Sooner rather than later...

[tw]

Reasons to be more mistrusting of anything from the Geroge Jr administration. Everytime another disclosure about bad government management comes up, then we have another 'rumored' al Qaeda attacker uncovered.

Where is this radioactive material he was going to explode? The guy looks very much like a dupe - a courier stuffed with mythical ideas so that, if caught, he would only be a distraction. How convenient when the administration wants us to ignore the next major step in the Star Wars program begins.

Star Wars - starve basic security agencies such as FBI field offices and force the Coast Guard to patrol the ocean in 1940 cutters - all so that George Jr can claim al Qaeda cannot attack us with intercontinental missiles. So that we don't remember this high level exercise in low intelligence, the administration troops out another al Qaeda terrorist?

If the guy had radioactive material, then maybe there was a concern. Presently he looks to be about as intelligent as Richard Reid - who couldn't even give himself a hotfoot without screwing it up.

The FBI middle managment had everything they needed to see a WTC bombing coming. They were so incompetent as to quash the facts. A bumbling, administration of right wing extremists cover up and deny knowledge of these facts for 6 months. When exposed, they announce a Homeland security office that does not even address the problem! We are expected to trust these mental midgets? With every White House announcement - including this rumored terrorist - one must ask what they might be trying to coverup. Never since Nixon have I so distrusted the man in the White House. His poltical agenda is more important than the country.

Global warming does not exist. Right. Which extremist told him to say that? Or did he make it all up on his own. How much closer did we really come to War with China over a propeller plane?

[thebecoming]

www.hereinreality.com/conspiracy/

There I've posted it....Now im on a database with the "Eff...Bee..EYE..for sure" Someone tell me where that farmhouse out in the sticks is, where we will meet.

Wonder who wants to jumpstart armageddon?

Forget the Illuminati....thy name is The Carlyle Group...

Is that someone jimmying the lock on the backdoor?
I gotta go......

[juju]

Originally posted by jaguar
I'm with dham on this one. Never thought i'd say that.

Do you feel all dirty? :)

[juju]

Originally posted by Griff
I don't wish to be the nutty civil libertarian here, but since I've stumbled into the role.... Definitions mean a great deal. Congress has abrogated its responsibility by not declaring war on a specific group or country. Whether this is force of habit or so insurance companies can't hide behind war clauses, I don't know. What it does is leave us in a position where the President can choose our enemies without consulting Congress. So when we invade Iraq there will have been no real debate in the context of approving or rejecting the expansion of the conflict. (Griff vowing sunshine and lollipops for a while)

I agree. Folks, no matter how many times CNN parrots it stupid little graphics, <i>we are not at war</i>. Not unless you want to change the definition of war. Hey, while we're at it, why not make bananna mean apple and apple mean telephone? :)

[Undertoad]

In the real world, the government is not limited by the Constitution. In the real world, which is where people operate, including those who want to do the world great harm, the government is limited only by <i>what is politically viable.</i>

On one hand, this is scary, because it means that rights are not really guaranteed, that tyranny is just around the corner, etc.

On the other hand, as imperfect humans, we cannot possibly build a system that is perfect; we have to accept that we can only do the best we can.

In this particular case, it would appear that the imperfect political system has led to a better result. A dickweed who was specifically trained by al Queda and sent back to the US is, <i>in a perfect system</i>, someone you want to detain, deeply interrogate, and then send to prison for the rest of his life. Anyone trained by al Queda who is now in the US should be considered a clear and present danger until proven otherwise.

Because if you're concerned about what is politically viable now, just wait until you see what is politically viable after the next successful attack. If the next attack could not be thwarted because known terrorists were released or otherwise treated with kid gloves -- well, you won't recognize this country five years after that attack.

Originally posted by juju
<i>we are not at war</i>

Tell that to the wives of the men that died fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The very simple fact of the matter is that we are at war. To make sure, I looked up what "war" means.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

That sure sounds like what's going on to me. So, juju, why would we even need to bother changing the definition? That above definition fits <b>perfectly</b> the situation - a group (al Qaeda) is waging an armed and prolonged conflict against the United States and we, in return, are waging an armed and prolonged conflict against al Qaeda.

There may have been no formal declaration, but make no mistake about it, this is war. It might not be on the scale of World War II, but it is war nonetheless.

I now ask you and Griff to describe, in plain English as I have, how this current armed and prolonged conflict, carried on against al Qaeda, does not fit the definition of war.

[spinningfetus]

Its not a open conflict thats why. The government is not carrying on a conflict with a nation, group, or individual. It is a war against a concept, just like the war on drugs and we've all seen the ludicris steps our government has taken in that fight. This guy is an American citizen; if we wish to claim the moral high ground in this fight we must stick to our morals. Hell, even the Rosenbergs got an open trial. It might not have been fair, but people could have stuck up for him. The point of the military tribunal is that the public doen't get to make any sort of judgements of its own regarding the evidence hell we don't even get to see the evidence, this makes me suspect that there isn't any. Mc Veih, and Kazinsky both got public trials and they actually blew things up. I'm hesitant to bring it up but notice that Walker who was fighting with the Taliban was white and this guy is not? Coincidence? Who the fuck knows cause we aren't being shown any proof. If this guy is tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in a Military Tribunal we have become the Taliban, period.

[russotto]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Just because the Taliban is out of power doesn't mean the war has ended; it's actually just begun.

Give me a plausible end condition and I'll consider this. Until then, it's just the 1984 eternal war, and an excuse to strip our rights and liberties.

This guy is an American citizen, arrested on American soil, and not a member of the military. There is no excuse for not giving him an American civilian trial.

(But so far, all I've heard is he's being held in Navy facilities, not that he'll be denied a proper trial)

[thebecoming]

Is John Walker still an American citizen?

I mean he did take up arms against american soldiers.
But I'm sure leftist militia groups claim to be american citizens even though they would take up arms against american soldiers.

Originally posted by spinningfetus
Its not a open conflict thats why. The government is not carrying on a conflict with a nation, group, or individual. It is a war against a concept, just like the war on drugs and we've all seen the ludicris steps our government has taken in that fight.

This is false. You seem intelligent, so I have to assume that you're willingly turning a blind eye to the facts. Here are the facts, and they are indisputable:

1) al Qaeda has executed attacks against United States citizens and interests
2) al Qaeda has all but formally admitted responsibility for the September 11 attacks
3) Soldiers are on the ground in Afghanistan, fighting to eliminate the enemy element
4) The enemy element is not defined as "terrorists" but as al Qaeda and Taliban, with an emphasis on al Qaeda

Those are <b>facts</b>. We can draw from those that we are engaged in armed (weapons) and prolonged (since October 7) conflict against a party or parties (Taliban and al Qaeda). There is no ambiguity here - men who are better than you or I are half way around the world fighting a clearly defined enemy whose goal is to wipe out our country.

Likening it to the War on Drugs (which <b>isn't</b> a war) is an attempt to further emotionally charge an already emotional issue. I'm not going to take your bait. The "war" against drugs is, very simply, not an armed conflict. Pot users are not flying planes into the DEA headquarters.

This guy is an American citizen; if we wish to claim the moral high ground in this fight we must stick to our morals. Hell, even the Rosenbergs got an open trial. It might not have been fair, but people could have stuck up for him. The point of the military tribunal is that the public doen't get to make any sort of judgements of its own regarding the evidence hell we don't even get to see the evidence, this makes me suspect that there isn't any.

I'm glad that's what you suspect, but your "intuition" isn't going to make it so. If there is solid evidence, there is. If there isn't, there isn't. The government doesn't need to show it to you - you're not on the jury. Furthermore, it doesn't need to be released to <b>anyone</b> until they move further ahead on the timeline for a trial, whatever trial type that may be. Just because you feel there may not be evidence does not mean that there isn't any, and it doesn't mean that we should dismiss the notion that he's guilty. There will be a time and a place for review of the evidence. You and I do not make that call; those gathering the evidence against him do, and they're obviously not finished yet.

Mc Veih, and Kazinsky both got public trials and they actually blew things up. I'm hesitant to bring it up but notice that Walker who was fighting with the Taliban was white and this guy is not? Coincidence? Who the fuck knows cause we aren't being shown any proof. If this guy is tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in a Military Tribunal we have become the Taliban, period.

Again, you're trying to emotionally load your argument. <b>If</b> he's tried in a military tribunal... <b>If</b> he's sentenced to death... <b>then</b> we have become the Taliban.

Okay. How about... <b>If</b> he gets off and explodes a dirty bomb in Binghamton, we have aided and abetted terrorists, period.

See how I can garner support from the simpleminded just by adding some emotionally charged buzzwords to my argument? All of a sudden those same people that were agreeing with you are going "hmmm, he's got a good point... I don't want a dirty bomb going off."

The main problem in your final remarks is that you're using <b>if</b>. If this and if that. It doesn't really matter because that hasn't happened, and the other side can play that game too. No one wins that argument, and it's not worth going there. So let's argue this based upon facts instead, mmmmkay?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
There may have been no formal declaration, but make no mistake about it, this is war. It might not be on the scale of World War II, but it is war nonetheless.

Based upon the dictionary definition, we are indeed involved in a war. You're right on that, dham.

However, for whatever reason, the United States is not considered "at war" until it is declared by Congress. In that case, we have not been at war since September 1945. Dubya, Congress, the administration, etc. can say that we are at war all they want. Are they right? Yes and no. By definition, yes...factually, no.

And Griff, the insurance companies have gotten smarter (or more sinister...half-full or half-empty). For example, when I worked for Signal, one of the exclusions was "hostile or warlike action."

[Griff]

Originally posted by juju

Hey, while we're at it, why not make bananna mean apple and apple mean telephone?

Thats absurd! Bananas make better telephones. Have you never crashed in front of the tube on Saturday morning?

Originally posted by sycamore
However, for whatever reason, the United States is not considered "at war" until it is declared by Congress.

I dare you to back that up. Who makes that judgement? Who is the final authority in what is and what is not considered "at war"?

There have only been <b>five</b> declared wars in the history of the United States. We have been at war many more times.

The Revolutionary War. The Civil War. The Korean War. The Vietnam War.

None of those were declared wars, yet we were at war. You find a Vietnam veteran and tell him that he wasn't involved in war.

The fact of the matter is that only the War of 1812, The Mexican War, The Spanish American War, World War I and World War II were declared. Do you really think that those are the only wars we've fought?

In that case, we have not been at war since September 1945.

Actually, it was August of 1945. Not so much an arguing point as a clarification of the facts.

Are they right? Yes and no. By definition, yes...factually, no.

What "facts" are you looking at? There's no "no" about it, I'm sorry to say. We have involved our military in over 200 conflicts since 1798 and only have declared five. That doesn't mean that we weren't at war. They weren't all big wars, but some of them were. They were still wars. The declaration of war is an obsolete practice and will probably never happen again, though we will most certainly be engaged in wars in the future.

It's nice to argue that since we haven't declared war, we're not technically at war. Unfortunately, it's also blatantly untrue.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
I dare you to back that up. Who makes that judgement? Who is the final authority in what is and what is not considered "at war"?

Allow me to rephrase: Only Congress can declare that the US is "officially" at war.

What "facts" are you looking at?

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

There's no "no" about it, I'm sorry to say.

The US is not officially at war. Do you deny this?

We have involved our military in over 200 conflicts since 1798 and only have declared five. That doesn't mean that we weren't at war. They weren't all big wars, but some of them were. They were still wars. The declaration of war is an obsolete practice and will probably never happen again, though we will most certainly be engaged in wars in the future.

We have been in wars without a declaration of such. I'm not arguing that. You said it yourself: We have only been in 5 declared wars. The rest are not classified as "official wars." Vietnam and Korea, for example, are considered "police actions."

Actually, it was August of 1945. Not so much an arguing point as a clarification of the facts.

Japan agreed to surrender on 8/14/45, but the official end of WW2 was 9/2/45.

It's nice to argue that since we haven't declared war, we're not technically at war. Unfortunately, it's also blatantly untrue.

I have clarified part of my original post, regarding the determination of being "at war."

Later in that post, I stated that our President, the US Congress, and the Bush administration could say that we are at war, and all would be both right and wrong. Right because what is going on right now would meet the dictionary definition of "war." Wrong because Congress has not made a declaration of war, therefore, we are not officially at war. Would you say this is untrue?

[Tobiasly]

The Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war. It says that the states do not have the power to declare war.

I don't see anywhere that it prevents the president from doing so, or states that we are not at war until Congress says we are.

Of course, the original topic was whether Abdullah al-Mujahir must be tried under criminal law. I think it's pretty obvious that special circumstances are allowed in the case of an enemy combatant, which as far as I can tell he is.

Does this mean it's right to not try him in a regular criminal court? I'm not arguing for that at all. I agree with Benjamin Franklin when he said those who give up liberty for security deserve neither, but I don't think any of us can show right now that this is the case.

I do think that we should make every attempt to take the moral high ground whenever possible and give combatants a criminal trial. But I also believe that there are certain cases, such as this, where we must ensure that this doesn't jeopardize national security.