# Declaration of War... Against An Organization



## MA-Caver (Jul 21, 2008)

> *                                         Bush law chief seeks new Qaeda war declaration                *
> 
> By Randall Mikkelsen                                                                 _Mon Jul 21,  4:28 PM ET
> _
> ...


Now hold on a second... declaring war against a country I can understand. But against a group, an organization? Almost as bad as declaring war against a substance like Drugs.  
Ok I can understand it and appreciate it but it still makes it kinda difficult to wrap my mind around the whole concept.... just part of it anyway but not all the way. 
Like the war on drugs, crime, poverty, terror and so on it's not going to end. al Qaeda isn't just Osama Bin Laden and a couple of other guys... it's bigger than that. Like trying to wipe out the drug cartels. A herculean hydra if you will.
These guys aren't the only ones... they're the most visible yes, most well known of course, splattered all over our newspapers how could they NOT be? But there are other groups, organizations and they're not necessarily of Middle Eastern descent. 

This line had me saying ... *"WRONG!!"*  when I first read it. 



> "Essentially it means that if a president declares someone  to be a terrorist, they would then have the authority to hold  that person without trial forever," said Chris Anders, senior  legislative counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union.
> Bush has said the antiterrorism effort would be open-ended.
> Mukasey spoke as the first U.S. war crimes trial began at  the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where prisoners  are held in a detention center condemned internationally for  harsh treatment. The Supreme Court's decision on detainee  rights did not invalidate trials for those already charged.
> The attorney general said the administration already has  the authority to detain suspected terrorists. But he said, "It  would do all of us good to have the principle reaffirmed, not  that that principle itself is in doubt."


So does this mean if I piss off the President he can point his finger at me and say... "He's a terrorist!" and off I go? That's what it sounds like. That's what it looks like! More importantly... that's what it _feels_ like. 
Didn't they do this in Germany and Soviet Union? Say anything bad about the government and whoosh... you're not there anymore? That your cause of death was a sudden brain hemorrhage? 

Maybe I'm not understanding this though I've read the article twice already to make sure I can believe what my eyes were reading... 

Thoughts?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 21, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Now hold on a second... declaring war against a country I can understand. But against a group, an organization? Almost as bad as declaring war against a substance like Drugs.
> Ok I can understand it and appreciate it but it still makes it kinda difficult to wrap my mind around the whole concept.... just part of it anyway but not all the way.
> Like the war on drugs, crime, poverty, terror and so on it's not going to end. al Qaeda isn't just Osama Bin Laden and a couple of other guys... it's bigger than that. Like trying to wipe out the drug cartels. A herculean hydra if you will.
> These guys aren't the only ones... they're the most visible yes, most well known of course, splattered all over our newspapers how could they NOT be? But there are other groups, organizations and they're not necessarily of Middle Eastern descent.
> ...


Al qaeda is a sentiment and not so much an organization. This is why the "Glass Parking Lot" idea is so appealing to republican fear mongers. They want you to Love America or die.
Sean


----------



## Big Don (Jul 21, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> Al qaeda is a sentiment and not so much an organization. This is why the "Glass Parking Lot" idea is so appealing to republican fear mongers. They want you to Love America or die.
> Sean



*"Sweeping Generalizations, & Broad Paintbrushes"*
Before painting any group in broad terms, be prepared to back those terms up, and be aware that such sweeping generalities may be offensive to members of those groups who may see such as false.

just saying...

As to the topic:
A few words from the 9-11 Commission:





> *A Shock, Not a Surprise*
> The 9/11 attacks were a shock, but they should not have come as a surprise. Islamist extremists had given plenty of warning that they meant to kill Americans indiscriminately and in large numbers.



A few more words from the same source:


> *WHAT TO DO? A GLOBAL STRATEGY*
> 
> The enemy is not just "terrorism." It is the threat posed specifically by Islamist terrorism, by Bin Ladin and others who draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within a minority strain of Islam that does not distinguish politics from religion, and distorts both.
> The enemy is not Islam, the great world faith, but a perversion of Islam. The enemy goes beyond al Qaeda to include the radical ideological movement, inspired in part by al Qaeda, that has spawned other terrorist groups and violence. Thus our strategy must match our means to two ends: dismantling the al Qaeda network and, in the long term, prevailing over the ideology that contributes to Islamist terrorism.


A good way of dismantling Al Qaeda would be to kill them all, root and branch. 
Smacking the bad guy so hard and so fast that others flinch is the heart of deterrence. To end the threat of organized terrorism is fairly simple: Kill those who practice it, those who fund it, those who plan it and those who finance it in such swift and brutal action that the fear of the same type of retribution lives on in the hearts and minds of those tempted to blow themselves up at discos, etc.
Making threats and not following through is the road to pariah status. No one fears paper tigers. The Clinton Administration's policy of treating terrorism as a criminal manner obviously doesn't work. 
Again from the 9-11 Commission's report:


> In February 1993, a group led by Ramzi Yousef tried to bring down the World Trade Center with a truck bomb. They killed six and wounded a thousand. Plans by Omar Abdel Rahman and others to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnels and other New York City landmarks were frustrated when the plotters were arrested. In October 1993, Somali tribesmen shot down U.S. helicopters, killing 18 and wounding 73 in an incident that came to be known as "Black Hawk down." Years later it would be learned that those Somali tribesmen had received help from al Qaeda.
> In early 1995, police in Manila uncovered a plot by Ramzi Yousef to blow up a dozen U.S. airliners while they were flying over the Pacific. In November 1995, a car bomb exploded outside the office of the U.S. program manager for the Saudi National Guard in Riyadh, killing five Americans and two others. In June 1996, a truck bomb demolished the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. servicemen and wounding hundreds. The attack was carried out primarily by Saudi Hezbollah, an organization that had received help from the government of Iran.
> Until 1997, the U.S. intelligence community viewed Bin Ladin as a financier of terrorism, not as a terrorist leader. In February 1998, Usama Bin Ladin and four others issued a self-styled fatwa, publicly declaring that it was God's decree that every Muslim should try his utmost to kill any American, military or civilian, anywhere in the world, because of American "occupation" of Islam's holy places and aggression against Muslims.
> In August 1998, Bin Ladin's group, al Qaeda, carried out near-simultaneous truck bomb attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The attacks killed 224 people, including 12 Americans, and wounded thousands more.
> In December 1999, Jordanian police foiled a plot to bomb hotels and other sites frequented by American tourists, and a U.S. Customs agent arrested Ahmed Ressam at the U.S. Canadian border as he was smuggling in explosives intended for an attack on Los Angeles International Airport.


There is a word for not fighting when the bad guys want to kill you: Suicide.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 21, 2008)

Oddly enough, I would actually appreciate this move.  It would show an honesty of purpose and intent that has been lacking from our last 60 years of undeclared "conflicts" and "police actions."  Not that it wouldn't be abused somehow, I am sure.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 21, 2008)

Big Don said:


> To end the threat of organized terrorism is fairly simple: Kill those who practice it, those who fund it, those who plan it and those who finance it in such swift and brutal action that the fear of the same type of retribution lives on in the hearts and minds of those tempted to blow themselves up at discos, etc.



So let me get this straight: to stop someone from killing themselves by suicide bombing...you are going to threaten to kill them?

Someone didn't think their cunning plan all the way through...

On the more general point, which I have said before, our enemies are no more puling cowards than we are.  Stomp on someone long enough and hard enough and they won't cower all the more, they'll fight back.  Hard.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 21, 2008)

Basically, what it comes down to is this:
If you are going to act like a victim, you're gonna be victimized.
If you're going to act weak or refuse to act in the face of terrorism, you're going to suffer terrorism. Look at France in the last few years! Because the French authorities have been cowed by the huge influx of Muslims to France in the past few years, when youths rioted, Paris BURNED. Hitler famously asked, "Is Paris burning" when he asked it wasn't, years later, it did. Appeasement does not work, it didn't work when Chamberlin acceeded to the wishes of Hilter and assured the world "There will be peace in our time." It didn't work when Jimmy Carter's administration left 52 Americans in the hands of Iranian terrorists for 444 days. Namby pamby doesn't work either! It didn't after the 93 WTC bombing when Clinton promised the perpetrators would be brought "to justice" and Janet Reno's Justice Department issued a flurry of indictments. Sometimes, as impolitic and unfriendly that it is, when the carrot fails, and make no mistake, we (the US government, and by extension the US Taxpayers) hand out foreign aid like candy, you have to use the stick.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 21, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> So let me get this straight: to stop someone from killing themselves by suicide bombing...you are going to threaten to kill them?


Not at all what I said. You have to make the punishment exceed the realm of a proportional response.





> On the more general point, which I have said before, our enemies are no more puling cowards than we are.  Stomp on someone long enough and hard enough and they won't cower all the more, they'll fight back.  Hard.


Stomp on them? By pouring TRILLIONS of dollars into the economies of Arab nations? By trying to negotiate peace? By daring to say, no, forcing your women to endure female genital mutilation and not allowing them to attend school is NOT OK in civilized society? Saying that Islam is a religion of peace and scholarship and that those teaching that homicide bombings and attacks on non-combatants pervert and distort Islam, warrants attacks? Insisting the same simple human rights apply everywhere is hateful?  Watching as the likes of Arafat mouth peace while packing away untold billions of dollars while leaving the people living in Gaza and the West Bank to live in squalor? This is "Stomping"?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 21, 2008)

Steady chaps.  There's a frisson of high-pressure ranting building up here.  

We, the readers, are far better served by cogent and supported arguments than emotive positions that are stated in isolation from their cultural context.

It's a subject that could yield much information if the disputants would be so kind as to provide it;  I for one would be interested to see how the perspectives developed differ from my own.

Just take care not to de-rail it with partisanship.  After all, statements that play well to your own 'circle' frequently appear nonsensical and unattached to actual world events when placed before those 'outside'.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 21, 2008)

Big Don said:


> This is "Stomping"?



You're the one advocating harsh measures.  I am answering that proposal with some realistic objections.

If someone threatened you in the street, would you immediately do what they said?  If someone killed your friends and family, would that make you refuse to fight them?  Of course not.  It would enrage you to no end.  Arab terrorists are no less human in that regard than you are.  Harsh measures will make things worse, not better.

Not that I expect you to understand that.  You have advocated summary execution for people that even the US government knows are innocent.  No, my objections are posted for the others.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 21, 2008)

Was I speaking about how bad it was to kill terrorist or how bad it was to allow our government(s) free reign to do what THEY think is best to deal with Terrorism in this country... This new law will apply to EVERYONE not just Islamic extremists! 
And of COURSE it has to apply to everyone because they're not going to be accused of racism now are they? 
I'm not Islamic nor am I an extremist but I do worry about how under this law they'll be able to put me away simply because I was exercising my right under the constitution of say free speech, or bearing arms or any one of my liberties granted by said document. 
I'm upset with the government yes for a lot of reasons, but I'm not planning *anything* other than voicing my opinion as it is per my rights here in this country... without fear of being locked away and never heard from again.
As far as the terrorist goes, kill the suckers. Don't detain them. They're nuts and psychotic and stupidly follow a group of guys who wouldn't strap a bomb to their OWN chest and walk into a shopping mall full of people and push the button.
Dammit I love my country and yes, I'd die for it... defending it... HERE on THIS soil, since I can't join the military (and I've tried ... but was 4-F). But I'm not going to die just because someone else says to. My hearth, my home, my family, my friends and my country but NOT for the government.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 22, 2008)

I'd like to see some kind of protocol where they define who is "al-qaeda" and who is not.  I've heard way too many people on both sides of the isle defining a so called "fifth column" movement growing within the US.  A broad declaration of war like this is not something that the Constitution is really even designed for.  This could be an end run around ANYONES rights.  

IMHO, I think that a declaration of this kind will go on indefinitely.  People will be rounded up by this into prisons.  Not by Bush or his ilk, but some administration down the road will use this to get rid of dissidents.

My gut tells me that this is all by design, my gut has ruminated for a long time on too many Fabian Socialists spewing visions of incremental utopia, so I trust that.

I also find the parellels between the comments by candidates advocating a "civilian defense force", the fact that national guard are contemplated being used on the streets to police the populace, and this disturbing declaration, to be very disturbing...


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 22, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Basically, what it comes down to is this:
> If you are going to act like a victim, you're gonna be victimized.
> If you're going to act weak or refuse to act in the face of terrorism, you're going to suffer terrorism. Look at France in the last few years! Because the French authorities have been cowed by the huge influx of Muslims to France in the past few years, when youths rioted, Paris BURNED. Hitler famously asked, "Is Paris burning" when he asked it wasn't, years later, it did. Appeasement does not work, it didn't work when Chamberlin acceeded to the wishes of Hilter and assured the world "There will be peace in our time." It didn't work when Jimmy Carter's administration left 52 Americans in the hands of Iranian terrorists for 444 days. Namby pamby doesn't work either! It didn't after the 93 WTC bombing when Clinton promised the perpetrators would be brought "to justice" and Janet Reno's Justice Department issued a flurry of indictments. Sometimes, as impolitic and unfriendly that it is, when the carrot fails, and make no mistake, we (the US government, and by extension the US Taxpayers) hand out foreign aid like candy, you have to use the stick.


 

Paris spends a lot of time burning, it's like a national pastime time in France. They have a long and honourable history of demonstrating in Paris and the barricades seem to roll out as if kept specially for these occasions! it's not just Muslims who demonstrate, there's the civil servants, the teachers, the farmers etc  and always the students, bless them carrying on in the time honoured tradition of youths trying to get through to the old fogies. France has always had a large population of Muslims, it's not new.
Did you mean Neville Chamberlain?


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jul 22, 2008)

My post will be a little off topic after reading the original post in thread but:

It seems to me this is much like the old time martial arts schools saying that they where at war with group X and all of group x students should be hurt and hospitalized. No one in group X could ever be seen as an individual just a member of that group.
Now I am not saying that anyone that calls themselves a member of al Qaeda should be looked on as a friend but those of the faith of most members of al Qaeda should be looked at differently and on an individual bases and not grouped simply because of where they come from or their faith.
Do I personally want to see al Qaeda wiped out, YES. Do I think that declaring war on them will amount to any more than the war on drugs did to limit drugs from coming into our country NO


----------



## arnisador (Jul 22, 2008)

The Barbary Wars against the Barbary States (really, against the Barbary pirates) had some elements of this.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Harsh measures will make things worse, not better.


 
This is without a doubt incorrect.

half assed measures, like Clinton did make the enemy bold.

BOLD measures, like Bush has done, "seek them out and kill them all" measures have essentially broken AQ.

They cant move money like they used to, they are having a harder time recruiting, the locals in Iraq are against them now, etc

you know all this, weather you admit it or not. 

The typical liberal mantra "let's just be nice to them and they will forget alll about us" simply does not work. I dont think it has EVER worked, but it damned sure doesnt work against radical islam.


----------



## jkembry (Jul 22, 2008)

Kind of reminds of what I have read about the Christian Crusades.  I would think that it would be very difficult to declare anything against ideologies....and in particular 'supposed' religious ideologies there there are no real geographical borders.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 22, 2008)

There's a lot that we know and a lot that we don't know and there's a lot that we here from others and we just have to take it with a dram of faith in order to consider its veracity.

I don't think many Americans really know that much about Al Qaeda.  I don't trust that the press or the government is telling us anywhere near enough about AQ to really think that a declaration like this is really needed.

I think there is a lot more to AQ then meets the eye.  On one hand, its a convenient scarecrow.  On the other, it may have started as a CIA psuedogang.  And on the other, there may actually be a group of terrorists operating under that name for some purpose.

Sifting through all this is especially difficult.

So, I'll end with the easy stuff.

According to our government, AQ is an umbrella term for a bunch of different organizations that are hostile to the interests of the US.  The popular theology says that UBL pulled "all" of these groups together into a "loose" network.  "Elements" of this network have been causing terror attacks across the world and are responsible for 9/11.

Words like "all" or "loose" or "elements" really don't define much in the way that I think a declaration of war should...at least as I understand the Constitution.  IMHO, its too ambiguous.  Give this language to the lawyers and anyone could be AQ.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 22, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> There's a lot that we know and a lot that we don't know and there's a lot that we here from others and we just have to take it with a dram of faith in order to consider its veracity.
> 
> I don't think many Americans really know that much about Al Qaeda.  I don't trust that the press or the government is telling us anywhere near enough about AQ to really think that a declaration like this is really needed.
> 
> ...



So basically SPECTRE ... great. Just what we need. 
My concern is how this law will affect the everyday average citizen. It's going towards (if not there already) where no one will be able to write things like this, protesting the government or writing a dissertation or just giving an opinion on a discussion board because they'll be viewed as a terrorist or (worse) a potential terrorist.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2008)

thats a pretty darned big leap there Caver.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 22, 2008)

That is the real problem isn't it?  In the end, all governments like to coalesce power to themselves and to regulate as much as they can.

Seizing on a pretext like a shadowy, ill-defined, terrorist organisation is ideal as a mechanism to apply stricter controls over what citizens can say, where they can go and how they may travel.

For a country like America, supposedly founded on the notions of freedom and democracy, to allow that to happen is the death knell of the political system.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2008)

new threats require new responses

the old way of doing things got us 9-11

I would just as soon avoid that in the future if possible.


----------



## KELLYG (Jul 22, 2008)

I thought that some/most of the people held in git-mo were captured in Afghanistan/Pakistan.  The have been held due to the fact that they were higher ups in aq. They are being held as enemy combatants.  Which with that title they do not fall under normal civil law but the military law.  I also understand that the supreme court has been involved on several occasions to sort out weather they are or should be allowed the same rights as a U.S. citizen. Either way, our rights as citizens of the US have been compromised.


----------



## jkembry (Jul 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> thats a pretty darned big leap there Caver.




Is it really that big of a leap?  I happent ot believe that the so called 'Patriot Act' has eroded some of the liberties that have made the U. S. what it is.  While I understand the kneejerk re-action after 9/11, I would have thought some of that would have tempered by now...after all it has been almost 7 years.

After surviving two attacks by terrorist organiztions (#1 while stationed in Germany in Oberammergau, the RAF forgot to set a timer;  #2 In the Pentagon when the plane hit) I believe that the fear that 9/11 has caused this country and its people has caused us to change lifestyles to the point that the terrorists have phycologically won; at least for now.

In Germany we were taugh by counter-terrorism teams that to be aware is one thing one should do...but do the best you can not to change your lifestyle.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 22, 2008)

Light hearted brief aside:  I hope you mean someone like the Red Army Faction rather than the Royal Air Force there, *jk*?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 22, 2008)

jkembry said:


> Twin Fist said:
> 
> 
> > thats a pretty darned big leap there Caver.
> ...


I can understand and WANT to have better protection against terrorists including local home growns like Tim McVie and his group... whomever they are, but for crying out loud I don't want to sacrifice my own freedoms because I might "say the wrong thing" and/or be misunderstood that my dissatisfaction with current and future administrations might cause me to buy a big white van somewhere and load it with explosives. 
If I believe that theres a need for a change in government then we'll do it as intended. Fire them and replace them as per our constitutional rights to do so as a people.


----------



## jkembry (Jul 22, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Light hearted brief aside:  I hope you mean someone like the Red Army Faction rather than the Royal Air Force there, *jk*?




Yep...Red Army Faction....My Father-in-law is retired RAF (Royal Air Force)...I should know better.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 22, 2008)

This would actually probably be a good idea.  It would add to the legitimacy and put things more in line with the separation of powers in the Constitution.

Plus you could then start identifying people as 'enemy combatants' and 'illegal' combatants for sake of Geneva Conventions handling.  

Plus then you could start identifying 'member of Al-Queda==enemy, 79 yo grandmother trying to visit relatives in Denver != enemy' and put the TSA mostly out of work


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> new threats require new responses
> 
> the old way of doing things got us 9-11
> 
> I would just as soon avoid that in the future if possible.


 
This certainly is the rationale for many of the things that we've seen, but I begin to wonder when thousands of pages of documents spelling out the Patriot Act and Homeland Security are trotted out a mere handful of hours after the event.  The "new way" popped up kinda quick...or maybe it was the Old Way, something people have seen and governments have done before.

The sad thing is that most of Congress voted on things like the Patriot Act without even reading it.  Couple this with the ambiguous vote for military action and you really have a mess, a complete abbrogation of a check and balance.  Our Constitution was designed so that Executive power could never be concentrated like this.

...and the courts have been rolling it back for seven years...

Now this new Declaration.  It won't be President Bush who reaps the ultimate power this Act could grant.  It'll be the next guy.  How much do you trust THAT person to use it benevolently?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 22, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> This would actually probably be a good idea. It would add to the legitimacy and put things more in line with the separation of powers in the Constitution.
> 
> Plus you could then start identifying people as 'enemy combatants' and 'illegal' combatants for sake of Geneva Conventions handling.
> 
> Plus then you could start identifying 'member of Al-Queda==enemy, 79 yo grandmother trying to visit relatives in Denver != enemy' and put the TSA mostly out of work


 
Like I said, it be nice to see how things are defined.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 22, 2008)

My word, *jkembry*, to be embroiled in the neighbourhood of two terrorist attacks certainly qualifies you to have an informed opinion on the matter of security vis-a-vis personal freedom :rei:.  That's especially so given the decades spanned between those descendants of Baader-Meinhoff and the more recent incarnation of the (allegedly) Islamic terrorists.

How do you see the difference between how the security forces dealt with the constant stream of terrorist acts in the sixties and seventies compared to the 'One Big Success' that has been waved for years now as the reason for us to shut up and do as we're told?

My impressions will not hold the weight of yours as I was only a teenager when the Soviet funded, European, terrorist groups were operating.  However, in those times, there was an urging towards natural caution and being observant rather then the present impetous towards "Stay in your homes; be off the streets by nightfall" (quote courtesy of The Stranglers).  

I don't recall the huge media driven hyping of fear back then either - tho' I was a 'teen and so may have been protected from it by my inherent shield of invulnerability .  There were planes, pubs and banks being exploded all over the continent and we weren't being herded into our 'pens' like so many sheep.


----------



## jkembry (Jul 22, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> How do you see the difference between how the security forces dealt with the constant stream of terrorist acts in the sixties and seventies compared to the 'One Big Success' that has been waved for years now as the reason for us to shut up and do as we're told?




I have never been asked this before...and I am not totally sure what I feel.  I will say that the technics that the Bundeswehr acounter-terrorist forces still apply today.  Be well aware of your surroundings and that these folks are out there and they do mean to do harm...but don't change the basic way that you would live your life.  As far as the one big success.  Truth be told, given where I was on that day, I was pretty frightened, angry and a host of other emotions for the next few weeks.  Then I opened my eyes and watched the knee-jerk reaction against people that most likely didn't have anything to do with it...all in the name of protecting the Nation.  Then using those scenes to strike fear into the public to justify these actions...(warrantless monitoring of phone calls...the way prosoners are being held in limbo at GTMO...etc).  Are we truly protecting the Nation or is something else going on.  I don't know, and I would dare to say that these activities may have stifled an action or two that we have never heard about.  I live in the Washington, DC metro area where security cameras are very prevelent.  I have nothing against the cameras or the use of them...but I would like to see the policy governing them...and that I have yet to find.



Sukerkin said:


> I don't recall the huge media driven hyping of fear back then either - tho' I was a 'teen and so may have been protected from it by my inherent shield of invulnerability .  There were planes, pubs and banks being exploded all over the continent and we weren't being herded into our 'pens' like so many sheep.



Whilst in Europe, I don't recall the hype either.  It was more of an awareness, and being observent...using common sense.  Another thing that was taught was to watch the actions of people.  the actions are more telling than perhaps how they looked or what they wore.  It really isn't that difficult to tell when a person doesn't seem to belong or appears out of place.  Those are the things I look for when I am out and about...and if something just doesn't look right, then I change how I act or where I go.  Maybe...hoepfully...I am wrong, but I will trust my instincts.

I do believe there is hope that this will tunr itself around...and have seen steps in that direction...but there is a way to go....but we will get there eventually.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2008)

jkembry said:


> has caused us to change lifestyles to the point


 
Other than it being even MORE of a pain to go to the airport, my life hasnt changed at all.

Niether has anyone else's that I know.

How has our lifestyle changed so much?

they are not shutting down newspapers
they are not rounding up dissedents.
There is no martial law

Not much really has changed, so please tell me how they have won?


----------



## jkembry (Jul 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Other than it being even MORE of a pain to go to the airport, my life hasnt changed at all.
> 
> Niether has anyone else's that I know.
> 
> ...




Perhaps you haven't changed, but I can tell you that I know people here in the Washington, DC Metro area that a frightened to go downtown to museums.  My sister will not get on a plane because she is certain that the plane she gets on will be the next one flown into a building.  I am not sure if general aviation restrictions have been lifted at Washington Nation Airport or not, but that is another particular instance.

What I am speaking of is using fear to manipulate laws that restrict they way we may want to live or to justify the way the government will do things as well as what they will do.

So perhaps on a personal level not much has changed (depending on the person)...but I still see a erosion of liberties that we once enjoyed (ie.  not needing a passport to go into Canada or Caribbean).



I


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 22, 2008)

At the risk of slightly divering the flow of the thread, I wonder if, *TF*, that it might be reasonable to say that perhaps you don't see the positioning of precursors of change because the opinions you hold are in line with what the nebulous 'powers that be' desire?

Please understand that I'm not attempting any slight or insult to your goodself when I say this.

It's just that it occurred to me that those who have no complaint against the 'system' as it stands, other than they would actually like to see things 'tightened up', are not going to be disposed to a negative reaction to small changes which signal a larger change in attitude which has yet to become plain.


----------



## KELLYG (Jul 22, 2008)

I think that the long term ramifications of the patriot act, holding prisoners with out due process etc. is yet to be seen.  I see it as a cancer that begins as one cell mutating into thousands utill it kills the host.  Where do we stop it? Where is the line in the sand?


----------



## Ray (Jul 22, 2008)

KELLYG said:


> I think that the long term ramifications of the patriot act, holding prisoners with out due process etc. is yet to be seen. I see it as a cancer that begins as one cell mutating into thousands utill it kills the host. Where do we stop it? Where is the line in the sand?


Please explain the due process and rights theoretically given to POWs and the differences between the dejure and defacto treatment by the various players in modern wars.  It's only because I'm not aware of any "due process" afforded to POWs that I ask.  Thanking you in advance.


----------



## Nolerama (Jul 22, 2008)

I think in terms of American citizens, due process is necessary in the pursuit of justice. However, I don't think we should be detaining suspected terrorists in GITMO without a similar form of due process. That's such hypocrisy.

If we are to pass judgment on others, they should be judged by us in the same way our own citizens are judged. Unfortunately they're not... This should be left to an international panel, not the US.


----------



## KELLYG (Jul 22, 2008)

This is an except of a document posted today on msnbc
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




updated 10:27 a.m. ET, Mon., July. 21, 2008

*"*Hamdan was captured at a roadblock in Afghanistan in November 2001, allegedly with two surface-to-air missiles in the car. But his lawyers say he was merely a low-level driver and mechanic without any role in the al-Qaida conspiracy against the United States.
Repeated legal obstacles


*Repeated legal obstacles*
Hamdan was taken to Guantanamo in May 2002 and selected as one of the first inmates to face prosecution. His case has created repeated legal obstacles for the Pentagon including a Supreme Court ruling that struck down an earlier version of the tribunal system.
Allred began the proceedings Monday by indicating that he would not allow the government to use some of the evidence interrogators obtained from Hamdan during his detention in Afghanistan. Defense lawyers have argued those statements were tainted by coercive techniques and the fact that interrogators did not advise him of a right against self-incrimination.
The United States has so far charged 20 Guantanamo prisoners and military officials say they expect to prosecute about 80 in all."


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2008)

jkembry said:


> So perhaps on a personal level not much has changed (depending on the person)...but I still see a erosion of liberties that we once enjoyed (ie.  not needing a passport to go into Canada or Caribbean).



hold up.

so, to leave the country you shouldnt need  passport?

Correct me if i am wrong, but it sounds like that is something we should have been doing all along?

what you call "liberties", I call sloppy security.

We SHOULD be monitoring immigrants.
We SHOULD be reviewing who comes and go into and out of the country, it's stupid not to.

You can still go to Canada, or The Islands

You can sit on your computer and complain about the government all day long, no one will come to get you.

You can still hope on a plane anytime you want to.

again, what have you lost?

nothing

and dont be vague and just say "liberties" be specific, please.


plus, and here is the important thing, no country at war keeps acting as if it is not

we are in fact, at WAR 

the war was declared in 1972 in Munich

we just never bothered to fight back because they never hit us hard enough for most people to notice.

Unless of course you deny we are at war.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> It's just that it occurred to me that those who have no complaint against the 'system' as it stands, other than they would actually like to see things 'tightened up', are not going to be disposed to a negative reaction to small changes which signal a larger change in attitude which has yet to become plain.



The problem I have Suk is that the people complaining, can NEVER give you anything specific to complain about

it is all "maybe" "could be" "might be" 

Nothing has actually been lost, but the complaining goes on and on, and oddly enough, the same ones complaining? just so happen to be the same people (by and large, not all of course) that say "bush was selected not elected" or "Bush stole the elections in 2000 and 2004" 

this tells me they are objecting NOT because of what is happening, but rather who is in charge.

and I will NEVER respect partisan thinking


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2008)

Nolerama said:


> This should be left to an international panel, not the US.



yeah, cuz other countries are just as determined to erradicate the threat of radical islam as we are...........oh wait, thats right, they are not. In fact, most nations not only deny the threat, they actively do everything they can to appease the terrorists, hoping that will buy them some safety

or they just oppose the US out of routine, without even considering what it is we are actually doing................


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> BOLD measures, like Bush has done, "seek them out and kill them all" measures have essentially broken AQ.



AQ may be broken yes, but they are one small organization in a sea of radicalism.  Anger against America is at an all time high in the Muslim world, and it is in fact easier to recruit terrorists now, not harder.  The numbers on the general Muslim population have also shifted.  More Muslims are now willing to say they directly or indirectly support the aims of terrorist organizations than before the war.



Twin Fist said:


> The typical liberal mantra "let's just be nice to them and they will forget alll about us" simply does not work.



Strawman.



Twin Fist said:


> I dont think it has EVER worked, but it damned sure doesnt work against radical islam.



I would urge you to read up on the history of the USSR/Afghan war and get back to me.  Harsh measures do not cow populations, unless perhaps you are willing to commit genocide.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> The problem I have Suk is that the people complaining, can NEVER give you anything specific to complain about



Then you are not listening.  Plenty of people have been complaining about these very specific issues.

The writ of _habeas corpus_ has been suspended at the discretion of the federal government.  This has been applied to at least one American citizen to date, although he did get his day in court - years later.  Certainly you haven't forgotten all the "material witnesses" kept in custody without recourse to a lawyer or the courts for several years after 9/11?

The executive branch has taken upon itself the authority to initiate wiretapping surveillance absent statutory legislative oversight.  Granted, that oversight was a rubberstamp to begin with, but now even that fig leaf has been disposed with.  The annoying thing is that most of us wouldn't even know if our rights had been violated in these cases.

The ability to travel by air has been summarily curtailed for more than a million people at this time.  Many more people not on this list have also been effectively denied the ability to travel freely due to having a name in common with someone on this list.  The creation and enforcement of this list has no statutory or constitutional authority, the mechanisms of being added are unknown, the identities of those on the list are unknown, and there is no oversight or appeal procedures for being added to or taken off of the list.

There have also been more mundane problems with the operation of government itself, such as a lack of enforcement at the Civil Rights division of the Department of Justice.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 22, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> ...I begin to wonder when thousands of pages of documents spelling out the Patriot Act and Homeland Security are trotted out a mere handful of hours after the event.  The "new way" popped up kinda quick...or maybe it was the Old Way, something people have seen and governments have done before.



The FBI, CIA and other agencies had a standing "wish list" of powers they had been lobbying for for some time under previous administrations.  Obviously, 9/11 represented an excellent way for those agencies to get powers they had always wanted without a recalcitrant government and populace standing in their way.  That is why that documentation was standing ready.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> The writ of _habeas corpus_ has been suspended at the discretion of the federal government.



for foreign terrorists and ONE american who was, guess what? working with foreign terrorists. Sorry, it just doesnt get me excited.





Empty Hands said:


> The executive branch has taken upon itself the authority to initiate wiretapping surveillance absent statutory legislative oversight.



of foreign terrorists and the people inside this country who are supporting them. That doenst ruffle my panties either. Sorry.

Do you not get that we are at WAR?




Empty Hands said:


> The ability to travel by air has been summarily curtailed for more than a million people at this time.  Many more people not on this list have also been effectively denied the ability to travel freely due to having a name in common with someone on this list.  The creation and enforcement of this list has no statutory or constitutional authority, the mechanisms of being added are unknown, the identities of those on the list are unknown, and there is no oversight or appeal procedures for being added to or taken off of the list.



they can still drive

they havnt lost the so called 'right" to travel,  they just cant get on planes, since planes are now potential weapons, it makes sense to limit who has access to those weapons.

You are not winning me over buddy.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 22, 2008)

Easy, gentlemen, easy.  

I have to say, against my expectations of how this thread was going to unfold, there are good points coming from both sides of the division of opinion.  

Don't wreck it by sniping at each other, please.

It might not be much of a gauge in the grand scheme of things but both of you (*EH* and *TF*) know that tho' we have not seen eye-to-eye on some issues over the past few months, we can still debate things to a conclusion.  That conclusion may be that we cannot agree but it still means that the matters at hand get discussed rather than proselytised.

I can see a certain amount of validity in both sides here; the question becomes which has the more 'weight'?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Sorry, it just doesnt get me excited.
> 
> That doenst ruffle my panties either. Sorry.
> 
> You are not winning me over buddy.



Well, I didn't really expect any differently.  I was pointing out specific examples however, since you claim there weren't any.  Think about this moment though when a future administration uses the powers garnered to the executive by the Bush administration to do things that DO ruffle your panties.

As for these powers only being used against "terrorists", since there is no oversight, you only have the government's word for that.  I'm not much of one for uncritically trusting the word of the government.  That is what a system of checks and balances is _for_, to account for human deficiencies, and these new powers have no checks and balances.



Twin Fist said:


> You are not winning me over buddy.



I'm not your buddy, pal! 



Twin Fist said:


> Do you not get that we are at WAR?



Well, that doesn't ruffle MY panties.  Being at war is no excuse to dismantle the essence of the American experiment.  Indeed, preserving the soul of our country as a bastion of liberty becomes even _more _important during war.  I am not such a coward that a bunch of filthy Saudis living in caves in Pakistan is going to make me give up on what America is.



Twin Fist said:


> they havnt lost the so called 'right" to travel,  they just cant get on planes, since planes are now potential weapons, it makes sense to limit who has access to those weapons.



Oddly enough, Osama bin Laden is not on the list.

In any case, the whole thing wouldn't be so much of a problem if it had any transparency or appeal procedures to it.  As it is, the list stands as entirely capricious, which is a big problem.  What will you say when President Obama puts all you angry white conservative men on the list as a "militia threat"?  Still going to be consoled that you can still drive?  What happens when the "Highway List" gets implemented along with checkpoints?  Still happy that you will be able to walk at will?

The government isn't going to give up these nifty powers that the American people have allowed to go to it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 22, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Don't wreck it by sniping at each other, please.



I haven't seen any sort of that thing so far in this thread.  If I have come across that way I apologize, but I think both TF and myself are being pretty level.  YMMV.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> The government isn't going to give up these nifty powers that the American people have allowed to go to it.



They did after the Civil War
They did after WW2.

No reason to think they wont again



Empty Hands said:


> I am not such a coward that a bunch of filthy Saudis living in caves in Pakistan is going to make me give up on what America is.



 Only the living have the option of debating what the nature of the American Experiment really IS. So first and foremost, we have to make sure Americans are SAFE. And for the love of God please dont trot out the old Ben Franklin quote............



Empty Hands said:


> you only have the government's word for that.  I'm not much of one for uncritically trusting the word of the government.




absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You have no reason to think they are lying other than that it is the government. It seems I was right, it isnt about what IS so much as what "might be", "might happen" or "could be done"


----------



## Marginal (Jul 22, 2008)

Big Don said:


> There is a word for not fighting when the bad guys want to kill you: Suicide.


I think Congress should get around to Musk's recommendations when he gets around to enforcing suponeas.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> They did after the Civil War
> They did after WW2.
> 
> No reason to think they wont again



The executive has been steadily accumulating power to itself for the past nearly 70 years now.  Actions by the government now would have been unthinkable not all that long ago.  This long term trend IS worrying, and Bush is the apotheosis of that accumulation.



Twin Fist said:


> And for the love of God please dont trot out the old Ben Franklin quote............



Perhaps Patrick Henry instead?  Complete safety is an impossibility, and trying to reach it will turn any society into a police state.  That just isn't worth it.  I'm willing to take a one in a billion shot of being killed by terrorists over the one in one shot of dealing with what we've become trying to fight them.



Twin Fist said:


> absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You have no reason to think they are lying other than that it is the government. It seems I was right, it isnt about what IS so much as what "might be", "might happen" or "could be done"



Come now, I don't think you really believe that.  Otherwise, why demand accountability or transparency at all?  If someone has the power of life and death over you by their decisions, it only makes sense to make sure they are using it properly.  "You don't know they're not!" is not a very rational objection.

Also, I gave you plenty of "is."


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> "You don't know they're not!" is not a very rational objection.
> 
> Also, I gave you plenty of "is."




You gave 3 "is", none of them alarmed me

also, "it could be abused" is not a rational alarm, to me at least.I concentrate on what IS, not what "could be"

but it's all good, i disagree, but i gotta say, you put up a polite, well spoken debate!


----------



## Big Don (Jul 22, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Oddly enough, Osama bin Laden is not on the list.


How would you know? The list is classified...


----------



## Big Don (Jul 22, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> YMMV.


Off topic: YMMV?
Translation please? Yugo Modern Motor Vehicles? Young Men, Mostly Vocal?
Whats that mean?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2008)

your milage may vary


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 22, 2008)

Big Don said:


> How would you know? The list is classified...



I wouldn't say classified so much as buried under layers of non-cooperative bureaucracy.  As far as I am aware, the no fly list is not truly classified.

As for ObL, I read that before, but cannot find any reputable confirmation now.  World Net Daily said so in 2004, but I wouldn't trust them.


----------



## Nolerama (Jul 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> The problem I have Suk is that the people complaining, can NEVER give you anything specific to complain about
> 
> it is all "maybe" "could be" "might be"
> 
> ...



This is The Study. Not TF's personal philosophy to shout people down and still ignore their point of view. Chill out, pal. This is supposed to be healthy, friendly, and non judgmental.

Besides that, I'll toe over this line and say this about your quoted statement:
*
"It's like the pot calling the kettle black."

*We're talking about declaring war on organizations, and the ethics/legality behind that. Personally, I think it's okay to launch a image/PR campaign against a perceived "evil" organization/country by a government (Cold War), but not okay to wage a military war and spend American lives in the pursuit of a few people's perception of what's right and wrong (to their pockets in some cases).

Bush is out this year. So who cares anymore? Another politico will get in office and we can complain about him all over again.

The whole "I'll never respect partisan thinking" thing... Let's just say that although I like to debate you, I don't like seeing you disrespecting yourself.

_This is positive criticism._


----------



## jkembry (Jul 23, 2008)

Somewhat off the topic:

For me this has been a fruitful debate.  By that I mean that it is really cool to be able to see what others think and why and not take things personally.  And on the opposite side to be able to express myself in a thoughtful manner.  Add to that the opinions here helped me to open my mind to the way others see things whether I agree or not...it just makes it cool.

Thanks for the lively debate.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 23, 2008)

Nolerama,
I am highly offended.

seriously.


----------

