Still traveling and catching up on news/mail. The three Christians in Indonesia I blogged about last week were executed yesterday by firing squad. Indonesian blogger Stan liveblogged the day’s events. BBC coverage here. Context here and here and here.
My initial post prompted much caterwauling from tone-deaf moonbat bloggers who accused me of hypocrisy for simply noting that the defendants’ supporters had raised concerns about the fairness of the trial. Profanity-laced messages poured in: “You *&^%$. How can you object to the Indonesians’ case while supporting the indefinite detention of AP photographer Bilal Hussein in Iraq?”
This, my friends, is illuminating. Because I object to conferring the full panoply of constitutional rights on suspected terrorists and enemy combatants captured in battle and because I oppose the law-enforcement approach to waging war and because I favor military tribunals over the civilian court system to adjudicate terror cases, the left-wing mob argues, I can never question the legitimacy of any court system anywhere.
These people see no distinction between the Indonesian case involving domestic convicted criminals and the Hussein case involving a security detainee captured overseas by US forces with an alleged al Qaeda leader.
Andy McCarthy, a prosecutor of the 1993 WTC bombing case who is intimately familiar with the limitations of the law-enforcement approach to fighting terrorism, patiently explains the historical norms to the NYTimes, Associated Press, and knee-jerk Bilal Hussein groupies crying “charge or release:”
Under the laws and customs of war that developed over centuries and are far older than our country, enemy combatants can be detained until the cessation of hostilities. While this makes the Times scream hysterically about human rights violations, the laws of war are actually very civilized. The idea is to deplete the resources of the enemy, and glean whatever intelligence can be gleaned — all of which theoretically ends the war faster, with less carnage (including civilian casualties).
Being a member of the press — like being a lawyer, or an imam — does not render one ineligible to be an enemy operative. It matters not that this guy is a photographer by day. What matters is if he is helping the enemy. If he is doing so, he’s an enemy combatant. If he is doing so out of uniform (i.e., as a saboteur), he could be a war criminal. The laws of war require that, to be treated as an honorable prisoner of war, a person has to identify himself readily as a soldier (i.e., be part of a real army, wear a uniform, answer to a fixed chain of command, carry his weapons openly, refrain from targeting civilians, etc.).
If an enemy operative conducts (or knowingly abets) offensive operations without doing those things, he is considered an unlawful (or unprivileged) enemy combatant. Both lawful and unlawful enemy combatants can properly be held until hostilities are concluded, but unlawful combatants can be tried as war criminals. There is no requirement that this be done, however. The Supreme Court’s recent Hamdan case reaffirmed that they can be detained without trial.
These customs do not apply in a domestic case like the Indonesian Christians’ case. The inability to grasp such distinctions is what paved the path to 9/11.
Finally, it is revealing how apathetic these so-called compassionate liberals–so many of whom will fight to the death to keep a Tookie Williams or Mumia Abu Jamal from being executed–are toward the shariah court system. If their only response to news of shariah-approved executions is “Michelle Malkin is a hypocrite,” it is a damning indictment of how shallow their commitment to “social justice” really is.
Agnes in Germany e-mails:
blog comments powered by Disqus
Once again, another Iranian woman has been sentenced to death by the barbaric practice of public stoning. On June 28, 2006, a court in the northwestern Iranian city of Urmia sentenced Malak Ghorbany to death for committing “adultery.” Under Iran’s Penal Code, the term “adultery” is used to describe any intimate or sexual act between a man and a girl/woman who are not married. The crime of adultery is also used in cases where a girl is deemed to have committed “acts incompatible with chastity,” which includes instances of rape. The punishment for “adultery” is death.
Help us spread the news about Malak Ghorbany! Tell your family, friends and others who might be interested. Direct them to this web page and ask them to take the actions listed here.
September 13, 2012 11:30 AM by Michelle Malkin
June 28, 2011 10:21 PM by Michelle Malkin
July 31, 2010 09:45 AM by Doug Powers
May 26, 2010 10:28 AM by Michelle Malkin
February 13, 2009 10:23 AM by Michelle Malkin