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!”