Nude - 14 October 2009 10:32 PM

Stuff It - 14 October 2009 08:39 PM

Nude - 14 October 2009 08:18 PM

Stuff It - 14 October 2009 08:10 PM

I think you missed my point - or ignored it.

He would not have received humane treatment. He would have been tortured and then executed. Torturing is not considered humane treatment and in many states/countries execution is also not considered humane treatment.

And you are basing that large assumption on what?

I think recent history speaks for itself: Guantanamo bay

Camp X-ray was set-up not as a place to torture detainees, but as a place to warehouse combatants that were deemed too dangerous to allow to return to the battlefield because a) we couldn’t figure out how to legally try them (military vs civic) because they did not fit under the definition of POW in the Geneva convention and b) because they would almost certainly rejoin the enemy ranks if released, and c) their own countries wouldn’t take them. also, and this is no minor point, Camp X-Ray wasn’t even a vague thought when we were asking for ObL and AQ to be turned over to us. Neither you, nor anyone else, has any idea what would have happened had they been turned over en masse to the American military, but I suspect that they would have been held and tried at the Hague, if not in NYC.

Incorrect, it was stated that they would be tried on US soil for 9-11 related actions.  And who cares if it wasn’t set up to torture (allegedly)... that is what ended up happening.  The rest of your statements about x-ray “not even being a vague thought” are pure speculation - if they were caught in 2004, they would have UNDOUBTEDLY been detained there.

Look, I’m proud to be an American, but our leaders have done a lot of terrible things and broken our national “code” of generally accepted principles behind our backs in the name of:
(a) perceived need
(b) seeking increased personal influence
(c) appeasement of key constituents (see B)
(d) fear of not being “strong on national security”
(e) objectively utilitarian perceptions on “helping Americans” (utilitarian in the academic/traditional definition)

Its WRONG, but it happens.  You dont need to keep making excuses for these bozos on both sides of the fence.  Just call it like it is.

I highly doubt that we would have treated OBL inhumanely simply because of the international publicity.

He was not some low level stooge that would garner almost no attention.

He would get the Plexico Burress, Mike Vick treatment no matter where he went. 

You may have valid points that abuse did take place but you are speculating that the exception is the rule.

MojoJD - 15 October 2009 08:24 PM

Nude - 14 October 2009 10:32 PM

Stuff It - 14 October 2009 08:39 PM

Nude - 14 October 2009 08:18 PM

Stuff It - 14 October 2009 08:10 PM

I think you missed my point - or ignored it.

He would not have received humane treatment. He would have been tortured and then executed. Torturing is not considered humane treatment and in many states/countries execution is also not considered humane treatment.

And you are basing that large assumption on what?

I think recent history speaks for itself: Guantanamo bay

Camp X-ray was set-up not as a place to torture detainees, but as a place to warehouse combatants that were deemed too dangerous to allow to return to the battlefield because a) we couldn’t figure out how to legally try them (military vs civic) because they did not fit under the definition of POW in the Geneva convention and b) because they would almost certainly rejoin the enemy ranks if released, and c) their own countries wouldn’t take them. also, and this is no minor point, Camp X-Ray wasn’t even a vague thought when we were asking for ObL and AQ to be turned over to us. Neither you, nor anyone else, has any idea what would have happened had they been turned over en masse to the American military, but I suspect that they would have been held and tried at the Hague, if not in NYC.

Incorrect, it was stated that they would be tried on US soil for 9-11 related actions.  And who cares if it wasn’t set up to torture (allegedly)... that is what ended up happening.  The rest of your statements about x-ray “not even being a vague thought” are pure speculation - if they were caught in 2004, they would have UNDOUBTEDLY been detained there.

Look, I’m proud to be an American, but our leaders have done a lot of terrible things and broken our national “code” of generally accepted principles behind our backs in the name of:
(a) perceived need
(b) seeking increased personal influence
(c) appeasement of key constituents (see B)
(d) fear of not being “strong on national security”
(e) objectively utilitarian perceptions on “helping Americans” (utilitarian in the academic/traditional definition)

Its WRONG, but it happens.  You dont need to keep making excuses for these bozos on both sides of the fence.  Just call it like it is.

According to wiki, we’re both wrong:

Camp X-Ray was a temporary detention facility at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp of Joint Task Force Guantanamo on the U.S. Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The first twenty captives arrived at Guantanamo on January 11 2002.[1][2] It was named Camp X-Ray because various temporary camps in the station were named sequentially from the beginning and then from the end of the NATO phonetic alphabet. The legal status of detainees at the camp has been a significant source of controversy, ultimately reaching the United States Supreme Court.

As of April 29, 2002, the official Camp X-Ray was closed and all prisoners were transferred to Camp Delta. However, the term “Camp X-Ray” has come to be used as a synonym for the entire facility where prisoners from the war in Afghanistan are detained.
[edit] Background
Detainees upon arrival at Camp X-Ray, January 2002

Care of detainees at Camp X-Ray was handled by Joint Task Force 160 (JTF-160), while interrogations were conducted by Joint Task Force 170 (JTF-170).[3][4][5][6] JTF-160 was under the command of Marine Brigadier General Michael R. Lehnert until March 2002, when he was replaced by Brigadier General Rick Baccus. Since Camp X-Ray’s closure and the subsequent opening of Camp Delta, JTF-160 and 170 have been combined into Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO).

In accordance with U.S. military and Geneva Convention doctrine on prisoner treatment, soldiers guarding the detainees were housed in tents with living conditions “not markedly different” from that of the prisoners while the permanent facilities at Camp Delta were under construction.[7] This camp was one location where allegations of torture of the prisoners have been made. [8][9]

Camp X-Ray was originally built to house “Excludables” in the mid 1990’s when castro allowed any Cuban wishing to, to cross through the Cuban minefields and enter the base. Excludables were held in camp X-ray under post 37 before being sent back to Cuba. Excludables included-trouble makers in the regular camps where CASs - Cuban Asylem Seekers - were being processed to travel to the USA, for example AIDS victims, Rapists, and Murderers. (The USA were at the time allowed access to Cuban records to process these people). Over 100,000 CAS people were processed in the mid 1990s and allowed to enter the USA.

I’m not making excuses for anyone. And you can make any claim you want about what “might” have happened in 2004, but that wasn’t the question I was answering which makes what would have happened 3 years after we asked the Taliban to turn over ObL and AQ pointless speculation.

My point was that finding a place to torture people was not the reason for the existence camps @ Gitmo and that events that occured after the commencement of war in Afghanistan cannot logically be used to deduce what would have occurred had they delivered him as requested.

As for torture during interrogation… while I support the ethical treatment of people captured on the field of combat, that support is conditional on reciprocal treatment. Targeting civilians earns an automatic exception to ethical treatment. I’m not advocating we begin targeting civilians in return, but I am not inclined to conform to the Geneva Convention either.

The one thing that always gives me the chills is I always thought this country prided itself
on the rule of law. And the Laws of Habeas Corpus were some of the cornerstones of American Law as
well as English Law before it. Going way back to the 12th Century. And somehow with Gitmo.
The entire concept of Habeas Corpus has been thrown out the window along with the Geneva Convention Articles.

Holding anybody for over 6 years without any type of due process is inviting great harm
to our troops if they are ever captured in the field. The rules of warfare were created for a reason.
And suspending them was a criminal act in my opinion. The Bush Administration failed America and tarnished its reputation
for decades to come.

bltserv - 14 October 2009 02:35 PM

Nude - 14 October 2009 02:19 AM

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 02:11 AM

trrenter - 14 October 2009 01:48 AM

Sometimes dropping bombs is a necessary evil.

Does that then also justify any threatened nation/group to launch an attack against its perceived aggressors? This only works when you are on the delivering end of that kind of logic ...

History, all of it, is filled with people killing other people. It resolves any conflict in an absolute and final manner… eventually one side surrenders. In a world ruled by law and order, such resolution isn’t needed. When someone ignores the law and disrupts the order, that resolution is usually the only one that works. You focus only on our actions, willfully ignoring the action that provoked our own.

Who`s law ?  The United States of America was not voted as owner of this Planet last time I checked.
With your thought process we will make war against the Muslim world until they become Christians or Jews.
Are Soverign Countries allowed to be secure in their borders and laws ?
Should every Muslim Country that has any Al-Qaeda cells be subject to our attack ?
Should the Taliban not be allowed to practice their extreme form of Islam ? As strange as it is.
Last time I checked the Taliban never attacked us. Their crime was to allow Al-Qaeda to exist and be recognized in their borders.
And 8 years later. We are still fighting the Taliban. And not doing too well I might add. We cant kill the Civilians any more.
That eliminates almost all Air Support in the Urban areas.

Further adding…... our bomb dropping and fighting have managed to destroy the entire infrastructure of Afghanistan to the point that all businesses have fled causing massive unemployment.  The people there have no choice but to join the Taliban, because they pay, so as to be able to feed their families. 

So these are the ememies worth all this death and destruction?

irvine_home_owner - 14 October 2009 11:01 PM

I’m still waiting for the anti-war people to tell me what do we do to protect ourselves.

You know, I understand not agreeing with why we went to Iraq and why we are still in Afghanistan but I don’t get how you think that we don’t need to actively protect ourselves from terrorism. I get the whole “Save our soldiers lives and they are dying needlessly” but what’s after that?

Let France take care of it? Let Russia handle it? If you don’t think a military presence is going to help, then wouldn’t you think that zero presence would be worse? How much intelligence would we lose by withdrawing our assets? Even Obama knows that what we want idealistically is impossible.

You guys keep talking about how we should pull our troops… but no one is saying what do we do after that? How do we make sure 9/11 doesn’t happen again? Or do we do it bltserv-style and just wait for it to happen and then send the nukes… which would probably end up in a World War III and more lives would be lost in 1 year than the last 8. No insults, no calls for medication… just straight answers.

YOur First Question - What to do to protect ourselves:  What if instead of spending BILLIONS to obliterate two to three countries we had instad invested that money in fortifying our country against attack…. and our embassies abroad too.  What if we spent some of that money to INVEST in those countries we have instead destroyed?

This concept of terrorism is just a huge fallacy - we go and destroy and kill so as to protect Americans, which then makes everyone hate Americans and want to kill them.  HUH?

What if we actually had a United Nations that policed the world, and not one country?  Then if the United Nations forces were sent in to a belligerent country, who could that country blame and attack?  THIS is what the future is - not us being the SUPERPOWER.  Maybe if we werent the Superpower we wouldn’t be such a target?  It is a total Catch-22.

Bottomline - whether you like it or not…. we could be chasing the Al Qaeda ghost till the Apocolypse, and the surivors left in the wake of our path of destruction will want to join in on the mission to kill Americans.  So what did you solve?  Absolutely NOTHING.

gypsyuma - 16 October 2009 01:12 AM

irvine_home_owner - 14 October 2009 11:01 PM

I’m still waiting for the anti-war people to tell me what do we do to protect ourselves.

You know, I understand not agreeing with why we went to Iraq and why we are still in Afghanistan but I don’t get how you think that we don’t need to actively protect ourselves from terrorism. I get the whole “Save our soldiers lives and they are dying needlessly” but what’s after that?

Let France take care of it? Let Russia handle it? If you don’t think a military presence is going to help, then wouldn’t you think that zero presence would be worse? How much intelligence would we lose by withdrawing our assets? Even Obama knows that what we want idealistically is impossible.

You guys keep talking about how we should pull our troops… but no one is saying what do we do after that? How do we make sure 9/11 doesn’t happen again? Or do we do it bltserv-style and just wait for it to happen and then send the nukes… which would probably end up in a World War III and more lives would be lost in 1 year than the last 8. No insults, no calls for medication… just straight answers.

YOur First Question - What to do to protect ourselves:  What if instead of spending BILLIONS to obliterate two to three countries we had instad invested that money in fortifying our country against attack…. and our embassies abroad too.  What if we spent some of that money to INVEST in those countries we have instead destroyed?

Will that make the terrorists stop? Do you honestly believe that the people who wish to see America destroyed will change their minds if we decide to pull back and invest in building up the infrastructure of their country? And we’ll spend billions doing what over here? Building a huge wall, investing in racial profiling seminars and advancing our nuke detection technology?

This concept of terrorism is just a huge fallacy - we go and destroy and kill so as to protect Americans, which then makes everyone hate Americans and want to kill them.  HUH?

So, you blame America for why the extremists are the way they are? I think you need to read the posts your partner bltserv has provided… it’s their religion. So 9/11 was retaliation for what? For Desert Storm? Please educate me about the points in history that has made everyone hate Americans and want to kill them. You actually believe terrorism is a fallacy? So all those people who died on September 11, 2001 was what… an accident? I don’t think you can even convince bltserv that terrorism is a fallacy.

What if we actually had a United Nations that policed the world, and not one country?  Then if the United Nations forces were sent in to a belligerent country, who could that country blame and attack?  THIS is what the future is - not us being the SUPERPOWER.  Maybe if we werent the Superpower we wouldn’t be such a target?  It is a total Catch-22.

If this were so easy… don’t you think it would be done by now? Lofty idealism is not reflective of actual reality.

Bottomline - whether you like it or not…. we could be chasing the Al Qaeda ghost till the Apocolypse, and the surivors left in the wake of our path of destruction will want to join in on the mission to kill Americans.  So what did you solve?  Absolutely NOTHING.

Like it or not, we can pull back all of our troops, hole ourselves up in North America, hope the the UN polices the rest of the world and still find ourselves on the end of constant attacks from extremists… and worse… we’ll have no idea what they’re doing because we won’t have a presence abroad.

You haven’t given me a viable solution, just rhetoric that doesn’t speak to reality. All I hear is that being there accomplishes “nothing” but I haven’t heard a single response from anyone that proves that pulling out will accomplish anything either.

Terrorist: “Oh look, the Americans are leaving, no need to plan any more attacks on them, all is forgiven.”

Look… I want to save our troops too… but at what cost and to what effect? People tend to look at the short term… the solution has to encompass more than that. Tell me why our President hasn’t been able to do what he had promised?

People tend to look at the short term

And thats exactly what your doing. Thinking short and small.
The real threat to this country is not by WHOM but by WHAT.

And that threat is a IND. “Improvised Nuclear Device”. If by some chance a few Kilos
of enriched Uranium are smuggled in this country undetected and somehow a detonation
device is rigged. You could see an event that will really ruin everybodys day.

The most important thing this country can do on the war on terror is to control the
fissionable material on this planet. And 99% of it is either Russian or American.
It easily detectable and requires significant sheilding to be transported properly.

We need to get our technology working to protect ourselves from this threat.
The billions we are spending attempting to root out a few remaining Taliban or Al Qaeda
is not money well spent at all. Unless your going to fight a war against all of Islam
picking away at the “sore” is not the answer. Terrorist exist. You not going to eliminate them all
by sending troops. Kind of like stopping World Communisum in the Jungles of Viet Nam. It aint going to work. Ever.

You think the Cole, African Embassy Bombings, or even 9/11 itself were extreme acts of terror ?

Well you dodnt want to be around in the next 10 years when the terrorist succeed in making and delivering
a IND to this country. It could have a yeild similar to Hiroshima and the death toll? Unimaginable. 

We need to protect our ports and our borders from these materials entering this country and its
technically very feasable.

Start thinking long term. Running around the world trying to put our finger on every potential threat
is not sustainable long term or economically.

@blt:

I’m not the one thinking short and small… if you remember… I was the one who asked the question about what to after we pull them back. Maybe you’re thinking bigger, but your cohorts are not… as exampled by the fact that at least one thinks terrorism is a fallacy (which you do not) and that if we stop “attacking” them, they will cease their efforts.

And why do you keep thinking that I’m for a war against Islam? I’m not for a war against anything, I’m for being able to have a presence in dangerous areas abroad so that we are able to protect our homeland with proper intelligence, deterrence and preparation. I don’t care if it’s Islam, North Korea, Russian or Chinese… threats are threats, independent of source. You still haven’t responded to my query about your local police, do you want them to stop patrolling your neighborhood and just sit in their station working on gun detection technology? Sometimes, deterrence by physical presence is very good at preventing crime/terror. They don’t actually have to put a “finger” on every wannabe criminal, they just need to let them know they can respond if they try to do anything. Using your “solution”, should our police no longer investigate possible criminals? Just let them run around planning crimes and just work on creating unbreakable locks, infallible alarm systems and anti-gun/knife shields? Now, I’ll admit to being hyperbolic based on scale but the concept is similar.

You think the Cole, African Embassy Bombings, or even 9/11 itself were extreme acts of terror ?

With all due respect, there are people who had loved ones killed in those events and would consider them extreme terrorist acts. It doesn’t matter how small or large it is… an attack of any size needs to be prevented. If you think that we should only be concerned about nuclear terrorism… than I am not the one thinking short and small (I would think biochemical would be just as devastating and much harder to detect).

bltserv - 16 October 2009 04:47 PM

People tend to look at the short term

And thats exactly what your doing. Thinking short and small.
The real threat to this country is not by WHOM but by WHAT.

And that threat is a IND. “Improvised Nuclear Device”. If by some chance a few Kilos
of enriched Uranium are smuggled in this country undetected and somehow a detonation
device is rigged. You could see an event that will really ruin everybodys day.

The most important thing this country can do on the war on terror is to control the
fissionable material on this planet. And 99% of it is either Russian or American.
It easily detectable and requires significant sheilding to be transported properly.

We need to get our technology working to protect ourselves from this threat.
The billions we are spending attempting to root out a few remaining Taliban or Al Qaeda
is not money well spent at all. Unless your going to fight a war against all of Islam
picking away at the “sore” is not the answer. Terrorist exist. You not going to eliminate them all
by sending troops. Kind of like stopping World Communisum in the Jungles of Viet Nam. It aint going to work. Ever.

You think the Cole, African Embassy Bombings, or even 9/11 itself were extreme acts of terror ?

Well you dodnt want to be around in the next 10 years when the terrorist succeed in making and delivering
a IND to this country. It could have a yeild similar to Hiroshima and the death toll? Unimaginable. 

We need to protect our ports and our borders from these materials entering this country and its
technically very feasable.

Start thinking long term. Running around the world trying to put our finger on every potential threat
is not sustainable long term or economically.

Last time I checked it would be hard to do this while you are being chased into holes in the mountain and dodging bullets.

After the USS cole had we thought to chase these dogs into the holes and anywhere they ran it is completely possible that we would have disrupted their planning of 911.

Clinton had Bin Laden in his cross hairs and didn’t act.

irvine_home_owner - 16 October 2009 05:09 PM

@blt:

I’m not the one thinking short and small… if you remember… I was the one who asked the question about what to after we pull them back. Maybe you’re thinking bigger, but your cohorts are not… as exampled by the fact that at least one thinks terrorism is a fallacy (which you do not) and that if we stop “attacking” them, they will cease their efforts.

And why do you keep thinking that I’m for a war against Islam? I’m not for a war against anything, I’m for being able to have a presence in dangerous areas abroad so that we are able to protect our homeland with proper intelligence, deterrence and preparation. I don’t care if it’s Islam, North Korea, Russian or Chinese… threats are threats, independent of source. You still haven’t responded to my query about your local police, do you want them to stop patrolling your neighborhood and just sit in their station working on gun detection technology? Sometimes, deterrence by physical presence is very good at preventing crime/terror. They don’t actually have to put a “finger” on every wannabe criminal, they just need to let them know they can respond if they try to do anything. Using your “solution”, should our police no longer investigate possible criminals? Just let them run around planning crimes and just work on creating unbreakable locks, infallible alarm systems and anti-gun/knife shields? Now, I’ll admit to being hyperbolic based on scale but the concept is similar.

You think the Cole, African Embassy Bombings, or even 9/11 itself were extreme acts of terror ?

With all due respect, there are people who had loved ones killed in those events and would consider them extreme terrorist acts. It doesn’t matter how small or large it is… an attack of any size needs to be prevented. If you think that we should only be concerned about nuclear terrorism… than I am not the one thinking short and small (I would think biochemical would be just as devastating and much harder to detect).

Good discussion.

Your Police analogy is a little too simplistic. Try being a police officer in the inner city. Are you going to openly
patrol the inner city projects ? Absolutly NOT. They will ambush you and your not doing anybody any good hanging in the hood. Your going to patrol places that are safe and have good donuts. You dont want to get your azz shot for nothing.
Ask any LAPD. 77th Street is not the division of choice. Besides. The jails are too crowded and they will be out in a couple weeks anyway.

Lets take your Police analogy to the next step.
Why don’t the Israeli Troops Patrol the Gaza Slums ? Instead they just wall them off.
Why do the Pakistan`s let the Taliban have their Tribal Regions like Wazeristan ?
Why don’t we expel all the illegal aliens out of the United States. They are breaking into our country ?

Trying to Police some situations is unattainable and impractical.

Note:
Biochemical is one of the most difficult to acquire and deliver effectively. Dispersion is only acheived with
significant technology. Like Helicopters or in the water system which is pretty well controlled and monitored.

As the attacks of 9/11 were regrettable and tragic. Is it even more tragic that we dont learn from our mistakes
and take corrective actions to protect ourselves from potentail attacks.

Again. Troops on the ground may give you some “Sense of Security”. Its not the proper way to deploy our resources
effectivly and over a long term.

Funny thing about foreign countries. They dont like another countries armed forces walking the streets.
After awhile those “Liberators” become unwelcomed. And guess what happens next ?

bltserv - 16 October 2009 05:57 PM

Your Police analogy is a little too simplistic. Try being a police officer in the inner city. Are you going to openly
patrol the inner city projects ? Absolutly NOT. They will ambush you and your not doing anybody any good hanging in the hood. Your going to patrol places that are safe and have good donuts. You dont want to get your azz shot for nothing.
Ask any LAPD. 77th Street is not the division of choice. Besides. The jails are too crowded and they will be out in a couple weeks anyway.

I did admit the hyperboly of scale but in the same vein, I think you are exaggerating on your part. I wish Trooper was still here to confirm but I believe police still patrol areas as dangerous as inner city projects. Maybe not as often as an Irvine police officer would patrol El Camino but in a car, with a partner and working communication, the possibility of getting jumped is low. Did you read some story where this is happening? I would think that would be newsworthy.

Lets take your Police analogy to the next step.
Why don’t the Israeli Troops Patrol the Gaza Slums ? Instead they just wall them off.

Now who’s being simplistic? Let’s wall off the Middle East!

Why do the Pakistan`s let the Taliban have their Tribal Regions like Wazeristan ?
Why don’t we expel all the illegal aliens out of the United States. They are breaking into our country ?

Trying to Police some situations is unattainable and impractical.

I agree, but only to what degree. There are no absolutes, it’s not feasible to pull back everyone… as much as it’s not feasible to try to hunt out every single terrorist abroad.

Note:
Biochemical is one of the most difficult to acquire and deliver effectively. Dispersion is only acheived with
significant technology. Like Helicopters or in the water system which is pretty well controlled and monitored.

It doesn’t have to be country wide. Infecting a small city or even a building of people will still be a devastating act of terrorism. Or do you not remember anthrax mail?

As the attacks of 9/11 were regrettable and tragic. Is it even more tragic that we dont learn from our mistakes
and take corrective actions to protect ourselves from potentail attacks.

Haven’t we? When was the last terrorist attack on U.S. soil? Now, whether or not we can say it was due to a change in our domestic safeguards or our presence in terrorist nations is unknown… but I would like to think that the lives lost in our “war on terror” has something to do with the fact that I can fly to the East Coast without having to worry about ending up as part of a banzai plan.

Again. Troops on the ground may give you some “Sense of Security”. Its not the proper way to deploy our resources
effectivly and over a long term.

Again… I somewhat agree with you… but we can’t pull them ALL back. Wouldn’t Obama have done that by now. Everyone preaches this “Let’s pull them out”... but when they go to do it… they realize there are way more factors in play and it’s easier said than done.

Funny thing about foreign countries. They dont like another countries armed forces walking the streets.
After awhile those “Liberators” become unwelcomed. And guess what happens next ?

Funny thing about terrorist. They don’t care if you have armed forces walking their streets or not. As long as America exists, we will be unwelcomed. And if we pull all of our assets back and leave nothing there to monitor them, guess what happens next?

Again… what do you think is easier… preparing for a nuclear attack… or preventing one?

I would suggest doing some Google searches on Wazeristan and the Tribal Regions.
Understanding the nature of this part of the world and its many tribes and languages and long
history of holding back any invading forces.

Looking up the History of Hamid Karzai and his brothers.
They used to own Restaurants in New York.
Also consider his Brother. Ahmed Wali Karzai. It appears he is in control
of most of the Opium coming out of Kandahar. We be talking 100`s of Millions of dollars in drug money.

This is the last place on earth we should be sending our fine troops.
To support a puppet government involved in the trade of Heroin with our blood and money.

Ever see the movie. “Air America” ?

Adding the link.

Looks like this article is right on target with the situation in Afghanistan.

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/16/2101236.aspx

Again… not into the whole hunting them down one by one thing… but not into the turning tail thing either.

Nude - 15 October 2009 09:05 PM

As for torture during interrogation… while I support the ethical treatment of people captured on the field of combat, that support is conditional on reciprocal treatment. Targeting civilians earns an automatic exception to ethical treatment. I’m not advocating we begin targeting civilians in return, but I am not inclined to conform to the Geneva Convention either.

I always hate this argument.  Stop and then ask, why does this not apply to neighborhood street gangs in LA, or Santa Ana?  These ORGANIZATIONS with indoctrinated “soldiers/terrorists” go out and perform their illegal activities, spread their self-promoting propaganda, and target innocent civilians not only for theft, but for random acts of terrorizing and intimidating violence.

Are you suggesting that we go out and torture members of any gang that we arrest?  Or is it ok because they come from a different culture.

I cant stand people bending and warping the law because its suits their present needs/fears.  The law is the law.  Apply it evenly across the board if the essential underlying facts are the same.  We are dealing with a dangerous criminal organization and they should not be treated any more harshly than a gang member or the mob, once arrested.

Do you see what I am saying?  If you still want to argue that this treatment is not harsh enough, then you should be for turning up the heat on all criminals, right?  I mean hey, domestic street violence has killed WAY more people than the 9/11 attacks…  show my why they deserve more of my fear and hatred.

Still no answers. Maybe this will work?

Maybe not.

MojoJD - 19 October 2009 04:59 PM

Nude - 15 October 2009 09:05 PM

As for torture during interrogation… while I support the ethical treatment of people captured on the field of combat, that support is conditional on reciprocal treatment. Targeting civilians earns an automatic exception to ethical treatment. I’m not advocating we begin targeting civilians in return, but I am not inclined to conform to the Geneva Convention either.

I always hate this argument.  Stop and then ask, why does this not apply to neighborhood street gangs in LA, or Santa Ana?  These ORGANIZATIONS with indoctrinated “soldiers/terrorists” go out and perform their illegal activities, spread their self-promoting propaganda, and target innocent civilians not only for theft, but for random acts of terrorizing and intimidating violence.

Are you suggesting that we go out and torture members of any gang that we arrest?  Or is it ok because they come from a different culture.

I cant stand people bending and warping the law because its suits their present needs/fears.  The law is the law.  Apply it evenly across the board if the essential underlying facts are the same.  We are dealing with a dangerous criminal organization and they should not be treated any more harshly than a gang member or the mob, once arrested.

Do you see what I am saying?  If you still want to argue that this treatment is not harsh enough, then you should be for turning up the heat on all criminals, right?  I mean hey, domestic street violence has killed WAY more people than the 9/11 attacks…  show my why they deserve more of my fear and hatred.

Aside from the minor detail that those gang members, have rights… as American citizens… that guarantee them due process, defense lawyers, etc, the other major difference is that street gangs aren’t declaring war on the country, attacking police stations, killing school children, or sending suicide bombers into crowded malls. The criminal acts of gangsters are already covered by current laws and their activities are as closely monitored as modern police intelligence operations allow. Foreign nationals are only entitled to the same treatment when on our soil, just as our citizens are not privy to the Bill of Rights when in foreign countries. This difference in legal standards was the reason for the creation of a mutually agreed upon standard at the Geneva Convention in the first place, so that all nations would treat prisoners of war equally, but it also laid out specific definitions of who met those standards and who did not:

Art. 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.

That is taken directly from the Geneva Conventions, and I have bolded the specific portions that address this point. ObL, AQ, and other terrorist organizations specifically AVOID “conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war” by targeting civilians, concealing themselves in order to avoid being recognized as a combatant, and deliberately avoiding any sort of rank-and-file structure organizing them into a standing army.

In other words, your argument attempts to compare apples to oranges and makes as much sense as you claiming “rights” as a political prisoner when ticketed for a traffic violation in Greece.

But this explanation fails to account for the legal anomalies of declaring foreign nationals, who are on our soil, to be “foreign combatants” - using the “prisoner of war” concept to exempt them from the protections of the US Constitution while, paradoxically, not recognizing them as foreign combatants under the Geneva convention so that they do not have to comply there either.

And who cares if they target “innocent school children and use suicide bombs”.  Its no different that killing a boy waiting for the bus on the corner in a drive-by shooting.  Life is valuable and should be guarded equally, no matter how old the individual or the specific criminal intent motivating the killing.

If being off US soil is your key gripe, why are we not going after the leading members of the triads and south-american drug warlords and TORTURING their officers to get better intel to bomb their HQ?  One could, again, argue that members of these organizations actively kill just as many or more American citizens and police officers every year.  One group likes money, using violence and intimidation to get it.  The other likes religious ideology, using violence and intimidation to get it.

My MAIN argument is that we give WAY TOO MUCH WEIGHT to the importance of the war on terror.  Its the “it” thing right now.  Its blinding people to blatant abuses (or making them complacent) and diverting precious resources from established problems where even a little money could go a long way and produce more results in our society’s well-being.  I am disappointed at the lack of balance and principled decision-making.

7 Years of GW Bush and his administrations “War on Terror” has had a lasting effect
on the American Psyche. The anger that was felt after 9/11 needed to have an outlet
and that outlet was “The War on Terror”. It was a huge blanket that covered just about
any action his administration wanted. The Bill or Rights went into the shreader on several points.

Now here we are 8 years later and we have a different administration. And thankfully
we are making changes that will more effectively use our resources rather than just
throwing money and men down some mythical black hole. Revenge is better served chilled.

Some here perceive any changes other than troop escalation as weakness. But using all our
tools seems to be the order of the day. Intel, Allies, Diplomacy, Patience, and
a well thought out exit strategy will rule the policy of today.

I always loved listening to those old Viet Nam live broadcasts. The one where the Leuitenant
was in the process of burning the village. “We need to save these people from the Viet Cong”
So the best way to keep the enemy out of the village is to burn it down. Same logic we
are using in Afghanistan. We will just bomb them into democracy and eliminate the Taliban.
Now the only job avaliable is to shoot Americans for the Taliban.

MojoJD - 19 October 2009 07:16 PM

But this explanation fails to account for the legal anomalies of declaring foreign nationals, who are on our soil, to be “foreign combatants” - using the “prisoner of war” concept to exempt them from the protections of the US Constitution while, paradoxically, not recognizing them as foreign combatants under the Geneva convention so that they do not have to comply there either.

If they are here legally, they get the protection of our laws. If they aren’t, they get removed and sent to a detainment facility based on our classification of them. Would you prefer we treat them as spies who are simply executed after military tribunal? The very fact that there are"legal anomalies” indicates that the issue is not covered by current law or treaty, leaving any administration detaining people who can’t be let back onto the streets for public safety reasons but also have no clear rights under international treaties. Furthermore, you seem to have invented some magical solution in your head that doesn’t meet any real world legal criteria. It’s not like we can negotiate with Al-Qaeda as representatives of all terrorists everywhere, or meet their army’s commanders to exchange prisoners. Your argument is all emotion and no logical thought process, leading you to conclude that an appeal to emotion is the same as fact and reason.

And who cares if they target “innocent school children and use suicide bombs”.  Its no different that killing a boy waiting for the bus on the corner in a drive-by shooting.  Life is valuable and should be guarded equally, no matter how old the individual or the specific criminal intent motivating the killing.

Taking your analogy to it’s logical conclusion, Pol Pot was merely a murderer, Timothy McVeigh was no different than OJ Simpson, and Darfur just needs more cops. One drug dealer killing another drug dealer in a turf war is not the moral equivalent of raping, mutilating, and murdering a school full of 10 year-old kids. Innocent bystander deaths in a gang dispute is not the same as bombing a subway for of people commuting to work. If you support any form of hate crime sentencing enhancement and still think there is no difference between a drive-by and a beheading, you are being hypocritical… motivation matters greatly.

If being off US soil is your key gripe, why are we not going after the leading members of the triads and south-american drug warlords and TORTURING their officers to get better intel to bomb their HQ?  One could, again, argue that members of these organizations actively kill just as many or more American citizens and police officers every year.  One group likes money, using violence and intimidation to get it.  The other likes religious ideology, using violence and intimidation to get it.

And here is where you reveal the error in your thinking: you think since the methods are similar, so must be the motives. But the motives of the drug dealer are selfish, he wants money and power. Those motives are shared by everyone involved, from the street dealer to the head of the cartel… they don’t care about anything else but making money and consolidating the power to make more money and protect their business. The motives of the terrorist, on the other hand, are not selfish but religious; they want to crush those who would deny their God’s existence and His law as THE law. They don’t care about money or power for themselves, they only want to expand the influence of their religion and destroy anyone who would oppose that. This is why you don’t see any suicide-bombing drug dealers, it’s antithetical to their motives. You can not treat each the same and expect identical results.

Also, we’ve had a “War on Drugs” for as long as I have been alive. We aren’t more aggressive because whenever the military starts shooting people and blowing things up, some yahoo starts screeching about improper use of force and human rights and American Imperialism. If I remember correctly, we invaded Panama to arrest Noriega, we have extradited the leaders of the Cali cartel to the US and we helped pinpoint Pablo Escobar so the Colombian government could kill him… sounds like we are actively doing what we can with the co-operation of friendly governments.

My MAIN argument is that we give WAY TOO MUCH WEIGHT to the importance of the war on terror.  Its the “it” thing right now.  Its blinding people to blatant abuses (or making them complacent) and diverting precious resources from established problems where even a little money could go a long way and produce more results in our society’s well-being.  I am disappointed at the lack of balance and principled decision-making.

You are completely entitled to voice your opinion. However, if it is misinformed, ill-supported, or factually incorrect you can expect to be annihilated on teh intarwebz.

irvine_home_owner - 16 October 2009 05:09 PM

@blt:

I’m not the one thinking short and small… if you remember… I was the one who asked the question about what to after we pull them back.

AND WE BOTH ANSWERED…. YOU JUST DIDN’T LIKE THE ANSWER.. I SAID INVEST IN THIS COUNTRY, AND BLT GAVE SOME EXAMPLES OF FORTIFYING PORTS AND BORDERS AND OTHER STUFF….  BUT STLL NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU.

Maybe you’re thinking bigger, but your cohorts are not… as exampled by the fact that at least one thinks terrorism is a fallacy (which you do not) and that if we stop “attacking” them, they will cease their efforts.

THAT WOULD BE ME, THANKS.  AND YES, I THINK THIS WHOLE NOTION THAT TERRORISTS ARE THE EVIL ENEMY, THE DEMON THAT WE MUST CHASE THE WORLD OVER IS A FALLACY.  I GAVE AN EXAMPLE BEFORE HOW THE AFGHAN MEN ARE BEING FORCED TO JOIN THE TALIBAN BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY PAYING “JOB” THERE IS LEFT AFTER WE DESTROYED THEIR COUNTRY - SO THIS IS THE EVIL DEMON TERRORIST WORTH BANKRUPTING OUR COUNTRY FOR AND KILLING OUR SOLDIERS FOR?  THE MEDIA HAS TAINTED YOUR MIND WITH THAT BUSH SHITE OF US VERSES THEM - IT IS ALL NONSENSE!!!

And why do you keep thinking that I’m for a war against Islam?

THIS HAS NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION - IT IS POLITICS.  THE OPPOSITION JUST USES RELIGION AS A MEANS TO BRAINWASH PEOPLE INTO DOING WHAT THEY WANT.

I’m not for a war against anything, I’m for being able to have a presence in dangerous areas abroad so that we are able to protect our homeland with proper intelligence, deterrence and preparation. I don’t care if it’s Islam, North Korea, Russian or Chinese… threats are threats, independent of source. You still haven’t responded to my query about your local police, do you want them to stop patrolling your neighborhood and just sit in their station working on gun detection technology? Sometimes, deterrence by physical presence is very good at preventing crime/terror. They don’t actually have to put a “finger” on every wannabe criminal, they just need to let them know they can respond if they try to do anything. Using your “solution”, should our police no longer investigate possible criminals? Just let them run around planning crimes and just work on creating unbreakable locks, infallible alarm systems and anti-gun/knife shields? Now, I’ll admit to being hyperbolic based on scale but the concept is similar.

SO WE HAVE TO POLICE THE PLANET NOW?  AND YOUR EXAMPLE ABOUT THE LOCAL POLICE FORCE…. WELL THE PEOPLE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ACTUALLY WANT THEM THERE.  DO YOU THINK THE PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN WANT US THERE?????

You think the Cole, African Embassy Bombings, or even 9/11 itself were extreme acts of terror ?

With all due respect, there are people who had loved ones killed in those events and would consider them extreme terrorist acts. It doesn’t matter how small or large it is… an attack of any size needs to be prevented. If you think that we should only be concerned about nuclear terrorism… than I am not the one thinking short and small (I would think biochemical would be just as devastating and much harder to detect).

MojoJD - 19 October 2009 07:16 PM

But this explanation fails to account for the legal anomalies of declaring foreign nationals, who are on our soil, to be “foreign combatants” - using the “prisoner of war” concept to exempt them from the protections of the US Constitution while, paradoxically, not recognizing them as foreign combatants under the Geneva convention so that they do not have to comply there either.

And who cares if they target “innocent school children and use suicide bombs”.  Its no different that killing a boy waiting for the bus on the corner in a drive-by shooting.  Life is valuable and should be guarded equally, no matter how old the individual or the specific criminal intent motivating the killing.

If being off US soil is your key gripe, why are we not going after the leading members of the triads and south-american drug warlords and TORTURING their officers to get better intel to bomb their HQ?  One could, again, argue that members of these organizations actively kill just as many or more American citizens and police officers every year.  One group likes money, using violence and intimidation to get it.  The other likes religious ideology, using violence and intimidation to get it.

My MAIN argument is that we give WAY TOO MUCH WEIGHT to the importance of the war on terror.  Its the “it” thing right now.  Its blinding people to blatant abuses (or making them complacent) and diverting precious resources from established problems where even a little money could go a long way and produce more results in our society’s well-being.  I am disappointed at the lack of balance and principled decision-making.

THANK YOU!!!!  THIS was my point exactly - all this hype over the “War on Terror” and who is a “Terrorist”.  UGH!  Where does it end???

And another example of your argument above - what the hell is going on in Mexico?  All those drug cartels mass murdering people…... kidnapping people… and this on both sides of the border!  Why are we not going in and bombing Mexico to kingdom come, and taking over their government and installing a puppet?  Why the hypocrisy?

@gyspyuma:

Why are you responding to what I wrote to blt when you haven’t responded what I wrote to you?

However, I will respond to your comments again… although you don’t have to yell:

AND WE BOTH ANSWERED…. YOU JUST DIDN’T LIKE THE ANSWER.. I SAID INVEST IN THIS COUNTRY, AND BLT GAVE SOME EXAMPLES OF FORTIFYING PORTS AND BORDERS AND OTHER STUFF….  BUT STLL NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU.

It’s not that I didn’t like the answer, it’s that you didn’t explain exactly how that would help (see above where you did not respond to my questions about that). It’s not about not being good enough… it’s about being realistic. So you agree that building a wall around the United States will stop the terrorist attacks?

THAT WOULD BE ME, THANKS.  AND YES, I THINK THIS WHOLE NOTION THAT TERRORISTS ARE THE EVIL ENEMY, THE DEMON THAT WE MUST CHASE THE WORLD OVER IS A FALLACY.

That is different from thinking terrorism itself is a fallacy.  I don’t think we can effectively chase them all over the world either but I do believe that anyone who would send people to forcibly take over our planes and kill thousands of people is an evil enemy.

I GAVE AN EXAMPLE BEFORE HOW THE AFGHAN MEN ARE BEING FORCED TO JOIN THE TALIBAN BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY PAYING “JOB” THERE IS LEFT AFTER WE DESTROYED THEIR COUNTRY - SO THIS IS THE EVIL DEMON TERRORIST WORTH BANKRUPTING OUR COUNTRY FOR AND KILLING OUR SOLDIERS FOR?  THE MEDIA HAS TAINTED YOUR MIND WITH THAT BUSH SHITE OF US VERSES THEM - IT IS ALL NONSENSE!!!

Again, there are some things I don’t agree with… but do you actually think that if the US pulled all of our troops out of the Middle East, terrorism will cease to exist (you have yet to answer that)?

THIS HAS NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION - IT IS POLITICS.  THE OPPOSITION JUST USES RELIGION AS A MEANS TO BRAINWASH PEOPLE INTO DOING WHAT THEY WANT.

So wait, you’re thanking bltserv for his posts but you don’t agree with him. He doesn’t think terrorism is a fallacy (hence the wall-building answer) and he attributes it all to religion. You guys need to get on the same page.

SO WE HAVE TO POLICE THE PLANET NOW?  AND YOUR EXAMPLE ABOUT THE LOCAL POLICE FORCE…. WELL THE PEOPLE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ACTUALLY WANT THEM THERE.  DO YOU THINK THE PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN WANT US THERE?????

You can read the other responses about policing the planet to get your answer. As for Afghanistan wanting us there… I’ll use the Omnipotent Weapon of Anecdotal Evidence:

There is a waiter at the Irvine Olive Garden who is in the military. I overheard him telling his story of being in Afghanistan to the table next to us and he said that despite all the destruction he saw, the one thing that made him proud of being over there was the thanks these Afghan kids gave him when he was there. He said nothing compared to seeing how happy the people were that they were there. I made sure before we left to shake his hand and thank him for his service to our country.

Now, either he exaggerated or lied, or I’m exaggerating or lying… but there are Afghan people who may want us there. And maybe there are not. The point of a presence isn’t to make all the residents happy (I’m sure drug lords hate when the police patrol their inner projects), but to try to prevent further crimes/terror/fallacies from occurring.

I think we agree on certain principles more than you want to believe… what I’m getting at here is what actions do we take in the aftermath of a pull out to further protect our safety? We can pour millions of dollars into their infrastructure and build a force field around the western hemisphere of the world… but I honestly don’t think that will change the extremists’ (or any of our enemies’) point of view towards the United States. Last I checked, Obama isn’t getting very high approval ratings from the terrorist groups either.

You’re asking the frog to trust the scorpion.

Nude: where to begin.

If they were treated as spies and executed - fine.  But that is not the case because they are not spying from a foreign sovereign nation.  Even then, most spies are NOT executed, but detained and later traded or sentenced.  Death is an optional punishment.  Either way, ITS DUE PROCESS! so its fine.  Whatever the end result, give the captives a date where their actions will be judged and sentence be dolled out.  Indefinite detainment without charge is unacceptable. 

Its a pretty large leap for you to say that because I have my views it must be “all emotion and no logical thought process.”  If you could refrain from showing your weakness through ad hominem attacks, I would appreciate it.  What I called an “anomaly” was another word for an exploitation of a legal loophole.  Just because it exists, doesn’t mean you should act in a way that is counter to our system of laws; counter to the way the laws would operate if they did, in fact, govern these circumstances. 

And your analogy regarding Timothy McVay and OJ is misguided.  Timothy McVay committed many murders.  He is no different than, say, a serial killer who goes around and kills 30 people.  The law provides the highest sentences for these people.  What, do you want them to be executed HARDER?  They BOTH get due process and get their punishment.  What part of this are you not getting?

Oh yeah, and please show me this instance of jihadist terrorists “raping, mutilating, and murdering a school full of 10 year-old kids.”  Or were you just trying to go for an extreme here?  Either way, the example is ineffective, as the perpetrators of such a crime would get the maximum sentence available under the law; often the death penalty.  What is your point?

Also, I do not support hate crime legislation whatsoever.  Whether you beat someone up for their wallet, or because they’re a different race than you, its battery and the punishment should be the same.  Want it to be more of a deterrent? Apply stricter penalties across the board.  You keep going back to “OMG DIFFERENT MOTIVE.”  Well, motive doesnt play a role in our system of laws.  It may help get you convicted by convincing a jury that you had a reason to do something, but its not a requisite element of most crimes (excluding hate crime legislation, which is BS).  The feds dont care if you lied on your tax return to fund your favorite charity or to buy a new boat.  You get convicted of the same crime.  The law does not care why you tagged that wall, stole that TV, committed identity theft, jacked that car.  Aside from very limited cases of “legal justification,” which only works in the opposite direction and is not pursued by a DA/Fed Prosecutor, the law doesnt car.

I think you simply arent getting that once you mean to go murder someone with malicious intent, the specific reasons are not important.  Malicious intent is enough.  My example about the drug dealers does not reveal a flaw.  Just because you point out that one group does something for money while another is an ideological extreme does not make them different under enforcement.  Both groups do anything, regardless of human cost, in self interest.  No, granted, drug lords dont use suicide bombers… THEY USE BOMBS!  They’re blowing shit up all the time in south america.  Does the remote control make it ok?  Are you less culpable when you sent 10 paid assassins into a community center to “send a message” than if you were to send in a suicide bomber?  Where is the substance of your reasoning?  Both of these things happen and people die.

And when you say that they used to go after these people until people starting whining about human rights abuses…. WELL YEAH - THATS THE GOD DAMNED POINT!!!

You seem to be particularly afraid of the Islamic extremist point of view and want to use “extralegal” means of dealing with it.  You don’t seem to understand that we have a nation based on written, predetermined laws to govern our legal response to prevent abuse by those in power.  What you are suggesting is selectively turning a blind eye to our legal system’s principles in order to effectuate your desired end.  Move to China already.  This kind of thinking, no matter how popular right now with fear-mongers, will always be contrary to what this country was founded upon; predictable due process - whether it be taxing your tea or locking you in prison without charging you.

bltserv - 16 October 2009 04:47 PM

People tend to look at the short term

And thats exactly what your doing. Thinking short and small.
The real threat to this country is not by WHOM but by WHAT.

And that threat is a IND. “Improvised Nuclear Device”. If by some chance a few Kilos
of enriched Uranium are smuggled in this country undetected and somehow a detonation
device is rigged. You could see an event that will really ruin everybodys day.

The most important thing this country can do on the war on terror is to control the
fissionable material on this planet. And 99% of it is either Russian or American.
It easily detectable and requires significant sheilding to be transported properly.

We need to get our technology working to protect ourselves from this threat.
The billions we are spending attempting to root out a few remaining Taliban or Al Qaeda
is not money well spent at all. Unless your going to fight a war against all of Islam
picking away at the “sore” is not the answer. Terrorist exist. You not going to eliminate them all
by sending troops. Kind of like stopping World Communisum in the Jungles of Viet Nam. It aint going to work. Ever.

You think the Cole, African Embassy Bombings, or even 9/11 itself were extreme acts of terror ?

Well you dodnt want to be around in the next 10 years when the terrorist succeed in making and delivering
a IND to this country. It could have a yeild similar to Hiroshima and the death toll? Unimaginable. 

We need to protect our ports and our borders from these materials entering this country and its
technically very feasable.

Start thinking long term. Running around the world trying to put our finger on every potential threat
is not sustainable long term or economically.

I like your message, so sorry to cut in The whole “dirty nuke” thing was a false scare too.  Many nuclear physicists and professors have gone on shows saying “Hell, if they set one off at Disneyland, I’d go the next day.  Yeah, I’d burn my clothes the next day, but its not like thousands of people are going to drop dead from one of these going off.  The biggest concern is just an expensive cleanup and public panic.”

You cannot set off a nuclear detonation just by blowing up uranium.

To the extent that your analogy applies to a suitcase bomb theory, then yes. I agree.