Netphoria Message Board - well its a good thing people want to detonate radioactive bombs on the US

Netphoria Message Board (http://forums.netphoria.org/index.php)

- General Chat Archive (http://forums.netphoria.org/forumdisplay.php?f=19)

- - well its a good thing people want to detonate radioactive bombs on the US (http://forums.netphoria.org/showthread.php?t=14875)

Quote:

Originally posted by Homerpalooza:

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).]

Quote:

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.

The U.S. has not formally declared war since WWII.

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

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

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueStar:
The U.S. has not formally declared war since WWII.

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Irrelevant:
we're not at war, though.

Quote:

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And today, it seems as though “declaring war” is an out-of-date formality.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

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Irrelevant:
right. so legislatively and legally, this should not be considered wartime, right?

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

Quote:

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?

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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

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

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueStar:
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.

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueStar:
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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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).]

Quote:

Originally posted by slunky_munky:
All too convenient.

Agree...

Quote:

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.

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

news just in:

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

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueStar:
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.

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

Quote:

Originally posted by scouse_dave:
news just in:

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

Yes, you can.

Quote:

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.

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

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

Quote:

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.

that says we can be at war against groups. not against an idea.

Quote:

Originally posted by Irrelevant:
i'm still not clear on the difference between war and terrorism, though.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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).

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

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Irrelevant:
that says we can be at war against groups. not against an idea.

We are at war against terrorist groups.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueStar:
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.

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/actric...es/dalle02.jpg

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

i don't even know what i'm arguing about anymore.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueStar:
yes, you can

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

Quote:

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.

Yep.

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

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

What the hell happened to this thread? I leave for 15 minutes...

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by scouse_dave:
THAT, no matter what your government tells you, is NOT a war...

“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..."

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

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueStar:
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.

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Yep.

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