Comments on: Wishful Thinking and Terrorism

By: honza P

honza P — Wed, 30 May 2007 17:40:09 +0000

Lincoln and Johnson were right to suspend habeas corpus in the 1860s and did so regularly. the good side won and everythign went back to normal pretty quickly, maybe Reconstruction would ahv worked had they not gone soft, in fact. Bush sinply does not grant it to those who violate the laws of war in almost every concevable way, but would still seek it’s preotections.

By: Roach

Roach — Tue, 22 May 2007 15:25:58 +0000

You say, “We will never know the true situation without independent inquiry.” I say, we will never know the true situation with an independent inquiry. Independent courts in the US with a panoply of procedural protections make mistakes, for example, in both directions. OJ got freed. Lots of innocents have been freed recently with DNA evidence. So in these situations the real question is how many layers of procedure do you want? I want relatively few. I think the administration and the military have no more use for innocents locked up than you or I do, not least because it costs them money and takes up space. But in doubt, and there is likely much doubt, I’d prefer these folks stay put. The stakes are relatively high, wouldn’t you say?

By: Theodore Van Oosbree

Theodore Van Oosbree — Sun, 20 May 2007 14:29:10 +0000

I still don’t agree with your assertion that all these prisoners are just terrorist dirtbags.Many of them were swept up to obtain rewards. Some of those have been released. We will never know the true situation without independent inquiry. In general, I don’t have a problem with summary executions for irregular combatants. However, if we persist in attacking and occupying countries with hostile populations (e.g., Irag and Afghanistan), we will be faced with continual irregular attacks. Executing these irregulars will not solve the basic problem: we are not wanted in these countries and will be attacked as long as we stay (see the French experience in Algeria).

By: Roach

Roach — Thu, 17 May 2007 09:32:35 +0000

Honestly, it’s a war. The job is to kill or capture the enemy. Sometimes the enemy gets intermingled with civilians. That’s too bad. Lots of innocents died in Dresden and Hiroshima too. It’s still better to win a war and leave the job of risk management to the Commander in Chief.

And why should the Red Cross or anyone else get involved in this sort of thing? These are not soldiers. These are are unlawful combatants entitled to almost nothing under international law. The Red Cross does not get to visit our state and federal prisons, which are many times more cruel and brutal than GITMO. Why should they get involved in this sort of thing. Obviously if an ally like the UK or Australia wants to know how their AQ citizen is doing we should let them know through ordinary diplomatic channels. But this solicitude of the rights of these terrorist dirt bags is for the birds.

In an ideal world, a great number of these men would have been shot on sight upon capture for fighting out of uniform. That’s a highly traditional rule of war. What do you think about that?

By: Theodore Van Oosbree

Theodore Van Oosbree — Wed, 16 May 2007 13:39:08 +0000

Fine, Mr. Tough Guy. If we are dealing with soldiers then honor the Geneva Convention regarding prisoners of war. Let the Red Cross monitor conditions at Guantanamo and stop the abuse. Otherwise we’re just a bunch of sadistic thugs.

By: Roach

Roach — Tue, 15 May 2007 14:58:00 +0000

We’ve also released lots of people from there. Habeas exists for that purpose for Americans and lawful visitors to our country. It has no application outside our borders any more than a soldier needs probable cause to take out a suspicious silhouette at 1000m. You wouldn’t want that sort of thing prosecuted and subject to court order and lawsuits now, would you?

This is the most bleeding heart nonsense I’ve read in a while.

By: Theodore Van Oosbree

Theodore Van Oosbree — Tue, 15 May 2007 12:55:17 +0000

Your commentary assumes that we are actually holding Al Qaeda members at Guantanamo. There is plenty of evidence that many of those people are unfortunates scooped up to collect a reward, not terrorists. Habeus Corpus exists to prevent the government from keeping such people locked up indefinitely. Throw in the tortures and you’ve got the makings of a real scandal.