Afternoon all :)

I swore to myself that I wasn't going to initiate or post in any more threads involving Iraq or Civil Rights, but this just takes the cake. As you guys know, the holding of prisoners without charges or right of due process was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court recently and our lovely administration was left in a bit of a pickle about what to do with those folks who have been held, some for three years or more with no formal charges being levied against them, down at Gitmo. The Decider has finally come up with a solution: If your actions get declared unconstitutional, just change the laws!

I'm referring to a new 32-page law drafted by the Bush administration that would authorize the Pentagon's proposed tribunal system, and:

"the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute."

Needless to say, 'engaged in hostilities against the United states..." can be broadened (and already has been) to include just about anything, and this bill would legally and systematically deprive anyone tarred with this brush of access to civilian courts and adequate representation. Article here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_go_pr_wh/detainee_rights;_ylt=AqYkldIHXLiIeuVur6hg9CsD5gcF; _ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

All I can say at this point is that nothing coming out of our 'freedom loving' administration surprises me... I'd really like to know how they're going to try to put a positive spin on this, and I hope that our Congress isn't so stupid as to grant the military this much power. One has only to look at our Latin American neighbors (or, sadly, lots of other places on the planet) to see where *this* slippery slope leads...

Regards,
Nydia

The supreme court in their decision said that congress was needed to allow the tribunals.



"Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.

Well I just go with what Willie Nelson said about Bush;

'He's not from Texas and he ain't a cowboy, so let's stop trashin' Texans and cowboys.'

I'm aware of that Korlis, and this isn't unexpected from this administration - in fact *something* was expected as the prisoners at Gitmo, etc, still need to be dealt with. This bill should scare the bejeesus out of anyone who is concerned about transparency and accountability of government, not to mention civil liberties, however, and I find it hard to believe that even (or especially) conservatives would accede him this much power...

Regards,
Nydia

Bush and Cheney have considered themselves above the rule of law since day one, and have made that clear from Cheney's energy policy meetings thru the Bush signing statement of the non-torture bill.






McCain/Lieberman in 2008!


(Contact your Senator/Representative and demand an investigation into Cheney's aid to Iran while CEO of Halliburton)

The problem the court had with tribunals was the way they were going to be carried out not that there were tribunals in the first place. Here some info for ya on tribunals


Military tribunals, also called "military commissions," are courts composed of individuals, who may be military or civilians (retired and even sitting judges are sometimes used), appointed by a military commander. The Supreme Court says "military tribunals are our common-law war courts." Madsen v. Kinsella, 343 U.S. 341 (1952).



The Supreme Court says "[s]ince our nation's earliest days, such commissions have been constitutionally recognized agencies for meeting many urgent governmental responsibilities related to war....They have taken many forms and borne many names. Neither their procedure nor their jurisdiction has been prescribed by statute. It has been adapted in each instance to the need that called it forth." Madsen, citing In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946).


The Supreme Court says "[o]ur Government, by thus defining lawful belligerents entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, has recognized that there is a class of unlawful belligerents not entitled to that privilege....by Article 15 of the Articles of War Congress has made provision for their trial and punishment by military commission, according to 'the law of war'." Quirin.
After World War II, Congress reenacted the Articles of War as the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 15 of the old Articles, which authorized the President to convene military tribunals, became section 821 of the UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. s. 821.



So umm you are saying they are above the law in conducting tribunals? Yet, the law as directed by the supreme court and the UCMJ says that he can conduct tribunals.

In the end the supreme court disagreed on how Bush was going to carry out the tribunals and not that they were going to take place. Supreme court also added to take into account international law(Geneva Convention) and to provide better oversight into the proceedings than what was planned.

So umm you are saying they are above the law in conducting tribunals? Yet, the law as directed by the supreme court and the UCMJ says that he can conduct tribunals.


Tribunals against whom?

The problem with the Bush approach is that none of the people seem to be charged with anything, until the legal beagles representing some or all get favorable decisions from the courts, at which time the administration LB's come up with an appropriate legal postion for a response. The driver for BinLaden, for instance. He was a hired driver, from all accounts. How is he to be considered a combatant for the sake of these tribunals? Aiding and abetting? Fine, make the charge.

I do not object to trying people for crimes committed against the US and it's citizenry and military, but if you are going to do it then do it, and stop this shell game of enemy combatant vs. PoW vs. war criminal, depending on what is most convenient for the administration. If you have enemy soldiers locked down, that is fine and covered under the Geneva Conventions for how we are to conduct the business of war. If you have a loose conglomeration of people locked up that were in the wrong place at the wrong time, than we are close to becoming that which we are fighting against.

America is a nation of law, so let's start applying it.

Dear Korlis:

I am familiar with what a military tribunal is, and also how the Bush administration has tried to stretch the definition of them with regard to who can be tried with them, or rights such individuals are entitled to, but you have not weighed in on *this* proposed bill, which is why I bothered to post the thread in the first place. The definitions of 'enemy combatant' and 'hostilities' (both in the sense of what sort of 'hostilities' someone might be conducting against the United states, and what constitutes 'cessation of hostilities' in a 'war') are so vague as to allow the administration and the military nearly unlimited latitude as fas as classifying someone as an 'enemy combatant'. Are you saying that such a law is 1) necessary and/or 2) justified? C'mon, own up if so, and give your rationale for that opinion...

Regards,
Nydia

and also how the Bush administration has tried to stretch the definition of them with regard to who can be tried with them

I would not take on what is considered a draft and with all the parts of it not fully released yet to heart. Even in his original Executive Order related to and authorising the tribunal the administration was very specific to who will be tried. There is no stretch whatsoever.


The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that:


(1) there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant

times,

(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;

(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit,

acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor,

that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to

cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its

citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or

(iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order;



I agree that Bush should not be the sole discretion above in who will be tried and who wont but he lays out exactly who and not broadly will be tried.



I won't hope and you may be right but I doubt a law passed by congress would be less exact than the above statement.

Have you read the draft? It very clearly states who will be tried? Sorry I just read the draft.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/PostHamdan.Bush.Draft.pdf

I see a definition of enemy combatants, lawful combatant, unlawful combatants among thier rights according to the tribunal and international law all spelled out.

Dont just read the news articles and thier bias read the whole draft.

As you guys know, the holding of prisoners without charges or right of due process was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court recently and our lovely administration was left in a bit of a pickle about what to do with those folks who have been held, some for three years or more with no formal charges being levied against them, down at Gitmo.

Also the supreme court never said they could not be held without charging them. They recent Hamdan ruling stated that they could not undergo a tribunal as proposed. As for being declared unconstitional the supreme court never did such a thing a lower court declared a US Citizen combatant being held to be afforded due process not a forgiegn combatant. As stated..



If we are at war, then the rules of warfare permit us to capture enemy prisoners, such as al Qaeda terrorists, and to hold them until the end of the conflict. Detention removes enemies from the fight and permits their interrogation for information. It is not a punishment, so the laws of war have never required lawyers or judicial review for enemy prisoners. No treaty and no American practice in any previous war have ever extended rights of due process to captured enemy prisoners.

Sorry for the multiple incongruent posts pretty busy at work heh so im off and on.

Dear Korlis:

I don't mean to be rude, but is there a reason you condescend to me in every post in this thread? Would you do so to male veteran posters on this board? I read the bill, and

or have as their aim to

cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its

citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or

(iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order;, among others,

strikes me as *disturbingly* vague. Could anti-war protesters, for example, be classified as 'aiming to do harm to national security'? What about strip club owners? (both of these groups have already had the Patriot Act used to justify surveillance, infiltration, and illegal search and seizure on them) There's ample evidence that this rationale has already been used to infiltrade and oppress anti-war groups, among other things, and as Bylimet already mentioned, we have already held individuals at Gitmo for in excess of three years on the most tenuous of evidence and with *no* charges being filed after all this time.

On what rationale can, or should, such actions be justified? In a nebulous 'war on terror' without any measurable end, when does 'cessation of hostilities' occur, exactly, and who decides when those conditions have been met? This bill strikes me as both problematic and dangerous, as well as unnecessary; it does *not* limit the definition of 'enemy combatants' to members or supporters of Al Qaeda or Taliban or even 'supporters of groups that support' Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but *any* group that should be labelled as a 'terrorist' organization at any time, no matter how peripheral that support (donating to an organization's charitable end with terrorist ties, for example). Even if individuals *are* suspected terrorists, they should, at least be charged with a crime, there should be some burden of proof for the things they are charged with; this law would allow heresy to be admissable in tribunals (Section 103 (7) (b)).

Not to mention, have you looked at how the bill deals with torture and how 'the President decided that that Article 3 of the Geneva conventions 'did not apply' with respect to the conflict with Al Qaeda (not specifically to *members* of Al Qaeda, but to anyone included under this much broader blanket statement) because Al Qaeda wasn't a signatory (Section 102 (9))? Does this then mean that, under this proposed law, any person associated with *any* non-nation group that we decide is a 'terrorist organization' (see aforementioned antiwar groups), we could 'decide' that such individuals aren't entitled to Geneva convention protections either? Section 211 allows the admission of evidence obtained through torture if the accused is himself accused of torture, and sections of this paragraph are blacked out, making it ambiguous. How about Section 216 (c) (4), which allows for the exclusion of the accused from his *own* trial proceedings, if it is deemed necessary for national security, or (1 - 3) for a variety of reasons, including basically 'if the Secretary of Defense feels like it'?


This law strikes me as a deliberate and truly frightening attempt to end run around existing law regarding the handling of prisoners of war, and the administration does *not* make a compelling case as to why courtmartials would not suffice in such *legitimate* cases of suspected terrorists or other 'enemy combatants' in a time of war (despite the whining in Section 103 (7)). Do you think that the Executive branch, the Secretary of Defense and the military really need this sweeping level of powers? Do you trust our officials who will be serving in these matters, who are, by and large, *not* elected, but appointed, not to abuse them, despite the already existing evidence to the contrary?

Regards,
Nydia

The article in draft is soley on how, when and who will be affected by tribunals and thier detainement. Also if you look at section 247 it states which laws they will be charged under effectively very clearly. And by looking at these charges you can see that anti-war protesters and strip club owners would not fall under these charges. Unless they specifically committed one of these acts(ie. kidnapping, murder, torture, using meat shields, using schools etc as shields, etc etc) to threaten or attack the US or its citizens.

Also in Padilla VS US precedent has already been made for US citizens to be afforded thier rights under due process and to stand trial in Civillian courts(unless of course they are covered under the UCMJ) if they are found to be aiding and abetting terrorists.

Yes not everyone in guantanamo is a combatant and yes that is a problem. The military is investigating and trying to get that situated to release them.

I forget have you been in the military Nydia? If not have you seen the UCMJ and how vague it is. Our own soldiers are tried and convicted or even held under more vague statutes. Not to mention Non-Judicial Punsihment, why don't people say that is unconstitutional. In NJP wihtout a trial you can be held and imprisoned , albeit not very long there are limitations. Via NJP you could even be kicked out of the military.


Section 211 allows the admission of evidence obtained through torture if the accused is himself accused of torture, and sections of this paragraph are blacked out, making it ambiguous.


The above is the same law afforded our own citizens they just incorporated it into this draft. All it says that evidence through torture cannot be submitted and that if you are being accused of torture that the statements said by the person being tortured can be admitted. But not used against the person saying them.


Does this then mean that, under this proposed law, any person associated with *any* non-nation group that we decide is a 'terrorist organization' (see aforementioned antiwar groups), we could 'decide' that such individuals aren't entitled to Geneva convention protections either

Yes, cause as stated in the geneva conventions it is an agreement between the signed individuals in the convention and does not cover people that weren't a signatory. Now if Al Qaida was its own country or hezbolla was its own country and they signed the geneva conventions then they would be afforded those rights.

How about Section 216 (c) (4), which allows for the exclusion of the accused from his *own* trial proceedings, if it is deemed necessary for national security, or (1 - 3) for a variety of reasons, including basically 'if the Secretary of Defense feels like it'?

I can understand national security since the accused could still have contact via attorney's and whatnot to the outside world and be able to relate information that could be detrimental. I dont agree with "if I feel like it".

And I do not mean to be condescending. Sorry if you thought that.

It doesnt matter if some non nation wasnt a signatory. It is bad PR to break the rules of the Geneva convention, period. We must also be concerned about PR. It is probably the most important aspect of war.

Is it bad to break the rules when, in the Geneva convention, it states that the rules do not apply when non-signatories are the issue?

Convention III Article 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

Dear Korlis:

1) USAF, 1982-1984 (honorably discharged upon confirmed diagnosis of RA)

2) While there's plenty not to like about NJP (just ask the folks who have been subjected to NJP witch hunts over their sexual orientation in this age of 'don't ask, don't tell', including, ironically enough, several dozen badly needed Arabic interpreters recently), we are informed that we're signing away a hefty chunk of our rights as civilians when we enlist (and we don't have a draft currently, so folks aren't being 'unwillingly' deprived of their rights (although plenty of folks aren't fully aware of what, exactly, they have signed away)).

3) Doesn't that quote in your last post indicate that Article 2 state that we *are* bound by Convention III *even* if one of the parties does not recognize the state of war? Or, if one reads it narrowly and only applies it to 'High Contracting Parties', is it a good idea, as Phel said, to flagrantly break them and to horribly mistreat and abuse parties that are 'at war' (whether declared or not) with us from non-states? The Geneva Conventions aren't only a law, they're a 'good idea', to mangle the old Texas Seat Belt Law, and to engage in torture, deprive people of their liberty for extended periods of time without so much as charging them with a crime, or try them using heresy for evidence and/or in absentia, puts us in some pretty ugly company.

If we are willing to do those things, regardless of whether one believes those things are intrinsically wrong or 'evil', what sort of light does that cast us in in the eyes of the world? It certainly doesn't help us try to broker any sort of long term peace in the Middle East, and it doesn't give us much high ground to stand on regarding being a 'freedom loving' government that respects the rule of law. Indeed, our President has repeatedly said that he can ignore any laws (he signs!) that he chooses to if he doesn't agree with them.

I 'get' that certain terrorist groups don't care about the Geneva Conventions, the rule of law, and will engage in any means necessary to go about their ends, and that extreme prejudice, as it were, needs to be taken in both apprehending and handling certain very dangerous individuals. However, this does not mean that we should stoop to the level of terrorists (extreme rendition, anyone?) in order to accomplish our ends, or cast the broadest possible net and deprive hundreds or thousands of tenuously involved (or merely suspected) people of their rights simply because we can, because doing so does us more harm than good, and arguably severely compromises our ability to get at the root causes of terrorism as it causes a downward spiral of (often, sadly justified) mistrust and hatred of the US and its activities, and egg on the face on those who would be our allies, thus, ironically, spawning more terrorists.

Finally,
would not fall under these charges. Unless they specifically committed one of these acts(ie. kidnapping, murder, torture, using meat shields, using schools etc as shields, etc etc) to threaten or attack the US or its citizens.

Under that 'etc etc', don't forget that 'aiding and abetting the enemy' (with such charged individuals subject to 'whatever punishment the tribunal may direct', direct quote), 'spying', 'conspiracy' (and don't forget that, under these circumstances, heresay can be used as 'evidence' of conspiracy), and 'pillaging' (do we really need to have the right to try looters under special military tribunals? This act would allow it) are specifically included and poorly defined. As they say, 'the devil is in the details', and this draft has enough loopholes to drive a truck through as far as allowing the government to define what an 'enemy' or 'unlawful' combatant' is, and what a crime 'against the United States and this Act' consists of. It is also quite clear that, while the term 'alien enemy combatant' is used in the middle passages of this draft, the conditions under which the Act could be applied does *not* exclude US citizens: indeed, in section 247, no use is made of the term 'alien enemy combatant', but simply 'lawful' vs 'unlawful' combatant, and the term 'any person who' is clearly and repeatedly used.

It is my hope that this bill is swiftly recognized for the power grab that it is and as swiftly rejected, although on the upside at least this bill doesn't openly flaunt, and at least tries to some degree, to follow existing laws of war.

Regards,
Nydia

Under such vague conditions, could not the CEO's of Bectel and Halliburton be detained for their blatant profiteering during a time of war? Another article appeared just yesterday showing Bectel to have had not just the "expected" over-runs of up to 30%, but at least in one case overcharging as much as 418%. Creative juggling of the books has been shown to be the norm rather than the exception.

And, if aiding and abetting terrorists and/or those who support them is also grounds for detention, then would not the CEO that established business contracts with Iran in direct opposition to the sanctions of both the US and the UN be a candidate for a room at the Gitmo Hilton?

Look out Mr. Cheney, the greed of you and your board of directors has put you all in a vulnerable position; at least, it would have if there was any integrity in this administration.

By the way, it's lengthy and a bit dry, but Jack Balkin's 'Balkinization' blog page (link):

http://balkin.blogspot.com/

contains a wealth of very lucid analysis and links to original publications, decisions, etc, on the whole Hamdan ruling (and this subsequent most recent draft bill), the Bush administration's attempts to amend/weasel around the War Crimes Act, his use of signing statements, etc, and is very thought provoking reading.

Regards,
Nydia

Under such vague conditions, could not the CEO's of Bectel and Halliburton be detained for their blatant profiteering during a time of war?

Yes, They should.
And we should throw those Enron idiots in with the mix, as well.

No sarcasm in this post.

just a gentle reminder:


WE ARE NOT IN A TIME OF WAR

Thank You. That is all.

Were this an actual time of war the preceding would have been followed by a draft, a declaration of congress, mobilization of our entire population toward defeating a legitimate threat to our existance and other types of actual measures of sacrifice by all Americans.

Whether it's been formally declared, gotten approval, etc etc. If you asked the American populace, the vast majority would say we are at war. The same happened with Vietnam, sure it was never a formally declared war, but if you asked the public, it sure as hell was a war.

Sure we had "Mission Accomplished" and other crap, and 'technically' no it's not a 'war.' Though, I'd challenge you to be man enough to say to a Marine returning to his family after a year overseas for his second deployment to hostile territory that he was never in a war.

But We are... Not in Iraq but in Afganistan and abroad the war on terror continues. That was never called to end as far as I know the law is still active.


Public Law 107–40
107th Congress
Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,



SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for



Use of Military Force’’.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL.�That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.�
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.�Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.

President.
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
50 USC 1541
note.
Sept. 18, 2001
[S.J. Res. 23]


LEGISLATIVE HISTORY�S.J. Res. 23 (H.J. Res. 64):
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):
Sept. 14, considered and passed Senate and House.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 37 (2001):
Sept. 18, Presidential statement.


Ãâ€*


(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.�Nothing in
this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

You'd want me to get in the face of someone unprovoked and tell them "HEY MAN, THATS NO WAR!!!11one"?

Thats just a dumb thing to say.

Id defend this position no matter who wanted to debate it. And no, Marines in Iraq are not in a war, they are in an occupation. The War On Terror is a fiction. A war against an idea.
No sir, we arent at war. Id say we were MORE at war from 1946 to 1989.

Marines in Iraq may be in WAR ZONE, in the middle of a civil war, but, no... we are not at war.

So how is a war against the idea of terrorism any less or more relavant to calling something a war compared to the war on communism, which itself was a war against an ideology?

So how is a war against the idea of terrorism any less or more relavant to calling something a war compared to the war on communism, which itself was a war against an ideology?

There was no war on communism, there were military actions whether by direct US involvement or by proxy against countries with a communist government.

The war on terror is not a war based on a formal declaration by congress. It is a war based on rhetoric from the Bush administration. Of course it is quite obvious to the troops on the ground that they are indeed in a war as were the troops in Korea and Vietnam.

Unfortunately the government plays a legal game with things and in the case of Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq does not actually declare a war, for whatever reason they decide not to I am certain it is done as a way to protect someone or something they have an interest in.

Yes, there is a war in Iraq a civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis and our soldiers are caught in the middle of it.

The war on terror is not a war based on a formal declaration by congress


Public Law 107–40 is a formal declaration by congress for the war on terrorism.

My point is that the Cold War was basically a war against Communism.

The Cold War was a war of Ideologies, similar to what we are going through now being a war of ideologies.

Public Law 107–40 is a formal declaration by congress for the war on terrorism.



Really? Because the copy I see is: Authorization for Use of Military Force

Also in Padilla VS US precedent has already been made for US citizens to be afforded thier rights under due process and to stand trial in Civillian courts(unless of course they are covered under the UCMJ) if they are found to be aiding and abetting terrorists.

This is a rather forgiving view of the Padilla case. This US citizen was locked up for years without charges as an enemy combatant. Gonzales received permission from the 4th Circuit to do this, after telling the court what a danger he was. When at long last Padilla's case was nearing SCOTUS review, Gonzales pleaded for emergency transfer of Padilla from military to civilian custody (this after almost 4 years of imprisonment). The 4th Circuit was not amused (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/padilla_v_hanft_122105.pdf).
"The government has held Padilla militarily for three and a half years, steadfastly maintaining that it was imperative in the interest of national security that he be so held. However, a short time after our decision issued on the government's representation that Padilla's military custody was indeed necessary in the interest of national security, the government determined that it was no longer necessary that Padilla be held militarily. Instead, it announced, Padilla would be transferred to the custody of federal civilian law enforcement authorities and criminally prosecuted in Florida for alleged offenses considerably different from, and less serious than, those acts for which the government had militarily detained Padilla."
So, US citizens are afforded the right to be captured, paraded about as a victory in the war against terror, then quietly shuffled aside when the case falls through. How comforting.

As for the rest, it really is moot. The letter of the law is irrelevent when the leadership is willing to simply declare it inapplicable (after they're caught, anyway).
The War On Terror is a fiction. A war against an idea.
It doesn't even rank as an idea. Terror is a tactic, and a very old one. You can win wars against nations and regimes; you cannot win against a tactic. The war on terror is indeed a fiction. It's PR.

Try this one: F. R. Doc. 41-9237Thats a declaration of war.

Public Law 107-40 authorized that use of force:

"against those who planned, authorized, committed or aided the attacks on 9/11"

But then GWB says:
Bush: “So I don’t know where he (Bin Laden) is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him. … And, again, I don’t know where he is. I � I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him".

And they disband the CIA team that was dedicated to finding him..

Id say GWB has lost his mandate Kor.


So, US citizens are afforded the right to be captured, paraded about as a victory in the war against terror, then quietly shuffled aside when the case falls through. How comforting.

Ya know.. they should just take them out of Gitmo, put them in a cage drawn by a horse and have a parade with them being led by Bush, Rove and Cheney in togas, throwing bread and tickets to circus out to the throngs

The faster you all realize we are at war, the better it will be.
Regardless of whether a "Formal Declaration of War" was issued by Congress or not, the Muslim Extremists are at war with us.
We afford them luxuries that they would not afford us. This makes us "better" than them.
We give them shelter, food, clothing, and the right to practice whatever twisted version of Islam they wish while being held as "Illegal Combatants".
Guess what? they are counting on this. They think we are so weak, they depend on us doing exactly that. Now they have a willing army within "enemy territory" that just needs lawyers to liberate them.
This is not us caught in the middle of a Civil War between Sunnis and Shia. This is us being put in a boxing ring with both of our hands tied behind our back, because the American People lack the understanding that the Muslim Extremists want us dead just because we breathe.
You can't negotiate with people whose goal it is to see you dead. What to you negotiate to? Just cut off my hand instead of killing me, please?

The faster you all realize we are at war, the better it will be.

For who?

Globally, there are maybe 20,000 hardcore jihadists. Thats most likely a vast overestimation. Thats people willing to fight and die for Al-Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, whatever... By any logical estimation of the facts in the application of the criteria you lay out for war, we should be at war against Drug lords. Every single day illegal drugs brought into this country from places like Columbia or India kill more people than 9/11. Destroying families, savaging our cities, destroying the fabric of our society.... Why shouldnt these narcotic trafficers be in Git Mo? Why arent drug dealers traitors? They have done more harm to America than Al Queda could ever hope to.

Yet we have many people doing their best to create a war of civilizations. You say we are at war? You have no idea what war is or what war means. War is pain and suffering and loss. War is death and carnage and sacrifice. War is the thing you want most in this world to avoid. But wars are sometimes necessary. War is backed into a corner and the choice is either your survival or your end.

A man who knew war, the man responsible for the defense of Stalingrad in 1942, Nikita Krushchev had this to say about war in a letter to JFK trying to stop the cuban missle crisis.

....but if indeed war should break out, then it would not be in our power to stop it, for such is the logic of war. I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction

We have people on our side who are looking to back muslims in a corner and force a global war. Calling this a war is a folly. A joke perpetrated on us by people who wish to manipulate events to create their own global vision.

Those who declare this to be WW3, or wish it to be are either fools or villians.

It will be better when you realize that the 20,000 (wherever you got that number from) hardcore Jihadists want you dead. You can't negotiate with them. you can't reason with them.
What about the somewhat hardcore Jihadists, that don't want to go out and kill you, but want you just as dead? How many are there of them?
What about the Semi-hardcore Jihadists that don't want you dead, but only want you maimed? How many of them are there?
What about the Mediocre Jihadists that don't want anyone dead, but want the whole world to Convert? How many of them are there?
What about the Peaceful Muslim that just wants to practice his religion, without converting or killing anyone? How many of them are there?
And how many of the radicals are masquarading as them? Do you actually think they would come out and tell the census taker, "Why yes, I think beheading Infidels is a grand idea."?
To you 20,000 might not seem like a big number, but to me its 20,001 too many radicals in the world that need to be exterminated.
Numbers shouldn't even figure into it. Ideology should be the factor.
And as far as the Drug Dealing arguement, you shouldn't point to bad behavior of one kind to justify bad behavior of another type.

L2 do you realize that you are attempting debate with someone whos total knowledge of past and present world affairs is copied and pasted from Google searches?

There's only one solution to these issues - non-violence. Eye-for-an-eye-tooth-for-a-tooth's been tried for, what - 5000 years? Since the time of King David? Time for another approach!

To you 20,000 might not seem like a big number, but to me its 20,001 too many radicals in the world that need to be exterminated.

Maybe we can set up some kind of camp up, identify those who wish to do us harm or plot against our people, get these people and ship them to the camp for said extermination.

People like you are dangerous Sixee... sheep you lack the intelligence to understand the logical ends of your beliefs.

The only thing seperating you and some Hezbollah thug firing missiles into Northern Israel is where you were born.

We should just hug them.
Then they won't hate us anymore.

Child-like in simplicity
The timeless idiocy of the lemming.
A cog in the war wheel

Sixee

That's not even a decent Haiku.

hideous ancient
gingko jabbing albatross
ranting, anguishing

L2