« Professor asks students to burn U.S. flag or Constitution | Main | Trouble in Pakistan »

Separate Discriminations

There is a hot debate going on, and it has been going strong for some years, about how we should treat detainees at places like Guantanamo and in the custody of allied nations. The odd thing to me, is that I see discrimination in the points of view of both Left and Right, but the preference shown is in opposite directions. The way I see it, the Left wants to protect perceived "rights" of persons apprehended by our troops, even if that protection endangers innocents, our troops, and the mission. The Right wants the mission to succeed in Iraq, even if by that effort individuals suffer injustice to some degree, and certain innocents may suffer pain, loss, and even death. This is the hard truth to the matter. I am not saying that the Left desire the mission to fail or innocents to die, nor do I say that the Right does not care about what happens to a particular person, but the choice is made and consequences result from the decision. We should be honest about that, even though if we have a functioning conscience that fact should make us all uncomfortable.

Moral choices with consequences happen all the time. If someone takes hostages and negotiations do not appear to be working, yes there will be a sniper positioned to kill the person who has taken the hostages, and if the hostage-taker dies in that situation few of us would have a good reason to complain about the action. If someone is part of an organization which murders innocents and continues to pursue such actions, then to my mind that person's life is forfeit. No, I am not saying that a terrorist who surrenders or swears off his old ways has to be killed, but whether or not someone is personally committing an act of violence at the time he encounters our troops has no bearing on his fate; Admiral Yamamoto was not flying a bomber when we shot him out of the sky in World War 2, but it was still the right and necessary thing to do. And terrorists hardly match the moral standards which Admiral Yamamoto was known for.

Basically, I see it this way. 9/11 started the war, and all the claims otherwise don't budge that fact. And no, it's not just Al Qaeda; that group is basically a front for a number of different organizations, in sort of the same way that the old 'Islamic Jihad' of the 1980s was a hodgepodge of different groups that took the name for their own purposes. The Madrid train bombing is an example of the was/was-not aspect of Al Qaeda's activity. Terrorists are not 'freedom fighters' or simply practicing guerrilla warfare, either. They kill indiscriminately and their chief purpose is to destabilize governments and provoke enemy forces to waste resources in many places. So, the United States and its allies (and yes, we have allies) moved into Afghanistan and Iraq because it was necessary, because if they did not the whole region was headed for a bad blow-up. You can believe it or not, the evidence has been plain for years and until 2003 even the Democrats said so themselves in public. Those who opposed the invasion of Iraq fell into three basic camps: The Saddamites who would personally lose from his fall, which includes those countries who enjoyed special deals with Saddam, especially Germany and France and Russia; those nations whose appetite for conquest was thwarted by a force they could not hope to overwhelm (Iran and Syria, for example); and Socialists, whose greatest fear for the Middle East was that a stable Middle East would advance American influence and power. It's hardly a shock that most of the public protests were organized and paid for by Communist-front groups like ANSWER.

The Left had its day, and may again, but now that the Surge is clearly working, that ordinary Iraqis are making clear that they will not accept the likes of Al Qaeda or Iran's infiltrated thugs, and that the U.S. Military is making Iraq far better than it was under Saddam for the regular people, more and more people are realizing that the troops were neither duped nor stupid, but were right all along in their commitment and spirit. But the war continues, and the key question still haunts us: What do we do with these monsters we catch?

First, let's be clear that we are not talking about your average criminal on 'Cops'. These are the kind of people who build bombs to kill women and children in schools, they kill people at Mosques in prayer, they are too cowardly to face anyone in straight-up combat, they depend on hidden bombs and 'soft' targets. They increasingly have no connection to the area where they operate, but have been imported and outfitted by alien forces. They are, therefore, not a native 'resistance' but hired thugs and fanatics, whose whole worldview centers on death; theirs or someone else, in many cases they don't even care. Their actions merit execution, not protection. They are extremely dangerous, to themselves as much as anyone else. I would not blame the military, frankly, if they just locked them away somewhere and provided sufficient protection from escape, and if they killed each other off, no great loss. But the U.S. military is made of better ideals than that.

The utopian solution would be where a just system could weigh the evidence and choose a fate appropriate to the deeds and the need of the society for accountability and deterrent force. In the case of terrorists, however, problems begin at the outset. There is no suitable local venue for trials, nor are terrorists the sort of people to face the consequences of their deeds realistically; these are monsters which revel in blood and pain, and have become convinced, against all reason, human sensibilities and logic, that they will receive an eternal reward, not punishment, for their crimes. The more heinous, the more glory they think. Man learned long ago that when an animal reaches such a condition, it must be destroyed, as much for the good of other animals as for the humans. The same hard rule applies here; if it is known that a man has committed the sort of acts we see so common to Al Qaeda, not merely murder or violence in the heat of the moment, but the thirst for the blood of innocents, a creed of cruelty performed as we have seen done to children and other innocents, then death is the only possible consequence - swift and as merciful as the situation allows, but to spare such monsters is to doom more innocents. There are those who quail at such a hard determination, but no one who has seen the work of Al Qaeda could be fooled into thinking they remain human. In terms of practical effect, the knowledge that Al Qaeda members will summarily executed will drive people to make a quick decision either to join them in all aspects, or to give them up to the Coalition to avoid sharing their fate.

If someone is apprehended on something less than certain knowledge, however, the matter becomes more difficult. Such situations must not be confused with common crime, yet there must be a system whic grants appropriate responses to conditions of doubt or extenuating circumstances. For that purpose, I defer to the proven success of military tribunals. While those who cannot respect the American military officer will bridle at the notion, the fact remains that military officers are the people most competent to judge by the facts rather than the emotions or politics of the moment, and they are as a group impressively successful in addressing individual cases with the right mix of justice and mercy. I can think of no better system than the one in place, however much the Left scorns and mocks it.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (27)

9/11 started the war.... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

9/11 started the war.

To the best of your knowledge how many of the 19 hijackers were Iraqi's?

About the same number as th... (Below threshold)

About the same number as the "freedom fighters" in Iraq are Iraqi Zero

"Basically, I see it this w... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

"Basically, I see it this way. 9/11 started the war,"
yep forget the Cole, embassy's..Beruit.
Terrorism is a philosophy carries out through methods to make a populace afraid.
Some lefty's argue that our Iraq "shock and Awe"
was done to terrorize a populace...

That aside...
the only thing 9/11 proved was that our belief that somehow we were exempt from actions that have taken place world wide was fantasy.

Wars are fought between armed forces.
How is that Turkey/Kurd thing going?
How is that Pakistan thing going(they have nukes)
Remember we provided Saddam with chemical weapons because he was fighting Iran(c'mon you all have access of the pic with Cheney shaking hands..which we supported the Shah through a coup disposing elected official because of the Soviets...
Then of course we supported bin Laden when he was a rebel fighting the Soviets...

We are all suckers...it has nothing to do with Libs or Conservatives...
The military industrial complex...folks
Does anyone really believe that our arming Sunni's to fight al Q will not be used against our troops...

The surge is working?
I probably am wrong, but wasn't the surge meant to provide the Iraq govt space to get something done?
Thankfully death is down...now what?

CB, I believe it's the same... (Below threshold)

CB, I believe it's the same as the number of Algerians who bombed Pearl Harbor.

CBAs usual, with jus... (Below threshold)

As usual, with just one reply you can be wrong multiple times.

9/11 started the war.

This war started for real with the first WTC attack in 1993, followed by the African Embassy bombings,the attack on the Khobar Towers, the attack on the USS Cole and then 9/11.

After 9/11 the US chose to counter attack in force.

Hey Hugh,Check the... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Hey Hugh,

Check the beginning of the third paragraph written in the above blog entry by DJ.
"9/11 started the war"

You were saying?

As usual you avoid answering the question.

To the best of your knowledgs how many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi's?

At least pretend you know the answer then spin your top.

To the best of you... (Below threshold)
To the best of your knowledge how many of the 19 hijackers were Iraqi's?

CB, your point (if indeed it could even be considered one) is pointless. To the best of your knowledge, how many of the 19 hijackers were Afghani?

Let me clarify:The... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Let me clarify:

There were numerous ACTS of war before 9/11.

9/11 was the point where enough people decided we should fight back ...

Oyster, ... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:


The answer to the question is 15 of the 19 hijackers were SAUDI ARABIAN.

No President has ever had such a close relationshhip with a foreign government as the Bushies have with Saudi Arabia. More than $1.4 billion in investments and contracts went from the House of Saud over the past two decades to companies associated with the Bush family. Hmmmm, nothing there, move along...

SO exactly how did 9/11 start the war? There wasn't one Iraqi on any of those planes.

And while you're at it how about giving us the benefit of your wisdom and explain why did the FAA and NORAD fail to follow standard operating procedures in responding to the hijacking of the four planes on 9/11?

I'm sure you must have a answer to that pointless question too. Or will you defy gravity once again and find a way to defend that blunder.

In essence why aren't we identifying the real criminals.

Foolish Ameicans.

CBLearn how to prope... (Below threshold)

Learn how to properly make your point. You quoted the post without attribution. DJ can speak for himself.

Your second point is ludricrous:

And while you're at it how about giving us the benefit of your wisdom and explain why did the FAA and NORAD fail to follow standard operating procedures in responding to the hijacking of the four planes on 9/11?

Pure unadulterated truther BS. And the US Navy allowed Pearl Harbor to be bombed, right? Men walking on the moon...that was a Hollywood stage set, right? You have revealed yourself to be an AWOL leftist lunatic with the above remark. You should have stopped wth your first post.

DJ, While you'r... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:


While you're at it why not clarify how many "ACTS" of war were promulgated by Iraqi's?

You know, "the first WTC attack in 1993, followed by the African Embassy bombings,the attack on the Khobar Towers, the attack on the USS Cole ".

Those acts of war. Just while you're clarifying.

DJ, I knew exactly what you... (Below threshold)

DJ, I knew exactly what you meant and so did others here.

No CB. The answer to your question is simply zero.

Your vision is so myopic and thought processes so simplistic that no one could possibly be at fault for anything but the "Bushies" in your world. But rather than humor you into further hijacking a thread, I'll just leave you to wallow in your own petty foolishness. You even came dangerously close to jumping with both feet into the shadowy world of that "big conspiracy". Now don't you have a rich Palm Beach socialite somewhere to berate? Because you obviously have nothing to offer here but another of your typical sign-offs, misspelled in your fervor to sling insult.

No President has e... (Below threshold)
No President has ever had such a close relationshhip with a foreign government as the Bushies have with Saudi Arabia. More than $1.4 billion in investments and contracts went from the House of Saud over the past two decades to companies associated with the Bush family. Hmmmm, nothing there, move along...

This is supposed to be proof of what, exactly?

That the Saudi government sent the hijackers to commit 911 with Bush approval?

Are you some kind of troother idiot?

civil [mis]behaviour:... (Below threshold)

civil [mis]behaviour:

"While you're at it why not clarify how many "ACTS" of war were promulgated by Iraqi's?"

How about this partial list:

1. Plotted to assassinate a U.S. President that was responded to by one of your heros Slick Willie.

2. Countless acts against U.S. citizens visiting Israel as a result of Saddam's financial support to Palestinian suicide bombers.

3. Allowed, and or looked the other way, when the 1993 WTC bomber entered Iraq with an Itaqi passport.

4. Countless numbers of incidences when he ordered Iraqi army to either shine fire control radars, or actively shoot missiles, at U.S. military planes flying in the southern and northern no-fly zones.

There's more asshat but at the moment I have little time to play games with an obvious troofer whose grasp of reality is tenuous, at best.

Oyster speaking to civil [m... (Below threshold)

Oyster speaking to civil [mis]behaviour:

"Now don't you have a rich Palm Beach socialite somewhere to berate?"

Never happen Oyster, the rich Palm Beach socialites are the same ones Gore wanted recounted to the exclusion of any areas with a "Rethuglian" majority.

CB would never attack the very source of BDS.

CBHere's some clarif... (Below threshold)

Here's some clarification:

How many North African nations attacked the United States in 1941-1942?.....( I'll save you the Wiki search: none) What was the first major US led offensive launched in WWII? An invasion of North Africa.

Here's a question for your conspiracy soaked brain: From what nation did China receive vital US missile technology and under which Bush administration did this happen? Hint: It wasn't a Bush administration.

Connect the dots

Questions for the dhimmi's.... (Below threshold)

Questions for the dhimmi's.

1. If you (democrats) support release of the terrorists from Gitmo and they kill another American can that person's family come and kill your family, without punishment or penalty?

2. Hundreds of thousand of acres and thousands of homes were burned in Ca. simply because the enviro whacko's got another whacko judge to stop the clearing of fire lanes and controlled burns. Since enviro whacko's and whacko judges are all democrats can the people in Ca come and burn your home (their choice of who and when) with a few minutes notice?

Sounds like fair justice to me. Tit for Tat and all that stuff.

A little history of how the... (Below threshold)

A little history of how the Allies entered
WWII by striking the soft under belly of the
"An Army At Dawn by Rick Anderson"
Part one of The Liberation Trilogy.

The invasion began in South Africa.

MaggieEisenhower wou... (Below threshold)

Eisenhower would claim it began with Operation Torch...that was not South Africa.

It's real simple, we (Ameri... (Below threshold)

It's real simple, we (America) are in a war that we Americans have never seen before. It is, believe it or not, just like the crusades were several hundred years ago.

Those religious muslin frantic's brought it to our shores when they, for the second time, hit the twin towers. Yes there was other attacks, but not on our home soil.

As much as I dislike President Bush, he had the balls to take the fight back to them, on their soil, not on ours. Yes, he as commander in chief made mistakes, and the VP and Sec. of Defense also made mistakes. However, you bleeding heart liberals had better understand, if we don't win this war, we are in a world of hurt.

Trying to make peace with the muslim idiots will be when you lefites become muslims. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? I damn sure don't. I respect my freedom, served to protect our freedom, and became a disabled vet because I served to save your ass. And if you don't like this post, KMA.

Allen:"Yes the... (Below threshold)


"Yes there was other attacks, but not on our home soil."

Sorry bud, you're either misinformed or misguided.

Any attack on a U.S. warship or U.S. consulate or embassy is home U.S. soil.

Marc,I stand correct... (Below threshold)

I stand corrected. You are correct. However, I meant on/within CONUS. However I meant everything else I said, and what friggin lefty wants to argue that? Because if they do, KMFA.

Also, yes our warship, embassy, etc, is American soil, but it was not within CONUS. But why split hairs, we are at war, and the friggin bleeding hearts had better wake up to that fact. (But wouldn't their women look real good in the moslem idea of fashion?)

Allen:(But wou... (Below threshold)


(But wouldn't their women look real good in the moslem idea of fashion?)

Not to mention clitoral circumcision.

Marc, it may/would help sto... (Below threshold)

Marc, it may/would help stop the breeding of the bleeding hearts, wouldn't it? I don't agree with a lot of things either party spouts out, but the bleeding hearts are really mentally screwed up.

Gee, I always thought the M... (Below threshold)

Gee, I always thought the Muslim Fundamentalist war on the United State started under President Carter. Think any of this would be going down right now if President Peanut would have sent 4 carriers and all the heavy muscle he could have mustered into the persian gulf and demanded the heads of those daring to attack the Unites States Embassy in Iran? Clinton was the same, 4 seperate incidences under his command and all we did was launch a few cruise missles at dubious targets. Send in assassination teams to kill those in charge of the groups and we accomplish a whole lot more than invading a cesspool country. mpw

CB, You asked how ma... (Below threshold)

You asked how many "ACTS" of war the Iraqis had committed before 9/11. As commenter Marc touched on they committed acts of war on at least a weekly basis and had done so for years. Do not forget that relations between the United States and Iraq were then based on the surrender treaty from the end of the Gulf War. The Iraqis were in regular violation of that treaty by harassing and attacking coalition forces, thus the Iraqis were at war with the United States.

Did anyone see Elder Bush o... (Below threshold)

Did anyone see Elder Bush on Fox news today? it was really telling.

Bush: "My favorite picture is a picture of American soldiers surrounding a guy whose been in a foxhole, Iraqi soldier, and the American guy says, we're not going to harm you, we're American soldiers." (fights back tears)

Bush: "...See, that side of the war never got -- the fact that we treated those people with respect in spite of the fact they were the enemy, it's really good
Americans on the right and left use to believe in these things. some still do. The war on terror is useless if we start doing the things we are fighting against.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy