Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Unisaw on April 28, 2009, 01:42:06 PM
-
Thomas Sowell's latest column demonstrates his clear thinking in these very strange times:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/04/28/survival_optional?page=1
Survival Optional
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
It used to be said that self-preservation is the first law of nature. But much of what has been happening in recent times in the United States, and in Western civilization in general, suggests that survival is taking a back seat to the shibboleths of political correctness.
We have already turned loose dozens of captured terrorists, who have resumed their terrorism. Why? Because they have been given "rights" that exist neither in our laws nor under international law.
These are not criminals in our society, entitled to the protection of the Constitution of the United States. They are not prisoners of war entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention.
There was a time when people who violated the rules of war were not entitled to turn around and claim the protection of those rules. German soldiers who put on U.S. military uniforms, in order to infiltrate American lines during the Battle of the Bulge, were simply lined up against a wall and shot.
Nobody even thought that this was a violation of the Geneva Convention. American authorities filmed the mass executions. Nobody dreamed up fictitious "rights" for these enemy combatants who had violated the rules of war. Nobody thought we had to prove that we were nicer than the Nazis by bending over backward.
Bending over backward is a very bad position from which to try to defend yourself. Nobody in those days confused bending over backward with "the rule of law," as Barack Obama did recently. Bending over backward is the antithesis of the rule of law. It is depriving the people of the protection of their laws, in order to pander to mushy notions among the elite.
Even under the Geneva Convention, enemy soldiers have no right to be turned loose before the war is over. Terrorists-- "militants" or "insurgents" for those of you who are squeamish-- have declared open-ended war against America. It is open-ended in time and open-ended in methods, including beheadings of innocent civilians.
President Obama can ban the phrase "war on terror" but he cannot ban the terrorists' war on us. That war continues, so there is no reason to turn terrorists loose before it ends. They chose to make it that kind of war. We don't need to risk American lives to prove that we are nicer than they are.
The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law is not some "brooding omnipresence in the sky." It is a set of explicit rules by which human beings structure their lives and their relationships with one another.
Those who choose to live outside those laws, whether terrorists or pirates, can be-- and have been-- shot on sight. Squeamishness is neither law nor morality. And moral exhibitionism is beneath contempt, when it sacrifices the safety of those who live within the law for the sake of self-satisfied preening, whether in editorial offices or in the White House.
As if it is not enough to turn cutthroats loose to cut throats again, we are now contemplating legal action against Americans who wrung information about international terrorist operations out of captured terrorists.
Does nobody think ahead to what this will mean-- for many years to come-- if people trying protect this country from terrorists have to worry about being put behind bars themselves? Do we need to have American intelligence agencies tip-toeing through the tulips when they deal with terrorists?
In his visit to CIA headquarters, President Obama pledged his support to the people working there and said that there would be no prosecutions of CIA agents for prior actions. Then he welshed on that in a matter of hours by leaving the door open for such prosecutions, which the left has been clamoring for, both inside and outside of Congress.
Repercussions extend far beyond issues of the day. It is bad enough that we have a glib and sophomoric narcissist in the White House. What is worse is that whole nations that rely on the United States for their security see how easily our president welshes on his commitments. So do other nations, including those with murderous intentions toward us, our children and grandchildren.
-
Even under the Geneva Convention, enemy soldiers have no right to be turned loose before the war is over.
So, Mr. Sowell, when will the War on Terror be over? What are our objectives?
There have been terrorists since the beginning of time. The practice predates the word. Are you implying we should keep these people behind bars until there are no terrorists at all?
Those who choose to live outside those laws, whether terrorists or pirates, can be-- and have been-- shot on sight.
You would have been correct had everybody imprisoned at Guantanamo, and similar facilities, has been a terrorist or militant, captured on the field of battle. But when you have people carted in from airports in Saudi Arabia and street cafes in the United Kingdom because someone suspects they may be a terrorist, it stops being as clear and simple as you wish for it to be.
In a conventional war against an enemy, every enemy soldier anywhere can be legally shot and killed. That is why the Geneva Convention mantains that any 'legal combatant' must wear a uniform or at least some form of insignia - so that fighting sides know who the soldiers are and can at least avoid shooting and killing innocents. THe simple rule that we can kill enemy generals without trial even if they're not actively shooting at our own troops does not apply when you cannot easily tell who the enemy is.
-
So, Mr. Sowell, when will the War on Terror be over? What are our objectives?
There have been terrorists since the beginning of time. The practice predates the word. Are you implying we should keep these people behind bars until there are no terrorists at all?
Nah, hang them like one would hang a pirate back in the day.
There should be a price to pay for their actions.
I am not in real life, nor do I play Thomas Sowell on TV. Just thought I'd make that clear.
-
There was a time when people who violated the rules of war were not entitled to turn around and claim the protection of those rules. German soldiers who put on U.S. military uniforms, in order to infiltrate American lines during the Battle of the Bulge, were simply lined up against a wall and shot.
Wow, never heard that before.
Not very politically correct.
I doubt Americans would do that now.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=16464.0
-
So, Mr. Sowell, when will the War on Terror be over? What are our objectives?
There have been terrorists since the beginning of time. The practice predates the word. Are you implying we should keep these people behind bars until there are no terrorists at all?
Why not? They sure wouldn't be terrorizing anyone while behind bars now would they.
IMO they deserve little more than a bullet behind the ear when captured. Harsh for sure but no less harsh than the terrorists slowly chopping off heads with a knife while the victim is screaming and struggling.
Animals deserved to be treated as such.
On second thought most terrorists these days don't ever rise to the level of animal. Evil Monster is a more apropos description.
-
Wow, never heard that before.
Not very politically correct.
I doubt Americans would do that now.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=16464.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Greif
-
^ what Micro said
I have no problem with executing or imprisoning those who, by some process of law, are convicted of attempting to attack the US. But labeling someone a terrorist does not justify denying them any or all basic human rights.
-
Since when is a war zone any place for convictions and trials?
-
Since when is a war zone any place for convictions and trials?
And that would be meaningful if everybody who is imprisoned at Gitmo were a combatant, captured in a warzone shooting at US troops. If that were true, I'd be the first one to cheer on the firing squad.
HOWEVER, that is not not the case.
-
Since when is a war zone any place for convictions and trials?
Since now. We're no longer allowed to fight wars, we're only allowed to wrangle in court. Actually fighting a war isn't nice, and it definitely isn't politically correct.
"Moral exhibitionism" indeed. I'm going to have to remember that phrase.
-
Since now. We're no longer allowed to fight wars, we're only allowed to wrangle in court. Actually fighting a war isn't nice, and it definitely isn't politically correct.
"Moral exhibitionism" indeed. I'm going to have to remember that phrase.
I'd agree, for people in combat. I honestly don't know; are Micro's claims true? Because I'm opposed to snatching random people outside of combat.
-
Balog, Wiki hosts a list of known Guantanamo detainees. There's quite a few that were arrested in various countries where America is not fighting. Now, they may still be guilty as sin of various evil acts, but the principle of "we caught them on the battlefield" doesn't really apply if you're arrested at an airport in the UK.
-
IMO, it was likely a mistake to mix the two types of detainees.
-
Balog, Wiki hosts a list of known Guantanamo detainees. There's quite a few that were arrested in various countries where America is not fighting. Now, they may still be guilty as sin of various evil acts, but the principle of "we caught them on the battlefield" doesn't really apply if you're arrested at an airport in the UK.
If Gitmo is a secret prison, how does Wiki know who's there?
-
On the battlefield?
Where is the battlefield? Subways in Spain? Lower Manhattan? No-go zones in Sweden? The streets of St. Denis?
The battleground is a theater of the mind, of ideas, and the scope is global.
-
On the battlefield?
Where is the battlefield? Subways in Spain? Lower Manhattan? No-go zones in Sweden? The streets of St. Denis?
So you're telling me it's okay for the US government to seize people in Lower Manhattan, take them away and torture them? Really?
If Gitmo is a secret prison, how does Wiki know who's there?
The US Department of Defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_detainees
On March 3, 2006 the DoD partially complied with a court order to release the names of the remaining Guantánamo detainees.[4] The court order required the DoD to release the names of all the detainees. Initially, the DoD only released 317 names. On April 19, 2006, the DoD released a list with 558 names.
-
The War on Terror will be just like the War on Drugs. Without end.
We have always be at war with Eurasia.
-
The War has never been with "Terror," and everybody knows that. Terror is just a tool of an ideology that seeks the overthrow of our values.
-
558!
Wow.
I don't know why but whenever I pictured gitmo there were like 20 guys in there.
-
The fact that "the war on [fill in the blank]" is exploited for illicit and ignoble gain does not mean that there are no wars going on. There's been a war on Liberty for centuries, just as there's been, via the drug cartels, a war on Reason.
-
So you're telling me it's okay for the US government to seize people in Lower Manhattan, take them away and torture them?
I said nothing about torture.
I am referring to the obvious fact that the theater of war no longer has strict geographic boundaries. Wherever we see the same ideas provoking social chaos and disruption there is a war zone. How we decide to deal with it depends on many factors.
-
Wow, never heard that before.
Not very politically correct.
I doubt Americans would do that now.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=16464.0
Traditionally, if you aren't in uniform, you are toast. Nazi spies landing on US soil out of U-boats wore at least part of a uniform - just in case they got caught while paddling in. On the other hand, we executed a a German general in Italy for executing American sabatours who... weren't in uniform. Victor's justice, & all that....
-
I said nothing about torture.
I am referring to the obvious fact that the theater of war no longer has strict geographic boundaries. Wherever we see the same ideas provoking social chaos and disruption there is a war zone. How we decide to deal with it depends on many factors.
We need to have rules limiting the use of violence by the state. True, if our troops are shot at in a war zone, or if they're squashing a terrorist cell, they can just shoot these guys dead. But if you catch a guy with a Casio F91 watch in an airport in Dubai or London, you can't treat him the same way you treat a foreign soldier for the simple reason you can't be sure he is one.
-
I'm not advocating shooting on suspicion. And you know that.
-
I'm not advocating shooting on suspicion. And you know that.
Nowhere did I say you did that.
-
We need to have rules limiting the use of violence by the state.
OH YEAH! By all means let us limit the horrors of war and make it all nice nice.
Do that and it becomes more palatable. Losses become more acceptable. War as an option gets used more because it really isn't all that bad.
After all we've limited the use of violence haven't we?
I don't know who said it, some general probably; but he said something to the effect of:
It is good that war is so terrible lest we become too fond of it...
Who ever said it was one smart cookie. He got it.
-
Do that and it becomes more palatable. Losses become more acceptable. War as an option gets used more because it really isn't all that bad.
Which countries are more likely to start war and to throw hundreds of thousands of people into the meat grinder? Western countries, with their detailed rules of engagement, guided missiles and self-destructing mines? Or places like Iran and Syria?
-
Which countries are more likely to start war and to throw hundreds of thousands of people into the meat grinder? Western countries, with their detailed rules of engagement, guided missiles and self-destructing mines? Or places like Iran and Syria?
Countries ruled by old men who never served and never fired a shot at an enemy or were shot at by an enemy.
Countries ruled by politicians looking for votes they'll get by fighting a popular war.
Make war cheap and less violent and it becomes a viable political option.
Make the consequences of war so horrible as to be unthinkable and countries will figure out other ways to resolve their problems. A good example of that is the USA and USSR never directly fought each other and the one time they confronted each other they both came to their senses in time to avoid armageddon. The Japanese found the thought of a single bomb destroying whole cities so terrible that their plan to fight to the last man, woman and child was scrapped. The Confederate States of America capitulated to the Union not in small part because of Sherman's march to the sea and the resulting devastation inflicted on a nation whose very soul was the definition of honor and honorably fought war.
Note that the US has not been attacked by Islamic Terrorists since the US retaliation after 911. Whole nations going down and regimes removed - too terrible for them to consider conducting another attack (which IMO they had the will, money and means to carry out otherwise).
War should be horrible or it becomes palatable. Instead of being the last option it becomes option 3 or 4 or maybe even option 1 or 2 if it becomes civilized .
-
Note that the US has not been attacked by Islamic Terrorists since the US retaliation after 911. Whole nations going down and regimes removed - too terrible for them to consider conducting another attack (which IMO they had the will, money and means to carry out otherwise).
And yet the US did this without carpet-bombing cities, without taking ten men hostage for every US soldier killed and executing them, without decimation and drawing-and-quartering and chemical weapons. American soldiers did not burst into Iraqi nursing homes and execute the staff. These things did not happen.
Israel crushed her enemies in 1967 without going into Damascus and leveling the city. Israeli pilots are taught to refuse orders to level cities or blow up hospitals. Despite all of those inane rumors about us trying to kill off the Palestinians en masse, we do not in fact do that.
We can defeat the enemies of the West without resorting to these methods.
-
Countries ruled by old men who never served and never fired a shot at an enemy or were shot at by an enemy.
Countries ruled by politicians looking for votes they'll get by fighting a popular war.
Make war cheap and less violent and it becomes a viable political option.
Make the consequences of war so horrible as to be unthinkable and countries will figure out other ways to resolve their problems.
WWI and II were considered "unthinkable" by many, yet they still happened. I'll take my chances with several small wars over one unthinkable one.
"Total war" is a relatively recent innovation made necessary by democracy. For most of Western Civilization's history, war was limited in scope and conducted by professional soldiers. The world seems to be moving back in that direction.
-
Limited in scope and conducted by professional soldiers?
That seems to ignore the ravages of "collateral damage." It certainly ignores what happened to many women and children in the wake of battle, and not long ago, quite recently as well.
War, when serious, is about destroying the DNA of your enemy. We can pretend otherwise, of course.
-
Combined coalition casualties in IRaq for the entire duration of the conflict are 4700 troops. Iraqi civilian, security forces, and civilian casualties combined are estimated at slightly under 100,000 people (including people killed in ordinary street violence). The most optimistic casualty count for WW2 is 50 million dead on both sides, combined. WWI adds 16 million deaths.
Note: The number of casualties in Iraq, for all participants, is less than 1% of the casualty count of WWI.
Yet people say war becoming limited is a bad thing!
-
All of this talk about how war becomes viable and more palatable as it becomes less violent reminds me of the Star Trek (Original Series) episode A Taste of Armageddon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon).
As sad as it is, I can't say I'd be surprised if, at some point down the road, some handwringing do-gooder proposed that, since terrorists were going to kill people anyway, why don't we just do it for them, so that it's not so gosh-darn violent, and if we do it for them, they'll stop doing it to us. Right? Right?
For such a cheesy and campy show, there are a few really prescient things in Star Trek. Less in the later series, of course.
War should be avoided whenever a true peaceful solution exists. What some people don't realise is that there are times when there is no peaceful solution. When there is not, and war becomes the only choice, it should be prosecuted with extreme force.
War limited in scope (as in, "the boundaries of the theatre are here and here") is a Good Thing.
War limited in scope (as in, "we will only use Nerf bullets so that no one gets killed because then people might think we are a bunch of Big Mean Meanyheads") is unconscionably stupid.
-BP
-
War limited in scope (as in, "we will only use Nerf bullets so that no one gets killed because then people might think we are a bunch of Big Mean Meanyheads") is unconscionably stupid.
So, bomb the entire city the enemy leader lives in, rather than drop a guided bomb on his palace? Kill women and children? Draw and quarter people with IFVs? That's how the Russian Army does it. Their official doctrine calls for artillery preparation strikes on residential neighborhoods and bombings before any invasion of a city occurs.
There are situations, no doubt, when total war is called for. But not all war calls for it.
-
So, bomb the entire city the enemy leader lives in, rather than drop a guided bomb on his palace? Kill women and children? Draw and quarter people with IFVs?
If you'll go back and read my post, you'll note that I said that it was good to circumscribe the scope of war by limiting the theatre.
So no, bombing an entire city rather than guided-bombing his palace would be stupid.
However, that said, it is the terrorists (er, Insurgents...er...Indigenous Peoples Who Are Rightfully Angry Because They Have Been Downtrodden By Corporate America) who have made this a conflict that is impossible to prosecute in a conventional way. They do not wear uniforms. A sniper on a rooftop is just a peaceful citizen by the time he stashes his rifle and gets down the stairs.
A defense-only strategy cannot hold forever against a determined adversary. So in order to effectively defend ourselves, we must attack. But our resolve weakens when innocents are killed and innocents are killed because our adversaries know that we cannot tell the difference between a non-uniformed combatant and a bystander. And they know that our resolve weakens when this happens, and that is why they do it.
They hide among their own innocent people, knowing that those innocents will be killed, because that is their strategy.
So what shall we do? Do nothing about a car careening toward a Marine base, because it might just be high-spirited youths out for a joyride through Beirut, ha ha, good times? Or use force in our own defense, knowing that it may lead to innocent casualties, and regretting that fact, put pressing on because in the end, more lives will be saved than if we do nothing?
-BP
-
I have never stated that the US should not kill the terrorists. It should kill as many terrorists as it can. More dead terrorists is better.
However, that said, certain tactics that are needlessly cruel or carry out an unnecessary risk to civilians - like firebombing cities etc. etc. - should be avoided where possible.
In my view, the United States Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy are doing an outstanding job out there. I do not think there is a need to shift to some form of 1940's ROE, nor that there is a need to issue Nerf guns. IT is true - like many real veterans will surely comment here - that in some ways modern ROE is too respective. But in general, and my opinion is worth as much as you paid for it, I think the US Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy are doing an excellent job in Iraq.
Why is it that saying The United States of America is doing a great job such a great horrible thing to say?
-
So, bomb the entire city the enemy leader lives in, rather than drop a guided bomb on his palace? Kill women and children? Draw and quarter people with IFVs? That's how the Russian Army does it. Their official doctrine calls for artillery preparation strikes on residential neighborhoods and bombings before any invasion of a city occurs.
There are situations, no doubt, when total war is called for. But not all war calls for it.
If you don't kill the ideas that pose a mortal threat, you have won nothing.
That is something we are learning, slowly and painfully.
-
So, bomb the entire city the enemy leader lives in, rather than drop a guided bomb on his palace? Kill women and children? Draw and quarter people with IFVs? That's how the Russian Army does it. Their official doctrine calls for artillery preparation strikes on residential neighborhoods and bombings before any invasion of a city occurs.
There are situations, no doubt, when total war is called for. But not all war calls for it.
Part of the problem with overly-restrictive ROEs and smart munitions is that the folks' whose army you just slaughtered many times don't feel defeated due to the much more limited incidental damage. It is one thing to defeat an enemy on the field of battle and destroy his war materiel. It is an entirely other thing to break the will of the population to support continued irregular operations after being defeated in the conventional manner.
Sort of the difference between Union Armies licking Rebel Armies on the periphery of the South while killing Rebel soldiers by the thousands and Sherman going through Georgia, SC, NC, and VA like a buzzsaw. He killed very few Rebel soldiers (and even fewer Rebel civilians), but destroyed the foundation of their civilization. The horrific casualty lists were not nearly as effective in breaking the will to fight as having Union soldiers free slaves and destroy infrastructure.
I'm not saying we ought to turn entire cities into rubble with the inhabitants still in them, but no small amount of damage ought to be done to give them an idea that we are willing to do so if necessary.
-
The Brits in Malaysia had a pretty good way of dealing with this sort of thing. I guess the 50's are too long ago to remember, eh?
-
Balog, Wiki hosts a list of known Guantanamo detainees. There's quite a few that were arrested in various countries where America is not fighting. Now, they may still be guilty as sin of various evil acts, but the principle of "we caught them on the battlefield" doesn't really apply if you're arrested at an airport in the UK.
Wiki is a collection of opinions. You can add input to Wiki. Therefore, it may not be true.
I find it hard to believe that an innocent muslim was just walking down the street, when he was snatched up and found himself in Gitmo.
Sounds like a creation of the weepy left. "We must turn them free, and let them live in the US."
-
I believe it's true that not all of the people at Gitmo were battlefield captures. I've seen other (non wikipedia) sources say the same thing that Wiki says on this, namely that some of the Gitmo residents were picked up far away from the combat zones in Iraq of Afghanistan.
I'm not sure why it matters either way. "Caught them on the battlefield" isn't (and ought not be) the sole criteria for determining residency in Gitmo.
-
Nazi spies were'ntt "caught on the battlefield", either. Still danced a jig at the end of a rope, and rightly so...
-
Nazi spies were'ntt "caught on the battlefield", either. Still danced a jig at the end of a rope, and rightly so...
Yes, and fair trials were normally involved.
IT is generally the defenders of Gitmo that bring up the fact many inmates were caught on the battlefield as a justification of the fact they get tortured, don't get proper legal defense, etc. And it's true as far is goes that if you're caught at a battlefield shooting at Alled forces there's no need for a trial to prove your terrorist identity.
But if you're caught at an airport in the UK, then maybe some form of evidentiary standard is in order.