Protect our national prerogatives..

There is a debate occurring inside Iraq about whether to extend amnesty to those individuals who have supported the terrorists there. Apparently it is thought that by extending such an amnesty, even to those individuals who have materially aided in the deaths of American servicemen, that the Iraqis could somehow bring these vicious, singleminded thugs back to the world of responsibility and decency.

What the Iraqis need to understand, and what Democratic Senator Harry Reid seems to be reminding them of, is that this is a matter of sovereignty.

Americans would not look favorably towards Iraqi pardons extended to John Murtha, John Kerry, the New York Times, and the many others who have prolonged the killing in Iraq. The Democrats treat pardons the way they should be treated- as something to be sold by outgoing Democratic Presidents. This giving away business could badly devalue the whole concept of get-out-of-shame-free cards, and Harry won't stand for it.

In the vernacular of the street, "Senator Reid, you go, girl." Who says Democrats have no sense of honor?

"..Next some interprising businessman will open a t-shirt and bumper ticker stall with "Have You Hugged a Terrorist Today"..

I don't know why people can't seem to see the threat posed by cheap, foreign-made, imported pardons. They will kill off our domestic public broadcasting system- or, I should say, our domestic pardon industry, and send those jobs overseas...

In the long run, reconciliation at the end of a war is as important as the fighting which led to the end of a war. Is everyone commenting on the Iraqi proposals for reconciliation ignorant as a fence post on the post-war history of Germany, Japan, Italy?

Or go back further. Consider the bloodiest war ever in American history, measured by the percentage of the population killed and wounded. That, of course, was the Civil War (or the "late unpleasantries," as my Alabama grandmother called it). The day before the surrender, the Johnny Rebs were able and willing to kill every Yankee in sight, and vice versa. Yet the day after the surrender, the Rebs were able to return to their homes and farms, taking their horses and their rifles with them.

This is not an easy process. But it is an essential process. And only war criminals should be excluded from such amnesty. Recall the trial and execution of the commander of the notorious Confederate Prison Camp, Andersonwillve.

P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "Tribal Loyalties and Public Lies"

"...The day before the surrender, the Johnny Rebs were able and willing to kill every Yankee in sight, and vice versa. Yet the day after the surrender, the Rebs were able to return to their homes and farms, taking their horses and their rifles with them..."

The Geneva Convention agreements were set up to protect, as possible, those individuals who don a uniform in warfare so as to be clearly distinguishable from innocent civilians.

Surely you don't mean to equate those persons who stand up and exchange fire with opposing soldiers, with the types of vermin who plant bombs to blow up women in crowded markets?

Surely, you don't mean to campaign on such a platform?

At the end of World War Two, an effort was made to locate the worst of those animals who indiscriminately and intentionally killed non-combatants among the Chinese and Filipino populations, and hang them as appropriate. We may not have been about to terminate as many of those vile creatures as we should have, but I don't recall coupons being handed out at Nuremburg.

Please tell me you are not campaigning as a Freeper on such a platform?

Do you honestly believe that there is any equivalence between scum who slink into another country clandestinely, kill civilians there with great relish in the most gristly manner they can concoct, and use civilians as human shields to escape afterwards... and soldiers who wear a uniform while operating at great risk to themselves trying to protect that same population?

Don't run in my state, sir. We're all ignorant as fence posts about such things.

Don't get your knickers in a twist. As I have said before, the foreign terrorists who are captured in Iraq are "illegal combatants" under the Law of War. The Law of War, by the way, is much older than the United States, and was incorporated by reference in the first Act of Congress creating the federal military forces.

Such foreigners as you refer to, should be given a drum-head trial, otherwise known as a military tribunal in the field, and if found guilty, should be shot at dawn. The precedent was first established on that by General George Washington, when he tried, convicted, and then hanged Major Andre, the British contact for the traitor, Benedict Arnold.

The incorporation of the Law of War, by the way, is one of the reasons that the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in 1942 that German illegal combatants could be similarly tried, without resort to the "Article III courts" (ordinary criminal or civil proceedings), and executed. That unanimous decision, In Re Quirin, is why I expect the Court to rule shortly that military tribunals, in which the Bill of Rights does NOT apply, are appropriate for the Gitmo prisoners.

My main point is that reconciliation is necessary. I use the Civil War as a prime example of that. You read much more into what I write than I wrote, and you clearly have not read any of my previous posts, and published articles, on the Law of War. I wrote and published the first one when I was trapped in Law Vegas on 9/11 and was waiting for McCarran Airport there to reopen so I could get home.

John / Billybob

When Truman was faced with the possibility of hundreds of thousands of allied casualties in the summer of 1945, he was advised by many to "go easy on the Japanese" and not insist on unconditional surrender. It was tempting, as we can imagine.

Fortunately there were other advisors at his ear who insisted that such a move would lose the following peace. In Europe, earlier, the Reichstag fell, and WAS UNARGUABLY SEEN TO FALL, by not only the rest of the world, but also by those who had fought a delaying action in order to buy enough time to kill as many jews as possible.

As it turned out, no deals were made with Japan, other than to allow that the Emperor would live. In that show of determination, that trials of war criminals would be conducted by American courts, and not Japanese courts, and that those who had precipitated the war would not be allowed to safely return to the status quo ante bellum, we set a precident that seems to have fallen out of favor recently.

We have accepted that we will take losses in order to minimize collateral damage to civilians. It is entirely a bridge too far to also accept that those in Iraq, and in the government and media industries of the United States, who have gambled their souls that the war would turn badly enough for us... in order to hurt George Bush, and eliminate our ability to fight this war on our terms... should also be allowed complicity in up to 20 free murders apiece.

If that is how things develop, then I'll keep my opinions forever to myself, and wish the world luck, in its new, dark, expediency.

I am not in the least suggesting that Americans should "go easy on the terrorists." Of course, I am mindful of the advice which President Truman rightfully rejected, to "go easy on the Japanese."

I remind you, however, of something that happened after Japan had surrendered. It was a wise decision to leave the Emperor in place as a figurehead, as long as he renounced his "divinity." The Emperor's instructions to his people to cooperate with the occupation under Douglas MacArthur, undoubtedly saved American lives from a mini-rebellion which never took place.

In the fall of 1945, however, the surviving Japanese were desperately short on food and shelter, and Congress was balking on voting for civilian aid before that winter set in. MacArthur sent a short and clear telegram to the appropriate congressional leaders. It said, "Send me food, or send me bullets."

The approach that America used in Germany and Japan offers many lessons that should be applied here. The parallels are not, of course, absolute. But the Murtha's of this world are stone stupid about the lessons of history. That's part of my point.

P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "Tribal Loyalties and Public Lies"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.