He particularly took issue with a society that allows "same-sexual marriage" and other things that "are very bad." He said he could not accept a U.S. lawyer because the nation is "still in Iraq and Afghanistan and waging their crusade."...So, you could tell from the look on his face that he's delighted by the prospect of a courtroom circus — that there is some fun yet to be had in his pre-martyrdom life?
[W]hile Mohammed has asked for the death penalty so he could become a martyr, he seemed content to stir things up on his first day in court. He sat smugly at the defense table after the others declared that they wanted to represent themselves, taking a legal approach to which they are entitled but one that could turn Guantanamo's highest-profile military commission into a circus.
June 6, 2008
"I consider all American laws under the Constitution to be evil and not of God."
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, on trial, looking like this now:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
66 comments:
I hope that if he's convicted and executed, that the authorities bury a pig with his body, so as to ruin his heavenly plans.
Black Jack Pershing did this during the Phillipine Insurrection, when we also faced Muslim fanatics: he executed a dozen of them by firing squad, instructing his men to smear the bullets to be used in pig blood before firing them; one of the Muslims was released to bear witness to what had been done, and attacks went waaaaaay down after that.
Destination:
The United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colorado.
He wants to die to inspire others to kill. He ought not be given what he wants.
I agree George. Put him and his beard and glasses away in solitary for the rest of his natural life.
He shall be forever known as Khalid the cowardly hirabi.
So it is said...Let it be done.
Inshallah!
Does one give someone like that what they want? Or, is he falsely proclaiming what he wants to avoid it?
When will we ever learn that people like him live to turn trials into circuses? We should have shot him long ago.
I'm so glad we have so humanely allowed him to dress in full cultural splendor, too.
Waterboard that smile off of his face.
This is much better than summary execution!
This comment:
"So, you could tell from the look on his face that he's delighted by the prospect of a courtroom circus — that there is some fun yet to be had in his pre-martyrdom life?"
may be inappropriate. What if he was wearing clown makeup and a red nose. Short of that, you have a point.
You want to dream of a circus? Think of this trial held on the U.S. mainland. I have visions of a regular conga line/who's who from the ACLU completely rewriting the Constitution to protect the putative rights of this coward.
Khalid wore no uniform, hid behind women, children, elderly, and innocent civilians to shoot at everyone who disagreed with him.
Speaking of waterboarding, anyone notice the new flu medicine that flushes out your sinuses? Substitute this medicine for water and we can actually say we were interested in the health of the targeted miscreant.
Let's see how the ACLU would spin that one.
smear the bullets to be used in pig blood
Imagine the terrorist's panic should you throw a little sang menstruel on them as they threaten to kill you.
If they'd allow me to go in there and bash his head in to a messy slippery pulp, I'd do it for free and without compunction or the slightest taint to my cheerful carefree nature.
I just read bob's response. I like thattoo.
*dog piles +"Black Jack Pershing" +pig +blood +muslim *
Oh, goodness.
He wants to be on record for saying he wants martyrdom. If he really wanted it he'd be dead already. The appositeness of a pig-related execution seems very attractive. I'd pay to see it -- that's how classy I am. Public executions are, after all, the muslim way. Here's my sparkly classy side coming out again; drawn and quartered by tusked swine at Guantanamo, televised. The mileage Bush could get from that is immeasurable. Bees too. Lots of bees.
Black Jack Pershing did this during the Phillipine Insurrection, when we also faced Muslim fanatics: he executed a dozen of them by firing squad, instructing his men to smear the bullets to be used in pig blood before firing them
Hey, be careful, Bob. Remember the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857!
Refresher:
The British Army in India had introduced Enfield rifles that year, and the bullets were rumoured to be coated in grease -- cow and pig.
(You know how, besides being historically true, I'm certain that's a rumour? Because rumours are always perfect. They are all-encompassing and damning in every respect. Real life is way more fuzzy)
Since one had to bite on the cartridge before inserting it, this outraged both the Hindus and Muslims for whom both cow and pig were verboten.
So, you know, bully for Black Jack, but be careful what crimes you dream up. An empire was lost for less.
Cheers,
Victoria
/both = this suggests cows are verboten for Muslims. No! Sorry. Also, "crimes" is way too strong. Not sure what I was thinking there. Maybe "grime" = greasy crime.
Okay, back to my bacon butty.
Gee, I wonder why so many people in the world hate us with despicable, sadistic and barbaric comments like these.
Victoria, why don't you tell us how the British civilized all those Wogs?
My God, you people are disgusting. Do any of you believe in the principles this country was founded on any more?
vbspurs said...
Hey, be careful, Bob. Remember the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857!
How did the Mutiny turn out for the Sepoys, Victoria? Did it drive the British out of India? Recall also how General Napier dealt with Suttee in India.
Did it drive the British out of India?
Heh, no, Bob. We stayed, Queen Victoria donned her Imperial Crown in 1873, and thereto, as Pepys had it, went history.
But my point was that it was the genesis of the independence movement. Their leader (Sepoy Mandey, if memory serves) became their first hero in the long independence battle ahead.
The battle, or in this case, the mutiny might've been quelled, but the war of propaganda the British lost big-time.
(It's funny you mention suttee. I recently had a very long discussion on another board about that very matter)
Cheers,
Victoria
MadisonMan said...
"Does one give someone like that what they want? Or, is he falsely proclaiming what he wants to avoid it?"
I don't think we should allow someone to dictate their sentence by proclaiming a preference either way. What he wants isn't really of any concern to me - although, if we are going to execute him, I do like the ideas raised above of wiping that smug grin off his face. I tend to think that since these femicidal fucks are so thoroughly and pervasively misogynist, anything that violently offends that sensibility - such as putting women in power over them - ought to be done at every opportunity (some readers will recall that I suggested this as a good reason to be sanguine about President Hillary), so Pogo's menstrual modification of Bob's idea is appealing, as are female judges, lawyers, and executioners.
The long and short of it is that when we deal with barbarians, we shouldn't assume that they automatically deserve the sort of treatment that a civilized enemy might receive. All cultures are not equal; KSM's is not only inferior, but evil. My idea of multiculturalism is most closely akin to that of Charles James Napier - if your tradition is to burn widows, go ahead; but be aware that if you do, we will carry out our tradition, which is to hang people who burn other people, including widows.
Fred Frederson: My God, you people are disgusting. Do any of you believe in the principles this country was founded on any more?
There's a time for diplomacy, Frederson, and there's a time for war when diplomacy fails. When that happens, massive retaliation is the only thing some people understand. That's why we firebombed Dresden and nuked Japan.
You don't like it? Throw your hands up in horror, but stay out of the way while real patriots bleed so you can whine and carp.
When will we ever learn that people like him live to turn trials into circuses?
Many of us have learned, Pat. However, sadly, not enough.
Exactly what is this trial about? I assume he's pleading guilty (if not, I stand corrected, but then I'm not much impressed with his commitment to his "cause"). We should conclude this in a week and get it over with.
The goal of war is to break the enemy's will to fight.
Lawfully executing Mohammad after a trial, as cathartic and retributive as that might be, would only strengthen the will of our opponents and would be counterproductive.
This war's outcome will show which civilization is more civilized. To show restraint in this instance proves us more worthy of victory. Consign him to the sunless depths of the Supermax.
Victoria, why don't you tell us how the British civilized all those Wogs?
I don't know about "civilized", but they certainly put India in a position to be a major world player. They unified the country, built up its infrastructure, and introduced English (which is effectively the closest thing they have to a national language).
My God, you people are disgusting. Do any of you believe in the principles this country was founded on any more?
Don't get your panties in a bunch, Freder. I'm not sure what bowdlerized version of Revolutionary history you've been reading, but the Founding Fathers weren't as faint-hearted as you seem to think.
Before American law was subverted into a Talmudic version of endless argument, motions, and apeals, our justice was swift and certain.
The last time enemy combatants out of uniform snuck into the US, FDR had them convicted, appealed out, and electrocuted in under two months. Nuremberg took months.
Terrorist rights lawyers have ensured justice waited 7 years after 9/11 and 5 years after the Mastermind was caught - just to get him to initial trial motions.
Now the circus starts - as Americans once again see how easy it is for our enemies to turn "the crown jewel" of American justice into a laughingstock.
America is no longer a nimble, quick-moving nation on the matters that most concern people. We wait 30 years on an energy policy or a dam or bridge stuck in court litigation since the 70s. We have people on death row 30 years. We have Administrations that take years to decide a war strategy and leaders aren't working whereas in the past the "decision-cycle time" was in months in a war.
Our Constitution is old and outmoded, 50 years overdue for a revision - but the bigger problem is America is run for the benefit of the Ruling Elites and what the lawyers want, not what The People want.
You don't like it? Throw your hands up in horror, but stay out of the way while real patriots bleed so you can whine and carp.
A real patriot would consider what the law, military and civilian, requires before they started fantasizing about humiliating, torturing, degrading and sumarily executing our captives.
Real patriots don't advocate torture and barbarism. Nor do they mistake sadism for justice.
Simon and Victoria pine for the civilization of the British Empire yet conveniently forget that at the very same time they were decrying barbaric traditions in India they were still paying cash bounties for dead Aborigonies in Australia. Or that the term "concentration camp" was invented by the British during the second Boer War where 35,000 people, mostly women and children, died of disease and privation (that was in the twentieth century and the victims were of European descent).
This war's outcome will show which civilization is more civilized.
George, they hate us anyway. Nothing that we DO is going to make them hate more or less*. Our civilisation doesn't need to prove anything that it hasn't already proven.
Fighting with one hand tied behind our back just makes us weak, not strong.
(*Actually, I take that back. They hate us because we're not Muslims. Until we convert, we're fair game. Don't know about you, but I guess I'll be condemned to hatred forever, as I'm not converting any time soon)
You don't like it? Throw your hands up in horror, but stay out of the way while real patriots bleed so you can whine and carp.
What branch of the military did you say you were in bob?
Fighting with one hand tied behind our back just makes us weak, not strong.
You too Victoria. I didn't realize you had enlisted.
A real patriot would consider what the law, military and civilian...
Which would have been summary execution had we had a President not so eager to cater to the opposition party on such matters to the point of extending GC protections to war criminals.
And I am so sorry your delicate sensibilities have been offended by those wanting to see the war criminal suffer.
Also, we have freedom of conscience and freeedom to serv or not serve in this country, freder. I am not so concerned that those who support my mission join the military as some sort of moral authority play. Which is just a cheap dodge used by you to smear them; the chickenhawk card. Because if you were so concerned about such, you wouldn't dare to disagree with me, as I have that ultimate moral authority in that regard.
You too Victoria. I didn't realize you had enlisted.
Oh, God, it's the chickenhawk argument. Now Fred's going to regale us on his extensive military knowledge, just like he "educated" us about physics last month.
Fred Frederson:Freder Frederson said...
What branch of the military did you say you were in bob?
I served in the US Navy 1980-1984, Frederson, so if you haven't yourself served in the military, don't bother using the chickenhawk argument.
Which would have been summary execution
Please provide the citation in either the UCMJ or the Geneva Conventions that allow the summary execution of anyone under any circumstances.
If you think it is ever acceptable then you must have been sleeping through your classes on military law or your name and picture are fraudulent.
You are simply lying if you are claiming that modern western military law (at the very least post-WWII and certainly before that for the U.S. and Great Britain) permits summary execution under any circumstances.
I'm sorry bob, I thought you were currently serving since you said you were bleeding in this war. Just like Victoria doesn't want to have one hand tied behind her back while she fights the good fight.
Because if you were so concerned about such, you wouldn't dare to disagree with me, as I have that ultimate moral authority in that regard.
You have no moral authority because you are a liar. You know that summary execution is strictly forbidden yet you continue to insist that it is proper and legal.
In fact, sgt ted, if you came upon fellow soldiers getting ready to summarily execute KSM, it would be your duty to prevent such an illegal act.
Ad-hominem attacks always make me smile. I count whatever I said, no matter how wrong, mistaken, or silly it was, as a victory.
*waves Old Glory and the Union Jack*
*what? I keep both. Is that so wrong?*
*who am I talking to here?*
*the bees!*
Fred Frederson:
I'm sorry bob, I thought you were currently serving since you said you were bleeding in this war. Just like Victoria doesn't want to have one hand tied behind her back while she fights the good fight.
Go back and read very carefully what I said, then apologize for taking my words out of context.
Go back and read very carefully what I said, then apologize for taking my words out of context.
My mistake, I thought you were implying you were a "real patriot". Of course real patriots wouldn't advocate torture and barbarity.
Fred Frederson My mistake, I thought you were implying you were a "real patriot". Of course real patriots wouldn't advocate torture and barbarity.
Real patriots put their country's welfare ahead of their own, even if it sometimes means acting brutally. Sherman never apologized for burning Atlanta or South Carolina, for example.
If you've never been in the miltary you really need to avoid this subject, Frederson, because you're exactly like the David Jansen character at the beginning of The Green Berets: willfully and obstinately ignorant.
"Before American law was subverted into a Talmudic version of endless argument, motions, and apeals, our justice was swift and certain."
Swift, certain -- and sometimes wrong. It's true that the pendulum swung too far in the middle of the last century, but we have moved back to the center. Earlier this week, for example, the 7th circuit rejected an appeal wherein a prisoner argued that he was entitled to a jury trial on questions regarding whether he had exhausted his administrative remedies before proceding to federal collateral procedings. Bill Douglas would be all for that kind of thing - got a criminal? Got an argument that inconveniences the state, frustrates justice, and unreasonably accomodates the demands of the guilty? Douglas never met an argument that served those goals that he didn't like. But that Douglas has been dead for decades. That world is dead, and its legacy is rotting; the defensible parts of its legacy have been strengthened with new growth, the more egregious parts of its criminal procedure legacy have been overruled, and the majority that sits between those extremes has for the most part been rationalized - the limits on the exclusionary rule annouced in Leon, Hudson, etc.
In sum, we have arrived at a place where the the procedural protections are for the most part a reasonable balancing of interests. Although there are certainly ways in which process might be improved, I think it's a mistake to pine for a supposed golden age; it never existed. It just looks that way if we account only by the dispatch of the accused, without considering the often insufficient protections afforded to the innocent.
Freder clearly has never served in combat, and I doubt he has ever served. Thus, Freder speaks only as a student of the UCMJ and GCs. Had Freder any real experience in closing with and destroying the enemy by close combat, fire and maneuver, he would understand the circumstances resulting from warfare do not always allow soldiers to comply with those rules.
I do think our military establishment attempts to sort those issues out after the fact, ,viz: the haditha court martials and others where US soldiers have been brought to trial for their actions in combat. Life--and especially life in combat--is never as neat, tidy and orderly as the UCMJ, GCs and interntational law would have us believe.
I believe Freder's wife is in Iraq now, or was. Or am I confusing him with another poster?
I appreciate her service, whomever's wife she is. It cannot be easy.
Freder clearly has never served in combat, and I doubt he has ever served.
I have never claimed to have served in the military.
Those of you who have served in the military, and should know better, frequently claim that U.S. military law, or the GC, allows summary executions under some circumstances. When you make this claim, you are lying. It is as simple as that.
You can claim that I don't understand the exingencies of combat or that I am only concerned with the legal question. To the first issue, that has nothing to do with it. As to the second, that is exactly my point. I am pointing out you are simply wrong on the law and you know it.
Of course real patriots wouldn't advocate torture and barbarity.
They do if torture and barbarity are in the best interests of the American people. Which, on occasion, they have been. That's why patriots have on occasion committed barbarous acts, e.g. the bombing of Hiroshima or the forced starvation of entire islands of Japanese troops during the Pacific campaign.
Really, though, Freder, you can't expect us to take your comments on patriotism seriously. You've never expressed anything but hate for America. Maybe you'd act differently if a Democrat was President, but that doesn't make you a patriot -- just a Democrat.
NY Daily News - Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Innocent till proven guilty. Right. Here's a man who has happily confessed to slaughtering thousands of people and who now openly demands the glorious death penalty as reward for his evil deeds.
But who will be afforded American due process all the same. As he knows perfectly well, to the degree that Thursday he was officiously lecturing the military judge about the conditions he will and will not choose to accept.
Exactly as he said to his captors when he was first pinched a few years ago: See you in court.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, we expect, is going to be very much enjoying his star turn, Defendant of the Century that he is.
With all the world watching, he'll be center stage for some time to come, just like fellow terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, whose trial in New York Federal Court a while back rattled on for several lifetimes while he was shown every possible courtesy even as he screamed death-to-infidels boilerplate from his chair.
Simon - Thats why you are wrong. The pendulum is still swung over waaaaayyy too far in favoring the rights of criminals above their victims. And terrorist rights over the 2920 people they butchered or the guards they regularly attack and throw feces at. And excessive concern over "rights" of opposition and a mindset that courts are entitled to their own leisurely timeschedule has thrown America into gridlock and blocked critical econnomic and public safety measures for decades, costing us jobs, reduced "rights" for the public as a whole, and even lives in delaying engineering fixes on unsafe roads, public safety in dangerous communities controlled by gangs or criminal illegal aliens...
Freder--I have never claimed that soldiers have the right to summarily execute prisoners. And the exigencies of combat have EVERYTHING to do with it. And when you gain some exerience with those exigencies, we can talk about the legal doctrines. You missed my major point: the UCMJ IS applied, but regretably, it is often necessarily applied after the fact.
Those of you who have served in the military, and should know better, frequently claim that U.S. military law, or the GC, allows summary executions under some circumstances.
Anyone familiar with the laws of warfare -- veteran of otherwise -- knows that the provisions of the GC applying to treatment of the enemy do not protect all combatants. Those who are unprotected, e.g. Khalid Mohammed, can be executed without trial and without violating the GC. Doing so may violate *other* laws, but it doesn't violate the GC treaty as ratified by the United States.
As for military law, summary executions are generally forbidden as a matter of policy (not by the UCMJ). That policy can and has been changed on occasion. In general, though, the appropriate procedure would be a hearing before a military tribunal before execution is carried out.
A jury trial, such as Mohammed is receiving, is excessive and unnecessary, especially since he wants to die. We should oblige him.
Had Freder any real experience in closing with and destroying the enemy by close combat, fire and maneuver, he would understand the circumstances resulting from warfare do not always allow soldiers to comply with those rules.
I don't know what this has to do with the current discussion since by all accounts KSM, and the other defendants arraigned yesterday, were not captured in anything like a battlefield action, but in circumstances that more closely resemble a civilian arrest. KSM was arrested--and that is the proper word--in Pakistan.
Cedarford may envision a Nazi paradise where we can simply put a bullet in the back of someone's skull and dump their body in the river, and round up gang members, jews, blacks, and anyone who stands in the way of having a dam built and exterminate them, but fortunately we don't live in that kind of society.
Cedarford - I don't agree. The problems identified by the Post op/ed don't go to any flaw in criminal procedure, but rather, to the flawed conception that war criminals such as KSM should be tried within the criminal justice system in the first place. The war on terror is not within the domain of law enforcement and its apparatus.
(Clarification: I meant my comment above that GWOT is distinct from law enforcement to be normative not positive; I should have said that it is not properly treated as a law enforcement issue, and the rules applied to one should not automatically be applied to the other.)
Freder - Those of you who have served in the military, and should know better, frequently claim that U.S. military law, or the GC, allows summary executions under some circumstances. When you make this claim, you are lying. It is as simple as that.
He is like a broken record on his anal retentative interpretations of Geneva and UCMJ. Always ignoring that Geneva is RECIPROCAL between signing parties or it isn't in force. And that the UCMJ says prisoners shall be taken whenever practical, even when inconvenient, so long as the people to be taken prisoner are civilians or enemy soldiers protected under Geneva...which ignores that:
1. In many battles and wars, it is not practical to take prisoners in certain circumstances and thus it is legitimate to kill enemy soldiers, even unarmed and attempting surrender, if no means to take them prisoner is available.
Ex. A - In the Gulf War, we buried Iraqi troops in the trenches alive because we couldn't stop the bulldozers that had to wreck the trenches to allow our armor to cross 20 minutes later, long enough to accept surrender.
Ex B - Also in the Gulf War, our aircraft blew up tanks then finished off the survivors coming out with machine guns because the air assets could not take them prisoner. And didn't want to see them flee and live to fight another day.
Ex C - We cluster-bombed troop concentrations that had no idea they were about to be attacked, without opportunity to surrender - which most would have - simply because we didn't want to loose the element of surprise and risk our troops in the hope they would surrender if they knew 8 F-16s were bearing down on them.
2. In wars where we found out the Japs or N Koreans or Taliban were taking no prisoners, and otherwise comporting themselves outside Geneva - we sometimes elected to show them no mercy and NOT take prisoners at the US commander's discretion. Which is not "summary execution" which is not allowed by the UCMJ, but showing no quarter to the enemy as tit for tat..(which in other conflicts HAS motivated enemy to shift and treat our soldiers they capture better (the NORKs, once they found out we were dispatching all their guys until they granted quarter to S Korean and UN troops).
3. We will kill off with no trial, any enemy soldiers that surrender, then renege on surrender.
Ex A - Barry MacCafferty took a brigade of Iraqis prisoner in the Gulf War. As they were being guarded, they attacked and killed several US soldiers. The General then ordered US tanks and air assets to destroy the whole brigade, inc. those trying to re-surrender - though once he had control and the threat was over he did allow a few survovors found hiding to live.
Ex B - Same thing when the Al Qaeda, including the traitor John Lindh betrayed terms of surrender at the fortress and killed some Americans and Afghans guarding them. They were in turn blasted to shit and burned to death - armed or not.
**************
And Freder may be upset, but the Jihadis and their Democrat liberal friends appear to be failing in turning the Haditha Marines into a version of Breaker Morant. 8 accused by Jihadis, radical Sunnis, and the likes of Feingold and Murtha of murder. 5 had all charges dropped. a 6th was fully acquitted. Acquittals expected for the SGT who led the squad against the IED and ambush, and the poor officer that told one of the accused that regs forbid having "trophy pictures" of dead Iraqis stored on any digital device and overzealous prosecutors charged him with cover-up..
There will be no apology from the Jihadis or the liberals like Murtha for the failed effort to railroad and further enemy/liberal propaganda against the troops, though...
As for military law, summary executions are generally forbidden as a matter of policy (not by the UCMJ).
No, summary execution is murder. Where on earth do you get the idea that it is just policy that you can't shoot prisoners?
"You too Victoria. I didn't realize you had enlisted"
You don't have to be an enlistee in the military to have to good sense to realize that we are in for the fight of our lives and our civlilization. There are also other ways to fight in addition to militarily. One is to stand firm and not give in to the terrorists by coddling them and treating them as if they were equal on the scale of humanity. People who encourage children to blow themselves and innocent others up in the name of some perverted religious martyrdom, drill holes in people with power tools for fun, kill babies in front of their mothers and in general teach hatred and murder to their own children, are not human beings IMO.
Cedarford's examples muddy the issue as they are close calls in the heat of battle--which I have already said I am not talking about.
We are discussing summary execution. Summary execution, at least in the context I am talking about, is taking a disarmed and subdued prisoner, standing him up against a wall, organizing a firing squad, and shooting him.
Don't bring grey areas into the discussion to blur the lines between right and wrong.
Bob;
I was in the Navy 1966-1972. Regarding the USS Cole fiasco we were told that if anything approaced our ship we were to fire over the bow well in advance of the worst case scenario of the impending threat. After that, it was protect the boat and fire-for-effect.
Freder is mistaken, as usual. We are in a war that the Geneva Convention is ill-prepared to cope with. KSM does not wear an identifying uniform. Conventions and UCMJ's are written for a clearly defined enemy and battlefield protocol. It does not address 21st century battle tactics of the assymetrical type.
People like Freder, GOD bless him, are witting or unwitting dupes depending on their level of naivete. In any case, they clog up the ROE by causing our military to hesitate before returning fire which is suicidal. Haditha is a good example of Freder's failed logic. The mere prosecution of these fine soldiers is a testament to the politicization of certain left-wing elements at the pentagon.
One more thing, it is not necessary to have served in the military to be a critic. One doesn't have to be a musician to identify a wrong note. In the military the results are final. Hesitate and you are dead.
People who encourage children to blow themselves and innocent others up in the name of some perverted religious martyrdom, drill holes in people with power tools for fun, kill babies in front of their mothers and in general teach hatred and murder to their own children, are not human beings IMO.
And those who would happily see these men tortured to death, their most sacred religious traditions defiled and gleefully watch the debasement of these evil men are what exactly?
Freder is mistaken, as usual. We are in a war that the Geneva Convention is ill-prepared to cope with.
If I am mistaken (and I think you are referring to my attitude, since I am right on the law), then you and Cedarford should petition your congressmembers to change the UCMJ and withdraw from the GC.
I will remind you that after 9/11, the military updated its Interrogation Field Manual but refused to modify significantly. So apparently the uniformed military is uninterested in all these barbaric tactics you think would be so effective.
Since they wouldn't really know for sure, it seems wise to take full advantage of their aversion to pig's blood and sang menstruel, a little citizen ingenuity might be of use here.
I wonder how we might arm every US citizen with something that, when used obviates or negates the act of martyrdom in their eyes?
No, summary execution is murder.
Feel free to quote the part of the UCMJ that says killing the enemy is against the law.
Where on earth do you get the idea that it is just policy that you can't shoot prisoners?
Are you saying it isn't our policy to refrain from shooting prisoners?
The reason we don't shoot prisoners is that it is in most cases a bad policy; you want the enemy to be willing to surrender in order to save their own lives. When the enemy has no interest in surrendering and doesn't care if they die -- as is the case with Mohammed -- then there is no reason to show such restraint.
There are circumstances under which soldiers are not merely allowed to, but required to, shoot people they have captured. The rules of war are utilitarian; they are not about moral absolutes.
If I am mistaken (and I think you are referring to my attitude, since I am right on the law), then you and Cedarford should petition your congressmembers to change the UCMJ and withdraw from the GC.
But you haven't said which clauses of the UCMJ or GC we are violating.
Go ahead and do so, and we'll be happy to explain why you're wrong. Again.
Freder - we have chosen to extend GC protection to the insurgents despite their clearly not meeting the requirements for GC protection (no uniforms, etc). Rather than continue the tradition of hanging captured spies and those captured engaging soldiers while not in uniform.
The GC was written for proper treatment of uniformed combatants and civilians during fighting between nation states. In Iraq it applied during the invasion between conventional forces of US and Iraq. The expansion of the GC to insurgents represents the success of JAGs to apply legal principles into combat operations. It also has put civilians in greater danger since troops cannot distinguish civilians from combatants.
The way this should have been handled was short military tribunals with hanging if someone is found guilty of engaging uniformed troops in civilian dress. We are seeing how well military tribunals is working now.
"People who encourage children to blow themselves and innocent others up in the name of some perverted religious martyrdom, drill holes in people with power tools for fun, kill babies in front of their mothers and in general teach hatred and murder to their own children, are not human beings IMO."
And those who would happily see these men tortured to death, their most sacred religious traditions defiled and gleefully watch the debasement of these evil men are what exactly?
People who are interested in self preservation and the elimination of rabid dogs in the neighborhood?
"And those who would happily see these men tortured to death, their most sacred religious traditions defiled and gleefully watch the debasement of these evil men are what exactly?"
People who are interested in self preservation and the elimination of rabid dogs in the neighborhood?
I was going to say "my kind of people", but that summarizes it pretty well too. :)
I do like the bit about "most sacred religious traditions", as if a fear of animals and women was an admirable thing.
Prisoner: Always uses top grade hemp, Schmidt does. He oils it so it slides read good. Snaps your neck like a dry twig.
(Hang 'Em High, 1968)
You know, every time we have one of these arguments, Freder talks about how the law forbids this and the Geneva Conventions forbid that. Then someone asks him to quote the law in question and he's never heard from again... until the next time the topic comes up. Then it all starts over again.
Simon's probably got just the right idea with his "silent treatment" approach.
So they hate America because gays can marry in Massachusettes, The Republican Party wants to ban gay marriage via the Constitution...
So my question to the Republican Party: Why do you support Terrorists?? Why do you hate America??
After all, I've already heard that Barack Obama doesn't wear flag pins so he hates America and supports the Terrorists
Who is left that doesn't support the Terrorists and doesn't hate America??
I'm just missing my Americans-Terrorists checklist.
Post a Comment