August 06, 2006

Dopey WNJ Letter of the Week

This week's winner is George Turner of Wilmington who thinks the United States' Islamofascist enemies are emboldened because we treat some detainees harshly:

The winning of a war requires both military and moral strength. Today, America possesses the greatest military strength in history.

Given the current administration's attitude toward the treatment of detainees, we can hardly claim any real degree of moral strength.

The Geneva Conventions were agreed upon many years ago, by most countries of the world, in a show of moral strength.

American failure to follow those rules of war are truly shameful.

Our current standards for treatment of foreign detainees is leading to increased resistance among the Arab populations. By taking back the moral high ground, giving true protection to the detainees, the U.S. has a chance to regain our standing as a true world leader.

Without such moral standing we are doomed to fall to the position of follower rather than leader.

Some news for George:

1) The recent Hamdan decision by the US Supreme Court, using the Geneva Convention, confers on terrorists rights for prisoners of war -- despite the FACT that the Convention clearly states they are not entitled to them. In addition, the SCOTUS made a huge legal leap when it utilized Geneva's Article 3 in its reasoning, which only applies to a domestic conflict. Does Mr. Turner think that the current war on terror is not an international battle?

2) The United States appears to be following Geneva to the letter. See #1 above. But since some terror detainees have received harsh treatment, we should "rise above" the plain wording of the Geneva Convention (of course, using the Geneva Convention as the basis for argument!).

3) Cases where torture or borderline torture have been revealed in the current war on terror, investigations and prosecutions have taken place.

4) The claim that "Our current standards for treatment of foreign detainees is leading to increased resistance among the Arab populations" is laughable. Gitmo detainees getting air conditioned cells with religiously appropriate diets? It's better living conditions than they've probably ever experienced in their lives. What awful treatment of foreign detainees led to the WTC bombings in 1993 and 2001? The Islamofascists don't NEED a reason for "increased resistance." They HATE us. Just like they hate Jews and the state of Israel (no doubt a subsequent reason for their hatred of the US). PERIOD.

Now, as the president has stated, we all must follow the SCOTUS ruling in Hamdan and implement the proper procedures. As I noted, checks and balances work! But this does not mean one has to blindly agree with the SCOTUS decision in order to follow its dictates, as WDEL's Gerry Fulcher blatantly informed co-host Rick Jensen this past week. When Jensen pressed Fulcher on the Geneva Article Three question noted above, and whether he accepts it, Fulcher kept evading, repeating that we all have to follow the SCOTUS decision. Jensen wouldn't relent, and eventually Fulcher stated that he agrees with the SCOTUS that the war on terror must NOT be of an "international character" despite the obvious reality to the contrary. Thus, in his zeal to "zap" President Bush for being rebuked by the high court, Fulcher set himself up as a believer in whatever the SCOTUS dictates; in other words, one must BELIEVE in its reasoning -- you can't just follow its legal decisions.

Hey Ger -- tell that to the millions of Americans who believe Roe v. Wade was a lousy decision. And, Fulcher, if he was alive back then, must have believed that people of African descent were mere "property," and that the doctrine of "separate but equal" was moral and legitimate.

Posted by Hube at August 6, 2006 10:57 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Yeah. That's a dopey letter. Their hatred toward us has nothing to do with Gitmo. And the Gitmo detainees are hardly boy scouts. Throwing feces, semen, and anything else they can find on guards and physically attacking them whenever possible shows they probably weren't innocents picked up by mistake.

I thought it was a bad SCOTUS decision to confer on terrorists who break the rules of warfare by not wearing uniforms prisoner of war status.

Posted by: Anna Venger at August 6, 2006 01:00 PM

Personally, I prefer the method for dealing with irregular combattants during the civil war.

The senior officer of the unit which captured the individual would convene a field court martial, appointing one officer as prosecutor and one as defense attorney. The trial would be held within a few hours of the end of the battle. Sentencing occurred immediately upon the conviction, with execution to follow within a few hours. There was no appeal, and no use of civilian courts.

hey -- good enough for Lincoln, good enough for me. :)

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at August 6, 2006 01:26 PM

George Turner of Wilmington who thinks the United States' Islamofascist enemies are emboldened because we treat some detainees harshly:

Whatever damage the perceived treatment is doing probably ain't making the difference one way or the other, sure.

But the thing is, Hube, you're coming from the side of the fence whose pundits, Congressmen, and even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff whine like little p....wussies... that peaceful anti-war protests and sentiments embolden the enemy.

So... yeah.

Posted by: dan at August 6, 2006 03:22 PM

dan: You're right about that peaceful protest thingie. I agree. It does make those who say as you note look like pu**ies.

But that's not what Turner addressed so I didn't even bother to think about it.

Posted by: Hube at August 6, 2006 08:11 PM

Rymes, Dana would have you banned (yet you speak truth,??) ok this is how they did Benedict Arnold too.

He was an officer so the betrayal was a zillion times worse and I though I forget the entire story, they added in a few extras to bring it home - the contempt and saddness mixed at the fall of a brother.

So, how do so many good people here come to such wrong-headed conclusions??

We do not know one damn thing aobut the gitmo prisoners and yet alll of you jumo to conclude that they are guilty..sad so sad. Blind faith in a terrible administration, I suppose a terrible god as well.

I prefer to think that god will show me the way and not the other way around.

Posted by: Nancy Willing at August 7, 2006 06:49 AM

No one said all the Gitmo detainees are "guilty," Nancy, and no one here expressed "blind faith" in the administration.

But I suppose that's a good way to skirt the actual ISSUE, ain't it?

(And who gives a s**t what unstable egomaniac Dana would do. Save it for his site.)

Posted by: Hube at August 7, 2006 08:29 AM

So what does it mean when an immoral group or country wins a war? I'm not advocating a kill 'em all/take no prisoners approach to warfighting, but Geneva can only apply when both sides are civilized nation-states. When non-state groups like Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Viet Cong use the rules of civilized war against us, we shouldn't be expected to maintain our slavish devotion to such rules and conventions. We're always surprised when the big red crosses on our medevac helicopters are used as targets, but then frustrated when we realize that the anti-aircraft fire is coming from the top of a minaret.

"Hey sarge, that guy's shooting at us!"

"Well, shoot him back!"

"I can't, sarge, he just put his AK47 on the ground."

"You're right, he's a civilian now. Just walk away, and our moral superiority will protect us."

Posted by: G Rex at August 7, 2006 03:32 PM

The Dana ref was a joke, ok!!!

And I looked at several reviews of the situation....what if you were hauled off as an enemy combatant and left to rot for five years with no charges no access to legal no family contact etc and it was unfounded because you were innocent?

I just think that I would likely resort to some of the things that these people are doing.
I understand that they act out when they hear that a guard has abused someone or in similar circumstances of pay back for perceived wrong...I mean, human nature is universal.

Posted by: Nancy Willing at August 8, 2006 07:07 PM