It's hard to resist repeating these two observations from a recent news
"It's remarkable that Hasan [the shooter] would encounter more return fire
from a typical Texas Walmart than he would at the home of the United States
1st Cavalry Division."
"My husband's safer where he is in Afghanistan. At least there, he can shoot
All I can say is it's too damn bad that the cops that shot him had a
little better aim. If they did we wouldn't have to spend tax dollars
on a trial to defend that muslim piece of crap!
If I have offended anyone with my description of him that's too damn
bad! This PC bullshit will end up destroying our country.
What color do Smurfs become when they hold their breath?
at least the trial will expose a lot that would be otherwise not revealed
about Muslim terrorist attacks in the US. Fox News Online right now has a
piece about how Hasan's Muslim faith has only been mentioned 29% in news
the part I am unhappy about is how the foreknowledge about Hasan's anti-
American Islamist beliefs were ignored by those who -should- have booted
Hasan out of the military,if not sticking him in Guantanamo.All the people
who were in a position of responsibility to act and didn't will NOT be
kicked out or punished in any way;this is all going to get swept under the
rug...once this cools down and is forgotten.
Then it will be "business as usual",in the "progressive" PC manner of
operation.And it will happen again.
Victor Davis Hanson has a great piece at National Review on how this Muslim
terorism has been occurring on average abouit every 4 months.Good reading!
This is certainly a familiar pattern of media complicity in the
ongoing, never ending Obama campaign. I hope everyone recognizes the
parallel between the media's efforts to suppress information about
radical extremism in this case and the case of Obama's ties to radical
extremists Wright, Ayers and the others on the seemingly endless list
of undesirables that our fearless leader aligns himself with. There
were warnings about Hasan that were suppressed and the soldiers at
Fort Hood paid the price. There were, and continue to be, warnings
about Obama that were and are being suppressed and we will all end up
paying the price. We are witnessing a "fundamental change" in our
country facilitated by the use of organized propaganda. Truth, honor,
integrity have become relative concepts and are as irrelevant as the
constitution in the minds of those whose smile at us and lie to our
faces as they lead us into the pit.
We do indeed live in dangerous times. Hopefully we will all awaken
before it's too late.
Not to confuse you with the facts- but Andre was not an "unlawful
enemy combatant". [a term the created in 2006 to fit a need] He was
not a civilian. He was a spy. His trial was not perfunctory. It
was a lawful trial by an Army court. Washington, as head of the Army
confirmed the verdict, and stuck by it through some appeals.
Hanging was how spies were punished in the 18th century.
over a century but not spefically mentioned in either the Geneva
Convention nor the Hague Conventions. It was sort of holding area for
those nobody knew quite how to classify. Doesn't really make any
difference in your point, but it is not just a term made up post 9-11.
To find that place where the rats don\'t race
and the phones don\'t ring at all.
I don't know how widely used it was. I spent a year in Vietnam -
about 1/2 of it in a Battalion communication center & we dealt every
day with mothers and kids trying to kill Marines. We called them
civilians- and treated them as such if captured. Sometimes, in the
heat of the moment they would be killed. Then we called them Viet
Cong, for the most part.
I don't doubt the term was floating around before 2001-- but I'd love
to see a cite.
From what I've read, Washington put a lot of effort into making sure
that prisoners were well treated...he was pained and angry at the abuses
inflicted by the British, who often slaughtered prisoners. I believe
Washington also sent a high-ranking officer to bring Andre to where he
Agreed. "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" is a fairly recent coinage to include all
those who do not wage war openly. It includes spys (such as Major Andre),
saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, Democrats, and the like. UEC as a
designation (sort of) did not come into use in 2006, as you suggest, but
rather was used in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court (Ex Parte Quirin)
in 1942. There, the court said:
"Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war
by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to
capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and
punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency
unlawful...an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the
lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are
familiar examples of belligerents who are ...offenders against the law of
war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
Andre WAS tried, as you remember, by 14 general officers
But as for appeals by Major Andre, the only "appeal" that took place was his
request to Washington to be executed by firing squad rather than hanging.
Washington declined Andre's request.
Andre was captured September 23, 1780. He was convicted on September 29th,
and was hanged on October 2, 1780.
From arrest to execution: nine days.
Sigh. We've had this discussion several times. There is no concept in
international law of "Unlawful Enemy Combatant". The 4th Geneva Convention,
signed by the United States in 1949, guarantees the rights of all persons in
hands of a occupying power.
As for our major, he is a US citizen who committed an ordinary crime (mass
murder) in the United States. His rights are guaranteed by the US Constitution.
If they are not, all officials involved are in violation of their oath of
office. -- Doug
Correct. The various international protocols and conventions DO define a
critter they call a "Lawful Enemy Combatant," (carries arms openly, wears a
uniform or distinctive insignia, etc.). Solely by extension, if one does
not conform to the definition of "Lawful..." it is reasonable to conclude
that person is an "Unlawful ..." Further, the U.S. Supreme Court did
categorize the German spys as "Unlawful..." and I suppose that's mainly how
the term got into common use.
He can be BOTH a criminal murderer AND a UEC. Just like, if deemed a
murderer, he can be tried by a) The military, b) The federal court system,
or c) The state of Texas. Being one does not preclude also being the other.
As for his "rights," if he is deemed a UEC - and it is solely a
discretionary designation by the president - he may have only those the
president is willing to allow. The president's Article II powers place
anyone designated an UEC at the unfettered discretion of the president. His
ONLY remedy, as the federal courts have held, is "that the president be
replaced at the next election."
Let's not glorify this crime. Simply a deranged mind with access to
weapons. That the derangement was helped by islamic idiots doesn't make
it deserving of holy war connotations - it still is a criminally insane
act of mass murder. By a psychiatrist, no less. The profession (such as
it is) has some cleaning up to do.
Again, just y opinion, YMMV.
There are crazies in every profession, and mental health probably
attracts a few more than others....molded by personal experience. A lot
of cops were junior hoodlums who evaded prosecution but still like guns.
Could you point me at appropriate section and paragraph numbers? The only
exception I've been able to find is citizens of nations that have not signed the
convention. What are the others?
I can't think of anything I am in denial about, but that's the nature of denial,
isn't it? So specifically what? He may have been motivated to commit
terrorism, but it was still an ordinary crime. In fact, terrorism is an
ordinary crime by the same penal code.
Yes, I know terrorists are out to kill us. Some are Muslim, some aren't. I
have faith in our Constitution. I believe it has survived far worse threats and
is perfectly capable of protecting all of us while serving out justice to those
that need it.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.