am
Oh Marc, Marc, Marc! How harsh! Don’t you know, these Bush people are deeply moral folks hold themselves to a “higher personal ethic.†Just ask them. Take for example yesterday’s Congressional rule change: It was ALL ABOUT the importance of due process…..for Tom de Lay.
PS: As soon as I post this I’m writing a thank you note, to Connecticut Republican Congressman Chris Shays for having the huevos to vote no on this despicably hypocritical move, although he was next in line to be chair of the House Ethics Committee, a position he clearly understood he was giving up by voting his conscience.
PPS: “….re-assuring to find Im not the only one who sensed an erotic bond between Bush and Rice…” Trust me, you’re not the only person. Watching Condi’s face at the press conference at which her new appointment to State was announced by Bush was…..interesting.
And then there was the “my husband†Freudian dinner party moment…that was not a slip really, more like she let loose with the entire lingerie department. I don’t, by the way, say any of this to make fun of Ms. Rice. Aside from my dislike of her policy perspectives and her obvious unwillingness to contradict her boss on anything at all, I see her as an extremely bright woman with a complicated and somewhat poignant psychology.
November 18th, 2004 at 10:51 am
Alright, to throw some spice into this…
First, did those who protest Guantanamo protest the way the North Vietnamese held and tortured our POWs? Raise your virtual hands please.
I think it is appropriate for enemy combatants to not have access to the American justice system. They are not Americans and not on US soil. But there should be hearings procedures, operated by the miliitary, to find the truly innocent, and free them.
As you contemplate the “rights” of these individuals, remember that we have had the right, starting at capture, to summarily execute these illegal combatants, within the laws of war.
Also note that at least one of those we turned loose has already been involved in making war on us since release.
To make this more fun, let’s discuss torture. There are times when torture might be important (say, if the information reasonably expected to be gain could save many lives). Imagine that you know a nuke is coming into a US city, and you have captured someone who has the information to stop it, who won’t give it to you, but appears sysceptible to torture. What do you do?
November 18th, 2004 at 10:58 am
too many steves
It is hard to track people by RFID tags. One issue is that you have to be very close to the reader (the reader broadcasts the power used by the tag).
The other issue is combining the databases. If you wear a Walmart shirt into a K-Mart, they won’t recognize the code. They also have no reason to record it, and if were required to do so, you can be sure a whistleblower nerd would let out the word, as nerds tend to be hypersensitive about personal privacy (politically they tend to be libertarian).
So while there are some privacy implcations for the tags, they are ultimately less than using a credit card, where (at least when I worked at VISA) there are a very small number of places which all transactions go through.
November 18th, 2004 at 11:07 am
John Moore,
Given the fact that I was 16 when the POW’s came back and was more worried about zits and girls, I’d have to say no.
However, as an adult my position on the use of torture is consistent: it is unacceptable under any circumstances.
Now putting away your lame strawman argument, a law such as the Geneva Conventions should inure to the benefit of all sides. What would you call someone who expected a law to benefit their side while referring to their observation of the same law to their enemies as “quaint?”
Hypocrite works for me.
November 18th, 2004 at 11:18 am
John Moore,
Lest I be misunderstood, the hypocrite comment was directed towards the President and his staff, not you.
November 18th, 2004 at 12:26 pm
John Moore,
1. No rational person supports the torture of American soldiers. I just couldn’t get hold of my Viet Cong-ressman to complain. Also, I wasn’t alive.
2. Some designated enemy combatants are in fact Americans. Some were captured on American soil.
3. By laws of war clearly you do not mean the agreed upon laws of war (Geneva convention), instead you slide down a slippery slope toward permitting the murder of civilians.
4. Yes there are hypothetical situations where torture could be useful. No, it does not make good policy.
I need a new job.
p.s. thanks for the gallantry on your blog
p.p.s. for those interested in the Tom Delay rule change, talkingpointsmemo.com is the place to be.
November 18th, 2004 at 1:28 pm
My alternate source of information, The Onion, has a picture of Bush and Gonzales with the caption “Ashcroft loses job to Mexican.” Well, at least Bush didn’t outsource the State Department to India.
November 18th, 2004 at 2:36 pm
“Well, at least Bush didn’t outsource the State Department to India.”
Knock on wood.
November 18th, 2004 at 3:10 pm
The Geneva Convention does not cover those who make war without a uniform or appropriate identifying method. They have no rights. They can be shot on sight.
As for combatants who are Americans, it seems clear to me that they have stronger rights than illegal combatants, and the same is true (unfortunately) for non-Americans captured on our soil.
As far as torture, I put out the example simply to show how extreme real world situations can get.
I was trained in enduring torture. The manner of the training was not pleasant. We were advised that the North Vietnamese did not adhere to the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners. That information was correct. Fortunately I didn’t find out first hand.
Mavis, I tried to tame the attack dogs on my blog. Usually they find themselves presented with the clueless, whom they shred. Sorry they went after you – it was habit.
November 18th, 2004 at 3:35 pm
I don’t think you forfit all rights if you didn’t do your laundry. I’m pretty certain it’s more complicated than that.
The thank you was genuine.
November 18th, 2004 at 4:41 pm
“The Geneva Convention does not cover those who make war without a uniform or appropriate identifying method. They have no rights. They can be shot on sight.”
Yes, I remember your types arguing that during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. I think it was Elliot Abrams who said something along the lines of, “Because the Mujahedin do not wear uniforms and don’t identify themselves to their occupiers, therefore they have no rights as human beings and should be shot on sight”.
November 18th, 2004 at 4:44 pm
John Moore,
Even if the Geneva Conventions do not apply (and by the way, Article 5 of the Conventions states that “”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 for POWs, “such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal” the president or SOD deeming anyone as not qualifying for POW status under the Conventions is not a “competent tribunal”), the Conventions Against Torture do.
November 18th, 2004 at 6:21 pm
Has anyone here actually read through the entire memo in question? I mean, really? Its rather interesting in the way the administration is actually trying to figure out what can and cannot be done.
The devil is obviously in the details, and for those of you, like RP, who do not tolerate any sort of torture, could you please spell out in detail exactly where interrogation stops and torture begins?
Has any one here ever actually had to interrogate POWs? I learned a little bit about it in the service, enough to know I don’t want that job. And I don’t ever want to be interrogated either.
I think that the American nationals taken as ‘enemy combatants’ were all turned over to the US courts, since they’re more easily digested by the system.
What to do with the rest of them? Some have been released, and at least one of those was subsequently killed in Pakistan by Pakistani security forces in some terrorist incident.
The military tribunals have at least a precedent, but the fact that all those people have not been disposed of seems to me to indicate that a final course of action has not been decided upon.
In short, despite BP’s complaints that all rights have been stripped from those guys, the government just has not figure out which ones apply yet. I can’t say I’m getting too worked up about them.
I’m not sure that speed passes or those cameras are ‘attacks’ on either free association or travel. I mean, nobody, but nobody (including me) would use Speed-pass if they issued tickets based on when you went through tolls. Think about it. They never will do that. Everybody would just stop using the system.
Now, if you wanna get insidious, you make it madatory for everybody have the tags on their cars and then you issue tickets. God, wotta revenue generating monster that would be. The jury, so to speak, is still out on RFID, although the purely logistical (as opposed to marketing) reasons for using the things is becoming too much to resist.
As for the silly political theater of those party rules, did Rosedog, (or any other of you), give the Republicans credit when they passed that rule in the first place? –I think it was in response to Rostenkowski’s troubles, IIRC. I thought it was dumb then. Its dumb now. Most politics is dumb.
November 18th, 2004 at 6:28 pm
“I mean, nobody, but nobody (including me) would use Speed-pass if they issued tickets based on when you went through tolls.”
Myself, but for the laws against killing and the death penalty in particular, I would go on a rampage against my entire family!
November 18th, 2004 at 6:52 pm
Woody.. I love it.. Gonna check out The Onion photo in a moment. Thanks.
John Moore and Eric Blair: this is a simple equation as put so nitidly by Randy Paul. You’re either for torture or against it. Personally, Im against it. Having lived in several real life dictatorships I — unlike you– am actually quite proud the US Armed Forces has lawyers who must sign off on the rule of engagement. Im proud we have courts martial that are willing to try soldiers who break international law. It’s what separates us from the jungle. Im not pleased that those rules are often broken. But at least we have them. And fortunately, not even the Bushies are eager as you folks seem to be to suspend civil rights. Thank God you hold no state power.
November 18th, 2004 at 8:22 pm
“Thank God you hold no state power.”
–You don’t know that, Marc.
But I’m not really ‘eager’ to suspend civil rights, despite what you might think. I did once take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I haven’t given up on that.
I’ve actually read the thing. Have you?
November 18th, 2004 at 8:59 pm
Yes.. many times. I have also written about it. And I have taught classes based on it. I am glad to hear of your support for civil liberties.
I have also taken the same oath of you. Every morning in school for 13 years with my hand over my heart albeit not in uniform.
November 18th, 2004 at 11:18 pm
I’m for torture in very limited circumstances. I’m against it in general. So don’t give me this “you’re either for it or against it.” If you are against it when torture of an evil person will save 1,000,000 lives, you are sick.
As for suspending civil rights and your irrelevant time with the dictators, you apparently believe that civil rights exist where I think they do not. I believe all citizens have full protection of the constitution. So what civil rights that actually exist am I in favor of removing, and from whom? And how does it have anything to do with a dictatorship (I have spent irrelevant time in one dictatorship)?
I do not think we should run around breaking international law. That’s why we have ROE’s. However, in the case of ununiformed combatants, they can be killed. That IS the law. In World War II, that’s what we did to the German commandos who dressed up in US uniforms during the battle of the bulge: we shot them outright.
So don’t try to paint this as a difference between people with no care for international law, and Saint Marc who does care.
I’m also aware that the last opponent we fought who cared about international law was the Nazis. The Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, North Vietnamese and VC, Iraqis and Afghanis didn’t.
To me, that says some of the rules of war may need to be modified or extended to deal with the common case where the enemy, as a matter of policy, violates them. I believe that currently, in that case, the enemy loses all protection of international law. Likewise, appropriate rules need to exist for asymmetrical warfare.
In Vietnam, the enemy had no interest in fighting by the laws of war. They used atrocities (against other Vietnamese) as a matter of policy, and in large numbers. They had no interest in justice for prisoners. What is the appropriate response for that?
The general idea of the rules of warfare is appropriate for World War I – two civilized European powers who fight under the rules. Extending that to Iraq becomes a rather strange exercise. I believe that enemies that violate the rules of war on purpose should pay for it. Otherwise these rules are an exercise of the good guys only. Some of the rules are just humanity, and we should be humane even with a vicious, rule-breaking death-cult enemy. Likewise, some are to protect civilians caught up in the war. Obviously we want to protect them. But the rules for protecting enemy combatants… since they are all in violation, we are bound by no rules on the battlefield, and only bound a little bit if they are prisoners.
By the way, we rarely break the rules of war, contrary to what some propagandists say. That was the big gripe Vietnam Veterans had with John Kerry – his implication that we broke those rules as a matter of course. I know of two cases and one suspected case in Iraq, so far.
November 19th, 2004 at 5:44 am
“I have also taken the same oath of you. Every morning in school for 13 years with my hand over my heart albeit not in uniform.”
There’s a generation gap I see, my generation wasn’t required to make loyalty oaths in the morning. Now they’re back in fashion…
November 19th, 2004 at 10:19 am
” I know of two cases and one suspected case in Iraq, so far.”
Pleading ignorant doesn’t cut it.
July 23rd, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Ein Schloss, Ein poker Wurst, Ein Kopf !xvb
July 31st, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks
August 9th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
nextcard visa credit card nextcard visa credit card
October 10th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
[URL]http://www.musica-latina.anticoit.org[/URL]
November 4th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Buon luogo, congratulazioni, il mio amico!
April 12th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Ich besichtige deinen Aufstellungsort wieder bald fur sicheres!
September 15th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Albert Gonzales has pleaded guilty. No surprise there. Will be interseting to see what happens on 8th December.