Who Guards the Guardians?
The Supreme Court has provided another nail in the coffin of executive war powers in its recent opinion on the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Earlier decisions by the court in Hamdan and Rasul ignored statutory enactment after statutory enactment that deprived these detainees of access the courts. This is certainly not an issue of the Court trying to divine legislative intent. After reviewing the latest decision in Boumadiene, it’s clear the earlier hand-wringing about the statutory meaning of the 2001 authorization of force against al Qaeda, as well as related, clarifying acts of Congress, was a smokescreen. The Court has ignored its earlier precedents and read into the Constitution an extra-textual right to control the other branches of government in all instances under the banner of constitutional habeas, even though its jurisdiction is subject to the Constitution’s grant of power to the Congress to restrict jurisdiction, and even though the Constitution’s text and history provides almost no basis to extend habeas review to non-citizens, captured in war, and held overseas.
Conservative critics of Bush should not forget that separation of powers concerns and the need for vigorous executive action against terrorists transcend the particular demerits of George W. Bush. The Constitutional system does not ebb and flow when a good or bad president is in office. All powers can be abused, and this is especially true in the case of the courts, whose own sense of restraint is the thin reed that limits most of their abuses. The same Supreme Court that arrogated to itself the right to interfere with law enforcement activities at the state level and that divined a right to abortion in the sixties, also imagines itself the final say now on all aspects of the war against al Qaeda. Every single decision it has authored since 2001 has allowed al Qaeda detainees the means to clog our judicial system, embarrass the President, potentially obtain release from detention, or otherwise continue their war against the United States by using our legal system to burden the armed forces and our government. These results are all the more disturbing because they are not required by constitutional text, deviate from earlier precedents, and often involve cabalistic interpretations of congressional statutes to circumscribe executive authority.
Consider the various problems with the Court’s approach.
First, the Court has deviated again from its long line of earlier jurisprudence disclaiming any judicial authority over US government actions overseas that involve military detainees, military affairs, or foreign policy. The Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) decision specifically disclaimed any authority for Article III courts to review the actions of US prison officials detaining German POWs and war criminals held in Germany. While the Court then confusingly considered the merits of the petitioners’ habeas petition, it ultimately concluded that the Courts were under no duty to actually grant such petitions or require military officials to produce enemy prisoners who would seek relief from US courts. As the Court said then--and forgot in its latest opinion--the “writ, since it is held to be a matter of right, would be equally available to enemies during active hostilities as in the present twilight between war and peace. Such trials would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy. They would diminish the prestige of our commanders, not only with enemies but with wavering neutrals. It would be difficult to devise more effective fettering of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.” Consider also, the Court’s simple failure to mention its own decisions in other areas that hold US Constitutional rights do not apply to foreigners overseas. See, e.g., United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) (holding that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to searches and seizures by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien in a foreign country)
Second, the Court has deviated from an extensive body of jurisprudence that demands deference to executive interpretations of Congressional enactments. In the numerous cases expanding on “Chevron deference,” the Court articulated the notion that reasonable executive interpretations of laws on which more than one reasonable interpretation may be allowed will not be questioned by the Court, even if some other interpretation is arguably more reasonable than the alternatives. This principle preserves the traditional executive responsibility of implementing congressional legislation, especially when conforming abstract legislation to particular circumstances requires more detail than any statute can be expected to have. Along these lines, Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), recognized Presidential authority to create military tribunals under a Congressional authorization of force with far less explicit language allowing detention of “persons” than President Bush enjoyed under the 2001 Authorization of Military Force. Since the powers of war are refracted through various legislation that clearly weighs in favor of the Guantanamo detention--the initial 2001 Authorization of Military Force and the later Military Commissions Act of 2006--the Court’s actions have nothing to do with ambiguity or filling in gaps in the case of congressional silence. It’s a pure act of substituting its judgment for the combined judgment of the Congress and the President.
Third, the Court has deviated from an extremely deferential standard of review for executive actions that may be grouped under the rubric of military affairs. Even in the Court’s most hands-on realm of expertise and intervention--the First Amendment--the Court has shied away from interfering with actions that affect military discipline and efficiency. See generally Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 US 503 (1986). The Court suggests in Boumadiene that the procedures for the review of detainee status will always be inadequate without court review. But there is no requirement of appellate review of any court decision at any level; appellate jurisdiction may simply be removed by statute by the Congress under its powers granted in the Constitution. The Court does not recognize this glaring exception to its theory of what good government requires, because it undermines all of its pretentious as the necessary “final say” on other political branches’ actions.
Fourth, the Court’s ruling has deviated from the principle expressed in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), that in the case of an explicit grant of authority by Congress, the President acts at the highest level of personal and constitutional authority. The GITMO detentions contrast to cases grounded solely in implied powers or executive actions contrary to explicit congressional directives. In spire of this long-established concept, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) and Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), the Court (1) second guessed executive fact-finding of unlawful combatant status even for prisoners held overseas and instead demanded another layer of process before special status tribunals and (2) the Court did not find that the 2001 Congressional Authorization of Military Force against Al Qaeda, which authorized the President to “use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons…” involved in the September 11 attacks, also authorized the detention of those the executive finds to be unlawful combatants. The Court took its extremely narrow reading of Congressional authorization a step further in Hamdan.
The Congress responded to these rulings, and the procedural history is telling. In Hamdan, the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act explicitly authorized the use of military tribunals and disallowed habeas review in Article III courts for claims made by the Guantanamo prisoners. It made certain provisions explicitly retroactive in effect, but the statute was less-than-entirely-clear as to its impact on pending challenges, such as Hamdan’s. Nonetheless, the statute expressed a fairly certain congressional intent to strip the Court of plenary habeas jurisdiction of challenges by the Guantanamo prisoners. Nonetheless, the Court engaged in a detailed textual analysis to show that Congress did not explicitly manifest any intent that its 2005 statute be applied retroactively, and it ruled against the executive interpretation (saying it violated both Geneva and the UCMJ’s Article 36 (b)). The Congress quickly said otherwise in the 2006 statute, which the Court has now undone with a supposed implied jurisdiction to reach every government action under constitutional habeas, even though jurisdiction on any issue can be deprived from the Court by congressional statute. The Constitution itself says at Article III, Section 2 that “the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” How much more explicit could a withholding of Court authority be than the 2005 and 2006 statutes on tribunals? The Court has simply invented a right to listen to habeas cases having no limits whatsoever. Under the Court’s logic any person, anywhere, affected in any way by US government action has redress to US courts. Bush, to his discredit, has not explained why his power in these areas is important, and he also lacks the moral courage simply not to enforce the Court’s ultra vires decisions.
In Boumediene, the Court undertakes a lengthy, historical analysis of habeas that is inconclusive by the majority’s own admission. But instead of deferring to coequal branches of government, it forges ahead with interference. Rules of jurisprudence rightly contain certain principles of deference, particularly when traditional prerogatives of another branch of government are implicated. Those principles are especially appropriate in this case of an executive military function. The reasons are plain. First, the Congress has ample power of its own to reign in executive abuses in this arena, not least because it can withhold funding. Second, the President surely must be understood by precedent, structure, and text to have some kind of inherent authority to address military affairs, including treatment of prisoners, under the “take care” clause and the “commander in chief” clauses. Finally, even common says says the Court has little appreciation for the swift means by which military decisions, including detention decisions, must be made. Warfare is not a situation of “better ten guilty men go free, rather than one innocent be held.” In war, these presumptions are reversed. When non-citizens overseas are involved, it’s not a question of our common welfare as a people being involved at all. The Padilla case, which I admit is more complicated, is very different from foreigners captured overseas in Afghanistan. The only restraint is prudential, military necessity, executive interpretations of treaty obligation, and the common-sense view that we do not want innocents detained. The Court’s interference has been costly already. Under the overly deferential review regime set up to address the Court’s directive in Hamdan, many detainees have been released only to return to the battlefield.
Un-uniformed, extra-national forces that commit terrorism have long been given few rights under the law of war. And that law has long been administered with little outside court control of the executive branch worldwide. This context has been completely lost on the Court from its long list of forays since 2001 into the arena of unlawful combatants. The Court, uncomfortable with its duty to defer to the political branches has simply ignored and defied its prior precedent without regard to the long-run consequences. These consequences include the negative effects of this decision on US morale, the actuality under the Court’s oversight that dangerous terrorists will be released from custody, and the potential logistical and military nightmare appellate review will do to detention procedures and military commissions. Today the decision is something of a nuisance; how much more burdensome would it have been in a time like WWII where hundreds of thousands of POWs and other detainees were held for the duration of hostilities?
The Court’s decision ultimately betrays three major biases, all of which are very dangerous to our constitutional system and the future success of the war against al Qaeda. First, the Court will countenance no distinction between military and peace-time realities. All of the Court’s decisions demand, in effect, the same level of court involvement and scrutiny involving unlawful combatants that are not (and could never be) signatories to the Geneva Conventions entitled to their protections. Second, the Court basically shows at every turn, in spite of its lip-service to the destruction of 9/11, that it does not think this is a real war, with a real enemy, where the safety of actual Americans is in grave danger. Why do I know this? Because the Court has resisted every demand to treat these military measures in military operations against a military organization differently from ordinary criminal procedures. Here, as in criminal cases, the burdens, procedures, rules of evidence, and likely outcomes are designed to favor defendants heavily under the Court’s recent line of cases. Finally, the Court has moved away from its own precedents allowing other branches of government to act without its ultimate approval and involvement. Doctrines of nonjusticiability and “political questions” are apparently out the window when it comes to the war against al Qaeda.
The Court’s concerns are clearly not the human rights of the suspects, so much as the power of the courts as a whole. A friend in a discussion offline put it as follows:
It seems to me that a part of the difference of opinion on the Habeas issue is what the principle of Habeas Corpus is about. The conservative line tends to view it as an individual civil right. Thus, it is designed to protect citizens and those others as determined by law. Kennedy’s opinion seems to me to have a very different slant. He seems to think it is a way to check the power of the executive branch, especially as a separation-of-powers issue. In that way, it seems a right more properly of the judicial branch, and extends to anyone who might come under the power of the executive branch. The right then is more a part of the fabric of our form of government, and only secondarily a right of the individual. To the extent it belongs to the individual, the court seems to consider it more a natural right—a right that exists to people as human persons qua persons (not citizens) to be free from undue governmental power.
There is another factor leading the Court astray: any distinction of citizen and non-citizen is missing from the Court’s view. It’s as if war--the starkest demonstration of conflict of the loyal and the disloyal, the native and the foreign--is just too old-fashioned. It’s clear that Obama and other critics of the GITMO procedure are less concerned with the various strategic mistakes of the Iraq War than they are with a generalized pacifism and discomfort with the inherent distinction of war and peace. Otherwise, they’d be up in arms against these Court interferences with the non-Iraq campaign against terrorists. Obama and Justice Kennedy both reveal a lawyer’s obtuse disregard in general for non-legal situations such as military operations that require alacrity, discretion, and force. Under their logic, a Court could stop D-Day with an injunction, and US commanders can be hauled before US courts to answer for treaty obligation compliance that has, up until now, been left to the President’s interpretation.
All of this is not to deny the obvious: abuses can happen. Innocents may be mistakenly detained. Their detention may last a long time. And this would be unfortunate in the extreme. But the whole difference of war and peace, of foreign terrorists and domestic criminals, is that the former are more dangerous and require different techniques to be resolved. The balance of concern for citizen safety and the rights of the innocent is reversed from the ordinary situation of civilian law enforcement.
For a constitutional system that is supposed to embody a balance of powers, in which unreviewable action by any one branch is suspect, the Court never expresses any doubts about its own rectitude and authority, even when it interferes in traditional executive wartime responsibilities. As always in matters of politics, we should ask: “Quis custodiet custodes?”
Comments
Take no prisoners, then.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m afraid we do not understand the Supreme Court
i.e. the Supremes unless we see them as similar to a
chorus in a Greek drama which later became the basis for
opera.
At best they understand that they also sing as it
were within the dimension of time...and their duty is
to consider all things to the best of their ability
within that dimension as well, which includes a sense of
the will of the people, as well as their own sense too
under the circumstances, of right and wrong.
They today in this case at this juncture in time have
weighed-in at the farce of this war on terrorism, Iraq
et al., and in effect have said here is our song at the
moment - for Christ’s sake or for Pete’s sake whatever
your preference, enough is enough.
Right on!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
America has been effectively under the rule of the Supreme Court’s philosopher-kings for decades. They’re consistent only in their contempt for your Constitution.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A question for Mr. Roach: You wrote, “Un-uniformed, extra-national forces that commit terrorism have long been given few rights under the law of war.” I had thought they were pretty much completely hors de loi according to the conventions ratified by the US, which don’t include the 1977 Protocol. So what few rights do these gentlemen have under conventions ratified by the US (as opposed to internal US law), properly interpreted?
By the way, thanks for the interesting article.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
AFTER FIVE YEARS OF UNSPEAKABLE SUFFERING AND ILL-TREATMENT, THE SUPREME COURT TAKES SOME MINIMALIST ACTION TO CORRECT AN OUTRAGEOUS VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTAL PRINCIPLE. YET, THE PROBLEM REMAINS:THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF JUSTICE IN A POLICE STATE.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ploni, this is a complicated question. Whether the treaties apply at all to conflicts with non-state actors like al Qaeda is highly debatable. They apply to international conflicts of signatories and internal conflicts of signatories. But what of conflicts with non-state actors who are non-signatories outside of one’s territory, the modern-day equivalent of pirates? Even if the treaties did, at most the unlawful combatant detainees have the right to “humane treatment” but do not have the right to full POW status and the associated rights of that status. (See Convention III, Art. III of the Geneva Conventions.)
Two errors flow through most critics of Bush on this score. First, they presume he made up this “unlawful combatant” category, when in fact it has long existed, predates Geneva, is not displaced by Geneva, and is the basis for US resistance to the 1977 Protocol that would extend protection to non-uniformed national liberation movements.
Second, as in liberal approaches to law, Geneva is viewed as evoking a zeitgeist rather than a law with provisions that need to be interpreted and which show who is and is not entitled to protections and, if so, how much.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You just don’t get it, do you Christopher? You may be very good at analysing the minutiae, but the big picture items just fly right over your head. This is arguably your most ill-conceived article yet (and there have been a few howlers).
You overlook many issues, for example:
1. The whole War on Terror is phony (really the War for Israel) and was justified by an obviously false-flag operation.
2. Most of the Guantanamo inmates have done little more than be in the wrong place at the wrong time (there have been endless articles in Anti-War on this issue, perhaps you should read a little more widely).
3. There have been all sorts of human rights abuses occurring both at Guantanamo and other US-run facilities (eg the CIA floating prisons) in flagrant disregard of US laws. There will hopefully be a day of reckoning some time soon.
4. The US is a signatory to various treaties on the rights of POWs, which it has flagrantly disregarded at Guantanamo and elsewhere.
Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are horrendous blots on the reputation of America. Irrespective of whether their rulings are unconstitutional or not, the judges are offering some small hope that the human rights and PR disaster that is Guantanamo might be resolved some time soon.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
There is no war because the Congress has not declared war. A simple Declaration of War
against Al Qaeda and the Taliban would have led their captured personnel to be declared
simple prisoners of war and if we announced that would treat them as all prisoners of
war, as we had done in the past even without such a declaration in Vietnam or Korea or
even the first Gulf War, we would not be in the legal mess we are in. We could still
even use Gitmo as a prison camp and deal with war crminals after the conflict was concluded.
But this is according to the powers that be “anachoristic”.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This string may be as good a place as any to mention that I have just received my copy of John Laughland’s “A History of Political Trials” and it appears to be really first rate, going from Charles I (King Charles the Martyr to us in the SKCM) to Sadam Hussein. His concluding chapter is worth the price of the book in itself, as he notes that in over 300 years of trials of heads of state there has never been a single acquittal; and a money quote is the following (about international tribunals such as the ICTY):
“International tribunals wield their power without even attempting to fulfil the side of thebargain usually regarded as an inherent part of the social contract: the government’s duty to use its power to protect its citizens. International tribunals, indeed, have no ‘citizens’ at all. They are subject to no system of political accountability which ties teir actions back to the people over whom they have jurisdiction; they are not controlled by a national legislature or subject to indirect control by political culture or ublic opinion. They are the judicial equivalent of military bombardment from 30,000 feet: the peoples under their writ cannot fight back.”
The last sentence of the book is eerily apropos of this case, as he says: “For it is the very essence of the human condition itself that there is no escape from the oldest conundrum of political philosophy: if we appoint guardians to protect our supreme values, who will guard the guardians themselves?”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Even agents of bona fide governments with whom we are war do not get POW status if they do not follow the law of war, such as by not wearing uniforms, blending in with civilians, and the like.
Al Qaeda’s in double trouble
because they do none of these things on which POW status depends, and they also are a non-state actor which is a prerequisite to lawful combatant status.
This is why we tried and hanged the civilian-clothes-wearing Nazi saboteurs in WWII. This is why Nathan Hale was hanged by the British as a spy. POW protections are part of a broader attempt to make war less destructive by creating clear lines of demarcation of uniformed, lawful combatants and ordinary civilians. Combatants that try to have it both ways--wearing civilian clothes and also fighting as combatants--are accorded little protection under the law of war and rightly so. Their activities endanger ordinary civilians who one could reliably assume in times past were not also combatants.
The law of war gives lawful combatants a privilege: their actions in war are not “murder” “theft” and the like under civilian law. They are privileged to take part in combat without being tried for murder. But the price for this privilege is adherence to the law of war, which al Qaeda makes no minimal attempt to do. It infamously decapitates its prisoners, including civilians like Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl.
Their is also something a bit facile about all this hand-wringing. Either al Qaeda are lawful combatants against whom there should be no qualms about imprisoning until the end of hostilities. Or they are civilians guilty of murder, assault, theft and the like in connection with their combat activities in Afghanistan and elsewhere. It can’t be both, but that’s essentially what their defenders want. They want them to be given civilian rights to trial and status determination so they are not held, as POWs could be, for the duration of hostilites, but these same critics never say as civilians it’s A-OK to try them all for attempted murder for shooting AK-47s at our troops and others in Afghanistan.
I think the only consideration in all this should be U.S. interests and maximization of intelligence value. Once they’re interrogated, they should be kept for the duration of hostilites or hanged at the discretion of the executive after bare minimal process. It’s not like when you find an armed Arab in Afghanistan there’s much doubt as to what he’s up to and why he’s there.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This reminds one of the Anglo-Irish War 1918-1920. Was the IRA a “terrorist” organzation
as the British thought they were because they didn’t wear the required uniform? Is your
problem with Al Qaeda the fact that don’t wear a “uniform” and they target U.S. troops
from civilian areas instead of lining up on the battlefield so they can get slaughtered
by U.S. firepower just as the IRA refused to do the same thing against British heavy
artilery? Are you upset because they won’t play dumb?
If Al Qaeda is merely just a terrorist organization why are we treating as a problem with
military solution? The RUC and Scotland Yard did the dirty work vs. the IRA in Northern
Ireland, not the British Army, they just protected civilians. You say we are at war yet you will not give Al Qaeda
nor the Taliban the status of an army. So why are we at war then against, if not an
army, but a criminal organization? Should not the police handle criminals? Should
not soldiers handle other soldiers?
Technically you may very well be right by the letter of the convention, but then don’t
go around saying we’re at war then if you do not wish to grant our enemies status
as soldiers. Unless you’re one of those big government types who talk about wars against
drugs, wars against poverty, wars against crime, wars against pornography, energy crisis
as the moral equivalent war and wars against terrorism, which you seem to be.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sean, you say, “Are you upset because they won’t play dumb?”
No. I just think we should kill them all. That’s not playing dumb, is it? I’m all for hard-headedness. But it’s a peculiar hard-headedness that evaluates al Qaeda using realist and pragmatic, even cynical principles, and demands that the US act like Marlborough at Waterloo.
I don’t expect them to play by the rules. But why then should we fight using the tactics and techniques and protections which al Qaeda has not earned by its behavior and which are only appropriate for nation-state opponents that follow the law of war.
We’re not using cops, because this enemy is overseas. It’s overseas but not a nation-state. It’s an enemy of unlawful combatants. It uses military means but lacks military honor and structure.
This calls for a military solution, even if police are the right tool at home on US soil (which they mostly are, in my opinion).
The law of war is self-enforcing. It’s enforced by reciprocal conformity by both sides, particularly if they anticipate fighting again some time in the future. There’s no good reason to give its protections to terrorists who should simply be wiped out. I wouldn’t, after all, want to be sentimental, just like the good ol’ IRA was never too sentimental about much of anything.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Simon Newman, dear what is your druthers,
the Sanhedrin? The Supremes at least have
rhythm. Chill. We’re all today between the
devil and the deep blue sea. With the Almighty
in the wings wondering if he ought to intercede?
If such exists? In the meantime the Supremes, and
I tend to like them even when I don’t agree, do
their best. REmember they gave it to the devil too
when they gave it to Bush. They’re pretty balanced.
I suspect your position is happier than you state.
You’re not an ingrate, are you?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Christopher Roach:
“and they also are a non-state actor which is a prerequisite to lawful combatant status.”
I recall from reading Geneva that it extends protection to guerilla/insurgent forces who wear uniforms or other identifying insignia. This might conceivably apply to some Taleban fighters.
I think the big problem though is one of identification; holding unlawful enemy combatants is fine, but holding men who might be innocent in indefinite detention is legally questionable.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Robert Borne:
“Simon Newman, dear what is your druthers, the Sanhedrin?”
No, I’m British, and not Jewish. God Save the Queen!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Christopher Roach,
First contradictions is that you are saying that the defendants of Al Quada want to have it both ways, military and civilian protections. But you contradict yourself by suggesting that they are neither military nor civilian. They have to be one or the other and either way they are protected by some form of law. Secondly, not all the individuals taken into custody are even Al queda but have still been denied access to any kind of cuort.
Third you seem to miss the larger point, that although we grant that they are not wearing uniforms, you clearly state that they are fighting us, not hear in the U.S. but in their own countries, at least some of the time. So they must then be at least permitted to fight an enemy who has attacked them illegaly by refusing to declare war by congress according to the rules of their own people, uniforms or not.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Al Qaeda sure has many advocates here.
They don’t get either civilian or military treatment. They are unlawful combatatns. They don’t get POW protections--which are variable even for otherwise legitimate combatants--and they certainly have no right to civilian trials. They can accordingly (a) be held for length of hostilities and (b) executed for the war crime of being an unlawful combatant and belonging to al Qaeda whenever we choose to have trials, so long as they are sometime before the end of hostilites or shortly thereafter.
So what if they’re denied access to a court? Not everyone gets a court? Not every right has a remedy? Some issues are nojusticiable? Some rights only apply to citizens or within national borders. You do realize that you don’t get a court on battlefield, do you? Your only process is kill or be killed and stick with your team and don’t look too much like the enemy or you’re dead. Not very fair, is it, but that’s war. You can slice combatants throats in their sleep, you know, and ther’es no requirement for “fear of one’s life” or exigency or necessity. That’s how it is. But no uniform, no chain of command, and no nation-state sponsor, you can be shot on site as an unlawful combatant. Read the Hostage Case from Nuremberg if you don’t believe me.
Our internal processes of declaring war or not are of no moment to whether a war is lawful and whether a group can deviate from the law of war. These guys don’t have a right to attack us, and we still have a right to kill them all until they surrender, with or without their adherence to the law of war.
You should just commit suicide if you have so little righteous indignation and sense of connectedness to your fellow citizens who were murdered by these al Qaeda scumbags.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
* . . . demands that the US act like Marlborough at Waterloo.*
Marlborough gets too much credit. He never would have prevailed at Waterloo had Grouchy not sat around while Prince Eugene rode to the sound of the guns. Or something like that. (If you get this, I apologize for being pedantic about your “thinko”; if you don’t, I suggest you look up your historical references.)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“No, I’m British, and not Jewish. God Save the Queen!”
-Simon Newman
Are you sure. Ok. I’ll take your word for it.
Speaking of the Queen, I hope each day she rises and goes
out to the bow of her balcony and exclaims with exuberance
and with joy: “I’M QUEEN OF THE WORLD.” ... just as does, I
hope the Australian Dame Edna. Oh dear don’t mind me, I’m
normal - I love and hate everyone equally.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You seem largely unfamiliar with the situation that exists in the various torture facilities that the U.S. government has set up around the world. There is nothing thate gives the U.S. the right to create a third category of combatant at their whim and then proceed to set forth a series of rules as they see fit. A series of rules and methods that they have not limited to either a.) non-citizens of the U.S., b.)individuals who haave committed a crime, C.) individuals who were intending to commit a crime. The tortuure facilities can just as easily be used on you or I or political opponents of the current government. Much like Lincoln’s imprisonment of the Maryland legislature. An individual does have the right to defend himself if attacked, especially if they have not committed any kind of crime. In Afghanistan there were whole villages wiped out with no connection to Al Queda. There are a number of U.S. military and law enforcement who object to the imprisonment and torture of the so-called enemy combatants. As far as I know the individuals who attacked my fellow citizens died in the attack on those same citizens with the exception of a few individuals. I do not see it as a crime for one to protect their home wether or not they are wearing a uniform. You said that having a gun makes on and enemy combatant. So do you own any guns? I guess you should be the one committing suicide since you seem to have little use for the constitution. It was this document that was discarded to spy on American citizens in the war on terror.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
And here is Christopher Roach, as usual arguing on the side of the police state.
“Al Qaeda sure has many advocates here. “
OOh and Al Qaeda baiting, the modern form of Red Bating.
Are you trying out for a job at Pajamas Media? Your opinions are almost uniform with theirs.
And I love how you shrug off the Padilla case as ‘complicated’.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I call them the way I see them.
Al Qaeda has more than 19 members.
The US did not create unlawful combatants, they’ve been around since the days of the Treaty of Westphalia, the Barbary Pirates, and the Boer War. You simply can’t fight on a battlefield and not be shot on site if you do not wear a uniform, openly carry arms, belong to a military organization with a chain of command that enforces the law of war, etc.
I don’t define my views by whether some people I often agree with disagree or vice versa. Any serious conservatism is concerned when Islamic fanatics murder 3,000 of our fellow citizens. Serious conservatives had little use for the PLO and other terrorists in the 70s and 80s. Not conservatives but nihilist leftist utter the ridiculous, relativist argument that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” But even if that is true on a certain level, so what, these are the enemy, and they’ve chosen to forfeit their rights to POW protection by violating every aspect of the law of war, starting with the 1993 WTC bombings, the 1998 US embassy bombings, the bombing of the USS Cole, the 9/11 attacks, and all the attacks overseas since then.
You claim innocents are killed and have been mistakenly captured. That’s probably true. I don’t really care. They’re not my countrymen, and I’d gladly sacrifice the rights of many tens of thousands of Arabs to keep America safe. But we’re hardly doing that, in fact, we’re erring on the side of too much leniency, as evidenced by the return of released GITMO prisoners to the battlefield.
Incidentally, the US has water-boarded under official sanction two or three people including Khalid Sheik Mohammad. I can’t say I’ve lost much sleep over that.
It is one thing to say, “This is dangerous because it could be used against me or people I love.” It’s quite another to get all misty-eyed over al Qaeda guys themselves, as if they’re the minutemen of Lexington and Concord.
I believe in my nation’s self-defense. I believe in conducting that defense justly. But the just desserts of those who voluntarily associate with al Qaeda are almost nonexistence, and any innocents caught up in the dragnet, well oh well, that’s war. It’s not any non-recent immigrant Americans getting caught up, so why should I care all that much about it. This is an incident of war; it’s unavoidable. And, frankly, we’ll continue to scoop up innocent Arabs so long as our intelligence gathering is so weak, which it is in part because of our lame interrogation procedures foisted upon our forces by the ACLU and the ACLU-loving maudling pacifists who’ve materialized in the last five years and call themselves conservatives.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I have zero use for Al Quada or the ACLU for that matter. What I do feel an affinity for is and are average American Citizens who are dying enlessly to pursue terrorists all over the globe. What bothers me most about torture is not that it is used on Arabs but that it is not limited and I am not sure that they are only the guinea pigs anyway. I am convinced that the torture, camps, suspension of habeus corpus, right to trial, attorney, etc is totally meant for us in the future. See China for how these tactics can and are used to control a dissatisfied populace. The war on terror is all about giving yet more unauthorized powers to the federal government. The first people that get targeted are terrorists, drug dealers, vagrants, and other criminals. The next are the politcial enemies of the elites. The strategy worked well in Nazi Germany as well. Very few made much complaint when the Jews were being hauled off to camps and those who did got to join them. The exact same thing is happening here in America. In the coming election we will be handing these police state tools of authoritarian control to an individual, who if not a black nationalist himself, at least has sympathies in that regard.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Tell me Mr. Roach, why do you write for a ‘Paleo’ site then? To be honest, I have yet to see one article from you that differs from the usual ‘movement’ conservative viewpoint.
You want to sacrifice the ‘rights of Arabs’ to keep Americans safe. You want to crack drug users skulls, because they are probably bad people anyway. You frequently use the terms ‘ours’ and ‘us’ when you’re referring to the US federal government. Do you believe the people of the US are synonymous with the government? To be sure, Al Qaeda does.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You seem like a roach - no not the bug
the end of a joint. Hope you enjoyed it?
come on - grow Up robert cohen - what did
Hemingway call it… the end of something.
You can do it - or become xian. they’ll help.
don’t bogart that joint my friend...pass it
over to me. come on! Stand Up straight
byatches. ? stand within the next question,
if you have dee cojones, senior?!
But don’t (for your knowledge) piss me off
anymore -
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The arguments Roach uses boil down to: if you are not American, or bend your knee to the thugocracy in DC, then you are “the Other”. You are not human in the sense that an American or American ally is, and are subject to demonization at the whim of our imperial masters. He cannot put himself in the shoes of the dreaded Other, and justifies anything and everything done to these long suffering people, labelling all as worthy of death in the name of his (un)Holy War on a Tactic (Terror). His emotional committment to said War, suggesting critics of human rights abuses cut their throats, and calling Al-Quada"scumbags", place him outside rational and decent discourse on this matter. He shares an unfortunate trait that I find among most of my brethren who support firearms ownership - a deep and unreflective worship of State authority - a perusal of any month’s gun mags will show one a total ly uncritical espousal of State power when used against anyone except gunowners (the writers never make the connection between these actions). Mores the pity with Roach, given his superb defense of gun owners in a proceeding article. Butler Shaffer at http://www.lewrockwell.com gives the best explanation of how the centgov uses the “Other” motif so as to dupe people such as Roach. The “Other” side is filled with Roaches, too.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think Chris Roaches only real claim to being a conservative is that liberals detest what he stands for, which I will grant. That said I don’t believe simply getting all liberals to dislike you a conservative makes. I may find common cause with liberals who are opposed to the treatment of the Gitmo detainees but it pretty much ends there for me. I see the liberals as much more of a danger to the average citizen as they round us up for their utopian fantasies using police state tactics that so-called conservatives put in place.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hats off to Mr. Roach yet again! I don’t know if you call yourself a paleoconservative
sir, but you prove that in order to qualify as such you don’t have a knee-jerk negative
reaction of bilious hatred to everything George W. Bush says and does. For some people
who comment here, there are no enemies *further left* than Bush. Any stick is good
enough to beat him with. To these people, it is more important to stop the “War on
Terror” than it is to stop terrorists. Even to say “death to Al-Queda” is, in their eyes,
an unjustifiable pledge of neocon ideology. Keep up the good fight!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The people who agree with the neo-thug
roach aren’t intelligent. I’m not sure
yet if Roach is intelligent and laughing
at them too? Probably. Look at his picture.
W. Bush and the neo-cons are criminals yet
beyond the ‘long’ arm of justice in this world today.
They are the actual terrorists even though granted
there are others [actually]. It’s presently (even being
on our side) 70 - 30 ... the 30 being the other actual
terrorists, not us.
This isn’t even open for discussion it’s a given like
we breathe air is a given - if you doubt it - hold your
breath for a few seconds before you understandably agree.
Roach should put the roach clip on his lips. He’s a fool
or a knave or both. Oh, what else is new...he’s a neocon.
STAMP him and his pathetic likes out...it can’t hurt
unless they see they’ve lost and do or assist another 9/11.
Look for that as well...the arrow in Emperor Julian’s chest
or today the bomb in your hat or worse CITY. scum is scum not
located to any given race, religion, creed, or color.
I love and hate all for example equally. But will I get an
award?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Even to say “death to Al-Queda” is, in their eyes,
an unjustifiable pledge of neocon ideology.”
Funny though, how “death to Al-Queda” extends so easily to “death to all Arabs”, and “death to all Persians”, or, hell, “death to all Muslims”.
I dont think its a ‘neocon’ thing. But the neocons know they can count on Neanderthal-like reactions to help their cause.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ah yes, poor George Bush, simply trying to apply settled legal principles honored by history and tradition . . . HA!
Perhaps if the Bush Administration had simply designated the Gitmo detainees as EPWs from the beginning, this would have been obviated.
Once the unitary executive theory began to gain currency among the sycophants and Vishinskiis in the DOJ, it was inevitable that there would be institutional pushback from the judiciary.
Where’s Padilla? He’s here, he’s there, he’s . . . well, ok, he’s not Savoir Faire. He’s in a brig, he’s in federal (civil) custody, all depending on the needs of the moment.
Maybe it’s because I’m a lawyer by training, but little things like “laws” matter. We are not at war. An AUMF is not a DOW. Thus, we are, if not at peace, certainly not at war.
This thin pretence, as well, that Gitmo qualifies as “overseas” and is somehow a place where the writ of US law does not run . . . well, it’s thin enough to see through. It is a US military base located on foreign soil pursuant to a long term lease. De facto, if not de jure, it’s the US.
Roach continually refers to Al Qaida and “Arabs”; I doubt that each and every individual Gitmo detainee is both a member of Al Qaida and an Arab. I seem to recall an Australian thrown into the lot. To the extent that any Gitmo detainees are citizens of Afghanistan and acted in service to the Taliban . . . its my opinion that EPW status should probably be granted. (The USG did, after all, conduct negotiations with the Talib government of Afghanistan, at least in the field of crop reductions.)
Roach is also untroubled by waterboarding. In this he displays an admirably Dirty Harry level understanding of smashing back. The reason the US and its armed forces do not torture is not because our opponents do not deserve it. (Should that have been the case, hey, Nuremburg would have been ankle deep in smashed bones.)
We do not torture because torturing is wrong.
That is the moral.
We do not torture because it is not a productive source of information.
That is the practical.
We do not torture because we object (and forcefully) when our servicemen are tortured. We do not torture because other regimes could then point to our actions and say “see the cool kids do it.”
That is the exemplary.
And we do not torture because it is a cancer which would metastizie throughout the armed forces, and because that would be very prejudicial to good military order and discipline.
I grieve that the buffoonish Bush administration has provoked this response from the High Nine. Treat captured members of Al Qaida and the Taliban as EPWs/POWs---it would have been a simple enough solution.
As a conservative, I detest “novel legal theories” and the Bush administration has been chock-full of them, generally to the detriment of the Constitution and the vital national interests of the American people.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ Tobias:
Oh, my, I have the vapors! Once more the party line gets trotted out: if you don’t support Bush, you are for the terrace.
The assault on the United States by Al Qaida was a heinous crime (analogous, if you’re of the “war” mentality, to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor).
The Bush administration has bungled every aspect of its response, from Homeland Security to the TSA, to the conduct of operations in Afghanistan and the monstrous diversion of resources that is Iraq.
Judged on his record of bringing to justice the organization which plotted and executed the 9/11 attack, George W. Bush has been an absolute failure
Lest you think I’m one of those “maudling (sic) pacifists” Roach references, I rather fancied a punitive expedition against Al Qaida, beginning in Afghanistan and if necessary continuing with fire and sword into the FATA.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Who said anything about supporting Bush, Kilted? All I asked for was for people to
cease engaging in silly stupid mechanical negative responses to everything he says and
does. You engaged in an irrational attack yourself:
“Judged on his record of bringing to justice the organization which plotted and executed the 9/11 attack, George W. Bush has been an absolute failure”
An absolute failure? THERE HAVE BEEN NO ATTACKS ON AMERICAN SOIL IN ALMOST SEVEN YEARS!!!
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF AL-QUEDA OPERATIVES IN PRISON, INCLUDING THE MAN WHO ACTUALLY
PLANNED THE ATTACKS, KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED. IF BUSH WERE THE “ABSOLUTE” FAILURE YOU
SPEAK OF, THEN WHY HAVE THERE BEEN NO FURTHER ATTACKS ON U.S. SOIL? WHY DO WE HAVE
KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED IN JAIL? WHY IS BUSH FIGHTING TO MAKE SURE THESE ILLEGAL ENEMY
COMBATANTS DO NOT USE OUR COURTS TO ESCAPE JUSTICE?
Engage in all the criticism you want, just lay off the irrational hyperbole.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Roach, the fact you would say “Marlborough at Waterloo” and “Al Qaeda has a lot of advocates”
here” shows you’re not a serious person to have a discussion or debate with, much less
an argument. I would expect such comments from Jonah Goldberg, not anyone who writes for
Takimag.com. Please take your act to Frontpagemag.com with the other alleged
ex-communists and radicals that work for it.
All I wish to see is Al Qaeda members be treated as standard prisoners of war, no more
no less so that we don’t have their membership filing cases in civilian court. Had we
done this, we would not be having this discussion and no one would be talking about
closing Gitmo. I have not advocated this. As I said, I wish to have a clear definition
of the prisoners’ status. But the neocons, nationalists and other
statists became so obbsessed over terms like “enemy combatants”, “nation state” “laws of
war” and, in your case, “uniforms”, that we refused to put the prisoners at Gitmo into
the clear military sphere as prisoners of war. We now face the prospect of our civilian
courts being clogged with habeous corpus cases because the Supreme Court did what the
Administration refused to do for the past seven years, clarify their status. Only they
did so as civilian prisoners no different than one finds in U.S. jails. Thanks for nothing guys!
You still have not answered my question whether we are at war or not. You say we are at war
and yet you wish to treat the enemy them like terrorists instead of soldiers. Terrorists
are common criminals, not soldiers and thus one needs a different response than a nation
that was actually at war would give. By your standards, if an Al Qaeda safehouse was found
in a residential neighborhood here in the U.S., being at war, would you not call in an
airstrike? In the real world when this happens, the FBI, the domestic police force is called. It limits the collateral damage (in most cases but don’t tell that to Randy Weaver or those burned alive at Waco). If the enemy happens to be overseas or is holding hostages, then paramilitary
and covert op forces used by intelligence agencies are used to eliminated them. Perhaps
if we were doing this right now in Afghanistan and Pakistan and instead bombing villages
and creating more terrorists through napalm and shrapnel showers, then maybe Osama and
his cohorts would be dead right now. In fact you haven’t even mentioned Ron Paul’s
favorite solution (and one that does have some practical application given all the priavte warriors
and military organizations out there now) and that’s letters of marque and reprisal. It’s
legal, constitutional and may have well been more effective than nation building,
feminist and homosexual liberation and poppy crop destroying.
To sum it up, you wish to act like the “nation-state” is at war rather than be serious
about it. If this country was serious about the war, then there would be a Declaration of War,
there would be a draft, the country would be on a war footing and we wouldn’t be attending
NASCAR races on the weekend because would be conserving food and fuel. This is how our
republic went to war in the past. Since we’ve become an empire, we use the same rubber
stamp Congressional resolutions they use to declare National Artichoke Day to send
soldiers to die in “police actions.” I agree that war is far sexier than trying to deal with terrorists as a legal problem. Or maybe 9-11 to you isn’t quite the horrible (and very much avoidable)tragedy
as much as it is the humiliating punch in the nads you’re still smarting over because
you couldn’t believe the “camel jockies” were capable of doing something like this. Oh, but they were, and the sad thing we let them do it. After that came the deluge, the attempts to establish the total state by
people like you which we are only now beginning to recover from.
Mr Spencer I request that Mr. Roach’s posting prviliges be revoked so that he can ply
his trade to a more recpetive audience, like the monkeys at the zoo.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I disagree, Sean Scallon. I don’t agree with everything he writes, but Mr. Roach is a great poster and he adds a much-needed perspective to a movement too dominated by the Lew Rockwell crowd and opposition to the state for its own sake. His type of conservatism is the kind that can reach Francis’ MARs, and in fact he seems to be the one here most willing and able to reach them.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Are the American soldiers in Iraq lawful combatants because they wear uniforms? Even if the war against the Iraqis started without any lawful, legal base? Are the private contractors in Iraq who kills armed and unarmed Iraqis lawful combatants even if they are not in uniform of any national army? What makes someone lawful or unlawful combatant? The lawfulness of the cause or the power of the most powerful? Are the Palestinians lawful or unlawful combatants? Must be unlawful because there is not a national army, not even uniforms. And what about the killings of the secret services: are lawful or unlawful? Can somebody explain it to me please? I am so confused.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
State power is a Tolkein ring. It corrupts all who wear it. We need to throw the damn thin in the volcano, not use it as a weapon against something or someone.
Costa Rica even got rid of their entire army, and they’re doing great.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
MacGarr:
“I don’t agree with everything he writes, but Mr. Roach is a great poster and he adds a much-needed perspective to a movement too dominated by the Lew Rockwell crowd and opposition to the state for its own sake.”
I agree on both points.
Marius - per Geneva a ‘lawful combatant’ isn’t defined by the justice of their cause. It’s all about separating civilian from military; if you wear identifying insignia and carry arms openly you’re lawful. Not wearing a uniform/insignia gives practical advantages for insurgent and terrorist forces but takes them outside Geneva protection.
However, in the ‘Global War on Terror’ the big problem is identification. Geneva is clear about unlawful combatants captured on the battlefield, but doesn’t address the status of eg Al Qaeda financiers. I think civilian law enforcement is generally more appropriate, though I can appreciate the difficulties. The British used almost exclusively civilian criminal law against the IRA, who killed rather more people than Al Qaeda has killed Americans, so far. It’s not as effective at directly eliminating the enemy but it did help to prevent the IRA from mobilising the Irish nationalist population; executing captured IRA men would have been more likely to spark a civil war.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Let us look at the consequences of Roach’s bloodthirstyness in an America coming to us soon. 1. Foreigners who have suffered from the US military coming to this country both legally and otherwise who are now bent on the highest possible revenge. 2. American torturers who learned their professions at the scores of American gulags around the world. They will likely filter into jobs in the police and prisons, further dehumanizing those environments. 3. Veterans whose lives have been shattered by what they have seen and done, who will destroy themselves with drink or drugs, and are likely to harm family members and neighbors. 4. The Frankenstein monsters who will take their military training back to their gangs and render urban areas off-limits. If Taki established this website to combat “sofa samurai’, why is Roach paid to write articles here?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ Tobias:
Nice use of caps-lock, too. Nothing says “reasoned argument” LIKE CAPS LOCK!
I used the term absolute failure advisedly.
The Bush administration shifted its focus to a Rumsfeldian transformist approach---SF on horseback, laser guided missiles, and heavy subsidies to various Afghan factions.
If you read any Afghan history, the concept that Afghan loyalty is fluid will not be surprising.
Operation Anaconda allowed the core elements of Al Qaida to decamp, mostly unscathed.
Remember Bush’s comment about not caring much about OBL?
Remember the comments that going into Iraq wouldn’t be a distraction from the hunt for OBL?
Consider the relative popularity of Al Qaida in the Arab/Muslim world now, and the equivalent in late 2001.
Why is KSM in prison? Why hasn’t there been a military trial followed by a first class hanging?
No further attacks on US soil? Good gracious, man, that’s like saying Clinton did a bang-up job on Al Qaida, since after the original attacks on the WTC there were no more attacks on US soil during his presidency.
As to supporting Bush, I guess I was fooled by your comments about a “knee-jerk negative
reaction of bilious hatred to everything George W. Bush says and does. “
But hey, I could be wrong.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Simon
I don’t think we can blame Christopher for the assault on western values that has occurred during the reign of Bush and his thugs, but his defence of what has happened at Guantanamo is inexcusible and makes a total mockery of his claim to be a conservative. As you correctly point out, there will be a very high price to be paid for America’s descent to barbarism, and unfortunately much of that price will be borne by ordinary Americans.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
One can be rational while using CAPS LOCK, just as one can be irrational while using
uncials. From what I said, and is true, there is no reason to say that the failure has
been “absolute.” An “absolute” failure would have resulted in more bombings. Why
hasn’t there been a trial and a hanging of KSM? Probably because stupid leftists on the
bench and in D.C. won’t let Bush do it. THAT (caps again) is what Roach wrote about here.
And Bush TRIED (caps again) to prevent the courts from meddling in the execution of
justice. And a whole bunch of people posted here to bash Bush when Roach was defending
a practice (trials and hangings) you apparently agree with. And I was opposing people
who opposed that policy—military trials and hangings—that you agree with. You
see? Stupid knee-jerk mechanical negative responses. There are people who instead of
looking at the situation and saying, “Is Bush right on this,” say, “Now just wait a
damned minute, that Dubya guy just CAN’T (caps again) be right. If he’s right, then
that just vindicates the NEOCONS (caps again). And you can always get to the truth
by doing a 180 on anything they say.”
As for Clinton, the first WTC attacks were failures, followed later by a successful one.
My guess is that Al-Q. has been more adamant than ever to repeat another successful attack on the
U.S. since 2001 in order to demoralize us. And for seven years, they’ve failed. If
Bush were an “absolute” failure, they would have succeeded. If there is another successful
attack on our soil in the near future, then you will have the satisfaction of being
right about Bush being an “absolute failure.”
About Osama Bin Laden. I am not so worried about him either. Yes, I want him brought
to justice. But there are worse things than the present scenario. There are any number
of possibilities which we just can’t know simply because we are not given Top Secret
security clearance. This would be true whether Bush or anyone else was president.
Imagine if we had a mole in Bin Laden’s camp, like a courier. Then we would have a way
to trace all communications in and out of his cave. Would it be better to swoop in and
arrest him, or let him hang on? If we kill him in such an instance, then all of the other
Al-Q. operatives around the world just change their m.o.’s. A younger leader takes over
elsewhere, possibly in a country not allied to us. If we keep him alive in his cave,
we read all the transmissions in and out. We get a bird’s eye view of the global
operations. This may be a case where you don’t want to take out the head of the snake,
because “snake” is the wrong analogy. Now, that’s just a potential scenario, and I
have no idea if it’s true or not. I do know that the primary problem is the sleeper
cells around the world, not so much the front man of the operation. And KSM had some
control of the sleeper cells. So Bush’s comment may have been alright.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
And about Al.-Q.’s increased popularity—they can be the most popular figures in the
Mohammedan world for all I care, so long as they don’t come here and bomb us, or our
allies. Let him become the next Che Guevara of stupid t-shirts worn by sullen
malcontents, as long as the sullen malcontents can’t fly planes into our buildings. And
despite his rising popularity there haven’t been any bombings on American soil. As for
Iraq, that is another story that would require more argument to say the least.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Tobias,
So there hasn’t been an attack on U.S. soil in seven years? There have been attacks on Americans overseas in Iraq, London, Madrid, and Bali. If Bush’s foreign policy were Ron Paul’s then I would call it a success, but instead of spending nothing fighting a war on Terror overseas Bush has bankrupted the country to hand out government money to his buddies while spending considerably less to simply defend our borders would have done just as well. Bush is awfully tight with the Saudis who supplied most of the terrorists and recently he has sold weapons to them as well.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
First, I was not aware that the London and Madrid attacks were attacks on America.
I thought they were attacks on those countries, which I’m sure the citizens of those
countries will tell you.
Secondly, you seem to regard the fact that our soil has not been attacked by al-Queda
as irrelevant to this discussion. When Bush is responsible for a very good thing, that
good thing suddenly becomes bad or irrelevant.
As for Bush’s other failings—I was not defending the position, “Bush has done a good
job” or “Bush has done a perfect job.” I was attacking the position, “Bush has been an
*absolute failure.*” This can only be true if he could have done nothing worse than what
he’s done. Well, Bush could have closed Gitmo, which would have been much worse. He
could have given those terrorists access to our courts, which he tried to prevent. He
could have permitted any number of attacks on American soil since September 11. There
are all sorts of things that Bush could have done worse, and far worse. So no, whatever
else he failed in, his failure has not been “absolute.” I do not know how I could
possibly make my position more clear. But to say any sentence that does not end with the
sentiment “Bush is always and ever wrong in everything” is enough to provoke a vehement
response from any number of commenters on this blog. It is absolutely verboten to
insinuate that he has taken a proper position on *anything* even accidentally. That is
all Mr. Roach said here—the Supreme Court made a bad decision, the position that Pres.
Bush made (and Bush making the case is *irrelevant* to its rectitude) was correct.
Period. But this is problematic for some. Which is irrationality on their part. The
two statements, “Bush is wrong on a great deal of things” and “A number of criticisms
of Bush are not valid” are perfectly compatible. A rational critic of Bush cannot be
dismayed by the fact that some of his policies are correct, or by defense of these
correct policies against irrational critics. A number of anti-war critics seem to think
that their sole principle is to defy pro-war people. It is not enough to disagree with
the argument, but one must disagree with every last premise and inference, even the
correct ones.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks Simon Newman, rather I would like to understand; when a war is unlawful, illegal,like the war in Iraq, in that case are the American soldiers lawful or unlawful combatants? And what about the private contractors, the mercenaries,whom number is even higher than the army’s,are they lawful or unlawful combatants?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
So-called “illegal” wars do not make combatants unlawful. They may make political authorities liable--as in the crime of “aggressive war” at Nuremberg--but combatants are judged by their acts as combatants: carrying arms openly, wearing uniforms, following the law of war as it relates to their own conduct, and having systems in place to punish those who violate the law of war in their own ranks. Al Qaeda has none of these things, the US has all of them.
Contractors are in a tough spot. If they’re DOD contractors, they’re allowed arms in self-defense but are supposed to be clearly distinguished from combatants by, for example, not wearing uniforms, and are not supposed to take place in offensive operations.
Here’s a good one on the necessity of uniforms, which might seem passe, but that’s why Americans are scared of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, in both nations the enemy pretends to be one which leads to increased tension and hostility all around:
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5ZBE5X
As for Blackwater operators, the’re technically under control of Iraqi Government in this case. They’re not supposed to be combatants but “protective details.” It’s admittedly a grey area.
Here’s an article if you’re genuinely curious:
http://www.asil.org/insights/2007/12/insights071226.html
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Roach, after your previous postings you can sit at your keyboard and type in “laws of war” without being struck by a bolt of lightning? Fallujah, where barbed wire was used to keep the residents in until US forces flattened the city, causing a death toll that has not yet been tabulated? Oh, yes, we warned the residents to get out of their town upon pain of death. Are you defending Hama rules once again? Where were they to go, to your residence? How about the sick, the weak, the injured, the elderly, the young? How about using area weapons such as bombs, missiles, and C-130 Spectre gunships in heavily populated areas, causing scores of civilian deaths because of faulty intel or having an occupation patrol come under fire? Oh, yes, the lives of a few hundred Iraqi civilians mean nothing when the occupier feels threatened. How about the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure so as to cow the populace? It’s not the horrible anti-war nuts, libertarians, and free-market anarchists who are naive, Mr. Glass Parking Lot. You exude naivate from your pores. You were lied into supportign the invasion of a country that has never bothered us, was incapable of harming us, and was andi is suffering from our genocidal policies. The non-Beltway crowd has been blued, screwed, and tatooed by the Politburo on the Potomac, and for recognizing it we are naive while blinded hyper-nationalists like Roach bloviate about how he love his fellow countrymen? To which law of war in your manichean world do you refer?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
There were basically no civilians in Fallujah when we attacked. We pamphleted it for weeks and set up refugee camps outside the perimeter. The city and its elders brought it on themselves. The law of war I refer to is the one that’s written down in books...not the one that changes whenever liberals want to hog-tie our forces.
“How about the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure so as to cow the populace” Sounds right to me.
“Politburo on the Potomoc.” You are getting extremely unhinged. Perhaps you should go to moveon.org, they like that sorta talk there.
Setting aside whether even being in Iraq makes sense strategically, there is no doubt that our enemies there mostly deserve to die and their cause--oppressing their neighbors and killing westerners in the name of Islam--is unjust. Operation Phantom Fury was brilliant and justified revenge for the brutal killing of Four Americans who were ambushed while delivering food and supplies for an NGO on March of 2004.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
There were thousands of civilians left in Fallujah, Mr. Roach, many in the categories I described above. But you stated in your response that however many of the Iraqi died as a result of our attack are justified by your lust for revenge for the dead armed contractors. So you are glad that US forces play by Hama rules. Deliberate destruction of civilian infrastucture is on the rule books, or like the liberals you liken me to do you just pick and choose what rules the US military are governed by? Yes, Mr. Roach, when the District of Criminals orders war genocide, makes abortion a nationwide secular sacrament, makes normal people tax slaves, and infringes my gun rights, yes, indeed, it is the Politburo on the Potomec. Sorry, the folks at moveon.org would not like my company to much - I try to be a Christian free-market anarchist (in order of importance), so you are wrong again. Glad you were appointed God sometime in the past so that you can now determine who should live and who should die. You missed your calling, Mr. Roach - you would have made a wonderful enforcer for Pol Pot. I am in awe of your bald admission that you encourage genocide.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You know they’re civilians, I guess, because they don’t wear uniforms, those silly things. Take an AK off a dead insurgent and what do you have: to a naif like you, a poor innocent dead civilian.
I know the government often bends the truth. Do you know that our enemies do too?
Fallujah sucked, it was a hotbed of insurgent activity, and I’ve seen enough raw combat footage, underground photos, crap on liveleak, and talked to enough participants to know the city was deserted but for insurgents. It was a beautiful thing: bad guys plus a free fire zone and more than enough ammo, AT-4s, M1 tanks, and 81mm mortars to go around.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Interesting post, but you can’t expect the Supreme Court to hear every detainee case. Under the US Constitution they have a duty to review the appeal of every conviction except of the President or Vice President by the Senate.
If they didn’t pass the baton to District courts they would have been swamped.
On a side note Mr. Roach you seem to be way more neoconservative than you might realize. For the freedoms we liberty seeking classical conservatives desire we must have a strong, fair, and impartial judiciary to maintain them.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr Roach, try to get other sources for your information than embedded reporters, US military snuff films and other such. Of course the destroyers of Fallujah would give you the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That’s why s many non-embeds were allowed unfettered access. And the occupiers have never ever admitted to planting weapons on bodies and claiming coup on those horrible people fighting for their homes. I do find it amusing to have a whippersnapper stooge for the Empire call me a naif - at least you didn’t accuse me of hobnobbing with Ethe McCainiac or the Obamanation. There has been too much outside corroberation of the Iraqis’ claims of genocide from not only US sources but also European ones. You take an extraordinary delight in the death and suffering of your enemies, Mr. Roach. Perhaps it is just schtick done in poor taste, given your level of maturity. When you grow up one day, if the PC police have not sent you for the water cure at Gitmo, you will engage in a bit more reflection.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I don’t think a guy named after some wicca novel character should give me lessons on maturity. I’m not exactly a child either, but thanks for the compliment. It must be all the venting, it keeps one young.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It was a beautiful thing: bad guys plus a free fire zone and more than enough ammo, AT-4s, M1 tanks, and 81mm mortars to go around.
Sounds like it was lifted out of SOF. Was my favorite mag for around 20 years, until I noticed the auhtors weree selling out their old combat buddies in various third-world hell holes, mid ‘90’s. Amazing what cable and printed war-porn can do for a young man’s intellectual development. Mr. Roach, you are such a japester. ST
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Roach, I am almost as impressed with your knowledge of my name’s origin as I am by your shining stand on the issue of gun ownership, Google or no Google. I had a searing series of experiences perhaps even more unusual than the novel’s protagist because mine were true. You are somewhat off about the wiccan part but close enough for horseshoes (and just for you, hand grenades). The first few pages of the first episode have stayed with me for mor than 40 years, but only recently has their relevance to my life made themselves apparent. Perhaps you are more bloodyminded than bloodthirsty. Look me up if you are ever in the NYC metro area and we can go shooting at a 25 yard range that can handle .375 and up (far too loud for the ports and other customers). Any one of my modest collecttion of pump 12 ga’s is bothersome several ports to either side, handgun probably most courteous Freedom. ST
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Curious how they sold out their buddies?
SOF is true war porn, but where else are we going to find out what’s going on in Africa and Central America?
Thanks for the offer. I may support a punitive war, but I know to hedge and keep my powder dry, as I’m sure you can imagine. I always have at least 5.56 insurance policies.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I had the originals or copies of the originals of the first 2,3 score issues. Oh Brown and co. were boon companion to the freedom fighters of the world (for the most part anti-com indigs, Rhodesians under Smith, beleaguered S africa pre-Mandela, you get the picture). Then as the Cold War, thank the Lord, ended I noticed as subtle shift in the reporting. For example, Savimbi was given increasingly neutral coverage and SOF was very matter of fact about their old S African buddies signing on to SA merc companies engaged by Luanda to track down and destroy Savimbi. Savimbi’s ambush and death (abetted by CIA sigint) was reported in a very off-hand way, with graphic pictures of course, of old Jonah’s body. Then I remembered the numerous Company connections claimed by SOF’s staff, management and reporters, the fact that Langely had disowned and cut off Savimbi because of DC’s cozying up to dos Santos (must have the oil, don’t you know, and keep Jesse Jackson out of our hair)as well as the ruinous lawsuit Brown was hit with regarding the imfamous hit man classified (can you imagine the NYTimes filing an amicus on behalf of SOF Seems they were sensitive to the 1st Amendment assault, such delicious irony. Gave my collection away close to a decade ago - must ask my fellow nutter if he still has them. Became tired of the ed board’s slavish adherance to the latest DC party line, but needs must when the devil drives. Antiwar.com has the best foreign coverage as well as aljezeera, try what they say when it does not directly involve US. Stratfor blew it too many times for me, especially with their mid east coverage. George whats-his-name isn’t the maven he thinks he is. Lind’s site is excellent re: 4th gen, has some real pros contributing. Get Kokalis and less occult writers over at Shotgun News for some gems on guns and history. 556,eh? Nasty effect on unarmored torso out to about 150 to 200,but like a 22 lr after that and even at close range (brother Kokalis again). Do you know that the right load in a longer barrel will stay supersonic after 900? Again great accuracy but methinks you are looking for self defense.Cose in I would want a shotgun out to 25 or so, what do you think of more cartridge up to 30-06? I know we must be discreet on these emails, but you can’t go wrong with 308’s versatility. Used to roll my own (handgun, rifle, never shotgun) too many moves not enough time.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks Mr Roach for the links about the statuses of lawful and unlawful combatants in an armed conflict,it was helpful.But I would like to raise the case of the terrorists and terror organizations. Terrorism is not an ideology but a tactic of warfare, usually used in what it’s called an asymmetric war; the weak against the strong. The weakest past gonna use out all the means possible that can hurt the strong.Terror comes out from the inequality of the means in disposal Mr Roach. It is possible to imagine Al Queda members wearing uniforms or any other insignia clearly making them identifiable as such? I don’t think so. They have interest to melt in the population, keeping a low profile. They are intelligent.You know! Never less,they are engaged in a war, in a real war, an unconventional war and even if we don’t like there methods, we have to treat them as POW in the case that we capture them. As I said, terror is a tactic, it is what is available for those lacking the necessary means to there cause, whatever that cause may be.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.