Muslim Brotherhood seeks US downfall

I recently attended a private briefing by a former FBI counter-terrorism agent who retired early after being marginalized on the job because his concerns about radical Islam were deemed politically incorrect. We'll call him Don Doe. He now works for an outside group, advising leaders at the federal level and seeking to alert local law enforcement about domestic subversion. Doe's partner is a former expert on such issues for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was also fired from his position for being too insensitive. He had run afoul of a key DOD aide, Hasham Islam, who accused him of being a Christian zealot or "extremist with a pen," according to defense officials.

Doe's presentation to my group was based on years of intelligence work as well as strategic documents which they obtained during an FBI raid from a hidden sub-basement in the Washington-area home of a Muslim leader -- many excerpts of which he showed us. The latter became official court records in last year's Dallas terrorism trial. Much of Doe's information actually comes from published newspaper and TV stories, though these tend to be ignored by the dominant media and high officials. He argued six main conclusions:

(1) Islam in general is a much bigger threat than commonly accepted.

(2) Through its unchangeable holy book, the Koran, Islam mandates, in unqualified terms, active efforts to convert non-Islamic people or to subjugate them and gain submission to Allah.

(3) Religion and politics are so fundamentally tied together in Islam that Muslims cannot peacefully co-exist with other people under a different legal system.

(4) Consequently there are no "moderate" true Muslims.

(5) There is a very well organized movement in America to install Islam and Sharia law.

(6) The Muslims are winning the propaganda war and have positioned their leaders very well and gained tremendous positions and influence in our popular culture while distorting the public perception of their intent while our leadership grossly underestimates the threats.

Don Doe's major points in support of these conclusions were as follows:

The Koran and the Muslim "religion" is more than a religion, it is a complete way of life and the Koran dictates a legal, political, religious and social system that is completely intertwined. One cannot be a true Muslim without believing in Sharia law, and only Sharia. Separation of church and state is not possible in the Muslim world. Islam has had an essentially political character from its very foundation to the present day. An intimate association between religion and politics, between power and cult, marks a principal distinction between Islam and other religions. In traditional Islam and therefore also in resurgent fundamentalist Islam, God is the sole source of sovereignty. God is the head of the state. The state is God's state. The army is God's army. The treasury is God's treasury, and the enemy, of course, is God's enemy.

The clear, expressed, fundamental goal of Islam is world domination. "Jihad" only means "struggle" in propaganda to the West -- in the Koran, it clearly means "Holy War".

Despite propaganda and popular media and liberal advocacy, there are not many interpretations of the Koran -- it is taken by Muslims as Allah's direct words (like the Ten Commandments given directly by God -- word for word). It is quite clear that killing infidels is encouraged and being devious or deceptive in pursuit of Jihad is holy work. There are translations of the Koran devised for Western consumption that distort true provisions and make it appear much more peaceful. There are inconsistencies in the Koran but there is a clear method of interpretation called "abrogation" which means that the provisions which were set out later in time (as Mohammed made his way from Mecca to Medina) completely overrule prior passages. The peaceful passages all came earlier in time, the later, and controlling provisions, are very hostile. Many people who try to understand the Koran and Islam do not understand the timeline of its creation and the fact that the passages are sequenced by length of writing, not chronologically, so they can't easily decipher the controlling passages and see it as inconsistent and subject to many interpretations. There is one university in Egypt that is the recognized ultimate world wide authority on the Koran and Sharia law and it's interpretations and translations are not questioned by the 85% of the World's Muslims who are Sunni disciples.

Virtually every Muslim organization in the US traces its leadership to the Muslim Brotherhood which is working towards world domination (I know, this sounds like a wild "conspiracy theory" -- but the evidence and facts Doe laid out were compelling).

The Muslims are winning the propaganda war and imposing their standards on the West and we, in our spirit of tolerance, are falling right in line -- from trivial things like foot-baths in public places to allowing Muslims to wear full headdresses in banks and through airport security (in an essential disguise that would not be tolerated if worn by anyone else) to allowing Muslim combat training compounds in the US. The Danish cartoon controversy (over which people died) is another example as is the hysteria that accompanies anyone who defaces the Koran or a picture of Mohammed.

The Saudis contribute over $4 billion per year to Islamic expansion (for both violent terrorism and less violent training, indoctrination and insertion). This is four times what the USSR spent on similar efforts at the height of the Cold War.

These terrorist groups often describe their actions as Islamic jihad. Self-proclaimed sentences of punishment or death issued publicly as threats often come in the form of fatwas (Islamic legal judgments). Both Muslims and non-Muslims have been among the targets and victims, but threats against Muslims are often issued as takfir (a declaration that a person, group or institution that describes itself as Muslim has in fact left Islam and thus is a traitor). This is an implicit death threat as the punishment for apostasy (conversion away from Islam) is swift death under Sharia law.

Federal leadership is reluctant to act against these Islamic organizations due to political correctness concerns and the threats of lawsuits by CAIR and others. Doe said that Muslim groups will demand concessions on matters by saying, "You have to do this; you have to do this or I will be offended." The group CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which protests and sues every chance they get to enforce acceptance of Islamic laws and value (such as colleges forced to have separate swimming times for Islamic men and women so not to offend Muslims), is actually a front for the terror group Hamas.

"They're having great success of implementing Shariah law, I could give you a thousand examples," the former FBI agent said.

He also said to watch what is happening in Great Britain, where Islamic radicalism has taken root. He noted that a member of the Dutch Parliament was recently denied entry into the United Kingdom for fear that it would offend Muslims. "They denied him access while at the same time, Islamic law is being instituted on the streets of Great Britain."

In this country, Doe gave the example of Grover Norquist as a prominent conservative activist, married to a Palestinian woman, who has gotten many prominent Muslim leaders into close relationships with high ranking US officials, including Clinton and Bush.

"If you are looking to DHS, the FBI and Congress to solve this," the briefer said, "you're going to be woefully disappointed." FBI agents in the field "are working good cases," but the FBI leadership "is unwilling to do what the agents are asking them to do, which is to pony up and use some courage and start stepping on these people."

We were told of a terror group is called Jamaat ul-Fuqra, known here as Muslims of America, which is a front organization for Pakistani Islamic cleric Sheikh Mubarak Ali Shah Gilani.

Muslims of America has several training compounds, one is near Dover, Tennessee. They cite a Justice Department document from 2006 that exposed 35 compounds in the U.S., which the group alleges are used for terrorist training. The document was marked "Dissemination Restricted to Law Enforcement" and was not supposed to be released to the public.

There are claims that all copies of Sheik Muburak Gilani's terrorist training video, "Soldiers of Allah," had been confiscated and sealed except for one copy. In the documentary, Gilani is shown saying "We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America." The training video also shows men taught how to use AK-47s, rocket launchers, and machine guns, as well as how to kidnap and kill Americans, how to conduct sabotage and subversive operations, and instructions on the use mortars and explosives. They want to have Jamaat ul-Fuqra placed on the State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organization Watch List, which would shut down the camps.

Don Doe said that "cowardice" has prevented officials from taking action about the camps scattered across the country.

"We see at the local and state level, a lot of anger towards the federal government, and that anger is well placed."

"We can't ignore it, it's not going to go away," concluded the former FBI agent.

The author is a businessman and investor who studies national security issues. His pen name honors the Gallic leader who saved Europe from Muslim conquest 1300 years ago.

BHO sees no evil with 'enemy' semantics

In a dramatic break with longstanding U.S. government policy and established interpretations of the laws of war, the Obama administration announced Friday afternoon (a time when the government announces policy changes it hopes will be ignored or buried by the news media) that it will abandon the use of the term “enemy combatant” as a standard “for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.” (DOJ release) This latest flipflop on legal policy regarding Guantanamo detainees is inconsistent with Obama’s recent policy declaration on detainees held in other areas and established norms of international law – as noted in a previous post. More importantly, it leaves those detainees in legal limbo and opens up the status of all detainees for legal challenges on spurious grounds – a litigator’s wet dream, but a national security nightmare. Incoherent:

The Obama/Holder elimination of “enemy combatant” designation leaves detainees in legal limbo:

The Justice Department filing doesn't give the war prisoners a specific designation. They aren't described as POWs or enemy combatants or unprivileged belligerents, all categories of war prisoners under international law.

A Justice Department official said Friday that, for now, they are just considered ''detainees..”

According to accepted norms of international law, there can be no grey area in detainee status:

"There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[4] as stated in the commentary of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on the Geneva Conventions, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents.” Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958)

In the United States, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 codified the legal definition of the term “enemy combatant” and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. Holder’s Justice Department, in declaring that only the AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force, 18 September 2001) is the basis for detention authority, contravenes the intent of Congress and subsequently enacted legislation.

Inconsistent:

Elimination of the “enemy combatants” designation for detainees at Guantanamo directly contradicts the continued use – in fact, reinforcement – of the term with regard to detainees held in venues other than Guantanamo (cf recent Obama policy declaration re: Bagram detainees).

We move the most dangerous prisoners – those with the most involvement in terrorist plots, the most presumed intelligence value, the most hard-core members of terrorist organizations - to Guantanamo. Suddenly, they’re no longer “enemy combatants” due to a change in venue? This defies all logic.

Dangerous:

This latest policy shift unnecessarily narrows the scope of authority for detention of terrorists AND the scope of activity subjecting individuals to capture and detention. Strictly speaking, the policy limits detention to those directly connected to the 9/11 attacks, or members of “Taliban or al Qaida forces or associated forces.” What about other terrorist activity, either concurrent or subsequent to 9/11? What about terrorists not belonging to the Taliban, al Qaida, or other “associated forces”? Analogies come to mind about lacking authority to combat and capture Japanese soldiers because they didn’t take part in the Pearl Harbor raid (to say nothing of German, Italian, or other Axis forces). Defense attorneys are no doubt salivating at the prospect of suing to free poor “Achmed” because he’s not a card-carrying member of al Qaida (never mind the fact that he blew up dozens of innocents) – however, those of us in the actual profession of Defense (of this country) are left betrayed by the knowledge that the bad guys we captured and sent to Guantanamo might get released on a technicality.

Yep, that’s “consistent with national security” all right.

Geert Wilders marginalized at CPAC

Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian who faces trial for criticizing Islam and was banned from Britain, was at least allowed into the US for a speech in Washington last month. But the stepchild treatment he received at the Conservative Political Action Conference, and the shrill counter-propaganda distributed that day by Muslim groups, dramatize the creeping cowardice that may eventually leave America as intimidated as Europe and the UK in the face of soft jihad. Mr. Wilders was hosted separately from CPAC by David Horowitz and a few other outside sponsors. He spoke at 6PM on Saturday, Feb. 28, in the Blue Room at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, on the far opposite side of the hotel from the rest of the conference . I suspect that the American Conservative Union, conference host and supposedly the bastion of liberty, was fearful of “offending” the Muslims present.

We lined up for the talk. The doors were closed and two policemen were standing with metal detector wands.

While we were waiting, a pamphlet was distributed to those of us waiting in line. I have included a scan of it below at the following link, with a couple of photos from the occasion.

Let me address the accusations in that pamphlet: The first point blames the Dutch government for

o “redlining Muslim populations into poverty” o “Muslims held hostage to living in Ghettos o “children receiving little educational resources” o “making 43% less wage.

But let us see what Ayaan Hersi Ali says about this:

“I was beginning to see that Muslims in Holland were being allowed to form their own pillar in Dutch society, with their own schools and their own way of life, just like the Catholics or Jews. They were being left politely alone to live in their own world. The idea was that immigrants needed self-respect, which would come from a strong sense of membership in a community. They should be permitted to set up Quranic schools on Dutch soil. There should be government subsidies for Muslim community groups. To force Muslims to adapt to Dutch values was thought to conflict with those values; people ought to be free to believe and behave as they wish.” ( “Infidel”, Ayaan Hersi Ali, Free Press, New York, NY 10020 page 245)

Thus, the “redlining” was the Muslims choosing on their own to live in their own communities. The schools the Muslims set up themselves were Quranic. Memorizing Suras of the Qur’an and learning Jihad aren’t exactly subjects that lead to gainful employment. Yet they blame the Dutch for no earning power!

The second point in that 2/28 leaflet blames the Dutch for:

o not integrating Muslim youth into their society o For leaving the youth to become gang members o For the their violence o For their unemployment

But what does Ayaan Hersi Ali say about this:

“Children weren’t encouraged to ask questions, and their creativity was not stimulated. They were taught to keep their distance from unbelievers and to obey” (Ibid, page 246).

The leaflet's next point makes the following accusations:

o Mr. Wilders’ translations of the Qur’an are wrong because he doesn’t speak Arabic o That they are “taken out of context”.

Islamic doctrine holds that the Qur’an is Universal. Therefore, are the Muslims for America saying it can only be read in Arabic? Only a small portion of the world’s Muslims read and write Arabic. The Qur’an is translated effectively into many languages.

As for the Quranic quotes in “Fitna” being out of context, Robert Spencer had a Qur’an Commentary at the meeting!. He looked up the passage referring to “strike the unbeliever in the neck”. The context was “usually causing death”.

The Muslims for America went on to assert they were “moderate” and challenged Mr. Wilders to a debate.

But they are saying the same things that CAIR and the rest of the Muslim Brotherhood front organization say: that the Muslims are “victims” and are taking no responsibility for their situation, blaming everyone in sight except themselves.. In my opinion, this sounds like the same deceptive “cultural Jihad” we see everywhere else. Nothing seems“moderate” here!

Debating Muslims is a non-starter. Their concept of “Taqiyya” permits deceit if it furthers the cause of Islam. (Source: Sahih Muslim, Book 032 Number 6303)

The conclusion is stark: it seems we had Dhimmis (defined as a non-Muslim semi-slave that has submitted to Islam: who is ignorant of Islam and afraid of “offending” Muslims) running CPAC 2009. Except for William Bennett noting that the assault of Islam on our Civilization has to be faced and discussed, not a single speaker or panel even mentioned the most serious issue we face in the world today.

My suspicion is that the smiling and hand shaking “Muslims for America” could be infiltrating Jihadists who do not have our long term interest at heart. Are they tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and funded by the Saudis like the rest?

Islam divides the world into two halves: the “Dar Al Islam”, and the “Dar Al Harb”. Pius Muslims would NEVER ally themselves with the “Kaffirs” to strengthen a “Kaffir” government devised by unbelievers. Their sacred obligation is to impose on all humanity The Shari’a, which comes straight from Allah himself.

Still no jihadists to our prisons, Bill

Colorado Media Matters can’t get the facts straight on the Guantanamo detainees. That must be why they go off on tangents from the key topic of discussion: namely, Governor Ritter’s proposal to bring the Guantanamo Bay detainees to Colorado’s SuperMax penitentiary in clear violation of the laws of war (Geneva Conventions III, Article 22, as referenced in my earlier post). Now we have Bill Menezes' 2/9 commentary on Colorado Media Matters (hereafter CMM) about my 2/8 conversation on Backbone Radio with John Andrews; on air I'm Matt Stark. This thing is so full of errors, misstatements, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods that it’s hard to know where to begin; but I’ll attempt to tackle them in the order presented.

In the summary statement and again in the article’s second paragraph, CMM attempts to characterize the fact that "the vast majority of the people detained" at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, do not "meet the qualifications to get the status and rights of a prisoner of war" as an “unsourced claim” or that I “did not specify my criteria” for this assertion. That characterization is false; I repeatedly referenced the Geneva Conventions as the source. Since the talk radio format does not lend itself to footnotes, here is the specific section and definition of qualifications necessary to gain the rights and status, under the Geneva Conventions, of a prisoner of war:

Article 4 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews [of civil ships and aircraft], who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Note the key provisions of “carrying arms openly” and “conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war” – conditions which the detainees at Guantanamo failed to meet, leading to their characterization under international law as “unlawful combatants” and therefore NOT qualifying for the full status and rights of “prisoners of war” under the Geneva Conventions. The term “unlawful combatant”, although not spelled out in Article 4, has been in use for over a century in legal literature, military manuals, and case law:

An unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts but does not qualify for POW status under GCIII Articles 4 and 5.

The rights and status of “unlawful combatants” has been somewhat of a legal grey area; opinion (and international legal precedent) varies from summary execution as spies and saboteurs (ex parte Quirin or more recently the 1976 Luanda trials) to treatment as EPWs under the Geneva Conventions.

The Bush Administration attempted to navigate a fine line between the extremes, refusing to concede the detainees legal status as prisoners of war but directing that they be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, beginning with the 13 November 2001 presidential order on Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism which allowed "individuals ... to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals." The order also specifies that the detainees are to be treated humanely, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, while rejecting their status as prisoners of war.

Note that this policy (which pre-dates the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision by almost 5 years) is in accord with international law:

The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more states. Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war.[2] After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."[3]

By 29 March 2005, all detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base had received hearings before Combatant Status Review Tribunals. The hearings resulted in the release of 38 detainees, and confirmed the enemy combatant status of 520 detainees [39]. These remaining detainees are subject to continued imprisonment (“for the duration of hostilities”) and, where violations of the laws and customs of war have been asserted, a “fair and regular trial” before military commissions.

CMM launches into a long tangent about the process by which detainees may (or may not) be tried for criminal acts by military commissions. They cite the 2006 Hamdan case which, as Menezes correctly points out (hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day) overturned the administration’s process for trying detainees by military commissions, as it existed at the time. What he conveniently fails to inform the reader, however, is that the ruling was narrowly based on the issue of executive authority – “the commissions were unauthorized by federal statute” - and threw the matter to the legislative branch to establish military commissions by statute – which Congress did, in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.3930:

The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006[1], also known as HR-6166, was an Act of Congress[2] signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,[3] the Act's stated purpose was "To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes."[4]

Hamdan’s ruling that the Bush Administration military commissions violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was also narrowly predicated on the process by which military commissions were established, holding that executive order was not sufficient to establish a “regularly constituted court”:

The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even though no one is classified as a prisoner of war.

After Congress acted, the “technicalities” of the Hamdan decision “were resolved so that enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants may be tried under the Military Commissions Act of 2006.”

None of this – neither the Hamdan case, nor the Military Commissions Act, altered the basic underlying fact that the “unlawful combatants” detained at Gitmo are NOT, strictly speaking, qualified for the full status and rights of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions – as noted above.

Finally, after a long detour through tangential issues apparently designed to muddy the waters, CMM returns to the issue at hand. I give them credit for publishing the full text of what I said on the radio (allowing readers/listeners to draw their own conclusions), despite a few errors of transcription (that’s “in a block or en masse” not “a big block of Hamas”, for example).

Curiously enough, despite providing both the text and audio of the segment, Menezes STILL does not address the core issue at stake. Despite the theoretical existence of a limited exception to the general rule, as noted in my earlier post (here), the “internment of prisoners of war in [p.183] penitentiaries is in principle prohibited.” In the 60 years since adoption of the Geneva Conventions, it has (to my knowledge) NEVER occurred – certainly not in this country. Governor Ritter’s proposal, and Menezes defense of it, thus fly in the face of 6 decades of legal precedent and the norms of international law. How can Ritter (and Menezes) make the case that this is a good idea?

Summary of CMM’s claims vs. fact:

CLAIM: assertion that Gitmo detainees do not qualify as prisoners of war (POWs) under Geneva Conventions as “unsourced.”

FALSE. Geneva Conventions cited as source both on-air, and on posts.(Article 4 of GCIII)

CLAIM: “U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June 2006 found that the administration's military commissions created to try Guantánamo detainees violated the Geneva Conventions.”

Partially true, but misleading: Hamdan ruling narrowly stated that military commissions were unauthorized by statute; subsequently addressed by Congress with Military Commissions Act of 2006, codifying military commissions into U.S. law. Military commissions under the statute DO meet conditions prescribed by both U.S. and international law (incl. Geneva Conventions).

CLAIM: Hamdan 2006 “forced” the Bush Administration to provide humane treatment of captured combatants.

FALSE. Administration policy in existence since 2001 (Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism) specified humane treatment of detainees

CLAIM: The exception IS the rule. CMM states that since an exception to the “blanket prohibition” on interning prisoners in civilian penitentiaries exists, therefore all prisoners may be so treated, without regard to the particulars of their situation or “the interest of the prisoners themselves.”

FALSE. For the exception to apply, a case MUST be made that internment in a civilian penitentiary is in the interest of a specific prisoner in a particular case. The prohibition IS supposed to be a general one, as I pointed out in an earlier post:

“Internment of prisoners of war in [p.183] penitentiaries is in principle prohibited because of the painful psychological impressions which such places might create for prisoners of war.” http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebList?ReadForm&id=375&t=com

So to conclude: The fact remains that moving detainees from Guantanamo to a civilian penitentiary as a group (en masse; not “a block of Hamas”) is in violation of international law. Bill Ritter, scofflaw?

Intl. law frowns on Ritter-Gitmo plan

Slight problem with Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter's proposal to bring the Gitmo detainees to Colorado's SuperMax federal prison complex. It's not only a bad idea that should be opposed on policy grounds -- it would actually violate the Laws of War. References: Channel 7 "Could Gitmo Terror Suspects be coming to Colorado?" ... Denver Post "Ritter favors bringing detainees to Supermax"... Rocky "Lawmakers urge Ritter not to accept Gitmo prisoners."

Now, I was a bit rusty on my Laws of War instruction as the story broke, but when I heard about Ritter's proposal to bring captured enemy combatants to Colorado's civilian prisons, something didn't ring quite true - so I decided to do a bit of research. I didn't have to dig very far (heck, I'm not even a lawyer) to discover the following:

The Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War states specifically that combatant prisoners may NOT be held among the general (civilian) prison population. The language of the convention is quite clear: regarding where captured enemy combatants may be held, Article 22 of the conventions states clearly and unequivocally that "they shall not be interned in penitentiaries."

So, when do the impeachment proceedings and war crimes trials begin?