Obama wins! What will get worse? Options

[Lonovavir]

Lono, what I highlighted dosen't make all that much sense, I think you meant "Enemy Combatants" but whatever, laws have actually moved on since the Hague Convention and Geneva Convention and once the fighting stops, any prisoners are expected to be treated well, which is a rule the Taliban or Al Queda don't follow which is one of the many reasons they have become outlaw groups.

Of course Al Queda aren't going to attact military targets they will strike at "soft" targets first because the people at a soft target are less likely to fight back. They may see themselves at war with, not just America but the whole of the non-Islamic world so they will strike at civilian targets as that will allow for the better outcome.

1864? really, If you had read my post I said that it tends to go in cycles.

What source are you referring to then? The last time I checked the GC has been amended, but a new set of rules of war hasn't been agreed upon. So we're stuck in a situation where we're using old rules that don't directly address the status of terrorists (save as "highway robbers") because asymmetric warfare isn't really covered in the HC or GC.

And our definitions of what a "target" is are immaterial since Al Queda has made that choice already.

[RaiderDave2112]

What source are you referring to then? The last time I checked the GC has been amended, but a new set of rules of war hasn't been agreed upon. So we're stuck in a situation where we're using old rules that don't directly address the status of terrorists (save as "highway robbers") because asymmetric warfare isn't really covered in the HC or GC.

And our definitions of what a "target" is are immaterial since Al Queda has made that choice already.

Some of the new rules were agreed on in the 70's, 80's and 90's the last update was in 2005 so if I was you I'd go back and check your facts. The US has violated several of the rules concerning the treatment of prisoners.

[Lonovavir]

Some of the new rules were agreed on in the 70's, 80's and 90's the last update was in 2005 so if I was you I'd go back and check your facts. The US has violated several of the rules concerning the treatment of prisoners.

What new rules? Name a treaty or convention, be specific, don't just say "new rules".

[RaiderDave2112]

What new rules? Name a treaty or convention, be specific, don't just say "new rules".

From Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conven...ommon_Article_3

Common Article 3
This article states that the certain minimum rules of war also apply to armed conflicts that are not of an international character, but that are contained within the boundaries of a single country. The applicability of this article rests on the interpretation of the term armed conflict.[7] For example it would apply to conflicts between the Government and rebel forces, or between two rebel forces, or to other conflicts that have all the characteristics of war but that are carried out within the confines of a single country. A handful of individuals attacking a police station would not be considered an armed conflict subject to this article, but only subject to the laws of the country in question.

The provisions of the entire Geneva Convention are not applicable in this situation, but only a limited list of provisions contained within the language of Article 3,[7] and additionally within the language of Protocol II. The rationale for the limitation is that many articles would otherwise conflict with the rights of a Sovereign State. In summary:

Persons taking no active part in hostilities should be treated humanely (including military persons who have ceased to be active as a result of sickness, injury, or detention).
The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for

Centre for Defence Information

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3661

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, if followed, can provide a core “bill of rights” safety-net for detainees even if additional Geneva Convention provisions were not applied.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29, 2006, decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld applied Common Article 3 to a global conflict with a non-state actor, al-Qaeda, taking place within the territory of a country that is a party to the Geneva Conventions, Afghanistan. Its implications are that Common Article 3 applies to the global conflict with terrorists anywhere on earth involving the territory of a party to the Geneva Conventions. As cited below, this reality has influenced recent developments within Department of Defense (DOD) detainee policies, including DOD Directive 2310.01E on DOD’s detainee program and the new Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations, both released Sept. 6, 2006. (Note that clicking on the link for the Army Field Manual opens an 11MB, 384-page PDF).

Common Article 3 Safeguards

Already applied to U.S. counterterrorism operations by the U.S. Supreme Court in the context of Hamdan, Common Article 3:

requires humane treatment of persons taking no active part in the hostilities, i.e., including detainees since removed from combat, without discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, gender or wealth
prohibits violence to life and person, such as murder, mutilation, torture and cruel treatment
prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity” including “humiliating and degrading treatment”
requires that punitive sentences and executions (i.e., criminal punishments) be pronounced only by a “regularly constituted court” that “afford[s] all the judicial guarantees … recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples”
prohibits hostage-taking
requires the wounded and sick to be cared for
indicates that “an impartial humanitarian body” like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) may offer its services

Thats the bit I meant

[DarthMarley]

Common citizens being treated humanely be occupying powers are one thing.
Saboutures and combatants displaying no uniform or insignia is quite another.

But then, people break on one side or the other,; those who think that on balance US armed forces are a force for good in the world, and those who think that on balance the US is the "bad guy" on the world stage.

[CylonNo21]

I see that the IRA American propaganda wing has done it's usual bang up job of convincing the yanks that they only went after the military, and FYI we didn't bring down the IRA they agreed to a ceasefire after the Americans insisted they be included in talks and they still haven't disarmed completely as they have now switched to a mainly crimminal gang, protection rackets, drugs and people smuggling etc.

Nice to see that none of your reading comprehension skills have improved. I didn't say that the IRA - Provo or Official - went after solely military targets, I said they organized themselves along military lines and waged a military-style campaign. Doing the one doesn't necessarily mean that you limit yourself to that particular target set. So, perhaps before you bang off assuming things, you should perhaps read and understand what was actually written first.

And if you seriously believe that the reason the IRA came to terms was solely because of Mitchell and his half-assed commission, you are being myopic. Absent the pressures brought to bear by the activities of Special Branch and the British Army in Northern Ireland, nothing would have been accomplished. But then, what do I know? I'm just a poor, brain-washed American mick who knows absolutely nothing about Northern Ireland, pining away for the Old Sod and wishing the Battle of the Boyne had gone the other way, right? Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, the whole area should have been blockaded and the two sides left to pound each other into bloody pulp.

[RaiderDave2112]

Nice to see that none of your reading comprehension skills have improved. I didn't say that the IRA - Provo or Official - went after solely military targets, I said they organized themselves along military lines and waged a military-style campaign. Doing the one doesn't necessarily mean that you limit yourself to that particular target set. So, perhaps before you bang off assuming things, you should perhaps read and understand what was actually written first.

And if you seriously believe that the reason the IRA came to terms was solely because of Mitchell and his half-assed commission, you are being myopic. Absent the pressures brought to bear by the activities of Special Branch and the British Army in Northern Ireland, nothing would have been accomplished. But then, what do I know? I'm just a poor, brain-washed American mick who knows absolutely nothing about Northern Ireland, pining away for the Old Sod and wishing the Battle of the Boyne had gone the other way, right? Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, the whole area should have been blockaded and the two sides left to pound each other into bloody pulp.

At last, the truth.

[CaptainTightpant...]

reading past the insults, I don't really see any hard facts that support the idea that the things people want to define as "military" really are defined that way for any other reason than that they think they should be.

Certainly it is not always a clear line between military versus criminal, but in general it is better for our country if we treat acts of violence as criminal acts when they are not happening in a clear battlefield. The problem is that the last administration intentionally sought to blur such lines and insert the military when not always appropriate and they defended it with overly blunt (and incorrect logic) and knee-jerk emotion.

If we want to attach special consequences or even create a special arm of the FBI or what have you to investigate acts of terrorism, i agree with that. But it is important not to overuse the military in such context, because the danger is that we become a militarized society when it begins to happen on a regular basis. And we are not and should not be a militarized society because it intrinsically damages the nature of a democracy when the military is inserted too often into the running of a country and society. in fact, i would say that terrorists would consider such a thing a "win".

[RaiderDave2112]

To be honest we should have gone into Afganistan before 9/11 and Iraq was nothing to do with Al Queda and everything to do with oil.

[DarthMarley]

reading past the insults, I don't really see any hard facts that support the idea that the things people want to define as "military" really are defined that way for any other reason than that they think they should be.

Certainly it is not always a clear line between military versus criminal, but in general it is better for our country if we treat acts of violence as criminal acts when they are not happening in a clear battlefield. The problem is that the last administration intentionally sought to blur such lines and insert the military when not always appropriate and they defended it with overly blunt (and incorrect logic) and knee-jerk emotion.

If we want to attach special consequences or even create a special arm of the FBI or what have you to investigate acts of terrorism, i agree with that. But it is important not to overuse the military in such context, because the danger is that we become a militarized society when it begins to happen on a regular basis. And we are not and should not be a militarized society because it intrinsically damages the nature of a democracy when the military is inserted too often into the running of a country and society. in fact, i would say that terrorists would consider such a thing a "win".

The distinction is clear to anyone who has bothered to do any basic reading on the topic.
Starting with the published 9/11Report, one can clearly note the difference between treating the matter as a military one or a criminal one.

For a simple example, from memory, that anyone who bothers to spout off on the topic should already know, the Clinton administration had many opportunities to take action, but hesitated because some DoJ lawyer mentioned that there would be a "due process" problem, or a conviction would be problematic, or other criminal legal concern.
Opposed to this line of thinking is the idea that these assholes actually published a document announcing they have declared war upon us, thus blowing them up, detaining them in an extra-judicial manner, or as the previous administration established, using military tribunals would solve the problem, deal with the threat, and avoid legal hand-wringing.

instead, you want to give the F.B.I. extra-jurisdictional powers to investigate when the "investigation" of foreign threats is already handled by the intelligence agencies.

Further issues with the "military vs criminal" paradigm which you don't get were the "wall of separation" that Clinton era legal advisors insisted keep intelligence from being shared between agencies, to make sure that the "rights of terrorists" were preserved.

The "military bogeyman" was a mantra throughout the Bush years.
Assholes insisting "it is about oil" and other articles of faith by idiots on the left caused enough youthful morons to elect an inexperiences Carter clone.

[DarthMarley]

To be honest we should have gone into Afganistan before 9/11 and Iraq was nothing to do with Al Queda and everything to do with oil.

How did the Iraq war help the USA "with oil?"

It was in large measure about Israel.

It certainly had unintended consequences.
But to ascribe it to being "Just about oil" is as misinformed as insisting that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks.

[CaptainTightpant...]

The distinction is clear to anyone who has bothered to do any basic reading on the topic.
Starting with the published 9/11Report, one can clearly note the difference between treating the matter as a military one or a criminal one.

For a simple example, from memory, that anyone who bothers to spout off on the topic should already know, the Clinton administration had many opportunities to take action, but hesitated because some DoJ lawyer mentioned that there would be a "due process" problem, or a conviction would be problematic, or other criminal legal concern.
Opposed to this line of thinking is the idea that these assholes actually published a document announcing they have declared war upon us, thus blowing them up, detaining them in an extra-judicial manner, or as the previous administration established, using military tribunals would solve the problem, deal with the threat, and avoid legal hand-wringing.

instead, you want to give the F.B.I. extra-jurisdictional powers to investigate when the "investigation" of foreign threats is already handled by the intelligence agencies.

Further issues with the "military vs criminal" paradigm which you don't get were the "wall of separation" that Clinton era legal advisors insisted keep intelligence from being shared between agencies, to make sure that the "rights of terrorists" were preserved.

The "military bogeyman" was a mantra throughout the Bush years.
Assholes insisting "it is about oil" and other articles of faith by idiots on the left caused enough youthful morons to elect an inexperiences Carter clone.

I've done my homework too, you just have a different interpretation that you mistake for fact.

I've never claimed in this discussion that Iraq was about oil, so please don't ascribe other poster's opinions to me.

Coordinating intelligence and misusing our military into our courts system is not the same thing. Yes, letting intelligence agencies coordinate is a good thing, inserting the military is not always a good thing. The military has become a boogeyman because people are alarmed at the way it is being misused and by the very real and valid concern that our legal system is being militarized.

[DarthMarley]

I've done my homework too, you just have a different interpretation that you mistake for fact.

You do not demonstrate the knowledge that I just cited as an example. That casts doubt on the idea of "having done homework" as meaning that your base of knowledge is on par with mine. You are not a level playing field simply by claiming that you know things too, and thus our opinions have equal merit. They don't. Mine are better and more informed.

More importantly, my example from the 9/11 Report clearly established my claim.
Your only retort is "you mistake your interpretation for fact."
A more appropriate response would be for you to say "I get it now! The Dems, under Clinton, pursued a "law enforcement" model, while the Reps, under Bush pursued a military model, and that is a key difference between the ideological camps. And now that Obama is in office our government is returning to the law enforcement model."

I've never claimed in this discussion that Iraq was about oil, so please don't ascribe other poster's opinions to me.

I will reply to posts as I see fit. Your interpretation that I am ascribing other poster's opinions to you is further evidence of your inability to arrive at sound conclusions from readily available data. You read your preference into what is in front of you to the extent that it distorts relevant truth.

Coordinating intelligence and misusing our military into our courts system is not the same thing. Yes, letting intelligence agencies coordinate is a good thing, inserting the military is not always a good thing. The military has become a boogeyman because people are alarmed at the way it is being misused and by the very real and valid concern that our legal system is being militarized.

No one is "inserting military into our courts" and that misconception prevents you from having an "Aha!" moment of epiphany on this subject. Unfortunately, Eric Holder has the same problem.
The criminal courts and the military system of justice are different.

An interesting recent example for debate could be the Ft. Hood shooter.
A uniformed officer committing a crime on a military base, in uniform during the commission of the crime, calls for the case to be tried according to UMC and not the Texas criminal courts.
Do you make a case that somehow the shooter's rights are being violated by military justice being applied to him?
Is there something about a military court that is inherently unfair in comparison to a criminal trial in the US system?

[CaptainTightpant...]

LOL, Darth, the only thing you put out is opinion. When you yourself cite footnotes and facts, then I can debate them or know exactly what it is you think I need to be citing. Until then it is two people arguing different interpretations.

[DarthMarley]

LOL, Darth, the only thing you put out is opinion. When you yourself cite footnotes and facts, then I can debate them or know exactly what it is you think I need to be citing. Until then it is two people arguing different interpretations.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes a truth claim "true."

Nothing magically becomes true because it has citations and footnotes.

Disagreement over truth claims is exactly what argument is about.

You just don't have the chops to do that though.

Rather than counter with "Your claim that 'x' is true is wrong because 'y.'" you get into the dodge refuge of insisting that my claims are "just opinion" and thus, you feel like you have countered a claim without even presenting a rationale other than "Some people have different views."

For fuck's sake, some people think the earth is flat. They can cite their ideas of proof, and make comments and footnotes until the heat death of the universe, and that doesn't elevate their claim in the slightest.

I have seen this kind of bullshit tactic before in other silly places populated by liberal fuckwits who think they "know things."
They constantly demand evidence and proof, and yet, when given any, avoid engaging in a discussion of it.

For an argument to have an utility in sorting out truth from competing claims, then the claims themselves must be challenged.
You fail to do that.

So until you can, why do you bother?

[larocque6689]

And here s Michael Moore on timed troop withdrawals.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2398420/posts

Michael Moore: I can understand why Republicans and some of the people on the right, lol, are like, 'What are you doing setting a deadline?'. It's like CRAZY. If they're truly the enemy, you don't say, 'Okay, we're going to fight you until 2:00 on ummm (looks at watch), on July 2, 2011. I mean it's like, if they are the enemy, you fight them until they're done. Until you win, and they lose. And that's not what he said. He just provided more fodder for his opponents by giving a deadline.

Larry KIng: Right

Michael Moore: If somebody is trying to kill you, if that's his case, that people in Afganistan are trying to kill us, then how can you set a deadline? The deadline is maybe a week from now or maybe it's 10 years from now, but it's going to be, 'We're going to stop you from killing us".