Platform Item 16: War and Peace
“Never was so much owed by so many to so few.” Winston Churchill
The Tea Party supports the American military and pledges its support to the military wherever they might be called to action. We believe in the principles of Ronald Reagan who strongly promoted the concept of peace through strength. We never wish to go to war but we believe the best way to prevent war is to always be prepared to fight a war.
The US Government must dedicate itself to the continued maintenance of a peacetime military that is able to immediately respond to any aggressive action taken by any adversary anyplace in the world. This means we must support the continued improvement of military technology, research in weapons programs, enhanced air superiority and a strong army and navy.
When at war, our military combatants will not be unreasonably second-guessed as to decisions on the battlefield. If we err in policy we shall err on the side of doing all we can to protect the lives of those so prepared to make that sacrifice. We wish to ensure our soldiers, airmen, marines, sailors and coast guardsmen are able to return safely to those who love them and depend upon them. We shall do all we can to protect civilian life but not to the extent that we place American lives in unreasonable jeopardy.
Rules of engagement shall be set by the military high command and they shall not place American servicemen at a disadvantage with regard to issues of life and death. No building and no shrine shall be regarded as a safe sanctuary for persons attempting to evade the US Military and it will be entirely up to the chain of command as to whether any sanctuary will be destroyed.
The Geneva Convention shall be regarded as the law of the land but it shall be interpreted as written. When fighting an enemy that is non-compliant with the Geneva Convention or who is not a signatory of the Geneva Convention that enemy shall be treated humanely but no unreasonable effort shall be made to apply the rules of war to such an enemy specifically with regard to treatment of prisoners and interrogation of captured battlefield combatants. Those believed to have committed war crimes shall be dealt with by military tribunal. Those who were simple soldiers caught on the battlefield shall be held until the cessation of hostilities unless at the discretion of a military tribunal it is believed they can be released at no risk of harm to our own military in the field.
Prisoners of war and all other battlefield combatants taken prisoner shall be treated in accordance with the rules of engagement as defined by the military and/or the Commander in Chief. Foreign conflicts and the prisoners thereof shall be regarded as outside the jurisdiction of the courts and all arguments to the contrary shall be dutifully ignored as having no status. No effort shall be required to respect the prisoners’ diet, their religion or other cultural beliefs. As prisoners they shall have no right to be fed better than our own military and there shall be no military necessity to learn their culture when developing the standards for their treatment.
Guantanamo shall remain open for the purpose of housing prisoners of war and illegal enemy combatants.
Argument
There should be no doubt who it is that has given us the freedoms we enjoy or the ability to carry on our day to day activities without fear? We live in a land relatively unscathed over the last century by armed conflict. We owe a great debt to the American military. We do no honor to that debt by placing our military in harm’s way and not making every effort to protect our military men and women.
We also must understand that war is an ugly business and we cannot let it be allowed that our servicemen and women feel anything but our full support as a nation. Strategically our military will always elect to protect civilians as they attack the enemy. But, when the enemy cowardly places themselves within a civilian population to protect themselves or when they hide behind civilians when they fire upon our military, we have no choice but to respond. At some point the civilian populations within a country that is at war must be accountable to take measures to protect themselves and others amongst themselves and to remove tyrants and terrorists from their ranks. At some point that country’s civilian population and their government must be willing to take the measures to prevent our enemy, if they are their enemy too, from establishing control of their country and control of their population.
Persons caught on the battlefield by our military or who come under our custody from allies who have captured them must be treated as prisoners of war. As enemy combatants they deserve treatment in accord with the Geneva Convention insofar as they subscribe to those articles of war and insofar as they are in conformity with those articles. Should they ignore the Geneva Convention in battle then they have no right to be protected at the time of their capture. Our military should treat them humanely but they shall be treated as prisoners, not hotel guests. They shall be subject to interrogation beyond what is allowed by the Geneva Convention and they shall be subjected to aggressive interrogation techniques when it is deemed necessary. This should be a decision by the senior officer in the combat area. The approval of the president should not be required. Everything possible must be done to protect our men and women in the field and this must include all reasonable and timely methods to gain current intelligence as to the location and plans of the enemy.
The Commander in Chief is the only civilian with authority over persons captured in a war zone and no other civilians and no American court have standing in these matters. Guantanamo is an excellent location for maintaining enemy prisoners and is far better situated than any other location given its proximity to the US and the security offered by a US Naval Base.
I will read time to time that
Reply to this
I agree with what you said here except this: " ...but no unreasonable effort shall be made to apply the rules of war to such an enemy specifically with regard to treatment of prisoners and interrogation of captured battlefield combatants.".
Clearly, we lose the moral high ground when taking such an approach.
The Geneva conventions were signed on to for many reasons. It does the US a huge disservice for anyone at any time to think that just because we are fighting a group that does NOT adhere to the conventions, that all of a sudden therefore the US (or any single soldier at any time) is able to throw out the very principles on which it signed the convention. That is ridiculous. Clearly war IS an UGLY BUSINESS. Through the Geneva conventions, we have agreed to make it our duty to make it LESS ugly, not more....
Don't you think that it would be better to say: "Even for such groups that would not sign on to the Geneva conventions, the US clearly has, and so, all reasonable efforts shall be made to apply the rules of war to such an enemy specifically with regard to treatment of prisoners and interrogation of captured battlefield combatants. "
To do otherwise would be to say we signed the agreement but we don't believe in it. So - do you believe in the Geneva conventions or do you not? If we took the position that we can throw out the conventions if others do, then literally we would be "justified" in drilling holes in peoples' heads in "interrogation". This does not make sense. Either you AGREE to something when you sign on to it, or you get out of the agreement!!!
Reply to this
I am not suggesting that we abandon our culture if a foreign enemy is not a party to the Geneva accords. But I am saying that the rules do not formally apply. Our agreement is with other foreign governments and dictate how we treat each other. This is no different than the obligation I have to your wife to love and cherish. I have no such obligation because she is not a part of my marriage contract.
With regard to treatment of prisoners I would never torture but I would waterboard. This tactic is clearly a successful means to obtain military intelligence and we are allowed to go beyond name, rank and serial number when the enemy is not a part of those accords. We lose absolutely nothing by doing this and we stand to gain information that could save American lives.
Yes, I believe in the Geneva Conventions just as I believe in any contract I sign. If you are not a part of it, I have no obligation to do more than act humanely.
Reply to this