| |
[Note: This began as a post on the extropy-chat list, hence the references within. I tend to practice Azimov's Law of boosting one's publishing volume by reprinting content in multiple locations. It also helps ensure your words to posterity... ;) ]
I had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the NH Civil Liberties Union (can you imagine me there????) yesterday afternoon, where a talk was given by a registered Republican, who is now Dean of the Franklin Pierce Law School in Concord, NH, and was previously the CINCJAG of the Navy, Admiral John Hutson (Ret). Hutson was commenting on the situation with prisoners at gitmo and Iraq.
While he confirmed a lot of what I've previously posted to this list, he did clarify with actual White House memos by WH counsel Gonzales to Pres. Bush that the White House had actively sought a legal argument to specifically refuse to recognise that any prisoners met the criteria found in the Geneva Conventions, because they were not individuals in the service of any recognised government (even the Taliban were referred to as a 'failed state' due to its lack of diplomatic recognition around the world). Because of this legal determination by the White House, the 'competent tribunal' requirement of the Conventions needed to determine if an individual prisoner is a legal or illegal combatant (or noncombatant) was never triggered.
Hutson referred to this argument as being "too clever for one's own good", which I have some sympathy for, especially on the same logical reasons that Hudson rejects it for: that not taking the high road of treating all prisoners as POWs until determined otherwise by competent tribunal endangers American lives, since it is our military forces who are forward deployed in other countries more than anyone.
Of course one can point to instances where US military personnel had been badly abused prior to the Bush administration: Mogadishu, for instance, demonstrated that the enemy already had zero respect for the laws of war before the Bush administration started deciding that terrorist prisoners had no rights to Geneva protections. Whether the Bush administration decided to adopt this policy following the clear examples of Mogadishu and others is something else entirely to debate.
One is left in the position of really trying hard to argue for the 'turn the other cheek' argument when one is faced by this example, especially following the visceral destruction of 9/11. It was easier in yesteryear when images of badly abused bodies of military personnel dragged through the streets didn't automatically show up on websites and television broadcasts. The sensationalism of the instant press contributes to the baying for blood (on both sides), rather than to any reasoned or rational debate, or chance for sober minds to try to constrain policy before the mob demands vengance.
As extropians list subscribers in the late 1990's may remember, I have spoken on several occasions about how groups seek to apply revolutionary theory to get a free society to willingly surrender its rights through vicious cycles of oppression, atrocity, and more oppression, etc. Some of those here who disagee with me on things these days didn't believe me when I warned of exactly what they are now complaining about.
Giving up our liberties is what the islamist world wishes to achieve in the west. Rather than Patriot Acts, the best Homeland Security would be to rescind the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, the FOPA of 1986 and the Brady Bill. Admiral Hirohito warned Tojo against invading the mainland US. He had studied at university here, and had a pretty good idea about mainland society. He said that an invasion would fail because, "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass".
There was no rifle (or other arm) behind every blade of grass (or airline seat) on 9/11. The hijacking phenomenon began when the FAA banned citizens from their 2nd amendment rights on aircraft, and it will cease when that ban is lifted. Terrorism will fail to succeed when the populace is once again broadly armed, when it is the rare individual who is morally scrupulous against use of arms who is unarmed on the streets.
Rather than a police society, we need to trust ourselves and our Constitution, and fight the enemy by making ourselves more free once again.
| | |
|
|
