View Full Version : well its a good thing people want to detonate radioactive bombs on the US


Pages : [1] 2

So very sad about me
06-11-2002, 12:00 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/11/national/11ARRE.html

June 11, 2002
U.S. Says It Halted Qaeda Plot to Use Radioactive Bomb
By JAMES RISEN and PHILIP SHENON


WASHINGTON, June 10 — The Justice Department announced today that it had broken up a plot by Al Qaeda to detonate a radioactive bomb inside the United States by arresting an American citizen in the case.

"We have captured a known terrorist who was exploring a plan to build and explode a radiological dispersion device, or `dirty bomb,' in the United States," Attorney General John Ashcroft said in a televised announcement from Moscow where he was meeting with Russian official on unrelated matters.

Mr. Ashcroft identified the arrested man as Abdullah al-Muhajir, 31, a former Chicago gang member who American officials said was born Jose Padilla in Brooklyn and raised as a Roman Catholic but who converted to Islam and began using a new name.

Mr. Padilla has been in custody since May 8 when he was arrested on a sealed material witness warrant at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago as he arrived on a flight from Zurich.

Senior government officials said Mr. Padilla had discussed the bomb plot with top Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan, among them Abu Zubaydah, the Osama bin Laden lieutenant who was captured in Pakistan in March and later told United States officials about the plan. But they also said Mr. Padilla had not obtained the materials to make such a device.

Mr. Zubaydah, the most senior Qaeda leader in custody, told his American interrogators that several Qaeda members had come to him late last December with a proposal to acquire and detonate a radiological device, a so-called dirty bomb. Mr. Zubaydah did not identify Mr. Padilla by name, but provided enough information to allow the Central Intelligence Agency to check with other sources — including documents seized in Afghanistan — to narrow the search to Mr. Padilla, officials said.

"We were able to figure out who Zubaydah was talking about, and then screen him and follow him," said an American intelligence official.

In New York City, where Mr. Padilla was held after his arrest until being transferred on Sunday to a military jail in South Carolina, a law enforcement official described Mr. Padilla as someone who tried to make inroads with terrorists after his conversion to Islam.

Other officials said that before he left Pakistan, Mr. Padilla was told by Al Qaeda leaders to fly to the United States to conduct reconnaissance for several possible plots, including the possibility of blowing up hotel rooms and gas stations.

But the plot outlined by United States officials today centered on a plan to carry out an attack using a bomb that uses conventional explosives to spew potentially lethal radioactive material across a wide area.

American intelligence officials cautioned that the plot had been in early planning stages and no time for the operation had been set. They said that there was also no evidence that Mr. Padilla or any other Qaeda operatives had obtained the materials needed to construct a dirty bomb.

"They didn't seem to think they would have trouble getting radiological materials, but they didn't have any of it," said one official.

Donna Newman, Mr. Padilla's lawyer in New York, said that federal authorities had given her little information about the allegations against Mr. Padilla. She also expressed dismay that the government had suddenly transferred him to the military jail in South Carolina.

American officials said that Al Qaeda's leadership was apparently intrigued by Mr. Padilla's being an American citizen who might have an easier time of gaining entry to the United States than other Al Qaeda members.

The announcement of the arrest seemed to suggest that the Bush administration had succeeded in executing the kind of aggressive preventive action that officials say they have concentrated on since Sept. 11.

The announcement could also prove a lift for the F.B.I. and C.I.A., which have been under heavy criticism in Congress for missing potential warning signs last year that might have disrupted the the hijacking plot.

F.B.I. and C.I.A. agents picked up Mr. Padilla's trail after he and two other men were detained by Pakistani authorities on a passport violation in April, officials said. Mr. Padilla left Pakistan in early April and traveled from Switzerland to Egypt and then back to Switzerland.

F.B.I. agents secretly boarded his flight from Zurich to the United States to keep him under surveillance. But worried that Mr. Padilla might disrupt the Chicago-bound flight, agents asked airline security personnel in Zurich to inspect his luggage carefully and his personal effects, including his shoes.

"They checked to make sure his shoes weren't funky," said one official, referring to Richard C. Reid, a British convert to Islam who was charged with a terrorist act after officials said he tried to detonate a shoe bomb on a Paris-to-Miami flight last December.

Mr. Padilla was arrested as soon as the flight touched down, officials said, because agents hoped to obtain his cooperation. A search revealed that he was carrying about $10,000.

However, the New York law enforcement official said Mr. Padilla had been uncooperative during his month in detention at the Metropolitan Corrections Center in downtown Manhattan.

The decision to make an immediate arrest appeared to be part of the shift since Sept. 11 from lengthy covert surveillance operations to intervention to prevent further terrorist attacks.

Today, Mr. Padilla was being held in a high security jail at the Charleston Naval Weapons Station in South Carolina. Bush administration officials said that Mr. Padilla had been declared an enemy combatant, a status that makes it easier for the government to detain him without having to bring a criminal charge that would force it disclose sensitive intelligence sources.

There was also some question as to whether there was enough evidence, absent information gathered from intelligence sources, to bring a traditional criminal prosecution that could be won in court. That meant, officials said, that the best and perhaps only realistic alternative was to turn him over to military custody in which he could be held indefinitely.

Federal prosecutors said they announced the arrest today because they had faced a hearing scheduled for Tuesday when they could have been forced to decide whether to charge him formally with a crime.

The plot as explained by the authorities seemed to follow the outlines of a scenario that counterterrorism experts have long feared. They have predicted that a radioactive bomb would be easier for terrorists to obtain than a nuclear device.

Officials said Mr. Padilla met with Mr. Zubaydah in Afghanistan last December and raised the possibility of a dirty bomb attack on the United States with him then.

Mr. Padilla then traveled to Pakistan, where he received Al Qaeda training in the wiring of explosives, intelligence officials said.

Mr. Padilla stayed at a Qaeda safe house in Lahore, Pakistan, for a time, and conducted research on radiological devices on the Internet, officials said.

At Mr. Zubaydah's behest, Mr. Padilla also traveled to Karachi to discuss several possible plans, the officials said.

A senior administration official said that Mr. Zubaydah was not the only Qaeda member in custody who led them to find Mr. Padilla. "Abu Zubaydah was one of the sources, but not the only one," the official said. "It's a rather impressive variety of sources."

The official said that Mr. Padilla "has left an amazing number of tracks around."



------------------
http://www.wsu.edu/~swinn/sex.gif
You want to sleep with common people like me (http://smampy.livejournal.com)

Irrelevant
06-11-2002, 12:18 AM
as a u.s. citizen he has the right not to be held indefinitely without charges against him. right?

all they can really charge him with is conspiracy. i wonder what kind of sentence that will carry.

[This message has been edited by Irrelevant (edited 06-11-2002).]

KingJeremy
06-11-2002, 12:21 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
as a u.s. citizen he has the right not to be held indefinitely without charges against him. right?

all they can really charge him with is conspiracy. i wonder what kind of sentence that will carry.

[This message has been edited by Irrelevant (edited 06-11-2002).]</font>Can't they charge him with treason which is punishable by death?



------------------
sear those thoughts of me
alone and unhappy
i never liked me anyway
if by chance
or circumstance
we should fail
don't be so sad

13
06-11-2002, 01:29 AM
Wow, perfect timing for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. I'm sure Congress will now have no problems approving it.

Still, i think it does little to restore the reputation of the FBI

------------------
http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actrice/images/dalle02.jpg

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 03:31 AM
All too convenient.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 03:44 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">"Patriotism" and "Treason": A New Trend in Irresponsible Wartime Rhetoric
by Ben Fritz
October 29, 2001


During a time of war, terms like patriotism and treason have a new context and a deeper meaning. War often stirs feelings of patriotism amongst citizens as the nation unites against a threat to its existence. Charges of treason, of course, carry much more weight when a country has enemies actively seeking its destruction.

However, while war may provide more opportunities to raise the issues of patriotism and treason, it has also historically provided opportunities to use this loaded rhetoric irresponsibly. Now, again, this is taking place. In the last week, there has been a significant rise in the inappropriate use of these terms by pundits discussing the American war against terrorism.

Beginnings with Paul Craig Roberts
It wasn't very long after September 11 that this sort of emotionally charged rhetoric began to surface. On September 19, conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts wrote a column entitled "Terrorism or Treason?". It's essentially an overview of recent history in which Roberts grossly simplifies American policy in order to blame liberal elements in the government for the terrorist attacks. As part of this, he charges that the U.S. government sold communications equipment that cannot be monitored to "the terrorists" and that the U.S. refused to extradite Mohamed Atta, one of the suspected perpetrators of the September 11 attacks, to Israel. Roberts also blames opponents of racial profiling and supporters of a U.S. immigration policy that has allowed in a "large Muslim population base [that] has allowed fanatical terrorists to integrate themselves in our society."

Regardless of the validity of these claims, the conclusion to his column is deeply disturbing. "Once Americans begin dying in droves," he writes, "we will remember that treason is real and deadly."

Treason is defined by dictionary.com as "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies." At a time of war, this is a serious charge indeed. Notice that there is absolutely no evidence for it in Roberts' piece. At the worst, his allegations amount to an argument that government officials made bad policy choices. There is no reason to believe, nor does Roberts even allege, that Muslims have been allowed into the U.S. or communications equipment was sold to terrorists by people who actually wanted to betray their country. Yet Roberts attempts to link those decisions to a vague charge of "treason." This is simply an early and particularly outrageous attempt by a pundit to condemn his enemies using a now heavily loaded word.

Picking up steam
As the U.S. has engaged an identifiable enemy--the Taliban--and deployed our armed forces, the use of loaded, war-related rhetoric has only expanded. In the past week, particularly, there has been a disturbing expansion of the trend.


One example of this trend already pointed out on this website came from Spinsanity's good friend Ann Coulter. As Brendan wrote last week, Coulter opens a recent column with this outrageous statement: "Liberals are up to their old tricks again. Twenty years of treason haven't slowed them down." What follows is a broad rant against any and all liberal targets, from the New York Times to Vietnam War opponents. Again, however, even if we were to assume all of Coulter's claims are true, she still has no evidence to back up her claim that liberals are actively supporting enemies of the United States.

Unfortunately, there have been yet more uses of the term treason. Another recent one came from columnist Paul Weyrich, a prominent conservative religious figure, who attempts to qualify his use of the term somewhat by writing, "In an earlier age, this kind of behavior would be considered treason." Regardless of when he says the term would be used, however, Weyrich is accusing his someone of betraying the United States.

Weyrich's accusation is particularly ******* as it is based on a blatant lie. His target is CNN, which he says gave Osama Bin Laden six questions "in advance" of an interview and is "giving the enemy time to expound his viewpoint over our airwaves." In fact, however, while CNN did submit questions to Bin Laden, they were not "in advance" of an interview but constituted the interview itself, as Bin Laden refused to be interviewed live. In addition, CNN chairman Walter Isaacson specifically said in a New York Times article that he would only air the interview if Bin Laden's responses were news and not if he "just spews propaganda." Not only is Weyrich's accusation of "treason" outrageous, but it is based on a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

Somewhat less egregious, but still disturbing, have been two recent uses of the heavily loaded term "patriotic" by liberals. A simple example came in an "op-ad" from the website TomPaine.com that ran in the New York Times. In opposing the economic stimulus bill as biased towards the wealthy and corporations, it questions the patriotism of the bill's author, Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA). "What do we call a man so willing to put the agenda of his political patrons above the national interest in times of war and economic hardship?" it asks. "Do we call him a patriot?" Not only is this questioning of Thomas's patriotism offensive and unfounded, but the supposition that it is specific to our current problems is faulty, as the tax policy in question is of the type often supported by Republicans.

Another example came from New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who utilized the patriotism line of attack recently in a column attacking the Bush administration for not taking the threats our nation faces seriously enough. In it, she wrote that the government should "[b]e critical of corporations for cutting back on jobs in order to boost profits and report earnings and have stocks go up, when the patriotic thing at this point is not to cut back on jobs but to employ as many people as possible."

Backhandedly calling businesses that lay people off unpatriotic is unfair. Dowd simply brushes over the fact that the United States is almost certainly in a recession, and businesses that don't cut back on costs face consequences ranging from severe losses to the prospect of bankruptcy. Patriotism cannot overrule the basic rules of a capitalist economy--and Dowd should be ashamed of accusing businesses that follow them of dismissing their duty to the country.

With great power comes great responsibility
No one can dispute that at a time of war, patriotism and treason are incredibly important concepts that have a real bearing on national politics. Terms like "patriotic" and "treason" are powerful words, however, and, as the saying goes, "with great power comes great responsibility." Those who value thoughtful, rational debate should be concerned when these terms are used irresponsibly by those who shape American political discourse. Their continued use to attack opponents will have two effects: to unfairly castigate political opponents and to dilute the terms of their real meanings. Neither outcome is a healthy one.</font>


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 03:46 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
as a u.s. citizen he has the right not to be held indefinitely without charges against him. right?
</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Nope, actually I think they can...or at least for a longer period of time than usual. I don't recall how it actually all works...but, there's something about it being war time and terrorism...


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 03:56 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>I don't recall how it actually all works...but, there's something about it being war time and terrorism...
</font>

Your government loves people like you right now.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 03:59 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_munky:
Your government loves people like you right now.

</font>

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/confused.gif



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 04:04 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/confused.gif
</font>

What you said basically amounts to:

"I don't know if what the government is doing now is legal, I think it is but I'm not sure. With all this terrorism and war I'm sure it's ok."

they need more people thinking like that.

bonsor
06-11-2002, 04:09 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/confused.gif</font><font color="0084ff">Exactly.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:10 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_munky:
What you said basically amounts to:

"I don't know if what the government is doing now is legal, I think it is but I'm not sure. With all this terrorism and war I'm sure it's ok."

they need more people thinking like that.

</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>No. What I was saying is that in times of war, there is some sort of exception or something. Sorry, I can't be assed to search out and find for you exactly how it all works. I never said whether or not I agreed with it.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

13
06-11-2002, 04:14 AM
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

"And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." - Julius Caesar

------------------
http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actrice/images/dalle02.jpg

Irrelevant
06-11-2002, 04:15 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Nope, actually I think they can...or at least for a longer period of time than usual. I don't recall how it actually all works...but, there's something about it being war time and terrorism...
</font>

we're not at war, though.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:16 AM
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec01/civil_11-27.html

<font color=#ADD8E6>After 9/11 Bush signed a bunch of Executive Orders broadening the government's ability to detain, investigate, and prosecute those suspected of terrorism.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 04:19 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>No. What I was saying is that in times of war, there is some sort of exception or something. Sorry, I can't be assed to search out and find for you exactly how it all works. I never said whether or not I agreed with it.
</font>

It doesn't really matter if you agree with it or not, you're not sure, so you can't make a judgement on it. What you do have is apathy.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:21 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_munky:
It doesn't really matter if you agree with it or not, you're not sure, so you can't make a judgement on it. What you do have is apathy. </font>

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec01/civil_11-27.html

<font color=#ADD8E6>After 9/11 Bush signed a bunch of Executive Orders broadening the government's ability to detain, investigate, and prosecute those suspected of terrorism.




------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:24 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_munky:
What you do have is apathy. </font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>No. I stood on the streets of NYC and watched as thousands of people died. What I have couldn't be further from apathy.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 04:25 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec01/civil_11-27.html

<font color=#ADD8E6>After 9/11 Bush signed a bunch of Executive Orders broadening the government's ability to detain, investigate, and prosecute those suspected of terrorism.
</font>

So how does that make you feel ?

13
06-11-2002, 04:25 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
we're not at war, though.</font>

yes we are- we're at war with terrorism, whatever that is. I think it's a country located somewhere in the Middle East.


------------------
http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actrice/images/dalle02.jpg

Irrelevant
06-11-2002, 04:27 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by 13:
yes we are- we're at war with terrorism, whatever that is. I think it's a country located somewhere in the Middle East.</font>

in the same sense that we're at war with poverty and at war with drug abuse.

we don't seem to know where they are either, but we've been fighting them for years.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:29 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
in the same sense that we're at war with poverty and at war with drug abuse.

we don't seem to know where they are either, but we've been fighting them for years.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>No. Drug lords never attacked America. What occured on 9/11 was essentially an act of war. And the president and the rest of the U.S. government and the U.S. military are acting as if this is a time of war.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

13
06-11-2002, 04:30 AM
Nixon's war on drugs ended a while ago, with the country of Drugs winning, of course.

Timothy Leary was captured and prosecuted for treason during the war.

------------------
http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actrice/images/dalle02.jpg

[This message has been edited by 13 (edited 06-11-2002).]

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:32 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
we're not at war, though.</font>

http://www.msnbc.com/news/attack_front.asp?0ql=cbp

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 04:32 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>No. I stood on the streets of NYC and watched as thousands of people died. What I have couldn't be further from apathy.
</font>

consider

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Sorry, I can't be assed to search out and find for you exactly how it all works.
</font>

Despite the fact that you could be assed in the end (just to argue your case), this illustrates apathy. Resigning yourself to the fact that a situation could be one way or another and not being bothered to establish which is apathy, pure and simple.

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 04:34 AM
it doesn't matter whether it's legal to detain these suspects or not - the US will do what it wants....no matter what

land of the free indeed

i'm more pissed off that the rest of the world just sits around and blatantly lets the US disregard international and domestic law; nevermind ethics

Homerpalooza
06-11-2002, 04:35 AM
Does anyone remember those 200 or so (could have been more) people who were arrested and thrown in jail for no reason other than the government thought they had ties to the terrorists? Or that they had some kind of immigration violation? That was the most bullshit thing I had ever seen our government do. I know it was scary times and all post-9/11, but shit, who knows what's happened to these people?

Shortly after the USA Bill was passed, I read the message that Sen. Russ Feingold (the most kick-ass senator by far) addressed to the Senate. The Bill passed 96-1 with Feingold being the lone dissenter. The speech is really long but it basically sums up why our government has got to check its head and not get power-crazy in order to battle terrorism.

Here's a good passage:
As it seeks to combat terrorism, the Justice Department is making extraordinary use of its power to arrest and detain individuals, jailing hundreds of people on immigration violations and arresting more than a dozen "material witnesses" not charged with any crime. Although the government has used these authorities before, it has not done so on such a broad scale. Judging from government announcements, the government has not brought any criminal charges related to the attacks with regard to the overwhelming majority of these detainees.

For example, the FBI arrested as a material witness the San Antonio radiologist Albader Al-Hazmi, who has a name like two of the hijackers, and who tried to book a flight to San Diego for a medical conference. According to his lawyer, the government held Al-Hazmi incommunicado after his arrest, and it took six days for lawyers to get access to him. After the FBI released him, his lawyer said, "This is a good lesson about how frail our processes are. It's how we treat people in difficult times like these that is the true test of the democracy and civil liberties that we brag so much about throughout the world." I agree with those statements.

The full link is: http://www.counterpunch.org/feingold1.html

Anyway I realize this news is like 8 months old but I thought I'd rant again with the recent news of this Padilla guy.

Irrelevant
06-11-2002, 04:35 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>No. Drug lords never attacked America. What occured on 9/11 was essentially an act of war. And the president and the rest of the U.S. government and the U.S. military are acting as if this is a time of war.</font>

what is an act of war?

what is an act of terrorism?

what makes it an act of war rather than terrorism?

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:35 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_munky:
Resigning yourself to the fact that a situation could be one way or another and not being bothered to establish which is apathy, pure and simple.

</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6> http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/confused.gif No, what I know is that Bush acted as president and altered the laws on detainment when it comes to terrorism and war. And there already existed some law differences during a time of war. What I cannot be assed to do is find the exact Executive Order and what it exactly says.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Irrelevant
06-11-2002, 04:40 AM
we're not at war until congress says we're at war. which they never do anymore. i didn't think we even declared war in vietnam.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:40 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Homerpalooza:
</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Yep, the ACLU has been all up in arms about it all. It's hard to strike a balance between preseving civil liberties and doing 'what is necessary' to prevent further acts of terrorism. I understand some of it...but, it is also sort of frightening. However, now it seems like a lot of people are starting to question just how far is too far when it comes to trespassing on civil liberties.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).]

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:43 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
we're not at war until congress says we're at war. which they never do anymore. i didn't think we even declared war in vietnam.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>The U.S. has not formally declared war since WWII.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Irrelevant
06-11-2002, 04:45 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>The U.S. has not formally declared war since WWII.</font>

right. so legislatively and legally, this should not be considered wartime, right?

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:45 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
we're not at war, though.</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Were the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in effect a declaration of war?
Declarations of war are a custom, and not always adhered to. What happened was this: Because war is ugly and violent and chaotic, the international community, over time, developed a set of wartime customs and conventions. This began with ancient civilizations, and has evolved now to the point where there are laws dictating how the wounded must be protected, how to handle prisoners of war, and what weapons are not to be used. And of course, how to declare war.

However, some feel that, in the last 50 years, wars and other conflicts have gotten more lawless.

And today, it seems as though “declaring war” is an out-of-date formality. In a May 1999 press briefing regarding NATO’s role in Kosovo, David Scheffer, Ambassador at Large of the U.S. State Department for War Crimes Issues said: “There is no need at all for a declaration of war for the laws of war to apply. The Geneva Conventions don’t require it nor does customary international law, so that is simply not a necessary trigger for these laws to apply.”

So yes, the attacks could be seen as in effect, a declaration of war.

So is the United States now at war?

Yes. The President declared the U.S. to be at war, and that is legal.

Here's how it works.

According to Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. However, Article 2, Section 2 names the president as "Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy." As such, presidents have often bypassed Congress to go to war (whether "declared" or not). President Harry Truman was the first to do that, to go to war in Korea. And ever since, presidents have rarely asked permission.

In 1973, the U.S. Congress tried to reassert itself by passing the War Powers Resolution. (This after Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon ignored Congress while perpetuating the war in Vietnam.) Also known as the War Powers Act, the law states that, without a declaration of war, the president must inform Congress within 48 hours of beginning hostilities. Again, presidents have generally ignored this law.

In regards to international law, since the Senate has ratified the Charter of the United Nations, the president of the United States is also bound by the terms of this international charter. However, since many in the international community view the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon as war crimes, the U.S. may retaliate according to Article 51 of the charter: “nothing … shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.”

So yes, if Bush says they're at war, they're at war.

How can the United States be at war if it doesn't know who its enemy is?
And what if the perpetrator is in fact a terrorist group, not a nation?

As strange as it may seem, the United States actually has a precedent for declaring war against groups –even vague, nebulous groups- rather than nations.

Here's the precedent: Two centuries ago, piracy was a constant threat to American ships and harbours. So much so that the Constitution laid out parameters for their punishment.

In 1801, under this article, the American Congress authorized President Thomas Jefferson to send the U.S. Navy to fight the Barbary pirates along the coastline of northern Africa. These pirates weren't a nation, didn’t have a capital, national anthem, or embassy - but this made no difference.

What actions can U.S. President Bush take against terrorist groups?

Since the U.S. Senate has ratified the U.N. Charter, President Bush has to follow international law. So, technically, he cannot retaliate independently.

However, it's generally accepted that, in these situations, nations have the right to respond in self-defence or “anticipatory self-defence” (although what can be classified as self-defence is not always clear).

So, rather than go to war, heads of state are encouraged to assemble an international coalition and use diplomatic efforts. If force is deemed necessary, the President should seek the authorization of the U.N. Security Council.

That said, history shows many instances where U.S. presidents have ignored international law and acted on their own. This happened most recently in 1998, when President Bill Clinton attacked one of Osama bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan, following the bombings of two U.S. embassies.

What is NATO's Article 5? Has Canada committed itself to war as well?

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty says that an armed attack against one or more NATO members is an attack against all. Legally, members can defend themselves individually or as a group. That's backed up by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter

.
But Article 5 doesn’t guarantee that NATO will join in every decision the U.S. makes. It seems to be more of a show of support, and a pledge to decide collectively on escalated action—including the possibility of war.

As for Canada, it shares a particularly close bond—both geographic and economic—with the United States. That's why the Canadian government has pledged to provide whatever support the U.S. wants.

Will we go to war? John Manley, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, says yes. “If they have things they require, they should simply let us know,” he said. “Let’s remember we have already lost Canadian lives.” Manley said if the U.S. wants Canada's military assistance, it will get it.

(Of course, Major General Lewis Mackenzie has been publicly dubious about our ability to help, should that be necessary. He told the National Post that even if Canada was asked to contribute armed forces, "we would need a taxi to get us there.")

Sources:
The Official NATO web site
Findlaw's Writ - Legal Commentary
Slate.com
Encyclopedia Britannica
With files from CBC.ca</font>

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).]

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:49 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
right. so legislatively and legally, this should not be considered wartime, right?</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>No, legally we are at war.


Article 2, Section 2 names the president as "Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy." As such, presidents have often bypassed Congress to go to war (whether "declared" or not).

The President declared the U.S. to be at war, and that is legal.

If Bush says they're at war, they're at war.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 04:50 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
what is an act of war?

what is an act of terrorism?

what makes it an act of war rather than terrorism?</font>

The fact that it was "sourced" from the Middle East and the US govt gets severe hard-ons about the Middle East.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:50 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
in the same sense that we're at war with poverty and at war with drug abuse.

we don't seem to know where they are either, but we've been fighting them for years.</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">How can the United States be at war if it doesn't know who its enemy is?
And what if the perpetrator is in fact a terrorist group, not a nation?

As strange as it may seem, the United States actually has a precedent for declaring war against groups –even vague, nebulous groups- rather than nations.

Here's the precedent: Two centuries ago, piracy was a constant threat to American ships and harbours. So much so that the Constitution laid out parameters for their punishment.

In 1801, under this article, the American Congress authorized President Thomas Jefferson to send the U.S. Navy to fight the Barbary pirates along the coastline of northern Africa. These pirates weren't a nation, didn’t have a capital, national anthem, or embassy - but this made no difference.</font>




------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:52 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_munky:
The fact that it was "sourced" from the Middle East and the US govt gets severe hard-ons about the Middle East.

</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Ummmm...or maybe it was considered an act of war because our country was fucking attacked. It didn't matter who did or what country they were from. You attack the U.S. like that and you will find yourself in the middle of a war.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Irrelevant
06-11-2002, 04:53 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>The President declared the U.S. to be at war, and that is legal.

If Bush says they're at war, they're at war.
</font>

well, ok.

i still hope they press charges against this guy instead of holding him indefinitely, which i would consider an abuse of power. they shouldn't have arrested him if they don't have enough evidence to press charges. if they can't press charges, i'd think they were just trying to show that they can produce results on stopping terrorism.

Irrelevant
06-11-2002, 04:55 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Ummmm...or maybe it was considered an act of war because our country was fucking attacked. It didn't matter who did or what country they were from. You attack the U.S. like that and you will find yourself in the middle of a war.</font>

we've been attacked as such before, and it wasn't an act of war, it was terrorism. the scale was smaller, but scale shouldn't matter. the motivation behind it should.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:57 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
if they can't press charges, i'd think they were just trying to show that they can produce results on stopping terrorism.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>The war on terrorism is not going well. Bin Laden has not been captured. Bush's approval rating is dropping. The FBI, CIA, and Bush administration are taking a lot of shit. So, of course, part of this whole thing is to show that they are effective at doing something.

And they won't be able to hold him indefinitely. But, they will most likely hold him for an abnormally long period of time (but not insanely long).


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).]

feb4films
06-11-2002, 04:58 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_munky:
All too convenient.

</font>

Agree...

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 05:00 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
we've been attacked as such before, and it wasn't an act of war, it was terrorism. the scale was smaller, but scale shouldn't matter. the motivation behind it should.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>But, unfortunately, scale does matter. And we were attacked in our own country (it was not an attack on some U.S. thing in some other country). It was one of the worst attacks in U.S. history. We were never before attacked like we were attacked on 9/11.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 05:01 AM
news just in:

you CAN'T have a war against terrorism - it makes no sense whatsoever

Irrelevant
06-11-2002, 05:02 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>But, unfortunately, scale does matter. And we were attacked in our own country (it was not an attack on some U.S. thing in some other country). It was one of the worst attacks in U.S. history. We were never before attacked like we were attacked on 9/11. </font>

i'm still not clear on the difference between war and terrorism, though.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 05:03 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
news just in:

you CAN'T have a war against terrorism - it makes no sense whatsoever</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Yes, you can.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">How can the United States be at war if it doesn't know who its enemy is?
And what if the perpetrator is in fact a terrorist group, not a nation?

As strange as it may seem, the United States actually has a precedent for declaring war against groups –even vague, nebulous groups- rather than nations.

Here's the precedent: Two centuries ago, piracy was a constant threat to American ships and harbours. So much so that the Constitution laid out parameters for their punishment.

In 1801, under this article, the American Congress authorized President Thomas Jefferson to send the U.S. Navy to fight the Barbary pirates along the coastline of northern Africa. These pirates weren't a nation, didn’t have a capital, national anthem, or embassy - but this made no difference.</font>



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 05:03 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Ummmm...or maybe it was considered an act of war because our country was fucking attacked. It didn't matter who did or what country they were from. You attack the U.S. like that and you will find yourself in the middle of a war.
</font>

Suppose there were an anti-US organisation based in China. They had people int he US fly planes into the WTC. Would the US be sending troops into China to fight terrorism ?

Suppose there were an anti-US organisation based in Russia. They had people int he US fly planes into the WTC. Would the US be sending troops into Russia to fight terrorism ?

Suppose there were an anti-US organisation based in France. They had people int he US fly planes into the WTC. Would the US be sending troops into France to fight terrorism ?

etc etc etc

The answer is NO. If it did the US would then be involved in a REAL FUCKING WAR.

No. Sep 11 gave the US an excuse to fulfill ambitions in the Middle East and to do so with force and cover it all with nice strawberry flavoured icing called "WAR".

The US has wanted this for a long time. Sep 11 came along and gave the US a great big fucking invitation.

The lives that were lost then are not being avenged, no matter what spin the govt puts on this war.

Irrelevant
06-11-2002, 05:04 AM
that says we can be at war against groups. not against an idea.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 05:06 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
i'm still not clear on the difference between war and terrorism, though.</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">WAR - A contention by force; or the art of paralysing the forces of an enemy.

It is either public or private. It is not intended here to speak of the latter.

Public war is either civil or national. Civil war is that which is waged between two parties, citizens or members of the same state or nation. National war is a contest between two or more independent nations) carried on by authority of their respective governments.

War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it.

National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive.
</font>


<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.

The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".

If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.

In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".

Proposed Definitions of Terrorism
1. League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

2. UN Resolution language (1999):

"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;

2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify t****. (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

4. Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).</font>



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 05:08 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
that says we can be at war against groups. not against an idea.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>We are at war against terrorist groups.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">“For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid and it will be paid.... [Nations that support terror] are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice... We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences.... </font>



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

13
06-11-2002, 05:09 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>The war on terrorism is not going well. Bin Laden has not been captured. Bush's approval rating is dropping. The FBI, CIA, and Bush administration are taking a lot of shit. So, of course, part of this whole thing is to show that there are effective at doing something.

</font>
</font>

Because of the fact that this is a successful collaboration between the FBI and CIA, it's most likely that this case will be used the Administration's message to Congress that the Department of Homeland Defense/Security can work.

If they want to show that they can actually do something, they should start by arresting whomever sent those anthrax letters to democratic leaders, NBC, among others. I remember that once the source of the anthrax was traced to a domestic military base, the whole case kinda slipped out of serious contention.

I also think this whole war on terrorism is unrealisitc, maybe even insane. But it's only when oil is included into the scenario does it start to make sense.

------------------
http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actrice/images/dalle02.jpg

[This message has been edited by 13 (edited 06-11-2002).]

Irrelevant
06-11-2002, 05:12 AM
i don't even know what i'm arguing about anymore.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 05:13 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_munky:

No. Sep 11 gave the US an excuse to fulfill ambitions in the Middle East and to do so with force and cover it all with nice strawberry flavoured icing called "WAR".

The lives that were lost then are not being avenged, no matter what spin the govt puts on this war.

</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Fuck off. The U.S. was "fighting" Al Queda long before 9/11. Yeah, the attacks of 9/11 gave the U.S. the authority to fully go after Al Queda. And yeah, if it had been a terrorist group situated in China that had attacked on 9/11, we would have gone after those terrorists.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 05:15 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
yes, you can
</font>

THAT, no matter what your government tells you, is NOT a war...

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 05:16 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by 13:
The fact that this is a successful collaboration between the FBI and CIA, it's most likely that this case will be used the Administration's message to Congress that the Department of Homeland Defense/Security can work.
</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Yep.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Homerpalooza
06-11-2002, 05:16 AM
What the hell happened to this thread? I leave for 15 minutes...

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 05:17 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by 13:
If they want to show that they can actually do something, they should start by arresting whomever sent those anthrax letters to democratic leaders, NBC, among others. I remember that once the source of the anthrax was traced to a domestic military base, the whole case kinda slipped out of serious contention.
</font>

Arresting the person responsible will cut too close to the bone. If they have the evidence to arrest they certainly lack the will. They do however have the means to make sure this person stops.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 05:19 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
THAT, no matter what your government tells you, is NOT a war...</font>

“For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid and it will be paid.... [Nations that support terror] are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice... We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences..."

<font color=#ADD8E6>The U.S. is going after those responsible for the attacks of 9/11 and taking steps to ensure that the events of 9/11 never again occur. Call it whatever you want...but it sounds like war to me.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 05:26 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Fuck off. The U.S. was "fighting" Al Queda long before 9/11. Yeah, the attacks of 9/11 gave the U.S. the authority to fully go after Al Queda. And yeah, if it had been a terrorist group situated in China that had attacked on 9/11, we would have gone after those terrorists.
</font>

Fighting long before Sep 11 ? Certainly, but not openly or effectively.

Look, you don't understand.

The US has strong interests in the Middle East. It can't afford to not be heavily involved in the region. It has to keep the space filled with its own agenda. It had its sights set on the Afghan region long before Sep 11. The WTC tragedy was a disaster for NY, but an opportunity for the US.

Do you REALLY think that if a terrorist attack came from China that the US would be in there ? Absolute bullshit. In that situation the US would have to face the reality that it couldn't go to war against terrorism in China without warring against China. Same with Russia. That's when we would see a distinction between "war" and "war on terrorism".

The the US can fight this "war" and call it whatever it likes ONLY because the target is the Middle East.

BeautifulLoser
06-11-2002, 05:37 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Yep.

</font>

I like you. You do a great job of backing up your points, something rarely done here. Even if everyone disagrees with you.

------------------
AIM: JenniferZero

censored25: Dont be sad, Jesus loves your ass

BeautifulLoser
06-11-2002, 05:41 AM
I agree with BlueStar. Being in the military, I'm slightly biased. But I'd rather they hold the guy, if there's sufficient evidence against him, than let him go. Because wouldn't someone feel like an ass if the guy left a dirty bomb somewhere after he got released... say, in a hockey stadium during the Stanley Cup perhaps? Or during the NBA Finals?

Better safe than sorry, I'd say. Granted, you can't hold somebody for nothing, but it sounds like they have a decent amount to suspect him.

------------------
AIM: JenniferZero

censored25: Dont be sad, Jesus loves your ass

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 05:43 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>The U.S. is going after those responsible for the attacks of 9/11 and taking steps to ensure that the events of 9/11 never again occur. Call it whatever you want...but it sounds like war to me.
</font>
</font>if it's a war then surely the US' prisoners are consequently prisoners of war, yes?

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 05:43 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_munky:
Fighting long before Sep 11 ? Certainly, but not openly or effectively.</font>

In 1998, when President Bill Clinton attacked one of Osama bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan, following the bombings of two U.S. embassies.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_monkey:
Look, you don't understand.</font>

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_monkey:
The WTC tragedy was a disaster for NY, but an opportunity for the US.</font>

No. It was a disaster for the United States. The effects of the attacks on the WTC reached far beyond the limits of NYC. not to mention the attack on the Pentagon.

And yeah, like I previously said, it was an opportunity for the U.S. to fully go after Al Queda.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_monkey:
Do you REALLY think that if a terrorist attack came from China that the US would be in there ? Absolute bullshit. In that situation the US would have to face the reality that it couldn't go to war against terrorism in China without warring against China. Same with Russia. That's when we would see a distinction between "war" and "war on terrorism".</font>

Since the U.S. Senate has ratified the U.N. Charter, President Bush has to follow international law. So, technically, he cannot retaliate independently.

However, it's generally accepted that, in these situations, nations have the right to respond in self-defence or “anticipatory self-defence” (although what can be classified as self-defence is not always clear).

So, rather than go to war, heads of state are encouraged to assemble an international coalition and use diplomatic efforts. If force is deemed necessary, the President should seek the authorization of the U.N. Security Council.

If an attack on the terrorist group in China was supported by other countries (as in Bush was able to form an international coalition), yes we would have gone after those terrorists.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_monkey:
The the US can fight this "war" and call it whatever it likes ONLY because the target is the Middle East.</font>

Yeah, having it be the Middle East makes things a little "easier" since the U.S. and many other countries have a not-so-pleasant history with the Middle East.

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif Do you REALLY believe that any terrorist group from any country can come into the U.S., attack and kill enormous amounts of civilians, and then the U.S. would just walk away as if nothing had happened??



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 05:49 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
I agree with BlueStar. Being in the military, I'm slightly biased. But I'd rather they hold the guy, if there's sufficient evidence against him, than let him go. Because wouldn't someone feel like an ass if the guy left a dirty bomb somewhere after he got released... say, in a hockey stadium during the Stanley Cup perhaps? Or during the NBA Finals?

Better safe than sorry, I'd say. Granted, you can't hold somebody for nothing, but it sounds like they have a decent amount to suspect him.

</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Exactly. For better or for worse, in times like this, things like that need to happen. I'm not saying that that is right. But, just maybe it is necessary. If we weren't currently involved in a "war of terrorism", my liberal self would be all up in arms about them detaining the guy. But, because we are at "war" and because of 9/11 and because there are new terrorist threats everyday...



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 05:51 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif Do you REALLY believe that any terrorist group from any country can come into the U.S., attack and kill enormous amounts of civilians, and then the U.S. would just walk away as if nothing had happened??
</font>

You miss the point. The US would do something in ANY situation. But the fact that this came from the Middle East and the fact that the US already had an agenda in that region means that we have a "WAR".

My example of this being sourced from somewhere like CHina was to show you that in different circumstances you wouldn't have the US action in a way that could be termed a war.

An anti-US faction in China could not be targetted by the US without confronting the China. Very simple. Just look what happened when you're planes get a bit too close. I'm not talking about if these terrorists were supported by a governemnt or not. I'm just saying that these middle eastern terrorists are in a situation where the US doesn't really care if it upsets the governments around them. The US can send bombs into Arabia at will because there's a GREATER chance it would be doing that anyway at some point.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 05:52 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
if it's a war then surely the US' prisoners are consequently prisoners of war, yes?</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">According to the third Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are members of the armed forces captured during a conflict, or:

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, … provided that such militias or volunteer corps … fulfil the following conditions:
-That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
-That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
-That of carrying arms openly;
-That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The Americans argue that captured members of al-Qaeda do not fall into any of these categories. They point out that al-Qaeda members don't wear uniforms ("fixed distinctive sign") or obey the laws of war. Rumsfeld has labeled them "unlawful combatants," and says the rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>So, technically no.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 05:57 AM
and is bombing an innocent country and its people in "accordance with the laws and customs of war"?

NO

america makes up the rules as it goes along

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 05:58 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_munky:

An anti-US faction in China could not be targetted by the US without confronting the China. Very simple. Just look what happened when you're planes get a bit too close. I'm not talking about if these terrorists were supported by a governemnt or not. I'm just saying that these middle eastern terrorists are in a situation where the US doesn't really care if it upsets the governments around them. The US can send bombs into Arabia at will because there's a GREATER chance it would be doing that anyway at some point.

</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Yes. Having it be in the Middle East has made things "easier". I've already said that.

It's impossible to specualte about what would have happened if the terrorists had been from China. A swift response from the U.S. defintiely would not have happened. There would have been a hell of a lot more talking going on between various countries. But, a military response would have happened. And if the international laws were followed, yeah, war with China could have been a possibility. And it is impossible to specualate on how the Chinese government would have acted if the terrorists had been from their country. So arguing about how everything that has happened/is happening is only because it's the Middle East is fucking pointless. Once again, it is impossible to say what would have occured had the country been different...so there's no point to the argument.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 06:01 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
If an attack on the terrorist group in China was supported by other countries (as in Bush was able to form an international coalition), yes we would have gone after those terrorists.
</font>

No you wouldn't.

I raised this example as a scenario where you have a terrorist group inside a large, powerful nation at odds with the US. In this scenario, the terrorists are distinct from the regime in which they hide.

You could have all your allies holding your hands but unless China directly backed these terrorists there is no way on earth the US would go into China to fight terrorism.

Weak Afghani Govt -> terrorists <- US

comapred to...

Huge Fucking China -> terrorists <- US

You're telling me that with support from other countries both situations are palatable for the US ?

Above all else, the US goes to war with terrorism in the Middle East knowing it can get away with a lot because of previous conflicts and successes. Post Sep 11 we're in a "been here, done that" scenario.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 06:03 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
and is bombing an innocent country and its people in "accordance with the laws and customs of war"?

NO
</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>And what about hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings and killing thousands of people?

We were attacked. We fought back. "Casualites of war" are an unfortunate consequence.

And ummm...no more Taliban.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 06:05 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_munky:
No you wouldn't.
</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
So arguing about how everything that has happened/is happening is only because it's the Middle East is fucking pointless. Once again, it is impossible to say what would have occured had the country been different...so there's no point to the argument.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Arguing about hypotheticals is "missing the point".

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).]

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 06:11 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
I agree with BlueStar. Being in the military, I'm slightly biased. </font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Maybe us being U.S. citizens is making us biased (which some other people in this thread are not). http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

And having lived in NYC during 9/11 and gone through all that...I admit that I am coming from a very emotional place in arguing all this.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 06:12 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>And what about hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings and killing thousands of people?
</font>

ever heard the saying about 'two wrongs not making a right'? i never said crashing planes into buildings was okay, but the US is the greatest upholder of justice in the world isn't it? regardless of how it was provoked, the US has a responsibilty to act morally

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>We were attacked. We fought back. "Casualites of war" are an unfortunate consequence.
</font>

yes, well done. you fought back. yay for you. unfortunately you fought back against the wrong people...still, it was only a few dirty arabs that died huh?

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>
And ummm...no more Taliban.
</font>

yep, correct. however, the taliban didn't fly planes into US buildings

that was Al Qaeda. and guess what? they're still alive and kicking...

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 06:15 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Arguing about hypotheticals is "missing the point".

</font>

The original point was the difference between "war" and "war on terrorism". Hypotheticals are needed to evaluate the difference. We have one example actually happening. We can't go out and start something new for the purpose of a test so we have to use a hypothetical situation.

If we didn't make up situations to test the validity of what is actually happening we'd get back to my very first remark about the government loving people like you.

"Oh no. What's happening is confusing but it's pointless thinking about hypotheticals because they're not real, and this is,so let's just accept this and deal with it"

BeautifulLoser
06-11-2002, 06:17 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Maybe us being U.S. citizens is making us biased (which some other people in this thread are not). http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

And having lived in NYC during 9/11 and gone through all that...I admit that I am coming from a very emotional place in arguing all this.

</font>

Yeah, I was freaked out enough, being in Texas... I can't imagine what you felt being there in NYC.

It amazes me how people here can be so uncaring sometimes towards Sept. 11 (not talking about anyone in particular in this thread or anything.. just in general), but I remember seeing the thread that was going on while everything was happening, and the way everyone was feeling the same thing. No one'll admit it now, how freaked out they were. That's sad.


------------------
AIM: JenniferZero

censored25: Dont be sad, Jesus loves your ass

13
06-11-2002, 06:17 AM
Since a reference has been made to US agenda in the middle east, I think I'll repost this for conversational purposes:

1991-1997 - Major U.S. oil companies including ExxonMobil, Texaco, Unocal, BP Amoco, Shell and Enron directly invest billions in cash bribing heads of state in Kazakhstan to secure equity rights in the huge oil reserves in these regions. The oil companies further commit to future direct investments in Kazakhstan of $35 billion. Not being willing to pay exorbitant prices to Russia to use Russian pipelines the major oil companies have no way to recoup their investments. [“The Price of Oil,” by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, July 9, 2001 – The Asia Times, “The Roving Eye Part I Jan. 26, 2002.]

December 4, 1997 – Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Subsequent reports will indicate that the negotiations failed, allegedly because the Taliban wanted too much money. [Source: The BBC, Dec. 4, 1997]

February 12, 1998 – Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca – later to become a Special Ambassador to Afghanistan – testifies before the House that until a single, unified, friendly government is in place in Afghanistan the trans-Afghani pipeline needed to monetize the oil will not be built. [Source: Testimony before the House International Relations Committee.]

April, 1999 – Enron with a $3 billion investment to build an electrical generating plant at Dabhol India loses access to plentiful LNG supplies from Qatar to fuel the plant. Its only remaining option to make the investment profitable is a trans-Afghani gas pipeline to be built by Unocal from Turkmenistan that would terminate near the Indian border at the city of Multan. [Source: The Albion Monitor, Feb. 28, 2002.]

July, 2001 – Three American officials: Tom Simmons (former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian affairs) and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia), meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in Berlin and tell them that the U.S. is planning military strikes against Afghanistan in October. [Source: The Guardian, September 22, 2001]

------------------
http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actrice/images/dalle02.jpg

[This message has been edited by 13 (edited 06-11-2002).]

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 06:19 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>No, war is not good. And I'm not a big fan of war either.

But, Bush's statement was as follows:

“For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid and it will be paid.... [Nations that support terror] are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice... We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences..."

So, yeah, in going after the terrorists, we went after Afghanistan.

I do not agree with everything that the U.S. has done. I do not like war. War is shitty and shitty things happen. I don't like it. But, the U.S. could not sit back and do nothing when it was attacked like that. Bin Laden was not going to sit down with President Bush and have a discussion and together they reach some sort of peace agreement. The U.S. did what was necessary. Killing is never right or good. However, I am supportive of this "war". I do not agree with everything that has taken place, but I do think that it was necessary.

The U.S. has a moral responsibility to ensure the freedom of its citizens.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).]

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 06:23 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by 13:
July, 2001 – Three American officials: Tom Simmons (former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian affairs) and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia), meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in Berlin and tell them that the U.S. is planning military strikes against Afghanistan in October.
</font>



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 06:29 AM
what's your point in quoting that and highlighting 'October'?

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 06:32 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
It amazes me how people here can be so uncaring sometimes towards Sept. 11 (not talking about anyone in particular in this thread or anything.. just in general), but I remember seeing the thread that was going on while everything was happening, and the way everyone was feeling the same thing. No one'll admit it now, how freaked out they were. That's sad.
</font>

what's sad from my point of view is that those who criticise the US and what it does are branded as being uncaring, liberal, anti-American, unpatriotic etc etc.

Everyone cares. Everyone was saddened by what happened. No-one wants to see it happen again. But maybe those that seem uncaring are the ones that don't want the US to tread blindly into it again.

13
06-11-2002, 06:35 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
what's your point in quoting that and highlighting 'October'?</font>

it's a coincidence that the bombing started on October 7th

------------------
http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actrice/images/dalle02.jpg

[This message has been edited by 13 (edited 06-11-2002).]

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 06:37 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by 13:
Since a reference has been made to US agenda in the middle east, I think I'll repost this for conversational purposes:
</font>

no one takes any notice of these articles.
they were some of the first ideas I read about post Sep 11 and people still over-look them.

Too good to be true it would seem.

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 06:41 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by 13:
it's a coincidence that the bombing started on October 7th
</font>

thanks BlueStar!

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 06:43 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
what's your point in quoting that and highlighting 'October'?</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>The plans were being made in July to attack in October. 9/11 hadn't happened yet.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).]

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 06:47 AM
Please god, don't start citing the UN charter as a moral framework for the US to work within, as if America doesn't contravene UN decisions at every opportunity.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 06:49 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_munky:
those that seem uncaring are the ones that don't want the US to tread blindly into it again.
</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>"tread blindly into it again"?? We are in unprecendented territory here. Terrorists planned, launched, and succeeded in conducting a full-scale attack against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 06:51 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Please god, don't start citing the UN charter as a moral framework for the US to work within, as if America doesn't contravene UN decisions at every opportunity.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>True. And the U.S. has even ignored the UN charter at points. But, technically, Bush is following the rules. And, technically, this is a war.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 06:52 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>The plans were being made in July to attack in October. 9/11 hadn't happened yet.
</font>

that's the point i thought you were trying to make.

however, i think 13 was attempting to illustrate that the US had a vested interest in the area and was considering military action anyway, regardless of 9/11.

Or perhaps, more worryingly, the US was already planning her retribution for 9/11 before it happened<font color=black>

[This message has been edited by scouse_dave (edited 06-11-2002).]

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 06:54 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>We are in unprecendented territory here.
</font>

maybe the US are. terrorism HAS happened before tho...we can learn from the mistakes of others

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 06:56 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
that's the point i thought you were trying to make.

however, i think 13 was attempting to illustrate that the US had a vested interest in the area and was considering military action anyway, regardless of 9/11.

Or perhaps, more worryingly, the US was already planning her retribution for 9/11 before it happened</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Yep, yep, and yep. The U.S. has a vested interest there and I thought it was ironic (or whatever) that we were already planning something.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 06:58 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>"tread blindly into it again"?? We are in unprecendented territory here. Terrorists planned, launched, and succeeded in conducting a full-scale attack against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.
</font>

Indeed. But if it happens again then it wouldn't be an unprecedented situation. That's what I mean about treading "blindly into it again".

And don't assume that this was "full scale". Don't think the terrorists couldn't pull something bigger off in the future. This might be small compared to what they're capable of. The biggest failure of the US security agencies was to ignore warnings and to not appreciate the scale of the threat. If you think this is the thick end of their aresenal you might be sorely dissapointed. And the US can't afford to find out.

13
06-11-2002, 06:58 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:


Or perhaps, more worryingly, the US was already planning her retribution for 9/11 before it happened</font>

yes... but atleast you'll have a solid reason for all the intelligence failures at the FBI with that particular perspective.

------------------
http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actrice/images/dalle02.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 07:11 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_munky:
And don't assume that this was "full scale". Don't think the terrorists couldn't pull something bigger off in the future. This might be small compared to what they're capable of. The biggest failure of the US security agencies was to ignore warnings and to not appreciate the scale of the threat. If you think this is the thick end of their aresenal you might be sorely dissapointed. And the US can't afford to find out.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Hence the War on Terrorism.

And we could all sit here and argue all day about whether the security agencies should have known. And, yes, there were failures. But, I don't really think anyone would have put all those threats together and said "hey, they're gonna hijack our planes, fly them into buildings, and kill thousands of people on 9/11". Actions were planned in July for October...but, October turned out to be too late.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

PkPhuoko
06-11-2002, 07:25 AM
Slunk: YOU are exactly what ALL governments want. People thinking they know the answer and doing absolutely nothing about it. Despite your views, you're always the easiest type of person to manipulate.

I love it when people try and think outside their social status.

------------------
www.mw-dnb.com (http://www.mw-dnb.com)

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 07:37 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
Slunk: YOU are exactly what ALL governments want. People thinking they know the answer and doing absolutely nothing about it. Despite your views, you're always the easiest type of person to manipulate.

I love it when people try and think outside their social status.

</font>

You always bring this up, as if discussing politics on a messageboard is somehow negative. The best thing you can do in these situations is spread awareness, cause people to think and question what they're being told... hopefully things will propagate, people will start to educate themselves a little, and a more informed generation will begin to involve themselves in issues they've previously ignored. The average person can't force massive change to take place (except by force...) but sparking an interest in other people's minds is definitely worthwhile.

PkPhuoko
06-11-2002, 07:52 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
You always bring this up, as if discussing politics on a messageboard is somehow negative. The best thing you can do in these situations is spread awareness, cause people to think and question what they're being told... hopefully things will propagate, people will start to educate themselves a little, and a more informed generation will begin to involve themselves in issues they've previously ignored. The average person can't force massive change to take place (except by force...) but sparking an interest in other people's minds is definitely worthwhile.</font>


Right, but what do we have if everyone is aware? People who are educated on the subject but remain passive? That's downright depressing... people being aware (in their opinion) of wrong doing but doing nothing? That's as convenient as possible for an opinionated person looking to justify not acting.

1 person of action is far more powerfull than 1000 persons of thought. Boycott American products, protest your government if they support them, etc etc. As of right now worldwide leaders say "our people arent happy with the US... but obviously they aren't that unhappy because all they're doing is talking"

i need sleep now


------------------
www.mw-dnb.com (http://www.mw-dnb.com)

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 08:12 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PkPhuoko:

Right, but what do we have if everyone is aware? People who are educated on the subject but remain passive? That's downright depressing... people being aware (in their opinion) of wrong doing but doing nothing? That's as convenient as possible for an opinionated person looking to justify not acting.

1 person of action is far more powerfull than 1000 persons of thought. Boycott American products, protest your government if they support them, etc etc. As of right now worldwide leaders say "our people arent happy with the US... but obviously they aren't that unhappy because all they're doing is talking"

i need sleep now


</font>

Right, exactly... but not everyone's strengths lie in protesting. There are thousands of people in the world who would make great leaders, who would be able to realize a solution to the situation, but may not currently be aware of it - which is why we need to let people know there's more to the world than they're really told... I guess what I'm really trying to say, is that protesting is one thing, but protesting in numbers is something else entirely. I'm nowhere near organized enough to collate information, produce literature etc., but some people definitely are. Sure thought without action is useless, but raising awareness is the first step.

bittertrance
06-11-2002, 08:56 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
it doesn't matter whether it's legal to detain these suspects or not - the US will do what it wants....no matter what

land of the free indeed

i'm more pissed off that the rest of the world just sits around and blatantly lets the US disregard international and domestic law; nevermind ethics</font>


what the fuck? its pretty easy to sit over there and whine about the US....you think someone thought to have making plans to use a radioactive bomb on citizens should be set free?

sometimes i wish we hadnt helped europe out 60 years ago, ungratefull fucking bastards you turn out to be

mpp
06-11-2002, 09:05 AM
padilla is being held officially as an "enemy combatant"; they can hold his ass as long as they fucking want

good thread by the way

BlueStar: very impressive

Mark LeDrew
06-11-2002, 09:14 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
yep, correct. however, the taliban didn't fly planes into US buildings

that was Al Qaeda. and guess what? they're still alive and kicking...

</font>

Do you actually feel sorry for the Taliban, one of the most despicable regimes in recent memory? Aside from the fact that they provided refuge and support for al Quaeda (and don't pretend that you don't know that) they were incredibly oppressive
relegating half of the population of Afghanistan to virtual slavery. We did the world a great service by ending the Taliban's reign.


------------------
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mledrew/kid.jpg

I hope you know a strong man who can lend you a hand lowering my casket.

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 09:26 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by bittertrance:
you think someone thought to have making plans to use a radioactive bomb on citizens should be set free?</font>

when did i say that? when did i imply that?
you shouldn't jump to conclusions so easily

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by bittertrance:
sometimes i wish we hadnt helped europe out 60 years ago, ungratefull fucking bastards you turn out to be</font>

you DIDN'T help europe, you helped yourselves - as always...

the second world war started in september 1939, for the record

oh and grow up

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 09:30 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Mark LeDrew:
Do you actually feel sorry for the Taliban, one of the most despicable regimes in recent memory? Aside from the fact that they provided refuge and support for al Quaeda (and don't pretend that you don't know that) they were incredibly oppressive
relegating half of the population of Afghanistan to virtual slavery. We did the world a great service by ending the Taliban's reign.
</font>

I think what he was saying, was that the whole 'War on Terrorism' (and the 9/11 tragedy) became this vehicle for the US to pursue their own interests abroad, even more agressively. Sure the Taliban were a despicable regime - but that wasn't the reason they were deposed. It was a happy side-effect.

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 09:32 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Mark LeDrew:
Do you actually feel sorry for the Taliban, one of the most despicable regimes in recent memory? Aside from the fact that they provided refuge and support for al Quaeda (and don't pretend that you don't know that) they were incredibly oppressive
relegating half of the population of Afghanistan to virtual slavery. We did the world a great service by ending the Taliban's reign.
</font>

no, i don't feel sorry for the taliban

but i do wonder if the afghan regime was so terrible why did the US not act earlier in deposing it?

perhaps it was not politically expedient to do so..oh yes, that's it

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 09:33 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
I think what he was saying, was that the whole 'War on Terrorism' (and the 9/11 tragedy) became this vehicle for the US to pursue their own interests abroad, even more agressively. Sure the Taliban were a despicable regime - but that wasn't the reason they were deposed. It was a happy side-effect.</font>

you beat me by several seconds, but thankyou...that is exactly what i meant http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 09:36 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Sure the Taliban were a despicable regime - but that wasn't the reason they were deposed. It was a happy side-effect.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>When the U.S. set out on its "war on terrorism", the U.S. stated that it was out to get the terrorists and any nations that harbor them, provide support for them, etc., etc. The Taliban was providing a "safe harbor" for Al-Qaida (side note: how the hell do you actually spell Al-Qaida...it seems like every media outfit is spelling it differently...this is how it is spelled at msnbc.com).



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

bittertrance
06-11-2002, 09:41 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
you DIDN'T help europe, you helped yourselves - as always...

the second world war started in september 1939, for the record

oh and grow up</font>

oh, that must not have been the us that went to europe to help them fight my bad, yeah thousands of americans didnt die on european soil jeez how the fuck can i be so stupid.

ill grow up, fuck it...just let all of the suspect terrorists go they have rights you know!

here ill grow up again.."fuck the usa, they are evil!!! i know more than anyone about what the USA wants because i am so young and intelligent. i know exactly what goes on behind the scenes. i know that the usa is a bully and they bring me down man!!"


and just for the record...what did britain do when the germans made war on their soil? did they fight back rigth away or did they have an investigation just to make sure they were fighting the right bad guys?

what would britain do today if 3 planes crashed into heavy populated civilian areas? would they fight back? would they ask for help form the US? would they do nothing?

what would any country do in this situation?

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 09:44 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
but i do wonder if the afghan regime was so terrible why did the US not act earlier in deposing it?
</font>

<font color=#ADD8e6>1)The Taliban regime was a fairly recent thing.
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">The Taliban movement was formed in Kandahar in 1994 by Islamic students who take a radical approach to interpreting Islam.
The Taliban captured Kabul in September 1996 from Mujaheedin regime. The government of Burhan-ul Din Rabani ousted. The Taliban government in Kabul has been recognized only by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Republic.
The Taliban regime strongly have been supported by Pakistani military regime.
Anti-Taliban factions still hold about 15 percent of the country in the northern parts of Afghanistan.
The United Nations and other international communities condemn the Taliban regime because of its violation of human rights, particularly restrictions of women from outside work and freedom.
On October 10, 1999, the United State government declare political and economical sanction against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan because of holding and supporting Saudi billionaire Ben Laden.
October 25, 1999, Taliban offer talks between Afghanistan and the US Government including the future of Osma bin Laden.
October 28, 1999. Saudi Millionaire declared his desire to leave Afghanistan
November, 5, 1999: Bin Laden likely stay in Afghanistan</font>

2)The Taliban was not ever the "official" government of Afghanistan.

3)The U.S. cannot just go charging in unprovoked. There is a "system" for creating change. There has been a fight against the Taliban from the very beginning. Non-profit organizations and other organizations and groups were doing what they could (i.e. lobbying Congress and the UN, etc., etc., etc.). Things don't get done overnight. And the U.S. and UN were doing things (i.e. sanctions, etc., etc.)



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 09:46 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by bittertrance:
what would any country do in this situation?

</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Come to the U.S. for help (financial and military) and then do the same thing we're doing.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 09:53 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by bittertrance:
*blah blah blah*</font>

here's an analogy for you: it should illustrate my point...

if the IRA bombed a target in mainland britain (as they have done many times before) does the UK government then go and carry out a sustained military attack on Northern Ireland/Eire (where many terrorists are thought to live)

NO, because that would be stupid and would kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people...

and here's another for you. suppose a US citizen was accused of committing an act of terrorism on Iraqi soil. assuming that the US government didn't hand over the suspect, as i'm SURE they wouldn't, would you be happy if the Iraqi military starting attacking mainland america?

cos it's an EVIL regime right?

do you think the average arab thinks their government is evil? or do you think that they think the US government is evil instead? it's an entirely subjective word; you're just as suspectible to propaganda as everyone else....arab or otherwise

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 09:56 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
2)The Taliban was not ever the "official" government of Afghanistan.

3)The U.S. cannot just go charging in unprovoked. There is a "system" for creating change. There has been a fight against the Taliban from the very beginning. Non-profit organizations and other organizations and groups were doing what they could (i.e. lobbying Congress and the UN, etc., etc., etc.). Things don't get done overnight. And the U.S. and UN were doing things (i.e. sanctions, etc., etc.)
</font>

since when did economic sanctions depose of an 'evil' regime?!

the fact is as soon as 9/11 came and went, the US didn't up the sanctions, it started bombing stuff; big time.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 09:57 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:

if the IRA bombed a target in mainland britain (as they have done many times before) does the UK government then go and carry out a sustained military attack on Northern Ireland/Eire (where many terrorists are thought to live)
</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>It's all about scope. The U.S. has been the victim of terrorist attacks before (i.e. bombings of U.S. embassies, etc., etc.). The attacks of 9/11 were different. I admit, I'm no history buff when it comes to terrorist attacks. But, I cannot think of any terrorist attack in recent history that compares to that of 9/11.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 10:00 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>It's all about scope. The U.S. has been the victim of terrorist attacks before (i.e. bombings of U.S. embassies, etc., etc.). The attacks of 9/11 were different. I admit, I'm no history buff when it comes to terrorist attacks. But, I cannot think of any terrorist attack in recent history that compares to that of 9/11.
</font>

so what you're actually saying is that bombing an innocent country and its people is justified because lots of people were killed on 9/11? that's absurd...

if 9/11 had went badly from the al qaeda prespective and only 5 people were killed, should there not have been US military retaliation? that's equally absurd, the crime was the same...

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 10:01 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
since when did economic sanctions depose of an 'evil' regime?!

the fact is as soon as 9/11 came and went, the US didn't up the sanctions, it started bombing stuff; big time.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Sanctions are a step. An accepted and common step taken by the U.S. and other UN nations. Disposing of a regime involves a series of steps.

No shit. Of course the U.S. started bombing. A terrorist attack of that enormity on U.S. soil is not something that warrants more sanctions. That's just ridiculous.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 10:04 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
so what you're actually saying is that bombing an innocent country and its people is justified because lots of people were killed on 9/11? that's absurd...

if 9/11 had went badly from the al qaeda prespective and only 5 people were killed, should there not have been US military retaliation? that's equally absurd, the crime was the same...

</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>No. There still would have been a military action (just like the actions taken by the U.S. during previous terrorist attacks), but it would not have been as large.

Ummm...and the U.S. and the people who died on 9/11 were not innocent????????



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 10:05 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>No shit. Of course the U.S. started bombing. A terrorist attack of that enormity on U.S. soil is not something that warrants more sanctions. That's just ridiculous.
</font>

the point i'm trying to make is that the US made a hald-assed pointless attempt to get rid of the taliban before 9/11.

it only made any effort to get rid of it AFTER 9/11- yet all the time it was evil

this is a form of hypocrisy

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 10:06 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
so what you're actually saying is that bombing an innocent country and its people is justified because lots of people were killed on 9/11? that's absurd...
</font>

Bin Laden and Al-Qaida attacked the U.S. (one of the worst attacks in U.S. history). Bin Laden and Al-Qaida were operating out of Afghanistan. Afghanistan and the Taliban regime were harboring and supporting Bin Laden and Al-Qaida. Thus, Afghanistan was not an innocent country!


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 10:09 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
it only made any effort to get rid of it AFTER 9/11- yet all the time it was evil

this is a form of hypocrisy</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>No. It was a form of obeying international law. The U.S., nor any other member of the UN, could attack Afghanistan and remove the Taliban from power without provocation.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 10:13 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>When the U.S. set out on its "war on terrorism", the U.S. stated that it was out to get the terrorists and any nations that harbor them, provide support for them, etc., etc. The Taliban was providing a "safe harbor" for Al-Qaida (side note: how the hell do you actually spell Al-Qaida...it seems like every media outfit is spelling it differently...this is how it is spelled at msnbc.com).

</font>

It's an Arabic name, so there isn't an official spelling with Roman characters...

The point is, you're just reiterating the official line. Yes, that was the reason they gave for invading Afganistan. But if the US has such a strong opinion on terrorism, why send military aid to the contras in Nicaragua? Why allow Indonesia to decimate the population of East Timor? Why bomb Serbian cities and kill thousands of civilians? The US basically does whatever the hell it likes, ignores the rules when it suits them, acts in favor of its own interests and puts a shiny facade on it for the media. Besides, if you look at the techniques used in terrorism, they very easily apply to counter-terrorism. Are the Chechnyans evil terrorists fighting Russia, or are they genuinely trying to attain freedom for their country? When the Kurds were being terrorized in Turkey, can that be considered Counter-Terrorism because the government was responsible? These things are never clear-cut, yet every country in the world with political unrest is jumping on the bandwagon - "Hey yeah, me too! War on Terrorism! If you're not with us, you're against us! Who wants to come crush some dissidents?!"

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 10:13 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>No. There still would have been a military action (just like the actions taken by the U.S. during previous terrorist attacks), but it would not have been as large.
</font>

so you're admitting to a direct relationship between number of people killed and size of retaliation; you're digging a hole for yourself here cos that sure as hell sounds like revenge, not justice...

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Ummm...and the U.S. and the people who died on 9/11 were not innocent????????
</font>

no, they WERE innocent, but two wrongs doesn't make a right

mpp
06-11-2002, 10:16 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>international law.

</font>

in all seriousness, and i know you know this BlueStar, international law is a crock of shit; no enforcement mechanism, no internationally recognized supreme court, etc

as i think someone mentioned earlier, the US takes every opportunity to disobey international law


oh and while i'm on my soapbox the whole idea of "precedant" is just a bullshit conservative copout

mpp
06-11-2002, 10:18 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
no, they WERE innocent, but two wrongs doesn't make a right

</font>

ever heard of the death penalty?

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 10:20 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Referring back to my previous post:
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar: No, war is not good. And I'm not a big fan of war either.

But, Bush's statement was as follows:

“For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid and it will be paid.... [Nations that support terror] are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice... We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences..."

So, yeah, in going after the terrorists, we went after Afghanistan.

I do not agree with everything that the U.S. has done. I do not like war. War is shitty and shitty things happen. I don't like it. But, the U.S. could not sit back and do nothing when it was attacked like that. Bin Laden was not going to sit down with President Bush and have a discussion and together they reach some sort of peace agreement. The U.S. did what was necessary. Killing is never right or good. However, I am supportive of this "war". I do not agree with everything that has taken place, but I do think that it was necessary.

The U.S. has a moral responsibility to ensure the freedom of its citizens.</font>



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 10:20 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by mpp:
ever heard of the death penalty?</font>

no, we don't have that in britain...

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 10:22 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
*stuff* </font>

that doesn't explain the direct relationship between the scale of the terrorist act and the scale of the revenge, uh, i mean retribution...

mpp
06-11-2002, 10:23 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
no, we don't have that in britain...

</font>

well you damn well should! LOL

no seriously, all i'm saying is that although two wrongs don't make a right, retribution is very human

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 10:24 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by mpp:
in all seriousness, and i know you know this BlueStar, international law is a crock of shit; no enforcement mechanism, no internationally recognized supreme court, etc

as i think someone mentioned earlier, the US takes every opportunity to disobey international law
</font>

Well...there is a reason that the President of the U.S. is referred to as "the leader of the free world". The U.S. is the most powerful country...it is the leader. Thus, it tends to dictate "international law" and change the rules around as it sees fit. I'm not agreeing with this...but, that's how it is.

I fully believe that the actions taken by the U.S. after 9/11 were and are appropriate. If you want to argue from a "law" perspective, in regards to the "war on terrorism", the U.S. has obeyed every law and precedent.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

mpp
06-11-2002, 10:28 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
If you want to argue from a "law" perspective, in regards to the "war on terrorism", the U.S. has obeyed every law and precedent.

</font>

but your argument would be, "who cares if they do or don't? i mean, it's bad, but the US can do what it wants"

correct?

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 10:28 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
that doesn't explain the direct relationship between the scale of the terrorist act and the scale of the revenge, uh, i mean retribution... </font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Ummm...so Bush should have called up Bin Laden and invited him over for tea. And then the two of them would have taken a stroll through the rose garden while Bush politely told Bin Laden that he thought the 9/11 attacks were wrong and bad. And then the two of them would sit down and hammer out a peace agreement. ?????

The reason we attacked Afghanistan and not done something else was because the 9/11 attacks were considered an "act of war" by both the U.S. and other UN nations. We then went "to war".


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 10:31 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by mpp:
but your argument would be, "who cares if they do or don't? i mean, it's bad, but the US can do what it wants"

correct?</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>No, not at all. The 9/11 attacks were an "act of war". In accordance with that, the U.S. followed the "laws" and went to war and fought back. I support that.

I disapprove of war. But, when attacked in such a manner and when threats of more attacks keep on coming...is there something else besides war?

Just responding to your comment that the U.S. disobeys international law... Yes, true. I was simply pointing out that it is basically the U.S. who creates the "international law"...hence why perhaps the U.S. does as it wants sometimes.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).]

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 10:32 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
Bin Laden and Al-Qaida attacked the U.S. (one of the worst attacks in U.S. history). Bin Laden and Al-Qaida were operating out of Afghanistan. Afghanistan and the Taliban regime were harboring and supporting Bin Laden and Al-Qaida. Thus, Afghanistan was not an innocent country!


</font>

'One of the worst attacks in US history' - because the US has barely been attacked before, it's a massively powerful, highly isolated country. Yes the events were tragic, but if you compare the number of deaths and the economic damage to that suffered by other countries... the difference is, it hit close to home, so it seems much more 'real.'

You say Afghanistan wasn't an innocent country, yet a few posts earlier you're decrying the Taliban as an 'oppressive regime' and an 'un-recognized government.' Which is it? If you're going to bomb the civilians of a country, their government better actually be answerable to them, otherwise you're just making their lives even worse.

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 10:40 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Just responding to your comment that the U.S. disobeys international law... Yes, true. I was simply pointing out that it is basically the U.S. who creates the "international law"...hence why perhaps the U.S. does as it wants sometimes.
</font>

WHAT THE FUCK is the point in making a law when you can change it as, and when, you see fit?

ANSWER: there isn't one

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 10:40 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:

You say Afghanistan wasn't an innocent country, yet a few posts earlier you're decrying the Taliban as an 'oppressive regime' and an 'un-recognized government.' Which is it? If you're going to bomb the civilians of a country, their government better actually be answerable to them, otherwise you're just making their lives even worse.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Uh...both. The Taliban was an oppressive regime and it was not recognized by the UN as the "official" government of Afghanistan.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">The Taliban captured Kabul in September 1996 from Mujaheedin regime. The government of Burhan-ul Din Rabani ousted. The Taliban government in Kabul has been recognized only by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Republic.</font>

We were not intentionally bombing the civilians of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, "casualties of war" are a side effect of war. It happens in every war.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">The United Nations and other international communities condemn the Taliban regime because of its violation of human rights, particularly restrictions of women from outside work and freedom.</font>

The Taliban regime was oppressive and harmful to its citizens. The citizens of Afghanistan are better off without the Taliban.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 10:43 AM
the US does not solely make international law, but what it does do is continually flaunt it and the rest of the world is guilty of letting them get away it...

THIS is why people around the world dislike the US and THIS is the kind of mentality that makes people fly planes into buildings

NOTE FOR STUPID PEOPLE: i did not say that i agree with people flying planes into buildings

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 10:43 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
WHAT THE FUCK is the point in making a law when you can change it as, and when, you see fit?

ANSWER: there isn't one

</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Hey, that's the U.S. doing it, not me. And laws are changed, altered, and ammended all the time. And sometimes, it's just all about politics.

And when it comes to the "war on terrorism", there was no changing of the law. The U.S. followed what had been laid down and approved of.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 10:43 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by mpp:
all i'm saying is that although two wrongs don't make a right, retribution is very human</font>

Human maybe, but we're supposed to be above that now. Humanity is going to progress nowhere if the most powerful nations use violence to assert their will. In that kind of world, what else can you do but fight back?

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 10:45 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>And when it comes to the "war on terrorism", there was no changing of the law. The U.S. followed what had been laid down and approved of.
</font>

with the way it mistreated its captives, it did not

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 10:48 AM
the death penalty analogy is a bad one anyway

a better one would be supposing that when a criminal is convicted of a crime he is put to death with a bunch of random people from his country...

we'll call them "casualties of justice", how's that?<font color=black>

[This message has been edited by scouse_dave (edited 06-11-2002).]

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 10:52 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
The Taliban regime was oppressive and harmful to its citizens. The citizens of Afghanistan are better off without the Taliban.

</font>

Better off dead? Considering the sheer power available to the US military, and the technologically backward state of Afghanistan's forces, the US did not have to bomb cities from thousands of feet in the air. But as a demonstration of power, it went very well.

So were they casualties of war, or casualties of "war"? You seem to be throwing quotation marks around a lot, like you're not actually sure if there really was a war or not. And that's because you need to be unsure, to deem certain actions necessary, and to overlook other irregularities. Because a real war would mean adhering to certain conventions.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 10:54 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
with the way it mistreated its captives, it did not</font>

Legally, they aren't considered to be "prisoners of war".

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has called the prisoners ''unlawful combatants'' who ******* murderous and suicidal terrorists, not POWs. Rumsfeld said the prisoners are ''better off'' than when they were living in Afghanistan, and will be afforded humane treatment.</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Reversing himself, President Bush announced Thursday that the United States will grant the protections of the Geneva Convention to detainees who fought for Afghanistan's Taliban but will continue to deny them to members of the al-Qaida terrorist network.</font>



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Eulogy
06-11-2002, 10:55 AM
Well then...what should the US have done/be doing?

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 10:57 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:

So were they casualties of war, or casualties of "war"? You seem to be throwing quotation marks around a lot, like you're not actually sure if there really was a war or not. And that's because you need to be unsure, to deem certain actions necessary, and to overlook other irregularities. Because a real war would mean adhering to certain conventions.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Just go back and read everything posted at the beginning of this thread. Legally, it is a war. No formal (unnecessary) declaration of war was issued by Congress, thus, it can be referred to as a "war".



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 10:59 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Eulogy:
Well then...what should the US have done/be doing?</font>

first things first it should bugger off out of Israel and stop supplying one side with arms

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 11:01 AM
how can the "prisoners" in a "war" not be "prisoners of war"?

if the current definition of "prisoner of war" according to the Geneva Convention doesn't ******* this 'new' kind of prisoner, surely it should be ammended...

we could let an american change it. they like changing laws...

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 11:03 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Better off dead? </font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Old article...

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Today Afghan women cannot even expect proper medical care. Three weeks ago, the Taliban decreed that female patients could no longer be treated at any of the main hospitals in Kabul and would be completely separated from male patients and medical personnel. We discovered that sick women are being sent to a crumbling old building that has no windowpanes, no running water, no proper operating room and barely enough electricity to power lightbulbs. The patients are tended by a meager female-only staff.

In our two-day stay in the capital city, we watched agents for the Preservation of Virtue and Elimination of Vice enforce an endless list of edicts and absurdities at gunpoint, with rifle butts, with the backs of their hands. Women are forbidden to wear high heels or white socks because they are considered a sexual lure. Music is banned: cassettes are often snatched out of cars, the tapes stripped out and hung on signs as a warning. Kites may not be flown, and most forms of public entertainment, like movies, are not permitted.

The toll such measures take on Afghan women is impossible to assess. Several told us how dispiriting it is to be thrown off a bus or forced to sit in the back. We heard reports of an increase in the suicide rate among females, and that many have sunk into despair and depression. For Afghanistan's tyrannized women, there is no escape from an unsparing, medieval way of life.</font>

They were dying under the rule of the Taliban.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 11:07 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
how can the "prisoners" in a "war" not be "prisoners of war"?</font>

Exactly. Is it a war? Isn't it a war? That depends on who's asking and why.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 11:07 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
how can the "prisoners" in a "war" not be "prisoners of war"?

if the current definition of "prisoner of war" according to the Geneva Convention doesn't ******* this 'new' kind of prisoner, surely it should be ammended...
</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">the United States will grant the protections of the Geneva Convention to detainees who fought for Afghanistan's Taliban but will continue to deny them to members of the al-Qaida terrorist network.</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">According to the third Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are members of the armed forces captured during a conflict, or:
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, … provided that such militias or volunteer corps … fulfil the following conditions:
-That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
-That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
-That of carrying arms openly;
-That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The Americans argue that captured members of al-Qaeda do not fall into any of these categories. They point out that al-Qaeda members don't wear uniforms ("fixed distinctive sign") or obey the laws of war. Rumsfeld has labeled them "unlawful combatants," and says the rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply.</font>



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 11:09 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Exactly. Is it a war? Isn't it a war? That depends on who's asking and why.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Legally, it is a war. No formal (unnecessary) declaration of war was issued by Congress, thus, it can be referred to as a "war".

The U.S. views it as a war. The countries that are supporting the U.S. view it as a war.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).]

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 11:10 AM
yes, you said that before BlueStar

i'm asking you why the US doesn't now try to change the Geneva convention for the new form of prisoners...

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 11:11 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Old article...

They were dying under the rule of the Taliban.

</font>

Yes, I'm fully aware that the removal of the Taliban was a good thing for the majority of the population. The way it was done, however, could have been better. It was a show of force, a 'don't fuck with us' demonstration. As was already mentioned, the US was planning attacks on Afghanistan before 9/11 - the removal of the Taliban was not a result of the terrorist attacks.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 11:13 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:

i'm asking you why the US doesn't now try to change the Geneva convention for the new form of prisoners...

</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Next time I run into President Bush, I'll be sure and ask him about that for you.

And, generally, things like that are changed after the war is over. The Geneva Convention wasn't created during a war, it was created after.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 11:15 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
As was already mentioned, the US was planning attacks on Afghanistan before 9/11 - the removal of the Taliban was not a result of the terrorist attacks.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>The U.S. (along with other countries) were planning an attack, not a removal. The removal and all it entailed came as a result of 9/11.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 11:15 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Legally, it is a war. No formal (unnecessary) declaration of war was issued by Congress, thus, it can be referred to as a "war".

The U.S. views it as a war. The countries that are supporting the U.S. view it as a war.

</font>

How can it legally be a war, if no declaration of war was made? If it was legally a war, why were the captured soldiers initially declared 'unlawful combatants' and not prisoners of war?

Mark LeDrew
06-11-2002, 11:16 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
first things first it should bugger off out of Israel and stop supplying one side with arms</font>


Israel is an ally and a friendly democracy in a part of the world with no tradition of democracy. It has always been the position of the US to support democracy around the world. In addition, the Palestinians will never be satisfied until Isreal is destroyed and the Jews are driven from their land. If the US were to "bugger off out of Israel" as you suggest, the Arab world would surely unite to destroy the state of Israel. If you believe otherwise then you are just kidding yourself.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 11:17 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
How can it legally be a war, if no declaration of war was made? If it was legally a war, why were the captured soldiers initially declared 'unlawful combatants' and not prisoners of war?</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Have you just completely not read any of this thread?? The answers to all those questions are contained herein.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 11:21 AM
<font color=#ADD8E6>Once again...

Declarations of war are a custom, and not always adhered to.

There is no need at all for a declaration of war for the laws of war to apply. The Geneva Conventions don’t require it nor does customary international law, so that is simply not a necessary trigger for these laws to apply.

According to Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. However, Article 2, Section 2 names the president as "Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy." As such, presidents have often bypassed Congress to go to war (whether "declared" or not).

In regards to international law, since the Senate has ratified the Charter of the United Nations, the president of the United States is also bound by the terms of this international charter. However, since many in the international community view the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon as war crimes, the U.S. may retaliate according to Article 51 of the charter: “nothing … shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.”

Since the U.S. Senate has ratified the U.N. Charter, President Bush has to follow international law. So, technically, he cannot retaliate independently.

However, it's generally accepted that, in these situations, nations have the right to respond in self-defence or “anticipatory self-defence” (although what can be classified as self-defence is not always clear).

According to the third Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are members of the armed forces captured during a conflict, or:
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, … provided that such militias or volunteer corps … fulfil the following conditions:
-That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
-That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
-That of carrying arms openly;
-That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The Americans argue that captured members of al-Qaeda do not fall into any of these categories. They point out that al-Qaeda members don't wear uniforms ("fixed distinctive sign") or obey the laws of war. Rumsfeld has labeled them "unlawful combatants," and says the rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply.




------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

scouse_dave
06-11-2002, 11:23 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Mark LeDrew:

Israel is an ally and a friendly democracy in a part of the world with no tradition of democracy. It has always been the position of the US to support democracy around the world. In addition, the Palestinians will never be satisfied until Isreal is destroyed and the Jews are driven from their land. If the US were to "bugger off out of Israel" as you suggest, the Arab world would surely unite to destroy the state of Israel. If you believe otherwise then you are just kidding yourself.</font>

if the arab world did indeed unite against israel then i'm sure the UN would step in.

as it is the US, a single country, not a coalition is sticking its nose in a place where it is not required; hence pissing off the whole arab whole.

why is it over there rooting for israel?

oh wait...the jews in the US have a lot of power and influence

oh wait...the arabs/palestinians don't...

surprise surprise

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 11:27 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>The U.S. and Israel... http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1026/p1s1-uspo.html


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

PkPhuoko
06-11-2002, 12:36 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
yes, you said that before BlueStar

i'm asking you why the US doesn't now try to change the Geneva convention for the new form of prisoners...

</font>

geneva convention only applies to countries bound by the geneva convention and only applies to those who hold and carry a geneva convention identification card or are recognized as a known military force.

There is no need or desire to have al qaeda prosecuted under the geneva convention articles. Had they captured a US person and held them prisoner they were not bound to treat us civily as the geneva convention demands.

These rules cannot be changed by the US or any other country.

Even here in America in as whiney of a country we have we are told that if you are held captive as a US prisoner even bound by the geneva convention articles you are only promised drinking water, minimal food, and returned identification to your home country. That is all. Don't get a nice cell with a bed and a phone call home to mom.

just an fyi

------------------
www.mw-dnb.com (http://www.mw-dnb.com)

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 01:05 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Have you just completely not read any of this thread?? The answers to all those questions are contained herein.


</font>

I'm well aware of the government line which you've been quoting throught the thread - what I was asking was do YOU consider it to be a real war? Because the word "war" has been thrown around a lot, both by the government and the media. Likewise, not officially declaring war does not mean a country is not at war, and so the rules can still apply.

Your reference to POWs under the Geneva convention was slightly abridged. Let me give you the entire article:

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention. </font>

Looks like the Taliban army qualify after all.

sawdust restaurants
06-11-2002, 01:07 PM
Poo-tee-weet?

kypper
06-11-2002, 01:19 PM
I find it absolutely incredible that the US population has allowed Bush and his cronies to declare 'war' (and yes, it SHOULD be done by congress, but it hasn't, and so it isn't entirely recognized, Bluestar http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif) on something as obscure as terrorism. Fuck, that's a goddamned blank cheque, and Bush knows it; the sad thing is, the idiot with an IQ of 2 digits managed to blanket the entire population of the most powerful country in the world. Makes you wonder just how bright the average 'patriotic' housewife waving a flag is.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 01:19 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Looks like the Taliban army qualify after all.</font>

Not really. And...

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
Even here in America in as whiney of a country we have we are told that if you are held captive as a US prisoner even bound by the geneva convention articles you are only promised drinking water, minimal food, and returned identification to your home country. That is all. Don't get a nice cell with a bed and a phone call home to mom. </font>




------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

kypper
06-11-2002, 01:20 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_munky:
The fact that it was "sourced" from the Middle East and the US govt gets severe hard-ons about the Middle East.

</font>


*sings* "It's all about the oiiiilll...."

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 01:21 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Likewise, not officially declaring war does not mean a country is not at war</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Isn't that what I've been saying all along??

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

kypper
06-11-2002, 01:21 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Ummmm...or maybe it was considered an act of war because our country was fucking attacked. It didn't matter who did or what country they were from. You attack the U.S. like that and you will find yourself in the middle of a war.

</font>

I disagree. The middle east didn't do this... that would be like declaring war on terrorism because of Timothy McVeigh. Nobody did that, now did they? They just fried him.
HYPOCRACY I TELL YOU.

kypper
06-11-2002, 01:22 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Fuck off. The U.S. was "fighting" Al Queda long before 9/11. Yeah, the attacks of 9/11 gave the U.S. the authority to fully go after Al Queda. And yeah, if it had been a terrorist group situated in China that had attacked on 9/11, we would have gone after those terrorists.


</font>

Uh... China? the US would have to be REALLY fucking stupid to do that.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 01:30 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
that's a goddamned blank cheque</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Congress hasn't declared since WWII. It is possible to have a war on terrorism. Blah, blah, blah.

And it's hardly a blank check. Bush has to go to Congress to get the funds. Members of Congress have been outspoken about the matter. The whole "axis of evil" thing was pretty much shot down. etc., etc., etc.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

kypper
06-11-2002, 01:32 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Congress hasn't declared since WWII. It is possible to have a war on terrorism. Blah, blah, blah.

And it's hardly a blank check. Bush has to go to Congress to get the funds. Members of Congress have been outspoken about the matter. The whole "axis of evil" thing was pretty much shot down. etc., etc., etc.
</font>

Uh, in case you hadn't noticed, congress was blatantly in favour of bush, and still can be if even one democrat votes awry, cause the vice can decide the vote.

He already has a ton of funds. Bin laden isn't the end; don't fool yourself.

& btw, concerning WW2... Vietnam was NOT an acceptable 'war'. Korea I can't remember, but I do know that Vietnam was stupid as all fucking hell. Fuck your presidents who think they should act as the world's bully.

[This message has been edited by kypper (edited 06-11-2002).]

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 01:37 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
Uh, in case you hadn't noticed, congress was blatantly in favour of bush, & btw, concerning WW2... Vietnam was NOT an acceptable 'war'. Korea I can't remember, but I do know that Vietnam was stupid as all fucking hell. Fuck your presidents who think they should act as the world's bully.
</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Key word there is was. Congress was wholly in favor of Bush. Shit changes. And its been changing. Many politicians are speaking out against Bush.

So a war is only a war if you deem it acceptable??

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">
Since September 11, President Bush has met with leaders from at least 51 different countries to help build support for the war against terrorism.


136 countries have offered a range of military assistance.


The U.S. has received 46 multilateral declarations of support from organizations.


The U.N. General Assembly and Security Council condemned the attacks on September 12.


NATO, OAS and ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.) quickly invoked their treaty obligations to support the United States. Our NATO allies are assisting directly in the defense of American territory.


142 countries have issued orders freezing the assets of suspected terrorists and organizations.


89 countries have granted over-flight authority for U.S. military aircraft.


76 countries have granted landing rights for U.S. military aircraft.


23 countries have agreed to host U.S. forces involved in offensive operations.</font>

This war isn't a case of the U.S. "putting its nose where it doesn't belong". This has the backing and approval of the international community.




------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

kypper
06-11-2002, 01:43 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
This war isn't a case of the U.S. "putting its nose where it doesn't belong". This has the backing and approval of the international community.


</font>

You should do more research into how exactly the 'international community' works. There is a very obvious financial strongarming all over the place. Trust me, I live in a country that receives that shit from the USA all the fucking time.

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 01:47 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
Not really. </font>

Yes, really. They qualify under a number of clauses there. Which is why - shock! - they were eventually granted their rights under the Geneva Convention, which Colin Powell had been arguing they were entitled to anyway

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
Even here in America in as whiney of a country we have we are told that if you are held captive as a US prisoner even bound by the geneva convention articles you are only promised drinking water, minimal food, and returned identification to your home country. That is all. Don't get a nice cell with a bed and a phone call home to mom. </font>

Actually you're guaranteed a number of other things, one of which being an effective 'right to remain silent', being required to give only "his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information." You cannot interrogate prisoners, nor subject them to sensory deprivation. These are the reasons people were complaining about their treatment, remember?

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 01:50 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
geneva convention only applies to countries bound by the geneva convention and only applies to those who hold and carry a geneva convention identification card or are recognized as a known military force.</font>

Afghanistan ratified the Geneva Conventions on September 26th, 1956.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 02:07 PM
FYI...

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill)

--S.J.Res.23--

S.J.Res.23


One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

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.

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

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate. </font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Expressing the sense of the Senate and House of Representatives regarding the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. (Enrolled Bill)

--S.J.Res.22--

S.J.Res.22


One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

Expressing the sense of the Senate and House of Representatives regarding the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked and destroyed four civilian aircraft, crashing two of them into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and a third into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C.;

Whereas thousands of innocent Americans were killed and injured as a result of these attacks, including the passengers and crew of the four aircraft, workers in the World Trade Center and in the Pentagon, rescue workers, and bystanders;

Whereas these attacks destroyed both towers of the World Trade Center, as well as adjacent buildings, and seriously damaged the Pentagon; and

Whereas these attacks were by far the deadliest terrorist attacks ever launched against the United States, and, by targeting symbols of American strength and success, clearly were intended to intimidate our Nation and weaken its resolve: Now, therefore, be it</font>


<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress--

(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the terrorists who planned and carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States, as well as their sponsors;

(2) extends its deepest condolences to the victims of these heinous and cowardly attacks, as well as to their families, friends, and loved ones;

(3) is certain that the people of the United States will stand united as our Nation begins the process of recovering and rebuilding in the aftermath of these tragic acts;

(4) commends the heroic actions of the rescue workers, volunteers, and State and local officials who responded to these tragic events with courage, determination, and skill;

(5) declares that these premeditated attacks struck not only at the people of America, but also at the symbols and structures of our economic and military strength, and that the United States is entitled to respond under international law;

(6) thanks those foreign leaders and individuals who have expressed solidarity with the United States in the aftermath of the attacks, and asks them to continue to stand with the United States in the war against international terrorism;

(7) commits to support increased resources in the war to eradicate terrorism;

(8) supports the determination of the President, in close consultation with Congress, to bring to justice and punish the perpetrators of these attacks as well as their sponsors; and

(9) declares that September 12, 2001, shall be a National Day of Unity and Mourning, and that when Congress adjourns today, it stands adjourned out of respect to the victims of the terrorist attacks.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">U.S. Department of State
Myths and Facts: The International Strikes on Terrorists and their Supporters
Analysis by the State Department's International Information Programs

Myth: Al-Qaida statements have cast the recent terrorist attacks in the U.S. as an effort by Muslims to punish the U.S.

Fact: The September terrorist attacks in the United States were an attack against people of all faiths and nationalities. Citizens of some 80 countries, including hundreds of Muslims, lost their lives in these attacks. These victims, now thought to number between 5,000 and 6, 000, were innocent people. The World Trade Center is not a symbol of the United States, but of international trade, prosperity and opportunity.

It is this international ideal of global progress that the terrorist sought to destroy. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, "The United Nations must recognize that just as there are common aims, there are common enemies. To defeat them, all nations must join forces in an effort encompassing every aspect of the open, free, global system so widely exploited by the perpetrators" of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Myth: The campaign against the Taliban and the terrorists in Afghanistan are an attack on the Afghan people.

Fact: The Taliban do not represent the Afghan people. At a time when the Afghan people face starvation and displacement from drought and the Taliban's ongoing fighting with other factions in Afghanistan, the Taliban have opened their country to thousands of non-Afghan terrorists. These foreigners do not share the hardships of ordinary Afghans, and have exploited Afghan resources and manpower for their own interests, which have nothing to do with the Afghan people.

Myth: The international coalition currently attacking targets in Afghanistan will exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.

Fact: While terrorists were killing thousands of innocent people on Sept. 11, the US was funneling food and humanitarian aid to suffering Afghan people. The Taliban have done nothing to address the growing humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, while the US and the international community have. Over the past few years, millions of Afghans have fled their homeland because of widespread misery and starvation brought on by the Taliban's misuse of the country's resources. The US is and has been the largest donor of humanitarian aid to Afghans, both inside Afghanistan and in refugee camps. On October 4, President Bush announced an additional $320 million in food, medicine and other humanitarian aid to Afghans. This amount is in addition to the approximately $184 million the US has already contributed.

Myth: The US cares only about avenging the thousands of citizens from around the world killed by al-Qaida, and does not care about the effect its military actions will have on the Afghan people.

Fact: The US seeks to liberate the Afghan people from the oppression and misery brought on by the Taliban. While US warplanes attacked the terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan on October 7, US pilots risked their lives to airdrop some 37,000 pre-packaged rations to concentrations of Afghan refugees inside Afghanistan. A similar airdrop of provisions took place on October 8.

Myth: The US-led action against Afghanistan is an example of a large country unjustly attacking a small state.

Fact: The Afghan people are not the target of this international campaign-the targets are the terrorists who have committed mass-murder in the US and Africa, and their clients in the Taliban regime. The US remains committed to the welfare of the Afghan people and is committed to helping them rebuild their country following years of Taliban oppression.

Myth: The US is alone in its efforts to overthrow terrorists and their supporters in Afghanistan.

Fact: Dozens of countries have contributed to the campaign against the terrorists and their supporters in Afghanistan through direct military support, landing and transit rights, basing opportunities and intelligence support. The nineteen members of NATO have agreed to send sophisticated surveillance aircraft to help the US in the battle against terror, and the NATO Secretary-General has stated that other NATO allies have pledged "direct military support as this operation unfolds."

Myth: The U.S. has said it will not do "nation-building." It looks like the U.S. will hand over control to the Northern Alliance, but not all Afghans will agree to this outcome. Is the U.S. engaged in nation-building? Is the US supporting the Northern Alliance?

Fact: The U.S. is not "nation building." We are, however, going to clear the way for Afghans to do their own nation building. Only Afghans can build their nation, and establish a broad-based government. Only Afghans can bring their country back into the community of nations and build their future. Our purpose is to make it possible for them to do that. The U.S. recognizes no faction in Afghanistan. We are currently cooperating with the Northern Alliance in order to destroy the ability of the Taliban and al-Qaida to engage in terrorism. </font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 21, 1995


MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT


THE SECRETARY OF STATE

THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY

ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

DIRECTOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
SUBJECT: U.S. Policy on Counterterrorism (U)

It is the policy of the United States to deter, defeat and respond vigorously to all terrorist attacks on our territory and against our citizens, or facilities, whether they occur domestically, in international waters or airspace or on foreign territory. The United States regards all such terrorism as a potential threat to national security as well as a criminal act and will apply all appropriate means to combat it. In doing so, the U.S. shall pursue vigorously efforts to deter and preempt, apprehend and prosecute, or assist other governments to prosecute, individuals who perpetrate or plan to perpetrate such attacks. (U)

We shall work closely with friendly governments in carrying out our counterterrorism policy and will support Allied and friendly governments in combating terrorist threats against them. (U)

Furthermore, the United States shall seek to identify groups or states that sponsor or support such terrorists, isolate them and extract a heavy price for their actions. (U)

It is the policy of the United States not to make concessions to terrorists. (U)

To ensure that the United States is prepared to combat domestic and international terrorism in all its forms, I direct the following steps be taken. (U)

1. Reducing our Vulnerabilities

The United States shall reduce its vulnerabilities to terrorism, at home and abroad.

It shall be the responsibility of all Department and Agency heads to ensure that their personnel and facilities, and the people and facilities under their jurisdiction, are fully protected against terrorism. With regard to ensuring security:

-- The Attorney General, as the chief law enforcement officer, shall chair a Cabinet Committee to review the vulnerability to terrorism of government facilities in the United States and critical national infrastructure and make recommendations to me and the appropriate Cabinet member or Agency head;

-- The Director, FBI, as head of the investigative agency for terrorism, shall reduce vulnerabilities by an expanded program of counterterrorism;

-- The Secretary of State shall reduce vulnerabilities affecting the security of all personnel and facilities at non-military U.S. Government installations abroad and affecting the general safety of American citizens abroad);

-- The Secretary of Defense shall reduce vulnerabilities affecting the security of all U.S. military personnel (except those assigned to diplomatic missions) and facilities);

-- The Secretary of Transportation shall reduce vulnerabilities affecting the security of all airports in the U.S. and all aircraft and passengers and all maritime shipping under U.S. flag or registration or operating within the territory of the United States and shall coordinate security measures for rail, highway, mass transit and pipeline facilities);

-- The Secretary of State and the Attorney General, in addition to the latter's overall responsibilities as the chief law enforcement official, shall use all legal means available to exclude from the United States persons who pose a terrorist threat and deport or otherwise remove from the United States any such aliens;

-- The Secretary of the Treasury shall reduce vulnerabilities by preventing unlawful traffic in firearms and explosives, by protecting the President and other officials against terrorist attack and through enforcement of laws controlling movement of assets, and export from or import into the United States of goods and services, subject to jurisdiction of the Department of the Treasury;

-- The Director, Central Intelligence shall lead the efforts of the Intelligence Community to reduce U.S. vulnerabilities to international terrorism through an aggressive program of foreign intelligence collection, analysis, counterintelligence and covert action in accordance with the National Security Act of 1947 and E.O. 12333. (U)

2. Deterring Terrorism

The United States shall seek to deter terrorism through a clear public position that our policies will not be affected by terrorist acts and that we will act vigorously to deal with terrorists and their sponsors. Our actions will reduce the capabilities and support available to terrorists. (U)

Within the United States, we shall vigorously apply U.S. laws and seek new legislation to prevent terrorist groups from operating in the United States or using it as a base for recruitment, training, fund raising or other related activities. (U)

o Return of Indicted Terrorists to the U.S. for Prosecution: We shall vigorously apply extraterritorial statutes to counter acts of terrorism and apprehend terrorists outside of the United States. When terrorists wanted for violation of U.S. law are at large overseas, their return for prosecution shall be a matter of the highest priority and shall be a continuing central issue in bilateral relations with any state that harbors or assists them. Where we do not have adequate arrangements, the Departments of State and Justice shall work to resolve the problem, where possible and appropriate, through negotiation and conclusion of new extradition treaties. (U)

If we do not receive adequate cooperation from a state that harbors a terrorist whose extradition we are seeking, we shall take appropriate measures to induce cooperation. Return of suspects by force may be effected without the cooperation of the host government, consistent with the procedures outlined in NSD-77, which shall remain in effect. (S)

o State Support and Sponsorship: Foreign governments assist terrorists in a variety of ways. (U)

C. Enhancing Counterterrorism Capabilities: The Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, Energy and Transportation, the Attorney General, the Director of Central Intelligence and the Director, FBI shall ensure that their organizations' counterterrorism capabilities within their present areas of responsibility are well managed, funded and exercised. (U)

3. Responding to Terrorism

We shall have the ability to respond rapidly and decisively to terrorism directed against us wherever it occurs, to protect Americans, arrest or defeat the perpetrators, respond with all appropriate instruments against the sponsoring organizations and governments and provide recovery relief to victims, as permitted by law. (U)

D. Lead Agency Responsibilities: This directive validates and reaffirms existing lead agency responsibilities for all facets of the United States counterterrorism effort. Lead agencies are those that have the most direct role in and responsibility for implementation of U.S. counterterrorism

policy, as set forth in this Directive. Lead agencies will normally be designated as follows: (U)

The Department of State is the lead agency for international terrorist incidents that take place outside of U.S. territory, other than incidents on U.S. flag vessels in international waters. The State Department shall act through U.S. ambassadors as the on-scene coordinators for the U.S. Government. Once military force has been directed, however, the National Command Authority shall exercise control of the U.S. military force. (U)

F. Interagency Support: To ensure that the full range of necessary expertise and capabilities are available to the

on-scene coordinator, there shall be a rapidly deployable interagency Emergency Support Team (EST). The State Department shall be responsible for leading and managing the Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) in foreign incidents. The FBI shall be responsible for the Domestic Emergency Support Team (DEST) in domestic incidents. The DEST shall consist only of those agencies needed to respond to the specific requirements of the incident. Membership in the two teams shall ******* modules for specific types of incidents such as nuclear, biological or chemical threats. The Defense Department shall provide timely transportation for ESTs. (U)

G. Transportation - related terrorism: The Federal Aviation Administration has exclusive responsibility in instances of air piracy for the coordination of any law enforcement activity affecting the safety of persons aboard aircraft within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the UPS. as defined in public law. The Department of Justice, acting through the FBI, shall establish and maintain procedures, in coordination with the Departments of State, Defense, and Transportation, to ensure the efficient resolution of terrorist hijackings. These procedures shall be based on the principle of lead agency responsibility for command, control and rules of engagement. (U)

H. Consequence Management: The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall ensure that the Federal Response Plan is adequate to respond to the consequences of terrorism directed against large populations in the United States, including terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction. FEMA shall ensure that States' response plans are adequate and their capabilities are tested. The State Department shall develop a plan with the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance and DOD to Provide assistance to foreign populations so victimized. (U)

K. Costs: Agencies directed to participate in the resolution of terrorist incidents or conduct of counterterrorist operations shall bear the costs of their participation, unless otherwise directed by me. (U)

4. Weapons of Mass Destruction

The United States shall give the highest priority to developing effective capabilities to detect, prevent, defeat and manage the consequences of nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC) materials or weapons use by terrorists. (U)

The acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by a terrorist group, through theft or manufacture, is unacceptable. There is no higher priority than preventing the acquisition of this capability or removing this capability from terrorist groups potentially opposed to the U.S. (U) </font>

Old, but interesting article...

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Defense Issues: Volume 11, Number 77-- The Risks If We Would Be Free When terrorists attack our military forces, the worst thing we could do for our national security is withdraw. When terrorists attack our buildings or airliners, the worst thing we can do as a society is withdraw from our daily lives and our commerce.

Volume 11, Number 77
The Risks If We Would Be Free
Remarks as delivered by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry to the American Bar Association, Orlando, Fla., Aug. 6, 1996.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ralph Waldo Emerson once asked, "If there is any period one would desire to be born in, is it not the age of revolution? When the old and the new stand side by side? When the energies of all men are searched by fear and by hope? When the historic glories of the old can be compensated by the rich possibilities of the new?"

Like Emerson, we too live in an age of revolution. In every field -- politics, economics, technology -- we are living in an era of "rich possibilities." Our hopes are symbolized by the emergence of democracy around the globe; by the growth of new global trade relationships; by the expansion of global communications; and by the explosion of information.

But along with these hopes, our energies in this revolutionary era are "searched by fear." One of our darkest fears in this new era is the specter of terrorism. Terrorism hangs like a dark cloud over our hopes.

President Clinton has called it "the enemy of our generation." It is the antithesis of everything America stands for. It is an enemy of the fundamental principles of human rights -- freedom of movement, freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

Its perpetrators reject the rule of law and basic human decency. They are not able to achieve their goals either through conventional diplomatic or military means, so they seek to impose their will on others through acts of violence, almost always aimed at the innocent.

Domestic terrorism is a crime against the order and tranquillity of our nation. International terrorism is an assault on the peace and stability of the world.

And when terrorists aim their attacks at U.S. military forces, something additional is at risk: It is the ability of the United States to protect and defend our vital national interests in the world. That is what was under assault when terrorists attacked our forces in Saudi Arabia last November, and again in June.

I just returned from a trip to Saudi Arabia where I met with my Saudi counterpart, Prince Sultan, to develop a mutual response to the recent bomb attacks on American military forces there. To respond intelligently, we must first understand the nature of the problem.

Why have our forces in Saudi Arabia been subject to terrorist attacks?

To answer this question you need to go back in time about six years, to the Gulf War, which started when Iraq invaded Kuwait. We fought that war because Iraq had not only taken over Kuwait and its oil fields, but also threatened Saudi Arabia and its oil fields.

At that time, we correctly decided that this was a direct threat to our vital national interests and to world peace -- and we formed a military coalition which successfully ejected Iraq from Kuwait.

Today, there are still threats to the region -- threats to the free flow of oil around the world and to the security and stability of the region. The threat from Iraq has been reduced, but is still significant; the threat from Iran has increased since 1990 and is still growing.

To counter these threats we maintain strong military forces forward deployed in the gulf region. This forward presence serves to prevent both Iraq and Iran from expanding their territory or influence in the gulf countries, thereby gaining control over the flow of oil to the world.

Our military presence includes substantial airpower operating out of Saudi and Kuwaiti airbases. This permits us to enforce the U.N.-sponsored "no-fly" zone over Iraq. Our presence also includes naval forces operating continuously in the Arabian Gulf, also enforcing United Nations sanctions. And it includes two brigade sets worth of pre-positioned military equipment -- one in Kuwait and one afloat offshore -- and we are adding a third brigade set in Qatar.

This pre-positioned equipment allows us to insert a substantial deterrent force into the region in a fraction of the time that it took us in 1990. We actually exercised this potential in October of 1994, when Saddam Hussein again sent his forces toward the Kuwaiti border.

That time, however, we were able to respond quickly enough that we were able to deter an attack.

Our forward forces, backed by rapidly deployable U.S.-based reinforcements, are by far the strongest military force in the gulf region. They cannot be successfully engaged by any of the regional military powers. But this very capability, which makes our military forces such a successful deterrent force, also makes them an inviting target for those who oppose our presence and influence in the region.

Our presence, of course, is opposed by Iran and Iraq, but also by home-grown dissidents in some countries of the region. The opposition includes extremist groups who are cold-blooded and fanatical, but also clever. They know that they cannot defeat us militarily, but they may believe that they can defeat us politically -- and they have chosen terror as the weapon to try to achieve this.

They estimate that if they can cause enough casualties or threats of casualties to our force, they can weaken support in the United States for our presence in the region or weaken support in the host nations for a continued U.S. presence. In essence, they seek to drive a wedge between the U.S. and our regional allies.

Terrorists made the attack on U.S. forces in Khobar Towers in June to achieve these objectives.

They did not succeed.

But the public reaction to this bombing may wrongly encourage them to think that such attacks can erode our resolve. So we must be prepared for the frequency and scale of the attacks in the gulf to increase. Future attacks could be with more powerful bombs or standoff weapons or even chemical weapons.

So the question that confronts us is what do we do about the this growing threat to our forces?

One alternative, which is tempting to many, is to say that we should pack up our forces and go home.

That would be a grave mistake.

We could withdraw our forces from the gulf region, but we cannot withdraw our security interests from the region. Allowing the threat of terrorism to drive us out of the gulf would mean surrendering those interests, abandoning our allies and allowing the region to come under the control of Iraq or Iran.

It would give a small group of terrorists with truck bombs a victory that, six years ago, Saddam Hussein could not achieve with 40 divisions. Withdrawal is not an acceptable alternative. Our strategic imperative requires that we maintain our forces in the region.

So the question on my mind when I went to Saudi Arabia last week was not whether to leave our forces in the region, but how to maintain them.

The answer to that question, I believe, is threefold: We need to strengthen our resolve that we will not let terrorists drive us away from protecting our national interests; we need to increase the physical security of our military personnel in the region to reduce their vulnerability to terrorist attacks; and we need to increase our intelligence capabilities so that we can pre-empt and disrupt terrorist attacks before they occur.

My trip to Saudi Arabia was aimed at furthering these objectives. And it was a successful trip.

As a result of our meetings in Jiddah, there is a strengthened resolve by both the Saudi and the American governments that we will not play into terrorist hands by allowing these attacks to drive a wedge between us. The most concrete result of my trip was agreement on a number of actions to strengthen the physical security of our forces in Saudi Arabia and the region.

We currently have 4,000 air crew personnel in Riyadh and Dhahran to enforce the no-fly zone over Iraq. We will redeploy them and their aircraft to the Saudi airbase at Al-Kharj, known as the Prince Sultan Air Base. This will take our forces out of a high-risk urban environment and move them into a remote location in the desert, where we can construct very effective defenses against terrorist attack.

But some of the units we have in Saudi Arabia cannot be relocated without undermining their effectiveness. Our training units, for example, must be in close proximity to their Saudi counterparts in Riyadh. And our Patriot missile battery crews must be located near the urban areas and air bases that they are defending.

While these units must remain near urban areas because of their mission, we are taking steps to give them more protection by consolidating them and moving them to more secure housing facilities, by erecting more barriers, posting more guards, putting more Mylar [plastic laminating film] on windows. All of these to lessen the impact of any future bombings.

The Saudi government is cooperating in all of these moves, making facilities available, building required new infrastructure.

Force protection measures, such as moving the location of our forces and building barriers, cannot eliminate the risk to our forces -- but they can minimize those risks. Indeed, force protection is a key part of every military mission -- it is my top priority whenever I approve a military operation or a training exercise.

That is why our forces in Bosnia are required to wear flak jackets and Kevlar helmets when they are outside of the security compound. It is why one out of every three of them are on guard duty, and it is why we have a no-alcohol policy for our forces in Bosnia. These are burdensome rules, but they do save lives.

To reinforce our emphasis on force protection, I have recently directed the implementation of a stronger force protection initiative worldwide -- with specific instructions for commanders in Southwest Asia and southern Europe to perform force protection reassessments. But while we want to emphasize force protection, we must also balance force protection with our ability to achieve our military missions.

Our forces cannot perform their mission if they are hunkered down in hardened bunkers 24 hours a day. We all know, and certainly our military personnel know, that there are inherent risks in any military operation. In today's environment, one of those risks is the risk of a terrorist attack. Our job is to continually look for ways to minimize that risk while maintaining mission effectiveness.

These force protection measures are always important, but the real key to better, more effective force protection against terrorism is to take active measures against the terrorists. Which brings me to another major action we are taking in Saudi Arabia -- improving our intelligence capabilities.

We do not want to simply sit and wait for terrorists to act. We want to seek them out, find them, identify them and do what we can to disrupt or pre-empt any planned operation. And the key to this is better intelligence.

Better intelligence depends not only on being able to collect information, but being able to use it. We need to sort out the real and useful intelligence from the misinformation and disinformation that is collected every day.

One key to improved analysis is the Counterterrorist Center, formed a few years ago and now receiving higher priority in the face of a higher threat. But even with improved analysis in Washington, we still have to make this intelligence available in a timely way to the forces threatened and to combine national intelligence with the local intelligence being collected.

Among the steps we are taking to improve intelligence in the Gulf region is to set up what we call a "fusion cell." We developed the model for intelligence fusion cells in Bosnia. We are replicating this model not only in the gulf region, but around the world wherever our forces are deployed.

A fusion cell combines, in real time, national strategic intelligence, which we gather around the world, with local or tactical intelligence. This allows us to quickly fuse together the global picture with the regional picture to help us see patterns; to keep information from falling through the cracks; and to focus the United States' and our allies' intelligence services on the same pieces of information, at the same time.

Intelligence is crucial not only for preventing and disrupting terrorists activities, it is also a key to an appropriate response to the terrorists and their sponsors.

As President Clinton said yesterday, "We will not rest in our efforts to track down, prosecute and punish terrorists, and to keep the heat on terrorists and those who support them."

Yesterday, President Clinton signed into law the Iran-Libya Sanction Act, which builds on sanctions already in place. And as he signed this bill, he said, "The United States cannot and will not hesitate to do what we believe is right."

Our response to terrorist attacks on our troops in the gulf is a story that has broader implications. It is a case study that is helpful as we think about the threat of terrorism generally. Just as the very success of our military presence in the gulf makes our troops an inviting target for terrorists in the region, so, too, does America's success around the world make our nation an inviting target for terrorists worldwide.

America is the world's sole remaining superpower. Our economic and political philosophy is ascendant worldwide. Our culture is the world's most influential, and the very openness of our society makes us a relatively easy target for those who do not like these facts or who disagree with what we stand for.

When terrorists attack our military forces in Saudi Arabia or anywhere they are needed in the world, the worst thing we could do for our national security would be to withdraw our forces from where they are needed. Likewise, when terrorists attack our trade centers, federal buildings or airliners, the worst thing we can do as a society is to withdraw from our daily lives and our commerce.

Once we decide there are real reasons for doing something, then we ought to do it, understanding that there may be real risks associated with that decision.

Richard Haas, a former member of the National Security Council in the Bush administration, noted the other day, "We cannot and should not ground our planes, shutter our embassies, hand in our passports, bring all our troops home, close the government or shut down the Olympics. If we stop being who we are and stop living a life worth living, we hand the terrorists their greatest victory."

It was heartening in this regard to see the return of thousands of people to Olympic Park in Atlanta as soon as it was reopened. Those celebrants understood that staying home would have meant giving in.

We must recognize that terrorism -- domestic, international or directed against our military forces -- is like a chronic disease: You must fight it even as you have to live with it. The fight is not and will not be easy, but then defending freedom and liberty never are.

Over 200 years ago, Thomas Paine wrote, "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

In this age, we, too, must be prepared to undergo the fatigue that comes with the burden of supporting freedom if we are to reap freedom's blessings.

I thank you.</font>


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).]

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 02:09 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Yes, really. They qualify under a number of clauses there. Which is why - shock! - they were eventually granted their rights under the Geneva Convention, which Colin Powell had been arguing they were entitled to anyway
</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Only to those fighting for the Taliban...not the captured members of Al-Qaida.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 02:15 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Only to those fighting for the Taliban...not the captured members of Al-Qaida.

</font>

No, not Al-Qaida... but those captured were mostly Taliban (read Afghan) soldiers. Besides, how would you tell them apart, given the lack of uniform etc?

I forgot to mention the right to be tried in a public civil court :/

kypper
06-11-2002, 02:18 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
No, not Al-Qaida... but those captured were mostly Taliban (read Afghan) soldiers. Besides, how would you tell them apart, given the lack of uniform etc?

I forgot to mention the right to be tried in a public civil court :/</font>

Many people are far too patriotic in America to see that America holds the rest of the world by the balls.
Rights can go out the window so long as CNN tells Americans they haven't.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 02:20 PM
FYI...

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Article 51
of the Charter of the United Nations

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter- national peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Letter dated 7 October 2001 from the Permanent Representative
of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed
to the President of the Security Council

In accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, I wish, on behalf of my Government, to report that the United States of America, together with other States, has initiated actions in the exercise of its inherent right of individual and collective self-defence following the armed attacks that were carried out against the United States on 11 September 2001.

On 11 September 2001, the United States was the victim of massive and brutal attacks in the states of New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. These attacks were specifically designed to maximize the loss of life; they resulted in the death of more than 5,000 persons, including nationals of 81 countries, as well as the destruction of four civilian aircraft, the World Trade Center towers and a section of the Pentagon. Since 11 September, my Government has obtained clear and compelling information that the Al-Qaeda organization, which is supported by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, had a central role in the attacks. There is still much we do not know. Our inquiry is in its early stages. We may find that our self-defence requires further actions with respect to other organizations and other States.

The attacks on 11 September 2001 and the ongoing threat to the United States and its nationals posed by the Al-Qaeda organization have been made possible by the decision of the Taliban regime to allow the parts of Afghanistan that it controls to be used by this organization as a base of operation. Despite every effort by the United States and the international community, the Taliban regime has refused to change its policy. From the territory of Afghanistan, the Al-Qaeda organization continues to train and support agents of terror who attack innocent people throughout the world and target United States nationals and interests in the United States and abroad.

In response to these attacks, and in accordance with the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence, United States armed forces have initiated actions designed to prevent and deter further attacks on the United States. These actions ******* measures against Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. In carrying out these actions, the United States is committed to minimizing civilian casualties and damage to civilian property. In addition, the United States will continue its humanitarian efforts to alleviate the suffering of the people of Afghanistan. We are providing them with food, medicine and supplies.

I ask that you circulate the text of the present letter as a document of the Security Council.

(Signed) John D. Negroponte</font>



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 02:24 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
Many people are far too patriotic in America to see that America holds the rest of the world by the balls.
Rights can go out the window so long as CNN tells Americans they haven't.</font>

The strange thing is, America is in fact acting in the best interests of its citizens - it's just at the expense of a sizeable proportion of the world. And to make the changes the US supposedly stands for would require its citizens to relinquish a number of benefits... at least until economies were restructured.

Nice thread btw - 6 pages and worthwhile too http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif

kypper
06-11-2002, 02:26 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
The strange thing is, America is in fact acting in the best interests of its citizens - it's just at the expense of a sizeable proportion of the world. And to make the changes the US supposedly stands for would require its citizens to relinquish a number of benefits... at least until economies were restructured.

Nice thread btw - 6 pages and worthwhile too http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif</font>


In some ways. in others, it acts in the interests of its huge corporations and slices off rights for its and other citizens left, right and centre. I am not impressed with the bush administration.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 02:29 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Military Tribunals

What is a military tribunal?
A military tribunal is a special court run by the military, not the civilian judiciary, and convened to adjudicate extraordinary cases, usually involving foreigners and usually during wartime. In November 2001, President Bush issued an executive order authorizing military tribunals for foreigners accused of terrorism.

When these tribunals—which, in their original conception, would have been conducted in private and allowed a two-thirds majority of a jury comprised of military officers to confer a death sentence—were first announced, they had significant bipartisan and public support. But they also drew criticism from some members of Congress from both parties, human rights groups, and foreign governments, including American allies, who said that the tribunals fell short of national and international standards of due process for the accused. In March 2002, after consulting several legal experts, the Defense Department revised its rules for these tribunals.

How are these tribunals different from regular courts?
Military tribunals are not bound by procedures followed in civilian courts, which derive from the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. According to Defense Department guidelines, military tribunals for foreigners suspected of terrorism will use juries of three to seven panelists, all of them military officers, not the 12-member public panels used in federal criminal courts;
will require a two-thirds vote for conviction and sentencing, except in cases where the death penalty is involved, in which case seven panelists must reach a unanimous decision;
will admit evidence—including secondhand evidence and hearsay, which are banned from traditional courts—so long as it would have “probative value to a reasonable person”;
will not require prosecutors to establish the “chain of custody” of evidence—that is, to account for how the evidence was transported from where it was found to the courtroom;
will provide defendants with military lawyers but allow them to hire civilian attorneys at their own expense;
will not allow defendants to appeal decisions in federal courts, but instead petition a panel of review, which may ******* civilians as well as military officers, to review decisions. The president, as commander in chief, will have final review.
These tribunals provide for some protections familiar from civilian courts, among them allowing defendants to review the evidence against them, making most sessions public, and requiring that jurors convict only when the case is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Has the government used civilian courts instead of tribunals to try terrorists?
Yes. The U.S. government prosecuted the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the conspirators in a failed plot involving New York City tunnels, and those responsible for the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in civilian courts. And partly in response to the initial outcry over military tribunals, the Justice Department opted to use federal courts to try the first person charged in the September 11 conspiracy: Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen and the alleged “20th hijacker.”

Why is the government setting up these military tribunals?
White House officials say that military tribunals will let the government try suspected terrorists quickly, efficiently, and without jeopardizing public safety, classified information, or intelligence-gathering methods and operations. The officials also say that the tribunals would protect American jurors, judges and witnesses from the potential dangers of trying accused terrorists.

Also, according to some Bush officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the government is reluctant to try captured terrorists—especially leaders of the Taliban and the al-Qaeda terrorist network—in conventional U.S. courts, where their trials and appeals could take years and turn into spectacles. In December 2001 congressional testimony, Attorney General John Ashcroft asked: “Are we supposed to read [alleged terrorists] their Miranda rights, hire a flamboyant defense lawyer, bring them back to the U.S. to create a new cable network of Osama TV or what have you?” Under the March 2002 guidelines, press coverage of most tribunal proceedings will be permitted, although cameras will be banned from courtrooms.

Bush officials also worry that some terrorists might go free if, say, Osama bin Laden had to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Who would be subject to these tribunals?
Essentially, any non-U.S. citizen who the government alleges is a terrorist or an accomplice to terrorism. According to President Bush’s executive order, the military tribunals would apply to any foreign individual who is a member of al-Qaeda, has engaged in or aided acts of terrorism against the United States, or has “knowingly harbored” such a person.

Are these military tribunals controversial?
Yes. Some prominent Democrats have backed the tribunals from the outset, including Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Al Gore’s running mate in the 2000 presidential race. But when they were first proposed in November 2001, the tribunals generated a storm of protest from some legal scholars, human rights groups, civil libertarians, many members of Congress from both parties, and columnists usually supportive of the Bush administration.

The revised Defense Department guidelines triggered less controversy. Some legal scholars called the new rules judicious, but critics from human-rights advocates to William Safire, the conservative New York Times columnist, have noted that the new guidelines do not resolve all of their concerns about impartiality and due process. Under the revised guidelines, these critics note, appeals in civilian courts are forbidden, and suspects can be detained indefinitely, even if they are not convicted of terrorism-related crimes.

What’s the difference between a military tribunal and a court-martial?
Courts-martial are routinely used by the military to try U.S. soldiers for crimes. The military commissions authorized by President Bush are, says one former Navy lawyer and judge, “a totally different animal.” Courts-martial use rules of evidence similar to those of civilian courts, are almost always open to civilian observers, and allow appeals.

Has the United States used military tribunals before?
Yes. George Washington convened the first U.S. military tribunal in 1780 to try a British spy found behind American lines. Military tribunals were also instituted by President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, ultimately trying some 4,000 citizens on charges ranging from disloyalty to clearly nonmilitary offenses such as liquor trafficking. The Supreme Court later held that such military tribunals should have no jurisdiction over citizens in cases where civilian courts are still working. The United States last convened a military tribunal during World War II, when it tried and sentenced to death a group of Nazis caught spying in America. The Supreme Court deemed this tribunal constitutional, ruling that foreign combatants charged with war crimes inside the United States do not enjoy constitutional guarantees. The Bush administration has cited the closed World War II tribunal as a precedent for its own proposed tribunals.

Have other countries convened military courts to fight terrorism?
Yes. But the State Department has condemned the use of military tribunals to try terrorists in many of these countries, including China, Colombia, Egypt, Peru, and Turkey, because they violate defendants’ rights, according to Human Rights Watch. In one well-publicized 1996 case, a Peruvian military court convicted a New York woman, Lori Berenson, of treason and sentenced her to life in prison for her ties to a Marxist rebel group known for violent attacks and kidnappings. The State Department and both houses of Congress condemned the ruling and called on Peru to give Berenson a fair and open trial, noting that thousands of Peruvians were unjustly tried and jailed in the military courts of the beleaguered Peruvian government. In June 2001, after years of appeals and U.S. pressure, Berenson was retried in a Peruvian civilian court and sentenced to 20 years in prison for collaborating with Marxist terrorists.

In the 1970s, the British government responded to IRA terrorism by creating what are known as Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland. Although these courts aren’t military tribunals as such, they do eliminate civilian juries (in favor of a single judge, rather than a panel of officers), and they do admit secret evidence. The courts were established to protect jurors from intimidation by paramilitary groups, but they have reportedly been used for cases unrelated to IRA terrorism.</font>



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 02:31 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
FYI...
</font>

This is a perfect example of the US adhering to UN Security Council protocols when it suits them. The number of times the US has gone to war without being attacked (eg the Gulf War, Vietnam) in direct contravention of UN resolutions, and vetoed decisions made by the Council, far outweigh any instances in which the US has actually followed procedure. Obviously in this case the US was right to take some form of action, but the precedent for UN non-compliance had long been set.

kypper
06-11-2002, 02:32 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
Military Tribunals
blah blah fucking blah
</font>

POST THE LINKS. God, are you TRYING to make this thread as long to read as possible?!?


[This message has been edited by kypper (edited 06-11-2002).]

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 02:33 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Obviously in this case the US was right to take some form of action, but the precedent for UN non-compliance had long been set.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Of course. But, what we are arguing about is right now, is this war. In this case Bush did the right thing and adhered to the proper rules/laws.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

PkPhuoko
06-11-2002, 02:35 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
No, not Al-Qaida... but those captured were mostly Taliban (read Afghan) soldiers. Besides, how would you tell them apart, given the lack of uniform etc?

I forgot to mention the right to be tried in a public civil court :/</font>


wrong... most people that were captured and are still being held are not from the Taliban... infact most of the taliban soldiers captured were turned over to afghanistans newly formed army and put right back to work.

and the geneva convention articles do not apply to the taliban soldiers (but were instated in the early days of the operations) as the taliban was never a recognized form of government.

kypper
06-11-2002, 02:35 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Of course. But, what we are arguing about is right now, is this war. In this case Bush did the right thing and adhered to the proper rules/laws.
</font>

What you aren't getting is that if the rest of the world had decided not to support Bush, he would've gone against protocol and done it anyway.

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 02:35 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:

In some ways. in others, it acts in the interests of its huge corporations and slices off rights for its and other citizens left, right and centre. I am not impressed with the bush administration.</font>

True, corporate power has been increasing a great deal... plus the oil thing is never going to go away... until it runs out that is. But without a happy population, you have no consumers, no taxpayers, no military. You could of course, but that wouldn't fit the democratic model which has served so well

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 02:35 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
POST THE LINKS. God, are you TRYING to make this thread as long to read as possible?!?
</font>

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif <font color=#ADD8E6>Most people can't be assed to fucking click on the links.

http://www.terrorismanswers.com

...how's that?


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

kypper
06-11-2002, 02:36 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif <font color=#ADD8E6>Most people can't be assed to fucking click on the links.

http://www.terrorismanswers.com

...how's that?


</font>

Much appreciated.
Sorry, bad mood from other things in life http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 02:39 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Of course. But, what we are arguing about is right now, is this war. In this case Bush did the right thing and adhered to the proper rules/laws.
</font>

Every other time there was a war, people thought the exact same thing about the US, until they learned a little more about what happened. Name me one war in which the US behaved in a way that wasn't later deemed unacceptable. Why would now be any different? That's why we have to question these things, unfortunately

kypper
06-11-2002, 02:40 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Every other time there was a war, people thought the exact same thing about the US, until they learned a little more about what happened. Name me one war in which the US behaved in a way that wasn't later deemed unacceptable. Why would now be any different? That's why we have to question these things, unfortunately</font>

The US just changes the rules as they go. Most countries would if they could. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/frown.gif The US is only the bad guy cause they're in the power to be the bad guy.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 02:42 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
What you aren't getting is that if the rest of the world had decided not to support Bush, he would've gone against protocol and done it anyway.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>The point is is that that didn't happen. In case such as 9/11, there was no way in hell the rest of the world wasn't going to back the U.S. And, let's just suppose, that 9/11 happened and the rest of the world didn't give a fuck...I sure as hell hope that Bush would have gone against protocol and done it anyway.

This is something completely different from the various U.S. involvements in the past. The Gulf War was ridiculous, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But, this is just so entirely different. You can't compare this with other U.S. actions.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 02:43 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PkPhuoko:

wrong... most people that were captured and are still being held are not from the Taliban... infact most of the taliban soldiers captured were turned over to afghanistans newly formed army and put right back to work.

and the geneva convention articles do not apply to the taliban soldiers (but were instated in the early days of the operations) as the taliban was never a recognized form of government.

</font>

Some Taliban soldiers effectively switched sides (as has been the case historically in the region) and so were effectively released. The main captives were from neighboring countries, who had crossed into Afghanistan to defend the Taliban from the invading forces. They would not qualify as Al-Qaida, and would be counted as Taliban army.

And Taliban army would still be (and now are) counted under the Geneva convention:
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.</font>

kypper
06-11-2002, 02:44 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>The point is is that that didn't happen. In case such as 9/11, there was no way in hell the rest of the world wasn't going to back the U.S. And, let's just suppose, that 9/11 happened and the rest of the world didn't give a fuck...I sure as hell hope that Bush would have gone against protocol and done it anyway.

This is something completely different from the various U.S. involvements in the past. The Gulf War was ridiculous, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But, this is just so entirely different. You can't compare this with other U.S. actions.


</font>

I sure as hell can. Yes 9/11 was horrible... but no more horrible than shit the USA has done to other countries (without telling its citizens, I might add) and many other countries have done to each other. USA just has the bombs... plain and simple.

And going after the taliban, afghanistan, playing israel and palistine, and planning huge attacks on Iraq and Saudi is NOT FUCKING ACCEPTABLE.
Overkill.
Get Al Quaeda... yes. Get everyone else who pisses you off as a side venture? No.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 02:46 PM
Interesting article...linked and quoted http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

http://www.ndol.org/blueprint/2001_nov-dec/24_congress_war_terror.html

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Congress and the War on Terror
Bush needs to make Capitol Hill his partner in this conflict.

by Steven J. Nider

Congress and the White House have been wrangling for generations over control of the military during hostilities that fall short of all-out war. The Constitution gives Congress sole power to declare war, but it has done so only five times: the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, and the two world wars. Meanwhile, presidents acting in their constitutional capacity of commander in chief have sent Americans into battle more than 100 times in the absence of a formal declaration of war.

We are in one of those situations again. On. Sept. 14, Congress overwhelmingly authorized President Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against the nations, groups, and individuals responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks on America. But Bush has vowed to wage a much broader war against terrorism. For the President, the challenge is to sustain long-term congressional support for an entirely new kind of war against a shadowy, stateless enemy. President Bush would be wise to find ways to make Congress a partner and stakeholder in the planning and conduct of this war.

Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, over President Nixon's veto, as a check on presidential war-making authority. Under it, whenever a president uses military force outside a declaration of war, he must immediately inform Congress. And if Congress fails to give its consent to the deployment, the president must withdraw the troops in 60 to 90 days. Since the law's enactment, every single president has argued that it unconstitutionally infringes on his authority as commander in chief, and all have defended their right to initiate military action on their own. Some experts question whether the law creates the best way of ensuring congressional participation in decisions about use of force. Proposals to amend or even repeal the War Powers Resolution have been floated over the years, but none has been enacted.

The coherence of U.S. policy during hostilities depends on Congress and the executive branch working together. Yet history shows that presidents often treat Congress as a hindrance rather than as a partner during such times. They tend to seek congressional input on foreign and national security issues only after crises erupt, rather than on an ongoing basis. If they sought input regularly, they could rely on greater congressional support when war clouds gather.

In the days and months ahead, Congress and the President will face difficult decisions that could affect the lives of millions of Americans. Both sides should work to improve policy consultation and coordination without unduly burdening the commander in chief's freedom of action.

A recent report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, co-chaired by former Sens. Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, could point the way. The panel recommended the creation of a permanent congressional consultative group made up of leaders of both parties in the House and Senate and the chairmen and ranking minority members of the main committees involved in national security and foreign policy. The group would meet regularly with representatives of the executive branch and with the president on an emergency basis whenever he considers military action abroad or deals with a foreign policy crisis.

In such an environment, presidents would be more disposed to cooperate with Congress, and Congress would be less disposed to invoke the War Powers Resolution's ti****bles and notification requirements. Presidents would benefit from the experience of key congressional leaders. And lawmakers would get vital information at the most critical decision point: before troops are deployed. This would help them build wise policy and rally bipartisan support for difficult operations once forces have been deployed.

Finally, consultations would be a two-way street. A president upset by congressional leaks could curtail exchanges of information or even temporarily suspend the meetings. Similarly, a congressional panel that felt it was being stonewalled could muster formidable opposition to a president's military operation, perhaps enough to cut off its funding.

Conflict in the modern era may be rendering formal declarations of war obsolete. Still, the judgment of Congress must be more than an afterthought in foreign policy. America's founders wisely introduced checks and balances into the nation's design to keep any single branch of government from dominating the others. This healthy tension should be restored to, not removed from, the realm of national security and foreign policy.</font>



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 02:48 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
And going after the taliban, afghanistan, playing israel and palistine, and planning huge attacks on Iraq and Saudi is NOT FUCKING ACCEPTABLE.
Overkill.
Get Al Quaeda... yes. Get everyone else who pisses you off as a side venture? No.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Bush declared a war on terrorism, not a war on Al-Qaida.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

kypper
06-11-2002, 02:51 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Bush declared a war on terrorism, not a war on Al-Qaida.

</font>

which is ambiguous. Terrorism has been around for millenia.
Blank-fucking-cheque.

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 02:54 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
I sure as hell can. Yes 9/11 was horrible... but no more horrible than shit the USA has done to other countries (without telling its citizens, I might add) and many other countries have done to each other. USA just has the bombs... plain and simple.

And going after the taliban, afghanistan, playing israel and palistine, and planning huge attacks on Iraq and Saudi is NOT FUCKING ACCEPTABLE.
Overkill.
Get Al Quaeda... yes. Get everyone else who pisses you off as a side venture? No.</font>

Exactly - this is the crux of the entire thing. Public emotion over the tragedy of 9/11 is being used to smokescreen any number of actions under the guise of justice. Afghanistan is just one example - the Taliban were already marked as a problem, not allowing US access to build an oil pipeline. Terrorists strike, everyone after Bin Laden, he's in Afghanistan, the Taliban are removed from power, a nice friendly government is installed, suddenly no-one mentions Bin Laden any more. Next on the list - another unfriendly yet oil-rich country - Iraq. Meanwhile countries everywhere are adopting the War on Terror rhetoric as a nice package for their actions against groups they don't like. Israel's been particularly taken by it.

Kyp's right - the US has done a great deal in its past, but for once it's been on the receiving end. They're the greatest superpower in the world, so they get to be the bad guy - but not without reason.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 02:55 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
which is ambiguous. </font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Not really. Look back to what Bush said when he declared the war and what the U.S. policy is on terrorism.

It's all about politics. The off-year election this year and the on-year election in 2004 will shake things up and keep things from going too far. No one in Congress and no one in the Bush administration wants to lose their position.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

kypper
06-11-2002, 02:59 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Exactly - this is the crux of the entire thing. Public emotion over the tragedy of 9/11 is being used to smokescreen any number of actions under the guise of justice. Afghanistan is just one example - the Taliban were already marked as a problem, not allowing US access to build an oil pipeline. Terrorists strike, everyone after Bin Laden, he's in Afghanistan, the Taliban are removed from power, a nice friendly government is installed, suddenly no-one mentions Bin Laden any more. Next on the list - another unfriendly yet oil-rich country - Iraq. Meanwhile countries everywhere are adopting the War on Terror rhetoric as a nice package for their actions against groups they don't like. Israel's been particularly taken by it.

Kyp's right - the US has done a great deal in its past, but for once it's been on the receiving end. They're the greatest superpower in the world, so they get to be the bad guy - but not without reason.</font>

I just don't like the precidence set at all. I also don't like the staunch patriotism that goes without understanding that they're fucking up the world for profit under that smokescreen.

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 03:01 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Bush declared a war on terrorism, not a war on Al-Qaida.

</font>

But you have to define terrorism for that, and it can't be done. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Have a look at this:
http://www.uia.org/musings/uncommo4.htm

kypper
06-11-2002, 03:02 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
But you have to define terrorism for that, and it can't be done. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Have a look at this:
http://www.uia.org/musings/uncommo4.htm

</font>

and that's why it's ambiguous. what the USA has declared to be terrorism is frighteningly broad.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 03:05 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
But you have to define terrorism for that, and it can't be done. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Yes, there is no "official" definition of terrorism.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.
The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".

If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.

In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".

Proposed Definitions of Terrorism
1. League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

2. UN Resolution language (1999):

"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;

2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify t****. (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

4. Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).</font>

However, the U.S. has a previously set-forth policy on terrorism and it is following it.




------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 03:06 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">
U.S. intervention in Nicaragua provides an astounding, but by no means extraordinary, example. First, some **********: by 1934, when the authoritarian Somoza regime was established, the U.S. had already occupied the country militarily on at least four different occasions, established training schools for right-wing militia, dismantled two liberal governments, and helped to orchestrate fake elections. In 1981, the CIA began to organize the "Contras" * many of whom had already received training from the U.S. military as members of the Somozas' National Guardsmen * to overthrow the progressive Sandanista government. In other words: the CIA "harbored," recruited, armed and trained the Contras, in order to "coerce" and overthrow a government, and terrorize a people, through violent means ("in furtherance of political [and] social objectives"). U.S. intervention went well beyond "harboring," however, in this case. In 1984, the CIA mined three Nicaraguan harbors. When Nicaragua took this action to the World Court, an $18 billion judgment was brought against the U.S. The U.S. response was to simply refuse to acknowledge the Court's jurisdiction.

Another striking example of U.S. terrorist activity was the bombing of a suburban Beirut neighborhood in March 1985. This attack * which killed 80 people and wounded 200 others, making it the single largest bombing attack against a civilian target in the modern history of the Middle East * was ordered by the director of the CIA (William Casey) and authorized by President Reagan. Another U.S. attack on civilians, the 1986 bombing of Libya, is listed by the UN's Committee on the Legal Definition of Terrorism as a "classic case" of terrorism * on a short list that includes the bombing of PAN AM 103, the first attempt made on the World Trade Center, and the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building.

Other instances of U.S. support for, or direct engagement in, terrorist acts include:

overthrow of the democratically elected Allende government in Chile in 1973--leading to widespread torture, rape, and murder by the military regime, and the termination of civil liberties
extensive support for a right-wing junta in El Salvador that ended up being responsible for 35,000 civilian deaths between 1978 and 1981
assassination attempts, exploded boats, industrial sabotage, and the burning of sugar fields in Cuba
the training of thousands of Latin American military personnel in torture methods at the School of the Americas
providing huge quantities of arms--far more than any other nation-- to various combatants in the Middle East and West Asia
and massive support, in funds and arms, for Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians.
The rationale provided for many of these interventions * in those case where a rationale was in fact provided * was the "war on Communism." This often served as an alibi, however, for the protection of economic interests: unrestricted access to oil and other natural resources for U.S.-based (and other "First World") corporations.

</font>

http://www.counterpunch.org/cryan1.html

Must....resist...urge to quote http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/biggrin.gif

kypper
06-11-2002, 03:08 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cryan1.html

Must....resist...urge to quote http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/biggrin.gif</font>

much obliged.

Good article btw.

[This message has been edited by kypper (edited 06-11-2002).]

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 03:11 PM
And here's a nice Chomsky article about the whole Al-Qaida issue

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Do you distinguish between different kinds of terrorism, and
if so, how?

There are different kinds. The U.S., of course, did declare
a war on terrorism 20 years ago. The Reagan administration
came into office announcing that the war on terrorism would
be the core of U.S. foreign policy. To quote Reagan and
George Schultz, terrorism was condemned as a war carried out
by depraved opponents of civilization itself, a return to
barbarism in our time, an evil scourge. They were concerned
primarily with what they called state-sponsored
international terrorism. So the Oklahoma City bombing was
terrorism but not state-supported international terrorism.

I take terrorism to be just how they define it. By that
standard, it's uncontroversial that the United States is a
leading terrorist state. In fact, it's the only state that
was condemned for international terrorism by the highest
bodies: the International Court of Justice in 1986 [for
backing Contra forces against Nicaragua] and the supporting
resolution of the Security Council which followed shortly
after that. The United States vetoed it.

How do you distinguish between what you consider U.S.
terrorism and al-Qaida's terrorism on Sept. 11?

One is state terrorism and the other is private terrorism.

How do you think both cases should be addressed?

Nicaragua dealt with the problem of terrorism in exactly the
right way. It followed international law and treaty
obligations. It collected evidence, brought the evidence to
the highest existing tribunal, the International Court of
Justice, and received a verdict -- which of course the U.S.
dismissed with contempt. The court called upon the United
States to terminate the crime and pay substantial
reparations. The U.S. responded by immediately escalating
the war; new funding was provided. In fact, the U.S.
official orders shifted to more extreme terrorism. The
Contra forces were encouraged to attack "soft targets," as
they were called, or undefended civilian targets, and avoid
combat with the Nicaraguan army.

It continued until 1990. Nicaragua followed all the right
procedures, but of course, couldn't get anywhere because the
U.S. simply did not adhere to it. In that case, there was no
need to carry out a police investigation. The facts were
clear.

And al-Qaida?

In the case of something like al-Qaida terrorism -- I
presume like everyone else that al-Qaida was responsible for
Sept. 11, or some network very much like it -- the right
approach has been laid out by others. For example, in the
current issue of Foreign Affairs, there's an article by the
preeminent Anglo-American military historian, Michael
Howard, a very conservative figure, who's very supportive of
U.S. policy and British policy...</font>

http://www.counterpunch.org/pipermail/counterpunch-list/2002-January/017715.html

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 03:12 PM
Look here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1555000/1555265.stm

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Hardly anyone disputes that flying an aircraft full of passengers into the World Trade Center was terrorism of the worst kind. </font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Only a few EU countries have defined terrorism in law. One is Britain - the Terrorism Act 2000 is the largest piece of terrorist legislation in any member state.

The Act says terrorism means the use or threat of action to influence a government or intimidate the public for a political, religious or ideological cause.</font>


<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">But there is more consensus now that indiscriminate attacks on civilians are intolerable, however the crime is described.</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Even if the definition is elusive, most people think they know terrorism when they see it. And they saw it in lower Manhattan on 11 September 2001.</font>



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 03:21 PM
In the USA Patriot Act (passed by Congress after 9/11), the U.S. does offer a definition of terrorism.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 03:21 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
Look here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1555000/1555265.stm</font>

Yeah, that does cover some issues related to terrorism, but it doesn't *define* it. What you have is a number of states offering their enemies as examples of terrorists. The 9/11 attacks were obviously terrorism, and given that Al-Qaida are held responsible, moves to bring them to justice are wholly... justified. But read that first article I posted - there are a number of examples of groups who would be considered terrorists, but not in retrospect. In the current climate, they would be targetted in the War on Terrorism, and this is something that has to be checked. It's currently loooking like a vigilante group marching through a town with baseball bats, searching for 'terrorism'

kypper
06-11-2002, 03:25 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
In the USA Patriot Act (passed by Congress after 9/11), the U.S. does offer a definition of terrorism.

</font>

Stop repeating yourself; if we don't agree with the USA's definition, we don't, no matter how much you repeat it.
It is VERY broad.

So very sad about me
06-11-2002, 03:29 PM
Damn, my thread has gotten out of hand.

There, that's my contribution

------------------
http://www.wsu.edu/~swinn/sex.gif
You want to sleep with common people like me (http://smampy.livejournal.com)

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 03:30 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
It's currently loooking like a vigilante group marching through a town with baseball bats, searching for 'terrorism'</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>I don't believe that it is looking that way and I don't believe that it will happen.

It's pretty much impossible to define terrorism. (I think the definition of terrorism as "a war crime during peace time" is probably the closest.) Every possible definition of terrorism is going to be overly broad.

Right now, I believe that the checks and balances are working (and not just the checks and balances set forth by the founding fathers, but also those of public opinion, elections, etc.). Yes, in the past the U.S. has done some shady things (especially those damn Republicans like the 1st Bush and Reagan). But, for right now I believe that the U.S. is operating on an up-front, non-extreme level.

Blah. I need some sleep. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 03:32 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
In the USA Patriot Act (passed by Congress after 9/11), the U.S. does offer a definition of terrorism.

</font>

That act is scary - I mean it's called the PATRIOT act so it must be for the good of the American people, right? If you threaten to hurt someone on a bus, you could be convicted of terrorism. How long did that act take to be passed, anyway? It's huge. There's an assessment of it here http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html

It basically restricts civil liberties by giving authorities carte blanche in a large number of situations, which may help the fight against terrorism, who knows.

kypper
06-11-2002, 03:33 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>But, for right now I believe that the U.S. is operating on an up-front, non-extreme level.

</font>

I disagree, and I hope that comes out in the near future.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 03:33 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
Stop repeating yourself; if we don't agree with the USA's definition, we don't, no matter how much you repeat it.
It is VERY broad. </font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Uh...all I did there was state that the U.S. had in fact attempted to define terrorism. I never previously stated that they had done that. And I did not indicate any agreement with the definition of terrorism the U.S. set forth in the USA Patriot Act.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

kypper
06-11-2002, 03:35 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Uh...all I did there was state that the U.S. had in fact attempted to define terrorism. I never previously stated that they had done that. And I did not indicate any agreement with the definition of terrorism the U.S. set forth in the USA Patriot Act.

</font>
technicalities.
it was implied http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/wink.gif

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 03:37 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>I don't believe that it is looking that way and I don't believe that it will happen.

It's pretty much impossible to define terrorism. (I think the definition of terrorism as "a war crime during peace time" is probably the closest.) Every possible definition of terrorism is going to be overly broad.

Right now, I believe that the checks and balances are working (and not just the checks and balances set forth by the founding fathers, but also those of public opinion, elections, etc.). Yes, in the past the U.S. has done some shady things (especially those damn Republicans like the 1st Bush and Reagan). But, for right now I believe that the U.S. is operating on an up-front, non-extreme level.

Blah. I need some sleep. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif
</font>

Sleep? At this time? http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/wink.gif

My point is, the US (and indeed, many countries) is hypocritical. How can you condemn terrorism when you sponsor it yourself? How can you attack people for breaking the rules, when you flagrantly ignore them yourself whenever it suits you? You cannot try to be the bastion of democracy while at the same time bending people to your will by force. You can't combat private terrorism by fighting it - you just force it further underground, making it less visible and therefore more dangerous. How surprised was the world when 9/11 happened? Now, were they surprised because of America's geographical and military defenses, or because they had no idea people could have reason to hate the US so much?

EDIT: I mean MORE dangerous http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

[This message has been edited by DeviousJ (edited 06-11-2002).]

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 03:38 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by So very sad about me:
Damn, my thread has gotten out of hand.

There, that's my contribution

</font>

No, come back! You could draw an analogy between the use of a radioactive bomb, and the depleted uranium shells used in Yugoslavia and Iraq!

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 03:40 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Uh...all I did there was state that the U.S. had in fact attempted to define terrorism. I never previously stated that they had done that. And I did not indicate any agreement with the definition of terrorism the U.S. set forth in the USA Patriot Act.
</font>

See this is the problem - you sound like a spokesperson for the US, because of the way you keep quoting government stances. We want to know what YOU think!

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 03:45 PM
<font color=#ADD8E6>Let's sum up...

I believe that we are currently at war, in every sense of the word "war". I believe that the U.S. was correct in going to war. I do not agree with everything the U.S. has done thus far in this war. And I know that I will not agree with everything the U.S. will do. I despise Bush. In times of war, certain civil liberties are trespassed upon and sacraficed. It sucks, it's not a good thing, but it is a necessary thing. Again, I do not agree with everything that has happened...things have gotten out of hand at times. However, some things were/are necessary. For the U.S., this is uncharted territory. No one in the U.S. government knows what the right answer is. It's all about trial and error...the Bush administration has gone back and forth on many things since 9/11. Thus far (and for pretty much the first time in my life), I basically support the U.S. and the actions it has taken in this war.

And...holy fuck, this topic is loooooong. And it just goes in circles. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 03:47 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
See this is the problem - you sound like a spokesperson for the US, because of the way you keep quoting government stances. We want to know what YOU think!</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>That's why I am in politics.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 03:50 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
My point is, the US is hypocritical. How can you condemn terrorism when you sponsor it yourself? How can you attack people for breaking the rules, when you flagrantly ignore them yourself whenever it suits you? -</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>If you go through the history of pretty much every country, you'll find that they're hypocritical then too. WE don't live in Utopia. That's the way fucking governments work.

How exactly did YOU want the U.S. to react after 9/11?



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 03:51 PM
True true... but it's in these situations that you have to be *more* vigilant, and question what's going on. When people start throwing the word 'patriotism' around (ie mindless acquiescence) you know you have to pay attention.

Please have a look at that Chomsky article I posted, it brings up some good points about the whole thing, and it's good to hear both sides... http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/wink.gif

Now this thread might burn out, and it had so much promise... http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/frown.gif especially for a non-'1000 posts and I post nude pics' thread

PkPhuoko
06-11-2002, 03:56 PM
Devious J: the captured taliban soldiers had the option to defect out of taliban rule and fall into rule of thew new afghanistan government unless they played a pivotal role or had direct interactions with al qaeda therefor making them al qarda operateives. I think you have a severe misunderstanding of the number of taliban soldiers vs the number of soldiers in US custody and the roles they played. They didn't take into custody the equivelant of a private or lower ranking "soldier" they took more into captive higeher ups (ie officers or NCOS) who were blatantly taking orders from al qaeda. Thus, they wave their rights for protection under geneva. If you are an american soldier working with another organization you wave your right to claim as an american soldier as you take upon more actions than the basic US soldier falling under the geneva convention articles.

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 03:58 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
Slunk: YOU are exactly what ALL governments want. People thinking they know the answer and doing absolutely nothing about it. Despite your views, you're always the easiest type of person to manipulate.
</font>

You don't have a fucking clue about what I do. You don't know who I vote for, what my political stance is recorded as on polling day. The associations I'm a member of and the money I donate.


<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
I love it when people try and think outside their social status.
</font>

So what's a white middle class guy supposed to be thinking ?

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 03:58 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:

Please have a look at that Chomsky article I posted, it brings up some good points about the whole thing, and it's good to hear both sides... http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/wink.gif
</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>I did. And I disagree. Practically every country has done bad, under-handed things. Every country has a past. And I don't agree with those things. But, I do not now (or will I probably ever) believe that this war is unjust.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 04:01 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Mark LeDrew:
Taliban, one of the most despicable regimes in recent memory? We did the world a great service by ending the Taliban's reign.
</font>

Recent memory exactly. No one took any notice of the Talban until Sep 11.
The Taliban were doing their thing long before Sep 11. You did the world a favour when you did yourselves a favour, not before.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:01 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
it's in these situations that you have to be *more* vigilant, and question what's going on.</font>

"Think for yourself. Question authority."



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:03 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by slunky_munky:
Recent memory exactly. No one took any notice of the Talban until Sep 11.
The Taliban were doing their thing long before Sep 11. You did the world a favour when you did yourselves a favour, not before. </font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Go back and read this thread. The Taliban didn't even come into power until around 1995. And the U.S. and other countries did take notice of the Taliban and were taking action.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 04:04 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>If you go through the history of pretty much every country, you'll find that they're hypocritical then too. WE don't live in Utopia. That's the way fucking governments work.

How exactly did YOU want the U.S. to react after 9/11?

</font>

But the US would like people to believe they're at least pursuing Utopian goals - democracy, human rights, equality... The US isn't any old country, not only is it a superpower, but also a self-appointed protector of the world. But it just isn't true, except people aren't told this, and it's just wrong.

How would I have liked to see the US handle matters? Aside from massive changes to social policy, I'd have liked to see a clear, measured approach to tracking down those responsible, and bringing them to justice in an international tribunal. None of this 'DEAD OR ALIVE! LET'S ROLL!' idiocy. If the US had worked with the governments involved, key memebers of Al-Qaida could have been handed over - didn't the Taliban say they would hand over Bin Laden, if they were shown the evidence linking him to the attacks? And weren't they turned down? And now the leaders have disappeared, with the US military shrugging their shoulders, firing missiles into caves and saying 'yeah, he's probably dead'. This kind of activity is only going to strengthen support for the terrorists. Going in, guns (or vacuum bombs) blazing is not going to solve the problem

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:06 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
True true... but it's in these situations that you have to be *more* vigilant, and question what's going on. When people start throwing the word 'patriotism' around (ie mindless acquiescence) you know you have to pay attention.
</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>At the on-set of war, there is always a strong rally-around-the-flag effect...where people spout patriotic things and perhaps blindly follow their leaders. But, as the war drags on, that fades. The rally-around-the-flag effect after 9/11 was IMMENSE. However, the public, the politicians, etc. are beginning to speak out in dissention on varous issues...Bush's approval ratings are dropping...things are being questioned.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

bonsor
06-11-2002, 04:11 PM
<font color="0084ff">"War"

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 04:11 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
Devious J: the captured taliban soldiers had the option to defect out of taliban rule and fall into rule of thew new afghanistan government unless they played a pivotal role or had direct interactions with al qaeda therefor making them al qarda operateives. I think you have a severe misunderstanding of the number of taliban soldiers vs the number of soldiers in US custody and the roles they played. They didn't take into custody the equivelant of a private or lower ranking "soldier" they took more into captive higeher ups (ie officers or NCOS) who were blatantly taking orders from al qaeda. Thus, they wave their rights for protection under geneva. If you are an american soldier working with another organization you wave your right to claim as an american soldier as you take upon more actions than the basic US soldier falling under the geneva convention articles.

</font>

Would you like to point me in the direction of somewhere that gives the number of Taliban and the number of Al-Qaeda prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay?

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:12 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
If the US had worked with the governments involved, key memebers of Al-Qaida could have been handed over - didn't the Taliban say they would hand over Bin Laden, if they were shown the evidence linking him to the attacks? And weren't they turned down? </font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>No. The Taliban never had any intention of turning over Bin Laden. They claimed that they had no idea where he was. And no evidence ever would have been sufficient for them.

And even if they turned over Bin Laden and there was a trial and all that shit...the terrorist threats would keep on coming and keep on happening. Getting Bin Laden is not the answer to putting a stop to terrorist attacks against the U.S. and ensuring that something like 9/11 never happens again. You must go after the entire network. And you must go after the governments that harbor and support those networks so as to ensure that the networks cannot be built up again.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 04:13 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>I did. And I disagree. Practically every country has done bad, under-handed things. Every country has a past. And I don't agree with those things. But, I do not now (or will I probably ever) believe that this war is unjust.

</font>

So you're saying what the US has done (many times) is ok? You don't think the US' position in the world affords a certain responsibility? How can a war on terrorism be just if America is not a target of this war?

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 04:15 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Go back and read this thread. The Taliban didn't even come into power until around 1995. And the U.S. and other countries did take notice of the Taliban and were taking action.
</font>

Six years is plenty of time to rid the world of them if they were so evil. Slapping them with a wet bus ticket isn't doing anyone any favours. The US and allies still had oil opportunities under the Taliban. As bad as the were, if they could be established to be pro-US or pro-oil the Taliban would have lasted a lot longer.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:15 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
You don't think the US' position in the world affords a certain responsibility? </font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>The U.S. has a responsibility to protect its citizens.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 04:17 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>At the on-set of war, there is always a strong rally-around-the-flag effect...where people spout patriotic things and perhaps blindly follow their leaders. But, as the war drags on, that fades. The rally-around-the-flag effect after 9/11 was IMMENSE. However, the public, the politicians, etc. are beginning to speak out in dissention on varous issues...Bush's approval ratings are dropping...things are being questioned.
</font>

Good. I hope it keeps up. Because there are a lot off things that need to be questioned. This *will* happen again if nothing changes, and it can only get worse http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/frown.gif

bonsor
06-11-2002, 04:18 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>The U.S. has a responsibility to protect its citizens.</font><font color="0084ff">bull

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 04:19 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>The U.S. has a responsibility to protect its citizens.
</font>

Then maybe we should all be concerned with pre-Sep 11 events.

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 04:26 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>No. The Taliban never had any intention of turning over Bin Laden. They claimed that they had no idea where he was. And no evidence ever would have been sufficient for them.

And even if they turned over Bin Laden and there was a trial and all that shit...the terrorist threats would keep on coming and keep on happening. Getting Bin Laden is not the answer to putting a stop to terrorist attacks against the U.S. and ensuring that something like 9/11 never happens again. You must go after the entire network. And you must go after the governments that harbor and support those networks so as to ensure that the networks cannot be built up again.

</font>

No no no. Even if you could control all the governments in the world, the terrorists would still exist. They would still conspire, and commit acts - things would be more difficult, but like I said - they would just go underground, making the threat even greater. Anyway, it wouldn't be all the governments in the world which sponsor terrorism - just a select few. Would the US be "gone after"? Of course not. And the US has trained and supported terrorists in the past, such as... oh I don't know... Osama Bin Laden for one. And look what happened there. This war is *not* going to work.


As for the Taliban handing over Bin Laden, they were never shown the evidence. Maybe the US never had any intention of giving them a way out? The US were certainly in Afghanistan to take out the Taliban, amongst other things.

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 04:28 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>The U.S. has a responsibility to protect its citizens.

</font>

By making them a target?

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:29 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ******:
Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>The U.S. has a responsibility to protect its citizens.</font><font color="0084ff">bull

<font color=#ADD8E6>*begins Google search for the Constitution* http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And...

Being such a prominent country/leader, the U.S. had to take action (a powerful and forceful action) after 9/11. The most powerful country in the world cannot allow itself to be attacked in that manner/on that scale and do nothing about it.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:31 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
By making them a target?</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>On 9/11, the citizens of the U.S. were attacked. The U.S. then issued a counter-strike.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 04:33 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>*begins Google search for the Constitution* http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And...

Being such a prominent country/leader, the U.S. had to take action (a powerful and forceful action) after 9/11. The most powerful country in the world cannot allow itself to be attacked in that manner/on that scale and do nothing about it.
</font>

Sure do something about it - but not what it did (as I already stated above). It's the whole 'be the bigger person' idea - if your only response is violence, don't be surprised when someone else tries to take you down.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:34 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Even if you could control all the governments in the world, the terrorists would still exist. Anyway, it wouldn't be all the governments in the world which sponsor terrorism - just a select few.
</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>True. And true. Obviously, the U.S. is only going to go after the governments that sponsor terrorists that are a threat to the U.S. The objective is to end the threat of terrorism to the U.S. and its citizens.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ
06-11-2002, 04:34 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>On 9/11, the citizens of the U.S. were attacked. The U.S. then issued a counter-strike.
</font>

This is close to the end of a loooong story.

KrazeePumpkin
06-11-2002, 04:35 PM
Woah.

slunky_munky
06-11-2002, 04:37 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>The objective is to end the threat of terrorism to the U.S. and its citizens.
</font>

the statements coming from Bush and his pals were somewhat broader, noticably when they were looking for support from Europe and elsewhere.

BlueStar
06-11-2002, 04:38 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Sure do something about it - but not what it did (as I already stated above). It's the whole 'be the bigger person' idea - if your only response is violence, don't be surprised when someone else tries to take you down.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>If Al-Qaida was allowed to strike at the U.S. with no direct and forceful retaliation from the U.S., it could be viewed as an open invitation for further attacks, not only from Al-Qaida but also other terrorist networks.

'be the bigger person' and walk away?? The attacks would just keep on coming. Action had to be taken.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

if there is a llama
06-11-2002, 04:39 PM
I'd just thought I would share my two cents.

First, I think that the US is justified in arresting Padilla, assuming that we have proof that he was planning or conspiring to attack the United States, which it seems as if we do.

I do not agree with him being declared an enemy combatant, and thus stipped of his legal rights. I think his attorney even said that even she has very limited information about the case against him.

I do not think that this arrest is just being used to generate support for the Department of Homeland Security. The FBI and CIA are not even a part of this new (and rediculous) concept, so I think there is no point in bringing it up.

I'll admit that this arrest most likely is being used to try to generate some respect for the intelligence community, but then again, I see nothing wrong with that. They caught someone who was planning an attack on the US (while it was still in its early stages), and they deserve credit for that.

I think the US was justified in taking large scale military operations against Afghanistan. The Taliban were harboring terrorism, and as long as they were in power, there would always be a signifigant threat to the US (I'm not saying we got rid of that threat, I'm just saying it is smaller without the Taliban).

I think that the actual 9-11 attacks posed very little serious long term threat to the American way of life, the economy, etc.... I believe that more of a threat comes from the "blank check" given to the government in terms of expanding the government's power and restricting civil rights.

David