Memorial Day Reflections

Charlie,

It is right and proper for a nation to give due honor and respect to those who have selflessly given themselves sacrificially for the cause of others. Indifference to such a sacrifice is unacceptable if not immoral to honorable men and women, therefore, all such occasions as prescribed in our nation should be carefully and prayerfully observed with all diligence and thanksgiving.

I also find it therapeutic to let those who have served our country honorably, know personally of my own gratitude for their sacrifice.

Concerning your water boarding issue, are you absolutely certain that it is officially considered illegal by any relevant jurisdiction?

According to most scholars on this matter it is stated that, technically, though water-boarding is considered unethical by some, there is no previsions in any laws which actually prohibit water boarding.

Water boarding is presently performed on every Navy Seal so that they understand what their enemies may put them through should they be captured.

In the most public case the water boarding of two people, known to be terrorists, saved the lives of thousands in California. How is the inconvenience of two known terrorists even comparable to the thousands that are yet alive because of it. Remember these were known to be men with evil intentions toward Americans.

Now, such an argument is not necessarily sufficient in a moral argument though it actually works pragmatically. But what I find most interesting is your apparent certitude about such a practice as to its moral inconsistencies. I always thought liberal thinkers preferred gray areas and spoke of conservatives as too black and white or too absolute. In this case you seem to be as certain as a conservative.

Now, I would ask you a pertinent question. If it were your own family that was in mortal danger, to what lengths would you be willing to go in order to save them? I for one would do what was necessary for the welfare of my wife, children and grandchildren.

Another fact about the water boarding issue as you see it belies what may be a lack of understanding about the difference between POW's and those who are dressed in civilian clothes and subversively seek clandestine means to overthrow a people. The two men in question were not in any military unit but were shear terrorists whose sole purpose was to kill Americans.

According to Obama's Attorney General, terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Convention. This was an article in the WSJ, November 22-23 issue. Yes, Obama's selected Attorney General, Eric Holder states that terrorists are not uniformed combatants who are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. The following is Holder's words in an interview on CNN in January 2002.

One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is

to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future

plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva

Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information

that you can elicit from people.

It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted

themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to

the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of

war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the

World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I

think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war?

Again, I think not.

I agree with this opinion. If you read the Coventions you will find that

the Al Q types are not members of the protected class

under the Geneva Conventions. They are not members of a uniformed national

army and are not entitled to Prisoner of War status or protection. That

being said, there are a few other rules, laws and customs that come into

play and overall the concept is very simple:

1. Foreign national sevice member or civilian arrested for an act of

espionage within the U.S. or Territories is treated as a criminal with full

rights of the accused and defense. Undergoes a trial by jury with penalties

to be applied as the law provides. During a period of declared war enemy

agents face death penalty.

2. Foreign National service member or civilian arrested in an act of terror

or conspiring to committ an act of terror in the U.S. or Territories is

treated as a criminal with full rights of the accused and defense.

Undergoes a trial by jury with penalties to be applied as the law provides.

3. U. S. Citizen arrested for an act of espionage or within the U.S. or

Territories is treated as a criminal with full rights of the accused and

defense. Undergoes a trial by jury with penalties to be applied as the law

provides.

4. A uniformed member of a national army captured on the battlefield, in

arms, opposed to U.S. or Allied forces is entitled to and shall receive all

protections and rights required by the Geneva Conventions. But may be kept

in detention until paroled, exchanged or cessation of hostilities.

5. Foreign national sevice member arrested for an act of espionage or

captured out of uniform or in the uniform of U. S. or Allied forces, on the

battlefield or within an active theater of operations is subject to summary

execution.

6. U.S. Citizen captured on the battlefield or within an active theater of

operations, in arms, in opposition to the U.S. or Allied Forces, shall be

tried under penalty of death for the crime of treason by a Military Courts

Martial convened by the authority of the commander. E.G the first commander

in the chain of command from Division through Theater Commander who has

authority to convene a General Courts Martial.

7. A Foreign National civilian, captured on the battlefield or within an

active theater of operations, in arms, in opposition to the U.S. or Allied

Forces, shall be deemed an enemy combatant and is not entitled to the

protections of the Geneva Conventions: If engaged in espionage or is

captured in U.S. or Allied uniform, summary execution. If captured in open

battle, the individual should be remanded to the host country government for

disposition, if the host country has a viable government and justice system.

If Host Nation "facilities" are not available, they should be kept "in

country" under conditions of close confinement until such time as

hostilities cease."

I guess we should prosecute Holder along with Bush, Cheney, the lying CIA (according to Pelosi) and all others who thought this to be appropriate behavior in the past. Will it lead to Obama's prosecution in the future for drowning the nation in infinite debt!

Now, back to the water-boarding question. It would apparently be more legally appropriate to line them up and shoot them according to the Geneva convention than to water-board them. By the way, numerous members of the news media subjected themselves to water-boarding and came away without any lasting harm.

Of course some in this country want to give them a cell with cable tv and plush carpet. I for one don't think that would be moral.

Perhaps the media should be more forthright about all the facts before political posturing skews the whole issue. In your words, you stated, "We Americans have a pattern of circling the wagons against a common enemy. While this is an admirable trait, there is also a tendency in our political leaders to manipulate the public, using our national anxiety as leverage for political gain." Maybe that holds true concerning the media as well. Especially in this particular matter, where the endgame is to water-board a past President while letting the lawyers exonerate known killers.

Charlie, I would also be interested to know upon what standard you actually base the morality or immorality of water-boarding or anything else for that matter. The Bible? Philosophy? Feelings? Intellect? Preferences? Political leanings? Popular notions? Please fill in the blank if you can.

Roy Hargrave

Betsey, what a beautiful sentiment. Let me add my thanks to all our veterans and their families. My father, grandfather, uncles, cousins, brother, brothers-in-law and a husband have served in various wars throughout our history. I grew up on WWII stories, lived the Viet Nam era, and was irreparably altered when I watched our invasion of Iraq on CNN.

My heart goes out to the families of veterans, because I can identify, and to the veterans themselves, because I can't imagine doing what they do. I think as a nation we are much better at saying "Thanks" now than we have been in the past.

Christa

Milo,

As to your first question (you could have looked up on google), name the correspondents, etc. To name a few, Mark Harrigan of Fox News on Greta Van Susteren, administered by [retired U.S. Army] Major Bob Bevelacqua and 2 qualified administrators. Also, WLS radio's Erich Muller subjected himself to the controversial practice of water-boarding live on radio, administered by trained personnel. Peter (last name not published in the article) of a British News Agency, which was administered by four men who were of former British intelligence and was apparently in the news in Great Britain and posted on youtube.com. After being up for three days or so on youtube.com, it was taken down because in was considered inappropriate on such a venue. There are also at least three others who are yet unnamed who are in the U.S. media that are considering submitting themselves to the practice in the next few weeks to assuage the mass hysteria concerning the practice. I'll get back with you when the time arrives.

I find it interesting that you didn't respond to the fact that our own Navy seals (as well as all special ops by the way) are all subjected to water-boarding. That is an argument that you shouldn't have ignored in this matter, unless you think those administering such a practice to these young soldiers should be tried and convicted.

I also found it amazing that you didn't respond to the substantial claim that at least a thousand people in California were saved from impending destruction had not water-boarding been applied to mass murderers whose sole purpose was to kill Americans. But of course your desire for definitions and contexts seem to be the greater priority.

As a side note, and if you desire more information on the subject let me know, water-boarding is not life threatening and simply causes extreme duress which makes birds sing about their future homicidal intentions. However, because of the NYT (which will soon be bankrupt along with many more liberal rags) water-boarding hasn't been used since 2002 because the proverbial cat is out of the bag. Everybody now knows it is not deadly and only causes uncomfortable persuasion. Therefore it will not be present to help us save more Americans in the future when murderers contrive future mass murders. Lets remember that when the next 9-11 happens -- God forbid!

One more vital element you so ably ignored in your emotional response to me concerns our Attorney General, appointed by President Obama, Eric Holder. He stated that he does not believe that these "terrorists are not uniformed combatants who are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention." And as I stated in my last post, regarding a point Holder brought up concerning the Geneva Convention, A Foreign National civilian, captured on the battlefield or within an active theater of operations, in arms, in opposition to the U.S. or Allied Forces, shall be deemed an enemy combatant and is not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions: If engaged in espionage or is captured in U.S. or Allied uniform, summary execution.

I suppose water-boarding is nicer than "summary execution!" especially when it saves American lives. I would prefer summary execution after their tongues sing their song about their future nefarious deeds planted in their brains.

As to your English lesson, "therapeutic" signifies healing, beneficial, curative, salutary (that means helpful and constructive) restorative. The context (as you've asked for) is the misconception if not implicit ignorance of the monumental role of our military in safeguarding our past and present liberties as well as blessings upon our nation. Seeing that Hollywood, much of the left leaning media as well as some of their Democratic surrogates in congress reduce their honorable service among us, it is necessary that we apply our open and forthright salutation to remind them that we're not all nuts and that they are greatly appreciated by rational people. That of course, is therapeutic for them and us!

Concerning your other diversion (I mean question), you asked, "And what is your method for determining if someone has served their country honorably?"

1. Using my brain

2. Using my heart

3. Using common sense

4. And, I happen to be close friends with more than 200 past and present servicemen personally, including some in my own family as well as seventy of whom are in the church I pastor (Please don't ask me to provide all the names)

Furthermore, I love and honor them. And if I happen to say a kind word to a serviceman who doesn't deserve it, then what harm could that possibly bring upon myself? They'll suffer the consequences upon themselves without my help in the matter.

Oh, and that was an odd (I'm being nice) question! But when diversion is the name of the game, I suppose rules are obsolete. If you'll look back on my posts in the past you will be hard pressed to find any substantial defense of the other side against it, just suggestions of my mean spirit as well as moot questions about inconsequential elements within the post. When the mundane rules a nation, and the substantial is ignored, it's getting close to midnight.

As a matter of fact, your whole response dealt with everything but the substantial elements. You're more interested in personal pillory than actually debating the facts. This is not your first attempt, and it most likely won't be your last. Dissent in this country is one of the pillars of our liberties and without it the foundations will begin to crumble. Let me give you an example:

Roy,

I do not agree or disagree with your first paragraph. As far as your other paragraphs, please be respectful and try to stay on topic.

Mijo

I've said before and I'll say it again, anonymity is the face of fear and it leaves its purveyors without accountability. My name is Roy Hargrave.

And one more moot question before I take my leave, what is your method for determining if someone has served his or her country honorably?

Roy Hargrave

Correction: I joined the Army in 1981.

The 16 year vet comment is a senior moment CRIPS - its been 28 years. DANG!

To the sane:

The POTUS took his wife on a jet to NYC for a date night while the taxpayers are left paying a large portion of the tab. For the Republicans, as well as a few Democrats and certain journalists to act like 2nd graders by harassing the President of the U.S. over such a petty matter is another example of the insanity in this country. For goodness sake, what do people expect of the President? Do they want him to fly coach on American Airlines? This sort of behavior and political posturing is the death of decency in this country. When will the ignorance finally come to an end and envy be put to rest?

Anyone willing to be the President of this country deserves a few more perks than the guy who sits in front of the TV every evening complaining about what others have that they don't have.

Of course there should be restraint from our leaders, but for a President engaged in the constant barrage of what this country faces to be castigated for taking his wife on a date is asinine. When we speak dishonorably of our leaders, no matter what political party they belong to, we diminish the greatness of our nation. Let our rebukes and disagreements be about substantial matters, not a drop in the bucket of the ocean of America's resources over a date night for our President and the First Lady.

Apparently, from Katrina to NYGate each side now finds it comfortable to castigate a sitting President while the world is going to hell in a hand basket. This is nothing but the continuation of the same ole' political maneuvering. What a JOKE! Kick the whole lot of them out (Dems and Pubs) and restore some decency and honor to the land of the free and home of the brave.

And that reminds me, the government shouldn't be setting the agenda's and expense accounts of private enterprises either. That is inherently insane as well. Bailouts, if we must have them, should truly be bailouts, not bail-ins for the government to control!

By the way, was that a green bug crawling down the street or a GM product powered by a windmill?

RAH

And by the way ... if the actual intent was to get accurate information -- information which might actually have saved lives -- there are many, many documented credible sources, military and otherwise, who have testified that torture is antithetical to this outcome, as well as numerous instances where this analysis was borne out. Now, if you want to force someone to DO something, like agree with something you're trying to get them to say (such as ((hypothetically, of course)) that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction), torture just might be the way to do that ...

Those who fulminate for torture are actually just wanting to be the ones who mete out vengeance; a very pre-Christian, eye-for-an-eye mentality.