[Winstonm]

Quote

The point is that Afghanistan is actually linked to terror. Afghanistan was harboring Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The 9/11 attacks were plotted in Afghanistan.

This is a rather gross generalization, IMO. It is a rather a stretch from what occured with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and a link to terrorism sponsorship for the entire country of Afghanistan.

Osama bin Laden and the Taliban leader were at odds over loyalties. This was settled when bin Laden swore an oath to the Taliban. Al-Qaeda and bin Laden were then accepted as guests of the Taliban - guest in that culture has a stronger meaning than in western culture. This was all pre-911.

After 9-11 occured, bin Laden swore to the Taliban leader that he and al-Qaeda had had nothing to do with the attacks, which left the Taliban leader in position of having to accept the word of an infidel, the U.S., or believe a fellow Muslim and honor cultural tradition to protect his "guest".

So, yes, the Taliban in Afghanistan were linked to al-Qaeda. Yes, they harbored bin Laden. Evidence suggests the protection given bin Laden was culturally based. Whether the attacks were planned in Afghanistan I do not know for sure. I have seen no evidence that proves this claim, though.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Jan 24 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

Quote

The point is that Afghanistan is actually linked to terror. Afghanistan was harboring Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The 9/11 attacks were plotted in Afghanistan.

This is a rather gross generalization, IMO. It is a rather a stretch from what occured with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and a link to terrorism sponsorship for the entire country of Afghanistan.

No one is linking every single person or organization in Afghanistan to terrorism. The country is still linked. It's like saying USA was linked to slavery. Of course it was, even if not every person or even every state had slaves.

I completely disagree with your original point. It's not the use of the term "The War on Terror" that is the problem. It's the use of that term to justify any old war (Iraq). I see no problem in using it to refer to the war in Afghanistan.

[Winstonm]

Quote

It's not the use of the term "The War on Terror" that is the problem

If it were only semantics I would agree with you. But the claim of a "war on terror" has been the basis for justifying all the Bush administration policies, military activities, intelligence gathering, detention practices and sequestering of information that could at best be called questionable in times of peace.

Someone named Christiane Brown summed it up nicely.

Quote

By emphasizing the imperative need to wage an all-out war against a nebulous, and yet fearsome threat, this shamelessly propagandist slogan instantly placed the United States on a permanent, and yet conveniently hazy, war footing.

In the name of “protecting America,” those in positions of power were suddenly given a sweeping carte blanche to commit grave and destructive violations against our Constitution with impunity.

A staggering range of government actions, previously considered illegal, became not only permissible in The War on Terror, but imperative. The unrestrained ability to wage pre-emptive war, to torture, to endlessly confine "enemy combatants,” to sequester evidence of wrong doing, all were now vital in protecting our national security.

The use of the war on terror wasn't simply because it was a catchy phrase - it was also used as ongoing and permanent justification.

[kenberg]

OK, I am going to acknowledge that I got off track here. Thinking about Mcveigh and the WRC attack the difference is not that McVeigh was a US citizen. The difference is that McVeigh and and his small group were basically that, a small group. I guess there are some other nuts out there who see him as their guy, but there is no structure. The attack on the WTC was organized by an entity of somewhat state-like structure. If Al Qaeda consisted entirely of Americans it would pose the same problem.

It seems to me that we here in the US are having to deal with an unfamiliar situation. When a nit shoots John Lennon to impress Jody Foster we are horrified but we write it off along the lines of "Well, there are 300 million of us, of course there will be some nuts" Squeaky Fromme tries to shoot Ford, or was it Reagan. Another nut. I know Al has some views about the Kennedy assassination but we can probably agree that Americans are generally disposed to think "Another nut" whether or not that is correct (I think ot is correct but, as with evolution, I am not prepared to argue with those who have devoted great energy to the subject).

So now we join the world and must deal with extensive structured groups dealing in political terror. It's different from dealing with McVeigh and it requires some serious thought.

[Al_U_Card]

If you marginalize the "views" of the majority of Americans themselves, you are in trouble trying to represent the "mainstream".

Speaking of the patsy McVeigh and the involvement of certain government elements in the set-up, execution and prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombings, it is reminiscent of the first WTC bombings. So many questions, so few (satisfactory) answers.

I thought Oswald did it for 40 years. The 9-11 "truther" movement got me digging and I must say that I am not surprised but somewhat disappointed in the skullduggery that continues unabated.

[kenberg]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 25 2009, 08:48 AM, said:

If you marginalize the "views" of the majority of Americans themselves, you are in trouble trying to represent the "mainstream".

Speaking of the patsy McVeigh and the involvement of certain government elements in the set-up, execution and prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombings, it is reminiscent of the first WTC bombings. So many questions, so few (satisfactory) answers.

I thought Oswald did it for 40 years. The 9-11 "truther" movement got me digging and I must say that I am not surprised but somewhat disappointed in the skullduggery that continues unabated.

I intended no marginalization of anyone. I'm not following your meaning here.

[orlam]

kenberg, on Jan 25 2009, 08:13 AM, said:

The attack on the WTC was organized by an entity of somewhat state-like structure.

What??

[awm]

kenberg said:

So now we join the world and must deal with extensive structured groups dealing in political terror. It's different from dealing with McVeigh and it requires some serious thought.

I think this gets to the heart of the issue. There's a structured group which wants to commit very dangerous criminal acts which kill large numbers of people. We have in prison a number of people who may be members of this group. We need to ask ourselves:

1. Is membership in such a group a crime, if the person in question hasn't actually "done" anything?
2. If someone is believed to be a member of such a group, how long can the government hold them before having to present some kind of "proof" of membership, or of a crime?
3. If someone might have information about the future plans of such a group, what means can we use to force them to reveal it (for the sake of preventing future terrorist acts, not so much in order to prosecute the individual)?
4. If we have information that conclusively indicates that such a person is dangerous, but this information was not obtained in a legal way (i.e. someone was tortured, perhaps by a foreign government if we don't do such things), can we really allow that person to go free "because we can't convict them in court"?
5. If we have such a dangerous person, but it's not clear that we really have "jurisdiction" (i.e. the person is a foreign national captured on foreign soil), but it's also not clear that turning him over to another country will work out (i.e. his home country is believed to be a sponsor of terrorism) then what can we do?

I think the most similar situation the USA has had to deal with is breaking up the mob, and a bunch of legal niceties got ignored there too. This situation is even worse, because of the involvement of international law and the fact that what these terrorist groups want to do is a lot worse (i.e. kill people indiscriminately).

[Winstonm]

You make some good points.

Quote

1. Is membership in such a group a crime, if the person in question hasn't actually "done" anything?

I think there is precedent for this argument with the U.S. RICO laws.

Quote

2. If someone is believed to be a member of such a group, how long can the government hold them before having to present some kind of "proof" of membership, or of a crime?

This is where we hit the heart of the issue - in my view once you allow suspicion to be used as proof you have collapsed as a law-abiding nation. To be a free nation, one has to be willing to accept a degree of risk. Without some degree of proof, you are doing nothing more than holding political prisoners. A free nation has to be above that type of action.

Quote

3. If someone might have information about the future plans of such a group, what means can we use to force them to reveal it (for the sake of preventing future terrorist acts, not so much in order to prosecute the individual)?

A mute question. Useful and actionable intelligence is not achieved through torture.

Quote

4. If we have information that conclusively indicates that such a person is dangerous, but this information was not obtained in a legal way (i.e. someone was tortured, perhaps by a foreign government if we don't do such things), can we really allow that person to go free "because we can't convict them in court"?

This is a good question - not because of the torture issue but because the legal means to gather evidence can be quite different among countries. If there is no information to hold them, then the "torture" was done to a "suspect" and that can never be condoned.

Quote

5. If we have such a dangerous person, but it's not clear that we really have "jurisdiction" (i.e. the person is a foreign national captured on foreign soil), but it's also not clear that turning him over to another country will work out (i.e. his home country is believed to be a sponsor of terrorism) then what can we do?

This is another good question. This is where Geneva was supposed to apply, but as Lobowolf pointed out Geneva does not have to apply to non-participants. I am in favor of upholding Geneva anyway - if we are to call this a "war" then we should follow international war rules - to do otherwise is to offer a hypocrisy as an excuse to violate international norms.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Jan 24 2009, 11:15 PM, said:

Quote

It's not the use of the term "The War on Terror" that is the problem

If it were only semantics I would agree with you. But the claim of a "war on terror" has been the basis for justifying all the Bush administration policies, military activities, intelligence gathering, detention practices and sequestering of information that could at best be called questionable in times of peace.

So I don't understand what you don't like in that case. Has it been used by the current administration to justify a war that was for some other reason?

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Jan 25 2009, 09:00 PM, said:

So I don't understand what you don't like in that case. Has it been used by the current administration to justify a war that was for some other reason?

It has been used by the previous administration as an excuse for extending the power of the president to beyond what it's supposed to be in peacetime. If the current administration will use it in the same way remains to be seen, but it would have been reassuring if they refrained from using the term "war".

[mike777]

The new President has said we are at war. He has said a war on terror. He also has killed over 14 people by bombing Pakistan.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on Jan 25 2009, 08:13 AM, said:

When a nit shoots John Lennon to impress Jody Foster we are horrified but we write it off along the lines of "Well, there are 300 million of us, of course there will be some nuts" Squeaky Fromme tries to shoot Ford, or was it Reagan. Another nut. I know Al has some views about the Kennedy assassination but we can probably agree that Americans are generally disposed to think "Another nut" whether or not that is correct (I think ot is correct but, as with evolution, I am not prepared to argue with those who have devoted great energy to the subject).

I know Al has some views about the Kennedy assassination but we can probably agree that Americans are generally disposed to think "Another nut" whether or not that is correct

The MAJORITY of americans feel that LHO was not a "Lone nut" assassin.

The pejorative reference to my views that happen to coincide with theirs is a straw-man tactic, whether intended or not.

No problem Ken, sorry you feel good about how JFK was killed à la Warren Commission but a little research will help fix that...

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Jan 25 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 24 2009, 11:15 PM, said:

Quote

It's not the use of the term "The War on Terror" that is the problem

If it were only semantics I would agree with you. But the claim of a "war on terror" has been the basis for justifying all the Bush administration policies, military activities, intelligence gathering, detention practices and sequestering of information that could at best be called questionable in times of peace.

So I don't understand what you don't like in that case. Has it been used by the current administration to justify a war that was for some other reason?

I don't know how to make in any more clear - the war on terror has been used as an excuse to alter the checks and balances that the Republic depends upon to function as designed.

The Presidential war powers were designed for short times of extreme emergecy - they were not meant to be used as an excuse for unlimited executive powers that last as long as the executive claims a war is ongoing.

The war on terror is a war against a tactic - there is no defined enemy and thus there can be no definitive win or end - hence it is only designed for umlimited executive war powers that last indefinately.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Jan 25 2009, 05:27 PM, said:

I don't know how to make in any more clear - the war on terror has been used as an excuse to alter the checks and balances that the Republic depends upon to function as designed.

The Presidential war powers were designed for short times of extreme emergecy - they were not meant to be used as an excuse for unlimited executive powers that last as long as the executive claims a war is ongoing.

The war on terror is a war against a tactic - there is no defined enemy and thus there can be no definitive win or end - hence it is only designed for umlimited executive war powers that last indefinately.

I see what you are worried will happen. But I don't see what you are against with the current administration, since it has NOT happened with them. If all you object to is them using the term, then you seem to me quite similar to the talking heads on tv who are nothing more than professional objectors.

I don't know how to make it any more clear.

[mike777]

If the discussion has shifted to expanding the President's Power versus Congress I think Winston has a valid point. So far I do not see the new President giving back any of that power to Congress. It seems the President wants to decide what is or is not allowed with prisoners or wiretapping or bombing Pakistan.

I think that comes from having one Commander- in- Chief rather than 535. Add in the continuing lack of Congress not willing to cut off funds for anything it seems.

[Winstonm]

Quote

But I don't see what you are against with the current administration, since it has NOT happened with them.

It is a little early to make this claim, IMO. If this administration does not roll back the executive powers then it has agreed to them - and by agreeing has also agreed that the power expansion was necessary to fight the war on terror - as that was the claim made to expand the powers in the first place.

I do think this has the chance to be the defining moment for this president. But I'm too cynical to believe there will actually be change, though. I am more and more convinced that the real power in the U.S. is the Military Industrial Complex and the Pentagon.

We didn't become the most warlike country in history by accident.

Edit: This by Robert Fisk has a lot to say about Inaugaration Day:

Quote

But however much distance the new President put between himself and the vicious regime he was replacing, 9/11 still hung like a cloud over New York. We had to remember "the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke". Indeed, for Arabs, the "our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred" was pure Bush; the one reference to "terror", the old Bush and Israeli fear word, was a worrying sign that the new White House still hasn't got the message. Hence we had Obama, apparently talking about Islamist groups such as the Taliban who were "slaughtering innocents" but who "cannot outlast us". As for those in the speech who are corrupt and who "silence dissent", presumably intended to be the Iranian government, most Arabs would associate this habit with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt (who also, of course, received a phone call from Obama yesterday), King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and a host of other autocrats and head-choppers who are supposed to be America's friends in the Middle East.

[Winstonm]

Like I've said, I have my doubts about who is really in charge - seems like the military-industrial complex and Pentagon have their methods of influence.

Quote

The Pentagon is preparing to declassify portions of a secret report on Guantanamo detainees that could further complicate President Obama's plans to shut down the detention facility.

Quote

The report, which could be released within the next few days, will provide fresh details about 62 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo and are believed by U.S. intelligence officials to have returned to terrorist activities, according to two Pentagon officials who asked not to be identified talking about a document that is not yet public.

Quote

The decision to release additional case studies from the report is in effect a warning shot to the new president from officials at the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies who are skeptical about some of his plans.

A warning shot fired at the President? I thought these guys were supposed to by on the same side.

[mike777]

OK ....I will bet the new President will have more power and Congress less in 4 years...maybe 6 months ...maybe Monday......

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Jan 25 2009, 06:14 PM, said:

Quote

But I don't see what you are against with the current administration, since it has NOT happened with them.

It is a little early to make this claim, IMO.

I know you think everything is a conspiracy, but if there is a secret war going on that you are aware of and I'm not, please fill me in!

Quote

We didn't become the most warlike country in history by accident.

Sigh, where is JLOL when you need him?

Quote

Edit: This by Robert Fisk has a lot to say about Inaugaration Day:

Quote

...
apparently
...
presumably
...

Well, that says it all. I feel like there should be a punchline here to "What do you get when a serial objector uses a serial assumer to back up his claims?", but I don't know what it is yet.