Is it really that hard

[spike]

It tells me they outlived their usefulness. The military works on a different scale than the justice dept.

What is the difference between, say, a group of Nazi POWs & a group of suspected (for spike) terrorists in Gitmo? They were both held until the war was over & they both were used to gather info. The mainj difference is, the Germans wore uniforms. These folks don't. They are specifically EXCLUDED from the Geneva Convention.

"If you get caught, we'll deny any knowledge of you or this operation". Same thing.

The difference between Nazi POWs is that in that case we weren't rounding up civilians that had nothing to do with the conflict. The Geneva convention actually does apply, it's called Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

 

[spike]

You can lead a lib to reality but you can't make them accept it.

It seems you're the one avoiding reality Cerise. The reality that the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter. Advocating something that goes against their ruling is anti-American.

 

[spike]

If you read the OP you would see that the trained professionals at the Supreme Court have dealt with the situation. I suggest you get the hell out of their way and quit whining about it.

 

[spike]

Guess there's a couple we should have detained a little longer huh? No problem, we'll just send spike and PT over to apologize to the families of their victims. "So sorry we let this murdering terrorist bastard go, but we wanted to protect their rights. I'm sure you understand. I mean, what if they had been innocent?"

The justice system ain't perfect. I suppose you'd like us to keep all suspected criminals locked up without a trial. Then we can just send you over to their house to apologize to their families. "So sorry we locked up your daddy for life for no reason, but we were to lazy to actually supply any evidence. I'm sure you understand."

 

[spike]

Each time, the terrorists grew bolder, and we, as a country, did almost nothing.

Damn Gato, if we wanted to do something effective about terrorism we sure wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but you knew that. That invasion actually increased terrorism and wasted massive amounts of taxpayer money. Don't play dumb.

Also I'm sure you're more likely to move to Canada than I am. Making shit up isn't helping your argument either.

 

[Gonz]

That invasion actually increased terrorism

Challenging the expert consensus that the threat of global terrorism is increasing, the Human Security Brief 2007 reveals a sharp net decline in the incidence of terrorist violence around the world.

Fatalities from terrorism have declined by some 40 percent, while the loose-knit terror network associated with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda has suffered a dramatic collapse in popular support throughout the Muslim world.

The Brief also describes and analyses the extraordinary, but largely unnoticed, positive change in sub-Saharan Africa's security landscape. The number of conflicts being waged in the region more than halved between 1999 and 2006; the combat toll dropped by 98 percent.

Finally, the Brief updates the findings of the 2005 Human Security Report, and demonstrates that the decline in the total number of armed conflicts and combat deaths around the world has continued. The number of military coups has also continued decline, as have the number of campaigns of deadly violence waged against civilians.

source

Hey, there's that word concensus again.

 

[spike]

My statement was that the invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism. This is well documented by our own intelligence agencies.

Why on earth would you then post a quote that doesn't have anything to do with the effect of the Iraq invasion on terrorism?

Thanks for the update on Africa though.

 

[Cerise]

Conflicting reports about terrorism increasing:

If you set aside the war in Iraq, terrorism has in fact gone way down over the past five years.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/26/EDTJ10TRHO.DTL

In fact, I understand they even have to advertise for recruits now.....


Attention Paradise and 72 Virgin Seekers!!

In the name of Allah (blessed be him).

We now taking applications for position of: terrorist

Join us in our jihad against the west.

Applicants must be willing to be involved in actions that directly or indirectly result in immediate or eventual harm to large segments of a population.

Applicants must operate with complete disregard for their own health, well being, or life expectancy.

Applicants must be highly motivated by monetary gain or religious fervor.

 

[Gonz]

My statement was that the invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism. This is well documented by our own intelligence agencies.

Read slowly...

a sharp net decline in the incidence of terrorist violence around the world.

 

[spike]

Read slowly...

You read slowly....

The invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism. Well documented by our intelligence agencies.

The quote you posted said nothing about the effect of the Iraq war on, therefore it doesn't contradict what I said, therefore I'm not sure why you posted it.

Following along? See I was talking about the effect of the Iraq war...your quote isn't.

Again, thanks for the update on Africa.

 

[Gonz]

The invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism.

You keep asserting that. I've yet to see it.

 

[chcr]

Here you go.

We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global
strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-
American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose
and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.

Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the
situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

They have to recruit, chic. Suicide bombing is kind of a one-and-done occupation.

 

[Gonz]

increasingly likely to emerge

So it hasn't happened yet?

 

[jimpeel]

You're going to have to talk louder than that to get through to them, their heads are buried pretty deep.

So, with this logic, if you are traveling around the world, and (Russian, Iraqi, Afgani, Turkish, French, British, Insert any other country name here) decides to detain you indefinitely because of the way you look, or because you happened to be close to where a bomb went off, or a gun was fired, that's perfectly acceptable? Tit for tat, Gonz, we can either be civilized and be an example, or we can sink to their level. I'd rather be an example.

Now, I realize that some of these people were caught with guns on them, some were caught with plans and other evidence that makes us believe that they are terrorists, but many were rounded up and detained simply because of where they were, or on suspicion of being a terrorist. Even in the worst wars, you don't just shoot at someone that might be the enemy, unless again you want to be classified in the same class as them.

Holy crap! The "lead by example" tripe once again raises its ugly head. [soothing voice] ... and the lion shall lie down with the lamb. [/soothing voice]

Kumbaya m' Lord, kumbaya ...

 

[jimpeel]

If a fucking war! We're not tracking down auto thieves.

You really can't be this dense.

Oh, yes, he can!

 

[jimpeel]

From the Scalia dissent.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-1195

Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito join, dissenting.

America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen. See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 60-61, 70, 190 (2004). On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, D. C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. See id., at 552, n. 9. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.

...

In the long term, then, the Court's decision today accomplishes little, except perhaps to reduce the well-being of enemy combatants that the Court ostensibly seeks to protect. In the short term, however, the decision is devastating. At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the battlefield. See S. Rep. No. 110-90, pt. 7, p. 13 (2007) (Minority Views of Sens. Kyl, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, and Coburn) (hereinafter Minority Report). Some have been captured or killed. See ibid.; see also Mintz, Released Detainees Rejoining the Fight, Washington Post, Oct. 22, 2004, pp. A1, A12. But others have succeeded in carrying on their atrocities against innocent civilians. In one case, a detainee released from Guantanamo Bay masterminded the kidnapping of two Chinese dam workers, one of whom was later shot to death when used as a human shield against Pakistani commandoes. See Khan & Lancaster, Pakistanis Rescue Hostage; 2nd Dies, Washington Post, Oct. 15, 2004, p. A18. Another former detainee promptly resumed his post as a senior Taliban commander and murdered a United Nations engineer and three Afghan soldiers. Mintz, supra. Still another murdered an Afghan judge. See Minority Report 13. It was reported only last month that a released detainee carried out a suicide bombing against Iraqi soldiers in Mosul, Iraq. See White, Ex-Guantanamo Detainee Joined Iraq Suicide Attack, Washington Post, May 8, 2008, p. A18.

These, mind you, were detainees whom the military had concluded were not enemy combatants. Their return to the kill illustrates the incredible difficulty of assessing who is and who is not an enemy combatant in a foreign theater of operations where the environment does not lend itself to rigorous evidence collection. Astoundingly, the Court today raises the bar, requiring military officials to appear before civilian courts and defend their decisions under procedural and evidentiary rules that go beyond what Congress has specified. As The Chief Justice's dissent makes clear, we have no idea what those procedural and evidentiary rules are, but they will be determined by civil courts and (in the Court's contemplation at least) will be more detainee-friendly than those now applied, since otherwise there would no reason to hold the congressionally prescribed procedures unconstitutional. If they impose a higher standard of proof (from foreign battlefields) than the current procedures require, the number of the enemy returned to combat will obviously increase.

But even when the military has evidence that it can bring forward, it is often foolhardy to release that evidence to the attorneys representing our enemies. And one escalation of procedures that the Court is clear about is affording the detainees increased access to witnesses (perhaps troops serving in Afghanistan?) and to classified information. See ante, at 54-55. During the 1995 prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman, federal prosecutors gave the names of 200 unindicted co-conspirators to the "Blind Sheik's" defense lawyers; that information was in the hands of Osama Bin Laden within two weeks. See Minority Report 14-15. In another case, trial testimony revealed to the enemy that the United States had been monitoring their cellular network, whereupon they promptly stopped using it, enabling more of them to evade capture and continue their atrocities. See id., at 15.

...

The category of prisoner comparable to these detainees are not the Eisentrager criminal defendants, but the more than 400,000 prisoners of war detained in the United States alone during World War II. Not a single one was accorded the right to have his detention validated by a habeas corpus action in federal court--and that despite the fact that they were present on U. S. soil. See Bradley, The Military Commissions Act, Habeas Corpus, and the Geneva Conventions, 101 Am. J. Int'l L. 322, 338 (2007). The Court's analysis produces a crazy result: Whereas those convicted and sentenced to death for war crimes are without judicial remedy, all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield over which the United States exercises "absolute and indefinite" control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. And, as an even more bizarre implication from the Court's reasoning, those prisoners whom the military plans to try by full-dress Commission at a future date may file habeas petitions and secure release before their trials take place.

[more]

 

[Gonz]

Scalia needs to teach his fellow jurists a thing or two about the law.

 

[jimpeel]

Scalia needs to teach his fellow jurists a thing or two about the law.

He tries; but they are as hard-headed as Spike.

 

[spike]

Jim, you just never miss an opportunity with the childish asinine trolling. What went so wrong with your life to make you such a tool?

Scalia needs to teach his fellow jurists a thing or two about the law.

Scalia is a pompous fool who shouldn't be on the bench. Luckily the more rational judges have shown him a few things about the law.