Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Fred Thompson is your Republican awakening, Rand. It's just too bad that the man who brought you in from cold will lose the Republican primary. It's too bad because if he hypothetically did get past Giuliani and Romney, he would certainly lose to Clinton.

Let us also not dwell on the time that Thompson lawyered for Libyan terrorists. It would be character assassination. Besides, it's an incident that could show the hidden hand of the Clintons. Maybe it only looked like Thompson lawyered for Libyan terrorists, after the Clintons tampered with his manuscript.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 17, 2007 01:44 PM

Arent Fox, in papers it was required to file with the federal government, reported that from February 1992 to August 1993, it provided advice on American and international law to Ibrahim Legwell, the Libyan lawyer appointed by the Libyan Bar Association to represent the two intelligence officials charged with the Flight 103 bombing. Arent Fox received $833,960 in fees and expenses for its work on the case.

Oh boy with 3 billable hours (probably about $1800 bucks) that sure is a sign that he is in bed with the Libyans don't it.

Now of course little old you would never ever ever stoop to being a toady for the Hill now would ya.

Posted by at November 17, 2007 03:30 PM

Yeah it's petty stuff --the kind of "allegations" that backfire almost instantly. Ramesh Ponnuru brought it up at The Corner over at NRO in september and there was a pretty good reply there some time afterwards but I just can't find the reply either on NRO's search function nor through Google (and I gave up on combing through The Corner archives, saturday night and all). I'm not going to bother linking to Ponnuru's jab.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at November 17, 2007 03:53 PM

Yeah it's petty stuff

What do you expect? That's Jim Harris' specialty...

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 17, 2007 04:06 PM

"he would certainly lose to Clinton."

If by lose you mean what the rest of us calles 'win', then yes. He would send her packing like Reagan did Mondale. Your volumnious protestations indicate you and your fellow Hildogs are scared shitless at the prospect of facing him. You are whistling past the graveyard.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 17, 2007 04:06 PM

Mike,

In your opinion, why isn't Thompson doing better in the polls?

Posted by at November 17, 2007 04:27 PM

I am not concerned with the polls. People aren't paying attention yet.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 17, 2007 04:52 PM

Yeah it's petty stuff

In a way you're correct. Fred Thompson posted a defense of his lawyer career in general. He quoted Chief Justice John Roberts: "Every person, unpopular or not, is entitled to representation." I actually agree with this: Every person is entitled to legal representation, not only for his own sake but so that proceedings against him make sense and stick. That is exactly the problem in Guantanamo now. The legal proceedings there don't make sense --- they are a pile of Catch 22's --- which is why in all this time they have only convicted one guy at Guantanamo, the Australian David Hicks. They have shot themselves in the foot in their effort to reduce justice to shooting fish in a barrel.

The problem is that Thompson and Roberts don't actually believe that everyone is entitled to representation; nor can Thompson campaign on that argument in the primary. At the most, they believe it for clients rich enough to pay lawyers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Or, in the case of those two Libyan terrorists, with a rich or powerful backer such as the Libyan government. Or, in the case of David Hicks, a backer such as the Australian government --- that is why they let Hicks go. A lot of the public defense in America goes for $15 per hour rather than the $600 per hour that Fred Thompson billed. If he had made that same $1800 at a rate of $15 per hour, say defending some impoverished and friendless Muslim, then that would have been 120 hours of work and it would have been a much bigger thorn in his campaign.

Anyway it won't come to a hill of beans, because Thompson won't win the primary. Maybe some here think that Thompson is actually winning and only looks behind due to media bias. But hey, if you really believe that Thompson can win, you can make big bucks on Intrade.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 17, 2007 05:09 PM

Mike,

Are you specifcally pro-Thompson, or just anti-Hilary/pro-Republican? I would be interested in whether you prefer Thompson to McCain and Huckabee, and if so, why? I've enjoyed your comments on this blog, and I would have expected you to support McCain, just on the basis of your comments. Actually, I would have thought Rand would have preferred McCain to Thompson as well, which probably just shows that not only is my model is wrong, but my model-making skills are poor as well. I'm here because I'm interested in Alt-Space, but politically, I'm a pro-surge liberal (think Lieberman), and I'm supporting Hillary as the strongest anti-terror candidate the democrats have to offer. I'm trying to figure out how people to the right of me think. I know you hate Hilary, but I can't figure out why McCain isn't doing better. I feel the country would be best served if the general election came down to McCain vs Clinton, and failing that, Huckabee vs Clinton.

I sincerely apologize for being anonymous.

Posted by Hillary-supporter at November 17, 2007 05:19 PM

I like McCain but Thompson is McCain without the lose border control baggage.

McCain had his chance but blew it on the border. The border will be the number one issue next year.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 17, 2007 05:42 PM

No, I do not hate Hillary as an individual human being, not at all. I may poke a bit of fun at her to tweak some noses but I really don't hate her.

But I do not wish to see the damage I believe she would bring this country if her policies were implemented. We cannot afford the plethora of new programs (see the movie 'The Three Amigos' for more information about plethoras) she proposes at this time and we cannot afford the damage she would do to the economy.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 17, 2007 05:47 PM

>Thompson is McCain without the loose border control baggage.

Mike, That's interesting. I think of McCain as Thompson with national security experience.

The immigration debate has two dimensions: national security and economic. I think McCain's national security credentials are impeccable, while I worry that Thompson lacks the experience to lead the country in a crisis (I acknowledge that Hillary is also deficient in this respect.)

Regarding the economic aspects of immigration: I defer to Sam Dinkin, who taught me to view immigrants as economic assets. :-) (re: http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/009181.html - scroll down to see Sam's comments.)

While I'm sucking up: thanks Rand, for providing such a great blog. I'm a liberal who feels very much at home here.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 17, 2007 06:11 PM

Maybe some here think that Thompson is actually winning and only looks behind due to media bias.

I have no idea on what you base this particular fantasy, of which you seemingly have many. But apparently, straw men, in addition to ad hominem, is you specialty when it comes to logical fallacies. I've expressed no opinion on who is winning--only on who I would like to.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 17, 2007 06:33 PM

Thank you for your input, "Hillary-supporter."

I can never support McCain for two reasons

His anger management problem. I don't think that he has the temperament to be president (this concern extends to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, FWIW, though I have many other, more serious issues with them).
His contempt for the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, as exemplified by McCain-Feingold.

Hope that helps.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 17, 2007 06:39 PM

Agreed. McCain has too much ego invested in being a "maverick", and has repeatedly showed me that he'd rather pander than do what's needed. And McCain-Feingold is just flat out unconstitutional *and* ineffective, moving campaign finance to the control of those who have both the money and the ability and willingness to launder and conceal its source and use.

Posted by Big D at November 17, 2007 06:51 PM

Rand,

You may have saw the following and not considered it relevant (which would be reasonable) but Fred Thompson does indeed mention one aspect space policy on his website - space-based defense. McCain and Thompson both support missile defense systems, but Thompson's webpage focuses on the space-based aspect of it.

If you go to Thompson's website, click on "Issues", and then select "White Papers" (all of which are interesting), his white paper on "Revitalizing America's Armed Forces" contains a nod to space policy, albeit from a national security perspective. I'll quote it below, sans the original formatting, for those who only want to read about space. No mention of commercial space

Maintain U.S. leadership and dominance in Space

Make investments necessary to ensure the nation has assured access to space.

Develop advanced satellites for surveillance and communications.

Be able to defend our space-based assets from radiation, cyber, or direct attack.

Integrate space-based systems with our ballistic missile defense system.

Develop the capability to swiftly defeat the offensive space capabilities of potential adversaries.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 17, 2007 06:57 PM

You're right, I did miss that, because I didn't pay that much attention to his defense policy (just what kind of "Neocon" am I, anyway?).

Thanks for pointing it out. Just one more thing with which I don't disagree.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 17, 2007 07:03 PM

On Anger Management: As a Hillary-supporter, I felt compelled to read Dick Morris' book, co-authored with his wife, "Rewriting History". It outlines in vivid detail Bill Clinton's anger management problem (and Hilary's manipulation of her husband's foibles). The book details a physical assault by Clinton on Morris (not the sort that would get one arrested, just the kind that might endanger a friendship.) Lets stipulate for the sake of the argument that everything in the book was completely true. Rather than scaring me off, the book reassured me that leaders can have serious anger management problems while continuing to lead and govern effectively. It probably comes down to picking the right chief of staff...

On McCain-Feingold, I'm concerned about the 1rst amendment too, but it is hard to find the perfect candidate. I'm hoping that the Supreme Court can straighten out any 1rst amendment concerns.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 17, 2007 07:19 PM

On the plus side of McCain's anger management issues, I remember reading a story, perhaps relayed by Bob Oler, of McCain ass-shewing Goldin, dismissing him and then calling him back into his office as Goldin was leaving after he decided he had not ass-chewed him enough for his satisfaction.

The mental image of the expression that must have been on Goldin's face brings me much amusement.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 17, 2007 07:47 PM

The problem is that Thompson and Roberts don't actually believe that everyone is entitled to representation..

Jim,
Please state chapter a verse on this. I've been a Thompson supporter, but won't be if you can prove your statement.

Posted by Steve at November 17, 2007 09:30 PM

I've been a Thompson supporter, but won't be if you can prove your statement.

Just look at Guantanamo. You're probably thinking American citizens. I'm sure that Thompson does believe that all American citizens deserve representation. Guantanamo is different; there you have non-citizens held by the US without real legal representation.

Another example is immigration. Immigrants can be deported in some circumstances without a right to a lawyer.

Now you could say: Of course Thompson only meant American citizens. But then, that isn't consistent with him lawyering for the Libyan terrorists.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 17, 2007 09:44 PM

Those people in Guantanamo are treated 10,000 times better than Americans in similar jihadist prisons. You just took a step backward with that one. You have got to be kidding, these guys, taken either on the battlefield or from leadership positions of our enemies have representation? 50 years ago they would have been shot, now they get a few years free room & board.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at November 17, 2007 10:04 PM

Jim, I'm not sure what your problem is, but I notice two annoying traits that you seem to show with frequency. The first is the tactic of playing your information like a hand of cards, revealing your full argument, bit by bit. Sure it is effective as a rhetorical bludgeon since rivals are easily thrown off balance. But it is also boring since it rapidly increases the length of threads.

I think in the future, I'll wait till other posters have drawn out most of your argument before I bother to consider your points, assuming I bother at all. Maybe I'm exaggerating your intellect and debating prowess here, but I do see several threads that feed my suspicions.

Second, you consistently misrepresent your information (see top post for an example). Sometimes this appears to be as a gambit in the above game you play, but other times it's just annoying to figure out how correct your statement is and what it really means. While this might be an effective tactic in court cases, I find the insincerity just a pain in blog posts. Your client isn't going to jail if you should happen to indicate more accurately what you mean and what your evidence really says.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 17, 2007 10:11 PM

The first is the tactic of playing your information like a hand of cards, revealing your full argument, bit by bit.

That criticism just isn't reasonable. There is no way for me to answer everyone's objection in advance. All I do is turn to Google to find the truth after I see the comment. And yes, sometimes I know something about it beforehand, but I double-check when I can. For instance, I didn't have the link to Fred Thompson's defense of his legal career when this thread started.

Second, you consistently misrepresent your information

What misrepresentation? I said that Thompson lawyered for Libyan terrorists, and I gave a hyperlink up front to a full article in the New York Times. You could have clicked and read it. What's the objection? That it was only a few billed hours? At the time, the victims' families were angry that there was any American legal aid to Libya at all. If it had been Hillary Clinton instead of Fred Thompson, it would certainly be a major accusation in this blog or in similar venues.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 17, 2007 10:30 PM

You have got to be kidding, these guys, taken either on the battlefield or from leadership positions of our enemies have representation?

I know that argument, Dennis, but how is it consistent with Thompson lawyering for Libyan terrorists? After all, those Libyans were well-known to have killed Americans. For half of the people in Guantanamo, the US doesn't even yet have a theory of what they did wrong; they were just arrested on suspicion.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 17, 2007 10:35 PM

Jim

Do you even read what you post? Here is what you posted earlier:

Arent Fox, in papers it was required to file with the federal government, reported that from February 1992 to August 1993, it provided advice on American and international law

There is a huge difference that you just glided right over. The law firm gave advice on American and International law. That is what you wrote, based upon your research. There is a huge gap between providing advice on American and International law, and representing two intelligence operatives of the Libyan government who were the masterminds (at the orders of their glorious leader) of the Lockerbie plot.

Three billable hours out of $833k in fees. By my calculation, at $600 per hour that is 0.2% of the total fees obtained by the lawfirm. To take this and call it representing two terrorists can only be justified by you being actually James Carville or some other Hillary lapdog.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at November 17, 2007 10:47 PM

Wouldn't it be amusing if his "help" consisted of telling Libya "Yes, they can sue your hide, and yes, the US can go after your bank accounts in this country"?

Posted by Big D at November 17, 2007 11:07 PM

But Dennis, if they're terrorists, why help them at all? (Arent Fox certainly did give real help, having to do with where the Libyans would be tried.)

Posted by Jim Harris at November 17, 2007 11:09 PM

But Dennis, if they're terrorists, why help them at all? (Arent Fox certainly did give real help, having to do with where the Libyans would be tried.)

But Jim, it is just as likely that the lawfirm lied their anus'es off, told them a line of hooey, and helped them get fried in court. It is one thousand times more likely that Hillary knew exactly how those billing records made it into her bedroom.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at November 17, 2007 11:16 PM

That criticism just isn't reasonable. There is no way for me to answer everyone's objection in advance.

How about the obvious objections? You really should address those in advance, just to cut down on the noise. For example, the "Fred Thompson lawyered for Libyan terrorists" argument dumped right at the top. The obvious objection is Thompson didn't lawyer for Libyan terrorists. Then you post at least four times defending this position mostly by clarifying how little "lawyering" really needs to be done to be tainted with this sort of accusation.

Now, if you're saying that you dump poorly thought out arguments that sometimes (as in the Michael Yon thread earlier) work out in your favor after some googling, well I suppose I can be persuaded to buy that. But even then, it seems better to think about the argument and block obvious holes first before you post.

I said that Thompson lawyered for Libyan terrorists, and I gave a hyperlink up front to a full article in the New York Times. You could have clicked and read it. What's the objection?

My complaint is that the characterization is incorrect and unsupported by the link you provide.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 18, 2007 06:18 AM

Jim, just a comment on election predictions.

If Fred Thompson can beat Giuliani and Romney, which are rather large and imposing "ifs", then he would be in a position to beat Clinton. That's because to get to that point, Thompson would have to run a good campaign and be pretty popular among Republicans. Neither is sufficient. Also, it's worth noting that in order to get to that point, you'd already be wrong once. An assertion of certainty is inappropriate.

In my experience, no election is certain until after the election is over and the lawsuits settled.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 18, 2007 06:29 AM

Then you post at least four times defending this position mostly by clarifying how little "lawyering" really needs to be done to be tainted with this sort of accusation.

No, I didn't post four times on that point. I only discussed it once, to say among other things that $1800 is rather more than a passing dime. And Thompson knew what this client wanted. The client was the Libyan government and they wanted to protected their intelligence agents, who were accused of bombing a Pan Am plane out of the sky, as much as possible. So okay, he only lawyered for them a little bit --- he gave them a few hours of legal aid for a large fee. It was still real legal aid. For those who think that foreign terrorists don't deserve any legal aid, not even habeas corpus, how does it make sense?

The answer is that it doesn't make sense. The only explanation that people have offered in this thread is that Thompson deliberately gave bad legal advice. But that is not the real explanation. The real explanation is that there was no Republican ideology at the time that it was treason to give legal aid to Muslims accused of terrorism. For Thompson it was as simple as helping a paying client.

if you're saying that you dump poorly thought out arguments that sometimes work out in your favor after some googling

No, the arguments are well thought out. What makes no sense is to research and spew every possible inference in advance of every possible objection. There is no way to anticipate a wild theory like that Thompson deliberately cheated Libya with bad legal assistance. That is just trying to square the circle.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 18, 2007 07:49 AM

But Jim, it is just as likely that the law firm lied their anuses off, told them a line of hooey, and helped them get fried in court.

It's an interesting theory, Dennis, that Arent Fox acted against their clients. That is considered highly unethical among lawyers; what you are supposed to do instead is refuse the case. Whether or not this theory has merit, the truth is that one of the Libyans was acquitted.

Also, for the record, the main lawyer who handled the case at Arent Fox was John Culver, a Democrat. As Karl has rather testily point out, Fred Thompson only lawyered a little for the Libyans. But Thompson knew that this was a big case for Arent Fox and he did not tell Arent Fox that it was wrong to take the case.

On the contrary, Thompson's general defense for all of his legal work is that everyone deserves representation. Even foreign terrorists.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 18, 2007 08:29 AM

Well, Jim, looks like here's another posting cycle.

For those who think that foreign terrorists don't deserve any legal aid, not even habeas corpus, how does it make sense?

Those people don't make sense and I don't see the relevance. I assume the next step is that you will provide what you think is the relevance. You've posted several times on the Thompson "lawyering" without explaining why it should be a big deal that he gave legal advice to an unpopular client (well to most people) or how that ties into this thread. Do you see where I'm going with this? It is pulling teeth.

I'm not asking that you anticipate every crazy thing that comes up (Dennis, come on, Thompson is going to risk legal malpractice lawsuits?), but knowledge of the readership and your ample intelligence should permit you to anticipate the more obvious directions (and if my conspiracy theory is correct, they do).

Having said that, I figured this out because I do much the same, mostly due to laziness. But once I put a little effort in, I found I sometimes could anticipate reader questions, resulting in a more productive conversation.

Great, now they know all about Operation Cheap Suit, the decades long CIA plan to provide bad legal advice to enemies of America!

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 18, 2007 09:04 AM

Guantanamo is different; there you have non-citizens held by the US without real legal representation.

Another example is immigration. Immigrants can be deported in some circumstances without a right to a lawyer.

The amazing thing here Jim is that you think enemy combatants, who we took off a battle field and people who entered our country illegally or who came here legally and then broke the law, should have the same rights as law abiding American Citizens.

The enemy combatants are being held per the Geneva Conventions. That's the law as far as war is concerned. Did Daniel Pearl get well treated? How about the Afghan people who were tortured and killed by the Taliban, before we stopped them and made them incarcerated enemy combatants?

Anyone deported is being dealt with by U.S. Federal law and statute. That's the law of our country being used legally.

As for Thompson shilling for Libya, you seem to be FOR individual enemies of America having legal representation, but AGAINST enemy countries having the same thing. You seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Posted by Steve at November 18, 2007 09:32 AM

I'm a liberal. And I'm Jewish. But most importantly, I'm a patriotic American.

My heroes are the Jewish lawyers who represented the American Nazi Party when they wanted to march in the Chicago suburb of Skokie (home at the time to one of the largest concentration of Holocaust survivors.)

The American (and European/Western/Anglosperic) legal system is what stands between us and barbarism. Everyone deserves representation in a court of law. Everyone accused of a crime should have their interests agressively advocated for in a fair court. Even murders, even Nazi scum, even Hitler, and for today's concerns, even non-citizens, and even terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments, even Osama himself.

A lawyer who represented Osama in an American court of law would be a hero in my eyes.

Guantanamo is a blight on American history because it is a way to cheat the system -- everyone in American custody deserves legal representation in an American court, and everyone should be subject to rule by law. (I'm not saying that this is the way it is under current law; I'm saying this is the way it should be.)

If Thompson lawyered for the Libyans, good for him -- he was supporting the American way.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 18, 2007 09:35 AM

"But Thompson knew that this was a big case for Arent Fox and he did not tell Arent Fox that it was wrong to take the case."

How do you know he did not advise against it?

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 18, 2007 09:47 AM

If Thompson lawyered for the Libyans, good for him -- he was supporting the American way.

I agree. If only he had the courage to say the same about Guantanamo.

Some of the detainees in Guantanamo could be about as bad as the two Libyan agents who bombed Pan Am flight 103. Convicting these without a fair trail simply carries no moral authority. But for about half of them, the US doesn't even have a theory of what they did wrong.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 18, 2007 09:59 AM

How do you know he did not advise against it?

I stand corrected, Mike. Maybe Thompson did advise against his employer's work for Libya, but forgot. He hasn't said that he advised against it, and there is no record of such advice. In any case that advice would be contradicted by $1800 in his pocket.

What Thompson has said is that every person, no matter how unpopular, deserves legal representation. I agree with that statement. Do you?

Posted by Jim Harris at November 18, 2007 10:04 AM

" In any case that advice would be contradicted by $1800 in his pocket."

I have to sometimes support policies I don't agree with because my employer directs me to. It is part of the job. Sometimes you do it because you are told to.

"What Thompson has said is that every person, no matter how unpopular, deserves legal representation. I agree with that statement. Do you?"

Sure, but I do not think that mean non-citizen enemy combatants have the right to access the US court system.

By the rules of the Genevia convention, they could have been lawfully shot on the battlefield as being ununiformed spies, the fact that they were not and are not detained in relative comfort is pure gravy for them.

The reason being we don't give them trials is because the discovery process could damage our intelligence assets.

Instead of being shot, they are being held as POW's in the most comfortable such detention is history.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 18, 2007 10:57 AM

Sometimes you do it because you are told to.

Thompson was working part-time for Arent Fox and he had full discretion to decline billable hours. He wouldn't even have to give a reason.

By the rules of the Geneva convention, they could have been lawfully shot on the battlefield as being ununiformed spies,

Many of the people in Guantanamo were arrested in their homes and it would not have been lawful to shoot them. That was settled by the murder conviction in the Hamdania incident. The "battlefield" is just a metaphor for the whole world in this case.

The reason being we don't give them trials is because the discovery process could damage our intelligence assets.

How is it that courts coped with trials for spies and terrorists -- such as Aldrich Ames or the Libyan terrorists -- for decades, but now justice and intelligence assets don't mix? "Hillary-Supporter" has it right. Every despotic regime in the world has imprisoned people as spies, then said that their guilt is too secret to discuss. That just doesn't count as allowing people legal representation.

Neither, for that matter, does the principle that anyone who could have been shot in a firefight is too lucky to deserve a trial. That could have been said about Randy Weaver.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 18, 2007 11:36 AM

Randy Weaver is an American citizen and has never taken up arms against it.

Posted by at November 18, 2007 02:54 PM

"everyone in American custody deserves legal representation in an American court"

There were 425,000 German POWs in the US at the end of WWII. Should each of them have been given a lawyer, or Nazi Germany allowed to provide one for them?

Posted by sjv at November 18, 2007 03:29 PM

I would particularly be in favor to giving a fair trial to an American citizen accused of taking up arms against America!

Setting aside the issue of whether giving certain suspected terrorists a trial would disclose vital secrets (although any advocate of limited government should look at such a claim skeptically, right?), I can't figure out why any American would be against giving a fair trial to everyone, regardless of citizenship.

Why wouldn't we want liberty and justice for all?

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 18, 2007 03:30 PM

It'll be good when a new president comes in and cleans up the mess in Guantanamo. I really don't think the US government or the Bush administration has justified what was done at this prison. It appears to me that the Bush administration has failed (mostly by keeping everything secret) to demonstrate that the prisoners at the camp are unlawful enemy combatants or that they don't fall under the conditions of the Geneva Conventions.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 18, 2007 03:46 PM

SJV, first: good point. You got me. I misspoke. But I wonder if we really agree? I think that just as a formal state of war can making killing people legal when it otherwise wouldn't be, it makes taking people into custody and not giving them a trial legal as well.

The key point, as I see Karl has already pointed out is whether we are going to abide by the Geneva Conventions. After I saw your comment, I was surprised by the sheer numer of POWS. I typed "German POW" into google, just to see what came up. If you try it yourself, you'll see there are plenty of descriptions of how the German POW experience in Iowa and other parts of the Midwest was incredibly positive, and, it is commonly claimed, impacted on post-war relations between the US and Germmany. Due to their positive experiences in America custody, ardent Nazis became pro-American and many later emigrated to the USA. I wish enemy combatants taken into custody in the War On Terror could be similarly conveted en masse.

But in the context of the win-lose argument often seen in this blog's comments, I want to emphasize that I'm conceeding defeat, and I'm retreating to simply saying that those in American custody should eiher be given a fair trial or be treated in accord with the Geneva conventions.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 18, 2007 04:07 PM

Due to their positive experiences in America custody, ardent Nazis became pro-American and many later emigrated to the USA. I wish enemy combatants taken into custody in the War On Terror could be similarly conveted en masse.

Well, you wouldn't know it from news reporting (and en masse is too strong a word, but this is a different situation, given the radically different cultures involved) but that has in fact happened in many cases.

I'm retreating to simply saying that those in American custody should eiher be given a fair trial or be treated in accord with the Geneva conventions.

This kind of comment is indicative of a lack of understanding of Geneva Conventions. Under Geneva Conventions, many/most of these people should have been shot after capture, with only a perfunctory military tribunal. Geneva is about much more than how prisoners are treated, which seems to be something that few of the critics of Guantanamo understand.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 18, 2007 04:24 PM

Rand, if you have the time and inclination, I would be interested in hearing an elaboration of what you mean when you say. "Under Geneva Conventions, many/most of these people should have been shot after capture, with only a perfunctory military tribunal."

I should learn more about the Geneva Conventions, but the problem with arguing about Geneva is that you probably have to be a lawyer to do it right. It is more interesting for most people to argue about values. So my questions for you are these:

What do you think the people you are referring to are accused of?

Regardless of what the Geneva Conventions call for, do you think it would serve "truth, justice, and the American way" to give the people you refer to a perfunctory military trial and then shoot them?

In cases like this, I ask myself: What Would Superman Do? (1950s version).

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 18, 2007 04:45 PM

Bill Whittle had an explanation a few years ago.

Short version--the primary purpose of the Geneva Conventions is to protect innocent civilians, not combatants in a war, legal or otherwise. When one grants such protections to illegal combatants, one undermines the intended protections of the bystanders.

And no, sorry, these are not easy questions, and the Bush administration's position cannot be automatically interpreted as evil and desirous of torturing people, or even gleefully depriving them of their rights, as the simplistic Jim Harris's of the world want to imply.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 18, 2007 06:51 PM

It's amazingly foolish how Jim Harris attempts to taint Thompson's record with a weak accusation that "Thompson lawyered Lybian terrorists", and then Jim complains that Thompson doesn't support legal representation for terrorist in Gitmo. All I've learned is that Jim is an opportunist with no moral principles.

Posted by Leland at November 18, 2007 07:10 PM

The Geneva Conventions aren't all that complicated, guys. It'll take you maybe an hour to read through them. Their focus is twofold: on civilians, and on prisoners of war. Under them, the Bush Administration is, indeed, guilty of war crimes -- they just aren't the ones Jim Harris gets so exercised about, which haven't happened.

There are fairly simple (and more than a little archaic) systems for detecting the difference between a "civilian" and a "combatant". The latter are supposed to wear an identifying device and to be under discipline. A person who does not wear such a device -- that is, who does not self-identify as a combatant -- but behaves like a combatant, being under arms and shooting at other combatants, is an "illegal combatant", that is, a person who is not obeying the Conventions and is thereby subject to sanction. The traditional sanction is to kill them out of hand, but whatever the actual penalty may be, as illegal combatants they are subject to some penalty.

Now, I personally disagree with the underlying purpose of that rule, which is to divide the countryside into "soldiers" and "civilians" with different rules for each. To me, it smacks of the pre-Westphalian system in which armies were a special class controlled by the nobles, which used them for entertainment and self-aggrandization; but them's the rules, and they ought to be obeyed. By that standard, the guys in Guantanamo shouldn't be there. They should be rotting in shallow graves somewhere, and Jim Harris would never have heard of them. The American Army has committed a war crime in each case by letting them live.

As for war prisoners, there's a prevailing assumption, especially among the Harrises of the world, that the Geneva Conventions require good treatment of prisoners. They do not. They require reciprocal treatment of prisoners, while permitting good treatment at the option of the imprisoning authority -- the reasoning being an early recognition of the superiority of the "tit for tat" strategy. The theory is that if you treat your prisoners well, your guys in the hands of the other fellows will also get good treatment. But if that is not the case, the imprisoning authority is permitted (damn near required) to make the conditions of its prisoners less benign, on the theory that the enemy (who is mistreating its prisoners) will see that and ease up.

And since the United States has not encountered an enemy since the Germans that abided by that principle, or appeared to give a damn about its own people in our hands so long as they could torture and murder the Americans in their hands, it can be persuasively argued that the Geneva Conventions as regards POWs have been so damaged as to become ineffective by the United States's insistence on good treatment for its prisoners -- other combatants have no reason whatever to abide by the Conventions so long as they know their people will be treated well regardless of the treatment they give Americans.

So each inhabitant of Guantanamo represents two distinct war crimes committed by America: letting them live (and thereby undermining the distinction between "civilian" and "combatant" upon which the safety of the former depends) and treating them well despite mistreatment of Americans in their forces' hands (which destroys the reciprocity upon which the whole treaty system depends).

Regards,
Ric

Posted by Ric Locke at November 18, 2007 09:27 PM

I want to very respectfully suggest that both Ric and Rand are wrong. Ric, I thought your comment was interesting and original, but I just read as much of the text of the third Geneva Convention as I could stand before I went cross-eyed, and it is quite clear that the text calls for humane treatment of captives, and not simply reciprocal treatment. You can visit http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument for the full text. You can also read the wikipedia summary of the 3rd Geneva convention, but of course, there are issues with Wikipedia.
If you look at the actual text, you can see that part II requires humane treatment of prisoners of war. Reading parts 3 and 4 are also instructive. As I said in a previous comment, I think it is better to talk about values than laws, so I'm not going to get into a protracted legal conversation if I can avoid it, but please look at the original text -- even skimming it for 30 seconds should convince you that humane treatment is required even if it is not reciprocated.

Rand, thank you for the link to Bill Whittle's article. It comes from a different ideological universe than my own, and as I often enjoy alien encounters, I greatly enjoyed reading the article. I agreed with most of it, despite the ideological differences. (I confess I've only read part 1 so far, but I'll get to the rest tomorrow.) Again, as with Ric, I disagree with your (and Bill Whittle's) assertion that the Geneva Conventions exist primarily to protect civilians, and this disagreement comes only from reading the actual text of the convention (see above link). I think parts of it are clearly intended to protect the rights of prisoner.

Finally, I think article 5 of part 1 is significant to this discussion:
"

Posted by at November 18, 2007 10:02 PM

Heh. That was me, above, the system kicked me out.

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

The problem with arguing about this is that we might never agree on what constitues a competent tribunal.

It is better to argue about values than laws.

Anyway, I was very relieved to see that Bill Whittle (and by proxy, Rand) were not arguing that people should be summarily tried and shot because they were, say, engaging in terrorism against the United States. I liked the sentiment that Osama should stand trial for his murders, but damnit, he reallly ought to be wearing a uniform!

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 18, 2007 10:07 PM

Very briefly and non-argumentatively:
The 4th Geneva Convention(Aug 12, 1949) is concerned with the protection of civilians.
The 3rd (also Aug 12, 1949) is concerned with the treatment of POWs (and those who may conceivably be POWs).
The 1rst and 2nd conventions (also Aug 12, 1949) are concerned with the treatmet wounded and sick soldiers and sailors.
See http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView for each of the 1949 conventions.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 18, 2007 10:35 PM

I should probably just let this go, but I keep reading Part 1, Article 4 of the 3rd Geneva Convention looking for anything that would support the argument that whether or not a POW was wearing a uniform when he was captured is relevant to how he can be treated. I see a lot of support for the argument that it doesn't matter (for example, see (6) of Article 4). The Convention is much more clear on the idea that arms must be openly displayed.

Reading the actual text has been eye-opening, and I think any self-respecting crazy mad-dog blood-thirsty gun-loving surge-supporting terrorist-hating wingnut, particularly those involved in any vast rightwing conspiracy against my candidate Hillary Clinton, (you know, the kind of person who would want to vote for Fred Thompson) ought to at least skim the actual text of the 3rd Geneva Convention for a moment or two.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 19, 2007 12:43 AM

"I should probably just let this go, but I keep reading Part 1, Article 4 of the 3rd Geneva Convention looking for anything that would support the argument that whether or not a POW was wearing a uniform when he was captured is relevant to how he can be treated. I see a lot of support for the argument that it doesn't matter (for example, see (6) of Article 4). The Convention is much more clear on the idea that arms must be openly displayed."

Having talked about Guantanamo for a debate during the height of the scandal, I think I can contribute something here. But first, look back at that Whittle essay. If there's anything more scary than the idea of two armies going at each other, it's the idea of one army going against a bunch of plainclothes fighters mixed in with a bunch of civilians because we didn't enforce the uniform rule. Thanks, but no thanks.
Moving on to the not-so-complicated legalese, reread that sixth section:
"(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly AND RESPECT THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR."

Ya know, like not beheading prisoners and all that jazz. So the detainees fail protection under that clause. And I think it's pretty clear that none of the other clauses apply (i.e. #2 fails because they plainly weren't wearing insignia OR following the "laws and customs of war" thing). Only that one sentence about "enjoying the protections" of Article 5 until their status is determined "by a competent tribunal" can be seen as having any weight. However, that statement is dependent on there being a doubt as to the status of the captured individual as a POW. And whether the Guantanamo detainees are illegal combatants or civilians, they certainly aren't POWs. There's a marginal chance they could apply for Fourth Convention protections, since some were undoubtedly "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities," but they don't get anything but a cigarette and a blindfold from the Third.

Quite honestly, since these days the detainees are receiving treatment mostly equivalent to the Geneva Convention decrees (even the MSM admitted it), I don't see what the problem is.

Posted by Math_Mage at November 19, 2007 03:35 AM

Good post Ric. You too Math Mage except for one error: "they don't get anything but a cigarette and a blindfold from the Third." They don't get that either, they can just be shot out of hand as Ric mentioned.

Posted by Leland at November 19, 2007 05:11 AM

I disagree with your (and Bill Whittle's) assertion that the Geneva Conventions exist primarily to protect civilians, and this disagreement comes only from reading the actual text of the convention (see above link). I think parts of it are clearly intended to protect the rights of prisoner.

Neither of us has claimed that parts of it weren't intended to protect the rights of prisoners, so this is a straw man. The claim is that it's about much more than that, something that those howling about Gitmo consistently ignore.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 19, 2007 05:59 AM

Math_Mage, I agree completely that non-uniformed armies are horrible for civilians. Enforcing the "uniform law" seems like a good idea. I just can't find the uniform law itself. I also can't find any permission to shoot people summarily, once they aren't shooting back at you. I'm not saying such laws don't exist - I just can't find them. (6) refers to the laws and customs of war. I can't find those either -- it would probably clear up a lot for me if I could. I acknowledge my interest is academic.

I suspect you are right that cutting off someone's head in cold blood isn't going to qualify as following the laws and customs of war. But did the people at Gitmo actually do that? I bet some did, but I worry that some are probably innocent and deserve justice, and that many might fall somewhere inbetween, and deserve to be given POW status, albeit in a war that may not end for a generation.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 19, 2007 08:00 AM

(6) refers to the laws and customs of war. I can't find those either -- it would probably clear up a lot for me if I could. I acknowledge my interest is academic.

Go read the Hague Convention.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 19, 2007 08:09 AM

This has degenerated into an informative discussion, this must stop immediately!

Good job, even the nutjobs are contributing by helping others to post good arguments.

I have never understood the lefty love of the folks in our custody except as a hammer to pound Bush with. During WWII the Geneva convention was pretty much upheld in Europe but the Japanese never really paid that much attention to it other than the uniformed part and then there were exceptions.

The civilian contractors on Wake Island were all murdered by the local commander (about 1000 men), while in Indonesia the Japanese had Internment camps where all of the Dutch settlers were kept (a guy that I worked for was held in one of those camps for 4 and a half years as a teenager).

The conventions regarding uniforms are difficult to sort through, especially in places like Afghanistan where the entire male population is basically the militia. I do like the idea in that regard in that you treat our guys well, we treat your guys well, you don't we don't. There has to be some form of rule to govern this and it seems to me that we have more than gone out of our way to be restrained in our treatment of people that would have been shot in any other war that we have been in.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at November 19, 2007 09:18 AM

Dennis, as far as I can tell, there are no reciprocity laws mentioned in the Geneva Conventions or the Hauge Conventions. From a game theory point of view, I can see why reciprocity (tit-for-tat) would be effective. From an ethical or principled point of view, I think it is a horrible idea. I'm proud to come from a civilization that has far better standards than our enemies, and doesn't bend just because of how the barbarians on the other side are acting.

Rand, thank you for the pointer. I assume you mean "Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV)" (your link didn't work for me). Here is a link: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

I've been looking through it --Article 1 (of the annex) clearly explains you need to have the equivalent of a uniform, but Article 2 explains that if you take up arms spontaneously, article 1 doesn't apply, so long as you respect the laws and customs of war. Seems circular and self-referential. Article 23 says you can't kill any enemy who has laid down his arms and surrendered. Article 23 also seems to say that you can't kill your enemies, so either I'm utterly confused (likely) or the document isn't worth much.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 19, 2007 09:59 AM

Hillary-s

Even in Europe during WWII if you took up arms and did not wear a uniform you were shot. Read about Tito's Partisan warriors. If you wore the uniform of the opposing side and were caught, you were shot. Uniforms have been standard issue in most armies for the last 3000 years, of one form or another.

You cannot have it both ways. If they are going to wear civilian clothes, expect to have a lot of dead civilians. The U.S. military has shown far more restraint than any equivalent army in either modern (think Russia in Chechyna, Indonesia with the Tamils, Hamas vs Fatah) or ancient times.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at November 19, 2007 11:43 AM

Happy Birthday, Dennis! Didn't know you were born on Gettysburg Day.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 19, 2007 11:51 AM

Dennis, I completely agree with you. I was just looking at the laws, for the first time in my life, and reporting what I read. I have a few Croatian friends, including a somewhat elderly one who tells me stories about the good old days. Also: not to gush, but it is an honor to talk to a tether pioneer.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 19, 2007 12:35 PM

Also: not to gush, but it is an honor to talk to a tether pioneer.

Thanks

The best days for tethers are still ahead!

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at November 19, 2007 01:43 PM

You're reading the wrong section. Try Protocol I. Start with Part III Methods and Means of Warfare Combatant and Prisoners-of-War. You must comply with this protocol to receive the protections in the Third Geneva Convention on the treatment of Prisoners of War.

Posted by Leland at November 19, 2007 02:30 PM

Try again Protocol I

Posted by Leland at November 19, 2007 02:30 PM

Rand

Thank$! The day is almost right as I don't like to publish the exact day for things like Facebook where the entire universe gets to know about it and use it not to my advantage.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at November 19, 2007 10:12 PM

Post a comment