| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:50 pm Post subject: An American hero |
 |
|
Liberals are often accused of hating soldiers. Allow me to offer at least one data point against that assertion by celebrating the heroic actions of Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Diaz, recent recipient of the Ridenhour Prize for his exposure of the names of Guantanamo detainees:
| Quote: |
One of the crimes the Administration committed was withholding from the Red Cross a list of the detainees at Guant�namo, effectively making them into secret detainees. Before the arrival of the Bush Administration, the United States had taken the axiomatic position that holding persons in secret detention for prolonged periods outside the rule of law (a practice known as �disappearing�) was not merely unlawful, but in fact a rarified �crime against humanity.� Now the United States was engaged in the active practice of this crime.
The decision to withhold the information had been taken, in defiance of law, by senior political figures in the Bush Administration. Diaz was aware of it, and he knew it was unlawful. He printed out a copy of the names and sent them to a civil rights lawyer who had requested them in federal court proceedings.
...
Diaz spent six months in prison and left it bankrupt and without a job. In addition to his sentence, the Pentagon is working aggressively to have Diaz stripped of his law license so he will not be able to practice his profession. The Bush Administration has sought to criminalize, humiliate and destroy Diaz. Its motivation could not be clearer: Diaz struck a blow for the rule of law. And nothing could be more threatening to the Bush Administration than this. |
The practice of "disappearing" is a clear violation of Article Three of the Third Geneva Convention, which states that sentences must be "pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples". Article Three applies to all "persons taking no active part in the hostilities" including those "placed hors de combat due to [...] detention" during an "armed conflict of international character", whether they are officially considered "prisoners of war" or not. This little-known (well, little-known in America) fact of American lawbreaking is entirely separate from the Bush Administration's arguments regarding Article Four and POW status. The United States is signatory to the Geneva Conventions, therefore any order that contravenes them is unlawful and it is a soldier's duty to disobey.
In fact, Lt. Col. Diaz was not prosecuted for revealing the names of the detainees. That case would not have held up in court. Instead, he was prosecuted for the release of the detainees' internal identification numbers: a series of incidental codes on a spreadsheet that meant nothing to Diaz, nor to anyone who was not a Guantanamo Bay bureaucrat. The names themselves were indeed required to be released by a subsequent 2006 court decision following a FOIA request by the Associated Press. Diaz' "crime" was the release of a series of meaningless numbers -- but of course, he wasn't prosecuted for his crime. He was prosecuted for his law-abiding, principled, and patriotic decision to comply with the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act, as he knew he very likely would be.
It is worth noting that Diaz was a supporter of Bush Administration policy prior to his arrival in Guantanamo Bay. Hopefully, the story of this ordinary JAG who made an extraordinary, courageous decision to do what he knew to be right will give some pause to those who continue to support such policies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It blows my mind to this day how much this administration has gotten away with and the lengths they will go to in this "war on terror." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
| It blows my mind to this day how much this administration has gotten away with and the lengths they will go to in this "war on terror." |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
| It blows my mind to this day how much this administration has gotten away with and the lengths they will go to in this "war on terror." |
|
Is this spamming?
Could have sworn I've seen you post it in another thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is not spamming, I think it answers the question.
Just for the future how would I answer such a post and make the point I wanted to?
The situation and the enemy in the film Mississippi burning is akin to the war on terror. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That's very interesting, Joo, and no doubt it was a great movie (I haven't seen it), but what on Earth does it have to do with Lt. Col. Diaz? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| That's very interesting, Joo, and no doubt it was a great movie (I haven't seen it), but what on Earth does it have to do with Lt. Col. Diaz? |
The war on terror and the enemy the US faces is akin to the situation and the enemy in the film Mississippi burning .
If it is okay to use those techniques against Klansman then it is okay to use such techniques in the war on terror.
Even though it is just a movie it the situation then is very similar to the US moral position now.
But one would have to see the film to really appreciate and understand the comparison.
The "Mississipi burning" standard for dealing with criminals ought to be the standard for dealing with arch terrorists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll take your word that someone has to see the movie to appreciate your point, but I'm still a little confused as to what this has to do with Lt. Col. Diaz. He simply released a list of names, in compliance with the Geneva Conventions and United States law, and his reward was to be prosecuted (and persecuted) by the Pentagon and the Bush DOJ.
Are you saying that Diaz' action was wrong? That the administration's was right?
I'd ask you to keep in mind the words of Justice Brandeis, quoted by Diaz when he received the Ridenhour Prize: "if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means�to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal�would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It took me a while Joo, but now I understand what you're getting at. It's OK when a federal official threatens to kill someone to get information as long as its for a cause the lefties feel is justified. When its employed by another federal official and the cause isn't deemed worhty....its illegal and bad. I think its a fair point...and very observant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
I'll take your word that someone has to see the movie to appreciate your point, but I'm still a little confused as to what this has to do with Lt. Col. Diaz. He simply released a list of names, in compliance with the Geneva Conventions and United States law, and his reward was to be prosecuted (and persecuted) by the Pentagon and the Bush DOJ.
Are you saying that Diaz' action was wrong? That the administration's was right?
I'd ask you to keep in mind the words of Justice Brandeis, quoted by Diaz when he received the Ridenhour Prize: "if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means�to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal�would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face." |
I don't know all the facts of the case.
As for the rest
I would say that most people who saw the film approved of the the way that the agents violated the civil rights of Klansman in the film.
The enemy the US faces in the war on terror is at least as sinister as the enemy in the film.
Even if they violate the rules or the laws somethings are justified and /or understandable in a certain situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
The facts of the case are public record and I provided several links. If you don't have an opinion or don't care, that's fine, but I don't see the point of your broad, analogical, and fictionally-based comparison. Maybe I'm dense.
Wannago seems to think that I'd have no problem with this if the people being "disappeared" and shipped to Gitmo were Klansmen. He's wrong about that, of course. This has nothing at all to do with who the detainees are or what they did. It has to do with the rule of law and the official actions of the United States government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Wannago seems to think that I'd have no problem with this if the people being "disappeared" and shipped to Gitmo were Klansmen. He's wrong about that, of course. This has nothing at all to do with who the detainees are or what they did. It has to do with the rule of law and the official actions of the United States government. |
And if Clinton were still the President, I have no doubt that you would care very little about rule of law and official actions of the US government. A lefty administration would be justified, Bush and Co. are not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
The facts of the case are public record and I provided several links. If you don't have an opinion or don't care, that's fine, but I don't see the point of your broad, analogical, and fictionally-based comparison. Maybe I'm dense.
Wannago seems to think that I'd have no problem with this if the people being "disappeared" and shipped to Gitmo were Klansmen. He's wrong about that, of course. This has nothing at all to do with who the detainees are or what they did. It has to do with the rule of law and the official actions of the United States government. |
Well the US system wasn't good enough to stop Bin Laden. It was the opinion of the Clinton administration that the US didn't have enough evidence to convict Bin Laden or anything in 1996. So he went to the Sudan. Was that a good call?
Wouldn't the US be better off today if Bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeni too were "disappeared"
Often results are more important that principles , rules and laws.
I don't always support winning at all costs but what I believe is right is very close to that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Wannago seems to think that I'd have no problem with this if the people being "disappeared" and shipped to Gitmo were Klansmen. He's wrong about that, of course. This has nothing at all to do with who the detainees are or what they did. It has to do with the rule of law and the official actions of the United States government. |
And if Clinton were still the President, I have no doubt that you would care very little about rule of law and official actions of the US government. A lefty administration would be justified, Bush and Co. are not. |
You know, it's very easy to assume that your political opponents lack all principle, and I've been guilty of it at times myself -- but if you think I'd be OK with Clinton doing this kind of thing, you're just dead wrong. You can believe that or not as you wish.
My actual opinion of our esteemed forty-second President might surprise you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| It took me a while Joo, but now I understand what you're getting at. It's OK when a federal official threatens to kill someone to get information as long as its for a cause the lefties feel is justified. When its employed by another federal official and the cause isn't deemed worhty....its illegal and bad. I think its a fair point...and very observant. |
Well I think what was done in the film was justified and I think such a way of doing stuff is justified in the war on terror.
When dealing with certain enemies just about anything you do to win is okay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
