Proud to be an American?

Jun 18, 2008

—

Warning: this content is older than 365 days. It may be out of date and no longer relevant.

Image by denmar via Flickr

Proud to be an American?

Today’s CNN front page story? A group of physicians ascertained that America committed war crimes by subjecting prisoners to torture, from electric shocks to beatings to sodomy.

“There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes. The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account.” – retired U.S. Major Gen. Antonio Taguba

It’s difficult to be proud to be an American when you realize that you are the bad guys. If life were a movie, we’d be the villains. Yes, we started out fighting evil people like Osama Bin Laden, who made it no secret that they sought our destruction, that they wanted and still want to kill as many innocents as possible.

When I was growing up, Superman was still popular. Truth, justice, and the American way – all things good, all things worth fighting for.

But we’ve lost our way. Literally.

I wonder if Superman would ever repudiate the American way. Truth, justice, and… ?

How do we fix this? An apology would be a start, followed by holding accountable the commander in chief of the United States military for war crimes committed at Abu Ghraib. After all, it happened on his watch, by his order, and ultimately, he is responsible.

War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:

Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health – guilty.
2. Torture or inhumane treatment – guilty.
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property – guilty.
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial – guilty.
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer – guilty.
7. Taking hostages

The United States – our country, my country, is guilty of 5 of the 7 major war crimes established under the Geneva Convention and the International Criminal Court. The leader of a nation and commander of the military that is responsible for the commission of war crimes must be held accountable.

Will that ever happen? I doubt it – and until it does, we’re still the bad guys.

“Loyalty to my country? Always. Loyalty to the government? Only when it deserves it.” – Mark Twain

Did you enjoy this blog post? If so, please subscribe right now!

Get this and other great articles from the source at www.ChristopherSPenn.com

Comments

32 responses to “Proud to be an American?”

Mickey Dean

June 18, 2008

very well stated.

one thing. the article stated that prisoners were threatened with action against their families. that makes the prisoners also hostages.

6 out of a possible 7.

Third Reich Lite.

Reply
Mickey Dean

June 18, 2008

very well stated.

one thing. the article stated that prisoners were threatened with action against their families. that makes the prisoners also hostages.

6 out of a possible 7.

Third Reich Lite.

Reply
Hugh

June 18, 2008

The “prisoners” are not combatants from another country or military power. They are terrorist. They do not play by rules.
Remember the video of the cutting (not chopping) the head of certain individuals and the sound it made?
Remember them flying a couple of large air craft in to a tall building or something like that.
I think some people may have been hurt when they did that.
The Geneva Convention does not apply to them.

We need to get as mean as them.
If you have a terrorist in custody and they know where an explosive is and when it will detonate and there is 100 percent chance that 400 children will die in the explosion….
Do you torture him to get the answer to the location?
Or do you ask him politely of cake and coffee if he would be kind enough to tell you?

Please…the soft belly Americans better wake up….

This is not a game with rules…

Reply
Hugh

June 18, 2008

The “prisoners” are not combatants from another country or military power. They are terrorist. They do not play by rules.
Remember the video of the cutting (not chopping) the head of certain individuals and the sound it made?
Remember them flying a couple of large air craft in to a tall building or something like that.
I think some people may have been hurt when they did that.
The Geneva Convention does not apply to them.

We need to get as mean as them.
If you have a terrorist in custody and they know where an explosive is and when it will detonate and there is 100 percent chance that 400 children will die in the explosion….
Do you torture him to get the answer to the location?
Or do you ask him politely of cake and coffee if he would be kind enough to tell you?

Please…the soft belly Americans better wake up….

This is not a game with rules…

Reply
Anonymous

June 18, 2008

Wow, am I releived to read your take on this. I went to Jonathan Turley’s website and the hate-mongers commenting over there made my stomach turn. I’m with you, I want some accountabilty. I have never been more ashamed of my country.

Reply
FastMovingCloud

June 18, 2008

Wow, am I releived to read your take on this. I went to Jonathan Turley’s website and the hate-mongers commenting over there made my stomach turn. I’m with you, I want some accountabilty. I have never been more ashamed of my country.

Reply
Proud American

June 18, 2008

So, we are going to base our contention that “There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes” upon the statements of those who have an axe to grind against this country. That terrorists have become the fountain of truth and that their word is beyond question is the most incredulous leap that I have ever seen. I am an American, a veteran, and have served my country in the best of times and the worst of times. Never, never, will I ever repudiate the “American Way”. Although we have travelled down some roads that I feel we should not have travelled, we still must protect this nation from those that would do us harm. I was in NYC on 9/11. I saw the people jumping from those buildings. If some of these people get a little ruffed up trying to gather information to prevent another 9/11, so be it. Do you think that they would be worried about how you felt if you were in their clutches. Absolutely not! They would be trying to figure out who was going to cut off your head. So if the next time they get the opportunity to kill Americans, would it be alright that you or your family be the intended victims? I am assuming the answer in “no”, but by allowing this type of agenda to move forward and preaching from your pulpit you would endanger the lives of others. Do I agree with torture? Absolutely not. Do I agree that this government has possibly acted in ways that are not civilized? I do. Do I care that terrorists have been humiliated in order to gather information? Not in the least.

Reply
Proud American

June 18, 2008

So, we are going to base our contention that “There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes” upon the statements of those who have an axe to grind against this country. That terrorists have become the fountain of truth and that their word is beyond question is the most incredulous leap that I have ever seen. I am an American, a veteran, and have served my country in the best of times and the worst of times. Never, never, will I ever repudiate the “American Way”. Although we have travelled down some roads that I feel we should not have travelled, we still must protect this nation from those that would do us harm. I was in NYC on 9/11. I saw the people jumping from those buildings. If some of these people get a little ruffed up trying to gather information to prevent another 9/11, so be it. Do you think that they would be worried about how you felt if you were in their clutches. Absolutely not! They would be trying to figure out who was going to cut off your head. So if the next time they get the opportunity to kill Americans, would it be alright that you or your family be the intended victims? I am assuming the answer in “no”, but by allowing this type of agenda to move forward and preaching from your pulpit you would endanger the lives of others. Do I agree with torture? Absolutely not. Do I agree that this government has possibly acted in ways that are not civilized? I do. Do I care that terrorists have been humiliated in order to gather information? Not in the least.

Reply
Matt

June 18, 2008

Fast moving cloud, you have no clue what you are talking about. By your rationale it is ok to torture and detain people because they MIGHT know something. How is torturing them for information at GITMO going to get us that bomb. It is a half world away and this torture is/was taking place months/years after they were kidnapped. Look at Ghosts of Abu Graib on HBO. You might learn something. American soldiers have detained/kidnapped and imprisoned children in an effort to curb terrorism! It is these exact actions, along with severe unemployment in many middle eastern countries that lead to terrorism. In fact much of it is actually revolutionary fighting. If another country’s army dropped into America because of a few American terrorists and they came door to door, you can be sure that we Americans would be fighting back at every opportunity, so how can you blame them for doing the same? Think for yourself and stop watching the FOX news.

Reply
Matt

June 18, 2008

Fast moving cloud, you have no clue what you are talking about. By your rationale it is ok to torture and detain people because they MIGHT know something. How is torturing them for information at GITMO going to get us that bomb. It is a half world away and this torture is/was taking place months/years after they were kidnapped. Look at Ghosts of Abu Graib on HBO. You might learn something. American soldiers have detained/kidnapped and imprisoned children in an effort to curb terrorism! It is these exact actions, along with severe unemployment in many middle eastern countries that lead to terrorism. In fact much of it is actually revolutionary fighting. If another country’s army dropped into America because of a few American terrorists and they came door to door, you can be sure that we Americans would be fighting back at every opportunity, so how can you blame them for doing the same? Think for yourself and stop watching the FOX news.

Reply
Matt

June 18, 2008

Sorry, I think I meant Hugh’s comment. ; ( I was wondering how someone using the name fast moving cloud had those type of opinions.) My bad.

Reply
Matt

June 18, 2008

Sorry, I think I meant Hugh’s comment. ; ( I was wondering how someone using the name fast moving cloud had those type of opinions.) My bad.

Reply
Christopher S. Penn

June 18, 2008

Hugh-

You’re right to say that terrorists do not play by the rules. Terrorists do not owe allegiance to any nation. And they do need to be treated differently, at least in the sense of jurisdiction.

However…

The war crimes the United States is accused of are crimes against lawful combatants – Iraqi military and militants – in an unlawful invasion of a sovereign nation with no ties to terror. Saddam Hussein had no interest in terrorism, and our various pretexts for invasion had nothing to do with truth or justice.

The abuses that occurred were at Guantanemo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Of those abused, none were convicted of terrorism. Zero. Further, Abu Ghraib was a military prison in a sovereign nation that we invaded during a regular military action, and thus would be wholly subject to the Geneva Convention. For what it’s worth, Iraq ratified the Geneva Convention in 1956, one year after the United States, and therefore both countries were required by treaty to obey it.

If Osama Bin Laden were sitting in my office with knowledge of a bomb he’d planted, damn right I’d get out the pliers, razors, and tabasco. But he’s not, and the people we captured in our invasion were not terrorists.

The most disturbing comment you made though, was this – we need to get as mean as them.

No, we don’t. What separates us as potentially good guys, what separated us in the past from those who perpetrated evil acts on the world, was precisely the refusal to do anything in the name of the crisis of the day.

Should we have an effective military? Absolutely. We should have a Leviathan military that shoots with deadly precision. Should we use force to protect ourselves? Absolutely. To not be willing to wage war would greatly endanger our security.

Should we violate our principles, morals, and ethics for political expediency?

That depends on whether you believe in an American way or not. The America I grew up in, the America that Superman defended, the America that the world respected and loved – that America would not.

Reply
Black Maltese

June 18, 2008

Chris you’re full of it. You even refused to show my comment, here’s another for you, all this liberal government bashing, if over 100,000 working Amercans that represent the Pentagon, the CIA, the DIA all provide an opinion upon which the President must make a desision on behalf of this country, popular or not, to invade, to detain, to basically to uphold the Article 3 of the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution – to provide for the common defense – yes – this is what we set up a federal government for in the first place (I can say this because my family participated in it), and you who gather information only from the media have nothing better to do than act as if you are privy to intellegence that 99.99% of Americans are not (what makes these individuals bad). That’s the problem, too many Americans like you were sitting in their government offices under the President before Mr. Bush, waiting for the terroists to arrive and (as you say) sit in their offices, and guess what – they did. Hear that sound? Its the Americans that jumped out of WT I and II hitting the awnings, don’t forget it. Our National symbol is an eagle- for a reason.

Reply
Black Maltese

June 18, 2008

Chris you’re full of it. You even refused to show my comment, here’s another for you, all this liberal government bashing, if over 100,000 working Amercans that represent the Pentagon, the CIA, the DIA all provide an opinion upon which the President must make a desision on behalf of this country, popular or not, to invade, to detain, to basically to uphold the Article 3 of the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution – to provide for the common defense – yes – this is what we set up a federal government for in the first place (I can say this because my family participated in it), and you who gather information only from the media have nothing better to do than act as if you are privy to intellegence that 99.99% of Americans are not (what makes these individuals bad). That’s the problem, too many Americans like you were sitting in their government offices under the President before Mr. Bush, waiting for the terroists to arrive and (as you say) sit in their offices, and guess what – they did. Hear that sound? Its the Americans that jumped out of WT I and II hitting the awnings, don’t forget it. Our National symbol is an eagle- for a reason.

Reply
Christopher S. Penn

June 18, 2008

Hugh-

You’re right to say that terrorists do not play by the rules. Terrorists do not owe allegiance to any nation. And they do need to be treated differently, at least in the sense of jurisdiction.

However…

The war crimes the United States is accused of are crimes against lawful combatants – Iraqi military and militants – in an unlawful invasion of a sovereign nation with no ties to terror. Saddam Hussein had no interest in terrorism, and our various pretexts for invasion had nothing to do with truth or justice.

The abuses that occurred were at Guantanemo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Of those abused, none were convicted of terrorism. Zero. Further, Abu Ghraib was a military prison in a sovereign nation that we invaded during a regular military action, and thus would be wholly subject to the Geneva Convention. For what it’s worth, Iraq ratified the Geneva Convention in 1956, one year after the United States, and therefore both countries were required by treaty to obey it.

If Osama Bin Laden were sitting in my office with knowledge of a bomb he’d planted, damn right I’d get out the pliers, razors, and tabasco. But he’s not, and the people we captured in our invasion were not terrorists.

The most disturbing comment you made though, was this – we need to get as mean as them.

No, we don’t. What separates us as potentially good guys, what separated us in the past from those who perpetrated evil acts on the world, was precisely the refusal to do anything in the name of the crisis of the day.

Should we have an effective military? Absolutely. We should have a Leviathan military that shoots with deadly precision. Should we use force to protect ourselves? Absolutely. To not be willing to wage war would greatly endanger our security.

Should we violate our principles, morals, and ethics for political expediency?

That depends on whether you believe in an American way or not. The America I grew up in, the America that Superman defended, the America that the world respected and loved – that America would not.

Reply
Matt

June 18, 2008

Maltese – Did you even have a point in your rant? What reason is our national symbol the eagle by the bay, in consideration of your argument? I’m not against the conservative government, just against bad government. And Bush didn’t win that election, it was stolen. I am against some of the liberal government’s strategies as well. Such as Clinton’s bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant. You talk about the need to protect the country, but this is more about the torture of people whom have never been charged with anything, many of whom were taken from their homes without reason. You say the media is a source of information when compared to intelligence. Well, good job with Iraq. You speak of 9/11 like these people have no reason to hate us. It is our policies in the past that led to the situation. I realize that we cannot go back and erase what has previously been done, but our country continues to have policies that will upset people. THIS is the bigger picture. How about we try to avoid killing people and start helping them. It might bring some goodwill and maybe a little bit peace and a sense of security for everyone.

Reply
Matt

June 18, 2008

Maltese – Did you even have a point in your rant? What reason is our national symbol the eagle by the bay, in consideration of your argument? I’m not against the conservative government, just against bad government. And Bush didn’t win that election, it was stolen. I am against some of the liberal government’s strategies as well. Such as Clinton’s bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant. You talk about the need to protect the country, but this is more about the torture of people whom have never been charged with anything, many of whom were taken from their homes without reason. You say the media is a source of information when compared to intelligence. Well, good job with Iraq. You speak of 9/11 like these people have no reason to hate us. It is our policies in the past that led to the situation. I realize that we cannot go back and erase what has previously been done, but our country continues to have policies that will upset people. THIS is the bigger picture. How about we try to avoid killing people and start helping them. It might bring some goodwill and maybe a little bit peace and a sense of security for everyone.

Reply
Kevin

June 21, 2008

It’s difficult for me to jump into this type of argument.

Black Maltese: While I agree with some of your sentiment and I too am fed up with the America bashing that seems so rampant today, I agree with Matt that your presentation of your argument leaves something to be desired and can detract from your message.

Matt: You need to get over the “stolen election” thing. Seriously…move on.
And, to imply that we deserved what we got on 9/11…that goes WAY too far. Do you really believe that if we help people like Osama, everything would just work out? That’s like Obama saying he’ll talk to/negotiate with anyone. It will only provide an opening for them.

Christopher: I think you are sharp as a tack when it comes to marketing…politics I depart from you quickly. You say that, ” The war crimes the United States is accused of are crimes against lawful combatants – Iraqi military and militants…”

Many of them were actually from Afghanistan, and the first sentence of the article reads, “Former terrorist suspects detained by the United States…”

In addition, I struggle with your railing against practices by the US that are deemed terrible but then act as if Saddam Hussein was a sweet, uncle type figure. If you wanted to see human rights violations, you need only to look to Iraq while he was in power. That tends to get glossed over though. It bothers me that the same people who scream about human rights violations in places like Darfur and Tibet criticize the war in Iraq. Were the Iraqis less important than the people in those other places?

Do I think that the way the prisoners were treated was right? No. I also don’t think it appropriate to imply that George Bush was ordering torture as so many people imply. I don’t think you should get to make decisions about who should be held accountable for something when you are INCREDIBLY biased against the person you are accusing. Am I against all forms of torture in the situation of gaining information from a suspected terrorist that my protect the American people? Absolutely not. Plus, to say that Saddam Hussein had no interest in terrorism is a little naive.

Now, this point I only bring up because of other political statements you have made here and on Twitter before. I don’t understand how you can be so appalled by how someone is treated when they are suspected of terrorism but not bat an eye to the practice of killing them before they have a chance to make that decision….or any decision for that matter.

It’s a little frustrating to see politics so regularly mixed with marketing in many blogs. I understand that this is a personal medium and people are allowed to make their personal beliefs known. But, when someone is viewed as “internet famous” and seen as a reliable source of information and then makes political posts with half-truths and biased agendas, it does little to serve the rest of us.

Reply
Kevin Behringer

June 21, 2008

It’s difficult for me to jump into this type of argument.

Black Maltese: While I agree with some of your sentiment and I too am fed up with the America bashing that seems so rampant today, I agree with Matt that your presentation of your argument leaves something to be desired and can detract from your message.

Matt: You need to get over the “stolen election” thing. Seriously…move on.
And, to imply that we deserved what we got on 9/11…that goes WAY too far. Do you really believe that if we help people like Osama, everything would just work out? That’s like Obama saying he’ll talk to/negotiate with anyone. It will only provide an opening for them.

Christopher: I think you are sharp as a tack when it comes to marketing…politics I depart from you quickly. You say that, ” The war crimes the United States is accused of are crimes against lawful combatants – Iraqi military and militants…”

Many of them were actually from Afghanistan, and the first sentence of the article reads, “Former terrorist suspects detained by the United States…”

In addition, I struggle with your railing against practices by the US that are deemed terrible but then act as if Saddam Hussein was a sweet, uncle type figure. If you wanted to see human rights violations, you need only to look to Iraq while he was in power. That tends to get glossed over though. It bothers me that the same people who scream about human rights violations in places like Darfur and Tibet criticize the war in Iraq. Were the Iraqis less important than the people in those other places?

Do I think that the way the prisoners were treated was right? No. I also don’t think it appropriate to imply that George Bush was ordering torture as so many people imply. I don’t think you should get to make decisions about who should be held accountable for something when you are INCREDIBLY biased against the person you are accusing. Am I against all forms of torture in the situation of gaining information from a suspected terrorist that my protect the American people? Absolutely not. Plus, to say that Saddam Hussein had no interest in terrorism is a little naive.

Now, this point I only bring up because of other political statements you have made here and on Twitter before. I don’t understand how you can be so appalled by how someone is treated when they are suspected of terrorism but not bat an eye to the practice of killing them before they have a chance to make that decision….or any decision for that matter.

It’s a little frustrating to see politics so regularly mixed with marketing in many blogs. I understand that this is a personal medium and people are allowed to make their personal beliefs known. But, when someone is viewed as “internet famous” and seen as a reliable source of information and then makes political posts with half-truths and biased agendas, it does little to serve the rest of us.

Reply
Christopher S. Penn

June 21, 2008

Kevin,

You make some good points – for Saddam, I’d rather he be processed as Dr. Thomas Barnett recommended in his TED talk – a public, transparent process for eliminating politically bankrupt states, whether it’s Saddam, Kim Il Jong, Robert Mugabe, etc. Let’s establish a process like the IMF where we can restructure governments that are openly hostile to the rest of the world. By doing so, we can reduce the need to whip ourselves into a frenzy AND still achieve the ends that American policy deems important.

Check out Dr. Barnett’s talk:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/33

Reply
Christopher S. Penn

June 21, 2008

Kevin,

You make some good points – for Saddam, I’d rather he be processed as Dr. Thomas Barnett recommended in his TED talk – a public, transparent process for eliminating politically bankrupt states, whether it’s Saddam, Kim Il Jong, Robert Mugabe, etc. Let’s establish a process like the IMF where we can restructure governments that are openly hostile to the rest of the world. By doing so, we can reduce the need to whip ourselves into a frenzy AND still achieve the ends that American policy deems important.

Check out Dr. Barnett’s talk:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/33

Reply
Ari Herzog

June 22, 2008

Even worse than Geneva Convention breaches, consider that the United States is the only country in the world that has no intention of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

Couldn’t the federal government have at least taken the moral road of Afghanistan, Chad, Zimbabwe, and other nations that have not expressed an opinion on ratification? Why flat out refuse to sign? Even Kazakhstan signed it.

Reply
Ari Herzog

June 22, 2008

Even worse than Geneva Convention breaches, consider that the United States is the only country in the world that has no intention of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

Couldn’t the federal government have at least taken the moral road of Afghanistan, Chad, Zimbabwe, and other nations that have not expressed an opinion on ratification? Why flat out refuse to sign? Even Kazakhstan signed it.

Reply
matt

June 23, 2008

Hey Kevin, Way to take my comments out of context. I am over the election, but the FACT is that it was stolen. This was just a point. And I said our actions and policies contributed to 9/11. I did not say we deserved it. So do you think they just did it for no reason? People who are upset about both the war and Darfur are upset because of human rights violations. They occur in Darfur, they occurred under Saddam, and they continued to occcur under U.S. occupation. How hard is that to understand, and how does that bother you? And yes, the first line was “former terrorist suspects, ” they key word being suspects, meaning they were suspected, meaning it is not sure or positive. If so wouldn’t it just say former terrorists? And you say one shouldn’t be able to hold someone accountable because one is biased against them. Everyone should be held accountable for everything they do, especially a public figure in the public arena. One should praise another for good work, but what is wrong with criticizing someone when they do wrong? People are biased because they feel someone, in this case Bush, has done a horrible job. 75% of Americans or more feel Bush has done/is doing a bad job. Many people had no bias against Bush when he entered office. Shoot, he won the election, but it is obvious that he has done a bad job, or at least that there is the perception he has done a bad job by 3 out of 4 Americans. And although Saddam may have had ties to terrorists, he had no ties with the terrorists that we are currently hunting. Saddam and these terrorists were diametrically opposed to each other, with completely different idealogies. Saddam only moved idealogically towards a more religious tone when confronted by the Iranians and the U.S.

Reply
matt

June 23, 2008

Hey Kevin, Way to take my comments out of context. I am over the election, but the FACT is that it was stolen. This was just a point. And I said our actions and policies contributed to 9/11. I did not say we deserved it. So do you think they just did it for no reason? People who are upset about both the war and Darfur are upset because of human rights violations. They occur in Darfur, they occurred under Saddam, and they continued to occcur under U.S. occupation. How hard is that to understand, and how does that bother you? And yes, the first line was “former terrorist suspects, ” they key word being suspects, meaning they were suspected, meaning it is not sure or positive. If so wouldn’t it just say former terrorists? And you say one shouldn’t be able to hold someone accountable because one is biased against them. Everyone should be held accountable for everything they do, especially a public figure in the public arena. One should praise another for good work, but what is wrong with criticizing someone when they do wrong? People are biased because they feel someone, in this case Bush, has done a horrible job. 75% of Americans or more feel Bush has done/is doing a bad job. Many people had no bias against Bush when he entered office. Shoot, he won the election, but it is obvious that he has done a bad job, or at least that there is the perception he has done a bad job by 3 out of 4 Americans. And although Saddam may have had ties to terrorists, he had no ties with the terrorists that we are currently hunting. Saddam and these terrorists were diametrically opposed to each other, with completely different idealogies. Saddam only moved idealogically towards a more religious tone when confronted by the Iranians and the U.S.

Reply
matt

June 23, 2008

Our country is just!
In the first Guantanamo Bay case to be reviewed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim known as a Uighur, undermining the basis for his more than six years in detention.
Parhat never fought against the United States and the government concedes there’s no evidence he ever intended to. He has been held for six years because he is linked to a Chinese separatist group that the military says has some ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network. And it comes to light, he never was an instigator against the U.S.
I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of these.

Reply
matt

June 23, 2008

Our country is just!
In the first Guantanamo Bay case to be reviewed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim known as a Uighur, undermining the basis for his more than six years in detention.
Parhat never fought against the United States and the government concedes there’s no evidence he ever intended to. He has been held for six years because he is linked to a Chinese separatist group that the military says has some ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network. And it comes to light, he never was an instigator against the U.S.
I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of these.

Reply
james

June 24, 2008

Surely, some of the abuses violated the spirit of the conventions. If we adhere to them even when we are not required, we maintain high moral ground.

However, from a legal point of view, the administration is not guilty of a war crime. These charges are predicated on the notion that iraqi insurgents, al qaeda operatives, and everyone else affected by the administration are protected by the Third Geneva Convention. GCIII classifies combatants as “lawful” and protected if they fulfill all of these conditions:

* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
* that of carrying arms openly
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

I would bet that most contemporary insurgents or al qaeda operatives violate one or more of those conditions. In a historic sense, they are similar to saboteurs and spies. This classification has been called “unlawful combatant”; many critics of the Bush administration question if such a category CAN exist. If you argue that it doesn’t, than you equate anyone that doesn’t fulfill those criteria to the civilians and “protected persons” covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Spy = Saboteur = Innocent Civilian. That’s rather absurd.

Once you accept the category, the next question is how to treat the “unlawful combatants”. Under the GCIII, they can be prosecuted as normal criminals, instead of “protected persons”.

Recap: when a legal combatant kills a person in war, it’s not murder, it’s war. If a terrorist, spy, etc. kills, then it is murder and a common crime.

How the American legal systems deals with Enemy Prisoners of War (EPW) that have committed a common crime is too long a topic to discuss here. There is hundreds of years of precedent and it is still evolving. Some parties want to treat such EPW’s in the exact same procedural way as US citizens. Other parties think this unprecedented protection is unnecessary. The bottom line: the national law is murky, even if the international law is clear that normal legal code applies. There may be a violation of the law here, but not a WAR CRIME.

The Bush Administration interpreted these issues without building consensus. Politically, this has proven to be very damaging. I fault the administration for not anticipating these complexities and sharing the decision making in order to build consensus. That is a political mistake, it’s not a WAR CRIME.

After some initial legal and political difficulties by the administration, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. If the administration doesn’t adhere to the law, then they are guilty of violating national law, not international law.

Finally, I fault the US government and the international community for not calling a Fifth Geneva Convention to address the complexities of combat between nations and international non-state actors such as Al Qaeda. Some argue this is unnecessary; however, I think building an international consensus would defuse the situational politically and diplomatically.

Reply
james

June 24, 2008

Surely, some of the abuses violated the spirit of the conventions. If we adhere to them even when we are not required, we maintain high moral ground.

However, from a legal point of view, the administration is not guilty of a war crime. These charges are predicated on the notion that iraqi insurgents, al qaeda operatives, and everyone else affected by the administration are protected by the Third Geneva Convention. GCIII classifies combatants as “lawful” and protected if they fulfill all of these conditions:

* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
* that of carrying arms openly
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

I would bet that most contemporary insurgents or al qaeda operatives violate one or more of those conditions. In a historic sense, they are similar to saboteurs and spies. This classification has been called “unlawful combatant”; many critics of the Bush administration question if such a category CAN exist. If you argue that it doesn’t, than you equate anyone that doesn’t fulfill those criteria to the civilians and “protected persons” covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Spy = Saboteur = Innocent Civilian. That’s rather absurd.

Once you accept the category, the next question is how to treat the “unlawful combatants”. Under the GCIII, they can be prosecuted as normal criminals, instead of “protected persons”.

Recap: when a legal combatant kills a person in war, it’s not murder, it’s war. If a terrorist, spy, etc. kills, then it is murder and a common crime.

How the American legal systems deals with Enemy Prisoners of War (EPW) that have committed a common crime is too long a topic to discuss here. There is hundreds of years of precedent and it is still evolving. Some parties want to treat such EPW’s in the exact same procedural way as US citizens. Other parties think this unprecedented protection is unnecessary. The bottom line: the national law is murky, even if the international law is clear that normal legal code applies. There may be a violation of the law here, but not a WAR CRIME.

The Bush Administration interpreted these issues without building consensus. Politically, this has proven to be very damaging. I fault the administration for not anticipating these complexities and sharing the decision making in order to build consensus. That is a political mistake, it’s not a WAR CRIME.

After some initial legal and political difficulties by the administration, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. If the administration doesn’t adhere to the law, then they are guilty of violating national law, not international law.

Finally, I fault the US government and the international community for not calling a Fifth Geneva Convention to address the complexities of combat between nations and international non-state actors such as Al Qaeda. Some argue this is unnecessary; however, I think building an international consensus would defuse the situational politically and diplomatically.

Reply
james

June 24, 2008

Oh yeah…. and which country polices itself so honestly and brutally as the US? I mean, these abuses were reported and investigated by the very institutions accused of committing them. Individuals in the Army committed the atrocites of Abu Gharaib, but the Army itself uncovered and exposed these crimes. The US is not flawless, but we are a just and trustworthy country with sound institutions that believe in ideals.

I blame the extreme accusatory rhetoric on the lowest form of marketing: Creating a Disease so you can Sell the Cure.

Just how horrible the current economic situation, diplomatic situation, security situation, etc. etc. is our modern day HALITOSIS. Electing the OTHER GUY is the Listerine. It happens every election cycle….

In truth, things aren’t so bad… and things won’t be that different no matter who is elected president.

Reply
james

June 24, 2008

Oh yeah…. and which country polices itself so honestly and brutally as the US? I mean, these abuses were reported and investigated by the very institutions accused of committing them. Individuals in the Army committed the atrocites of Abu Gharaib, but the Army itself uncovered and exposed these crimes. The US is not flawless, but we are a just and trustworthy country with sound institutions that believe in ideals.

I blame the extreme accusatory rhetoric on the lowest form of marketing: Creating a Disease so you can Sell the Cure.

Just how horrible the current economic situation, diplomatic situation, security situation, etc. etc. is our modern day HALITOSIS. Electing the OTHER GUY is the Listerine. It happens every election cycle….

In truth, things aren’t so bad… and things won’t be that different no matter who is elected president.

Reply

Proud to be an American?

Comments

32 responses to “Proud to be an American?”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Pin It on Pinterest