7-8-06 Hamdan Myth
I had linked to a National Review op-ed a few days ago...
http://ka1ogm.blogspot.com/2006/07/7-2-06-hamdan-hysteria.html
...since it was a big deal. The weight of the National Review has since been used to further purport the myth that because Al Qaeda is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention, then the GC should not apply to them. This issue is discussed on Andrew Sullivan's blog today...
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/07/hamdan_myths_an.html
Those arguments aside, there is a deeper consideration as regards the Geneva Conventions. The simple fact of the matter is that the Geneva Conventions were preceded by a situation wherein a world power fought a similar war, about as close to the "global war on terror" as you can get when discussing an "enemy" that is neither represented by a distinct national government within any particular borders or confined to any geographic location. That earlier war upon an "enemy" without borders or government was, of course, the war waged by the Third Reich of Germany against the "racially impure". It was Hitler's example of inhumanity against man that spurred the signatories to the Geneva Convention to put into practice the simple idea of "never again."
Today, however, we are not only faced with an indistinct, non-national "enemy" exclusive of borders, but also with a similarly damaged sense of reason amongst our leaders in Washington DC that threatens to bring us closer and closer to the "final solution" of putting that simple idea of "never again" into its grave.
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld seek to erase history, to make it "okay" to throw away all due process, the same way the Germans did when dealing with the "Jewish problem". They seek to remove any and all Constitutional guarantees from the entire process of capturing, imprisoning, torturing, and killing people who, according to them, are guilty with no right to even argue for their innocence.
If you think there's a big difference between the conduct of the Nazi German government and the US Government in this matter, then you've got another think coming. This is not about the definition of the "enemy", it's about the conduct of the government.
In the words of Larry Flynt, "When the US government guarantees rights for a scumbag like me, then the rest of you are safe."
http://ka1ogm.blogspot.com/2006/07/7-2-06-hamdan-hysteria.html
...since it was a big deal. The weight of the National Review has since been used to further purport the myth that because Al Qaeda is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention, then the GC should not apply to them. This issue is discussed on Andrew Sullivan's blog today...
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/07/hamdan_myths_an.html
Those arguments aside, there is a deeper consideration as regards the Geneva Conventions. The simple fact of the matter is that the Geneva Conventions were preceded by a situation wherein a world power fought a similar war, about as close to the "global war on terror" as you can get when discussing an "enemy" that is neither represented by a distinct national government within any particular borders or confined to any geographic location. That earlier war upon an "enemy" without borders or government was, of course, the war waged by the Third Reich of Germany against the "racially impure". It was Hitler's example of inhumanity against man that spurred the signatories to the Geneva Convention to put into practice the simple idea of "never again."
Today, however, we are not only faced with an indistinct, non-national "enemy" exclusive of borders, but also with a similarly damaged sense of reason amongst our leaders in Washington DC that threatens to bring us closer and closer to the "final solution" of putting that simple idea of "never again" into its grave.
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld seek to erase history, to make it "okay" to throw away all due process, the same way the Germans did when dealing with the "Jewish problem". They seek to remove any and all Constitutional guarantees from the entire process of capturing, imprisoning, torturing, and killing people who, according to them, are guilty with no right to even argue for their innocence.
If you think there's a big difference between the conduct of the Nazi German government and the US Government in this matter, then you've got another think coming. This is not about the definition of the "enemy", it's about the conduct of the government.
In the words of Larry Flynt, "When the US government guarantees rights for a scumbag like me, then the rest of you are safe."
posted by Jeff Barnard at 8:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home