Crush Liberalism

8 Comments »

1. first, Anyone in the world who has traveled in the middle east or has any ties to the islamic world knows and will tell you, dishonesty is part of the culture. Prices will be inflated, “the carpet is worth $1000.” you walk away and all of a sudden it’s $500. Numbers will becomew larger, larger and larger. like a fish story. It’s like a dare, prove them wrong. Look at history, 100 assans attacking a city durring the crusades becomes 100,000 Islamic worriors.
   Now Mussaui is claming to kill thousands of americans in western Iraq, including a general, when the actual number ,I believe was 12 unenlisted soldiers.

   The point is lying to make a point is part of the culture. The Terrorist thinking is If by lying the desired result happens, the the lie is good and acceptable.

   Now Liberals, don’t go bringing up, Bush Lied inorder to take over Iraq’s oil. Bush was mislead by poor intellegence that Iraq had WMB.being wrong is not lying. Please remember that intelegence came not just from the CIA, and NSA but also MI5, Russian Intelegence, Saudi Intelegence, Isreali Intelgence, French Intelegence, and the UN. So much intellegence was out there that Iraq had WMB that the UN security council issued 12 years of penitalies on them.

   Comment by Anonymous | May 31, 2005

2. Jonathan,

   Point taken: die hard terrorists will lie to achieve their objective. But something you didn’t address: its not clear how many of the detainees that we’ve transfered to Gitmo, and that we’re currently holding at various prisons in Iraq — some 10,000 total, by the Pentagon’s own admission — are “Islamofascists,” to use the inimitable Hitchens label. The prima facie rejection of any semblance of due process for these detainees has made it impossible to classify them accurately and independently.

   Am I being paranoid? Consider the case of Yasser Hamdi, the U.S. born Saudi citizen who was detained for nearly three years before the Justice department decided to release him back to Saudi Arabia because he wasn’t, after all, a terrorist. Or the Australian and British nationals who were picked up in Afghanistan, and who turned out to have little to no intelligence value for the War on Terrorism, but who were detained for months anyway.

   This is the larger problem with the administration’s detainee policy — not just that there are abuses, which are deplorable enough from a moral perspective — but that rounding up non-terrorists willy-nilly is an abrogation of their own liberty (not to mention an invitation to think less of us). And it’s not just Amnesty International, and bleeding-hearts like me who think so. Even Justice Scalia acknowledged that the right not to be arbitrarily imprisioned by the executive has been a part of the Anglo-American legal tradition since the Magna Carta.

   –JA

   Comment by joshuatrees3 | May 31, 2005

3. First, Thank you for making an argument, not an insult.
   I agree the facts of the number of Islamofascists in American control is concerning. I hope, as I believe we are, that our government with the assisstance of the Iraqi and Afgani governments are activally trying to sort out the truly dangerous terrorists from the brainwashed foot soldiers. Any American Citizens held, are deserving and need to receive all their rights according to our constitution. Any innocent detainee needs to have all his rights restored and be sent home with our sincere regretts. Any detainee who was a involved militant foot soldier, needs to be shown the wrongfullness of his ways by their own government.

   We need to remember most of those who have remained in Gitmo, after much investigation, are some of the worst of the worst though. I’ve heard stories from the family of a soldier down there that most of the Al quada foot soldiers, have been sent back to Afganistan or their home country for further detainment or trial. However they say most of the terrorists down there are sick and evil people whom we don’t want out there in the world, and we should thank our military for holding them.

   The other point we need to remember is these Terrorists are not American citizens and don’t have the same rights you and I have. These Terrorists are not POW’s who have certine rights under the Geneva Conventions. These Terrorists suport a philosophy that would destroy our constitution, our rights, the freedoms of the world, the Geneva Conventions and everything we hold dear in order to bring about an Islamic state.

   Comment by Anonymous | May 31, 2005

4. JoshuaTree,

   Welcome to my blog! Liberals are indeed welcome here, so long as you read the post about “Rule Clarification.” We had a liberal who wore out his welcome with gross violations of Nettiquette, not to mention his intellectually vacuous postings. Thoughtful dissenting posts like yours are a breath of fresh air.

   Plus, I think we may agree on a certain issue here. I think we disagree on rights of detainees: they are enemy combatants and non-U.S. citizens, therefore not covered by the rights outlined in the Constitution. I do agree, though, that detaining someone for three years with no basis to hold them is unacceptable. I’d hate to think I could be locked up in another country and no one will tell me why or what I can do to secure my release.

   I also agree on the point made here about American citizen detainees, such as Jose Padilla (aka “Osama bin Lopez”). He is an American citizen, and federal courts have ruled that he is thusly entitled to a lawyer and due process of law. The Justice Dept. is appealing, insisting that national security trumps his Constitutional rights (though I think they’re actual legal argument is that he’s an enemy combatant before he’s an American citizen). Though I support the administration’s prosecution of the War on Terrorism, I vehemently disagree with its position on Padilla. After all, if they’ve got the evidence, then by God, use it against him. I’d even be OK if the trial were closed to the public and transcripts not released if they contain sensitive intelligence matters…just have the damned trial! Today it’s Padilla, tomorrow it could be any of us.

   Comment by Jonathan | May 31, 2005

5. Jonathan,

   Thanks for the reply to my reply.

   I’m glad you mentioned Padilla, because his case speaks to the problem of using the broad designation “Enemy Combatant,” especially since the administration is trying to use that designation to, as it were, override his rights as a US citizen. And while you’re correct in arguing that non-US citizens are not guaranteed the rights of the US Constitution — though they still are guaranteed rights by the Geneva Conventions, because we’re signatories to that treaty — I think there’s still a substantive problem with considering non-citizen detainees “Enemy Combants” and not something more specific.

   And the problem is this: the legal precedent for detaining enemy combantants indefinitely comes to us from World War II, when we apprehended a bunch of German saboteurs in the US (including, actually, one treasonous US citizen). Given their citizenship from a nation with which we were at war, and their own admission of intent to fight against the US, they were identical in legal status to German POWS captured on the European Continent (though, since we eventually executed them, the POWS were probably more fortunate).

   While some of our detainees may have sworn fealty to Al Queda, and later admitted as such, that fealty is, unfortunately, not coraborated by any citizenship from a nation with which we’re at war. On the other hand, many do have citizenship in from countries that are ostensibly our friends (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) In addition, while the German saboteurs had illegally entered the US with an intent to do harm, its simply not clear how many of the detainees we have picked up Afghanistan were active members of Al Queda. The military may suggest that they are, but where’s the proof? Are we simply supposed to take their word for it? If these individuals really are transparently dangerous, why doesn’t the military offer us the testimony that demonstrates this? I must say, my suspicion is tied to empirical evidence: as we saw in the Hamdi case, the standard by which the military evaluated Mr. Hamdi’s danger to the US was exceedingly low.

   You can see where I’m going here: I understand the need to capture and kill terrorists for security reasons, but, under the existing legal justification for doing so, we’re permitted to preventatively detain a wide swath of people the President decides are dangerous, for an indefinite period of time, without any sort of independent review. This is what’s known in legal circles as the President’s invocation of the “Royal Prerogative.” As in previous instances of “royal” decision making, there’s bound to abuse our own power — which is exactly what’s happened.

   It’s suggestive that John Yoo, now Dean of the Law School at UC Berkeley, who advised the President on these matters, has compared the legal status of Gitmo detainees to that of Pirates in the 17th and 18th century. Dishing out 17th and 18th century-style justice may be viscerally satisfying, but can’t we do better in 2005? Surely we can figure out another way to legally classify these individuals, get them tried, convicted or acquitted in US courts and back to their home countries, and then focus on continuing to disrupt more dangerous threats to our country.

   JA

   Comment by joshuatrees3 | June 1, 2005

6. For an interesting perspective on Amnesty International, the gulag comments, and the detainee issue check out the new Time with 10 questions for Nathan Sharansky.

   Comment by Anonymous | June 1, 2005

7. check that Natan Sharansky, sorry my son’s name is Nathan and I’m just used to writing his name.

   Comment by Anonymous | June 1, 2005

8. Anonymous:

   I found this quotation by Sharansky interesting:

   “Amnesty International says it doesn’t support or oppose any political system, so it ends up with reports that show a moral equivalence between, for example, Israel and the terrorist regimes that attack it.”

   Listen carefully to what he’s suggesting — he’s saying that because Israel is a free society, and morally superior to terrorist regimes, it should not be held to as stringent a standard vis-à-vis human rights abuses as its opponents.

   This is what I call the selective application of a universal precept — in other words, a contradiction in terms. Why can’t Israel be morally superior to its enemies, because it is a free society, and, at the same time, acknowledge its own human rights abuses? Would that openness not be a true example of moral superiority? Conservatives tend to assume that critique erodes the foundation of free societies, but, for this liberal, it *is* the foundation of a free society.

   Incidentally, I don’t think Sharansky is in a morally superior position himself: he resigned from the Sharon cabinet because of the decision to withdraw from settlements in the Gaza Strip. Preemptively taking that land from Palestinians was a moral and political mistake — even Ariel Sharon recognizes this! Sharanksky’s endorsement of an unjust settlement policy undercuts his position as a human rights advocate, no?

   Comment by joshuatrees3 | June 1, 2005

« Previous | Next »

Site info

Crush Liberalism
Theme: Andreas04 by Andreas Viklund. Blog at WordPress.com.