Ken, the problem is: If anvestigations dug up the reality, you’ld find that we, ourselves are laced with a most refined strain of terroism, masked by our denial and attachment to an irrational sense of exceptionalizm.

In other words, yes terrorists will be coming to our towns, they may even be born there, then off again to wreak their havoc on those whose resourses we covet.

The terrorists are not committing crimes, but acts of war. We cannot fight terrorism using law enforcement. We also can’t wait for them to commit acts of terror before we act. Obama is going to go back to the failed Clinton policy of fighting terror like we fight bank robbers. It will not work and will make us vulnerable.

Jimmy, wouldn’t you be in a better position to give that sort of information, given the legal work you’ve done for them?

How about this for a hypothetical – 6 out of 10 of those guys are resettled in your neighborhood. Each starts a small garden and decide to supplement the soil with ammonium nitrate.

Would you feel safe?

(nice to see you back)

It’s a good question, Jim.

First, if I was aware of evidence, it would most likely be a national security issue.
Second, evidence isn’t exactly public knowledge (for the above reason).
Third, you, personally have some knowledge since you worked on the matter.
Fourth, you’ve dodged my question.

(I need a break from blogs occasionally, too.)

Becky

Prisoners of war are designated for members of a national military captured by an enemy. Terrorists fall under the category of Unlawful Combatant. Until recently they have never had any rights under the Geneva convention or any protections under international law. During WWI and WWII they were either shot on the spot or tried under military tribunals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_(military)

“Terrorists fall under the category of Unlawful Combatant”

A little off topic, but we invaded Iraq against international rules and laws and treaties. That makes the war against the law. Doesn’t that make our troops unlawful combatants? I guess they are subject to torture too……

But wait, if they are unlawful combatants in another country, fighting back is self defense not combat. Turns out that maybe they are protected under the rules and we aren’t.

Unless you follow the might makes right rule. But we are the good guys, and would never stoop so low and to such an unethical position. Right?

Shane Smith

The Constitution only lists the Congress as the body who can authorize war. It says nothing about the UN or “International Law”, therefore when the Congress gave Bush the authority to send troops it made it legal under the only authority the United States lives by, the Constitution of the United States.

Ken:

Along with Richard, I, too, am a bit surprised in your statement above re international law. Take a pass through Article VI of the Constitution for your authority. Doing so will serve your comments better, rather than will getting your authority from commenters at RedState or whatever other wingnut blogs to which you subscribe.

Yeah! Let’s get tough on torture, (to paraphrase a popular congressional sound byte usually aimed at regular citizens.)

Torture is crime.

It is cruel and unusual.

If we’re going to “move forward”, we have to lance the boil for all the world to see. It’s going to hurt like hell, but the healing will never start until we get it all out there and define ourselves as a just society.

Some people believe Obama is a socialist, the Socialists however don’t agree.

FF: “By giving these people the right to federal courts and civilian prosecutions is extremely dangerous, and I fear for the safety of this country.”

You’re being a little dramatic aren’t you? I have a hard time beleiving that letting these people have a fair trial strikes fear in you. Seems very hypocritical to me. Aren’t we the beacon of hope? Bringing democratic values to the word? Does that only come out of the barrel of a gun? Or can we lead by example.

I’m very suspicous of people like you Fed, who are for taking away other peoples rights in the name of ‘freedom’. Am I getting this right?

You are for wiretapping aren’t you Fed? It’s for our security, right? To keep us safe. The whole Patriot Act thing. Recinding Americans constitutional rights in the name of security.
http://thesidetrack.blogspot.com/2009/01/they-spied-on-everyone.html

One thing you have to explain to me Fed. How is it after 9/11, all Americans became supects via wiretapping, gov. looking at library records, medical records, financial records, e-mails and internet use. Right Fed? You’ve seen the news as much as I have, so I won’t bother sourcing any of it.

So my question is: Fed, why are Americans treated like ‘suspected criminals’ in the name of the ‘War on Terror’ and yet our government has left the borders wide open since 9/11. I don’t get it.

Millions have crossed our borders (some say 14+) since 9/11. We know nothing about them. Everybodys an enemy, right Fed. That is why they blanket watch us now, right. But we know nothing of the 14+ million who got here undocumented since 9/11.

And you worried about those guys in Guantanamo getting a fair trial “for the safety of our country”. If I type what I’m thinking Fed, I’m pretty sure I’ll get censured.

Mr. Anonymous,

You’re being a little dramatic aren’t you? I have a hard time beleiving that letting these people have a fair trial strikes fear in you. Seems very hypocritical to me. Aren’t we the beacon of hope? Bringing democratic values to the word? Does that only come out of the barrel of a gun? Or can we lead by example.

Dramatic? No, I am not being dramatic in the slightest. If anything, I am trying to be reasonable while I watch this country become intoxicated with idealism. Mr. Anonymous, to give suspected terrorists the right to due process is absolutely stupid. I can’t put it any more diplomatically than that.

By granting these individuals a “fair trial,” as you put it, we are essentially giving a pack of lawyers the right to determine military policy, we are redefining “rights” of individuals who have no formal ties to any nation state (with NO true precedent or law to go off of), and we are ultimately compromising the safety of this nation.

If these men are going to be tried in civilian courts, there is a enormous risk that US intelligence will be compromised; sensitive information will not be determined appropriate/inappropriate by a military tribunal, but by legal professionals who don’t know the slightest thing about clandestine operations.

Trying suspected terrorists in civilian courts redefines how this nation operates against terrorists; we are granting rights to terrorists that we don’t grant to opposing nation-state combatants. Never before in the history of this country have individuals such as these been offered the same rights as US citizens (a right to due process, habeas corpus, trial in a federal court, etc.). In the early years of the Republic and to the Civil War, from the turn of the Century and throughout both World Wars, spies and later “unlawful combatants” and even later, “enemy combatants” were never given such sweeping rights. This will mire our legal system. Bind our counterterrorism efforts at home and abroad, and leave the United States vulnerable as our enemies use our legal system to protect themselves.

Hypocrisy? Sure, you can all me a hypocrite. The next time that Al Qaeda captures one of our clandestine agents and gives him a “fair trial,” I will gladly call myself a hypocrite.

Democratic values abroad? Frankly, your idealism is nauseating. Democratic values aren’t going to mean much to terrorists who are fundamentally opposed to the very existence of this nation. Not only that, but who have little reservation when it comes to killing men, women, and children, American or not, in order to achieve their objectives. I discussed this issue at length with a high-ranking DEA officer in charge of special operations against terrorists in league with drug lords in Afghanistan. Basically his words were, “Democracy means nothing to a terrorist.”

I’m very suspicous of people like you Fed, who are for taking away other peoples rights in the name of ‘freedom’. Am I getting this right?

You are for wiretapping aren’t you Fed? It’s for our security, right? To keep us safe. The whole Patriot Act thing. Recinding Americans constitutional rights in the name of security.

If you are still referring to these supposed “rights” that prisoners at Guantanamo supposedly have, then please, feel free to enlighten me. What “rights” are you speaking of? And what exactly protects or even defines such “rights?”

Wiretapping? Well now, Mr. A., we are sure being speculative, aren’t we? You sound passionate, but knowledgeable, that is certainly debateable.

Before I answer your pointed accusation, do you know anything about the history of wiretapping in this country? Or did Bush simply create it out of thin air in order to wreak his fascist terror on this country? Was FISA a creation of the Bush Administration? How about the Patriot Act? Are you familiar with the process by which the Feds must take in order to wiretap? Do you know anything about the legal basis of such policies, or are you convinced that they were essentially part of Bush’s evil agenda to “take away Constitutional Rights?”

The reason I ask is because I seriously doubt that you do. Am I assuming? certainly. But like Mr. Warnick who seems to believe that “unlawful combatant” was a creation of the Bush Administration, you too seem to be the kind of person who would be more than willing to brush up on the Patriot Act or FISA on the HuffingtonPost or the DailyKos in order to complete your vendetta against the past administration.

If you want to get into that discussion, I am all game.

One thing you have to explain to me Fed. How is it after 9/11, all Americans became supects via wiretapping, gov. looking at library records, medical records, financial records, e-mails and internet use. Right Fed? You’ve seen the news as much as I have, so I won’t bother sourcing any of it.

So my question is: Fed, why are Americans treated like ’suspected criminals’ in the name of the ‘War on Terror’ and yet our government has left the borders wide open since 9/11. I don’t get it.

Millions have crossed our borders (some say 14+) since 9/11. We know nothing about them. Everybodys an enemy, right Fed. That is why they blanket watch us now, right. But we know nothing of the 14+ million who got here undocumented since 9/11.

And you worried about those guys in Guantanamo getting a fair trial “for the safety of our country”. If I type what I’m thinking Fed, I’m pretty sure I’ll get censured.

Mr. A., I give up. You just have me all figured out! Border security, a great rebuttal! Indeed, Mr. A., Uncle Sam is watching your every move and documenting anything suspicious that you do in order to rob you of your Constitutional Rights. You hint toward a fantastic idea which is definately gaining momentum among the idealistic in this country. Why not leave our national security up to lawyers and judges. Afterall, obtaining a warrant should be the same for a suspected terrorist as it is for a petty criminal.

Why not just do away with FISA and the PATRIOT Act? Why not leave things the way they were, in that happy, sunshiney state before Bush ever came around. Back in the day when organized crime was countered with more intensity and more leniency than terrorism, and when privacy rights were in fact violated in order to pursue such criminal elements… but not for terrorism.

Mr. A., I hate to say it, but I truly fear for our country’s safety with Barack Obama as our president. By closing Guantanamo and granting terrorists rigths to federal courts, by creating some absurd case against torture, by leaving the intelligence community in the hands of a politican and this country’s foreign policy in the hands of a former political rival, Barack Obama has compromised the safety of this country, and we will all be worse off for it.

Nice rant Fed, but you keep switching from ‘suspected terrorists’ to ‘terrorists’. Which is it? And how do you know?

Her you go Fed:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”

Learn it, Live it, Love it.

“Dramatic? No, I am not being dramatic in the slightest. If anything, I am trying to be reasonable while I watch this country become intoxicated with idealism.”

Have you read the Constitution Fed? I my opinion it is the most idealistic document in the history of man concerning how they govern over each other. Our forefathers were idealistic. American.

Belaboring a point: Say GW, Dick C. and maybe four other syndicate members moved into your nieghborhood (not likely you really live in an undisclosed location), would you search the garage for the FSBO sign you know is in there?

That’s because no such “fact” exists. The USA is bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention. I’m certain I mentioned that earlier in this discussion. Also, check out the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1988.

Now we are getting somewhere. According to the Constitution, years of practice, and historical precedent, the Executive has the authority to interpret and even terminate/withdraw from a treaty, without the consent of Congress. This comes from Article II of the Constitution, of which, Section 3 Clause 3 grants the president expansive powers over all matters of foreign policy… from the “Treaty Clause” (Article II, Section 2), and the “Vesting Clause” (Article II, Section 1), which the “executive power” is vested in the Executive. As such, the Executive has unenumerated powers over foreign policy, whereas the limits over Congress are specifically mentioned by Article I, Section 1, legislative powers, “herein granted.”

History proves that the Executive has always had such broad authority over foreign policy (i.e. treaties), whereas the powers of Congress constantly fluctuate. For example, the 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France was interpreted by the Washington administration (1793) and ultimately ended in order to keep the US safe from forced involvement in the Napoleonic Wars. And in the case of war, such as the Quasi-War with France in 1798, the Executive was able to act without being bound to a formal declaration of war from the Congress. These examples are a fruition of a powerful executive as intended by the relevant clauses of Article II of the Constitution. The expansive foreign policy powers of the president are also apparent in cases such as the creation of the WTO and NAFTA, where instead of treaties, the Executive was able to accomplish certain fp objectives through statutes; only the Executive could ever perform such an action.

More recently, Clinton’s compliance with the ABM treaty, after the collapse of the USSR (despite the fact that the treaty was made between the two), serves as another example of an Executive exercising its broad foreign policy powers to interpret and potentially withdraw from international treaties.

Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall and other leading figures in our history have defined the foreign policy powers of the president as such. John Marshall, for example: “The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representatitve with the foreign nations…[and] is entrusted with the whole foreign intercourse of the nation…”

Therefore, Mr. Warnick, the Bush Administration’s decision to determine such terrorists as “enemy combatants” and as such, not protected by the Geneva Convetions is Constitutionally sound. Judicial precedent had also made the distinction as in the case of Ex Parte Quirin (1942). The Executive reserved the right to interpret treaties, and as seeing such terrorists as “enemy combatants” and not as POW’s or any similar class of “lawful combatant,” President Bush was able to exercise his Constitutional rights as the Executive and reinterpret the pertinent treaties and/or international agreements.

Every president before George W. Bush has exercised similar powers. Jimmy Carter did so in order to leave the Mututal Defense Pact with Taiwan. The Executive has the power to reinterpret treaties and other international laws; that is constitutional.

As I said, the term “unlawful enemy combatant” appears in no law prior to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). The issue of so-called “unlawful enemy combatants” is a thorny one. For example, what about Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq and elsewhere? The Bush administration and the Congress shouldn’t have gone down that road. The MCA is unconstitutional anyway, and ought to be repealed.

It appears in Court precedents, however. And it has been used by the Executive in order to draw a distinction between POW’s and terrorists. Mercenaries do not have the same rights as POW’s, that is correct. But as American citizens, Blackwater guards do have constitutional protections. Until recently, terrorists had virtually no rights.

OK, so how many Guantanamo detainees are al-Qaeda fighters? Less than ten percent, according to the U.S. And more than half of the detainees are “not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States.”

Since FF won’t answer my question, I will provide the answer. A grand total of TWO Guantanamo detainees have been convicted by military tribunal. That’s from a total of around 800 so-called “worst of the worst” terror suspects, the vast majority of whom were never charged with any crimes.

Mr. Warnick, I don’t know where you are getting your information, but it is obviously misleading. While actual convictions by military tribunal have been few, the list of those accused of war crimes is much longer. And thanks to President Obama, the proceedings have been stalled. Being accused and convicted are different matters, but the accused aren’t automatically innocent because they haven’t been convicted yet.

The “fact” that you cite was developed by a university study (Seton Law, I believe), and is has a number of problems which are being debated even now. “Hostile acts agains the US” are being contrued in a way which I personally feel is completely irresponsible. And the fact that many of these detainees aren’t the innocent shepherds that the Left is attempting to paint them as, is perfectly demonstrated by Democratic senators who are unwilling to house any of the detainees within their state boundaries. If a majority of these are just innocent shepherds (that claim is highly debatable, I may add), why is Dianne Feinstein against taking them to California to await trial?

Shane? Since you seem to be hell bent on using UN standards, what’s the UN definition of “terrorist” and “terrorism”?

Your dictionary definitions cast a pretty wide net. They would, for instance, snare every US president, every General and private soldier, most kings and most queens, almost all of the leaders of every foriegn country (probably even Tibet circa 1950).

So, can you narrow it down a bit, buddy?

Here’s your answer to Nos. 1&2, Richard.

The answers to your other questions are exactly what FF was referring to when he cited Nat’l Security.

Don’t you get that?

These aren’t bank robbers. These are folks that will cut your daughter’s head off because it makes a great video.

So, Richard, how about you answer the hypothetical…

“How about this for a hypothetical – 6 out of 10 of those guys are resettled in your neighborhood. Each starts a small garden and decide to supplement the soil with ammonium nitrate.

Would you feel safe?”

They are people who would not hesitate to nuke a city if and when they get their hands on one. Is that what it will take to get you people to wake up?

If Barak Obama can stop terrorist acts using conventional law enforcement techniques then fine, but if some catastrophe happens and we find out it could have been prevented by something he banned, then we will hold him personally responsible.

Suppose that Canada invades Utah, and for whatever reason we are not part of the US but our own country. And when the Canadian soldiers come through rounding up resistance fighters, all the nice civilized people in Salt Lake City, where the LDS population is a lower percentage, make a big deal about the LDS. “They are the terrorists! They train their children for wars in a thing they call boy scouts! They have private meetings every week! They are all over in rural Utah! They are the enemy!”

Sweet hypothetical. You forgot the part where the LDS sends folks into the local supermarket with explosives strapped to their body. You neglected the part where the LDS drives a car bomb into a girl’s school. You omitted the part where the LDS bombed synagogues and churches….otherwise your hypothetical is great. I mean, you just forgot all the bad stuff that might invite further scrutiny.

So, even with my amendments, sure people are going to be upset. And they’ll claim historic grievances and that some unclean person touched their special book and they’ll look upon themselves as martyrs and strap semtex to their children…

So…maybe you’re right, Shane. Do you think that we can get Oprah and Dr. Phil to Iraq? Maybe implement some 12 step programs? Give people a number to call a sponsor if they get the urge to go “all jihad” on some Jewish reporter? I think, that maybe, with enough caring and love and understanding of the diversity of these people and the ancient and pervasive injustices that they’ve endured under the colonial boot of the West, we can sit down and discuss religion and politics over a cup of tea. We’ll invite them to our churches and synagogues and they’ll invite us to Mecca and Medina and we can all hold hands and maybe do some drumming and feel like we’re special.

You’ve convinced me. I think I’m going to replace my flag with some Tibetan prayer flags right now.

Hey, tit for tat – I answered your hypothetical. Will you show me the courtesy of answering mine?

Funny, Shane – you suggest that Bush didn’t feel any “pressing need” to remove nuclear weapons and material, but under his watch, the global nuclear weapon stockpiles fell by approximately 15,000 units according to the NRDC. That’s a 42% reduction, Shane.

But don’t let facts get in the way of a great argument. Please, continue.

I came across your nice website on the the other day and saw a some of your earlier posts that you did previously . I just added you to my bookmarks. Keep up the great work. i will Look forward to reading more from you again.

grat piece of work that you did, Thanks for it.its wonderfull to see other people with a who think the same.

hi there to whoever owns this website, Can you give me more info on this? i sometimes look at other peoples websites that are made for people like me.

I do like your good big website i read some others that are on vaguely the same subjets, sometimes its a bit difficult reading them as i dont speak very good english.