NoaIzumiDon’t Prosecute, by Investor’s Business Daily
January 17th 2009 05:25
Just a quick one more for tonight. This time, IBD is weighing in on the issue of whether to prosecute officials for alleged crimes connected to the war on terror. Luckily for me, the folks on the editorial board use the same quality of logic on this issue as they do on most others.
Really Long Link
In other words, they couldn’t have done anything wrong, they’re Republicans! OK, that’s a cynical observation, but that’s pretty much what it amounts to. IBD is particularly shameless in this one, claiming that torture and holding people indefinitely without charging them or declaring them as POWs is OK because their hearts were in the right place.
“interrogations of prisoners at Guantanamo — from where 61 detainees have been released only to return to the battlefield against U.S. soldiers”
Not sure where they got this figure, but I noticed it keeps changing. A few days before this article, on Jan. 13 of this year, “at least 36 former Guantanamo detainees were ‘confirmed or suspected’ of having returned to the battlefield”. A couple of months before that, on November 18 2008, it was “at least 37 former detainees” (from Gitmo, presumably all confirmed). OK, never mind the sourcing, I’ll be happy if they just settle on one number. Might I suggest 57?
Wikipedia lists thirty released detainees from Gitmo that have allegedly returned to the battlefield (although the page has not been added to since mid-2008, so there may be more).
Really Long Link
“the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a lawsuit by four Guantanamo detainees against Rumsfeld could go forward based on the novel notion that they were due protections under our Constitution”
Well, I’m no Constitutional scholar, but the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Bill of Rights (they describe the rights regarding due process and criminal trials) describe the people they apply to as “person,” or “the accused,” not “citizens,” “Americans,” or “people we like”. It strikes me as odd that the most brutal serial killers are universally acknowledged as having the right to due process, but anyone detained at Gitmo (many of whom were not in fact caught on the battlefield or in the process of terrorist acts) are legally considered no better than animals by IBD.
Granted, some of them really are dangerous terrorists and do fall into a legal gray area. But the logic here is backwards. Detainees should at Gitmo because they’re terrorists, not declared to be terrorists because they’re at Gitmo.
“Since the White House has put an end to most of the practices that Democrats want criminalized — such as waterboarding”
OK, for starters, waterboarding is a crime. We have tried, convicted, and punished people for it, and they had the same “protecting my country” defense that officials are claiming today.
Really Long Link (PDF file)
And all should be forgiven because they claim to have stopped? Assuming the claim is true, does that mean that a con artist can run a scam on dozens of people, or a robber can hit several banks, but as long as they stop at some point and not even return the money (it’s not like you can untorture someone), all should be forgiven?
“it would be fruitless and vindictive to put them on trial for trying to protect us from terrorism during an unpopular war.”
So, as long as it’s for a good cause, it’s OK? So I can knock over a jewelry store as long if I use the money to put my nephew through college?
Or maybe it’s OK as long as some good comes out of it. Leaving aside for the moment the issue of whether the practices have actually resulted in any victories in the war on terror (I’ve addressed the issue before and will almost certainly address it again), does that mean that if I rob a bank for thousands of dollars, and the subsequent investigation uncovers bank fraud worth millions, I should be allowed to go on my merry way? Or if I shoot a guy in my getaway, and it turns out that he was a Mob hitman that the FBI had been after for years, does that mean I’m innocent?
Obviously, I’m not the greatest fan of the IBD Editorial Board, but I’m sure I like them a lot better as editors than I would as judges. Yikes.
Really Long Link
In other words, they couldn’t have done anything wrong, they’re Republicans! OK, that’s a cynical observation, but that’s pretty much what it amounts to. IBD is particularly shameless in this one, claiming that torture and holding people indefinitely without charging them or declaring them as POWs is OK because their hearts were in the right place.
“interrogations of prisoners at Guantanamo — from where 61 detainees have been released only to return to the battlefield against U.S. soldiers”
Not sure where they got this figure, but I noticed it keeps changing. A few days before this article, on Jan. 13 of this year, “at least 36 former Guantanamo detainees were ‘confirmed or suspected’ of having returned to the battlefield”. A couple of months before that, on November 18 2008, it was “at least 37 former detainees” (from Gitmo, presumably all confirmed). OK, never mind the sourcing, I’ll be happy if they just settle on one number. Might I suggest 57?
Wikipedia lists thirty released detainees from Gitmo that have allegedly returned to the battlefield (although the page has not been added to since mid-2008, so there may be more).
Really Long Link
“the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a lawsuit by four Guantanamo detainees against Rumsfeld could go forward based on the novel notion that they were due protections under our Constitution”
Well, I’m no Constitutional scholar, but the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Bill of Rights (they describe the rights regarding due process and criminal trials) describe the people they apply to as “person,” or “the accused,” not “citizens,” “Americans,” or “people we like”. It strikes me as odd that the most brutal serial killers are universally acknowledged as having the right to due process, but anyone detained at Gitmo (many of whom were not in fact caught on the battlefield or in the process of terrorist acts) are legally considered no better than animals by IBD.
Granted, some of them really are dangerous terrorists and do fall into a legal gray area. But the logic here is backwards. Detainees should at Gitmo because they’re terrorists, not declared to be terrorists because they’re at Gitmo.
“Since the White House has put an end to most of the practices that Democrats want criminalized — such as waterboarding”
OK, for starters, waterboarding is a crime. We have tried, convicted, and punished people for it, and they had the same “protecting my country” defense that officials are claiming today.
Really Long Link (PDF file)
And all should be forgiven because they claim to have stopped? Assuming the claim is true, does that mean that a con artist can run a scam on dozens of people, or a robber can hit several banks, but as long as they stop at some point and not even return the money (it’s not like you can untorture someone), all should be forgiven?
“it would be fruitless and vindictive to put them on trial for trying to protect us from terrorism during an unpopular war.”
So, as long as it’s for a good cause, it’s OK? So I can knock over a jewelry store as long if I use the money to put my nephew through college?
Or maybe it’s OK as long as some good comes out of it. Leaving aside for the moment the issue of whether the practices have actually resulted in any victories in the war on terror (I’ve addressed the issue before and will almost certainly address it again), does that mean that if I rob a bank for thousands of dollars, and the subsequent investigation uncovers bank fraud worth millions, I should be allowed to go on my merry way? Or if I shoot a guy in my getaway, and it turns out that he was a Mob hitman that the FBI had been after for years, does that mean I’m innocent?
Obviously, I’m not the greatest fan of the IBD Editorial Board, but I’m sure I like them a lot better as editors than I would as judges. Yikes.
| 46 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
