Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts

[Plane]

  The war would be over when the enemy signed an instrument of total surrender.

Why can't Osama Bin Laden sign such a document?

He certainly signed one to declare war.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

[Universe Prince]

Plane, now you're just being absurd.

[Michael Tee]

If plane really read through the whole thing, he's a hero.

Of course, OBL isn't front and centre in the world-wide Muslim resistance movement any more, he just showed the way and now there are dozens of OBLs, so it would not matter if he signed a surrender or not.  Probably get himself killed if he signed, it would piss off those who are more active in carrying on the struggle today.

Which just reinforces the point I was making, how absurd it is to compare the Western Allies' policy on POWS during WWII with the Bush administration policy of indefinite detention in a phony "war" which is not really a war, except to the extent that calling it one will advance the administration's nefarious objectives of international aggression, robbery and world domination.

[Plane]

There is plenty of absurdity to go around.

So far ,fifty people released from Guntanimo have been killed in fighting with American soldiers.

This is a high recidivism , and there isn't anything in the Supreime Court ruleing that benefits someone like those guys .

Narrowing the definition of war so much that what we are presently involved in isn't one , reminds me much of someone insisting that the Vietnam Confilct was a "Police Action " as opposed to a war .

[Michael Tee]

<<Narrowing the definition of war so much that what we are presently involved in isn't one , reminds me much of someone insisting that the Vietnam Confilct was a "Police Action " as opposed to a war .>>

I didn't narrow the definition of a war, there's just a huge natural discrepancy between what you're now fighting ("terrorism") and what the U.S. fought in all its other wars (a nation, a people, an alliance of nations.)

In a war, it's normal to hold prisoners till the end of the conflict because experience of all past wars indicates there will be an easily ascertainable moment of victory or at the very least of the end of hostilities, and no one envisages an indefinite detention.

In a so-called "war" where the "enemy" is not a nation but a tactic, there is no more hope of defining an end to the war than there is of defining the enemy.  So holding prisoners indefinitely without trial could amount to a life sentence without charges or trial.

[Plane]

Our enemys are persons , "terrorists " describes them because they have chosen a tactic .

We would call them rhetoriticians , if their tactic was retoric , of course then we would not be shooting them .

Osama Bin Laden declaired war on us , it isn't like we decided it would be a good idea before he did.


http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

[Xavier_Onassis]

So far ,fifty people released from Guntanimo have been killed in fighting with American soldiers.


I find it amazing that you accept this figure at face value.

It's like they shoot an Abdul Hassan Al Hussein in Afghanistan, and someone types the name into the database, and behold, they had a guy with that name in Gitmo.

They lie. They make up stuff. They lied about WMD's. It is what they do.

Wake up!

[Plane]

So far ,fifty people released from Guntanimo have been killed in fighting with American soldiers.


I find it amazing that you accept this figure at face value.

It's like they shoot an Abdul Hassan Al Hussein in Afghanistan, and someone types the name into the database, and behold, they had a guy with that name in Gitmo.

They lie. They make up stuff. They lied about WMD's. It is what they do.

Wake up!

I have your word on it that they do not fingerprint the residents of Gitmo?

[Universe Prince]

So far ,fifty people released from Guntanimo have been killed in fighting with American soldiers.

You've said this a few times. What is your source?

This is a high recidivism , and there isn't anything in the Supreime Court ruleing that benefits someone like those guys .

Right. Some people commit crimes after being in jail, so therefore, we should just do away with the whole concept of habeas corpus. People accused just get thrown in jail, no hearing, no trial. Guilty until proven innocent, only we don't give anyone a chance to prove innocence. Think how much safer we will all be. It's for the children. And yes, I'm being sarcastic.

Narrowing the definition of war so much that what we are presently involved in isn't one , reminds me much of someone insisting that the Vietnam Confilct was a "Police Action " as opposed to a war .

Narrowing? Plane, you're reaching.

[Plane]

Narrowing the definition of war so much that what we are presently involved in isn't one , reminds me much of someone insisting that the Vietnam Confilct was a "Police Action " as opposed to a war .

Narrowing? Plane, you're reaching.

Fine then, define war , such that the struggle with Al Quieda doesn't count.

[Michael Tee]

<<I have your word on it that they do not fingerprint the residents of Gitmo?>>

What's the difference?  They fingerprint AND they lie.  The one doesn't preclude the other.  They've been fingerprinting for years and they've been lying for years.

[Plane]

<<I have your word on it that they do not fingerprint the residents of Gitmo?>>

What's the difference?  They fingerprint AND they lie.  The one doesn't preclude the other.  They've been fingerprinting for years and they've been lying for years.

Then how do you know that there are any prisoners in Guntanimo?

[Universe Prince]

Fine then, define war , such that the struggle with Al Quieda doesn't count.

Are we at war with al-Qaeda? Have we declared war on al-Qaeda? I don't recall that event. As I recall, we are supposedly in a "war on terror". War, generally speaking would be "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air." Possibly one could argue we are in a such a conflict with al-Qaeda. We are not in such a conflict with "terror". Now if you want to do away with the notion of a "war on terror" and pursue merely a war on al-Qaeda, we can have that argument. But if we're going to start demanding definitions, then you need to settle on whether we're talking about the supposed "war on terror" or just al-Qaeda. The two are not interchangeable.

[Michael Tee]

<<Then how do you know that there are any prisoners in Guntanimo?>>

Because I'm psychic.

[BT]

Fine then, define war , such that the struggle with Al Quieda doesn't count.

Are we at war with al-Qaeda? Have we declared war on al-Qaeda? I don't recall that event. As I recall, we are supposedly in a "war on terror". War, generally speaking would be "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air." Possibly one could argue we are in a such a conflict with al-Qaeda. We are not in such a conflict with "terror". Now if you want to do away with the notion of a "war on terror" and pursue merely a war on al-Qaeda, we can have that argument. But if we're going to start demanding definitions, then you need to settle on whether we're talking about the supposed "war on terror" or just al-Qaeda. The two are not interchangeable.

Public Law 107-40
107th Congress

                            Joint Resolution


 
    To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
     responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
           States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 -  [S.J. Res. 23]>>

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
    committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the
    United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
    United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
    policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
    and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
    to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
    and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take
    action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
    the United States: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use
of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a)  <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

    (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
            (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
        section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
        declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
        statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
        the War Powers Resolution.

[[Page 115 STAT. 225]]

            (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
        resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
        Resolution.

    Approved September 18, 2001.