DescentBB

Posted: **Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:14 pm**

The conservatives dissented, and one excused himself - but the vote went 5-3: Supreme Court Declares Guantanamo Tribunals Illegal

Seems those old goats CAN make a good decision sometimes. Glad to see those \"checks and balances\" actually working! GO USA! Two Thumbs Up.

Posted: **Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:01 pm**

How much do you want to bet they don't release them before either the congress fixes the Supremes concerns or the Bushies find a way to change the terms of their imprisonment? One thing is for sure when Nancy Pelosi remarked that \"this proves that all deserve the rights of our constitution\" she showed just how dangerous she would be trying to prosecute any war.
According to her logic we can no longer drop bombs on al Queda targets...

Posted: **Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:49 pm**

Xtramsn wrote:We conclude that the military commission convened to try (Salim Ahmed) Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate" the international agreement that covers treatment of prisoners of war, as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court majority.

They didn't attack the concept of a tribunal, just the ones that currently exist. Best of both worlds; I shudder at the thought of trying POWs in the U.S. court system.

Posted: **Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:48 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:How much do you want to bet they don't release them before either the congress fixes the Supremes concerns or the Bushies find a way to change the terms of their imprisonment? One thing is for sure when Nancy Pelosi remarked that "this proves that all deserve the rights of our constitution" she showed just how dangerous she would be trying to prosecute any war.

According to her logic we can no longer drop bombs on al Queda targets...

ok, so Pelosi is a pretty easy target, but you take it too far (especially without acknowledging the absurdity of your own side). But how about those who fail to see the irony in their justification of a Kafkaesque indefinite confinement with no charges? They claim that only US citizens have the benefit of consititutional protection. And yet in the previous breath, they justified the war on the basis that we are spreading democracy.

And that's to say nothing of those lobbying for at least some use of torture (because that will really help spread democracy).

Frankly, I'm more worried about our own domestic rapists, batterers, child molestors, and murderers being paroled/probationed in order to make room in the jails for the pot smokers.

Let's find some middle ground people.

Posted: **Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:05 pm**

Palzon wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:How much do you want to bet they don't release them before either the congress fixes the Supremes concerns or the Bushies find a way to change the terms of their imprisonment? One thing is for sure when Nancy Pelosi remarked that "this proves that all deserve the rights of our constitution" she showed just how dangerous she would be trying to prosecute any war.

According to her logic we can no longer drop bombs on al Queda targets...
ok, so Pelosi is a pretty easy target, but you take it too far (especially without acknowledging the absurdity of your own side). But how about those who fail to see the irony in their justification of a Kafkaesque indefinite confinement with no charges? They claim that only US citizens have the benefit of consititutional protection. And yet in the previous breath, they justified the war on the basis that we are spreading democracy.

And that's to say nothing of those lobbying for at least some use of torture (because that will really help spread democracy).

Frankly, I'm more worried about our own domestic rapists, batterers, child molestors, and murderers being paroled/probationed in order to make room in the jails for the pot smokers.

Let's find some middle ground people.

Hey, I don't care if they get a speedy trial I just don't want them in the federal court system with the next Johnny Cochran representing them willing to expose every battlefield and intelligence secret he can supoena just to get in the headlines for getting al queda off on a technicality!

Let the army charge them and try them, keep the trial closed, let Jimmy Carter observe the proceedings or something but bury his ass under the jail if he leaks anything.

And the Pelosi quote may make her an easy target but her stupidity and dangerous mindset shouldn't be dismissed as just some idiot, she's not just some civilian with no concept of reality, she is a leader of the democrat party so her position should be held to a high standard of scrutiny!
There's your middle ground.

Posted: **Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:35 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:I just don't want them in the federal court system

As I understand it, the main point of the decision is that the prisoners DO qualify under the geneva conventions. That shouldn't put them into the normal court systems, but it will give them some basic rights as human beings. It is a shameful thing that our government has denied them that so long. We should have erred on the side of being civilized.

Don't get me wrong, I think most of these people are scum who deserve nothing more than a quick firing squad. But holding people indefinitly without charge mainly because the pres says so is a recipie for abuse and disaster, as has been shown.

Posted: **Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:29 pm**

The issue here is that the USA has, since it came out against lynching, has fought to maintain the moral high ground internationally. The issue isn't about whether they're guilty or not - it's about consistency: if you want to spread democracy around the world, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and expending tens of thousands of American lives in the process - then that is entirely up to you.

People might acuse the US of spreading only oil-based democracy, but that is neither here nor there: it's quite possible to do the right thing for all the wrogn reasons. Hell, it might turn out that Iraq can drag itself together and form a robust democracy that is the envy of the middle east. It might be the first domino - who's to say?

What is more important is that if you want to spread democracy, then you have to practice what you preach: and holding \"enemy combatants\" in violation of the Geneva Convention is the dumbest thing the USA c ould do. Read \"USA\" as \"Dubya\" as I do not connect Dubya to the United States as a country: he does not represent you, on virtually any topic worth naming. The fact you elected him (twice!) is simply evidence that smart countries can do stupid things sometimes - and even repeatedly! But you don't throw the baby out with the bath water...

The very best thing the USA could have done, is provide excellent facilities for the detainees, try them in a military court, with a full defence - and hell, the govt should have hired shithot lawyers to defend them too.

Hell, it would even have won you a bunch of praise if you'd let some of them go too.

But Dubya/Cheney/Rumsfeld wanted to squander any and all International sympathy by refusing to treat these people with respect.

You have to remember that by sinking below your \"moral threshold\" you've simply lost more and more international good will.

A child of 10 could grasp this concept, and yet the leaders of the US regime seem to need 5 old geezers in the SCOTUS to tell them they're wrong.

Posted: **Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:47 pm**

Watch as the administration ignores the ruling.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:44 am**

Mobius wrote:What is more important is that if you want to spread democracy, then you have to practice what you preach: and holding "enemy combatants" in violation of the Geneva Convention is the dumbest thing the USA c ould do. Read "USA" as "Dubya" as I do not connect Dubya to the United States as a country: he does not represent you, on virtually any topic worth naming.

****

The very best thing the USA could have done, is provide excellent facilities for the detainees, try them in a military court, with a full defence - and hell, the govt should have hired ***** lawyers to defend them too.

Hell, it would even have won you a bunch of praise if you'd let some of them go too.

****

But Dubya/Cheney/Rumsfeld wanted to squander any and all International sympathy by refusing to treat these people with respect.

I haven't read the opinion yet, but I think you've made a few assumptions here that aren't quite accurate. This from the Wall Street Journal (I'd link it, but it's subscription only):

COMMENTARY
Hamdan

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. and LEE A. CASEY
June 30, 2006; Page A12

The Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, invalidating for now the use of military commissions to try al Qaeda and associated detainees, may be a setback for U.S. policy in the war on terror. But it is a setback with a sterling silver lining. All eight of the justices participating in this case agreed that military commissions are a legitimate part of the American legal tradition that can, in appropriate circumstances, be used to try and punish individuals captured in the war on terror. Moreover, nothing in the decision suggests that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay must, or should, be closed. (Emphasis added.)

Indeed, none of the justices questioned the government's right to detain Salim Ahmed Hamdan (once Osama bin Laden's driver), or other Guantanamo prisoners, while hostilities continue. Nor did any of them suggest that Mr. Hamdan, or any other Guantanamo detainee, must be treated as civilians and accorded a speedy trial in the civilian courts. Precisely because opponents of the Bush administration's detention policies have advanced these, or substantially similar claims, Hamdan has dealt them a decisive defeat. Together with the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld -- directly affirming the government's right to capture and detain, without criminal charge or trial, al Qaeda and allied operatives until hostilities are concluded -- Hamdan vindicates the basic legal architecture relied upon by the administration in prosecuting this war. (Emphasis added.)

As far as praise and international sympathy goes, ultimately, world affection is not the top priority with the United States, in my view. That's a good thing.

Bush is the man.

BD

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:44 am**

Heh, you people amaze me.

Im out....have fun.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:20 am**

I would like to hear serious replies to the point quoted below, which has so far not been directly addressed. Thankyou.

Palzon wrote:They claim that only US citizens have the benefit of consititutional protection. And yet in the previous breath, they justified the war on the basis that we are spreading democracy.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:19 am**

Palzon wrote:I would like to hear serious replies to the point quoted below

You wont.

Obviously, the constitution applies only to US citizens, but that's not the point. US citizens don't like the islamic extremist, and quite frankly, don't CARE about whether they have any rights or not. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people recommending "Just Nuke them all", as if the middle east wasn't full of innocents (including children) who have nothing to do with terrorism. The average conservative does not CARE who is locked up in gitmo, or if they really did anything bad. They simply assume that if our government has labeled them as terrorists, then they must be, so lock them up and torture them.

Heck, The first thing I knew about the abu ghraib abuses was someone posting a picture and BRAGGING about how cool it was to see some of the terrorist getting what they deserved.

I remember sometime after Bush had declared "victory" in Iraq there was a news report that US forces had bombed a motorcade thought to have Osama Bin Laden on board. A few hours later the news reported that no, it haddn't actually been him. Lots of people were complaining about how sad it was that we hadn't gotten Osama, but I didn't hear a SINGLE question, on the news or from any individual asking, "Then who did we just kill?"

No, we have not dropped to the level of our enemies, we don't video beheadings, we don't DELIBERATLY target civilians. But in the U.S. we have come to see the value of the lives of those of arabic descent as something less than the value of other lives. They are all guilty by association. Nuke them, torture them, whatever.

Unfortunantly, there is also the OTHER side in the U.S., that wants to treat the terrorist as nice people. They don't think we should ever actually fight them, that the terrorists don't really want to hurt us, and that giving in to their demands would be the most reasonable way to deal with them. There are a LOT fewer of these (from my own personal experiance anyway)

<sigh>

So, each side points to the other and says, "See, THEY are wrong", and no one tries to find a happy middle ground.

We are supposed to be the GOOD GUYS. We should have taken and HELD the moral high ground. We should have gone out of our way to prove to the world that we were going to stick within the geneva conventions, wheather they applied legally or not. We should have made it ABSOLUTELY clear that under NO circumstances do we use torture.

But no, we have a president who gets his law team to figure out whether or not it would be legal for him to use torture, and if so, how much could he get away with. And we have a lot of citizens who think that is just fine.

Our enemies don't even know where the moral high ground is, but we have to look back and up to see it ourselves now.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:12 pm**

Ferno wrote:Watch as the administration ignores the ruling.

Would not be the first time something like that has happened.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:31 pm**

Kilarin wrote:The average Republican party-lining lemming does not CARE who is locked up in gitmo, or if they really did anything bad.

Fixed that for you.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:56 pm**

Palzon wrote:They claim that only US citizens have the benefit of consititutional protection. And yet in the previous breath, they justified the war on the basis that we are spreading democracy.

Your request leads me to believe you think the rights we enjoy as U.S. citizens are automatically transfered to any people who live under a dictator we overthrow and try to leave in his wake a more democratic form of government.

You can't give another country, another culture, what we have. They would have to aspire to it. We can only try to give them a temporary stable enviroment where they might create it for themselves if they choose to. They can mirror the transformation of Turkey perhaps where all those same factions get by in a secular form of government quite nicely or fall into fundamentalist islamikazi theocracy or the next murderous thug like Saddam might rise up and hold them all under his boot. We don't know for sure.

We didn't go to war to create an Iraqi democracy anymore than we went to find WMD's. Both of those things would have suited us just fine but the main reason, if you must have it put to you as a single reason, is, we went to stop Saddam from being able to aid our enemies. Obviously taking away any WMD's would work toward that end....as would propping up some kind of secular based representative government where Shia, Sunni and Kurds hashed out their differences with a pen instead of an AK 47...

Your question is more of a declaration, like a soundbite designed to illustrate hypocrisy on the part of the administrations supporters than it is an honest attempt to gain insight and it relies on a shallow analogy that doesn't really address the many variables that make up the dynamic of the situation in Iraq.

So if we are going to ignore the details and facts and instead just talk past each other so as to make statements disguised as dialogue I'll keep with your soundbite template and quote Charles de Gaulle to provide your answer:
"Nations have interests not friends."

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:58 pm**

DCrazy wrote:
Kilarin wrote:The average DBB Member does not CARE who is locked up in gitmo, or if they really did anything bad.
Fixed that for you

Fixed that for you

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:06 pm**

Kilarin wrote:....we don't DELIBERATLY target civilians....

Actually I think in every big war we ever won we did just that. Atlanta, Charelston, almost Savannah, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Berlin....

We just never used to let the press explore the disgusting nature of warfare on the television while we ate dinner.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:24 pm**

Actually I think in every big war we ever won we did just that. Atlanta, Charelston, almost Savannah, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Berlin....

Hmmm, valid point, but allow me to clarify. When we target civilians, its to get at a military target. All of the places in this list were industrial strongholds supporting the war machine. That makes them a regretful, but legitimate military target. We don't hit the cities IN ORDER to kill civilians. We hit them in order to destroy the industry.

It's nasty, yes, war is ugly. But this kind of \"targeting civilians\" is a completely different animal from people who put bombs on school busses and kidnap nuns and red cross workers.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:21 pm**

Kilarin wrote:Hmmm, valid point, but allow me to clarify. When we target civilians, its to get at a military target. All of the places in this list were industrial strongholds supporting the war machine. That makes them a regretful, but legitimate military target. We don't hit the cities IN ORDER to kill civilians. We hit them in order to destroy the industry....

I don't think that's right. We firebombed Dresden to spread fear and panic not to wipe out planes and factories. From the germans point of view we were a lot like terrorists using WMD's
In Japan we dropped one nuke and waited, when they didn't surrender we dropped another. The message was "We'll keep killing you enmasse until you surrender."

I know it's not the lesson we were taught in grade school but it is the way it was done. It is the way most wars are prosecuted.

The difference perhaps is that we were attacking in marked uniforms and aircraft after officially declaring war. The terrorists are unrecognizable and hide among the civilians and seek to cause terror by hitting the most innocent civilians as they go about their daily routine. The terrorists don't have any desire to go toe to toe with a standing army or form ranks on a battlefield but really there isn't much difference at all in the net result.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:19 pm**

Palzon wrote:I would like to hear serious replies to the point quoted below, which has so far not been directly addressed. Thankyou.

Palzon wrote:They claim that only US citizens have the benefit of consititutional protection. And yet in the previous breath, they justified the war on the basis that we are spreading democracy.

Seems we have an issue re definition of terms. How do you define "constitutional protections" in the context presented? Answer that question and I'll (gleefully) answer yours.

I'll make you another offer. If you'll publicly state that upon their release you will house the detainees about whom you're so enamored, I'll write my congressman and demand they be placed in your custody on release from Guantanamo. We'll need your name, address, and phone number for this (Al Quaeda wants to know).

Righto, eh?

The Democrats will get you killed.

BD

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:24 pm**

Kilarin wrote:The [average American]simply assume that if our government has labeled them as terrorists, then they must be, so lock them up and torture them.

Asinine. You knew it when you wrote it.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:45 pm**

Kilarin wrote:
Actually I think in every big war we ever won we did just that. Atlanta, Charelston, almost Savannah, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Berlin....
Hmmm, valid point, but allow me to clarify. When we target civilians, its to get at a military target....

As Will said, no, it wasn't. It was very often to scare the heck out of people. Firebombing Dresden was a terror attack, no doubt about it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terror attacks, too -- and they scared the Japanese into surrendering. They were perhaps the most successful terror attacks in history. (They ALSO had the strategic goal/function of destroying industry, and quite likely saved millions of lives on both sides by preventing a full-scale invasion, but the main goal was to get Japan to surrender by making them afraid.)

Here's what's different, though: we don't target innocents in terror attacks now. If we want to scare "the enemy", we do it by hitting them with laser-guided missiles or whatever. We don't do it by killing a bunch of random kids who happen to live in the same neighborhood or have the same heritage as the them; we do it by shooting at them.

Perhaps we're more enlightened than in previous wars, or perhaps it's just the nature of asymmetric warfare. But whatever the case is, we don't aim to scare the enemy by showcasing our weapons capability on innocents. We aim to scare the enemy by showcasing our weapons capability directly on them.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:59 pm**

What is more important is that if you want to spread democracy, then you have to practice what you preach: and holding \"enemy combatants\" in violation of the Geneva Convention is the dumbest thing the USA could do.

NO, THIS is the dumbest thing the US could do.

Wait... DAMN!

Posted: **Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:51 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:We firebombed Dresden to spread fear and panic not to wipe out planes and factories. From the germans point of view we were a lot like terrorists using WMD's

Lothar wrote:As Will said, no, it wasn't. It was very often to scare the heck out of people.

I'm going to have to concede. And even grant the legitimacy of the tactic. There are times when all out war is actually the most merciful way to end a conflict.

Posted: **Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:29 am**

Bold Deceiver wrote:Seems we have an issue re definition of terms. How do you define "constitutional protections" in the context presented? Answer that question and I'll (gleefully) answer yours.

you zero in on two of my words taken out of context and you don't address my position. I asked for serious replies. Perhaps, you'll find an answer below.

Now, Will, I believe your heart is in the right place. But not your head.

Will Robinson wrote:Your request leads me to believe you think the rights we enjoy as U.S. citizens are automatically transfered to any people who live under a dictator we overthrow and try to leave in his wake a more democratic form of government...

Not at all. First, I see the prisoners at Gitmo to be separate issues from the aims of toppling dictatorships or reforming Iraq and Afghanistan. My concern about Gitmo is not even so much the current situation, but where the situation is going...

When will it be safe to release enemy combatants captured in the war? Ever? How long should someone be held in captivity without being convicted or even being tried for a crime?

These are difficult questions and I certainly don't have perfect answers. Yet, Will, it seems to me that you have decided that you do. With all respect, I think your position on Gitmo and on the whole war is supremely arrogant.

I am not here to argue that avowed terrorists be given constitutional rights. My point is that the USA runs a grave risk by talking about exporting democracy while we deny prisoners any type of basic legal rights. though cowboys can thumb their noses at it, the opinion of our friends and even some of our enemies in the international community is important. Our credibility is important. But the most important thing by far is what we believe about ourselves.

If we invade as conquerors, we have become the enemy. If we torture, we have become the enemy. If we take pride in raping and killing innocents, we have become the enemy. Have you listed to talk radio lately? we're nearly there.

if the enemy sees our actions as those of a conqueror and not a liberator, how will the war ever end? the war won't end because for every terrorist we kill or capture we will create two. if the war never ends, how can combatants ever be safely released?

Will Robinson wrote:...Your question is more of a declaration, like a soundbite designed to illustrate hypocrisy on the part of the administrations supporters than it is an honest attempt to gain insight and it relies on a shallow analogy that doesn't really address the many variables that make up the dynamic of the situation in Iraq.

Again, my point is about the Gitmo prisoners, not the Iraq war theater. This thread is about the prisoners and that is what my comments are regarding, no more. My point is about truth, justice, and democracy. I will do my best to illustrate this clearly and show that it is consistent.

but let's briefly return to my "analogy" as you call it, by which you are no doubt referring to this:

Frankly, I'm more worried about our own domestic rapists, batterers, child molestors, and murderers being paroled/probationed in order to make room in the jails for the pot smokers.

It was not meant to be analogy, not even loosely. It could be called a comparison but not an analogy. I believe that the threat posed by our own home grown bad guys put back on the streets every day is greater than the threat of the bad guys confined to Gitmo. I deal with these bad guys every day. Maybe it's my personal bias. But it's more than that. There is a real menace right here in America but our eyes are focused elsewhere.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Releasing those guys back to the caves of Tora Bora is not as risky to me or you as releasing good ol' American Chester the Molester into my neighborhood or yours. But I'm not even advocating for releasing the Gitmo detainees! But this administration has botched a situation (like so many others) that didn't need to be botched.

And I want to return now to my point about your arrogance in these matters. You accuse me of declarations? Yet you are the one who revises history that I saw with my own eyes.

It appears to me that you believe what you are saying and I think it's kind of sad. Because I know you truly care and want to do what's best for the country. You should know me well enough by now to know that I only type here for two reasons: to make people smile or to make a point. I'm not a party guy. I'm not here to grandstand or speak rhetorically. I care just as much as do you.

If we want to spread democracy, we must be the very model of democracy. Imprisonment with no legal rights would be a good model for an empire. We cannot be the model of democracy by using smirking techicalities to cicumvent Geneva conventions regarding the treatment of POW's. We cannot digress to eternal war against half the world and remain a great power for long.

...

I hate the fact that there are gun deaths (tens of thousands of them) in this country. But to remain a democratic nation, we must allow the freedom to bear arms.

By that same token, I hate the fact that anyone would have an abortion. But in a free society, the state should not have the right to determine what happens to your body against your own wishes.

I hate the fact that there are nazis in america today. But to preserve freedom for all, american nazis must be free to hold their beliefs (so long as they do not harm anyone).

And here's one for some of you to think about. Gay marriage rights have nothing to do with how you define marriage ("union between a man and a woman"). The issue is not about your definintion of marriage, it's about your definition of equality. This means that gay marriage should be seen as (at worst) a necessary evil.

Some of these things are necessary evils. And this Gitmo issue is no different. We must set the standard for democracy for the whole world, not set the standard for oppression.

...

One last thing, you've all got the whole WWII bombing thing wrong, every last one of you. We didn't firebomb Dresden to terrorize people or cause panic or fear. Comon people. Plains were expensive. Bombs expensive. Sorties expensive. Pilots hard to replace/train. We would have traded every fire bombing run in the war for smart bomb technology, but not because it's fear-inspiring. it's because it more accurately delivers destructive force with precision. there is no other reason.

As far as targeting civilians in WWII...the correct explanation is...We did it to kill them. We did it often as an act of revenge (particularly in Germany, and at the urging of the British). We did it to obliterate their will to fight. And lastly, we did it because we did not know how to do anything else.

without smart bombs we would definitely target civilians in the same manner to this day. in fact, all the terrorist attacks in the world combined would not amount to the casualites caused in just one USA B-29 raid, say that on Tokyo of January 9-10 of 1945, which killed some 200,000 people.

Smart bomb technology means that we no longer need to target civilians. but don't forget that we developed smart bombs to be more lethal, not to spare civilian lives. without smart bombs, civilians would be fair game to us today.

Finally, dropping the A-Bomb's certainly did not save any lives. the B-29 raids were causing more casualties than the A-bombs did! There is newer evidence from the Japanese Imperial Archives to indicate that the Japanese were only weeks away from surrender when we dropped the A-bombs. Those documents also show that the Japanese knew quite well that we had only one or two A-Bombs.

Posted: **Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:00 am**

Palzon, I fully understand why you do not wish to answer my question. I hope you won't mind if I briefly explain why this is to others, lest they conclude by your false implication that our country might grant \"constitutional protections\" to enemy combatants. It doesn't. There aren't. Your question demonstrates that you are confused -- which, as I think you know, is the reason I asked it. Your dodge that somehow you were \"taken out of context\" is silly. Here is what you said -

(H)ow about those who fail to see the irony in their justification of a Kafkaesque indefinite confinement with no charges? They claim that only US citizens have the benefit of consititutional protection. And yet in the previous breath, they justified the war on the basis that we are spreading democracy.

Then, in the next \"breath\", you respond to Will saying,

\"I am not here to argue that avowed terrorists be given constitutional rights.\"

That's not confusing, is it? First, be as imprecise as possible. Second, if pinned down on a clear mistake, accuse the responding party of not being \"serious\" and taking your language \"out of context\". Third, adjust the argument to try and contort your initial premise into what somthing you think might pass as logical (it still isn't).

The lunacy continues. To \"Will the Arrogant\", you say,

\"Releasing those guys back to the caves of Tora Bora is not as risky to me or you as releasing good ol' American Chester the Molester into my neighborhood or yours.\"

Never mind, of course, that these \"guys\" are still killing our men and women in Afghanistan. But hey, as long as you're past draft age and tucked safely away in Austin -- the Shiner's cold, no worry for you eh? OH BUT WAIT... I must have misunderstood, because the next sentence is this --

\"But I'm not even advocating for releasing the Gitmo detainees!

Just what are you advocating? Holy crap, now I'm confused. So let me get this straight, you think it's hypocritical to try and spread democracy while detaining enemy combatants \"with no charges.\" But you say you're not here to say that avowed terrorists be given \"constitutional rights\". (Getting confused again.) Then you say that as long the terrorists aren't planting IEDs on the road you take to work, you're ok with having our military release the enemy back into the same war theatre in which they were captured (a bit demoralizing for the troops, wouldn't you think?). But wait a minute. Then you say you're not advocating for the release of Gitmo detainees.

Whew.

The truth is, you haven't the vaguest clue about what it is you want. Like most left-leaning democrats, you sense something is wrong and you wish to complain about the injustice of it all. You say \"the administration has botched a situation ... that didn't need to be botched.\" Yet you offer no solution to the question what to do with enemy combatants in a time of war who claim no soveriegn nation. These same people would, if released into the war theater, kill our brothers and sisters who are fighting for your right to live, work and play without the threat of being dragged away to have your head sawed off.

What's the Palzon proposal? No one knows. No constitutional rights, but they should be charged. Somewhere in there a trial should occur, but they should not be released. Maybe.

Got it.

The Democrats Will Get You Killed.

BD

Posted: **Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:21 am**

Palzon wrote:...if the enemy sees our actions as those of a conqueror and not a liberator, how will the war ever end? the war won't end because for every terrorist we kill or capture we will create two. if the war never ends, how can combatants ever be safely released?

All true but I think we will end our occupation soon and in the wake we hope to leave some kind of government that will reject fundamentalist theocracy and have a representative form of leadership instead of a dictator.
If that happens then I don't see how the people of Iraq or even anyone else in the reigion could think of us as conquerors. Perhaps not purely as liberators since our motives were selfish. After all, we declared the conditions in the middle east to be dangerous to our way of life and used that as justification for our invasion but unlike any other invasion they have endured or any other coup that replaced a warlord or dictator, in the wake of the U.S. invasion we will have left them with their future in their own hands instead of their necks under the boot of some dictator. and probably with quite a bit of rebuilding and protection from the U.S. to help them become the jewel of the middle east.

It's a very difficult task and the odds are stacked against success. I've often said in blackjack terms it's like hitting on 16 when the dealer shows 20.

But now I think the odds are slowly moving in our favor inspite of all the difficulties and failures we have. If the people of america were united behind that goal I think you would see more support from abroad, less fight from the insurgency and the odds would actually be in favor of success! It's a leadership thing, right now the U.S. isn't leading the way, only the Bush administration is. Well no president has the clout and reputation that the U.S. does in these matters so, for example, the political enemies of Blair take encouragement from the political enemies of Bush. They wouldn't be so encouraged if the U.S. was strongly united behind him because the U.S. has a track record of success where as a U.S. president who is being torn apart in the press has a record of failure and weakness.

The sharks are circling and a new more peaceful future for the middle east may well be an innocent victim in the feeding frenzy!
Among the congress and the people of america there is more reluctance to stand behind the president on this war on terror for selfish political reasons than there is an actual principled resistance to the war on terror. They don't want Bush or the republican party to gain any positive momentum so they narrow their focus to see only ways it should fail. Joe Lieberman is the only democrat in congress who puts principle above party loyalty, the rest of them are doing a serious double speak - two faced dance to try and look strong but seek defeat for the war effort.

Palzon wrote:Again, my point is about the Gitmo prisoners, not the Iraq war theater. This thread is about the prisoners and that is what my comments are regarding, no more. My point is about truth, justice, and democracy. I will do my best to illustrate this clearly and show that it is consistent.

but let's briefly return to my "analogy" as you call it, by which you are no doubt referring to this:

Frankly, I'm more worried about our own domestic rapists, batterers, child molestors, and murderers being paroled/probationed in order to make room in the jails for the pot smokers.
It was not meant to be analogy, not even loosely. It could be called a comparison but not an analogy. I believe that the threat posed by our own home grown bad guys put back on the streets every day is greater than the threat of the bad guys confined to Gitmo. I deal with these bad guys every day. Maybe it's my personal bias. But it's more than that. There is a real menace right here in America but our eyes are focused elsewhere.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Releasing those guys back to the caves of Tora Bora is not as risky to me or you as releasing good ol' American Chester the Molester into my neighborhood or yours. But I'm not even advocating for releasing the Gitmo detainees! But this administration has botched a situation (like so many others) that didn't need to be botched.

I understand all that and agree with the underlying concerns you have but not some of the conclusions you draw from those concerns. But that aside for a moment, I was pointing to something totally different when I refered to an analogy (probably should have called it a comparison you're right).
Here:

They claim that only US citizens have the benefit of consititutional protection. And yet in the previous breath, they justified the war on the basis that we are spreading democracy. - Palzon

It was those words I was talking about, where it looked like you were trying to point out hypocrisy. I wanted to point out that denying the protections of our constitution to captured terrorists isn't in conflict with wanting to spread some form of secular democratic representation in the middle east.
The protections of the constitution are an asset for all who enjoy them and we don't neccessarily wnat to provide our enemies with that asset!

It's still a war zone and tactics are important, safety to the men in the field count and the public relations aspect of our effort matters as well.
We don't want a series of trials on cable TV everynight where the enemy has access to our intel as a part of his defense. We don't need them exposing our tactics and our informants back on the battlefield by way of cable news broadcast for all to see! We don't want Greta VanSustren and a parade of defense lawyer/celebrity wannabe's nitpicking the legalaty of the war effort...etc. etc.

Palzon wrote:And I want to return now to my point about your arrogance in these matters. You accuse me of declarations? Yet you are the one who revises history that I saw with my own eyes.

It appears to me that you believe what you are saying and I think it's kind of sad. Because I know you truly care and want to do what's best for the country. You should know me well enough by now to know that I only type here for two reasons: to make people smile or to make a point. I'm not a party guy. I'm not here to grandstand or speak rhetorically. I care just as much as do you.

If we want to spread democracy, we must be the very model of democracy. Imprisonment with no legal rights would be a good model for an empire. We cannot be the model of democracy by using smirking techicalities to cicumvent Geneva conventions regarding the treatment of POW's. We cannot digress to eternal war against half the world and remain a great power for long.

...

I hate the fact that there are gun deaths (tens of thousands of them) in this country. But to remain a democratic nation, we must allow the freedom to bear arms.

By that same token, I hate the fact that anyone would have an abortion. But in a free society, the state should not have the right to determine what happens to your body against your own wishes.

I hate the fact that there are nazis in america today. But to preserve freedom for all, american nazis must be free to hold their beliefs (so long as they do not harm anyone).

And here's one for some of you to think about. Gay marriage rights have nothing to do with how you define marriage ("union between a man and a woman"). The issue is not about your definintion of marriage, it's about your definition of equality. This means that gay marriage should be seen as (at worst) a necessary evil.

Some of these things are necessary evils. And this Gitmo issue is no different. We must set the standard for democracy for the whole world, not set the standard for oppression.

I do know you to be sincere and extremely bright and insightful, that is why I was turned off by what I thought was you taking a cheapshot and spinning in a rhetorical fashion.
I guess I lost something in the translation. The text only constriction of these discussions leaves a lot to be desired.

As to the Gitmo thing, I understand we can't keep them forever but there have been thousands of the captured prisoners who were processed and released without even a trial. We did keep some really bad ones and it's a problem without a real solution. I always figured we would give them a military tribunal type of process once we got close to pulling out of the area because odds are good that the ones we still hold will either kill us or be killed by us, So why release them until we are ready to either execute them or get the hell out of their way?
...

Palzon wrote:One last thing, you've all got the whole WWII bombing thing wrong, every last one of you. We didn't firebomb Dresden to terrorize people or cause panic or fear. Comon people. Plains were expensive. Bombs expensive. Sorties expensive. Pilots hard to replace/train. We would have traded every fire bombing run in the war for smart bomb technology, but not because it's fear-inspiring. it's because it more accurately delivers destructive force with precision. there is no other reason.

As far as targeting civilians in WWII...the correct explanation is...We did it to kill them. We did it often as an act of revenge (particularly in Germany, and at the urging of the British). We did it to obliterate their will to fight. And lastly, we did it because we did not know how to do anything else.

without smart bombs we would definitely target civilians in the same manner to this day. in fact, all the terrorist attacks in the world combined would not amount to the casualites caused in just one USA B-29 raid, say that on Tokyo of January 9-10 of 1945, which killed some 200,000 people.

Smart bomb technology means that we no longer need to target civilians. but don't forget that we developed smart bombs to be more lethal, not to spare civilian lives. without smart bombs, civilians would be fair game to us today.

Finally, dropping the A-Bomb's certainly did not save any lives. the B-29 raids were causing more casualties than the A-bombs did! There is newer evidence from the Japanese Imperial Archives to indicate that the Japanese were only weeks away from surrender when we dropped the A-bombs. Those documents also show that the Japanese knew quite well that we had only one or two A-Bombs.

i defer to your expertise on all things WWII related, I know you have studied that with a passion. But i do want to pick apart one thing you said, isn't "obliterating their will to fight" kind of the same thing as terrorism when you do it by killing civilians? al Queda's goals behind 9/11 comes to mind....

Posted: **Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:49 am**

Bold Deceiver wrote:What's the Palzon proposal? No one knows. No constitutional rights, but they should be charged. Somewhere in there a trial should occur, but they should not be released. Maybe.

No, it's not inconsistent. Palzon is saying that you can't just lock people up forever on the presidents "say so" and expect the world to think of you as a model of fair treatment and democracy. We have already ADMITTED that some of the people in Gitmo were captured by mistake and didn't need to be there. Does that bother you? Does it bother you that if the president had things go the way he wanted from the beginning they would have just disappeared into that black hole and never had any chance of coming back out?

There is a big difference between giving someone constitutional rights (silly, only applies to citizens) and saying that even if they aren't citizens they still have rights as human beings. And the simplest way to give them those rights would have been to apply the Geneva conventions to them. (and that is all Palzon was requesting if I understand him) That doesn't release them out to do more damage, it doesn't put them into the US court system (where they don't belong), but it does put there treatment at a level the international community considers "fair".

Granting the prisoners the rights of the Geneva Conventions from the beginning would have cost us almost nothing and would have gained us the moral high ground in the worlds eyes.

Lets get down to the nitty gritty here. I don't believe that G. W. Bush ordered, was aware of, or even WANTED, the abuses at Abu Ghraib, but he was RESPONSIBLE for them. When the president says that he can lock people up just on his say so (and note, he wanted to include US citizens on this). That once he does lock them up, they have no rights except for any rights he gives them. When the president has his lawyers researching exactly how much torture he can get away with. When the president has the army rewriting their handbooks on how to deal with prisoners so that we can get away with a lot worse treatment of them. There is a MESSAGE being sent to the troops he is commander in chief of. A message that the enemy is not the same level of human as you are, and that you really don't have to follow any rules when dealing with them. That message led directly to Abhu Ghraib. And Al Queda will be FEEDING off of Guantanamo Bay and Abhu Ghraib for DECADES. Every time they need a few more recruits, they will just pass around the pictures and bring in a few more idiots willing to blow themselves up. Every time the U.S. tries to convince the Middle East that we'd just as soon have peace, Al Queda will pass around the pictures again, and get more recruits.

Will Robinson wrote:I think we will end our occupation soon and in the wake we hope to leave some kind of government that will reject fundamentalist theocracy and have a representative form of leadership instead of a dictator.

If the occupation ends soon, Iraq will collapse into anarchy.
And why should I be happy if we DO manage to prop up the government we placed over their. It's a government that executes anyone who converts to Christianity. Oh yeah, what a great democracy. This "Jewel" is composed of paste.

Will Robinson wrote:and probably with quite a bit of rebuilding and protection from the U.S. to help them become the jewel of the middle east.

My prediction: We end up with a country where both our enemies AND our allies hate us. No guess yet which one will be in charge.

Posted: **Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:54 am**

Kilarin wrote:If the occupation ends soon, Iraq will collapse into anarchy.

No that would be if it ends too soon, and that isn't what I suggested...

Kilarin wrote:And why should I be happy if we DO manage to prop up the government we placed over their. It's a government that executes anyone who converts to Christianity. Oh yeah, what a great democracy. This "Jewel" is composed of paste.

I wasn't aware that the new Iraqi government had done that. Can you show me some evidence of that?

Kilarin wrote:My prediction: We end up with a country where both our enemies AND our allies hate us. No guess yet which one will be in charge.

It certainly is a possibility...and the democrat party is working hard to make that possibility a reality since they bet their political future on it happening!

Posted: **Tue Jul 04, 2006 1:27 pm**

I've not even read Will's post just above yet (or anything after). I'm happy to respond to anything I've missed since I started this post, but it will have to come later because I have a lot to say.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Palzon, I fully understand why you do not wish to answer my question. I hope you won't mind if I briefly explain why this this is to others, lest they conclude by your false implication that our country might grant "constitutional protections" to enemy combatants. It doesn't. There aren't. Your question demonstrates that you are confused -- which, as I think you know, is the reason I asked it. Your dodge that somehow you were "taken out of context" is silly. Here is what you said

(H)ow about those who fail to see the irony in their justification of a Kafkaesque indefinite confinement with no charges? They claim that only US citizens have the benefit of consititutional protection. And yet in the previous breath, they justified the war on the basis that we are spreading democracy.

Then, in the next "breath", you respond to Will saying,

"I am not here to argue that avowed terrorists be given constitutional rights."

The clear mistake is yours. You have equivocated on my meaning yet again. You are still taking my words out of context. You (as usual) pick out the parts of my words that lend themselves to misinterpretation and conveniently ignore any salient point of my argument - such as the dangers to our nation that I clearly enumerated if we do not practice what we preach. We cannot further allow ourselves to become desensitized to, content with, and even proud of having a poor record on human rights for detainees.

My point, so no person here can mistake it, is that if we deny legal rights to detainees then 1) we are not in accordance with US and International Law 2) no one could believe we sincerely intend to bring democracy to people formerly oppressed, and 3) that we would be practicing a form of oppression that cheapens the democratic principles for which we stand, and further, 4) we are eroding our own respect for freedom in the process, thus placing the rights of our own citizens in peril down the line.

I may say that Will's stance is far too strident, but I have no doubt of his sincerity or belief in doing what is best for the country.

BD, you have consistenly lumped me in with Democrats (simply because I'm critical of the administration that happens to be Republican at the moment?), which is also inaccurate. I am devoutly independently and I have no interest in playing your little puppet-party games.

I'm not "confused" at all regarding the problem we face. I'm also not "confused" about there being no easy solution. But my acknowledgement that the problem is thorny does not mean that I am confused in my criticism of the current policy, which you again refuse to address. You are too busy playing word games that any first year philosophy student could see through.

As far as my comparison of Gitmo detainees to the criminals we put back on the streets in the USA...I never ever said I wanted detainees to be released. To the average American, our own criminals pose a more immediate threat. But allow me to connect the dots in a way that I did not do so effectively the first time.

If the Gitmo detainees are so dangerous - then why cannot the government charge them and convict them in some fair and legal proceeding? You stated it was "assinine" of Kilarin to say that it is assumed the detainees must be guilty if they are detained, and yet that is exactly what you are doing. You cannot validly conclude they are dangerous just because they are detained! If all the Gitmo detainees are so dangerous, there should be no problem finding a way to prove it and mete out justice to them that will stand as a warning to other would-be terrorists and stand as a model to the rest of the world for how a free people should conduct themselves in handling their enemies bothy sternly and fairly

Is that so confusing? You seem to claim it is. But I think you clearly undertand my argument and yet act coy because it serves your political purposes...

Bold Deceiver wrote:That's not confusing, is it? First, be as imprecise as possible. Second, if pinned down on a clear mistake, accuse the responding party of not being "serious" and taking your language "out of context". Third, adjust the argument to try and contort your initial premise into what somthing you think might pass as logical (it still isn't).

You're the one with the formula for trying to make someone look bad. Not me. Enough with your word games. Address my argument or don't be surprised if I say I cannot take you seriously as I can Will, Lothar, Kilarin and others.

Bold Deceiver wrote:The lunacy continues. To "Will the Arrogant", you say,

"Releasing those guys back to the caves of Tora Bora is not as risky to me or you as releasing good ol' American Chester the Molester into my neighborhood or yours."

Never mind, of course, that these "guys" are still killing our men and women in Afghanistan. But hey, as long as your past draft age and tucked safely away in Austin -- the Shiner's cold, no worry for you eh? OH BUT WAIT... I must have misunderstood, because the next sentence is this --

"But I'm not even advocating for releasing the Gitmo detainees!

I never said that Will was arrogant. I said his position was arrogant. You may not see the distinction, which may be a function of his staunchness or his form of expression, but it is certainly is no slur upon his character. It is his tone or unwillingness to acknowledge the grey area I am impugning and not his person.

I give your raw intelligence some credit and assert that you are again feigning to misunderstand me. I'll play along and pretend you are as confused as you are pretending to be.

I made the intial comparison of bad guys primarily due to something noted in the article...

Bush from article wrote:The American people need to know that this ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street.

Home grown killers are put out on the street and left on the street every day. Yes, our home grown killers pose a greater threat to the average American than do terrorists. This should be intuitively obvious since crime statistics could clearly show your probability is higher of being a victim of domestic violence than any other type. The presidents words sound hollow to me, a guy who day in day out deals with instances of parents brutally beating and/or raping their kids. But I have said nothing arguing for the release of Gitmo detainees. I never ever said or implied that detainees should be unleashed on our service men and women. this is nothing more than a puerile tactic on your part, which I hope other readers will see through.

Here's a nice one:

Bold Deceiver wrote:Then you say that as long the terrorists aren't planting IEDs on the road you take to work, you're ok with having our military release the enemy back into the same war theatre in which they were captured...

Actually, I never said this. You did. In fact, you would say anything to twist my words, to make any position contrary to your own seem silly. Again, I feel I would be justified in not taking you seriously.

Bold Deceiver wrote:What's the Palzon proposal?

OK, lets review for a just a moment what launched this discussion in the first place. The US Supreme Court ruled that the President exceeded his authority when he tried to establish military tribunals and tried to deny legal rights to detainees by classifying them as other than POW, i.e. Bush broke the law according to the Supremes decision. The court found that Bush was in violation of the standards of International Law and US Law by trying to establish the tribunals.

The reason I have not spent time laying out a proposal is because the article itself clearly offers a simple solution from Justice Stevens. So far from having "no idea" what to do, I think this pretty much sums it up:

article wrote:...there was no reason why Hamdan could not be tried under the greater procedural safeguards in the US military justice system that apply to courts-martial proceedings...

but notes that the problems were that...

article wrote:...the tribunals failed to provide one of the most fundamental protections under US military rules, the right for a defendant to be present at all proceedings...

and...

article wrote:...that the military commission convened to try (Salim Ahmed) Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate the international agreement that covers treatment of prisoners of war, as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

...no confusion there for the article or for me!

...

After 9/11, the USA had an opportunity to utilize the sympathy of the world as the starting point for leading the initiative against world wide terrorism. instead, the adminstration thumbed its nose at true international partnership. that was the first job botched.

Later, the combat operations of the war in afghanistan and iraq were successful. but the peace has been dismal in iraq in the sense that the country is not stable; there is general lack of security and poor infrastructure. there is no sign of an effective exit strategy, and the prospects for an enduring democratic Iraqi nation seem dubious. that was the second job botched.

In terms of our exporting democracy - there was still some hope. yet when given the opportunity to model how the paragon of a free democratic society metes out justice to its enemies, the job is being botched again at Gitmo. We have had a chance to lead by example and instead the administration is having to be compelled to do the right thing.

The Supreme Court decision aobut Gitmo actually sends a positive message that the checks and balances are working. But it cannot offset the opportunity cost of yet another opportunity lost due to being botched in the first place.

BD, You are a routine purveyor of the worst sort of parisan politics. you don't seem to care about the truth, only about winning (a good trait in lawyers). But this isn't the court room, counselor. And frankly, I'm sick of your vulgar Johnny Cochrane Chewbaca defense bull$h!t.

The truth is, you don't seem to care which party would actually be more likely to "get you killed". You don't even seem to care that they may be equally likely to get you killed. What you evidently care about is that the Republicans come out on top in the contest and that's it.

I may disagree with Will but I respect him. I am often at odds with Kilarin and Lothar from a theological point of view, but I have respect for their opinions and their presentation. I disagree with Barry about a lot of political issues but often find middle ground with him and he is a personal friend despite our great ideological differences

I wish you would cease the vicious tone you are so accostomed to and discuss issues here like a human of the world instead of like a Republican party brat. Then maybe we could be friends and have a more fruitful discussion.

Posted: **Tue Jul 04, 2006 3:35 pm**

Kilarin: Palzon is saying that you can't just lock people up forever on the presidents \"say so\" . . .

\"Palzon\" (and presumably, you) will have to find some way around the Supreme Court's opinion of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) 542 U.S. 507 and its predecessor, Ex Parte Quirin (1942) 342 U.S. 1. Both the Hamdi and the Quirin courts recognize the right of the United States to hold non-citizen prisoners without any sort of \"trial\", until hostilities cease. The fact that hostilities may not cease for a very, very long time is troubling if you're one of the hostiles, I agree.

Kilarin: . . . and expect the world to think of you as a model of fair treatment and democracy.

I've said this before -- I think your quoted statement demonstrates a fundamental difference between our points of view. This Kerry-esque obsession of the left with \"world opinion\" is fascinating to me. It tells me that you (or Palzon, to the extent your attribution to him is something he desires) are operating from the premise that this country is not presently at war. We are at war, and we're talking about prisoners of war. Might be a long war, but it is a war nevertheless.

Kilarin: We have already ADMITTED that some of the people in Gitmo were captured by mistake and didn't need to be there. Does that bother you?

Yes. It also bothers me when innocent children and civilians are blown to bits by terrorists. It also bothers me when innocent children and civilians are collaterally killed during battle by our armed forces. Your point?

Kilarin: Does it bother you that if the president had things go the way he wanted from the beginning they would have just disappeared into that black hole and never had any chance of coming back out?

I'm sorry, I missed that part of the President's speech, where he said \"if things go my way, these Guantanamo prisoners will disappear into that black hole with no chance of coming out\". Perhaps you can point me to it with a quote.

Kilarin: There is a big difference between giving someone constitutional rights (silly, only applies to citizens) . . .

Mmm.. no. Constitution also applies to noncitzens on U.S. soil, although the parameters are unclear. See Plyler v. Doe (1982) 457 U.S. 202. That's why we have Guantanamo, I believe. I suppose what you mean is that constitutional rights do not apply to enemy combatants.

Kilarin: . . . and saying that even if they aren't citizens they still have rights as human beings. And the simplest way to give them those rights would have been to apply the Geneva conventions to them.

Kilarin, here is what Hamdan had available to him, BEFORE the liberals on the Supreme Court decided to to step in:

“Petitioner is entitled to appointed military legal counsel, 32 C.F.R. 9.4(c)(2), and may retain a civilian attorney (which he has done), 32 C.F.R. 9.4(c)(2)(iii)(B). Petitioner is entitled to the presumption of innocence, 32 C.F.R. 9.5(b), proof beyond a reasonable doubt, 32 C.F.R. 9.5(c), and the right to remain silent, 32 C.F.R. 9.5(f). He may confront witnesses against him, 32 C.F.R. 9.5(i), and may subpoena his own witnesses, if reasonably available, 32 C.F.R. 9.5(h). Petitioner may personally be present at every stage of the trial unless he engages in disruptive conduct or the prosecution introduces classified or otherwise protected information for which no adequate substitute is available and whose admission will not deprive him of a full and fair trial, 32 C.F.R. 9.5(k); Military Commission Order No. 1 (Dep’t of Defense Aug. 31, 2005) §6(B)(3) and (D)(5)(b). If petitioner is found guilty, the judgment will be reviewed by a review panel, the Secretary of Defense, and the President, if he does not designate the Secretary as the final decisionmaker. 32 C.F.R. 9.6(h). The final judgment is subject to review in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and ultimately in this Court. See DTA §1005(e)(3), 119 Stat. 2743; 28 U. S. C. 1254(1).”

What part of that procedure do you have a problem with. How was it, given those procedures, that George Bush was plotting to keep those poor, innocent terrorists in black hole, as you put it? Americans are dying to know.

Kilarin: Lets get down to the nitty gritty here. (SNIP diatribe) When the president says that he can lock people up just on his say so....

Oh my. Yes, that's what Presidents do in times of war with prisoners. Hello! This may come as a shock to you, but he's also ordering soldiers to the battlefield so they can actually kill people, too.

Kilarin: When the president has his lawyers researching exactly how much torture he can get away with.

That's a bit cynical, don't you think? Really a matter for another thread, but do you really think it's diabolical on its face to try to ascribe meaning, and ascertain the parameters of the word \"torture\", so that the people in the field have some reference?

Kilarin: Every time the U.S. tries to convince the Middle East that we'd just as soon have peace, Al Queda will pass around the (Abu Graib) pictures again, and get more recruits.

The days of \"convincing the Middle East that we'd just as soon have peace[/u]\" are long past, and a lot of innocent men, women and children died because of the policy of appeasement you hunger for.

Posted: **Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:05 pm**

If we invade as conquerors, we have become the enemy. If we torture, we have become the enemy. If we take pride in raping and killing innocents, we have become the enemy. Have you listed to talk radio lately? we're nearly there.

Wow... that talk radio must be some batty stuff. I don't listen to it, but I do talk to a lot of people. I haven't heard anybody taking pride in raping and killing innocents. I haven't heard anybody talking about invading as conquerors. And I haven't heard anybody defend \"torture\", I've only heard people question whether certain techniques qualify. Where do you find these people?

As far as targeting civilians in WWII...the correct explanation is...We did it to kill them. We did it often as an act of revenge (particularly in Germany, and at the urging of the British). We did it to obliterate their will to fight. And lastly, we did it because we did not know how to do anything else.

The bold portion is exactly what I was referring to. Make them afraid, make them unwilling to continue. (Will made the same point.)

If the Gitmo detainees are so dangerous - then why cannot the government charge them and convict them in some fair and legal proceeding?

Quite often because explaining exactly why and how we know they're dangerous, in open court, will require revealing methods and/or sources that are best kept secret. This has been said more than once. Will said it in his second post.

I have no problem with closed trials, or with trials being delayed as long as there is good reason (methods or informants we wish not to compromise)... as long as those things are presented to a panel of judges (in private) and they agree that the methods/informants should be kept secret.

lets review for a just a moment what launched this discussion in the first place. The US Supreme Court ruled that the President exceeded his authority when he tried to establish military tribunals and tried to deny legal rights to detainees by classifying them as other than POW, i.e. Bush broke the law according to the Supremes decision. The court found that Bush was in violation of the standards of International Law and US Law by trying to establish the tribunals.

Now we get to the meat of the matter:

The court did NOT find Bush exceeded his authority by trying to establish military tribunals, etc. Rather, the court found that Bush exceeded his authority by not making these tribunals meet the same standards as other military tribunals (ie, the standards in the UCMJ) in one or two areas. All Bush has to do is either make the tribunals meet the UCMJ standards, or convince Congress to modify the UCMJ.

The court's finding was NOT a strong rebuke of W. It wasn't a rebuke of Gitmo or the general treatment of prisoners there. It wasn't a finding that the prisoners qualify under Geneva. It was just a statement that a few aspects of the tribunals aren't legal based on the UCMJ, but since the tribunals are military in nature, either the tribunals or the relevant parts of the UCMJ need to change. People have been jumping on it (and the media has been reporting on it) like it was an in-your-face-Bush, Gitmo-shutdown, release-them-all type decision. It wasn't. And when it comes down to it, it was a pretty darn sensible ruling.

Posted: **Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:31 pm**

Palzon --

I suppose I should be clear that by posting here, I'm not really seeking your affection, thanks all the same. I almost always assume by your hostile tone that's not something I need to consume myself with.

As for your "I've been quoted out of context" allegations, you've been watching too many movies. No one is twisting your words and you well know it; they're quoted back to you for all to see -- and the context is always there for anyone interested. I'll skip over the rest of your angry personal attacks (the last refuge of the left), and get to the substance.

Palzon wrote: My point, so no person here can mistake it, is that if we deny legal rights to detainees then 1) we are not in accordance with US and International Law 2) no one could believe we sincerely intend to bring democracy to people formerly oppressed, and 3) that we would be practicing a form of oppression that cheapens the democratic principles for which we stand, and further, 4) we are eroding our own respect for freedom in the process, thus placing the rights of our own citizens in peril down the line.

Ok. Here's my understanding. Unlawful combatant detainees do not have the right to a civil trial on that question. They are prisoners of war. The ruling in Hamdan does not shut down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, or question the President's right to hold unlawful combatants for the duration of hostilities. Let me know if we don't have a common understanding on these facts.

Hamdan (Osama's driver) was charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism. The Bush Administration made arrangements to try him in accordance with a military commission that accorded him a panoply of "legal rights", as follows:

“Petitioner is entitled to appointed military legal counsel, 32 C.F.R. 9.4(c)(2), and may retain a civilian attorney (which he has done), 32 C.F.R. 9.4(c)(2)(iii)(B). Petitioner is entitled to the presumption of innocence, 32 C.F.R. 9.5(b), proof beyond a reasonable doubt, 32 C.F.R. 9.5(c), and the right to remain silent, 32 C.F.R. 9.5(f). He may confront witnesses against him, 32 C.F.R. 9.5(i), and may subpoena his own witnesses, if reasonably available, 32 C.F.R. 9.5(h). Petitioner may personally be present at every stage of the trial unless he engages in disruptive conduct or the prosecution introduces classified or otherwise protected information for which no adequate substitute is available and whose admission will not deprive him of a full and fair trial, 32 C.F.R. 9.5(k); Military Commission Order No. 1 (Dep’t of Defense Aug. 31, 2005) §6(B)(3) and (D)(5)(b). If petitioner is found guilty, the judgment will be reviewed by a review panel, the Secretary of Defense, and the President, if he does not designate the Secretary as the final decisionmaker. 32 C.F.R. 9.6(h). The final judgment is subject to review in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and ultimately in this Court. See DTA §1005(e)(3), 119 Stat. 2743; 28 U. S. C. 1254(1).”

Osama's driver countered by filing a writ of habeas corpus - basically an original writ proceeding dating back to English common law - to determine whether he was being held unlawfully. Congress had already spoken to this issue by enacting the Detainment Treatment Act which said that courts do not have the power to adjudicate Guantanamo Bay detainee habeas petitons, but the Supreme Court just ignored the statute, pretending it only applied to apprehensions post-dating the December statute:

"On December 30, 2005, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). It unambiguously provides that, as of that date, “no court, justice, or judge” shall have jurisdiction to consider the habeas application of a Guantanamo Bay detainee. Notwithstanding this plain directive, the Court today concludes that, on what it calls the statute’s most natural reading, every “court, justice, or judge” before whom such a habeas application was pending on December 30 has jurisdiction to hear, consider, and render judgment on it. (Scalia, dissent.)

I think this is a power-grab by an aggressive liberal court, and I think it's dangerous. Call me anything you like, but Republican judicial philosophy does not embrace judicial activism and overreaching. The Kilo decision (government can take your private property and sell it to developers so it can reap higher tax benefits as "just compensation" for a government taking) well illustrates the problem.

So whatever "legal rights" you think were denied the detainees were and are derived of Congressional (not judicial) and treaty authority. The Supremes have also made the astonishing ruling that the Geneva Convention common Article 3 (meant to apply to Civil Wars) somehow applies to terrorists who do not subscribe, and who have no problem mutilating our soldiers by gouging their eyes out and sawing their heads off. You shouldn't be doing backflips over that one. The Congress will now have to correct that as well, and I believe it will.

The "botched" due process procedures you are troubled by (italics, above) had oodles of protections, from what I can see. What part of this procedure did you (and the international community) find offensive? The one where the government takes the terrorist out of the room when classified or otherwise protected information for which no adequate substitute is available and whose admission will not deprive him of a full and fair trial, is introduced? Really?

And by "botched", do you mean Justice Kennedy's lonely swing vote? For practical purposes, this one was 5-4, with Roberts abstaining (his ruling below was being reviewed). Had Kennedy swung the other way, would it still be "botched".

Palzon wrote:After 9/11, the USA had an opportunity to utilize the sympathy of the world as the starting point for leading the initiative against world wide terrorism. instead, the adminstration thumbed its nose at true international partnership. that was the first job botched.

What, in your view, was U.N. Resolution 1442?

Palzon wrote:Later, the combat operations of the war in afghanistan and iraq were successful. but the peace has been dismal in iraq in the sense that the country is not stable; there is general lack of security and poor infrastructure. there is no sign of an effective exit strategy, and the prospects for an enduring democratic Iraqi nation seem dubious. that was the second job botched.

See newly elected representative government; recent appointments of a Sunni as head of defense, a Kurd as head of security, and a Shiite as head of interior. See also assuredly favorable historical viewpoint about 20 years from now. Long wait for you; I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here.

You said: "In terms of our exporting democracy - there was still some hope. yet when given the opportunity to model how the paragon of a free democratic society metes out justice to its enemies, the job is being botched again at Gitmo."

Consider this:

Wall Street Journal Editors wrote:After Hamdan
July 3, 2006; Page A10

****

As for the rules of evidence, the Court's decision could make it much harder to convict these defendants because the Pentagon often won't want to risk exposing military secrets. Thus one irony of Hamdan is that many of these combatants may end up being returned to their home countries where they may get far worse legal treatment. In any case, the Court's intrusion here is a breathtaking assertion that it knows better than an elected President how to treat enemies captured on the battlefield. Legal scholars tell us they can't recall this happening in any previous American conflict.

****

Oh and just so we can establish your independent credentials, would you mind identifying the presidential nominee for whom you voted in the past three presidential elections?

The Democrats (And Those Who Vote For Them) Will Get You Killed.

Warmest regards,

BD

Posted: **Tue Jul 04, 2006 6:57 pm**

Kilarin wrote:And why should I be happy if we DO manage to prop up the government we placed over their. It's a government that executes anyone who converts to Christianity. Oh yeah, what a great democracy. This "Jewel" is composed of paste.

Will Robinson wrote:I wasn't aware that the new Iraqi government had done that. Can you show me some evidence of that?

My apologies, I'm mixing up my puppet democracies. It was Afghanistan wiki link here. They got the Christian convert off on a technicality and got him out of the country quick. I will actually be surprised if Iraq doesn't have the same rule, but I don't KNOW it.

Kilarin wrote:and expect the world to think of you as a model of fair treatment and democracy.

Bold Deceiver wrote:I've said this before -- I think your quoted statement demonstrates a fundamental difference between our points of view. This Kerry-esque obsession of the left with "world opinion" is fascinating to me.

Why do you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal democrat? And since you seem interested in voting records, Browne, Browne, and Badnarik.

I care about world opinion for two reasons. One: if a significant portion of the world thinks we are being unfair, then we need to examine our actions closely to see if they are right. They may not be, but we need to look. And Two: Lives stand on the worlds opinion of us. If the world thinks us imperialistic bullies, then the terrorists will find more members and support. If the world thinks that we are a fair and reasonable people, the terrorists will have a more difficult time getting support or new members.

Bold Deceiver wrote:It tells me that you (or Palzon, to the extent your attribution to him is something he desires) are operating from the premise that this country is not presently at war. We are at war, and we're talking about prisoners of war. Might be a long war, but it is a war nevertheless.

Bold Deceiver wrote: the astonishing ruling that the Geneva Convention common Article 3 (meant to apply to Civil Wars) somehow applies to terrorists who do not subscribe, and who have no problem mutilating our soldiers by gouging their eyes out and sawing their heads off.

You mean like the Japanese tortured our prisoners? Or the Viet Cong?

If they are prisoners of war, then they should be treated as prisoners of war, which means the Geneva conventions apply. That's what we've been talking about.
I find this schizophrenic view on whether or not we are fighting a "war" bizarre. You scream "It's a war! It's a war!" when you want more money, or more soldiers, or more power for the executive. And these are "Prisoners of War" when someone discusses releasing them. But when we say they should be treated as "Prisoners of War", you suddenly claim they are terrorists not soldiers and don't deserve any of the protections afforded to prisoners of war.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Constitution also applies to noncitzens on U.S. soil, although the parameters are unclear

I stand corrected. Learn something new every day. Seems VERY counter-intuitive to me though. BUT, thank you for the education.

Bold Deceiver wrote:The days of "convincing the Middle East that we'd just as soon have peace" are long past, and a lot of innocent men, women and children died because of the policy of appeasement you hunger for.

You see, here I think we hit a significant part of the problem. Your statement seems to imply two things to me. You do not WANT peace with the middle east, and you equate everyone in the middle east with terrorism.

I'm not a dove, I'm a hawk. I don't believe we should EVER negotiate with terrorists. Negotiating with terrorist breads more terrorism.

BUT, I don't believe everyone in the middle east is a terrorist. And if the Islamic states could stop acting as terrorists, supporting terrorism, and just generally threatening the rest of the world, I would be happy to have peace with them. I'd still have human rights issues to argue with them, but keeping it within their own borders would be a very, very big move in the right direction.

one way Al Qaeda grew was by convincing people that the west wanted another Crusade. That we hated all Moslems and intended to destroy them and their way of life. We can fight terrorism without making that LIE look true. At least I HOPE it's a lie. Please tell me that, even for you die hard republicans, its a lie?

Lothar wrote:that talk radio must be some batty stuff... I haven't heard anybody talking about invading as conquerors. And I haven't heard anybody defend "torture"

I've heard talk radio hosts saying that there are circumstances under which torture is appropriate, but I can't remember which hosts.
However, I once caught Mike Savage saying "This country will never be safe until it abandons this insane idea of religious liberty". Batty, oh yes indeed.

Posted: **Wed Jul 05, 2006 2:59 pm**

Kilarin wrote:Your statement seems to imply two things to me. You do not WANT peace with the middle east, and you equate everyone in the middle east with terrorism.

Please reread the statement and attempt to comprehend it more clearly than you did.

I don't know how else to state that... you just plain didn't get it.

There's nothing there about not WANTING peace or thinking everyone in the middle east is a terrorist... it's just a statement that the policy of "attempting to convince everyone to live at peace with us" doesn't work. It happens to be because of a small-to-medium percentage of Muslims who want to re-establish the Caliphate worldwide. There are plenty who'd prefer peace and reasonable secular governments, but there are enough nutjobs that "convincing them we just want peace" doesn't work.

Posted: **Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:43 pm**

Kilarin -

I'll respond as efficiently as I can to your points:

Kilarin: Why do you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal democrat? And since you seem interested in voting records, Browne, Browne, and Badnarik.

I think I know (now) of least three people I am acquainted with from this board, who hold themselves out as "independents", in the sense they claim no allegiance to either of the dominant American parties. I'm fine with that, but I think it's fair to question one's voting record where a debater claims some status other than republican or democrat. I think you are commenting on the use of my word "Kerry-esque" to describe what I perceive as Palzon's knavish fealty to world opinion. I didn't use the word democrat-esque, but I suppose I could have. In any event, congratulations on your libertarian voting record. I think it amounts to a wasted vote in both the short and long term, but I can't fault you for taking a principled stance.

Your discussion about why you care about "world opinion" is not moving, at least to me. Assuming for the moment that under Bill Clinton, the world thought us "fair and reasonable people", as it happened it was of no moment. We were attacked repeatedly under what defenders of Bill Clinton would characterize as his "fair and reasonable" treatment of the world, nad he was extraordinarily popular for it. But the notion is, to me, a naive one: terrorists do not seek fair and reasonable relations. They seek to impose on you, infidel, their twisted islamo-fascist belief system. Fair and reasonable is that you obey Islamic law. If you think otherwise, I recommend you read anything by Bernard Lewis on the topic.

Kilarin: You mean like the Japanese tortured our prisoners? Or the Viet Cong?

You're not actually contending there is moral equivalence between the treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo, and the Japanese' Bataan Death March? Or Viet Cong torture camps? Does orange glazed chicken, fresh fruit crepes, steamed peas, and mushrooms and rice pilaf sound like "torture" to you? I hope I'm misreading this. Maybe you didn't mean it.

Kilarin: If they are prisoners of war, then they should be treated as prisoners of war, which means the Geneva conventions apply. That's what we've been talking about.

Well, no actually, I think you'd be dead wrong about that, until last week. Only "High Contracting Parties" were bound, until this most recent contortion by the last dying liberal members of the Supreme Court. Now, Al Qaeda members are found to be beneficiaries of, in a very limited fashion, the Geneva Conventions. This, without any subscription by Al Quaeda to those same protocols. Sadly for the left, Congress in this instance can (and will) neutralize the Supreme Court's audacious ruling, which took common Article 3 (which on its face, was meant to apply to subscribing sovereigns in the midst of civil war) and applied to, well, everybody. Unbelievable. Congress can defeat it with statute. Mark my words.

But as a libertarian, aren't you concerned that the Court is trying to make a power-grab here from Congress and the Executive with a contorted ruling?

Bold Deceiver wrote:The days of "convincing the Middle East that we'd just as soon have peace" are long past, and a lot of innocent men, women and children died because of the policy of appeasement you hunger for.

Kilarin: You see, here I think we hit a significant part of the problem. Your statement seems to imply two things to me. You do not WANT peace with the middle east, and you equate everyone in the middle east with terrorism.

Here's what I see, Kilarin. I made this case before the war, and I'm making it to you now. Religious fanaticism is not new to mankind. The "Moors" and the Christians have been grappling with each other for thousands of years. Now the Islamic faith is being used as a device by evil people, who seek world dominance. It's that simple. The West is an impediment to radical Islam, because it mostly worships a different God and when it doesn't, it doesn't give a rats-ass about Islam. That's unacceptable to Islam.

Technology caught up with us all. Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are available now, and will continue to be more and more available to those who wish to do harm to Europe and the West. Your kids will grow up to confront that which you and I do not confront, today. The day will one day come when 30,000 men, women, and children of a western city will be killed in a horrific act of religious fervor.

So let's let liberty get a foothold in the belly of the beast. Let's let a seed of man's yearning for self-determination take root, in a place where suffering and oppression has been passed on from unhappy generation to unhappy generation. Let's make it so that life isn't so hard that all you have to look forward to is blasting yourself into vapor in the hope that 72 virgins will greet you, while in reality you leave nothing but shattered men, women, and for God's sake, small children dead in the street.

I'm glad you don't believe in negotiating with terrorists. But the game now is survival, put to its simplest view. Span it over 100 years, and see who wins.

That's what's going on here, and to think otherwise is to ignore technological advances and the communication of deadly information over the internet. You're right -- not everyone in the middle east is a terrorist. Many, particularly in Iraq, are well-educated, sophisticated citizens who only want a better life for their children -- like us. But the silence from the Middle East on the question whether Osama Bin Laden should have sent planes into the twin towers is deafening. Many deny he did it. Many silently rejoice. This is a massive religious movement against the infidels, and you number among the enemy to them.

You say that "one way Al Qaeda grew was by convincing people that the west wanted another Crusade." That's historically wrong, according to my reading (back again to Bernard Lewis). The crusades are hardly mentioned in Islamic literature. For them, it was just another blip on the radar screen of time where there were numerous battles for domination between Islam and the West.

Kilarin: That we hated all Moslems and intended to destroy them and their way of life. We can fight terrorism without making that LIE look true. At least I HOPE it's a lie. Please tell me that, even for you die hard republicans, its a lie?

Only the foolish hate "all Moslems." Republicans support the fight to destroy any Muslim who engages in or otherwise lends aid to terrorism.

Kilarin: I've heard talk radio hosts saying that there are circumstances under which torture is appropriate . . . Batty, oh yes indeed.

Number me among the batty. If there existed a strong probability that a terrorist in custody knew, but refused to divulge information about a ticking weapon of mass destruction that would take American lives ... he wouldn't want me voting on the subject.

And you?

BD

Posted: **Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:02 pm**

Lothar wrote:Please reread the statement and attempt to comprehend it more clearly than you did.

Ok, I went back and looked at it again, and the only way I can read it as a reasonable statement is as an over reaction to the doves.

I agree, appeasement is a BAD idea. Doesn't work, never would have worked, is wrong in principle. You do NOT deal with terrorists, you respond with force. But I wasn't speaking of appeasement.

This war isn't mainly going to be fought only on the physical level. It's a war for minds and hearts. When we respond with force, it MUST be justified force. Attacking Afghanistan was OBVIOUSLY a response to an attack upon us. Iraq was NOT. Attacking Afghanistan was something the Middle East could understand and justify, attacking Iraq (in the way we did) just fed into their propaganda machine.

And, again, to prove I'm not a dove. We COULD have invaded Iraq in a way that the Middle East would have understood. Idiot Saddam kept shooting at our planes. Bush could have simply issued an ultimatum that the next time Saddam shot at us, we would take it as an act of war and eliminate his ability to shoot at us ever again.

A response to aggression is something the Middle East can easily understand and while they might whine, they would have a hard time convincing EVERYONE over there that we are the bad guys when it's obvious that they struck first.

The terrorist are not rational, and because of that there are only two ways to win this war on terrorism. Either we commit genocide and completely eliminate the source. Or we convince the people of the Middle East that we really are NOT Crusaders, and if they want to stop the violence, they need to police their own people and stop the terrorists.

I have serious doubts if we can EVER convince them of this, but we have to try, because genocide is simply unthinkable.

Bold Deciever wrote:congratulations on your libertarian voting record. I think it amounts to a wasted vote in both the short and long term,

Conservatives who vote Republican and Liberals who vote Democrat both get the opposite of what they want. Since each party is assured of the vote of their own extremes, they move more to the middle, further away from the policies desired by the voters. Deprive the mainstream parties of your vote and they will have to start moving back towards your position in order to regain it.
A vote for a third party COUNTS because it changes attitudes. A vote for a mainstream party that you don't really agree with is wasted.

Bold Deciever wrote:Assuming for the moment that under Bill Clinton, the world thought us "fair and reasonable people", as it happened it was of no moment.

Bill Clinton was an idiot who drifted with every wind of political change. I'm not talking about trying to win some kind of popularity contest. I mean that we should have policies that reasonable people the world over think are fair and just.
I agree with you that the terrorist are not reasonable, but they aren't the people we are trying to convince.

Kilarin wrote:You mean like the Japanese tortured our prisoners? Or the Viet Cong?

Bold Deciever wrote:You're not actually contending there is moral equivalence between the treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo, and the Japanese' Bataan Death March?

No no, you completely misunderstood me here. I was responding to:

Bold Deciever wrote:the astonishing ruling that the Geneva Convention common Article 3 (meant to apply to Civil Wars) somehow applies to terrorists who do not subscribe, and who have no problem mutilating our soldiers by gouging their eyes out and sawing their heads off.

I was comparing the way the terrorist treat prisoners with the way the Viet Cong and Japanese did. We (generally, not always) tried to treat our prisoners BETTER than that, even when the enemy wasn't following the rules.

That's why I think we should have extended the Geneva Convention accords to cover the POW's at Gitmo. Not because they necessarily qualify (I don't think they do), but to show that WE were going to go the step beyond to make CERTAIN that we were doing the right thing.

Bold Deciever wrote:You say that "one way Al Qaeda grew was by convincing people that the west wanted another Crusade." That's historically wrong, according to my reading (back again to Bernard Lewis). The crusades are hardly mentioned in Islamic literature

The word seems to come up a lot in Osama's rants. But I will admit the problem goes way beyond it.

Bold Deciever wrote:If there existed a strong probability that a terrorist in custody knew, but refused to divulge information about a ticking weapon of mass destruction that would take American lives ... he wouldn't want me voting on the subject. And you?

Suppose it was a U. S. Citizen who was the terrorist in custody. How much "Due Process" would you demand for the citizen before we started pulling out finger nails?. Must he already have been convicted as a terrorist? Or can we hook him up to a car battery if he is only suspected of terrorism?

And do your answers change if he happens to be an Iranian instead of an American? What if it is a woman? A teenage boy? A ten year old Muslim girl who we think knows where her father went with the bomb?

So where do I stand? Strongly sympathetic with the urge to torture the victim. But afraid that if we ever make such a thing legal, we will find it impossible to determine what the limits are.

Posted: **Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:48 am**

I'll throw in my take on the US attacking innocents. In the case of a govt. vs. govt. war, the war is, theoretically, nation vs. nation. Thus, while attacking non-combatents is less honorable than attacking combatents, those people are still members of the entity with which you are at war. In the case of terrorism, the entity with which you are at war is much smaller. (limited to the terrorist organization) So, while bombing Japan did kill civilians, it only (intentionally) killed people who where technically at war with us- and it was done in an open manner, such that there was no question whom the attacker was. In the end, as the addage goes, \"All's fair in love and war.\"

Posted: **Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:15 pm**

snoopy wrote:In the end, as the addage goes, "All's fair in love and war."

A better way of phrasing it is to add the footnote "Except where prohibited by the Geneva Convention".

Just FYI I think the Geneva Convention is a good idea, so please don't misconstrue the above as an attack on it.

Posted: **Thu Jul 06, 2006 6:20 pm**

Kilarin -

A brief response. The quote at issue was:

BD wrote:The days of "convincing the Middle East that we'd just as soon have peace" are long past, and a lot of innocent men, women and children died because of the policy of appeasement you hunger for.

To which you responded (in part):

Kilarin wrote:This war isn't mainly going to be fought only on the physical level. It's a war for minds and hearts. When we respond with force, it MUST be justified force.

Attacking Afghanistan was OBVIOUSLY a response to an attack upon us. Iraq was NOT.

Fascinating. Let's test the waters here. Do you believe there are any circumstances under which the United States would be justified in attacking another country, other than a response to being attacked?

Kilarin wrote:Attacking Afghanistan was something the Middle East could understand and justify . . .

Kilarin, on what do you base this assertion? I believe it is unsupported, and it is not reality. There is simply no reliable, empirical data that the population of the Middle East found the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan "understandable and justifiable".

Kilarin wrote:. . .attacking Iraq (in the way we did) just fed into their propaganda machine.

(1) Conceded. (2) Irrelevant. The propoganda machine was in full swing long before we freed 25 million people in the region from the rule of a vicious dictator. You discount the obvious here. If "hearts and minds" is your goal (and I am of the view that "hearts and minds" follows security and is secondary in that respect) how better to gain them?

Kilarin wrote:Bush could have simply issued an ultimatum that the next time Saddam shot at us, we would take it as an act of war and eliminate his ability to shoot at us ever again.

The United States Congress wrote:
"Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; . . ."

2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

And so the difference between us is that you would have offered one last warning to Hussein? The war would be justified if the U.S. told Iraq that if it were to fire so much as one more a single shot against U.S aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, we'd invade the country? Do you believe that had the U.S. offered this last warning, "the Middle East" would have embraced the war in Iraq? I think you meandered a bit far here. If you stop and think about it, I think you'll agree that's ... implausible.

Kilarin wrote:(W)e (should) convince the people of the Middle East that we really are NOT Crusaders, and if they want to stop the violence, they need to police their own people and stop the terrorists.

That is what we're doing today, Kilarin. The "people of the Middle East" include the people of Iraq. We have 130,000 emissaries of goodwill out there right now, training up Iraqi security forces and doing their best to quell sectarian violence; violence that was going on long before we arrived, and will continue long after we depart.

Kilarin wrote:A vote for a mainstream party that you don't really agree with is wasted.

That's rather sweeping. I don't agree with the way Bush wears red ties, but that doesn't mean my vote is wasted. I think people are very often right to vote in a compromise candidate, like a guy with a red ties. This permits the advancement of common political agendas of a higher priority -- like, say, national security.

Kilarin wrote:I agree with you that the terrorist are not reasonable, but they aren't the people we are trying to convince.

No, they're the people we will kill or capture and toss into Guantanomo. Anyone who wishes to join the terrorist party will have a powerful deterrent in that respect. At the same time, I readily acknowledge that PR is a major part of the battle. But it comes into play after security to try and maintain the peace, not during a battle to kill the other side.

The difference between us, Kilarin, is vast. You believe that PR and world relations begets security. I believe you are dead wrong -- that is a fallacy already demonstrated by the last 30 years of vicious, unprovoked attacks by Islamo-fascists.

By the way, thanks for straightening me out on the Japanese prisoners; I was worried.

Kilarin wrote:So where do I stand? Strongly sympathetic with the urge to torture the [terrorist with information whose disclosure of an impending attack would save American lives]. But afraid that if we ever make such a thing legal, we will find it impossible to determine what the limits are.

Ok. Would you make it illegal?

BD

DescentBB

Supremes dump on Dubya

Supremes dump on Dubya