A Response To: "Keeping You Alive" by Bill O'Reilly
Editorial Link
Media Matters Commentary Here
My Response:
What is the difference between an "activist" judge and an "activist" Attorney General?
Answer: Nothing, one is just more dangerous than the other.
You again dance around the problem of defining modern war and terrorism for political expediency. YOU want to be able to deal with "terrorists" using extra-legal procedures that are defined by men who are using the ABSENCE of law or precedence to make room for such extra-legal behavior. In short, there is no law therefore we can make it up to suit our goals and objectives as we see fit.
There's a problem with that. The Legislative Branch of this nation is tasked with creating law. You yourself consistently rant about this very fact when some "activist" judge interprets law in a way that is counter to your particular ideology. Can you say flip-flop? Or, is it situational ethics?
If you want to define this in simple terms, try this:
We first reevaluate the "War on Terrorism" and put in terms of war…not crime. Our biggest problem is that we cannot seem to realize that we are fighting a global insurgency. We continually confuse tactics, which are terrorist in nature, with the overall prosecution of a global insurgent war.
Second, we clearly designate what is a criminal act and what is an act of war.
Third, those caught engaging in an act of war will be either handled as a POW -OR- will be tried via a military tribunal that is CLEARLY and DEFINITIVELY structured to provide full rights to a FAIR and SPEEDY trial in FULL VIEW of the public and UCMJ judicial review.
Fourth, those caught engaging in a criminal act will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law utilizing all laws on extradition and prosecution of foreign criminals who commit criminal acts against Americans or American interests.
Why is it so difficult to achieve this? Because, in doing so you would take away the extra-legal activities that exist in the undefined gray area that is current law and convention. YOU don’t and those who support your view don't want that. You want MORE than your pound of flesh. Where is the morality and justice in that?
The world looks to us, at least they used to, for justice and hope, not just might and retribution. If we are to uphold the values that have made this country that "shining beacon on the hill", than we must strive to always take the moral high-ground from which you so easily ask some to be pushed. Read a manual on counter-insurgency and you will see that you must destroy the insurgents will to fight, but must also negate their reasons for fighting by winning their hearts and minds. If we lower ourselves to their tactics, than we no longer hold hope for those seeking justice and they will then see no other alternative but to join those who they at least perceive have their interests at heart. Indeed, morale, or allegiance, does NOT improve with more beatings.
Lastly, your assertion that torture is effective in gaining information is baseless. I have worked with some of the finest interrogators in the world and to a man, they will all tell you that virtually all torture, especially of the kind perpetrated at Abu Garib and other places, achieves little and carries a great risk of detrimental consequences upon discovery as witnessed by the exposure of our recent behavior. Our use of torture demonstrates our lack of preparedness and a lack of qualified interrogation resources. We cut corners, got little from it, and we got caught; further exacerbating a PR problem that is central to counter-insurgency success.
Revenge is NOT justice, no matter how good it may make you feel.
If this is your view of the world, I wonder from what set of "values" you are working.
Editorial Link
Media Matters Commentary Here
My Response:
What is the difference between an "activist" judge and an "activist" Attorney General?
Answer: Nothing, one is just more dangerous than the other.
You again dance around the problem of defining modern war and terrorism for political expediency. YOU want to be able to deal with "terrorists" using extra-legal procedures that are defined by men who are using the ABSENCE of law or precedence to make room for such extra-legal behavior. In short, there is no law therefore we can make it up to suit our goals and objectives as we see fit.
There's a problem with that. The Legislative Branch of this nation is tasked with creating law. You yourself consistently rant about this very fact when some "activist" judge interprets law in a way that is counter to your particular ideology. Can you say flip-flop? Or, is it situational ethics?
If you want to define this in simple terms, try this:
We first reevaluate the "War on Terrorism" and put in terms of war…not crime. Our biggest problem is that we cannot seem to realize that we are fighting a global insurgency. We continually confuse tactics, which are terrorist in nature, with the overall prosecution of a global insurgent war.
Second, we clearly designate what is a criminal act and what is an act of war.
Third, those caught engaging in an act of war will be either handled as a POW -OR- will be tried via a military tribunal that is CLEARLY and DEFINITIVELY structured to provide full rights to a FAIR and SPEEDY trial in FULL VIEW of the public and UCMJ judicial review.
Fourth, those caught engaging in a criminal act will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law utilizing all laws on extradition and prosecution of foreign criminals who commit criminal acts against Americans or American interests.
Why is it so difficult to achieve this? Because, in doing so you would take away the extra-legal activities that exist in the undefined gray area that is current law and convention. YOU don’t and those who support your view don't want that. You want MORE than your pound of flesh. Where is the morality and justice in that?
The world looks to us, at least they used to, for justice and hope, not just might and retribution. If we are to uphold the values that have made this country that "shining beacon on the hill", than we must strive to always take the moral high-ground from which you so easily ask some to be pushed. Read a manual on counter-insurgency and you will see that you must destroy the insurgents will to fight, but must also negate their reasons for fighting by winning their hearts and minds. If we lower ourselves to their tactics, than we no longer hold hope for those seeking justice and they will then see no other alternative but to join those who they at least perceive have their interests at heart. Indeed, morale, or allegiance, does NOT improve with more beatings.
Lastly, your assertion that torture is effective in gaining information is baseless. I have worked with some of the finest interrogators in the world and to a man, they will all tell you that virtually all torture, especially of the kind perpetrated at Abu Garib and other places, achieves little and carries a great risk of detrimental consequences upon discovery as witnessed by the exposure of our recent behavior. Our use of torture demonstrates our lack of preparedness and a lack of qualified interrogation resources. We cut corners, got little from it, and we got caught; further exacerbating a PR problem that is central to counter-insurgency success.
Revenge is NOT justice, no matter how good it may make you feel.
If this is your view of the world, I wonder from what set of "values" you are working.
posted by Mike at 4:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home