What’s Wrong with the World

All,

The guys at "Powerline" did notice this aspect of Brown's victory:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025431.php

Also check out the excellent piece by Andy McCarthy they link to in their post. If I were President, Andy is my pick to head up the Justice Department (while he helps me dismantle DHS).

How about the possibility that the voters of Massachusetts want gridlock?

Waterboarding Wins, says Marc Thiessen:

"Scott Brown spoke out forcefully in favor of enhanced interrogation, and won — in Massachusetts. He said of waterboarding, 'I do not believe it is torture. America does not torture...we used aggressive, enhanced interrogation techniques.' And his own top strategists say their polling shows his victory was not in spite of this public stance, but because of it."

Not to open a can of worms, or anything - but this is one more piece of evidence for a view that I've long held: Bush II never lost any meaningful support among normal Americans for being too mean to the jihadists. No - what cost him was all the "religion of peace" stuff and its terrible twin, the great "Let's all democratize the Arab World!" project.

Whether this reflects well or badly on "normal Americans," I dunno.

"What is moving Americans is a thing that has historically been a pretty effective mover of men in all times: the threat of violence, sedition, and conspiracy, organized by sworn enemies for purposes of terror and submission."

Which, when viewed with the perspective of some time, usually comes to be seen as mindless fear and cowardice. Those who are so afraid of them terrists that they would embrace torture need to butch up and learn to hold their water.

America does not torture...we used aggressive, enhanced interrogation techniques.

So Brown's as amenable to disguising evil with euphemism as the next Republican. Great news.

Historically speaking, Al, the American record of handling the seditions and treasons organized against her -- from Jacobins to Commies and Fascists -- has been quite good.

Bill -- we used torture and it was wrong to do so. It is wrong to defend waterbroading.

But the main thrust of Brown's critique is the idea of treating men whose intrigues aim at the slaughter unarmed innocents as if they were common criminals. For instance, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the failed bomber over Detroit, could, in full justice, be summarily executed right now. He chose to wage war on civilians by treachery and sabotage. He has forfeited the protection of any law. Period.

Torture is wrong.
Waterboarding is not torture.
Waterboarding is not wrong.
"Waterboarding" is not a euphemism.
Waterboarding did not win the election.

Opposing the arrogant, mindless leftism of this administration, in all its various forms from health care reform, to civil trials for terrorists, to cap and trade, to massive bailouts, to wasteful stimulus programs, to rising taxes, to auto and banking business takeovers, to America bashing, to Mao-loving, and to blatantly broken campaign promises won the election.

That's a lot of stupidity for one year. It's no wonder you see swings of 20 or 30 points in even the bluest states.

"we used torture and it was wrong to do so. It is wrong to defend waterboarding."

and

"But the main thrust of Brown's critique is the idea of treating men whose intrigues aim at the slaughter unarmed innocents as if they were common criminals."

Correct and correct. Being tough on jihadists need not incorporate torture.

Agreed, Rob G. It would be nice if these two issues could be separated, but that seems rather unlikely at this point.

I will never get over the shame, the deep shame, that three, count them, three terrorists were waterboarded, and that others were deprived of sleep.
What kind of nation have we become ?
You realize of course that I exclude myself from that posture, I mean the rest of the nation, those retrograde barbarians !

Now it is an unpleasant consideration, and one deserving of only momentary effort, that the lives of other Americans may have been protected. But that pales compared to our Values, in particular the ones we created a while after 9/11, the ones we use to prop up our egos.

After all, I'm alive, I didn't lose a relative, no one I knew jumped from the 99th floor of a burning building.

You see, it's easy. All I have to do is think of myself, ignore the other considerable consequences, prior law and precedent, and leave open time and ample opportunity for self congratulation.

Sarcasm aside and in reference to much of the above, what contemptible nonsense. Next you'll be hoping KSM gets a fair trial. Isn't that a value also, and where do you draw the line?

What is the argument that waterboarding is torture? I ask the question this way instead of asking why it isn't considered torture because, as a laymen, it is immediately clear to me (maybe I'm wrong) the difference between waterboarding and smashing fingers and electrocution.

The Democrats lost because of Coakley. She went down in flames because every time she tried to connect with the public her "credentials" were wrong.

1) Health care? On the wrong side.
2) Banker issue? Not particularly articulate.
3) Local culture? She might as well have been from Arkansas...
4) Law and order? She was one of the muckety mucks behind the overreaction to the "mooninite invasion" of Boston and her handling of the Amirault case would send chills down the spine of even the most strident Police Union's official.

Oh and taxes. Yes, she wanted to raise taxes.

She was that rare candidate who the Republican could point to and say, "that is the 'candidate of tyranny'" with little exaggeration.

I'd say it the other way round, Mike T. The Democrats didn't lose because of Coakley. Coakley lost because she was a Democrat -- a Democrat who walked in step with the party line articulated in DC. That party line sank her ship, just like it sank ships in NJ and VA. It will continue to sink blue ships on into the November elections.

It's a dream come true. It's good for America.

Torture? Did somebody say torture?

Ah, forget it. It's no fun without Zippy.

"Historically speaking, Al, the American record of handling the seditions and treasons organized against her -- from Jacobins to Commies and Fascists -- has been quite good."

"But the main thrust of Brown's critique is the idea of treating men whose intrigues aim at the slaughter unarmed innocents as if they were common criminals. For instance, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the failed bomber over Detroit, could, in full justice, be summarily executed right now. He chose to wage war on civilians by treachery and sabotage. He has forfeited the protection of any law."

Summary execution is also known as lynching unless it falls under 18 USC 242 or the UCMJ. Your second item contradicts the first if you all prevail. From the Trail of Tears to the Palmer era to Japanese relocation we have also screwed up. Hopefully we again listen to our better angels.

"to civil trials for terrorists"

Or we could ask Tim McVeigh how his civilian trial for waging war on civilians went. Oh, that's right - he dead. Well we could ask Richard Reid the Bush era shoe bomber how his civilian trial worked out for him; he may be reached at:

RICHARD COLVIN REID #24079-038
USP FLORENCE ADMAX
U.S. PENITENTIARY
PO BOX 8500
FLORENCE, CO 81226

Phone: 719-784-9464

His release date indicates a life sentence, so no rush.

How concepts like due process and the rule of law which I would have thought were well accepted, became "arrogant, mindless leftism" in the fevered minds of some is puzzling.

Mike T, you are right except for the health care item. Check the polling at "538". Coakley was a terrible candidate with an abominable record on civil rights. The DSCC and White House political office screwed up big time. The Democrats need to get past identity politics and get some courage.

Andrew, we have court marshalled U.S. personnel who waterboarded our prisoners in the past and tried enemy soldiers who waterboarded their POWs. Sleep deprivation and stress positions were considered torture when done by others to our troops and were a mainstay of what we considered torture by the Soviet bloc and other assorted commies.

It is not clear to me that it matters whether you call water-boarding torture or not. Surely all that matters are the following questions:

(1) Does water-boarding cause suffering for the prisoner?

(2) Is it a reliable method for extracting quality intelligence (perhaps in conjunction with other techniques)?

It seems to me that the answer to the first is 'yes'. As to the answer to the second, I have no idea. But if the answer to it is 'yes' then it seems to me that the suffering caused by the technique is justified under the circumstances. However, if the answer is 'no' then what is the point of it?

Opposing the arrogant, mindless leftism of this administration

That accounts for at least 75% of it. I don't think I have ever seen an administration and party as punch drunk and arraogant on power as the Dems have been this past year. How dare the American people think we could even have anything less than a totally brilliant thought!!

Al, ">summary execution is also known as lynching unless it falls under 18 USC sect 242 Could you please explain ?
Thanks

Oh, and Reid, you do mean the guy that was arrested back on 12/22/01, right?

Michael,
Opposing the arrogant, mindless leftism of this administration...

Seriously?
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/20/left/index.htm

To separate two completely distinct problems the Dems have: There is no reason why an administration couldn't say (coherently, that is - we are all familiar with them talking out both sides of their mouths at the same time): we won't engage in torture because that''s immoral regardless of whether international law or the Constitution permits it or doesn't; and ALSO: we won't treat terrorists caught engaging in acts of deliberate mayhem against civilians in non-US territory, areas not subject to our own civilian peace-time control, as if they were the subjects of civilian protection of our own laws.

It is clearly irrational to expect that we should try a terrorist caught in southern Afghanistan as if he ought to be accorded all of the privileges of US Constitution and US law, including (for example) rules of evidence, since we don't have full police powers to gather evidence in that location. It is clearly irrational to accord a non-uniformed combatant (in former times being a non-uniformed combatant was considered direct proof of being a spy, and they were subject to execution, and spies caught in battlefield conditions were subject to summary execution if conditions warranted it) all the protections granted by Geneva Conventions specifically to uniformed combatants AS IF the Geneva Conventions granted them to non-uniformed combatants.

To fail to accord a terrorist protections granted under the Geneva Convention to a specific class does not itself imply imposing immoral treatment on him, because the Geneva Conventions for treatment of captured uniformed soldiers do not constitute the entirety of the moral law for treatment of detainees. It is possible to be a moral nation while also treating foreign terrorists differently from US civilian suspects.

Here is was I wrote, going on eight years now, on the subject of handling terror suspects captured by American forces. I think it holds up well enough:

http://cellasreview.blogspot.com/2002_06_23_cellasreview_archive.html#78198610

Al, battlefield spies and saboteurs may be lawfully executed with little ceremony. Abdulmutallab's guilt is not in doubt. There may be other reasons for sparing his life, but in justice it is forfeit. The above link should demonstrate that I do not recommend throwing out due process and rule of law.

Tony,
There is no reason why an administration couldn't say we won't engage in torture because that''s immoral regardless of whether international law or the Constitution permits it or doesn't...

Since neither international law nor the Constitution permits the use of torture, there is no need to suggest it might.

The objection to torture is and has been about its use as an interrogation practice, punishment dispensed by a military court is already covered under the law.

And for some wacky, unascertainable reason, the Obama administration has deemed that military court is inappropriate for these guys, transferring them to civilian court instead.

"Al, battlefield spies and saboteurs may be lawfully executed with little ceremony. Abdulmutallab's guilt is not in doubt. There may be other reasons for sparing his life, but in justice it is forfeit. The above link should demonstrate that I do not recommend throwing out due process and rule of law."

I don't know about the ceremony but I am posting below the relevent sections of the UCMJ and the U.S.C. If you have any part of the U.S.C. or the UCMJ that you can cite to the effect that any sworn officer of any federal, state, or local jurisdiction or any member of the U. S. armed forces can legally summarily execute someone in their custody, please enlighten us (as I read the relevant section of the UCMJ, I don't believe it would apply to Mr. Abdulmutallab as his actions were on a civilian airliner in regular service).

UCMJ
906. ART. 106. SPIES
Any person who in time of war is found lurking as a spy or acting as a spy in or about any place, vessel, or aircraft, within the control or jurisdiction of any of the armed forces, or in or about any shipyard, any manufacturing or industrial plant, or any other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the Unites States, or elsewhere, shall be tried by a general court-martial or by a military commission and on conviction shall be punished by death.

906a. ART. 106a. ESPIONAGE
(A) (1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, any thing described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.
(2) An entity referred to in paragraph (1) is--
(A) a foreign government;
(B) a faction or party or military force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States
(C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen of such government, faction, party, or force.
(3) A thing refereed to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance or information relating to the national defense.
(b) (1) No person may be sentenced by court-martial to suffer death for an offense under this section (article) unless--
(A) the members of the court-martial unanimously find at least one of the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c); and
(B) the members unanimously determine that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any aggravating circumstances, including the aggravating factors set out under subsection (c).
(2) Findings under this subsection may be based on--
(A) evidence introduced on the issue of guilt or innocence;
(B) evidence introduced during the sentencing proceeding; or
(C) all such evidence.
(3) The accused shall be given broad latitude to present matters in extenuation and mitigation.
(c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:
(1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.
(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.
(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.
(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36).

-----------------------------------------------------

18 U.S.C. 2153. Destruction of war material, war premises, or war utilities
How Current is This?
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, or in times of national emergency as declared by the President or by the Congress, with intent to injure, interfere with, or obstruct the United States or any associate nation in preparing for or carrying on the war or defense activities, or, with reason to believe that his act may injure, interfere with, or obstruct the United States or any associate nation in preparing for or carrying on the war or defense activities, willfully injures, destroys, contaminates or infects, or attempts to so injure, destroy, contaminate or infect any war material, war premises, or war utilities, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than thirty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of this section.

Not being a unformed soldier in any Army, and carrying out his plot by means most treacherous, Abdulmutallab is (as I have said) protected by no law. I think a legal code should be written to apply to men of his class, to establish consistency and judicial review; but I emphatically do not think that the codes written for standard US criminal defendants, or even US military defendants, should apply.

I am aware of the unlikelihood of such a new code being effected. I am resigned to the fact that for the time being Jihadists will be accorded the full protection of the US Code. The point of this editorial is that the MA Senate election suggests that I am not alone in thinking this an outrage.

In any case, reality being what it is, I have also proposed that 18 USC 2384 and 18 USC 2385 should be lightly revised to take special cognizance of Jihadist sedition. It might be as simple as legislation to set up an especial US Attorney's office to investigate and prosecute agents of the Jihad.

Al, and a good morning to you.
Let's do this in stages, or as long as my endurance and patience hold out.
Your 2:43 post yesterday.
"we have tried enemy soldiers who have"etc, "sleep deprivation and stress positions"etc.
Precisely Al, and precisely because the victims were in your own words soldiers. You see Al, there is a difference between a soldier and a terrorist. Your inability to tell the difference, or unwillingness, may be the root of your multiple confusions.
One wears a uniform, fights under the flag of a nation and so represents that nation, and would be subject to discipline if for instance he tried to burn 3,000 men and women to death. The soldier, as the wording goes, is required only to give name, rank. and serial number and not be subject to various torments. Terrorists are different, for the time being just take my word for it.

Timothy McVeigh, and your condescending remarks about him. Indeed, an utterly magical comparison on your part.
Just what international group, one that goes back 1500 years and has waged war for much of that time, was McVeigh a part of?
When was the international threat of McVeighism finally recognized? When did the President address Congress on the issue of war against McVeighism? When did he speak before the UN and demand resolutions?
Al, a bit of a stretch here.

Richard Reid. Thanks for the phone number but would you mind calling him for me?
I gave the date in my post as a hint of sorts. Why, your agile mind immediately asks. Because I thought that upon reflection you would see the flaw in citing Reid as an argument for civilian trials, so early in the war we find ourselves in, when subsequently hundreds were imprisoned at Gitmo, and whose hospitable doors are still open.
Under the circumstances, a rather weak argument for civilian trials, however much you wish Justice to wield her sword on behalf of these mistreated folk, unblessed by "the rule of law" as you put it.
The blessing to come from Obama and Holder, and who knows more about the rule of law than those two.

USC 242, would you be kind enough to point out to me where in wartime this statute makes a legal comparison between lynching and shooting a terrorist, executing if you will, on a battlefield, if that's what you are struggling to say. ">summary execution is also know as lynching unless"

For now I'll wind it up, but not before pointing out to you that your impressive display of copying verbatim things off the computer fell flat.
Again your agile mind asks why?
First, the only defined venues cited are courts martial. Now there may be links to prescriptions for civilian trial but then you bump into this, nowhere in your monumental efforts are mentions or references to combatants on the battlefield, and you would hardly expect authorization to shoot on sight in any case.
Also, the cited categories say nothing about mass murder, or attempted murder, of civilians either, "spies", come on Al.

And Al, I did all this without copying a ton of crap from the internet.
Signing off, for now.

"I think a legal code should be written to apply to men of his class, to establish consistency and judicial review;..."

What exactly would you change from our standard procedures? I also have to note that there is a certain tension between "summary execution" and "consistency and judicial review". BTW, within the limits necessary for good order and discipline the UCMJ does a good job.

We heard the same sort of things from folks on the right in the 1950s except then it was commies instead of Jihadists. We started to figure this out in 1215:

" 38. No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, put anyone to his "law", without credible witnesses brought for this purposes.

39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.

41. All merchants shall have safe and secure exit from England, and entry to England, with the right to tarry there and to move about as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and right customs, quit from all evil tolls, except (in time of war) such merchants as are of the land at war with us. And if such are found in our land at the beginning of the war, they shall be detained, without injury to their bodies or goods, until information be received by us, or by our chief justiciar, how the merchants of our land found in the land at war with us are treated; and if our men are safe there, the others shall be safe in our land.

42. It shall be lawful in future for anyone (excepting always those imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the kingdom, and natives of any country at war with us, and merchants, who shall be treated as if above provided) to leave our kingdom and to return, safe and secure by land and water, except for a short period in time of war, on grounds of public policy- reserving always the allegiance due to us."

Do you really want to amend the Constitution thusly?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person, EXCEPT FOR JIHADISTS, of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person, within its jurisdiction, EXCEPT FOR JIHADISTS, the equal protection of the laws."

Doesn't sound so good once we lay it out. does it? Given the current political situation and the latest ruling of the Supremes we are likely doomed as a free republic anyway, but why not go out with some honor?

JohnT, yes, I meant that Reid. 18 U.S.C. 242 makes violating the civil rights of any person because of color, race or who is an alien, under color of law a crime and a capital one under certain conditions. It would seem to fit a sworn offer of any jurisdiction, who having taken taken a person who is an alien into his custody, then summarily executes that person. If the passengers, having subdued Mr. Abdulmutallab in a still living condition then decided to kill him anyway; well that would seem to me to be a lynching. The UCMJ prohibits armed forces personnel abusing prisoners and that would apply to summary execution. (I realize things happen as I knew, before their deaths, folks who claimed to have done them. I am simply asserting that institutionalizing bad behavior is not a good idea.)

"And Al, I did all this without copying a ton of crap from the internet.
Signing off, for now."

I see our posts crossed,

Paul asserted that summary execution was possible within our laws. The only way to refute that is is cite the law. if you have a better way, help me out. Your assertion that the UCMJ doesn't apply to battlefield conditions is novel and perhaps demonstrates why I needed to post the section. The UCMJ has sections on battlefield deportment, you might read them and you will find that active combatants are not prisoners.

I see I hit a nerve with McVeigh. Hummm.

Reid was tried, convicted and is doing life at an ADMAX. Gitmo is festering sore and (like Abu Ghraib) a marvelous recruiting tool for those you so fear. The guys who did 9/11 operated from Europe. As we are unlikely to want or be able to conduct military operations in the streets of Hamburg, we are pretty much limited to treating terrorism as a criminal matter, which in Reid's case (and others) worked out fine.

Fear is a terrible thing, It effects the way we process information. It renders us gullible and prone to hasty and ill considered actions. For example, many seem to believe that every soul in Gitmo was a "terrorist". That requires one to believe that the war lords and bandits who sold them to us were scrupulous and not in the least concerned with their cash flow and settling scores. They want to scare you into self destructive behavior; why go along with them?

I also have to note that there is a certain tension between "summary execution" and "consistency and judicial review"

Fair enough.

We heard the same sort of things from folks on the right in the 1950s except then it was commies instead of Jihadists.

And we learned, starting in the 90s and continuing up to this very day, that the Right had it right and the Left had it wrong back then: Communists had penetrated American institutions, bureaucracies, agencies, and so forth. The first UN General Secretary was a Communist, as were several of FDR's close advisers at Yalta. That Communists in the highest Executive counsels helped consign half of Europe to two generations of grinding slavery, seems a rather relevant fact in our historical estimate of whether Communist subversion was, indeed, a serious problem in the 20th century. Journalists, academics, union leaders, philosophers, agitators, bureaucrats, diplomats -- all had, in large numbers, committed treason. Leftists at the time pooh-poohed this; and their perfidy is only exceeded by the Leftists of today who parrot that talk right in the teeth of the expanding historical record which contradicts them.

The instruments used to resist Communist infiltration were, by and large, eminently just. The Smith Act, the Hatch Act, the so-called McCarron Rider -- all legitimate laws, variations of which are still on the books. The much-maligned HUAC did fine work, for the most part.

In a word, as I indicated above, the American tradition of curtailing ideological subversion and sedition is a thing to admire and emulate, not fear. John Adams signed the Sedition Act of 1798, which is absolute defense of truth and its strict sunset clause; the Jacobins in France had long before made sedition a capital offense decided by revolutionary courts utterly bereft of any semblance of due process. And so on.

I don't want to amend the Constitution. I want to amend 18 USC 2384 and 18 USC 2385, which titles you conveniently ignored.

Al, though terribly mistaken I am forced to admit you're a good sport. I may forget that by tomorrow but for today it holds.
However; I already commented on the difference between lawful combatants and multi-national, know no flag terrorists, at large and in general, as opposed to two airplane incidents on which you now rest your shaky case. Both should have been treated as terrorists and for different reason weren't, the most recent case being particularly abominable. I hate repeating myself. The issue re battlefields is we don't do it, not that we can't. I put this one to sleep now.

The location of terrorists has nothing whatever to do with their being terrorists. Are they terrorists in Brooklyn but not Hamburg? What about Tel Aviv, or Iraq? When they act, and or expose themselves, at that time they may be and are treated as terrorists. Or at least used to be.
Gitmo as recruiting tool, I conclude that gifted with clairvoyance the bombers of the USS Cole, the murderers of 9/11 foresaw Gitmo and from their viewpoint did the right thing. Al, that's a cheap & dumb Administration line, cut the umbilical cord between you and them. Islam has been killing people for 1500 years, and when not killing infidels will happily turn on one another for their killing. And all without Gitmo.

On neither Reid nor McVeigh were my points addressed, do you believe in close readings? Are they necessary here?
And a "Hmmmmm" to you also.

A note on sleep deprivation as torture, and how very sensitive you are. You have made a judgment and come to a conclusion. Namely that it is better to let a terrorist sleep through the night then gain information that could and quite often does save lives. Because you can be forgetful I again emphasize the difference between terrorists and lawful soldiers, It is therefore my opinion that this sleep is more important then even the possibility of saving the lives of innocents.
Do you have any other handy lectures on morality Al ?

"fear is a terrible thing". Al,one of the reasons you may not fear is because of the very things you detest. But if fear is terrible,can you imagine the fear of those trapped in the WTC? A reminder of things in general and the reasons thereof.

Now to your 12:35 of yesterday.
">Do you want to amend the Constitution thusly?" and etc with a throw in on the Rule of Law which you are in thrall to, in your own peculiar manner that is.
From yesterdays NY Times;
"Detainees Will Still Be Held, But Not Tried, Official Says." I trust you're still standing. Also that you will find the dexterity to dance around the implications to everything, I emphasize, everything you've posted.
Regarding those who MAY be prosecuted the Times cites Eric Holder [ a Rule of Law guy who manages to ignore armed Black
Panther thugs at a polling place ]who will decide of those who will be tried who goes the civilian route and who gets the military commissions.

So what happened to the Rule of Law and civilian trials? What happened to the Constitution? It's not a faucet to be turned on or off, or is it? Al, it's all nonsense, birdfeed for the rank and file, for those who need injections for failing egos, dispensable PR and naturally a sop to the left, while being also a slap at Bush, who they are totally fixated on. Who else can they hide behind?
Either as a private citizen or a public official your first obligation is to other Americans, not your concern for the sleeping habits of terrorists.
But what's the difference Al? Whatever happens or how bad it gets, you will cling to your self image. Which is all it comes down to.
If I don't respond be assured it's not for lack of things to say.
Yours in Constitutional values,
Johnt

Al, a postscript. Do you think using your influence, you could get your man, the President, to wear a tie?
Or will he show up at the State of the Union, if he shows up at all, in a jogging suit.
What did Saul Alinsky say about dress styles I wonder.

The UCMJ prohibits armed forces personnel abusing prisoners and that would apply to summary execution.

This is a counter-quote from Wiki:

Under the jurisdiction of military law, summary execution is still illegal in almost all circumstances, as a military tribunal would be the competent judge needed to determine guilt and declare the sentence of death. However, there are certain rare exceptions to this rule in emergencies and warfare where summary execution is legal.

The cite clarifies that those who are detained who are not prisoners of war do not have protections comparable to protections of prisoners of war, i.e. those captured who are in their country's uniform).

Now, it may be true that the UCMJ may prohibit summary execution as a general rule. I believe that it does not prohibit summary execution when detaining and bringing to trial the prisoner non-POW becomes impossible because of battlefield conditions.

Prisoner of war status is conferred within limits and for definite purposes. One part of the context of those constraints is the ever cited but ever forgotten "rules of war". In general, you always assume that an enemy soldier (i.e. in uniform) will try to kill you or capture you. He is obliged to keep on trying. However, this assumption ceases to be applicable if he voluntarily lays down his weapon and surrenders. The surrender is an act, understood over the entire world, to stand as an act of honor, indicating a promise that he will engage in battle no further. Such an act presupposes an understanding of (a) honor including keeping one's promise, and (b) the limits for how far that promise applies. These limits are constituted more than a little in terms of what your country has agreed to (such as in international agreements like Geneva Convention) or in terms of what your country normally demands regarding abiding by the "rules of law" which are recognized around the world.

If, on the other hand, you are an illegal combatant (who is, thereby, already violating the rules of war), such presumptions cannot be made. The person to who you surrender cannot assume anything, and they have no option, for example, but to treat you as if a dangerous opponent who happens to be without weapon just now, not someone who has promised a real surrender meaning a real cessation of combat.

It has always been the case, then, that in a battlefield situation where your forces are forced to pull back under fire and you cannot handle that while "detaining" a so-called "captured" illegal combatant such as a saboteur, and where you cannot safely manage his custody and your retreat (and especially where his being in your custody actually imperils your retreat), under the rules of war you can use summary execution to deal with him.

This would appear to represent the rare exceptions to this rule in emergencies and warfare where summary execution is legal.

Thank you for that, Tony.

These facts do not obtain in the case of the Underpants Bomber. My talk above of summary execution was hasty and ill-conceived. The principle want to establish, however, is that the Jihadist, by nature of the treacherous war he wages, can in justice make no claim on the forbearance of his opponents.

Read the whole article.

"Though these soldiers could be legally jailed or executed by most armies a century ago, the experience of WWII influenced nations occupied by foreign forces to change the law to protect this group. Many of the post-war victors, such as France, Poland, or the USSR, had the experience of resistance fighters being summarily executed by the Nazis if they were captured. The war also influenced them to make sure that commandos and other special forces who were caught deep behind enemy lines would be protected as POW's, rather than summarily executed as Hitler decreed through his 1942 Commando Order."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution

Tony, if you want to rely on policy and precedent from the Franco-Prussian War and the days of Blackbeard, you may, but using arguments that may have derived from necessity in the distant past as justification for actions in circumstances in which those necessities no longer apply doesn't seem wise. Getting back to the original topic, can you justify summary execution in the context of the attempted bombing of the Detroit bound airliner in the light of your wiki example?

A thought about uniforms. Since the NATO forces and the Afghan Army wear uniforms, doesn't the wearing of local civilian garb coupled with an AK47 or a RPG in ones possession during a fire-fight constitute a de facto uniform?

Tony, if you want to rely on policy and precedent from the Franco-Prussian War and the days of Blackbeard,

Al, I am not the one suggesting that the Detroit bomber could be summarily executed. But it remains true even today that battlefield conditions could warrant a summary execution (not that I think those conditions applied this time in Dec.) The whole article makes it clear that whereas summary execution was fairly standard and fairly common for any caught spy or saboteur, that has largely gone by the wayside. What remains is the extraordinary case, which is rare and exceptional, where your maintaining custody is itself no longer realistic.

Since the NATO forces and the Afghan Army wear uniforms, doesn't the wearing of local civilian garb coupled with an AK47 or a RPG in ones possession during a fire-fight constitute a de facto uniform?

For what country? Within what understanding of "rules of war"? I am pretty confident that the whole notion of providing POW status to uniformed soldiers is integrally connected to the relationship the uniformed soldier has to his state. No state, no "uniform".

To try on other ideas: Geneva Convention 3 says that even your opponent belligerent state is NOT a signatory to the Geneva Convention, your country is still required to follow the Convention as long as the opponent does NOT violate the rules contained therein. Given that Al-Q has violated every known rule of war and treatment of soldiers ever imagined, wouldn't that pretty much mean that we have no reason to continue to apply the rules of the Geneva Convention in their regard? (Which doesn't mean that we can treat them immorally, or against our own laws.)

correction: should say "even IF your opponent belligerent state is NOT a signatory..."

"And we learned, starting in the 90s and continuing up to this very day, that the Right had it right and the Left had it wrong back then: Communists had penetrated American institutions,..."

This was hardly news in the 90s. Conservatives like to ignore the anti-communist left which ranges from socalists and anarchists to the liberal center-left - folks like walter reuther and Hubert Humphrey and organizations like the ADA.

When one considers the right side of things anti-communist one is reminded of the Oscar Wilde quip about fox hunting - "the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible".

The "twenty years of treason", "who lost china", "traitors at Yalta" memes merely reflect the usual conservative failure of analysis. After years of war preceded by years of depression the American and British people were not about to go to war with the Soviet Union and everyone at these conferences knew it.

Conservatives are often upset by what they call anti anti-communism,; Larison quotes Kennan on this,

"They distort and exaggerate the dimensions of the problem with which they profess to deal. They confuse internal and external aspects of the communist threat. They insist on portraying as contemporary things that had their actuality years ago [bold mine-DL]….And having thus incorrectly stated the problem, it is no wonder that these people consistently find the wrong answers.

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/01/25/jihadism-anti-jihadism-and-palestine/

Yeah, Al, there's been a few anti-Communist lefties in America, just like there's a few pro-life Democrats. But don't make too much of it. That just means they spend a lot of time opposing their own team -- sort of like a brawl in the Yankee clubhouse.