John Ray linked to this letter in the Pasadena Star News:
“I see in the news that an American soldier is going to be court-martialed for killing a wounded terrorist in Iraq. Well pardon me but isn’t that exactly what John Kerry did in Vietnam and he got a Silver Star for it! While in Vietnam, John Kerry finished off a wounded Viet Cong after beaching his boat and putting his crew in great jeopardy. He wrote himself up for a Silver Star and got it. I question why this soldier should be tried for murder while John Kerry, hero of the liberal left, was decorated for doing exactly the same thing. In accordance with International Law, terrorists are subject to immediate summary execution. Perhaps that is the policy that we should adopt. Instead, we are incarcerating these clowns and are criticized for abuse, while they behead American prisoners. And the international press says nothing. We really need to grow up and stop fighting this war like a bunch of liberal social workers. If we do not get things in a proper perspective and start supporting our President and troops we are going to lose this war!”
Why didn’t I think of that?
Ok. I’ll bite. Anyone have a link to the story? But I see someone has been questioning the veracity of John Kerry’s war record. That bastion of LIE-beralism Snopes has a much different story. Also, can someone link to the “International Law” that says summary execution of terrorists is okay? I see that Israel thinks this is acceptable, but it is rather fuzzy. If the US adopted this policy, who would we kill? I mean look how domestic terrorism is defined under Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act: a person commits the crime of domestic terrorism if within the U.S. they engage in activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any State and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.
hmmmmm……Who makes the “summary” judgement?
Comment by rfidtag — June 28, 2004 @ 8:50 pm
“…who would we kill?
Well call me naive, but if I were in Iraq, I’d suggest it would be the ones shooting at me with AK’s or caught making roadside bombs. Or were I Nick Berg’s family I’d vote for the ones who cut my son’s head off.
Comment by Wallace-Midland, Texas — June 28, 2004 @ 10:44 pm
Perhaps there is an “International Law” that states you can’t kill terrorists? International Law is a system very loosely defined by treaties between parties, not by some international legislature. Some would like the UN to be that legislature. Not me.
As to the veracity of the story, it is a letter to the editor in the Pasadena newspaper, as I stated. John Kerry himself said he did just as described in the letter.
Summary judgement is still made by a judge. The Patriot Act does not obviate the existing requirements for warrants as believed by many.
Regardless, in a war zone, someone tries to kill you, you try to kill them first. That’s how the game is played.
Comment by Bunker — June 29, 2004 @ 5:50 am
Wallace, if I had my say I would vote for Bin Laden, since he attacked my city and slaughtered thousands of innocent people. But last time I checked he wasn’t in Iraq. How many troops are in Afganistan? How many in Iraq? How can anyone tell me with a straight face that you *really* think that we are serious about catching Bin Laden. Unless the guys who murdered Nick Berg and the insurgents in Iraq are the masterminds behind 9/11.
Bunker, it seems to me that there is *no* International Law that supports summary executions of Terrorists, which was my point. The only entity I have found that supports the view that it is alright to kill Terrorists is Israel. One country’s interpretation of International Law does not make it so.
Secondly, I did not ask for a link to the Pasadena paper. I asked for a link to the story the letter is talking about. The letter does not cite a story, which is a bit unusual. Ya know, most letters to the editor says something like ” I see in the news that an American soldier is going to be court-martialed for killing a wounded terrorist in Iraq (story name or location, date published)”, so that there is a frame of reference. It is odd, because the other letters on the page have these references…I, for one, would like to read about this poor soldier and write my elected representatives to support his cause if he is innocent.
But since I cannot read the account of what happened to this *nameless* soldier, I cannot really make a judgement about whether John Kerry did the *exact* same thing.
I never questioned the right of soldiers to fight back in a time of war. But what this letter is talking about is *Summary Executions of Terrorists*, I think that precludes the use of a Judge. I see that the Voice of America says that summary executions are very popular in Darfur region of Sudan.
I would be willing to bet that *none* of us really know what powers Patriot Act grants to our government. I do know it is not a small government initiative.
Comment by rfidtag — June 29, 2004 @ 7:45 am
I can only relate the story of the soldier as I heard it on the radio several days ago. An American soldier shot and killed the driver of a vehicle which had run a checkpoint with a couple of other vehicles. All were shot up, and this man was seriously wounded, but not dead. The soldier walked up to the car and put a finishing round in him. That is the extent of what I know. The soldier has been charged with murder if I remember correctly.
As to being serious about catching bin Laden, I can tell you my son and his fellow Marines are very serious about it. Personally, I think he is already dead. Slice (my son) is in Mullah Omar’s stomping grounds, and another large contingent of Marines and Special Forces are on the Pakistani border. Operations are going on daily. Additional forces in Afghanistan add nothing to the effort there, and would only increase the likelihood of friendly-fire accidents. When people complain we gave up on chasing down bin Laden, they don’t really grasp the military implications of what we need to do, and the media have very little presence there to show what actually is being done.
Trust me, if you can. I am an old SpecOps guy, and the work that needs to be done there can’t be done with large forces and armor. So, you have Marines, who are very good at small unit ops, and SF. A pretty deadly combination.
None of us really knows all that is in the Patriot Act. I can support that statement. However, the law was passed with a large majority vote on both the House and Senate, including people who are now crying that it goes too far. Makes me wonder if it isn’t simply partisan whining at this stage.
Comment by Bunker — June 29, 2004 @ 8:42 am
Bunker, if you find anything else out about that soldier, please post it.
Your son is a brave man. I have nothing but respect for the men and women of the Armed Forces.
I too think Bin Laden is dead, but obviously there is still much to do there. I wish that we would focus more of covering the ongoing struggle in Afganistan and Pakistan. I understand your point about large scale operations, friendly fire is never a good thing.
The Patriot Act is an unknown. A majority of passed it, but did they read it? Who would vote against an act called the PATRIOT act the month after 9/11? But it passed. But why do you think that some of the people who voted for it also put “sunset” clauses into it; which allows for the act to expire in 2005? It may be partisan whining, but not the party you are thinking of…The Bush Administration is attempting to get the “sunset” provision repealed.
Comment by rfidtag — June 29, 2004 @ 9:13 am
If I get a chance (son visiting this week) I’ll do a little research on the Act itself. thomas.loc.gov has the best linkage to legislation if you are interested in doing a little yourself.
By the way, Afghan elections are to be held in September. Two weeks ago, Slice told me they had registered 30,000 Afghans in his area to vote.
Comment by Bunker — June 29, 2004 @ 9:43 am
Personally I’d like to see the sunset clause remain, and frankly be added to most laws passed.
Comment by John — June 29, 2004 @ 12:28 pm