You can throw grenades at Americans, but you can't take tinkling on yourself?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned
Really?

Endless war for unending peace, and all that kind of thing ala Pat Buchanan?

The war continues until the nations of Islam are democratic.

Really? So the Philippines, which is democratic, has no terrorism? Ditto India, or Pakistan pre-Musharaff?

Or did I just miss when the "war on terrorism" became more clearly defined as the "war against non-democratic states that are predominantly Muslim"?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Admiral


The problem with this argument is that the conflict is not clearly defined. We've declared war on terrorism, but only islamic terrorism. Moreover, our enemy(s) are not confined to states, and it is unclear when we have "won." There will always be terrorism, so essentially, by holding people for the duration of the conflict, the government allows themselves to hold people indefinitely. And that is not acceptable, non-Constitutional, and this should worry you. What does it say about a goverment when it wants the ability to hold people in legal limbo indefinitely?

We did not declare war on terrorism. OBL and al Qaeda declared war on us. There is an important distinction here that the left seems to intentionally get backwards.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Really? So the Philippines, which is democratic, has no terrorism? Ditto India, or Pakistan pre-Musharaff?

Or did I just miss when the "war on terrorism" became more clearly defined as the "war against non-democratic states that are predominantly Muslim"?

Kontiki, Bush has defined the way to win the war is to safe eliminate bases for the terrorists. There is only one way to do that. Only one.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

But Bush did not declare war on undemocratic Muslims, but on terror itself.

OBL declared war on the US while Clinton was still receiving oral office BJ's. The war was long underway by the time Bush took office.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ned


We did not declare war on terrorism. OBL and al Qaeda declared war on us. There is an important distinction here that the left seems to intentionally get backwards.

Try a little harder.

OBL issued a "declaration of war" on America (which he doesn't have any formal capacity to do, not being a state actor, but what the heck).

GWB didn't, however, content himself with vowing in return to destroy AQ. Instead, he declared his "war on terror". He's gone on record as saying that supporting or condoning terrorism of any kind is no longer to be accepted. Since OBL and AQ in no way represent the world's terrorist as a whole, there's a word of difference.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Try a little harder.

OBL issued a "declaration of war" on America (which he doesn't have any formal capacity to do, not being a state actor, but what the heck).

GWB didn't, however, content himself with vowing in return to destroy AQ. Instead, he declared his "war on terror". He's gone on record as saying that supporting or condoning terrorism of any kind is no longer to be accepted. Since OBL and AQ in no way represent the world's terrorist as a whole, there's a word of difference.

True, in a way. While terrorism of any stripe is not acceptable, we are only at war with al Qaeda and they started it.

[DinoDoc]

As for the idiotic try him or let him go sentiment the Pentagon has a right and a duty to keep enemy belligerants for the duration of the conflict in order to make sure that they will not return to the conflict.

[Berzerker]

True, in a way. While terrorism of any stripe is not acceptable, we are only at war with al Qaeda and they started it.

Iraq was what then? Oh yeah, WMD. Okay, but AQ didn't start attacking us until after we plopped our troops down in Saudi Arabia and that to them means we declared war on their religion. Irrational? I don't know, if I was a gungho Catholic and Muslim soldiers were camping out in Vatican City to facilitate killing Catholics I might view that as a declared war on my religion.

As Christopher Hitchens says, we got drawn into a civil war between Muslim factions. Globalists run our government and they are getting us killed so they can play outside our sandbox...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Also, IIRC, the 4th Geneva Convention applies to all combatants (legal and not) and mandates humane treatement. If this guy was subject to the same conditions as those at Abu Ghraib, it can easily be said that the US violated the 4th Geneva Convention.

Everyone has acknowledged that to be unlawful and the people responsible have been tried and jailed. There is zero evidence that anything like that has happened here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

why in the world do we have to "try" POWs or let them go.

Because we are the United States. We should try to live up to our claims that we are defenders of freedom. Looking for loopholes so we can do horrible things isn't something that that I want the United States to stand for.

And I see you've called them POWs now... a change of heart or freudian slip?

Everyone has acknowledged that to be unlawful and the people responsible have been tried and jailed. There is zero evidence that anything like that has happened here.

I think there is at least a question about whether the treatment at Gitmo is as severe. Perhaps they were just smart enough not to carry around cameras. Frankly, if the Abu Ghraib people didn't have cameras, I figure you'd be saying the same thing about them.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
The philosophy that we have to "try" these folks or let them go is so-Bill Clintonish as to be laughable.

The strange thing is, this terrorism thing was much less a "threat" to the US than it is now.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Jaakko


You also ain't as bad as Saddam, which you can be proud of! Think about it, you could rip off their fingernails and stick hot irons up their ass, but you don't!

Instead you send them to places where the authorities will do that! Hold you head up in pride, Oerdin!

Or worse yet, Finland.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The strange thing is, this terrorism thing was much less a "threat" to the US than it is now.

It's difficult to assess a threat and a lot simpler to look at actual attacks. Note that there hasn't been an attack on American soil since 9/11 (which was planned under Clinton and set in motion under Bush). No embassy bombings like happened in Africa under Clinton, no U.S.S. Cole. It is difficult to assess how much we have lost to Islamist terrorist attacks in Iraq vs how much to an insurgency. I'd say that it's too early to make the call.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

why in the world do we have to "try" POWs or let them go.

Because we are the United States. We should try to live up to our claims that we are defenders of freedom. Looking for loopholes so we can do horrible things isn't something that that I want the United States to stand for.

Hey, what's with all the "might makes right" stuff?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Looking for loopholes so we can do horrible things isn't something that that I want the United States to stand for.

Que? Can you point me out the law who's letter or even spirit that says we lack the right to hold enemy belligerents for the duration of the conflict?