Why amnesty for Iraqi insurgents is a deal-breaker
(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)
First of all, let's look at some Civil War history:
During the American Civil War, political prisoners and prisoners of war were often released upon taking an "oath of allegiance". Lincoln's Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction featured an oath to "faithfully support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the union of the States thereunder" as a condition for a Presidential pardon. During Reconstruction, retroactive loyalty oaths were required, so that no one could hold federal office who hadn't been loyal in the past.Is this the basis for any kind of amnesty for Iraqi insurgents who have killed American military? No. And here's why:
- Lincoln's Proclamation was issued by (wait for it) Lincoln. In order for Iraqi amnesty to work the same way, Bush would have to grant it. Not Republican Senator Cornyn, not Republican Senator Alexander, not Republican Senator McConnell, not Republican Senator Chambliss, not Republican Senator Stevens. Amnesty would have to be granted by Republican President Bush.
- Lincoln's olive branch was granted to the side that was soundly defeated in the war. Needless to say, nothing of that sort has happened yet in Iraq.
- The fundamental issues of the Civil War -- slavery and states' rights -- had been resolved. Lincoln was inviting the defeated side to rejoin the Union. In Iraq the Sunni, Shia and Kurds are still at each other's throats. What issues have been resolved by this war?
- Lincoln himself said this at Gettysburg:
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
It is now painfully obvious that Iraq will be a theocracy, with the mullahs on the Supreme Court, sitting in final judgement of the Iraqi Constitution. That is not "government of the people, by the people, for the people." It's bad enough that our fighting forces died for that -- now we have to stand by while the insurgents are granted amnesty as well? No way.
But amnesty is a deal-breaker.
Posted by Ara | Link
| Comments
(3)
| digg this
| del.icio.us 
Categories: George W. Bush
, Republicans
, War in Iraq
Comments
A war of outside (American) aggression, occupation and resulting sectarian terrorist warfare is like the US Civil War...how?
As a political bludgeon to beat up Republicans, the “amnesty is wrong” stance is just fine. As on immigration, they’re being hoisted on their own destructive, mendacious and somewhat racist petard. Just when you thought they couldn’t be more monumental hypocrites, the Republican “war on terror” jihadists saying that we should give these particular terrorists a pass for the sake of peace and justice, is quite a howler.
What if there’s no “amnesty” but, instead, no one but the top Iraqi terrorist ringleaders and foreign terrorists wind up being prosecuted by the Iraqi government?
In reality, it is not up to President Bush to decide whether or not to grant amnesty since we have no legitimate right to be there in the first place and no legal domain over the citizens of Iraq.
Posted by: shep![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 26, 2006 10:39 AM
A war of outside (American) aggression, occupation and resulting sectarian terrorist warfare is like the US Civil War...how?
It's not, and that's my point.
As a political bludgeon to beat up Republicans, the “amnesty is wrong” stance is just fine.
Thank you. You are now ahead of everybody that commented on this post at Daily Kos.
In reality, it is not up to President Bush to decide whether or not to grant amnesty since we have no legitimate right to be there in the first place and no legal domain over the citizens of Iraq.
You are correct, but I guess we're past that now. It's the Pottery Barn Rules coming back with a vengeance: we broke it, we own it. God knows we paid for it -- over $300 billion in treasure, over 20 thousand American casualties, and over 50 thousand in known Iraqi civilian deaths.
We cannot simply write off the entire experience and walk away from it. That's what the Republicans want to do and someone, anyone -- hello Democrats? -- need to stand up and say that.
I believe that is where the majority of American voters are at.
Posted by: Ara Rubyan![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 26, 2006 11:12 AM
“That's what the Republicans want to do and someone, anyone -- hello Democrats? -- need to stand up and say that.”
Not like it’s going to get the play of “Democrats want to ‘cut-and-run’” but some are.
Pottery Barn-wise, we need to do everything we can to keep further mayhem from resulting from our folly. Trouble is, we can't do it with an occupying army and need a functioning State Dept. and CIA, and the Republicans have broken them too.
Posted by: shep![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 26, 2006 01:12 PM