MojoJD - 20 October 2009 12:35 AM

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.

Neither US Code nor the Military Code of Justice care a whit about the origin of the spy, merely the activity. When the Bush administration planned military tribunals, the roar from the left was deafening. Are you on board with military tribunals for those people caught up in the anomalies/loopholes?

Going back to my original point, the Geneva Conventions specifically exclude these type of combatants and we are under no obligation to extend them that courtesy. Since they target civilians, I does not bother me that they were not treated as POWs. If they want to act in a manner that meets those treaties, I will be first in line championing their humane treatment.

You made the strawmen, I merely gave them faces. Your argument is that we should treat them equally but they are not, in fact, equal.

Look, we can go back and forth all day, but the bottom line is that you want to extend the Bill of Rights and due process to everyone, citizen, resident, or otherwise. I don’t. Your view is that these are criminals and must be prosecuted, my view is that we are at war with an unconventional enemy. Under your view, we are wrong and violating the rights of prisoners. Under my view, we are right and doing the best we can in an admittedly gray area, but the rules of war apply, not the rules of peace time civil society.

Civil prosecutions are an ineffective way to fight a war. We tried it after 1993, it did nothing. We tried the humanitarian approach in Mogadishu and we were forced to run away. We fired a cruise missile that killed a few janitors in an aspirin factory and the world laughed at us. Every time we were attacked, we responded as if it were a criminal act. This deterred no one. We are at war. War time, war rules. I’m sorry if that offends you, but that is the way I see it. You can’t convince me I am wrong, I can’t convince you I am right, so let’s just agree to disagree and move on.

As for the school, I never said “jihadists”: google Beslan

Yes, many people in the last 5 years have been all geared up about this being a “war” -  I think it was self serving and a fallacy.  If you want to declare war on (fill in the blank of the organization), then fine. Do that and engage them as such.  But a war on “terror”?  Has anyone thought how many different kinds of things you can squeeze into that word?  If you derive your war powers from the word “terror” - you have a blank check.

I mainly wanted to hear your explanation in the reverse, namely: why should we not be applying these “wartime” methods to urban street gangs?  When you catch one, putting him in prison will not deter future crime and violence.  Just like what people say about a terrorist - when they get released, they are just going to go back to being a threat.  Many, if not all, of the criteria fit nicely into the check-boxes for a terrorist organization.  Why not, eh?  I just believe that good reasoning should work in both directions.

Hell, what is stopping the government from declaring that anyone who commits a fraud on our sacred investment markets is out to destroy the fabric of our nation, and therefore an enemy of the state… therefore not deserving of rights under the constitution… therefore not protected from rules on torture to find out co-conspirators, indefinite detainment (just in case they’re wrong, but now you are angry and might do bad things), summary execution, etc.

MojoJD - 20 October 2009 01:47 AM

Yes, many people in the last 5 years have been all geared up about this being a “war” -  I think it was self serving and a fallacy.  If you want to declare war on (fill in the blank of the organization), then fine. Do that and engage them as such.  But a war on “terror”?  Has anyone thought how many different kinds of things you can squeeze into that word?  If you derive your war powers from the word “terror” - you have a blank check.

I mainly wanted to hear your explanation in the reverse, namely: why should we not be applying these “wartime” methods to urban street gangs?  When you catch one, putting him in prison will not deter future crime and violence.  Just like what people say about a terrorist - when they get released, they are just going to go back to being a threat.  Many, if not all, of the criteria fit nicely into the check-boxes for a terrorist organization.  Why not, eh?  I just believe that good reasoning should work in both directions.

Hell, what is stopping the government from declaring that anyone who commits a fraud on our sacred investment markets is out to destroy the fabric of our nation, and therefore an enemy of the state… therefore not deserving of rights under the constitution… therefore not protected from rules on torture to find out co-conspirators, indefinite detainment (just in case they’re wrong, but now you are angry and might do bad things), summary execution, etc.

These urban street gangs (like from L.A.?) are U.S. citizens. As such, they have certain rights detailed under the Bill of Rights and various other laws that protect the rights of U.S. citizens. These are not “wartime” criminals. Again, so many people on this board try to compare apples to oranges. It is not that difficult. Let me lay it out for you:

U.S. Citizen Killers - treated under Bill of Rights, given a lawyer, prosecuted through the court system.

Foreign National Killers - treated under Geneva Convention and other wartime rules

Al Qaida and Other Terrorists (neither US citizens or foreign nationals) - this is gray area. We do what is necessary to protect the US.

MojoJD - 20 October 2009 01:47 AM

Yes, many people in the last 5 years have been all geared up about this being a “war” -  I think it was self serving and a fallacy.  If you want to declare war on (fill in the blank of the organization), then fine. Do that and engage them as such.  But a war on “terror”?  Has anyone thought how many different kinds of things you can squeeze into that word?  If you derive your war powers from the word “terror” - you have a blank check.

I mainly wanted to hear your explanation in the reverse, namely: why should we not be applying these “wartime” methods to urban street gangs?  When you catch one, putting him in prison will not deter future crime and violence.  Just like what people say about a terrorist - when they get released, they are just going to go back to being a threat.  Many, if not all, of the criteria fit nicely into the check-boxes for a terrorist organization.  Why not, eh?  I just believe that good reasoning should work in both directions.

Hell, what is stopping the government from declaring that anyone who commits a fraud on our sacred investment markets is out to destroy the fabric of our nation, and therefore an enemy of the state… therefore not deserving of rights under the constitution… therefore not protected from rules on torture to find out co-conspirators, indefinite detainment (just in case they’re wrong, but now you are angry and might do bad things), summary execution, etc.

Again, citizenship decides treatment. As for why we aren’t filling Gitmo with Baker St. Boys or F-Troop members, you can’t be so ignorant as to not know of the Posse Comitatus Act. I’m sure you think you’ve got me cornered in some way, but there is no conflict for me. If you are a citizen lobbing bombs, you have rights. If you are a soldier lobbing bombs, you have rights. If you are neither a citizen nor a soldier lobbing bombs, expect to rot in the most miserable conditions we can create until we figure out what to do with you.

TO IRVINE HOME OWNER::::: 

YOU WROTE:

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?

MY RESPONSE:

I read all the time about how little containers actually get checked at our ports, and how the border to Canada is wide open.  So do I think we should build a wall?  Hell no.  I think we should stop pissing the entire world off first and foremost with our death and destruction machine.  And that of israel too - our other de facto killing machine.  But after that, well isn’t Homeland Security supposed to figure out how best to utilize money to improve the safety of this country?  Securing our nuclear plants.  Our dams.  All that stuff.  I am not going to pretend I know how that is to be best handled, but I hope you get the gist.  Just because I cannot spout off HOW those are secured does not mean it is better to spend BILLIONS to continue to blow up sand dunes in the Middle East.

YOU WROTE:

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.

MY RESPONSE: 

I have no idea WHO was responsible for 9/11, and I think we will never know the truth likely.  BUT, what did the Taliban and the Afghan people have to do with that?  What did Sadam and the Iraqi people have to do with that?  Even our government admits not jack shit.  So let’s stop pretending that what we are doing is so noble and justified - you are kidding yourself.  ANd since when is revenge noble?

YOU WROTE:

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)?

MY RESPONSE:

Overnight?  No.  Eventually? Likely But maybe you should be the one asking yourself if killing another 150,000+ Iraqis is going to make us any safer.

YOU WROTE:

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.

MY RESPONSE:

I do NOT agree with that part, but the rest has been right on.  IF I ever met that guy in person, we could have a chat.  My guess is he has never even been to the Middle East and never even had a real conversation with a Muslim.  Yeah….... but the other stuff I do agree with, just not that shite.

It is not that I don’t understand your POV, I just don’t agree with it.  I am anti-war in general, so of course I wouldn’t.  I think it was Joe Biden that was talking once about how after we left Afghanistan the first time, that the government was asked to provide like 1-2 million dollars to build schools for the Afghan kids, and they said no.  All the kids were then schooled in the Madrasats, and that is how the Taliban was born.  I am not saying to invest Billions of dollars to all these countries, but I am saying it is better to use our money for shite like this than to kill and maim those same kids and kill their parents and destroy their homes and starve them.  Would that make YOU happy?

Ok, I have to run or I would write more, sorry.

gypsy:

I also see where you are coming from but I don’t agree with you repeated assertions that the primary goal of the US military is to “kill children and parents”. I have not once said anything about war being noble or justified or that revenge is warranted. Again, to me, the purpose of military presence in known terrorist regions isn’t to find the exact person/people responsible for 9/11 or any other terrorist attacks, it’s to prevent future ones. Granted (again), maybe it’s not the correct way, but I’m not too sure the opposite will “eventually” cause terrorism to go away.

War and death are horrible and should be avoided as much as possible. Do you see me saying we should invade North Korea? They are becoming just as credible a threat… but I think the way the US and the UN are trying to handle it is correct. At the same time, you don’t see North Koreans sending suicide bombers over to or allies or posting videos threatening our citizen’s lives with beheadings.

And I still think you are missing the point… if it was so easy to do as you suggested… why hasn’t it been done yet?

You don’t need to answer that, we can just call it a day and say we don’t see eye to eye. I usually don’t like to discuss politics but it does give me insight when people can actually discuss them civilly.

I think the conflict in Pakistan proves that giving them a piece of land and leaving them alone does not work.

Pakistan sends 30,000 troops for all-out assault on Taliban

They need to send 30,000 troops because they essentially let the Taliban have Waziristan. 

I am sure that the Pakistan troops should abide by the Geneva Convention while:

Over the past two weeks militants have launched a series of audacious attacks across the country, including the suicide bombing of a United Nations office in Islamabad

Military sources predicted the fighting would last at least six weeks and would concentrate on the Taliban strongholds of Ladha and Makeen. Some think it may take longer

This is why you chase them around like dogs and keep them running.  When you let them set up shop you are hosed and they don’t care who they attack or how they attack them.

So now lets reverse the question and now ask your self how would an enemy soldier be treated by AQ and the Taliban?

I would say that we should not be held to any rules our enemies don’t agree to.

trrenter - 20 October 2009 03:03 PM

I would say that we should not be held to any rules our enemies don’t agree to.

You are never going to win the Nobel Consolation Peace Prize that way.

irvine_home_owner - 20 October 2009 08:00 AM

YOU WROTE:

I also see where you are coming from but I don’t agree with you repeated assertions that the primary goal of the US military is to “kill children and parents”.

MY RESPONSE:

I didn’t say that was the primary goal either, but you cannot deny that has been the result.  We are BOMB DROPPERS.  Do you think those bombs only kills the bad guys?  This isn’t like we can get away with all that just because we have good intentions - the world doesn’t care!

YOU WROTE:

I have not once said anything about war being noble or justified or that revenge is warranted. Again, to me, the purpose of military presence in known terrorist regions isn’t to find the exact person/people responsible for 9/11 or any other terrorist attacks, it’s to prevent future ones.

MY RESPONSE:

ANd I am saying THIS is not the way to go about it.  It is like us bombing all of California to get at the gangs that plaque the state.  Just like the other guy, I think Mojo said.  If you are not willing to bomb California to try to root out the gang problem, then why in the world are we destroying Iraq and Afghanistan?  Do you not see that it is US that has created the current problems in Pakistan?  We have shoved the pissed off Taliban down there, and they are reeking havoc - BRAVO, WELL DONE USA!  YIPPEEE…. Another country on the brink of destruction, and THIS ONE HAS NUKES!

YOU WROTE:

Granted (again), maybe it’s not the correct way, but I’m not too sure the opposite will “eventually” cause terrorism to go away.

MY RESPONSE:

Ok, answer me this question…... Why is it that Canada has not seen any terrorism activity?  How about Switzerland?  Ireland?  Spain?  Australia?  I could keep going if you want.  Maybe it is because those countries are not off causing problems where their nose doesn’t belong!  And even before you get started on the 9/11 excuse, let me just say one word - ISRAEL.  And then let me follow that word up with - SAUDI ARABIA.  And EGYPT.  We are the ones who have helped israel oppress the Palestinian since 1948.  And whether or not you like that - I gaurantee you that the Muslim world DOES NOT.  And they also don’t like our puppet governments in Saudi and Egypt.

We have to STOP being the Superpower.  STOP policing the planet.  STOP bullying.  STOP dictating.  We have to be a good citizen of the planet and play within the confines of the UN, which we need to build back up since we destroyed it.

ONLY THEN…. will terrorism against this country decline, as will the hatred for us.

YOU WROTE:

War and death are horrible and should be avoided as much as possible. Do you see me saying we should invade North Korea? They are becoming just as credible a threat… but I think the way the US and the UN are trying to handle it is correct. At the same time, you don’t see North Koreans sending suicide bombers over to or allies or posting videos threatening our citizen’s lives with beheadings.

MY RESPONSE:

Well, that is because we haven’t invaded that country yet.  And we haven’t had South Korea take that country over and oppress it and its neighbors like israel is doing for us in the Middle East.  If we did that, well then, I think the North Koreans might just disappoint you.

YOU WROTE:

And I still think you are missing the point… if it was so easy to do as you suggested… why hasn’t it been done yet?

MY RESPONSE:

I think it has to do with our “WE ARE THE SUPERPOWER” mentality.  I gave the reasons above why that must stop.  ALong with this superiority complex that we have, we are simply put - war-mongers.  Hate to be blunt.  I am not talking about EVERYONE in this country, naturally.  It just amazes me that the same people who spout the nonsense “If you cannot stand by our troops, stand in front of them” are also the first to want to just nuke anyone that disagrees with us.

We need a serious shift in mentality.  I think it is starting because we see the BILLIONS of dollars it takes to be war-mongers, and now all of a sudden we want out.  Gee, it takes hitting the collective pocketbook for some people to see the light.

YOU WROTE:

You don’t need to answer that, we can just call it a day and say we don’t see eye to eye.

MY RESPONSE:

Oh no no no ..... you don’t get off that easy.  LOL

NOW we can call it a day if you want.

YOU WROTE:

I usually don’t like to discuss politics but it does give me insight when people can actually discuss them civilly.

MY RESPONSE:

I am all about the civility - which is what I want for this country on the whole.  And we NEED to discuss and with civility.  Look what our politics have turned into - its a DISGRACE!  The world must be getting a good laugh at our clown politicians about now.  I know for a fact that Canadians think we are just plain nutso.  What has happened to us?  THIS is not the kind of country I want to leave my children when I am dead and buried, that is for sure.

 

trrenter - 20 October 2009 03:03 PM

I think the conflict in Pakistan proves that giving them a piece of land and leaving them alone does not work.

Pakistan sends 30,000 troops for all-out assault on Taliban

They need to send 30,000 troops because they essentially let the Taliban have Waziristan. 

I am sure that the Pakistan troops should abide by the Geneva Convention while:

Over the past two weeks militants have launched a series of audacious attacks across the country, including the suicide bombing of a United Nations office in Islamabad

Military sources predicted the fighting would last at least six weeks and would concentrate on the Taliban strongholds of Ladha and Makeen. Some think it may take longer

This is why you chase them around like dogs and keep them running.  When you let them set up shop you are hosed and they don’t care who they attack or how they attack them.

So now lets reverse the question and now ask your self how would an enemy soldier be treated by AQ and the Taliban?

I would say that we should not be held to any rules our enemies don’t agree to.

Are you kidding?  Give them a piece of land…..and now look?  Let’s remember the ACTUAL history.  The British left that place in complete chaos - it was a bloodbath. One divided along religious lines.  The Pakistanis weren’t just nicely given a piece of land.

Secondly, yes the NWFP has always been a problem, BUT it was contained in that area.  It wasn’t until we expelled the Taliban into Pakistan that all this nonsense started.  So let’s not leave out the details which is the part containing our culpability.

And lastly, what excuse do you think the “enemy” has for inflicting conflict on Pakistan?  That would the fact the government has aligned itself with the USA.  That would be because the government is using AMERICAN bombing planes to do the same shite we do in other countries.

THIS CONFLICT was not created in a vacuum.

And your logic about not adhering to Geneva Conventions….. whoa.  You call them names likes dogs, but then with the same breathe you want us to act just like them?  Nice.

Are you kidding?  Give them a piece of land…..and now look?  Let’s remember the ACTUAL history.  The British left that place in complete chaos - it was a bloodbath. One divided along religious lines.  The Pakistanis weren’t just nicely given a piece of land.

I was not talking about Pakistan as a whole I was talking about Waziristan.  The Talliban were left alone in Waziristan and now Pakistan is paying the price.

Secondly, yes the NWFP has always been a problem, BUT it was contained in that area.  It wasn’t until we expelled the Taliban into Pakistan that all this nonsense started.  So let’s not leave out the details which is the part containing our culpability.

So it is our fault that the Taliban ran… because we were chasing them and they ended up in Pakistan??  Is there nothing that is not our fault?

And lastly, what excuse do you think the “enemy” has for inflicting conflict on Pakistan?  That would the fact the government has aligned itself with the USA.  That would be because the government is using AMERICAN bombing planes to do the same shite we do in other countries.

I don’t think the Taliban or AQ need any excuse to inflict conflict anywehre.  Are you suggesting any country or govt. we help should be subjected to attack by the Taliban?  We are chasing the Taliban so anyone on our side should worry about having their embassy’s bombed or their colleges bombed?

THIS CONFLICT was not created in a vacuum.

And your logic about not adhering to Geneva Conventions….. whoa.  You call them names likes dogs, but then with the same breathe you want us to act just like them?  Nice.

If I am in a dog fight I will fight like a dog. 

If I am in a fist fight and the guy pulls out a club I would be stupid not to get a club. 

If I were in a knife fight and a guy took out a gun, I would want a gun.

A rule by definition is a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.:

I am trying to figure out why one side would follow a rule while they know the other side isn’t?

To me that puts our soldiers at a disadvantage that I don’t think is fair to them.

Here is a really good article that is not very political from Australia.
It has some really good detail on the different extremists at play in Pakistan
and the tribal regions of Waziristan.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/an-unholy-trinity-20091020-h6wt.html

The problems of this part of the world are going to spread no matter what we do with our troops.
This is a tribal and religious battle that has been going on for hundreds of years.
The more war and destruction of infrastructure we bring to this region, the more radical it will become
from the destabilization we create. We are Pumping Billions into Pakistan and Afghanistan. But I just dont see it
doing anything but bringing Pakistan to a point of complete chaos. Without our money and weapons this conflict
would not escalate to a total meltdown of Pakistan and the region.

And keep in mind. Pakistan has Nuclear Weapons.

The Taliban and the conflict in Pakistan is a result of our unnecessary war in Afghanistan.  And now we are paying the price AGAIN by bring drawn into yet ANOTHER conflict in ANOTHER country.  Talk about domino effect.