There is no anti-military bias onn the left. It doesn’t exist. You are imagining things.
Solid rebuttal. Well played.
Dio, you really need to put down the punch and sit this one out.
Against an accusation that all statements from the Left are actively hostile to the military, I would agree that it is over broad and inaccurate.
Against a charge that anyone or everyone on the Left is hostile to the military, I would reply that the charge is ludicrous and stupid.
(In addition, those members of the Right who employ those charges or use any question of any military folly as an excuse to deny the patriotism of the Left–as we witnessed so often in the Fall/Spring of 2002/2003–are dishonest and repugnant.)
But to deny that there is not a generally anti-military sentiment that pervades a lot of Left wing discussion and many members of the Left is simply not a realistic position and calls into question the reliability and perception of the source of any such claim.
I don’t agree that it’s apart of the Geneva Conventions, although I realize that’s not exactly what you said (ie. “for all intents and purposes”). Pictet’s commentary is very persuasive to the Conventions. It’s like an extremely respected hornbook. It’s used by courts a lot. It’s not binding in and of itself though, until a court makes it binding (like the opinion you quoted) or until enough courts make it binding that it becomes customary international law. A lot of Courts and Organization (ICRC, ect) agree that one is either a Geneva POW or Civilian. A lesser amount do not or have not commented on it. I’m not sure whether that particular commentary quote is now considered customary international law, but I’m open to finding out either way. I will say it’s going to be that way one day. I’m also not sure how much of the commentary is now considered customary international law, but also open to finding out.
Assuming cust. int. law and thus possibly binding on the US (assuming they haven’t interpreted it differently), it would get tricky as to how it would play out. Basically, Geneva “civilians” taking a part in the hostilities could be legally targeted as combatants, but would not lose their status as Geneva “civilians.” In our situation, you’d really have to look at each detainee individually, but to be very general: Al Aqaeda, being a non-State actor and thus in a non-international war, could not get POW or Civilian status and would basically only get baseline Common Article 3 protections regarding treatment and due process. It would also not help, say, Saudis, Iranians, ect, going to Afghanistan to join the fight (you have to be a civilian of the enemy). They would get CA3 protections. Either could be tried for the act of fighting or other crimes.
For Afghans, since this is a State v. State war, they could be either POW’s or Civilians. If they do not follow the Art 4 requirements to be POW’s, then they are considered civilians. Civilians taking part in the hostilities nevertheless (unlawful combatants) would still retain “civilian” status, although some rights may be stripped. “Civilians” may be interned until they no longer pose a threat. By acting unlawfully, “civilians” may be prosecuted for any crimes they committed during the hostilities, including the act of taking part in the hostility itself.
Questions then arise as to how the differences between “detaining” an enemy combatants and “interning” a civilian (it doesn’t include being confined to a cell, you get communications with outsiders, ect., nor ever dropping below the minimum requirements of CA3 as you mentioned post where you quoted the opinion). Treating them less than required, could be a war crime assuming it’s a “grave” breach. Torture = Grave, obviously.
All the above is generalizations. Reading something from say 2006, does not mean it applies the same way today. The law regarding this stuff is changing that fast. Customary International law makes everything more confusing as well. So take everything I said with a grain of salt.
What was there to refute? Your “cites” were just more baseless assertions. Let’s review:
How is this a cite? This is just another bogus allegatiion, not a cite.
Your basis for this assertion is what?
Clinton never said he “loathed the military,” he said in letter he wrote in college that he understood how somebody could “love their country and loathe the military.” He didn’t say it was a sentiment he shared, and I wonder if you would be willing to stand behind everything you said when you were 19.
Your assertion that this is a “state of mind” among Clinton’s contemporaries is not a cite, but simply another reiteration of your conclusion.
This is again, not a cite, it’s a baseless assertion about what you imagine was in John Kerry’s mind at the time. If Kerry hated the military, why did he voluntarily enlist and request combat dutyin Vietnam?
Cite?
I’ve never met any of these people. They certainly aren’t characteristic of the mainstream left.
What does the National Anthem have to do with the military, by the way?
Define “anti-military”. Certainly, the Left is much less prone to rah-rah military rhetoric. On the other hand, the “pro-military” Right tends to treat soldiers like so many expendable bullets. Ignore the dead ones, abandon the crippled to their fates. I’ve heard far more concern for the actual military people and military effectiveness from the Left than the Right.
Fact is, both sides of the political spectrum in this country are overwhelmingly, unhealthily pro-military. As I said upthread; it isn’t the 60s anymore.
Careful now.:dubious:
Reliability and perception of a source are fare more directly called into question by the use of bluster instead of example. Do either you or EvilOne have even anecdotal evidence to present to us?
Noam Chomsky
Bill Arkin
gonzomax 
I have already noted that claims that the Left is completely anti-military are wrong. (Heck, our own stoid is basically pro-military.) But anti-military sentiment does not pop into exiastence out of the æther and if one wants to find anti-military sentiment, the most reliable place to look is among Left-leaning folk. When the loons on the Right talk about resisting the military, they do not couch their language in terms of an evil military, but in terms of a good or neutral military being misled by the Zionist Occupational Government. To find actual assaults on the military, one needs to look to the Left.
I’ve never seen it on the left, certainly not the mainstream left.
Anti-unnecessary-war ( he has high standards, but WW2 met them), certainly anti-imperialist, but anti-military? Reason to think he has contempt for the ordered, not the orderers? :dubious:
Some random blogger.
Some random message board poster.
Yada yada. Here’s what you did say:
And your basis for such sweeping, magisterial certitude is above. Um, wow.
I don’t hate the military. I don’t hate the soldiers. i hate people who use them for wrong purposes. They are sending young men into a battlefield that will result in mental problems, drug abuse ,and other problems that will destroy many of their lives. I believed it was wrong to invade Iraq. I still do. If I had my way the soldiers would have been home raising families and going to school. That is supporting the soldiers. People who send them thousands of miles away to fight in wars of lies are the ones who don’t respect them. I would not spend any life for oil or bullshit politics. I would not kill Iraqis because of bullshit trumped up financial reasons. If I were in charge there would be a lot less war. There would be less soldiers . If that is hating the military, i am guilty.
I guess thinking it is wrong to spend more money on the military than the rest of the world combined also makes me a hater.
No. You asked for anecdotal evidence which I provided. I am aware that the caricature that Palin or Freepers might employ that makes all Left wing political thought entirely inimical to the U.S. military is not correct and have said so. I have already noted stoid’s lack of enmity and will now add Kos’s support, but your handwaving about my anecdotal evidence that anti-military feelings can be found on the left is rather silly.
More anecdotes:
Todd Chretien
Mark Sánchez
http://www.workers.org/ (From climate havoc to war crimes — the Pentagon’s role in global catastrophe)
The Militant - July 7, 2003 -- U.S. government molds ‘mobile, agile’ military
If you are going to go into your usual schtick of portraying any other posters’ statements as the extreme version of what you claim, then just drop it.
I think citing the “Worker’s Party” as evidence that the left is hostle to the military is like citing David Duke as evidence that the right is racist.
mainstream lefties were opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and tend to be as a matter of course opposed to non-defensive military aggression, but this is not the same as actually being hostile to the military. A reluctance to place military personel in unnececessary danger is a large part of the reason for the left’s resistance to actions like Iraq.
This is a popular urban legend, so it is being taught somewhere. A little search shows it to be untrue.
I’ve heard some folks go so far as to claim that simply being human entitles someone to a certain set of rights. Radical notion, to be sure.
In fact, putting people who have accepted the most solemn responsibility, and the possibility of the greatest sacrifice, in danger of their lives without fully considering and accepting the need for it is a far better definition of “anti-military” than is opposition to starting unnecessary wars.
tomndebb, if you could provide more substantial evidence to support your sweeping condemnation, not only of “the left wing” but of their basic awareness of reality, than that, no doubt you would do so, being an honorable man and all that. “Generally”, “pervade”, “a lot”, ? Come on now.
Or you could at least explain what you mean by “anti-military”.
So that you could weasel and wiggle some more? Once you have characterized my statements as “sweeping” you are so far outside this discussion or my comments that there is no longer any point in my wasting the time to provide you more weasel room. Once you describe by statements as “condemnation,” you are not even describing any statement I have made.
Go torch your own straw man.
It isn’t, read Geneva.
Not radical, however they are not entitled to a specific series of benefits that POWs get. remember that this is in the middle of armed conflict, not stopping a guy for running a red light. It doesn’t mean you can tie them to poles an used them as target practice.
Would it surprise you to learn that the entire left wing hereabouts is not comprised of Elvish and DoggyKnees? That we are puzzled to hear you bandy about such a term of rightarded mendacity without qualification? There are several hereabouts who would be perfectly happy to fling such a turd without so much as a qualm. I had not placed you amongst them, and will modify my opinion if you insist. Won’t like it much.