After The 'Spinal Cord-ectomy'

What sort of press coverage might a person expect if they show no sign at all of possessing a backbone?  If you are a Senate Democrat, the NY Times will be kind - here we go with the Times coverage of Bush's push to pass legislation to allow warrantless eavesdropping and to create new military tribunals for terrorists.

Panel in Senate Backs Bush Plan for Eavesdropping

By ERIC LICHTBLAU  and KATE ZERNIKE

WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — The White House took a critical step on Wednesday in its effort to get Congressional blessing for President Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program, but it ran into increasingly fierce resistance from leading Republicans over its plan to try terror suspects being held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The mixed results signaled the tough road the White House faces in trying to sell the two key planks in its national security agenda to sometimes skeptical Congressional Republicans less than two months before the midterm elections.

Democrats have allowed Republicans to fight among themselves over the issues, and appear willing to allow the issues to come to a vote rather than risk charges of political obstructionism in an election season.

    So, Democrats finally appear in the third paragraph, with a bold strategy for demonstrating their readiness to lead the nation in war-time - let the Republicans sort it out.  We get more after a big skip:

But negotiations between Capitol Hill and the White House [on the military tribunals] broke down as three Republican senators crucial to passage of the legislation hardened their stance against a White House plan that would reinterpret a main provision of the Geneva Conventions.

...

The White House political strategy in the past week has been twofold: first, putting Mr. Bush in the public spotlight with a string of national security speeches, and now, trying to put Democrats in a box by forcing them to take a stand and vote on Mr. Bush’s authority to run two of his most controversial antiterror programs.

But Senators Warner, McCain and Graham appeared to be providing cover for the Democrats, allowing them to stay on the sidelines while the three senators, respected Republicans with distinguished military records, take on the White House.

“We think that this is a sincere effort, based on principle, by Senators Warner, McCain and Graham, to come up with the best legislation they can,” said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Asked whether Democrats were worried that the Republicans might yield to the White House, Mr. Reed said: “I haven’t seen any evidence of that yet. What I’ve seen is that they’re approaching this looking at the substance, not just over weeks and months, but what’s in the best interests of the United States, what’s in the best interests of American military personnel who might years from now be held.”

That is a strong message from Mr. Reed - Democrats are willing to be led by these Republicans but not those Republicans.

The administration had also faced resistance over the N.S.A. wiretapping program. The Democrats had bottled up the administration’s proposals, saying Congress was being forced to legislate “in the dark” about a secret program that few members had been briefed on. They have repeatedly used procedural maneuvers to block the proposals from coming to a vote in the Judiciary Committee, drawing accusations of obstructionism from Republicans.

But Democrats, who appeared to realize the risk of being accused of thwarting debate on national security matters, did not stand in the way of the committee vote on Wednesday.

There may have been a deal here, although the Times does not state that:

Democrats claimed a partial victory on the wiretapping issue when they won Judiciary Committee approval of another measure that could effectively ban the security agency’s eavesdropping program.

That plan, drafted by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, would affirm that the foreign intelligence law passed by Congress in 1978, requiring court approval for eavesdropping, as the “exclusive” means of authorizing wiretaps in the United States against suspected terrorists and spies.

Democrats succeeded in getting two Republican moderates, Mr. Specter and Mr. Graham, both of whom had voiced concerns over the legal aspects of the wiretapping program, to vote in favor of the proposal and send it to the full Senate.

That set the stage for the unusual spectacle of the Judiciary Committee — and its chairman — supporting two proposals that many lawmakers said would effectively nullify each other if passed.

The fundamental problem faced by the Dems is obvious - their base supports positions that are not electable, or at least, the Dems are afraid to find out.

Evidently, Reps are not concerned that support for warrantless eavesdropping will carry an electoral penalty.

Comments

[Pofarmer]

Democrats claimed a partial victory on the wiretapping issue when they won Judiciary Committee approval of another measure that could effectively ban the security agency’s eavesdropping program.

That's a victory?

For whom?

[Jimmy's Attack Rabbit]

Profarmer, you're not supposed to question or contemplate whether the Donks or the media help our enemies. They can claim victories and that's it.
Laughing out loud at them is a Romper Room no-no too.

[lurker]

A victory for the terroristswith a loss of democracy, my friend, profarmer.

[lurker]

Closing bold ...I hope!

We all need to slam Arlen and Graham with emails, mails, and phone calls and tell them that they need to get off their high horse and quit the "exclusive" FISA crap. Tell them that the next 9/11 attack or worse will be on their asses.

[owl]

lurker.....more. I had just typed my opinion (under Plame) of why we Pugs find ourselves in this position and mentioned several Pug Senators. I be *^$%* if these 4 I mentioned were not busy crossing over to the Dems.

If we lose in Novemeber....you can lay it on McCain/no free speech AND king, Collin/Katrina, Graham/torture AND NSA, Specter/NSA, Warner/just want to be a power broker like McCain.

Call all of them and leave them with a message that they are truly too dumb to govern. I have already spent my dime on all but Collins in times past. Will try again.

[Patton]

Hey you fools, when Chicago or New York or Los Angeles is a smoking hole in the ground with 5 Million dead, you'll be glad the Democrats stopped the wiretapping and interrogation of terrorists!

We can call the former Los Angeles;
Pelosi Crater or,
Kennedys' Big Dig or,

[Terrye]

I think we might want to wait a day or two before we start name calling here. It sounds to me like some compromises might be in the works. I have not heard any of these Senators say they do not want this program to remain functional. It all sounds sort of strange right now.

[Cecil Turner]

The fundamental problem faced by the Dems is obvious - their base supports positions that are not electable, or at least, the Dems are afraid to find out.

This one is a potential disaster for the Dems, and they've gotta know it by now. If it were merely a matter of getting easily-obtained warrants, they'd have a pretty good case. But a cursory read of FISA shows that's not what the argument's about. And if the Dems really want to stand up in debates and champion civil liberties for terrorists, they'll soon be extinct. On both these issues, following the GOP (who have their own problems locating vertebrae) looks like "wise decision, Grasshopper."

[Patton]

If Bush was smart, he would tell a reporter that he wants MCCain or Warner to write the speech for him, explaining to 500,000 families that lost loved ones in the Nuclear explosion in New York why it was inappropriate to play loud rock music or keep Khalid Sheikh Muhommend awake for 18 hours to discover and stop the Nuclear attack.

[Marcel]

"If Bush was smart" he would have proposed legislation 4 years ago (when he was in a stronger position) that did not conflict with that pesky Constitution and was also acceptable to that obstructionist Republican-dominated Supreme Court.

[owl]

I agree Terrye. I need to shut up for today because I am past angry with the Senators I mentioned. The really funny part is that Specter might come out smelling like the rose from that bunch. None of these are my Senators or the sun would not set without hearing from me, each and every day. Lucky dogs. I have truly grown to dislike them. Spineless wonders calling themselves morally superior.

[Terrye]

My understanding on the tribunal bill is that Frist supports Bush's bill and may not even bring up Graham's bill, however, they can still introduce amendments. It seems the problems hinge on issues like discovery. Graham is a jag lawyer and he is going by the book on this.

marcel, this is not about the Constitution, believe it or not the founding fathers did not have strong opinions on checking email, this is about politics.

[Connor]

You can criticize Warner, Graham and McCain all you want, but those 3 have more knowledge of the military and the concerns of officers and enlisted men than anyone in the White House or the civilian leadership in the Pentagon. By all means take a tough line on terrorism, but it would be wise to also listen to those fighting on the front lines. Think beyond the next election.

[Terrye]

owl:

I always have the feeling that there is more to these things than we know. I think they are bargaining with each other, seeing how much the other guy will give up. I doubt if any of them expect to get everything they want. But Senators like to think they should be president so it is necessary for them to behave independently, they can not help themselves.

I do think Graham is sincere. I don't agree with him a good deal of the time, but I think he is more sincere than a lot of these guys. And Specter gets to be the guy who can make things happen or kill them. I am sure he likes that.

Time will tell I guess.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'...Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and a member of the Armed Services Committee.

'Asked whether Democrats were worried that the Republicans might yield to the White House, Mr. Reed said: “I haven’t seen any evidence of that yet. What I’ve seen is that they’re approaching this looking at the substance, not just over weeks and months, but what’s in the best interests of the United States, what’s in the best interests of American military personnel who might years from now be held.”'

Does this idiot think that Al Qaeda might extend Geneva Convention treatment to any Americans in the future, if we unilaterally extend it to them now?

[TexasToast]

But negotiations between Capitol Hill and the White House [on the military tribunals] broke down as three Republican senators crucial to passage of the legislation hardened their stance against a White House plan that would reinterpret a main provision of the Geneva Conventions.

This is pretty serious stuff. Diane Rheem had some folks talking about it today. The administration is, by its own admission, setting up rules for “fair” trials in special courts, with special rules of evidence, and based solely on US law through a unilateral reinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions - when it already knows who the “suspects” subject to these special tribunals are. These are not POWs, they are not they are not non-combatants. Nope. They are a new class – the guys we know are guilty that we want to make darn sure don’t get found not guilty by any silly court.

How do we do that? - Set up a brand spankin’ new method for rubberstamping the already determined guilt. This new method has quite a few constitutional problems (like the right to confront one’s accuser, the right to counsel, the right against self incrimination, among others) beyond the matter of simple justice.

Among other things, they want to ---

• Change the rules of evidence so that the “probative value” of the evidence outweighs the taint of the “coercive methods” used to acquire it (things like waterboarding and other interrogation “techniques” defined as just this side of the torture)
• Prevent defendants from seeing evidence used against them
• Require the defendant’s to have counsel chosen by the government (ostensibly so that this counsel can see the “classified” evidence denied the defendant’s but used against them
• Remove the requirement of the prosecution to produce exculpatory evidence
  
• Change the appellate court to the friendly DC circuit (that has been repeatedly overturned by the SCOTUS on these very issues) from the appellate court specified in the UCMJ.

Just imagine the howls if US servicemen were subject to tribunals based on a unilateral reinterpretation by, Iran, for instance. How about embassy employees in a US embassy?
We would be calling these servicemen or employees “hostages” and would probably view the resulting “trials” as an act of war. This stuff could really come back to bite us. I think that is what McCain and the others are concerned about.

[Marcel]

Patrick, why worry about Al-Queda? The White House isn't too concerned about them.

[Terrye]

Connor:

I think you might be right to some degree, but I don't think enlisted men are too concerned with whether or not some terrorist has access to classified evidence in the case against him.

It could be they want to make sure there are no loopholes, nothing that can be used on appeal to overturn later, they do know a lot about military law.

[boris]

marcel, this is not about the Constitution

Marcel is being a troll but the disagreement with AnonLib and GreenGang is; does the executive branch have constitutional authority to override explicit congressional restraint such as FISA? I say yes, they say no. Absent FISA they seem to admit the NSA program is "constitutional".

New legislation replacing FISA to allow the NSA program effectively moots the constitutional question.

[Terrye]

Texas Toast:

When these kind of people get their hands on American servicemen they kill them outright, they do not try them at all. They might cut off their genitals or disembowel them decpatitate them, but they do not try them.

And the truth is the likely scenario for the terrorists themselves in the future might be a gushot. If the choice is between revealing classified information in a court room or just shooting the guy on the field of battle which will be the more likely outcome?

[Connor]

Military personnel are serious about upholding the Constitution and protecting our democratic form of government. They have also operated in foreign military theatres with an understanding that the Geneva Conventions both protected both them and their enemies. Sure, they know that in many (most) cases the enemy could not care less about the Geneva Conventions. But our military also feels that they are on a higher moral ground. And they worry that these moral values are no longer shared by the Administration and a majority of the American people.

[Terrye]

Connor:

I am sure they are, but you know what? I am related to a lot of soldiers and while they have no desire to hurt innocent people they do not want these terrorists free to kill again. They are the ones who have to face these guys, not the lawyers. Well, by the time the lawyers come face to face with them they are in chains but the soldiers face them when they are doing what they do best, killing people.

[Patton]

Texas Toast, do you suppose McCain, Warner and Graham are concerned that our failure to give Nazi POWs trials led to the current beheading of every US servicemen captured by the enemy?

There is good reason why the civilized world doesn't convey civilian rights to the uncivilized terrorist.

[Cecil Turner]

These are not POWs, they are not they are not non-combatants. Nope. They are a new class – the guys we know are guilty that we want to make darn sure don’t get found not guilty by any silly court.

New? I'd suggest a history lesson. In particular, Quirin (1942):

An important incident to the conduct of war is the adoption of measures by the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemy, but to seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the law of war.

It goes on:

By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.

[Patton]

It would be helpful if the left and MCCain would tell us two simple things:

1. What enemy have we ever faced that actually followed the Geneva conventions? Name just one please.....

2. Name an enemy you believe we will be at war with in the future that will follow the Geneva conventions. Just one please.

If you can actually provide me an answer that shows factually that that enemy would not engage in war crimes, torture, etc. against our soldiers, I will concede.

The simple fact is you cannot name a single past, nor future enemy that has ever followed the conventions or that is expected to in a future conflict, they simply don't believe in them, period.

[Terrye]

I think the fear that Grahm amy have is as much about the tribunals getting past the Supreme Court as anything else.

It is almost impossible to get the kind of information out of these people that we need, while at the same time giving them the kind of rights that our legal system gives almost anyone else.

[Terrye]

Patton:

They would say it did not matter what the enemy we did, we have no control over that, we are still obligated by our own standards to behave in a humane way. That would be their argument. They have never said that AlQaida abides by the Geneva Conventions.

[Marcel]

I'm sorry, I was on vacation early this month and didn't realize that the 4th Amendment had been repealed.

[boris]

Well you're still out to lunch.

[boris]

They have never said that AlQaida abides by the Geneva Conventions.

The claim has been made that it puts our troops "at risk". It's fair to ask "How?".

[clarice]

Let's say the idiots win and get some ridiculous legislation passed..Bush will veto it, go on tv and say why. Until they pass something he wants, Hamdan holds that these guys will be held without trial.

Am I wrong? It's chess , not Old Maid.

[PeterUK]

Terrye,
"When these kind of people get their hands on American servicemen they kill them outright,"

Sadly they don't,they gang rape them,both men and women,humiliate them,mutilate them,torture them....Then they kill them.

Texas Taqiya is trying to equate soldiers in uniform with a pack of Jeffrey Dahmers with a mission.
On the bright side,this will reduce the number of prisoners taken.

[Terrye]

Peter:

Yes, this is true.

[Terrye]

marcel:

Spare me. Before you lecture me on the Constitution why don't you go read it.

[Terrye]

clarice:

Yes, I agree. That is why I said there is always more going on than we see. Bush can hold these people forever, the problem is trying them.

[The Unbeliever]

These are not POWs, they are not they are not non-combatants. Nope. They are a new class – the guys we know are guilty that we want to make darn sure don’t get found not guilty by any silly court.

BS, and you know it (assuming you bothered checking the basic facts). The "new class" is not new, it's existed in international law for years. It's called illegal combatant, and anyone who fights as one is denied certain rights for a darn good reason.

Just imagine the howls if US servicemen were subject to tribunals based on a unilateral reinterpretation by, Iran, for instance. How about embassy employees in a US embassy?

Has Iran signed on to Geneva? (Rhetorical question, but I don't know so I'd actually like an answer if anyone happens to know.) If so, their uniformed fighters in their recognized Army get a slew of POW protections. Has al-Qaeda signed on to Geneva? No, and their fighters fail to qualify as a legitimate combatants for a number of reasons. Therefore, not only are they not entitled to certain trial protections, but Geneva signatories who do capture such illegal combatants (as opposed to killing them out of hand as is their legal right) have a very definite interest in specifically denying them such protections, instead of opting to provide them sine quo pro.

Look, certain high-minded useful idiots have bought into the notion that the Geneva convention, the Constitution, etc should be broadly applied even to those who do are not signatories or subject to such protections. This is a bad idea on many levels, and ultimately serves to undermine the protective documents which have served the West for some time. It's always funny how people scream about Bush "ignoring international law" or similar nonesense, while they simultaneously ignore the proscriptive penalties which are part of that selfsame law.

[boris]

mutilate them,torture them

But not to gain information. That's the really bad part about what we do. We extract their infomation AGAINST THEIR WILL then use it against them !!!

Oh the humanity !

[Patton]

Terrye ""That would be their argument""

There argument has always been that we are the cause of bad acts of our enemies. Its the normal blame America first routine.

They say if we make a terrorist listen to loud music, then that justifies Al Queda gutting people and dragging them around on the backs of trucks. Its nonsensical.

But if they can't name any future potential enemy that they believe will abide by the treaties, then that argument doesn't have an intellectual leg to stand on.

[Connor]

What really puts our troops at risk are things like the circulation of photos from Abu Ghraib, and information released by our own people about the teenage girl and her family who were killed - situations that got blown up into international incidents and do not reflect the dedication of the 140,000 troops (minus a handful) that have acted responsibly.

[The Unbeliever]

...Dang, chalk another one up to "shoulda read the rest of the thread before hitting Post". Cecil already made my points about illegal combatants.

[Terrye]

Connor:

You are absolutely right, all the soldiers become targets for the bad acts of a few and it is so unfair.

[lurker]

What kind of compromises are we talking about, Terrye?

Connor, blame it on our friendly left MSM for exploiting Abu Ghraib, in spite of the military organizations already addressing the issues of a few bad apples. Our friendly leftwing MSM did a really good job of misleading the public that all soldiers are truly bad apples, instead of the other way around.

Don't forget Haditha.

[Terrye]

Patton:

I am not arguing the point with you but the issue is not whether or not we are responsible for the bad things other people do...as far as McCain and some of these other people feel, Americans just do not do things that are in any way akin to the things any enemy does.

I think in his case it might have something to do with his own confinement for all those years, but the truth is the people who want these standards are not concerned with what the bad guys do, they are concerned with what our guys do. That is how they see it.

Now, I don't care if they lock these guys in a dark hole forever, but trying to find a legal way to try them that will not be questioned later by some court somewhere is going to be very difficult to do.

clarice is right, this is like a chess game.

[Terrye]

lurker:

I honestly do not know what kind of compromise might be acceptable to Bush, maybe none. But if he vetos they need 2/3 to overturn and if he does not compromise, there might be a filibuster...so it seems to me that things might go on like this for awhile.

[lurker]

"Let's say the idiots win and get some ridiculous legislation passed..Bush will veto it, go on tv and say why. Until they pass something he wants, Hamdan holds that these guys will be held without trial."

Good for Bush if he does it this way. SCOTU ruling actually gave him an advantage in spite of what the MSM exploited it in their favor against Bush by pointing out that Bush lost and should be impeached.

Actually Bush won.

Just like the Arabs are beginning to realize that Hizbollah really lost the war and Israel is to be feared. Although I still think Israel has some serious improvements to do with its military and intelligence might so that they will be ranked at the top in the world; next to us and Britain.

[PeterUK]

This has less to do with the treatment of combatants,legal or illegal,and mor to do with the transnationalist extention of international law.Just as your Supreme Court has incorporated sections of foreign law and been creative with the Constitution,so the transnationalists are bringing foreign citizens under the umbrella of US law.
Now you have the insanity of extending the rights and privileges of your citizens to those who despise and would destroy those selfsame rights and privileges.
"Those who the Gods wish to destroy,they first make mad".

[Cecil Turner]

I honestly do not know what kind of compromise might be acceptable to Bush, maybe none.

By my reading of the Constitution, the Administration has very little authority in this area. Congress has the exclusive authority:

• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

amongst several related clauses--the Executive merely executes. SCOTUS is going to uphold whatever Congress enacts on this subject (and I'm not even sure it needs to be legislation, nor that the President has authority to veto it). I suspect there might be some bluster from the White House, but at the end of the day, they'll perforce go along.

[lurker]

Well, then Cecil, after 5 years, Congress has done absolutely nothing to address the Gitmo detanees until just now.

Apparently, Congress did not recognize that they have the responsibility to address this issue or that they had no problems with the military tribunals as established post-WWII.

Not until Hamdan challenged it. Big mistake because SCOTUS allows Bush to keep those Gitmos in prison forever.

[Terrye]

Cecil:

My understanding of the SCOTUS decision was that the detainees need not be released. The question is how to go about trying them. I also think that has a lot to do with the friction, the fear of another court ruling.

But then again, I just heard on the news that if the status of rights in questioning is not clarified in then that could bring a halt to the interrogations.

One thing that is interesting, the House of Representatives supports Bush's plan, but it is the Senate that is giving him a hard time.

[clarice]

I can't imagine a situation where the President lacks authority to veto legislation..even if his only role is to execute it. Congress has the authority to appropriate but the President can veto the appropriations bill.

[Patton]

""Americans just do not do things that are in any way akin to the things any enemy does""

You mean like use Nuclear weapons on cities, fire bomb cities, use flame throwers to extract Japanese soldiers from caves?
Those kinds of things?

Why don't we just free all these guys into a buiding in Afghanistan and then hit it with a daisy cutter, that would be legal.

[cathyf]

The Geneva Convention very clearly distinguishes between lawful combatants who are privileged by their abiding by the laws of war, and unlawful combatants, also known as war criminals, pirates, brigands, etc. As far as unlawful combatants go, according to the Geneva Convention we maintain our rights since time immemorial to do whatever the heck we want to them (go read a history of the 30 Years War if you want a history of recreational torture and horrific execution.)

The people who are reinterpreting the main provisions of the Geneva Convention are the ones who want to give war criminals the privileges of lawful combatants.

[Mackenzie]

A veto would work. A Signing Statement crafted by David Addington would work. Ignoring a bill can also be effective - what would be the recourse? Whatever route is chosen, this will all be back in the Supreme Court.

[lurker]

Right-Rooting Out John McCain

Mac Ranger says McCain is done for 2008. Looks like plenty of people are very unhappy with McCain and Graham.

The status of rights in questioning?

Geesch, the Path to 9/11 showed the police in one place saying, "Give me one hour with Ramzi and you'll get the answers." and Egypt torturing its people far worse than USA.

Why are we so worried about it when all the terrorist would do is behead us...without a trial????

[clarice]

Terrye if that report is true, it makes the President's veto speech even more compelling.

Congress has created a situation, he'll say, where I can hold these people but not try or even interrogate them. If you , like me, think that's silly, call your representatives.

[Tom Maguire]

You can criticize Warner, Graham and McCain all you want, but those 3 have more knowledge of the military and the concerns of officers and enlisted men than anyone in the White House or the civilian leadership in the Pentagon.

Look, McCain can be an annoying showboat but all three of these guys deserve the cred they've got, and if I were a gutless Dem I would hide behind them, too. Since Hillary! is on the Armed Services Committee, she does seem to be a bit lacking in the old leadership area on this topic, but she has been successful at ducking the tough national security questions for years.

I have not delved deeply into this bill, but "humiliation" strikes me as a long way from "torture" - geez, cops put their hand on your head to shove you into a cop car, mainly to establish their dominance (most folks are pretty capable of getting into a car) - is that the intentional infliction of humililation?

(I get my info on police procedures from television - no MinuteMen were arrested during the preparation of this blog).

[TexasToast]

Quirin? Oh please. The german saboteurs case is as shaky a precedent as Korimatsu.

The german saboteurs were expressly enemy combatants, which was the convenient method used to get around the Mulligan precedent that military tribunals are not valid in the case of non-combatants. These guys fit somewhere in the middle – where we draw the line as to their status is the substance of the debate.

You and the administration obviously want to define them as “unlawful combatants” so that our constitutional and other legal safeguards do not apply. The administration goes further, however. It wants to turn the procedural “safeguards” for “unlawful combatants” on their head by methods ranging from reversing presumptions to forum shopping. Its pathetic.

[lurker]

Ok, go ahead and be beheaded by the terrorists without trials, TexasToast.

[Patton]

""Americans just do not do things that are in any way akin to the things any enemy does""

But to stop that from happening, which is already illegal, they want to stop us from using the techniques that will extract useful information.

Treating these prisoners like POWs is a HUGE mistake. It means we can't use many perfectly harmless interrogation techniques that could be very useful.

For instance, we could tell a terrorist prisoner that his family has abandoned him, they have comdemned his action and have disowned him. He has shamed the family and needs to make up for his bad acts. It may be a complete lie, but making them POWs would nullify that technique by giving all prisoners access to communications with their families.

Or we could have told a wounded terrorist that he would not receive treatment, even though they know a rescue helicopter is aleready on the way, or deny him water for a few hours, etc.

They will not be able to use any such techniques if terrorists are to be treated as criminals.

[Connor]

Most of the military people who are arguing for following the Geneva Conventions are not advocating giving special privileges to terrorists. But they don't want to see the Geneva Conventions disappear because there is always a (small) chance that the conventions might help our own soldiers if they are taken as prisoners or hostages. Our opponents in future conflicts may not always be non-state terrorists, but could be recognized states that may wish to stay somewhat inside the bounds of international law.

[clarice]

Nothing precludes Congress, I believe, from drafting a joint resolution defining what they agree the Geneva Conference covers and what it does not.

[lurker]

And the Geneva Treaty does not cover terrorists that are not signatories and do not recognize and respect the Geneva Treaty.

[Sue]

I bet Libby is scratching his head wondering why terrorists are going to be allowed to see classified material used against them but Libby can't see the classified referral letter.

[Patton]

See, told you...Conner just made the very argument that I said they would make...yet he couldn't seem to tell us just what country we would go to war with that WOULD follow Geneva.

[Connor]

Who is covered and not covered by Geneva is a grey area. The Taliban did not wear traditional military uniforms but were the army of a central government recognized (implicity or otherwise) by many countries. The insurgents in Iraq, and Hizbollah, do not represent governments of states. If there is a military confrontation with Iran or Syria, their soldiers would presumably be covered.

[Sue]

Reagan refused to sign onto the amendment to the Geneva Convention that gave GC rights to terrorists. Something even the NYTs agreed with at the time.

[Cecil Turner]

Apparently, Congress did not recognize that they have the responsibility to address this issue or that they had no problems with the military tribunals as established post-WWII.

I see it as more of a backbone issue (and the failure to introduce legislation more of a GOP backbone problem, probably exacerbated by the--misguided in my opinion--strong feelings on the subject from McCain and Graham).

Big mistake because SCOTUS allows Bush to keep those Gitmos in prison forever.

The standard is usually given as until the end of "active hostilities." Which in this case may approach "forever." I was vastly disappointed with the Hamdan decision, but at least they upheld Quirin on that point. For the rest, the dissents make a lot more sense to me than the opinion.

Quirin? Oh please. The german saboteurs case is as shaky a precedent as Korimatsu.

Oh nonsense, TT. Both the opinion and the dissenters of Hamdan refer to Quirin repeatedly. The first substantive reference in the opnion states: "the most relevant precedent is Ex parte Quirin . . ." This stuff ain't new, and Hamdan didn't get bounced because the respondents weren't combatants. If you can't be bothered to read up on the case law, you might want to stick with the Diane Rheem show.

Most of the military people who are arguing for following the Geneva Conventions are not advocating giving special privileges to terrorists.

Most military people I know aren't confused about whether Al Qaeda types qualify for GC combatant protections. (They don't.)

[lurker]

Bush Lied Part II

Good article, Clarice. I agree that WH adm had better be prepared this time.

Brit Hume's panel is currently talking about Common Article III. Looks like there are some confusion over the reporting of this military tribunals.

[clarice]

Thanks, lurker..The good article is theone in frontpage.

[lurker]

"Who is covered and not covered by Geneva is a grey area. The Taliban did not wear traditional military uniforms but were the army of a central government recognized (implicity or otherwise) by many countries. The insurgents in Iraq, and Hizbollah, do not represent governments of states. If there is a military confrontation with Iran or Syria, their soldiers would presumably be covered."

Sue, I remember that Reagan refused to sign an addemdum to the Geneva Treaty to cover terrorists. I think we happen to be the only country in the world that does not recognize terrorists under the Geneva Treaty. Good for him.

I watched a 25 minute video over at YouTube about an Israeli Regiment entering a town, then entering a house. They killed two Hizbollah terrorists but walked away with 5 wounded of their own. But what they found was that those two Hizbollah terrorists were donned in IDF uniforms and helmets.

This forced the leader of this regiment to tell his regiment to remove their helmets, then put on a red nightlight next to their eyes, then put the helmets back on. In order to really tell who's really a IDF soldier or a fake IDF soldier.

Does the donning of another country's uniforms qualify someone like Hizbollah under the Geneva Treaty?

[Cecil Turner]

Who is covered and not covered by Geneva is a grey area.

Assuming you mean who is entitled to POW status, I disagree. Third Geneva Article 4 is fairly explicit, and lays out POW requirements, including the following conditions for militias:

• (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
• (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
• (c) that of carrying arms openly;
• (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

I suspect liberals generally claim it's a grey area because an objective reading of the plain language gives them a result they don't like.

[lurker]

OT:

Claims That Two Leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq Taken Out (updated)

Pictures of Hezbollah Tunnels in Lebanon

[Mackenzie]

The Administration may not want legislation passed now to deal with surveillance or military tribunals. They have gotten along fine without legal authority on either matter, and there is no deadline to meet.

So, unless the President can get close to 100% of what he wants, he likely prefers to campaign against the Democrats by being the tough guy vs. their comparative weakness.

The only caveat to this argument is that the White House may anticpate losing control of the House in November. If they compromise now, that would be a sure sign that they are indeed expecting to lose the House.

[Patton]

You would think with the left allways claims just how terrible our soldiers are that they would be concerned that if our troops have to treat enemy illegal combatants as accused criminals with all the rights of US citizens, that those mean spirited troops would simply stop taking prisoners.

You would think the Democrats would be concerned that alot more of the enemy would end up DEAD instead of CAPTURED.

A DEAD enemy wouldn't be treated in a degrading or humiliating manner!!

[lurker]

And one of those two AQ leaders had letters from OBL!!

[Patton]

Reminds me of an old joke: How many cops does it take to throw a rapist down the stairs?

None, he tripped.

[lurker]

What Mac said and endorsed by AJStrata!!

[Terrye]

Patton:

There is no need to argue this with me, I am simply telling you that the people who support that position will not be swayed with arguments of how bad we were in WW2 or how bad the terrorists are now. They are concerned with living up to what they consider to be a certain moral standard.

[lurker]

Muslims Protest Voltaire’s Mohammad Play in 1741!!

[Terrye]

I heard Bush say that his concern was "ambiguity' in the law. He seems to feel the Senate bill does not clarify the Article 3 standards.

This will give some cover to Democrats, but it should be noted...they voted in a block, the Republicans did not. It seems the only people really debating the subject are the Republicans, the Democrats are just sitting there staring into space.

[boris]

living up to what they consider to be a certain moral standard ...

... that's going to get people killed. A standard even McPain says to break when necessary and hope for jury nullification.

It's not a serious POV.

[Patton]

In fact, when you think about it; TAKEN TO ITS OBVIOUS CONCLUSION, THE LEFT WANTS OUR SOLDIERS TO EXECUTE EVERYONE ON THE BATTLEFIELD.

Seriously, the only logical reason to take prisoners is to interrogate them and get information to help you defeat the enemy.
If we can no longer interrogate them, why not just pop them and make our lives easier?

[freaknik]

With Americans like you, why try to save the country?

[lurker]

Ah but, freaknik, the primary goal is to protect and preserve our own country while preserving our civil liberties.

Freaknik, you must be a member of Al Qaeda if you had to make this comment.

[boris]

freaknik, with patriotism like yours, who want you to try?

[Patton]

"""They are concerned with living up to what they consider to be a certain moral standard."""

A standard they cannot explain nor apply to real life conditions.....they only want to up hold the standard when its someone else, or someone else's kid, who's under the gun.

here's a simply question. You have been ordered to take over a city block and surrend the enemies stronhold. Its projected your casualties will be 8 dead and 15 wounded due to booby traps and ambushes. But another squad just captured
several terrorists including the head of secruity for the enemy stronghold.

One iof the terrorists tells you that the security leader you are holding has a map
of all the booby traps and ambush points that he keeps in his rectum.

Question for you: Do you treat this guy in a degrading and humiliating manner to retrieve the map and save you soldiers life's and limbs?? Or do you proceed without the map knowing they will die but John MCain will come to their funeral and tell their children how honorable you were?

[lurker]

Embedded with Israeli Soldiers in Lebanon (long version 1 Towards the end of this video is where the IDF leader learned of those two Hizbollah soldiers donning in IDF uniform. It's a 25 minute video.

[Terrye]

Patton:

No the question is for them. You keep coming at me about this and I do not even disagree with you.

[Kevin B]

Tom, the reason cops put their hand on the suspect's head when they load them in the car is to stop them accidentally banging their head on the door frame.

Apparantly this happened a few times and was somehow perceived as police brutality and a few million bucks was lost in damages.

[Cecil Turner]

If we can no longer interrogate them, why not just pop them and make our lives easier?

Some troops will see it that way, and it's an issue. The more pernicious effect, in my opinion, is that if we provide all combatants with full Geneva POW rights, as if they follow the laws of war (whether they do or not), it removes any incentive for them to follow the laws of war. Which seems to me to encourage the very effect Graham and McCain profess to be concerned about.

[lurker]

Looney Lindsay: Don’t Insult Our Enemies!

Terrye, I thought Patton was directing his or her questions to everyone???

[Terrye]

And btw, they would say to you that they are not goijng to get anyone killed, that your argument has no basis in fact.

McCain does not think he is going to get soldiers killed, after all he was one and he paid dearly for it. My point is that so often people just assume that people who take these positions are stupid or naive or don't care about soldiers getting killed, but that is not how they see it.

It is a moral argument for them, and to their way of thinking you can accomplish the same goals without using practices like water boarding. Now you can disagree with that, I myself have my doubts, but I really do not think that McCain thinks any soldier will die because of his bill. He just does not see it that way, in fact if anything he is convinced of the opposite.

For instance, say we need to house some prisoners in a foreign country and they refuse to let us because they are afraid of the heat they will take because it is generally assumed that Americans are torturing people... I think that when one considers the things that happen to people in French prisons every day it is a mute question, but there are people who honestly worry about things like that.

[Terrye]

There is a difference between POW status in the Geneva Convention and what is at issue here. In Article 3 the question is not really about POWs and how they are treated. People tend to conflate the two.

[Terrye]

lurker:

That might be true, it could be a sign of paranoia on my part. After all it is all about ME.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Sen. Graham was just on Hugh Hewitt trying to explain what he's doing. I'll be able to report what it is...as soon the Senator decides.

[Patton]

Torturing people is allready illegal, that is not the issue......

What they are talking about is treating people in a "degrading or humiliating manner".

[Kevin B]

For instance, say we need to house some prisoners in a foreign country and they refuse to let us because they are afraid of the heat they will take because it is generally assumed that Americans are torturing people...

If they think the Americans 'torturing' people will get them information about possible terrorist attacks in their own country they'd be quite happy. In fact if they think the Americans are not questioning them hard enough, many of them will volunteer to take over.

The heat they get when the locals find out the Americans have prisons and prisoners abroad is from their equivalent of the moonbats and their political opposition out to gain power. (Who, if they do, will be quite happy to let the Yanks do what they like).

No, the big problems for foreign govenments is the concerted international effort from the left to define down torture, and the constant leaking to the MSM from those who should know better.

[Syl]

Connor

Our opponents in future conflicts may not always be non-state terrorists, but could be recognized states that may wish to stay somewhat inside the bounds of international law.

Oh please.

The only Geneva-signing state we could have a future conflict with is France. But by then they'd be ruled by sharia which doesn't recognize Geneva anyway.

[Patton]

The only real affect MCCain and the left have had is to convey Geneva rights on Al Queda who violate geneva daily.

So what I am saying is I understand MCCains position, and I also can plainly see his position is completely nonsensical.

It would be no differnt if MCCain said, we have to give these terrorist rights of they will turn into T-Rexs and eat us all. I don't have to respect that stupid positoon any more then I have to respect his current stupid position.

Again, all they have done is given Geneva rights to people who daily violate Geneva, now how does that make any future potentail enemy want to abide by geneva, when they will know they don't have to and we will.???

[PeterUK]

"Most of the military people who are arguing for following the Geneva Conventions are not advocating giving special privileges to terrorists. But they don't want to see the Geneva Conventions disappear because there is always a (small) chance that the conventions might help our own soldiers if they are taken as prisoners or hostages."

Quite simple,extend the Geneva Conventions to those who are signatories and abide by them,tell the rest that if these rule are broken their combatants can be shot out of hand as unlawful.

Lastly Connor,the taking of hostages is forbidden.