A Jacksonian, leaving a comment on a waterboarding post at Bloviating Zeppelin (where do we bloggers come up with these names?), left a link to a post of his own called "Whatever did happen to clarity?".
The gist of the post related to dealing with terrorists caught in the field of battle by American forces. He gives us this item from our military's past:
Art. 82.
Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers - such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates.
The document from which this was pulled?
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD
Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.
Guantanamo? Spoon-fed murderers and psychos? Hell, no! This was the Army of Abraham Lincoln. And he knew exactly how to treat terrorists on the fringes of the battle. The world would hate us for doing precisely what we should have done with those scum. But they hate us anyway, and they envy us, so where's the downside?
Instead we pretend that we can "deal" with these ignorant suicidal bastards. About time we went back to the things that work and make sense. Bring back Article 82!
Hang the scum!
7 comments:
The moral authority to just shoot them like the vermin they are.
The left would hate it but they always hate the good guys winning.
They also hate the idea of winning. Competition is bad, don'cha know?
Exactly - the world will hate us anyway. It's called envy.
Kill 'em all, let Allah sort 'em out...
Here, here!
That discovery was part of my ongoing research as to what to do with terrorists... it is a key bit of clarity by a President who knew *exactly* what the Law of Nations was and *what* his powers as President are. Those have not changed, BTW. My final article is lengthy one on Piracy and Terrorism and I go as far back as Josephus to get a handle on the problem (although one could go to the 'Sea People' described in Ancient Egypt right after the fall of the Mycenaen Greek civilization). A follow-on as to what is not taught to us about our Nation and the Law of Nations, plus other foundational ideas is, likewise lengthy.
And it supports President Lincoln fully.
Article 82 violates no treaty as, indeed, no treaty can be made about such beings that wage illegitimate war. Congress may write civil law for those that give themselves up to civil proceedings, but the President has a duty to deal with such individuals in the way set out for Nations before ours was created. That is why there are no laws covering them properly during wartime: they are not legitimate foes but, instead, are outlaws in the old sense of the word of being 'outside the law'. Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln... they all dealt with such this way either by written order or verbal command. Now we are no longer clear on what a Nation *is* and so we flounder. When Rome was in such a state we called it 'decadent', as it was decaying internally and losing internal coherence. Either we regain clarity or the fate of this world will be post-Rome save globally.
I agree, AJ. Most of us know exactly how these outlaws should be handled, and why. It's the weeping Left that seems lost in their own moral confusion.
Post a Comment