Posted on 01/25/2009 3:26:05 AM PST by Sergeant Tim
This morning, the New York Daily News published my op-ed on President Barack Obama's decision to close Guantanamo and suspend the Military Commissions:
With his shameful order to close Guantanamo Bay, President Obama has perfectly filled the stereotype of the classic clueless ultra-Liberal -- the one who can generate great passion for the rights of the guilty defendant and none for the innocent victim.With a single stroke of the pen, Obama has delayed justice for the victims of 9/11, and in essence granted a reprieve for Al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11.
America does not honor our "rule of law and the rights of man" as he put in his inauguration speech by such an action. Instead, this nation abdicated its duty to justice.
It seems the new President is too far removed from the victims of 9/11. Victims like 11-year-old Bernard Curtis Brown, a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon. Everyone onboard was killed, as well as [125] people in the Pentagon. Curtis was on a trip with several of his classmates to California sponsored by National Geographic.
Obama and the Democrats have had a blind spot for 9/11 and have yet to show they have an ounce of understanding what happened that day.
Here is why we were attacked: Muslim extremists hate Americans and want us dead. Our policies in no way influenced the vitriol perpetuated on innocent Americans on September 11, 2001. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at 911familiesforamerica.org ...
You know what, We Americans, real ones aat least, could give a FF what you euroweenises think, stff it
Not so bad the last few day, been kind of nice
Guess we had a bit o'that global warming stuff!!
You know what, We Americans, real ones aat least, could give a FF what you euroweenises think, stff it
No, it's like I said, I could care less what you think.
Congress granted the president (Bush W) the power to do what it takes but they did not sign a deceleration of War so I believe technically it is just a police action on paper. Not a lawyer so there may be another term for it.
> again i have to disagree.you say “they” have actively participated americans on your soil.
He is speaking of 9/11. al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11.
> for example if someone blows up a humwe in iraq how in this world has he atacked americans on your soil?
By proxy. If that someone is a member of al Qaeda then he is one of the “they” that attacked America on American soil on 9/11.
The legal concept is “Vicarious Liability”. An organization is responsible for the acts of its employees or volunteers and can be held liable for their actions.
> and killing soldiers on the battlefield is not a war crime.
It certainly is if you are an Unlawful Combattant: that is to say, not a recognized member of a regular armed force.
> it would be a war crime if you put a bomb on a crowded market place and wait untill the first US soldier arrives and then blow up hundrets of civillian to get this soldier.
They do that as well.
> but for example blow up a humwe or shoot a sodier is not a war crime it´s just fighting.
No, it is a War Crime if you are an Unlawful Combattant. In the case of the HumVee, the charge would be First Degree Murder or Murders and Unauthorized Destruction of US Government Property.
> so not every one who killed US troops in iraq is a war criminal.
Everyone who killed US troops in Iraq was a criminal unless they were members of Iraq’s regular Army acting under orders.
> some are but some are “just” fighting against your forces.
So if I went to Austria and started shooting Austrian soldiers, I would be “just fighting”?
> there is a difference.
There is no difference.
> and yes POWs are imprisoned untill the war is over (they have to be released after the war is over except as you said you can proove him that he commited a war crime) this is international law (US allso signed this).
They are only POWs if they are lawful combattants. The people in GITMO are not. There is neither need nor reason to release them anytime before the much-awaited Second Coming. They don’t really even need to be tried: they can sit there and rot from a legal perspective.
Moreover, the US did not sign that portion of the Geneva Convention that would pertain to this situation. Other countries like mine (NZ) did. So did Austria. America did not.
> the only difficult thing in iraq for example is there is no regular army left who fights against your troops.
Indeed, the Iraq Army fights alongside the US Troops. That’s not difficult: that’s bloody marvelous!
> there for the “law” is washy.
It’s really clear, actually. Iraq has a government and they have courts and they have perfectly-acceptable Rule of Law. They used both when they hanged Saddam Hussein and his henchmen: the US was not involved in that decision.
> but don´t forget some one you may call a terrorist because he killed one of your soldiers may be some one else “freedom” fighter because he fights the occuping forces.
The only Freedom Fighters in Iraq were wearing Coalition uniforms, mate. Everyone they killed were terrorists, unlawful combattants, or noncombattant civilian casualties — the latter of which the United States tries desperately hard to minimize: moreso than any major power in world history.
> of corse as said before if he kills civilians to reach his goal he is a terrorist no matter if his goal is to get US troops out or something else....
It is not necessary to kill civilians to be a terrorist. The people who blew up the USS Cole on 17 October 2000 were terrorists: no civilians were killed, only 17 US sailors.
but not every one does. and to make it clear i´m not one of the people who cheers if one of your soldiers is getting killed i only watch it from 2 directions.
What justifications do you see for muslim extremists, islamic terrorists, jihadis and the other “freedom fighters” in this war? I am truly curious to know.
One thing you have to understand, though, is that these detainees in places like Gitmo have a very unusual legal status under both U.S. and international law. They aren’t U.S. citizens and they haven’t been captured on U.S. soil...
**Not a lawyer so there may be another term for it.**
that’s for damn sure. Just take a read of the CONSTITUTION ...I know “I READ IT”.. difference between Reading and Understanding. THERE is NO SET FORM to “DECLARE WAR”... a joint resolution saying... “Mr. President, GO KICK THEIR BUTTS” .. would probably Suffice.
There is no set “Declaration of WAR” in the constitution, but I MAY have MISSED IT.. tell me where it is, PLEASE!
UNder your “””””LOGIC””””” ... World War II was Illegal as War was Declared by the PRESIDENT and Not by Congress til later.
Darned PAULISTINIANS... too damn STUPID by HALF
Good post - I don’t think Austrian is here to have a discussion as much as he is here to change our opinions on gitmo.
He is a liberal pushing liberal opinions in a conservative forum.
Also, I don’t think he has ever known liberty or he would not think like that.
>He is speaking of 9/11. al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11.<
i´m aware of the fact that al qaeda was responsible for 9/11
but not every one fighting the coalition forces in iraq and afgansitan is an al quaida member nor does every body shares their goal.
>By proxy. If that someone is a member of al Qaeda then he is one of the “they” that attacked America on American soil on 9/11.
The legal concept is “Vicarious Liability”. An organization is responsible for the acts of its employees or volunteers and can be held liable for their actions.<
again not every one especially in iraq is fighting because Al Quaida, many of them fight only to get coalition forces out because they think they are occupying their country.
but i guess there are many different reasons and interessts why people fight in iraq.
>It certainly is if you are an Unlawful Combattant: that is to say, not a recognized member of a regular armed force.<
i guess we can both argue hours about this point and will never find a real suitable position. it depends on every ones personal definition. was the french resistance in WW2 a terrorist organisation or freedom fighters because they
fought occupying german troops? do the coalition forces have legal status to be in iraq or are they just brutal occupyiers.....? is someone who still fights a war against forreign troops after the regular forces have lost the war or the government has surrendered (or was forced too) a patriot or a terrorist?... this list goes on and on. not easy to answer.
>They do that as well.<
yes this happens very often (this is terrorism) but not every one fights this way.
>No, it is a War Crime if you are an Unlawful Combattant. In the case of the HumVee, the charge would be First Degree Murder or Murders and Unauthorized Destruction of US Government Property.<
like pointed out before we could argue hours about unlawful or not or if the presence of soldiers in iraq is lawfull or not.
>So if I went to Austria and started shooting Austrian soldiers, I would be “just fighting”?<
no it would be murder. but when this soldiers would be stationed in Your country or occupying it would be different
>They are only POWs if they are lawful combattants. The people in GITMO are not. There is neither need nor reason to release them anytime before the much-awaited Second Coming. They don’t really even need to be tried: they can sit there and rot from a legal perspective.
Moreover, the US did not sign that portion of the Geneva Convention that would pertain to this situation. Other countries like mine (NZ) did. So did Austria. America did not.<
maybe there is no law for this kind of situation right now
but only because this has not been regulated by international law doesn´t nessersary makes it the right thing to do don´t you think?
>Indeed, the Iraq Army fights alongside the US Troops. That’s not difficult: that’s bloody marvelous!<
correct they (the more or less new founded iraqi army)does this but do we really know how many of the insurgent have been former iraqi soldiers?
>It’s really clear, actually. Iraq has a government and they have courts and they have perfectly-acceptable Rule of Law. They used both when they hanged Saddam Hussein and his henchmen: the US was not involved in that decision.<
You really think that the “iraqi government” can do what ever they want and the US has really no “influence”?
yes the US did not official influence the hanging of saddam
because there was no need after they had given “power” to his enemys. but would you really bet your money on it that they wouldn´t if the iraqi would have desided different and set saddam free?
>It is not necessary to kill civilians to be a terrorist. The people who blew up the USS Cole on 17 October 2000 were terrorists: no civilians were killed, only 17 US sailors.<
in this case true. this was a terror act.
>The only Freedom Fighters in Iraq were wearing Coalition uniforms, mate. Everyone they killed were terrorists, unlawful combattants, or noncombattant civilian casualties — the latter of which the United States tries desperately hard to minimize: moreso than any major power in world history.<
i never said that US and coalition forces intentional targed civilians. again we could argue about “unlawful” combattants.
>What justifications do you see for muslim extremists, islamic terrorists, jihadis and the other “freedom fighters” in this war? I am truly curious to know.<
i have never said that terrorism is a tolerable or justified form to reach anything.
Hope the press, which is supposed to be getting VERY AFRAID of asking Obummer the stumbler tough questions, will press the question of how and where the Gitmo fun loving terrorists will be placed upon closing the facility.
The WH is a large facility paid for by you and me and everyone, perhaps a few of these poor justice denied killers could hang out there when Gitmo shuts down? :^)
Like it or not, austrian voices the “new” official policy towards “those folks”. Have you noticed that the O’bumbler administration is loathe to even use the terms “terrorist” or “Global war on terror”?
We recognize how fatally flawed his feeeeeelings are in respect to detainment and prosecution of dangerous militant terrorists. We knew that something had to be done with these terrorists. We knew that some milquetoast types would grumble but when given an opportunity to actually tour the Gitmo facility and see how the detainees were treated, they were mostly satisfied.
The new administration has signaled their intention of returning to the old failed policy of treating terrorism as a criminal offense instead of a violation of national defense. It didn’t work under slick and it won’t work under the Anointed “0”ne.
Actions have consequences and often those consequences are unpredictable. If we are unable to remove combatants from the field of battle other methods of eliminating them as a threat will occur. If we are prevented from obtaining the intel we need through straightforward channels, we will obtain that intel through other methods - or our soldiers will perish. If the left thinks our military will allow that to happen they are in for a rude awakening.
One last thought:
Our erstwhile friend austrian responded to one of his debaters by stating that “...hmm i guess i simple use my right of freedom of speach to point out my oppinion.” I woud hasten to point out to our friend that he isn’t (by his own admission) an US citizen and therefore enjoying the privilege of “free speach” (sic) thanks to our generosity (Austria has a constitution but no Bill of rights. They have no right to free speech!).
Remember austrian when criticizing your betters, to practice your manners...
Good post - I don’t think Austrian is here to have a discussion as much as he is here to change our opinions on gitmo.
He is a liberal pushing liberal opinions in a conservative forum.
Also, I don’t think he has ever known liberty or he would not think like that.
i have never known liberty because i think the way i do? sorry but i really don´t know what you are talking about.
I need to ask......which is worse, putting people in prison for years or killing our military? Maybe we would have been better of just eliminating them. We ARE a free people but we can respond quite forcefully when attacked. Those not being raised and living in our country seem to not understand our way of life and our determination to live the way we want. If people don’t like what we do, they should stay out.
“i´m not an american so i can not be a liberal or a conservative but i agree my personal views may be viewed as liberal on this message board for the most of the time.”
I think you’re confusing Democrat and Republican with liberal and conservative. The terms liberal and conservative have more to do with political ideology than citizenship. You can be Austrian and espouse liberal orthodoxy (which you assuredly do) and not be a practicing democrat.
How you managed to last here with your POV is one of life’s mysteries. I hope you enjoy the rest of your stay...
Not what I said, I said "Also, I don’t think he has ever known liberty or he would not think like that."
Surely you know that a persons thoughts and opinions are dictated by ones environment and life experiences.
T he last half of the above sentence clearly proves my point - you really don't understand and will never understand what I'm talking about
> i´m aware of the fact that al qaeda was responsible for 9/11 but not every one fighting the coalition forces in iraq and afgansitan is an al quaida member nor does every body shares their goal.
Some are Taliban, some are neither just local yahoos. It matters not a whit who they are or what their goal is: if they are not members of a regular Armed Force and they are engaged in combat then they are unlawful combattants. As such, they belong in GITMO.
> again not every one especially in iraq is fighting because Al Quaida, many of them fight only to get coalition forces out because they think they are occupying their country.
Fair enough only if they are uniformed members of a regular armed force. If they are not, they are unlawful enemy combattants and they belong at GITMO if captured.
> but i guess there are many different reasons and interessts why people fight in iraq.
That may be so, and most of those reasons result in going to GITMO if captured as an unlawful enemy combattant.
> i guess we can both argue hours about this point and will never find a real suitable position.
There is nothing to argue about: either they are lawful combattants or they are unlawful combattants. That much is very clear from the Laws of War.
The people on GITMO are unlawful combattants. Not POWs. That, too, is crystal clear.
> it depends on every ones personal definition.
No, it doesn’t. The definition is clear, as is the law that drives the definition. There is no room for ambiguity.
> was the french resistance in WW2 a terrorist organisation or freedom fighters because they fought occupying german troops?
Yes, and when the German army captured them they were treated as unlawful enemy combattants and usually tortured and shot.
> do the coalition forces have legal status to be in iraq or are they just brutal occupyiers.....?
They have legal status: the Iraqi government is more than happy for them to be there. They are not brutal occupiers: they have shown true Christian forbearance with the enemy, to the point of affording them courtesies that nearly no other army would.
> is someone who still fights a war against forreign troops after the regular forces have lost the war or the government has surrendered (or was forced too) a patriot or a terrorist?
He is an unlawful combattant if he is not wearing his country’s uniform. Whether you want to give him a colorful label like “patriot” or “Terrorist or “Partizan” or “Spy” or “Resistence” is a silly point and irrelevant.
> ... this list goes on and on. not easy to answer.
It is blood-simple, actually: the only people with any business fighting during wartime wear uniforms. Everyone else is an unlawful combattant that runs the risk of not being covered by the Laws of War if captured.
> yes this happens very often (this is terrorism) but not every one fights this way.
It does not matter how they fight. If they are unlawful enemy combattants they run the risk of not being covered by the Laws of War if they are captured.
> like pointed out before we could argue hours about unlawful or not or if the presence of soldiers in iraq is lawfull or not.
There is no argument to be had, really. The Coalition is lawfully in Iraq. The government of Iraq says so.
> no it would be murder. but when this soldiers would be stationed in Your country or occupying it would be different
No, it wouldn’t. I would have no business killing Austrian soldiers if they were in New Zealand unless I was in some sort of New Zealand uniform. And you can bet that I would be if Austria invaded us. First, though, Austria would have to get a navy.
> maybe there is no law for this kind of situation right now
but only because this has not been regulated by international law doesn´t nessersary makes it the right thing to do don´t you think?
I think it is perfectly OK to do. International Law is way over-rated because usually only the Americans, Canadians, British, French, Australians and New Zealanders follow it. Everybody else ignores it as they see fit.
> correct they (the more or less new founded iraqi army)does this but do we really know how many of the insurgent have been former iraqi soldiers?
That matters not a whit: their leader was deposed, tried and suitably hanged. It is their duty now to take instructions from the new, legal government in Baghdad. It is not their duty to continue fighting: if they do, they are traitors — in other words, unlawful enemy combattants and they are at risk of either a firing squad or the gallows.
> You really think that the “iraqi government” can do what ever they want and the US has really no “influence”?
The US may make suggestions, which the Iraqi government can consider and either action or not. They are a Sovereign nation. As it stands right now, it is advantageous to Iraq to seriously consider anything the US has by way of suggestion: after all, they haven’t been billed for the war. Yet.
> yes the US did not official influence the hanging of saddam because there was no need after they had given “power” to his enemys.
They didn’t need to, either: the Iraqi court found him guilty of breaking perfectly-good Iraqi laws, for which the prescribed punishment was death.
> but would you really bet your money on it that they wouldn´t if the iraqi would have desided different and set saddam free?
They would never have done that, for obvious reasons. And if they did, the US would only capture him again and this time try him on US soil: there would have been a few laws that he had broken for sure. He could then add to their collection of deposed despots rotting in US gaols, like Manuel Noriega.
> i never said that US and coalition forces intentional targed civilians. again we could argue about “unlawful” combattants.
Not reasonably we couldn’t. With very few exceptions, lawful combattants wear the uniform of a nation involved in the combat. Everybody else is an unlawful combattant.
Yes, it really is that simple.
> i have never said that terrorism is a tolerable or justified form to reach anything.
So why then do you feel it is important to present two sides to this story? This really is a black-and-white situation: no room for shades of grey.
I believe that this type of thinking is what got Europe in trouble with Hitler. When our country or young people are attacked (our military) we can get pissed, really pissed and we can respond accordingly. By not responding with over whelming force, you end up in the same situation that you did during WWII. Personally, I don’t care what people in other countries think of us..........we believe we are doing the right thing and that is all that matters.
Also, conservatism and liberalism are not nation dependent, they are more a behavior/belief system more than anything.
Most Americans crave liberty to the extent we would be willing the kill or be killed for it.
We crave unbounded liberty to pursue happiness, be it wealth and materiel happiness, religious liberty or own our property without fear of government confiscation unfettered by government.
That my friend is what you don’t get.
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.