At Human Events this morning, I discuss the rights that jihadists now appear to have guaranteed:
Congress -- with its endless squabbling with the Bush Administration over FISA, the equally endless torture law debates, and the relentless handwringing over Gitmo -- has made its position clear: Pelosi and Co. are concerned, deeply concerned, with terrorists’ civil liberties. As Jed Babbin put it last September in his article “The Terrorist Bill of Rights,” “The Democrats’ national security agenda seems designed, point by point, to destroy the means by which we have been protected since 9-11.”But try to see it from their point of view. After all, if we become like our enemy, all is lost! So with this longstanding solicitude of the Democrats and the Left in general for the jihadists confirmed yet again this week, it’s time to step back and codify the jihadists’ hard-won gains -- the fruit of the political correctness and misbegotten attempts to win hearts and minds that have guided current policy to an alarming degree. That’s right: it’s time for a Terrorist Bill of Rights.
So with the appeasers and the willfully self-deceived running the show, exactly what rights to the jihadists have?
1. If jihadists’ phone calls plotting terrorist attacks are monitored by telecom companies, jihadists can sue the telecom companies and tie them up for years in the courts. This was enabled by the House Democrats’ allowing a surveillance act to expire last week. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey wrote this week to the House Intelligence Committee: “We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress’ failure to act. Because of this uncertainty, some partners have reduced cooperation.”2. When jihadists are interrogated, they have the right to have ACLU lawyers sit in on the questioning -- lawyers who will watch the proceedings zealously and let the interrogators know when they’re getting out of line and their clients have no obligation to answer their questions. The Pentagon allowed this in 2005 during interrogations of Taliban and Al-Qaeda prisoners, leading one military observer to remark: “It’s as if they [the detainees] were [merely] shoplifters in the U.S. The lawyers may have left by now, but the damage is done. We’re sending guys [attorneys] down to interrogate on [the] taxpayer’s dime for absolutely no reason now.”
3. Jihadists will have the right to feast on “Asian-accented stews of beef, chicken, and fish,” such that the average weight gain among prisoners at the alleged “torture camp” of Guantanamo will be thirteen pounds.
4. Jihadists in U.S. custody shall have the right to receive a free copy of the Qur’an – yet no effort will be made to disabuse them of the notion that it commands them to make war against and ultimately subjugate the very people who gave them the book.
5. Jihadists will not be subjected to the psychological torture and ritual impurity of having to see that Qur’an handled without gloves by unclean non-believing prison guards. (These two are long-standing policy at Gitmo.)
It is vital that the United States and the West stand for the dignity and the rights of every person against the jihadists who would deny those rights to women, religious minorities, and others, but this kind of solicitude goes far beyond any sane notion of human rights. The Democrats’ refusal to extend legal protection to the telecom companies seems to be motivated by pure partisanship -- by a desire to deny George W. Bush a legislative victory.
The interference of the ACLU in the interrogation of prisoners may likewise have stemmed from an anxiety to avoid even the appearance of human rights violations -- although a captured Al-Qaeda manual makes clear that jihadist prisoners must always claim to have been tortured, no matter what the politically correct kid-gloves-on-the-Qur’an realities of the situation. That manual has been known for years, making it puzzling -- to put it mildly -- that the possibility that those who have claimed to have been tortured while in U.S. custody might simply be lying doesn’t seem to get much consideration in the mainstream media or even from the establishment human rights advocacy organizations.
And meanwhile, lost in the shuffle of all this solicitude for the rights of our enemies is the right of the American people to be protected from jihadist attack. Where is the anxious solicitude of Pelosi and her merry band for that?
There are no words I know to adequately express the detestation I feel for Nancy Pelosi.
Herein lies the problem. A liberal democracy was never designed to cope with Islam and it's jihad. Islam was never designed to cope with a liberal democracy. The two are 180 degrees apart. Yet, we have allowed the two to mix, a volatile mix that will be perilous. The even bigger problem is our Pelosi's of the world don't see or understand the volatile mixture and those who do see and understand the problem are hand tied by the Pelosi's. A liberal democracy is simply not capable of coping or resolving anything with Islam, nor will the education and realization of western leaders and it's people occur fast enough to save itself, with current attitudes.
When a state favors terrorists over it's own citizens, that should be proof enough of what I just said.
Ever since 9-11 I.ve tried to to get into the head of some of our leftwing thinkers and I simply cannot figure these people out.
The one small consolation I have (if I can call it that) is when discussing this with some of them is that they really do not have a clue as to what is going on out there which amazes me when I find it hard to deny the evidence that is almost unavoidable.
It comes across as living in denial, or the threats are made up, or exaggerated.
I end up seeing it as a refusal to acknowledge the problem and that it will go away when Bush is no longer the President; then they go back to their latte, and the latest on Britney Spears.
And I'm not kidding!!
Before it was the rights of illegal aliens.
Now it is the rights of terrorists.
I wonder if those dingbats will ever be concerned about the rights of somebody harmless and legal. Nancy how bout them LEGAL aliens and TOURISTS? Not interested? What is next the rights of traitors and serial killers?
Trouble is Mr. Spencer,
The bill of rights applies to everyone, terrorists included. It is not contingent on our whethter the person is a law abiding member of society, a criminal, a parasite or even someone plotting our downfall. The Bill of Rights applies to everyone, there are no exemptions based on your fears or tastes.
Trouble is Mr. Spencer,
The bill of rights applies to everyone, terrorists included. It is not contingent on our whethter the person is a law abiding member of society, a criminal, a parasite or even someone plotting our downfall. The Bill of Rights applies to everyone, there are no exemptions based on your fears or tastes.
Dumbo (heh):
Just out of curiosity, can you please point out to me the section in the Bill of Rights where it says that we have to supply criminals with copies of the book that inspired them to commit their crimes?
And while you're at it, can you show me the part that covers criminals' right to legal intimidation efforts that tie up attempts to head off their criminal activity?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Just wondering if you saw the ABC show last night "What Would You Do?" about the moslem girl at a bakery being treated unfairly?
ABC is worried that moslems may be subject to discrimination. There were men all weepy about how the young woman was treated...one man hugged her! I wonder if the man understood how filthy he made her by his touch?
I wonder why they don't try the same experiment with a skin-head or American Nazi. I have always said, the head covering in America is a blatant "in your face" show of division, she might as well wear a Nazi armband.
Those who never bother to read the Koran are doomed to repeat it.
(With apologies to Santayana.)
Heh , LMAO
Mr Spencer,
You clearly have zero understanding of the current conditions at Guantanamo. 80% of prisoners are currently in solitary confinement. They are repeatedly subjected to sensory deprivation. Most of them at one point or another have been waterboarded--a delightfully Orwellian euphemism for drowning the prisoner, punching the water out of his lungs, then drowning him again. In 2006, a new facility was set up that has even worse conditions. I have not even mentioned the various CIA "black sites" across the Middle East. Prisoners who are shipped abroad to Ethiopia, Syria, or Jordan face some of the worst tortures known to man.
In total, over seven hundred people have been detained indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay. Of these, only one person has ever been convicted of a crime (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed). Only ten people have ever been charged. This means at least 690 people held on absolutely no evidence.
Yes, yes, I know, I'm ignoring the Jihadi threat, right? Do you also think Israel is ignoring the Jihadi threat? Palestinian Islamists fire dozens of rockets into Sderot every day, but Israeli authorities can torture detainees only in the most stringent circumstances, and with special permission from the supreme court. This was also the case during the Intifadah, when Israelis were routinely massacred by suicide bombers.
U.S.-sponsored torture is a disgrace. Mr. Spencer, for shame. Are we America, or are we Soviet Russia?
Uh Huh Shlomo, you have an inside source of information on prisoner treatment in Gitmo of course. And you can back up your statements of 80% solitary confinement by personal experience, I suspect. And of those 80%, how many of them 'need' solitary confinement because they are too dangerous without it. Your complaints about Gitmo are largely speculation, and not even of your own, but people like Nancy Pelosi, who knows every inch of it.
There are citizens of the US who are incarcerated in prisons and mental institutions who are treated far worse than those at Gitmo. I know of this from first hand, eye witness, experience. Nancy never sheds one tear, or even thinks about the atrocities against US mental patients, but she falls all over herself about those poor prisoners at Gitmo.
Two different leading psychiatrists have now diagnosed liberalism as a mental illness. This lack of balance and perspective is one of the symptoms, but not the only one...
Shlomo_Michael:
Please give us your address and we will let you put them all up at your place.
Don't forget the prayer rugs, and make sure they are facing in the right direction 5 times a day, don't forget the halal food,and don't forget to handle the Qu'ran correctly.
And also have the red cross visit them weekly, as well as the ACLU, a host of congressman, senators ,human rights org. and a never ending battery of attornies,
Good luck Mr.Slomo
BREAKING NEWS
ONE OF THE 20TH CENTURIES LEADING CONSERVATIVE WRITERS, COMMENTATOR WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR. DEAD AT 82
Schlomo; as a former homicide detective I can tell you from training and years and years of experience that when someone's suffered from a DROWNING, he or she is DEAD. There is no drowing "AGAIN" of any prisoners because you can't kill someone twice.
And, Dumbo; the Bill of Rights applies to citizens of this country, not to visitors or invaders or those who seek to overthrow it by any means, including violence, as these animals sought to do.
Both of you clowns need to tighten up your understanding of law and forensic pathology.
Typical of liberals to protect terrorists, given that most of them go out their to protect criminals as well.
I remember when the unrepentant mass murderer "Tookie" Williams was about to be executed by the state of California, the outcry by liberals online was deafening especially at the HuffingtonPost. The liberals made "Tookie" out to be some sort of saint. Even the Hollywood types came out for his defense and never once did his supporters bring up the victims of his drug induced murder frenzy, not once.
It seems with liberals they only respect thugs and murderers, not working class, law abiding Americans.
As for Gitmo, does anyone with a functional mind WANT to put Muslim terrorists in the general prison population, given how easy they could spread their toxic ideology and build a network of American associates?
Look we can't even put a stop to imprisoned gang leaders sending out hits from from SuperMax prisons. It would be foolish of us NOT TO keep them in a separate prison.
Its common sense, something liberals and left are quite bereft of though. Must be the $6 dollar lattes they live off of.
As for waterboarding, its only used in the most toughest cases, its not used as liberals like to insinuate that it is done on every Muslim thug at Gitmo.
BTW waterboarding is mild compared to the violence what many prisoners in our state run prisons face every day, yet I don't hear a peep from fake moralists like Shlomo and the liberal intelligensia about the daily violence that is part of prison life.
Do you know what happens to trannys in prison, or men who have any sort of feminine features, or those who commit certain crimes? no most liberals don't and don't want to know.
So liberals can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned. They do nothing but aid Muslim extremists by refusing to secure our borders and ports, by their refusal to screen people from terrorist states coming in here, by their refusal to expel fanatics that preach hate and death at many Mosques across the country, by vilifying Americans who bring up the threats posed by Muslim extremists in our country.
Oops, let me tidy up that clause: "or those who seek to overthrow it."
A US citizen who sought the over throw of the US government would be entitled to protection under the US Bill of Rights. Any dirtbag attempting such who is not a US citizen would not enjoy such protections.
Where were you two morons doing during civics class? Let me guess: sitting on the stairs with your guitar, strumming and singing to the girls, "I gave my love a chicken ..."
Shlomo:
Get back to work, sir. Those violins aren't going to play themselves you know.
Dumbo:
The Bill of Rights does indeed have its limitations. Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre, for example, is not proctected free speech. I suspect that what is being discussed here is actually an order of magnitude higher than that.
Yet another reason NOT to vote for (Mu) Barak Hussein Obama (Oh!Bomb us!) for anything INCLUDING dog-catcher. You KNOW he's going to run this one through the legislature for a pass with every media-brainwashed, Oprah-watching dimwit cheering him on like it's a football game!!
Gee, I didn't know I lived in the Middle East!
Quote from Duh_swami
"Uh Huh, you have an inside source of information on prisoner treatment in ---- of course. And you can back up your statements of 80% solitary confinement by personal experience, I suspect. And of those 80%, how many of them 'need' solitary confinement because they are too dangerous without it. Your complaints about ---- are largely speculation, and not even of your own, but people like ----- ----, who knows every inch of it.
There are citizens of the ---- who are incarcerated in prisons and mental institutions who are treated far worse than those at ----. I know of this from first hand, eye witness, experience. ---- never sheds one tear, or even thinks about the atrocities against --- mental patients, but she falls all over herself about those poor prisoners at ----.
Two different leading psychiatrists have now diagnosed liberalism as a mental illness. This lack of balance and perspective is one of the symptoms, but not the only one..."
Put in "Guantanamo" and "Pelosi" and the above statement refers to the United States in 2008. Put in "Siberia" and "Sakharin", and this statement refers to Soviet Russia in 1978. Duh_swami, I think the Kremlin is calling. You are hardly a friend of freedom.
Undaunted,
The U.S. invented and greatly expanded a phantom legal catagory, "enemy combatants", so it could indefinitely detain and torture detainees on "legal" grounds. Basically, these people-including American citizens--are now held indefinitely at the pleasure of the president's arbitrary authority. Similar arbitrary authority prompted a group of patriots to declare independence in 1776. You need to tighten your understanding of the mission of this country.
waitc,
All those prison abuses are indeed troubling. Liberals have protested these, too far more than conservatives. But however bad prison treatment is, Americans prisoners know what they did, how long they will be there, and that they will have a day in court. Guantanamo detainees do not.
You have also betrayed your ignorance of "solitary confinement", another delightfully Orwellian term. It does not mean what the words say. It means really cramped quarters and sensory deprivation, for months at a time.
Thank goodness you were blessed to live in a democracy, and not in a dictatorship. You'de believe everything you were told, and wouldn't last ten minutes before giving up your freedoms for trinkets.
Again, I repeat, none of this was done in Israel during the heat of the Intifadah. The IDF would have tortured if it thought this would save lives, and rightfully so. It ultimately decided against it--and rightfully so, because torture is useless except in revealing the small-minded boorishness of its advocates.
By the way, John McCain would also agree with all that I just wrote. I disagree with him on many issues, but he is a true patriot who understands the meaning and costs of freedom. Apparently, not everyone here does.
Shlomo,
You're twisting facts, legal and historical, in order to justify your silliness.
If you truly understood anything about the enemy combatant policy, other than that is hurts your feelings, then you'd know the proper legal channels through which this policy and every other "arbitrary authority" had to pass in order to become part of the legal framework of this country.
Your "Bush Derangement Syndrom" sypmtoms are manifest in just about every word you've written here. You're angry ~ like every other liberal, because this good but imperfect President won't give you what you want when you want it.
Like spoiled children, you all rant and kick and scream and pound and pronounce stupidity that has no basis in fact, all the while demanding that those of us who can think fairly and critically must surrender to your intellectual dishonesty and laziness.
No.
With apologies for my spelling and grammar this morning. I'm so ashamed.
Sorry undaunted et al,
the bill of rights applies to everyone, period. I don't support giving into jihadists demands about the sanctity of their crummy book. But the bill of rights applies to everyone, no exceptions. Oherwise you might have serf, slave, d'himmi classes with limited or no rihgts. It is an inherent right to all people here with no restrictions. Even illegal aliens have some rights, mainly to due process. It's just that we made the hurdles to complex for INS due to political pressure. "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" may or may not be a first amendment issue or right, but I would have a right to due process if I was ever brought to trial over that.
Undaunted,
You arguments seem to be just labeling people liberal and parroting back cliches and buzzwords you gleaned from right wing blogs and talk radio. I guess for limited people that is so much easier than actually discussing the issue and applying reason.
Here is my definition of Bush Derangement Syndrome:
1. A syndrome that affects stupid reactionaries who can't accept the fact that they and/or their little god proxy Bush may be wrong, due to their limited intelligence and lack of self knowledge. They simply project their stupidity, insanity and fanaticism on anyone who they disagree with instead of reasoning with the facts at hand.
2. A label they picked up from other right wingers to avoid any meaningful arguments. It has no validity, just simply a way to shut someone down like calling someone a racist, Nazi, Commie or crazy.
If you were a homicide inspector, you certainly don't resemble any old archetype of an intelligent, observant detective ala Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot.
Shlomo,
If what you say here is true:
"torture is useless except in revealing the small-minded boorishness of its advocates."
then how can what you say here ALSO be true:
"The IDF would have tortured if it thought this would save lives, and rightfully so."
If torture is indeed "useless" under all circumstances, how can you say the IDF would be morally right to have tortured if they thought it would save lives? Wouldn't it still be wrong no matter what they believed?
If the IDF would have been right to torture if they thought it would save lives, how does it logically follow that "US-sponsored torture," regardless of where it takes place, is NOT right, if they think it will save lives?
profitsbeard,
May I modestly suggest:
Those who never bother to read the Koran are doomed to live under it (?)
I would like to respond to Spencer's original post, though it is clear that I come down on the Dumbo/Sholmo side of the prior postings. We can all agree that the US constitution is not a suicide pact, that is, we should not follow the letter of the law if it leads surely to our own demise. Having conceded that point, and not trying to minimize the very real threat that the jihadis and their ilk pose to the West, I would state that threat caused by the individuals we have caught does not rise to the level that requires wholesale suspension of our rights. I think Spencer is wrong on the wiretaps. There existed a program that was by all accounts streamlined and efficient in giving the government the right to wiretap anyone they saw as a security threat (it even allowed the government to start the wiretap immediately and get permission later!), it seemed to be a reasonable tradeoff between our constitutional rights and the need for security. The key emphasis is our constitutional rights. These rights go to each of us, and they must be cherished and defended. The problem with many of the posters is that they have concluded that the accused are already guilty. Our laws are designed to protect us when the jaws of government snaps us up; it is meant to give us the means to protect our freedom. Ditto with having a lawyer present. I am in agreement with Spencer's remaining points, I don’t why we need to provide our prisoners with special treatment. I believe the problem is that the treatment that they get is not special, but is rather standard in all prisons. I personally don’t see any reason why prisons should supply anyone with halal or kosher food, or prayer books, etc. If you want your comforts, then don’t break the law. But remember, the vast majority of the Gitmo crew has not been found guiltily of anything yet, so arguably they do deserve these things. Of course we all agree terrorists are scum and deserve a bullet and no sympathy, but again, who said they are terrorists? That is what a trail determines, and that is why we need those rights, to prevent you or me from being accused of something that we didn’t do, and be placed in permanent legal limbo
Of Schmucks there seems to be no end . . .
and hey, if the sandal fits, wear it . . . Schmuck!
Well, Dumbo; obviously people smarter than you think the Bill of Rights does not apply to those who are enemy combatants. And I, and millions of others, agree with them.
Now, if you can find me the legal cite supporting your opinion, I'll offer an apology.
And your subtle insult viz me being a homicide detective, (not an "inspector",) is wasted. I paid my dues in the real world, not in one made of fiction.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
Note: re The Bill of Rights
after you have been convicted of a crime and are placed on probabtion, you have no civil rights.
You are open to "unreasonable search and seizure" are deprived of 2nd Amendment guarantees, etc.
If you wage war against the United States--such as did the group of German saboteurs landed from a submarine and apprehended--you can be executed, as those Germans were (World War II).
The Schmucks* will be reciting the shahada, earnestly and without question, while many of us will be committing acts not specifically sanctioned by the Bill of Rights nor covered by criminal law.
-----------------
*if the sandal fits, wear it
@Shlomo & Dumbo
Your high moral ground is effectively tying the governments hands behind its back. Oh, and when I say government I am referring to my government not some nebula's other blame shifting Bush's government.
Frankly I think there are more effective ways of getting the information needed from the enemy. A number of drugs come to mind. Also if their usefulness as far as getting any information is done. They should be executed like any enemy should. That would quickly solve the overcrowding and deprivation problem.
But I also realize I am wasting my time pointing this our because you think the enemy is us. Or we are responsible for the attacks and murders and hate that Islam is doing. That's the same thing they are saying.
We are not a one world government yet and the rights I enjoy in this country are not and should not be arbitrarily given to those who would seek to over throw this country and that is what they wish to do.
You also have not answered the direct request to prove any statements you made about the poor enemy.
Amen.
@esquared
Ah, that's the center of it. Are they guilty. Unless I missed something they were caught in some military action outside of this county and that is why they are there. There is one (forgot his name) who was in the US after 9/11. He (unfortunately IMO) is getting what you would consider due process.
So if someone gets caught in a combat area with what appears to be the enemy. I will defer to the safety of our soldiers and this country and treat them as the enemy and not as (what's the word) alleged criminal.
I will amend my earlier post, they would be executed after the standard military trial is conducted as was done in WWII.
Shlomo_Michael
You know what you just said in you blind hatred? You said it is perfectly OK for these 'detainees' to continue their actions because they are the same as the patriots.
I SPIT AT THAT LOGIC. You should wash out mouth out and seek counciling or at least retake the civics class you flunk. You high moral ground is base and vile.
And you caused me to mis-type. "Wash out your mouth . . ."
Shlomo_Michael,
Why do you care about the rights of those who have plotted to kill or have killed Americans? Are you aware that many of those who have been released from Guantanamo have gone back to Afghanistan or Pakistan to rejoin the Taliban or Al Qaeda to plot more American deaths? Are you also aware that water boarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the only thing that resulted in countless revelations of more terror plots and arrests? Why do you bring up water boarding, etc. with Mr. Spencer when he has never advocated or condoned this here? You stupid pacifists are what is going to get us all killed. I suppose you're also supporting Barak Hussein Obama. Trust me, he won't be looking out for the protection of Israelis and will be backing the Pali's. His interests lie in taking from the rich to give to the poor here and in Africa, and aligning himself with the Arabs. If you look at his background and the people he socializes with, that's a no brainer.
Gitmo. A safe haven for the Suicidal. Why so much fuss for a mindset that was more than willing to die in the mere attempt to kill an American.
Willing to do so for no Nation State under nor Uniformed service. For Allah and Allah alone. From many Nations they do come to serve his will. Traveling to where ever the Opportunity presents itself.
Nobody cares about their failed attempts at taking a short cut to Paradise and found themselves in Gitmo instead. The Perfect Home for Allah"s Failures. If they think they are having a difficult time now, what does eternity have in store?
As for that Glove with the Koran business. I always thought it was to keep the Guards Hands Clean. Those Industrial Plummer types affording the best protection.
Yea; what Bonniea and flowerknife said.
I think that the confusion that leads to the disagreement about rights is in the nature of the conflict. During war, enemy soldiers that were captured were not put on trial nor given legal representation, they were incarcerated until the end of the war, in some cases some prisoners were allowed to work in the states, and were repatriated at wars end.
Terrorism is used by some middle eastern states as deniable proxies for their foreign policy, such as Irans relationship with Hellsbollox. In most instances terrorists are more akin to what spies and saboteurs are in "normal" wars.
I think that treating captured jihadis as run of the mill criminals is a misstake, the first wtc bombing in the evidentiary phases were able to tip terrorists as to methods that were used to trace and intercept them, though the prosecution succeeded in finding them guilty, it was a pyrrhic victory in that valuable tools were lost.
It is also a misstake to treat captured jihadis as one would treat uniformed members of an opposing army in a war, there is no real state to repatriate them to, they are ostensibly not acting on any states authority.
I think that the best way to treat these fellows is to use military tribunals that are charged to get at the truth, not the adversarial gamesmanship that has infected our legal system. I have confidence that there would be less chance of compromising future operations, that a tribunal would be able to give real justice to those that deserve it.
The penalty for those who are acting in the role of spies or saboteurs should be the traditional penalty for those.
One more thing, the culture that breeds those men often makes their funerals pep rallies and recruitment drives, those found guilty and executed should have their remains discreetly disposed of.
All those who are citizens and have joined the al-kidas or any other sort of militia at war against the people of the USA should be stripped of their citizenship, but such a move should give those involved a certain grace period to come clean before they are ferreted out.
Oh and I agree with Shlomo and Dumbo that torture is not something we need to do, there are good reasons why law enforcement and most nations have quit using methods of torture, mainly because when they are used the information is usually useless. That does not mean that we automatically believe charges of torture, especially when captured enemy manuals show that they have been trained to make those false accusations.
Oh and I agree with Shlomo and Dumbo that torture is not something we need to do, there are good reasons why law enforcement and most nations have quit using methods of torture, mainly because when they are used the information is usually useless. That does not mean that we automatically believe charges of torture, especially when captured enemy manuals show that they have been trained to make those false accusations.
Those in Gitmo should have been given field tribunals as "spies, terrorists and saboteurs" and shot then and there, as the rules of war allow for.
No uniform, no flag, and no proper adherence to the Geneva Conventions means: you fall into a category outside the regular treatment afforded to legitimate POW's.
Enemy combatants should be lined up and executed, and not become a waste of our taxes, our time and our legal resources for years.
They only then become a propaganda bonanza for the enemies of the nation, within and without.
Shoot 'em when you catch 'em.
They they can't bleed you with this insidious psyops warfare.
SCHLOMO speaking of the Gitmo prisoners: "Most of them at one point or another have been waterboarded"
RESPONSE: This is an outright fabrication. According to the US Authorities, only 3 - count them THREE!!! - prisoners in this so-called 'War on Terror' have been water-boarded...Shiek Khalid Muhammad, Ramsi Bin Ali and one other...who were all planners of 9-11.
Argue your point sir, but at least have your facts down.
Pelosi is a major-league moonbat with a tenuous grasp of reality (it must be what having all those $million$ does to a person's sense of reality). "Terrorism" simply is a concept that does not exist within Nancy's garden club-oriented brain which is more or less limited to parties and political appointments.
Sooner or later this dizzy dame (reminiscent of a Batman show villainess of the week like "Nora Clavicle") will commit political suicide through her own lunacy, which for most of us couldn't come soon enough!
However,this obnoxious broad unfortunately really IS doing plenty of damage to our country and is so out of touch with reality she probably thinks she is saving humanity from the Bushies!
But I do think, as I said before, Nancy is setting herself up for a hard political fall by her own stupidity. The sooner the better.
profitsbeard's solution for making Gitmo unnecessary is the perfect one. One "combatant" without country, army, or uniform affiliation, one bullet.
The pink sob-sisters that feel the pain of the "poor" jihadis more than that of their fellow citizens will have to find other "humanitarian" causes to fill their idle minds and time.
Amen.
And now for some beautiful music, by which we can honor our warriors, as we ponder their courage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRb8KKyenSY
A crisp salute to you all ... 'cept those two knuckleheads above.
I am forced by considerations of accuracy to comment on the following:
This is hogwash. Surveillance pursuant to a warrant is, has been, and remains entirely lawful and the telecom companies harmless. Only warrantless (and therefore unlawful) surveillance on US persons is any possible matter for a lawsuit... and we should make certain that our government plays by the rules, or we have already lost.The FISA act was in force before, remains in force now, and allows the administration to wiretap now and get a warrant up to 72 hours later. The only reason the White House would find this inconvenient is if they cannot withstand any oversight of their activities, e.g. if they were collecting data about the political opposition.
Islam is corrosive to a free society. So is a surveillance state. We cannot allow either one.
Posted above by Robert:
Pedophiles in prison, are not allowed to possess Prepubescent porn...so why are Jihadists allowed to possess the Qur'an?
Undaunted,
I'm sure you know more fancy legalistic terminology than I do. But you don't need to go to law school to figure out that torture is wrong. It puts prisoners through intense pain, yields no useful evidence, and is the very picture of "cruel and unusual punishment". If perhaps you can recall, the Founding Fathers couched the Declaration of Independence in terms of natural right. This means rights for EVERYONE, and means that ideally ALL people should be free from "cruel and unusual punishment." I recognize that this is an ideal that can not always be fulfilled. But it is still something to strive for, and your savage delight at others' agony has no place in a democratic society. I think you've left your conscience on a court bench somewhere.
Vincienzo,
The fact that, even during the heat of the Intifadah, Israel did not torture should be clear evidence that torture is useless. The fact that torture at Guantanamo yielded only one conviction also proves torture is useless. At this point, anyone who still advocates for torture is practicing willful ignorance.
MadAsHell,
1. I never said equal rights for detainees. POW status would be ideal, especially given how arbitrary the "terrorist" label has become. (Eritrean Army--terrorist. Iranian secret police--terrorist. Iraqi Sunni guerillas, who have most certainly killed civilians--not terrorists; allies.) Try the "Islamo-fascists" the same way Roosevelt and Truman would have tried the *real* fascists. That's the best policy.
2. I also never said we should allow the detainees to "continue their actions"--whatever those are (we don't know because they haven't been charged.) My point was that indefinite arbitrary authority is not the American way, and never has been.
But it is telling that you consider my "blind hatred" of torture to be a negative attribute.
Call Putin. Maybe he'll sign you up for a KGB position. It seems you'de fit in well.
Bonniea,
I guess you support Hillary Clinton, then? She's the only major candidate left who does not have the guts to say what is obvious: America does not torture.
Savage delight?
You don't know anything about me. And for you to imply that all who feel as I do, as expressed here, are savages, is just infantile.
I wrote yesterday about your childishness and, coincidentally, found this story just this very morning while sipping coffee and, sentimental old me, I thought of you.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494
By the way, a very intelligent liberal man, Alan Dershowitz, supports torture in some circumstances.
So, please; gather up your Play-Do and wooden blocks and go back to your corner until you're called for dinner.
Shlomo_Michael, I despise Democrats, but at this point, would prefer Clinton over Obama, simply because she doesn't hate whites like Obama.
Schlomo - only 3 detainees at Gitmo have been "waterboarded" according to authorities..
There are reasons Gitmo exists. So that detainees AREN'T given US rights. These are illegal enemy combatants, not US citizens, detained on soil that is not US territory.
Illegal enemy combatants are not afforded the protection rights of the Geneva convention.
Enemy combatants also can be detained until hostilities cease, as to keep them from returning to the field of battle and causing us more harm.
You can choose to dislike the waterboarding treatment of 3 prisoners of war, but thankfully, your not the one tasked to protect the rest of us.
Terrorist do not call Americans. They Call Traitors or fellow travelers. The Government is fee to track them all they want.
Our forefathers used to hang or shoot these people. Military style.
Sometimes good habits get lost over time.
Good old Nancy will crash and burn with Obama.
I fail to see why Mz Clinton"s supporters are all going to run to Obama if he wins the Nomination. The far left wing of the Demoncratic Party are exposed to a simple concept of a Surrender Dividend.
The whole Progressive movement will be dangling on a branch while 60% of the Electorate will saw it off forever.