I've been reading briefly on
Raw Story and
AmericaBlog the buzz about some Republican Senators who appear to be supporting an Iraqi proposal of Amnesty to insurgents/terrorists who may have attacked or even killed U.S. Troops.
From AmericaBlog, we get this:
MCCONNELL SUGGESTED A RESOLUTION COMMENDING IRAQIS FOR GIVING TERRORISTS AMNESTY. might it not just be as useful an exercise to be trying to pass a resolution commending the Iraqi government for the position that they've taken today with regard to this discussion of Amnesty? - Sen. Mitch McConnell
ALEXANDER COMPARED IRAQI AMNESTY FOR TERRORISTS TO NELSON MANDELA'S PEACE EFFORTS. Is it not true that Nelson Mandela's courage and his ability to create a process of reconciliation and forgiveness was a major factor in what has been a political miracle in Africa? Did not Nelson Mandela, win a - the co-winner of - a noble Nobel Peace Prize just for this sort of gesture? - Sen. Lamar Alexander
CORNYN: IRAQI AMNESTY DEBATE IS A DISTRACTION. It makes no sense for the United States Senate to shake its finger at the new government of Iraq and to criticize them, it really is a distraction from the debate that I think the American people would want us to have. - Sen. John Cornyn
CHAMBLISS: AMNESTY IS OK FOR EX-INSURGENTS AS LONG AS THEY ARE ON OUR SIDE NOW. Is it not true today that we have Iraqis who are fighting the war against the insurgents, who at one time fought against American troops and other coalition troops as they were marching to Baghdad, who have now come over to our side and are doing one heck of a job of fighting along, side by side, with Americans and coalition forces, attacking and killing insurgents on a daily basis? - Sen. Saxby Chambliss
TED STEVENS - IF THAT'S AMNESTY, I'M FOR IT: I really believe we ought to try to find some way to encourage that country to demonstrate to those people who have been opposed to what we're trying to do, that it's worthwhile for them and their children to come forward and support this democracy. And if that's amnesty, I'm for it. I'd be for it. And if those people who are, come forward if they bore arms against our people, what's the difference between those people that bore arms against the Union in the War between the States? What's the difference between the Germans and Japanese and all the people we've forgiven? - Sen. Ted Stevens
(Emphasis mine)
In opening this section, John mades a really good point that I agree with, but is still not the point I want to make.
Funny, we simply "must" punish "law-breakers" when they're Mexican immigrants because "it would send a bad message" showing law-breakers any mercy. But when the law-breakers are reputed Al Qaeda terrorists who have murdered American soldiers, suddenly the Republican party becomes all warm and fuzzy. So the message for Mexicans seeking amnesty is what? Go to Iraq and pick up a gun first?
On RawStory, it's the same schtick, but worded a little more clearly, as Raw Story tends to do. No discredit to John; I looe his in-your-face form of blogging, but sometimes I like a more clear, straight-forward wording of what basically happened.
Five Republican Senators today took to the chamber floor invoking Nelson Mandela, theJapaneseracy, and even the Japenese to defend an Iraqi government plan to grant amnesty for insurgents who have attacked United States troops, or civilians, RAW STORY has learned.
Iraqi leadership has proposed amnesty for insurgents as part of the foundation of a new government.
If they bore arms against our people," said Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, "What's the difference between those people that bore arms against the Union in the War between the States? What's the difference between the Germans and Japanese and all the people we've forgiven?
Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) likened the granting of amnesty to former insurgents to efforts that earned Nelson Mandela a Nobel prize. "Forgiveness," he said, "has been a major factor in what has been a political miracle in Africa."
...
Here's the problem I have with this whole "granting amnesty" to terrorists and insurgents and advocating it by comparing it to such things as the Civil War, WWII, Nelson Mandela, etc....
Japan had a recognized Army, a state military force. The South and the North, in the Civil War, had recognized, state military forces. They wore uniforms, they had battalions, war plans, etc. There was in effect a general chain-of-command. These battles involved much more conventional military forces than free-ranging, scattered groups of terrorists and insurgents acting at the behest of no clear leader. Yet when it comes to arguing about how we treat insurgents, how we interrogate them, whether or not they are subject to the accords of the Geneva Convention, what do we hear from our leaders?
On who we are fighting...
[Bush] "We are fighting against men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality."
On Geneva Conventions...
The commission, appointed by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld under the chairmanship of former Defence Secretary James Schelsinger, said some protections granted to prisoners belonging to regular armies or security forces simply cannot be granted to captured terrorists, including al Qaeda and suspected terrorists.
Under the Geneva conventions, a captured prisoner in the uniform of an enemy army or security force can only be required to give his name, rank and unit -- unless he agrees voluntarily to give more information.
"While the ICRC, which has visited US detention operations in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan has acknowledged US attempts to improve the conditions of detainees, major differences over detainee status as well as application of specific provisions of Geneva Conventions remain.
"If we were to follow the ICRC's interpretations, interrogation operations would not be allowed. This would deprive the US of an indispensable source of intelligence in the war on terrorism," the commission announced.
"One important difference in approach between the US and ICRC," says the Schlesinger report, "is the interpretation of the legal status of terrorists."
...
But the US has specifically rejected Protocol 1, stating that certain elements in the protocol, that provide legal protection for terrorists, make it plainly unacceptable.
...
"This would grant legal protections to terrorists equivalent to the protections accorded to prisoners of war as required by the Geneva Conventions of 1949 despite the fact terrorists do not wear uniforms and are otherwise indistinguishable from noncombatants.
"To do so would undermine the prohibition on terrorists blending with the civilian population, a situation which makes it impossible to attack terrorists without placing noncombatants at risk. For this and other reasons, the US has specifically rejected this additional protocol.
Bush @ 2002; Taliban Fighters
The White House announced Thursday that Taliban fighters among the Afghan war detainees would be afforded the full protection of the Geneva Conventions but would not be classified as prisoners of war.
The president applied the Geneva Conventions to Taliban fighters because Afghanistan was a party to the 1949 treaty, though the United States never recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.
With Thursday's announcement, the Bush administration recognizes the Taliban troops as members of a "state" army.
Under the new presidential directive, al Qaeda fighters and other suspected terrorists will not be designated as fighters covered by the Geneva Conventions.
And again, the kicker in that article?
Al Qaeda fighters have not been categorized as "unlawful combatants" under the Geneva Conventions, meaning the treaty, and the rights guaranteed in it, will not apply to them. The fighters do not qualify because they do not represent any country that is party to the treaty, Fleischer said.
Legal experts and human-rights advocates said Bush's decision to continue classifying Taliban detainees as "unlawful combatants" instead of POWs allows the White House to use secret military commissions to try the individuals.
Fleischer said the Taliban fighters do not qualify as prisoners of war because they did not meet certain standards of Article IV of the conventions -- that they wear distinctive uniforms and conduct military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
So now that we made sure that the very people attacking us were devoid of any rights or humane treatment, because they do
NOT:
"...wear distinctive uniforms and conduct military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
we should go ahead and
grant them amnesty now??
Right. Blue is grey. Down is up. Black is white. So while we're out granting AMNESTY to people who are still alive and who've attacked, injured, and killed 2500 US troops, as well as countless Iraqi civilians, why don't we just go that extra step and grant retroactive AMNESTY for all the attackers who are already dead, too?
Just remember. This is who REPUBLICANS want to grant AMNESTY to:
And this is what they do:
Any questions?