Thursday, November 19, 2009
Civil Rights for Foriegn Fighters?
Civil rights for enemy combatants and prisoners of war? I'm just not buying into this civilian trial or the argument about the Bill of Rights. That's a bogus argument. Why?
The Bill of Rights were written to protect Americans or immigrants living in America from government encroachment. If you are arrested by a police officer or and agent of a civilian branch government (FBI, Drug Enforcement, Tobacco and Fire Arms, Treasury Department or the Military under certain situations) you have rights and due process.
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it mention enemy combatants, foreign terrorist captured outside the bounds of the United States or capture by the CIA. In fact the CIA can not arrest an American or immigrant living in the United States. If they have information, it must be processed by the FBI.
We did not try German or Japanese prisoners in civilian courts. They were prisoners of war and had to wait until the end of World War II to get released. Prisoners in the Civil War were not tried in civilian courts. They languished prisons till the end of the Civil War, unless provisions were made for prisoner exchanges, and that eventually ended as a means of depriving the South of manpower. There is no precedent for trying prisoners of war and enemy combatants in civilian courts or affording them rights under the Bill of rights.
These Islamic radicals were either captured on the battle field or by the foreign intelligence agencies or the CIA.
If we choose to try them for Crimes Against Humanity, then we have a precedent to follow in the Nuremberg Trials. These were military trials. When we tried Japanese war criminals, we did it by military court. We did not even argue or debate whether these criminals were entitled to the Bill of Rights. They don't apply. And an argument to suggest that Thomas Jefferson wanted to afford these foreign combatants and prisoners of war rights under our Constitution is ridiculous. We have a well established legal precedent set more than sixty years ago at the end of World War II.
Again members of the press want to deify Obama by associating him with Kennedy and now Thomas Jefferson.
No where in the Constitution do we hear anything about offering prisoners of war rights under the constitution. So I doubt Thomas Jefferson can be used to justify Obama's plan to use these trials as a propaganda event.
The Bill of Rights were written to protect Americans or immigrants living in America from government encroachment. If you are arrested by a police officer or and agent of a civilian branch government (FBI, Drug Enforcement, Tobacco and Fire Arms, Treasury Department or the Military under certain situations) you have rights and due process.
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it mention enemy combatants, foreign terrorist captured outside the bounds of the United States or capture by the CIA. In fact the CIA can not arrest an American or immigrant living in the United States. If they have information, it must be processed by the FBI.
We did not try German or Japanese prisoners in civilian courts. They were prisoners of war and had to wait until the end of World War II to get released. Prisoners in the Civil War were not tried in civilian courts. They languished prisons till the end of the Civil War, unless provisions were made for prisoner exchanges, and that eventually ended as a means of depriving the South of manpower. There is no precedent for trying prisoners of war and enemy combatants in civilian courts or affording them rights under the Bill of rights.
These Islamic radicals were either captured on the battle field or by the foreign intelligence agencies or the CIA.
If we choose to try them for Crimes Against Humanity, then we have a precedent to follow in the Nuremberg Trials. These were military trials. When we tried Japanese war criminals, we did it by military court. We did not even argue or debate whether these criminals were entitled to the Bill of Rights. They don't apply. And an argument to suggest that Thomas Jefferson wanted to afford these foreign combatants and prisoners of war rights under our Constitution is ridiculous. We have a well established legal precedent set more than sixty years ago at the end of World War II.
Again members of the press want to deify Obama by associating him with Kennedy and now Thomas Jefferson.
No where in the Constitution do we hear anything about offering prisoners of war rights under the constitution. So I doubt Thomas Jefferson can be used to justify Obama's plan to use these trials as a propaganda event.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Americans suffer from what I fear will be a culturally terminal disease, immediate gratification. We have been in Afghanistan for nine years and want out now. Our enemies in Afghanistan have known centuries of tribal warfare. We fight because we were attacked. They fight to preserve their way of life from the American cultural juggernaut.
It is a collision of two cultures and one must lose for the other to survive and thrive. This is similar to the battles between Native Americans and early settlers in America. A state of almost constant war existed from Pontiac’s War in 1762 till Gen. Anthony Wayne defeated the Western Confederation in 1794. It took thirty-two years to end Indian raids on the western frontier.
Most rational minds agree the last administration took its eye off the ball when it turned its sights on Iraq rather than send enough forces to deal with Afghanistan. It is easy to cast blame by saying this guy did this or said that and they were wrong. It has been reported that there is very little Al-Qaida left in Afghanistan. No Al-Qaida existed in Somalia when we went in, took casualties and left. Somalia’s lack of a central government makes it an ideal sanctuary for Al-Qaida today.
Policy debates in this country too often descend into the realm of political attacks. Both sides say the same thing, my policies are better than yours. And if, horrors of horrors, one succeeds, they will take credit.
Both sides of the isle need to unify into one message, the war against Islamic radicals will be a long, slow grind and ditch the message I have a better way than you; oh the blessing if either were brilliant. This is far too important to get into a flap over which ideology can best lead the nation, liberal or conservative. Both have made some serious blunders and proclaim some unsavory characters as leaders.
I do not believe it is a coincidence that we have been in Afghanistan for nine years and have not been attack on our soil in (oddly) nine years. I think it would be a grave mistake not to increase troop levels to secure Afghanistan. If we lose in Afghanistan, we strengthen the morale of the Islamic radicals by giving them a claim to victory. We also give them the breathing space to plan new attacks against America.
It is a collision of two cultures and one must lose for the other to survive and thrive. This is similar to the battles between Native Americans and early settlers in America. A state of almost constant war existed from Pontiac’s War in 1762 till Gen. Anthony Wayne defeated the Western Confederation in 1794. It took thirty-two years to end Indian raids on the western frontier.
Most rational minds agree the last administration took its eye off the ball when it turned its sights on Iraq rather than send enough forces to deal with Afghanistan. It is easy to cast blame by saying this guy did this or said that and they were wrong. It has been reported that there is very little Al-Qaida left in Afghanistan. No Al-Qaida existed in Somalia when we went in, took casualties and left. Somalia’s lack of a central government makes it an ideal sanctuary for Al-Qaida today.
Policy debates in this country too often descend into the realm of political attacks. Both sides say the same thing, my policies are better than yours. And if, horrors of horrors, one succeeds, they will take credit.
Both sides of the isle need to unify into one message, the war against Islamic radicals will be a long, slow grind and ditch the message I have a better way than you; oh the blessing if either were brilliant. This is far too important to get into a flap over which ideology can best lead the nation, liberal or conservative. Both have made some serious blunders and proclaim some unsavory characters as leaders.
I do not believe it is a coincidence that we have been in Afghanistan for nine years and have not been attack on our soil in (oddly) nine years. I think it would be a grave mistake not to increase troop levels to secure Afghanistan. If we lose in Afghanistan, we strengthen the morale of the Islamic radicals by giving them a claim to victory. We also give them the breathing space to plan new attacks against America.
