This is another popular hot button issue. Marriage is a sacred institution between husband, wife, and God. In Judeo-Christian and Muslim faiths this precludes gay marriage as each of these religions has historical scriptural condemnations of homosexuality. I personally am not a supporter of gay marriage.
That said, Marriage is a sacred institution between husband, wife, and God. Nowhere in that statement is the government mentioned. The government has absolutely no business regulating marriage one way or another. It should not be taxing, licensing, performing, condoning, prohibiting, regulating, limiting, or even recognizing marriage. I will not support any measure to ban gay marriage. I will not support any measure to legalize gay marriage. I will not support any government regulation of marriage whatsoever; it is not the government's business.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Terror on Trial?
From the U.S. Supreme Court:
"…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. 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. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or 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 generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
From the Geneva Convention:
"Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State."
Candidate Obama vowed to close the prisons at Guantanamo Bay within a year of taking office. A year into his presidency he has not been able to do so, and is taking heat from both democrats and republicans for his handling of terror suspects. In part this stems from inheriting the ridiculous policies of the Bush administration to have its cake and eat it too in an effort to be politically correct and sensitive whilst protecting the country from those wishing or succeeding in doing us harm. Even more at fault is the unwillingness and inability of congress to actually declare war, instead using ambiguous terms like "authorization of force." Having no popular way to fix this debacle, Obama has settled to continue business as usual.
It doesn't have to be that difficult. The failure to formally declare war muddles things a bit, but not as much as we think. Settled law and the Geneva convention, while not exactly crystal, are much clearer than our current policy.
The "Christmas underwear bomber" clearly is an unlawful "enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property." The US Supreme court affords him no special protections nor do the Geneva Conventions beyond undue humiliation or cruelty. A quick and final military tribunal and execution is appropriate and has precedent. (See the 8 German saboteurs in WW2 that were caught and sentenced to death. Two that turned themselves in and facilitated the capture of the others were spared, the other 6 electrocuted) To treat as a common criminal, as the Obama administration is doing, is beyond hypersensitivity and rises to heinous.
There is no need to close "Gitmo" as such. The law allows for our military tribunals to decide (with fairly clear definitions in the Geneva Convention) who is or is not a lawful combatant. Those deemed lawful, as many sent to Gitmo would be, would then be entitled to confinement and protection as POW's until such time as the conflict ended and repatriation could occur. Those deemed unlawful sould be interrogated until no longer useful and then executed.
This should have been done long ago.
As president I would immediately ask congress for a formal declaration of war against any and all terrorist organizations as well as the countries that support them. This would clear any "murkiness" that our previous presidents were unable to deal with. Every detainee would be judged in Guantanamo by a military tribunal and sorted into lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants would remain imprisoned as POWs at the Gitmo facilities. Unlawful combatants would be interrogated and executed. The creamated remains of those executed would be returned to the governments of their respective countries of citizenship to be disposed of as they see fit.
"…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. 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. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or 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 generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
From the Geneva Convention:
"Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State."
Candidate Obama vowed to close the prisons at Guantanamo Bay within a year of taking office. A year into his presidency he has not been able to do so, and is taking heat from both democrats and republicans for his handling of terror suspects. In part this stems from inheriting the ridiculous policies of the Bush administration to have its cake and eat it too in an effort to be politically correct and sensitive whilst protecting the country from those wishing or succeeding in doing us harm. Even more at fault is the unwillingness and inability of congress to actually declare war, instead using ambiguous terms like "authorization of force." Having no popular way to fix this debacle, Obama has settled to continue business as usual.
It doesn't have to be that difficult. The failure to formally declare war muddles things a bit, but not as much as we think. Settled law and the Geneva convention, while not exactly crystal, are much clearer than our current policy.
The "Christmas underwear bomber" clearly is an unlawful "enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property." The US Supreme court affords him no special protections nor do the Geneva Conventions beyond undue humiliation or cruelty. A quick and final military tribunal and execution is appropriate and has precedent. (See the 8 German saboteurs in WW2 that were caught and sentenced to death. Two that turned themselves in and facilitated the capture of the others were spared, the other 6 electrocuted) To treat as a common criminal, as the Obama administration is doing, is beyond hypersensitivity and rises to heinous.
There is no need to close "Gitmo" as such. The law allows for our military tribunals to decide (with fairly clear definitions in the Geneva Convention) who is or is not a lawful combatant. Those deemed lawful, as many sent to Gitmo would be, would then be entitled to confinement and protection as POW's until such time as the conflict ended and repatriation could occur. Those deemed unlawful sould be interrogated until no longer useful and then executed.
This should have been done long ago.
As president I would immediately ask congress for a formal declaration of war against any and all terrorist organizations as well as the countries that support them. This would clear any "murkiness" that our previous presidents were unable to deal with. Every detainee would be judged in Guantanamo by a military tribunal and sorted into lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants would remain imprisoned as POWs at the Gitmo facilities. Unlawful combatants would be interrogated and executed. The creamated remains of those executed would be returned to the governments of their respective countries of citizenship to be disposed of as they see fit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
