Supreme Court Decisions

[Professor S]

I have never been one to attack the Supreme Court over their decisions and powers. I am a firm believer in the checks and balances our constitution provides, so that no single branch can dominate the country. But things are starting to change...

When the Supreme Court ruled that the US military must abide by the Geneva convention when dealing with illegal combatants, they completely overstepped their bounds. Whether or not you agree with the decision in spirit, there is one area where there is no debate: THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

Here's why: By deciding that illegal combatants, meaning terrorists or any other combatants not formallty representing a sovereign nation or in official uniform, must abide by the Geneva convention the Supreme Court has signed a de-facto treaty with groups like Al Quaeda. Only the legislative and executive branches have the right to do this. Also, there is no legal backing for he decision as the Geneva convention SPECIFICALLY offers no benefits to the illagal combatants I described. Keep in mind, also, since the courts essentially signed a wartime treaty and is holding the US to that treaty with no agreement from the other party, only the US is held accountable for Geneva conventuion articles. The absurdity of this entire situation and the thinking behind it mystifies me.

Here is the article I'm referring to, in case you are wondering if I'm making this up.

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

...

2. 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:

(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.

...



The terrorists and insugents that are being captured are in NO WAY COVERED UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION. In fact, they are specifically EXEMPT FROM IT. But apparently the Supreme Court decided it didn't actually need to read the convetntion to make a binding ruling on it...

This ruling, combined with the horrific ruling that local government can condemn housing to sell to corporations to increase tax revenue, and the Courts are completely out of there minds. Its to the point where the constitution is being trampled to support political agendas and the only way to stop them is to amend the constitution (and I'm not talking about gay marriage bans). This should NOT be happening and the power that the courts have assumed is far beyond what was intended.

[Xantar]

From what I understand, the Geneva Conventions don't make any mention of "illegal combatants." So we don't know whether they apply or not. Actually, the term "illegal combatant" was coined by the Bush Administration in order to justify their system of detentions. Otherwise, anybody they detained would have to be either a criminal (in which case they are tried under the normal court procedures) or an enemy combatant (in which case the Geneva Convention does apply).

You also quoted only a small part of the applicable section of the Geneva Convention. The definition of a prisoner of war reads as follows:

Article 4

Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
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:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.


As you can see, any number of those items can arguably apply to the illegal combatants in question. I'm looking specifically at 1.3 and 2.1 but I'm not actually a lawyer so I don't know what an attorney might argue.

Also, I've read portions of the Supreme Court decision (not all of it because that thing is HUGE), and there are a couple important distinctions I think you've missed. The court did not exactly say that Geneva Conventions must apply to detained terrorists. What it said was that the treatment and prosecuting of detainees in keeping with the President's war powers must follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice since that is what Congress passed. The Geneva Conventions are written into the UCMJ, so when the Executive detains people, it must follow the established procedures (including open court martials and certain rules of evidence and so on). You are correct that the decision of whether and how to apply the standards of the Geneva Convention to illegal combatants is up to the Congress (at the behest of the Executive). However, the Supreme Court's point is that Congress did not make any decision one way or another regarding the Bush Administration's detainment policies. President Bush decided on his own to veer away from the Geneva Conventions and thus the UCMJ, but the Court ruled that just because Congress took no action on the issue doesn't mean that the President can decide it for himself.

So basically, the Supreme Court ruled that President Bush needed to get permission from Congress in order to treat prisoners in ways that were not in accordance with the UCMJ. As far as this decision is concerned, an act of Congress will cure the problem. Of course, then that will probably bring another lawsuit before the court, but we shouldn't speculate about that here.

So in reality, the Court's decision doesn't have anything to do with enacting a treaty between the U.S. and Al Qaeda. Rather, it is a question of balance of powers and who gets to set our policy. I would also note, by the way, that certain parts of the Geneva Accords are considered to be binding treaties between the U.S. and the rest of humanity. The logic is that the U.S. promised most of the other countries of the world that it would treat prisoners in a certain way and in return other countries promised each other and the U.S. that they would treat all of their prisoners in a certain way. Whether Al Qaeda itself was a party to the treaty or not is only relevant to portions of the Accords which specifically say that they apply only to signing parties.

P.S. I miss these discussions.

[Professor S]

I was under the impression that the decision directly referenced the Geneva Convention, but my point still stands because the GC are used in the military rules and are STILL being misinterpreted. BTW, I refer to them as illegal combatants as my own term to describe those that do not fall under the GC. I never meant the say that the term was included in the GC.

I am aware of the entire document, but I only quoted the part that SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES those detained by our policy because I know no one would want to read the whole thing. These areas that are bullet pointed are put in place for a reason:

- that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
- that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
- that of carrying arms openly;
- that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The fixed distinctive sign and conduct portions exclude most of those that we detain. That said, if we are detaining any that did follow all of the GC rules, then they should be provided the protections. There might be areas in the GC that could be interpreted to protect these illegal combatants... if these bullet points didn't specifically exclude their protection. Now in a document that is a bit ambiguous, don't you think that such specific exclusions were put in place for a reason and with purpose? I have to think that they are full in the spirit of the document.

Also, referring to the contract with humanity, once again I'll bring up the specific exclusions. We signed a treaty with humanity, not terrorists who refuse to follow the codes given. The GC even gives the ability for rebels and resistance fighters to be recognied by its articles, but those that we are fighting ignore them and refuse to operate under insignia or proper conduct. If they refuse to follow the rules of the GC, why should we be expected to operate under a disadvantage and respect their rights under it?

BTW, what are your thoughts about the imminent domain decision to allow private companies to force you to sell your property? Seems like a recipe for extreme corruption and abuse to me, all in the name of higher local government revenues. Dispicable (and I don't use that word often).

[Xantar]

I am aware of the entire document, but I only quoted the part that SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES those detained by our policy because I know no one would want to read the whole thing. These areas that are bullet pointed are put in place for a reason:

- that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
- that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
- that of carrying arms openly;
- that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The fixed distinctive sign and conduct portions exclude most of those that we detain. That said, if we are detaining any that did follow all of the GC rules, then they should be provided the protections. There might be areas in the GC that could be interpreted to protect these illegal combatants... if these bullet points didn't specifically exclude their protection. Now in a document that is a bit ambiguous, don't you think that such specific exclusions were put in place for a reason and with purpose? I have to think that they are full in the spirit of the document.


Those bullet points aren't meant to exclude anything. The overarching paragraph says, "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy." Your bullet points describe one of the categories of detainees, but there are many other possible categories which is why I referenced the entire section of the Accords. As I pointed out, detainees arguably belong in one of the other categories which includes, "Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power." Paragraph 2.1 could also be argued to apply although I don't seriously think the Supreme Court would accept that.

Also, referring to the contract with humanity, once again I'll bring up the specific exclusions. We signed a treaty with humanity, not terrorists who refuse to follow the codes given. The GC even gives the ability for rebels and resistance fighters to be recognied by its articles, but those that we are fighting ignore them and refuse to operate under insignia or proper conduct. If they refuse to follow the rules of the GC, why should we be expected to operate under a disadvantage and respect their rights under it?

Because we're better than them. And before you say it, yes I am willing to allow more of us to be killed for that reason. If we are all fighting the war on terror in order to preserve our liberties, we should all be willing to lay our lives on the line to protect those liberties and ideals. And really, I don't mean to be glib, but this war on terror is pretty small potatoes as wars go. And besides that, I don't see how requiring all testimony to be sworn and requiring that every detainee must have a specific charge is going to make another terrorist attack more likely.

But that's a difference in philosophy, and although I think I understand where you're coming from, all of that is not the issue here. As I said before, the Supreme Court did not specifically make a decision about whether the Geneva Conventions apply to detainees under the unlawful combatant label. It said that the decision whether or not to apply those standards is properly made by the Congress. Congress may decide collectively that it agrees with you and that illegal combatants do not receive protections under the Conventions. This is pretty typical of the Supreme Court, actually. Particularly when its members are as divided as they are now, the Supreme Court tends to base its decisions on little procedural issues like this rather than trying to make some kind of ethical statement. I have the feeling that Anthony Kennedy wouldn't have joined into the majority if the decision had been "the camps must go."

BTW, what are your thoughts about the imminent domain decision to allow private companies to force you to sell your property? Seems like a recipe for extreme corruption and abuse to me, all in the name of higher local government revenues. Dispicable (and I don't use that word often).

I have no idea. I've heard nothing about this decision. Is there a link I could look at?

[Professor S]

"Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power." Paragraph 2.1 could also be argued to apply although I don't seriously think the Supreme Court would accept that.

I still think you are arguing ambiguity against specificity. What government are these insurgents professing allegiance to? Also, what armed forces are these people members of? What specific organization, if not government, are they allied to? Your arguments for including them are based on language which you can literally applyto anyone. You could apply your arguments to organized crime if you worded it right and chose to make that argument. I feel like your taking the Devil's Advocate argument and trying to defend its creation into policy, while ignoring the spirit of the document and intentions of its creators.

Because we're better than them. And before you say it, yes I am willing to allow more of us to be killed for that reason. If we are all fighting the war on terror in order to preserve our liberties, we should all be willing to lay our lives on the line to protect those liberties and ideals. And really, I don't mean to be glib, but this war on terror is pretty small potatoes as wars go. And besides that, I don't see how requiring all testimony to be sworn and requiring that every detainee must have a specific charge is going to make another terrorist attack more likely.

I used to think this way too, after everything I've even and read I just don't think these people care. They are looking for excuses to continue the struggle, just like the Israel situation. The biggest danger to these extremists is the resolution of their fight. The struggle is all they have.

But that's a difference in philosophy, and although I think I understand where you're coming from, all of that is not the issue here. As I said before, the Supreme Court did not specifically make a decision about whether the Geneva Conventions apply to detainees under the unlawful combatant label. It said that the decision whether or not to apply those standards is properly made by the Congress. Congress may decide collectively that it agrees with you and that illegal combatants do not receive protections under the Conventions. This is pretty typical of the Supreme Court, actually. Particularly when its members are as divided as they are now, the Supreme Court tends to base its decisions on little procedural issues like this rather than trying to make some kind of ethical statement. I have the feeling that Anthony Kennedy wouldn't have joined into the majority if the decision had been "the camps must go."

So you're saying that Congress is given the power to determine the fate GITMO and GC interpretation? I'll have to look into that. While this does enter in a little into the Comander and Chief powers, I'm not necessarily against such a ruling.

I have no idea. I've heard nothing about this decision. Is there a link I could look at?

Look it up, lazy. ;) It was a pretty big deal not too long ago.

[Xantar]

I still think you are arguing ambiguity against specificity. What government are these insurgents professing allegiance to? Also, what armed forces are these people members of? What specific organization, if not government, are they allied to? Your arguments for including them are based on language which you can literally applyto anyone. You could apply your arguments to organized crime if you worded it right and chose to make that argument. I feel like your taking the Devil's Advocate argument and trying to defend its creation into policy, while ignoring the spirit of the document and intentions of its creators.

Who knows what the intentions of the creators were? I could just as well say that you place far too much emphasis on a uniform as criteria for whether or not someone should be waterboarded. And maybe the Geneva Conventions were meant to be vague with regard to its definition of a prisoner of war.

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer yet, and I don't claim to be able to read the Supreme Court's mind. But I just don't think that the mere fact that terrorists claim allegiance to a loose network of cells rather than a fully organized government is a reason to throw out several decades of time-tested and formulated law in the form of the UCMJ and Geneva Convention and make up brand new procedures based on a new definition of the enemy. Do our policies have to be modified? Arguably so. But to take a step back from interpreting the Court's decision for a second, I personally think that the Bush Administration went about it totally the wrong way. There was too little debate about their detainment policies and afterwards there was too little information being given about how many people were getting indicted or charged or released. Major decisions like this can't be trusted to one administration, no matter how wise it is.

I used to think this way too, after everything I've even and read I just don't think these people care. They are looking for excuses to continue the struggle, just like the Israel situation. The biggest danger to these extremists is the resolution of their fight. The struggle is all they have.

Well, first of all, if you're right then I don't understand the wisdom of trying to take the fight to their home land. But more importantly, I'm not concerned with how the terrorists see us. As you pointed out, they will see us as the Great Satan regardless. However, with the erosion of global prestige comes vastly decreased diplomatic power. If war is supposed to be the option of last resort, then we should be ensuring that our position of negotiation is as strong as possible. If we want to be the world's policeman, then we should hold ourselves to a higher moral standard than anybody else. Otherwise, who will care to listen to us?

Look it up, lazy. ;) It was a pretty big deal not too long ago.

Oh fine. I was hoping you could at least give me a case caption. Anyway, I assume you're talking about Kelo v. New London. I read a few hastily thrown together opinions by a judge and a professor, so I won't claim to understand what the hell is going on. The issue here is that eminent domain is an established power of the government. And a previous decision established that a local government can in fact seize a property through eminent domain (although as always it must pay the market price for that property) and then give it over to a private company. I think that New London in this case decided on its own to seize some land and develop it for Pfizer. Had Pfizer asked the town to exercise eminent domain, we'd be in a different boat.

But I'm open to changing my mind on that point because, as I said, I don't feel I've read enough about it.

The main point I want to make is it sounds like rather than actually approving of the seizure, the Court refused to nullify it. I don't know what the Court thought about New London's plan as far as its economic merit, but courts generally don't like to flat out rule against a property condemnation. There's too much precedent to do that lightly. And instead of getting the judicial system mired in the details on a case-by-case basis, the Supreme Court simply overruled the challenge. If that means Congress and state legislatures start moving to limit the impact of the decision as much as possible, I don't think that would bother the Court very much.

Again, I don't know whether I agree with the decision or not. However, what I've read seems to indicate that people in the legal community were not terribly surprised by the decision and that the legislatures and the media were the ones who made a big deal out of it.

[Professor S]

Who knows what the intentions of the creators were? I could just as well say that you place far too much emphasis on a uniform as criteria for whether or not someone should be waterboarded. And maybe the Geneva Conventions were meant to be vague with regard to its definition of a prisoner of war.

You say they were meant to be vague, but in in what I pointed out they WEREN'T. There is NOTHING vague about that criteria. Also, whether or not prisoners are being waterboarded has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about who is covered by the GC, and not about any specific violations. What I'm concerned about with this ruling is 1) reduction of executive powrs for political reasons and 2) letting ethnocentric sensibilties hamper us during a brand new war that has less to do with nations and more to do with ideals and ways of life. They are not covered under the GC, they are specifically denied coverage, and id waterboarding one terrorist saves one marines life, waterboard like mad.

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer yet, and I don't claim to be able to read the Supreme Court's mind. But I just don't think that the mere fact that terrorists claim allegiance to a loose network of cells rather than a fully organized government is a reason to throw out several decades of time-tested and formulated law in the form of the UCMJ and Geneva Convention and make up brand new procedures based on a new definition of the enemy.

Yes, it is. This is a brand new kind of war and we can't let DATED regulations that assume civized actions on a war that is half military and half police action. I don't think the writers of the GC had any clue what the war on terrorism would be like or imagined nationless wars with nothing to do with national borders. I do know that they intended to GC to only cover those that represented these things, because it is the only part of the GC that is written in plain english. Whether you sympathize or want to rad it that way is irrelevant to me.

Well, first of all, if you're right then I don't understand the wisdom of trying to take the fight to their home land.

Because if we don't, they will take it to ours. Look at Israel. They tried. They pulled out of Labanon and Gaza and what happened? Plaestine elected Hamas as their government and ATTACKED FROM THE AREAS ISRAEL RETREATED FROM. Lebanon has also attacked from the areas that Israel gave back. Peace is the greatest horror terrorism knows. Over-anlysis of something so black and white as terrorism leads to inaction and inaction allows bigger and more hideous acts to take place. We ignored Osama for years hoping he'd just go away and instead we allowed him to organize the killing of 3,000 US citizens. And I really don't care about the whole "holy land" defense of his actions. Thats an excuse for blind violence, not a reason.

But more importantly, I'm not concerned with how the terrorists see us. As you pointed out, they will see us as the Great Satan regardless. However, with the erosion of global prestige comes vastly decreased diplomatic power. If war is supposed to be the option of last resort, then we should be ensuring that our position of negotiation is as strong as possible. If we want to be the world's policeman, then we should hold ourselves to a higher moral standard than anybody else. Otherwise, who will care to listen to us?

You still think this can all be resolved by talking about it, and dialogue has done nothing for 30 years. Since the West gave the Middle East the means to kill us with oil money, they have been trying to. They've attacked embassies, embassadors, ships and civilians. They've taken hostages and grandstanded for the world media. NOTHING has CHANGED.

I've said this for a while now and there are only two resolutions to this cultural conflict. 1) An Islamic reformation, which it is badly in need of, or 2) A complete subjugation of one people by the other. The cultural war is coming, and its coming soon. My original estimate was in 50 years, and then I ratcheted it down to 10.

Thoughtful discussion and diplomcy normally works, but how has it EVER WORKED IN THE MIDDLE EAST? It never will until the westernized form of it exists. It needs to recognize the separations between the religious and secular. They need to start believeing in NATIONALISM as well as their faith. They also need to honor and respect other faiths and governments other than their own.

But I think its too late for that. The Islam that we've grown to know and hate has reached a tipping point across the world, especially in Western Europe. Doubt me if you wish, oir cal, me a nutbag, but just wait and see. The world is going to have to choose what side they want to support and support it with arms and the blood of their people.

Now I've gone and depressed myself. I'm done talking about it.

[KillerGremlin]

One day Santa will reclaim his place as king of England and the Middle East will bow down to the great and mighty duck people.

[Professor S]

One day Santa will reclaim his place as king of England and the Middle East will bow down to the great and mighty duck people.

One can only hope.

[Xantar]

Well, I've been busy lately which is why I'm late with this reply. But here we go.

I'll just skip over your rant on waterboarding since you've said it's not relevant. I'll just note here that it's all well to say it's ok to waterboard a terrorist, but we've been waterboarding people who have done nothing wrong except (for example) having an Afghan warlord declaim them as terrorists to the U.S. And you sound more than a little frightened through it all.

Yes, it is. This is a brand new kind of war and we can't let DATED regulations that assume civized actions on a war that is half military and half police action. I don't think the writers of the GC had any clue what the war on terrorism would be like or imagined nationless wars with nothing to do with national borders. I do know that they intended to GC to only cover those that represented these things, because it is the only part of the GC that is written in plain english. Whether you sympathize or want to rad it that way is irrelevant to me.

You say it's dated. I say it isn't. Who's right?

Well, one thing is for sure: neither of us should get to make the decision. Nor should the President. You think you know what the writers of the GC intended, but there's really only one thing that's certain: those writers didn't intend for the Geneva Conventions to be overturned by someone just because they think they're no longer relevant. Have a look at Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions.

"The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Even if you're right, reasonable people disagree on whether the Geneva Conventions apply, and the proper way to resolve this is to have a tribunal determine the status of the prisoners. No such thing was done in this case. You can't just override the Geneva Conventions like that.

Because if we don't, they will take it to ours. Look at Israel. They tried. They pulled out of Labanon and Gaza and what happened? Plaestine elected Hamas as their government and ATTACKED FROM THE AREAS ISRAEL RETREATED FROM. Lebanon has also attacked from the areas that Israel gave back. Peace is the greatest horror terrorism knows.

I'm not even sure where to begin with this. You either aren't expressing yourself very well or you are sadly ignorant of the state of affairs in the Middle East. I guess I'll just try to untangle this mess one piece at a time.

Yes, Palestine elected Hamas. Do you think it's because the average Palestinian loves himself some suicide bombers? The fact of the matter is the PLO was corrupt in many districts, and so Palestinians were faced with the rather unsavory choice between a corrupt PLO who (other than perhaps Mahmoud Abbas) didn't really have the people's interest at heart or Hamas who occasionally tried to improve schools. All politics are local, even in Palestine, and so the elections kicked out the PLO. That doesn't mean that the average Palestinian was actually endorsing Hamas. And, you may want to note, immediately after Israel withdrew from Gaza, terror attacks dropped drastically even with Hamas in the government.

And of course, the nice thing about elections is that if you don't like the result, you can just wait for the next one to fix things. I know you want us to wait 10 years to see whether World War III erupts. I think I would prefer to wait 4 years.

As for Lebanon, it wasn't exactly a surprise that Hezbollah started attacking Israel. But it may not be for the reasons you think. I suggest you read this article (http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=282&language_id=1) which was written right after Syria withdrew from Lebanon. In particular, check out this paragraph which predicts exactly what happens a year after the article was written:

In the face of a Syrian withdrawal, Hezbollah and other Lebanese concerns that have benefited from Syrian patronage may very well resort to violence to protect their interests. Hezbollah may choose to foment strife, conveying the all too clear message that there will be no stability in Lebanon without Syria's steadying hand. Recent bombings in Christian suburbs of Beirut may provide a foretaste of what lies ahead.

This could potentially lead to widespread unrest, even civil war, which would have major ramifications in Israel, Syria and beyond. Some Israeli officials believe that Hezbollah has recently reinvigorated attempts to subcontract attacks in Israel by Palestinian militant groups. A Lebanese civil war may in fact redound to Hezbollah's favor, as a Syrian withdrawal would leave Hezbollah the most powerful force in Lebanon -- more powerful than the Lebanese army. A Hezbollah victory in such a conflict would fulfill Shi'a aspirations of controlling the country and create nightmares in neighboring countries with potentially restive Shi'a populations, Saudi Arabia not least among them. Such a development would create a Shi'a axis stretching from Iran, through Iraq to Lebanon, delighting Tehran.


You seem to believe that this was a case of "give em in inch and they'll take a mile" when that simply isn't the case. What happened here is basically another clash between Shia and Sunni in which Hezbollah is attempting to use Israel's response to further their own local ambitions. You're absolutely right. Peace was the greatest horror this particular terrorist organization knew.

By the way, the history of Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon is very interesting. Terrorist attacks dropped to all time lows in the aftermath, and a relative peace ensued for over five years on that front. Meanwhile, international pressure mounted on Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. Everybody from the European Union to Saudi Arabia and Egypt was calling for it, and the Syrian government found itself isolated. And so in 2005 it withdrew. The Lebanese government had a lot of trouble getting Hezbollah under control. What else would you expect from a country whose government is only a year old and has just been essentially under foreign rule for over a decade? There was a political vacuum left which Hezbollah is now stepping in to try to fill. As odd as it may seem, Israel is incidental to Hezbollah's ambitions for the moment.

There are two points I'm trying to make here. One is that contrary to what you may think, Hezbollah's attacks are not a response to Israel's withdrawal. It's not a case of, "Israel has retreated. They are showing weakness, and therefore we will renew our attack." That would be very odd considering that it took Hezbollah more than five years after the withdrawal to mount their attack. The crisis in Lebanon was precipitated by Syria's actions and Lebanon's inability for whatever reason to assert control quickly enough.

The second point I want to make is that in this case, diplomacy worked. Israel withdrew. Terrorist attacks dropped. And thanks to continued pressure by governments all over the world, Syria withdrew and Lebanon became independent. Sure, there's a flare-up now, but that's to be expected with these kinds of things. You might even read it as a movement in its last throes (to borrow Dick Cheney's phrase) since if Hezbollah fails to set the region on fire, they will be effectively isolated to wither on the vine. I should also note that Hezbollah's actions have been specifically condemned by Saudi Arabia and Egypt among others, and some journalists in the area even report that the Lebanase are very annoyed with Hezbollah. If we can break Hezbollah's attack and get the Lebanese government firmly in control, then Israel's withdrawal will be well worth it.

Over-anlysis of something so black and white as terrorism leads to inaction and inaction allows bigger and more hideous acts to take place. We ignored Osama for years hoping he'd just go away and instead we allowed him to organize the killing of 3,000 US citizens. And I really don't care about the whole "holy land" defense of his actions. Thats an excuse for blind violence, not a reason.

I don't know why you brought up the "holy land" because I certainly didn't. And if you're going to just call terrorism a black and white problem that doesn't bear thinking about, then there's no point in us talking about it here. Don't get me wrong. Terrorists are evil and cowardly human beings who all deserve to die (or at least rot away slowly). But that doesn't mean the solution to terrorism is so black and white. What's disappointing about your post is how it parrots right wing talking points so well without much evidence that you have spent much time thinking about it for yourself.

Besides, I'm not a soldier nor am I a member of the administration. Neither are you either of those things. So what can we do really except try to educate ourselves?

Incidentally, there's a very interesting interview carried out by BBC Radio with a CIA agent. This agent (who was part of the task force tracking Bin Laden) revealed that back in 1998 or so, we had an opportunity to assassinate Bin Laden. The plans were ready and approved and the agents were ready to pull the trigger (figuratively, because he didn't reveal the exact method that was going to be used to carry out the assassination). But in the end, the Clinton Administration called it off because for some reason they felt that it would upset a trade deal that they were brokering with the Chinese. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

You still think this can all be resolved by talking about it, and dialogue has done nothing for 30 years. Since the West gave the Middle East the means to kill us with oil money, they have been trying to. They've attacked embassies, embassadors, ships and civilians. They've taken hostages and grandstanded for the world media. NOTHING has CHANGED.


You're attributing a lot of things to me that aren't true and have no basis in anything I said. Diplomacy is more than just talking. It's a combination of negotations, economic policies and strategic deployment of military forces. As I pointed out before, such a thing has gained Lebanon its independence. It may be a small thing, but it's progress. And if it takes 30 years to wring out that sort of result, so be it.

It does you no good to act as if the Middle East is a big monolithic threat looming over the West. They are far from united. Every Middle Eastern country has their own agenda, and they are just as likely to commit acts of aggression against each other as against us. Organizations like Al Qaeda have captured our attention because they talk about reforming the entire world to their Islamic state, but the truth is even they are often used as pawns by the governments of other countries to further their own interests - which usually don't include world domination, believe it or not. If we were to withdraw entirely from the region and allow everybody to work it out on their own in whatever way they want, we would cease to be a target. Whether we find that to be a morally acceptable option is a different matter.

I've said this for a while now and there are only two resolutions to this cultural conflict. 1) An Islamic reformation, which it is badly in need of, or 2) A complete subjugation of one people by the other. The cultural war is coming, and its coming soon. My original estimate was in 50 years, and then I ratcheted it down to 10.

Well, then I guess it'll have to be Option #1 because subjugation sure as hell isn't going to work. This is guerilla terrorism we're talking about. By its very nature, it thrives under oppression, real or perceived. This isn't the 19th century any more. No country or culture can rule over another against its will in this day and age. We can't even subjugate Iraq. What makes you think we could hold down the entire Middle East?

Also, your prediction about the upcoming culture war is a guess. It may be informed. It may have some thought behind it. But it's still nothing more than a glorified guess. We can't even predict what the American economy will look like 5 years from now. We can't even predict how long any particular war is going to last. I don't think you're crazy, but frankly, I find your assertion that you know what's going to happen ten years from now a little conceited. And until we have something better than a hypothesis of the future, I prefer to act as if we all still have some control over our destiny rather than retreat into futility and blind violence.

[Professor S]

You say it's dated. I say it isn't. Who's right? Thats what makes it an opinion. You act as if ANYONE could ever KNOW whether or not laws are dated. Its opinion.. always... its just the majority opinion who gets to make that decision. Sory if I don't preface all of my obvious opinions with "IMO".

Well, one thing is for sure: neither of us should get to make the decision. Nor should the President. You think you know what the writers of the GC intended, but there's really only one thing that's certain: those writers didn't intend for the Geneva Conventions to be overturned by someone just because they think they're no longer relevant. Have a look at Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions.

Actually I just think I have the most well-supported opinion, and I believe it is the correct one. Once again, its an opinion, I know I wasn't there but I think I have interpeted them correctly. So do you, so we have a DIFFERENCE. Thats allowed. I just have a different style of debate. Its a little more flashy, but that doesn't invalidate anything.

"The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Even if you're right, reasonable people disagree on whether the Geneva Conventions apply, and the proper way to resolve this is to have a tribunal determine the status of the prisoners. No such thing was done in this case. You can't just override the Geneva Conve-ntions like that.

I thought the SC decision actually said that the tribunal was not allowed or not good enough or something, but I'm not sure on that so I won't comment.

I'm not even sure where to begin with this. You either aren't expressing yourself very well or you are sadly ignorant of the state of affairs in the Middle East. I guess I'll just try to untangle this mess one piece at a time.

Wow, thats arrogant. I guess if you don't agree with Xantar you're sadly ignorant. I'll inform the press.

Yes, Palestine elected Hamas. Do you think it's because the average Palestinian loves himself some suicide bombers? The fact of the matter is the PLO was corrupt in many districts, and so Palestinians were faced with the rather unsavory choice between a corrupt PLO who (other than perhaps Mahmoud Abbas) didn't really have the people's interest at heart or Hamas who occasionally tried to improve schools. All politics are local, even in Palestine, and so the elections kicked out the PLO. That doesn't mean that the average Palestinian was actually endorsing Hamas. And, you may want to note, immediately after Israel withdrew from Gaza, terror attacks dropped drastically even with Hamas in the government.

So the average Palestinian didn't like the PLO, so they thought that electing a terrorist organization was better? Really? You really believe that? If thats correct, all the Palestinians who voted for Hamas don't support Hamas, but are instead retards. Complete babbling, nihilistic, huge tongued retards who want Israel to rain bombs on them.

There are two points I'm trying to make here. One is that contrary to what you may think, Hezbollah's attacks are not a response to Israel's withdrawal. It's not a case of, "Israel has retreated. They are showing weakness, and therefore we will renew our attack." That would be very odd considering that it took Hezbollah more than five years after the withdrawal to mount their attack. The crisis in Lebanon was precipitated by Syria's actions and Lebanon's inability for whatever reason to assert control quickly enough.[quote]

That is your opinion, just like I have my opinions, and I disagree FULLY. Lebabnon is a demcracy beholden to its fanatical terrorist group, which is a member of its parliament. Hezbollah provides friggin' social programs for the country, so who do you think really runs the country? The parliament? Hardly. Hezbollah needs to dissolve or change in a very fundamental way if any Lebanon is ever going to be a real democracy.

[quote]The second point I want to make is that in this case, diplomacy worked. Israel withdrew. Terrorist attacks dropped. And thanks to continued pressure by governments all over the world, Syria withdrew and Lebanon became independent. Sure, there's a flare-up now, but that's to be expected with these kinds of things. You might even read it as a movement in its last throes (to borrow Dick Cheney's phrase) since if Hezbollah fails to set the region on fire, they will be effectively isolated to wither on the vine. I should also note that Hezbollah's actions have been specifically condemned by Saudi Arabia and Egypt among others, and some journalists in the area even report that the Lebanase are very annoyed with Hezbollah. If we can break Hezbollah's attack and get the Lebanese government firmly in control, then Israel's withdrawal will be well worth it.

Diplomacy didn't work in this case at all. During this entire PEACE proces hezbollah took the time to move minitions from Iran and Syria into southern Lebanon and prepare for strikes deeper into Israel. Lebanon remains scared of there own shadow when it comes to stopping terror and they refuse to even attempt to solve the issue. You call it a diplomatic victory, I call it a ruse to gain time for their one peace solution: the elimination of Israel.



What's disappointing about your post is how it parrots right wing talking points so well without much evidence that you have spent much time thinking about it for yourself.

I'm sorry, I didn't know that agreeing with one stance by a vocal segment of the republican party made me a "parrot" for it. I guess I can't think for myself and agree with one of their points. I also believe in drug legalization, does that make me a parrot for hippies? I think people should be able to smoke cigarrettes if they want to, so am I a parrot for Big Tobacco?. Whats disappointing is that you would try and make such a weak argument in an attempt to paint me as a republican stooge. Thats lazy reasoning on your part, and considering how many times we've had discusions about subjects like this you should be ashamed to even intimate that my opinions are merely based on repubican talking points.



You're attributing a lot of things to me that aren't true and have no basis in anything I said. Diplomacy is more than just talking. It's a combination of negotations, economic policies and strategic deployment of military forces. As I pointed out before, such a thing has gained Lebanon its independence. It may be a small thing, but it's progress. And if it takes 30 years to wring out that sort of result, so be it.

Ok, diplomacy is more than just talking, which I know. I was making a point not attempting to turn language into a mathematics equation which you apparently are. Regardless of what diplomacy entails outside of military force, IT AIN'T WORKED YET and there's no eveidence that it ever will. In fact, almost every peace agreement has only been used as an opportunity for terrorist factions to re-arm and continue the conflict at a later date. The Oslow Accords were a BAD JOKE that we're all not laughing about right now. The only thing that ever has worked is a periodical culling of terrorist forces and supplies.

]It does you no good to act as if the Middle East is a big monolithic threat looming over the West. They are far from united. Every Middle Eastern country has their own agenda, and they are just as likely to commit acts of aggression against each other as against us. Organizations like Al Qaeda have captured our attention because they talk about reforming the entire world to their Islamic state, but the truth is even they are often used as pawns by the governments of other countries to further their own interests - which usually don't include world domination, believe it or not. If we were to withdraw entirely from the region and allow everybody to work it out on their own in whatever way they want, we would cease to be a target. Whether we find that to be a morally acceptable option is a different matter.

I'm not talking about the Middle East, I'm talking about Fanatical Islam which is much more prevalent and powerful in the general religion than anyone is willing to admit. The very basic tennants of the modern religion make it horribly dangerous. If you don't know what I'm talking about, read pretty much anything by Muhammed. Middle Eastern Islam is the least of teh West's worries. Its the fact that in only a few years Western Europe will be DOMINATED by an Islamic population, and you believe you WILL see laws change and change drastically to conform to their inablility to separate the secular from the religious on any level. Much more importantly, I think you'll start to see democracy and personal freedoms die, as Islam has never gotten along with either of them. Yes, right now western islam seems nice and cosy with emocracy in the west, but they are also in the minority. We.ll see what happens when they become the majority over time.



Well, then I guess it'll have to be Option #1 because subjugation sure as hell isn't going to work. This is guerilla terrorism we're talking about. By its very nature, it thrives under oppression, real or perceived. This isn't the 19th century any more. No country or culture can rule over another against its will in this day and age. We can't even subjugate Iraq. What makes you think we could hold down the entire Middle East?

Why is it that you're talking about subjugation? I never said we need to "rule" them. EVER. Its either violence ending in a stalemate or reformation.

Also, your prediction about the upcoming culture war is a guess. It may be informed. It may have some thought behind it. But it's still nothing more than a glorified guess.

Well considering I don't own a time machine, I suppose my predictions about the FUTURE will HAVE to be a guess. Excellent observation. You use any physics formulas to determine that my predictions about the future are a guess? I just feel that my guess is what is most likely to happen and is unavoidable in the current climate and at the rate the culture rift is escalating. Could it not happen, of course, but thats if something drastic changes in a hurry.

Sorry if my opinions aren't yours, but your arrogant and pathetic attempts to paint them as ignorant instead of just severe (which I agree they are) is just an attenpt to invalidate the opinion without intellectual honesty. I am aware of the situation in the middle east and I would love to be able to sing cumbaya with them and the rest of Islam, but I don' think that will ever happen until Islam changes at its CORE. I think the time for traditional diplomacy was 30 or more years ago, but a combination of factors (increasingly violent factions, population growth being the big two) are making me believe that its too late and we need to start preparing to the contingency that the western way of life may be under attack in a short period of time.

Maybe I'm nuts, but I don't think I am, and I think I have enough history and evidence to at least have my opinion considered and not simply made irrelevant out of hand.

[Xantar]

Ok, I'm sorry about that. I really am. It's just that I see people who I know are true idiots saying a lot of the same things you do, so I guess I'm used to conflating anyone with that opinion into the same box. It was wrong of me.

Still, I have to say that part of the problem I had with your post was that you kept saying things like, "Lebanon has also attacked from the areas that Israel gave back." It made it sound like you thought Lebanon and Hezbollah are the same thing, and although the two are interlinked, I really do think they are separate entities with different interests in mind. Lebanon may not like Israel that much, but I think they are at least realistic (or scared) enough not to act too belligerently towards Israel. And then when you say things like, "the complete subjugation of one people by another," I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think that means except some kind of rule by one over another.

And although it may not look like it from my posts, I'm not convinced that Islam is a saintly peacenik religion without any violence in it. I just don't know enough about it one way or another, and I've heard convincing arguments both ways. I also believe, however, that money makes the world go round even more than Allah does. And if we managed to stabilize the Middle East and incorporate its immigrants into our countries in such a way that they all grew affluent along with the rest of us capitalists, pretty soon they won't care whether or not our women are uncovered. And I don't think you accomplish such a thing by being scared of Muslims and bracing yourself for a cultural storm you think they're going to bring. Form a contingency plan if you really think you have to. But I still think that in the United States at least, a good old-fashioned American welcome complete with movies, cars and wealth will tame even the most belligerent groups over time. Europe is a different matter, and I think European racism (frankly, in a lot of ways they're more racist than Americans) is as much to blame as fundamentalist Islam. It's hard for Muslims to trust majority races when the very sight of their headgear causes them to lose their jobs.

By the way, I freely admit that I like to use precise language in these kinds of discussions. I'm uptight about these things. If I feel you aren't being precise enough with your terminology, I will call you out on it. And yes, I would like to try to put everything into an empirical formula as much as I can, and when I don't think I have enough information, I refuse to commit to what merely appears to have "the most evidence" at the time. This should not surprise you. And if you don't like talking to a stuck-up ass like me in a political debate, that's too bad because it seems I'm pretty much the only one who will ever respond to you. And I don't mince my words just because I think you might get offended.

I'm sure you can understand that. ;)