well its a good thing people want to detonate radioactive bombs on the US

Originally posted by BlueStar:
FYI...

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.

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Military Tribunals
blah blah fucking blah

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).]

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.

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

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 :/

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.

Originally posted by BlueStar:
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.

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.

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.

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

Originally posted by kypper:
POST THE LINKS. God, are you TRYING to make this thread as long to read as possible?!?

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

Originally posted by BlueStar:
http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif Most people can't be assed to fucking click on the links.

http://www.terrorismanswers.com

...how's that?

Much appreciated.
Sorry, bad mood from other things in life http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

Originally posted by BlueStar:
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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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

Originally posted by BlueStar:
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.

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.

Interesting article...linked and quoted http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

http://www.ndol.org/blueprint/2001_n...ar_terror.html

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.

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

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

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.

Bush declared a war on terrorism, not a war on Al-Qaida.



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

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

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Bush declared a war on terrorism, not a war on Al-Qaida.

which is ambiguous. Terrorism has been around for millenia.
Blank-fucking-cheque.

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.

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.

Originally posted by kypper:
which is ambiguous.

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

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.

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.

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Bush declared a war on terrorism, not a war on Al-Qaida.

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

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

and that's why it's ambiguous. what the USA has declared to be terrorism is frighteningly broad.

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.

Yes, there is no "official" definition of terrorism.

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).

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

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.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cryan1.html

Must....resist...urge to quote http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/biggrin.gif

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cryan1.html

Must....resist...urge to quote http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/biggrin.gif

much obliged.

Good article btw.

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

And here's a nice Chomsky article about the whole Al-Qaida issue

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...

http://www.counterpunch.org/pipermai...ry/017715.html

Look here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1555265.stm

Hardly anyone disputes that flying an aircraft full of passengers into the World Trade Center was terrorism of the worst kind.

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.

But there is more consensus now that indiscriminate attacks on civilians are intolerable, however the crime is described.

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.

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

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

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

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Look here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1555265.stm

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'

Originally posted by BlueStar:
In the USA Patriot Act (passed by Congress after 9/11), the U.S. does offer a definition of terrorism.

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.

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