[Lobowolf]

kenberg, on Jan 10 2010, 01:08 PM, said:

Organized crime: RICO
Young offenders: Juvenile detention
Thugs: Prison, parole etc
Nut jobs: Commitment
CEOs: Give them money
Soldiers in uniform: POW
Combatants on our soil, not in uniform: Not POW. We get to shoot them, I think.

etc etc

The password is: "Unlawful Enemy Combatant."


Just a little 70's game show flashback for y'all.

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Jan 10 2010, 01:23 PM, said:

kenberg, on Jan 10 2010, 01:08 PM, said:

Organized crime: RICO
Young offenders: Juvenile detention
Thugs: Prison, parole etc
Nut jobs: Commitment
CEOs: Give them money
Soldiers in uniform: POW
Combatants on our soil, not in uniform: Not POW. We get to shoot them, I think.

etc etc

The password is: "Unlawful Enemy Combatant."


Just a little 70's game show flashback for y'all.

Try to explain the difference between an illegal enemy combatant and a terrorist felon.

Quote

§ 2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

[Winstonm]

What a difference 140 years make:

Quote

Supreme Court ruling from December 1866: Ex Parte Milligan. In this ruling, which grew out of the wartime excesses of the Lincoln Administration, the Court -- dominated by five Lincoln appointees -- was unequivocal:

    Constitutional protections not only apply "equally in war and peace" but also – in a dramatic extension of this legal shield – to "all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances." No emergency – not even open civil war – warrants their suspension. Even in wartime, the President's powers, though expanded, are still restrained: "he is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws."

Bush appointee Judge Janice Rogers Brown;

Quote

"the war had pushed the nation'past the leading edge of a new and frightening paradigm, one that demands new rules be written. War is a challenge to law, and the law must adjust.'"

I guess one lone guy wearing blow-up boxers is a greater threat to our national security than the entire Confederate Army was during the Civil War.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Jan 10 2010, 04:44 PM, said:

Bush appointee Judge Janice Rogers Brown;

Quote

"the war had pushed the nation'past the leading edge of a new and frightening paradigm, one that demands new rules be written. War is a challenge to law, and the law must adjust.'"

I guess one lone guy wearing blow-up boxers is a greater threat to our national security than the entire Confederate Army was during the Civil War.

Let's at least not twist comments around. I don't think she would make such a statement if that guy was the only guy in the world trying to do such a thing.

[Mbodell]

Hanoi5, on Jan 9 2010, 04:06 AM, said:

Isn't there a 'war on drugs' also?

Yes, and it is an equally misguided metaphor that hasn't really been successful in its stated purpose either.

[mike777]

Again I have not heard many arguments saying we should try these guys for whatever reason.

I mean we are at war with these guys..these guys are at war with us.


I still do not see the crime. I mean is bombing/blowing up stuff in the USA a crime not a war by these guys...no.

I mean at some point calling this stuff a crime is just nonsense.


"War is a challenge to law"


Well duh ya.....


Trying to fight a war as a crime is silly.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Jan 10 2010, 04:44 PM, said:

What a difference 140 years make:

Quote

Supreme Court ruling from December 1866: Ex Parte Milligan. In this ruling, which grew out of the wartime excesses of the Lincoln Administration, the Court -- dominated by five Lincoln appointees -- was unequivocal:

    Constitutional protections not only apply "equally in war and peace" but also – in a dramatic extension of this legal shield – to "all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances." No emergency – not even open civil war – warrants their suspension. Even in wartime, the President's powers, though expanded, are still restrained: "he is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws."

"The controlling question in the case is this: upon the facts stated in Milligan's petition and the exhibits filed, had the military commission mentioned in it jurisdiction legally to try and sentence him? Milligan, not a resident of one of the rebellious states or a prisoner of war, but a citizen of Indiana for twenty years"

From Ex Parte Milligan, emphasis added.

[Winstonm]

This is the argument presented by the Obama Justice Department:

If we can win a conviction in federal court, we will try them in federal court.
If we cannot win a conviction in federal court but we can win a conviction in a Military Commission, we will try them in a Military Commission.
If we cannot win a conviction in either place, we will simply hold them in prison uncharged.
If by chance someone we thought would be convicted is found not guilty, we will continue to hold them in prison regardless.


When the outcome is predetermined, there is no justice - there are only show trials.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Again I have not heard many arguments saying we should try these guys for whatever reason.

Could you be more specific - exactly who are "there guys"?

Quote

I mean we are at war with these guys..these guys are at war with us.

Again, could you name "these guys"? Who exactly are we at war against? Be specific. What guys?

Quote

I still do not see the crime. I mean is bombing/blowing up stuff in the USA a crime not a war by these guys...no.

Is this like "they said" or "some people say"? Again. Who are "these guys" of which you speak?

Quote

I mean at some point calling this stuff a crime is just nonsense.
"War is a challenge to law"
Well duh ya.....
Trying to fight a war as a crime is silly.

No, what is silly is generalization "these guys", as if our own actions had nothing whatsoever to do with radicalization of our enemies.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jan 10 2010, 09:50 PM, said:

Quote

Again I have not heard many arguments saying we should try these guys for whatever reason.

Could you be more specific - exactly who are "there guys"?

Quote

I mean we are at war with these guys..these guys are at war with us.

Again, could you name "these guys"? Who exactly are we at war against? Be specific. What guys?

Quote

I still do not see the crime. I mean is bombing/blowing up stuff in the USA a crime not a war by these guys...no.

Is this like "they said" or "some people say"? Again. Who are "these guys" of which you speak?

Quote

I mean at some point calling this stuff a crime is just nonsense.
"War is a challenge to law"
Well duh ya.....
Trying to fight a war as a crime is silly.

No, what is silly is generalization "these guys", as if our own actions had nothing whatsoever to do with radicalization of our enemies.

Winston if you do not know the answer to your own questions...I mean the basic one is who are we at war with...then...silly.


Did you not hear our President our Congress...etc...


In other words if you think the country is not at war then any conversation...is worthless.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Winston if you do not know the answer to your own questions...I mean the basic one is who are we at war with.  Did you not hear our President our Congress...etc...

Don't be coy, Mike. Of course, we are at war against a cartoon-like representation of "the evil hordes", the "terrorists", pagans who want to rule the world by their laws.

It is much easier to hide behind these representative generalizations - but specifically naming our enemies forces us to admit that our actions now and our historical actions have as much to do with radicalizing our enemies as any of their own ideology. And it makes us have an honest discourse about what we are trying to accomplish and if those goals are worth the cost.

Tell me, Mike. What ARE we trying to accomplish with this war? How will we succeed? How will we know when the war has been won?

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on Jan 10 2010, 10:18 PM, said:

Of course, we are at war against a cartoon-like representation of "the evil hordes", the "terrorists", pagans who want to rule the world by their laws.

Or that are not willing to let the US rule the world by it's "laws".

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Jan 10 2010, 10:18 PM, said:

It is much easier to hide behind these representative generalizations - but specifically naming our enemies forces us to admit that our actions now and our historical actions have as much to do with radicalizing our enemies as any of their own ideology.

How so?

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Jan 10 2010, 10:41 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 10 2010, 10:18 PM, said:

It is much easier to hide behind these representative generalizations - but specifically naming our enemies forces us to admit that our actions now and our historical actions have as much to do with radicalizing our enemies as any of their own ideology.

How so?

Recently, we have sent fighter planes and drones and bombs and invading forces along with teams of kidnappers and torturers into various nations in the Middle East. In the past, we helped overthrow governments, propped up dictators, placed foreign troops on what were considered "holy lands", armed Israel and backed every action they have taken, regardless.

Or maybe you like John Brennan's answer to why we are attacked:

Quote

they do this because they're Evil and murderous

But you won't find them in Big Whiskey, will you Little Bill?

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Jan 10 2010, 11:14 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jan 10 2010, 10:41 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 10 2010, 10:18 PM, said:

It is much easier to hide behind these representative generalizations - but specifically naming our enemies forces us to admit that our actions now and our historical actions have as much to do with radicalizing our enemies as any of their own ideology.

How so?

Recently, we have sent fighter planes and drones and bombs and invading forces along with teams of kidnappers and torturers into various nations in the Middle East. In the past, we helped overthrow governments, propped up dictators, placed foreign troops on what were considered "holy lands", armed Israel and backed every action they have taken, regardless.

How does that pertain to naming them?

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Jan 10 2010, 11:31 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 10 2010, 11:14 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jan 10 2010, 10:41 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 10 2010, 10:18 PM, said:

It is much easier to hide behind these representative generalizations - but specifically naming our enemies forces us to admit that our actions now and our historical actions have as much to do with radicalizing our enemies as any of their own ideology.

How so?

Recently, we have sent fighter planes and drones and bombs and invading forces along with teams of kidnappers and torturers into various nations in the Middle East. In the past, we helped overthrow governments, propped up dictators, placed foreign troops on what were considered "holy lands", armed Israel and backed every action they have taken, regardless.

How does that pertain to naming them?

Giving exactness to our enemies forces us to look at their real motives - and ours. It creates an honest dialogue.

What is so difficult about admitting that most of our enemies in the Middle East are Muslims who claim that the U.S. is interfering in, occupying and bringing violence to their part of the world, and they cite things like civilian deaths and support for Israel along with prisoners held without trial at Guantanamo and U.S. condoned torture, and then say that their terrorism is in retaliation?

By identifying them - instead of making them out to be a cartoon-like characterizations - we see that from their point of view they have real claims of harm. They are not simply "evil and murderous" and they don't "hate us because of our freedoms".

Perhaps understanding can be a basis for ending conflict - because even in Big Whiskey, I doubt Little Bill can kick the ***** out of all them.

[Al_U_Card]

Sovereign status and a people's right to self-determination only applies where US "interests" are not in play.

The "terrorist" attacks on US assets and then on US soil only started after GWI. They were happily killing each other until the Neocon zealots decided to step into the fray.

Perpetual war.....comes closer each and every day.

[barmar]

I think viewing the individual terrorists as weapons may be apt. I expect that most of them have been indoctrinated, possibly almost brain-washed, by the fundamentalist organizations that send them. If someone is willing to martyr themselves in a suicide mission, what kind of punishment can possibly be appropriate if they're found guilty in court? The real enemy or criminals are the leaders who send them on these missions, but we're not punishing them when we punish the suicide bombers.

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 11 2010, 10:01 AM, said:

The "terrorist" attacks on US assets and then on US soil only started after GWI. They were happily killing each other until the Neocon zealots decided to step into the fray.

Perpetual war.....comes closer each and every day.

this is probably true, but i don't know what (if anything) could or should have been done when iraq invaded kuwait... it seems more complicated to me... now i do agree that the 2nd iraq war, especially in hindsight (i.e. no terrorist hotbeds, no WMDs found), was a huge mistake, and if the motivation for that even approaches what some here believe, it was criminal

[kenberg]

Well, the taking of the US embassy in Iran was during the Carter administration. Certainly this was an attack on US assets and technically, although I would not go heavy on this, it was on US soil.
I wouldn't call GBI a right-wing zealot and I certainly would not lay our current problems with jihadists at his feet.