PDA

View Full Version : A tale of two Amnesties...


Adept Havelock
06-15-2006, 07:25 PM
It appears that two amnesties are now being kicked around, one endorsed by members of the GOP, one endorsed by members of the Democratic party.

We're all familiar with the "amnesty" being discussed in the Senate version of the immigration reform bill, and many in the Senate GOP's strident opposition.

Today, another amnesty was discussed on capitol hill, one embraced by several Republicans.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Wednesday proposed a limited amnesty to help end the Sunni Arab insurgency as part of a national reconciliation plan that Maliki said would be released within days. The plan is likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops, a top adviser said....Reconciliation could include an amnesty for those "who weren't involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood," Maliki told reporters at a Baghdad news conference. "Also, it includes talks with the armed men who opposed the political process and now want to turn back to political activity."
-WaPo.

GOP Senators Ted Stevens, Saxby Chambliss, John Cornyn, Lamar Alexander and Mitch McConnell all spoke in support of this possible amnesty for terrorists and insurgents who have killed US soldiers.

To my surprise, Harry Reid and some Dems actually removed their cranium from their rectums long enough to offer a resolution "demanding an immediate retraction and reversal of the reported proposal that terrorists and insurgents who kill American soldiers in Iraq may be granted amnesty by the new Iraqi government."

This amnesty has not yet been formally proposed, but how do you feel about the Senators that have now spoke up in favor of "letting bygones be bygones" and supporting such an amnesty?

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 07:38 PM
Sometimes that's the only way to call a truce and move forward.
Not sayin' it's foolproof as the the guerilla warfare types are well....guerilla warfare types. Suppose they could also just refuse it though. They'd be wise to take it and move on for the good of all imo.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 07:45 PM
Also, Adept, you tell me...since you're more of an expert on WWII Germany, I read Nazi's swiped at our troops after that war too for a bit. I read that they were not going to be included in rebuilding the country....but that it turned out to be unwise as they had certain expertise needed to rebuild that country. Same is supposed to be true of the Sunni insurgency, as they had the administrative experience being Baathists. They must be felt to be needed, valued and included as such to help rebuild Iraq. No? Your take please....

Adept Havelock
06-15-2006, 07:46 PM
I might reluctantly agree if it was a general amnesty. While I dispise this war, I have a real problem with this. Withholding amnesty for those that killed Iraqi's, but those that "only" killed US soldiers get a free pass? I just can't support that. This idea needs to be slapped down.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 07:48 PM
Oh I see it does say "limited amnesty" so I'd have to agree with you on it being "general."

On the Iraqis being killed point, isn't that like a civil war though too?

Adept Havelock
06-15-2006, 07:55 PM
Also, Adept, you tell me...since you're more of an expert on WWII Germany, I read Nazi's swiped at our troops after that war too for a bit. I read that they were not going to be included in rebuilding the country....but that it turned out to be unwise as they had certain expertise needed to rebuild that country. Same is supposed to be true of the Sunni insurgency, as they had the administrative experience being Baathists. They must be felt to be needed, valued and included as such to help rebuild Iraq. No? Your take please....De-Baathification was as idiotic as De-Nazification. George Patton did get that right. However, that was mainly regarding regional and local political officials, not Wehrmacht or Waffen SS combat troops.

About the only German troops that tried anything after Von Donitz surrendered were a few members of the Waffen SS and the regular SS. While the intelligence services did amnesty a few of those SOB's to help with Intelligence work against the USSR, most got exactly what they deserved in accordance with the laws of military justice.

At this point, I think we have just as good a shot of building a stable state (slim, but possible, but certainly not the western-style democracy the neocons were dreaming of) with or without the Baathists. If we'd tried to include them in the early phases (60-90 days, as Patton did in S. Germany) things might have turned out differently. At this point, I don't see them being much of a positive factor even if invited in.

Like I said, if it were a general amnesty, it would stick in my craw, but I could accept it as Realpolitik. This BS of only amnesty for those that killed US troops and not Iraqis...I can't get behind it. Nor can I defend the jackasses that support it, after sending those same troops there in the first place. :shrug:

mlyonsd
06-15-2006, 08:00 PM
Also, Adept, you tell me...since you're more of an expert on WWII Germany, I read Nazi's swiped at our troops after that war too for a bit. I read that they were not going to be included in rebuilding the country....but that it turned out to be unwise as they had certain expertise needed to rebuild that country. Same is supposed to be true of the Sunni insurgency, as they had the administrative experience being Baathists. They must be felt to be needed, valued and included as such to help rebuild Iraq. No? Your take please....

The German post war insurgents were called Werwolf's, and operated up to two years after Germany surrendered.

When they were captured they were dealt with by the American occupying forces by giving them a military trial, and if their crimes were bad enough, lined up and shot by American military.

There were no where near the insurgents after WWII as compared to Iraq though. The German people for the most part didn't support them, largely because they were tired of war. That's what bombing whole cities does to a civilian population.

Adept Havelock
06-15-2006, 08:27 PM
The German post war insurgents were called Werwolf's, and operated up to two years after Germany surrendered.

When they were captured they were dealt with by the American occupying forces by giving them a military trial, and if their crimes were bad enough, lined up and shot by American military.

There were no where near the insurgents after WWII as compared to Iraq though. The German people for the most part didn't support them, largely because they were tired of war. That's what bombing whole cities does to a civilian population.

mlyonsd, I've been looking for material on the Werwolfs, but haven't found much over the years. Just the usual few lines in books about the SS here and there. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

BTW- What's your opinion on the senators that are favoring this limited amnesty? Personally, I think those congresscritters in particular should be kicked to the curb.

mlyonsd
06-15-2006, 09:01 PM
mlyonsd, I've been looking for material on the Werwolfs, but haven't found much over the years. Just the usual few lines in books about the SS here and there. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

BTW- What's your opinion on the senators that are favoring this limited amnesty? Personally, I think those congresscritters in particular should be kicked to the curb.

I consider myself a pretty serious WWII buff but ironically hadn't seen much on the Werwolves until about a month ago. I was flipping thru the channels and caught the tail end of a program on the History channel comparing them with today's Iraqi insurgents. I'm afraid I can't even remember the name of the show.

Sorry I can't be much help, the few minutes I watched were very interesting. The last known Zarqawi type Werewolf was captured in I think 1947, and tied to a pole and shot. Pretty gruesome film.

We're sending my 11 year old son on a trip this summer to England and France as part of an ambassadorship program. The lucky little puke gets to take a ferry from England and land on the beaches of Normandy, tour the gun emplacements, and take part in a wreath laying ceremony at the American cemetary. I can't believe he'll get to see that before me.

As to today's amnesty consideration, I'd have to hear arguments from both sides. McArthur made a brilliant move by letting Hirohito live after WWII so as to give the Japanese people something to look towards. I'd have to hear more arguments before making a decision.

My gut feeling is kill anyone that has killed Americans who were there to give them democracy. But I doubt it's as easy as that.

Adept Havelock
06-15-2006, 09:22 PM
I consider myself a pretty serious WWII buff but ironically hadn't seen much on the Werwolves until about a month ago. I was flipping thru the channels and caught the tail end of a program on the History channel comparing them with today's Iraqi insurgents. I'm afraid I can't even remember the name of the show.

Sorry I can't be much help, the few minutes I watched were very interesting. The last known Zarqawi type Werewolf was captured in I think 1947, and tied to a pole and shot. Pretty gruesome film.

We're sending my 11 year old son on a trip this summer to England and France as part of an ambassadorship program. The lucky little puke gets to take a ferry from England and land on the beaches of Normandy, tour the gun emplacements, and take part in a wreath laying ceremony at the American cemetary. I can't believe he'll get to see that before me.

As to today's amnesty consideration, I'd have to hear arguments from both sides. McArthur made a brilliant move by letting Hirohito live after WWII so as to give the Japanese people something to look towards. I'd have to hear more arguments before making a decision.

My gut feeling is kill anyone that has killed Americans who were there to give them democracy. But I doubt it's as easy as that.

Normandy? Lucky little guy. Color me quite jealous. I'll agree about the Hirohito move. McArthur had a lot of faults, but like William Manchester said, he really was our American Caeser, and was the only one who could have handled the Japanese Occupation. Inchon was also a masterstroke. Damn shame he lost his head after that and pulled that crap with Lemay when he forgot who his boss was.

I'll agree. I need to hear more, but defending that partial amnesty defended today really made my blood boil. Thanks to all here for letting me vent about it a bit.

Logical
06-15-2006, 09:38 PM
Since when do people fighting wars need amnesty, what is the point? Are they going to have to grant amnesty to the American soldiers as well?

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 09:40 PM
De-Baathification was as idiotic as De-Nazification. George Patton did get that right. However, that was mainly regarding regional and local political officials, not Wehrmacht or Waffen SS combat troops.

About the only German troops that tried anything after Von Donitz surrendered were a few members of the Waffen SS and the regular SS. While the intelligence services did amnesty a few of those SOB's to help with Intelligence work against the USSR, most got exactly what they deserved in accordance with the laws of military justice.

At this point, I think we have just as good a shot of building a stable state (slim, but possible, but certainly not the western-style democracy the neocons were dreaming of) with or without the Baathists. If we'd tried to include them in the early phases (60-90 days, as Patton did in S. Germany) things might have turned out differently. At this point, I don't see them being much of a positive factor even if invited in.

Like I said, if it were a general amnesty, it would stick in my craw, but I could accept it as Realpolitik. This BS of only amnesty for those that killed US troops and not Iraqis...I can't get behind it. Nor can I defend the jackasses that support it, after sending those same troops there in the first place. :shrug:


Sorry I didn't get back sooner...I had to take a long distance call from home. I at least knew it was not the higher up Nazi's who deserved what they got with their genocide and all. I also agree that this would have to be a general amnesty.

These people do not have hundreds of years behind them, like Germans or Europeans in western ideals so we'll see...but there has to be some change in operating basis or at least an attempt because things have to change there.

Logical
06-15-2006, 09:40 PM
mlyonsd

It is great your son gets to take part in that bit of history and historical ceremony. I am sure he will long remember the occasion.

mlyonsd
06-15-2006, 09:57 PM
Normandy? Lucky little guy. Color me quite jealous. I'll agree about the Hirohito move. McArthur had a lot of faults, but like William Manchester said, he really was our American Caeser, and was the only one who could have handled the Japanese Occupation. Inchon was also a masterstroke. Damn shame he lost his head after that and pulled that crap with Lemay when he forgot who his boss was.

I'll agree. I need to hear more, but defending that partial amnesty defended today really made my blood boil. Thanks to all here for letting me vent about it a bit.

Agreed. If you know of any good WWII novels, fiction or non let me know.

I just finished reading Flyboys....pretty gripping stuff. We thought Zarqawi was bad, the Japanese were known for beheading our fliers and then eating their liver.

mlyonsd
06-15-2006, 09:59 PM
mlyonsd

It is great your son gets to take part in that bit of history and historical ceremony. I am sure he will long remember the occasion.

Thanks man. Out of all the things I'd like to do in life, landing on the Normandy beach and touring the area would rank right up there. Funny what you do for your kids.

Radar Chief
06-16-2006, 07:15 AM
I might reluctantly agree if it was a general amnesty. While I dispise this war, I have a real problem with this. Withholding amnesty for those that killed Iraqi's, but those that "only" killed US soldiers get a free pass? I just can't support that. This idea needs to be slapped down.

I can understand the logic, but that doesn’t mean I’d support it.
One thing comes to mind though, remember Sammy “the Bull” Gravano?
He’s the mafia enforcer that turned on John Gotti and got amnesty, a new identity/life, in return.
He was arrested on drug trafficking charges later and IIRC lost his amnesty and was charged with the murders he’d committed.
My point is that the insurgents that are actual hardened criminals, terrorists, will commit crime again and, hopefully, pay the price for it. The one’s that are only fight’n the “invading infidels” and only want peace for their families will settle back into a peaceful life.
Sure, I’m over generalize’n and this still isn’t a justification for amnesty IMO. It’s just a thought.

banyon
06-16-2006, 09:36 AM
What a terrible idea. Way to go Congress. :shake:

go bowe
06-16-2006, 12:17 PM
the experience in south africa, after the horrors of aparthied, seems to suggest that a formal process of forgiveness and reconcilliation can bring violence to an end...

peace and prosperity have followed in south africa...

some degree of amnesty, up to and possibly including general amnesty, will be necessary to bring the armed groups into the political process to resolve the insurgency politically and not militarily..

patteeu
06-16-2006, 01:24 PM
I don't have a problem with the idea. It seems like there might be some implementation problems and if it's offered I don't think it can be an ongoing thing where it becomes open season on American GI's, but I don't see why it has to be a general amnesty or nothing at all either.

Adept Havelock
06-16-2006, 04:51 PM
Agreed. If you know of any good WWII novels, fiction or non let me know.

I just finished reading Flyboys....pretty gripping stuff. We thought Zarqawi was bad, the Japanese were known for beheading our fliers and then eating their liver.Loved Flyboys, and most WW2 histories. True about the Japanese. I'll never forget the first time I heard about Bataan, or Wake Island. The parts of Boyington's biography about his time as a POW are also pretty interesting. (always loved that book, Baa Baa Black Sheep, 1) For my autographed copy, and 2)his moral at the end: "Show me a hero, and I'll prove he's a bum.")

As for fiction, I recently re-read a couple of WW2 "what-if's" I really enjoyed.

Fox on the Rhine and Fox at the Front by by Douglas Niles and Michael Dobson

Basically, The Stauffenburg Plot succeeds, but Himmler grabs the reins of the state, and establishes a very uneasy partnership with the Wehrmacht. Without giving too much away, Rommel finds himself in a very interesting and delicate position. Well written military fiction, a fun romp, some incredible twists, and the greatest partnership that never was.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812574664/qid=1150497925/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/102-3803437-7830510?v=glance&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0765343991/sr=8-1/qid=1150497681/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-3803437-7830510?%5Fencoding=UTF8

I also really enjoyed "A Damn Fine War" by Bill Yenne. Stalin decides to make a grab for all of Europe in the early summer of 1945. Eisenhower dies in an accident as the clouds of WW 2.5 (or 3) gather. Patton Vs. Zhukov. I think that says it all. :D A great beer-and-pretzels what-if.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0425184501/sr=8-1/qid=1150498040/ref=sr_1_1/102-3803437-7830510?%5Fencoding=UTF8

I recently ran across another work I really enjoyed. It's been around for years, but I'd never read it. "Death is Lighter than a Feather" by David Westheimer. It's written in a style similar to Cornelius Ryan's classic histories (Longest Day, Bridge too Far, Last Battle), but follows the invasion of Kyushu in November 1945, after the Manhattan project failed to deliver results in time. A really well told story, and very well researched. Easily the best of the four, IMNSHO.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0929398904/qid=1150498113/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-3803437-7830510?s=books&v=glance&n=283155