This is your author speaking. Some of you will find this offensive, but that is not my intent. This is not a test. I repeat: Some of you will find this offensive, but that is not my intent. This is not a test. You have been appropriately warned. I will now begin the article.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record or a one-trick pony, I am publishing this.
For some strange reason, I have been discussing the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a lot lately. Let me make this as plain as I possibly can: I am all in favor of Mitt Romney's suggestion to double the size of Guantanamo. That being said, let me make the following perfectly clear as well: Number One: I generally oppose torture. Should, however, a high-ranking member of Al Qaeda be known to have information about those who have attacked us in the past, or were found plotting against us, I believe that we can make exceptions.
Number Two: The detainees should be released if they can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are innocent. Otherwise, their disposition can wait until after the war just as actual prisoners of war have to wait. These detainees do not qualify as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Practically everyone I meet whose opinion differs from mine hands me the excuse that we are in violation of the Geneva Conventions as though I should immediately become hysterical at their pronouncement. And they always seem shocked at my response: "According to the Geneva Conventions, they are not POWs." Kindly allow me to enlighten you if you were unaware of this.
There are "qualifications" to being declared a prisoner of war. According to Article 4, Section A, 1, Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. They do not meet that standard. Next.
Let's see if they meet the second condition: Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil [sic] the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. They don't meet that one, either. The whole problem with terrorists is that they blend in with the general population and they hide their arms until the point of attack. Next.
I wonder if they meet the third: Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. They are still not "regular armed forces." Next.
Let's check out the fourth: Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. Still not seeing how they meet this definition. Next.
Maybe the fifth: Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. I am not really seeing how that is being met by members of Al Qaeda, either.
And, finally, number six: Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. This is not applicable as well.
I am just not getting how they would ever qualify as prisoners of war. And that's because they aren't. They cannot meet the definitions provided by the document which everyone demands that the government follow. Since they are not POWs, they are not entitled to those protections.
Back to the original topic…
Number Three: I believe that they are entitled to humane treatment: good shelter, decent food, clean clothing, good sanitation, necessary medical care, and the right to pursue their religious beliefs. I have no problem with any of this. They were made in the image of God, just like any other human being, and therefore must be afforded the dignity we owe to all humans.
Number Four: They have no protection from the United States Constitution due to a 1950 Supreme Court decision, Johnson v. Eisentrager. According to the ruling: "These nonresident enemy aliens, captured and imprisoned abroad, have no right to a writ of habeas corpus in a court of the United States… The term 'any person' in the Fifth Amendment does not extend its protection to alien enemies everywhere in the world engaged in hostilities against us." (Source: 339 U.S. 763) Since the Fifth Amendment does not apply to them, then it's only logical to assume that the rest of the Constitution does not as well.
And for some odd reason, people assume that one can take the Constitution and somehow pull out the Bill of Rights and use it as though it can function on its own. Here's a hint: They are Amendments, not a document by their own right. They have to be joined to something, which they are: the Constitution.
Number Five: I'm pretty sure that we can deny them the same rights as American citizens. According to its own Preamble, this document was written by "the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union … and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." According to Webster's Dictionary, posterity has two meanings: 1) the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation; and 2)all future generations. Now, I'm not a mind reader, but I'm pretty sure that the Founding Fathers did not, in fact, include terrorists who wanted to kill us. Call me crazy if you want, but I'd probably swear to it.
Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment states plainly that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." (Emphasis added.) I'm pretty sure these guys do not qualify there, either.
Number Six: I do indeed believe that they will be tried in a court one day and that day is coming. According to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, they are unlawful enemy combatants: "The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means "(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense." Further, it defines the following: "In this paragraph, the term 'co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy."
And there we have it: the detainees at Guantanamo finally have a designation that they meet.
By the way, just so you know, their abuse of our people is sanctioned by Allah: "Guidelines for Beating and Killing Hostages: Religious scholars have permitted beating. … In this tradition, we find permission to interrogate the hostage for the purpose of obtaining information. It is permitted to strike the nonbeliever who has no covenant until he reveals the news, information, and secrets of his people. The religious scholars have also permitted the killing of a hostage if he insists on withholding information from Moslems." (Al-Qaeda Training Manual, Available At: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/terrorism/alqaida_manual/, Accessed 9/5/06)
Number Eight: So long as we keep them in Guantanamo, they won't be killing anyone else. That keeps Americans safe as well as whomever else they would have killed closer to home. Should we release them now and have these suspected terrorists loose in the world? In my opinion, that makes us liable, morally and otherwise, for any terrorist act they may then commit and puts the blood of their victims on our hands. It would be akin to letting a person you are pretty sure is drunk get behind the wheel and drive.
Number Nine: Bringing them here, onto the U.S. mainland is one of the dumbest things that I have ever heard in my life, bar none. We would be bringing people who want to kill us closer to us. Are we trying to give them a better shot? If you are one of these bring-'em-here types, I have three questions for you. First, are you now or have you ever been, under the care of a mental health professional? (If not, check into it.) Second, are you willing to volunteer your hometown to house these guys? Finally, are you willing to face your neighbors after you do?
Number Ten: These people mean to kill us. I have said this before, but for those of you who are suffering from some sort of brain-killing liberalism or just in an awesome state of denial about the kind of nuts we are facing, try these on for size. Here is what these guys are saying about this conflict. They are pretty straightforward, but I will add emphasis to what I find most telling and I'll only use their own words. Hear them out; don't let me influence you. (Source for these quotes: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-7.html)
"These attacks took off the skin of the American wolf and they have been left standing in their filthy, naked reality. Thus the whole World awoke from its sleep and the Muslims realized the importance of the belief of loving and hating for the sake of Allah; the ties of brotherhood between the Muslims have become stronger, which is a very good sign and a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the Righteous Islamic Khilafah insha-Allah." (Translation Of Purported Bin Laden Audio Message, Posted On Islamist Site, 2/14/03)
"O young people of Islam: Follow the orders of Almighty God and His messenger and kill those people. Follow the example of Muhammad Bin-Musallamah and his companions. Death is better than living on this earth with the unbelievers amongst us, making a mockery of our religion and prophet, God's peace and blessings upon him. Fear God, try to please Him, and do not consult with anyone regarding the killing of those unbelievers."(Translation Of Bin Laden's 52-Minute Audiotape, Posted On Jihadist Website, 4/27/06)
"Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it. The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun." (Al-Qaeda Training Manual, Available At: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/terrorism/alqaida_manual/, Accessed 9/5/06)
"Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan is absolute. … I conclude my speech with the slogan that will continue to reverberate on all occasions so that nobody will think that we have weakened. Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America." (Hezbollah Leader Nasrallah Supports Intifadah, Vows 'Death to America,' Aired On Beirut Al-Manar Television, 9/27/02)
Is this not yet clear to you? Now, I realize that these came from a "government" website, but they were verified by other media, so deal with it. Once you read words like these, you can only come to one conclusion: They want us dead. Now we don't have want them dead in return, but I would definitely suggest keeping them exactly where they are, for the safety of the world in general.
No comments:
Post a Comment