darinsmasthead2

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

17 years

It was 17 years after WWII when Eichmann was executed for his crimes. That's 17 years that he was held without trial. (For anyone looking up Eichmann, see also "Auschwitz")

Like I said earlier, a little historical context is necessary when we look at Gitmo. We detain American citizens for years for all osrts of various non violent crimes. I believe we can make room for a few deranged homicidal enemy combatants.

The people we have picked up are not selling cookies door to door. In fact we have released and then later recaptured over a dozen detainees. I know it seems unsavory to say we have to hold them indefinitely, what about the rule of law, what about habeas corpus, what about speedy trial, etc....but these are not American citizens with the full legal protection that is granted to an Amercian citizen. These are "enemy combatants" who operate outside of the Geneva Conventions. (They don't wear uniforms, they intentionally target civilians, they hide among civilians....) We have held them for 3-4 years or less. We interrogate, we release some, we hold others.

The pragmatist comes out in me---what do the critics propose we do? We cannot shoot first and ask questions later. We cannot detain combatants for a "long" time. We have to give them special diets, time to pray, copies of their sacred texts....

Why bother picking them up in the first place? Wait a minute....that's the point, isn't it? We should just leave them alone, right? If we just play nice and don't offend the islamo-fascist he won't try to kill us.
This world is ruled by the agressive use of force. It always has been. America doesn't engage her enemies to conquer, or to aquire, she simply protects herself. (Hell, we even rebuild the place after demolishing it, creating something that is not a threat. see also Japan, Germany, the South, Mexico, Russia et al)

3 Comments:

Blogger smays said...

If Eichmann were still alive. And had access to the Net. And was a regular reader of your blog. He *still* couldn't email you because you don't give us a link.

You gotta give the politics a rest, dude... and share more of your thoughts on poker.

http://onemansafari.blogspot.com/2005/06/blog-post_111908430455912897.html

9:49 PM  
Blogger jake said...

Darin- poliitics now a days is so much garbage, but I'll put one more post and hopefully get something started for your blog.
You make great points, but the one about why bother picking them up and America doesn't seek the fights is right wing garbage...where do you draw the line on rapists? Theives, etc? How do you make the distinction as them being worse than terrorists? Rapists don't idenfity themselves for example...they're increasing numbers despite increase public awareness, protest, etc Do we let them go and say hell with it, too tough? Terrorism is horrible physically and economically for our country and they deserve to rot in hell for what they do, but there is no philosophy that holds water on why we should alter our policies on how we treat terrorism suspects. You either claim due process, or say hell with the facts and make up a new set of rules that argues with everything else our country stands for. What you do Darin, is the same we did in WWI when the Germans used chemical warefare for the first time in history. You either fight with chemical weapons like American considered doing but decided not to stoop to that level..., or you develop a strategy to overcome it. (Such as spending all the money for proper protection). The US needs to divert its spending in IRAQ, develop an exit strategy from that mistake, and shift it to Suadia Arabia and Syria where most of these bastards came from. Oh, but I wonder why that doesn't happen :) I guess it must be on how much those two countries are helping us in our fight.

Second Darin, subscribing to a nationalism point of view always distorts your sense of proportions and point at hand. My heart goes out to all those affected by 9/11, but why dont you talk about how ironic it is that we, Americans, can justify killing well over 50k people in Iraq for 3k dead in our country? And trying to define Iraq as being the reason for that on September 12, 2001? America doesn't engage her enemies to conquer? I supoport Bush, but nothing much about his policy in Iraq except for getting out. Every other month he has to come up with a new 'position' for us on the war for obvious reasons. Heres something to consider and blog about:

THE PRE-WAR MISSION WAS TO RID IRAQ OF WMD…

Bush: “Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.” [3/6/03] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

AFTER THE WAR BEGAN, THE MISSION EXPANDED…

Bush: “Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” [3/22/03]

Bush: “Our forces have been given a clear mission: to end a regime that threatened its neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction and to free a people that had suffered far too long.” [4/14/03]

THEN THE MISSION WAS COMPLETE…

Bush: “On Thursday, I visited the USS Abraham Lincoln, now headed home after the longest carrier deployment in recent history. I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: Their mission is complete, and major combat operations in Iraq have ended..” [5/3/03]

BUT THEN IT CONTINUED AGAIN…

Bush: “The United States and our allies will complete our mission in Iraq.” [7/30/03]

THEN THE MISSION WAS TO DEVELOP A FREE IRAQ…

Bush: “That has been our mission all along, to develop the conditions such that a free Iraq will emerge, run by the Iraqi citizens.” [11/4/03]

Bush: “We will see that Iraq is free and self-governing and democratic. We will accomplish our mission.”
[5/4/04]

AND TO TRAIN THE IRAQI TROOPS…

Bush: “And our mission is clear there, as well, and that is to train the Iraqis so they can do the fighting; make sure they can stand up to defend their freedoms, which they want to do.” [6/2/05]

NOW, COMPLETION OF THE MISSION IS FAR FROM CLEAR…

Bush: “We’re making progress toward the goal, which is, on the one hand, a political process moving forward in Iraq, and on the other hand, the Iraqis capable of defending themselves… And we will — we will complete this mission for the sake of world peace.” [6/20/05] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050620-19.html

ON a different note, cardinal baseball would be great topic. Email me sometime.

peace
jake
jacob@supportandhome.com

11:08 PM  
Blogger J-Mon said...

Ouch - smays laying the smack down. But more poker talk is good...

4:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home