Why I Can Live with Guantanamo

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.

Further, 8 USC Sec. 1401, also passed in 2006, further qualifies the citizenship to persons who meet one of the following conditions: "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe…; a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States…; a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States...; a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States…; a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States; a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom… is a citizen of the United States…; a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. Now for some odd reason, I just don't think that any of the detainees at Guantanamo meets any of these requirements. Therefore, they are not citizens, because if they were, we'd more than likely try them for treason, as we did John Walker Lindh, who was caught on the battlefield opposing our troops.

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.

Number Seven: I think that keeping these men in a place like Guantanamo is morally superior to taking prisoners, torturing them, making them confess, forcing them to convert to Islam and then having them to confess to whatever you want, and then beheading them. Remember how Daniel Pearl died? That's how they're going to treat our guys when and if they are captured. I guarantee that the vast majority of our detainees will be returned to their home countries (or whoever will have them) in relatively good health, but I doubt if our men will make it out of their captivity alive. So tell me, which one do you find to be more moral: a stack of the corpses of American military personnel or a live bunch of unlawful enemy combatants with a future?

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.

Technorati : Al Qaeda, Constitution, Geneva Conventions, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Johnson v. Eisentrager, Military Commissions Act of 2006, Supreme Court, U.S.Code, detainees, terrorist quotes
Del.icio.us : Al Qaeda, Constitution, Geneva Conventions, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Johnson v. Eisentrager, Military Commissions Act of 2006, Supreme Court, U.S.Code, detainees, terrorist quotes
Ice Rocket : Al Qaeda, Constitution, Geneva Conventions, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Johnson v. Eisentrager, Military Commissions Act of 2006, Supreme Court, U.S.Code, detainees, terrorist quotes
Flickr : Al Qaeda, Constitution, Geneva Conventions, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Johnson v. Eisentrager, Military Commissions Act of 2006, Supreme Court, U.S.Code, detainees, terrorist quotes
Zooomr : Al Qaeda, Constitution, Geneva Conventions, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Johnson v. Eisentrager, Military Commissions Act of 2006, Supreme Court, U.S.Code, detainees, terrorist quotes
Buzznet : Al Qaeda, Constitution, Geneva Conventions, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Johnson v. Eisentrager, Military Commissions Act of 2006, Supreme Court, U.S.Code, detainees, terrorist quotes

Disgusting Rhetoric from "Azzam the (un)American" Gadahn

In a video message released earlier today, Adam Gadahn (or Adam Pearlman, if you want his birth name) threatened the life of our President. President Bush will be going to the Middle East very soon. To endear himself to us even more, he also has renounced his American citizenship as of today, which actually means nothing until he becomes a recognized citizen of another nation. "Azzam the American" has been "indicted in the Central District of California for treason and material support to Al Qaeda. The charges are related to Gadahn's alleged involvement in a number of terrorist activities, including providing aid and comfort to Al Qaeda and services for Al Qaeda." (Source: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/gadahn_a.htm)

Now why would I consider this important? Number one, I'd love to read of his capture and trial. He is an American citizen and, unlike my feelings for the Guantanamo detainees, I cannot wait to here about his trial. I will camp out in front of my television like I used to when O.J. and the Menendez brothers had their respective days in the California courts, oddly enough where "Gadahn" is headed. But this time, it's not just my California cousins and friends who are in on the deal; it's the entire United States. The reason I want this to happen is so that we can show the world that we will abide by our Constitution and adhere to the rule of law. And I hope that he is sentenced to death (as should have happened to John Walker Lindh, regardless of the fact that his parents think that he's still a good person). He has called for our deaths if we, as a country, do not turn to Islam. (Source: http://michellemalkin.com/2006/09/02/convert-or-die/)

Further, "Azzam" is now making theological pronouncements: "Islam is the only religion acceptable to God and came with the revealed book, the Koran, which abrogates all previous revelations, like the Torah and Evangel… God recognizes no separation between religion and state…" As a Christian, I take a great deal of offense at his words, but he is free to say that, even on American soil. What he is not free to do is this: "To Americans and the rest of Christendom we say, either repent [(your)] misguided ways and enter into the light of truth or keep your poison to yourself and suffer the consequences in this world and the next…" (Source: Ibid.) He is threatening Christians -- and specifically those who happen to Americans -- with punishment if they do not accept the faith of Islam. Now, I've never been to law school, but I do believe that he is now guilty of terroristic threatening. Just a suggestion to the U.S. Attorney handling this case: Could we add that to his charges? I mean, you do have him on tape here -- twice. And a note to Ramsey Clark: You have a new client and I bet he'll remind you of your late buddy Saddam!

The reason I bring all of this up is that several people -- even among the GOP -- seem to be overly concerned with how Guantanamo makes us as Americans look to the rest of the world. Here's a hint as to my feelings on this issue: I will lose more sleep over my beloved Statler Brothers' decision to retire (albeit five years ago) than over how the rest of the world views America. There are groups who are going to hate us no matter what we do, for whatever reason they choose. Guantanamo does little to influence that sort of thing. Do we really think that closing Guantanamo will suddenly cause some people to love us or revive a long-dormant -- even secret -- love for the United States? If you do think that, you might want to seek professional help. And, besides, hating America is chic! It's the new "in" thing, even amongst the people who make their money here. Just ask George Soros or Mark Cuban or Michael Moore, if you can understand him with his mouth full. (Hey, I'm fat, so I can make fat jokes! Live with it.)

To all of those who claim that Guantanamo causes our soldiers to be tortured, do you really believe that they'll stop if we close Guantanamo? I can see the headline now, and in the New York Times, no less: "Al Qaeda Announces Moratorium on Torture in Response to Gitmo Closure." That sounds more like something Oliver Stone might have in a movie one day when we get his version of history. And Aaron Sorkin gets to write it, of course. According to those two, Republicans had some dark connection to the many assassinations in the 1960s and they didn't actually win the Cold War, either. I wonder what color the sky is in their world. I'm betting on the same shade of blue as Monica Lewinsky's dress.

What will change the way the world sees us is what real conservatives like Barry Goldwater (circa 1964, not his later years) and Ronald Reagan always said: "peace through strength." That includes our being strong enough to resist and even fight people who want to harm us, regardless of their motive. Another important part of that is being strong enough to mean what we say and to back up what we say. The reason the Russians backed down on several issues is that they knew that Ronald Reagan would stand up to them and so would George H. W. Bush. We should never take the "one-more-chance" route as the United Nations did with Saddam. Time after time, he ignored the sanctions and, time after time, the U.N. gave him "one more chance." The result was that he soon learned that the U.N. was a paper tiger. We should never wind up in that role. America also needs to show that we will defend ourselves, even if it means trying one of our own citizens for treason and executing him if he is guilty. The world will lose respect for us if we do not live up to our word and cannot defend ourselves.

We have to choose the next president carefully. People like those in Al Qaeda want us dead. Those who want peace at any price will give away things we cannot afford to lose: our faith, our sovereignty, and our commitment to a democratic way of life. For those of you who still suffer from some sort of brain-killing liberalism or just are really stubborn in your willful oblivion, do yourself a favor and go to this site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-7.html. Yes, I know that it's from the White House, but it's fully documented and other sources have reported the same thing. These people are committed to our defeat and we cannot afford to lose this battle. The future is up to how we vote and I hope the future is with a true conservative in the White House.

Technorati : Adam Gadahn, Adam Pearlman, Azzam the American, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Islam, Ronald Reagan, terrorist, treason

An unfortunate start to my blog...

As it says in my blog info, I am an evangelical conservative. And I may as well say that I am a Republican. I don't consider myself a one-issue voter, but the War on Terror -- and, yes, liberals, it is a war and even the terrorists know that -- is pretty much at the top of my concerns. My social and political views are also very conservative. So I thought that these issues would guide me through the coming election cycle.

I thought that I had found my guy to support for the nation's top elected official in the 2008 run. He was a former governor I had liked for several years before he had announced his candidacy for President. We shared a common faith and I liked his views on terrorism as not just an ideological problem, but also a theological one. He supported a flat tax. And he's a hilarious guy who likes old rock 'n' roll. He is an ordained Baptist minister and I am a Baptist seminarian. We were, I believed, like political soul mates, two apples on the same tree. I was ready to go find him and have my picture made with him for this blog. Mike Huckabee was my choice to lead this great nation.

Then came that statement.

"American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists."

And that came after this one:

"I’ve been to Guantanamo, I was there, I guess it’s been about a year and a half ago. I think the problem with Guantanamo is not in that its facilities are inadequate. It’s the symbol that it represents. It’s clearly become a symbol to the rest of the world as a place that has become problematic for us as a nation. I was quite frankly impressed with the quality of the facilities and even the attention to care that was given to the detainees, but that aside, it doesn’t alter that Guantanamo to the rest of the world is a symbol that is not in our best interests to continue pursuing."

This has caught me completely off-guard. He wants the world to like us more, so he'll close Gitmo. Is he joining with Hillary and her call to end "cowboy diplomacy"? I have several problems with all of this. Mainly, "cowboy diplomacy" has worked pretty well. Al-Quaeda is on the run and are now having to release their home movies or audio tapes to communicate with their following. Also, the surge is working. (You can tell this by the fact that most of the major media is now pretty much ignoring Iraq. No good news from the front is exactly what they want.) Do you really buy into the theory that Qaddafi was already considering a change in his policies just when we just happened to be launching Shock and Awe? And that the Libyan dictator came to the realization apart from that? If you buy that, then I have some carbon credits you can buy, too.

Add this question, too: Have we been attacked since September 11, 2001? No, but we have uncovered attempts that people with the same motivations as those cowards and stopped them before they could bring the plans to fruition.

Arab culture only respects one thing: strength. With all our diplomatic yakkity-yak, we are perceived by them as weak. When we back up our threats with actual enforcement, they suddenly see us as serious people and want to talk again to keep us from attacking them again. Reagan was right: peace through strength.

And if the rest of the world is uncomfortable with us having a place like Guantanamo, perhaps they are the ones who need to re-evaluate their stance on terrorism, because as long as we are housing them and detaining them on taxpayer money, the world is a much safer place. And we aren't charging anyone money for keeping them up, either. We have chosen to go this route alone because I don't think any other nations are going to volunteer for this aspect of the war. But because there might be some form of discomfort that the bleeding hearts might find distasteful, then we should open wide the gate and give them the freedom. What most people fail to realize is that they will use that freedom to try to launch yet another attack on us.

Second, where on God's green earth are we going to put them? Bring them here to American soil and -- POOF! -- the Constitution suddenly applies to them too, regardless of the fact that they are not citizens and they were caught trying to defeat American troops. And then our system requires that they all get lawyers and access to our courts, at our expense, I might add. Can we even think about funding that? Because I doubt they have detainment and criminal defense coverage in their terrorist insurance policies. Not to mention, getting to America was probably a goal of theirs anyway and would be an incalculable risk to our country. And do I hear any volunteers to host these guys in their prisons? We have more than enough American prisoners, so why do we need to further burden ourselves? And do we really want these people, so filled with murderous hate for us, near any of our citizens? Well, do you want them close to you or those you hold dear? And don't go suggesting other areas of the country for the job. If you're not willing to do it yourself, then don't volunteer other people for the task.

Are we going to, as Saudi Arabia foolishly did, release them on the promise of not attacking us anymore? By the way, since we here in the Great Satan are pretty much all infidels, promises to us are not required to be kept. That ought to help them agree to our terms more readily.

This "go-it-alone, bunker mentality" is totally necessary for the successful prosecution of the war. Terrorists are not going to hold press conferences before they attack. We have to stop them before they attack. If you want to catch them in the act of plotting, then you have to think like they do and act proactively work to stop their actions. There is no time to stop and make up a reasonable plan so that no one else is offended by the tactics. Saving innocent lives should be justification enough. But then again, I guess that's just not enough for some people.

Now, if Mike Huckabee is for closing Guantanamo AND using summary executions to accomplish that goal, that method I can support... maybe a bit too aggressively. The world would be offended, but the upside is that the world would be just as safe from those terrorists. But I doubt that he'd support this method of closure.

I just can't believe it. So important, but he's on the wrong side of it. Unless Mike Huckabee changes his mind on this, I think I will switch to Fred Thompson, but I am still of the opinion that he should have started much earlier. Be that as it may, he still shares my core values and will be a soild conservative.