Overheard on CBC radio news just now – a World Report “news” item on the suicides of three inmates of Gitmo, complete with editorial comment from Dwight Smith that the suicides “spoil the brief moment of success” the US had with the death of al Zarqawi.
Smith made no attempt to explain just how the two incidents are related, much less how the self-inflicted demise of three hard core terrorists in a prison in Cuba dimish the achievement of bringing to an end the career of the world’s second-most wanted butcher.
Because, you know, he’s the CBC and you, lowly listener, should just know these things in your heart.
Update – there are a number of commentors who would do well to read this before continuing with their flawed arguments demanding that those who violate the rules of war have the “right” to protection under the Geneva conventions.
Maritime Liberal
Yours is an intelligent and well reasoned post from the dark side yet IMHO it is nevertheless deeply flawed. If you want us (and I consider the U.S. led coalition us- as in democratic western civilization) to succeed in Iraq then you do not defend an organization that denigrates every accomplishment. Just because the CBC has been in the habit of presenting an anti-American spin to its coverage of just about everything for the last 30 years in order to make inadequate Canadians feel better about themselves is no reason to encourage this type of clueless, dishonest and pathetic coverage or overlook the fact that this type of coverage is prolonging the war.
When the democratically elected government in Iraq called a press conference to announce the death of this mass murdering fanatic the Iraqi media applauded the news. Iraqis danced in the streets at the news. The killing of Zarqawi should bring joy to all freedom loving people. This accomplishment is not diminished except in the minds of those who see it as their role –for whatever reason- to downplay its significance. The death of three terrorist prisoners at Gitmo who decided to seek their reward in the hereafter is not a cause for regret.
The war on terror will not end until we kill enough terrorists that they realize they cannot win. The sooner more terrorists perish the more innocent people will survive. I therefore celebrate the death of every terrorist just as I mourn the death of every innocent victim of their fanaticism. I particularly mourn the deaths of those brave men and women, who have risked their lives to preserve the freedom of others.
Incidentally you are wrong about it being wise to invade Afstan and not Iraq. Unlike Richard Clark, Bush can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. Bin laden may no have been caught but his capacity to exercise command and control over his forces is limted. His escape had nothing to do with invading Iraq. He was in that cave 15 months before the U.S. went into Iraq.
The criticism that America couldn’t do both is political not military. You are also overlooking the fact al Qaeda has been devastasted in Iraq- militarily, psychologically and in terms of their brand name. They are now known throughout Arabia as killers of Muslim women and children.
You are guilty of short term tactical thinking rather than long term strategic planning. The prospect for a successful democracy in Iraq within the next decade is excellent. It is far more developed and less tribalistic than Afstan. It will take at least 25 years before there is any hope of civilizing Afstan. (It might have been better to ship out all the innocent people to Toronto and then bomb those who remained back to the stoneage- just kidding).
We of course have no choice but to stay unless we are prepared to see al Qaeda return to their “homeland”.
Exactly, where was the outrage for the police officer in Montreal who received stab wounds to his neck and leg from a “certain person” he had stopped to question on his day patrol, almost causing his death. He managed to shoot his attacker, a known radical muslim who did die from his gun wound, but the would be police murderer’s IMAM stated that it was all a police set up and the man was not known to carry a knife and the police had no business doing their job against traditionally dressed muslim men.
Yeah, here in Canada.
On a Canadian street, in broad daylight, last fall.
CBC Sensationalizes Layton’s Attack While Misrepresenting Martin’s Record
(This website says CBC has a sighkosis; who would not believe?) True or False? (Or is it p(silent)sychosis? Is it congenital or/and hereditary?)
If the CBC’s producers have any brains at all (and they do), they know that Martin has said things and then implemented the exact opposite policy so often that quoting him from his opposition years without pointing this out is blatantly disingenuous. Housing, clearly, has been no exception.
So why did they mislead the public on Paul Martin’s record on an important issue? The psychosis that leads people to lie and distract others from what is most important is not something that will be covered here.
The effect of the coverage, however, is perfectly clear: using the words “nasty” and “personal” over and over again (and flashing them on the screen) serves to distract from the issue. It is sad that it is necessary to note that this, right here (the election!) is the time when issues can be raised in a serious way, where voters might have a choice. And the CBC failed its mission in this case.
Just for fun, let’s imagine how a free press (free of the CBC’s apparently passionate commitment to upholding the status quo at any cost) would cover this kind of story…
Jack Layton today made a grave and serious claim: that Paul Martin was responsible for the deaths of homeless people. The Liberal response was to show mock horror at Layton’s comments. Their unwillingness to discuss their own policies and the effects of those policies was duly noted, and their responses to our questions were evasive and useless.
Now, Layton clearly has his own agenda in attacking Paul Martin, and whether the way he did it was effective is being questioned, but this is a serious issue… so let’s look at the facts. Did Paul Martin directly oversee the elimination of the housing budget? Yes, he did. Did homelessness increase as a direct result? Yes, by fourty per cent in Toronto. Do homeless people die more frequently than normal people? Yes, eight times more frequently, according to the CBC’s data. And those who don’t die suffer from the obviously miserable condition of not having a home. Could a moderate investment in housing have prevented these deaths, in addition to eliminating homelessness? Why yes, it seems that it could have.
Now, to our reporters, who are putting the obvious and difficult questions to the people who are asking for a mandate from voters: why didn’t they do the obvious and eliminate homelessness? We now go to our cantankerous reporter in Toronto for perspectives on solutions to homelessness, and why they have been utterly ignored at the federal level…
Obviously, this kind of completely obvious, minimally critical coverage is completely out of the realm of possibility. The key question, which must be answered before we consider ourselves to be living in a democracy, is why the CBC is actively not doing its job.
As the oft-lauded standard bearer for Canadian journalism, the CBC continually lowers the bar by obsessing about how “outrageous” Layton’s claims are, while spending very little time indeed discussing the substance (and then doing so in an insultingly misleading manner!) It is a testament to the dysfunction of a supposedly advanced democracy that Canadians must call their media to account before they can do so with their elected representatives.
What is more important: the issue of homelessness, or the image of a politician who makes a serious claim about homelessness? The CBC has made its choice clear. The question is: should this be considered an acceptable practice for journalists in a nation that considers itself a democracy? Citizens must decide, and act.
(It should be noted that most media outlets are worse than the CBC in their distortion of facts and sensationalization of immaterial issues. As an encouraging postscript, the pundits’ obsession with the “nastiness” of Layton’s comments hasn’t prevented a large number of Canadians from seeing the accusations as what they are: straightforward, verifiable claims, delivered in a somewhat…
http://paulmartintime.ca/story/000512.html
I watched George Stombopolis the other night interviewing the editor of the NY Times. George was like a little puppy waiting to be patted on the head with this guy. Tongue lolling to one side paws up in front. Anyway it gave me what I believe was a glimpse into the CBC mindset.
The NY Times seems to be setting the agenda. Pravda can’t even think for itself it seems. They are looking to that den of myopic socialists to get their marching orders. Or so it seems.
maritime liberal:
Nowhere in your palaver do you actually refer to the subject in the post.
As for the gitmo prisoners, they died with a bedsheet around their neck instead of a suicide belt around their chest. Why do they get CBC’s sympathetic attention? How many deaths have they, CBC, ignored in Zimbabwe just in the last week? Were there no suicides in Sweden last week?
Jeff Cosford – I don’t think that the ME situation has improved ‘because of Canadians’. The US has never been alone in Iraq – remember, there’s the UK, the Australians, Poles, Italians, and etc.
I agree that the ME situation is improving. NATO and Canada are making a big difference in Afghanistan and enabling that democracy to emerge from totalitarianism. Iraq is moving into democracy, despite the relentless attempts by the tribal old guard and Iran, Syria, SA, to send insurgents in to foment civil war, to prevent Iraqi democracy.
Democracy is the key in the ME, and I applaud Bush and the US (and UK) for their efforts.
And – finally, Canada has stepped up to its international obligations, thanks to Harper. Yes, Martin sent in the troops in the beginning, but that was just a diversion to prevent them helping out in Iraq. The Liberals had no intention of assisting democracy there.
However, in my view, the Israeli-Palestinian situation has gone from bad to worse. I support Abbas’s referendum, but, presume that Israel will ignore the desire of the Palestinians for a state, and continue to make their unilateral decisions, taking the best land and water.
As for the CBC – it and CTV are ‘all the same’. They are Liberal systems, which means that they define themselves, and Canada, only by differentiation from the USA. That’s the only identity attributes they know.
What always impresses me, and keeps me coming back for more, is how much *more* everyone here seems to know than the rest of the world. The places I look for news claim that most of the people in GITMO, and the some 40,000 (give or take) in Iraq, are being detained without any charges filed. But everyone here already knows the exact circumstances under which they were captured and whether or not they are indeed terrorists. It’s not just that you’re all taking a pragmatic approach to it, as in, “this is war, shit happens sometimes to good people, but probably not that many are innocent”, no no. You all *know* they’re terrorists. On an unrelated matter, can you all pontificate on next weeks 6/49 winning numbers for me?
I know that this is off topic, but it is funny as heck….
CTV.CA
POLL
Did the Liberal leadership debate hold your attention?
It was interesting
315 votes (4 %)
Too many candidates
459 votes (6 %)
It was boring
591 votes (8 %)
What debate?
6163 votes (82 %)
Total Votes: 7528
Tony Snow said that Bush expressed “serious concern”, and that “these things do happen and it’s an awful thing.” The Pentagon and the White House are mounting an “aggressive effort” to investigate.
Starch your panties, boys!
The trouble with Bush is that he is too concerned with PR and wants to be seen doing what he thinks is expected of him.
Why didn’t the administration take the trouble to contact either the guards’ commander or the base commander? I heard Colonel Bumgarner interviewed several weeks ago on radio (Humphries?), and he said that an imam had been spreading the word that if three “brothers” die, the prison will be closed and the prisoners released. This rumor is clearly the “mythical belief” referenced by Admiral Harris.
So the prisoners have been trying to get three of themselves killed for months. The suicides have nothing to do with despair or Zarky’s death.
I’m sure somebody must have tried this already, but it would interesting to compare LexisNexis results on prisoner abuse at Guantanamo and abuse in that coutry next door.
Ted, you say, “You all *know* they’re terrorists”. Which “all” would that be?
You seem to be exhibiting the generalization fallacy of which you accuse sda contributors.
I just read a book by a journalist in France who infiltrated an Al Qaeda terrorist cell there. The book, by the way, is Inside Al Qaeda: How I infiltrated the World’s Deadliest Terrorist Organization by Mohamed Sifaoui. The terrorists are evil but they are not stupid. They know how to play the system and use the “useful idiots” to their advantage. They know the value of propaganda and use it including double-speak for the naive. They have used the courts, the public, and other Muslims to further their cause. They are aware of the value of propaganda and use it. We should be as smart about this as they are!
Dammit Lookout, you made me lose the bet. I bet a fellow leftie that it would take at least 20 minutes before someone said that.
The good news is that if you kill yourself I won’t celebrate without being real certain you were a jerk. I won’t just take Steve D’s word for it, for example.
Sadly though, I wasn’t accusing them of over-generalizing. They do, sure, as do I, but that’s natural in informal conversations, blogs, comment sections, etc. In fact I was accusing people here (you know who you are!) of claiming to know things they don’t, or can’t possibly know.
And not just in this thread. It’s just a general observation. It’s hard to get people to see the other side. My theory is that the people who come here, can’t. Over-generalization is too charitable, in other words. It’s not just that they (they know who they are!) fail to qualify their (their know whom theirs be?) statements, I suspect they just think they know things that other people don’t.
Now, I’m giving it 20 minutes before someone reacts to the word in my rant that will completely avoid the issue. Keep up the good work lookout! Two for two, you can do it!
So Sweden thinks Guantanamo should be shut down because of 3 suicides there.
from http://www.immi.se/imer/thesis/johansson.htm
“The main finding in the first part is that ethnicity is a significant risk factor for suicide in both sexes and in all age groups except for males aged 30-49. The highest risk ratios for suicide in Sweden, adjusted for age, have been found among males born in Russia and Finland. They also show increased suicide risks compared with their countries of birth.
Females born in Hungary, Russia, Finland and Poland all have an increased risk of committing suicide in Sweden, and they also have higher risks than in their countries of birth.
Foreign-born individuals run a twofold risk of committing suicide compared to Swedes and adjusted for socio-economic factors. Foreign-born males and females under 45 and 35 respectively have significantly increased hospital admission rates compared with native-born Swedes.”
Maybe Sweden should also be shut down.
Jim at 2:40 PM knows the C*C.
Can. Observer is of two minds? Say/say it’s not so/so.
The real bi-polar mind is shown by the Ass. Press writers with this rewrite. …-
Are Islamists Writing for the Associated Press?
LGF reader Amer1can pointed out an astounding phrase in an Associated Press article, published at MSNBC: ‘Major attacks’ threatened in Iraq.
The phrase echoed the words used by the Prophet Muhammad’s successor, Abu Bakr, after the prophet’s death in the 7th century to urge Muslims to continue spreading Islam.
Notice, it’s not a quote. That’s pure shilling for jihad, and it’s extremely unlikely to have been written by a non-Muslim.
But even more interesting is this later version of the same article, which appears to have been cleaned up by an editor who recognized how outrageous (and revealing) the first version was: Al-Zarqawi death prompts attack warning. (Hat tip: christheprofessor.)
The phrase echoed the words used by the Prophet Muhammad’s successor, Abu Bakr, after the prophet’s death in the 7th century to urge Muslims to stick to their new faith.
Well now, that’s quite a different message, isn’t it? …-
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
The places I look for news claim that most of the people in GITMO, and the some 40,000 (give or take) in Iraq, are being detained without any charges filed.
Ted L, Nancy, I don’t what your news sources are(care to share them?), but, when in the history of warfare, be it WWI or WWII, did any country have to file individual charges(?)against every combatant captured on the battlefield and held in custody?
Are you not getting the circumstances, big and small, as to why these jihadis got incarcerated?
I don’t know if every single one of them is to a man is a terrorist either, but, somehow, these incarcerated clowns found their a$$es, real stupidly, at the wrong place at the wrong time during warfare. This is a real and serious war, my friend, not some ACLU exercise in nihilistic stupidity. They are lucky to be getting “3 hots and a cot” rather than a summarily ordered execution as allowed by the Geneva Convention. (Check it out.) And, please, define “international law”? (What written international law?, what court? who are the signatories?) It’s an entity that doesn’t exist in any real or practical form except in the imagination of uninformed moonbats, no offense.
….and the some 40,000 (give or take) in Iraq
Got a verifiable link to that number?
Should have guessed, ask a simple question, get a boat load of idiotic rightwing rhetoric.
three hard core terrorists
Others have mentioned, but it bears repeating, that most here have tried and convicted these people without trial.
I wonder what rights and freedoms conservatives consider worth defending? Obviously not the right to have one’s day in court. And the CBC is culpable, it seems, because they won’t join the virtual lynch mob here.
Some of you ought to watch The Ox-Bow Incident and think it over. You’re sounding like a pack of dangerous fools.
Gabby, the Swedes have their own suicide en masse going on with their own self-imposed pc and multi-culti paradigm where one must politely accept dhimmitude or incur the wrath of lefties for being racists for resisting.
Lefty nihilism at its finest. Like the ACLU defending the burning down of their office, you can’t get anymore twisted or brain washed into self-loathing than that.
Obviously not the right to have one’s day in court
Good night, Ted.
One more time:
Obviously not the right to have one’s day in court
They don’t get a day in court. These aren’t crimes under civilian circumstances by a country’s citizens. Read all of the above. Are you brain dead?
“Like the ACLU defending the burning down of their office”
You got to like “The Onion”. Great satire. s a t i r e
Odd stuff Penny. Your post I mean. I don’t think you understand what I was trying to say. I think you missed the point.
Oh well, I’ll do this dance anyway:
Ted L, Nancy, I don’t what your news sources are(care to share them?), but, when in the history of warfare, be it WWI or WWII, did any country have to file individual charges(?)against every combatant captured on the battlefield and held in custody? 1. No. 2. Never so far as I know. 3. Out of curiosity, why do you bring this up? Just curious.
Are you not getting the circumstances, big and small, as to why these jihadis got incarcerated? Lol. That’s exactly my point. You have no frickin clue what the circumstances of their incarceration are. You’re told by the U.S. that it’s justified, that they are all bad guys, and bam, it’s just an unassailable truth to you. That was classic Penny.
I don’t know if every single one of them is to a man is a terrorist either, but, somehow, these incarcerated clowns found their a$$es, real stupidly, at the wrong place at the wrong time during warfare.
Again Penny. I’m enjoying this way too much. Now they’re not necessarily all “jihadists”, see your previous sentences, but the fact that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, say, a market when a bomb goes off, makes them clowns who deserve to be locked up, and whatever else happens to them there. That’s good Penny. I mean, morally bankrupt, but at least its a consistent argument.
This is a real and serious war, my friend, not some ACLU exercise in nihilistic stupidity. They are lucky to be getting “3 hots and a cot” rather than a summarily ordered execution as allowed by the Geneva Convention. (Check it out.)
Prisoners of war can be executed summarily under the Geneva convention? Has anyone told Bush and Rumsfeld? They may decide to apply the geneva convention to the prisoners held in GITMO if they know that. In any event Penny, like I said, I’m glad you’ve got a consistent argument going, even if its morally bankrrupt. Ie…innocents should feel lucky to be alive and in prison because they could be shot instead. Rejoice! Praise Allah!
Seriously though, what part of the conventions is that in. I totally did not expect that. In fact, I really though it violates convention two, which states the following: “To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” But I’m no expert Penny, so you just show me what you read instead and where, unless it was just a gut check, ala Stephen Colbert.
And, please, define “international law”? (What written international law?, what court? who are the signatories?) It’s an entity that doesn’t exist in any real or practical form except in the imagination of uninformed moonbats, no offense.
None taken. I have no frickin clue what your talking about. Never used the word. Although, the Geneva conventions is considered to be a form of international law, and the international criminal court exists to enforce it, but hey, I don’t really care about what you call it. On a related note, did you even read my shorts posts here?
Got a verifiable link to that number?
Here’s one, that puts it at 25,000 from the NYT. Also has some good stuff that talks about the way these clowns find themselves in jail. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/world/middleeast/07cnd-iraq.html?hp&ex=1149739200&en=f1f260eb81975df3&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Just a test to see if it was my content or name or ip that is being filtered here.
Last test… http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/world/middleeast/07cnd-iraq.html?hp&ex=1149739200&en=f1f260eb81975df3&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Dr.Dawg,
“Others have mentioned, but it bears repeating, that most here have tried and convicted these people without trial.”
Michelle Malkin –
Every single detainee currently being held at Guantanamo Bay has received a hearing before a military tribunal. Every one. As a result of those hearings, more than three dozen Gitmo detainees have been released. The hearings, called “Combatant Status Review Tribunals,” are held before a board of officers, and permit the detainees to contest the facts on which their classification as “enemy combatants” is based.
Gitmo-bashers attack the Bush administration’s failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions. But as legal analysts Lee Casey and Darin Bartram told me, “the status hearings are, in fact, fully comparable to the ‘Article V’ hearings required by the Geneva Conventions, in situations where those treaties apply, and are also fully consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case.”
Full Story – http://tinyurl.com/naxgd
Just because you keep repeating it doesn’t make it true.
Odd stuff Penny. Your post I mean. I don’t think you understand what I was trying to say. I think you missed the point.
Oh well, I’ll do this dance anyway:
Ted L, Nancy, I don’t what your news sources are(care to share them?), but, when in the history of warfare, be it WWI or WWII, did any country have to file individual charges(?)against every combatant captured on the battlefield and held in custody? 1. No. 2. Never so far as I know. 3. Out of curiosity, why do you bring this up? Just curious.
Are you not getting the circumstances, big and small, as to why these jihadis got incarcerated? Lol. That’s exactly my point. You have no frickin clue what the circumstances of their incarceration are. You’re told by the U.S. that it’s justified, that they are all bad guys, and bam, it’s just an unassailable truth to you. That was classic Penny.
I don’t know if every single one of them is to a man is a terrorist either, but, somehow, these incarcerated clowns found their a$$es, real stupidly, at the wrong place at the wrong time during warfare.
Again Penny. I’m enjoying this way too much. Now they’re not necessarily all “jihadists”, see your previous sentences, but the fact that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, say, a market when a bomb goes off, makes them clowns who deserve to be locked up, and whatever else happens to them there. That’s good Penny. I mean, morally bankrupt, but at least its a consistent argument.
This is a real and serious war, my friend, not some ACLU exercise in nihilistic stupidity. They are lucky to be getting “3 hots and a cot” rather than a summarily ordered execution as allowed by the Geneva Convention. (Check it out.)
Prisoners of war can be executed summarily under the Geneva convention? Has anyone told Bush and Rumsfeld? They may decide to apply the geneva convention to the prisoners held in GITMO if they know that. In any event Penny, like I said, I’m glad you’ve got a consistent argument going, even if its morally bankrrupt. Ie…innocents should feel lucky to be alive and in prison because they could be shot instead. Rejoice! Praise Allah!
Seriously though, what part of the conventions is that in. I totally did not expect that. In fact, I really though it violates convention two, which states the following: “To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” But I’m no expert Penny, so you just show me what you read instead and where, unless it was just a gut check, ala Stephen Colbert.
And, please, define “international law”? (What written international law?, what court? who are the signatories?) It’s an entity that doesn’t exist in any real or practical form except in the imagination of uninformed moonbats, no offense.
None taken. I have no frickin clue what your talking about. Never used the word. Although, the Geneva conventions is considered to be a form of international law, and the international criminal court exists to enforce it, but hey, I don’t really care about what you call it. On a related note, did you even read my shorts posts here?
Got a verifiable link to that number?
I’ve seen credible reports that put it at around 25,000. Give or take. Don’t believe me or were you just pointing out that 40,000 is too high? I tried giving a link but it gets caught in a filter for some reason. Google is your friend.
PS. Lookout: Umm…goodnight Lookout. Sleep tight. Don’t let the moonbats bite.
Dawg
You appear to be unfamiliar with the obligations and rights of combatants under the Geneva Convention.
As the ME combatants (terrorists), who are now in Gitmo, chose to disregard all the obligations of that Convention, they have also chosen to forego the associated rights. (But those horrible Americans accord them lots anyway: Most live more comfortable, civilized lives in Gitmo than at home.) Yes, losing some of one’s freedoms isn’t altogether nice, but, like war and a fanatical enemy, that’s the way it is. (There, there, Dawg, I’d pass a kleenex if I could.)
Now, onto a more important matter: Given your obvious concern for the rights of prisoners of war, do you have any problems with the fact that the terrorists in the ME have no intention, whatsoever, of observing the Convention when our or our allies’ soldiers are captured? Could you tell us what rights you think they should have?
Might you spare some of your angst for the fact that our allied POWs appear to have none and are truly brutalized or murdered outright?
Double standard, maybe? (I’d be happy to be wrong here.)
Seems to me that most here know more about this then the people who wrote the laws. I guess thats why the US sent a high level team when it appeared before the UN Committee against Torture?
The Committee firmly rejected U.S. claims that the anti-torture treaty did not apply to U.S. conduct outside the United States, and that it did not apply in wartime.
Very few in the world think the US has a leg to stand on in this fight. Maybe a boycott of US Products and Trade? I think China and Russia need a couple more years of building or at least until the end of hurricane season before they can support that kind of action.
Ural, quoting that level-headed source, M. Malkin:
The hearings, called “Combatant Status Review Tribunals,” are held before a board of officers, and permit the detainees to contest the facts on which their classification as “enemy combatants” is based.
This doesn’t help you, Ural. These hearings determine staus under international law as an “unlawful enemy combatant.” Standards of proof? Access to a lawyer? Right of cross-examination?
Oh, I forgot. They’re guilty, so why should they get all that?
And is an “unlawful enemy combatant” now considered equivalent to a “hard core terrorist?” Hey, by all means keep extending the definition. Soon you can apply it to anyone you don’t like.
On second thoughts, that’s what you people are doing now, isn’t it? The CBC is now “mourning” Al-Qaeda, according to Kate; the Aboriginals in Caledonia are now “mullahs,” according to CJunk.
Gitmo-bashers attack the Bush administration’s failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions. But as legal analysts Lee Casey and Darin Bartram told me, “the status hearings are, in fact, fully comparable to the ‘Article V’ hearings required by the Geneva Conventions, in situations where those treaties apply, and are also fully consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case.”
Malkin hasn’t read the case to which she refers, and has been misinformed by her “legal analyst” friends, or she’d know that Hamdi reaffirmed the right to a hearing before an impartial decision-maker. That does not mean a hearing before one’s captors.
Another lyncherous wingnut writes:
They don’t get a day in court. These aren’t crimes under civilian circumstances by a country’s citizens. Read all of the above. Are you brain dead?
You clearly are. Have they been convicted of terrorism or have they not? A simple yes or no will suffice.
By the way, check out Rasul v. Bush before you make a further fool of yourself.
How many even know what the Geneva Convention is or have read it. It is for soldiers in uniform. If you were caught out of uniform in ww11, you could be shot as a spy. Regardless, those at Gitmo have a much better life than if they were in a cave in afganistan or iraq-3 meals/day, following a muslim diet, recreation, exercise, prayer mats. Those 3 suicides probably were about to be released and sent home and didn’t want to go. And anyone not expecting threats to increase after Alz death, by wannabe successors is crazy. Take those threats as serious as the CBC does the threats against Toronto by 17 plotters. For months I have asked this question but no leftie will or can answer it.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN IRAQ OR AFGANISTAN IF ALL TROOPS LEFT NEXT WEEK. WOULD WE BE SAFER, OR CONSIDERED COWARDS BY OBL. And why do the lefties and msm want the war to be lost. I don’t think the democrats realize what their hate for Bush has done to them.
I’d like to hear an answer to Lookout’s question above, from those defending the Gitmo detainees. I’d also appreciate a follow up answer to this question:
Have any of you ever posted a comment on a blog or in your own blog, any expression of outrage over the acts of the terrorists in the middle east (beheadings, bombs in market places etc), ever?
And if you haven’t you’ve pretty much chosen to side with the terrorists don’t you think?
Try defending that one.
Mitch wrote: Have any of you ever posted a comment on a blog or in your own blog, any expression of outrage over the acts of the terrorists in the middle east (beheadings, bombs in market places etc), ever?
And if you haven’t you’ve pretty much chosen to side with the terrorists don’t you think?
Man, this place has the best wingnutz seats on the nets. I’d like to add that if you’ve never blogged about how bad rape is, you clearly support rapists, and are hurting the police’s efforts to catch rapists to boot.
Goodnight, Ted L. Nancy, Neutralsam, and stageleft.
Nice avoidance Ted, I think I have the answer.
Actually Ted, the better analogy would be if you blogged continually about defending the rights of those accused of rape, split hairs about whether women really said “no”, suggested that that many of may have “really wanted it” ect., and never once came out and acknowleged that rape was a horrible crime.
Canadian Observer said: “I admit I am of two minds…”
…
“Canada’s approach to terror reveals a split personality.”
Why Canada is a terrorist target
By Christopher Caldwell
Published: June 10 2006 03:00 | Last updated: June 10 2006 03:00
“We are a target because of who we are and how we live,” said Stephen Harper, prime minister of Canada, last weekend. It was on the day that 17 men and boys from Ontario were arrested in an alleged terrorist plot that was to culminate, according to one prosecution document, in the lopping off of Mr Harper’s own head. It is striking that Mr Harper’s explanation of why Islamists want to bomb his country should so resemble George W. Bush’s explanation of why Islamists want to bomb his. After all, between September 11 2001 and Mr Harper’s election in January, the notion that the US and Canada are polar opposites was the cornerstone of Canadian national identity. Canada prides itself on its respect for international law, its refusal to participate in the Iraq invasion (although it has 2,300 troops in Afghanistan) and its devotion to multiculturalism.
…
Canada’s approach to terror reveals a split personality. On security, it has been tough. Emergency arrangements argued over ferociously in Britain and the US – including wide powers to tap phones and intercept mail – are available to Canada’s Communications Security Establishment. An upcoming Supreme Court case will decide the fate of three suspected terrorists who have been held without charge for years. But in other areas Canada has been easygoing. Its intercommunity relations have been marked by political correctness (the president of the Muslim Council of Montreal congratulated the authorities last week for “correctly refer[ring] to these acts as alleged criminal actions motivated by politics and hatred, not by any religion or faith”). Its diplomatic posture, at least until Mr Harper’s election in January, has shown an unconcealed belief that Americans overreact to practically everything.
This split personality has its roots in Canada’s two-sided experience of terror. At one level, Canadians do understand that “it can happen here”. Osama bin Laden has singled out the country specifically in his communiqués. The most deadly terrorist attack in history before 9/11 was the 1985 bombing of an Air India flight out of Toronto, in which 329 people died. A poll taken in the wake of the London bombings in July showed Canadians felt less secure than Americans did: 63 per cent of the former saw a terrorist attack as inevitable, versus 57 per cent of the latter.
But this edginess competes with a tendency towards complacency. Press accounts last week stressed the amateurishness of the plotters, who trained by playing paintball in the Toronto suburbs and wrote childish messages in chat rooms. To take solace in their haplessness is foolish. Since terrorists are always fantasists of a sort, the moment their plan goes awry they will always look a bit ridiculous. But the alleged Canadian plotters were not ridiculous at all. According to prosecutors, their ringleader was a supporter of the notorious Ahmed Khadr of Toronto, killed by Pakistani forces in 2003 while fighting with al-Qaeda. The group found the resources to buy three tons of ammonium nitrate, three times the payload in the Oklahoma City attacks of 1996. They organised a large conspiracy with unusually few blunders. (The group was infiltrated thanks to a far-reaching investigation that started outside the country.)
One source of complacency is self-regard. A poll last year by the Pew Research Center found that Canadians tower above other western countries in their sense that people like them; 94 per cent say they are “well liked by other nations”. Last week a letter writer to a Canadian newspaper noted: “Most Canadians question why anyone would want to attack us because, by and large, we do live in a decent and just society.” Increasingly, Canadians measure their decency and justice by comparing themselves with the US. A year after the 9/11 attacks, two-thirds of Canadians told Maclean’s magazine the US was “a bully”. The evolution of attitudes since then is well summed up by a headline that the Ottawa Citizen ran in 2003 after a US State Department report expressed worry that Canada’s privacy laws impeded terrorist investigations: “US Says Canada Cares Too Much About Liberties.”
Some Americans do, in fact, assume terrorists up north have the run of the place. The Republican representative Pete King, chairman of the House homeland security committee, said last week: “There is a disproportionate number of al-Qaeda in Canada because of [its] very liberal immigration laws and because of how political asylum is granted so easily.” Canadians were appalled by the statement but there is some truth to it. The first big al-Qaeda attempt on the US involved two north-African-born Canadian residents trying to drive a bomb across the border to blow up Los Angeles airport in 1999. By the end of 2007, Canadians will need, for the first time, to show a passport before entering the US.
Canada has the right to form any idea of itself it wishes, whether the US approves or not. The problem is that constant invidious contrasts may have resulted in a misassessment of the terrorist threat Canada faces. This is in contrast to Australia, which assumes itself to be a big al-Qaeda target. Canada has tried to avoid the wrath of radical Islamists by just keeping its head down and making clear that it is not the US. Terrorists do not seem discriminating enough to tell the difference. Two years ago, Israel’s ambassador to Canada warned: “The openness of Canada might be interpreted by the various terrorist organisations as a sort of naiveté that can be utilised and abused.” He was right. While specific grievances can certainly play a role in radicalising specific people, what we have learnt from the targeting of peace-loving Canada is that terrorists attack, above all, simply because they can. …-
http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13311.2
Great post, Mitch, and right on. Too good, I think, for the likes of our snake oil salesmen accusers.
Hehe… oh I get it. I thought Lookout was actually saying goodnight to me. Hahah.
Anywho mitch, your issue is a fake one. Avoidance? Give me a break. The issue is so fake and phony and ridiculous I find it demeaning to even answer it. But here…I’ll hint to you the depths to which it’s a sad, sad, talking point.
I just assume you’re a decent human being who doesn’t like those things and so evaluate your argument from that point of view.
I don’t require you to declare that you’re against racism, killing innoncent people, etc., when you take a certain position on say GITMO.
You can think GITMO is fine, justified, whatever, and not be racist, murderous, etc. There is nothing implied in that that suggests you are. If I were to ask you to condem racism, killing innoncents, it does two things:
1. Insults you, since it requires that you “prove” your not a racist bastard by meeting through my standards of proof.
2. Insults me, since obviously I’m either an asshole for suspecting your moral character based on the fact that you disagree with me, or so stupid that I think your position implies some degree of support for racism or killing innocents.
Just go ahead and extrapolate that now to your own situation.
We talk about
a bevvy of brides,
a pride of lions,
an exaltation of larks.
How about:
a sinister of snakes?
(as in oil salesmen)
I just don’t know where some get their ideas about international law and the UN from.
Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(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.
(2) 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 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.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
But who is a lawful combatant to the US, have they caught any? Under your reasoning the US shouldn’t be classified as legal combatant. They’ve used Chemical weapons against civilian populations.
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
They’ve shot wounded people Killed whole Families.
It’s not all out in the open yet but they’re working on it.
Steven Casteel the most senior US advisor, from the Latin American Drug wars in the 1980’s 1990’s Plus ex US army Col. James Steele who lead the US military mission in El Salvador at the height of the civil war. Seems like the Us has brought out the Death Squads, these two are great at setting them up with the best in US training.
Iraq ia easier to deal with if its broken into small states, divide and conquer is the easiest way. Plus it gives reason for the billion dollar bases the US is building for their long term stay in Iraq.
Aunty-American says: “Moi am not an American”. Uses the negative “not” in order to define herself.
The liberal leftist says: “I Am Not Afraid”. Uses the negative “not” to define themselves and, thus reveals their state of mind; capitalizes the words.
So much for the split personality theory in re the left liberals. These Canadians have only one personality: left liberals. …-
TORONTO (CP) – The men who brought the Rolling Stones to Toronto for a massive outdoor concert following the SARS crisis of 2003 want to show American tourists that Toronto is a safe place to visit despite the recent terrorism-related arrests.
Senator Jerry Grafstein, former Liberal MP Dennis Mills and political consultant Warren Kinsella are joining forces to organize I Am Not Afraid, an event designed to showcase Toronto’s resilience in the wake of the arrest of 17 local terrorism suspects. cnews
Everytime I read about the CBC I worry that the United States could one day move to a national news system controlled by a few elites and run by a bunch of idiots.
NO tickets for me, thanks very much.
“I Am Not Afraid, an event designed to showcase Toronto’s resilience”
More like an event to showcase Toronto’s Liberal loons. Spare me!
Ted,
Actually I wasn’t defending Gitmo, nice try at deflection once again, read my two posts above. As for your rambling suggestion that you are somehow sparing me by not accusing me of supporting racism or murder (suggesting that my purported position on Gitmo could lead to those charges and then saying that youre above making that very suggestion), well, I obviously struck a nerve.
not accusing me of supporting racism or murder
Have you ever blogged against racism? Or posted an anti-racist comment in a combox somewhere?
;-), Stingray. LOL!
Mitch, your ability to not grasp something astounds me. I was giving an example in order to make a point. I said “your”, but we could have put in “Bert” or “Nanny” or “Booboo”. If you read it again, with that in mind, you’ll come to where I write “when you take a certain position on say GITMO”. On say…making up an example. Don’t know, don’t care what your actual position is. Example.
Engage with the material before you start looking for mistakes Mitch. Think about it. read it carefully and think. Then write. Read, think, write.
Mitch, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Dr. Dawg. Actually yes, I’ll try to find a link.
Interesting how your comparing the notion that the continual defence of those accused of terrorism suggests one is sympathic to the terrorists with:
questioning those who are sympathetic to terrorism is suggestive of one being racist (and correpsondingly in need of evidence to the contrary).
Very interesting indeed.