Social Sense
Right! Mustang has hammered another nail into the hipocracy of the Left. Why, oh why, do most of the countries in the world get a pass on really, really awful human rights violations and the USA continues to get hammered by the world press AND our own press and politicians? Why, indeed.
No one wants to take responsibility for their own actions AND no one wants to alienate those who provide the the base of their support. This is more than just hipocracy. These "leaders" are parties to crimes. They only go after people that are, in the main, decent and they can count on not doing someting awful in response to their silly tirades. I have contempt for them and I am hopeful that more and more of their political base will see through their selective morality.
Everytime criticism is launched at our government or our troops (in this case, for the confirmed "mishandling of the Koran" by a few troops at GITMO), the argument is raised that the Muslims commit acts that are many times worse.
Yes, the do. But so what.
All this argument really does is compare us to them. In so doing, we are lowered to the moral standards that terrorists and international criminals use to judge themselves. We are better than that.
Far, far better than that.
Our government and our troops are better than Mugabe and the butchers of the Sudan. We shouldn't be asked to be judged by their pathetic standard of behavior.
We judge ourselves, and we do so by the standard we have set for ourselves, and that standard is very, very high. That's why the U.S. can present itself as the leader of the Free World.
Americans don't always do what's right, but we always strive to. That's another quality that sets us apart from Mugabe and his ilk.
If our troops irred at GITMO (and according to the Commandiong General of the prison there, errors were made), then we will correct those mistakes and continue to march.
And we will march with our heads up. We regret our mistakes, but we are not shamed by them.
Tad, we'll disagree on this one. You say "no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions."
I say, Americans do. We're not afraid to admit when we err. We take responsibility for everything we do -- the bad, as well as the good.
The world press - as you point out - criticizes our every missteps in the harshest of terms. So be it. We should welcome such attention, not shy away or condemn it or seek to divert attention away from it. That way, we give the world one more sign that we rightfully occupy our place on the moral high ground.
America, as a nation, holds herself to a higher standard. I despise those (the media, the ACLU, certain politicians, etc.) who revel in the act of criticism. The lsbels "gulag" and "Nazi" simply do not apply and, in my opinion, stem from hatred of the Bush administration. Furthermore, such labels result in inflaming passions better left unexpressed--to say the least.
Matters of military discipline (whatever they may be and I'm not convinced that we're getting an accurate picture, anyway) should be dealt with "in house," not in the forum of public opinion. To top it all off, we are witnessing some politicking of the most self-serving kind.
We are at war! Offhand comments which are negative toward the United States and our military are used against us and present divisions which the enemy can exploit. A little common sense would be very refreshing. An empty hope, I'm afraid.
1. Should we hold ourselves to the highest standards of conduct? Sure.
2. Who would anyone want to be a prisoner of: Americans or terrorists?
3. When we speak of "Americans", it sounds like we are all in lock step. The truth is that some have a far, far different opinion than I. Sadly, too many Americans (not to mention others in the world) do not take responsibility for their own actions and wish to scapegoat or push of their problems and make themselves victims and wail and rant about the injustice of it all.
4. Should we do anything that increases the hostility of our enemies or those who may be swayed to fall one way or another?
5. Bottom line, we should be pretty ruthless in enforcing the standards of decency that we decide must be used in terms of captured terrorists. Note: Please remember, terrorists fall outside the normal rules of the Geneva Convention when discussing Prisoners of War. OK, so we police ourselves very firmly. However, we do NOT feed the enemy anything that assists him. That, plainly stated is: aiding and abetting the enemy...and they most surely are the enemy.
Tad, a couple of clarifications, followed by some questions --
1. As I said before, when I speak of "Americans" in this instance, I refer to leaders in our government and members of our Armed Services. For the most part, they move in "lock step." They accept responsibility for their actions, and they hold themselves to a higher standard. They enforce discipline within their ranks, and they correct misdeeds when they occur.
2. We should not continue to contrast American servicemen with terrorists in any way. It's like comparing apples and snakes. There simply is no point of comparison.
So, to answer you question -- of course, anyone in their right mind would prefer to be a prisoner of Americn servicemen rather than terrorists. We are governed by a rational system of laws. I don't know what drives or governs the other side.
3. As for aiding and abetting, its arguable what actions actually aid and abet the enemy during time of war. Does free speech or a free press aid and abet? If so, do we want to curtail them? If so, whose speech do we ban, whose writing do we censure? Where do we start?
4. Why do you say that "terrorists fall outside the normal rules of the Geneva Convention when discussing POW's?" If that's true, then what body of laws governs how "terrorists" prisoners will be treated and how they are expected to act?
When you said this, were you expressing your own opinion or were you repeating what you believe is DoD policy?
Semper Fi to you.
For CA:
Let me begin with your third point. It is true that we encourage people to speak their mind. But there are consequences to “free speech.” If a politician’s statement encourages insurgents to keep on plugging away, what should we conclude about that individual? That he didn’t understand the weight of his own words? So we are not debating whether Leahy (et.al.) has the right to speak. Of course they do. And they can say what they want. But the issue for ME is should they give aid and comfort to the enemy? And the consequences for me (not that I would ever live in VT) is that I would NEVER vote for Leahy, any of his children, or either of his two mistresses. (Note: modeling free speech).
Point 4: Terrorists are not protected pursuant to the rules of the Geneva Convention. Of course, implementing the tenets of the GC have always been a national prerogative, but most civilized nations (having agreed to them) at least profess to live up to them. Stateless murderers and thugs are not even discussed in the GC. So Tad is right – these morons are not protected by those accords. What COULD have happened (and this might have been an even better course of action) is that they might have been lined up in front of a wall and executed. People who fight against an organized army while attired in civilian clothing are considered “spies” and can be summarily executed. Now think about this . . . there is a good reason for such accords. It protects non-combatants. Insurgents try to blend in with the civilian population, thereby exposing them to even greater danger.
Point 4 (Continued): The body of “law” that you allude to, I believe, is the “rules of engagement.” Terrorists are simply not addressed in any international accord that I’m aware of, and I’ve read them all. (Just kidding). If you have been to the National War College, you probably already know this.
We have to keep thinking: TERRORISTS MUST DIE. SOONER IS BETTER THAN LATER. Can we all agree with that?
Semper Fidelis,
What you said about the GC not covering "terrorist" captives, but rather by some .. "rules of engagement" --
Come on, admit it, you made that up, didn't you.
Tad and Mustang ... on June 8, 2005, referring to the "terrorist" prisoners at GITMO, President Bush said, "Prisoners are being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention." The President went on to say, "We treat (stateless) prisoners in accordance with international standards."
This is easy enough to verify, it's all over the news. Check it out.
The Rules of Engagement, as every serviceman knows, tells us under what conditions and in what manner we can engage and destroy the enemy. As long as those "rules", and the Rules of Land Warfare, are followed, I have no problem with terrorists being killed.
But when our lads capture one of the buggers, a different set of "rules" become effective. At least they do according to the Commander-in-Chief.
Semper Fi
I'm not sure of your point, CA. If the president accords these people MORE protection than they're entitled to, how is that a bad thing? I'm not saying I agree that they should be provided more protection, only that when Bush gives them more, not less, how is he a bad guy?
Elaborate for me, please.
Mustang, hey, that's what I want know, too: who said the President was a bad guy? Not me, that's for sure.
You and Tad said that GITMO detainees were not covered by the Geneva Convention. In fact, they are covered by the GC and/or a host of other "international standards."
The President and I just wanted to set the record straight on that issue.
I don't know much about the Geneva Convention, but I thought that its guidelines don't apply to those not fighting in uniform or to detainees from any nation which has not "signed onto" the GC.
I forgot to add this...
If the President said that the GITMO detainess would be afforded the protections of the GC, did he say that as policy or in answer to fallout from the Newsweek story? I didn't pay much attention at the time because I thought it was a non-issue because those prisoners were Talibanists.
Are the jihadists using the GC against us in the same way they're using American freedoms to establish their outposts on American soil?
I feel that, many times, on this GITMO issue and on other issues as well, we are playing into the enemy's hands. What we think of as freedom of speech and freedom of the press have been perverted by the Islamists. Never before have I been so concerned that words could aid and abet the enemy. Part of this new danger, as I see it, is the Information Age. The new technology, which we so enjoy, sends words around the world in a trice. This is a knife which cuts two ways, I guess.
Mustang and AlwaysOnWatch have clarified this issue very nicely.
Nice job.
Good questions and good points, Always --
The GC is on the Internet for anyone interested in plowing through it. Did you know that one provision of the GC requires that the nation holding captives is required to pay them? in French francs or the equivalent? I don't know if we're doing that.
Nonetheless -
The U.S. Commander-in-Chief can apply the provisions of the GC to any captives or detainees it chooses. In this case, he decided to apply them to GITMO detainees.
I don't know the president's motivation in applying the GC to GITMO. Why the Commander said what he did might be interesting to historians, but to those in the armed forces, it's simply an order he issued.
Don't get hung up on the 'fighting in civilian clothing' issue. The defenders at the Alamo didn't have uniforms. Neither did much of Gen. Washington's army in 1776. (I'm not comparing Jihadists to American patriots. I'm only pointing out that uniforms are not really an issue.) More examples - the French Resistance in WWII, the Israeli resistance prior to independence.
If my reading is correct, the Geneva Conventions were not inked until long after Gen Washington and the lads at the Alamo were long dead. As for the French Resistance in WW II,(far,far smaller than they would have us believe, but that is another issue all together) and the Israeli fledgling military prior to their recognition in the UN, we know what was done to them by the Nazis (in France) and the Arabs (in greater Palestine). I submit that uniforms do count. To follow the Rules of War, you must follow some rules yourself. If you follow NO rules, how would you expect your enemies to follow rules? While I do not expect American forces to EVER stoop to the barbarity of our enemies, when the terrorists do not wear uniforms, one must be very wary of all. And, you are truly right here. This does cause many problems.
Always on Watch:
I disagree that matters of discipline should be dealt with internally by the military. Our military is run by public servants, and accountable to the public.
There should always be healthy debate on how our military is performing and how it treats the rank and file.
The Quran debate is silly though. Muslims have no right not to be offended. People in general have no right not to be offended. If they are offended, they must learn to deal with it constructively, rather than rioting and killing.
I am offended by many things in my reality, but I do not choose to run around burning, looting and killing. I do not conduct "holy wars" to make myself feel better about the things in this world that I disagree with.
Nor should any civilized human being. Civility is the cornerstone that our society is founded on. But sometimes, when we are dealing with enemies in a war, civility will breakdown.
Yes, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and we do. That is why our troops are not allowed to rape the women of the enemy, hold them down and saw their heads off, etc.
The Quran is paper, nothing more. And the Muslims and Muslim-enablers who are trying to make this into an primary issue are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Their way of thinking is flawed and should not be tolerated.
Tad, there's no such thing as the "Rules of War." The correct name of the document is "The Rules of Land Warfare."
Back in the rear one night when the Bn CP got mortared. My platoon was not on duty, we were asleep in our tents. First thing we did was grab our weapons and rounds. We only had time to put on our flak jackets and helmets and slip on our boots. We ran to our assigned fighting holes dressed like that.
Sorry if we broke anybody's rules about uniforms in combat. We'll try to do better next time.
Semper Fi
Trevor,
Our military is most certainly accountable to the ciitizenry that is serves, however, I most definately would NOT want our service personnel to somehow enter the civilian judicial system for the maintenance of discipline.
The military is covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is very fair and, unlike most civilian trials, it moves along rather quickly. Frankly, having seen both in operation, I would much prefer a military trial to a civilian trial.
I would add, that the military judicial system is harder on those found guilty (and we never bring someone to trial unless we can really PROVE they violated the law)than most civil courts. It certainly isn't flawless, but there are far fewer errors in military trials than in civilian trials...at least that has been my observation.
Come on, CA...helmets, flak jackets, boots and weapons ARE a uniform. I have done the same thing. As for me, I never (a few exceptions) slept without my trousers, green t-shirt and boots on. Often I slept wearing everything and completely wet and with leeches crawling upon me. Jolly times, yeh, right. My weapon(s) were right at hand. I HATE incoming. I do love our own mortars.
Come on ... news reporter wear helmets, boots, and flak jackets. Noone would claim they're in uniform.
Admittedly, it would be simplier if everyone wore a distinctive uniform. But they don't.
It's a moot point, anyway. The President has said that the GC applies to GITMO detainees.
No, I think you are wrong, CA. What the president said is that he/USA is applying the GC to the detainees. That isn't the same thing as saying that they are entitled to protection of the GC. Nice try though.
CA, You had reporters with you? Gosh, in the war I was in, the reports were no where to be seen most of the time I was in the "field"..which was most of the time.
Mustang, you go to great lenths to spin what I said.
On June 8, 2005, the President said, GITMO "Prisoners are being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention."
I say that if the Commander-in-Chief says the detainees will be entitled to the GC, then the detainees will be entitled to the GC.
Tad, same war, same Service, I'll bet. RVN followed by 21 years as a 0302. You?
CA, USMC, 32 years as 0311, 0369 and 0302...of course, served in all sorts of billets...but didn't we all?
Yes, indeed we did.
Commenting by HaloScan
