HereÂ’s a neat idea for dealing with Osama and every other terrorist on the planet. They are hostis humani generis -- the enemies of all mankind.

TO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL OF DEFINING TERRORISM as a species of piracy, consider the words of the 16th-century jurist Alberico Gentili's De jure belli: "Pirates are common enemies, and they are attacked with impunity by all, because they are without the pale of the law. They are scorners of the law of nations; hence they find no protection in that law." Gentili, and many people who came after him, recognized piracy as a threat, not merely to the state but to the idea of statehood itself. All states were equally obligated to stamp out this menace, whether or not they had been a victim of piracy. This was codified explicitly in the 1856 Declaration of Paris, and it has been reiterated as a guiding principle of piracy law ever since. Ironically, it is the very effectiveness of this criminalization that has marginalized piracy and made it seem an arcane and almost romantic offense. Pirates no longer terrorize the seas because a concerted effort among the European states in the 19th century almost eradicated them. It is just such a concerted effort that all states must now undertake against terrorists, until the crime of terrorism becomes as remote and obsolete as piracy.

What would be the impact of classifying terrorism along with piracy?

If the war on terror becomes akin to war against the pirates, however, the situation would change. First, the crime of terrorism would be defined and proscribed internationally, and terrorists would be properly understood as enemies of all states. This legal status carries significant advantages, chief among them the possibility of universal jurisdiction. Terrorists, as hostis humani generis, could be captured wherever they were found, by anyone who found them. Pirates are currently the only form of criminals subject to this special jurisdiction.

Second, this definition would deter states from harboring terrorists on the grounds that they are "freedom fighters" by providing an objective distinction in law between legitimate insurgency and outright terrorism. This same objective definition could, conversely, also deter states from cracking down on political dissidents as "terrorists," as both Russia and China have done against their dissidents.

Recall the U.N. definition of piracy as acts of "depredation [committed] for private ends." Just as international piracy is viewed as transcending domestic criminal law, so too must the crime of international terrorism be defined as distinct from domestic homicide or, alternately, revolutionary activities. If a group directs its attacks on military or civilian targets within its own state, it may still fall within domestic criminal law. Yet once it directs those attacks on property or civilians belonging to another state, it exceeds both domestic law and the traditional right of self-determination, and becomes akin to a pirate band.

Third, and perhaps most important, nations that now balk at assisting the United States in the war on terror might have fewer reservations if terrorism were defined as an international crime that could be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court.

I encourage you to read the article by Douglas R. Burgess Jr., “The Dread Pirate Bin Laden”. It may come out of the Legal Affairs, but it is incredibly approachable.

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 556 words, total size 4 kb.

Why isnÂ’t this story getting more play in the mainstream media?

Senators from both sides of the aisle competed on Monday to extol the humane treatment of detainees whom they said they saw on a weekend trip to the military detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. All said they opposed closing the center.

"I feel very good" about the detainees' treatment, Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said.

That feeling was also expressed by another Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
On Monday, Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, said he learned while visiting Guantánamo that some detainees "even have air-conditioning and semiprivate showers."

Another Republican, Senator Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, said soldiers and sailors at the camp "get more abuse from the detainees than they give to the detainees."

In the last month, several senators, including some Republicans, have suggested that Congress should investigate reports of abuses at the detention center or that the military should close it to remove a blot on the country's image.

Oh, I see – the conclusions reached by the Senators is in direct contradiction to the editorial position of the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets. Therefore it needs to be hidden (like this one, on page A-15) or ignored completely.

But don’t worry – the facts won’t get in the way of Amnesty International and the rest of the rest of the Left making condemnations.

An official of Amnesty International, Jumana Musa, dismissed the visits as "this little Congressional show and tell." Ms. Musa said the statements did not address what she called the inadequate investigation of reported abuses.

"Whether or not people are being fed orange chicken," Ms. Musa said, "does not get at the heart of the issue."

Actually, it does go to the heart of the issue. These terrorist scum are not being abused, tortured, or killed, despite the claims of those who wish to make Gitmo into a gulag or a concentration camp. And the charges are being investigated, as the very report used by Senator Durbin proves.

But when will little things like the truth get in the way of the the LeftÂ’s irresponsible charge.

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

Douglas Wood's manners have been called into question.

Apparently the Australian Left is upset because of the ‘boorish” behavior of the recently freed hostage. His offense? Calling the terrorists who held him hostage and executed the Iraqis held with him “assholes”. Or at least that is the view expressed by Andrew Japsan, the editor of The Age, Australia’s most left-wing major newspaper.

Said Jaspan: "I was, I have to say, shocked by Douglas Wood's use of the a---hole word, if I can put it like that, which I just thought was coarse and very ill-thought through and I think demeans the man and is one of the reasons why people are slightly sceptical of his motives and everything else.
"The issue really is largely, speaking as I understand it, he was treated well there. He says he was fed every day, and as such to turn around and use that kind of language I think is just insensitive."

You must be kidding. Kidnapped, threatened with death, forced to make a propaganda tape – that constitutes “treated well”?

And Japsan is not alone.

Consider Bob Ellis, who has written speeches and slogans for a collective of Left leaders such as Opposition Leader Kim Beazley, NSW Premier Bob Carr and Greens leader Bob Brown.

Ellis now praises Wood's kidnappers as "honourable men (with) a well-treated captive". Keysar Trad, spokesman for the Mufti, Sheik Taj el-Din el-Hilaly, also agreed Wood had been "well looked after".

The readers of The Age also have a few words to say.

“For those of us on the left, it’s a bummer that he didn’t come out and condemn the war,” wrote internet commentator Shay after Douglas Wood’s rescue. “But just because he’s not of our political persuasion doesn’t mean we should move into attack mode.” Ha! Wood’s fate was sealed as soon as he opted for “God bless America” over the more acceptable “Allah Akbar!” Loathing increased when he sold his story to the Ten Network. “Mercenary to the end,” shrieked one web-based hater. Another seethed: “You are lucky your captors had ethics and did not dispose of you.” The captors, who murdered their Iraqi hostages, had ethics? “Douglas Wood is a disgrace. He should hang his head in shame,” bitched one of many at The Age’s website. “He was profiteering from this wholesale slaughter,” yelped someone who might have been correct had his remark been directed at Saddam Hussein during his oil-for-food orgy with the United Nations. “I think the Woods are stupidly rich and that Douglas is the one who likes being rich best,” announced insightful Mike W. “Was he there helping Iraqis or was he there making money and working for the coalition?” asked Age reader Gregoire, unaware that it’s possible to do both.

And, of course, the real offense of Douglas Wood.

It seems that to a Leftist, this makes Wood the boorish inferior of the killers who beat him and held him captive. It is why journalist Tracee Hutchinson, in an Age column, calls him a "blustering buffoon", moaning: "It was enough that his words God bless America had been played over and over on his release."

Yep, that’s it – he dared to speak well of America. Such words are unacceptable to the Left.

Paging Mr. Rove.

Posted by: Greg at 11:39 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 554 words, total size 4 kb.

What more need be said about these two quotes from Hate-America-Firster Ward Churchill?

"For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted [and] in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal," he said. "But let me ask you this: Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?"

and

Later, in a question-and-answer period, Churchill was asked whether the trauma "fragging" inflicts on that officer's family back home should be considered, he responded: "How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?"

At a certain point, doessn't advocacy of a political position cross a line beyond which speech has no protection? And doesn't that "speech beyond the pale" include advocacy of mutiny and murder within the armed forces of the United States?

UPDATE -- The story on WND seems to have been lifted without attribution from the blog "Pirate Ballerina." To download the audio, click here. (Hat Tip -- Lone Star Times)

Posted by: Greg at 09:54 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 2 kb.

HereÂ’s who they want to run the museum at Ground Zero.

A museum that is set to rise above the hallowed soil of Ground Zero has showcased art that the families of 9/11 victims are denouncing as offensive, anti-American - and a slap in the face of nearly 3,000 dead innocents.

The Drawing Center, a little-known cultural group in SoHo, has mounted works linking President Bush to Osama Bin Laden and showing a hooded victim of U.S. abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.

The storefront museum currently features a "pseudo-didactic PowerPoint presentation on the Axis of Evil" that appears to mock Bush's famous description of Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Previous exhibits include a drawing of four airplanes swooping menacingly out of the sky - one of which is flying directly at a naked woman lying on her back, legs spread-eagled. The acrylic image is titled "Homeland Security."

What do the families of those who died in the 9/11 attack on our country have to say?
more...

Posted by: Greg at 12:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 368 words, total size 2 kb.

But no doubt Dick Durbin and the rest of the Left will be glad to explain to us that these exist because we have failed to keep the cells at Gitmo appropriately climate-controlled.

US Marines have found manuals on taking hostages and decapitation during a raid on a guerrilla hideout in the Iraqi village of Karabla, near the town of Qaim, close to the Syrian border. The Arab newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports that in the hideaway the troops also found several hostages who were being held there by Islamic militants. The hiding place was being used as a centre for the interrogation and torture of hostages, and contained electrodes and other instruments of torture.

The manuals found were used as Jihad (Holy War) handbooks. The first was titled: "How to choose the best hostage", the second covered decapitation and was called: "Rules for cutting off the heads of infidels", and the third manual, "principles of the philosophy of the Jihad", was more theoretical.

The three documents, the last of which is 574 pages long, carry the name Abdel Rahman al-Aliya, which the newspaper says is probably a cover name to hide the identity of the real author. The hideout - in the volatile western Anbar province which has been the scene of fierce fighting between insurgents and the US-led forces - is believed to have been used by the group led by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He is credited with introducing the practice of decapitation to the activities of the Jihadist movement.

I’m curious – what is the position of Amnesty International and the International Red Cross on this?

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

The evil sought by Wafa al-Biri is impossible for me to understand.

Only two months ago, her family wrote to Sorooka Hospital in Beersheba, Israel, to thank them for the fine care she received after being burned in a gas stove explosion. She had an appointment on Monday morning, but didnÂ’t make it.

Thank God.

But Wafa didn't arrive for Monday's 8 a.m. appointment. "I didn't think much about it. I just marked her as one of the people who didn't show up," Krieger said.

Wafa had begun the journey to her appointment with Krieger, arriving at the Erez border crossing from Gaza into Israel around 5:30 a.m., armed with a letter detailing her appointment and her official permission to cross into Israel for humanitarian reasons.

But that wasn't all the young woman was armed with. She carried a 20-pound bomb inside her underwear. Her target was the outpatient clinic of Soroka hospital and, inevitably, the doctor who saved her life.

She told IDF interviewers that she also wanted to take out 30 to 50 Jews, including children.

And some people believe that this kind of animal should be rewarded with an independent country which will forever threaten the lives of every Israeli? That must be a sick joke, right?

Posted by: Greg at 11:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.

I found this over at National Review. What do you think, Senator Durbin? Are you prepared to call this military chaplain a liar, in addition to a war criminal who has committedcrimes against humanity?

Here's a list that might help you if you're willing to listen to an Ordained Elder who knows the facts rather than accusations made based on speculation. I'll respond here specifically to some of the ones I've heard.

1. The detainees have direct access to the International Red Cross representatives contrary to the accusations that they have no outside contact. Also, all the detainees are allowed to write and receive mail from family.

2. The detainees have their food prepared according to Islamic guidelines. The call to prayer is broadcast for them to go to prayer. Each detainee has the direction to Meccah painted in their cell. They are allowed to practice their religion without interference and are given the religious items they need to do so. They are allowed to observe Ramadan.

3. There are strict guidelines and training concerning human rights protections. If a service member sees a violation they are to report it and if asked to violate someone's human rights they are to consider it as an unlawful order. Those who violate are subject to prosecution.

I know, Senator, that such a man is not nearly as trustworthy as an enemy cobattant who violated international law in taking up arms agains the United States, but I hope you will give his claims some weight.

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess the Senator from Illinois just isn't disturbed enough by reports of real torture against real innocents to issue any sort of condemnation. But American troops are Nazis for turning off the AC.

What I see in front of me is absolutely heartbreaking. It's two of four hostages who are being taken away, rescued. They were rescued this morning. They're Iraqi, and they were found in this complex that Marines first thought was a car-bomb factory. In fact, they did find what they believe was a potential car bomb or suicide car bomb.

But inside this complex, they found something even more sinister -- four Iraqis who were handcuffed, their hands and feet bound with steel cuffs. They're now being taken away for medical treatment, one being borne away on a stretcher.

The man in intense pain that they're trying to get into a vehicle, has been tortured, he says, and has all the marks of being tortured with electricity. His back is crisscrossed with welts. The other man is even ... in worse shape. Their crime was to be part of the border police.

The Marines came in here this morning, rescued them. The battle is still raging around us. I don't know if you can hear the gunfire, but this is a major offensive to get rid of insurgents and foreign fighters in this city near the Syrian border....

... Two young men say they don't know why they were seized. They say they didn't hear the voices of their captors, only people whispering in their ear that they were going to be killed.

But we have just watched the two who were most badly treated be carried out of here for medical equipment, one of them on a stretcher, an older man who worked for the border police, along with his colleague. ... the Marines showed us the room where he says he was hung by his feet, his head dipped in water and then tortured with electric shocks repeatedly.

One of the other men, the other border police, was too weak, really, to tell us what had happened. But he obviously was in very, very bad shape.

They were rescued this morning as Marines and Iraqi forces came into this complex, which included an underground bunker, weapons stockpiles and other things, and found them here. Their captors have fled.

Bring on a Senate censure -- or better yet, his resignation.

Posted by: Greg at 09:39 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 2 kb.

A Muslim student at the University of Arkansas, upset that his doctoral dissertation would require another six-months to defend, decided to leave off his studies and become a terrorist.

Federal agents arrested Arwah J. Jaber, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Palestine, on a criminal complaint accusing him of knowingly attempting to provide support to a foreign terrorist organization.According to a criminal affidavit filed with the U.S. District Court in Fort Smith, an anonymous tipster from Fayetteville placed a call earlier this month to the Department of Homeland Security to inform them that Arwah Jaber, a Ph.D. candidate in chemistry at UA, intended to go to Palestine to fight in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

A video of the May 14 graduation at the University of Arkansas shows Jaber joining thousand of of other students in commencement exercises. Jaber was a candidate in the program for the last four years, and according to the affidavit, had only six months left to go before he had completed his studies. But just days before graduation, Jaber's attitude had suddenly shifted as evidenced in an e-mail Jaber sent to his doctoral advisor on May 11. The professor turned over the e-mail after being questioned by investigators. It reads in part:

“Since Dr. Wilkins was unable to help me graduate this May, I have decided to take an honorable job in Palestine with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Organization to pursue a more noble cause -- freedom, justice and peace for the Palestinians and to fight the Israeli terrorism. This action will make it impossible for me to return to the states to defend my dissertation -- assuming I am still alive."

more...

Posted by: Greg at 07:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 629 words, total size 4 kb.

John Kass of the Chicago Trbune offers this pointed reminder -- and rebuke -- to Senator Dick-less Durbin regarding his outrage over the non-torture inflicted upon terrorist prisoners at Gitmo.

We're at war, Senator. How can you possibly justify that statement?

And you know what? We have learned from history. The reason buildings at Guantanamo are full is because there are two big holes in the ground in New York.

Senator, weren't you one of those legitimately complaining that U.S. intelligence dropped the ball and something had to be done so it wouldn't happen again?

It is being done. Much of it isn't polite or civilized and some of it upsets me, like the abuse of the Koran. Suspects have been pushed around, hurt, and enemies have been given propaganda fodder.

Clearly, Americans don't like it when others get hurt. But Americans really don't like it when Americans get hurt.

At any rate, this is not the kind of torture I've heard about. In World War II in Greece, my father was handed over to the Germans on the suspicion he aided downed British airmen. They beat him, day after day, making him dig his own grave. He played dumb to survive and it worked. An uncle was forced into a labor camp. The Nazis didn't use Christina Aguilera music on him, though luckily, he too survived.

Sen. Durbin, in other places, suspected terrorists have their feet flayed with rods, their families raped; they're force-fed a quart of olive oil, then tied, seated, to a block of ice. By your own words, Senator, Guantanamo isn't remotely like that.

You don't have to apologize to the Republicans in the White House. But Senator, you should apologize to the nation.

And if you don't have the stomach for the work, please have the guts not to play partisan politics with what has to be done.

Seriously.

Better yet, Senator -- RESIGN!

Posted by: Greg at 04:01 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

Let's be really clear for Senator Dick-less Durbin about why US policy at Guantanamo Bay regarding the non-applicability of the Geneva Convention is perfectly correct.

Here's who the Geneva Conventions cover.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Of these categories of persons, only #2 could be held to apply -- except for the fact that the terrorists violate conditions b, c, and d, putting them outside the framework established by the Geneva Convention. So while we generally give them treatment consistent with the Geneva Convention, any deviation is not a violation because they are not covered in the first place.

Hat Tip: GOPBloggers

Posted by: Greg at 05:24 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 443 words, total size 3 kb.