No Need To Resign For Calling a Duck a Duck
So Karl Rove suggested that liberals and some Democrats treat the War on Terror as a law enforcement action and they demand a resignation. They equate Dick Durbin’s stunt and subsequent non-apology (”I’m sorry if you misunderstood me”) and say Karl Rove should go through the ringer.
The problem is he was just telling it like it is. The following is the list of Senators that demand trials that are illegal under the Geneva Conventions:
And of course, Hillary, Bill, Kennedy, and others. When you talk about how we need to try these guys in the criminal system when we caught them on the field of battle, you might just have to forgive them for thinking you view this as you wanting to treat this as a criminal action.
They cry foul when Rove suggested their concerns are at understanding the terrorists, yet their OWN 2004 party platform says that is what they want. Quote: Increasing public diplomacy to promote understanding and prevent terrorist recruitment. At the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas: democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views.
The fact of the matter is, Rove was 100% spot-on, and the Democrats know it’s a loser to face their views head on.
Is Chicago a “field of battle”? Is Amsterdam? Some of the people being held by the military were arrested in these places. The current “war on terror” allows the government to arrest anyone (including U.S. citizens) anywhere without giving them a trial. Doesn’t this strike you as a violation of the Constitution? Or are you one of these people who think we should simply give the president the powers of a king and then “trust” him?
RESPONSE: When American citizens take up arms and fight for the enemy, then I have little problem with them being held. But then again, those people are being given access to the courts.
I wouldn’t mind seeing then tried for treason, actually. But the government isn’t rounding up random people on the street. That’s simply strawman paranoia.
Comment by Karlo | June 24, 2005
This also ignores, of course, something else we know to be true-as in, local warlords in Afghanistan were willy-nilly rounding people up and turning them over to US forces as “terrorists” to collect bounties.
How does not giving these people a chance to explain themselves resemble anything even remotely American?
RESPONSE:
One, everyone at Gitmo has had a status hearing. Two, before they get sent to Gitmo they are evaluated. We aren’t blindly sending people there.
Comment by JollyRoger | June 24, 2005
The point isn’t whether or not someone had a hearing. Some of the beheaded contractors in Iraq probably had “hearings.” The question is who’s doing it. The U.S. has this quaint idea of a separation of powers and checks and balances. The idea is that we shouldn’t have to simply trust anyone too much. And if we really live in a democracy, we really need to know what people are doing–particularly when it involves violence. If we really want to live in a fascist military state, we could save a lot of money by simply declaring the judiciary and Congress as unnecessary and turning everything over to the Executive’s fiat.
RESPONSE:
Civilian trials for people captured and the battlefield are illegal under international law… period.
We aren’t trying people convicted of crimes in the states by military tribunal. Kids caught past curfew aren’t being sent to Gitmo.
Get a grip.
Comment by Karlo | June 24, 2005
Your statements are too broad-there simply is no way to say that all detainees at Guantanamo have had hearings that took anything into account-in fact, there is considerable evidence that the opposite is true.
The “battlefield” notation is also irrelevant, as there has been no Congressional Declaration of War.
RESPONSE:
They have all had status hearings… many were sent back afterwards. That’s a known fact.
Declaration of war notwithstanding, the standards for armed conflict have been met under international law. Nation intricacies are irrelevant.
Comment by JollyRoger | June 24, 2005