Replies

UNDUE PROCESS [Mark R. Levin]

I am fascinated that those advocating due process rights (even U.S. constitutional rights) for the enemy, beyond those conferred on the Nazis or Communists, and beyond those compelled by existing domestic and international law, are viewed as the humanitarians in this debate. Torture is already illegal. In fact, mistreatment that falls below the torture threshhold -- case in point, Abu Ghraib -- violates military policy and is prosecuted. I am not aware that our government is employing torture against the enemy as a matter of policy. However, I am aware that certain foreign governments, self-appointed human-rights organizations and politicians have made the claim to advance their opposition to the war. I am also aware that the al-Qaeda handbook directs detainees to claim torture regardless of the nature of their treatment. We ought not set national security policy based, even in part, on these considerations.
The fact is that we were much more brutal to prisoners of war during World War II, under the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, than we are today -- pre-Geneva Conventions. Even the Geneva Conventions distinguish between prisoners of war and unlawful enemy combatants, the later receiving no protection. Those who rightly praise "the Greatest Generation" say little today of the military and interrogation tactics employed by that generation to defeat the Axis powers, for to do so would make evident that our current military techniques and detention methods are far more "humane."
The McCain Amendment doesn't merely codify interrogation requirements, as some of its advocates have suggested. It actually grants unlawful enemy combatants Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment protections under our Constitution. In past wars, such an approach would have been considered unthinkable - detrimental to our ability to successfully wage war. What's changed today? Is there any doubt that lawyers armed with these new legal rights will make interrogation extremely difficult? Does anyone honestly believe that this will curb allegations of torture? Is there any doubt that today's detainees are actually more dangerous than detainees of the past in that a single terrorist, properly armed, can unleash mass destruction on a U.S. city? So, why are we doing this? To prove our humanity? This is a major departure from our past practices during war-time.
To my way of thinking, protecting millions of innocent American citizens is far more humane than conferring rights -- beyond traditional rights -- on a particularly evil and lethal enemy. The purpose of detention, as understood throughout our history and under international treaties, is not punishment, but security. These people are detained for two reasons: 1. prevent them from returning to the battlefield in the midst of a war; 2. elicit information from the detainees to prevent future attacks on our homeland. I fear that we are now doing that for which we criticized the Clinton administration -- litigating the war on terrorism.

What nation on this earth grants enemy combatants constitutional rights? You have no idea what it is your asking for. Wake up!

I guess Mr Levin and I have something in common then.
Thank You, BP, for finding and posting this excellent commentary, which backs up every word I have posted since 3 November..

And now for some apologies

I sincerely apologize for being an American, and speaking out against granting the Al'Queda freedom fighters the rights my ancestors died preserving.
How crass and callous, how selfish I was, to deny these freedom loving terrorists the rights I took an oath to defend and preserve.
Please, oh please, can I ever find forgiveness?
Will I ever be able to look at myself in the mirror, knowing I was so wantonly single-minded?

YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I CAN

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHEHEHEEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE

Thanks for the great posts, Buford. I'd like to go on record as saying I'm not in favor of drawing and quartering, chopping off hands, feet or other body parts, and I'm not in favor of any treatment of unlawful enemy combatants that involves the ACLU.

I'm perfectly OK with degrading prisoners of war -- what is the point of interrogations without degradations of some kind? This word is too broad and vague and should definitely be vetoed.

I don't think the taxpayers should have to provide lawyers for any foreigners who entered this country illegally, except for minor children like Elian Gonzales, for instance. Nor for unlawful combatants.

I agree we should provide physical health care of basic situations, but once these international do-gooder groups or the Anti-Christian Lawyers United (ACLU) gets involved, you get lawsuits by prisoners who want chunky peanut butter instead of smooth (actual case).

That said, will one of you please define exactly what forms of torture you think ARE acceptable? Be specific.

Torture is already illegal. In fact, mistreatment that falls below the torture threshhold -- case in point, Abu Ghraib -- violates military policy and is prosecuted.

Thanks for posting Mark Levin's comments. He says so clearly what the problem is.

The media and other opponents of President Bush are hanging out the idea that American policy tolerates torture of captured enemies. This becomes "the big lie" = accepted truth.

The idea that "America is an oppressor nation" is taught in public schools from Grade 1 on - I'll give kindergarten a pass here - so the leap to believing that Rumsfeld, etc order detainees to be tortured becomes a believable concept.

That McCain says that there needs to be a law granting constitutional rights to people who operate outside all laws of civilized behavior, further adds to the concept that American troops need to be controlled from their bad behavior.

Iraqikurd, I understand how intimately you feel the word "torture" and respect your feelings, but please also try to understand what concretebob is saying: American Armed Forces Do Not Torture Detainees. Period.

For McCain to bring up this bill seems to say to the world that our troops do commit torture.