ACLU Action On Prisoners, Can Cause An Unplanned Reaction
Posted on July 10, 2006
Today, the ACLU attacked the Department of Defense and by default all uniformed members of the military of using “abusive interrogation practices” on prisoners taken in the Global War on Terror:
“It is the Defense Department’s responsibility to ensure that prisoners are treated humanely, as the Geneva Conventions require,” said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU attorney. “But as these documents show, the Defense Department allowed abusive interrogation practices to flourish.”
Ralph Peters of The New York Post has put in print, what no doubt is on the minds of many that are deployed in the Global War on Terror:
“Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there’s no way to dispose of them.
Killing terrorists during a conflict isn’t barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We’ve imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven’t been stymied by others, but by ourselves.
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.
Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom. “
The ACLU needs to understand that “for every action there is a reaction.”
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
4 Responses to “ACLU Action On Prisoners, Can Cause An Unplanned Reaction”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Can you please explain how highlighting the Pentagon’s incompetence constitutes an attack on the whole of our troops?
Yes. Our troops should work in accordance with international law, and execute them all promptly on the battlefield. That is what international law requires, after all.
Yes the ACLU attacked our troops because they had the mere thought of “hey… maybe we should obey international law and stop pissing off the rest of the world.”
At the time the Bill of Rights became part of the U.S. Constitution these were not considered cruel and unusual punihsment as they were normal punishment.
“Stocks: Wooden framework with foot holes in which the ankles were locked while the criminal sat down.
Pillory: Like the Stocks, the Pillory was a wooden framework. The Pillory, on the other hand, had holes for the head and hands. Also, the criminal had to stand. It was common to throw items such as rotten fruit and/or rocks at the criminal which made the already extremely uncomfortable Pillory an even worse punishment.
Whipping Post: This was simply where criminals were whipped before the entire town.
Ducking Stool: The Ducking stool was a chair to which criminals were tied and dunked into water as punishment. ”
My source:
http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/allam/16071783/law.htm