Posted on 11/21/2001 9:29:08 AM PST by Croooow
WHO PUT WHAT IN BOB BARR’S CHEERIOS?
Sometimes I just can’t figure that guy out. Right now he’s on a tear about this military tribunals thing. Barr doesn’t like it, and I frankly don’t understand why.
I’ve read the President’s Executive Order. I agree that there are some troubling aspects there …we can tear those apart later. Right now let’s deal with this military tribunal thing in the context of Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists.
Let’s say that some of our Special Forces guys are wandering around Ashcanistan and here comes Osama holding his hands high … he’s giving up. At this point our guys have four real options.
The best option? Kill the SOB. A gut shot, not one of those Special Forces headshots. Let the bastard suffer.
But, let’s say he lives and is captured. Look more closely at the options.
A UN Trial.
Oh this would be just wonderful. Since the day the United Nations was formed it has been unfriendly toward the United States. In recent decades the UN has been nothing less than an US taxpayer funded soapbox for every petty dictator and activist in the world who has a gripe against America.
Of late the UN has become more than an international anti-American soapbox. The UN is feeling quite bold right now. Just a few months before the terrorist attacks the UN chastised the State of Arizona for going forward with an execution the UN didn’t want to happen. The UN actually stated that Arizona was subject to the mandates of the UN courts and that election had been illegally conducted.
Also, have you ever paid attention to the UN’s signature document when it comes to human rights? This human rights treaty was touted by Bill Clinton as the finest document in support of freedom in the history of the world. Others might feel that honor belongs to the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. But, no. Clinton says the UN Human Rights Declaration is Numero Uno! Without belaboring this point – you might be interested to know that the UN Human Rights Declaration clearly states that humans have NO rights when it comes to the goals and purposes of the United Nations.
So .. try Bin Laden or some other terrorists captured in Afghanistan before a UN court? A UN court is an anti-American court. The trial would turn into a spectacle wherein the great unwashed would parade in front of international television camera to denounce America as the “true” terrorist Nation. The actual trial of the terrorists would only be a subplot to the anti-American agenda on center stage.
Try him in a US Court.
As soon as we drag that dirt bag over to the United States he immediately earns the protection of the United States Constitution. Yup – that’s right. As long as the terrorist (or any other criminal, for that matter) is (a) not an American citizen and (b) not physically in America, he is not entitled to the protection of our Constitution. No right to an attorney. No right to a jury trial. No right to confront his witnesses. No right to appeal. But … once they’re here, all bets are off.
Can you just imagine a trial on American soil of Osama Bin Laden? Who would want to serve on that jury? Every juror would be a marked man or woman for the rest of their lives --- IF, that is, they voted to convict. Osama is very media savvy. He would seize the opportunity to turn the trial into a spectacle of anti-Americanism. Why do we want to invite such a spectacle to take place right here at home?
A Military Tribunal
George Washington did it. So did Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Washington and Lincoln did it on American soil with American defendants. The Supreme Court passed on it. No problem.
There is no law, no court ruling, no precedent which confers rights under the United States Constitution on non-citizens who commit crimes overseas.
Look, the young men and women we sent over there in the American uniforms don’t get full constitutional protection if they commit a crime while in our armed services. They’re subject to the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. Isn’t it somewhat strange that those opposed to military tribunals for the terrorists want them to enjoy more rights than our own military men would have?
I do have a theory about those on the left who oppose the tribunal idea. They WANT an anti-American spectacle. They know a terrorist trial – especially one of Bin Laden – would be the media event of the decade. What a time for them to wheel out their anti-American agenda?
But how does that explain Bob Barr?
Er . . . don't forget that the Taliban terminated 50% of the world supply of opium poppies and over 80% of the KLA supply.
There's a limit to how long we can tolerate THAT, donchaknow.
While you're cogitating such matters, remember the phrase "China is the prize."
Anytime we do anything which appears to benefit PRC, to our own detriment or not, remember it may not have occurred through inadvertance. I speak not of double agents, but those who see their own interest as being aligned with that of the PRC, which includes many U.S. citizens of substantial means and influence.
There is another related group which may believe PRC must be brought firmly into the First World before it can be or might be willing to be brought into a global governmental structure. A third group (arguing with group #2 from the inside,) may believe mainland China, whatever its governmental structure, because of its longstanding propensity toward xenophobic paranoia, must be appeased to avoid its disrupting global plans, even though it may remain an autonomous entity outside the global structure.
Uh, think I should say < /tinfoil> ?
No they will not. This is a military tribunal, not a trial. There are no rules for it as of this moment, they will be created by the Executive branch. If it were a military trial according to the UCMJ, I would have no problem with it.
"Opium-growing has a long history in Afghanistan, a tradition shattered by last year's sudden Taliban ban on poppy planting after several years of unofficial tolerance and profit from the crop. 'Last year was the first time in 50 years that poppies had not been grown in my village,' Ali said."
That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm
Although what it looks like is that we paid them as a reward for saying this, or perhaps we told them we'd be willing to give them buku bucks if they would and paid them after they delivered. I kind of like the ironic wording there. The U.S. was the main sonsor of the Taliban.
Naw. I wouldn't say that, LSJohn. China remains the great "mystery" in the piece. For one thing, I can't think of a single reason why the United States should be dealing with that state, cause there's absolutely nothing "in it for us," and probably a great deal that is adverse to the U.S. national interest.
To cut that Gordian Knot, I'd say: Follow the money. It might tell us everything we need to know -- about global politics and economics right about now. I bet there would be some rather surprising "mutually-interested associations" that would come to light. (As in global Mob, Inc.-type stuff.)
Above all, it seems to me that PRC fits the definition of a "terrorist state." If President Bush sincerely wishes to extirpate international terrorism from the face of the planet, sooner or later he (or his successor) will have to deal with China. I'm just wondering how such a scenario would "go down."
Thanks for writing, LSJohn, and for the kind words of encouragement. All my best -- bb.
zog, if the American people were better attuned to the basic exigencies of reality (meaning, I guess, if they were to bother about or ponder the fundamental problems of human existence -- the problems of the "universal human condition"), IMHO they would surely appreciate the incredible difference the "American Experiment" has made to real human progress in terms of constituting a good and just social order. That is, a social order predicated on the dignity and sanctity of the human person, effectuated by means of the strict limitation of the power and scope of the state. Our Constitution (as amended by the BoR) is a singularly powerful prescription for a just and free social order -- one that fosters the flourishing of the human spirit and human creativity by holding government intrusions/controls of individual human affairs to the absolute minimum.
I guess it's easy for some people to throw away their heritage these days, with both hands even, since so few seem willing, or even able, to appraise it justly, to value it as it deserves to be valued. Let alone to cherish it, or defend it; or transmit it -- intact and hopefully enriched by the experience and genius of our generation -- to the heirs who follow us.
But we're talking about "long run" concerns here. And Lord Keynes basically well-summed the modern attitude about "the long run": "In the long run, we'll all be dead." In other words, nobody is responsible for the survival of a free civilization; it is really nobody's concern at all. In fact, when you boil it all down, nobody is really responsible for anything.
I truly appreciated what you had to say in your last, and the way you said it. God bless, Mr. zog. All my best -- bb.
----- [Government] "---- SCREWED UP ROYAL. That doesn't deserve massive flag waving in support of it! It deserves a kick in the can and getting fired, retroactively, too."
"They have no need for additional tools, they have shown to be careless with the tools they have now. Reckless, irresponsible, there is NOTHING praiseworthy in any of their actions to date. Nothing they have done in the past warrants rewarding them with "more power", they have abused to the max already, so many examples it would take reams to list-we explore them all the time on this website."
"This is the PRIMARY reason for this websites existence in fact., to address that, point out all the examples, and seek ways to deal with it, not excuse it and make it worse that it already is!."
--------------------------------
Thanks
Would you like to be on the jury?
This is a much more watered down version of FDR's EO which allowed a military court try and execute 8 German spies. Since that time, I can't remember anyone's rights being enfringed upon under the EO.
I just hope some military type realizes this and does the right thing by shooting this SOB between the eyes. That is the solution.
As for shooting the SOB on sight, I have also stated that if at all possible, we should do our best to make sure he's exterminated through military action rather than be placed on trial. He admitted his involvement to the press. He's toast!
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.