[size=4]The Jackals Are Wrong[/size=4]
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 25, 2002; Page A25

Guantanamo is hopping and the jackals are howling. Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands -- stalwart allies who held America's coat during the war in Afghanistan -- are complaining that the Guantanamo prisoners are not accorded POW rights under the Geneva Convention.

Amnesty International is shocked that we are using shackles. The U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Mary Robinson, is disturbed that the United States might be violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (Yes, the same Mary Robinson who, in the name of famine relief, made the idiotic demand for a cessation of U.S. bombing five days after it began -- a demand that would have resulted in untold Afghan deaths in a famine now ended by the American victory.) The British tabloids are apoplectic, achieving full-throated silliness when the Mail on Sunday managed an allusion to slavery: "Each man is handcuffed and wears leg irons, a term that survives from slave-trading days."

Thanks for the etymology. No thanks for the advice. We should treat these complaints with the contempt they deserve.

The critical issue in the treatment of these captured fighters is whether, under international law, they are prisoners of war or "unlawful combatants."

An Iraqi soldier captured in Kuwait is a prisoner of war entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. An al Qaeda fighter captured anywhere is not. By self-definition, al Qaeda members are unlawful combatants, meaning people who fight outside the recognized rules of war.

Among the distinguishing characteristics of unlawful combatants are these: They deliberately attack civilians, and they deliberately infiltrate among civilians by not wearing an insignia or uniform.

Al Qaeda openly practices both. In 1996, Osama bin Laden issued "A Declaration of War Against the Americans." Note: not "against the United States." Unlike, say, Nazi Germany and Japan, al Qaeda declared war not on the state but on the people. In 1998, bin Laden declared that "to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim."

Osama said it. And on Sept. 11, al Qaeda did it. And they did it the way terrorists do: out of uniform, by means of infiltration and concealment.

You join al Qaeda, you join an outlaw army. You explicitly violate -- and thus forfeit the protection of -- the Geneva Convention. Indeed, denying such murderers POW rights vindicates the Geneva Convention and encourages others to adhere to it, by reserving its protections for those who observe its strictures. (I am willing to concede that low-level Taliban fighters -- if there are any at Guantanamo -- might be entitled to more protection. Senior Taliban, however, having expressly joined their cause to al Qaeda's, should share in its fate.)

- continued -

The jackals are wrong on the law. They also deeply misunderstand the purpose of the capture of these prisoners. It is not to "bring them to justice" as we would domestic bank robbers, but to prosecute an ongoing war by finding out what they know about how al Qaeda works and what future massacres it is planning.

We need information, or more innocent civilians will die. Information obtained as a result of the Afghan war has already thwarted planned attacks on Americans in Singapore and Yemen and exposed sleeper agents throughout the world.

POWs are required to give only their name, rank, serial number and date of birth. Granting the Guantanamo prisoners POW status is thus militarily ridiculous. If they have information, we need to get it. There is a war on.

This fact, too, seems to have escaped the critics. They deem the prisoners POWs of the Afghan war. But then, the Taliban having fallen and the war winding down, these men would have to be released, as are POWs at the end of "active hostilities," as ordinary Iraqi soldiers were released with the end of the Gulf War.

This is lunacy. The war is not against Afghanistan. It is against al Qaeda. And the war is ongoing until al Qaeda either recants or surrenders or disbands or is destroyed. Until then, these prisoners are not the detritus of a leftover war. They are active combatants, and unlawful ones. We should do whatever it takes to get from them whatever information we need to win that war.

Chris Patten, the European Union external affairs commissioner, is concerned that by doing so the United States is "losing the moral high ground."

Too bad. Right now, what is of supreme importance to Americans is not the moral high ground of salon opinion but the strategic high ground of military intelligence -- the advantage we gain in combating terror with the knowledge we glean from these prisoners.

The world loves us, bleeding and suffering nobly, at the moral high ground of Ground Zero. To which we say: no thank you. Our paramount national duty today is to prevent another Sept. 11, not to glory in the moral high ground -- the moral vanity -- of the victimhood we suffered last Sept. 11.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35191-2002Jan24.html[/url]

Eric The(RightOn)Hun[>]:)]

It's reflexive anti-Americanism.  The same people said it was our fault the WTC and Pentagon were bombed.  As Krauthammer said, these people's governments (except for the British tabloids) did nothing to help us crush the Taliban and al-Quaeda.  Now they make these complaints?  Just meaningless carping from the peanut gallery.  

Europeans are wacky socialists, I don't want to argue that point.  But I think the reason these "detainees" (an awful word that that reeks of legal limbo and gestapo-type tactics) have been brought to Cuba for one reason:  To divert attention away from the fact that Osama got away and so did most of his henchmen.  The war is a failure, a total joke.  

In this debate over POWs, the wrong questions are being asked.  First of all, it is impossible for them to be POWs since the war itself is undeclared.  Second of all, what is an "illegal combatant?"  Is there any such thing as one that is "legal?"  If so, how do you legally become a combatant so you receive all the protections of the Geneva accords?  You can't do it.  Therefore, there is no such thing as an "illegal combatant" either--it is just a doublespeak/newspeak phrase coined by the government so it can conveniently deny them any rights that might be inconvenient for the US Government to supply them.  

I'm glad the Europeans are howling about it, not that it will do any good.  Makes me think that the New World Order isn't quite all in place yet--still some dissent out there at least.

If any defintions of any words mean anything at all, these men are either POWs, or worse, they are political prisoners in a Gulag.  Either way, none have been charged with an actual crime and probably never will.  There will be a show trial after they've outlived their usefulness to the CIA.  Don't start quibbling over citizen vs. non-citizen, I don't want to hear it.  Our system should be setting an example for the rest of the world and it clearly is not.  Noriega was a non-US citizen, but got tried in US Court after a military action removed him from power.  How is this case any different?  

I for one, can't believe our government is capable of such evils.  It's one thing to shoot the enemy on sight, quite another to open up a prison camp and torture out confessions and intelligence of dubious value.  What will be next?  Re-education camps?  

I rest on my assertion that this whole Cuba detainee thing is just to divert attention away from the failed war and the dismal economy.  If it wasn't, the Green Berets would have just shot them and buried them in a ditch somewhere off camera.  Remember, they're the "worst of the worst, the most dangerous fighters of Afghanistan."  Yeah, whatever.  Lie a little more Rumsfeld.

Gawd, trickshot, where do I begin with your post?

Yes, we can hear the Taliban laughing at us, all the way from their cages at Gitmo! And where did Bin Laden go where he can have as much freedom as he did in Afghanistan? What country would openly take him in now?

Wherever Bin Laden is, he sure is not making a big deal out of it, is he?

Of course! All US military personnel stationed in or near Afghanistan are 'legal combatants.'
They are there at the request of a recognized government (ours), and fighting a war that has been recognized by our political process, and ordered by our head of state.

How 'legal' can you get?

Evils? Torture? Intelligence of dubious value?
How do you know anything about what's going on at Gitmo? Who the F are you to say what's happening with these detainees?

You are the one with intelligence of dubious value! Ever given much thought to going back to finish high school? Talk about re-education camps!

Yes, that must be the reason that President Bush is so high in the public opinion polls - the failed war and the lousy economy!

Eric The(GoAway,You'reAnnoyingTheAdults)Hun[>]:)]

That does it! Let's bomb Sweden, Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands!  They support terrorists! The Krauthammer article proves it![:P]

And if we've got enough bombs left, let's also hit..... (just a second while I spin my globe).... yes, we need to blow the **it out of the island of Tobago! Why? 'Cause the people of the West Indies have always pissed me off! They can't play hockey worth a damn and they read British tabloids and support terrorist groups!
Yes!  Terrorist groups!  You never heard of the TLA (Tobago Liberation Army)? [:P]

Eric, go to bed and store up your venom for tomorrow!  DEBKA is sure to report on some new bogeyman that you'll have to expose in the morning! [:P]

DaMan

You become a legal combatant by joining an army, wearing a uniform, carryng arms openly, answering to a superior officer, and conforming with the laws of war. It's all in Geneva.

Post from DaMan -

Have you stopped taking your medications again?[:D]

Eric The()Hun[>]:)]

Bomb Tobago and you're gonna have to deal with me.  Trinidad OK.  You can have those d@mn biting blackfish.  Like pirahnas in blackface.  But I'm not through diving Tobago.
[):)]

Since when are public opinion polls an accurate gauge of what is true or right?  Bill Clinton was popular, too.

Is this the same Krauthammer that wrote:and has he now changed his tune?

Post from Golgo13 -

When do polls tell us what is right or wrong? The reason that I even mentioned the polls is that [b]trickshot[/b] alleged that the Cuban detainee situation was [b]'to divert attention away from the [u]failed war[/u] and [u]the dismal economy[/u]'[/b]. If the American public does not perceive the war as failed, and the economy as dismal, where is the support for [b]trickshot's[/b] allegations?

That's all the polls were cited for, nothing more. And certainly not as some gauge as to right or wrong in any controversy.

Eric The(Understand?IKnewYouWould!)Hun[>]:)]

Post from KBaker -

Hmmm, let's see, same last name, spelled the same way, writer for the [i]Washington Post[/i], yes, I would say it's the same!

Luckily this article is not about the RKBA!

I don't know. But I do know that Sept 11th has changed the views of a whole lotta people, so let's just hope that Mr. Krauthammer is one of them!

Eric The(Hopeful)Hun[>]:)]

Kewl.

Actually, the Geneva Convention defines lawful combatants more broadly than that, but in any case, Al Qaeda members do not meet the definition of lawful combatants.  There is a great article on this subject on FindLaw:

WHAT IS AN "UNLAWFUL COMBATANT," AND WHY IT MATTERS:
The Status Of Detained Al Qaeda And Taliban Fighters
By MICHAEL C. DORF
http://[url]writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html[/url]

Selected quotes from the above:
...The short answer is that a prisoner of war is entitled to the protections set forth in the 1949 Geneva Convention. In contrast, an unlawful combatant is a fighter who does not play by the accepted rules of war, and therefore does not qualify for the Convention's protections...

..Al Qaeda members deliberately attempt to blend into the civilian population - violating the requirement of having a "fixed distinctive sign" and "carrying arms openly." Moreover, they target civilians, which violates the "laws and customs of war."

As far as I am concerned whatever person or country wants to have sympathy for these "detainees" in cuba should join these detainees in those cells and give up all of there rights of being a human being and be executed for being stupid. What the hell is wrong with interrigating these idividuals? Who the hell cares about there rights? People seem to not remember September 11,2001!!!!!! Did Al Queda care about the civil rights of all of the americans that lost there lives on that day???? Did the taliban care about the civil rights of all of the americans who died on the day?????Better yet did the Taliban care about the civil rights of there own people???? Here is one for ya , If you were an american soldier and you were captured by the taliban or al queda do you think that they would follow the genava treaty? The answer is hell no!!!! They would torture you,get whatever information they could get and then kill you, and from what i have read the taliban and al queda dont fool around when it comes to torture, they would just as much skin you alive pour salt on you, let you suffer and die a slow death. so dont give me this bull shit about geneva treaty? The only countries that follow such a thing are the good guys, So piss off all of you bleeding hearts, go have sympothy in cuba, oh wait you cant get there because they are on a MILITAY BASE oh my, Stupid people breed stupidity.
[puke]that is why the world is going to hell in a hand basket because stupidity is breeding out of control, maybe we should give stupid people birth control so they cant reproduce there vermon on the face of the earth.

Trickshot, you must really hate your country.  You either don't read or can't read.  In answer to your question, the following was clearly stated in the article.
 

You are really pathetic.  I love how you love to use all the left wing phrases like "gulag" and "political prisoner".  As as been stated before, you are a left wing anarchist.  You are a paranoid fool.  Don't come back with how when one can't argue with you, they resort to name calling.  Many people have tried to discuss things with you but you have your own set of "facts" which no one else seems to be privy to and your posts are very predictable.  As for the Green Berets shooting them, have you ever heard of trying to get info on more terrorists plans, or does that not matter to you?  I also suppose that, as POWs, you think they should just be released after participating in 9/11, to the oppression of the Afghani people, and to the many times they would walk Afghani women into the football stadium and having their brains blown out.  But that doesn't matter to you, you just hate your country.