perfidy

"Mobile Tactical Courtroom" IS funny! But your underlying point is not. The last thing an army needs in a forward area is a g-d d-mn lawyer, except maybe as a "Manual Landmine Detection Specialist."

GL, pls tell me that you're not equating me with the hard-lefties.

J,
Nah, not on purpose. I know better. I tried to avoid that perception by my disclaimer of being both off topic, so not really addressing Gitmo, and petulant, so more generally bitchy than perhaps usual. It seems I've sort of mostly failed.

Thinking about Gitmo brought me to thinking about the broader WoT. Which in turn got me to thinking about how a significant portion of Americans, and the international community, seeks to publicly undermine American policy. Yet, people with similar ideas rarely turn their activities against truly despicable regimes. When was the last "Free Lebanon" protest you saw?

And I don't think I'm off the mark as far as the increasing legal presence among warriors. I know a guy who did alot of work with SOF in Afghanistan, a JAG officer from the 82nd working with operators to make on the spot determination whether targets were "legal" to engage. Will Army SF soon start deploying a team lawyer on its A teams? Can there be long term good from lawyers being on the battlefield? Why is our military the only one to face these legal conundrums, and is that a good thing?

And besides all that, the "mobile tactical courtroom" idea is funny.

B,
Off-topic petulance follows:

Going forward, the US will be unable to effectively wage war anywhere. That's great news not only for terrorists and the hippies who love them, but for the rest of us too- world peace is assured!

We can no longer deploy soldiers beyond traditional areas of operation without a shitstorm of bad press and resentment from native populations, the kind of attention that erodes immediate effectiveness and long-term viability in the field.

We can no longer take prisoners in battle. Unless they've been determined to meet specific legal tests to qualify as combatants and they've been freakin' mirandized, taking EPWs is bad mojo. Unless we're going to start fielding lawyer battalions in mobile tactical courtrooms, forget about prisoners.

Furthermore, we will not be allowed to actually engage in combat upon arrival in theater. Too many non-combatants around. Even though every male over the age of 8 might be armed and shooting, that doesn't necessarily mean he's a combatant. Again, without the lawyer battalions to make these determinations, forget it. So no shooting.

But never forget that these legalities ONLY apply to American servicemembers. Savages are free to cut their heads off without repercussion, however.

But besides all that, don't forget that because our soldiers are trained to fight, yet might actually die, they should never be engaged in actual combat.

Don't you see, B? The world will be a peaceful utopia once the evil Americans are back where they came from. It's only the Yanks, and the menacing Republican who leads us, who makes the world so horrific.

This quote is almost reason enough to keep them there:

"We have guys here who have never told us anything, except to say that they want to cut off the heads of the infidels if they get a chance," Gen Lucenti added."

I'd rather they not have the chance.

If we are a country that values the fair application of the law and civil liberties not only does Guantánamo not do a single thing to fight terrorism, but it also erodes our democracy, and a hell of a lot more than a bunch of gay people who want medical benefits.

Having just read about the forced incarceration of Typhoid Mary (for almost 30 years, until her death) I find the idea of arbitrary locking people up un-American and shameful. Surprisingly enough, when applied fairly the law not only protects civil liberities, but works better.

The treatment of Mary was arbitary - other healthy carriers were allowed to not only remain in the general population, but continue to serve and handle food.

I saw a discovery channel special a few years back. That was what I remembered, and clearly I was wrong. But my point still stands.

B, I gotta side with Brdgt on this one. Those evil fuckers might be menaces, but they're petty menaces, not even close to being worth, as Brdgtqwrtp puts it, "eroding our democracy," which, though it's a bit hyperbolic is also right on the nose.

Well eff it. In a few days we'll be able to ship them somewhere that'll pull out their fingernails, and it'll all be legal. And terrorism will be licked for good. Or something.

Brgt, I did say "almost." While I am a cruel-hearted, baby-raping, gay-bashing Republican, I am fully aware of the problems re. the gitmo detainees. There is a conflict between the treatment of the detainees and the constitutional liberties afforded to American citizens. However, they are not American citizens, and they were captured during time of war. We are not required to extend the protections we enjoy as American citizens to foriegners. (As a general rule, I believe we should.) I think the primary mistake was not granting them the official designation of POW, which would guarantee them a long list of rights hallowed by tradition. We have held, without any sort of trial, large numbers of foriegners captured in war in the past without eroding our democracy. (And I think most of the people who opposed gay marriage were not exercized about the possibility that the damn homos are going to get health care.)

But whenever you create a new category, there is always the risk of sinking into expediency. Lack of appropriate guidelines, indefinate sentences or no sentences at all, not allowing contact with advocates - all bad things and problems with our policy. However, you are incorrect in saying that they were locked up arbitraily. They were captured while fighting against American troops. And many of them clearly wish us ill. We are not just kidnapping random muslims and throwing them in Gitmo.

Locking up typhoid Mary was not arbitrary, either - she was indeed a threat to the health of those she came in contact with. As are many of those held at gitmo. Perhaps unjustified, unconstitutional, or wrong - but not arbitrary.

There are gray areas and sometimes it is in fact necessary to use them, but we should be cautious about dancing around in them. Better to err on the side of light.