Monday, June 27, 2005
Dems not just legalistic in GWOT, but for the defense
Gay Patriot and others have rounded up Democrat quotes evidencing Rove's suggestion last Wednesday that: "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." (The GOP's supporting evidence here.)
Those are some excellent compendiums, but I haven't yet seen anyone cite what ought to be exhibit A: house minority leader Nancy Pelosi's loud demands, the day before Rove spoke, that prisoners at Guantanamo either be charged or freed:
Pelosi is not just being legalistic. She is being hyper-legalistic in arguing that the enemy should be freed to kill again. One could concievably take a hard line legalistic approach to the war on terror, wanting to find a way to make the legal system a realistic alternative to military action. Its a dumb idea, but one could take this legalistic approach without being on the side of the enemy. Pelosi, however, is just flat out on the side of the enemy and, within the legalistic approach, acts as their defense attorney, representing their interests exclusively, instead of the interests of the the American People who she is supposed to represent. Is it possible to go any lower?
Those are some excellent compendiums, but I haven't yet seen anyone cite what ought to be exhibit A: house minority leader Nancy Pelosi's loud demands, the day before Rove spoke, that prisoners at Guantanamo either be charged or freed:
Many of the detainees have been in U.S. custody since October 2001. Why have they been in custody for nearly four years without being charged? Why has so little been done to resolve the status of the detainees?Because they are prisoners of war you ninny. In what war have prisoners of war ever been released before hostilities are ended? Ace of Spades had earlier noted the irony of Democrats who take this "charge 'em or release 'em line":
Liberals seem to have a curious position here.But Pelosi's position is actually weirder still. Not only does she fully understand that prisoners of war are not released until hostilities are ended, but this is actually the basis for her contention that they should be released. She is trying to claim that the war IS over, at least in Afghanistan, and so those fighters captured in the Afghanistan theater should be charged or freed.
Were these lawful combatants -- good soldiers, legal soldiers, honorable soldiers who'd just been captured as part of war -- they could of course not object to holding them for the duration of the war, as that would just be ridiculous. They know damn well we didn't just release good, honorable Nazi and Japanese soldiers until the war was over. (And neither did those countries release our boys, except for hardship cases and in prisoner exchanges.)
So... the weird thing is:
They are insisting we treat unlawful combatants and actual terrorists BETTER than we'd treat lawful soldiers.
"The war to remove the Taliban government from power was over in 2001 and the president has said the mission was a success," said Jennifer Crider, Mrs. Pelosi's press secretary.You know, like after we defeated the NAZI's in North Africa, we had to let all the German soldiers captured in North Africa go, because the war there was over. Don't you remember that?
Pelosi is not just being legalistic. She is being hyper-legalistic in arguing that the enemy should be freed to kill again. One could concievably take a hard line legalistic approach to the war on terror, wanting to find a way to make the legal system a realistic alternative to military action. Its a dumb idea, but one could take this legalistic approach without being on the side of the enemy. Pelosi, however, is just flat out on the side of the enemy and, within the legalistic approach, acts as their defense attorney, representing their interests exclusively, instead of the interests of the the American People who she is supposed to represent. Is it possible to go any lower?
