Hostage Takers

What does conservatism today stand for?
It stands for war. It stands for power.
It stands for spying, jailing without trial,
torture, counterfeiting without limit,
and lying from morning to night.
There comes a time in the life of every believer
in freedom when he must declare,
without any hesitation,
to have no attachment to the idea of conservatism.
--Rally for the Republic, Lew Rockwell
_________________

Many argue that it was a mistake to announce Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's scheduled appearance in U.S. Federal Court in New York City.

A Wall Street Journal editorial says, "Given [Attorney General] Holder's misguided decisions to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a Manhattan civilian court, and to limit interrogation of the Detroit Christmas bomber to 50 minutes, the quality of his counsel is a major concern. (The "al Qaeda Seven")," But what is at issue goes far beyond the logistics of the trial.

The editorial goes on to praise the substance (if not the presentation) of Liz Cheney's "Keep America Safe" ad, which questions Justice Department lawyer Daskal who "argued that detainees who have not been charged with a crime should be set free, even though 'some of these men may cross the border and join the battlefield to fight U.S. soldiers and our allies.'"

It seems clear to an old Ranger without benefit of a legal education that here is the crux of the issue: If a Gitmo detainee cannot be charged as a criminal due to tainted or inadequate evidence, or because they are not a terrorist, then it follows they should be released back into the wild. A Federal Catch-n-Release program.

Allowing that many of the released prisoners would return to the battlefield (as the opponents of release claim), then it follows:

[1] The detained are military types and NOT terrorists; at the very worst, they are members of the military wing of al-Qaeda. If either case is so, then they were captured on the battlefield and will return there. This is not a legal consideration.

If the U.S. fears the repatriation of less than 200 battlefield enemies, then we are surely a paper tiger.

[2] The Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) has been a dismal failure on all levels.

Legally, the U.S. Congress can pass laws that criminalize material support for terror groups and for associations with al-Qaeda and attendance in al-Qaeda training camps. This simply blocks U.S. citizens from participation, as U.S. jurisdiction does not extend to the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. But it does not address the basic problem of terrorism, as citizens of other nations are not bound by our laws.

Anybody outside U.S. borders may join any organization they desire and will not meet with our laws unless they enter our jurisdiction or conspire to attack U.S. targets. The Gitmo prisoners do not fit the bill, as they were largely captured on the battlefield largely within the borders of their own country, and had no intent or capability of projecting their violence onto our shores.

The combatant detainees are fashioned as aggressors, although most were fighting defensively against an attack by the sole world superpower. In our aggression we have created a legal and military morass. We claim to be at war, yet our adversaries are not Prisoners of War -- how is this? The detained are then denied legal access and treated like Michael Vicks dogs, yet we accept this desecration of international law as another day at the office.

The logical conclusion is that these people kept in endless detention in an endless non-war are HOSTAGES. No other legal or military definition is as apt. The national keeping of hostages is in violation of the Hague Convention.

A hostage-taking nation cannot expect to maintain respectability. We are judged not by what the terrorists are or do, but by our own actions. The perpetrators of this miscarriage of justice may never be held to account, but their violence to our reputation may be irreparable.

How do our leaders fail to see the untenability of the situation? Reality, unlike U.S. law, has a universal jurisdiction.

The New Untermenschen

Army of None, Gavin Hadallar

In giving rights to others which belong to them,
we give rights to ourselves.

--John F. Kennedy

An injustice committed against anyone is a threat to everyone.
-- Montesquieu

The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor
is the mind of the oppressed.
--Stephen Biko

Terrorism doesn't just blow up buildings; it blasts every
other issue off the political map. The spectre of terrorism--
real and exaggerated--has become a shield of impunity,
protecting governments around the world from scrutiny
for their human rights abuse
--Naomi Klein
_________

Terrorism is a phenomenon that is distinct from warmaking. Because it is by nature adversarial and attack-driven, it has been recently conflated with war. But terrorism per se is a discrete activity, and criminal in nature. Therefore it is to be dealt with in the Federal Court system.

It is essential to bring the federal response to terrorism back into the picture, to reinstate some measure of reality and sanity to this government.

GWB and minions want to create a class of prisoner that falls outside the rule of law and the protections of the U.S. Constitution. This extra-legal categorization would "permit the long-term detention of foreigners on American soil without charges or appeal, just on Mr. Bush’s say-so."

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates said 'the biggest challenge is finding a statutory basis for holding prisoners who should never be released and who may or may not be able to be put on trial' (Terrorism and the Law: In Washington, a Need to Right Wrongs.)"

Yes--doing dirty deeds and making them look kosher is quite a challenge. It requires the exquisite legal prestidigitation of a Gonzales. It demands Rovian resources.

The policy is analogous to the Nazi untermenschen categorization of groups of their citizens they deemed worthy of ostracism and ultimately, extermination. The untermensch was banished to a liminal area beyond civilized behavior and legality. The new untermenschen are called detainees.

Since Ranger has a healthy dose of paranoia in his weltanschauung, there is always the possibility that old Ranger bloggers would be the next gruppen to go. If anybody is marginalized, then anybody can be. It's a slippery slope.

The founding fathers divided the powers to conduct and declare war between two co-equal branches, giving Congress the power in a time of war to “make rules concerning captures on land and water"(Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11.)

Congress took this right and responsibility to heart when the Geneva Conventions (GC) were ratified, thereby becoming the law of the land. Unfortunately, this Constitution template has been co-opted by the slimy mental midgets within the U.S. government.

The GC covers the militarily captured personnel that become POWs. But terrorists are not captured.

Off the field of battle, suspected terrorists by legal definition must be arrested by police exercising jurisdiction over the suspected individual.

The Constitution discusses capture since arrest powers were otherwise held to be the the purview of the individual states. War was a federal function and law enforcement was seen as a local concern.

The founders did not envision an expansion of federal law enforcement beyond the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Police powers resided with the states, while the Federal authority retained warmaking and diplomatic functions. Obviously this is no longer the case.

One thing remains clear though: whether speaking of war or terrorism, there is nothing stated within the U.S. Constitution that encourages or authorizes torture, kidnapping, renditions or secret prisons. If these are war powers of a president, then this country has become a rogue nation.

None of these legal violations are warfighting measures, and are subversive of U.S. values.

This is the result of taking the U.S. military to war against a criminal faction.