Al Qaeda, Hamas, Those in Support – Pirates (I kid you not)

Disclaimer:

Skip over my introduction if you wish, by all means, BUT do not pass up the post being introduced. It can be considered lengthy, however, it is by far a very thought provoking and usable definition according to US Code Title 18, Chapter 81 regarding piracy and how this can and should be applied to those at war with this nation. This is a must read

Who in their right mind would ever consider terrorists, pirates? In the course of conversation perhaps, but truly and by what most consider a pirate to be or look like.

“Piracy is an activity, which has bounds and definitions placed upon it of which the 'swashbuckling' form of it from previous centuries is only a sub-part of the larger and broader definitions of Piracy.”

One of the debates in the Edwardian “bumper sticker war” is the outrage over those held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It is without doubt a serious question as to what it is we do with these people; if only because they are “enemy combatants” of the kind we haven’t really dealt with before in a war of the same lack of experience; a war, which will not end any time soon. So what to do with those captured and detained until the end of hostilities when those hostilities have every indication of consisting of decades time?

We know the arguments, the very basics of which are; treat them almost as though they have committed a civil crime and try them in the criminal court system with all the protections that entails or keep them locked up, gain intelligence and deal with them via military tribunal, treating them through the military community’s means.

“Enemy combatant,” “unlawful enemy combatant,” or other such nomenclature not yet thought considered?

A Jacksonian has done much research to date and finds that there is little or no need to classify or reclassify as each detained, involved, in support of whether individual, group or nation are by definition involved in piratical activity or pirates themselves.

Sound ridiculous, have your doubts or does it peak your interest? Regardless, read what has been posted to date before one considers snickering in amusement thinking they know better.

From A Jacksonian at Dumb Looks Still Free: “Why do we refuse to call terrorism for what it is?”

“I have looked at the Federal Piracy Laws in two posts: When Terrorists are Pirates, and A deeper look at Terrorism and Piracy, and why it matters.

This piece now works off of the more finalized views of the second piece, but do understand the background given in the first as necessary to this.

Piracy is an activity, which has bounds and definitions placed upon it of which the 'swashbuckling' form of it from previous centuries is only a sub-part of the larger and broader definitions of Piracy. Consider the very broad part of the US Code Title 18, Chapter 81 on this:

Sec. 1651. Piracy under law of nations

Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.

This is the very broad view of keeping the traffic lanes on the seaways open from illegitimate and unlawful attacks, seizures and other activities that put the commerce of the seas and navigation of the seaways at peril. Those that endanger such, even if they endanger NO US owned or operated vessels, are Pirates. That is more simple brigandage upon the high seas, but also delineates that Nations at War are respected in their ability to hamper shipping against their enemies that directly supports those enemies, as that is a lawfully declared purpose of Sovereign Nations. Putting war material on a passenger liner, however, is a violation of that as it comingles civilian and military affairs in wartime and is, thusly, considered to be shipping in support of the war effort of one Nation.

Beyond that, however, this is a very broad purposeful law that does NOT put forth that non-State organizations cannot be considered Pirates. In point of fact that is why the law is addressed in such a broad way: to include anyone who commits laws against Nations on the High Seas to put shipping at peril. And as Civil Law may not hold here, it is the Admiralty part of the US Armed Forces that are to apply these Laws.

Sounds ancient, doesn't it?

Consider this news report from 15 JUL 2006 by ABC News, confirmed by multiple sources:...”

READ THE REST AND FOLLOW THE LINKS TO PREVIOUS POSTS ON THIS SUBJECT

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2454549331067827652

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, Public Eye, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Times as National Disgrace, Not Gitmo

The Times Editorial Board calls it “Gitmo: A National Disgrace” and has, as usual a real humdinger of an opening:

“Ever since President Bush rammed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 through Congress to lend a pretense of legality to his detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, we have urged Congress to amend the law to restore basic human rights and judicial process. Rulings by military judges this week suggest that the special detention system is so fundamentally corrupt that the only solution is to tear it down and start again.”

Ever since President Bush rammed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 through Congress The NY Times and other outlets of the msm have been ramming their opinions down our throats, whether this was through “news” articles or opinion pieces mattered not.

For some unknown reason the msm considers itself above it all as though it delivers the news with no bias; most, if not everyone would disagree (although there would be much disagreement as to what side it leans). Some of the news can be described as biased and/or sloppy; in spite of this the editorial board at The Toilet Paper pontificates without doubt that their opinion is the correct opinion.

On Monday, “two military judges dismissed charges Monday against a Guantanamo detainee accused of chauffeuring Osama bin Laden and another who allegedly killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan.;” Salim Ahmed Hamdan and Omar Khadr.

Toss it all out and rewrite it all is the basic idea that “would allow Americans to once again hold their heads high when it comes to justice and human rights,” according to The Times. Trapped in a mindset that is fit for an alternate universe, rather than an ever changing situation; everything is simply a George W. Hitler effort at curtailing rights. The entire argument held is in line with a 9/10/01, Hamas, Fatah (separate and very worthy links) and all the other fanatics mean Israel no harm, nukes in Iran is only fair mindset.

Andrew McCarthy at NRO displays if nothing else (and I think it’s a lot more) an analytical grip on the reality of the situation that none of news outlets will ever come close to. Read his article for the full treatment, but in summary (in my poor fashion):

“It is elementary that a court, including a military court, is not competent to entertain a case unless it has jurisdiction. This simply means that the conditions set by congress for the court’s intervention must be met. In this instance, jurisdiction for military commissions is now controlled by the Military Commissions Act (MCA), signed into law by President Bush at the end of 2006”

“Under the MCA, only “[a]lien unlawful enemy combatants, as defined in section 948a of this title, shall be subject to trial by military commissions[.]” So, the question arises, how does section 948a define alien unlawful enemy combatants (AUECs)?”

“the crucial inquiry with a combatant is whether he is properly categorized as unlawful, as the MCA requires.”

“The military’s CSRT procedures are set forth in a memorandum issued by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, which is available on the Defense Department’s website. (See here, last updated May 21, 2007.) The memo was issued on July 14, 2006. Note that that is five months before the MCA. It would be a fair criticism to argue that once the MCA was enacted, the Pentagon’s legal staff should have gone carefully over the memo to ensure symmetry between the MCA’s requirements for military commission jurisdiction and the CSRT findings that would be used to satisfy those requirements. Still, to give the Defense Department its due, it would have been reasonable — notwithstanding Monday’s ruling — to conclude that the CSRT procedures were adequate to the task.”

“The basic problem is some loose language. The CSRT procedures, in shorthand fashion, speak of determining whether a detainee is an enemy combatant, not an unlawful enemy combatant as the MCA requires.”

Where The Times and McCarthy may agree to a point is the need to create a system appropriate to determining the status of combatants; this is point where The Times Editors would be satisfied (not very deep of them is it?), but McCarthy takes it further, as it should be taken.

The Times and others with their proclivity to see things through only their reality, McCarthy says:

“We ought to design a new national-security court, an amalgam of the military and civilian systems, to deal comprehensively with the war’s novel challenges: investigations, detentions, and trials in a war whose end is not only indeterminate but — unlike prior wars — difficult to imagine; a war which involves alleged terrorist operatives whose status will often be ambiguous (because they don’t wear uniforms) but who cannot be given the presumptions that favor ordinary criminal defendants (since it would reward and thus perilously encourage their flouting of the laws of war). That new system should employ civilian judges, who have great expertise in moving terrorism cases and are independent of the executive branch — something important to our allies, whose cooperation is vital if we are to prevail against our enemies. But to combat the proclivity of civilian judges to push the due process envelope, the proceedings should be predominantly military and hew to rules exactingly prescribed by Congress.”

The editors’ opinion for the fix would be in following with bills “sponsored by two California Democrats” (surprise):

“close Gitmo in a year and the detainees would be screened by real courts. Those who are truly illegal combatants would be sent to military or civilian jails in the United States, to be tried under time-tested American rules of justice, or sent to an international tribunal. Some would be returned to their native lands for trial, if warranted. The rest would be set free, as they should have been long ago.”

The Times and msm in general cannot take the time to fully consider a subject prior to forming an opinion meant to sway opinions. Why they or we would consider their words or opinions in words the arguments end is beyond me.

Andrew McCarthy offers an appropriate word of caution to his argument (something The Times would never consider):

“Saying the prosecution’s position should be sustained here is a good distance from saying that, as a matter of policy, the military commission system is the best way to deal with detainees. The war on terror presents unusual issues — issues that can’t be neatly pigeonholed into either the military or civilian court model.”

The Times closes with its own colorful, conspiracy theory filled, the sky is falling take:

“The Guantánamo camp was created on a myth — that the American judicial system could not handle prisoners of “the war against terror.” It was built on a lie — that the hundreds of detainees at Gitmo are all dangerous terrorists. And it was organized around a fiction — that Mr. Bush had the power to create this rogue system in the first place.”

Bottom line is that it is not as simple as we would have it and especially as The Times would have it.

Trackback to this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/581263163490707647

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Random Yak, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Planck's Constant, Dumb Ox Daily News, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Gittin' Outta Gitmo!

“The five-year-old military prison at Guantánamo Bay, with its indefinite detention rules, lack of judicial review and insufficiently regulated interrogation techniques, is an ugly stain on this country’s long tradition of respect for the rule of law and an endless propaganda bonanza for America’s enemies.”

An “endless propaganda bonanza” a category of which this editorial can appropriately be included. Do you get the impression the Times editorial board doesn’t care for Gitmo?

Gitmo lacks a “judicial review” that The Times approves of. Gitmo lacks a set of sufficiently “regulated interrogation techniques,” that can perhaps be televised on cable. Gitmo is an “ugly stain,” on this nation and is a piece of propaganda The Times has no more need of.

What is Gitmo and is it everything horrible The Times and others have disseminated? Where has “America’s enemies,” gotten its education on the “facts” surrounding Gitmo? "America's enemies" don't need facts, nor does our msm.

Senator Dianne Feinstein of CA has introduced legislation that The Times thinks quite highly of. Legislation that would:

“begin moving most of the Guantánamo detainees back into the time-tested procedures of the normal American legal system.”

The “time-tested procedures of the normal American legal system” that was not designed for this particular brand of “alleged criminal,” but little details like that don’t matter. A legal system that has never truly had to deal with a situation quite like the one we are now in the midst of, but the Times knows better and thanks to some legal system it imagines, the paper cannot fathom any other way of dealing with these poor unfortunates. Geneva should be upheld; ignoring what Geneva is.

“Many of those held at Guantánamo may not be dangerous terrorists at all, but people scooped up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and elsewhere to be sorted out later.”

Terrorists are people too and those scooped up on the battlefield may have had reason to be there. They do not need to be terrorists to warrant being picked from the battlefield to be held at Gitmo for sorting out later. What would The Times have the military do, sort them out there?

I don’t know all that much about Feinstein’s legislation, but I do know nothing can be fixed/tweaked/adjusted when it cannot be agreed upon what it is we have that needs fixing. The media, as usual plays its part in not actually reporting, but analyzing and of course analyzes incorrectly or in its biased manner. But hey, we wouldn’t want the real story would we?

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -