Saturday, January 24, 2009
If closing Gitmo is so hard, did we need it in the first place?
In the last week or so there have been a spate of stories about the difficulty of closing Gitmo. Recognizing that the Bush administration long ago dealt with the "easy" cases (having released more than two dozen prisoners that took up arms against the United States all over again, and hundreds more to their home countries), what are we to do with the remaining group? They can be returned to their home countries, but only if they will not be "mistreated." Well, most of these people come from countries that almost certain will mistreat them. They can be prosecuted as criminals, but in most cases there is not sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Why not? Because the United States Marines do not go into combat with a CSI unit and are unschooled in the Federal Rules of Evidence. If not convicted (whether or not tried), they can be released into the general population of the United States. Not a big vote-getter, even on the Washington Mall on the morning of January 20. Finally, they can be detained indefinitely without trial, which is exactly the thing that supposedly enrages people about Gitmo.
It turns out that the desire to close Gitmo does not magically give rise to a better alternative than Gitmo. The authors of these stories, virtually all of whom are sympathetic with the Obama administration, inevitably leave their readers dangling. Matthew Waxman, at Foreign Policy's "The Argument" blog:
Any closure plan will entail risks and difficult trade-offs. The new administration should not hurry to adopt new detention schemes that lack the established features and protections of American criminal trials. But nor should it rule out legal tools that might durably protect both liberty and security within constitutional and international legal bounds. Either way, the thorny problems of detaining and interrogating terrorism suspects picked up in lawless regions or amid covert intelligence operations will persist long after the 250 remaining Guantánamo cases are resolved. Obama may close Guantánamo, but the complex legal and policy challenges that led to its creation are not going away anytime soon.
Waxman, who is a law professor, proposes no practical solution to the immediate problem of closing Gitmo and no prescription for the future. None of the articles do. Waxman chickens out because he is reluctant to say that Gitmo and the alleged secret prisons might have been the least-bad alternative. If, after all, there is no place to detain "suspects picked up in lawless regions or amid covert intelligence operations" we will put our soldiers and operatives into an impossible situation: Release the prisoner and bear the responsibility for everybody that terrorist subsequently murders, or execute the prisoner without any process (as many soldiers in less lawful times and places have done without much worrying about it). Compared to those alternatives, Gitmo is humane by comparison.
Here is another way of thinking about the problem: Gitmo and the other "war on terror" prisons relieved our soldiers from having to make the morally impossible choice between releasing prisoners who might well kill again or executing them. In so doing, we created the new merely difficult choice faced first by George W. Bush and now by Barack H. Obama.
Why are we so afraid to acknowledge that, in general, these prisons were less bad than the alternatives? One reason is that to do so would be to concede that one of the least popular decisions of the Bush administration was, on reflection, correct. Another is that it exposes a massive defect in contemporary international law, which "progressives" of a certain bent have elevated to totemic significance. Either way, critics of Gitmo and the other secret prisons need to explain exactly what they would have done differently and how they would handle such prisoners in the future. Anything less is just more partisan bashing of Bush and his foreign policy.
39 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Jan 24, 12:17:00 PM:
By , at
Sat Jan 24, 12:50:00 PM:
Hey what about The King's cold blooded massacre in Pakistan via Hellfire missiles. Shouldn't those Freedom Fighters be captured, read their rights and undergo a trial on US soil first? So that treatment is better than waterboarding and or staying at Country Club Gitmo?
Impeach the war criminal Obama and prosecute the entire administration for these war crimes!!What kind of world view do such barbaric actions create?
By , at
Sat Jan 24, 01:17:00 PM:
Either way, critics of Gitmo and the other secret prisons need to explain exactly what they would have done differently and how they would handle such prisoners in the future.
How about charging them with a crime when they were captured?
Heck, we paid a $5000 reward per detainees for the majority of the suspects handed over to US custody, we should have received something in exchange.
By , at
Sat Jan 24, 01:17:00 PM:
TH: Like the other Bush Bush policies that are deeply unpopular among liberals, the Gitmo issue was not just one of "secret prisons are bad," but one of how best to handle such cases without giving a few people the power to utterly flout the law. With wiretapping, it wasn't the spying itself, but the lack of some independent review (before or after) to mitigate abuse. It was, I think, commonly expected that the FISA courts would endorse most decisions, but the lack of such review freaks people who aren't perpetually trusting out.
With Gitmo, the Obama administration seems to be leaning on courts martial, which (I don't think) are totally alien to the way such cases were handled. However, basically any plural, independent review actions ameliorate dangers of abuse of power, which is really what the entire thing is about.
Most of the ardent critics I know apply the Nixon test: "If an amoral bastard was in a prominent position of this program, would I still support it?" When an administration places huge weight on loyalty and secret programs, this "Nixon" klaxon starts screaming. Would it really make everyone so unhappy to have extraordinary acts require multiple people signing off on it?
By 
Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sat Jan 24, 01:49:00 PM:
However, basically any plural, independent review actions ameliorate dangers of abuse of power, which is really what the entire thing is about.
Well, not really.
The Military Commissions Act gives (well, gave) the detainees the right to appeal their detention to the DC Federal Appellate Court and also to the Supremes.
The critics - ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, NY Times - all demand full habeas rights and civilian trials.
They're the ones who've been pushing this.
By , at
Sat Jan 24, 02:05:00 PM:
In the Anglosphere we expect we will have a recidivism rate of 50-80% of those we release. Yet knowing that, we still release people because it's the law.
In general, I think the same attitude is going to have to be taken with the Gitmo prisoners. You know they are bad bastards and a high number will reoffend.. but they have to be released and society has to wear the consequences.
However, I find it interesting that (to my knowledge) no respectable group has come forward to offer to take the prisoners after release and look after them and be responsible for them.
JC
By Escort81, at
Sat Jan 24, 02:46:00 PM:
I guess this is what is meant by the phrase "owning the problem." The Obama administration may end up roughly at the same place as the Bush administration, but with much better rhetoric.
Stories here and here, and/or just watch 24 for a fictional commentary on this thorny issue.
I don't know about you guys, but if I had been a passenger on Flight 93 on 09/11/01 and we had successfully taken back the plane somehow, I would have had no problem tuning up any of the remaining surviving hijackers to find out if they knew of any other hijacked planes or attacks. This is obviously the classic ticking time bomb scenario, which even a stalwart defender of civil rights such as Alan Dershowitz acknowledges calls for extreme measures, and the clock doesn't tick as loudly at Gitmo anymore, because the information is likely stale.
By , at
Sat Jan 24, 02:52:00 PM:
Forgive me ignorance. Why can't we hold them as prisoners of war? I've never be comfortable with the whole non-enemy combatant thing. What are the consequences of calling the prisoners NECs instead of POWs?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Jan 24, 02:52:00 PM:
The government should serve the people, not the reverse. The same is true of the law.
Create an internationally managed place of exile on a remote island for terrorists, pirates, and other enemies of humanity. It doesn't have to be a prison with bars.
The British sent Napoleon to Saint Helena.
After World War II four countries operated Spandau Prison.
By , at
Sat Jan 24, 03:02:00 PM:
Anon....I guess if they wore uniforms, insignia, etc. as called for by the Geneva Conventions, they would, in fact, be POWs. However, since they in no way conform to the laws governing warfare they are treated for what they are. Of course, all the lawyers are going to make life much riskier for these good fellows. They will now be shot rather than captured. We will not gain intelligence from them, but we also won't be concerned about them returning to the field of combat.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sat Jan 24, 03:23:00 PM:
Why can't we hold them as prisoners of war? I've never be comfortable with the whole non-enemy combatant thing. What are the consequences of calling the prisoners NECs instead of POWs?
We can. And have.
But this has not (mostly) been about the law and what we can do.
It's about what we should be doing.
For many on the left (ACLU/Center for Constitutional Rights), we must give them full habeas rights and civilian trials. Anything less is either a gross violation of the Constitution (it isn't) or immoral and cruel (maybe).
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sat Jan 24, 03:27:00 PM:
We can. And have.
No, that's obviously wrong.
They haven't been determined to be prisoners of war. They're called enemy combatants.
But I do believe that we have the legal right to detain them until the end of hostilities.
Whenever that is (which is part of the complaint).
By TigerHawk, at
Sat Jan 24, 03:43:00 PM:
How about charging them with a crime when they were captured?
Seriously? You have this point of view because you do not believe that police procedure requires extensive training, or because you believe that Marines have received it? There is no third explanation for your opinion.
By , at
Sat Jan 24, 04:41:00 PM:
On a small stage we know what happens when we play nice. Three of four navy SEALs died in Afghanistan when they knowingly released 3 goat herders that they pretty well knew would turn them in to the enemy. Now we just might find out how many Americans will die when at all levels of government we follow the rules of engagement we have encumbered the military with under the Army Field Manual.
Are the Army Field Manual rules proper for the military. On interrogations, where the CIA should be charged to do what is necessary likely so, but not as Lt. Col. Allen West believed and it cost him his career; he believed he had to take immediate action to prevent an ambush and did what he thought was necessary during an interrogation to save himself and his men. He succeeded but knowingly paid a heavy personal price. No easy answers are available.
The American ROE prohibits killing supposed terrorists if they are not confirmed to be armed as an American sniper team found out in Afghanistan. That does minimize the killing of innocents but certainly does not help American military morale or make our troops and those civilians they are to protect safer. My father just laughed when I asked him if during WWII they didn't kill the enemy unless they were confirmed to be armed.
I firmly believe that sniper teams and CIA operative should have a different mission than the grunts in the trenches of insurgency warfare. The sniper teams need to use whatever tactics necessary to kill the high value targets in their mission and the same for the CIA operatives with the interrogation methods needed to safeguard our country. That said, I have never understood how interrogation methods used to train our military can be considered improper and torture for use on terrorists.
By , at
Sat Jan 24, 04:47:00 PM:
They can be returned to their home countries, but only if they will not be "mistreated." Well, most of these people come from countries that almost certain will mistreat them.
Define "mistreat". Islamic countries are notorious for jihadists "escaping", almost certainly with the help of the guards, "prisoners" who get to come and go as they please, and outright commutations during Ramadan only a year or two after the trial, when the Western press will have stopped paying attention.
Whenever that is (which is part of the complaint).
Islam has been at war with the infidel for nearly 1400 years. When do you expect them to stop?
By , at
Sat Jan 24, 05:01:00 PM:
@randian:
We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jan 24, 07:18:00 PM:
Oh how tiresome.
If you would bother to crack open a history book, you might see that Randian is correct.
By , at
Sat Jan 24, 08:30:00 PM:
@ DF:
1. "At war with Islam" is as much of an abuse of language as "the war on drugs" and "the war on the middle class," ie hardly like military engagements at all. Further, not all Islam is the same, as in our relationship with the UAE.
2. The group we are at war with is composed of radical theocratic terrorists, which are about as similar to the couple of million muslims in the US as these people are to mainstream Christians.
3. Fine, let's take that terminology and run with it. Are we at war with criminals? Should all criminals be held until the cessation of hostilities to prevent recidivism? Perhaps we should just take them out back and shoot them as unlawful combatants unless they are wearing gang paraphenalia and are therefore bearing insignia.
4. The point of the quote is to emphasize how indefinite conflicts move resources and interest away from solving the problem. Maybe you should bother to open the book.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sat Jan 24, 08:51:00 PM:
which are about as similar to the couple of million muslims in the US as these people are to mainstream Christians.
Sorry, that's a reach.
I strongly disagree with those who view Islam as a monolith or near-monolith. But we've had enough survey and polls to show that the Islamists have a much higher "following" (for want of a better word) among "average" Muslims (world-wide) than the Phelps lunatics.
By , at
Sat Jan 24, 09:13:00 PM:
Fine, I will go with the KKK, Inquisitors, Crusaders, etc.
By , at
Sat Jan 24, 09:29:00 PM:
Fnord, the only difference between "moderate" Muslims and Osama bin Laden is how they want to achieve the worldwide Caliphate. Imagine Christianity if Jesus had been combined in the person of Ghenghis Khan, Caesar, and Caligula. That's Islam.
Mohammed conquered peoples, married and had sex with 9 year old girls, beheaded captives and raped their widows and daughters. This is in the Koran and his person is considered by Muslims as that of the "Perfect Man" and all admirable.
Moreover, Polygamy is the HEART of Islam, meaning most men have no wives and a few men have most of the women. This guarantees conflict, it's always about them, never about us. We are at war with Islam because Islam is at war with us. All Muslims, all the time. The methods may vary but that's the reality. This is what polygamy creates.
Obama OWNS every American death the released Jihadis create, and closing Gitmo = criminal justice system for the Jihadis = they all walk (no miranda warnings). Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who beheaded Daniel Pearl and planned 9/11 will WALK. Obama and Dems will OWN THAT.
It's like capturing Goering and letting him walk by trying him as a common criminal.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sat Jan 24, 09:30:00 PM:
Fine, I will go with the KKK, Inquisitors, Crusaders, etc.
Gee, I hope it's not that many (yuck).
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sat Jan 24, 09:40:00 PM:
the only difference between "moderate" Muslims and Osama bin Laden is how they want to achieve the worldwide Caliphate.
Islam is too internally divided and splintered to achieve that goal. There is no Islamic Pope to unify the religion (which is part of the problem today where we see these various leaders popup professing to know "true" Islam).
To be sure, that doesn't mean that Shi'a elements and Sunni elements don't occasionally work together for larger goals; but worldwide the schisms and divisions are far too great for them to somehow re-establish the Caliphate.
As we saw in Iraq, for example, the more moderate Sunnis turned against the radical AQ Sunnis and their extremist policies.
Try to think as Muslims as more than just two-dimensional cardboard figures.
By , at
Sat Jan 24, 11:33:00 PM:
First, let me take this opportunity to say (despite being left of center) I think this a terrific blog and admire its quality and prolific quantity. I agree with TH on many of the recurring views expressed here, though I am not often motivated to add positive comments to such posts. I am always astonished, however, with his take on the Gitmo issue, and the fact there are so many who agree with him. On this matter, it's truly like trying to understand beings from another planet and feel I am missing something essential about your basic backgrounds and philosophies.
What happens at Gitmo should have little bearing on the actions of soliders (or agents) in combat. If an American soldier or agent confronts a terrorist in the field, let him kill (or threaten) the combatant there. If he does not kill the combatant, there must be a reason: either he's not sure of the enemy's status, or he believes the combatant may yield further useful information. He can then be imprisoned temporarily by the military near the field of action for determining one of those two things, and his eventual release determined by a military court. It's not necessary to involve "reasonable doubt" and invoke American legal protections, so long as the initial incarceration is temporary (what is that, 6 months - a year, or two?). If the enemy combatant's status cannot be ascertained, there is no legal or strategic reason to keep him incarcerated. If there is a high degree of confidence the prisoner is important to the enemy and would be a threat if released, the military should be able to explain its reasoning to others as well as itself, and hold the prisoner until there is a cessation of hostilities, or a prisoner swap is made. Whether a prisoner yields useful information is almost beside the point. The problem arises when information gained through torture is the basis upon which the determination of potential threat is made, since such information is not reliable, for legal purposes, or militarily. The only argument that can be summoned is to say since there are likely to be a few unknown bad apples among the prison population, it makes sense to hold all of them regardless of their status. And since we're talking about a prison population of hundreds out of a potential population of millions that are interested in becoming terrorists, it seems a stupid argument. So I don't buy the notion it will be such a difficult undertaking, *once* torture is removed from our interrogation repertoire, though the existing couple hundred Gitmo inmates' cases are certainly problematic for that reason.
Secondly, for many of the prisoners released that have subsequently gone on to commit terrorism, it is not at all clear they would have done so were it not for being tortured at Guantanamo in the first place. Guantanamo is an ideal breeding ground for introducing and converting susceptible non-violent actors into religiously motivated terrorist actors. McCain became religious and more patriotic through his ordeal; it seems reasonable they should, too. They are being tortured and humiliated. How should we expect them to act after being released? Then, beyond that question, what rate of recidivism is reasonable to expect for any released prison population?
To explain my view, I would use the example of Bin Laden's driver, Hamdan. If we are engaged in a military war with terrorists, it would have been entirely justified in my opinion to have killed him on the spot. But he was not killed, probably in the interest of interrogating him, and it was also reasonable to let him go after learning he had only been a low-level driver. In your arguments, you continually equivocate wrongly the limiting circumstances of an American legal court with those existing on the battlefield. They are separate arenas.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Jan 25, 12:59:00 AM:
Liberals get worked up about Gitmo. Meanwhile, this story about Rikers appeared on page A-20 of Friday's New York Times:
"Guards reputedly sent inmates to intimidate, threaten and silence uncooperative prisoners with brute force. Inmates were ordered to turn over money, and their every move, including when they could use the bathroom, was controlled. If word of an assault got out, the guards would allegedly orchestrate a cover-up.
"In fact, prosecutors said, a unit for teenagers on Rikers Island was run much like an organized-crime family — and two correction officers were the bosses."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/nyregion/23bronx.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Did New York politicians know about this? What did they know? When did they know it? Why did the New York Times bury the story on page A-20?
Where are the protest signs about the abuse of Americans in American prisons? It's always Gitmo, Gitmo, Gitmo.
By Noumenon, at
Sun Jan 25, 06:05:00 AM:
Where are the protest signs about the abuse of Americans in American prisons? It's always Gitmo, Gitmo, Gitmo.
Personally the more stories I see like this, and the more no-knock raids I read about on Radley Balko's blog where they'll shoot your dog just for barking, the more I think the way the US behaved in Iraq is just the way we do things. The only difference is that Iraq's elites didn't have a big stake in legitimizing our system, and Iraq's common people didn't have the same slowly-boiling-frog experience that got us to this point.
On the main point, I wonder if Obama the constitutional lawyer would be interested in hashing out the legal issues that really make Guantanamo so confusing: the never-never land for people who are in a country who aren't civilians or military. They can't be prosecuted in courts, they can't be prisoners of war. The same issue applies to our contractors in Iraq, if they did anything the government of Iraq wanted to hold them indefinitely for.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Jan 25, 12:17:00 PM:
You're operating off of a false premise to begin with. He didn't that we were at war with Islam. He said that Islam has been at war with the infidel. Which is a FACT. Read the Quran. Read the Hadith. Read the statements of OBL and other jihad callers. Read the history of the Middle East. If you want to be lazy, just look up the terms 'Dar al-Islam' and 'Dar al-Harb.' Muslims really are called to kill and die for God in war against the infidels. There is an entire theological framework built around this idea, including how and when to obey treaties with the enemy, what to do with the spoils of war, (including women, if you care to know) and how to treat the conquered.
Did you think that the jihadis just made this stuff up as they went along? Do you think that jihad against unbelievers is a recent phenomenon? Why would they have such broad popular support? It goes all the way back to the 7th century wars of aggression against the Persians, Byzantines, Goths, Copts, and other victims of Islamic expansion.
Waging jihad is not some Islamic heresy or historical hiccup. It's how Islam ever became a powerful force in the world in the first place. They killed and conquered and forced people to convert. Not usually in the 'convert or die' scenario (though that did happen) but in a 'convert or you will be disarmed, pay special taxes, and be subjected to persecution by any Muslim who feels like fucking with you because your word is worthless in court' scenario.
The freaking barbary pirates used their religion as justification for raiding Christian ships and taking Christian slaves, and the other Muslims bought this because it was a legitimate reason! This wasn't in response to a Crusade or some other provocation; it was simply aggression. Islam has been at war with the infidel since the beginning of the religion and as long as purists remain alive and active, it will stay that way.
By , at
Sun Jan 25, 01:05:00 PM:
Squealer:
Secondly, for many of the prisoners released that have subsequently gone on to commit terrorism, it is not at all clear they would have done so were it not for being tortured at Guantanamo in the first place.
Torture? When they gain weight at Gitmo? When they have access to the Koran? Please define “torture.” Perhaps “torture” to you is simply being confined. Have you ever read about the Al Qaeda manuals that instruct adherents that if imprisoned by the American Infidels, to claim torture?
By Gary Rosen, at
Sun Jan 25, 03:46:00 PM:
"Fine, I will go with the KKK, Inquisitors, Crusaders, etc."
Two of them have been a dead issue for centuries, the other is now as marginalized as Phelps. Try again.
By , at
Sun Jan 25, 04:23:00 PM:
The group we are at war with is composed of radical theocratic terrorists, which are about as similar to the couple of million muslims in the US as these people are to mainstream Christians….."Fine, I will go with the KKK, Inquisitors, Crusaders, etc."…
…..Two of them have been a dead issue for centuries, the other is now as marginalized as Phelps. Try again.
When some try to equate “Christian fundamentalists” with “Islamic fundamentalists,” a problem that will arise, even if it is not acknowledged, is that the two groups are operating from very different premises. Islam from the beginning has combined church with state, so the theocracy that the Jihadists are seeking is wholly within the Islamic tradition. By contrast, from the beginning Christianity has separated church and state: “Render unto Caesar,” as my Christian fundamentalist grandmother informed me on more than one occasion. Given the 10 churches, 1000 inhabitants approach of small towns in the Bible Belt, it is apparent that even if there were some Christian churches intent on imposing theocracy, such fragmentation shows that it would never occur.
One amusing point about Fnord’s contrasting “radical theocratic terrorists” with the “couple million muslims in the US” is the existence of groups like CAIR in the US, or the taxi drivers who in Minneapolis who refused to transport passengers with dogs or unopened alcoholic beverages: soft versus hard jihad. Unfortunately Fnord, they’re here, too. Overall though, Fnord would appear to be correct that Muslims in the US appear to have assimilated better than they have in Europe, for example.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sun Jan 25, 05:12:00 PM:
from the beginning Christianity has separated church and state
Gosh, history doesn't show that.
At least the one I read.
Popes and monarchs and all that stuff. Crusades, inquisition, papal allegiances, et cetera.
Over time, we've come to separate the two (Hitchens' argues that the concept was the Founders' - especially Jefferson's - greatest achievement) but it hasn't always been done.
By , at
Sun Jan 25, 07:18:00 PM:
from the beginning Christianity has separated church and state
Gosh, history doesn't show that.
So you are informing me that from 30 AD on, Christianity, Christians considered the Roman emperor their spiritual authority, since there was no separation between church and state in Christianity.
And the Holy Roman Emperor was also the Pope, since there was no separation between church and state. Just like the Caliph.
Thank you for informing me.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sun Jan 25, 08:41:00 PM:
And the Holy Roman Emperor was also the Pope, since there was no separation between church and state.
Why did religious minorities flee their homes and come to America?
If the church and state were separate in their original countries, why were they suffering under state sanctioned religious persecution?
And why did the Founders, especially Jefferson, advocate for and create a church/state separation?
Why propose a doctrine that, according to your history, wasn't needed since there was already a separation between church and state since the beginning of Christianity?
For anyone to argue that "since the beginning of Christianity" that there has been a separation between church and state is flat out wrong.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sun Jan 25, 09:14:00 PM:
So you are informing me that from 30 AD on, Christianity, Christians considered the Roman emperor their spiritual authority, since there was no separation between church and state in Christianity.
The Roman emperors - until Constantine - were pagans and not Christian. Christians didn't consider them their spiritual leader since they weren't believers in the divinity of Christ.
You're not seriously arguing that during the entire history (or even most of it) of Christianity, that there has been a strict church/state separation over those years?
You have read about, for example, the Church of England? The English Civil War, Cromwell, Scotland and Catholics? All of that religious strife driven by the mixture of religion and state?
And, furthermore, are you claiming that Jesus's instruction to "render unto Caesar" was a guide to keep church and state separate?
By , at
Sun Jan 25, 11:20:00 PM:
What I wrote are consequences of the claim that from the beginning of Christianity there was NOT separation between church and state.
I did not make that claim: you did. I simply showed you some of the consequences of your claim.
After all, if there were no separation between church and state, Popes and Monarchs would be represented by the same person. This was the case only for the Papal States.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Mon Jan 26, 05:03:00 AM:
What I wrote are consequences of the claim that from the beginning of Christianity there was NOT separation between church and state.
You're not seriously continuing to claim that the reason early Christians didn't believe that the Roman Emperors were their spiritual leaders was because the early Christians believed in a separation of church and state?
There is no evidence of this whatsoever.
Again, the Emperors during the early period after Jesus's death were pagans and not Christians. Of course the Christians didn't believe they were their spiritual leaders, they weren't Christians!
if there were no separation between church and state, Popes and Monarchs would be represented by the same person.
Yes, later on there were splits between Monarchs and the Pope. The Church of England broke with the Pope in, what, the 14th century? 13th?
The fact that some Kings didn't follow the Pope didn't mean that they didn't impose their own religious beliefs upon their subjects. They were imposing a different set of Church doctrine on their people than that of Rome's.
And they did this because they didn't believe in church/state separation. They were one.
The doctrine of church/state separation emerged largely from the Enlightenment period of the 18th century. And the Founders placed the Establishment Clause in the Constitution to prevent the type of religious and sectarian strife that bedeviled Europe for much of the history of Christianity.
This is all, not to sound arrogant, widely accepted history. Frankly, I'm not clear as to what history of Christianity you're reading.
By , at
Mon Jan 26, 09:48:00 AM:
Apparently you do no like the consequences of your claim.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Mon Jan 26, 12:24:00 PM:
Apparently you do no like the consequences of your claim.
I'm fine with my claim because the historical record supports it.
For some bizarre reason, you think that the early Christians - who were, of course, persecuted by the Romans - didn't believe that the Emperors were their spiritual leaders because the Christians believed in a separation between church and state.
Good grief, they didn't worship the Emperors because the Emperors weren't Christians not because they believed that church and state shouldn't be mixed.
Hell, most of the early Christians were peasants and illiterates. The concept of church and state was beyond their understanding.
By Dave Cornutt, at
Wed Jan 28, 04:11:00 PM:
SMGalbraith: "Popes and monarchs and all that stuff. Crusades, inquisition, papal allegiances, et cetera"
Yes, and any Christian scholar today will freely tell you that most of those things happened because the medivial Church went way off-message. You can see that in the historial record: the anti-Popes, the Byzantine Church, and all of the factions. Heck, even people back then knew that the Church had gone bad; that's why the Protestant Reformation occurred.
By contrast, Islamic faciscm is not an aberration within the religion. Islamic radicals are not off-message; they are in fact carrying out the fundemental teachings of the Koran. Where Islam is concerned, it is Ataturk and the other 20th-century leaders who tried to Westernize Islam who were off-message. The jihadis are doing exactly what the fundemental tenants of Islam call for them to do.
