Sueddeutsche Commentary Implies US Troops on Murder Campaign

(By Ray D.)

(UPDATE: Politically Incorrect demolishes Kister here in German. He points out that a lot of Europeans had to know about the so-called "spying" on international bank transactions.)

Revelations of American "spying" on international financial transactions have provided further opportunity for some in German media to take the usual cheap shots at the United States. One particularly ugly example is a commentary by SZ author Kurt Kister that seems to imply that US soldiers are involved in an organized campaign of murder. He writes:

"The number of cases in which US soldiers have murdered in Iraq and not just killed in fighting has gotten so big that one can no longer speak of regrettable isolated incidents."

So what is Kister implying? It sounds as if he believes American soldiers are engaged in a campaign of murder that is simply being allowed to take its course. It sounds as if he believes the US government condones (or even encourages) murder. It also sounds as if Mr. Kister is confusing murder charges with murder convictions and, like so many in the German media, believes American soldiers to be guilty until proven innocent. In fact, the reason we hear about such cases is often because soldiers charged with misconduct are tried in a court of law by their own government.

Mr. Kister also claims that the collection of information on international financial transactions by the United States is a further sign that the US is willing to violate, "established law, international conventions and moral benchmarks." At the same time he does not offer a single specific example of which law, convention or benchmark has been violated.

He claims that he calls the "intelligence-political complex" can kidnap, torture and disappear those it finds suspect whenever it deems the action appropriate.  The "intelligence-political complex"? Is this a new construct (much like the "military-industrial complex") that the paranoid Euro-leftist must now fear? It is true that in the war on terror, individuals have been wrongfully detained, tortured and even killed. But to claim that an "intelligence-political complex" exists which seeks to engage in such activities is simply absurd. Above all, it is the typical one-sided telling of the story that we have come to expect of wide segments of the German media.

Additionally, Mr. Kister insists that the United States has repeatedly violated or suspended the common values that serve as the foundation for German-American relations. But perhaps he failed to consider that German trade with Iran, Sudan and Cuba might also be perceived by some Americans as a violation of "common values." Perhaps he failed to recognize that housing discrimination against minorities, which is perfectly legal in Germany, might be considered a threat to common values. Perhaps he failed to reflect that prostitution and human trafficking in Germany are a threat to common values. What Mr. Kister clearly did assume is that Germans, and particularly German journalists, occupy the moral high ground and have only to lecture down to their American "friends."

Here's an idea: Maybe Mr. Kister and other Germans worried about America's "transgressions" against their "values," particularly at places like Camp Gitmo, should consider the advice of journalist Florian Klenk. Mr. Klenk writes that if Europeans are really interested in seeing Guantanamo shut down, they should offer asylum to the remaining inmates. His article's name: "Volunteers Forward!" So far no one has volunteered...

Update: Richard Bartholomew has kindly translated a larger excerpt of Kister's commentary:

What Bush considers necessary

What else is new?  Same old same old is the reaction of many
when they hear that America's secret service under direction
of the Bush administration has once again violated applicable
law, international customs and moral standards.

This time it involves fishing for data about international
money transfers.  The New York Times reports that the CIA
has been tapping into the computers at Swift, a service provider
for the world wide financial industry based in Belgium.

This wasn't approved by US courts - let alone their counterparts
in Europe.  The White House wanted it, because the CIA deemed
it necessary.

In the "war against terror", the Bush administration has long ago taken
leave of the standards it pretends to introduce in Iraq.  The
citizen's rights of freedom aren't worth a hoot to them any more.

Whenever the secret service-political complex considers it
expedient, suspects will be kidnapped, tortured, and once in a while just disappear.

The number of cases in which US soldiers have murdered in Iraq and not just killed in fighting has gotten so big that one can no longer speak of regrettable isolated incidents.

Certainly the world is up against a monster: allegedly islamically
motivated terror.  Whoever combats the monster by means beyond
the rule of law just continues to nourish it.

Washington is doing this, especially in Iraq.  For decades the story
has been that the basis of the German-American relationship is its
common value system.

Sometimes it appears as though this commonality is switched on and
off "in the war against terror". (emphasis added)

Does it surprise you that this wasn't really news for the German media?

 

Resources

Comments

[Dave]

Let's be honest on guantanamo:
The diplomatic differences and bad publicity in the european press resulting out of guantanamo bay are only america's fault.
If the americans simply had held a Standgericht (I dont know the english word) on them in 2001, they would have saved much time, credibility and investment.
Not doing anything thoroughly doesnt do any good.

[leucanthemum]

Dave,

Babel Fish isn't exactly the best translator on any given day, but it says "Standgericht"="court martial". Are you suggesting that there should have been public detainee trials in the early stages of Gitmo? Or are you suggesting that there should have been trials (courts martial) of those who ran Gitmo?

Or is the translator an idiot? :-)

[Cousin Dave]

Sigh. This kind of stuff is so far over the top that I don't even know where to begin. All I can say is: Germans, be aware that every single sentence, every single word you are reading about America in your media is a lie. It's not just one or two things here and there. The America that your media portrays is entirely an America of their own creation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the real America. Your journalists have never experienced America; they have no clue what it is or how it works. It goes way beyond just proving or disproving specific instances. It's more like a person who has never seen an elephant trying to pass of a description of a parrot as being an elephant. Arguing specific points of ear size or trunk vs. beak is pointless, because the whole premise of the discussion is so far off the mark.

[Dave]

A court martial, yes that seems to be the term. A military court quickly announced and quick at announcing death penalties :)
Those detainees are problems, and problems keep increasing until solved.

Dont you agree that the US would have saved a lot of international trouble this way? One outcry, and then it would have been over.

[PacRimJim]

It's a good thing Germans haven't found out about the 14,000+ Muslim terrorists the U.S. holds in underground cells on its bases in Germany. Perhaps I've said too much.

[leucanthemum]

Dave, I'd rather the marines had just shot them on sight as spies, instead of bringing them halfway around the world. If the US had attempted to try these scum, the warm fuzzy brigades would be out in full swing against it, saying that "prisoners of war can't be put on trial, according to the Geneva Convention." That one outcry would have been a HUGE one. IMO, Gitmo is the least problematic answer to the "detainee dilemma".

No matter what is done with these murderous scum, it won't be right.

PacRimJim-

Hush, now, or you'll spoil all our fun down here.

[Dan Kauffman]

Oh shoot throw The Geneva Conventions in the trash can and recognise them as

Legal Combatnats, which they aren't

Taken in arms they can be detained, no trials are needed until

The War is OVER

[George M]

Today's lesson in Spiegel-speak.

Check out this article on Gitmo: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,424216,00.html

The headline reads: USA werden Gefangene nicht los. (the U.S. will not let the prisoners [Gitmo] go).

Then buried towards the end of the article, our friends the Uhgars:

Uiguren nach Albanien (Uhgars are going to Albania)

Auch wegen der Uiguren fragte Washington in Berlin nach. Weil in Bayern bereits eine Gruppe von Exil-Uiguren lebt, hatte man im Süden Deutschlands den geeigneten Platz für die Resozialisierung ihrer Landsmänner ausgemacht. Doch die Bundesregierung sträubte sich: Man wollte es sich nicht mit Peking verderben.

(The U.S. asked Berlin to take in the Uhgars. There is already an exile community of Uhgars in Bavaria and Germany has an a community where these people can be resocialized with their fellow countrymen. However, Berlin does not want to take these people in because they do not want to ruin their good relationship with Peking.)

It is one thing to rant and rave about human rights and Gitmo. But when a country can not put their money where there mouth is in order to take in refugees because they do not want to ruin good trade relations with a future trading partner, China....that is disgusting! (The U.S. is still Germany's largest trading partner outside of Europe and 2nd largest trading partner overall. Is future Chinese business worth risking present trade with the U.S?)

By the way....you guys living in Euroland missed a great made for TV movie: Broken Trail. Robert Duval and Thomas Hayden Church are two good cowboys, (uncle and nephew), who are driving horses from Oregon to Iowa. The horses are destined to support the British Empire in the Boer War. On the way they rescue 5 Chinese girls who have been sold to a mean, fat, ugly whorehouse Madame.

I wonder if our German friends can see the irony: Cowboys doing the right thing by rescuing foreign girls from prostitution. Too bad that these guys were not around for the World Cup to save the many hundreds of foreign girls imported into Germany, many against their will, to satisfy lecherous Fussball fans.

[othercoast]

Nah, that's actually correct for once:
"USA werden Gefangene nicht los." = The U.S. can't get rid of prisoners.

[flux]

Any thoughts here on the supreme court ruling about gitmo?

[Don Miguel]

Only a member of the military would be subject to a court martial -- not a terrorist (or gunman/militant as Reuters and AP like to say) captured on the battlefield. However, said terrorist is subject to being summarily executed according to the Geneva Convention.

[George M]

@ Dave, Flux and Don:

"A court martial, yes that seems to be the term. A military court quickly announced and quick at announcing death penalties :)
Those detainees are problems, and problems keep increasing until solved."

A court martial is not the best way to do justice for these scum. A court martial would imply that Anglo-Saxon burden of proof and Rules of Evidence would apply. It also would imply that the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution would apply.

Burden of Proof. In an Anglo-Saxon criminal law proceeding, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. These are committed Jihadists that are committed to killing all Christians, Jews, Americans and anybody else who is not a Muslim. These characters would be able to manipulate facts to infer reasonable doubt that they did not commit the crimes that they are accused of. Compare this burden of proof with "rational basis." If "rational basis" was used as a burden of proof, the government would only have to prove that it is more likely than not that these characters are guilty of the crimes that they committed.

Rules of Evidence: Any statement that was made out of court would be treated as hear say. If a prison guard was to overhear a Jihadist brag that he participated in torturing and killing women in Afghanistan, such a statement would not be admitted as evidence as proof. The same applies to documents. Any documents that support that these characters committed crimes would not be allowed into evidence unless Ossama Bin Laden wrote a certificate of authenticity.

4th U.S. Amendment: Any evidence seized when these characters were captured may be inadmissable unless there was a search warrant issued by a judge.

5th U.S. Amendment: Any confessions or admissions made under interrogation would be inadmissable unless the Jihadist had an attorney present.

6th U.S. Amendment: Any statements made to authorities during a formal interrogation would not be admitted into evidence, unless there was proof that an attorney was appointed and present during the interrogation.

8th U.S. Amendment: All Jihadists can use Abu-Grahb-like treatment as an argument for release.

Don’t you agree that the US would have saved a lot of international trouble this way? One outcry, and then it would have been over.

No, The international justice system has failed America. Case in point is the terrorist who was traded back to Lebanon for that dumb German woman in a Berka. He murdered an American...he should have stayed in prison for life.