<p>First, today’s dissenters may well have legitimate concerns but they fail to offer reasonable - and in some cases, any - alternatives. It’s useless to carp on the sidelines while offering no solutions. In fact, it’s worse than useless because it’s demoralizing to the home team. </p>
<p>Second, America may be a superpower when it comes to fighting enemy armies but when it comes to terrorism, we’re novices/victims, too. If you want to spot the other team 10 points to show what great guys we are, please don’t include me and mine. If possible, I’d prefer to fight this war with decency and on an even playing field.</p>
<p>Finding a problem is the first step toward solving it. Keeping it under some rug somewhere isn’t going to lead us to solutions.</p>
<p>And since when did I say I give a damn about “spotting the other team points to show how great we are?” Why even put words in my mouth like that? I’m merely saying that we have a problem that we’re a bit screwed on. I never said how we should respond to it.</p>
<p>Don’t assume that because someone doesn’t think that Gitmo is a golden opportunity that they’re some sort of upstart liberal.</p>
Is this true? There may be exceptions but overall we followed the Geneva Conventions until the Supreme Court redefined the argument by treating terrorists more like American citizens than unlawful combatants. In my view, accepting the argument that America doesn’t follow international conventions is equivalent to spotting the other team points. It forces America to give up the moral high ground and we’re left to claw our way out of a hole. </p>
<p>I’ll quit now (with the metaphors). My metaphors are coming unglued.</p>
<p>EDIT: Ari, I didn’t put words in your mouth and I’m unclear why you said that. I always try to put other commenter’s words in CC quotes or quotation marks. The “spotting points” metaphor was mine and, frankly, I kind of liked it given I’m a big football fan and especially since my teams did well yesterday.</p>
<p>You’re using far too general language here. I don’t believe that the US is by any means poor at following conventions. There are clear cases when we haven’t (I’m thinking more along the lines of WTO disputes), but in general we are very very good at following what we ratify.</p>
<p>But we are not perfect. Nor does admission of our fallibility mean that anyone is some sort of cheerleader for our enemies. We should be sure of ourselves. We shouldn’t be blindly arrogant.</p>
<p>It’s hard to say that we necessarily did terrible, awful, immoral things at Gitmo as many seem to cry. However, it’s fairly clear from an international PR perspective that Gitmo’s been a bad thing for both the Bush admin. and the US’s image in the so-called war on terror.</p>
<p>If admitting that makes me a terrorist cheerleader, then I wonder what those in the GOP who have said far worse things about the handling of detainees are? Traitors?</p>
<p>You are by no means a terrorist cheerleader, nor do I view others that way who sincerely criticize the Bush Administration’s policies.</p>
<p>I agree that the first step to solving a problem is recognizing it, but that also means you have to correctly recognize it. The fact that Guantanamo has adverse PR implications doesn’t make its existence a bad thing. The problem to work on is the adverse PR impact. If I hadn’t sworn off metaphors in my last comment, I would be tempted to add “Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water,” but I did so I won’t.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I can’t disagree more. This whole “war on terror” is first and foremost a PR war. It’s a war of showing the world who’s more just, fair, and ultimately justified in their course of action. The US has a wealth of historical goodwill built up worldwide, and we need to maintain it in order to work effectively. Especially since many of our actions may ultimately border on violations of other nations’ sovereignty. It will be much easier and better for us politically if their leaders allow us to do so, rather than having to strongarm our way in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Looks like it’s back to step one for you, bandwagon-falleroffer ;). Anyway, I don’t think that maybe considering other ways of dealing with these guys would really be throwing out the baby. Even if it is an ugly…ugly…UGLY baby.</p>
<p>Yep, we disagree. I view this first and foremost as a technological war (using communications, satellite, and financial surveillance and upgrading our defensive capabilities), followed closely by a human intelligence war (using CIA, DHS, foreign intelligence, and other assets). The PR aspects relate primarily to the media issues. In the past, our military solved this by closely circumscribing what the media could report. Things are more transparent now, which I view as a good thing, although there will be a period of time when (I really want to say “the waters will be choppy” but …) things will be tough while we adjust. </p>
<p>I agree we have to work harder on PR issues and that this is an area in which the Bush Administration faltered, but I have no doubt that even the best PR campaign would falter. Our enemies are determined, have a preconceived mindset, and aren’t willing to be convinced that democracy is good or that America is a good country with good people. If it’s not Guantanamo, it’s Abu Ghraib, or FISA, or the Koran, or the Prophet cartoons. As a nation, I’m gratified we want to correct injustices during war - our own and others - but we don’t win points for this with our enemies. If anything, it further convinces them we are weak-willed and spineless because we won’t stand up for ourselves or our beliefs.</p>
<p>DRJ, I read the Steyn article, and have known for some time that demographically, the Muslims are reproducing at quite a rapid rate.</p>
<p>However, I don’t think, even with his hyperbole, things are quite so dire and desperate as he paints them.</p>
<p>And even if you believe this viewpoint, what is the course of action? Kill millions and millions of Muslims since they are reproducing too fast? I mean, that seems to be the point, but it is really failing miserably as a political or defense strategy. The West has done nothing whatsoever to quell either the violence or the birthrate; both seem to be booming exponentially.</p>
<p>That was generous of you to read the article and respond. In retrospect, I apologize if it sounded like I was assigning you something to read. I intended the link as sharing an interesting article.</p>
<p>I do think things are dire for Europe, especially France and the Netherlands, but I agree that it won’t help to kill millions of Muslims nor do I think Mark Steyn believes that would work. In my view, the best hope is that people will see democracy in action and voluntarily embrace the opportunity it offers. That’s what makes Iraq and Afghanistan so important - not just because terrorist enclaves were swept out but because these nations may become democratic models for the Middle East. It may be a grand gesture doomed to failure, it may work, or it may fall somewhere in between, but it’s the best option we have.</p>
<p>A vietnam veteran with a medal who worked as a senator specializing in terrorism back in the 90s. John Kerry</p>
<p>A citizen who avoided service in the army thanks to daddy with no experience in terrorism except for being from Texas. George Bush. </p>
<p>Who would vote for Bush? The south. The deep dirty south. They vote for the “common man”. Face it, Bush looks like a poor hick on his ranch. The hicks in the south like it. Who cares if both candidates are filthy rich?</p>
<p>The edition I was referring to was the national weekly edition for Sept. 11-17, and there are no web links for that particular content. Some of the content for the daily is available online, but the weekly seems to not be.</p>
<p>Or our country is being run by Cheney, or “Vice”, as Maureen Dowd has crowned him. I have never believed that Bush had the brains to make this big a mess all by himself. You need help to do this, and Cheney is quite savvy in the help department. </p>
<p>Bush has others, of course, besides Cheney, but Cheney drives the bulk of the policy making decisions.</p>
<p>I have yet to see good hard evidence for that. It seems to me to be the same sort of rubbish that people threw at Clinton regarding Hillary’s supposed “power-behind-the-throne” influence.</p>
<p>It is widely known that Cheney is, or has been, the puppetmaster, particularly with regard to foreign policy. Of course, the adminsitration is careful about its paper trail, so I don’t know that you will find what you might consider “evidence”. Nonetheless, it is beyond mere speculation.</p>
I know it would make some people happy if Cheney did nothing more than dedicate statutes every day but this doesn’t sound all bad. In fact, it sounds a lot like descriptions I’ve read of President Clinton.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly the liberal media has failed to explain to the public that “unlawful combatants” have been given a unique status quite different from criminals or POW’s</p>
<p>This was was discussed in the Supreme Court case Ex Parte Quiren (1942) - which involved nazi sabateurs entering the U.S. during WW2</p>
<p>Judge Stone in his decision, among other things, stated the following:</p>
<p>“By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.”</p>