Wednesday, November 18, 2009
War or not?
Andy McCarthy at NRO, who prosecuted earlier terrorism trials, knows whereof he speaks:
In short, McCarthy says:
If we are at war, we must treat combatants as combatants.
Conversely:
If we aren't going to treat combatants as combatants, we aren't really at war.
And if we aren't really at war, then we should bring our troops home, because what they're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is not part of a war. If we are not fighting back against a military attack, by definition we are an aggressor; but we're a mighty peculiar and self-defeating aggressor, requiring each bullet to be rationed by pro-enemy lawyers.
Meanwhile, our alleged "government" can only ask whether we should send 45000 more troops or 46000 more troops or 47000 more troops or 48000 more troops or 49000 more troops or 50000 more troops or 51000 more troops or 6,000,000,000 more troops. And the only important criterion is whether this particular number of troops will be enough to help the Afghan government fight corruption.... even though everyone understands that the Afghan government will always be corrupt, and even though all the experts openly state that no amount of soldiers will clean up the Afghan government, and even though the legitimacy of the Afghan government has precisely zero connection with any American national interest, and even though Afghanistan played only a minor part in the 9/11 hijacking.
Insane. Bonkers. Loony. Gaga. Decerebrate. Anencephalic. Treasonous. Suicidal. ¶ 10:57 AM
What made the United States most vulnerable in the Nineties was our enemies' perception that they were at war and we were not. They gave us bombs, we gave them rights. That encouraged them to attack us more often and more audaciously — which is exactly what they did.
If we are at war, and the Attorney General said this morning that we are, we have to treat it like a war. Pressed by Sen. Graham this morning, the AG could not name a single time when, during war, we captured an enemy combatant outside the U.S. and brought him into the United States for a civilian trial — vesting him with all the rights of an American citizen. That's because hasn't happened. That's not how you treat wartime enemies.
Further, if we are going to have military commissions at all (and Holder says we will continue to have them), it makes no sense to transfer the worst war criminals to the civilian system. Doing so tells the enemy that they will get more rights if they mass-murder civilians.
In short, McCarthy says:
If we are at war, we must treat combatants as combatants.
Conversely:
If we aren't going to treat combatants as combatants, we aren't really at war.
And if we aren't really at war, then we should bring our troops home, because what they're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is not part of a war. If we are not fighting back against a military attack, by definition we are an aggressor; but we're a mighty peculiar and self-defeating aggressor, requiring each bullet to be rationed by pro-enemy lawyers.
Meanwhile, our alleged "government" can only ask whether we should send 45000 more troops or 46000 more troops or 47000 more troops or 48000 more troops or 49000 more troops or 50000 more troops or 51000 more troops or 6,000,000,000 more troops. And the only important criterion is whether this particular number of troops will be enough to help the Afghan government fight corruption.... even though everyone understands that the Afghan government will always be corrupt, and even though all the experts openly state that no amount of soldiers will clean up the Afghan government, and even though the legitimacy of the Afghan government has precisely zero connection with any American national interest, and even though Afghanistan played only a minor part in the 9/11 hijacking.
Insane. Bonkers. Loony. Gaga. Decerebrate. Anencephalic. Treasonous. Suicidal. ¶ 10:57 AM
