Enough!
Whatever your take on what
you've been told
has been going on down there (and what has
actually
been transpiring there since 9/11), "Gitmo"
has become a symbol of America's perceived disregard for Islam and has become a
rallying point for our enemies. But the rule of law still works (for now, at
least).
Islamic terrorists should be dealt with sternly.
Yes, I agree with that basic premise for the existence of the Guántanamo
Bay detention facility at Camp X-Ray. I also contend that enemy combatants do
not necessarily have all of the rights that American citizens have: for example,
our Constitution was written with the tenets of
habeus corpus
and trial-by-jury to guard the power of the
government over The People...the American people. In times of war, like this,
our Constitution harshly discriminates between an American and a non-American
who may have the will to do us ill. At those times, the primary goal of the
Constitution (and our government on which it is based) is to protect The People.
My poor recapitulation of this argument is based on an interview that I saw on Brit Hume's 'Special Report' program last night. President Bush 41's Attorney General, William Barr, was a guest on the program and spoke about these very issues. When one speaks in clear Constitutional terms it strikes a chord with me and I listen...attentively. Here is a bit of what he said:
"...What's going on with a lot of the critics is they're fundamentally confusing the context of our domestic law enforcement versus fighting a war against an armed foreign enemy...we wrote a Constitution not for the world but the people, the American people. And we made the decision when we set forth in the Constitution that, when the government is enforcing the laws, our own domestic laws against the people, we're going put checks on the executive and we're going to insist that they get it absolutely perfect, no mistakes. It's better to let guilty people go free than to make a mistake.
"And so there are these hurdles that have to be jumped over when we are disciplining a member of own body politic. But when a foreign enemy comes and attacks the people, there is no neutrality. And what the Constitution is worried about there is winning the war and the effectiveness of the government. And we cannot hamstring the military by imposing all the standards that we apply domestically to law enforcement."
Many of my friends seem to think that the way to deal with the current War on Terror is to deal with it as a law enforcement problem. My apologies, but when clandestine and highly-threatening organizations exist within sovereign countries (either obliviously to or with the blessings of their governments), law enforcement simply is not a viable and realistic option. Hell, the US government indicted bin Laden right after the bombing of the USS Cole (I believe). The concept of "international law" is a curious one as no such thing actually exists in our era of nation-states and voluntary treaties. The entire premise of law enforcement is moot if a.) laws are optional and b.) enforcement is optional. If the problems are to be dealt with by "law enforcement" then it is the laws of the US (and the West) on which this enforcement is going to be based, not those laws of the sovereign nation-states in which our enemies are plotting against us. Economic incentives for use of sovereign airspace and military cooperation are appropriate. (Rule no. 1: It's all about money.)
Parenthetically, if you contend that "law enforcement" is the route to take, however do not subscribe to my definition of it, then in order to have a productive conversation we must first define our terms well. So many misunderstandings could be easily avoided if people knew about what their counterparts were actually speaking.
Handing out unenforceable and impotent indictments is not going to solve our problems, but neither will brute force. Cooperation with local governments, people and restrained but significant force when appropriate is necessary. I also strongly believe, however, that our military should not have carte blanche to do whatever it feels is prudent, and so "international laws" such as the Geneva Conventions certainly have their place...
Furthermore:
"And should [detainees] enjoy the privileges of the Geneva Convention? And of course, they should not enjoy the privileges of the Geneva Convention...Because the whole purpose of the Geneva Convention was to offer privileges to countries, the soldiers of countries, that honored certain obligations, and the main one being protecting civilians by not mixing in with them and differentiating yourself from civilians, so that there are no civilian casualties and minimizing them, and also, not attacking civilians.
"It's a privilege. And the idea that we would take terrorists, the very antithesis of the people who deserve the privilege, and say, well, you know, yes, you can go out and slaughter civilians, and you can hide amongst them, and we're going to treat you as if you're honorable combatants, is preposterous."
I agree, agree and agree some more. The rule of law is being followed. If the law needs to be changed, then so be it, but there is nothing illegal at this time, in my lay but educated assessment, about the detainees at Gitmo not being afforded the full status of soldiers in the Geneva Conventions. It is up to the American people to police the way in which its government is policing our borders and our security. If abuse is transpiring at Gitmo or anywhere else, it is wholly unacceptable. (That brings up the question: what constitutes "abuse?" That's for another rant.)
Of course, it may be morally "wrong" or inconsiderate to hold alleged enemy combatants without a fair hearing and indefinitely–and I do believe that it is "wrong"–but it is not necessarily "unconstitutional." We are a nation where the rule of law reigns supreme, not the rule of men, and as such, we must understand the limits of the law and how far it shall rationally be applied. This is why our Founding Documents are so essential to the continued success of our nation; without them, mob rule–"democracy"–would ensue and the popular will of The People, however irrational or utopian or bigoted, will come to rule the land. Our system is good but it is no longer secure and the Politicians have to be made acutely aware that they have taken an oath to uphold it and its crucial founding tenets and not to perpetuate many of their narrow-minded and provincial beliefs.
That all said, a link from Boortz's website today has enraged me and yes, it does relate back to the original subject of this posting: Gitmo. We must not glorify or aggrandize a world symbol that incites hatred not only among Muslims but also among populations elsewhere. This website and these garments do just that and, if anything, the existence of such a shirt or skirt or mug will serve only to place more soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines in harm's way:
http://www.cafepress.com/iheartgitmo
It is extremely naive to "heart" Gitmo but this type of sentiment is typical for today's political climate. I am not surprised, but I am saddened. I believe that we should close down the facility at Guántanamo Bay and that a more transparent facility should be established inside which our suspected foreign enemies can be detained. I cannot say with confidence, however, that even a brand-new facility with glass walls and with constant ACLU-American Red Cross-Red Crescent-Amnesty International observation force will be enough to calm the dastardly picture that the media have painted of the US's treatment of its alleged enemies. There will always be a mishap with the Koran or a window that isn't perfectly placed toward Mecca and those items will always enrage those who despise the power that our "hyper-power" nation exudes. It may be a no-win situation, but, by being a bit more candid about the goings-on in our War on Terror, I believe that we can only benefit. Either way, when one hears "Guántanamo Bay" a nasty taste comes to his mouth. It's time to neutralize it.
(As an endnote, where is the American citizen José Padilla who was arrested two or three years ago on the charge of being a dirty little bomber? I want habeus corpus now!)
My poor recapitulation of this argument is based on an interview that I saw on Brit Hume's 'Special Report' program last night. President Bush 41's Attorney General, William Barr, was a guest on the program and spoke about these very issues. When one speaks in clear Constitutional terms it strikes a chord with me and I listen...attentively. Here is a bit of what he said:
"...What's going on with a lot of the critics is they're fundamentally confusing the context of our domestic law enforcement versus fighting a war against an armed foreign enemy...we wrote a Constitution not for the world but the people, the American people. And we made the decision when we set forth in the Constitution that, when the government is enforcing the laws, our own domestic laws against the people, we're going put checks on the executive and we're going to insist that they get it absolutely perfect, no mistakes. It's better to let guilty people go free than to make a mistake.
"And so there are these hurdles that have to be jumped over when we are disciplining a member of own body politic. But when a foreign enemy comes and attacks the people, there is no neutrality. And what the Constitution is worried about there is winning the war and the effectiveness of the government. And we cannot hamstring the military by imposing all the standards that we apply domestically to law enforcement."
Many of my friends seem to think that the way to deal with the current War on Terror is to deal with it as a law enforcement problem. My apologies, but when clandestine and highly-threatening organizations exist within sovereign countries (either obliviously to or with the blessings of their governments), law enforcement simply is not a viable and realistic option. Hell, the US government indicted bin Laden right after the bombing of the USS Cole (I believe). The concept of "international law" is a curious one as no such thing actually exists in our era of nation-states and voluntary treaties. The entire premise of law enforcement is moot if a.) laws are optional and b.) enforcement is optional. If the problems are to be dealt with by "law enforcement" then it is the laws of the US (and the West) on which this enforcement is going to be based, not those laws of the sovereign nation-states in which our enemies are plotting against us. Economic incentives for use of sovereign airspace and military cooperation are appropriate. (Rule no. 1: It's all about money.)
Parenthetically, if you contend that "law enforcement" is the route to take, however do not subscribe to my definition of it, then in order to have a productive conversation we must first define our terms well. So many misunderstandings could be easily avoided if people knew about what their counterparts were actually speaking.
Handing out unenforceable and impotent indictments is not going to solve our problems, but neither will brute force. Cooperation with local governments, people and restrained but significant force when appropriate is necessary. I also strongly believe, however, that our military should not have carte blanche to do whatever it feels is prudent, and so "international laws" such as the Geneva Conventions certainly have their place...
Furthermore:
"And should [detainees] enjoy the privileges of the Geneva Convention? And of course, they should not enjoy the privileges of the Geneva Convention...Because the whole purpose of the Geneva Convention was to offer privileges to countries, the soldiers of countries, that honored certain obligations, and the main one being protecting civilians by not mixing in with them and differentiating yourself from civilians, so that there are no civilian casualties and minimizing them, and also, not attacking civilians.
"It's a privilege. And the idea that we would take terrorists, the very antithesis of the people who deserve the privilege, and say, well, you know, yes, you can go out and slaughter civilians, and you can hide amongst them, and we're going to treat you as if you're honorable combatants, is preposterous."
I agree, agree and agree some more. The rule of law is being followed. If the law needs to be changed, then so be it, but there is nothing illegal at this time, in my lay but educated assessment, about the detainees at Gitmo not being afforded the full status of soldiers in the Geneva Conventions. It is up to the American people to police the way in which its government is policing our borders and our security. If abuse is transpiring at Gitmo or anywhere else, it is wholly unacceptable. (That brings up the question: what constitutes "abuse?" That's for another rant.)
Of course, it may be morally "wrong" or inconsiderate to hold alleged enemy combatants without a fair hearing and indefinitely–and I do believe that it is "wrong"–but it is not necessarily "unconstitutional." We are a nation where the rule of law reigns supreme, not the rule of men, and as such, we must understand the limits of the law and how far it shall rationally be applied. This is why our Founding Documents are so essential to the continued success of our nation; without them, mob rule–"democracy"–would ensue and the popular will of The People, however irrational or utopian or bigoted, will come to rule the land. Our system is good but it is no longer secure and the Politicians have to be made acutely aware that they have taken an oath to uphold it and its crucial founding tenets and not to perpetuate many of their narrow-minded and provincial beliefs.
That all said, a link from Boortz's website today has enraged me and yes, it does relate back to the original subject of this posting: Gitmo. We must not glorify or aggrandize a world symbol that incites hatred not only among Muslims but also among populations elsewhere. This website and these garments do just that and, if anything, the existence of such a shirt or skirt or mug will serve only to place more soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines in harm's way:
http://www.cafepress.com/iheartgitmo
It is extremely naive to "heart" Gitmo but this type of sentiment is typical for today's political climate. I am not surprised, but I am saddened. I believe that we should close down the facility at Guántanamo Bay and that a more transparent facility should be established inside which our suspected foreign enemies can be detained. I cannot say with confidence, however, that even a brand-new facility with glass walls and with constant ACLU-American Red Cross-Red Crescent-Amnesty International observation force will be enough to calm the dastardly picture that the media have painted of the US's treatment of its alleged enemies. There will always be a mishap with the Koran or a window that isn't perfectly placed toward Mecca and those items will always enrage those who despise the power that our "hyper-power" nation exudes. It may be a no-win situation, but, by being a bit more candid about the goings-on in our War on Terror, I believe that we can only benefit. Either way, when one hears "Guántanamo Bay" a nasty taste comes to his mouth. It's time to neutralize it.
(As an endnote, where is the American citizen José Padilla who was arrested two or three years ago on the charge of being a dirty little bomber? I want habeus corpus now!)
Posted: Tue - June 21, 2005 at 04:20 PM
Quick Links
Illegitimus Non Tatum Carborundum
Categories
XML/RSS Feed
Archives
FAVORITE LINKS
The Drudge Report
Neal Boortz
BBC News
MacNN
Andrew Sullivan
The Economist
Constitution Preservation.org
The Cato Institute
Air America Radio
Neal Boortz
BBC News
MacNN
Andrew Sullivan
The Economist
Constitution Preservation.org
The Cato Institute
Air America Radio
Emory Schedule
Notify List
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
iTunes Music Store
AMAZON LINKS
COUNTER
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 10, 2005 08:27 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 10, 2005 08:27 AM