Bush urges "look beyond letter of law"

[KI4PJW]

Is this what we want in America? The law means nothing else but what this evil man and his minions want it to mean. Wake up America!

U.S. urges military court to allow terrorism trials to proceed

"The Bush administration, looking to jump-start its stalled terrorism trials Friday, told a newly formed U.S. Court of Military Commission Review to look beyond the letter of the law and allow its case against Canadian detainee Omar Khadr, who is accused of killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, to go forward."...


Star.Tribune Minneapolis St. Paul (http://www.startribune.com/484/story/1381984.html)[U]

[ka5piu]

Hello.

What if Canada decides that they have had enough?
The US is going to a lot of effort to close the US-Canada border, what if Canada says fine?
Remember 9/11? when dozens of jetliners were diverted to Canada?
What if Canada were to close its airspace at the same time?
What is the next option, Cuba?
Yes, this president is doing good, real good.

[K5FH]

"Looking beyond the letter of the law" is another way of saying that the law, like the U.S. Constitution, is a "living document," to wit, it means what the courts say it means.

A government of laws, not of men? Yeah, right...

[kc0ukk]

The case of the missing word. The law as written allows tribunals to try "unlawful enemy combatants" whereas the prisoners are listed as "enemy combatants". The administration claims that all of the "enemy combatants" are unlawful.

It is just a stupid gaffe on the listing of prisoners that the word "unlawful" was left out. There is no claim by the prisoners or their defense teams that they are "lawful enemy combatants".

[KI4PJW]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 25 2007,21:46)]The case of the missing word. #The law as written allows tribunals to try "unlawful enemy combatants" whereas the prisoners are listed as "enemy combatants". #The administration claims that all of the "enemy combatants" are unlawful.

It is just a stupid gaffe on the listing of prisoners that the word "unlawful" was left out. #There is no claim by the prisoners or their defense teams that they are "lawful enemy combatants".
Hello,

You are saying this is semantics?
These types of word games have brought us to the point of being absorbed into a different form of government entirely.
Write the law as intended for use and abide by it or it is worthless, nothing but a guise for A DICTATOR to use in a quest to justify his/her actions or to manipulate the system to thier advantage.
The Constitution is what is intended to prevent this. #had this been followed we would not be having any conversation about any of this evil that has come upon our land.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,19:06)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 25 2007,21:46)]The case of the missing word. The law as written allows tribunals to try "unlawful enemy combatants" whereas the prisoners are listed as "enemy combatants". The administration claims that all of the "enemy combatants" are unlawful.

It is just a stupid gaffe on the listing of prisoners that the word "unlawful" was left out. There is no claim by the prisoners or their defense teams that they are "lawful enemy combatants".
Hello,

You are saying this is semantics?
These types of word games have brought us to the point of being absorbed into a different form of government entirely.
Write the law as intended for use and abide by it or it is worthless, nothing but a guise for A DICTATOR to use in a quest to justify his/her actions or to manipulate the system to thier advantage.
The Constitution is what is intended to prevent this. had this been followed we would not be having any conversation about any of this evil that has come upon our land.
It's OK. After all, it's not like it's anything important, like the meaning of the word "is".

NeoKon selective memory loss at work.

[KI4PJW]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Aug. 25 2007,20:58)]"Looking beyond the letter of the law" is another way of saying that the law, like the U.S. Constitution, is a "living document," to wit, it means what the courts say it means.

A government of laws, not of men? #Yeah, right...
K5FH,

You are correct, this is not good for us and most people do not understand how these evil people manipulate words in order to advance thier agenda.
They play the game of that is not what we meant when we wrote that, but, try to turn that around in your favor and you will be told the law is not open to interpretation.
We are living in the early stage of total tyranny and my heart has broken for what is soon to come upon this land.

[K6BBC]

Bush Countdown Clock (http://www.backwardsbush.com/?gclid=CJWf8MKplI4CFQyBhgodlmE8Nw)

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,16:06)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 25 2007,21:46)]The case of the missing word. #The law as written allows tribunals to try "unlawful enemy combatants" whereas the prisoners are listed as "enemy combatants". #The administration claims that all of the "enemy combatants" are unlawful.

It is just a stupid gaffe on the listing of prisoners that the word "unlawful" was left out. #There is no claim by the prisoners or their defense teams that they are "lawful enemy combatants".
Hello,

You are saying this is semantics?
These types of word games have brought us to the point of being absorbed into a different form of government entirely.
Write the law as intended for use and abide by it or it is worthless, nothing but a guise for A DICTATOR to use in a quest to justify his/her actions or to manipulate the system to thier advantage.
The Constitution is what is intended to prevent this. #had this been followed we would not be having any conversation about any of this evil that has come upon our land.
That's correct, it's simply semantics.

4th generation war has moved far beyond or legal system. In previous wars, a combatant caught out of uniform was considered a spy and the outcome was a firing squad. Now we have soldiers who wear no uniform, nor do they owe alligience to a nation.

Due to the circumstances of their capture (on the battlefield) it isn't possible to provide witnesses nor evidence that would be accepted in a civilian court of law. Hence, the military tribunals. But since the law says "unlawful enemy combatants" and the prisoners are listed as "enemy combatants" there is a standoff.

The only clearly lawful route is to set them free.

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Aug. 26 2007,21:58)]"Looking beyond the letter of the law" is another way of saying that the law, like the U.S. Constitution, is a "living document," to wit, it means what the courts say it means.

A government of laws, not of men? Yeah, right...

But in other cases, the "letter of the law" takes precedence over common sense. Like the kid in Atlanta who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for being on the receiving end of a BJ from a female juvenile at a new years party when he was 17, but because the way the law was worded, if they had actually gone all the way and had full-blown (no pun intended) intercourse, the maximum he could have received would have been something like 6 months. The law was later re-written by the legislature to close this loophole, but because the revised law was not specifically worded in such a way as to make it retroactive, the courts upheld the longer sentence.

[KI4PJW]

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Aug. 25 2007,22:56)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Aug. 26 2007,21:58)]"Looking beyond the letter of the law" is another way of saying that the law, like the U.S. Constitution, is a "living document," to wit, it means what the courts say it means.

A government of laws, not of men? #Yeah, right...

But in other cases, the "letter of the #law" takes precedence over common sense. #Like the kid in Atlanta who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for being on the receiving end of a BJ from a female juvenile at a new years party when he was 17, but because the way the law was worded, if they had actually gone all the way and had full-blown (no pun intended) intercourse, the maximum he could have received would have been something like 6 months. #The law was later re-written by the legislature to close this loophole, but because the revised law was not specifically worded in such a way as to make it retroactive, the courts upheld the longer sentence.
Hey Man,

That is exactly one of the points made. The law is never supposed to be used in order to benefit the State, just for the sake of dominion over the people. The Constitution states that any power not specifically given to government is to be resreved for the benefit of and in the interest of what is best for the individual.
Add that government is now protected from We the People by various laws and the almost total entrenchment of a Police State, we are soon to be totally enslaved.

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,17:05)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Aug. 25 2007,22:56)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Aug. 26 2007,21:58)]"Looking beyond the letter of the law" is another way of saying that the law, like the U.S. Constitution, is a "living document," to wit, it means what the courts say it means.

A government of laws, not of men? #Yeah, right...

But in other cases, the "letter of the #law" takes precedence over common sense. #Like the kid in Atlanta who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for being on the receiving end of a BJ from a female juvenile at a new years party when he was 17, but because the way the law was worded, if they had actually gone all the way and had full-blown (no pun intended) intercourse, the maximum he could have received would have been something like 6 months. #The law was later re-written by the legislature to close this loophole, but because the revised law was not specifically worded in such a way as to make it retroactive, the courts upheld the longer sentence.
Hey Man,

That is exactly one of the points made. #The law is never supposed to be used in order to benefit the State, just for the sake of dominion over the people. #The Constitution states that any power not specifically given to government is to be resreved for the benefit of and in the interest of what is best for the individual.
Add that government is now protected from We the People by various laws and the almost total entrenchment of a Police State, we are soon to be totally enslaved.
In this case, you're about to have these jihadists released into your home town. Just as Bush can't try them in the courts, nor can he legally repatriate them to their countries of origin where they will face repercussions for their actions.

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Aug. 26 2007,16:56)][The law was later re-written by the legislature to close this loophole, but because the revised law was not specifically worded in such a way as to make it retroactive, the courts upheld the longer sentence.
Again, this is a case of selectively applying the "letter of the law."

Modern courts use the "letter of the law" justify their actions only when it suits their particular political agendas. In cases where the "letter of the law" is at odds with their particular political agendas, the law magically becomes a "living document" subject to interpretation.

The courts recognize the "reasonable man" test (i.e., what would a reasonable man do in similar circumstances?). Perhaps it's time to institute a "reasonable judge" test.

[KI4PJW]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 25 2007,23:15)]Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,17:05)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Aug. 25 2007,22:56)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Aug. 26 2007,21:58)]"Looking beyond the letter of the law" is another way of saying that the law, like the U.S. Constitution, is a "living document," to wit, it means what the courts say it means.

A government of laws, not of men? #Yeah, right...

But in other cases, the "letter of the #law" takes precedence over common sense. #Like the kid in Atlanta who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for being on the receiving end of a BJ from a female juvenile at a new years party when he was 17, but because the way the law was worded, if they had actually gone all the way and had full-blown (no pun intended) intercourse, the maximum he could have received would have been something like 6 months. #The law was later re-written by the legislature to close this loophole, but because the revised law was not specifically worded in such a way as to make it retroactive, the courts upheld the longer sentence.
Hey Man,

That is exactly one of the points made. #The law is never supposed to be used in order to benefit the State, just for the sake of dominion over the people. #The Constitution states that any power not specifically given to government is to be resreved for the benefit of and in the interest of what is best for the individual.
Add that government is now protected from We the People by various laws and the almost total entrenchment of a Police State, we are soon to be totally enslaved.
In this case, you're about to have these jihadists released into your home town. #Just as Bush can't try them in the courts, nor can he legally repatriate them to their countries of origin where they will face repercussions for their actions.
Just one more presentment as to the consequences of a Unitary Executive operating under this new world order mentality, where our proven system is ignored. He opened up a Pandoras Box when he "Decided" to ignore the centuries of experience as relates to dealing with war.
When one has on a uniform, they are a uniformed soldier and must be treated accordingly. When one does not, he is a civilian until proven to be a uniformed soldier operating in the capacity of a Spy or in some other capacity that allows them to be dealt with under the "Law of Land Warfare".
If not proven to be a non-civilian, the individual should be afforded the protections of our constitution. Should the individual be found innocent, he should be returned to his home, and if that would put his/her life in jeopardy then he should be provided with the courtesy of assistance for asylum in a country of his choice that is not contrary to his safety and that is compatible with his beliefs.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

[N2RJ]

So where's K2WH to provide a logical explanation and justify this?

Bill, oh where art thou?

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,17:53)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 25 2007,23:15)]Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,17:05)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Aug. 25 2007,22:56)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Aug. 26 2007,21:58)]"Looking beyond the letter of the law" is another way of saying that the law, like the U.S. Constitution, is a "living document," to wit, it means what the courts say it means.

A government of laws, not of men? #Yeah, right...

But in other cases, the "letter of the #law" takes precedence over common sense. #Like the kid in Atlanta who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for being on the receiving end of a BJ from a female juvenile at a new years party when he was 17, but because the way the law was worded, if they had actually gone all the way and had full-blown (no pun intended) intercourse, the maximum he could have received would have been something like 6 months. #The law was later re-written by the legislature to close this loophole, but because the revised law was not specifically worded in such a way as to make it retroactive, the courts upheld the longer sentence.
Hey Man,

That is exactly one of the points made. #The law is never supposed to be used in order to benefit the State, just for the sake of dominion over the people. #The Constitution states that any power not specifically given to government is to be resreved for the benefit of and in the interest of what is best for the individual.
Add that government is now protected from We the People by various laws and the almost total entrenchment of a Police State, we are soon to be totally enslaved.
In this case, you're about to have these jihadists released into your home town. #Just as Bush can't try them in the courts, nor can he legally repatriate them to their countries of origin where they will face repercussions for their actions.
Just one more presentment as to the consequences of a Unitary Executive operating under this new world order mentality, where our proven system is ignored. #He opened up a Pandoras Box when he "Decided" to ignore the centuries of experience as relates to dealing with war.
When one has on a uniform, they are a uniformed soldier and must be treated accordingly. #When one does not, he is a civilian until proven to be a uniformed soldier operating in the capacity of a Spy or in some other capacity that allows them to be dealt with under the "Law of Land Warfare". #
If not proven to be a non-civilian, the individual should be afforded the protections of our constitution. #Should the individual be found innocent, he should be returned to his home, and if that would put his/her life in jeopardy then he should be provided with the courtesy of assistance for asylum in a country of his choice that is not contrary to his safety and that is compatible with his beliefs.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
How could you possibly prove that civilian is a 'uniformed soldier'? Unless, of course you mean that he is member of the nation's armed forces?

Didn't congress authorize this war? And since when does our constitution apply to those outside our country? Are we to persecute France for disregarding our constitution when it deals with its citizens?

Allow me to explain your position.
1. You disagree with the war.
2. You ignore the role of congress
3. You ignore international law concerning POWs
4. You wish to treat the POWs as criminals
5. You know that civilian courts require evidence.
6. You know evidence is impossible on battlefield.
7. You know witnesses are impossible on a battlefield
8. You know there is no witnesses or evidence.
9. What is a civilian court suppose to do?
10. You think that until al-qaeda joins the Army, they're civilians.
11. You ignore that there is no Army for al-qaeda to join

Finally, you want these terrorists released to kill more of our soldiers.

[KI4PJW]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 26 2007,00:28)]Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,17:53)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 25 2007,23:15)]Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,17:05)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Aug. 25 2007,22:56)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Aug. 26 2007,21:58)]"Looking beyond the letter of the law" is another way of saying that the law, like the U.S. Constitution, is a "living document," to wit, it means what the courts say it means.

A government of laws, not of men? #Yeah, right...

But in other cases, the "letter of the #law" takes precedence over common sense. #Like the kid in Atlanta who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for being on the receiving end of a BJ from a female juvenile at a new years party when he was 17, but because the way the law was worded, if they had actually gone all the way and had full-blown (no pun intended) intercourse, the maximum he could have received would have been something like 6 months. #The law was later re-written by the legislature to close this loophole, but because the revised law was not specifically worded in such a way as to make it retroactive, the courts upheld the longer sentence.
Hey Man,

That is exactly one of the points made. #The law is never supposed to be used in order to benefit the State, just for the sake of dominion over the people. #The Constitution states that any power not specifically given to government is to be resreved for the benefit of and in the interest of what is best for the individual.
Add that government is now protected from We the People by various laws and the almost total entrenchment of a Police State, we are soon to be totally enslaved.
In this case, you're about to have these jihadists released into your home town. #Just as Bush can't try them in the courts, nor can he legally repatriate them to their countries of origin where they will face repercussions for their actions.
Just one more presentment as to the consequences of a Unitary Executive operating under this new world order mentality, where our proven system is ignored. #He opened up a Pandoras Box when he "Decided" to ignore the centuries of experience as relates to dealing with war.
When one has on a uniform, they are a uniformed soldier and must be treated accordingly. #When one does not, he is a civilian until proven to be a uniformed soldier operating in the capacity of a Spy or in some other capacity that allows them to be dealt with under the "Law of Land Warfare". #
If not proven to be a non-civilian, the individual should be afforded the protections of our constitution. #Should the individual be found innocent, he should be returned to his home, and if that would put his/her life in jeopardy then he should be provided with the courtesy of assistance for asylum in a country of his choice that is not contrary to his safety and that is compatible with his beliefs.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
How could you possibly prove that civilian is a 'uniformed soldier'? Unless, of course you mean that he is member of the nation's armed forces?

Didn't congress authorize this war? And since when does our constitution apply to those outside our country? #Are we to persecute France for disregarding our constitution when it deals with its citizens?

Allow me to explain your position.
1. You disagree with the war.
2. You ignore the role of congress
3. You ignore international law concerning POWs
4. You wish to treat the POWs as criminals
5. You know that civilian courts require evidence.
6. You know evidence is impossible on battlefield.
7. You know witnesses are impossible on a battlefield
8. You know there is no witnesses or evidence.
9. What is a civilian court suppose to do?
10. You think that until al-qaeda joins the Army, they're civilians.
11. You ignore that there is no Army for al-qaeda to join

Finally, you want these terrorists released to kill more of our soldiers.
I shall respond, point by point.

1) Again, as has been the case starting with Korea, there is no "Declaration of War" as required by law so we are not at war, but in another POLICE ACTION.

2) Congress was wrong to authorize a blank check for endless war against an unseen enemy. Wrong to have funded the invasion of a country that has never attacked the USA in order to play UN Police. this has come full circle and we the USA suffer the consequences of burying our citizens in pursuit of Utopian nonsense.

3) POW status was ignored by the Bush Administration, not me, hence the term Unlawful Enemy Combatant, instead of POW who has rights under law.

4) If the person cannot be shown to be a combatant uniformed or not, he must be afforded the protections due a civilian. Not some newly dictated decree that continues the denial of basic rights that we cherish. We can't have a double standard and maintain a standing as a freedom loving People.

5)Yes, if evidence can't be provided, according to the values of Western Culture the person is not guilty.

6) BS called on this one. How did the Nazis get prosecuted and how is it that our troops are being prosecuted for crimes committed on the battlefield.

7) Another BS call. That is assinine on it's face. There are millions of people in Iraq or Afghanistan and they are not mindless blood thirsty savages who do not understand the basic tenets of civilization, the whole area is known as the cradle of civilization.

8) See above.

9) The same thing a Military court does, adjudicate. If there is no evidence of a crime, and no witness, there is no crime. Therefore, the proper course is to dismiss, not nullify the value of a court by allowing the fabrication of evidence in order to attempt to justify immoral and illegal policy.

10) There is an Army for them to join, it happens to be controlled by thier enemy so they won't join except where it is strategically or tactically advantageous.
As well, one can not defeat that which can not be identified. The idea behind this illogic is to get people to support an endless military action against civilian populations who refuse to submit to a corrupt system that values only it's own goal of world domination. That being the UN using USA and other Troops to do it's bidding.

11) Until they join a uniformed army they are civilians, just as were the Minutemen who fought the British.

Finally, As a Veteran of the Army and SCNG, It is quite preposterous for anyone to say that I wish for my Compatriots to be killed, and I take great offense at the suggestion.
Now, back to where we started. If we can't prove guilt, their is no crime and the person should be free.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,19:23)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 26 2007,00:28)]Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,17:53)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 25 2007,23:15)]Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,17:05)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Aug. 25 2007,22:56)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Aug. 26 2007,21:58)]"Looking beyond the letter of the law" is another way of saying that the law, like the U.S. Constitution, is a "living document," to wit, it means what the courts say it means.

A government of laws, not of men? #Yeah, right...

But in other cases, the "letter of the #law" takes precedence over common sense. #Like the kid in Atlanta who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for being on the receiving end of a BJ from a female juvenile at a new years party when he was 17, but because the way the law was worded, if they had actually gone all the way and had full-blown (no pun intended) intercourse, the maximum he could have received would have been something like 6 months. #The law was later re-written by the legislature to close this loophole, but because the revised law was not specifically worded in such a way as to make it retroactive, the courts upheld the longer sentence.
Hey Man,

That is exactly one of the points made. #The law is never supposed to be used in order to benefit the State, just for the sake of dominion over the people. #The Constitution states that any power not specifically given to government is to be resreved for the benefit of and in the interest of what is best for the individual.
Add that government is now protected from We the People by various laws and the almost total entrenchment of a Police State, we are soon to be totally enslaved.
In this case, you're about to have these jihadists released into your home town. #Just as Bush can't try them in the courts, nor can he legally repatriate them to their countries of origin where they will face repercussions for their actions.
Just one more presentment as to the consequences of a Unitary Executive operating under this new world order mentality, where our proven system is ignored. #He opened up a Pandoras Box when he "Decided" to ignore the centuries of experience as relates to dealing with war.
When one has on a uniform, they are a uniformed soldier and must be treated accordingly. #When one does not, he is a civilian until proven to be a uniformed soldier operating in the capacity of a Spy or in some other capacity that allows them to be dealt with under the "Law of Land Warfare". #
If not proven to be a non-civilian, the individual should be afforded the protections of our constitution. #Should the individual be found innocent, he should be returned to his home, and if that would put his/her life in jeopardy then he should be provided with the courtesy of assistance for asylum in a country of his choice that is not contrary to his safety and that is compatible with his beliefs.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
How could you possibly prove that civilian is a 'uniformed soldier'? Unless, of course you mean that he is member of the nation's armed forces?

Didn't congress authorize this war? And since when does our constitution apply to those outside our country? #Are we to persecute France for disregarding our constitution when it deals with its citizens?

Allow me to explain your position.
1. You disagree with the war.
2. You ignore the role of congress
3. You ignore international law concerning POWs
4. You wish to treat the POWs as criminals
5. You know that civilian courts require evidence.
6. You know evidence is impossible on battlefield.
7. You know witnesses are impossible on a battlefield
8. You know there is no witnesses or evidence.
9. What is a civilian court suppose to do?
10. You think that until al-qaeda joins the Army, they're civilians.
11. You ignore that there is no Army for al-qaeda to join

Finally, you want these terrorists released to kill more of our soldiers.
I shall respond, point by point.

1) Again, as has been the case starting with Korea, there is no "Declaration of War" as required by law so we are not at war, but in another POLICE ACTION.

2) Congress was wrong to authorize a blank check for endless war against an unseen enemy. #Wrong to have funded the invasion of a country that has never attacked the USA in order to play UN Police. #this has come full circle and we the USA suffer the consequences of burying our citizens in pursuit of Utopian nonsense.

3) POW status was ignored by the Bush Administration, not me, hence the term Unlawful Enemy Combatant, instead of POW who has rights under law.

4) If the person cannot be shown to be a combatant uniformed or not, he must be afforded the protections due a civilian. #Not some newly dictated decree that continues the denial of basic rights that we cherish. #We can't have a double standard and maintain a standing as a freedom loving People.

5)Yes, if evidence can't be provided, according to the values of Western Culture the person is not guilty.

6) BS called on this one. #How did the Nazis get prosecuted and how is it that our troops are being prosecuted for crimes committed on the battlefield.

7) Another BS call. #That is assinine on it's face. #There are millions of people in Iraq or Afghanistan and they are not mindless blood thirsty savages who do not understand the basic tenets of civilization, the whole area is known as the cradle of civilization.

8) See above.

9) The same thing a Military court does, adjudicate. #If there is no evidence of a crime, and no witness, there is no crime. #Therefore, the proper course is to dismiss, not nullify the value of a court by allowing the fabrication of evidence in order to attempt to justify immoral and illegal policy.

10) There is an Army for them to join, it happens to be controlled by thier enemy so they won't join except where it is strategically or tactically advantageous. #
As well, one can not defeat that which can not be identified. #The idea behind this illogic is to get people to support an endless military action against civilian populations who refuse to submit to a corrupt system that values only it's own goal of world domination. That being the UN using USA and other Troops to do it's bidding.

11) #Until they join a uniformed army they are civilians, just as were the Minutemen who fought the British.

Finally, #As a Veteran of the Army and SCNG, It is quite preposterous for anyone to say that I wish for my Compatriots to be killed, and I take great offense at the suggestion. #
Now, back to where we started. #If we can't prove guilt, their is no crime and the person should be free.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"
So the wounded private who corrals three people in a hovel and hands them off while still under fire to a passing sergeant is suppose to recognize those guys in a trial 3 years later? He's supposed to keep their weapons, write down their names and police the brass while ducking enemy fire? You've never been in combat have you? Ever been to a movie?

Just for the sake of argument, lets have that same private remember those three captured men, retains their weapons, maintains the chain of custody of all evidence and appears at the trial. The three captured men all say the private is lying, that the weapons aren't theirs, and the rest of their team, who weren't killed or captured, presents themselves at the trial and claim they were civilians who witnessed the whole thing. Bye Bye private.

Of course, if that same private dies of the wounds received capturing those prisoners, we might just as well let the prisoners go right then.

According to the Geneva convention, all fighters must wear a distinctive sign visible from a distance (uniform) and must have a chain of command. None of these combatants fit that description.

There are no enemy soldiers who wear a uniform in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are no POWs possible in this war except those US and allied forces who may be captured.

Of course, the nitwits on the left claim that these head hunting murdrers are merely criminals and should be tried in a court of law. That is sheer idiocy.

[G8ADD]

These prisoners come from an armed society. They used these arms to oppose an invading army.

You Americans live in an armed society. Beyond any doubt you would use these arms to oppose any army that invaded your country.

Would you accept the description of illegal combatant? No, you would believe that you were doing your patriotic duty, and you would be correct in this belief. Why is it so difficult to allow that inhabitants of another country might feel the same way?

Shooting at armed invaders is not terrorism. What makes you think it is?

73

Brian G8ADD

[W3MIV]

There is a substantive difference between a "lawful" enemy combatant and an "unlawful" enemy combatant. If you need to do so, please do some research into those differences. Check the various Geneva and Hague conventions.

If the not-so-distant past, "unlawful" enemy combatants were pushed against a wall with very little in the way of ceremony, not to even mention legal counsel.

Though it may seem a bit of an oxymoron, the rules of war are very real, and they have been changing as a result of a very long running time of relative peace around the world. By "peace," I mean the lack of a hot, threatening war involving the bulk of Europe -- where most of the "conventions" originate in the minds of ultra-civilized, liberal thinkers who blanch at the thought of any sort of violence. Well, at least they blanch at that thought until it is their necks that are being wrung like backyard chickens. Then, of course, the definitions of what is acceptable are given a new look -- as in France and the United Kingdom during those years when Herr Hitler and Tojo-san held the upper hand.

Changes for the "better" only settled into place after the exit of Stalin and the a very heavy presence of US Forces in Western Europe and in Asia started to bring a resurgence of utopian idiocy to our cross-puddle friends.

The current fad of multi-culturalism that sweeps through the liberal lights of Western E. at present may yet get a very serious jolt. Who, then, will be the Don John of Austria to which they turn in panic?

It is a question that can only become more and more pertinent in the next several years.

[KI4PJW]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 26 2007,03:31)]Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,19:23)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 26 2007,00:28)]Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,17:53)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 25 2007,23:15)]Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,17:05)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Aug. 25 2007,22:56)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Aug. 26 2007,21:58)]"Looking beyond the letter of the law" is another way of saying that the law, like the U.S. Constitution, is a "living document," to wit, it means what the courts say it means.

A government of laws, not of men? #Yeah, right...

But in other cases, the "letter of the #law" takes precedence over common sense. #Like the kid in Atlanta who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for being on the receiving end of a BJ from a female juvenile at a new years party when he was 17, but because the way the law was worded, if they had actually gone all the way and had full-blown (no pun intended) intercourse, the maximum he could have received would have been something like 6 months. #The law was later re-written by the legislature to close this loophole, but because the revised law was not specifically worded in such a way as to make it retroactive, the courts upheld the longer sentence.
Hey Man,

That is exactly one of the points made. #The law is never supposed to be used in order to benefit the State, just for the sake of dominion over the people. #The Constitution states that any power not specifically given to government is to be resreved for the benefit of and in the interest of what is best for the individual.
Add that government is now protected from We the People by various laws and the almost total entrenchment of a Police State, we are soon to be totally enslaved.
In this case, you're about to have these jihadists released into your home town. #Just as Bush can't try them in the courts, nor can he legally repatriate them to their countries of origin where they will face repercussions for their actions.
Just one more presentment as to the consequences of a Unitary Executive operating under this new world order mentality, where our proven system is ignored. #He opened up a Pandoras Box when he "Decided" to ignore the centuries of experience as relates to dealing with war.
When one has on a uniform, they are a uniformed soldier and must be treated accordingly. #When one does not, he is a civilian until proven to be a uniformed soldier operating in the capacity of a Spy or in some other capacity that allows them to be dealt with under the "Law of Land Warfare". #
If not proven to be a non-civilian, the individual should be afforded the protections of our constitution. #Should the individual be found innocent, he should be returned to his home, and if that would put his/her life in jeopardy then he should be provided with the courtesy of assistance for asylum in a country of his choice that is not contrary to his safety and that is compatible with his beliefs.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
How could you possibly prove that civilian is a 'uniformed soldier'? Unless, of course you mean that he is member of the nation's armed forces?

Didn't congress authorize this war? And since when does our constitution apply to those outside our country? #Are we to persecute France for disregarding our constitution when it deals with its citizens?

Allow me to explain your position.
1. You disagree with the war.
2. You ignore the role of congress
3. You ignore international law concerning POWs
4. You wish to treat the POWs as criminals
5. You know that civilian courts require evidence.
6. You know evidence is impossible on battlefield.
7. You know witnesses are impossible on a battlefield
8. You know there is no witnesses or evidence.
9. What is a civilian court suppose to do?
10. You think that until al-qaeda joins the Army, they're civilians.
11. You ignore that there is no Army for al-qaeda to join

Finally, you want these terrorists released to kill more of our soldiers.
I shall respond, point by point.

1) Again, as has been the case starting with Korea, there is no "Declaration of War" as required by law so we are not at war, but in another POLICE ACTION.

2) Congress was wrong to authorize a blank check for endless war against an unseen enemy. #Wrong to have funded the invasion of a country that has never attacked the USA in order to play UN Police. #this has come full circle and we the USA suffer the consequences of burying our citizens in pursuit of Utopian nonsense.

3) POW status was ignored by the Bush Administration, not me, hence the term Unlawful Enemy Combatant, instead of POW who has rights under law.

4) If the person cannot be shown to be a combatant uniformed or not, he must be afforded the protections due a civilian. #Not some newly dictated decree that continues the denial of basic rights that we cherish. #We can't have a double standard and maintain a standing as a freedom loving People.

5)Yes, if evidence can't be provided, according to the values of Western Culture the person is not guilty.

6) BS called on this one. #How did the Nazis get prosecuted and how is it that our troops are being prosecuted for crimes committed on the battlefield.

7) Another BS call. #That is assinine on it's face. #There are millions of people in Iraq or Afghanistan and they are not mindless blood thirsty savages who do not understand the basic tenets of civilization, the whole area is known as the cradle of civilization.

8) See above.

9) The same thing a Military court does, adjudicate. #If there is no evidence of a crime, and no witness, there is no crime. #Therefore, the proper course is to dismiss, not nullify the value of a court by allowing the fabrication of evidence in order to attempt to justify immoral and illegal policy.

10) There is an Army for them to join, it happens to be controlled by thier enemy so they won't join except where it is strategically or tactically advantageous. #
As well, one can not defeat that which can not be identified. #The idea behind this illogic is to get people to support an endless military action against civilian populations who refuse to submit to a corrupt system that values only it's own goal of world domination. That being the UN using USA and other Troops to do it's bidding.

11) #Until they join a uniformed army they are civilians, just as were the Minutemen who fought the British.

Finally, #As a Veteran of the Army and SCNG, It is quite preposterous for anyone to say that I wish for my Compatriots to be killed, and I take great offense at the suggestion. #
Now, back to where we started. #If we can't prove guilt, their is no crime and the person should be free.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"
So the wounded private who corrals three people in a hovel and hands them off while still under fire to a passing sergeant is suppose to recognize those guys in a trial 3 years later? He's supposed to keep their weapons, write down their names and police the brass while ducking enemy fire? #You've never been in combat have you? #Ever been to a movie?

Just for the sake of argument, lets have that same private remember those three captured men, retains their weapons, maintains the chain of custody of all evidence and appears at the trial. #The three captured men all say the private is lying, that the weapons aren't theirs, and the rest of their team, who weren't killed or captured, presents themselves at the trial and claim they were civilians who witnessed the whole thing. Bye Bye private.

Of course, if that same private dies of the wounds received capturing those prisoners, we might just as well let the prisoners go right then.

According to the Geneva convention, all fighters must wear a distinctive sign visible from a distance (uniform) and must have a chain of command. #None of these combatants fit that description.

There are no enemy soldiers who wear a uniform in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are no POWs possible in this war except those US and allied forces who may be captured.

Of course, the nitwits on the left claim that these head hunting murdrers are merely criminals and should be tried in a court of law. #That is sheer idiocy.
KK,

The arguments are not valid.
I have not been in military combat, and do not suppose for a moment that one be expected to remember every minute detail of thier engagements. However, it needs to be remembered that our leadership has once again failed to prevent our Army of defense from being used as WORLD POLICEMEN, and that is the crux of the troubles. The Army is not intended for such, it is intended to kill people and break stuff, not perform "Community POLICE" duties.

I have spent 27 years as a FireFighter and worked several years in an armed capacity where I have indeed faced threats to my life and the lives of others. I have worked in some of the most intense situations that can be seen in both fields and also have operated as an EMT under stressful situations.
That is combat of another kind, I admit, however the human body has certain reactions to a threat of harm or death and none of them relieves a person from his morals. Quite the contrary, it calls all of them to bear in handling the situation, to abandon them is to admit defeat of what you are fighting for.

As far as them not having uniforms. They don't even have a government. It is in the control of thier enemy. So, they are fighting from a civialian standpoint but, they do indeed have a command system. That is why they are so effective in what they are doing. The system they have is "GUERILLA". It is extremely effective and has been the bane of occupying tyrants since the dawn of time.

The notion that these people are mindless savages hearkens back to what the Romans called my Pictish and Celtic ancestors. The name calling did not change the fact that the Romans first built Hadrians Wall, and then left the Highlands with thier tails tucked. Nor did it help King George during the War of Independence, when my ancestors were called 'REBELS", Traitors" etc.. If a cause is just, the people will fight until they either force the occupiers out or they are the victims of GENOCIDE.
Which, by the way is what we supposedly went to prevent. Without clear and defineable objectives, we have once again been manipulated by Utopian Socialists to carry out thier schemes of world dominance.

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Aug. 27 2007,05:41)]These prisoners come from an armed society. They used these arms to oppose an invading army.

You Americans live in an armed society. Beyond any doubt you would use these arms to oppose any army that invaded your country.

Would you accept the description of illegal combatant? No, you would believe that you were doing your patriotic duty, and you would be correct in this belief. Why is it so difficult to allow that inhabitants of another country might feel the same way?

Shooting at armed invaders is not terrorism. What makes you think it is?

73

Brian G8ADD
Yes I would accept that. To fight in civilian clothes brings grave danger to true civilians, causing many wrongful deaths.

The flip side of that coin, which military men have had to face for the past gazillion years, is what do you do when the enemy hides behind civilians? Do you die? Do you surrender? Or do you shoot through the civilians and die a thousand times in your nightmares?

Do you find those who do not wear uniforms, who hide behind civilians to be morally equivalent to those who wear uniforms and do avoid civilian casualties?

Before answering, ask yourself what kind of men do you want leading your country?

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 27 2007,07:31)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 26 2007,03:31)]Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,19:23)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 26 2007,00:28)]Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,17:53)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 25 2007,23:15)]Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 26 2007,17:05)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Aug. 25 2007,22:56)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Aug. 26 2007,21:58)]"Looking beyond the letter of the law" is another way of saying that the law, like the U.S. Constitution, is a "living document," to wit, it means what the courts say it means.

A government of laws, not of men? #Yeah, right...

But in other cases, the "letter of the #law" takes precedence over common sense. #Like the kid in Atlanta who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for being on the receiving end of a BJ from a female juvenile at a new years party when he was 17, but because the way the law was worded, if they had actually gone all the way and had full-blown (no pun intended) intercourse, the maximum he could have received would have been something like 6 months. #The law was later re-written by the legislature to close this loophole, but because the revised law was not specifically worded in such a way as to make it retroactive, the courts upheld the longer sentence.
Hey Man,

That is exactly one of the points made. #The law is never supposed to be used in order to benefit the State, just for the sake of dominion over the people. #The Constitution states that any power not specifically given to government is to be resreved for the benefit of and in the interest of what is best for the individual.
Add that government is now protected from We the People by various laws and the almost total entrenchment of a Police State, we are soon to be totally enslaved.
In this case, you're about to have these jihadists released into your home town. #Just as Bush can't try them in the courts, nor can he legally repatriate them to their countries of origin where they will face repercussions for their actions.
Just one more presentment as to the consequences of a Unitary Executive operating under this new world order mentality, where our proven system is ignored. #He opened up a Pandoras Box when he "Decided" to ignore the centuries of experience as relates to dealing with war.
When one has on a uniform, they are a uniformed soldier and must be treated accordingly. #When one does not, he is a civilian until proven to be a uniformed soldier operating in the capacity of a Spy or in some other capacity that allows them to be dealt with under the "Law of Land Warfare". #
If not proven to be a non-civilian, the individual should be afforded the protections of our constitution. #Should the individual be found innocent, he should be returned to his home, and if that would put his/her life in jeopardy then he should be provided with the courtesy of assistance for asylum in a country of his choice that is not contrary to his safety and that is compatible with his beliefs.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
How could you possibly prove that civilian is a 'uniformed soldier'? Unless, of course you mean that he is member of the nation's armed forces?

Didn't congress authorize this war? And since when does our constitution apply to those outside our country? #Are we to persecute France for disregarding our constitution when it deals with its citizens?

Allow me to explain your position.
1. You disagree with the war.
2. You ignore the role of congress
3. You ignore international law concerning POWs
4. You wish to treat the POWs as criminals
5. You know that civilian courts require evidence.
6. You know evidence is impossible on battlefield.
7. You know witnesses are impossible on a battlefield
8. You know there is no witnesses or evidence.
9. What is a civilian court suppose to do?
10. You think that until al-qaeda joins the Army, they're civilians.
11. You ignore that there is no Army for al-qaeda to join

Finally, you want these terrorists released to kill more of our soldiers.
I shall respond, point by point.

1) Again, as has been the case starting with Korea, there is no "Declaration of War" as required by law so we are not at war, but in another POLICE ACTION.

2) Congress was wrong to authorize a blank check for endless war against an unseen enemy. #Wrong to have funded the invasion of a country that has never attacked the USA in order to play UN Police. #this has come full circle and we the USA suffer the consequences of burying our citizens in pursuit of Utopian nonsense.

3) POW status was ignored by the Bush Administration, not me, hence the term Unlawful Enemy Combatant, instead of POW who has rights under law.

4) If the person cannot be shown to be a combatant uniformed or not, he must be afforded the protections due a civilian. #Not some newly dictated decree that continues the denial of basic rights that we cherish. #We can't have a double standard and maintain a standing as a freedom loving People.

5)Yes, if evidence can't be provided, according to the values of Western Culture the person is not guilty.

6) BS called on this one. #How did the Nazis get prosecuted and how is it that our troops are being prosecuted for crimes committed on the battlefield.

7) Another BS call. #That is assinine on it's face. #There are millions of people in Iraq or Afghanistan and they are not mindless blood thirsty savages who do not understand the basic tenets of civilization, the whole area is known as the cradle of civilization.

8) See above.

9) The same thing a Military court does, adjudicate. #If there is no evidence of a crime, and no witness, there is no crime. #Therefore, the proper course is to dismiss, not nullify the value of a court by allowing the fabrication of evidence in order to attempt to justify immoral and illegal policy.

10) There is an Army for them to join, it happens to be controlled by thier enemy so they won't join except where it is strategically or tactically advantageous. #
As well, one can not defeat that which can not be identified. #The idea behind this illogic is to get people to support an endless military action against civilian populations who refuse to submit to a corrupt system that values only it's own goal of world domination. That being the UN using USA and other Troops to do it's bidding.

11) #Until they join a uniformed army they are civilians, just as were the Minutemen who fought the British.

Finally, #As a Veteran of the Army and SCNG, It is quite preposterous for anyone to say that I wish for my Compatriots to be killed, and I take great offense at the suggestion. #
Now, back to where we started. #If we can't prove guilt, their is no crime and the person should be free.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"
So the wounded private who corrals three people in a hovel and hands them off while still under fire to a passing sergeant is suppose to recognize those guys in a trial 3 years later? He's supposed to keep their weapons, write down their names and police the brass while ducking enemy fire? #You've never been in combat have you? #Ever been to a movie?

Just for the sake of argument, lets have that same private remember those three captured men, retains their weapons, maintains the chain of custody of all evidence and appears at the trial. #The three captured men all say the private is lying, that the weapons aren't theirs, and the rest of their team, who weren't killed or captured, presents themselves at the trial and claim they were civilians who witnessed the whole thing. Bye Bye private.

Of course, if that same private dies of the wounds received capturing those prisoners, we might just as well let the prisoners go right then.

According to the Geneva convention, all fighters must wear a distinctive sign visible from a distance (uniform) and must have a chain of command. #None of these combatants fit that description.

There are no enemy soldiers who wear a uniform in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are no POWs possible in this war except those US and allied forces who may be captured.

Of course, the nitwits on the left claim that these head hunting murdrers are merely criminals and should be tried in a court of law. #That is sheer idiocy.
KK,

The arguments are not valid.
I have not been in military combat, and do not suppose for a moment that one be expected to remember every minute detail of thier engagements. #However, it needs to be remembered that our leadership has once again failed to prevent our Army of defense from being used as WORLD POLICEMEN, and that is the crux of the troubles. #The Army is not intended for such, it is intended to kill people and break stuff, not perform "Community POLICE" duties.

I have spent 27 years as a FireFighter and worked several years in an armed capacity where I have indeed faced threats to my life and the lives of others. I have worked in some of the most intense situations that can be seen in both fields and also have operated as an EMT under stressful situations. #
That is combat of another kind, I admit, however the human body has certain reactions to a threat of harm or death and none of them relieves a person from his morals. #Quite the contrary, it calls all of them to bear in handling the situation, to abandon them is to admit defeat of what you are fighting for.

As far as them not having uniforms. #They don't even have a government. #It is in the control of thier enemy. # So, they are fighting from a civialian standpoint but, they do indeed have a command system. #That is why they are so effective in what they are doing. #The system they have is "GUERILLA". #It is extremely effective and has been the bane of occupying tyrants since the dawn of time.

The notion that these people are mindless savages hearkens back to what the Romans called my Pictish and Celtic ancestors. #The name calling did not change the fact that the Romans first built Hadrians Wall, and then left the Highlands with thier tails tucked. #Nor did it help King George during the War of Independence, when my ancestors were called 'REBELS", Traitors" etc.. #If a cause is just, the people will fight until they either force the occupiers out or they are the victims of GENOCIDE.
Which, by the way is what we supposedly went to prevent. #Without clear and defineable objectives, we have once again been manipulated by Utopian Socialists to carry out thier schemes of world dominance.
You're overlooking that these men, by their actions, cause the deaths of their own friends and families. #They use the morals of their enemy to defeat them.

There is simply no way to try these men in a civilian court. #The rules of evidence cannot be followed even minimally. Nor can the troops be pulled from the field to testify about something that happened in the fog of combat. The capturing soldier probably didn't even see his face.

Yes, there will be an innocent caught up in the battle, just like those 20 year old kids from Columbus, Kansas City and Austin. Most of the civilians will get weeded out back at the base, some will not. #They'll get 3 squares per day, dental work, eye glasses and health care. #And they'll go home when the war is over.

Those civilians can thank the cowardly murderers for their inconveniences. We are simply protecting the lives of our sons and daughters the best way we can. That way doesn't include freeing the head hunters to kill again. #If we start doing that, those troops will be perfectly justified in never capturing another prisoner. #We don't want to add those nightmares to those they've already assumed.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 27 2007,16:57)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Aug. 27 2007,05:41)]These prisoners come from an armed society. They used these arms to oppose an invading army.

You Americans live in an armed society. Beyond any doubt you would use these arms to oppose any army that invaded your country.

Would you accept the description of illegal combatant? No, you would believe that you were doing your patriotic duty, and you would be correct in this belief. Why is it so difficult to allow that inhabitants of another country might feel the same way?

Shooting at armed invaders is not terrorism. What makes you think it is?

73

Brian G8ADD
Yes I would accept that. To fight in civilian clothes brings grave danger to true civilians, causing many wrongful deaths.

The flip side of that coin, which military men have had to face for the past gazillion years, is what do you do when the enemy hides behind civilians? Do you die? Do you surrender? Or do you shoot through the civilians and die a thousand times in your nightmares?

Do you find those who do not wear uniforms, who hide behind civilians to be morally equivalent to those who wear uniforms and do avoid civilian casualties?

Before answering, ask yourself what kind of men do you want leading your country?
Lets look at this piecemeal:

"Yes I would accept that. To fight in civilian clothes brings grave danger to true civilians, causing many wrongful deaths."

Are you saying, then, that once invaded you have to stay invaded without fighting to free your country of its alien oppressors? You would become a collaborator? If there had been many like you in the early days of your country the Queens head would be on your stamps! See in particular my reply to your next paragraph:

"The flip side of that coin, which military men have had to face for the past gazillion years, is what do you do when the enemy hides behind civilians? Do you die? Do you surrender? Or do you shoot through the civilians and die a thousand times in your nightmares?"

You do what you have do, which is follow orders, at least, up to the point where you have to protest them as illegal. If you have the moral fibre to do so. In any case the line between a civilian and a combatant is very blurred. In Northern Ireland gunmen were shooting at police and troops during riots that had been instigated to draw out targets. The troops fired back, and when they hit a gunman, a member of the crowd would grab the gun and run with it so that this precious armament could be used by another fighter. At this point the member of the crowd with the rescued gun became armed and was a target.

In extreme cases rioters were also fired upon: a ballistic cobblestone can be just as fatal as a bullet. The simple truth which some people find difficult to face is that in a riot situation there is no such thing as an innocent bystander. Innocent bystanders go home at the first hint of trouble, those that remain are participants.

"Do you find those who do not wear uniforms, who hide behind civilians to be morally equivalent to those who wear uniforms and do avoid civilian casualties?"

You show some talent at constructing heavily loaded questions! How can this be answered unless you factor in who is fighting and what are they fighting for? Every Geurilla force that ever was is embedded in the population. If they win, they are heroes, if they lose they are villains, because the winner writes the history. I am afraid I find your stance on this unrealistically black and white, even a bit airy-fairy, once the bullets are flying and the bombs bursting who the hell has time to spare for balancing up moral equivalencies?

"Before answering, ask yourself what kind of men do you want leading your country?"

I'm not sure where you are coming from with this: I'll play it back to you with a straight bat - The kind of men I want leading my country are the ones that will make difficult decisions for the economic and moral benefit of my country.

73

Brian G8ADD

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Aug. 26 2007,18:15)]So where's K2WH to provide a logical explanation and justify this?

Bill, oh where art thou?
James drove him to get a pedicure.

[KI4PJW]

Hello All,

The thing that is being missed is this: The initial article is about one person who is being held based on CHARGES. If the charges are laid, as they have been, then we have an obligation to follow our own laws as based on our Constitution. Otherwise, what is the fighting intended to preserve.
The whole lie was that this "War on Terror" was supposed to preserve our way of life, not destroy it.
It is nothing more than an excuse to force the implementation of United Nations control over a people who WILL NOT BOW, to a NEW GOD of a manmade nature, those people being the ones in the USA and those in the ME. Two birds, one stone.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 28 2007,08:47)]Hello All,

The thing that is being missed is this: The initial article is about one person who is being held based on CHARGES. If the charges are laid, as they have been, then we have an obligation to follow our own laws as based on our Constitution. Otherwise, what is the fighting intended to preserve.
The whole lie was that this "War on Terror" was supposed to preserve our way of life, not destroy it.
It is nothing more than an excuse to force the implementation of United Nations control over a people who WILL NOT BOW, to a NEW GOD of a manmade nature, those people being the ones in the USA and those in the ME. Two birds, one stone.
I don't understand this. If the conflict is between the UN and "terrorists" why are these people facing trial in US courts, surely the UN can organise its own courts?

73

Brian G8ADD

[KB1KIX]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Aug. 28 2007,15:23)]I don't understand this. If the conflict is between the UN and "terrorists" why are these people facing trial in US courts, surely the UN can organise its own courts?
Surely you jest - the UN organizing anything?

Bottom line - this administration has a severe misunderstanding of the Constution.

Jonathan

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Aug. 28 2007,02:01)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 27 2007,16:57)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Aug. 27 2007,05:41)]These prisoners come from an armed society. They used these arms to oppose an invading army.

You Americans live in an armed society. Beyond any doubt you would use these arms to oppose any army that invaded your country.

Would you accept the description of illegal combatant? No, you would believe that you were doing your patriotic duty, and you would be correct in this belief. Why is it so difficult to allow that inhabitants of another country might feel the same way?

Shooting at armed invaders is not terrorism. What makes you think it is?

73

Brian G8ADD
Yes I would accept that. #To fight in civilian clothes brings grave danger to true civilians, causing many wrongful deaths.

The flip side of that coin, which military men have had to face for the past gazillion years, is what do you do when the enemy hides behind civilians? #Do you die? Do you surrender? #Or do you shoot through the civilians and die a thousand times in your nightmares?

Do you find those who do not wear uniforms, who hide behind civilians to be morally equivalent to those who wear uniforms and do avoid civilian casualties?

Before answering, ask yourself what kind of men do you want leading your country?
Lets look at this piecemeal:

"Yes I would accept that. #To fight in civilian clothes brings grave danger to true civilians, causing many wrongful deaths."

Are you saying, then, that once invaded you have to stay invaded without fighting to free your country of its alien oppressors? You would become a collaborator? If there had been many like you in the early days of your country the Queens head would be on your stamps! See in particular my reply to your next paragraph:

"The flip side of that coin, which military men have had to face for the past gazillion years, is what do you do when the enemy hides behind civilians? #Do you die? Do you surrender? #Or do you shoot through the civilians and die a thousand times in your nightmares?"

You do what you have do, which is follow orders, at least, #up to the point where you have to protest them as illegal. If you have the moral fibre to do so. In any case the line between a civilian and a combatant is very blurred. In Northern Ireland gunmen were shooting at police and troops during riots that had been instigated to draw out targets. The troops fired back, and when they hit a gunman, a member of the crowd would grab the gun and run with it so that this precious armament could be used by another fighter. At this point the member of the crowd with the rescued gun became armed and was a target.

In extreme cases rioters were also fired upon: a ballistic cobblestone can be just as fatal as a bullet. The simple truth which some people find difficult to face is that in a riot situation there is no such thing as an innocent bystander. Innocent bystanders go home at the first hint of trouble, those that remain are participants.

"Do you find those who do not wear uniforms, who hide behind civilians to be morally equivalent to those who wear uniforms and do avoid civilian casualties?"

You show some talent at constructing heavily loaded questions! How can this be answered unless you factor in who is fighting and what are they fighting for? Every Geurilla force that ever was is embedded in the population. If they win, they are heroes, if they lose they are villains, because the winner writes the history. I am afraid I find your stance on this unrealistically black and white, even a bit airy-fairy, once the bullets are flying and the bombs bursting who the hell has time to spare for balancing up moral equivalencies?

"Before answering, ask yourself what kind of men do you want leading your country?"

I'm not sure where you are coming from with this: I'll play it back to you with a straight bat - The kind of men I want leading my country are the ones that will make difficult decisions for the economic and moral benefit of my country.

73

Brian G8ADD
The Just War Theory posits several requirements for a war to be justly declared. Among those requirements are that war may be instituted only by duly constituted public authorities; that the war have a reasonable chance of success and that discrimination be used when applying acts of war.

We need to ask who are the duly constituted public authorities in Iraq (the following comments apply to Northern Ireland as well)? Are the al-Qaeda, the Kurds, the Baathists, the Sunni or the Shia the duly constituted public authorities in Iraq? To say yes to any of them omits the others. To say yes to all of them could be likened to recognizing La Raza or the Crips as the duly constituted public authorities in the USA. Given that Iraq has held free elections (albeit without Saddam on the ballot), it could be successfully argued that the elected government is the duly constituted public authority. To say otherwise discounts the Iraqi election and removes the representatives of the majority of Iraqi citizens from the decision making process.

Then we need to assess the likelihood of success. Will the al-Qaeda defeat the Kurds, the Sunni, the Shia, the Baathists and the Iraqi government? We can ask this question of each group in its turn. With the exception of the Iraqi government, it is unlikely that any of the groups will succeed in the long term.

Finally, we need to address the discrimination applied when deploying armed forces. To target the old and the young clearly fails the test of discrimination. While the old may be willing, they are ineffectual. The young who have yet to reach their majority cannot be considered willing participants under any circumstances, regardless of their opinions or the opinions of others. We should not overlook those adults who are simply unwilling to join in the war making; they should also be excused from battle.

In Iraq then, we have three distinct groups, al-Qaeda, Baathists/Sunni and Shia, all of whom cannot claim to be the duly constituted public authorities within Iraq, all committing illegal acts of war against their fellow citizens. This, in itself makes their war unjust.

Judge now, their chances of success. Is al-Qaeda capable of success? One could argue that yes, al-Qaeda has a chance of succeeding in their war, especially if the Sunni or Shia should align with them. If all three were to join forces against the Iraqi government, then there is a reasonable chance of success. Since that is a possibility, we cannot rule their war unjust on the test of reasonable chance of success alone.

Discrimination in the application of acts of war (the subject of our current discussion) is where we will find the gravest violations against the Just War Theory. The failure of the terrorists to identify themselves by openly carrying their weapons and the wearing of uniforms makes the application of discrimination impossible. We cannot expect a soldier to determine who is or who is not a belligerent at the cost of his own life. When the terrorists intermix with civilians, he intentionally imposes risks upon those civilians with the aim of increasing his chances of success. This fails the discrimination test.

There may be civilians who are willing participants in the warfare, but then these are not civilians are they? They are combatants, whether armed or not, they are there to fight and as such are legitimate targets of war. Children, on the other hand, can never be legitimate combatants. Their intentional presence on the battlefield is a gross violation of Just War Theory. Nor can the intentional presence of non-combatant civilians, let alone the intentional targeting of civilians, be considered acceptable discrimination in the application of acts of war.

Clearly, the Just Theory of war has been violated in several ways, and not just infringed upon, but intentionally disregarded in the extreme. One could argue that this can be justified because it is the only way that they can succeed, but that only violates the reasonable chance of success requirement. They do not possess a reasonable chance of success without violating the laws of man and nature.

As mentioned in previous posts, what should be the status of the combatants captured upon the battlefield? In all previous wars, with the engagement of opposing armies, the legal judgment of the actions of the combatants devolves to the military authority. He said, she said is unreasonable on the battlefield. If you are there, and you are not there on our behalf, then you are our enemy and as such, we are under no obligation to restore to you your freedom.

In most cases, though, an accidental presence on the battlefield is readily forgiven and freedom is promptly restored. Where there is doubt, incarceration is reasonably employed. Then there are the combatants who identify themselves as such, they wear uniforms or openly carry their arms. Such as these are to be considered as prisoners of war. As POWs, they can be, should be and will be detained until the end of hostilities. They should be treated with respect and their needs cared for; health, religion and dignity should be maintained.

Then there are those combatants who deliberately murder civilians, either directly or indirectly, such as introducing, intermixing with or directly attacking civilians in an attempt to gain an advantage. What are we to do with such as these? Clearly they are not civilians, nor are they honorable soldiers such as those being held as POWs. These combatants are extraordinary criminals. In most wars, up to and including WWII, criminals such as these were summarily executed.

In Iraq, we have various 'armies' who do not represent duly constituted public authorities; who do not have a reasonable chance of success and who flagrantly and as a matter of policy do not discriminate when applying acts of war. It has been argued in this topic, that these combatants should be tried as common criminals in civilian courts despite the fact that such jurisdiction is not allowed for in law. Further, civilian courts insist upon rules of evidence that cannot be followed under the rules of war and require that the accused face a jury of his peers. None of these can be provided in these cases.

It is the military tribunals which provide the proper venue for all legal actions concerning these combatants. These prisoners must be held accountable for their illegal actions as well as for supporting their illegal armies and their unconscionable cruelty to their fellow citizens.

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Aug. 28 2007,12:23)]Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 28 2007,08:47)]Hello All,

The thing that is being missed is this: #The initial article is about one person who is being held based on CHARGES. #If the charges are laid, as they have been, then we have an obligation to follow our own laws as based on our Constitution. #Otherwise, what is the fighting intended to preserve. #
The whole lie was that this "War on Terror" was supposed to preserve our way of life, not destroy it.
It is nothing more than an excuse to force the implementation of United Nations control over a people who WILL NOT BOW, to a NEW GOD of a manmade nature, those people being the ones in the USA and those in the ME. #Two birds, one stone.
I don't understand this. If the conflict is between the UN and "terrorists" why are these people facing trial in US courts, surely the UN can organise its own courts?

73

Brian G8ADD
They are not facing trials in the US Courts. It is some parties who are attempting to require that these criminals be given trials in civilian courts.

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 28 2007,08:47)]Hello All,

The thing that is being missed is this: #The initial article is about one person who is being held based on CHARGES. #If the charges are laid, as they have been, then we have an obligation to follow our own laws as based on our Constitution. #Otherwise, what is the fighting intended to preserve. #
The whole lie was that this "War on Terror" was supposed to preserve our way of life, not destroy it.
It is nothing more than an excuse to force the implementation of United Nations control over a people who WILL NOT BOW, to a NEW GOD of a manmade nature, those people being the ones in the USA and those in the ME. #Two birds, one stone.
Our laws appropriately give authority to the military to conduct legal proceedings involving military actions.

These men were held as enemy combatants so they could be treated as POWs and held until the end of hostilities. In an attempt to provide the early release of some of the prisoners, military tribunals were ordered to separate the violent criminals from the run of the mill soldiers.

Had all prisoners been listed as 'unlawful combatants', none of them would have been eligible for early release. It is the attempt on the part of the Bush adminstration to release some prisoners early that has been hijacked by those who would release all prisoners early, thereby gravely damaging the administration and the war.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 28 2007,19:01)]Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 28 2007,08:47)]Hello All,

The thing that is being missed is this: The initial article is about one person who is being held based on CHARGES. If the charges are laid, as they have been, then we have an obligation to follow our own laws as based on our Constitution. Otherwise, what is the fighting intended to preserve.
The whole lie was that this "War on Terror" was supposed to preserve our way of life, not destroy it.
It is nothing more than an excuse to force the implementation of United Nations control over a people who WILL NOT BOW, to a NEW GOD of a manmade nature, those people being the ones in the USA and those in the ME. Two birds, one stone.
Our laws appropriately give authority to the military to conduct legal proceedings involving military actions.

These men were held as enemy combatants so they could be treated as POWs and held until the end of hostilities. In an attempt to provide the early release of some of the prisoners, military tribunals were ordered to separate the violent criminals from the run of the mill soldiers.

Had all prisoners been listed as 'unlawful combatants', none of them would have been eligible for early release. It is the attempt on the part of the Bush adminstration to release some prisoners early that has been hijacked by those who would release all prisoners early, thereby gravely damaging the administration and the war.
War? Iraq? Did we have a declaration of war?

Shucks, I miss everything.

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Aug. 28 2007,16:04)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 28 2007,19:01)]Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 28 2007,08:47)]Hello All,

The thing that is being missed is this: #The initial article is about one person who is being held based on CHARGES. #If the charges are laid, as they have been, then we have an obligation to follow our own laws as based on our Constitution. #Otherwise, what is the fighting intended to preserve. #
The whole lie was that this "War on Terror" was supposed to preserve our way of life, not destroy it.
It is nothing more than an excuse to force the implementation of United Nations control over a people who WILL NOT BOW, to a NEW GOD of a manmade nature, those people being the ones in the USA and those in the ME. #Two birds, one stone.
Our laws appropriately give authority to the military to conduct legal proceedings involving military actions.

These men were held as enemy combatants so they could be treated as POWs and held until the end of hostilities. #In an attempt to provide the early release of some of the prisoners, military tribunals were ordered to separate the violent criminals from the run of the mill soldiers.

Had all prisoners been listed as 'unlawful combatants', none of them would have been eligible for early release. #It is the attempt on the part of the Bush adminstration to release some prisoners early that has been hijacked by those who would release all prisoners early, thereby gravely damaging the administration and the war.
War? #Iraq? #Did we have a declaration of war?
And we won! You gotta try and keep up on current events Luke. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[G8ADD]

KC0UKK, I thank you for a most intelligent reply. One point, I can see how all this applies to Iraq, but most of the detainees were apprehended in Afghanistan, how does your analysis need modifying to apply to them?

73

Brian G8ADD

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Aug. 28 2007,19:04)]War? #Iraq? #Did we have a declaration of war?

Shucks, I miss everything.
This is a very serious problem that has been growing more dangerous in recent decades and needs to be dealt with at some point. A large part of the problem has been one feckless Congress after another; they are more worried about the political problems (read: re-election) than the Constitutional implications of a runaway executive misappropriation of military power. It is not simply Bush who has misused this Constitutional power, and the problem can be traced back to the very beginnings of the nation.

The executive must have the power to respond in a timely fashion to any serious threat that requires the use of military force. No one could seriously argue otherwise. That this ability to respond in a timely fashion has been thoroughly misused does not militate against the policy -- just its errant application.

Clinton used it. Bush I used it. Reagan used it. Carter tried to use it. Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and FDR all used it. Wilson went bananas using it. One could continue to fill another paragraph or two citing examples, some of which were well founded and, alas more often, others not.

The present Congress is unlikely to do anything other than seek political gain, and nothing that would tend to aid in the process of defining an appropriate policy. The closest that was ever instituted was the so-called War Powers Act of 1973 (which is an offshoot of the Act of 1933), and that was a political gambit that remains in dispute. For one thing, there is serious reason to aver that the Congress, through this Act of 1973, engaged in an illegal "veto" of presidential privilege.

The subject is not suitable for the usual idiocies that mark most of these "pro-anti" threads on QRZ, but it is one that needs to be dealt with by proper authority. None of the players, however, are willing to put aside the extremes of political partisanship in any effort to do so. Meanwhile we are held hostage to the actions of hidden advisors with hidden agendas. No American should be required to put his life in danger for the sake of some white paper prepared by an eminence grise appointed to some committee or advisory post.

You have lost control of your government. This loss has come about because the average numbskull (of which we have ample representation on this very thread) values shallow political scores over the commonweal.

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Aug. 29 2007,00:54)]KC0UKK, I thank you for a most intelligent reply. One point, I can see how all this applies to Iraq, but most of the detainees were apprehended in Afghanistan, how does your analysis need modifying to apply to them?

73

Brian G8ADD
Thanks for your kind comments; your genuine questions encourages honest and thoughtful discussion. Very enjoyable actually.

The toughest question to answer is what was the duly constituted public authority in Afghanistan? It seems as though nobody was. The Taliban received no recognition from the UN, but were recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The Taliban took power from the Mujahideen war lords (numerous bandits from all accounts) who had controlled Afghanistan since the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.

Nevertheless, the Afghanis appear to have supported, at least initially, the Taliban over the Mujahideen. Stability has its advantages. The excesses of the Taliban soon made them unwelcome at home and a pariah internationally. Still, Afghanistan wasn’t completely lawless, so the Taliban could very well be considered the duly constituted public authority even though the US and the Afghani Northern Alliance (un-pacified war lords) didn’t officially recognize them as such. I’ll give the Taliban a pass on the issue.

Did the Taliban have a reasonable chance of success? Clearly, they did not. By the time of the US invasion, they had squandered whatever good will they may have had among the Afghanis. With a few US Special Forces, a lot of US air support, weapons and money, the Northern Alliance quickly swept the Taliban from the country side and chased them across the border into Pakistan.

Did the Taliban discriminate or did they attack civilians or expose civilians to grave risk? No, from all accounts, suicide bombing was not encouraged by the Taliban and was not a commonly used tactic. While I’m sure there were exceptions, the Taliban forces generally did not attack civilians or intentionally place them at risk. My impression is that the Taliban forces did use reasonable discrimination when fighting.

The Taliban did not wear uniforms, but they did carry their weapons openly and they generally fought as a military unit, targeting their military opponents rather than the general population.

Given all of the above, I would be comfortable treating the Taliban forces as POWs with the exception of some of the Taliban leaders and their al-Qaeda supporters. Once again, military tribunals should be used to separate the criminal factions from the troops. The troops should be detained as POWs until the cessation of hostilities.

[KI4PJW]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 29 2007,01:38)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Aug. 29 2007,00:54)]KC0UKK, I thank you for a most intelligent reply. One point, I can see how all this applies to Iraq, but most of the detainees were apprehended in Afghanistan, how does your analysis need modifying to apply to them?

73

Brian G8ADD
Thanks for your kind comments; your genuine questions encourages honest and thoughtful discussion. #Very enjoyable actually.

The toughest question to answer is what was the duly constituted public authority in Afghanistan? #It seems as though nobody was. #The Taliban received no recognition from the UN, but were recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. #The Taliban took power from the Mujahideen war lords (numerous bandits from all accounts) who had controlled Afghanistan since the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.

Nevertheless, the Afghanis appear to have supported, at least initially, the Taliban over the Mujahideen. #Stability has its advantages. #The excesses of the Taliban soon made them unwelcome at home and a pariah internationally. Still, Afghanistan wasn’t completely lawless, so the Taliban could very well be considered the duly constituted public authority even though the US and the Afghani Northern Alliance (un-pacified war lords) didn’t officially recognize them as such. #I’ll give the Taliban a pass on the issue.

Did the Taliban have a reasonable chance of success? #Clearly, they did not. #By the time of the US invasion, they had squandered whatever good will they may have had among the Afghanis. #With a few US Special Forces, a lot of US air support, weapons and money, the Northern Alliance quickly swept the Taliban from the country side and chased them across the border into Pakistan.

Did the Taliban discriminate or did they attack civilians or expose civilians to grave risk? #No, from all accounts, suicide bombing was not encouraged by the Taliban and was not a commonly used tactic. #While I’m sure there were exceptions, the Taliban forces generally did not attack civilians or intentionally place them at risk. #My impression is that the Taliban forces did use reasonable discrimination when fighting.

The Taliban did not wear uniforms, but they did carry their weapons openly and they generally fought as a military unit, targeting their military opponents rather than the general population.

Given all of the above, I would be comfortable treating the Taliban forces as POWs with the exception of some of the Taliban leaders and their al-Qaeda supporters. #Once again, military tribunals should be used to separate the criminal factions from the troops. #The troops should be detained as POWs until the cessation of hostilities.
8ukk,

Bottom line, there is no Declaration of War as required by the Supreme Law of these United States, the Constitution.
FACT: Ain't been one since WWII.
Everything after that is of no issue and is not lawful. Therefore, all that follows is unlawful and flys in the face of all that makes the good ol USofA, GOOD!
All that has been accomplished is the further diminishment of the USA in the eyes of onlookers.
Also, what do you think the other Nations that rival our military might are preparing for right now.
It usally does'nt take long before a bully meets it's match, and if it does'nt we wind up with a gang up and whip the bully fight on a global scale.
Now, do you really want your family to be victims of Global War?
If you believe we can stop THEM, from coming here, you really need to get out more. They are already here. They own trillions of dollars in our debt, hence they own our country as has been allowed by those whom you worship.

[w4nti]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Aug. 26 2007,14:31)]Hello.

What if Canada decides that they have had enough?
The US is going to a lot of effort to close the US-Canada border, what if Canada says fine?
Remember 9/11? when dozens of jetliners were diverted to Canada?
What if Canada were to close its airspace at the same time?
What is the next option, Cuba?
Yes, this president is doing good, real good.
Since we are playing "what if"...how about this;

What if we break our military commitment to Canada?

What if we let them defend their selves?

What if NORAD stops at the US Canadian Border?

Dan/W4NTI

[w4nti]

Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Aug. 28 2007,08:47)]Hello All,

The thing that is being missed is this: #The initial article is about one person who is being held based on CHARGES. #If the charges are laid, as they have been, then we have an obligation to follow our own laws as based on our Constitution. #Otherwise, what is the fighting intended to preserve. #
The whole lie was that this "War on Terror" was supposed to preserve our way of life, not destroy it.
It is nothing more than an excuse to force the implementation of United Nations control over a people who WILL NOT BOW, to a NEW GOD of a manmade nature, those people being the ones in the USA and those in the ME. #Two birds, one stone.
I am confused.....where in our Constitution does it say everyone in the world has rights under it?

It seems to me the only people that are covered are the citizens of this country. Right?

Under the Geneva Convention we are doing the right thing.

Perhaps we should just cut off their heads instead ?

Dan/W4NTI

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Aug. 29 2007,11:00)]Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Aug. 28 2007,19:04)]War? Iraq? Did we have a declaration of war?

Shucks, I miss everything.
This is a very serious problem that has been growing more dangerous in recent decades and needs to be dealt with at some point. A large part of the problem has been one feckless Congress after another; they are more worried about the political problems (read: re-election) than the Constitutional implications of a runaway executive misappropriation of military power. It is not simply Bush who has misused this Constitutional power, and the problem can be traced back to the very beginnings of the nation.

The executive must have the power to respond in a timely fashion to any serious threat that requires the use of military force. No one could seriously argue otherwise. That this ability to respond in a timely fashion has been thoroughly misused does not militate against the policy -- just its errant application.

Clinton used it. Bush I used it. Reagan used it. Carter tried to use it. Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and FDR all used it. Wilson went bananas using it. One could continue to fill another paragraph or two citing examples, some of which were well founded and, alas more often, others not.

The present Congress is unlikely to do anything other than seek political gain, and nothing that would tend to aid in the process of defining an appropriate policy. The closest that was ever instituted was the so-called War Powers Act of 1973 (which is an offshoot of the Act of 1933), and that was a political gambit that remains in dispute. For one thing, there is serious reason to aver that the Congress, through this Act of 1973, engaged in an illegal "veto" of presidential privilege.

The subject is not suitable for the usual idiocies that mark most of these "pro-anti" threads on QRZ, but it is one that needs to be dealt with by proper authority. None of the players, however, are willing to put aside the extremes of political partisanship in any effort to do so. Meanwhile we are held hostage to the actions of hidden advisors with hidden agendas. No American should be required to put his life in danger for the sake of some white paper prepared by an eminence grise appointed to some committee or advisory post.

You have lost control of your government. This loss has come about because the average numbskull (of which we have ample representation on this very thread) values shallow political scores over the commonweal.
Absolutely correct Albert. Too bad your message is lost among the continued posturing here. Using our military, except in the most dire of emergencies, should require a declaration of war. Otherwise, it is nothing more than nanny state police action on a global scale.

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Sep. 01 2007,12:24)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Aug. 29 2007,11:00)]Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Aug. 28 2007,19:04)]War? #Iraq? #Did we have a declaration of war?

Shucks, I miss everything.
This is a very serious problem that has been growing more dangerous in recent decades and needs to be dealt with at some point. A large part of the problem has been one feckless Congress after another; they are more worried about the political problems (read: re-election) than the Constitutional implications of a runaway executive misappropriation of military power. It is not simply Bush who has misused this Constitutional power, and the problem can be traced back to the very beginnings of the nation.

The executive must have the power to respond in a timely fashion to any serious threat that requires the use of military force. No one could seriously argue otherwise. That this ability to respond in a timely fashion has been thoroughly misused does not militate against the policy -- just its errant application.

Clinton used it. Bush I used it. Reagan used it. Carter tried to use it. Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and FDR all used it. Wilson went bananas using it. One could continue to fill another paragraph or two citing examples, some of which were well founded and, alas more often, others not.

The present Congress is unlikely to do anything other than seek political gain, and nothing that would tend to aid in the process of defining an appropriate policy. The closest that was ever instituted was the so-called War Powers Act of 1973 (which is an offshoot of the Act of 1933), and that was a political gambit that remains in dispute. For one thing, there is serious reason to aver that the Congress, through this Act of 1973, engaged in an illegal "veto" of presidential privilege.

The subject is not suitable for the usual idiocies that mark most of these "pro-anti" threads on QRZ, but it is one that needs to be dealt with by proper authority. None of the players, however, are willing to put aside the extremes of political partisanship in any effort to do so. Meanwhile we are held hostage to the actions of hidden advisors with hidden agendas. No American should be required to put his life in danger for the sake of some white paper prepared by an eminence grise appointed to some committee or advisory post.

You have lost control of your government. This loss has come about because the average numbskull (of which we have ample representation on this very thread) values shallow political scores over the commonweal.
Absolutely correct Albert. #Too bad your message is lost among the continued posturing here. #Using our military, except in the most dire of emergencies, should require a declaration of war. #Otherwise, it is nothing more than nanny state police action on a global scale.
While the constitution clearly states the congress shall have the power to declare war, it does not say that they must use 'Form 666 Revision A' to do so. Nor does the constitution require any particular wording or format for such a declaration.

Albert's observations concerning the lack of clarity and outright obsfucation practiced by our government is on target. Nevertheless, congress did toss the fly paper onto the President's lap. To say now that congress didn't 'Declare War' is, to say the least, disengenuous.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html)

[KI4PJW]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 01 2007,01:54)]Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Sep. 01 2007,12:24)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Aug. 29 2007,11:00)]Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Aug. 28 2007,19:04)]War? #Iraq? #Did we have a declaration of war?

Shucks, I miss everything.
This is a very serious problem that has been growing more dangerous in recent decades and needs to be dealt with at some point. A large part of the problem has been one feckless Congress after another; they are more worried about the political problems (read: re-election) than the Constitutional implications of a runaway executive misappropriation of military power. It is not simply Bush who has misused this Constitutional power, and the problem can be traced back to the very beginnings of the nation.

The executive must have the power to respond in a timely fashion to any serious threat that requires the use of military force. No one could seriously argue otherwise. That this ability to respond in a timely fashion has been thoroughly misused does not militate against the policy -- just its errant application.

Clinton used it. Bush I used it. Reagan used it. Carter tried to use it. Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and FDR all used it. Wilson went bananas using it. One could continue to fill another paragraph or two citing examples, some of which were well founded and, alas more often, others not.

The present Congress is unlikely to do anything other than seek political gain, and nothing that would tend to aid in the process of defining an appropriate policy. The closest that was ever instituted was the so-called War Powers Act of 1973 (which is an offshoot of the Act of 1933), and that was a political gambit that remains in dispute. For one thing, there is serious reason to aver that the Congress, through this Act of 1973, engaged in an illegal "veto" of presidential privilege.

The subject is not suitable for the usual idiocies that mark most of these "pro-anti" threads on QRZ, but it is one that needs to be dealt with by proper authority. None of the players, however, are willing to put aside the extremes of political partisanship in any effort to do so. Meanwhile we are held hostage to the actions of hidden advisors with hidden agendas. No American should be required to put his life in danger for the sake of some white paper prepared by an eminence grise appointed to some committee or advisory post.

You have lost control of your government. This loss has come about because the average numbskull (of which we have ample representation on this very thread) values shallow political scores over the commonweal.
Absolutely correct Albert. #Too bad your message is lost among the continued posturing here. #Using our military, except in the most dire of emergencies, should require a declaration of war. #Otherwise, it is nothing more than nanny state police action on a global scale.
While the constitution clearly states the congress shall have the power to declare war, it does not say that they must use 'Form 666 Revision A' to do so. #Nor does the constitution require any particular wording or format for such a declaration.

Albert's observations concerning the lack of clarity and outright obsfucation practiced by our government is on target. Nevertheless, congress did toss the fly paper onto the President's lap. #To say now that congress didn't 'Declare War' is, to say the least, disengenuous.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html)
Surely, you are not trying to use THAT as a prop to your argument!
It is full of exposed lies and backs up my point that we are there at the behest of the UN. #
I'll accept the document as your submission on the issue.

"Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; "

"Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;"

Where did they hide the Advanced Nuclear Program?

I figured this one out for ya. They sent it to IRAN so Bush would have a reason to attack them.

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ Sep. 02 2007,18:34)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 01 2007,01:54)]Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Sep. 01 2007,12:24)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Aug. 29 2007,11:00)]Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Aug. 28 2007,19:04)]War? #Iraq? #Did we have a declaration of war?

Shucks, I miss everything.
This is a very serious problem that has been growing more dangerous in recent decades and needs to be dealt with at some point. A large part of the problem has been one feckless Congress after another; they are more worried about the political problems (read: re-election) than the Constitutional implications of a runaway executive misappropriation of military power. It is not simply Bush who has misused this Constitutional power, and the problem can be traced back to the very beginnings of the nation.

The executive must have the power to respond in a timely fashion to any serious threat that requires the use of military force. No one could seriously argue otherwise. That this ability to respond in a timely fashion has been thoroughly misused does not militate against the policy -- just its errant application.

Clinton used it. Bush I used it. Reagan used it. Carter tried to use it. Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and FDR all used it. Wilson went bananas using it. One could continue to fill another paragraph or two citing examples, some of which were well founded and, alas more often, others not.

The present Congress is unlikely to do anything other than seek political gain, and nothing that would tend to aid in the process of defining an appropriate policy. The closest that was ever instituted was the so-called War Powers Act of 1973 (which is an offshoot of the Act of 1933), and that was a political gambit that remains in dispute. For one thing, there is serious reason to aver that the Congress, through this Act of 1973, engaged in an illegal "veto" of presidential privilege.

The subject is not suitable for the usual idiocies that mark most of these "pro-anti" threads on QRZ, but it is one that needs to be dealt with by proper authority. None of the players, however, are willing to put aside the extremes of political partisanship in any effort to do so. Meanwhile we are held hostage to the actions of hidden advisors with hidden agendas. No American should be required to put his life in danger for the sake of some white paper prepared by an eminence grise appointed to some committee or advisory post.

You have lost control of your government. This loss has come about because the average numbskull (of which we have ample representation on this very thread) values shallow political scores over the commonweal.
Absolutely correct Albert. #Too bad your message is lost among the continued posturing here. #Using our military, except in the most dire of emergencies, should require a declaration of war. #Otherwise, it is nothing more than nanny state police action on a global scale.
While the constitution clearly states the congress shall have the power to declare war, it does not say that they must use 'Form 666 Revision A' to do so. #Nor does the constitution require any particular wording or format for such a declaration.

Albert's observations concerning the lack of clarity and outright obsfucation practiced by our government is on target. Nevertheless, congress did toss the fly paper onto the President's lap. #To say now that congress didn't 'Declare War' is, to say the least, disengenuous.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html)
Surely, you are not trying to use THAT as a prop to your argument!
It is full of exposed lies and backs up my point that we are there at the behest of the UN. #
I'll accept the document as your submission on the issue.

"Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; "

"Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;"

Where did they hide the Advanced Nuclear Program?

I figured this one out for ya. They sent it to IRAN so Bush would have a reason to attack them.
Well, you voted for the government, I guess they outsmarted you once again.