Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts

[Plane]

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.

When Al Queda declaired war on us we were at war , it does not take two to agree to be at war this has beena war since Osama Bin Laden started shooting,  we cannot stop being at war unless Al Queda also stops being at war with us.

It may take two to tango , but fighting does not require mutual agreement on terms.

[Universe Prince]

That's nice, BT, but authorization of use of military force is not the same as a declaration of war.

When Al Queda declaired war on us we were at war , it does not take two to agree to be at war this has beena war since Osama Bin Laden started shooting,  we cannot stop being at war unless Al Queda also stops being at war with us.

It may take two to tango , but fighting does not require mutual agreement on terms.

Again, when did we declare war on al-Qaeda? And also again, 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.  If we are fighting a war against al-Qaeda, then we're doing an extremely poor job of it. And if we are fighting a war with al-Qaeda, then any members of al-Qaeda we capture need to be prisoners of war, not unlawful enemy combatants. And if we are at war with al-Qaeda, that does absolutely nothing to merit eliminating habeas corpus. If anything, it makes habeas corpus even more important.

I never said the U.S. and al-Qaeda need to agree on terms. What I said was, 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.

[Plane]

"...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."

Oh?

Why would someone join Al Queda if he didn't want to be a terrorist?

Al Queda is 100% terrorist ,so an attack on Al Queda is necessarily an attack on terror.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why would someone join Al Queda if he didn't want to be a terrorist?

Al Queda is 100% terrorist ,so an attack on Al Queda is necessarily an attack on terror.

========================
While it is true that AQ does not have daycare centers or pass out lollipops like Hamas, the higher-ups are not terrorists, they just train  younger, more gullible guys to become terrorists. They are more like Terror Managers.

[Universe Prince]

"...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."

Oh?

Yes.

Why would someone join Al Queda if he didn't want to be a terrorist?

Al Queda is 100% terrorist ,so an attack on Al Queda is necessarily an attack on terror.

Parcheesi on a chess board, Plane. So no other group in the whole world uses terror as a tactic? Only al-Qaeda? Come on, Plane, elevate your thinking here.

[Plane]

"...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."

Oh?

Yes.

Why would someone join Al Queda if he didn't want to be a terrorist?

Al Queda is 100% terrorist ,so an attack on Al Queda is necessarily an attack on terror.

Parcheesi on a chess board, Plane. So no other group in the whole world uses terror as a tactic? Only al-Qaeda? Come on, Plane, elevate your thinking here.

We need to fight all terrorism at once elese we are not fighting terrorism?

All members of Al Queida are terrorists , so a fight with Al Quieda is a fight with terrorists , it is a sylogism.

[BT]

That's nice, BT, but authorization of use of military force is not the same as a declaration of war.

It has been since 1941.

[Universe Prince]

It has been since 1941.

Who did we go to war against without a declaration of war in 1941?

[BT]

1941 was the last US declaration of war. Since then (1941) Congress has used other means to stamp approval upon conflicts.

But you knew that.

[Plane]

The Korean _ _ _  , the Vietnam  _ _ _


Don't call them wars if you don't want to , lots of people have invented better euphanisms .

Police action seems popular.


What should we call this phenominon in which groups of US and THEM are meeting in combat , this time?

[Universe Prince]

We need to fight all terrorism at once elese we are not fighting terrorism?

No. Not what I said. If this the highest level of thought you're going to bring, then I'll have to start talking to you like you're a child. I'd rather not.

All members of Al Queida are terrorists , so a fight with Al Quieda is a fight with terrorists , it is a sylogism.

Pay attention to the questions, Plane. I did not ask if al-Qaeda were the only terrorists. I asked if al-Qaeda was the only group to use terror as a tactic.

The Korean _ _ _  , the Vietnam  _ _ _

Conflicts with another country at least. The "war on terror" is not.

What should we call this phenominon in which groups of US and THEM are meeting in combat , this time?

Meeting in combat where? Iraq? So any time troops fire bullets at someone else, it's a war? See, this gets me back to my previous point. The problem is not someone trying to narrowly define war. The problem is war now seems to encompass any conflict of any sort. As I said before, you're reaching Plane.

This is a problem I frequently have in discussing the "war on terror". Many people just define war as whatever they want it to be, and so then to question whether the "war on terror" can actually be war becomes meaningless. We're at war because al-Qaeda attacked us. We went to war with Iraq before they attacked us because we had to. War becomes whatever supports the current version of the current conflict. So it's war because you say it's war. Okay. So I move on to the concept of a "war on terror", but no, that I cannot question either. War on al-Qaeda, war on Iraq is the 'war on terror'. Is it? We claim the right to hold people indefinitely without a hearing, to use "extreme interrogation" techniques, to go to war with countries that have not attacked and made no militaristic move against us, and so on. Basically, we can use pretty much any methods for trying to instill fear we like, but we're supposedly waging a "war on terror". And apparently I can't question this either, because we're in a war, and so we're not using terror as a tactic. Al-Qaeda is supposedly in a war with us--because, as you may recall, they declared war when they attacked us--but they're still terrorists, and so attacking them is part of the "war on terror". It's all very neatly arranged so that anyone questioning is apparently only able to manage questioning the authority of the U.S. to keep it's citizens safe. Not that it can or is, but that's not really open for discussion either. The whole thing seems intellectually dishonest to me.

So I'm going to go back to what I said before, and give you one more chance to engage in a real and honest discussion. Settle on whether we're talking about the supposed "war on terror" or just al-Qaeda. The two are not interchangeable. I'm not going to draw you a Venn diagram to explain why. Figure it out. You're a smart guy.

[Universe Prince]

1941 was the last US declaration of war. Since then (1941) Congress has used other means to stamp approval upon conflicts.

But you knew that.

Of course they have. Because they didn't want to declare war.

[BT]

Because they didn't want to declare war.

Why do you think that is?

[Universe Prince]

Because they didn't want to declare war.

Why do you think that is?

Different reasons at different times. The Korean War, for example, was a war between factions within Korea, and the U.S. involvement was more technically a "police action" precisely to avoid a declaration of war. We were not that long out of World War II after all, and no one wanted to see that start up again. More recently, I think not having a declaration of war is seen as a means to have Congress more involved in the decision making, though frankly, it doesn't seem to do any good.

I have no intention of arguing that the Korean War or the Vietnam War or the Gulf War were not wars. I'm sure the argument can be made that we're at war with al-Qaeda. But not every instance of military conflict is a war.

[Plane]

Many people just define war as whatever they want it to be, and so then to question whether the "war on terror" can actually be war becomes meaningless.

This is my complaint on you too.

If this present level of fighting is not war what is it?