Click to bookmark this page!
- Contact Me -
Include your email address
Just in case you weren't sure...
Buy this book (not just because it contains two of my op-eds):
Americans on Politics, Policy, and Pop Culture:
The 101 Best Opinion Editorials From OpEds.com
An Interview With the G-Man:
My first (hopefully not last) experience in live radio, being interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy!
of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships
by precision use of American military force
under George W. Bush:
million in just two years
of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships
by anti-American Bush-bashing
terrorist-appeasing whining elitists:
...The problem seems to
me to be the definition of "free speech".
Liberals define it as anything they want to say
or do that opposes America. I say "speech" ends
where "action" begins. Once you pick up a gun
for the enemy, throw a rock at a cop during a
"peace" march, send money to a terrorist
organisation, or travel to Baghdad to block an
American JDAM with your ass, you have crossed the line from free speech to costly action.
Saying the War on Terror is all about al-Qaeda is like saying we should have fought the Japanese Naval Air Force after Pearl Harbor. Not the Japanese Navy, not the Japanese Army, not the Empire of Japan -- just the Naval Air Force....
Complaining about the "waste" when human embryos are destroyed instead of being used in medical experiments is a lot like going to a funeral and complaining about the waste of perfectly good meat....
Blaming CO2 for climate change is like blaming smoke for the fire. CO2 is largely a following, not a leading, indicator of a rise in temperature....
Cavalier's First Theorem:
Every time, Liberals will fight to protect the guilty and kill the innocent, while Conservatives will fight to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
Cavalier's Second Theorem:
Liberals are just Socialists who want to be loved... then again, Socialists are just Communists who lack the courage of their convictions.
Cavalier's Third Theorem:
Any strongly moral, hawkish or pro-American statement by a Liberal will inevitably be followed by a "but."
Infamous Monsters of Filmland
Day by Day:
Chris Muir's witty comic strip with a political
The Ultimate War Simulation: Why does this scenario seem so familiar?
What Kind of Liberal Are You?
Save me the trouble
of figuring out what kind of idiot you
Because Bush is to blame... for
Sacred Cow Burgers
Satirical Political Beliefs
Communists for Kerry
Cooper's Protester Guide
Fellowship 9/11: Sauron never attacked Rohan, Saruman did! Yet a small group of elitists convinced Middle-earth to divert resources from the real war to attack Mordor for personal gain.
When Democrats Attack
Did prominent Democrats switch positions on Iraq just to attack President Bush for political gain? (See the updated list.)
Was Iraqi Freedom Justified?
An honest, step-by-step analysis of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that Congress voted into law shows that it was.
Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror
Details of solid ties to organised international terrorism
How The Left Betrayed Iraq
by Naseer Flayih Hasan
Did We Botch The
No, not of Iraq: of Germany. Read the
media's take on how we "lost the peace" in 1946
Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About the Conflict in Iraq
Pictures from Hate
Bush/Hate America/Hate Capitalism/Hate
Israel/general wacko rallies
Share your wish list with friends and family
Free online file transfer - even works with Android phones
Reviews of hotels, flights and sites
Convenient comparison shopping
The best right-wing news and commentary
GOP USA Commentary
Men's News Daily
The New Media
a project of Frontiers of Freedom
SF Chronicle watchdog and conservative news
Analysis with political and social commentary
The Conservative Voice
Conservative news and opinion
News By Us
...not news bias
Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics
Practical conservatism for the common man
Analysis, Commentary and Opinion on the Real World
Philly news and blogs
The Fatal Conceit:
The Errors of Socialism
by F. A. Hayek
Articles Previously Published at
- When Good Liberals Go
Bad - 05/29/03
- How Stupid Do Democrats Think You
Are? - 05/31/03
- Who Are These 'Rich' Getting Tax
Cuts, Anyway? - 06/02/03
- How Can We Miss The Clintons If
They Won't Go Away? - 06/04/03
Whining of Mass Distraction: How
To Discredit A President -
- Liberal "Rules" for Arguing
- Liberalism: Curable or
Terminal? - 06/14/03
- Filibustering Judges: Hijacking
Presidential Powers? - 06/17/03
Is Hamas Exempt from the War on
Terror? - 06/22/03
- How Malleable Is The
Constitution? - 06/26/03
- Rejecting Our Biological and
Cultural Heritage - 06/30/03
- I Need Liberal Assistance,
Now! - 07/02/03
- Bring Them On -
- We Need You Arrogant Warmongering
Americans...Again - 07/09/03
- Much Ado About Nothing, Again
- Double Standard: Blindly Blame
Bush - 07/18/03
- Was WWII Also Unjustified?
- Clinton Backing Bush? Don't Bet On
It! - 07/24/03
- How To Be A Hypocritical
Liberal - 07/28/03
- The Clinton Legacy: In Answer to
Mr. Stensrud - 07/30/03
-What Is 'Good News' To
Liberals? - 08/02/03
- Bush's Big Blunder -
- The Meaning of Right - Why I
Supported the Iraq War -
- More Liberal "Rules" for
Arguing - 08/14/03
- You Can Have Cary Grant; I'll Take
John Wayne! - 08/19/03
- Where Is The ACLU When It's
Actually Needed? - 08/25/03
- Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Ten
Commandments? - 08/28/03
- From The Weasels: Thanks For
Nothing - 08/30/03
- The Liberal
Superfriends - 09/02/03
- Liberal Superfriends 2: The
Sequel - 09/05/03
- Saddam and 9/11: Connect the
Dots - 09/08/03
- Throwing Away the Southern
Vote - 11/02/03
- Libya: The First Domino
Falls - 12/20/03
- Is the UN Playing Games with
American Politics? - 03/04/04
Blogs to Browse
Across the Pond
Arts for Democracy
Bull Moose Strikes Back
Common Sense & Wonder
Everything I Know Is Wrong
Freedom of Thought
My Arse From My Elbow
Take A Stand Against Liberals
The Resplendent Mango
The Right Society
Tom's Common Sense
Tomfoolery of the Highest Order
Trying to Grok
TS Right Dominion
Watcher of Weasels
Word Around the Net
Supreme Court Strikes a Blow... for Terrorists
The 1949 Geneva Conventions were created in the aftermath of the horrors of Nazi Germany. The First Geneva Convention, "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field," was first adopted in 1864 as part of the founding of the Red Cross, but revised at the time the other three were written. The Geneva Conventions II, III and IV cover "the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea," "the Treatment of Prisoners of War" and "the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War."
The idea behind the Geneva Conventions and similar agreements was to codify the rules of "civilised war," and to ensure that no nation would want to violate those rules. The warning that any fighting force that violates those rules will not be able to claim their protection if captured is an explicit part of the Conventions. To make it perfectly clear, Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically states, "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it."
Even if one ignores the fact that terrorist groups are not a nation, the Conventions set very specific conditions under which a captured combatant may claim POW status. According to the Geneva Convention III (Part 1, Article 4, Section 2), prisoners of war must be former members of the regular armed forces, non-combatants, or:
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: By their very nature, terrorists are walking violations of the Geneva Conventions. They deliberately make war on non-combatants, torture and murder prisoners, and hide among civilian populations. Because of this, the Geneva Conventions not only don't apply to them, they can't apply to them. If the Geneva Conventions protect terrorists, they will lose all meaning. Why should anyone abide by them, when they will be able to claim protection regardless of their own actions?
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In a stunning overreach of their Constitutional authority, the Supreme Court voted 5-3 that Geneva Convention protections must be extended to captured terrorists. This decision effectively orders the President to violate the Conventions and render them meaningless. The Court also denied the President the ability to convene military tribunals for prisoners, making military courts-martial or civilian trials the only avenues for prosecuting enemy combatants without an act of Congress.
In their ruling, the Court also extended Constitutional protections to captured terrorists, including the rights to counsel and to confront their accuser, and the presumption of innocence. These are rights that have always been reserved for those who live under our Constitution, not foreign enemies whose aim is to destroy it. It's hard to imagine General Patton sending soldiers away from the battlefield, to sit in court waiting to testify against captured Nazis. Patton would have simply ordered that no prisoners would henceforth be taken alive. Then again, half the Federal government wasn't trying to lose that war with the enthusiastic cooperation of the media.
This interference with and second-guessing of the President's wartime powers is nothing new. For years, the other two branches of the Federal government have been trying to weaken the Executive branch. Members of Congress demand that the President get permission from the Judiciary before gathering evidence with which to prevent an enemy attack, and try to set timetables for troop movements. Members of the Judiciary demand that the President consult with Congress before creating military tribunals with which to determine the fate of captured enemy fighters. The reason the Constitution designated the President "Commander-in-Chief" is that no nation can win a war fought by committee. Our Founders understood that in a way today's professional politicians cannot seem to grasp.
The real impact of the Supreme Court's activism has yet to be felt. Every terrorist who comes up for trial will insist that classified information be disclosed to prove his innocence. Even if there is no reason to do so, their lawyers will surely suggest such a demand. The Bush administration will be forced in each case to make a sort of Hobson's choice -- either spill secrets useful to fighting terrorists, or to drop the charges and let terrorists go free to plan further attacks against us. Either way, every single trial will be a loss for America.
The only silver lining is that the Supreme Court didn't reverse their earlier decisions and declare that the President has no right to hold enemy combatants during a war. Hopefully, he can delay their trials long enough to lessen the need for secrecy regarding any information they demand. The idea that President Bush might have to ask Congress to allow him to convene military tribunals is rather worrisome. Since Guantanamo Bay is technically US soil, the Senate might find a way to put the detainees on a "path to citizenship" in the process.
After all, they just want to come here to commit the unspeakable acts of terror Americans won't, right?
Posted at Sunday, July 02, 2006 by CavalierX
July 2, 2006 10:21 AM PDT
Must be nice to be able to sit back in comfort and safety and say that these enimies have rights. But let just one member go over there and become a POW under the terrorist rules and let's see how fast they change thier tune. The saying"Stupidity should be painful" becomes more and more prevailant as the government roles on.
July 3, 2006 03:04 AM PDT
One problem is that not all the people held as enemy combatants can be shown to be terrorists. Some are innocent. Whether or not you think torturing terrorists is right, clearly you can't argue that torturing innocent people is right.
The reason the presidnt is commander in chief is that the founding fathers wanted an elected civilian in control of the military rather than a permanent professional general who might use the military to his own ends, and the ends of the citizens.
July 3, 2006 03:09 AM PDT
Correction. The reason the presidnt is commander in chief is that the founding fathers wanted an elected civilian in control of the military rather than a permanent professional general who might use the military to his own ends, and NOT the ends of the citizens of the US.
July 3, 2006 07:36 AM PDT
First of all, Bob, this is a war, not a legal proceeding. Did GIs read German soldiers their Miranda rights before shooting them in WWII? If anyone still held at Gitmo is innocent, it woud be a miracle. Too many of those freed due to doubts have already returned to the fight against us. Second, there is no torture at Gitmo. None. Whoever tells you there is, is lying to you. Third, the reason there is a single C-in-C, as I said, is that you can't fight a war by committee -- and that's what the Legislative and Judicial branches are trying to do.