This "idea" is an extension of "The New World Order" to me.
Unbelievably to me, it seems so many people are willing to extend the "Rights and Privileges of the American "People" to non Americans, under the "quise" of fairness. When in fact, the underlying purpose is to destroy what this Country was "built" on and "stands for".

The other thing that amazes me is the use of "polling" data.
It's primary purpose is to establish what "words" work best to "fool" people into thinking one thing, then giving another. A perfect example of this is advertising. How it's done is to convince you that you NEED something that you really don't. It works in just about everything. Another example is the use of the word "crisis".

It's called "human nature"……when will people of ALL walks of life and ALL Countries "see" this? It's done in an incremental manner that it's hard to notice unless you're paying CLOSE attention to what's happening, what's being said, and most importantly, READING BETWEEN THE LINES!

The trouble is this, it's much easier to follow, than to think for one's self and take "personal responsibility".
Politicians of ALL (so called) "denominations" (by this I mean not only ours, but of other Countries) take advantage of, routinely.

Since the advent of "scripted" political debates and "news" debates, the slow degrading of "truth" has lead us to where we are today.

Sadly, in the education "establishment" (in this Country) we're not "teaching" independence, thinking for one's self, but rather turnint out "sheep".

34 years ago, when I was in 6th grade, a (really good) teacher of mine said, "the Soviet Union long ago decided that they could not destroy this Country militarily, so they would destroy this Country from within." Meaning Socially, Politically…..(from within).

If a person questions certain policies, and looks back from where "we've" been, it becomes "clearer" how successful it's been for them.

A good example is this, if you yell Shark, people right away KNOW what that is, if you yell barracuda, not so much.
Same principle applies to Communist and Socialist. How many people know that Socialism is a "stepping stone" to Communism?

Look at what some of our (so called) Political leaders are advocating and run it through the Socialist and Communist "prism", you'll be flabbergasted to learn what "we've" been voting for!

Comment by judgeboy | July 7, 2008

The answer to the first nine questions is yes. The answer to number ten is that it is yet to be seen.

My question is what becomes of the Geneva Convention, which was written to encourage compliance? If there are no adverse consequences for being a terrorist, as opposed to a legitimate combatant, we will see more terrorism, for activity that is rewarded (or not punished) is likely to be repeated.

Comment by sedonaman | July 8, 2008

Article 5 of the Geneva Convention is pretty straightforward: "The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Bush claimed that they didn't have to do that 'competent tribunal' part. In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that that wasn't the case. So, the Combatant Status Review Tribunal process was set up, and the most recent Court ruling is that these tribunals were 'inadequate'. (The case of Murat Kurnaz is interesting there.)

I'm flexible as to what procedures suspected terrorists should be subject to - but there needs to be a procedure, to avoid harming innocent people turned in for bounties. If Bush hadn't insisted on total carte blanche, he might not have forced the Supreme Court's hand…

Comment by Raymond Ingles | July 8, 2008

Raymond Ingles:

Under the new rules the court envisions, how would we have handled the 400,000 Axis EPWs we held in the U.S. during WW-II?

I find it difficult to believe that the issue of waging private warfare has not been addressed before. Let's call a spade a spade. What's the real issue? Just politics by other means to "get even" with Bush for "stealing" the election of 2000.

Comment by sedonaman | July 8, 2008

Sedonaman - Can you provide a cite for the 400K number, and the circumstances thereof? I can't answer the question without more information. In the meantime, you can read the actual text of the recent decision here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf

The Court makes specific note that "there has been no Eisentrager–style trial by military commission for violations of the laws of war… Petitioners have met their burden of establishing that the DTA review process is, on its face, an inadequate substitute for habeas… In effectuating today’s holding, certain accommodations — including channeling future cases to a single district court and requiring that court to use its discretion to accommodate to the greatest extent possible the Government’s legitimate interest in protecting sources and intelligence gathering methods — should be made to reduce the burden habeas proceedings will place on the military, without impermissibly diluting the writ’s protections."

Again, if Bush had not pushed for "absolute and indefinite control", this might have been avoided.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | July 9, 2008

Raymond Ingles:

Excuse me. It wasn’t 400,000.

Quote: “When the United States entered the war, the question of enemy prisoners was among the, last consideration of a country recovering from a Japanese attack in the Pacific and feverishly preparing for a war in Europe. We had never held large numbers of foreign POWs [my note: technically, they are EPWs: Enemy Prisoners of War] in our history and were unprepared for the problems of managing them. But prepared or not, we suddenly found ourselves receiving captured German soldiers. More than 150,000 men arrived after the North African campaign in the spring of 1943, and between May and October of that year, an average of 20,000 POWs [sic] arrived each month. The Normandy invasion the following June sent the numbers soaring to 30,000 prisoners a, month, and by the end of the year, they poured in at the rate of 60,000 a month. By the end of the war, the United States held more than 400,000 enemy captives in 511 camps across the country.” Unquote. American History Illustrated, Volume XVIII, Number 4, June 1983, “Hitler’s Legions in America,” by Arnold Kramer, page 55.

I don’t know how the number can change the answer to my question because whether it was 4,000 or 40,000, or 400,000, it was still a big number. Note that when it was only 4 in 1942, it was still big enough to try them by military courts.

Under the most lenient international rules of war that are given to legitimate combatants, the capturing power has the right to hold enemy combatants until the end of hostilities. These are not even legitimate combatants. The fact that they ignored the laws of war and waged a private war of terror that has no end in sight is of their doing and therefore their problem. Indefinite captivity should be a warning to others contemplating terrorism as a solution to their imagined grievances. The treatment they are receiving is far and away better than their kind has ever received in the past: no quarter.

So, under the new rules the court envisions, how would we have handled the over 400,000 Axis EPWs we held in the U.S. during WW-II?

Comment by sedonaman | July 9, 2008

Under the rules proscribed by the court, the majority of the Axis POWs would not have been eligible for habeas, as there was (in almost all cases) no question as to their status. They were not being presumptively denied Geneva Convention protections. The court's decision - as I noted in the quotes I provided - was based on the fact that no 'competent' determination had been made as to the actual status of these prisoners. Had they even committed any 'belligerent act' at all? Since the large majority of detainees were not captured on the battlefield by U.S. troops, but were rather turned in - for reward money - by third parties, such a determination is necessary.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | July 10, 2008

Raymond Ingles:

“…no 'competent' determination had been made as to the actual status of these prisoners.”

Let’s call a spade a spade, once again. There is no “competent” determination Bush-haters will accept except the determination of a sympathetic Supreme Court; that’s why they have been fighting so hard to get court jurisdiction over them – to hand Bush his defeat for “stealing” the election of 2000. That is why they had to ignore the Geneva Convention (which is a treaty). (Please note they are only too quick to use foreign law when it suits their purpose.) Following this logic, the saboteurs captured in 1942 did not have a “competent” determination and ultimate conviction – they were tried in a military court.

“Since the large majority of detainees were not captured on the battlefield by U.S. troops…”
How do you know that?

The whole decision hinged on the court’s view that the detainees are being punished because they are behind bars. Punishment is not the case since, “Mere detention of captured combatants during time of hostilities is not a criminal judicial process. It is a military action to disarm enemy combatants, as well as a means to facilitate the gathering of military intelligence.” http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6007/is_55/ai_n8585592 .

The fact still is that five justices saw where they wanted to be and argued to get there. That is why they ignored Congress’ removing their jurisdiction over them in the Detainee Act.

The really sad part is no one, but no one, cares one wit about the detainees – it’s all about getting Bush.

Comment by sedonaman | July 10, 2008

Sedonaman - You state that this decision was intended "to hand Bush his defeat for “stealing” the election of 2000" - this decision by the Supreme Court that made the final decision in that election in Bush's favor (except for the new Justices that Bush has appointed in the meantime)? Um… okay, I guess you can have your opinion.

We know that the majority of detainees were not captured by U.S. troops from analyses like this one: http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf
"Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody."

Since it's not actually been determined that the detainees actually are "captured combatants during time of hostilities", judicial review is quite appropriate. That's exactly what's being challenged in the case of the litigating detainees.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | July 10, 2008

Raymond: You appear to have some detailed knowledge of the Geneva Convention. What exactly does it say about combatants who fight and/or are captured while not in uniform? Does the convention apply to them? And if it doesn’t, why is this even an issue for discussion?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 12, 2008

Raymond Ingles:

From the analysis: “The Government has detained most these individuals for more than four years; only approximately 10 have been charged with any crime related to violations of the laws of war. The rest remain detained based on the Government’s own conclusions, without prospect of a trial or judicial hearing. During these lengthy detentions, the Government has had sufficient time for the Government to conclude whether, in fact, these men were enemy combatants and to document its rationale. … The ‘findings’ in this sense, constitutes the Government’s determination that the individual in question is an enemy combatant, which is in turn based on the Government’s classifications of terrorist groups, the asserted connection of the individual with the purported terrorist groups, as well as the commission of ‘hostile acts,’ if any, that the Government has determined an individual has committed. … the data demonstrates that the Government has already concluded that a majority of those who continue to be detained at Guantanamo have no history of any … hostile act against the United States or its allies. ”

These statements reveal that the report/analysis relies heavily on the presumption that this war is a law enforcement issue; and therefore, a combatant has to commit a hostile act against American/coalition forces before the U.S. can lawfully detain him. In fact, according to Geneva, a combatant need not be “charged with any crime related to violations of the laws of war” in order to be lawfully detained. The law enforcement perspective is throughout the report. Applying this logic to a hypothetical, the U.S. could not detain even a lawful combatant unless the U.S. could prove beyond some [unspecified] level of doubt that he had actually commit a hostile act against American/coalition forces. You stated that “… the majority of the Axis POWs would not have been eligible for habeas, as there was (in almost all cases) no question as to their status.” But according to the analysis, there must be some proof established. Therefore, by the rules envisioned by the Court and the analyst, the U.S. would have unlawfully detained 400,000 Axis POWs during WW-II.

This law-enforcement attitude is further revealed by the complaint that “…under this definition [being part of a terrorist group], one could be detained for an undefined level of ‘support of’ groups considered hostile to the United States or its coalition partners.”

Being able to detain a member of a terrorist group [by establishing a ‘nexus’] would actually be true because the purpose of detention, once again, is not to punish the detainee for wrongdoing but to prevent him from supporting the enemy. I would wager that at least one Allied “cook’s assistant” had been captured and detained, lawfully, by Axis forces in WW-II.

“If, after four years of detention, the Government is unable to determine if a detainee is either al Qaeda or Taliban, then it is reasonable to conclude that the detainee is neither.”

Here [and in his conclusion, below], the author has revealed that nothing less than proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” must be established. Again is the unspoken assumption that the war is a law enforcement issue. Actually, Geneva has a category for these: Undetermined. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume they are one or the other [error on the side of safety, if you will].

“Conclusion: The detainees have been afforded no meaningful opportunity to test the Government’s evidence against them. They remain incarcerated.”

I’ve done enough data analysis in my career to know that in the end, conclusions are nothing more than the opinion of the analyst with a vested interest, and the opinion I agree with is the one in the link in my last post because it makes the most sense when you consider the goals of the LOAC http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac_2.htm which are to minimize collateral death and damage once war breaks out. Also, IMHO, doing away with the draft was a big mistake. We now have multiple generations with no military experience nor the realistic perspective it provides, and some of them are in charge.

Comment by sedonaman | July 14, 2008

Mr. Jackson - Article 4 is less than 700 words and quite straightforward. It defines who counts as prisoners of war: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590007?OpenDocument

Combatants don't necessarily need to have a 'uniform', they need a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance", and they also need to "[carry] arms openly", and "[conduct] their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war". It also includes "[p]ersons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model." Terrorists don't do this, of course, and don't get such protections.

But that's not the problem, and it's frustrating how difficult it has been to make this point. If someone is a terrorist, then they are outside the Geneva conventions, as they don't qualify under article 4 of convention 3, and also are not covered under convention 4 (treatment of civilians). There's no problem with that. That logic is correct… so far as it goes.

The problem is that article 5 of convention 3 very clearly states that prisoners automatically get Geneva Convention protection if there's "any doubt" about whether they qualify, until a "competent tribunal" has determined that they don't qualify.

Now, if someone is captured by U.S. troops on the battlefield, in combat, I've got no problem with saying there's no doubt about their status. The status of people turned in by other parties, for bounties, is a whole lot less clear. Since there are documented cases where such people have been shown not to be combatants at all (much less unlawful ones) I truly can't understand how this could be in dispute.

The objection is not to treating terrorists with the lack of respect they deserve. The objection is to treating people as terrorists, automatically, without any process for determining that they are terrorists… or not.

What part of the above is unclear?

Comment by Raymond Ingles | July 15, 2008

Sedonaman - First, read the reply above to Mr. Jackson. Now, with this in mind, you might understand the case a little better. Detaining is one thing, but these prisoners are being detained indefinitely, explicitly without Geneva Convention rights.

Sure, plenty of Axis cooks were no doubt captured during WWII, but they were given Geneva Convention rights. The "proof" required is proof that these current prisoners are outside the Geneva Conventions.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | July 15, 2008

Article 4: Combatants … need a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance", and they also need to "[carry] arms openly", and "[conduct] their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war".

*** Terrorists in general and Al Queda in particular clearly do not fall into this category. Therefore, they are not covered by the convention. Therefore, anyone who is a member of Al Queda (which, by definition, does not require official card-carrying membership and/or uniforms, but merely a personal decision to affiliate with that cause), are not subject to the Geneva Convention.

“The problem is that article 5 of convention 3 very clearly states that prisoners automatically get Geneva Convention protection if there's "any doubt" about whether they qualify, until a "competent tribunal" has determined that they don't qualify. Now, if someone is captured by U.S. troops on the battlefield, in combat, I've got no problem with saying there's no doubt about their status. The status of people turned in by other parties, for bounties, is a whole lot less clear. Since there are documented cases where such people have been shown not to be combatants at all (much less unlawful ones) I truly can't understand how this could be in dispute.”

*** There is a competent tribunal to adjudicate these matters, regardless of how the person is apprehended: The United States Military. That is, unless you care to make the claim that the US military is “incompetent”. Are you in fact making that claim? The military has freed a number of GITMO detainees who have returned to combat against us, so I guess you could make the claim that they need to be more strict in their evaluations and keep more people locked up.

If you look at the history of our treatment of terrorists and illegal combatants in custody, you’ll see that they are fed properly, given religious material, and do not have their heads cut off with rusty swords. In short, we treat these people humanely while recognizing their capability for brutality and isolating them accordingly. And when convicted, we also threat them humanely. If they are sentenced to death we still don’t cut their heads off with a rusty sword.

Your concern for the well-being of captured enemy prisoners would be more persuasive if I could see examples of other, more vehement lamentations about the way these terrorists treat our prisoners. Not just a perfunctory condemnation or two, but a policy-oriented action plan to correct the abuses. I have one. Incarcerate all the suspected terrorists we can find, keep them locked up for years until our competent military tribunal assesses their guilt or innocence. What is your policy prescription for making the terrorists treat US prisoners fairly? And if you don’t have one, why is this not as great an issue to you? Does it matter less if the person being abused is American?

“The objection is not to treating terrorists with the lack of respect they deserve. The objection is to treating people as terrorists, automatically, without any process for determining that they are terrorists… or not.”

*** This is empty prattle. The terrorists are far worse than anything you imagine the US government has done, yet you focus only on criticizing the US’ actions. When you support a massive effort to kill and imprison as many of these thugs as you can, then I’ll believe the indignation at the US’ actions. Until then it’s a one-sided argument that fails to appreciate that this isn’t WWII. It’s a clash of civilizations against religious fanatics who use terrorism as their method of “persuasion”. This isn’t a legal dispute with them; it’s a full scale war. To assign the abstract notion that we somehow need to prove-positive a terrorist’s guilt before incarcerating them is to ignore the world as it is today.

The US government treats the people it captures infinitely more humanely than our enemies treat us. Your criticism should be directed to the real source of depriving human rights.

What part of the above is unclear?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 15, 2008

Phil:

You have already covered some of this, but here goes anyway.

Mr. Ingles covered Geneva fairly well, but a great deal of confusion is a result of the common use of such terms as “‘covered’ by the Convention,” and “‘apply’ to them”. “Addressed” is perhaps a better term.

My reading indicates that you have to read not only the Convention but its supporting treaty, the International Law of Armed Conflict [LOAC] http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac_2.htm . In theory, everyone is addressed by the LOAC, as it establishes the statuses into which it seems to me that everyone would fit into one of Lawful Combatants, Noncombatants [sometimes euphemistically referred to as “innocent civilians” but includes wounded and captured combatants], and Unlawful Combatants. Terrorists are unlawful combatants by definition because they specifically target non-combatants, mostly civilians. Bialke
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6007/is_55/ai_n8585592 argues that “al-Qaeda and Taliban unlawful combatants are most appropriately described as hostes humani generis, ‘the common enemies of mankind’,” and as such have abandoned the protection of Geneva. To be considered a lawful combatant, one must meet four criteria: be a member of a responsible chain of command; wear a distinctive emblem/insignia “visible from a distance;” carry arms openly [not hiding them in non-combat related building such as churches and schools]; and follow the laws and customs of war. In exchange, the lawful combatant is accorded the combatant’s privilege of not being held responsible for the death and destruction he causes.

There is a fourth status, Undetermined, which avails such individuals the same treatment as Lawful Combatants until their status can be determined. You are correct that the GTMO detainees are actually being treated even better than that. To show just how far the U.S. goes to ensure compliance with Geneva, there was a lot of resentment among the American civilian population over the overly-generous treatment of enemy prisoners of war [EPWs] the U.S. held during WW-II because they were not subject to food rationing, whereas American civilians were. In those days, prisoners could legally be fed only at the same level as the detaining power’s troops in the field [i.e., C-Rations]. The U.S. even gave its EPWs a choice of their own ethnic food or American food. Basically, they had three hots and a cot, and no one shooting at them. Those who had lawful combatant status could volunteer to work in non-war-related jobs, and get paid. One observed that being able to work in the citrus groves removed a great deal of the feeling of being confined. Their treatment was so good that another remarked at the end of the war that he would advise anyone in the next war to get on the side opposite the U.S. and get captured. Civilians also knew their POW soldier sons/fathers were not being treated well at all by the Axis.

For Mr. Ingles:

That’s all well and good, but you didn’t address looking at the war as a law enforcement issue. If it were, proof beyond a reasonable doubt would have to be established to hold them. This is just not possible in a combat situation. War is hell.

However, as Phil points out, apparently hearings were held since some of the detainees were freed; and some of those freed re-entered the war against the U.S. But this draws not a peep from the Left. As a result, I suspect there is a great degree of the “Free Mumia” Syndrome at work: a “competent” tribunal is one that holds hearings and lets them all go – liberals routinely attacking the "oppressive" and "racist" police, while ignoring the criminality of the criminals whom the police are "oppressing." Auster calls these “inversions of decency and sanity” not the work of anarchists, but “the logical consequence of the central credo of modern liberalism: that all intolerance and discrimination must be eliminated.” We must now tolerate even the presence of evil terrorists.

"Anyone who is aware of the high degree of selectivity of Leftist indignation, and of how they remain utterly impassive in the face of any injustice that doesn't serve to further their agenda, keeps their complaints in perspective." – Poster "Thucydides"

Comment by sedonaman | July 15, 2008

Mr. Jackson - I thought you were above word games. The United States military is not a tribunal at all, competent or otherwise. (And beyond that, no one and no group is competent for all purposes - I have no problem declaring the U.S. military to be an incompetent ballet troupe - and even within an overall competent organization (which the U.S. military certainly is, for the purposes for which it's intended - national defense) there will always be incompetent individuals.)

No, I'm not claiming that the U.S. military is 'incompetent', not even at carrying out tribunals. But at first - at the direction of the Bush administration - they were not conducting any tribunals, and even now - again at the direction of the Bush administration - they are not conducting competent ones. Take a look at U.S. military regulations for how tribunals are to be conducted (section 1-6):

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/ar190-8.pdf

Among other things, you need three commissioned officers, written records, open proceedings (with exceptions for security), the right of "persons whose status is to be determined" to call and/or cross-examine witnesses (or present written statements if witnesses are unavailable) and address the tribunal, 'preponderance of the evidence" (note: not "beyond reasonable doubt"), etc. The "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" omitted little things, e.g. the right to call or cross-examine witnesses, or even "preponderance of the evidence". (Note also section 1-6(g) of the above link.)

What I've been able to find about the detainees that have returned to combat has been reported almost entirely through "unnamed sources". Note that at least the first three that have been named were released before even the CSRTs. (BTW, are you calling the U.S. military 'incompetent' for having failed to recognize the threat these three to thirty detainees posed? I doubt it. Mistakes will happen in any endeavor involving humans. That's why we have procedures, to help minimize mistakes.)

What's my policy prescription for making the terrorists treat US prisoners fairly? I don't have one - and neither do you, it's worth noting. Nothing will make them treat prisoners fairly. The only thing that can be done is to reduce the number of prisoners. You want to address the demand side, so to speak; to "[i]ncarcerate all the suspected terrorists we can find, keep them locked up for years until our competent military tribunal assesses their guilt or innocence." In this, you remind me of Hercules vs. the Hydra. In a revenge-driven tribal culture, this is bound to lead to an escalating fight.

My policy is to address the supply side, and I proposed it almost a year ago here: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/08/20/how-to-defeat-islam/#comment-54122

Since I am a citizen of the United States, it's not merely my privilege but my duty to engage in political discussion and advocate for policy changes when I think they are warranted. The terrorists don't give me a vote. I do get one with the U.S. government. I'm not at all ashamed for holding our government and military to a much higher standard than terrorists, and such is my respect and admiration for them that I'm sure they can meet those standards. I did support a "massive effort to kill and imprison as many of these thugs as [we] can" - in Afghanistan, vs. al Qaeda and the Taliban, who had actively attacked us or actively supported and shielded the attackers.

Your complaining that I don't sufficiently decry the terrorists is just a pathetic attempt to distract from your complete refusal to condemn cannibalism. (I trust you've heard of 'red herrings' before? Even if you were right about my insufficient condemnations of terrorism - and of course you're not - what would that have to do with the argument I'm making here? If my argument has problems, address them.)

And all of the above is not relevant to the main point which you still ignored. We don't always treat terrorists humanely and indeed, we reserve the right not to. Most of the time, though, we still do. So far, so good, and all to our credit. As I've stated before, once someone's been confirmed to be a terrorist by some reasonable procedure, I've got no problem with torture.

But, entirely aside from the moral issues that one would expect to be predominate around here, the fact that the current administration has made it a policy that no procedure whatsoever is needed to declare someone a terrorist has led to demonstrable failures and public relations disasters in a war for "hearts and minds". (E.g. Abu Ghraib - an example of incompetent personnel within the U.S. military, BTW.) More, it has led to an avoidable and unnecessary conflict between the three branches of government. Simply following the military's own rules above would have obviated the need for the recent Supreme Court ruling.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | July 16, 2008

“Mr. Jackson - I thought you were above word games.”

*** Raymond – please spare me the sanctimony after asking “What part of the above is unclear?” in response to my comment #10.

You say that the United States military tribunals set up to adjudicate the fate of detained terrorists are not “tribunals”. You cite the fact that immediately after capture the terrorists were not brought before a military tribunal (“But at first - at the direction of the Bush administration - they were not conducting any tribunals”). This is a pretty silly argument. Even in non-military situations the accused is not apprehended and tried without an intervening period.

Then, when you realize that the military in fact conducted tribunals, you contend that even though your first point is meaningless, now “they are not conducting competent ones.” Your evidence for this? “Among other things, you need three commissioned officers, written records, open proceedings (with exceptions for security), the right of "persons whose status is to be determined" to call and/or cross-examine witnesses (or present written statements if witnesses are unavailable) and address the tribunal, 'preponderance of the evidence".

Maybe this is just another word game in your opinion, but I would submit that a terrorist organization committed to attacking Americans — having successfully done so several times from 1993-2001 — whose “membership” requires only kindred thought and not formal organizational status, might fall under the “national security” exceptions you pointed out above.

Incidentally, “national security” exceptions in a time of war go beyond open hearings. In the past the US government has never divulged all the information it collected from intelligence sources when prosecuting captured enemies of the United States. The courts have always made exceptions for this since — and I know this is a hard point to grasp so I’m setting it up for your full attention — foreign terrorists captured in foreign lands are not common criminals. They are enemy combatant prisoners, not people who have broken a US law. They are also not US citizens, and thus are not privy to the same constitutional protections the average citizen enjoys, particularly during a time of war.

“What's my policy prescription for making the terrorists treat US prisoners fairly? I don't have one”.

*** That is painfully obvious.

“… and neither do you, it's worth noting.”

*** On the contrary. I expressed my policy quite clearly. Kill as many of them as we can, and lock the rest of them up (or as many as we can) for as long as we can. People who are dead or behind bars can’t go around cutting people’s heads off with a rusty saw. That will solve the problem of prisoner mistreatment by the enemy by eliminating the enemy. This will “reduce the number of [western] prisoners” held by terrorists”

Your faux concern for the civil rights of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — losing sleep over whether he had the full three commissioned officers at his hearing or only two — is a smokescreen for another agenda as you were previously called on. You sanctimoniously call the desire to defeat truly evil people by killing them as a “revenge-driven tribal culture, this is bound to lead to an escalating fight.” This is pure bullsh*t. Ever Obama has had to acknowledge that killing more terrorists in Iraq in the last 12 months (the surge) has led to fewer terrorist attacks and kidnappings. The effective use of force works every time when coupled with the political will to win. That’s what separates WWII from Vietnam, and people like me from Liberals and Democrats today. If we followed your reasoned policy we’d still be in a heightened state of terrorism in Iraq today.

By the way, I encourage everyone to follow the link you gave us on your ideas about how to defeat terrorism. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/08/20/how-to-defeat-islam/#comment-54122 Somehow, I don’t think that getting better gas mileage and turning the thermostat down is the immediate answer to international terrorism. But, as the surge showed in Iraq, killing them certainly is. And if you want to compare the deaths in 9/11 to US traffic accidents annually to put the “threat” of terrorism in perspective, then let’s put the number of detainees in GITMO in relation to the number of people in Federal jails. You are clearly focusing on the wrong subject, and should abandon this discussion to address something more significant like federal tax evasion, which has resulted in more people behind bars than those at GITMO. Live by the silly comparison, die by the silly comparison.

“Since I am a citizen of the United States, it's not merely my privilege but my duty to engage in political discussion and advocate for policy changes when I think they are warranted.”

*** And I consider it my duty to point out the rampant irrationality and at times blatant stupidity of those offering such solutions. So why even interject such a sophomoric point into this discussion? No one is challenging your right to enter this discussion as a Citizen of the United States of America. We’re challenging the silliness of your alleged policies.

“The terrorists don't give me a vote. I do get one with the U.S. government.”

*** That’s why we kill terrorists, and defeat politicians. Again, what does this second grade civics lesson have to do with anything, except to rationalize your one-sided analysis which focuses entirely on the US (while presuming war is just another form of legal disputes), while excusing yourself from dealing realistically with the rest of the world as it presently exists?

“I'm not at all ashamed for holding our government and military to a much higher standard than terrorists, and such is my respect and admiration for them that I'm sure they can meet those standards.”

*** I’m going to barf.

“I did support a "massive effort to kill and imprison as many of these thugs as [we] can" - in Afghanistan, vs. al Qaeda and the Taliban, who had actively attacked us or actively supported and shielded the attackers.”

*** This is what I love about anti-Bush or liberal-left logic. We’re killing people in Afghanistan after invading their country. The Afghan government didn’t attack us, but we got rid of it anyway because they supported the terrorists. Iran supports Hamas and Hamas has killed Americans, but we shouldn’t attack Iran because Iran didn’t directly attack us … unlike Afghanistan which didn’t directly attack us either, but it’s okay to invade them and get rid of their government anyway. Oh, and kill a lot of their people too because they don’t live in Iraq.

“Your complaining that I don't sufficiently decry the terrorists is just a pathetic attempt to distract from your complete refusal to condemn cannibalism. (I trust you've heard of 'red herrings' before? Even if you were right about my insufficient condemnations of terrorism - and of course you're not - what would that have to do with the argument I'm making here? If my argument has problems, address them.)”

*** Huh? I’m sure there’s some devastating logic and satire in here, somewhere.

“As I've stated before, once someone's been confirmed to be a terrorist by some reasonable procedure, I've got no problem with torture.”

*** Um, torture is against the Geneva Convention which is, according to you, being violated by Bush, which is a bad thing. So, it’s only bad to ignore the GC when we haven’t convicted the terrorist in Federal Court for his overseas enemy combatant activities, but once we do we get to pull his toenails out and cut off his fingers in violation of the Geneva Convention? So it’s not the violation of the Geneva Convention you are upset about, contrary to your original claims. You want to have a federal court declare someone an official certified terrorist so you can torture him in violation of international law! Do we get the sense that your ad hoc positions are internally inconsistent? You’re not upset about violating international law. You upset that Bush is (in your opinion) violating international law.

“the fact that the current administration has made it a policy that no procedure whatsoever is needed to declare someone a terrorist…”

*** This is pure, absolute, unadulterated claptrap. I get really tired of these absolute statements disguised as reasoned thought (“has made it a policy that no procedure whatsoever”) that are nothing more than partisan rhetoric. You are not interested in a real debate, just a way to make hyperbolic statements. You may not like the procedures, and think they are inadequate, but only a partisan hack would claim that no procedures exist whatsoever. This is pure BS and puts the rest of what you say in its proper ideological context.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 16, 2008

Mr. Ingles:

“The United States military is not a tribunal at all…”

What does this mean? They conduct courts martial all the time.

“I'm not at all ashamed for holding our government and military to a much higher standard than terrorists…”

In one statement you have abandoned the rule of law that you say you want. This is nothing less than Leftist thought. It seeks to defeat the US by disarming us by denying us the use of our military while giving our enemies a pass. In case you don’t know it, the U.S. is already “illegitimate”:

In an interview http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23176 , author Peter Beinart "seeks legitimacy" for America's power and also desires to hold America up to his "highest standards" of democracy and human rights. For him, the morality of our nation is determined not by its actions measured against an objective standard such as international law, but subjectively and inversely proportional to its military power. To this Leninist way of thinking, because America is strong, it is immoral and needs to be made "legitimate", in this case by giving terrorists more than required by international law. By this method of measure, America will never live up to the "highest standards" of Beinart, and now you, because you will always raise the bar. Not only that, but do we use Raymond Ingles’ “much higher” standards, Peter Beinart’s "highest” standards, or someone else’s “supreme, ultimate, greatest, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” standards? Better yet, why not just the bare minimum required by international law?

Having jettisoned objective international law as a yardstick, Beinart, you, and other liberal Left-thinkers, will always seek ever higher standards no matter how well America performs. In fact, the more America does to overcome its shortcomings, the worse – not better – you make America appear. The reason for this is the more perfect America is, the more unbearable and unjust seem even its slightest remaining imperfections. Also, by invoking the importance of the opinion of the invented, mythical man-on-the-Arab-street who, if real, would only be parroting what his government’s mouthpiece, al-Jezzera, told him, you have apparently set your “much higher standard”.

But what about the rest of the world, specifically totalitarian regimes and terrorist organizations that snub their noses with impunity at international law and any standard of human decency, and draw not a single word of criticism from the Left? When asked about this apparent double standard, they invariably respond with something along the lines of, "Well, I'm concerned about us, not them," or "We don't really expect them to follow the law."

Now, think about that. Why should rogue regimes and terrorists obey international law if there are no expectations for them to do so, and no consequences if they don’t? BTW, the laws of war hold individuals responsible for their actions, not only nations.

Another aspect of the Beinart/Left mindset that doesn't expect hostes humani generis to follow existing, established international law is they have convinced themselves, and try to get us to believe, that those very same hostes humani generis, through some miracle, will be good and live up to their agreements this time if only we can just get them to promise it – again – by signing yet another peace [note spelling] of paper. And who will pay the price of this repeated folly? I’m sure Justice Scalia would agree that it certainly will not be the Beinarts of the world.

“…the current administration has made it a policy that no procedure whatsoever is needed to declare someone a terrorist…”

If there is no procedure, then what, pray tell, led to the release of some of them?

“‘preponderance of the evidence’ (note: not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’)…”

I didn’t say that the regulations required “beyond reasonable doubt,” I said that to those who think this is a law enforcement issue would demand no less than “beyond reasonable doubt,” because that is the most difficult to establish (read, impossible in a battlefield situation), hence the US military loses.

*Law – A system of rules, usually enforced through a set of institutions, applied to govern a group.

P.S. Is that manual you linked the latest? It is dated 1997.

Comment by sedonaman | July 16, 2008

Mr. Jackson - I find it difficult to understand how you could have so misread all that I have written here. For example, "You cite the fact that immediately after capture the terrorists were not brought before a military tribunal… Then, when you realize that the military in fact conducted tribunals…"

Here is the history, which I expressed pretty clearly but you should be familiar with anyway: When the offensive in Afghanistan and especially Iraq got going, the Bush administration put forth the policy that no hearings of any kind were needed to declare someone a terrorist and outside the GC. Then (in the sense of "subsequent in time"), they were forced to come up with some kind of procedure after the June 2004 Hamdi v Rumsfeld decision. A while after that, the CSRTs were established, with the deficiencies I pointed out and which have also been noted by the Supreme Court. With this basic and recent history in mind, go back and reread what I wrote, including the part about "…the current administration has made it a policy that no procedure whatsoever is needed…" It should be clear that my objection was not that proceedings took time to get started - it's with the contention that no proceedings were ever necessary, that the Bush administration has since been forced back on - somewhat.

When I stated that "once someone's been confirmed to be a terrorist by some reasonable procedure, I've got no problem with torture", you claimed I was being inconsistent since "torture is against the Geneva Convention".

In further remedial reading, I'll make my central point again, in the simplest possible language. (It's a shame I can't draw pictures here.)

1. We have agreed to follow the Geneva Conventions.
2. Terrorists are bad people outside the Geneva Conventions.
3. If they are outside the Geneva Convention, then they can be tortured.

So far, so good, right? We agree on this. Let's continue.

4. The Geneva Conventions (which we have agreed to follow, see #1 above), require a "competent tribunal" to declare that someone is a terrorist (see #2 above) if there is "any doubt" as to their status.

Is your perceived contradiction resolved? Despite my repeated statements, you seem to assume that I want to protect precious terrorists from torture. That's not it. I want to protect potential innocents being swept up and tortured as terrorists. (Actually, it's more than 'potential' - actual cases have been documented, and it's not like I haven't brought them up before.)

So, yeah, "once someone's been confirmed to be a terrorist by some reasonable procedure, I've got no problem with torture". Not only that, I've stipulated that combatants captured on the battlefield by U.S. troops don't require that - there's not "any doubt". I even accept that there will be mistakes on occasion - and I've said that above. But the current set up is inadequate, by the standards of the Geneva Conventions. (And by the standards the Founders set for this country - after having been through a war on U.S. soil - but who cares about living up to those?)

Until you comprehend these points, there's little point in discussing the rest.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | July 17, 2008

Raymond, sorry. I just don't stay up nights wondering whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a misunderstood bystander in the war against international terrorism. That goes for the rest of the human debris in GITMO.

Your concern for the sanctity of the Geneva Convention is undercut by your willingness to indulge in torture, which is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. Why is the GC sacrosanct in one case, and irrelevant in another? The additional hyperbole about “no programs or procedures whatsoever” further tarnishes anything you have to offer as just more selective partisan bilge.

This is a war against people who have a belief system that encourages them to kill innocent people outside their immediate group. It’s not a WWII-type activity where the GC supposedly rules, or even a guerilla warfare like Vietnam. And it’s certainly not a legal problem. It’s a war of ideas and civilizations, and those people who do us harm (or want to do us harm) should be killed or imprisoned where they cannot act on their beliefs.

I really don’t care if 1%, 5%, 10% or 99% of the 200 or so prisoners at GITMO are just misunderstood youths who really mean us no harm. I’m quite happy to allow the US military to determine their status. My only criticism of the military is that in light of the one-sided protestations of their actions they have released many prisoners who have gone to war against us again. The criterion for release should be tightened, not diminished.

The Geneva Convention does not apply to the thugs we imprison in GITMO, so all of your commentary about whether the US is following GC procedures there is irrelevant. And as I said before, it’s a tad hypocritical to rant against living up to the letter of the GC at GITMO, only to cavalierly suggest that it’s perfectly okay to eventually torture these human beings contrary to the GC and international law in general.

Pick a position and argue it consistently, not selectively, and you’ll have that conversation you profess to want.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 17, 2008

By the way, your logic that all terrorists are automatically subject to the Geneva Convention is wrong.

Timothy McVey was not accorded GC rights. He was not visited by the International Red Cross. He was charged under US law with a crime … and this is a key point …because he was a US citizen committing the act on US soil, and thus subject to a different set of procedures. His “crime” was indistinguishable at its essence from the terrorist attacks on 9/11, but these people were … and here’s another key point … not US citizens! And, they also weren’t uniformed soldiers or representatives of an established government and signatory to the GC, which are excluded from coverage by the GC. As was more than demonstrated during WWII, capturing an enemy combatant does not automatically invoke the GC even for soldiers from established governments. Spies out of uniform can be summarily executed.

What you want to do is say that the GC automatically applies to people who are out of uniform, not affiliated with an established country with which we are at war, captured outside the territorial United Stated, and imprisoned outside the territorial United States. This is factually in error, and pretty silly policy to boot.

There is “no doubt” that a non-uniformed, non-soldier, non-representative of a non-government is NOT a soldier or enemy combatant as defined by the GC. I don’t need a tribunal to tell me that a glass of water is not the same thing as a glass of gin. A quick surface check (i.e. taste it!) will tell me the difference, despite any surface similarities. Your demand that all captured non-uniformed terrorists be given automatic full GC protections because we can’t possibly know anything about them until a tribunal of three commission officers decides so is absurd. And once again, if the GC is so sacrosanct that any human being on the planet must be brought before a tribunal regardless of the circumstances, then why is international law in general so irrelevant in protecting a human being from deliberate torture?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 17, 2008

Yes, actually, Mr. Jackson, "the GC automatically applies to people who are out of uniform, not affiliated with an established country with which we are at war, captured outside the territorial United Stated, and imprisoned outside the territorial United States." At least many or them, because Article 5 says exactly that. Go read it. Oh, wait, you already did, because it's right up there in the third comment on this page.

You're right, "a non-uniformed, non-soldier, non-representative of a non-government is NOT a soldier or enemy combatant as defined by the GC". But that doesn't mean that the only conceivable alternative is "unlawful combatant". They could also be "undetermined" or "noncombatants". (Even Sedonaman in comment #15 acknowledges the possibility.)

And for hopefully the final time, I do not demand that "all captured non-uniformed terrorists be given automatic full GC protections" "regardless of circumstances". Ones captured by our forces don't get that, and gee, I said that, several times. At the very least, though, people turned in for reward money should. And since there are documented cases of innocents being turned in by third parties to deflect suspicion from themselves, I'd say those all turned in by third parties should be given a hearing, bounty or no.

Tell me which step (I've conveniently itemized them for you) you disagree with:

A. If someone is covered by the GC (i.e. is either a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or undetermined) they cannot be tortured - it's "a direct violation", as you put it.

B. But, since terrorists operate outside the GC, they are unlawful combatants and can't avail themselves of those protections, right?

C. Therefore, torturing terrorists is not a violation of the GC.

D. Persons turned in by third parties for reward money fall into the status of "undetermined" under the GC until a competent tribunal has determined them to be one of the other three categories.

Let's turn your dismissal around. If the numbers of detainees are so low and it's no big deal, then why the vehement objection to putting a procedure in place, one that we've already documented and carried out for decades? Why is it such a terrible burden that it had to be taken all the way to the Supreme Court?

Don't forget, U.S. citizens can be placed in Gitmo if they are declared to be terrorists. There's no Constitutional difference in status between Jose Padilla and you. Do you trust, say President Obama with this power?

Comment by Raymond Ingles | July 17, 2008

“Yes, actually, Mr. Jackson, "the GC automatically applies to people who are out of uniform, not affiliated with an established country with which we are at war, captured outside the territorial United Stated, and imprisoned outside the territorial United States’."

*** Tim McVey was at war with the United States — his own words. He was tried and executed without GC protections. The Simbionese Liberation Front was also at war with the United States. Their members were killed and/or imprisoned without GC protections. As were the Puerto Rican terrorists who attacked the US in the late 40s. As are the Al Quada thugs who attack us now.

None of these people were subject to the same logic your reading of the GC imposes on GITMO detainees. Of course, George Bush wasn’t president then.

The GC is a treaty between nations, not an all-purpose, whatever-you-want-it-to-be civil liberties legislation. Article 4.1.2 expressly states that “Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);

that of carrying arms openly;

that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”

Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

There is no doubt about non-uniformed, lurking in the shadows terrorists who conduct non-conventional war. They are NOT covered by the GC! International law requires that they be treated “humanely” (which we do — contrary to your advice we do not torture them). “Humane treatment” is not automatically the same thing as “GC treatment” which requires a tribunal of three commissioned officers, etc. That is your and other liberal’s efforts to impose standards on the US to which it did not agree in the GC. Humane treatment means we don’t cut off their fingers and burn them with cigarettes, which you want to do. I support aggressive interrogation techniques, but not overt torture. I’m not a barbarian … or a liberal who can’t argue his position consistently.

Once again I find it more than a bit disingenuous that an open advocate of torture in contravention of international law would agonize over whether the US uses three instead of two commissioned officers to evaluate the ongoing danger of a captured terrorist — particularly in light of the fact that the US has yet to execute any captured terrorists, and in fact has freed several dubious characters. In anything, the US has been too lenient in their standards, not too strict.

Since you appear to have a problem, by your own admission, with understanding this train of thought, I’ll go on further and answer your point-by-point questions:

A. If someone is covered by the GC (i.e. is either a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or undetermined) they cannot be tortured - it's "a direct violation", as you put it.

*** Terrorists AREN’T covered by the GC. So, whatever the GC says or doesn’t say about captured enemy prisoners of war is irrelevant. Under normal circumstances the conversation would end here, since your premise is flawed in automatically assuming that ANY enemy combatant is automatically granted GC protections when the GC itself list exceptions to these protections!

The only consistent thing the GC says about treatment is that it be “humane” … and once again this is an important note to remember … whether it is for a captured enemy soldier or a terrorist. This rules out torture, which you advocate.

You adopt the nonsensical position that all prisoners must automatically get GC protections (which means Red Cross visits, letters home, etc.) because it’s the humane thing to do, but then say that some of these prisoners can be tortured. Your inconsistency and irrationality betray your true motives in raising your objections in the first place.

B. But, since terrorists operate outside the GC, they are unlawful combatants and can't avail themselves of those protections, right?

*** That is correct. We have an obligation to treat captured prisoners humanely under international law, but not to give every captured prisoner the right to counsel, a hearing in an open court, a court appointed attorney if he can’t provide one himself, visits from the Red Cross, etc. We may choose to do some of these things (like let the Red Cross in), but we aren’t obligated by law to do it.
None of this is really hard to understand, if you want to.

C. Therefore, torturing terrorists is not a violation of the GC.

*** Terrorists are not covered by the GC. Therefore whatever is (or isn’t) done to them isn’t in violation of the GC. It may be right or wrong for other reasons, and subject to other laws, but it has nothing to do with the GC because THESE PEOPLE DO NOT MEET THE ARTICLE 4 DEFINITION! Torturing terrorists is not in violation of my local ordinance against shooting weapons in a suburban area either. It’s also not in violation of a thousand other irrelevant-to-this-discussion laws and treaties. THESE LAWS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.

You deliberately mix the concept of humane or inhumane behavior with the GC, when the real issue regarding the humane or inhumane treatment of people who are not covered by the GC is “international law”. You continue to debate whether the US is adhering to the GC or not because you can’t debate whether we should adhere to international law or not. You’ve already thrown international law under the bus by advocating torture, so the only way to slam Bush is to get hyper-technical about the GC!

Note for really dense people: While the GC is an example of an international law, it is not the same as “all international law”. Thus I focus on the reason for talking about a specific example of international law — which in this case doesn’t apply to prisoners as identified in article 5 of a specific treaty (the GC) — and international law in general.

I’d also point out another dishonest sleight of hand by the Bush haters as quoted in Wikipedia. It’s the same kind of logic Raymond uses. “The treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 has led to the current controversy regarding the interpretation of "unlawful combatants" by the George W. Bush administration. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law."

Now let me put it in plain English. “The treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 — THAT IS, PRISONERS WHO ARE NOT COVERED BY THE GC BECAUSE OF THEIR LACK OF UNIFORM, NON-TRADITIONAL COMBAT ACTIVITIES (i.e. TERRORISM), ETC., LIKE THE TERRORISTS WE HOLD AT GITMO

… has led to the current controversy regarding the interpretation of "unlawful combatants" by the George W. Bush administration — THAT IS, THE CONTROVERSY CREATED BY PEOPLE WHO DISLIKE BUSH AND THEREFORE OPPOSE HIS POLICIES, WHATEVER THEY ARE

… The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: — THAT IS, RATHER THAN THE LAW ITSELF, WE NOW LOOK TO A BUREAUCRATIC OPINION

… Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention — WHICH MEANS, THEY MUST BE TREATED HUMANELY (WHICH WE DO), WHILE ONLY THOSE WHO ARE UNIFORMED SOLDIERS RECEIVE THE FULL RANGE OF RIGHTS DETAILED IN THE CONVENTION

… or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention — ”. CIVILIANS ARE DEFINED AS NON-COMBATTANT SUPPORT WORKERS (COOKS, TRUCK DRIVERS, ETC). MEANING, TERRORISTS ARE NOT “CIVILIANS

Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law," — AND NOW FOR THE FINAL REMINDER TO RAYMOND, THE “LAW” IS THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AGAINST TORTURE (WHICH RAYMOND WOULD DO ANYWAY), NOT THE GC, WHICH IS ONE TREATY. IF THE GC WAS THE FOCUS OF THIS COMMENT, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID “GC” INSTEAD OF “LAW”.

This is why this conversation has been so dishonest, Raymond. Through ignorance or deliberate deception you co-mingle the “GC” and “international law” to bash Bush. And in doing so you yourself hypocritically advocate violating international law to commit torture. Your concern for the poor theoretical innocents in GITMO is a ruse to let you condemn Bush for acting inhumanely by ignoring a treaty that doesn’t apply, while you yourself advocate violating international law by committing torture.

D. Persons turned in by third parties for reward money fall into the status of "undetermined" under the GC until a competent tribunal has determined them to be one of the other three categories.

*** Which is what the US military has done at GITMO, and in fact cleared some people (sometimes erroneously, erring on the side of leniency when they should have been more stringent). For those whose circumstances are not in dispute, like KSM, they can rot there forever. And yet, even the inhumane Bush administration has given him a hearing.

Let's turn your dismissal around. If the numbers of detainees are so low and it's no big deal,

*** Once again we have an example of stellar flawed logic from Raymond. These people, though small in number compared to tax evaders, are KILLERS, not tax evaders. That’s why we should err on the side of keeping them locked up, not letting them go free. If you were in any way honest or realistic in your assessment, you wouldn’t even bring up such a foolish issue.

There's no Constitutional difference in status between Jose Padilla and you.

*** Seems to me Jose had his day in court, and his incarceration was re-affirmed by the courts.

I now await Raymond’s next response that will ignore all of this and insist once again that Bush is acting inhumanely by denying GITMO detainees their full three commissioned officer tribunals, so they can be officially declared terrorists which will now permit us to torture them in violation of international law.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 17, 2008

Interesting reading here, but silly idealism on the part of Mr. Ingles. What Mr. Ingles is prposing is typical of those who, whether they admit it or even realize it themselves, build a case against war as a means of dealing with security problems.

This is done by starting with a premise such as, there is a compelling need to determine guilt and innocence of those captured in war. Silly, really.

There are casualties in war, the worst of them being lots of dead people. An innocent bystanders by standing too close to the action and mistaken for a bad guy and detained is a casualty, as well. Living casualties, I would call them. The dead innocent ones are called collateral damage.

We accept casualties in war - our own and theirs. We accept that people will die; we accept that innocents will die. We accept that innocents will get captured and held. It's war. The hope is that we won't waste time capturing and holding innocents, as it is a waste of resources and does nothing to speed up the process.

Beyond the efficiency question, the agonizing over the minutia of status, and the constant crying for determination of guilt is silly as all Hell in war, especially if one considers under the rules of engagement (that's another debate) the guy very well could have been shot on the spot from which he was captured.

If the person captured instead of shot is entitled to process, the person shot was entitled to process.

If I accept my military may determine the enemy and shoot him, I have to accept that it may determine him the enemy and detain him. He could have been shot without a hearing, but can't be held without a hearing?

Mr. Ingles' argument is for a more fair and just war with respect to detainees. My argument during war is getting it over with by defeating the enemy with the least loss of life on our side.

Like Mr. Jackson, I don't really care about those being held by a military empowered to kill and capture whoever it feels it needs to, and I understand the reality that some of those kiled or captured may have just been in the wrong place and the wrong time.

To the extent there is fairness and rule in war, we have the Geneva Conventions, but we have a problem here in that not a single member of the unorganized (to any degree) enemy we face, conducts themselves according to the "rules" of war that must be followed to receive Geneva protections, nor are any of them signatories. Providing the benefits of Geneva protections without requiring compliance would be mighty big of us, but also makes war a little more attractive to the enemy. Is it wise to award Geneva perks to the enemy when the goal is to make war less appetizing to the enemy?

The military makes decisions in war - some good and some bad, but all made to accomplish the goal of defeating the enemy while reducing our losses. If the military can't make these decisions, then we can't have war.

Um, makes me wonder why so many anti war folks have a problem with the military's decisions when it comes to prisoners?

We can't afford to not kill or lock up those we feel are the enemy in time of war.

If our guys are taking the time to lock up an enemy pointed out or turned in by a local rather than release him (which happens the majority of the time based on what I hear from good sources - don't ask but do keep in mind that there isn't enough room in the free world to detain the number of supposed bad guys turned in for bounty. Just use your common sense), I have to give them the benefit of the doubt. They really, really, don't have much interest in detaining anyone they don't deem of value or a danger to us.

It apprently did happen to a fair degree at the beginning of the war (and a lot of those have been released), but now the lack of return on investment is too much of a reality to ignore.

Comment by nick adams | July 17, 2008

No one has addressed the point I made in #8 above that, "The whole decision hinged on the court’s view that the detainees are being punished because they are behind bars. Punishment is not the case since, 'Mere detention of captured combatants during time of hostilities is not a criminal judicial process. It is a military action to disarm enemy combatants, as well as a means to facilitate the gathering of military intelligence.'"

We agree that even “Undetermined” are to be accorded some of Geneva until their status is determined by competent tribunal. Without regard to what constitutes “competent” and “tribunal”, what time limit does Geneva put on this determination? It also says that captives may be held until the end of hostilities, and that after the end of hostilities, they can be tried and punished for any war crimes they committed. They can also be tried and punished for crimes they commit while in captivity, so all those who attacked their guards can, in theory, be held and tried for assault. If they are found guilty and sentenced to prison, the sentence is in addition to time spent in detention [remember, mere detention is not punishment].

So, IMHO, President Bush is completely within his authority to hold these people until the end of hostilities, and then convene a “competent tribunal” [however that is defined] to determine their status and go from there.
As far as “torture” is concerned, I have no problem with waterboarding since it is not torture and gets the job done without injury. [How can it be considered torture since some of our own people have voluntarily undergone it? By contrast, who would voluntarily have his gonads electrified?]

Comment by sedonaman | July 17, 2008

Mr. Jackson - I don't recall the U.S. government declaring war on Timothy McVeigh. He was a U.S. citizen whose crimes happened on U.S. soil. I suppose a case could be made that his actions did happen during wartime - remember how we had that "war on drugs" and "war on cancer" and now there's no drugs or cancer anymore? You're the first I've seen do so, though. He did, however, get more than GC protections - a trial "beyond reasonable doubt" and all that - so the GC is irrelevant even if it did apply to his case.

The GC is the central and primary international law governing torture, though. There's also the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" and the "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment", which the U.S. has agreed to… but with reservations: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/usdocs/tortres.html

Contrary to your claims, too, I also didn't advise torturing terrorists. I said I didn't particularly mind if they were; I agree that they are "the common enemies of humankind", as pirates have been regarded for centuries. (An interesting parallel here: http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2005/feature_burgess_julaug05.msp) Torture's almost always not worth the trouble, but terrorist by their actions put themselves outside the protections of law. Still, yes, we do torture them, on occasion: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
That's leaving aside the documented cases of abuse that I've pointed to before that are an inevitable, human consequence of the "guilty until proven innocent" mentality on display here.

So, with the itemized propositions, let's see how we did. (A) you agree with, you just immediately restate (B), at some length. (B) you agree with, again. A lot of words when just a simple "Yes" and "Yes" would have sufficed.

(C), too, you agree with, and then you go on to complain (at length) about something that I didn't write. You also cite "international law" again, though you don't actually name the laws you're referring to, or link to them, or anything, as I did above… though I noted the reservations we kept about the whole thing. (If you're citing something besides what I've listed, do it explicitly, please.)

So, we get to (D). Here you claim that Gitmo is universally humane and in accord with the GC. Then why did the administration specifically state that they didn't have to abide by the GC there, until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in 2006? Regarding the treatment prior to that, you may want to review this: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/02/america/02detain.php

It's not that the military didn't, on at least some occasions, make some effort to determine the status of prisoners at Guantanamo. It's the contention that they didn't have to that I'm objecting to.

BTW, Sedonaman - I don't have time to respond to everything here, but regarding he "end of hostilities", I refer you to my remark above about the "wars" on drugs and cancer. And as to casualties, we do try to minimize them insofar as possible. And "process" is explicitly put aside when in combat… but once captured, after combat when bullets aren't flying, process does apply. Entirely different worlds.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | July 18, 2008

“This week [July 16, 2008] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed that President Bush has the authority to classify people arrested in the U.S. as enemy combatants and detain them indefinitely. … In this week's decision (PDF), … five members of the court said Congress implicitly authorized the military detention of suspected Al Qaeda members, including those arrested in the United States, when it approved the use of military force against the terrorist network and its Taliban allies.” http://reason.com/blog/show/127635.html with links.

Comment by sedonaman | July 18, 2008

Sedona: Once again you let the facts get in the way of a good ideological rant. I'm sure someone, somewhere, in some capacity or another disagrees with this ruling, thus proving that Bush is violating the civil rights of captured terrorists.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 18, 2008

Phil:

“…someone, somewhere, in some capacity or another disagrees with this ruling, thus proving that Bush is violating the civil rights of captured terrorists.”

It’s worse than that. Bush is now violating the civil rights of child terrorists. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C4BBC03A-20AB-4888-B19D-0EA198611185

60 Minutes says that the term “unlawful enemy combatant” is a “euphemism[!!!] for terrorist”, as it tries to stir up sympathy for Omar Khadr because he’s the youngest being held at GTMO. His attorneys say that his father made him be a translator for al-Qaeda. They don’t explain what possessed a humble translator to throw a hand grenade that killed an American soldier.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3516048.shtml

Comment by sedonaman | July 18, 2008

Mr. Ingles:

"guilty until proven innocent"

Waitaminnit. Wait just one cotton pickin’ minnit. There’s another side to that hyperbole. While I agree that, “It is better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man,” I draw the line at, “It is better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict a single one of them.” The law (not justice) has become only a game, a game of who wins. Winning is everything, not justice. That’s why I maintain this is all, “Get Bush; honorably if possible, but get Bush.” If denying the U.S its right of self-defense is necessary, then so be it.

“…regarding he ‘end of hostilities’, I refer you to my remark above about the ‘wars’ on drugs and cancer.”

Those are not wars envisioned by Geneva, so I don’t know how they figure into the discussion.

“And as to casualties, we do try to minimize them insofar as possible. And ‘process’ is explicitly put aside when in combat… but once captured, after combat when bullets aren't flying, process does apply. Entirely different worlds.”

I don’t have the slightest idea what you are saying here.

Comment by sedonaman | July 18, 2008

Raymond: Timothy McVey declared war on the US. Enemies do that, you know, bringing us into combat with them. Like Japan in WWII and Al Queda in 2001. His act wasn’t a serial crime, or a mass murder of the kind perpetrated by John Wayne Gacy. It was an overt attack on our political, social and economic system that killed over 200 innocent people. The fact that you have difficulty understanding this isn’t surprising, in light of your other analyses.

It's an irrelevant point whether you advocate, endorse, embrace, support, condone, or encourage torture. I just can't take seriously the arguments from someone who simultaneously sees nothing wrong with torturing terrorists in violation of international law, but loses sleep over whether the military tribunal of KSM had the full three commissioned officers presiding over it.

And because we choose to treat the GITMO prisoners humanely — which parallels some of the things found in the GC — doesn’t now require us to embrace and follow the GC for all eternity for all people in all circumstances, regardless of the exceptions noted in the GC itself. That’s tortured logic at its worst, pardon the pun. If so, I’ll never give another dime to the American Cancer Society, because doing so would obligate me to either support it forever, or support every other charity.

You’re entire objection has now boiled down to this: While the Bush administration has, and continues, to treat GITMO detainees humanely, they should be condemned because they are doing so as decent people instead of invoking the GC as the vehicle forcing them to do so … even though terrorists are expressly not covered by the GC. And they should be equally criticized for not recognizing that it’s okay to torture terrorists in their custody in violation of international law.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 18, 2008

Phil:

"His [Timothy McVey's] act wasn’t a serial crime, … It was an overt attack on our political, social, and economic system that killed over 200 innocent people."

His act was, essentially, and act of war and is why he should have been turned over for a military trial, just like the saboteurs were in 1942. The mentality that everything is a law enforcement issue has to cease.

"While the Bush administration has, and continues, to treat GITMO detainees humanely, [it] should be condemned…"

Yes, because the better it treats the detainees, the more unjust it appears. That's why I advocate, among other things, feeding them only at the level of our troops in the field per GC. The fact they have "special" dietary "requirements" is a problem they should have considered before deciding to wage private, unlawful warfare.

Comment by sedonaman | July 19, 2008

Dr. Jackson, while we're letting "the facts get in the way", let's quote a bit more from that Reason article:
Therefore, "if the Government's allegations about al-Marri are true," his detention is legal. A different five-judge majority said that, assuming the other majority is right about the president's legal authority, al-Marri "has not been afforded sufficient process to challenge his designation as an enemy combatant."

That's what I've been saying. If someone's a terrorist, they have a lot fewer rights than even a convict of a regular crime. However, suspects have more rights than that.

And you misrepresent my objections to, say, KSM's hearing. I did not object to the number of officers presiding. Actually, I from what I can see, they did follow that particular rule. My objections were to ignoring… gee, let's see, I wrote them down right there in comment 16… the right to call or cross-examine witnesses, or even "preponderance of the evidence". Sure, the number of officers is trivial… but since that's not what I objected to, you're putting up a strawman.

You also continue to misunderstand my main point (though I'm beginning to think it's actually "misrepresent", not "misunderstand"), which has always "boiled down to" the fact that being suspected of being a terrorist is not the same as actually being a terrorist. We need to be reasonably sure that someone is a terrorist before we treat them like one. The GC already mandates that - and that's why the administration was so keen to claim that they didn't want to abide by the GC in these conflicts.

I even agree that they're right, they don't have to - once they've actually determined that someone's a terrorist by some reasonable procedure. Just being a suspect isn't enough. Or do you claim that President Obama could just declare anyone a suspected terrorist and put them in Gitmo without anyone being able to challenge that?

Comment by Raymond Ingles | July 21, 2008

Raymond: You listed the specific components to a "competent tribunal", among them the requirement for three rather than two (or one) commissioned officers. Since you found the need to raise this matter, which I found to be an absurd way to evaluate the humane treatment of detainees at GITMO, it was fair play to illustrate one absurdity with another. If all the other GC conditions you identified were met, but the tribunals had only 2 commissioned officers, then according to the criterion you yourself defined as constituting a “competent tribunal”, the proceedings would have been a human rights violation.

This is lost on you because the real subject of this debate isn’t whether the US has met a technical definition (i.e. living up to the individual components set out in the GC), but whether GITMO detainees are being treated (a) humanely, and (b) being held indefinitely.

The fact that we’ve released a number of detainees (who have returned to fight against us!) gives lie to the blanket charge you raised that there are NO procedures or policies to release captured suspected terrorists, and that all these suspects are therefore being held indefinitely.

As for point (a), international law forbids torture, PERIOD. It doesn’t matter whether the individual being tortured is a 100% impartially-certified, self-professed terrorist. IT’S ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL TO TORTURE THEM. And yet, you persist in stating that the only thing we need to do is make sure that a terrorist’s guilt is impartially determined before he can be subjected to torture. This willingness to establish the conditions by which toes can be cut off and fingernails pulled out (two examples of “torture”) makes me wonder whether your concern for the way present day GITMO detainees — who I remind you again are being given hearings and some even released — is over a violation of their basic human rights, or just a convenient way to criticize Bush.

Had you said “aggressive interrogation techniques” — which may include things like waterboarding and other physical inducemen — rather than “torture”, I’d have cut you some slack here. Yet even when I threw you this hint in Comment 23, you continue to refer to “torture.” I submit that things we do to our own soldiers in training (like waterboarding) by definition are not torture. I further submit that not every physically or mentally uncomfortable act is torture, though some certainly are. Just throwing words around blindly that conjure up images of Nazi Death Camp experiences does not contribute to intelligent conversation. Nor does making absolutist statements about NO policies/procedures, etc. You may disagree with them and their reasoning, but that’s not what you were doing here. You were asserting that the Bush administration, despite the fact that they have freed detainees, had no policy for doing so.

Your basic contention is that the GC applies to all captured enemy combatants regardless of their circumstances of capture, even though the GC identifies specific exceptions for non-uniformed combatants. This is wrong. And you further state that where doubt exist, the GC must be followed. This is correct. BUT “doubt” is not a legal term that requires a formal hearing to assess. You are projecting a hyper-technical definition of “doubt” (one that can only be resolved by a formal GC tribunal) on each and every prisoner, period, regardless of all other circumstances. This is insane.

You further equate following the strict letter of the GC with humane treatment. [Humane treatment can be the way their daily lives proceed, as well as whether they are held indefinitely with no procedures whatsoever to release them]. On both counts the treatment of suspected terrorists in US custody are humane. The US treats its prisoners humanely with or without formal GC protections. Those with GC status get more privileges than those without. But a basic minimum is maintained in both cases that far exceeds anything required to judge their treatment “humane”

In short, your concerns are all hyper-theoretical, and not related to the facts on the ground. And, like I keep repeating, you’re willing to subject human beings to illegal torture under international law if certain conditions are met certifying their terrorist status, which belittles any real concern you may have for treating people humanely.

Raymond, your reasoning is sloppy and hyperbolic, and makes me and others believe that something else is at play behind your concerns, because you are an obviously bright guy and your reasoning here is just plain silly. You have built the ultimate straw man argument by mixing theoretical concerns about issues that are not in any real doubt, with protests about actions that you say are not taking place despite the evidence that they have been for several years now, and water it all down by simultaneously basing your argument on an appreciation for humane treatment while condoning torture in violation of international laws against inhumane treatment.

You have built your entire argument on the false premise that the Bush Administrations actions — whatever they are — are by definition improper unless the GC is followed, even when the GC itself allows for exceptions. But again, even if the GC is not followed, US and international law set certain standards of humane treatment, which the Bush administration has more than met.

So, in your world we have an inhumane Bush administration acting humanely in its actual treatment of detainees, worthy of condemnation because it is not following a treaty that does not apply to obvious terrorists who are outside that treaty, with no procedures at all to free potentially innocent detainees … except for the fact that a number of detainees have been set free via hearings and other formal reviews, with one currently appearing before a military tribunal. Oh, and it’s okay to torture people who have been certified as terrorists.

It’s not difficult to argue against platitudes and hyperbolic examples of reality, which is why your arguments have never gotten any traction.

As for your Obama pseudo example, no, I would not like that system. I prefer the present system under Bush which, as we speak, is allowing OBL’s driver to challenge his status.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 21, 2008

Hypothetical for Mr. Ingles:

Suppose when Saddam was in power, he gave his AA gun crews orders to shoot down any coalition aircraft flying over Iraq, and for the Iraqi people to kill any downed pilot. An American fighter jet is enforcing the UN “no-fly” zones when it is shot down by an Iraqi AA gun crew. The pilot bails out and is attacked and killed by farmers on the ground. How many (if any) war crimes were committed in this hypothetical situation?

Comment by sedonaman | July 21, 2008

Here's the central problem: you claim that my "basic contention is that the GC applies to all captured enemy combatants regardless of their circumstances of capture, even though the GC identifies specific exceptions for non-uniformed combatants."

And, I state yet again, that's not what I claim. I claim two things:

1. The GC applies if there is "any doubt" about whether someone is, in fact, a 'non-uniformed combatant'. Please state explicitly (for example, "yes" or "no" would be sufficient) whether you acknowledge that.

2. There is very reasonable doubt about the status of people turned in by non-U.S. forces. Again, I'm asking for a very explicit "yes" or "no" if you agree with this.

We can move on to other things (like the definition of torture - though you should read the Hitchens Vanity Fair piece linked in comment 26 first, both pages) once we've hammered that out.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | July 23, 2008

Mr. Ingles:

#1. Yes.

#2. There is always doubt, as the judge said in his instructions to the jury I was once on; the question should be, is it "reasonable doubt"? In the case of GTMO detainees, no. It’s more reasonable to believe they are lying.

Just because someone tells you he was an innocent farmer when the black helicopters swooped down and scooped him away, it isn't necessarily true, especially when he can't answer any questions on how to farm the crops he claimed he was growing; AND he comes from a society where lying is like bluffing in poker is to us. Here http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?f882c1b8-aa42-431f-83a6-0066e7629ace is an excellent lesson the Brits learned about reasonable doubt and lying when hearing testimony about atrocities supposedly perpetrated by their troops.

Comment by sedonaman | July 23, 2008

Raymond. There is only hupothetical doubt about people turned in by foreign entities. That doubt can be resolved through our intelligence agencies or through GITMO hearings like those that have actually occurred. This does not automatically trigger the need for a full blown GC hearing, unless that person is wearing a soldier's uniform.

Once again you take the abstract notion of doubt and extrapolate that, to act humanely, the ONLY way this can be done is through the GC. This is absurd, particularly when the GC itself says that there are exceptions for non-uniformed people. And, where the GC speaks about "doubt" is captured enemy cooks and laundry workers, who should be extended the GC rights because they are captured under the banner of an established nation, not terrorists.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 23, 2008

Mr.Ingles

U.S. interests and mandates are clear - kill and capture the enemy. In time of war, the military is empowered to do that. The enemy is identified/targeted, then the enemy is killed. The enemy is identified/targeted, and the enemy is captured and held.

You challenge the identification/targeting and you challenge treatment of those identified/targeted - not the dead ones, but the ones captured.

It appears your primary concern is with combatants/terrorists identified/targeted based on information provided in exchange for a reward.

Are we to believe that your concerns here vanish when reward money vanishes?

I suspect you don't like the carrots in this soup, but removing them would reveal you have a problem with the potatoes, and on and on until a soup is impossible.

As I pointed out earlier, realizing it or not, your argument at its base is an argument against allowing the military the freedom to prosecute a war in a way that maximizes enemy losses and minimizes our own.

In time of war, meddling in who we capture and put on trial is little different in meddling in who we target and shoot.

As for the GC

It is the realization of this that likely makes some believe, as Mr. Jackson points out, that something else is at work with you.

Comment by nick adams | July 23, 2008

As for the GC, there is a willingness to use it as a test of our civility by awarding it in a way never designed - to those who not only do not offer it in kind, but who by definition violate and trample it.

You may see an advantage in awarding GC perks, yet you have yet to explain the advantage when there is no reciprocity. It buys us nothing in the way of humane treatment for our own, while awarding it rewards the enemy.

You may desire to take a high road, but do understand that you are making a vote to sacrifice the lives of servicemembers and perhaps our civilians when you do so.

Perhaps you are chasing world opinion?

Comment by nick adams | July 23, 2008

Dr. Jackson: Not bad - 129 words and not one of them were either "yes" or "no". Not even a "Yes, but…" or "No, because…".

Still, your intention is moderately unmuddied. Your comments make little sense unless you acknowledge #1, that the GC applies if there is "any doubt" about whether someone is, in fact, a 'non-uniformed combatant'. I'll henceforth assume you said "Yes" to this. You'll need to explicitly correct me if I've misunderstood. (I'd suggest words like, "You've misunderstood me about #1. I actually believe…".)

So, I'll treat your discussion as if it were preceded with something like, "#1: Yes. #2, No, because…"

Sedonaman states that the society there is one "where lying is like bluffing in poker is to us". For some reason he appears to think that because they lie, it means we can trust them implicitly when they turn in someone for money. I admit the logic there escapes me.

You claim that there's only "hypothetical doubt about people turned in by foreign entities". However, since there have been actual, real, non-hypothetical people who have been turned in falsely, and I've pointed you to them, as with Sedonaman I can't really follow your logic. As Winston Churchill noted, "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results."

You also claimed that "where the GC speaks about "doubt" is captured enemy cooks and laundry workers". Please go read comment #3 above. It may be the first time you've read it, because you seem to be unaware of the phrase "belligerent act" in there, which is hard to apply to "enemy cooks and laundry workers".

Oh, and one more quote from that Reason article Sedonaman helpfully pointed out: "But at least the courts have definitively rejected the Bush administration's circular 'enemy combatant' logic, whereby people accused of terrorist connections lose any right to challenge the accusation because terrorists don't deserve due process."

Comment by Raymond Ingles | July 23, 2008

Raymond; I learned a long time ago that people committed to an ideological point of view (treating people humanely except for when it's okay to torture them), can’t be persuaded to re-examine the announced premise of their objections. There’s always much more involved to their objections than they are willing to publicly admit or intellectually concede.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 23, 2008

Dr. Jackson - As I've noted before, even if you were right about the motivations for my objections - which of course you're not - what would that have to do with whether or not they were valid?

Why are you so completely unwilling to address the actual substance of my objections - stated clearly, laboriously, and repeatedly - and instead try to address my supposed motives?

Comment by Raymond Ingles | July 23, 2008

You reach a point in an intellectual exchange when the other guy will not respond to the copious points you’ve made earlier. Further dialogue is pointless.

Did you hear the one about the dyslexic atheist? He doesn’t believe in dog?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 23, 2008

Dr. Jackson - Ironically, yeah, I think we can agree on that.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | July 24, 2008

Mr. Ingles:

This discussion illustrates why the Bush Administration fought so hard to keep the detainees out of civilian courts. On the criminal side, civilian courts exist for one purpose, and one purpose only: to turn criminals loose on an unsuspecting society so judges and lawyers can feel good about themselves by demonstrating to the world that they are “not at all ashamed for holding our government to a much higher standard.” This attitude has infected so many that only America is held to any standard of decency, while others are not held to any standard at all. No one on the Left has ever uttered a harsh word about Saddam; oh, no – the war was all Bush’s fault. And when was the last time the Left condemned terrorists for waging unlawful warfare? This attitude is what feeds terrorism, and the Left knows it and wants it because it supports their goal of revolution. The inescapable conclusion is that the only tribunal deemed “competent” will be one that sets terrorists free.

“… there have been actual, real, non-hypothetical people who have been turned in falsely…”

How do you know that? Another legal “analysis”?

"But at least the courts have definitively rejected the Bush administration's circular 'enemy combatant' logic, whereby people accused of terrorist connections lose any right to challenge the accusation because terrorists don't deserve due process."

That’s true; it does say that, but it also says that Bush can hold them until the end of hostilities. Therefore, we hold them until then, and then give them “due process” (a euphemism for “setting them free”). Bush can do that because the courts said he can, and because, as I’ve said several times, mere detention is not punishment; and since it’s not punishment, there need not be any charges brought against them.

Also, you now condemn Phil for not addressing your points, but you have not addressed several points I made here, specifically my most important point in comment #18 which is your holding America to a “much higher standard than terrorists.” This is bass-ackwards; terrorists and other nation-states, legitimate or not, should be held to the same standard as America, regardless. Otherwise, why even have a Geneva Convention Treaty? All that is necessary is to impose the rules on only one country, the U.S. Not holding others responsible for their deeds is also a sneaky way to disarm America because, as I said, you can always raise the standard for America to make it look bad, and by implication make others look like “victims” to “evil” America.

Natan Sharansky was not freed from a gulag by ignoring Soviet oppression and concentrating on improving America; he was freed by America putting pressure on the Soviets.

Therefore, holding everyone to the same standard is my non-negotiable position. Until you are willing to agree, there is little point in continuing.

You also never addressed the author’s point, which I re-enforced, that detaining enemy combatants is not a law enforcement issue, nor did you address my hypothetical in #35.

Comment by sedonaman | July 24, 2008

Raymond. Good to see you've kept your sense of humor.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 24, 2008

Mr. Jackson
I appreciate what you have written. Mr.Ingles is an ideologue who uses lots of devices in order to engage and hold others in debate. In most instances he gives himself away by his fourth or fifth post.

Hamhanded attempts to disarm others or otherwise sell his reasonablness and sincerity regarding a point, with comments such as his hawkish stance on (illegal) torture are transparent. He may as well interject an, "have you been working out?" in the middle of the debate.

Of course there also is the possibility that his primary interest is the debate, and not the subject of it.

Going back to the start, he makes it clear that a report by an attorney for a Gitmo prisoner(s) helps make his argument. He also raises a concern about prisoners being captured or turned in by others. Like a lot of others, Mr. Ingles seems willing to quickly believe the U.S. military has an interest in detaining people who have nothing to do with the war (just what the motivation would be, Mr. Ingles has yet to theorize). In other words, the military must justify the enemies detained and how it treats them(though remarkably, not those it shoots or blows up?). What is so difficult about understanding that in a war, the military is assigned the task of identifying and either killing or capturing the enemy.

Interestingly, there isn't much chance anyone held at Gitmo could ever prove their innocence, though it certainly is possible the government might not have enough evidence of guilt - which is the real problem from a security standpoint. More than 500 prisoners have been released from GITMO. One of the more notorious releases was Abdullah Mehsud. The BBC and many other news organizations have detailed the story.

Mehsud went back to command forces against the U.S. out of Waziristan. He blew himself up when Pakistani police attempted to capture him again. He probably didn't think he could lie his way out of GITMO twice.

Not to worry. Mehsud's little bother, Baitullah Mehsud, who was turned over to U.S. forces by a warlord in Afghanistan (I suspect he was paid his reward money) and held at GITMO, also was released from that prison.

That was good, because it allowed him to take over for big brother, commanding thousands of Taliban fighters against U.S. and Pakistani forces. He directed a number of terrorist attacks and is no