We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2010 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:55:53 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2010 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification ...no, not Robert Novak - retired General Wesley Clark. Damian Brooks, of Babbling Brooks and The Torch, sent me a link to the NYT Op-Ed piece by the POD. Damian said: Where exactly does "criminal" show up in the Geneva Conventions? And isn't "unlawful" a synonym for "criminal" in any event? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this, John, if you have the time and interest to comment. Cheers, Damian Here's the core (as always, you should follow the links and read the whole thing and judge for yourself, not just the excerpt): Treating terrorists as combatants is... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html Thu, 09 Aug 2007 06:31:27 -0600 Terrorist = pirate? I've been advocating this (letters to congresscritters and so forth) since shortly after 9-11. No Miranda, no long drawn out trial, no treatment as honorable combatant. You catch 'em in the act, they can be summarily (sp?) executed - unless, of course, they have intelligence (not their own, but what they may know), then they are interrogated before their date with the hangman. Another thought: why not issue (or is it grant?) letters of marque to individuals to seek out and deal with identified terrs? Also, why call the dimbulbs who seek out their promised gaggle of virgins wearing jihadi underwear by Semtex "homicide bombers"? Just call 'em what they are; stupid bombs. THW http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63070 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63070 Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:23:00 -0600 Actually, Bill, this should have been titled "Why Wesley Clark will never be president." http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63065 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63065 Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:04:44 -0600 Well..here's my take. Kill 1 to 10 of our civilians? Maybe not worth the military. Kill 3000? Time to pay the piper and he comes armed with artillery, tomahawks, fighter jets, bombers, air craft carriers, tanks, bradleys, marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors with weapons that go "bang". Frankly, the piper was tired of playing "Amazing Grace". http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63064 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63064 Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:47:10 -0600 "We need to recognize that terrorists, while dangerous, are more like modern-day pirates than warriors. They ought to be pursued, tried and convicted in the courts." I submit that the precedent for using the military to pursue pirates was already well-established as early as, oh, the Sixteenth Century. When our own country was still dripping wet, Thomas Jefferson sent the military, not the Washington constabulary, on that jaunt to the shores of Tripoli. Courts at the time consisted of judge, chaplain and hangman, waiting at the dock when word came that a ship was inbound with captured pirates. And, "At the extreme, yes, military force may be required." Just how more *extreme* than "Convert or die, Infidel" satisfies that smug little caveat? The Op-Ed should have been captioned, "Why Wesley Clark Doesn't Really Live in the Real World"... ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63057 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63057 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:35:44 -0600 The police work well for national terrorist movements, but while you can send the local constabulary to Armagh to handle the IRA, it doesn't work for international terrorism, you have to get the army to punch your way into Aghanistan or Iraq to get the terrorists there. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63048 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63048 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:36:24 -0600 ...his argument is remarkably weak for what ostensibly should be an intelligent man's take on how to categorize barbarians. In his case, I'd have used "ostensibly" to modify "intelligent"... ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63046 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63046 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:50:48 -0600 Lex, Dusty - Ya think? 8^ ) http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63045 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63045 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:31:23 -0600 Tell me again why "unlawful" and "criminal" are mutually exclusive concepts? In other words, his argument is remarkably weak for what ostensibly should be an intelligent man's take on how to categorize barbarians. Maybe he's playing to his audience. Heh. -Instapilot http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63044 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63044 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:29:37 -0600 here, I think that Clark and his lawyer bud started with the conclusion - that Bush is bad and that his war-on-terror-has-made-us-less-safe, and then stacked supporting arguments on top of it. The idea that al Qaeda gives a rat's a$$ whether we've dignified them with the word "combatant" is particularly ludicrous. I think all he's really trying to do is keep his hat in the ring for a SecDef billet. Who knows, maybe even a VP slot, if Hillary and Obama can't make nice during the primaries.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63043 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63043 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:09:53 -0600 There are significant differences between: 1) Basic human rights afforded to all individuals, regardless of combatant status. 2) Legal rights and privileges afforded to those who mutually observe and respect a reciprocal agreement like the Geneva Conventions. 3) Legal rights and privileges afforded to US citizens in US courts. Too many of those rooting for the other side have them confused. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63042 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/08/the_prince_of_d.html#comment-63042 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:02:47 -0600