Note crossposting, followups.

For shame, Mr Daneliuk. From our previous
discussions I know you to be an educated
man, one who is capable of further self-education,
and one who has a respect for moral principles.
Further, I suspect you were raised better than
to believe what you wrote. I know I was.

Yet what you wrote below runs counter to those
observations.

First, you make numerous statments that may be
politely referred to a urabn legends. But worse, you
express a desire for barabarity and a disrespect
for the rule of law, morality, and civilization itself.

Those who advocate barbarism and disdain for the
the rule of law are our enemies without regard
to whether the advocate it against the United States
or in the name of the United States. To defeat our
enemies, the enemies of civliization, not only is
it possible, not only is it imperative, but it is
prerequisite that we ourselves first and forever
reject any weakening of the principles for which
we fight.

I presume you to educable on these matters and
will provide below, and in other articles, sufficient
information that you and other readers may ascertain
the truth for themselves and thus be disabused of
your erroneous notions and unconsionable attitudes
should you retain suffient moral fiber to do so.


Tim Daneliuk wrote:
David Stuve wrote:

Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
prisoners,

You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
whom the Geneva accords do not apply.

Regardless of what he means, you are
mistaken.

See the sections of the Fourth Protocol of
1949 regarding "civilians accused of a beligerant
act" (e.g. insurgents, guerillas, partisans or
whatever). The 1978 GC addresses those
issues further. That the United States has
refused to recognize those parts of the
GCs does not mean they do not exist.

They can be shot on sight as spies
if we like.

Indeed, you may shoot me in the back if you like.
However, you would be comitting a crime and so
would anyone who summarily executes any
prisoner regardless of the accusation against that
prisoner.

The UCMJ prohibits murder, and a good faith belief
that the victim is a spy is not among the enumerated
defenses. Indeed, this is hardly a new concept:

Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806,
2 Stat. 371, derived from the Resolution of the
Continental Congress of August 21, 1776, imposed
the death penalty on alien spies "according to the
law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general
court martial."

"by sentence of a general court martial." pretty clearly excludes
impromtu execution.

In earlier articles I was mistaken as to the date. I apologise.

There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.

There is both legal grounds and precedent for muder
convictions of persons who do so. Consider the post-WWII
trials of persons accused of summarily executing partisans.

Summary execution of spies has been a war crime under the
most common international treaties since at least the early
20th century. See the Hague Conventions circa 1903.

And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
knife like their compatriots do.

It also involves water torture.

I recall watching a news conference around December 2001
in which reporters asked Rumsfeld about accusations that
Afghanistani civilians had been mistreated by American Forces.
He scoffed at the notion.

I expect the Secretary of Defense or anyone in the chain
of command, when asked about such matters, to express
confidence in the character of the rank and file of the US
military. I also expect that same person to state plainly
that all such accusations are taken seriously and investigated.

That sort of statement sends the message that we do the right
thing and don't let anyone get away with doing any less.

Clearly that is not the message Rumsfeld sent.

Habbiulah and Dilawar had their
hands chained to the ceiling, hanging them by their dislocated
shoulders with their feet shackled to the foor. Their legs
were pulverized. They were denied food and water. They
died after four days.

Four others arrested in association with them were sent to
Guantanamo Bay and eventually released. No evidence that
any of the six were involved or conspired to commit any hostile
acts has ever surfaced.

In December 2002 the deaths of Habullah and DIlawar were ruled
homide by the Bagram prison coroner. Investigators had to fight
the Pentagon for three more years to bring anyone to trial.

I would suggest the death penalty for any member of the Taliban,
Al Quaida, Feyadeen Saddam, or insurgent who tortured anyone
to death. One US serviceman has plead guilty to assault against
Dilawar, and returned to duty. It is not clear if his light sentence
is contingent upon an agreement to refrain from making statements
against his fellow actors in the crimes.

That is some of what has come to light.

Foreign spies are not entitled
to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents
enjoy.

That is true.

But more importantly we, as a civilized
people impose restrictions on ourselves.
If we do not, we have no claim on any moral
authority to try others or even govern ourselves.

In fact, they're not even entitled to the consideration
legally required for foreign military combatants.

Quite correct. And still beside the point as shown above.

When the
Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) are willig to wear uniforms and fight
other soldiers, not kill innocent civilians, then they'll get treated
accordingly when captured. Until then, they are entitled to no
consideration whatsoever.

Again, beside the point. The issue is not the consideration
to which they are entitled. The issue is our standard for our
behaviour. There are lines that, if crossed, constitute criminal
behaviour regardless of the choice of victim. If we do not
respect our own laws, we have no business expecting anyone
else to do so either. If we do not behave in a moral manner,
we abandon moral authority.

Murder, rape, sodomy, torture, assault, battery, witholding
necessary medical care, nutrition, hydration or shelter,
subjecting people to outrages against dignity, or to cruel
inhuman or degrading treatment is illegal, morally wrong,
and a violation of our treaty obligations without regard to
motive or the choice of victim. Those who deny this, are
our enemies.


no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,

To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the
no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton*
administration primarily because there are so few companies who
can/will do this work at the relatively low net margins to be had.

False. The no-bid Halliburton contracts in the instant case,
(e.g. Iraq) were let out under the Bush Administration. *Previously*
no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton* in
the Balkans.

...
interference with CIA intelligence gathering, the outing of Valerie Plame,

There will be due process to find out who did what as regards to the
whole Plame matter. Stay tuned - it will have been much ado about nothing.

My prediction is that the matter will be dragged
out in the courts until January 2009 at which time
President GW Bush will pardon enough people
to squelch the matter, unless Fitzgerald has the
guts and determiniation to subpaoena the pardoned
persons as witnesses, arguing that the Fifth
Amendment protection does not apply to a person
shielded from incrimination by a Pardon. He just
might, but he might get cut off by the next administration
anyhow.


...

ordering the NSA to spy on Americans. Cheneys name will be prominently

Again, we need to help you with the concept here. The NSA was not given
an unlimited hunting license. They were only given room to do this when
the American in question was in contact with a *probable threat*. FWIW,
I don't like this either - there should always be judicial oversight
when wiretapping in any form occurs - but the way you people drool on
about it, you'd think the NSA was watching you get aroused watching Al
Franken on TV at night. Your secret is safe. The NSA doesn't care that
much about you.

Maybe. OTOH, maybe the Administration
continued to bypass the FISA court after it
could no longer be justified by an immediate
danger of a magnitude that exceeded the
capacity of the FISA courts. Maybe the
administration actively concealed the fact
that the FISA court had been bypassed from
the FISA court itself. Maybe the administration,
went beyond national security and also spied
on anti-war activists, reporters, or political
adversaries.



--

FF