Posted on 01/12/2006 11:26:24 AM PST by Michael81Dus
Germany's new Chancellor Angela Merkel, due for a warm welcome in the Bush White House tomorrow, represents a new political phenomenon in her country. Her government embraces her conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) with their Bavarian allies in the Christian Social Union, and the Social Democrats, the first time such lineup in 37 years.
It is quite unlike its predecessor, the Red/Green coalition of 1998-2005, in which the ranks were filled with "sixty-eighters,"offspring of the 1968 anti-Vietnam War and anti-establishment student revolt, in whose new-leftist hearts dislike and distrust of America lingered.
Germany's relations with Washington have nearly always been better with CDU-run governments.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Congratulations on the conviction. And I say again, when the Germans get in and take the prisioners, then let them decide what to do with them. Much easier to let the US do it and complain about how it's being done. And FWIW, and I don't know the answer to this question, who is footing the bill for housing, protecting (from themselves and each other included), feeding and wiping the noses of the terrorists? I suspect the US is. Put up or shut up would definitely apply if that is the case.
maybe I missed your point completely - you can't ?
I mean you can't admire the ideal of living freely and independantly ?
Mind you I didn't say it really existed to a 100 % - I just admire the particular ideal you guys in the US mostly follow and I do think of Gitmo as a deviation from that.
But I am quite sure none really needed Miss Merkel to state that because you guys will overcome this buy yourselfs.
And I don't mean that as a pro - democrates statement. I think the american conservatives will change things in Gitmo all by themselfes.
And thats merely what I would admire most.
And BTW germany allready contributed a lot to the WOT. Only schröder tried to keep that low for his campaigns.
Those who complain about the work often just want a hand out.
Yeah, you missed my point.
Actually, things will calm down and relations will improve between the US and Germany now that Merkel is Chancellor. What most Europeans don't realize is that the Internet now connects us and we are watching. Where in the past it made good local politics to bash the US since we mostly ignored Europe, we are now paying more attention to you.
Regarding Gitmo, I believe there are two issues that are being combined resulting in some confusion.
1) Treatment of unlawful combatants
IMO, this is the easiest. Basically, an unlawful combatant is one that doesn't identify themselves (with a uniform) and doesn't limit themselves to military targets.
These people are not subject to the Geneva convention. According to the rules of war, they can be summarily executed. We have chosen not to do this (and it really is not an option politically) and instead put them in a military prison.
2) Determination of who is an unlawful combatant
This is the sticking point, IMO. We say that we are at war and as such, captured combatants will get a military tribunal, not a trial. These people do not have the status of Prisoner of War because they were unlawful.
You say that these people could be innocent and should get a full trial to determine their guilt and innocence.
This is a tricky issue. When you are at war, you can not give every captured enemy soldier a trial. By the same token, no one wants to condemn innocent people. I think some sort of middle ground is needed, maybe the evidence presented at the tribunal needs to be made public. I don't know.
However, I hope we can both agree that the terrorists have caused this problem because they are an organized, international organization yet they hide in the civilian population.
You say that these people could be innocent and should get a full trial to determine their guilt and innocence.
He has been told this many times, in many ways on this thread. It's hard to keep saying it over and over again. After a while all you w can do is throw your hands up and realize that if they aren't putting blood and sweat and tears on the line then they really have no business making decisions about how it is done.
"This is a tricky issue. When you are at war, you can not give every captured enemy soldier a trial. By the same token, no one wants to condemn innocent people. I think some sort of middle ground is needed, maybe the evidence presented at the tribunal needs to be made public. I don't know.
However, I hope we can both agree that the terrorists have caused this problem because they are an organized, international organization yet they hide in the civilian population."
I think that is the crux of the matter: We need to get together and write some new international law as to what to do with terrorists or unlawful combattants. As long as there's no right and internationally binding way, bickering from nations like Germany is to be expected, especially if there are German nationals held at Gitmo etc. Because that's only natural, if the German (or British, for that matter) press keeps mentioning the fact that "they keep Germans there" every second day or so (irrespective of the question whether that German national is guilty or not).
And so I think Merkel was spot-on whe she said that finding and defining international standard procedures is something that needs to be discussed.
There you go...yell. Bring attention to your lack of argument. Nice.
I agree but after the way the Euro press has gone after us regarding Gitmo, any criticism of it needs to be handled very carefully.
I think that the Euros need to acknowledge the fact that we need some place to keep unlawful combatants and that these combatants do not benefit from all of the rights a European or American citizen would because they have been breaking the rules of war.
I think the US needs to acknowledge that there needs to be some sort of oversite to make sure that innocents are not punished.
All in all, a very tricky situation.
"I agree but after the way the Euro press has gone after us regarding Gitmo, any criticism of it needs to be handled very carefully."
That was nasty. After all, if you read some more of the interview, Gitmo was just a by-line, a side remark out of context. I also recommend Ray's (of David's Medienkritik fame) comment on the whole thing:
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2006/01/merkel_criticiz.html
The thing is: That is one issue that really needs to be discussed - but better behind closed doors.
"I think that the Euros need to acknowledge the fact that we need some place to keep unlawful combatants and that these combatants do not benefit from all of the rights a European or American citizen would because they have been breaking the rules of war."
Indeed, but all the more reasons to have some definitive rules for such situations. As soon as people realize, that traffic offenders from New York or Berlin won't be deported to Gitmo, that such an institution is only temporary under very special circumstances (and that's basically what Merkel said in the interview: Gitmos is not an ideal long-term-solution) and that it's for the really bad guys only, the whole fuss will calm down over time.
"I think the US needs to acknowledge that there needs to be some sort of oversite to make sure that innocents are not punished.
All in all, a very tricky situation."
Indeed. And all the more reason to be glad to see such simplistic fools like Gerhard Schroeder or Joschka Fischer out of office.
Hope Bush sent her home with a case of Jim Beam. My squad and I used to run German villages for a day or until the Beam from the Class VI store ran out.
Germany's now run by Steve Urkel's cousin from Biloxi?
Oops, wait, totally wrong. "Merkel" is *pretty* different from "Urkel". Sorry!
LOL, I don´t know what gifts Merkel and Bush exchanged. But I can assure you, Merkel would rather vsit the NY Met than drinking Jim Beam. :)
Do not refer to our behavior in WWII in a negative way. I was alive then and I'm sure you don't want me to bring up Gremany's ungodly, evil and insane behavior before and during WWII.
I personally do not welcome you here. But, thats just one person.
?? Where and how did I refer to the US´ behaviour during WW2 in a negative way? And why can´t you stand me, what have I said that offends you personally?
I think this is the core of your misunderstanding. Terrorists are not "criminals", in the legal sense of the word. In a war, you don't arrest your enemy and put them on trial. You fight them and kill them. You take them prisoner so they can't fight and kill you. You do your best to avoid killing innocent people and you hold your troops accountable for their actions, within the proper context.
No country in the world fights a war by giving their enemy criminal trials. Why do you expect the USA to do that? Do you honestly think that the right thing to do is arrest terrorists as we come across them and put them on the court docket for a criminal trial sometime in the next year or two? Any country that attempts to fight a war in this way will be destroyed quickly.
These terrorists are enemy combatants in a war, not criminals with the right to a trial. We cannot treat them as criminals and expect our nation to survive.
I have later explained that we should find a third way in the middle. It´s a problem, but no obstacle for good relations between us. I think I ´ve said enough on this thread, forgive me. :-)
No forgiveness necessary. I don't condemn you for having your opinion, but I do disagree with it.
There is no "middle way" in a war. You either defend yourself against an enemy intent on destroying you, or you get destroyed. Since we are at war, we would easily be within our "rules of war" rights to simply kill everyone detained at Gitmo instead of holding them. They should be grateful that they are held safely and fed and clothed and given medical treatment.
There's no way to take the hell out of war. It just is.
Mrs. Merkel is a big improvement on her predecessor. However, let's put this simply - I (and I think most of my colleagues on this site) simply don't care about the rights of terrorists. If people belong to an organisation or a religion that wants to persecute or kill people of other faiths, get me a can of petrol, some rope, a stake and a set of matches because we're having a cookout.
Gitmo is the least they deserve.
Regards, Ivan
Yeah, but that is merely a gesture. She knows she will not influence that kind of decision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.