<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12201415\x26blogName\x3dThe+Limburg+Letter\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://brashlimburg.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://brashlimburg.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d424945394657709206', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

The Gitmo Bait and Switch

This is why you can't debate liberals. See, debate involves one side presenting a case supported with facts, and the other side refuting those facts in their own case. Liberals prefer to present a case, let the Right dispute those facts, and then sidestep the rebuttal by producing an entirely new case. It's a permanent stay of execution that usually involves eventually returning back to the original case, thereby "proving" it.

Seems we've finally come to that point in the Guantanamo Bay debate. Over the weekend, Rep. Duncan Hunter presented a booklet of regulations for handling prisoners at Gitmo. It detailed such abusive conduct as painting arrows toward Mecca to facilitate daily prayers, and a menu that's better than what I was served in my high school cafeteria. Now aside from being pissed off that they're paying for such nonsense, the average American reads this and wonders why the Left keeps crying about the conditions down there.

Rather than answer that question, the Left just slams on the brakes, throws the bandwagon in reverse, and races backwards to 2002. You may remember that it was the year the liberals made a full court press for full Geneva Convention rights for detainees. The average American responded with "they can all rot in hell for all we care" and that banner was quietly lowered when Abu Ghraib became the new cause de jour. Now, right on cue, the Left is trying to resurrect that argument. A two-second Google returned two breathless editorials, arguing that they were just kidding about the torture stuff, the real issue is that the "...most basic human rights aren’t respected, such as the right to know what he’s allegedly done, when he’s going to be tried, and how much time he’s going to have to spend in jail. "

Aside from the fact that it's a moronic argument (now "basic human rights "includes giving foreign combatants the same legal protection as an American citizen accused of shoplifting?), America has already rejected this garbage. Then again, in 2002 9/11 was still fresh in everyone's mind. It would be a shame if this argument sways anyone, as it would suggest we've already forgotten that this is a war, and we were attacked first.


Blogger Crackpot Press said...

Basic Human rights include the right to a quick trial.

Human Rights include naming charges.

There are guys in there for years with no charges filed against them.

And strangely enough, not one Operation Rescue terrorist has been lumped in there. As far as I know, this is a Muslims only camp.

6/15/2005 10:02:00 AM  
Blogger Brash Limburg said...

"And strangely enough, not one Operation Rescue terrorist has been lumped in there. As far as I know, this is a Muslims only camp. "

And thank you for making my point. They wouldn't be considered foreign combatants, nor would ELF terrorists.

As far as your definition of basic human rights, I have to disagree. I'm thinking more along the lines of food, water, not having your hands cutt off, etc.

6/15/2005 10:38:00 AM  
Blogger Crackpot Press said...

They could be giving them hookers and champagne and they still need to charge them with a crime and give them legal counsel.

A lot of these folks were swept in raids.

From Amnesty International (you are forewarned)

"No detainee was ever reviewed by a competent tribunal as is required by the Geneva Conventions to determine whether they were engaged in hostilities or a civilian caught up in the confusion,"

Also, we weren't attacked by Iraqis. Thye didn't attack us first. And it is also apparant they didn't have the means to attack us.

6/15/2005 02:25:00 PM  
Blogger Brash Limburg said...

Read the CNN article I linked. That's the whole debate, whether or not they should be held according to the Geneva Convention. I'm simply saying the American public seems comfortable with the idea that they don't.

As far as Iraq, that's a whole other debate. At least have the decency not to try the bait-and-switch in an article about that very thing.

6/15/2005 02:45:00 PM  
Blogger Johnny Utah said...

Gitmo is there for a reason.This is a new kind of War.Liberals are doing this because they couldn`t beat Bush,they are petty,so petty they compare U.S. Soldiers to Nazis.
Whos side are they on.If Liberals had thier way,the 20th Hijackers would be set free..

6/15/2005 05:48:00 PM  
Blogger Billion Year Old Carbon said...

Its not a liberal thing, and setting them free is not an option treating them like legitamate POWs is.The only reason we don't is because no one recognized the Taliban as a government, but taking the high ground is what gives us legitamacy in the world if we throw it out we have nothing. Geneva does not say release your enemy into the theater its expected that you will hold an enemy until the end of conflict. Geneva was thrown out so that we had a legal reason to do things that could be construed as abusive, in our hearts we all know this.

6/15/2005 06:59:00 PM  
Blogger Nedhead said...

Hey Brash, a little editing, how does this sound?

"This is why you can't debate CONSERVATIVES. See, debate involves one side presenting a case supported with facts, and the other side refuting those facts in their own case. CONSERVATIVES prefer to present a case, let the LEFT dispute those facts, and then sidestep the rebuttal by producing an entirely new case. It's a permanent stay of execution that usually involves eventually returning back to the original case, thereby "proving" it."

The above is why you can't have "debate" between extremes.

Funny, Rumsfeld suggests maybe closing Gitmo. Cheney says no way. Two conservatives, two opinions.

If I represent the left, then the left has problems with abuse of human rights, not the operation of a prison for legitimate criminals. The left is aware that isolated cases of abuse will happen, but do not support widespread abuse of human rights. The left has the same opinion of any prison, anywhere.

6/16/2005 07:32:00 AM  
Blogger Prof. Galt said...

"The left has the same opinion of any prison, anywhere. "

And that's the whole point, isn't it? Sometimes liberals let things slip that totally unmask where they are coming from.

This is not any prison, anywhere. This is a detention center for suspected and known terrorists that, if released would be killing our soldiers and whom may have info that could save those same soldiers.

As far as human rights as they relate to torture, I have an easy "laugh test" of sorts. If it's something that can be found happening at just about any fraternity in any college in America, it ain't the type of torture that needs Amnesty Int'l comparing it to a gulag.

6/16/2005 08:15:00 AM  
Blogger Prof. Galt said...

you say "taking the high ground is what gives us legitamacy in the world..."

I totally disagree. Our might is what gives us legitamacy. You think if we closed Gitmo down TODAY, any one in the world would think differently of us? No.

also "...if we throw [the high ground] out we have nothing."

No, we have something... We have prisoners that we are getting info out of by using these methods. The media seems to be really pounding the idea that this behavior isn't getting us any good intel. That is just flat out wrong. It might not ALWAYS give us intel, but it often does and that can save lives.

6/16/2005 08:32:00 AM  
Blogger Brash Limburg said...

Thank you Prof., saved me a lot of typing.

6/16/2005 08:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually I would recomend watching C-span to get an idea of what the American public is really looking at. It may be up on C-span.org I managed to catch most of the Wensday hearing on Gitmo funny thing is once it hits the media 2-3 hours gets compressed into 60-120 seconds at best. Lt.Col. Swift said it best, not applying the Geneva conventions because terrorists don't adhere to it means that in some sense we are holding them accountable to it how can we hold them accountable to it and at the same time not apply the rights it affords.
But there is a real big distinction that needs to be draw here this is not a right or left issue no rational person on either side is reccomending releasing combatants back into the theater, what is wanted is a review of the proscess and procedures being used to measure their legal validity and effectiveness. Prior to the war there where long established rules on how to detain POWs but the administration decided to build new and didn't want to listen to anyone who saw it differently, if they had not done that we would not be talking about any of this, the war would have gone on, POWs would be detained and we would still get the intelligence and safety that we wanted but we would also not look like some cruel and empire to 1 million muslims like we do now. Despite the belief that it doesn't matter what the third world thinks because we are so mighty...history has shown that it really does matter.

6/16/2005 09:28:00 AM  
Blogger Brash Limburg said...

And that review is going on. How many court cases have we seen in the last 2 years where American lawyers are fighting for the rights of these people?

The system is working, just not fast enough for some poeple. As for the rest, they've just lost they're minds entirely

6/16/2005 10:15:00 AM  
Blogger Nedhead said...

"Sometimes liberals let things slip that totally unmask where they are coming from."

And sometimes conservatives prove how simpleminded they can be. Totally unmask where they are coming from? Sorry that I try to live by the notion of treating others how I would like to be treated. If I were in prison, I would expect my human rights to be observed (I am not saying give me a beach chair and pina coladas in the sunset, prison should not be a resort) I guess that isn't a Conservative value.

I don't think my message was unclear, but selective reading is very easy to do. I was not calling Gitmo any prison, anywhere. To clarify, abuse of human rights is unacceptable anywhere, anytime. If this was not clear, I apologize.

6/16/2005 10:27:00 AM  
Blogger Brash Limburg said...

And what abuse is taking place here Ned? That's the whole point of the post. Access to the American Legal System is NOT a "basic human right" it is a privelidge that not everyone is entitled to, and one that can be forfeited by an individuals actions.

6/16/2005 10:52:00 AM  
Blogger Brash Limburg said...

And speaking of abuse, I'm looking forward to all your replies to today's post

6/16/2005 10:54:00 AM  
Blogger Nedhead said...

Brash, can you honestly tell me that holding someone indefinitely, without a formal charge or trial is humane? I know I'll get flak for this, but what if you travelled to LiberalLand and they decided you were an enemy combatant and threw you in prison because of your blogviews and just held you there, for however long they felt was necessary? Until you gave up the identity of Prof. Galt?I would bet that you wouldn't be too happy. Unfortunately, (more like fortunately) none of us posting on your site are inside any of these prisons so we are just left to supposition. That said, I think holding someone for undetermined time periods without formal charge is a violation of human rights, unrelated to the American Justice system.

6/16/2005 11:24:00 AM  
Blogger Brash Limburg said...

Well, if you would apply that as a blanket statement (which you seem to be doing) then we fundamentally disagree.

For example, I have no problem with leaving Saddam to rot until we feel like trying him. If we catch Bin Laden and keep him in a secret location until people forget he ever existed, the world will be a better place.

6/16/2005 11:31:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home