Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The arc of the moral universe does not bend itself. it is up to us to bend it.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

Republicans do not pay their debts.

Democracy cannot function without a free press.

We’re watching the self-immolation of the leading world power on a level unprecedented in human history.

After dobbs, women are no longer free.

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

All hail the time of the bunny!

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

Let me file that under fuck it.

I swear, each month of 2025 will have its own history degree.

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

A norm that restrains only one side really is not a norm – it is a trap.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires Republicans to act in good faith.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

Someone should tell Republicans that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, or possibly the first.

Republicans want to make it harder to vote and easier for them to cheat.

The lights are all blinking red.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

Nothing worth doing is easy.

Sadly, media malpractice has become standard practice.

Giving in to doom is how we fail to fight for ourselves & one another.

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

You are here: Home / Politics / War on Terror / War on Terror aka GSAVE® / Better Than The Worst People On Earth Is Not Good Enough

Better Than The Worst People On Earth Is Not Good Enough

by | 44 Comments

This post is in: 

Katherine at ObWings has an excellent post on the meaning of the enemy combatant bills currently percolating through Congress. It seems to me that arguments about the badness of our enemies’ prisoner treatment completely miss the point – should we let the worst people on Earth dictate how we behave? It seems like some folks want to set the bar awfully low.

Like the Detainee Treatment Act (which hilzoy and I wrote a long series on last November), the administration’s bill strips the federal courts of jurisdiction of habeas corpus cases filed at Guantanamo. Unlike the Detainee Treatment Act, it clearly applies to pending cases. Unlike the DTA, which only applied to Guantanamo, this bill’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions apply to “any alien detained by the United States as an unlawful enemy combatant”. Unlike the DTA, this bill specifically provides that “No person in any habeas action or any other action may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto as a source of rights, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose in any court of the United States or its States or territories.”

I don’t want to minimize the importance of the rules on military commissions. When the head staff judge advocate in the Marine Corps goes before Congress to testify that the President’s proposal is unlike any “system of jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people” because “an individual can be tried and convicted without seeing the evidence against him”–I take that very seriously.

But the crucial thing to realize about the military commissions is this: most prisoners in Guantanamo will never, ever see one. Ten have been charged so far. Maybe a few more dozen will be charged eventually. That’s all. An overwhelming majority of the prisoners at the base will never be tried by a military commission.

The only process that most prisoners get are hearings called “Combatant Status Review Tribunals” (“CSRTs”) and “Annual Review Boards” (“ARBs). The purpose of the CSRT is to determine whether a prisoner is an enemy combatant. The purpose of the ARB is to determine whether a prisoner already designated as an enemy combatant is still a threat to the United States. But in practice, they work about the same way.

Unlike me Katherine has relevant legal training so head over there for the full story.

Reader Interactions

44Comments

  1. 1.

    Zifnab

    the administration’s bill strips the federal courts of jurisdiction of habeas corpus cases filed at Guantanamo. Unlike the Detainee Treatment Act, it clearly applies to pending cases. Unlike the DTA, which only applied to Guantanamo, this bill’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions apply to “any alien detained by the United States as an unlawful enemy combatant”. Unlike the DTA, this bill specifically provides that “No person in any habeas action or any other action may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto as a source of rights, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose in any court of the United States or its States or territories.”

    Wow. Just… fucking… wow.
    I think that cinches it. We are no longer a just society. The moral majority just kicked America’s moral high ground in the nuts.

  2. 2.

    Zifnab

    Almost all of the evidence against a prisoner is classified. He is read only a vague summary of the charges. Actually, at the time of the hearing, the CSRT panel also has not seen the evidence against the prisoner–only a vague list of charges like “associating with a known al Qaeda member”–so they can’t even ask useful questions without revealing their sources of information.

    So the accused can’t see the evidence against him. The accused’s legal council can’t see the evidence against him. And the court issuing the ruling can’t see the evidence against him. Exactly how is said military tribunal supposed to determine anything – like, anything anything – beyond, “I suppose he wouldn’t be here unless he was a terrorist.”

  3. 3.

    Darrell

    So the accused can’t see the evidence against him. The accused’s legal council can’t see the evidence against him. And the court issuing the ruling can’t see the evidence against him

    The same is true of a terrorist 5 seconds before a US marine sniper puts a bullet through his head. Terrorist had no right to see evidence against him, no access to legal counsel, etc.

  4. 4.

    Darrell

    It seems to me that arguments about the badness of our enemies’ prisoner treatment completely miss the point – should we let the worst people on Earth dictate how we behave?

    Conversely, do murderous savages who target innocents deserve the same treatment as honorable soldiers captured on the battlefield?

  5. 5.

    Katherine

    Thanks, Tim.

    Darrell. The reason there’s no due process on the battlefield is because THE OTHER GUY MIGHT SHOOT YOU AT ANY MOMENT. When he’s unarmed and has been locked in a prison cell for 4-5 years, different standards apply.

    Jesus.

    Also, as far as “murderous savages who target innocents”, some of the people locked up at GTMO are innocents who have been targetted by said murderous savages. For example, Turkistani, mentioned in my post. For example, Faiz Ullah.

  6. 6.

    The Other Steve

    Conversely, do murderous savages who target innocents deserve the same treatment as honorable soldiers captured on the battlefield?

    Is a soldier who tortures enemy soldiers honorable?

  7. 7.

    Zifnab

    The same is true of a terrorist 5 seconds before a US marine sniper puts a bullet through his head. Terrorist had no right to see evidence against him, no access to legal counsel, etc.

    So you’re saying we should take suspected terrorists out back and shot them? Why have a Gitmo at all? Why are we holding these people if it’s perfectly ethically valid to just kill them?

  9. 9.

    Darrell

    Jesus.

    Also, as far as “murderous savages who target innocents”, some of the people locked up at GTMO are innocents who have been targetted by said murderous savages.

    And innocents have been killed by our military strikes too. That innocents can get killed and/or arrested is not an argument for not killing and arresting terrorists.

    When he’s unarmed and has been locked in a prison cell for 4-5 years, different standards apply.

    I’ll ask the question again – do murderous savages who target civilians deserve the same or similar treatment as honorable soldiers captured on the battlefield?

  10. 10.

    Darrell

    Is a soldier who tortures enemy soldiers honorable?

    Sure he can be. He’s trying to obtain information to save lives. What’s dishonorable about that?

  13. 13.

    Darrell

    I wish there was something we could do about posters who serve no other purposes than disrupting threads by trolling them

    Translation – you have no substantive response to valid arguments being made, and now you’re calling for censorship. Wonderful.

  17. 17.

    Darrell

    So if enemy soldiers intentionally target innocents, what should we do to them?

    Blow their f*cking head off. What would you have us do with them?

  18. 18.

    D. Mason

    I’ll ask the question again – do murderous savages who target civilians deserve the same or similar treatment as honorable soldiers captured on the battlefield?

    I hate to break it to you darrell, but some of our soldiers also target civilians. Some of them are murderous savages. By your own logic the enemy is completely justified in treating each and every coalition soldier, regardless of their status as a murderous savage, as if they were the very fiends you describe. Why do you, Darrell, advocate the murder, torture and endless imprisonment of our soldiers? It’s a simple question.

  19. 19.

    emix

    What is the moral diference between Darrel and a savage terrorist? This is a serious question. Really, I would like to know.

  20. 20.

    Darrell

    I hate to break it to you darrell, but some of our soldiers also target civilians. Some of them are murderous savages. By your own logic the enemy is completely justified in treating each and every coalition soldier

    Equating our soldiers with terrorists now? ..how nice.

  21. 21.

    emix

    Both support torture.
    Both oppose due process.
    Both are unconcerned about civilian casulties.
    Both believe that the ends justify the means.
    Both believe God is on their side.
    Both Believe that George Bush is helping their side win the GLOBALWARONTERROR!!!!

  22. 22.

    D. Mason

    Equating our soldiers with terrorists now? ..how nice.

    I didn’t equate them to terrorist, you did. Perhaps you didn’t realise that’s what you were doing when you lumped all murderous savages together, but it is what you were doing. You advocated the torture and murder of our soldiers, I didn’t, don’t try to hang that shit on me.

  23. 23.

    Krista

    So.

    Let me get this straight…

    A few days ago, on the “Back to the Basics” thread, events unfolded as follows:

    Darrell and ppGaz/ThymeZone/the artist formerly known as Nutcutter get into one of their usual arguments. Not surprising, of course, as they obviously loathe each other. The argument escalates.

    Darrell comes out with such charming gems as these:

    Just drink that bottle of Jack next your table ppg. Then put the gunbarrel in your mouth and gently pull the trigger. All the pain, and all the bad voices in your head will go away… just pull the trigger you piece of shit..You’ll make the world a better a place

    Let’s see, 3 weeks ago, you were whining like a little bitch how you couldn’t pay your health care.. now suddenly, you’re Bill fucking Gates. Put the gunbarrel in your mouth.. do it now. Pull the trigger gently and make all the pain go away ppg. Leave your money to BJ. John told me I’ll get my cut.

    Several people then complain to you about the breathtaking hatefulness and obscenity of such statements, myself included. The rationale for such a complaint was that yes, ppGaz can be extremely combatative, but Darrell crossed the line, and that statements such as his are much more offensive than any form of bad language,due to the distinct possibility that one of your readers may have lost a loved one in that way.

    You ban ppGaz, who has financially contributed to your site, and who for the most part, only fights with Darrell.

    Darrell, who uttered the disgusting statements in question, and who has gotten into vicious arguments with most everybody here, and who has proven repeatedly that he is constitutionally incapable of pleasant, rational discourse, gets to stay.

    Am I the only one who’s a little confused?

  24. 24.

    Demdude

    Darrell, who uttered the disgusting statements in question, and who has gotten into vicious arguments with most everybody here, and who has proven repeatedly that he is constitutionally incapable of pleasant, rational discourse, gets to stay.

    Am I the only one who’s a little confused?

    Kritsa,

    I have been reading this blog for about 1 1/2 years. After that amount of time, it has been obvious that there is no desire to have any type of constructive dialog here. Anytime Darrell shows up and starts his normal dis honest comments, the amount of comments from others escalates. This increase traffic dramatically. That is why he will never be banned.

    I wish it wasn’t true, but the evidence is overwhelming.

  25. 25.

    Zifnab

    Hey Darrell, you still haven’t answered my question. If killing a terrorist in the field with a sniper rifle is the equivalent it locking him up indefinitely in a military prison without honoring habeus corpus or due process, why do we still have living prisoners in Gitmo at all? Why haven’t they all been summarily executed?

    You should be able to at least give an opinion on this if you are intellectually honest.

  26. 26.

    Zifnab

    You ban ppGaz, who has financially contributed to your site, and who for the most part, only fights with Darrell.

    Wait. When did they ban ppGaz? Is there a confirmation of this?

  27. 27.

    D. Mason

    John probably is darrell. That’s how I see it, but from reading Krista’s post it’s clear that John needs to tone it down. Those quotes are dispicable, even moreso than supporting inhuman treatment for our soldiers and allies.

  28. 28.

    Perry Como

    From the ob post:

    Actually, at the time of the hearing, the CSRT panel also has not seen the evidence against the prisoner–only a vague list of charges like “associating with a known al Qaeda member”–so they can’t even ask useful questions without revealing their sources of information.

    I can’t wait until they start playing the 6 degrees of separation game. They’ll have the ability to lock up every person on the planet with an accusation of “associating with a known al Qaeda member.”

  29. 29.

    Krista

    Zif – There was obviously no announcement of it, but I’m in contact with ppGaz via email, and he’s tried posting several times since Thursday, but to no avail. Make of that what you will.

  30. 30.

    Perry Como

    “They came to my house and took me by force. I joined the Taliban by force, not by my own choice,” he said, through the interpreter. “Everybody in Afghanistan knows that if the government asks you, you can’t say no.”…

    Through questions asked by the personal representative, the tribunal panel learned the man had no ammunition when he was captured and had been held under guard the whole time he was with the Taliban forces.

    Further questioning by the panel members revealed that he underwent four days of military training, that he never actually fought for the Taliban, and was never assigned any military duties in the month he was held by Taliban forces at a compound in Konduz. The tribunal members also learned the man was married and had six children….

    The officials explained the detainee’s request for witnesses was denied because what they would have testified on — that he was compelled by force to join the Taliban — would not be germane to the proceedings. The definition of enemy combatant “does not address consent or intent,” an official explained.

    Murderous savage. They should just put a bullet between his eyes.

  32. 32.

    mrmobi

    John probably is darrell.

    Wow. I also loathe Darrell, who, from his latest comments here and in other threads, seems to be regressing to a sub-human state. I don’t believe it. John has spoken out against torture many times, it is what first drew me to this site.

    Darrell, you really aren’t worthy of consideration on any level, you’re an abusive rage-aholic with delusions of self-importance, and you’re not qualified to carry ThymeZone’s luggage.
    The saddest thing is, you’re ruining this site, and none of the proprietors seem to care.

  33. 33.

    VidaLoca

    John probably is darrell.

    I don’t believe it either. It doesn’t add up. Call me naive but I just don’t think page views make John’s world go ’round.

  36. 36.

    emix

    The question I posed to Darrell upthread should now apply to any supporter of GWB or his approach to his GWOT.

  37. 37.

    Pb

    Tim F. Says:

    Darrell and ppGaz are both banned. See the top post.

    The top post doesn’t say that. Darrell I understand–a lot of ppGaz’s comments *were* complaints about Darrell, and generally, ppGaz had a point. But ppGaz? How is he #2 in complaints? I’d like to see an honest accounting of the complaints first; I know the ones I’ve made.

    I’ve had a few disagreements with ppGaz in the past, even some heated ones, but that alone is not enough for me to call for the banning of anyone, period, and I haven’t done so just for that. No, banning is for persistent trolls and willful idiots incapable of debating, and ppGaz is neither.

  38. 38.

    CaseyL

    I understand John’s reasons for banning ppGaz, even though I don’t agree with those reasons.

    I hope ppGaz is allowed back soon, with the understood proviso that he needs to not start blood feuds with anyone else.

    I hope Darrell’s banning is permanent.

  39. 39.

    Zifnab

    I hope ppGaz is allowed back soon, with the understood proviso that he needs to not start blood feuds with anyone else.

    I hope Darrell’s banning is permanent.

    ppGaz is unapologetically liberal, but when Darrell’s not around he tends towards sanity and humility. Give him a time out, let him cool his heels, and if he comes back I think he’ll be on good behavior.

    Darrell’s a post-whoring dick.

  40. 40.

    VidaLoca

    If I might say a word or two on Darrell’s behalf.

    Since I’ve been coming around here I can recall several conversations I’ve had with Darrell that I thought were productive, several more that were at least entertaining, and none that were more unpleasant than what I’d normally expect in the blogoverse. Sometimes it takes a lot of forbearance to resist getting drawn into his baiting but the value I got for the investment was his ability to poke holes in arguments that are weak, general, or poorly thought out.

    On the down side, this ability typically gets applied only to leftish arguments — but, to give him credit, the one thing he does he does well when he wants to. Sometimes the signal-to-noise ratio is very low.

    The quotes cited above by Krista fall outside the parameters of acceptable commentary however: they represent not a signal-to-noise issue but an issue of inappropriate signal.

    I think banning Darrell temporarily for his behavior (specifically this instance, additionally his frothing-at-the-mouth tendency to attack some commenters rather than their comments that adds little to the discussion or the general atmosphere) is appropriate. Banning him for his opinions would not be appropriate, on the other hand that’s not something I would expect of the management here.

  42. 42.

    Richard Bottoms

    Just a note. President shithead and his boy Rummy are still getting our own guys killed:

    “The Last Straw” – Kabul Soldiers’s Shocking Report
    Just thought that you and your readers might want to know what’s been going on in the capital of the “other” war here in Kabul. I am a [ deleted ] for the [ deleted ] unit tasked with protecting the Theater HQ in Kabul, Cp Eggers.

    Had enough yet?

    BTW, this comes not from some lefty screed, but the late Col. David Hackworh’s Soldiers for Truth site.

  43. 43.

    J. Michael Neal

    ppGaz is unapologetically liberal, but when Darrell’s not around he tends towards sanity and humility.

    This is not true. ppGaz is almost always a complete dickhead as soon as you disagree with him. My personal experience with that came in a thread on steroids.

  44. 44.

    Zifnab

    This is not true. ppGaz is almost always a complete dickhead as soon as you disagree with him. My personal experience with that came in a thread on steroids.

    Well, if I’m wrong, they’re always free to ban him again.

Comments are closed.