Is America at war, or not?

[Albert Di Salvo]

How dare you point out some problems with the French criminal justice system! Everyone knows it doesn't even come close to the US in terms of violating civil liberties in the name of terror.

(I'll just leave this here: Detention of Terrorism Suspects in Britain and France - Brookings Institution )

How dare I? Unmitigated temerity, and the hope no one researches my points. :lol: Good work. You'll go far young Jedi.:lol:

 

[LiveUninhibited]

And I don't think there's even a shred of evidence to support your argument. Islamic extremists don't give a **** about our justice system. They're angry about our actions in the ME.

You really don't think people, even non-extremists, don't get angry when we treat prisoners unfairly?

lol. So you say that they should get treated like everyone else, then you would completely subvert the rule of law in order to give them a special jury? Where are you coming up with this ****?

Subvert the law? It's supposed to be a jury of peers, and there's a reason for that. Making the jury half Muslim would exactly follow the spirit of the Constitution. It's exactly the same principle as having Black jury members at a time and place where racism against Blacks was prevalent.

 

[RightinNYC]

You really don't think people, even non-extremists, don't get angry when we treat prisoners unfairly?

No, I don't think many people would get too angry if we prosecuted terrorist enemy combatants in military tribunals, as has occurred for centuries.

Subvert the law? It's supposed to be a jury of peers, and there's a reason for that. Making the jury half Muslim would exactly follow the spirit of the Constitution. It's exactly the same principle as having Black jury members at a time and place where racism against Blacks was prevalent.

Link to that ever happening?

 

[LiveUninhibited]

No, I don't think many people would get too angry if we prosecuted terrorist enemy combatants in military tribunals, as has occurred for centuries.

Then why are we having this discussion? If people didn't get angry about sham trials, even sham trials for our enemies, this would not be an issue or a thread.

Tradition isn't a valid justification for anything.

Link to that ever happening?

It's irrelevant whether it actually ever happened or not, the point would be that it should have always been done that way in that context. A jury of people biased against you because you are not their peer is not a jury of peers.

 

[Agent Ferris]

You really don't think people, even non-extremists, don't get angry when we treat prisoners unfairly?

How is giving war criminals trials by military tribunal treating them unfairly? Treating them unfairly would be executing them without trial the way they treat our detainees.

Subvert the law? It's supposed to be a jury of peers,

Alien unlawful combatants don't have a right to a jury of their peers, and they have only been granted the right to a military tribunal because Congress granted it to them. By all rights we could have held them to the end of hostilities and considering the nature of the current war that could have been forever.

and there's a reason for that. Making the jury half Muslim would exactly follow the spirit of the Constitution. It's exactly the same principle as having Black jury members at a time and place where racism against Blacks was prevalent.

lol so now Muslims are to granted special juries? Hay let's be really "fair" and give them a trial in a Sharia court while we're at it, and then ofcourse they'll get off because slaughtering the infidel under sharia is only punishable by paying blood money.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Then why are we having this discussion? If people didn't get angry about sham trials, even sham trials for our enemies, this would not be an issue or a thread.

Tradition isn't a valid justification for anything.

Military tribunals =/= sham trials. So you're opposed to court martials for our own troops because the rules of procedure are nearly identical to those found in the military tribunals? Tell me did you complain when our soldiers were being court martialed for the Mahmudiyah rape and killings?

 

[Parminio]

The part that most red blooded Republican conservatist miss is this:

IF the terrorist went before a military tribunal, they would be allowed to plead guilty, would be sentenced to death, and would be systematically executed.

That's what all you gung-ho people want. Oddly, it's what the terrorist want too. They've actually already asked for it.

To try them in open court is different. First off, it's more accepted world wide, even to them. That puts nail number 1 in their coffin.

Secondly, they more than likely will NOT get the death penalty...which is what they want, which they hopefully will not get. That's nail number 2.

Thirdly, they'll be sentenced to life without possibility of parole and that's going to be that. That's nail number 3.

Fourthly, they'll become (pardon the language) the absolute BITCH of the entire prison for life. Now, for us normal Americans, that's a fate worse than death. For the extremist, it's a fate 1000 fold worse than that.

And that, folks, is the last nail in the coffin. It rids them of the martyr status. It robs them of dying for the cause. It also makes recruitment take a REAL serious hit, knowing that they're not going to be summarily tried and shot, but they're going to be judicially tried, hurled into general population at any one of the fine, upstanding Federal facilities in this mans United States, and treated like a greased o-ring for the rest of their lives.

Think about that.

HONESTLY...sit down, ponder it.

I'd rather be shot too, than go through that.

We're doing the right thing. You don't see the big picture now, but you will 10 or 15 years from now...when nobody even talks about them or brings them up anymore.

 

[Polynikes]

IF the terrorist went before a military tribunal, they would be allowed to plead guilty, would be sentenced to death, and would be systematically executed.

Sounds good

That's what all you gung-ho people want. Oddly, it's what the terrorist want too. They've actually already asked for it.

Yea, I'm ultra gung-ho because I want a cold blooded killer to be brought to justice.

To try them in open court is different. First off, it's more accepted world wide, even to them. That puts nail number 1 in their coffin.

Who gives a **** if it's more accepted worldwide. Oh how i love transnationalism.

Secondly, they more than likely will NOT get the death penalty...which is what they want, which they hopefully will not get. That's nail number 2.

According to Obama they will. Atleast in KSM's case.

Thirdly, they'll be sentenced to life without possibility of parole and that's going to be that. That's nail number 3.

Where they can convert other inmates to radical Islam who will be getting out one day. Tell me, because I forgot, what is by far the fastest growing religion in the prison system?

Fourthly, they'll become (pardon the language) the absolute BITCH of the entire prison for life. Now, for us normal Americans, that's a fate worse than death. For the extremist, it's a fate 1000 fold worse than that.

The high value targets, if convicted and not executed, would be placed in a supermax prison. There, they would spend 23 hours a day in a cell, most likely with a TV and an arrow showing them which direction is Mecca, which I would make sure happened to align with the toilet. They would have little to no contact with other prisoners and would only be the bitch of the cell that they rot in.

And that, folks, is the last nail in the coffin. It rids them of the martyr status. It robs them of dying for the cause. It also makes recruitment take a REAL serious hit, knowing that they're not going to be summarily tried and shot, but they're going to be judicially tried, hurled into general population at any one of the fine, upstanding Federal facilities in this mans United States, and treated like a greased o-ring for the rest of their lives.

Think about that.

Thought about it, critically too, and no point you brought up made me shift my opinion for a second.

HONESTLY...sit down, ponder it.

I HONESTLY have.

We're doing the right thing. You don't see the big picture now, but you will 10 or 15 years from now...when nobody even talks about them or brings them up anymore

I see the big picture. It sets an awful precedent. Play a role in killing 3000+ Americans and then make a mockery of their judical system. If then convicted, sit in a cell praying towards Mecca 5 times a day, watching TV and eating 3 meals a day, waiting for a guard to make a mistake so you can jam a sharpened comb into their eye.

....HONESTLY, think about that..

 

[Catawba]

The Taliban government were co-conspirators in the 9-11 attacks.

Can you link me up to the charges against the Taliban?

When people claim that the Taliban didn't attack us it's like saying that if the CIA decided to bomb a building in; say, Saudi Arabia, that it wasn't the U.S. government attacking them.

You mean like the electrical plants and water treatment facilities we destroyed that provided potable drinking water to civilians that resulted in the deaths of 100,000 civilians and doubled the infant mortality rate?

Because there wasn't a ready made army willing to fight with us in Iraq like there was the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

There were no al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded.

The last time I read the Iraqi Constitution it read:

Article 108:

Oil and gas are the ownership of all the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates.

Article 109:

First: The federal government with the producing governorates and regional governments shall undertake the management of oil and gas extracted from current fields provided that it distributes oil and gas revenues in a fair manner in proportion to the population distribution in all parts of the country with a set allotment for a set time for the damaged regions that were unjustly deprived by the former regime and the regions that were damaged later on, and in a way that assures balanced development in different areas of the country, and this will be regulated by law.

Second: The federal government with the producing regional and governorate governments shall together formulate the necessary strategic policies to develop the oil and gas wealth in a way that achieves the highest benefit to the Iraqi people using the most advanced techniques of the market principles and encourages investment.

The Iraq invasion and occupation and setting up the puppet government allowed US oil to return to Iraq for the first time in almost 4 decades. Hussein would not allow it. We fixed that didn't we?

Notice the bolded sections above. That allows us to negotiate separately with the Kurdish leaders without consulting the central government in Baghdad.

Also notice it says current fields, which conveniently excludes new fields developed in the oil rich Northern region.

"Peter W. Galbraith, an influential former American ambassador, is a powerful voice on Iraq who helped shape the views of policy makers like Joseph R. Biden Jr. and John Kerry. In the summer of 2005, he was also an adviser to the Kurdish regional government as Iraq wrote its Constitution — tough and sensitive talks not least because of issues like how Iraq would divide its vast oil wealth.

A worker at the Tawke field in Iraq's Kurdistan region, where oil was struck in 2005. The Kurds are claiming control of their oil.
Now Mr. Galbraith, 58, son of the renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith, stands to earn perhaps a hundred million or more dollars as a result of his closeness to the Kurds, his relations with a Norwegian oil company and constitutional provisions he helped the Kurds extract.

In the constitutional negotiations, he helped the Kurds ram through provisions that gave their region — rather than the central Baghdad government — sole authority over many of their internal affairs, including clauses that he maintains will give the Kurds virtually complete control over all new oil finds on their territory."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/world/middleeast/12galbraith.html?_r=1

More importantly, our military occupation makes Iraq safe for big oil and gives us military control of Middle East oil, the largest supplies left on the planet. That's what it was all about!

 

[RightinNYC]

Then why are we having this discussion? If people didn't get angry about sham trials, even sham trials for our enemies, this would not be an issue or a thread.

Because "people" are not a monolithic entity. I don't give a **** if some tenured law prof or european who doesn't know the first thing about the law is angry about the show trial. What some have argued on this thread is that the decision to use these trials will somehow help end terrorism because AQ will see our magnanimity and realize their error.

Tradition isn't a valid justification for anything.

Of course it is.

It's irrelevant whether it actually ever happened or not, the point would be that it should have always been done that way in that context. A jury of people biased against you because you are not their peer is not a jury of peers.

No, it absolutely shouldn't have. This idea is simply ludicrous. You're entitled to a jury comprised of registered voters in your judicial district, not a jury comprised of fellow left handed Irish-American sales reps.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

The Iraq invasion and occupation and setting up the puppet government allowed US oil to return to Iraq for the first time in almost 4 decades. Hussein would not allow it. We fixed that didn't we?

Notice the bolded sections above. That allows us to negotiate separately with the Kurdish leaders without consulting the central government in Baghdad.

Also notice it says current fields, which conveniently excludes new fields developed in the oil rich Northern region.

"Peter W. Galbraith, an influential former American ambassador, is a powerful voice on Iraq who helped shape the views of policy makers like Joseph R. Biden Jr. and John Kerry. In the summer of 2005, he was also an adviser to the Kurdish regional government as Iraq wrote its Constitution — tough and sensitive talks not least because of issues like how Iraq would divide its vast oil wealth.

A worker at the Tawke field in Iraq's Kurdistan region, where oil was struck in 2005. The Kurds are claiming control of their oil.
Now Mr. Galbraith, 58, son of the renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith, stands to earn perhaps a hundred million or more dollars as a result of his closeness to the Kurds, his relations with a Norwegian oil company and constitutional provisions he helped the Kurds extract.

In the constitutional negotiations, he helped the Kurds ram through provisions that gave their region — rather than the central Baghdad government — sole authority over many of their internal affairs, including clauses that he maintains will give the Kurds virtually complete control over all new oil finds on their territory."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/world/middleeast/12galbraith.html?_r=1

More importantly, our military occupation makes Iraq safe for big oil and gives us military control of Middle East oil, the largest supplies left on the planet. That's what it was all about!

Peter Galbraith is a perfect example of how special interests use the American political system, including its foreign policy, to enrich itself. He is an example of the currently ascendant Democratic Party enriching itself through the manipulation of power. The Republicans are the same.

Now, back to the subject of whether America is at war or not. Yes, America is at war. I am not referring to Obama's wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. There is a figurative civil war at home. It's been going on for at least twenty years. It has brought bitter division to this country. Each year it seems to work its way deeper into the body politic like venom in a human body.

Most of America's problems are based on the deepening division of American citizens. In another twenty years the figurative civil war may become literal. The divisions aren't going away as long as the current political order exists. The current political order can't change itself.

Nevertheless, there is a possible solution.

 

[Catawba]

Peter Galbraith is a perfect example of how special interests use the American political system, including its foreign policy, to enrich itself.

Nice to see there are some here that recognize this.

Now, back to the subject of whether America is at war or not. Yes, America is at war. I am not referring to Obama's wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. There is a figurative civil war at home. It's been going on for at least twenty years. It has brought bitter division to this country. Each year it seems to work its way deeper into the body politic like venom in a human body.

Most of America's problems are based on the deepening division of American citizens. In another twenty years the figurative civil war may become literal. The divisions aren't going away as long as the current political order exists. The current political order can't change itself.

Nevertheless, there is a possible solution.

Well let's hear your solution to political differences that have been occurring since the beginning of man's history.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

The existing political order in America cannot be sustained. The national debt will crush us. It's too late to stop. Good.

What we need is a new political order. Forget Democrats. Forget Republicans. Forget Libertarians. Forget the past.

We need a new Constitutional Convention. The divisions separating us cannot be resolved. So if we are to remain tied together in some fashion, the ties must be loosened. I do not desire to impose my views on anyone. Anyone who seeks to impose someone else's views on me will meet a Hobbesian end.

Let power devolve to the states. At the very least this will prevent the concentration of power under either Democrats or Republicans.

The America I loved is gone. The America you love will be murdered in its cradle. You lack the power to stop this murder. Your only choice is allow devolution or face secession.

We have not been as divided since 1865. You laugh at the suggestion of secession. This generation of Americans does not have it within itself to endure the pain required to prevent secession.

Allow a much looser political order in which no one has the ability to impose their will on those who dissent, or face secession. Over the next three decades it will come to this.

 

[Catawba]

The existing political order in America cannot be sustained. The national debt will crush us. It's too late to stop. Good.

What we need is a new political order. Forget Democrats. Forget Republicans. Forget Libertarians. Forget the past.

We need a new Constitutional Convention. The divisions separating us cannot be resolved. So if we are to remain tied together in some fashion, the ties must be loosened. I do not desire to impose my views on anyone. Anyone who seeks to impose someone else's views on me will meet a Hobbesian end.

Let power devolve to the states. At the very least this will prevent the concentration of power under either Democrats or Republicans.

The America I loved is gone. The America you love will be murdered in its cradle. You lack the power to stop this murder. Your only choice is allow devolution or face secession.

We have not been as divided since 1865. You laugh at the suggestion of secession. This generation of Americans does not have it within itself to endure the pain required to prevent secession.

Allow a much looser political order in which no one has the ability to impose their will on those who dissent, or face secession. Over the next three decades it will come to this.

Politics is no different now than it was at its inception. What you describe is the condition of man. Our government (whether federal or local) can be no better than the people it represents.

We get the government we deserve.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Politics is no different now than it was at its inception. What you describe is the condition of man. Our government (whether federal or local) can be no better than the people it represents.

We get the government we deserve.

I grew up in Minnesota into a staunch DFL family. We were supporters of Orville Freeman, Hubert Humphrey, Gene McCarthy, Walter Mondale, et al. It was a far less politically corrupt era. At that time power was much more diffused throughout the country. In the ensuing decades power has shifted to, and been concentrated in, Washington, DC. I don't think this arrangement is working out very well for us.

Search your heart. Do you really think things are going to work out given the current trajectory of the country? The best you can hope for is to impose your policy judgments on many people who are deeply threatened, fearful, angry, and who no longer see you as their compatriot and countrymen.

We can still be friends and brothers, but with less control over each other's lives. There are at least three alternatives, i.e., continued division and decline under the existing political order with an eventual collapse, or creating a political order in which we cannot impose our wills on each other, or going our separate ways. That's why I think power should devolve. While there would no doubt be new monsters born, none would be as powerful as the existing political elite.

 

[Catawba]

That's why I think power should devolve. While there would no doubt be new monsters born, none would be as powerful as the existing political elite.

Devolve to what? I don't think our government is any less evolved than the people it represents. I have even noticed the condescending insults in your posts.

We are a nation of consumers, half of which do not even vote. The only thing we seem to be concerned about is continuing to be the most wasteful population on the planet and violently protecting our claim on other countries resources.

I contend that when people become enlightened so will the government, and not before than. Whether that will happen before we make the planet uninhabitable for most of the people and animals is debatable.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Devolve to what? I don't think our government is any less evolved than the people it represents. I have even noticed the condescending insults in your posts.

We are a nation of consumers, half of which do not even vote. The only thing we seem to be concerned about is continuing to be the most wasteful population on the planet and violently protecting our claim on other countries resources.

I contend that when people become enlightened so will the government, and not before than. Whether that will happen before we make the planet uninhabitable for most of the people and animals is debatable.

Thanks for the chat.

 

[Catawba]

Thanks for the chat.

You are welcome.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Military tribunals =/= sham trials. So you're opposed to court martials for our own troops because the rules of procedure are nearly identical to those found in the military tribunals? Tell me did you complain when our soldiers were being court martialed for the Mahmudiyah rape and killings?

It's not exactly comparable, because in that case it would be of their peers, i.e. other American military personal. I can understand having a separate court system for the military, as long as it does not involve lowering the standards of proof. I understand there has been improvement.

Of course it is.

No appeal to tradition is fallacious. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition]Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

No, it absolutely shouldn't have. This idea is simply ludicrous. You're entitled to a jury comprised of registered voters in your judicial district, not a jury comprised of fellow left handed Irish-American sales reps.

In justice, it is important to minimize as many potential sources of bias as possible. Since there are no prevailing biases against the Irish or left-handed, there would be no reason to select a jury on those criteria. Being a Muslim, however, is an automatic guilty in the minds of some of the more simple-minded Americans watching Fox News.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Can you link me up to the charges against the Taliban?

Do I really have to ****ing repeat myself?

Once again AQ was part and parcel to the Taliban government led by Mullah Omar, they had a seat on the Taliban's ministry of defense, there was a special detachment of the Taliban military known as the 055 brigade which was made up exclusively of AQ fighters, AQ even eliminated the leader of the Taliban's principle adversary, the Northern Alliance, one Ahmad Shah Massood AKA the Lion of Panjshirs, Bin Ladens son is married to Mullah Omars daughter and the Taliban granted AQ a safe haven in which to train and from which to launch attacks.

You mean like the electrical plants and water treatment facilities we destroyed that provided potable drinking water to civilians that resulted in the deaths of 100,000 civilians and doubled the infant mortality rate?

According to who? Saddam Hussein and Baathist statistics provided to the UN? Oh and if you are referring to the current war and not the war in 1993 PROOF OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

There were no al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded.

A) Yes there was once again you are completely uneducated on the matter and continue to speak from out your ass. Saddam was harboring the known AQ operative Abdul Rahman Yasin who participated in the 1993 WTC bombing, he was given a house, a salary, and Saddam refused to extradite him.

B) Saddam was collaborating with Islamist terrorists (including AQ affiliates) to attack the U.S. right up until the fall of Baghdad.

The Iraq invasion and occupation and setting up the puppet government allowed US oil to return to Iraq for the first time in almost 4 decades.

Now unlike under Saddam the oil is under the ownership of the Iraqi people through their representative government. I understand that you would rather oil revenues go only to the Tikriti Baathist elite rather than to the Iraqi people as a whole, but luckily some of us aren't so sick.

Hussein would not allow it. We fixed that didn't we?

You're joking right? It was the U.S. who refused to buy Iraqi oil not the Iraqi's refusing to sell it to us. It was an embargo genius. :roll: And; furthermore, prior to OIF Saddam offered us lucrative PSA's in exchange for allowing him to remain in power. You seriously need to get educated on these matters before you go spouting off this bull****.

Notice the bolded sections above. That allows us to negotiate separately with the Kurdish leaders without consulting the central government in Baghdad.

Aww isn't that sweet you don't know the definitions of the words "with" and "and". :roll:

"First: The federal government with the producing governorates and regional governments"

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?

Also notice it says current fields, which conveniently excludes new fields developed in the oil rich Northern region.

Now skip down to section 2 sport, and while you're at it skip up to Article 108, again reading comprehension is certainly not your strong suit.

More importantly, our military occupation makes Iraq safe for big oil and gives us military control of Middle East oil, the largest supplies left on the planet. That's what it was all about!

If it was about oil sport we would have lifted the sanctions.

 

[Agent Ferris]

It's not exactly comparable, because in that case it would be of their peers, i.e. other American military personal. I can understand having a separate court system for the military, as long as it does not involve lowering the standards of proof. I understand there has been improvement.

Yep not opposed to the courts for U.S. Soldiers just as I figured.

Only alien war criminals should be granted civilian trials and not our own war criminals eh?

****ing hypocrite!

 

[Charles Martel]

If people didn't get angry about sham trials, even sham trials for our enemies, this would not be an issue or a thread.

Tradition isn't a valid justification for anything.

We start into these trials in downtown NYC and you'll soon see why there is tradition for nearly everything. Any US civilian trial for a terrorist like Khalid IS a sham. Otherwise, afford him all of our rights and defend the consequences, I don't think anyone is prepared to do that.

 

[Catawba]

According to who? Saddam Hussein and Baathist statistics provided to the UN?

According to: Matthew C. Waxman, International Law and the Politics of Air Operations (Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2000), 22.

Are you familiar with the Rand Corp, the research group the Pentagon looks to for answers.

"A key example of such dual-use targeting was the destruction of Iraqi electrical power facilities in Desert Storm. While crippling Iraq’s military command and control capability, destruction of these facilities shut down water purification and sewage treatment plants. As a result, epidemics of gastroenteritis, cholera, and typhoid broke out,2 leading to perhaps as many as 100,000 civilian deaths and a doubling of the infant mortality rate."
Bombing Dual-Use Targets: Legal, Ethical, and Doctrinal Perspectives

This is one of the heinous actions that brought about the revenge attacks on 9/11/

You're joking right? It was the U.S. who refused to buy Iraqi oil not the Iraqi's refusing to sell it to us. It was an embargo genius. :roll: And; furthermore, prior to OIF Saddam offered us lucrative PSA's in exchange for allowing him to remain in power. You seriously need to get educated on these matters before you go spouting off this bull****.

If it was about oil sport we would have lifted the sanctions.

Apparently you are having trouble differentiating between getting a little bit of oil from Iraq again and militarily dominating the Middle East to make sure no one can **** **** with our Middle East oil spigots

Hell of an energy plan, all under the guise of "the war on terror!"!

 

[American]

Neither was it founded by stupidity, and it will not be preserved by it either.

The problem is you avoid the question. Would you shoot bin Laden if you could? The answer is plainly...NO.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Apparently you are having trouble differentiating between getting a little bit of oil from Iraq again and militarily dominating the Middle East to make sure no one can **** **** with our Middle East oil spigots

Hell of an energy plan, all under the guise of "the war on terror!"!

War for oil. Maybe. Maybe not. You mention energy policy. What should your country's energy policy be? If it makes sense maybe my country will adopt it.