Wesley Clark ... retraction
See the article below.
I looked on the FoxNews website to find the transcript of the interview, but it is not there. Not sure how to confirm what it was that Clark was talking about ... I thought that it was in reference to the Marine trials, however a response to the post that I have received indicates that it was instead a discussion of the terrorists being held by Americans.
So ... I will retract my comments about Clark unless I get other information. I had O'Reilly on during some work that I was doing ... after some pretty late hours this week ... so I do not have as much confidence that I heard what I heard. Admittedly, I was totally shocked by O'Reilly's lack of response ... so now I am even less confident that I heard it correctly.
************************************************************************
Now, assuming I was wrong about what I heard ... and Clark was talking about submitting the terrorists to an international court.
Again ... who does Clark think is going to be on this court? The French? The Russians? The Chinese? The Iranians? Who??? To hell with that! Exactly what "laws" do we subject these guys to ... what criteria? Their "side" has violated any and every rule of law ... terrorizing (specifically targetting) civilians, hiding amongst civilians, no uniforms, etc. So what is the point of this? What will the punishment be? Who will enforce it?
At best these guys are prisoners of war ... and you keep them locked up until whomever it is that they "report" to is subdued or whatever, and you can "release" them with a reasonable expectation that you will not face them again. If I am not mistaken, in a regular war prisoners are "exchanged" ... but since this enemy doesn't adhere to any laws or constraints ... and brutally (the worse the better) butchers their victims (captured soldiers) ... nothing doing there.
And if we do get screwed on the deal and these guys are set free ... and we KNEW that they were dangerous (we have already pretty much tried to cut loose the ones we figured were minimal risk) ... then what? What kind of accountability will we ... the citizens of this country ... get from any international court?
Uh-huh ... right. Bad enough we have a virtual oligarchy with the liberals on the federal bench ... fool me once.
posted by RMW at 9:18 PM
1 Comments:
Yup ... you were correct ... I appreciate you pointing this out. Again, I was working with the TV in the background, so when I "tuned in" I only heard him talking about international courts and simply missed that they were talking about G.B. vs (what was the hot topic of the day, not this conversation) the various US "atrocities".
His response to O'Reilly's challenge ("French judges") was laughable at best ... how "these guys" (foreign governments) are so tough on terrorists. The French refused to turn 9-11 conspirators over to the US because they feared the suspects would have exposure to capital punishment.
The situation right now with N. Korea helps to put things into perspective, you have a lunatic lobbing missiles all over the Pacific, and China and Russia won't lift a finger to stop him.
Oh yeah ... but we can expect al Queda operatives to be processed in accordance with what??? What is the "international law" about some clown taking pot shots at an invading military?
Post a Comment
<< Home