The Georgia Scribe, Political Blog, Conservative Bloggers, Republican Blogspot, Political Blogs

About Me

Name: Ray Chandler
Biography

Featured Posts

News and Opinion

Comments

Here's MY sign!!
Why Join the Fight?

Nee2
Ray
Why Join the Fight?

Nee2

Blog Roll

Get Townhall :: Get Your FREE Copy of the Townhall.com Magazine

A Spanish Inquisition

Posted by Ray Chandler on Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:21:34 PM

By RAY CHANDLER

It is troubling to think that some people born under the same flag as I would like to see American soldiers tied by international courts for war crimes and other such “crimes against humanity,” but I suspect that is the case.
I’m not setting up a straw man argument, it’s just that was the very first thought that sprang to mind when I read this week that a Spanish court has charged three American soldiers with homicide and "a crime against the international community" in connection with the April 2003 killing of Spanish journalist Jose Couso.
Couso, 37, died when Baghdad’s Hotel Palestine was shelled by an American tank. The hotel was known to house foreign journalists but American troops claimed they were receiving fire from the hotel. A review of the incident has upheld that claim.
That hasn’t fazed Judge Santiago Pedraz, who has issued international arrest warrants for Sgt. Shawn Gibson, Capt. Philip Wolford and Lt. Col. Philip de Camp. The five-page indictment alleges Col. de Camp ordered shelling and that Capt. Wolford then authorized Sgt. Gibson to carry it out.
Spanish law allows the prosecution for a crime committed against a Spaniard abroad, if it is not investigated in the country where it was committed. An international arrest warrant issued for the men means they run the risk of being detained in any country that has an extradition treaty with Spain. Spanish authorities have also inquired into the freezing of the three men’s assets in light of the possibility of a civil suit.
U.S. authorities have made it clear they have no intentions of cooperating with the Spaniards.
Let’s hope it stays that way. Our system isn’t perfect but we’ve demonstrated that where there is some evidence of wrongdoing by our soldiers, we can keep out own house clean. The investigation and subsequent charges stemming from the Haditha incident stands as evidence of that.
The rules of engagement for American forces isn’t discussed much in exact terms, and for a valid reason. "We don't discuss rules of engagement, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said a Pentagon briefing nearly a year ago, “ because it's unsafe to our troops if we tell people what they're supposed to do to protect themselves. So we just don't discuss rules of engagement.”
To some who just want to see the job in Iraq finished as soon as possible—me for example—the rules inferred from what we see happening in Baghdad seem too stringent. A few more collateral casualties that bring more American troops alive is perfectly acceptable to me. That is not a view held by the more public relations-minded mavens in the corridors of power who apparently have forgotten—if they ever knew—the lessons of World War II—high minded ideals don’t translate well to the battlefield when you’re fighting a fanatical enemy. But that said, there is one overriding principle guiding contained in the rules of engagement: The troops have an inherent right to defend themselves and their comrades.
Which brings me back to my first thoughts when I read of the charges.
The Spaniards didn’t stay in the fight against Islamofascism long. After the Madrid bombings, and perhaps a glance at their growing Muslim population, they became the “tapas-eating surrender monkeys,” following suit with the French “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” to their north. That pretty much brought the Spaniards into line with the rest of Western Europe in castigating the United States for invading Iraq and fighting against Islamic fanatics generally.
And, of course, brought the Spaniards into line with the loony American Left, most visibly epitomized by the mainstream Democratic Party.
Our leftist fellow citizens (and it pains me to claim them) constantly tell us that our actions in Iraq and against Islamofascism has brought us under a dark cloud of reprobation from the rest of the world community—meaning mainly the leftist havens of Europe in this case—that we may never emerge. There would be some hope if only they could wrest power in 2008 and prostrate the United States before the court of world opinion.
And so it seemed natural to me to wonder if some of them wouldn’t be willing to make a token gesture of giving over these men to a Spanish court.
These are, after all, the same people who do a lot of crowing about unifying under international law and courts of justice. The same people who want us to, essentially, run up a white flag in Iraq, a clear signal to Islamofascism that America has no more will to fight them.
The cynical part of me, which is often the greater part of me, thinks that such ilk as John “Mad Dog” Murtha and Nancy Pelosi would throw these men to the Spanish Inquisition.
I would hope that I’m wrong, but I’m afraid that I’m not.

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

Flag as Offensive

Why Join the Fight?

Posted by Ray Chandler on Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:17:22 PM

I spend a lot more time than I'd like thinking and writing about politics.

It's time that I could use on things that don't raise my blood pressure or stir my bile--things, for example, that could put money in my pocket as well. As a freelance newspaper journalist and, what's much more fun, a freelance magazine writer specializing in travel and history, I have as much work as I can manage. But I constantly find myself thinking and writing about politics. Oh, some op-eds have brought money, but few editorial page editors are going to pay for conservative opinion from someone without a national readership already, no matter how well researched and well written it is. But that's fine, I don't care. Horning into the Great Conversation and trying to drown out the mindless liberals who think that if they can cloak their speciousness and stupidity with enough shrillness that they can rule the day is worth doing, even if it means doing the work for free.

And I do it because I'm not nice, I won't play the game by the liberals' rules. Other conservatives feel forced to. After all, we want to be nice. We want to be fair. We don't want to be called "mean spirited". Well, I really don't care what liberals think of me. It doesn't bother me to be called "mean spirited" by some of the most vicious and truly mean-spirited people you'd never want to meet. I proudly own to not being that nice a guy by liberal standards. (Sometimes I'm even not one by some conservative standards, since I often delight in outraging some of our more staid and philosophically insecure religious-minded brethren.)

And since I'm not that nice a guy I never shirk from calling it as I see it. I don't feel obliged to overindulge in tact and courtesy. For instance, I think liberals on the whole aren't intelligent; it's what makes them collectivists to begin with and why logic beats them every time. One of my most fervent beliefs, in fact, is that a driving force for a lot of liberals is a monumental inferiority complex. By far most conservatives I know are comfortable being adults. Almost to a man or woman the liberals I know aren't. And the way they try to cover up this inferiority and general vacuousness is by adopting an attitude of smug condescension. It would be amusing if it weren't so infuriating. Why hold back when dealing with such people?

I believe in the individual and in individualism. I have no time for those who want to force everyone into groups. I love individual liberty and freedom and hate heavy-handed government. In fact, I'm a minimalist when it comes to all things government. And as time goes on and I write more columns on this site that will become apparent to all who read them.

But we were talking about why. Why get into the fight when it seems that not only are the liberal barbarians at the gate, but they may have already a too firm grip on things. My answer is "Because I'm an uncle."

I have three nieces, ages 4, 6 and 10. I'm 45, and it's a fair bet that liberals couldn't do too much more damage to our world and our society before I shuffle off these mortal coils and depart for Shakespeare's "undiscovered country." But I care about the world my nieces grow up in. I want it to be at least as good as that I grew up in, and better if possible. And that means fighting the cancer of liberalism and all the perncious rot it has caused every day and in every way.

When so much is at stake, who the hell cares about playing nice.

So this is the first column I've written here. Others will follow, some sharp and barbed, some funny (I hope) and maybe some somewhat maudlin. Not all will deal with politics, for despite all I've said above, there is more to life than politics. There has to be. So I'll say whatever I want to say, whatever strikes my fancy.

Hope you enjoy going along for the ride, even if some of the bumps get on your last good nerve.