Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on May 26, 2009, 11:41:06 AM
-
The unintended consequence of making the incarceration and interrogation of terrorists un-doable (legally, politically, whatever) is that more of them will be killed rather than captured & incarcerated.
For those who would have been captured by US personnel, the inability to incarcerate and interrogate them makes them less a valuable intel resource and more a liability. Incentives work, even in a .mil organization.
And those poor goat herders captured by local police or military personnel? We can expect fewer to be turned over to the USA and more to end up dead, too.
But, the more important goal will be served: continued moral preening by those opposed to treating outlaws as outside the law.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05262009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/instant_justice_171002.htm?page=0
WE made one great mistake regarding Guantanamo: No terrorist should have made it that far. All but a handful of those grotesquely romanticized prisoners should have been killed on the battlefield.
The few kept alive for their intelligence value should have been interrogated secretly, then executed.
Terrorists don't have legal rights or human rights. By committing or abetting acts of terror against the innocent, they place themselves outside of humanity's borders. They must be hunted as man-killing animals.
And, as a side benefit, dead terrorists don't pose legal quandaries.
Captured terrorists, on the other hand, are always a liability. Last week, President Obama revealed his utter failure to comprehend these butchers when he characterized Guantanamo as a terrorist recruiting tool.
Gitmo wasn't any such thing. Not the real Gitmo. The Guantanamo Obama believes in is a fiction of the global media. With rare, brief exceptions, Gitmo inmates have been treated far better than US citizens in our federal prisons.
But the reality of Gitmo was irrelevant -- the left needed us to be evil, to "reveal" ourselves as the moral equivalent of the terrorists. So they made up their Gitmo myths.
Now we're stuck with sub-human creatures who should be decomposing in unmarked graves in a distant desert. Before reality smacked him between the eyes, Obama made blithe campaign promises and quick-draw presidential pronouncements he's now unable to fulfill.
Everything's easier when you're campaigning and criticizing, but the Oval Office view is a different matter. And suddenly your old allies, who rhapsodized about the evils of Gitmo, no longer have your back.
Odious senators, such as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, damned Gitmo to hell. But they don't want to damn the prisoners to Massachusetts (given that few al Qaeda members can swim, Cape Cod seems a splendid place for a prison). Don't the icons of ethics want to solve the problem?
Or should we send the Gitmo Gang to California's Eighth Congressional District, where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's constituents could guarantee an end to waterboarding? The good voters of San Francisco could put up their new guests in a grand Nob Hill hotel and stage teach-ins to explain why America's so nasty.
Another option -- which would save taxpayers millions -- would be to encourage a coalition of MoveOn.org, Code Pink and ACORN to sponsor an "Adopt a Terrorist" program.
The only requirement would be that the terrorist has to live full-time with the sponsor's family so he'd always get plenty of hugs.
On a serious note, it's not just voter NIMBY-ism that makes this problem so difficult. The practical catches came home to me when last I visited Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.
The grounds of a massive federal penitentiary adjoin that venerable Army post. One Washington-isn't-thinking proposal would park the terrorists right there in the Big House. But here's the catch: Ft. Leavenworth's home to the Army's Command and General Staff College, attended each year by hundreds of elite foreign officers.
At CGSC, our officers build international relationships that benefit our country for decades to come, while allies and partners learn how to work together. But with Islamist terrorists confined next door -- hardly a mile as the crow flies from the Staff College -- Muslim countries would withdraw their students from the program under pressure from Islamist factions at home -- who'd claim that Ft. Leavenworth was the new Gitmo.
Do we really want to sacrifice our chance to educate officers from the troubled Muslim world? Do we want to destroy an educational program that's been of tremendous benefit? One that's advanced the rule of law and human rights?
Other proposed prison locations have their own challenges (although Cape Cod still looks pretty good to me). Meanwhile, our foreign "friends" who shuddered at the imaginary horrors of Gitmo are unwilling to share the burden.
Which brings us back to this column's opening credo: Terrorists are anathema to civilization and the human race. By their own choice, they've set themselves beyond the human collective. Better to eliminate them where you find them than to let them live to become a lunatic cause.
Telling them that we'll just lock them up and treat them really nice is a better terrorist recruiting tool than Gitmo ever was. Why not become a terrorist, if the punishment's three hots and a cot, along with better medical care than you've ever had in your life?
Plus, you get your own fan club.
Those who worry about the rights of terrorists ensure that these beasts will continue to slaughter the innocent. In your back yard.
-
Land wars in Asia include all manner of unforeseen consequences.
-
Land wars in Asia include all manner of unforeseen consequences.
You fool! You fell victim to one of the clathic blunderth! The motht famouth is never get involved in a land war in Asia but only thlightly leth well-known is thisth: never go in against a Thithilian when death ith on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
At least we didn't go against the Sicilians.
-
Terrorists don't have legal rights or human rights. By committing or abetting acts of terror against the innocent, they place themselves outside of humanity's borders. They must be hunted as man-killing animals.
That was enough for me to quit reading. ;/
-
That was enough for me to quit reading. ;/
I... agree with fistful. :O
-
Actually, there is legal precedence for that kind of language written into international seafaring law.
-
I can't decide which is more tiresome.
Is it the dim bulbs on the left, whining that to call someone a terrorist is dehumanizing?
Or is it those on my side, who seek to prove that point by declaring terrorists to be sub-human?
To both sides, I respond that I'm unaware of any non-human terrorists.
-
To both sides, I respond that I'm unaware of any non-human terrorists.
I can think of a few cats that would fit the bill.
-
I'm unaware of any non-human terrorists.
then you aren't looking close enough
-
Actually, there is legal precedence for that kind of language written into international seafaring law.
yep.
In fact, the current so called "international law" on dealing with terrorists gives them few legal protections.
-
Land wars in Asia include all manner of unforeseen consequences.
True for all wars. Just more noticeable for those in Asia, which places a premium on large numbers of infantry to secure it.
Actually, there is legal precedence for that kind of language written into international seafaring law.
Yes, the nation-states wrote law to deal with piracy specifically made them "outlaws," as in "outside the law."
Also, reflected in the laws of war previous to the 20th century, where those who violated it were liable to be shot out of hand.
Or is it those on my side, who seek to prove that point by declaring terrorists to be sub-human?
I wonder about the "sub-human" bit in relation to human evil-doers, too.
Those who make that argument must have a rosier conception of human nature than I, one that precludes humans from committing such heinous acts.
Me? I have no problem believing that humans can do such things to one another. I also think we need to show them that the rest of us take our civilization seriously and will do what is necessary to see that our civilization survives while their barbarism is defeated*.
"You cannot be objective about an aerial torpedo. And the horror we feel of these things has led to this conclusion: if someone drops a bomb on your mother, go and drop two bombs on his mother. The only apparent alternatives are to smash dwelling houses to powder, blow out human entrails and burn holes in children with thermite, or to be enslaved by people who are more ready to do these things than you are yourself; as yet no one has suggested a practicable way out."
----George Orwell, reviewing Arthur Koestler's Spanish Testament for the magazine Time and Tide, Feb. 5, 1938
* For a time. Barbarism will always come back when folks have forgotten the lessons of history. Kinda like bell-bottom pants and polyester & rayon clothing in the fashion world.
-
I can think of a few cats that would fit the bill.
I can think that ALL cats fit that bill....
-
I do think that the end result will be fewer prisoners taken in the field.
However, I think accused terrorist do have rights. Convicted terrorists should be executed. Our militia were not regular military during the Revolutionary War and England did in fact view them as terrorists using unacceptable tactics. The rule of law should apply, but who's law? Muslim law? US law? Military law? Maritime law? International law?
-
"You cannot be objective about an aerial torpedo. And the horror we feel of these things has led to this conclusion: if someone drops a bomb on your mother, go and drop two bombs on his mother. The only apparent alternatives are to smash dwelling houses to powder, blow out human entrails and burn holes in children with thermite, or to be enslaved by people who are more ready to do these things than you are yourself; as yet no one has suggested a practicable way out."
----George Orwell, reviewing Arthur Koestler's Spanish Testament for the magazine Time and Tide, Feb. 5, 1938
Also:
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'
Brutality for the sake of ending war swiftly is an old concept. I would argue it's how we defeated the Japanese and Germans in WWII. And why we are having a hard time gaining ground in the GWoT.
-
America has arguably won IRaq. America is going to win Afghanistan. Bin Ladin is in hiding, possibly dead. Bombing, killing, and setting the terrorists on fire has worked.
However, this works well when these people are based in Afghanistan and have coherent paramilitary infrastructure. You cannot do the same thing with terrorist cells in England or NY.
-
do not underestimate our ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and it won't be soldiers that lose it for us
-
So the "vibe" I feel is that some people want to be able to declare "terrorists" as inhuman and no longer holding any civil rights or protection under the law.
U.S. Citizens can be declared enemy combatants thanks in part to the PATRIOT Act and as a result inhuman and no longer holding any civil rights or protection under the law.
The current administration is hostile towards the 2nd Amendment and possibly people who exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. And some of us still want to give the government carte blanche over who is protected by our Bill of Rights and Constitution? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
How many high value detainee's have we held and interrogated at Gitmo? None to my knowledge.
Do you guys even know who's doing these enhanced interrogations? Its not the Army, FBI, CIA, or NSA. Its civilian contractors out of companies like Triple Canopy, and Dynacorp. We arn't even using personnel that is directly accountable to the U.S. Mil or the U.S. Gov. Doubtful they could even be prosecuted if Obama himself ordered it. The CIA and Army guys that where in the room with the civilians interrogators could be and probably would be prosecuted before any civilian interrogators.
Its strange to me when we use people not directly accountable to our Gov, or the Mil for some of our most sensitive national security operations. Strange to anyone else?
-
So the "vibe" I feel is that some people want to be able to declare "terrorists" as inhuman and no longer holding any civil rights or protection under the law.
U.S. Citizens can be declared enemy combatants thanks in part to the PATRIOT Act and as a result inhuman and no longer holding any civil rights or protection under the law.
Can you point out the chapter and verse in which the PATRIOT Act declares people to be inhuman? Or are you just making stuff up?
-
So the "vibe" I feel is that some people want to be able to declare "terrorists" as inhuman and no longer holding any civil rights or protection under the law.
U.S. Citizens can be declared enemy combatants thanks in part to the PATRIOT Act and as a result inhuman and no longer holding any civil rights or protection under the law.
The current administration is hostile towards the 2nd Amendment and possibly people who exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. And some of us still want to give the government carte blanche over who is protected by our Bill of Rights and Constitution? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
Most of us here are not exactly well-wishers of the Patriot Act, either.
There's a distinct difference between a bomb-happy islamofascist enclave in the middle east and a US civilian marksman with a loud pen (or typing fingers).
-
Do I detect a hint of hypocrisy among some of the posters in this thread.
Many here have espoused the theory of SSS (maybe not those expressing dismay at the article's proposals though). That's essentially what the author of the article posted by the OP is proposing.
SSS - good enough for individuals but not the government trying to protect us? :|
-
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I do not have a problem with them shooting, shoveling, torturing, maiming the people the US captures on the field of battle in A-stan.
I do however had a problem with people who think the same rules should apply with terrorist suspects arrested in the saner parts of the world where the evidence that they're terorrist is often slim.
-
As a soldier who's deploying to Afghanistan in a while, but not too long of a while, I can say this. My actions are going to be dictated in a large part by what will keep myself and fellow soldiers safe. If it's keeping terrorists alive for intel that is used to save American lives, ok then. But if you remove the intel factor, then applying pressure to my trigger becomes the best way to save the lives of Americans. Simply put, if they're not useful alive, then they get the alternative.
-
As a soldier who never went to the sandbox, I'm fully in support of you and your trigger finger.
I just don't know why the above writer had to go so far as saying that terrorists are sub-human animals without rights. Shooting folks, waterboarding 'em and such don't mean they aren't human and don't have rights. They might have forfeited their rights, of course, but that's up to them. =)
-
fistful:
I suspect a lack of imagination or maybe just rhetorical flourish.
I am perfectly fine with terms that I think more accurate:
barbarian: descriptive of the perpetrator
outlaw: status we confer upon the perpetrator that deprives them of the benefit of civil law
No need to make absurd claims that fly in the face of reality.
Ragnar:
God bless you and your trigger finger. Do strive to keep it and the rest of yourself in good working order, OK?
-
America has arguably won IRaq. America is going to win Afghanistan. Bin Ladin is in hiding, possibly dead. Bombing, killing, and setting the terrorists on fire has worked.
However, this works well when these people are based in Afghanistan and have coherent paramilitary infrastructure. You cannot do the same thing with terrorist cells in England or NY.
do not underestimate our ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and it won't be soldiers that lose it for us
What csd wrote.
Also, what does a victory in A-stan look like? I suspect is has little to do with actual Afghans and a lot to do with killing all or most of the AQ & Taliban in A-stan & Pakistan, calling that "good enough," and then un-assing the AO.
-
The few kept alive for their intelligence value should have been interrogated secretly, then executed.
The only line worth reading in that whole article.
-
Also, what does a victory in A-stan look like? I suspect is has little to do with actual Afghans and a lot to do with killing all or most of the AQ & Taliban in A-stan & Pakistan, calling that "good enough," and then un-assing the AO.
Good enough for me.
-
WE made one great mistake regarding The Maze: No terrorist should have made it that far. All but a handful of those grotesquely romanticized prisoners should have been killed on the streets of Northern Ireland.
The few kept alive for their intelligence value should have been interrogated secretly, then executed.
-
Let's see, I think the author forgot about that one legal quandry that is the most likely to result in being punished by death: murder.
That's what it's called when you shoot captives or otherwise disarmed people, even in a war.
I see this myth that non-uniformed combatants, terrorists, pirates, etc., may be shot on sight. In no English legal tradition has that ever been legal. I defy anyone who espouses this view to provide even a single example of such a practice being accepted at law.
Piracy law was much the same as the law of irregulars and non-uniforms: people who engage in it are subject to criminal punishment, whereas uniformed Navy and Army may not be punished, even where they engage in exactly the same conduct as the non-uniformed.
That has always been the general rule. So spies and terrorists, if caught, were tried by either court martial or in the civil courts and executed if they were convicted of the crime. People who did the same fighting in uniform were held in camps and released when the war was over.
Iain, it's nearly impossible to notice the effect that being Caucasian in appearance and english speaking has on the way the "international community" evaluates how terrorists should be treated. I've never heard of anyone in America calling for summary executions of the Irish-Americans, including congressmen, who gave money and aid to terrorism in Northern Ireland.
-
I didn't read the article, but should have.
The few kept alive for their intelligence value should have been interrogated secretly, then executed.
The writer is calling for US troops or intelligence agents to engage in illegal activity. This one's done.