side note war on terror

[mike777]

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

"War is a challenge to law"

 

 

Well duh ya.....

 

 

Trying to fight a war as a crime is silly.

[Lobowolf]

What a difference 140 years make:

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

 

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

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

 

From Ex Parte Milligan, emphasis added.

[Winstonm]

This is the argument presented by the Obama Justice Department:

 

If we can win a conviction in federal court, we will try them in federal court.

If we cannot win a conviction in federal court but we can win a conviction in a Military Commission, we will try them in a Military Commission.

If we cannot win a conviction in either place, we will simply hold them in prison uncharged.

If by chance someone we thought would be convicted is found not guilty, we will continue to hold them in prison regardless.

 

 

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

[Winstonm]

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

"War is a challenge to law"

Well duh ya.....

Trying to fight a war as a crime is silly.

 

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

[mike777]

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

"War is a challenge to law"

Well duh ya.....

Trying to fight a war as a crime is silly.

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

[Winstonm]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Al_U_Card]

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

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

[Lobowolf]

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

How so?

[Winstonm]

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

How so?

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

 

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

they do this because they're Evil and murderous

 

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

[Lobowolf]

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

How so?

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

How does that pertain to naming them?

[Winstonm]

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

How so?

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

How does that pertain to naming them?

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Al_U_Card]

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

 

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

 

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

[barmar]

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

[luke warm]

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

 

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

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

[kenberg]

Well, the taking of the US embassy in Iran was during the Carter administration. Certainly this was an attack on US assets and technically, although I would not go heavy on this, it was on US soil.

I wouldn't call GBI a right-wing zealot and I certainly would not lay our current problems with jihadists at his feet.

[Winstonm]

Well, the taking of the US embassy in Iran was during the Carter administration. Certainly this was an attack on US assets and technically, although I would not go heavy on this, it was on US soil.

I wouldn't call GBI a right-wing zealot and I certainly would not lay our current problems with jihadists at his feet.

I agree this is not a partisan issue. But to be completely fair keep in mind that the hostage crisis in Iran was in response to a fundamentalist Muslim revolution that deposed the Shah of Iran, whom the U.S. had helped install into power and had supported for years.

 

Even then there were two sides to the story - and it wasn't simply a bunch of Muslim crazies invading our embassy - it was a response to years of our foreign policy choices.

 

Btw, that does not make our foreign policy choices wrong - it only means we need to accept responsibility for our choices in order to have a meaningful discussion of how to deal with the enemies we help create.

[Winstonm]

This marks the fourth time in less than a year that Hakimullah Mehsud has been declared slain, only to re-emerge completely unscathed.

 

Despite launching 44 attacks in 2009, only a handful of significant leaders were slain, and the vast majority of the dead were civilians.

 

Another 44 reasons to "hate our freedoms".

[Al_U_Card]

This marks the fourth time in less than a year that Hakimullah Mehsud has been declared slain, only to re-emerge completely unscathed.

 

Despite launching 44 attacks in 2009, only a handful of significant leaders were slain, and the vast majority of the dead were civilians.

 

Another 44 reasons to "hate our freedoms".

Don't forget the 1 trillion reasons for pushing from behind...

[Winstonm]

But, of course, there is no blame to share. "Those guys" should have followed orders.

 

NATO explained that US Marines went out to direct an anti-NATO protest in Garmsir and when the “civilians in the crowd disregarded instructions,” the troops opened fire on the crowd. US Lt. Col.  Todd Breasseale shrugged off the civilian casualties, insisting “things like this happen.”

 

Ironically the civilians at the Wednesday rally, estimated at between 200 and 400 strong by the NATO forces, were protesting against a Tuesday incident, in which NATO forces opened fire on civilians at a Tuesday protest, killing 13 people and wounding several others.

 

 

Perhaps they should stop with their silly demands.

 

In Kabul, the massacre sparked demonstrations with protesters holding up banners showing photographs of dead children alongside placards demanding "Foreign troops leave Afghanistan" and "Stop killing us".

[Winstonm]

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough — more than enough — of war and hate and oppression.  JFK 1963

[mike777]

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough — more than enough — of war and hate and oppression.  JFK 1963

hmmm JFK did not read his history.

 

 

We started lots of wars...many.....1776, civil war....Indian wars....Spanish American war, Mexican war...etc etc.......

 

 

I have posted often, basically the USA has been in constant war since before 1776, see French Indian war. We invaded Canada several times,,,,,and maybe again.... See all the wars before that between Native Americans...etc.

 

See how JFK built up our nukes/rockets....etc.....see how large our defense budget was...etc..