Sep 18 2006
Protecting Terrorists, Not Americans
Rush Limbaugh was having a field day with this idiocy over the idea the Geneva Conventions, which have been usesless for the nearly 60 years they have been in existence. The prime point he made is similar to the ones I have made over the days on this enormous political win for Bush and most Reps (the exceptions being Warner, McCaing, Graham, and Snowe). Rush’s point is the war is not about protecting terrorists, it is about protecting Americans. Those who naively hide behind the idea the Geneva Conventions are more important that any American’s life are not going to survive this debate. They will be rightfully ruined. The wording of the Geneva Convention in this one case are so vague as to make just about anything beyond “please” and “pretty please” demeaning to someone’s ‘dignity’. In fact, one clear way to clearly ‘humiliate and demean’ someone is to capture them and hold them. There is nothing more humiliating or demeaning than being under the control of another human being against your will.
What these people are saying is they think we common Americans, us little folks without top dollar security, should die for their ideas of a perfect world, enshrined in the pure and perfect words of the Geneva Conventions. We are not lowering ourselves one iota if we use agressive questioning that does not injure or kill someone, but instead saves lives. We know the EU bans sleep deprivation, loud music and cold temperatures as methods of aggressive interrogation. They have decided they would rather treat these terrorists animals with kidd-gloves than protect the people they have taken an oath to protect. The choices are clear this fall and they are more striking than whether we should cut and run like cowards in Iraq or not. The question is deeper than whether we should monitor terrorists overseas and pass leads detected regarding possible compatriots here in the US to the FBI without a warrant. It now includes the superceding question of whether Americans will die so terrorists will not have to be subject to loud rock music, which offends them.
As I wrote before, the conventions were meant to protect innocents and non-combatants from the horrors of war. It seems some people are so illogical that they now see the conventions as protecting those who wage the horrors of war on innocents. Americans are not stupid and we will not die for Article 3. We will not die for Article 3 – it is very simple and not complicated. The only sad thing is we have to have this discussion. It should be obvious innocent American lives are worth more than conventions that have been ignored the entire time they have been in existence.
Addendum: By the way, I need to point out to McCain and others who are demagoguing this issue and playing with our lives that the vageuness of that language in Article 3 allows cultural differences to be an excuse to torture our soldiers. As my brother pointed out yesterday, it is common practice in many Muslim countries to cut off the hand of a thief. This is not considered inhumane or unreasonable. By enacting clear legal guidelines of Article 3, we are actually defining what we, America, deem off limits in interrogation. Contrary to the ‘logic’ we hear from McCain and Graham (who both agree we defined Article 3 for the military interrogation efforts, just not the CIA’s) the current vagueness actually puts are soldiers at risk to more sadistic interpretations. These folks are obviously posturing for 2008 (and losing from the start in my opinion) because they have not thought out clearly what they are saying. When pols use poll tested phrases to frame an issue, logical debate can pretty much shred them if they have not been ‘logically’ tested. This seems to be happening here. Those calling for more rights for terrorists, even if it means Americans dying in terrorist attacks, are not thinking clearly on too many levels to point out.
I think that this is all about what the international community thinks of us. The Islamist are counting on us thinking more about our reputation in the world then our lives. This hate America mantra is too much for the State Department type guys. We NEVER tortured people like the left has said. We have said that over and over again but the left still says we do, so McCain et. all wants us to play footsie with the Islamist to prove to the world that we do not torture. These people have a victim complex. I don’t care what the world thinks of us. It will not stop the Islamist from coming after us . As I said to my children when they said I don’t like you, I said you don’t have to like me but I’m going to be your Mother. We need grown ups leading us in a time of war, not snivelling children.
I agree with Rush—-This whole thing does not meet the smell test. I think McCain is playing politics with the notion that we torture period. He is separating him self on this issue.
Things that make you go……Hmmmmmmmmmmm??
Ah, the Loony Left, gotta love them!
Not a rocket scientist, but the following random thoughts about them have occurred to me, over the past couple of days:
a) these are the same people against “torture”, but they advocate taking a full-term 9mo old fetus, and sticking a needle in it’s brain to kill it as a “women’s right to choose…”
b) they decry the Patriot Act, and other forms of “Bush Censorship”; but tried to have “A Path to 9/11” pulled off Television, by threatening ABC’s liscense…
c) Freakout about Clinton maybe getting “critizied” in the Path to 9/11, but openly embrace the Bush “assassination” film as “art” and “free speech”..
d) Praise any number of Democratic “rants” as speaking “truth to power”, but demand the Pope apologize for speaking truth to Islamic Fascist!
e) speaking of Islamic Fascist! Criticize the President and others, for using the term “Islamofascist”, but refer to the President as, variously: “nazi”, “Hitler”, “fascist”, “Taliban”, “Saddam”, etc., etc.
f) Compare the President, and other religious Americans to the Taliban, and insult the crazy Christians, the religious right, etc., but demand we be more “sensitive” and respectful of other cultures, and people, when someone insults the Jihadis and their religion!
g) call the President, VP, Rove, Libby, et. al. “traitors”, and criminals for outting a supposed CIA “covert” agent and thus outting Classified Information; but openly praise the NYT, LAT, etc. for destroying our Intel capability by “outting” CIA front companies, the NSA program, the CIA “prisons”, the SWIFT program, Classified Intel briefs from Marine Officers, etc…..
h) complain of voter fraud, and stolen elections, when President Bush won in 2000, and 2004, but don’t like to be reminded of JFK’s historically proven election fraud in 1960, LBJ’s crooked Texas elections, and the fact that Atlanta Journal Constitution (a leftist newspaper); in a frontpage expose, prior to the 2000 election, found that over 90% of all Voter Fraud in Georgia, was done by DEMOCRATS!
i) these are the are same people who advocate Gay Marriage and Gay Rights, but they stick up for the Islamofascists, who CRUSH “gays” with brick walls as part of their punishment…..!
j) want to do away with “torture” (which includes everything from waterboarding, to speaking in a very loud voice to the terrorists and wagging your finger at them!), renditions, secret prisons, etc., but NEVER complain when the Islamofascists BEHEAD civilians and military on Camera, for fun!
k) atttack Bush for his Air National Guard service, and Cheney and others for having never served; but when Clinton was running against Bob Dole, attacked Dole FOR HAVING Served! (said he was an out of control war monger; deserved to be wounded because he didn’t follow orders, etc.)
anybody think of any others….???
Geneva Article 3 does not apply to soldiers, so you are wrong to say that it would allow the cutting off of our soldiers’ hands. Soldiers are giuven much broader treatment under the Geneva Accords.
Being seen to violate the Geneva Accords would be detrimental to our fight against Islamist extremists.
You have not presented any evidence that the restrictions desired by Senator McCain and others would actually hurt our interrogations.
SGERBER, that’s semantics. You said”Geneva Article 3 does not apply to soldiers, so you are wrong to say that it would allow the cutting off of our soldiers’ hands. Soldiers are giuven much broader treatment under the Geneva Accords.”
Technically maybe because it is for non-combatants, but that is defining a soldier ‘after he has been captured and is a prisoner of war’ true, he is no longer in the war, so is a non combatant, but to me, he is still a soldier. In my humble opinion as long as he is a POW he is still both in the war and a soldier.
When I was a proud member of the US Navy back in the ’50s we had classes on the Geneva Conventions. They were a joke then and are a joke today. We were ‘taught’ that we only had to give name, rank and service number and date of birth. We all knew that Americans were not treated that kindly if they were captured.
I get sick of hearing that McCain is an expert and has moral authority because he was tortured as a POW. Well so were thousands of others. I’m sure none of them think torture is a good thing, but I bet most of them think it is necessary in “some cases”. I know if my wife or children were in danger and I could save them from harm by cutting off somebody’s finger. They better kiss the finger goodbye.
But to pass a law that says if you subject somebody to loud music you are guily of tortureing them, give me a break. Every one of my grandchildren listen to loud music every day. While it may be torture to me, they love it.
AJ, the thinking that belies this post is top-notch, and the reason I come here most every day. But can we agree that writing is not your long suit? I’ll volunteer to edit your stuff. You know where to find me.
“Geneva Article Three does not apply to soldiers…”
??? As I understood (or misunderstood) the debate, the Geneva provisions do not apply to anyone EXCEPT those in uniform, or clearly identifiable as serving a specific nation or alliance.
McCain, et al, are demanding the same and greater protections for illegal combatants, than are available under Geneva for legitimate, uniformed service members of ours or any nation.
As to McCain’s “moral authority” on this issue, he was subjected to torture by an enemy who was a signer of Geneva. Fat lot of good it did then, or now, for Americans. But that’s not even at issue here:
Leaving the vague Article Three language as is, could actually cause us liability if an Islamofascist “feels degraded” because an interrogator is female, even if she only asks for his name and country for record-keeping, asks softly and respectfully, and says “Pretty please with sugar on it.”
This whole thing is ludicrous, and if we’re relegated to fighting a war against the Islamofascist enemy on this sort of imaginary “moral high ground,” we may as well just skip the formalities, burn down our own institutions and churches, put on our burques or grow our beards, and start paying the Jizra taxes.
What the #@%$#^$ are these people thinking?
This whole issue has come to a head because of a USSC decision in Hamdan that invalidated the current Pentagon judicial procedure. So how about declaring all these guys POWs, declaring war on AQ and its allies, and holding these guys until it is over (terms to be inserted into the declaration of war). The USSC offered that option as well, when they noted that the government has a right to hold these men.
I do not see any good that can come to our civilian justice system from any procedure that will pass both legal and security muster for these guys. The potential loss of information, tying FBI, armed forces and CIA agents up in endless proceedings, three-ring circus elements, etc. just do not augur well for a judicial approach, even one under armed forces supervision. It’s time to open a POW camp some place in Alaska (far away from oil infrastructure) and send these guys there for the duration.
I hope you keep posting on this AJ, because I betcha they know they stepped in it by now.
I am watching Susan Collins (who made my watch list when she was so disgusting with the Katrina Hearings as I like my Pug Senators to act like Pugs instead of Dem good buddies) on FOX. She has said all the magic words …..”If you ask experts like John McCain, you’ll find torture…blah blah blah”……”Need to hold ourselves to a higher standards…blah blah blah”…….”Without compromising our values”
So in other words…..Bush wants to Torture because he has Low Standards and will Compromise my values. Poor dear.
What these people are saying is they think we common Americans, us little folks without top dollar security, should die for their ideas of a perfect world, enshrined in the pure and perfect words of the Geneva Conventions.
Yes, this is the message the Democrats ALWAYS send and these 4 elected idiots decided to step forward to provide them cover. If they can not cope with their guilt complexes, they need to step down from their committee positions. We need the committee to be filled with people who understand the difference between “Protecting Terrorists, Not Americans”.
Isn’t PC a wonderful thing? The left is so enamored with PC it is sickening. All the catchphrases of PC are ridiculous and will bring down the moral values of this country. It has already started. The left think the Europeans and the European Union have all the answers and we should knuckle under to European beliefs. Why do the Europeans have any opinion on this matter at all? The armies of these countries are a joke. They have depended on the US to protect them from their neighbors for decades. As history has shown, Europeans have gone to war with each other with distressing regularity. I bitterly resent the idea of our putting ourselves and our leaders and soldiers under the jurisdiction of these people in any way. The left, don’t forget, want us to ask Europe’s permission before we do anything, and for them to try our citizens and especially our solders in an international court for war crimes, members of our Supreme Court want us to follow international law whatever that is. The left will kill us unless we stand up and abolish this insanity.
As for McCain, his main goal is to stay before the cameras, spouting his garbage, hoping he will obtain the office of the president by hook or crook. He doesn’t care what cause he backs, witness campaign finance, gang of 14 and the new immigration law the senate has on hand. He just likes to hear himself talk. He cozys up to the democrats too much. I don’t trust any republican who does this.
The Geneva Conventions are a joke. The Germans, Japanese, North Koreans or the Viet Cong ignored them. The Islamofascists are ignoring them. Why in the h*ll should er adhere to them? They have never saved a soldier’s life and the left bringing cilivilian issues into this is another example of their twisting the facts to back up their ideology. But then the democrats have never let facts or truth get in their way.
Karl,
I am fine writing – when I have time for spell checking and review!
Thanks for the offer. It will be worse than normal for a while now that I have a bandaid on one finger (making typos automatic).
AJStrata
Meanwhile, Rick Moran has news about the so-called bi-partisan commission to “study” the Iraq War and whether we should pull out and how quickly or slowly we should do it. Rudy Guiliani has left this group citing “time considerations”. This group is up to no good and is proposing “face-saving” measures in withdrawing from Iraq. Good God!!
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/18/elites-preparing-us-exit-from-iraq/
BTW, just what is the United States Institute of Peace? It sounds like something Dennis Kucinich would dream up.
Carol
The reason I said that Article 3 does not apply to soldiers is that the protections for soldiers are much broader than that. Al Qaeda will not observe any protections for our soldiers or for anyone else, so what we decide to do about treating enemy combatants is irrelevant to how Al Qaeda will treat us. The question is simply what minimal treatment should be given to terrorists. I personally think the Supreme Court misinterpreted Article 3 – I think it was meant to apply to civil wars, not wars with illegal, non-state combatants – but, for better or worse, it is now the law of the land and it would look terrible for the government to disobey or try to avoid it. This would clearly harm us in the global war against terrorists. That said, there is room for argument over whether loud music, etc. violates anyone’s rights. I still haven’t heard any good evidence that torture or harsh treatment just short of torture gets good information, though I am open to the possibility that this is true, and there is other evidence that treating prisoners well,pretending to identify with them, and pretending to be sympathetic with them, for example, are useful techniques, just as they are in hostage negotiations.
SGerber
Are you really that naive? Pretending to identify with them and pretending to sympathize with them? Are you nuts? Using those tactics will cause them to despise us even more and regard us with even more contempt than they do now. Why don’t we understand these people want to destroy us? They don’t want to like us. and they don’t want us to try to appease them. They want to kill us.
The bottom line is NICE GUYS FINISH LAST! We can’t win this war by being nice to the enemy. If it’s going to cause this much hand wringing, breast beating and self flagelation to interrogate these murderers and serial killers then we shouldn’t be taking any prisoners. Kill them all on the battlefield or crime scene and let God sort them out to see who is guilty of what.
John McCain is no hero. A Marine once told me that heroes don’t surrender. By his own admision, McCain cooperated with the enemy to avoid torture and to get medical attention. McCain’s connection to George Soros in his calculated Campaign Finance Reform fiasco indicates that he is playing both sides. Thus, he can’t be trusted. His latest stance in opposing Bush’s policies is his last ditch effort to get in as many blows as he can before Bush is out of his reach. I don’t know which would be worse as President, McCain or Hillary.
Dalein Atlanta,
I got some.
Let the guy that killed 3000 civilians off because his family is friends with their leader, but support a war aginst a country that didn’t attack us, and had no means to attack us.
Bitch about “welfare queens’ getting $200/ month in their tax money, but are mute over the $8 Billion missing in Iraq.
Rave about Clinton not killing all the terrorists, but want Reagan (who cut deals with terrorists in Iran, Nicaragua, and El Salvador) sainted and put on Mt. Rushmore.
Use 9/11 as an excuse for breaking up the Constitution, but support a President who was initially against finding out how 9/11 happened, stonewalled the commission, and had the head of his National Intelligence Office lie to said commission.
Support “states rights” when it comes to keeping minorities down, but rap states which have legalized marijuana for medicinal reasons.
Tried to impeach a President for lying about an extra-marital affair, but don’t want to question a President about a war that led to tens of thousands losing their lives.
Put all their faith in winning elections, but wouldn’t dream of looking into voting irregularities.
Any others?
Why stop there.
Since our leaders always know who a terrorist is (and couldn’t possibly be mistaken), they should accuse only criminals as well.
Why are wasting money on criminal trials. Accuse them of being criminals, punish them, and be done with it.
Ah, the Loony Left, gotta love them!
Ahhhh, I knew it draw one of you out! Which is why I posted it!
Apples and oranges, aside from the point that you have NOT one FACT there, whereas mine are ALL Facts!
It must be hell to be a Leftist…
You did draw me out. You smarty you.
Which of my statements is not a fact?
“It must be hell to be a leftist.”
It used to be.
After the 2004 election I gave up.
My country is full of the easily duped. That’s not my fault.*
* Itr’s Clinton’s penis’ fault, of course.