POST SCRIPTS

Then you have the ACLU types who seem to be more worried that the murderers and wannabe's in Guantanimo get their "rights" than the rights of the victims of their crimes. Oh! How dreadful! Those poor basXXXX's are being detained!!! He's probably one of those guys who blames civilian casualties in Iraq on us who are trying to help Iraq on the road to freedom.
How messed up is it when terrorists are considered the "underdog", "victims" or even "heroes"?
To be honest Jack, a very good friend of mine is a Liberal, we have great discussions because he is a rational being. The guy who wrote you is not a Liberal but in need of therapy. Listen to his all consuming hate and irrationality. Nope, he needs professional help.

(Name Deleted's) ignorance is showing but I imagine (ND) doesn't even know enough to know that. It's impossible to have a discussion with someone so uninformed, but you guys did alot to improve (ND's) awareness if (ND) will but listen and learn.
Do you suppose (ND) knows their names? Would that mean (ND) can trust them...wow, that would be some magicical ability...why, we could save the entire world from every bad thing if we only knew the right names!

Thank you Tasker, you did not disappoint! Actually, I would have used your name, but I was trying to be kind. Shall I insert it, I will if you ask?

Whatever the cost of keeping those guys in Gitmo is, is far cheaper than outright releasing them, that's my opinion anyway.

Idea: Perhaps we could work out some sort of half-way house, maybe get some federal grant money, some Saudi money too, then hire Moveon.org people to staff it and then maybe you would apply to be a sort of "camp counselor" through their re-entry phase?

I bet you would be good at it too! But, I have to wonder if forcing those hardened terrorists to endure your counselling sessions would be considered cruel and unusual punishment?

I can invision dozens, upon dozens of the hardcore Islamofacists committing suicide just to escape your lectures...lol

My favorite liberal (Tasker) asks why I X-out profanity. Simple answer is, because my editor tells me profanity does meet the E-R's high standards for journalism. Whatever the boss says is law. However, on a personal level, I think we all know profanity is too often used as a poor substitute for wit. Better we strive for wit. So far you're half way there...lol, so keep trying.

Next, you want to give terrorists access to our court system??? Why? What's the point of a trial for terrorist? You still have not explained that?

The people who count (military who practically live with them) know they are dangerous fanatics. You should read the stuff these prisoners do to the guards who are told to use maximum restraint. These are not wayward Muslims, these are Huns.

A long drawn out trial would give them a podium to spew their venum and make a mockery of our courts. They could communicate and thus coordinate with others of their kind. It would open up our courts to possible terrorist attacks, tie up our limited resources and provide the enemy with the techniques used to capture them. Our courts are run by the rule of law and sometimes that means the rule of a technicality that determines if one goes free, guilt or innocence is often subverted by this technicality. Given the high risk a terrorists poses to human life would you really want to risk a technical opportunity for their escape?

In my law enforcement career I've seen too many guilty people set free by 1 or 2 jurors that didn't understand the evidence or that was prejudice against the prosecution. I don't want to risk that, the stakes are too high. We have no moral or legal obligation to give them court trials.

Those terrorists are where they can hurt anyone and thats where they should stay. Unless, you want to give them a military tribunal style trial and if found guilty of terrorism, we shoot them? I would take a chance on that, but not a criminal trial with all those legal loop holes, technicalities and exhaustive appeals in our current civilian court system. I don't want to train terrorists via the court system either with the full disclosure of evidence. That would be asking for trouble and we would be playing into the hands of the enemy...how smart would that be?

This is pure logic, yet you deny each and every point I've made and you refuse to offer up why it's a good idea to put terrorists, people who are clearly outside the legal system, on trial?

Until you can offer up something to support your position, this discussion is now closed.

I do apologize Tasker. I would not have been so forceful in my remarks if there was a name attatched. I just assumed it was another delusional (I guess delusional is OK since you said Jack was deluded) lefty who was ranting on. People confuse the Gitmo detainees with being "your friends" Tasker because you show so much more concern for them than you do for American soldiers and civilians who have been killed by these creeps. You also want us quickly out of iraq just like the terrorists do. Maybe not friends, but merely allies? Tasker wants the same things, is concerned for the same people but doesn't actually socialize with terrorists (to my knowledge)maybe a sympathizer? I don't know, is there an adjective that isn't offensive that is still accurate?

Regarding "XXX"

Dear Mr. Tasker, I am 13 years old and I read my Grandpa's blog all the time. It helps me feel better to read things from conservatives after my liberal school teachers get done working me over and trying to convert me to one of them. I know other kids my age who read his blog too. He tries to keep it clean for us. Thank you for reading this and have a nice day... XXXXXXX.

It is amazing to see how far liberalism has fallen. It wasn't twenty years ago that liberalism had a strangle-hold on the news and information disseminated to the masses. They could spin any story anyway they needed it to unfold and we the people had no way of voicing dissenting points of view.
Now thanks to technology and some truly great people, liberalism and the liberal media have been cut down to the point that a 13 year old knows what a fraud it is. Now he/she can speak out and connect with millions of people to get true debate going. Out in the open, liberalism does not stand a chance. LOL kicked to the curb by a 13 year old, it doesn't get any better than that!

All the discussion aside, I find it odd that while Tasker revels in his anonymity and thus the ability to speak unhindered by personal responsibility for his words he then gets upset that you didn't use his "handle".

There's no pleasing this guy.

I am getting really sick and tired of this moral equivalency. Let me clear it up for you Tasker.

I wear a uniform and abide by certain conventions and laws governing land warfare. For my trouble I am supposed to be afforded certain rights. These rights include, but are not limited to:
humane treatment should I be captured in uniform by my enemy, this includes access to religious items, the ability to send and recieve correspondence, the right to inform my country about my capture, and upon the sesation of hostilities, the right to go home.

However I am only entitled these rights if I play by the rules. If I am caught by my enemy out of uniform in an attempt to conduct military operations against him (regardless if I have been captured) I can be shot, legally, by the enemy.

So lets say, that I decide to get out of unifrom, travel to Iran and blow up the wife and child of the president. You see, that would be "outside" the rules governing land combat, and therefore I would not be entitled to the same rights as those who fight in uniform.

It would seem that people of YOUR political persuaision desire to give the same legal rights to those who use tactics which could at best be called appalling, and who choose to do so while not wearing any type of distinguishable unifrom.

Youll forgive me of course if I find such a position to be not only idiotic, but incredibly offensive.

Please explain to me why those who choose terror as their tactic of choice, and then choose to blend in to their surroundings by refusing to wear a uifrom are to be given the same legal consideration as those of us who present themselves as targets on the battlefield by wearing uniforms and refusing to take part in such deplorable acts?

Hey Tasker, we both like to kid each other and thats fine, we both know it's just political ribbing. However, in all seriousness now, I would go along with you on giving prisoners at Gitmo a trial! Shocking I know, but let me qualify that, it's got to be behind closed doors, administered by a military tribunal, with all the regular rules of evidence and by the rules of the UCMJ with a "probable cause" case being made that must be established just like it was a regular pre-lim and it should include only military lawyers.

I wouldn't want classified information going out the door with the defendant's attorney! I think that with opposing attorneys, even if they were military lawyers, it would establish either they belonged there or not and thats really only what we need to do. Just the very minimum to establish a threat and if we should continue to hold them, right? I think most everybody could accept that compromise.

My knee jerk reaction is, we could even use some NATO military in conjunction with our own for a more international type trial, but then again, that would raise probably more problems than it would solve. I'm kinda iffy on that, although the idea is appealling.
I seriously doubt Americans would allow, even friendly nations, to dictate outcome on matters of national security. If it were just up to me, I would take that chance with a number of decent nations that could participate. It would be a minimal acceptable risk for us to establish fairness if we did that...but thats just me and I think my unique opinion would not be too popular.

Tasker you sy the "Govnment" as if it is some faceless thing. To land yourself in Guantanamo proably means that several US Servicemembers had o either gather a great deal of sworn statements, or catch you in the act.

Stop making this out to be as if some mid level beuracrat is closing his eyes and throwing a dart at a list of names.

Because as I said, it is gennerally a soldier or marine who has ben tracking someone based off of local reports, or in many other cases it is that same servicemember actually capturing someone in the ACT. We do not go door to door and round up whom ever we please for the purpose of shipping them off to gitmo.

Do me a favor, please, go to a movie, take a walk, but please leave intracasies of fighting terrorism those of us who care enough about the war to do a little more than make superficial observations on a blog site.

In case there was any confusion, that statement was intended for you Tasker.

I suppose if you had any inclination what an "A" team is you might feel embarrased by that comment.

No, one can have intelligent things to say about the goings on over here without actually being here. I just haven't read anything befitting that title (intelligent) to any of your posts concerning the war. Furthermore, never did I say that one had to be over here to contribute, but to date the only contrubution I have seen from you is contempt for US policy and sympathy for terrorists.

The reason I go after you is quite simple, you have no clue the type of effect that your statements have on the war.

My problem with your posts were not your lack of experience, but your lack of deeper thought. Hence the term "superficial". As far as I can tell you take no time to look past the very surface of your positions. i.e. the American judicial system works well here, therefore everyone should be entitled to it. Do you have any idea how hard it is to conduct a war like a police action? i doubt it, if you did have any inclination you would re think some of your ubsurd positions.

Why dont we give them trials, simple, because never in the course of military warfare has it been manditory to provide trials to terroists caught commiting acts of violence or plotting them against uniformed soldiers.

Only one so removed from the reality of the situation, could speak with such conviction and arrogance.

If I were the simpletan you probably expect, I would lay out for you in great detail those restrictions, which hamper us the most on an open source blog site, and which have come about at the request of people like you. I will however agree to meet with you upon my return to lay them out in incredible detail.

There is a reason why the VAST majority of the military and even a greater majority of combat arms votes against the left, every chance it gets, we have to live on the dangerous ends of your political rants.

Once again how dare you presume to tell me that a terrorist ploting to kill innocents' deserves the same legal considerations I do.

You have the right to speak as much as you want where ever you want, no one has ordered you otherwise. And intune with your ubsurd claim that the revelation of your name would bring about hordes of conservatives with pitch forks, you assume that Jack would prevent you from posting here. The next time you post concerning your freedom of speech, why don't you put a caveat at the bottom thanking Jack for his uniformed service? Since Jack's revelations about strategic policy are based off experience and service, not the self important rantings of a person who would place terrorists and soldiers on a level playing field in a court of law.

"Those people in Guantanamo have not been convicted of anything"

DUH!!! They are not criminals. We prosecute criminals. They are also not under our criminal justice system. International laws do not apply and in fact, since terrorist warfare is fairly new (at least on this scale), some really BIG legal minds are having heated discussions about what should be done with these "prisoners of Jihad". So what makes you think that you (even with "out of context comments" by Major Preston and Capt. Carr to back you up) know what should be done when legal scholars can't agree? And by the way, Major Preston's concerns were in part about "pressing ahead", that could mean anything! Capt. Carr said it "appears to be rigged". The guy is a lawyer...he'd never put up with a witness responding in such a non-specific manner! Both men apparently left and went on to other things...how very convenient for ABC. Also, they could have left because being involved in such a controversial case would put their career path in danger or for some other unrelated reason...big whoop. How do we know they are trustworthy? Brig. General Hemingway said,"In each of the four cases which have been referred, the appointing authority, John Alterburgh, made an independent determination that the evidence was sufficient for trial". Of course this quote was at the end of the article, a place many readers rarely visit.
As for not trusting government. This cr*p started back with the sixties radicals. They were spoiled brats then and they haven't changed a bit over the years...still full of their own sense of self-importance, still as phoney as ever and still dead wrong about everything! Hillary the ambitious Nixon slayer is out in front leading the parade!
YOUR government has demonstrated incredible restraint and moral integrity in prosecuting this war and our troops have done an incredible job. If you'de pull your head out long enough to read something more expansive to your experience you'de be proud instead of sappy and snide. Come on Tasker...be a mensch for once, you'll feel better.

Ill be the first to thank you for it Tasker.

Thank you for serving this country as a soldier in the United States Army.

But there you go again claiming that I have acted like "everyone in the military is conservative like me", never, I repeat never have I said anything like that. I have claimed that the vast majority of the military is conservative and an even greater majority of the combat arms is, which based off of all availible polls, and my personal experience is no where near being mythical. In my unit I can count all of the people who consider themselves other than conservative on one hand. Has been that way for about the last 8 years. Coincidence??

Do you always make a point of ignoring the majority of someones post when you respond, choosing to focus on only those things that you assume will give you the greatest advantage in your retort?

There have been several issues brought up in the last several posts, yet you aways choose to play some angle on a semantic.

I sure wish you had a soldiers view now of the policys you currently espouse.

Forgive me if the insinuation is that I wear my service on my sleave, I certainly dont want that to be the case. But under the current conditions it does provide a useful outlook which one tends to bring to bear when explaining ones position.

If I were to speak confidently of policy issues effecting the military in Iraq, I would expect one to ask me by what experience or knowledge do I claim such authority. If it is simply my opinion, than fine, take it as such. As it is I choose to qualify my statements through personal experience and my education in the area.

I actually joined the CA guard at 17 in High school. Right there in Chico. I drilled with the 187 Air Assault over in Yuba. Went RA 2 weeks out of high school.

Out of curiosity where did you serve? Did you have the pleasure of Ft. Benning? That place remains one of my least favorite places on the planet. Every time Im there its hot and people are either yelling at me, starving me and on more than a few occasions both...lol