The rule of law, human rights, and the War On Terror

[TOADMAN]

Yeah, we should follow the Russian model. That's been proven effective at stopping terrorism....hmmm, wait there just a minute....that's right, it is a proven method of destroying your moral high ground and securing failure and violence for generations to come. Blowing up people who aren't attacking you will only create more attackers. You can pretend that this is a "stomach" issue all you want, but human rights aside, brutality campaigns to stop irregular attacks have failed at every turn in the 20th century.

I wouldn't follow the Russian model...That's your idea!!!There is no moral high ground in war!!! Blowing up people who aren't attacking you is what the terrorists are currently doing and they seem to be winning!! WWll, It was most brutal when we dropped two nukes on Japan and it definately stopped them - or do you consider that campaign a failure? By the way, what is your plan to stop terrorism?

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

Sadly, RealGun Might Just Be Right on This

I have to say that RealGun's comments may be right on the mark. It may in fact take a few more terrorist attacks against innocents here in America before it sinks in that our enemy does not care whether we are liberal or conservative --- only that we are Americans and we are not just like them.

To our enemy, that is reason enough that we -- all of us, including our children and grandchildren -- should be wiped out, period.

The enemy is not distracted by issues of conscience, nor by discussions about humane treatment, the role of women, domestic agendas and the like. They are single focused: kill Americans, not just conservatives...but ALL Americans.

We must stand together or die individually. I choose the former.

 

[Joejojoba111]

You do reaize that they attribute the exact same attribute to you, right?

I don't believe them, and I don't believe you.

The fact that I know several people who practice Islam, and none of them have ever killed me, that might have something to do with it. Or the fact that I know for a fact that even radical by-the-book to-the-letter Islam has mechanisms to co-exist with other religions, that might have something to do with it.


The fact is I know you are wrong. Even if you look at some Islamic dream state, like Instanbul, the only difficulty in being non-Islam was that you had to pay a fee. Yea, that's it. Not quite the genocidal tendencies you've been told, is it? A couple dollars and you are cool. Religious tolerance, in strict Islam society.

 

[Strings]

>A couple dollars and you are cool. Religious tolerance, in strict Islam society.<

As opposed to Radical Islam, which is what I think you're thinking of. But just like any other "Radical" (the common term is "fundamentalilst", although that isn't strictly correct) religion, wether it be Judaism, Christianity, Paganism, or Buddhism (oh... wait. Never heard of "Fundy Buddhism"). When you start talking "radical" or fundamentalist", you're usually talking about people who twist the teachings of whatever system to fit their wants...

Read a copy of the Koran sometime. Not only will you learn a bit more about what you're talking about, you'll be reading some VERY beautiful poetry...

 

[shootinstudent]

Blowing up people who aren't attacking you is what the terrorists are currently doing and they seem to be winning!! WWll, It was most brutal when we dropped two nukes on Japan and it definately stopped them - or do you consider that campaign a failure? By the way, what is your plan to stop terrorism?

You think the terrorists are winning? How many countries have the terrorist successfully conquered? How much time do they spend hiding and worrying about any number of intelligence networks catching up to them? Managing to carry out a bombing or two using suicide bombers is hardly what I call "winning" a war.

Carpet bombing and nuking japan almost certainly was a waste. I've seen no solid proof that either practice actually ended the war more quickly.

And more to the point...the Russians have been "taking the gloves off" for most of the 20th century. Look what it has earned them: decades of terrorism and a reputation for being criminals. Is that what direction you'd like the US to take?

My plan for stopping terrorism is to stop supporting the states that sponsor it, and to promote real democracy in those states....not "Democracy that will give us all the cheap oil we need." On top of that there are a host of issues we need not start a flame war over....but here's the main point:

The fact that you think it might be harder to "win the war on terror" by acting like freedom loving Americans doesn't justify turning our country into one that practices all manner of third world, evil battle tactics like widespread torture, group punishment, and secret imprisonment.

 

[Firethorn]

The fact is I know you are wrong. Even if you look at some Islamic dream state, like Instanbul, the only difficulty in being non-Islam was that you had to pay a fee. Yea, that's it. Not quite the genocidal tendencies you've been told, is it? A couple dollars and you are cool. Religious tolerance, in strict Islam society.

Dhimmitude. And it wasn't just a 'fee'.

DHIMMI: A BRIEF OVERVIEW
7th-21st century. The notion of Dhimmitude, originating in the 7th century, still applies today to non-Muslims under Islamic rule—whether Jews or Christians, whether in Saudi Arabia or in Sudan. Dhimmitude began in 628 CE when Mohammed and his forces conquered the Jewish oasis at Khaybar. They massacred many of the Jews and forced the rest to accept a pact ("Dhimma") which rendered them inferiror to their Muslim conquerors. Over the centuries, the ideology of Dhimmitude expanded into a formal system of religious apartheid.

Institutionalized apartheid. In Shari’a law, there are official discriminations against the Dhimmi, such as the poll-tax or jizya.

No legal rights. Jews may not testify in court against a Muslim and have no legal right to dispute or challenge anything done to them by Muslims. There is no such thing as a Muslim raping a Jewish woman; there is no such thing as a Muslim murdering a Jew (at most, it can be manslaughter). In contrast, a Jew who strikes a Muslim is killed.

Humiliation and vulnerability. Jews and Christians had to walk around with badges or veils identifying them as Jews or Christians. The yellow star that Jews had wear in Nazi Germany did not originate in Europe. It was borrowed from the Muslim world where it was part of the apartheid system of Dhimmitude.

Conditional protection. The protection of the Dhimmi is withdrawn if the Dhimmi rebels against Islamic law, gives allegiance to non-Muslim power (such as Israel), refuses to pay the poll-tax, entices a Muslim from his faith, or harms a Muslim or his property. If the protection is lifted, jihad resumes. For example, Islamists in Egypt who pillage and kill the Copts do so because they no longer pay their poll-tax and therefore are no longer protected.

Not so tolerant, was it?

 

[shootinstudent]

Not so tolerant, was it?

What was the Christian rule on other religions in Christian land at the time? Why did Jews flee to Muslim lands throughout that period in History???

Institutionalized apartheid. In Shari’a law, there are official discriminations against the Dhimmi, such as the poll-tax or jizya.

Ah ha...according to which Fiqh? Any article that mentions "Shari'a" without noting that there is no one single body of "Shari'a" that is authoritative loses all credibility in my book. It's like a giant signpost that says "I've never actually read any of the works of Islamic jurisprudence; I'm just repeating what pamphlet said."

It's always a good idea, for arguments on terror or culture, to rely on primary sources, many of which have been translated and fabulously made available by Fordham University at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/islam/islamsbook.html


Edited to add:

I find this issue relevant to terrorism and human rights because, first of all, if you believe that the Islamic world can never develop due to cultural problems, then the whole war on terror is a waste....what's the point of advocating all these extreme, constitution-infringing measures if in the end the part of the world you're trying to change, won't change?

Second, I think criticizing Islam is one of the ways that people justify violating human rights...and it's been done for numerous groups in the past. It is frightening to see that people can't recognize the same old arguments being passed off on a new group as to why we should sacrifice this or that right in order to "teach them a lesson."

 

[gc70]

It's always a good idea, for arguments on terror or culture, to rely on primary sources, many of which have been translated and fabulously made available by Fordham University at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/islam/islamsbook.html

Since the several hundred documents listed on the Fordham site would take more time to read than I have tonight, I feel reasonably comfortable with a knowledgeable confirmation of my prior reading:

Bernard Lewis (Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University) comments:

Two stereotypes dominate most of what has been written on tolerance and intolerance in the Islamic world. The first depicts a fanatical warrior, an Arab horseman riding out of the desert with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other, offering his victims the choice between the two. This picture […] is not only false but impossible […]. The other image, almost equally preposterous, is that of an interfaith, interracial utopia, in which men and women belonging to different races, professing different creeds, lived side by side in a golden age of unbroken harmony, enjoying equality of rights and of opportunities, and toiling together for the advancement of civilization. Both images are of course wildly distorted; yet both contain, as stereotypes often do, some elements of truth. Two features they have in common are that they are relatively recent, and that they are of Western and not Islamic origin.[6]

It is only very recently that some defenders of Islam began to assert that their society in the past accorded equal status to non-Muslims. No such claim is made by spokesman for resurgent Islam, and historically there is no doubt that they are right. Traditional Islamic societies neither accorded such equality nor pretended that they were so doing. Indeed, in the old order, this would have been regarded not as a merit but as a dereliction of duty. How could one accord the same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it? This would be a theological as well as a logical absurdity.

The rank of a full member of society was restricted to free male Muslims. Those who lacked any of these three essential qualifications -- that is, the slave, the woman or the unbeliever -- were not equal. The three basic inequalities of master and slave, man and woman, believer and unbeliever, were not merely admitted; they were established and regulated by holy law.

 

[xd9fan]

I would love this country to focus on armed neutrality and stop funding other Govts.

After WW2, what have we really done by all these conflicts(not wars)???

When are we going to start focusing on our liberty??

 

[shootinstudent]

gc70,

What are we getting at with that? Slavery, inequality, and convert-or-die (rather than convert or pay) were the rules in Christian lands in those days too...I fail to see how it tells us something inherent in Islamic culture. All that article tells us is that the Islamic system of inequality was much better, for its time, than the Christian systems of government.

But I'm glad you cited Bernard Lewis, because I am a big fan of his work. He's definitely a scholar of note, and there's lots of his writing out there that I hope you will investigate. Some of it is even listed on the medieval sourcebook, and I've got it linked below for you to check out since he's someone whose work you respect.

Here's his opinion on democracy and reform in the middle east:

One of the sayings traditionally ascribed to the Prophet is the remark, "Difference of opinion within my community is a sign of God's mercy." In other words, diversity is something to be welcomed, not something to be suppressed. This attitude is typified by the acceptance by Sunni Muslims, even today, of four different schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Muslims believe the holy law to be divinely inspired and guided, yet there are four significantly different schools of thought regarding this law. The idea that it is possible to be orthodox even while differing creates a principle of the acceptance of diversity and of mutual tolerance of differences of opinion that surely cannot be bad for parliamentary government.

The final point worth mentioning in this inventory is Islam's emphasis on the twin qualities of dignity and humility. Subjects--even the humblest subjects--have personal dignity in the traditional Islamic view, and rulers must avoid arrogance. By Ottoman custom, when the sultan received the chief dignitaries of the state on holy days, he stood up to receive them as a sign of his respect for the law. When a new sultan was enthroned, he was greeted with cries of "Sultan, be not proud! God is greater than you!"

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/blewis.htm

And there you have it: An unbiased look at the Islamic world that should give us all some hope for the future. If we decide to "take the gloves off" by not respecting any rights at all, not only will we be behaving in a less civilized way than a 7th century Caliph...we'll end up just like the Russians, past the peak of our power someday and with a whole world of people to hate us for being such savages.

 

[longeyes]

It's always a good idea, for arguments on terror or culture, to rely on primary sources, many of which have been translated and fabulously made available by Fordham University at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/islam/islamsbook.html

It's always a good idea, for arguments on terror or culture, to rely on empirical evidence of what people actually DO, and not five centuries ago, but NOW. We don't need to generalize, we just need to open our eyes and see what is happening, by whom it's done, and what they are in fact saying.

The rest is gaseous expulsion.

 

[shootinstudent]

It's always a good idea, for arguments on terror or culture, to rely on empirical evidence of what people actually DO, and not five centuries ago, but NOW. We don't need to generalize, we just need to open our eyes and see what is happening, by whom it's done, and what they are in fact saying.

Read the link. It's about cultural foundations for democratic reform in the middle east...today.

If we open our eyes and look at what's there today, we'll find problems that are similar to ones we in the West have faced in the past, and we'll recognize that we don't need to abandon our constitutional tradition or respect for human rights in order to see things through.

 

[gc70]

What are we getting at with that?

Islam is distorted at both ends of the spectrum, both by detractors and defenders.

An unbiased look at the Islamic world that should give us all some hope for the future.

I do not fully share your optimism. I see many parallels in the timelines of the development of Christianity and Islam. As you correctly note, there have been times when Islam has been more benign than Christianity, and times when the opposite was true. However, Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity. Islam seems to currently be in a rowdy stage of its development, just as Christianity was in an unattractive stage of its development 600 years ago. There were no great powers to check Christianity's excesses 600 years ago. Other great powers do exist today and bad behavior in the name of Islam need not be tolerated.

 

[Boss Spearman]

I agree with you, PM. We are supposed to be the good guys. We need to rise above the level of those we oppose, not respond with like tactics.

I agree with xd9fan too. I know we can't go back to isolationism, but I wish all of these nations around the world that hate us would never see another US flag there again, no matter what they're doing to each other.

 

[TOADMAN]

You think the terrorists are winning? How many countries have the terrorist successfully conquered? How much time do they spend hiding and worrying about any number of intelligence networks catching up to them? Managing to carry out a bombing or two using suicide bombers is hardly what I call "winning" a war.

Carpet bombing and nuking japan almost certainly was a waste. I've seen no solid proof that either practice actually ended the war more quickly.

And more to the point...the Russians have been "taking the gloves off" for most of the 20th century. Look what it has earned them: decades of terrorism and a reputation for being criminals. Is that what direction you'd like the US to take?

My plan for stopping terrorism is to stop supporting the states that sponsor it, and to promote real democracy in those states....not "Democracy that will give us all the cheap oil we need." On top of that there are a host of issues we need not start a flame war over....but here's the main point:

The fact that you think it might be harder to "win the war on terror" by acting like freedom loving Americans doesn't justify turning our country into one that practices all manner of third world, evil battle tactics like widespread torture, group punishment, and secret imprisonment.

Terrorists don't want to conquer countries - they just want to kill you. They don't care how long it takes. Quit bringing up the Russians. I wouldn't follow their stradegy. Look at Japan today - a really good look - are you blind - they are our close supporters and very successful - and we nuked-em. Your plan to stop terrorism is pathetic!! Promote democracy in the terrorist states - yeah right!!! Invite them over for Thanksgiving and they will stop killing us. You are way too soft my friend!!

 

[shootinstudent]

Look at Japan today - a really good look - are you blind - they are our close supporters and very successful - and we nuked-em.

One question: Do you think Japan is doing so well today because they were nuked, or because the US spent billions of dollars rebuilding their economy and instituting a democratic government there?

hmmm...which of those two factors do you think has more to do with Japan today?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I know we can't go back to isolationism, but I wish all of these nations around the world that hate us would never see another US flag there again, no matter what they're doing to each other.

We were never "isolationist." This term was invented by the internationalists (those who favored the League of Nations, the UN, and word government generally) as a club with which to bludgeon the Old Right in America. It intentionally created the false impression that the traditional American right favored the notion of building a figurative wall around our borders and behaving as if the rest of the world did not exist. This was a straw man from the beginning.

The so called "isolationists" were merely advocates of a foreign policy which placed the interests of the United States and its citizens above those of the so called "world community." For the internationalists, this was too selfish an approach to be tolerated, as they took the opposite view, i.e., our foreign policy must take the well-being of the world as a whole (the so called "world community") as our primary objective, even if this is ultimately (and short term) bad for the United States and its citizens. They saw our military, and still do, as the world's police force; the force which must be used to bring about world government, i.e., the eventual submersion of American sovereignty into that of a one world government.

Since the internationalists won (They got us into both world wars, and every so called "police action" since), they have been at liberty to propagandize our school children lo these many decades, filling their heads with the notion that those who favored an America First foreign policy were just silly "isolationists," i.e., selfish relics of the past who, coincidentally, occupied the moral low ground, when in reality it was the so called "isolationists" who were the true patriots, and remain so today. Let's stop using the language of our ideological enemies, shall we?

 

[RealGun]

Since the internationalists won (They got us into both world wars, and every so called "police action" since), they have been at liberty to propagandize our school children lo these many decades, filling their heads with the notion that those who favored an America First foreign policy were just silly "isolationists," i.e., selfish relics of the past who, coincidentally, occupied a moral low ground, when in reality it was the so called "isolationists" who were the true patriots, and remain so today. Let's stop using the language of our ideological enemies, shall we?

Very interesting. Well done. However, we can't stop how the language evolves. Today's "isolationist" in my view would rather spend military money on welfare, ignoring that it should actually be used to reduce deficits. Thus we have Democrats against the military initiatives, because they then have less money available to buy votes. The budget has no room for some of their precious social programs. Republicans moderate in that direction too, because they want and need to get elected. The underlying problem is that voters who want money from the government control today's politics. I believe their birth rates are higher than the more economically productive, so it will get worse.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Very interesting. Well done. However, we can't stop how the language evolves. Today's "isolationist" in my view would rather spend military money on welfare, ignoring that it should actually be used to reduce deficits. Thus we have Democrats against the military initiatives, because they then have less money available to buy votes.

Oh? You mean military initiatives like Clinton's war with, and occupations of, Yugoslavia? Kennedy's war with North Vietnam? Johnson's Tonkin Bay Resolution? Truman's war with North Korea? Roosevelt's war with the Axis Powers? Wilson's war with Germany? Which Democrats are the ones who oppose military initiatives again?

 

[RealGun]

Oh? You mean military initiatives like Clinton's war with, and occupations of, Yugoslavia? Kennedy's war with North Vietnam? Johnson's Tonkin Bay Resolution? Truman's war with North Korea? Roosevelt's war with the Axis Powers? Wilson's war with Germany? Which Democrats are the ones who oppose military initiatives again?

Again, you have to allow terminology to evolve, not to mention time march on. None of those Presidents but Clinton, your weakest example, were particularly beholden to a controlling number of black voters, whose perceived financial needs know no bounds and to people who now pay obscene prices for medication and other medical care. You gotta know that $200 billion annually diverted from the military would make them very happy (for the moment).

What we have now is the exposure of who becomes impatient with the effort in Iraq and their reasons why. Who exactly was in favor of initiating a particular historic military action depends upon the context of the time.

All I am saying is that current Dems lead the way in wanting to spend money domestically. The party wouldn't exist if they didn't. A military effort of a scale to create dramatic budget problems will not enjoy Democrat support.

 

[Krenn]

Amen.

Taking it a step further, I'll have to re-read the Conentions but I believe the term "unlawful combatants" applies during times of military conflict, to describe those who take up arms but who do not wear a uniform. In short, guerillas -- the teenagers in "Red Dawn," for example, to the Russian invaders would be "unlawful combatants."

Terrorists operating in the United States are not "combatants<' first because there is no war ongoing here and second, for the fundamental reason that they are not engaged in combat. They are't firing rifles and throwing grenades. They are sneaking around, plotting to blow up hotels and churches and office buildings. In short, they are what they are: "terrorists." The laws dealing with blowing things up and killing people are on the books and can be used, but the government has elected to keep any terrorists it lays its hands on out of court, relying on the "enemy combatant" designation as a smokescreen.

It is wrong, it is repulsive, and it is blatantly illegal. The United States can never, ever, hope for any sort of moral respect on the world stage while we engage in such shenanigans.

you're right: those aren't unlawfull combatants.

they're "spies"

(as in operatives, not intelligence-gatherers, although geneva doesn't make a distinction)

The laws of war for enemy spies is at least as ugly as for unlawfull combatents.

on the other hand, a U.S. Citizen spying for foreign terrorists is a traitor

and the U.S. constitution contains very specific rules for the prosecution of traitors. we'd do well to follow them. (at least two witnesses to the same act, etc, etc.)

 

[TOADMAN]

One question: Do you think Japan is doing so well today because they were nuked, or because the US spent billions of dollars rebuilding their economy and instituting a democratic government there?

hmmm...which of those two factors do you think has more to do with Japan today?

Now you are getting the idea!! Bout time. Both factors!! Would you rather be speaking Japanese and/or have Japan a terrorist state? I think it was money well spent. Plus it saved us from invading Japan to include saving a half million or more of American lives. Freedom ain't cheap. By the way, the Japan model blows away your plan to stop terrorism.

 

[TOADMAN]

Carpet bombing and nuking japan almost certainly was a waste. I've seen no solid proof that either practice actually ended the war more quickly.

You can't be serious!!!

 

[longeyes]

Carpet bombing and nuking japan almost certainly was a waste. I've seen no solid proof that either practice actually ended the war more quickly.

That's right. From the Japanese perspective we were just helping them with urban renewal.

 

[shootinstudent]

Carpet bombing and nuking japan almost certainly was a waste. I've seen no solid proof that either practice actually ended the war more quickly.

You can't be serious!!!

Yes I can. Look at what happened on September 11th: People's resolve to fight back hardened. Look at what happened to the Russians in Afghanistan...the more they laid waste to whole villages, the more the intense hatred and will to fight grew on the Afghan side.

I think it's entirely possible that all the carpet bombing in World War II actually made the fighting last longer because it created bitterness, hatred, and resolve in people who would otherwise have no personal reasons to hate the Allies.

Why is that so hard to imagine? If someone nuked los angeles, I know I wouldn't just want to give up and let that person do whatever he wanted...would you?

Now, in reverse: Why do you think that the rest of the world is any different from you in this respect?