"Violence has been practicised in the sign of the crescent, but also in the sign of the cross, he warned."

Such especial intelligence doesn't the Prof have?

(For US readers - Not)

He seems to be a typical moral relativist. I very much doubt that he will cause riots. The Islamists will love him.

And this statement here - "Those who make Islam responsible for kidnappings, suicide attacks, car bombs and beheadings carried out by a few blind extremists - makes me wonder if he even really understands Islam.

From Times
Online
June 16, 2008

Islam stuck in the Middle Ages, says Professor Hans Kung
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspsondent

Islam is stuck in its own version of the “Middle Ages” which is contributing to a global crisis, one of the religion's leading experts has argued.

Professor Hans Kung, a leading Roman Catholic and theologian from Germany, warned in a lecture of a “deadly threat” to all humankind unless new efforts are made to build bridges with Islam.

He said in London that Islam has “special problems” with modernity because, unike Christianity and Judaism, in which he also specialises, it has never undergone a “serious religious reformation”.

He questioned whether Islam is even capable of adapting to a post-modern world in the way that Christianity and Judaism have done. But he also outlined why he is hopeful that the present problems around radicalisation within Islam can be resolved, and how the other two Abrahamic faiths are subject to some of the same problems on their extremist edges.

Violence has been practicised in the sign of the crescent, but also in the sign of the cross, he warned.

In his lecture, seen by The Times, Professor Kung said: “The options have become clear: either rivalry of the religions, clash of civilizations, war of the nations - or dialogue of civilizations and peace between the nations as a presupposition for peace between the nations.

“In the face of the deadly threat to all humankind, instead of building new dams of hatred, revenge and enmity, we should tear down the walls of prejudice stone by stone and thus build bridges of dialogue, bridges particularly towards Islam.”

Professor Kung, author of Islam: Past, Present and Future, published last year and one of the most authoritative works on the subject, was speaking on “Challenges to Islam, Christianity and Judaism” in a lecture organised by the Royal Fine Art Commission Trust and Sky Arts. It will be broadcast on Sky Arts later this month.

He described how liberal Jews, Christians and Muslims often get on better with each other than they do with fellow Jews, Christians and Muslims from the traditionalist wings of those religions. A Roman Catholic “imprisoned in the Middle Ages” will find himself closer to the “medieval element” of Islam and Judaism than with liberal Catholic believers.

Professor Kung said that one of the main causes of conflicts between religions is the persistence of outdated ways of thinking.

Islam and Christianity regard the actual Middle Ages as the “great time” for their religions. But modernity has forced all three religions of the book onto the “defensive”, and they all face challenges over how they react to their own “Middle Ages”.

He argued that Christianity and Judaism have moved on, but not Islam, adding: “It remains an open question if the ecumenical paradigm of post-modernity will develop also in Islam.” Professor Kung, who aged 80 is a contemporary of the Pope and worked with him as a theological adviser to the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s, was influential at the council in persuading the Roman Catholic Church to adopt a more positive attitude to Judaism and religious freedom.

He has also spoken out constantly in favour of the official recognition of the State of Israel by the Vatican and for a two-state-solution for Israelis and Palestinians.

Professor Kung, whose own liberal views cost him his official Catholic teaching licence in the last century, said that the essence of all three religions must be preserved, but those who want peace and reconciliation will not be able to avoid criticism. They must engage in self-criticism to enable their faiths to adapt to modernity.

Referring to Christianity, for example, he said: “Jesus Christ as a basic model is a constant, but the law of celibacy is a variable.”

He argued: “After the Reformation, Christianity had to undergo another paradigm shift, that of the Enlightenment. Judaism, after the French Revolution and Napoleon, experienced the Enlightenment first, and as a consequence, at least in Reform Judaism, it experienced also a religious reformation. Islam, however, has not undergone a serious religious reformation and so to the present day has quite special problems also with modernity and its core components, freedom of conscience and religion, human rights, tolerance, democracy."

Professor Kung also set out what the three religions have in common, such as injunctions against murder and respect for life. “They do not recognise themselves in our picture of Islam, because they want to be loyal citizens of the Islamic religion.

"Those who make Islam responsible for kidnappings, suicide attacks, car bombs and beheadings carried out by a few blind extremists ought at the same time to condemn Christianity or Judaism for the barbarous maltreatment of prisoners, the air strikes and tank attacks carried out by the US Army - 10,000 civilians have been murdered in Iraq alone - and the terrorism of the Israeli army in Palestine.”

Professor Kung’s lecture will be broadcast on Sky Arts, channel 267, on June 23 at 7.15pm The Sky Arts accompanying series on the art and architecture of religious buildings, called Art of Faith, can be seen on Sunday nights at 7pm.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4150391.ece

Wouldn't it be better to use their own terms, Robert, and call them exactly what they are? They are mujahideen

that some of these 'unlawful' combatants are more accurately described as spies and saboteurs as opposed to non-uniformed combatants and as such are afforded no protection by the GC or the constitution.

Clearly there is a difference between some Iraqi who takes up arms and fights in Iraq to rid Iraq of the USA and some Saudi who takes up arms and fights everywhere to rid the world of the USA.

 Not if the common denominator between the two is a love for Jihad. If that is the case then I don't really see the difference, other than one is geographically situated in Iraq and the other is elsewhere. They are both fighting the same war, for the same goal, but on different battle fronts.

And just how will it make the world a safer place? It won't make one iota of difference.

If he [Bush] can say he has killed Saddam Hussein and captured Bin Laden, he can claim to have left the world a safer place,” said a US intelligence source."

From The Sunday Times
June 15, 2008

George Bush arrives in Britain with Bin Laden demand

"President George W Bush has enlisted British special forces in a final attempt to capture Osama Bin Laden before he leaves the White House.

As Mr Bush arrived in Britain today on the final leg of his eight-day farewell tour of Europe, defence and intelligence sources in Washington and London confirmed that a renewed hunt was on for the leader of the September 11 attacks. “If he [Bush] can say he has killed Saddam Hussein and captured Bin Laden, he can claim to have left the world a safer place,” said a US intelligence source."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article41430...

One released detainee blew himself up in Iraq about a week ago, murdering 8 people. I wonder if any intelligence was garnered from him.

If nothing else, a great amount of intelligence can be garnered should these angels wander home, reunite with OBL et al, and not turn out to be quite as innocent as the courts have decided. Luckily there are no courts on the battlefield. Because then we'll just kill them.

that some of these 'unlawful' combatants are more accurately described as spies and saboteurs as opposed to non-uniformed combatants and as such are afforded no protection by the GC or the constitution.

I trust that nobody is calling the 9-11 Bombers 'enemy combatants' when the bastards entered & operated in the USA disguised as civilians until 9-11?

Clearly there is a difference between some Iraqi who takes up arms and fights in Iraq to rid Iraq of the USA and some Saudi who takes up arms and fights everywhere to rid the world of the USA. This is a distinction that would greatly clarify the debate.

IMHO justice is served so long as their exists mechanisms by which the government justifies its claim to an independent authority that the detainee is an enemy of the USA and that innocent detainees can appeal their detention.

The nature of this war is that the enemy hides amongst civilians. There are going to be instances where innocent people are detained alongside terrorists. Especially considering some of the terrorists are being captured by SF raids outside of the combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Trusting a government agency to effectively and impartially vet its own actions goes against everything the founding fathers sought to achieve. IMHO leaving the military to write its own rules sets a precedent far more dangerous to the sanctity of the USA than any Islamofascist threat.

That said, the USA shouldn't be bending over backwards either. I'm sure a rational median can be found between indefinite and arbitrary detention without the right of reply and the OJ-Simpson style 12-ring circus public trail. My only point is that that median must be found.

A whole site is devoted to Justice Jackson and his work so no doubt you can find the full quote (in context) there. But I first stumbled on it in Joseph Persico's book on the Nuremberg Trials.

"Although I haven't yet read up on this specific US case, if what you
have written about the case is true, I have to say I agree with you."

IANAL and what little I've written about the Suspension Clause (of Art. I, Sect. 9 of the U.S. Contitution) was only by implication.

Obviously, one of the controversial -- read, Constitutional -- points was whether the Executive's justification for denying the Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus was sufficient. That is, did he satisfy either or both of the provisions for its suspension in "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion [of] the public Safety."

Another controverisal matter seems to be whether the rights of "the accused" in the Constitution applies to everyone brought into to U.S. jurisdiction or just some. The Constitition is silent on the matter. 

I've not had time lately to keep up with SOLO, but I come back and find this and the open immigration thread. Pure jewels both.

As Kyrel states, " Great quote by Essxjay from Robert Jackson in 1945."

I've copied and pasted that to my vault of goodies. Thanks for posting it Essxjay ... did you get that from an online source I could read?

As stated throughout the thread, this issue is complicated, but I know the current situation is not right, and has not sat comfortably with me for a long time.

It's important that posters and readers remain clear about the various senses of the term "habeas corpus" that may come up in this discussion -- generic, constitutional, Geneva, and otherwise. (I realized this yesterday after I'd edited my post probably a half-dozen times for historical and jurisdictional clarity.) 

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm#P74_16247

Found a decent page, with a specific section for Prisoners from Afghanistan. Note Rumsfeld's misinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and the right to status-determination by individual tribunal. Examples from Vietnam and the Gulf War (1991). Apparently whether or not prisoners have a right to have their status determined is 'open for debate'. Definitely a complex series of issues, Kyrel! Full disclosure, the site is Human Rights Watch, so it's rather biased in some parts.

I didn't say the Geneva Convetions don't apply to unlawful combatants. I said exactly the opposite. Unlawful combatants are specifically mentioned and provided for in the Geneva Conventions; as I said, they are to be treated essentially the same as any other POW: humanely, within the bounds of the GC, and without the protection of habeas corpus. Trials really aren't a large part of holding POWs. Keeping them from fighting again is the goal. Unlawful combatants are still part of an army, an organization or force intent on war. Speaking specifically of Islamist organizations, they certainly see themselves as an "army". Why don't we?

However, I think the most important clause of the GC is the right to status-determination. This more than anything--given a law-abiding nation--will decide where, when and how the prisoner will go about his or her life. I think an adjustment could be be made. Some laws, when confronted with proven evolving complexity, can stand to be altered or added to. I truly don't have a problem with releasing one or two of the middling offenders if a trial must be had and no evidence of guilt is presented. If nothing else, a great amount of intelligence can be garnered should these angels wander home, reunite with OBL et al, and not turn out to be quite as innocent as the courts have decided. Luckily there are no courts on the battlefield. Because then we'll just kill them.

Great quote by Essxjay from Robert Jackson in 1945! Interesting claim by Jeremy Johnson that the current Geneva Conventions don't apply to declared "unlawful combatants," and thus the jihadi suspects can rightly be held forever without trial or legal recourse. I've never heard that argument -- and really don't agree with it, even if true. Lindsay rightly points out that this issue is difficult and requires patient dissection. No ARI or TOC thinker so far seems to have even come close to untangling the legal thicket! I tried a bit earlier today, and came up with an appallingly long list of notes. But maybe I can still offer some brief, half-decent remarks:

(1) Guantanamo was purposely set up as a "legal black hole," as countless critics have noted. This is shameful and contemptible in its barbarism and anti-Americanism. Thank Galt and Zeus the Supreme Court shot it down in 2004, 2006, and a few days ago! Some rule of law, and control by the courts, has to obtain. Maybe not civilian or military law or courts, but something. I personally favor inventing a third category of legal procedures and trials for these new type of rights-violators known as jihadi mass-murderers.

(2) The current process of "detaining" without charge forever is utterly unprecedented in US history, as far as I know, and monstrous beyond compare. What's next -- CIA death squads who murder without charge, based on secret presidential orders?

(3) Justice delayed is truly justice denied -- for them and us. Pretty much every one of those jihadi suspects in Guantanamo should have been tried long ago -- and not in a Bush/Cheney-style kangaroo court. The alleged jihadis should have been either freed or executed within a few months of arrest at most, with some small number probably also sentenced to 5 or 10 years or so in jail.

(4) Khalid Sheik Mohammad and a few others -- in my humble view -- should have been tortured (yep) and shot eons ago. What a horror and moral abomination that it hasn't happened, in many cases 5 or 6 years after capture! But this severe ultra-punishment should take place only after their convictions as established, proven supercriminals -- and not during limitless, lawless "interrogations." Some objective, well-debated, legal process needs to be created for these unusually-dangerous and evil, semi-stateless, jihadi monsters. It has to include a presumption of innocence, a decent right to self-defense, and a mostly-open-to-public-scrutiny trial, and honest search for the truth -- followed by an administration of swift, accurate justice.

That's a precis of my current opinion, at least.

Unlawful combatants, i.e. any person actively involved in unlawful methods of combat against a signee of the Geneva Conventions in whatever form, are clearly defined in the Geneva Conventions. Not wearing a uniform or designating symbol, using restricted sites-schools, churches, hospitals-to mount combat operations, targeting civilians for the purpose of inciting terror, are a couple examples of unlawful combat methods. Nowhere in the GC does it state that unlawful combatants continue to have the right of habeas corpus. They are considered combatants, and just like any soldier not granted by the GC the right to trial in a foriegn nation. The GC authorizes a signee to hold any combatant who may, upon return to their home nation, continue hostilities against it. There is absolutely no time limit in this regard. If a war lasts 25 years, he's in it for the long haul--and his imprisonment, so long as its nature stays within the bounds of the GC, is completely and utterly legal under international law. As for the nature of the enemy--the justification for holding a prisoner in time of war against a particular hostile force or nation-I think that if the GC does not include international organizations bent on destroying a nation or nations by means of murder and destruction as "enemy nations or forces", it should. There are clearly defined "home nations" for most of these prisoners. Not the places they were born or live, the incidentals, but the organizations or forces they chose to join. Fighting for an amorphous blob of murdering dickweeds does not give or maintain the right to habeas corpus. It suspends it. Especially in a combat zone.

Linz,

"Anyone who pretends this is easy will be shot without trial. But we have lawyers and even a former state prosecutor here ..."

It is simple in that the David Davis case is differenct from this one. The law drafted in the UK does not apply to "enemy combatants" but what happens to civilians in the UK.

I think I can dodge that bullet by pointing out that the problem Richard, Bosch and Sandi would have with opposing something like 42 day dentention without charge for suspected terrorists, is that they consider every muslim in the country caught in an act of suspected terrorism to be an "enemy combatant". And Richard probably wouldn't even afford them the protection of the Geneva convention, let alone any sort of Nuremberg trial.

Jay,

"Back to the present. Habeas corpus has not been suspended in the U.S., so the Supreme Court cannot -- and has not -- "bestowed" rights or privileges on anyone who didn't already possess them under the Bill of Rights and 200+ years of Constitutional law."

Although I haven't yet read up on this specific US case, if what you have written about the case is true, I have to say I agree with you.

Bosch wrote: "Supreme Court: In a historic first, the right to habeas corpus has
been bestowed upon prisoners of war — in wartime. Five justices gave
terrorists a new weapon to kill more Americans with: our own
Constitution."

*Presumed* terrorists, let's not forget. The point of detaining rather than summarily executing those suspected of wrongdoing is that their status as legitimate combantants was uncertain at the time of their capture. Matter of fact established by a lower court:

"Petitioners are aliens detained at Guantanamo after being captured in Afghanistan or elsewhere abroad and designated enemy combatants by CSRTs. The Defense Department established Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) to determine whether individuals detained at the U. S. at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were 'enemy combatants.' ” (Boumediene v. Bush)

The London Charter set legal precedent for extending to those suspected of war crimes the right to face their accusers. Why? Because the virtue of justice was implicitly understood to be a value. A principle behind the precedent:

“That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.” (SCOTUS) Justice Robert H. Jackson, opening address before the International Military Tribunal, Nov. 25, 1945

Back to the present. Habeas corpus has not been suspended in the U.S., so the Supreme Court cannot -- and has not -- "bestowed" rights or privileges on anyone who didn't already possess them under the Bill of Rights and 200+ years of Constitutional law.

--------

Boumediene v. Bush: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/06-1195.html or http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf

Nothing more irritating than arbitrary statements. Even if he said "some are innocent," I'd still lock them up first. Gee, we could purloin a warmist term and could call it "the precautionary principle," offer some form of process and compensation if found innocent.

Many are innocent.

Are they, Kyrel? Innocent of what? And how do you know this? If you know it, why doesn't the US military know it?

It is not clear which case you are referring to...is it Munaf v Geren handed down on Thursday?

If so, I think you should all hold your horses for a minute...(perhaps actually reading the judgement before suggesting terrorists are landing on the Jersey Shore to invade the US)

The Munaf case, which I have been following for a while, was about Jurisdiction of US Courts; the Suprme Court has found US Courts do have Jurisdiction [and therefore the habeas corpus rights apply]; was decided unanimously; Mr Munaf and Omar are US Citizens; and I think ..(without getting into a very esoteric legal discussion on solopassion.com)...the court was correct to reject the absurd contention that Hirota v MacArthur somehow applied in this matter.

I love visiting the US Supreme Court website and reading the various judgements they hand down...all rather fun!

Elitism, forever! 

And Kyrel does spot the contradiction.

But hang on, "No war was declared."?!

Traditionally terrorists don't follow convention, KZ ~ this was their declaration.

... for patient discussion. Kyrel makes an interesting observation.

On this thread right now we're bemoaning the *upholding* of Habeas Corpus for *suspected* enemy combatants. On the David Davis thread we're bemoaning the *suspension* of Habeas Corpus for *suspected* terrorists for 6 weeks. Can we make up our minds?

Anyone who pretends this is easy will be shot without trial. But we have lawyers and even a former state prosecutor here ...

No war was declared. We're not fighting to win. We have no such hope. No infinitely-weak enemies are being handed over or freed. The government praises, collaborates with, and empowers the enemy nonstop. Lawlessness recruits heavily for the enemy. Criminality makes our friends and allies hate us. The prisoners don't have POW status. Many are innocent. Rule by law is elementary. Habeas corpus applied even in the Dark Age.

Nazism isn't the answer.

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not traitor, he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.”

— Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman orator and statesman, circa 45 B.C.

This is the most apropos quote to what we are seeing going on in the US>

Liberal communist hippies in the 50'60'70's got into our education system and while John and Jane America were out earning a living, we got America-hating Socialists teaching our kids.

Ayn Rand got it right--it starts with ideas, and these fucked ideas are killing us.

Habeas corpus for enemy combatants? Ugh. We are pathetic.

Scott DeSalvo

Whether you think you can, or think you cannot, you're probably right!!

Chilling......

I have previously posted. "Western governments leave me asking.....who is responsible for the deception and who is spinning the guilt"?