That’s what usually happens to me when I read buffoonery masquerading as patriotism and rational thought.
Which is why I should not, usually do not, go over and read Blackfive and the gang of high brow intelligentsia they have over there.
This post by Deebow should merit a simple shake of my head in astonishment, a cheery “everyone is entitled to their opinion” and then a second breath of astonishment when the usual crowd of sycophants commenters comes out to attack the lone person who might disagree with him. Problem is, a lot of people agree with him. So it is worth discussing further-if for no other reason it helps me work through my astonishment.
Was the editorial writer over at the Philadelpia Enquirer way over the top in saying that Americans should not celebrate the 4th of July? Yes he was. Of course there are great reasons to celebrate the 4th of July. The Declaration is a great document and the country has a great story to tell and to celebrate. The freedom he has to write a controversial column that leads to death threats from Rush Limbaugh fans may be one of them-glory of the free press and all that. Great story to tell indeed.
Its just that Guantanmo, or the ever continuing series of rationalizations, about how we don’t owe rights of the acccused to confront his accuser to persons because of their lack of citizenship -is not the nation’s proudest hour.
And Deebow should know better and the crowd at Blackfive should know better-not the least for the reasons that he states in his post:
Our founders were great men, who knew the value of life and what it meant to spend it in the pursuit of the goal that all men should be free. They also knew what evil lay in the hearts of men and that laws were no good unless backed by some force of good to administer them. They knew what would happen when they signed the Declaration of Independence. They also knew how hard they would have to fight in order to achieve what they sought.
The notion of “rights” was important to them and they understood that the recognition of rights involved cooperation in the social contract and mutual cooperation and recognition of one another and that each was equal.
There are many of us today that know that as well. The foreign fighter I capture in a walled compound in Stogana is not the inheritor of those rights we hold so dear, because he would not grant us the same quarter. His notion of rights is that of an animal. He would enslave you and I Chris. Without so much as a thought about it.
The last part is probably true-it is also not the point.
Personally, I believe the founding fathers would be appalled at what their beloved country is doing these days when it comes to jurisprudence. They would point out-quite correctly too-that when the government makes rationalizations about the law overseas, its only a matter of time until they find a way to do it at home. Which is why I believe, if they could be asked, they would applaud the Supreme Court for making the decision it did.
Because if one closely examines the decisions of the justice department in the past five years-a fan of Constitutional liberty should be afraid, very afraid. And the founding fathers would have said-“see, I told you so! When you fail to respect the rights of any man-you fail to respect the rights of all men. And then over time-you become the evil you sought to confront“.
Now I will say it again, ” Let me preface what follows by stating categorically that I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for the occupants of Gtmo prison camp. None, nada, zilch. These people are scum and I could care less if their “precious” Koran is pissed on, torn apart, thrown at them or other wise desecrated. The Koran is desecrated every time one of these Islamic scumbags opens one. And I don’t care if they get deprived of sleep, are made to sweat, or locked in cages by themselves. Could not have happened to a nicer bunch of guys. These jerks chose to make league with Osama and his band of criminals so they deserve to be in a real gulag. Too bad “old Uncle Joe” is not around to play “lets make a deal” with.”
However, the longer we maintain the camp in Guantanamo the more tenuous the legal and moral position of the United States becomes. I submit to you, (again) that if anyone in DOD could do so, they would admit, that back when the idea came to put Afghan prisoners in Guantanamo if someone had told them that some 6 years later they would still be there, they would look at you like you were crazy. In other words, the U.S. government never intended it to go like this. Truth be told, they probably expected there to be workable Afghan government by now so that custody could be transferred for all but the most hardened criminals.
Plus it does not answer the question namely, why after over 6 years in captivity-where “aggressive interrogation tactics have yielded great volumes of information” -you are telling me the US does not have the evidence to put these guys on the gallows? I’m not buying it. And if you accept the premise that these folks have no rights whatsoever-why did you not just shoot them when you captured them? Would have saved a lot of money-and by the Deebow line of thinking would have been perfectly legal.
Except its not, and it is advisable only if the US is willing to turn its back on accepted international law. Now we can do that, but in the end there comes a cost. So in summary, be careful what you wish for, or you may surely get it. We wanted the Islamists out of circulation. “Now we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that we are just like every other major power involved in a war of occupation”.
What is that you say? America is a special nation, who is above the petty trifles of other powers. This is good vs evil and we are the good guys.
Ok. Then I think you should remember that the good guys hold themselves to a higher standard. Or at least they used to. Don’t agree with me?-ask my Canadian counterpart then.
What bothers me is that waterboarding could be a “gateway” method. The measures that were legally passed after 9/11, most specifically the USA PATRIOT ACT, are stealthily creeping their way into American life. There was a time that an American citizen could be assured that the government couldn’t eavesdrop on their conversations without a judicial warrant until President Bush decided that it was inconvenient. If you can waterboard terrorists, why not drug traffickers? How about drug dealers? Once practices like that become acceptable, they are ripe for abuse.
The rest of the world watched the United States have a collective nervous breakdown because Private Jessica Lynch may or may not have been sodomized in Iraq, But the US expects the rest of us to say nothing as her government is actually drowning people in its custody. As much as I love America, you can’t pretend to be a beacon of freedom or a “shining city on a hill” when you do that.
If you look at the history of waterboarding, you learn that it was used during the Spanish Inquisition, and by Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and the Khmer Rouge. President Bush declared in September 2001 that “you’re withus or you’re with the terrorists.” It seems only fair that President Bush be asked a similiar question by the rest of civilized world, “Are you with us, or are you with the Spanish inquisitors, the rapists of Nanking, the Gestapo and the Khmer Rouge?”
Some things are better stopped before they go too far.
Sums it up pretty well-as he usually does. Which is why I read him a lot -and BF very little.
John Adams would tell you the same thing too. Maybe not that sneaky little bastard Aaron Burr-but he was never President either. Adams was-and kept the nation out of a disastrous war. Wise man that he was.
Now the verbal beatings will probably begin.
“Aren’t you worried about the extreme right wing milbloggers?”
” They’ll know where to find me-I left a note for them on my blog!”
Skippy-san,
Which always strikes me, a french speaker as weird since it implies an absence of Skippy even though we’re missing the meaningful “s”.
How does it strike you that our nation’s founders would find it unusual or outrageous to lock up loser deadbeats for life given that all of them lived in the time of debtors prison? As I recall, several of those who signed the Declaration of Independence were locked up in Debtor’s Prison and the terms of such lockups were “until life be ended or the debt paid”. They sure as hell wouldn’t have any problem with terrorists getting locked up under the same terms although I’d be surprised if their method of punishment included “locking up” those that would indiscriminately kill women and children. I think they’d approach these badmash in the same way they treated the Indians who the French and British recruited to kill Americans and execute the lot of them, and maybe their families too.
In this case, as in so many others, don’t reach back to the founders for mercy; for while many of them were, in fact, Gentlemen, they were not gentle to their enemies.
Then don’t look to them as extra special men who were some how annointed by the heavens above. One cannot have it both ways. Could it be then-that they were petty vindicitive men who just got lucky?
Clearly, there is a difference of time periods-and the founding fathers also had a difference of opinion concern the rights of the white man vs others-but to say that they would not have wanted a system of law and order to lead Muslims to the gallows is a little much. If anything they would have wanted to reconcile to themselves that the killings were just.
Plus the 57 men who drafted the Declaration were all failry well monied persons-teh debtors prison as I recall was an English institution-not an American one. Georgia was established as a means to eleminate that.
And either way it still does not justify wrong thinking-in the name of some greater good.
Skippy,
Their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Have a look at:
http://virtualology.com/declarationofindependeence/mRobert-Morris.com/
I didn’t investigate in depth, just googled an old memory of the issue. Those men were exceptional in that they meant what they wrote and in addition to those who ran up enormous debt in the furtherance of the war there were others that sacrificed far more.
They really were exceptional and they wouldn’t have hesitated to lock up the nation’s enemies forever sans trial since enemies, by definition have committed no crime, merely found themselves in rebellion and therefore subject to imprisonment. Remember, this was the gang from whom sprang the idea of reservations for indians. They certainly demonstrated their resolve when it came to these enemies of the republic.
For arguments sake-lets concede that the founding fathers may have been just as ruthless and violent. ( I think the historical record proves the opposite and the facts have to be judged in the context of the times). However it begs the question-if they cared not a whit for the rule of law, why did John Adams defend the shooters in the Boston Massacre in 1770-at great risk to himself? Because he believed that strongly in the rule of law and individual rights.
I’d have to research it, but I think you are off on your timeline as far as the Indians are concerned-the idea of reservations was from the 1830’s if memory serves. It was about that time that Westward expansion and Indian lands came into conflict. 1838 I think. Most of the founders were long gone by then………
This post is why I spend more time over here than at Lex’s anymore. A whole day debating the merits of judicial consistency, the role of judges and the rule of law (to deaf ears) and I’m tired of the whole thing.
As they’d say back home, yor purty smart for a tinfoil man!
Respects
OAM
Thank you sir! Coming from you-it is high praise indeed. I am truly appreciative.
I’ve been trying to think of something appropriate to say about this since it was originally posted. For starters, Once a Marine is definitely correct in that there seems to be this overarching belief among some people that branding certain elements of the government (specifically the judiciary) as “activist liberals” makes flaunting the Constitution acceptable.
The issue that I primarily have here is twofold.
1. There never was an endgame. I don’t think we know what to do right now (and you said this yourself, Skippy) that no one was expecting to detain these people for six years and change. I’m fairly certain that little (if any) effort was expended in planning post-invasion scenarios in Iraq, and the same may ring true about Afghanistan as well. This is not to decry the “progress” being made in both countries (that now seems to be a staple of the same individuals labling the SCOTUS as “activist,”) but that has come at something of a price. Furthermore, the populations of both Iraq and Afghanistan are far better off than they were, but they certainly aren’t popping down to the 7-11 for a pack of smokes and a burrito at 0200 willy-nilly. Part of the lack of post-invasion/war planning shows rather woefully in the current administrations seeming policy of “out of sight-out of mind” coupled to a seeming inability to make a decision, other than to leave it for the next administration.
2. This business of accusing people of “thought crime” is endemic to both the far left and the far right. I am growing rather tired of people attempting to silence speech in order for them to monopolize the conversation, mainly motivated out of self-righteous indignation and an overinflated sense of personal importance.
Just a couple of thoughts.