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

Note to Iowans and New Hampshirites

I am going to take my time to pick apart what I see as reasons not to vote for certain Republicans contending for the party nomination for the Presidency. This goes out primarily (small pun intended) to the folks in Iowa and New Hampshire, but I offer it to everyone voting in this election. To simplify things, I will utilize the Real Clear Politics average of the polls (dated 12/26/07 – 01/01/08) and only use the top four Republicans, who are the only ones in the double digits: Mike Huckabee (29.0%), Mitt Romney (28.3%), John McCain (12.8%), and Fred Thompson (11.8%). I will also use this order in the analysis.

(Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html)

Huckabee, who has a narrow lead of 0.7% in this average of the polls, is wrong on the following issues and I will state my reasons for each one. My personal beef with him on his Guantanamo stance: he wants to close it! "I’ve been to Guantanamo… 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 is, by the way, also the official ACLU position as well. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for a conservative.

(Source:http://dhgrassrevolt.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/mike-huckabee-stands-with-the-aclu-on-guantanamo/)

This is an extremely bad idea, to say the least. What Huckabee does not say is what he would do with the detainees there. Would he release them to return home, where I’m sure they would merely wind up as recruiters for Al Qaeda and most assuredly resume their nasty habits like, say… trying to kill us again? Would Governor Huckabee bring them here? Has he not yet realized that – as the situation currently stands – in bringing them onto American soil, he will then effectively grant them protection of our Constitution? Sure, Mike, bring them on over. I’m sure that we can afford to give sworn enemies of our country a life in our correctional facilities and their own lawyers as well.

Unbelievably, Mike Huckabee also likes the idea of letting illegal aliens pay in-state rates at Arkansas colleges, as well as giving them voting rights and helping them get public assistance as well, according to a report by the AP in February 2005. He referred to those who opposed the plan as "bigots who think there's a real problem." Somehow, illegal aliens voting is now okay, Mike? And I guess they’ll vote for you if you give them those rights. That smacks of a cheap political stunt like the one he just pulled at the news conference on the topic of “look at what I’m not releasing.” That was not a good move and I think most Iowans agree with me on this one.

Now for Mitt Romney. A lot of you may know that I am a seminarian at Liberty University and am a Baptist as well. Since this is not a blog on religious issues, I will leave our perspectives on theology out of this. Sorry to disappoint those of you who wanted to see that here, though I might address that in my religious blog later. My big problem with Governor Romney is what I can only call flip-flopping. He is now running as a Reaganesque conservative, but he did “not want a return to Reagan-Bush.” (Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxHjLx_kCDk)

Then there is the problem of abortion. Where exactly does he stand? I really can’t tell. When he was running for governor and senator, he was pro-choice. But he claimed that every decision he made as governor was to preserve the sanctity of life, regardless of his actions on emergency contraception. But now he has “evolved” (Ah… Mitt, just so you know, this is not really a good choice of words for a conservative Republican.) and is now pro-life. Will he remain pro-life? Only time will tell.

(Source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/mitt_romneys_flip_flop_flip.html)

As if to lead me further into doubt, Mitt has an interesting habit of supporting rather liberal Democrats like Mayor Rocky Anderson, the anti-war nut. Liberal judges were appointed by him to the Massachusetts courts as well. He has also donated to Planned Parenthood. He also voted for Paul Tsongas and has donated to other liberal Democrats. I am left wondering exactly where his ideological stance is on anything.

(Source: http://politicomafioso.blogspot.com/2007/12/romneys-liberal-past-and-his-liberal.html)

Now, I take on my dad’s choice for President, the Lazarus of this campaign season, John McCain. Let me start by saying that I have a great deal of personal regard for him and nothing but the highest respect for his military service and the high price that he himself paid for his defense of our democratic way of life. I personally can only find a problem with him: his attempt at granting what is effectively amnesty to people who do not belong here.

However, he does want to close Guantanamo as well. I give him a pass here, though. This is a war hero was held captive in brutal conditions and personally experienced torture. More than any other Presidential contender – more than most other Americans, for that matter – he can identify with the detainees, but only so far. They are kept in clean cells, given good food and decent covering, their own copy of the Koran, and good medical care. Senator McCain had exactly none of that. I believe that he is just making sure that this is an end to potential torture occurring for someone else. And part of me respects his stance for that reason, but I still can’t get behind closure of Guantanamo. I believe that places like Gitmo make the world a safer place because of the confinement factor. Other than that, I like him. Except for the Bush tax cuts being wrong.

And now onto “my pick”: Senator Fred Thompson. My only question here is: Will the late start kill him? I think he should have announced on July 4^th and taken over the reins of the campaign and strongly rode it on to the first phase, where we are at present. But he is a committed conservative and I respect that a great deal. And that whole fire-in-the-belly thing is just a distraction, so far as I’m concerned.

Just please consider all of this carefully as you make your decision, all you New Hampshirites and Iowans. Yours will be the first stage of this race. Let’s give America a strong conservative to support in 2008. I am praying for you all.