Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts

[Universe Prince]

Bin Laden Cheers Court Decision

Okay, I have to say, that is really ignorant, childish and stupid.

[Michael Tee]

<<But this is a war, make no mistake about it, and they are non-uniformed enemy combatants in this war.>>

So then who are the uniformed enemy combatants in this so-called "war?"

[sirs]

Wasn't aware that AlQeada had a uniformed division.  Please, do show us

[Michael Tee]

<<Wasn't aware that AlQeada had a uniformed division.  Please, do show us>>

That was my POINT, sirs, but I guess it sailed right over your head once again.  I'll type this real slow so you can get it:  this "war" strangely enough has no uniformed enemies.  It's the strangest "war" in history, with a uniformed and un-uniformed American military pursuing "enemy forces" who are entirely in civilian dress.

In other words, this is not a war at all.  A war is national force against national force.  The U.S. is pursuing what should properly be called a terror campaign against any and all who are opposed to its hegemony and wherever they may be situated.  By falsely naming its terror campaign a "war," the U.S. government hopes to justify crimes such as the bombing and  invasion of sovereign states without any plausible casus belli, arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and torture of anyone suspected of harbouring anti-U.S. sentiments, detention without trial etc. all on the grounds that we have (a) "war" and (b) un-uniformed participants in the "war."  Somehow the fact that NONE of the adversaries in this "war" are uniformed national troops of any nation is seen as perfectly normal and unexceptional "wartime" conditions.

This is such an obvious crock of shit as to be totally indefensible.  They get away with it because at least for the time being there is no nation or coalition of nations powerful enough to stand up to them.  Hopefully all that will change drastically during the lifetime of the war criminals and they may ultimately be called to account for their crimes and atrocities against humanity.

[sirs]

In other words, its a completely different type of war, with a completely different type of enemy that has no problem hiding behind civilians and targeting/murdering children, besides our soldiers.  Then when collateral damage occurs, while they hide un-uniformed among the populace, and unfortunate death occurs to innocent civilians, they have pigeons like yourself parrot how terrible the U.S. is supposed to be

Keep up the good work, Usama applauds you

[Michael Tee]

<<In other words, its a completely different type of war . . . >>

Oh, sirs, you are way too modest.  It's not a "completely different war," it's the ONLY "war" in history with no uniformed forces and no national government on the other side.  In other words, to all but the conceptually handicapped, it is not a war at all by any standard known to mankind.

<< . . . with a completely different type of enemy that has no problem hiding behind civilians and targeting/murdering children, besides our soldiers. >>

Yes, why don't we do a comparison between the number of civilians and the number of children killed by the "enemy" on the one hand and by the U.S. military on the other?  Then we could see who the REAL killers of civilians and children are in this conflict.  Oh no, I forgot - - we CAN'T, because as Tommy Franks has famously said, "We don't do [civilian] body counts."  And gee, I wonder why that would be?  They keep mountains of stats on every other facet of this "war" except civilians and children killed by U.S. firepower.  Isn't THAT strange?

<<Then when collateral damage occurs, while they hide un-uniformed among the populace, and unfortunate death occurs to innocent civilians, they have pigeons like yourself parrot how terrible the U.S. is supposed to be>>

SUPPOSED to be?  I bet if you HAD children, sirs, or if your family were among the victims of U.S. bombardment, torture, murder or rape, you'd remove that "supposed to" from your poisonous little diatribe real fast.

<<Keep up the good work, Usama applauds you>>

Well, I suppose if I have to be applauded by a mass murderer, I'd rather be applauded by one like OBL, whose victims number in the tens of thousands, than by a murderous lying criminal bastard like George W. Bush, whose victims number in the hundreds of thousands.

[sirs]

In other words, its a completely different type of war, where the enemy does not wear uniforms, and hides among the civilians, when not targeting them.  Yea, pretty much what I said, minus all the Anti U.S. military AMBE

[Michael Tee]

<<In other words, its a completely different type of war, where the enemy does not wear uniforms, and hides among the civilians, when not targeting them. >>

Uh, NO, sirs, as I said before, it's not a war at all.  A war in which none of the "enemy" combatants are in the service of any national government, let alone uniformed by any nation's army is not even a war.  There's no opponent on the other side who can be held accountable at international law.  It is, as I suggested, simply a terror campaign by the U.S. government against anyone and everyone who is opposed to its hegemony in the Middle East.

[sirs]

Um, yes Tee, it IS a war.  Just because it doesn't fit so nicely in what your pereception of what a war HAS to be, doesn't negate the fact that it is a war, simply with a new type of enemy, one that has requires completely new tactics in dealing with

[Michael Tee]

<<Um, yes Tee, it IS a war.  Just because it doesn't fit so nicely in what your pereception of what a war HAS to be, doesn't negate the fact that it is a war, simply with a new type of enemy, one that has requires completely new tactics in dealing with>>

You call it whatever you like, sirs, but for those of us who know what war is and has always been for the U.S. and for other countries as well, this is not a war.  It is exactly what I called it, a terror campaign. 

If there was an actual war going on, there would be uniformed adversaries somewhere in the picture, so that the current crop of prisoners could be properly categorized as non-uniformed combatants.  When NONE of the combatants on the other side is uniformed, there is absolutely no need to distinguish between uniformed and non-uniformed, therefore the administration's argument that these are "non-uniformed" combatants (applicable only to a REAL war, in which some combatants are uniformed and others may not be) is just a bogus distinction formed to give them the best of both worlds - - avoidance of the Geneva Convention (for combatants caught out of uniform) and the ability to detain indefinitely without trial.  It's a "war" only to the Bush administration and its universally discredited legal counsel. 

Too bad none of them are likely at this point to see their theories tested in a genuine international war crimes tribunal.

[sirs]

LOL...... Terror Campaign, huh?  Ok, I'll bite, AlQeada and Militant Islam aren't at war with the U.S.  they're on a "terror campaign".  gotcha

Ok, whatever floats your boat, Tee

I suppose the war on drugs has little uniformed drug dealers and bottles too

oy

[Michael Tee]

<<I suppose the war on drugs has little uniformed drug dealers and bottles too>>

Most people are smart enough to have figured out long ago that the "war on drugs" is not a real war, just like the "war on terror" is not a real war.

Oy.

[Plane]

I wonder what the dictionary says is "war".

Lets see.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS275&defl=en&q=define:war&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title


Lots of definitions , but not one that refuses to apply the term without National government involvement on both sides.

I remember reading of war between mobs , tribes , gangs and familys , even (exceptionally) individuals.

When did your more narrow definition become the most proper ?

[sirs]

<<I suppose the war on drugs has little uniformed drug dealers and bottles too>>

Most people are smart enough to have figured out long ago that the "war on drugs" is not a real war.

Precisely.....it's a TERM, it's not an object.  It applies to a situation and frequently requires much more extensive intervention than standard protocols, due to the situation.

It's why we're in a war with militant Islam, but if you want to refer them as being on a terror campaign, no skin off my back

[Michael Tee]

<<It's why we're in a war with militant Islam, but if you want to refer them as being on a terror campaign, no skin off my back>>

Uhh, it wasn't militant Islam that I was referring to as being on a terror campaign, it was the Bush administration.  I wasn't commenting on militant Islam at all.  However, I could certainly agree that some of them are also on a terror campaign, no skin off my back either.

It should be mentioned, however, that one terror campaign aims at the domination of one region by invaders who don't live anywhere near there and the other terror campaign aims at getting the aggressors out of its homeland and back where they belong.