War court filing comparing Seminoles to al Qaeda stirs protest

War court filing comparing Seminoles to al Qaeda stirs protest

www.miamiherald.com

Seminoles in 1818 similar to al Qaeda in 2001? Some Pentagon prosecutors appeared to make this analogy to support a Guantánamo war crimes conviction, then clarified in a war court filing.
By CAROL ROSENBERG
[email protected]
Pentagon prosecutors touched off a protest — and issued an apology this week — for likening the Seminole Indians in Spanish Florida to al Qaeda in documents defending Guantánamo’s military commissions.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The logic of our runaway warmongering government truly never ceases to amaze me.

In a highly controversial statement that has the politically well connected and financed Florida Seminole Tribe up in arms Pentagon Prosecutors argued that Al-Qaeda operatives are similar to the Seminole Indians who were similarly prosecuted by Military Tribunals after being captured in Spanish Florida for conducting ‘unconventional warfare’ on the early United States.

Of course the Seminoles had been chased into Spanish Florida by early Americans conducting what was to them unconventional warfare but never mind there.

The real hypocrisy comes into play as the United States Government seeks to itself conduct ‘unconventional warfare’ by designating belligerents rebelling against the invasion of nations like Afghanistan as enemy combatants and defining them as detainees stripping any and all rights under the Laws of War and Geneva Conventions.

Automated remote control drone attacks on Pakistani civilians a nation we haven’t even declared war against but have killed thousands of Pakistanis in Pakistan using remote control aircraft comes to mind to as being ‘unconventional warfare’.

I don’t think I have ever seen such an egregious case of the pot calling the Kettle black.

Needless to say the Seminole tribe is up in arms, and highly offended by the statements in what could have a spill over effect to other Indian Tribes throughout the United States.

I really do wonder how a nation of such overall bright and intelligent people ended up with a government as stupid as ours is.


www.miamiherald.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


The hypocrisy and double standards of the wealthy and powerful never cease to amaze me.

Invading a country, slaughtering the native people there and claiming their land and resources isnt terrorism.

Oh no. DEFENDING yourself and your nation and its people against invaders taking your land and resources and slaughtering your people, now THATS terrorism.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


The amazing thing here is I am not an American Indian but I find myself highly offended by the correlation that Defense Department Lawyers not only made in comparing the Seminoles trying to battle for some spot to live in their own land, but the absurd notion if you have don’t have Cruise Missiles and Aircraft Carriers, and Drones and pretty Uniforms you have no right to fight to defend your land or way of life.

It’s about the most egregious insult to freedom loving people of any culture or land.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


You dont need to be a native American. It IS offensive, no matter what ethnicity you are, because it happens all over the world. Its the same in any nation. Ireland for example.

I dont know what amazes me more, the gall of people to have such a double standard, "Well I will just come in, kill a bunch of you and take your stuff, but then I am going to make a rule (law) saying you cant do it back."

Or the plain simpleminded foolishness of the people who agree to that rule set. We the worlds little people, in other words. The system only works because the majority of those of us getting screwed agree to it.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


As much as I am disgusted by our government's behavior (I seem to perpetually be caught in this state of being)...

I am also impressed, but more-so in a childlike manner, at the brass set of cajones that the prosecutors must possess in trying to make this ridiculous argument.
They seem to really want to make this "War on Terror"[size=0]tm out to be the exact same situation as had existed in the civil war.

The Bush Admin. used this same argument when suspending the writ of habeas corpus several years ago.
"It has historical precedent"

That Gonzales guy would repeat those words over and over, like a kid learning to speak.

And to think about what we were actually doing to the natives.... who tried to befriend us as we slowly decimated their population with alcohol, disease, and purposeful genocide...
Truly a face/palm moment.

It is almost like WE are the terrorists.

reply to post by Josephus23


As you and I both know as do many others here on ATS the Law is all about Precedents and this is in fact what they were trying to do.

Yet Hitler set a precedent too when it came to interning people and conscrpipting them to labor, and exterminating those unwanted by the state.

Should we make that legal too?

At some point looking for better solutions in the present rather than looking for awful ones from the past might be a stellar idea.

The Florida Indian Tribes actually stepped up pretty big to help the State in it's budget crisis during the economic downturn.

This is what they get as a reward?

The Fed prosecutors certainly did reach far down for this one!

You would think they could have found something more recent!

The whole deal with Jackson and the Indians is a sordid tale to say the least.

An article linked below has a pretty good snalshot of what happened back then.


www.pbs.org...


It seems the Cherokee were the ones that acually "went to court" and DID get a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to exist as a soverign nation!!! But THAT court ruling was IGNORED!

The Cherokee used legal means in their attempt to safeguard their rights. They sought protection from land-hungry white settlers, who continually harassed them by stealing their livestock, burning their towns, and sqatting on their land. In 1827 the Cherokee adopted a written constitution declaring themselves to be a sovereign nation. They based this on United States policy; in former treaties, Indian nations had been declared sovereign so they would be legally capable of ceding their lands. Now the Cherokee hoped to use this status to their advantage. The state of Georgia, however, did not recognize their sovereign status, but saw them as tenants living on state land. The Cherokee took their case to the Supreme Court, which ruled against them.

The Cherokee went to the Supreme Court again in 1831. This time they based their appeal on an 1830 Georgia law which prohibited whites from living on Indian territory after March 31, 1831, without a license from the state. The state legislature had written this law to justify removing white missionaries who were helping the Indians resist removal. The court this time decided in favor of the Cherokee. It stated that the Cherokee had the right to self-government, and declared Georgia's extension of state law over them to be unconstitutional. The state of Georgia refused to abide by the Court decision, however, and President Jackson refused to enforce the law.

I wonder if anybody has ever brought that up?


and is anyone seeing a similar pattern by the Govt in modern times with the Middle East and North Africa --- trying to "relocate" certain groups ???

Here is an interesting story about "executions" by the U.S. Military.

The number of soldiers choosing to fight for Mexico was nearly double that of any war the United States has ever fought. Considered heroes and citizens of Mexico by the Mexican Government but deserters by the United States.
On Sept. 13, 1847, the last of Riley's men were executed after standing for hours at the gallows, nooses around their necks, on a hill where they could see Mexican and U.S. troops battling at the Castle of Chapultepec.

When the U.S. flag was raised over the castle, they were hanged. Riley was not executed. Instead, he was flogged, branded on both cheeks with the letter "D" for deserter and forced to dig the graves of his men, Stevens said. He remained in Mexico until his death in 1850. In all, 50 men in the battalion were hanged during the war.

For the next 150 years, the records of their courts-martial were kept at the U.S. War Department, away from public view. Even to this very day obtaining information regarding the Irish and Catholic Immigrants who fought for Mexico is not well know or readily obtainable.

The US government was victorious over the Mexican people in its US aggression from 1846-1848. History belongs to the victors and thus several important facts regarding Irish-American history has and continues to be well hidden from the American public. One important historic fact is the account of the Saint Patrick Battalion during the Mexican - American War.

The history of the these brave Irish men who fought with Mexico for their independence and freedom is well known in Mexico. For the last 153+ years many articles have been written in Mexican historical magazines. Articles have also been written by British and US authors. Depending on their political and religious views each depicts the Irish of the Saint Patrick Battalion in a different light.

Authors who tend to be anti-Irish and anti- Catholic and prejudiced against the Irish Nationalists of Ireland often portray the Heroes of Mexico as deserters or drunks. Bigoted thinking still remains to this very day in Northern Ireland and mush still exists in America. History will confirm that the Irish were in fact Irish Mexican patriots and heroes, citizens and defenders of Mexico.

Irish immigrants originally joined the US army to obtain citizenship while fleeing from the cruelty and terrorism of the British Government especially against Catholics, only to witness similar cruelties against the innocent people of Mexico. "There comes a time for every man and Nation to choose for the good or evil side, that is when brave man takes a stand and the coward stands aside".

www.noraid.com...


any similarities to today's situations ?

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


It is also arguable that the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a use of unconventional warfare:

The general objective of unconventional warfare is to instill a belief that peace and security are not possible without compromise or concession. Specific objectives include inducement of war weariness, curtailment of civilian standards of living and civil liberties associated with greater security demands, economic hardship linked to the costs of war; hopelessness to defend against assaults, fear, depression, and disintegration of morale.

The whole purpose of dropping the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to instill a belief that peace and security were not possible without compromise and concessions by the Japanese government, as well as inducing war weariness, curtailment of civilian standards of living and of course - and here I will use my own language rather than Wikipeida's language of indoctrination - unalienable and natural rights.

The whole notion of a "conventional warfare" only illustrates the undeniable state of madness of which we live, and have lived. Von Clausewitz argues that war is the continuation of politics, but in truth it is simply just an escalation of insanity, and when insanity becomes the conventional political theater, politics is just a waste of time.

It was only a matter of time before the priest class lawyer set began their own Age of Inquisition and that age has finally arrived.

publicintelligence.net...


U.S. Army Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Training Manual November 2010

TC 18-01
■97 pages
■Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies and their contractors only
■Foreign Distribution Restriction
■November 2010

1-1. The intent of U.S. UW efforts is to exploit a hostile power’s political, military, economic, and psychological vulnerabilities by developing and sustaining resistance forces to accomplish U.S. strategic objectives. Historically, the military concept for the employment of UW was primarily in support of resistance movements during general-war scenarios. While this concept remains valid, the operational environment since the end of World War II has increasingly required U.S. forces to conduct UW in scenarios short of general war (limited war).

CIVIL AFFAIRS IN UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE

1-48. CA personnel augment the SF headquarters (HQ) by providing expertise in civil-military operations
(CMO). Although CMO plays a small role in resistance operations, planning CMO early in the campaign is
critical. CMO efforts can play a significant role in—

■Mitigating the suffering of the population during resistance operations through humanitarian assistance (HA) efforts. (Forces must conduct CMO and HA efforts in a manner that does not link the population to the resistance effort, thereby bringing the retaliation of adversary forces.)
■Planning mobilization of popular support to the UW campaign.
■Analyzing impacts of resistance on indigenous populations and institutions and centers of gravity through CA inputs to intelligence preparation of the operational environment (IPOE).
■Providing the supported commander with critical elements of civil information to improve situational awareness and understanding within the operational environment.
■Assisting in stabilization postconflict.
■Assisting in the demobilization and transition of former resistance forces postconflict.

sound familiar?