Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Conservatives in revolt over budget | Main | Southern Avenger and why a Conservative Party loss might be good for Canadian conservatism »

Friday, January 30, 2009

Southern Avenger: Anti-military conservatives

From Jack Hunter, a.k.a. The Southern Avenger:

For all the yammering by talk-radio nitwits and GOP chicken hawks about “supporting the troops,” it’s quite ironic that these same pundits and politicians have had little to say about the many high-ranking troops who support Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo Bay. Throughout, the Bush presidency, I made the point time and again that thanks to talk radio, being a “conservative” now meant never questioning your government so long as a Republican was in charge. To not support the president in a time of war was not only unpatriotic, but anti-military, we heard time and again. Last week these same pundits and politicians not only refused to support their president and his decision during a time of war, but on torture and Guantanamo Bay – they loudly and boldly opposed the military.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 30, 2009 in Military | Permalink

Comments

I have a statement for the terrorists. Mess with my family and I'll make waterboarding look like childsplay. My only problem with Guantanamo is that the terrorists were treated too well. I would just have shot the scumbags. I support Obama when he wants to win in Afghanistan. I opposed him when he incorrectly wanted to run in Iraq. Guess what? The surge worked and Obama" mister 2nd coming" was wrong. I oppose him when he wants to kiss Arab butt(look at Al-Arabiya interview) and wants to abandon Guantanamo. His sensitivity to terrorists has no rival. I supported going into Iraq but sent e-mails and calls to Bush's white house(and congress) when I felt Bush had wrongly sent too few troops into Iraq. I made my views known when I said that Rumsfield was putting political restrictions on military operations. I said to knock off the politically correct garbage and to finish off Sadr and sunni insurgents(that were using mosques to store weapons). When you are in a war, try winning it. Knock off the politically correct crap! I will support the president when he gets tough on terrorists. I will condemn him when he wimps out to our opponents. To those that want to be sensitive to the terrorists, you are putting my loved ones in danger. Maybe you'd adopted a tougher line if you thought your relatives were in danger. Otherwise, I guess the victims of terrorists are not your concern. How very libertarian of you!

Posted by: Andrew | 2009-01-30 3:12:50 PM


So Daniel Pipes and Stephen Emerson are chickenhawks, eh? I suppose you would have regarded Winston Churchill and Thomas Jefferson as chickenhawks - or just about anyone who recognizes we are at war?

If you haven't noticed we are dealing with unarmed combatants. Terrorists. They do not and should not enjoy the rights of US citizens. Many of them helped mastermind 911. In fact a good number released have returned to their acts of terrorism. And I should give a shite about them why?

Yes, close Gitmo - and re-open the secret CIA prisons and re-institute rendition.

Posted by: Faramir | 2009-01-30 3:17:52 PM


The surge worked Andrew, say it isn't so! LOL. The anti-war crowd does not want to hear that. Indeed, we let these scumbags hold onto their Korans. We treated unarmed combatants better than we treated the Japs - who were uniformed combatants. The slippery slope here is that "good cop, bad cop" techniques will soon be phased out. Soon you can't look at a terrorist without a happy face.

Posted by: Faramir | 2009-01-30 11:24:59 PM


Some of the people being held at Guantanamo may not even be guilty of anything.

Posted by: Tim Trudeau | 2009-02-04 1:03:38 AM


"Some of the people being held at Guantanamo may not even be guilty of anything."

Au contraire, most of the people being held at Gunatanamo are almost certainly not guilty of anything.

Plenty of people (including the resigned prosecutors) who have examined and described the evidence against those detainees have indicated that the government's evidence in most cases is flimsy to non-existent. Much of the information has been gleaned through coercive interrogation techniques (dare I mention the "torture" word) and is therefore unreliable and inadmissible in either civilian proceedings or military tribunals as prescribed in the Universal Code of Military Justice (but not, of course, under the Military Tribunals Act proceedings which Obama has halted)

Of course, there are some detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohamed about whom there is little doubt in my mind as to their guilt, but even for those I fear that the taint of torture will make it unnecessarily difficult to convict them in a fair trial.

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2009-02-04 2:03:03 AM


Kalim wrote: "Au contraire, most of the people being held at Gunatanamo are almost certainly not guilty of anything."

Most of the people being held at Guantanamo were picked up in battle zones with weapons but no uniforms, which automatically makes them terrorists, which renders them liable to immediate execution. They owe their lives to the fact that someone thought they might have useful information.

Kalim wrote: "Plenty of people (including the resigned prosecutors) who have examined and described the evidence against those detainees have indicated that the government's evidence in most cases is flimsy to non-existent."

The same could be said for each kill a soldier makes in the heat of battle.

Kalim wrote: "Much of the information has been gleaned through coercive interrogation techniques (dare I mention the "torture" word) and is therefore unreliable and inadmissible in either civilian proceedings or military tribunals as prescribed in the Universal Code of Military Justice..."

And just such information is credited with saving the Brooklyn Bridge and thwarting several other attacks.

Kalim wrote: "Of course, there are some detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohamed about whom there is little doubt in my mind as to their guilt, but even for those I fear that the taint of torture will make it unnecessarily difficult to convict them in a fair trial."

Provided they can prove that they, individually, were tortured. See how easily the burden of proof can shift? It always lies with the accuser.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-04 6:59:42 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.