If Gitmo is a key to terrorist recruiting...

[Sean Renaud]

War is wherever opposing forces choose to fight it. Go back and look at a map of the active combat fronts in the European and Pacific theaters in World War II.

WWII is probably a bad example as it was a real war with clearly identified enemies. Militaries met and did war over strategic points of interest and all that. It's entirely different from picking up strange looking people where you find them.

Obama had 8 years to close it down, but didn't. I guess when they actually show you the daily security briefings, you understand why not.

He couldn't. He was prevented remember? Now how much he actually cared is unknowable he generally only fights battles he can't lose and I don't know what's in his heart but all the governors refused to take them into their states. REfused trials on account of them y might be hit by terrorists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4708946.stm

Thanks, I'll read this later.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

WWII is probably a bad example as it was a real war with clearly identified enemies. Militaries met and did war over strategic points of interest and all that. It's entirely different from picking up strange looking people where you find them.

Your fallacy lies in your struggle to parse what is NOT a "real" war by comparing large organized military forces deployed strategically with governments "picking up strange looking people."

I will grant you that the construct of "acts of war" is strained by isolated incidents of ideological sympathizers acting independently, but organized groups of Islamic fundamentalists spread across the globe acting under authority of the same fatwa or declaration of caliphate more than satisfies the definition.

Yes, a line between war and criminal activity must be drawn. But the proper drawing of that line is NOT dependent on the geographic breadth of what a proper distinction of acts of war most certainly IS!

 

[Brollyanna]

History is full of people who have defended the indefensible. It's particularly distasteful when people who have benefited from education do not apply moral intelligence to their analysis.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

History is full of people who have defended the indefensible. It's particularly distasteful when people who have benefited from education do not apply moral intelligence to their analysis.

What does education have to do with morality?

 

[Brollyanna]

What does education have to do with morality?

I didn't say that education has anything to do with morality.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

I didn't say that ...anything.....

IFYP.

 

[Brollyanna]

IFAP.

Sext?


.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Sext?


.

You equated education to morality and then denied it. And now you want to cyber? You're sending out incredibly mixed signals.

 

[Brollyanna]

You equated education to morality and then denied it. And now you want to cyber? You're sending out incredibly mixed signals.

I never expected to have to teach YOU reading comprehension, but here goes:
I said that I find it particularly distasteful when educated people do not apply their intelligence - moral, logical or other - to their analysis. This is not the same as saying that education equals morality.

And no, I'm not the one fappin to this thread.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

I never expected to have to teach YOU reading comprehension, but here goes:
I said that I find it particularly distasteful when educated people do not apply their intelligence - moral, logical or other - to their analysis. This is not the same as saying that education equals morality.

And no, I'm not the one fappin to this thread.

You didn't say anything at all about logic. You specifically referenced morality. I've know many highly educated immoral people. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make but it boils down to gibberish.

 

[Brollyanna]

You didn't say anything at all about logic. You specifically referenced morality. I've know many highly educated immoral people. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make but it boils down to gibberish.

I specifically referenced the application of moral intelligence. I added logical or other to try to help you see the point that you missed, and are still missing. Ah well.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Most of the people in Guantanamo were brought there by "extraordinary rendition" (newspeak if ever there was any) and are held there without any charges and without the chance to defend themselves. This is not the case for the general prison population.

We're either better than the terrorists, or were just the same.

Most of the people in Gitmo were captured in a foreign combat theater and were/are held under the law of war which (even the Geneva convention) allows for removal from the battlefield and held without charge until "cessation of hostilities."

Under the early 1950s Supreme Court decision Johnson v. Eisentrager, detainees held under the law of war in a detention facility on foreign soil did not have the right of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention.

That precedent was over turned by the Supreme Court in 2008. Now any person in U. S. custody has habeas rights. Obviously, that is not the same as a defense if they have not been charged with a crime.

The whole point of indefinite military detention in war is that no country should have the moral right to capture enemy forces as an act of self-defense and then be compelled to release them only to have them return to fight against their captors.

This has already happened with several former detainees released by the United States, and it is patently absurd.

You either know the law or you don't. And you clearly don't,

Better than they are is a highly subjective valuation.

Have we lined up Muslims on a beach and beheaded them?

But somehow, some people have this false moral equivalency that even making them uncomfortable is sinking to their level.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Better than they are is a highly subjective valuation.

Extra-judicial "extraordinary rendition" is teh ultimate "highly subjective valuation", no?

Have we lined up Muslims on a beach and beheaded them?

But somehow, some people have this false moral equivalency that even making them uncomfortable is sinking to their level.

http://www.chick.com/information/religions/islam/images/1058_cover.gif

 

[Sean Renaud]

Your fallacy lies in your struggle to parse what is NOT a "real" war by comparing large organized military forces deployed strategically with governments "picking up strange looking people."

I will grant you that the construct of "acts of war" is strained by isolated incidents of ideological sympathizers acting independently, but organized groups of Islamic fundamentalists spread across the globe acting under authority of the same fatwa or declaration of caliphate more than satisfies the definition.

Yes, a line between war and criminal activity must be drawn. But the proper drawing of that line is NOT dependent on the geographic breadth of what a proper distinction of acts of war most certainly IS!

I'm not going to pretend I am not struggling to parse here but I feel that in this case the parsing is of import both from a legal standpoint and a "human" one.

Lets ignore the fact that a new true calliphate is utterly impossible at this point in history. Shy of some truly magnificient fuck ups on the part of the West (and I mean the kind of magnificeint fuck ups that would make me a believer in a Great Power because President Trump and Secretary of Defense Busy Body would be unlikely to accomplish anything on that scale) that would drive all Muslims into a single unified group.

A war, at least a traditional one, needs to have a definable enemy with definable goals. There is a "head motherfucker in charge" sure but nobody in ISIS who capturing or killing would really change things. Nobody with whom we can negotiate with either as far as I know.

Ultimately no amount of independent actors claiming a single banner truly constitutes an army or a nation. And two nations or at least formally recognizable groups seems necessary for a war.

I DO believe that the ideal way to handle terrorism is to treat it as criminal behavior as opposed to a war. But from a practical sense if we aren't going to draw geographical lines what ARE we going to do? I remember finding it utterly rediculous a few years back when people were asking would Obama use drones on US Soil. Basically because no realistic scenario would call for it so answering "yes I would" just sounds bad and believing full well that if a scenario arrived and the math said it sucks to be St. Mary's orphanage but we can't evacuate Kitten City in time that he (and everybody beneath him likely with or without his permission) would blow the damn thing up and deal with the fallout later.) But saying no sounds like you wouldn't if there was a nuke in time square on New Years.

So how do we parse that? In traditional war the enemy wears uniforms and seeing one generally means it's okay to engage this person. I sure as fuck don't want to be concerned about the fact that my neighbors are Muslims and maybe I shouldn't be seen returning his turntables at one in the morning. Because we all know what's probably in a large box delivered to a muslim! (Only half joking there.)

I would be remiss in not adding that over the last decade plus of war we've all heard various stories about the ROE being a detriment to our troops. Those are only meant to be applied to formal combatants. There is a reason why we have a category for unlawful combatants and the such. I don't see the point in even possibly qualifying than as warriors/soldiers what not and the various protections that entails because they aren't.

 

[GiaCat]

Not even you believe that.

I assumed the sarcasm was obvious

 

[Ishmael]

I assumed the sarcasm was obvious

Oddly enough you may have transcended the sarcasm. 72 virgins is just a matter of faith, but sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll is a here and now reality.

Ishmael

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'm not going to pretend I am not struggling to parse here but I feel that in this case the parsing is of import both from a legal standpoint and a "human" one.

Lets ignore the fact that a new true calliphate is utterly impossible at this point in history. Shy of some truly magnificient fuck ups on the part of the West (and I mean the kind of magnificeint fuck ups that would make me a believer in a Great Power because President Trump and Secretary of Defense Busy Body would be unlikely to accomplish anything on that scale) that would drive all Muslims into a single unified group.

A war, at least a traditional one, needs to have a definable enemy with definable goals. There is a "head motherfucker in charge" sure but nobody in ISIS who capturing or killing would really change things. Nobody with whom we can negotiate with either as far as I know.

Ultimately no amount of independent actors claiming a single banner truly constitutes an army or a nation. And two nations or at least formally recognizable groups seems necessary for a war.

I DO believe that the ideal way to handle terrorism is to treat it as criminal behavior as opposed to a war. But from a practical sense if we aren't going to draw geographical lines what ARE we going to do? I remember finding it utterly rediculous a few years back when people were asking would Obama use drones on US Soil. Basically because no realistic scenario would call for it so answering "yes I would" just sounds bad and believing full well that if a scenario arrived and the math said it sucks to be St. Mary's orphanage but we can't evacuate Kitten City in time that he (and everybody beneath him likely with or without his permission) would blow the damn thing up and deal with the fallout later.) But saying no sounds like you wouldn't if there was a nuke in time square on New Years.

So how do we parse that? In traditional war the enemy wears uniforms and seeing one generally means it's okay to engage this person. I sure as fuck don't want to be concerned about the fact that my neighbors are Muslims and maybe I shouldn't be seen returning his turntables at one in the morning. Because we all know what's probably in a large box delivered to a muslim! (Only half joking there.)

I would be remiss in not adding that over the last decade plus of war we've all heard various stories about the ROE being a detriment to our troops. Those are only meant to be applied to formal combatants. There is a reason why we have a category for unlawful combatants and the such. I don't see the point in even possibly qualifying than as warriors/soldiers what not and the various protections that entails because they aren't.

We DO have a definable enemy with definable goals. And the fact that we may at any moment have multiple "head mother fuckers in charge" who nonetheless do NOT constitute a nation or cohesive entity with which we can effectively negotiate does not argue against the definition or designation of war or, far more importantly, our right to WAGE WAR when the circumstances are appropriate.

Quite simply, that is how you correctly parse it.

Should we ever engage ISIS on the ground in Iraq with the objective of routing it from cities which it currently holds, we will invariably do so with boots on the ground, planes in the air, and even ships at sea in support of the full range of military might that we would chose to unleash.

As for terrorist acts committed on U. S. soil, criminal law enforcement will almost always be the counter-terrorist methodology employed. For all the "act of war" context which the attacks of 9/11 satisfied, had the terrorists been apprehended before the fact, they would have been arrested and criminally convicted in the civilian courts rather than turned over to military custody regardless of the nature of the plot. The same is likely true of any future plots, even if directly planned and initiated by ISIS command and control.

Nobody is going to corner a bunch of armed terrorists in a Brooklyn apartment building and launch an airstrike on the premises under a "law of war" authority.

By the same token, the next hijacked commercial airliner which is filled with civil passengers and is headed for Washington, D. C. or a nuclear power plant will, in all likelihood, be shot down by the United States Air Force or Air National Guard.

The civilian or military application is appropriate on domestic soil in either case.

Appropriately identifying this struggle as a state of war neither hamstrings our legitimate response either internationally or domestically nor does it license us to commit illegal atrocities either, notwithstanding the evolving legal standards re enhanced interrogations and domestic surveillance which have occurred since 9/11.

 

[Sean Renaud]

When what precisely is the point if it's not going to significantly alter the tools that we officially consider on the table?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

When what precisely is the point if it's not going to significantly alter the tools that we officially consider on the table?

The point primarily is to address the ignorance too many people (Americans most regrettably) bring to a discussion of those very tools, i.e. the need to treat Anwar al-Awlaki as a mere criminal suspect while embedded in a foreign enemy encampment or the moral basis for a United States military aircraft shooting down a commercial airliner or the legal basis for indefinite detention of captured combatants pursuant to the implementation of the AUMF, etc.

It's all about properly managing people's expectations and presumed limitations under the law -- whether they be ordinary citizens or, for that matter, President of the United States.

It is NOT an argument that limitations don't exist. But they may not always be what people think they are in a given situation or context.

 

[Sean Renaud]

So in effect it's about getting people's heads on straight I mean if that is ultimately the long and short of it then I'm not sure I care one way or the other since I'm not convinced that getting people's heads on properly is an actually accomplishable goal.

I'm not a fan of indefinite detention under these circumstances if for no other reason than I don't believe the war on terror will ever end. I believe that generations from now it will end up being on a long list of (mostly taxes) that were sold to the public as "just until we accomplish x'" and then just became normal. So normal in fact that nobody really cares. And that without a trial you've got no way at all of proving you were honestly guilty and not just wrong place wrong time or for that matter just happened to be on a list of people the president didn't like.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

oh the obummer obaNa - it's tough against his terrorist brothers

View attachment 1799460

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So in effect it's about getting people's heads on straight I mean if that is ultimately the long and short of it then I'm not sure I care one way or the other since I'm not convinced that getting people's heads on properly is an actually accomplishable goal.

I'm not a fan of indefinite detention under these circumstances if for no other reason than I don't believe the war on terror will ever end. I believe that generations from now it will end up being on a long list of (mostly taxes) that were sold to the public as "just until we accomplish x'" and then just became normal. So normal in fact that nobody really cares. And that without a trial you've got no way at all of proving you were honestly guilty and not just wrong place wrong time or for that matter just happened to be on a list of people the president didn't like.

See, this is exactly what I am talking about! You (and the vast majority of people) insist on looking at indefinite detention through the lens of standard criminal procedure. And, of course, viewed through that lens there is nothing standard about it. It is illegal. You also have to understand that, under current law, ALL combatant detainees have the right of habeas corpus for the purpose of contesting the legality of their detention per se. That is NOT a judicial disposition of any crimes they may be charged with, but rather the most basic legal authority for their detention under the law of war.

And through the perspective of war, the practice is universally recognized. Here is what Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had to say on the issue in the Court's opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. It is both instructive and on point relative to your concerns, and it is why the "war/criminal act" distinction is far more significant than a mere pedagogical hairsplit, particularly when fighting local and regional insurgencies:

The capture and detention of lawful combatants and the capture, detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by "universal agreement and practice," are "important incident of war." Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S., at 28. The purpose of detention is to prevent captured individuals from returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again. Naqvi, Doubtful Prisoner-of-War Status, 84 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 571, 572 (2002)

*****************

There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen. 317 U. S., at 20. We held that "[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of ... the law of war."

****************

In light of these principles, it is of no moment that the AUMF does not use specific language of detention. Because detention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war, in permitting the use of "necessary and appropriate force," Congress has clearly and unmistakably authorized detention in the narrow circumstances considered here.

*****************

We recognize that the national security underpinnings of the "war on terror," although crucially important, are broad and malleable. As the Government concedes, "given its unconventional nature, the current conflict is unlikely to end with a formal cease-fire agreement." The prospect Hamdi raises is therefore not far-fetched. If the Government does not consider this unconventional war won for two generations, and if it maintains during that time that Hamdi might, if released, rejoin forces fighting against the United States, then the position it has taken throughout the litigation of this case suggests that Hamdi's detention could last for the rest of his life.


Hamdi contends that the AUMF does not authorize indefinite or perpetual detention. Certainly, we agree that indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized. Further, we understand Congress' grant of authority for the use of "necessary and appropriate force" to include the authority to detain for the duration of the relevant conflict, and our understanding is based on longstanding law-of-war principles. If the practical circumstances of a given conflict are entirely unlike those of the conflicts that informed the development of the law of war, that understanding may unravel. But that is not the situation we face as of this date.

- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/542/507.html#sthash.iSuPgCy2.dpuf

This whole business of confusing and misapplying legal principles as to war and criminality is unfathomably dangerous for two reasons: one is the fear of the tyrannical state which you indicate. The second is the imposition of inappropriate standards which impair or deny our right and ability to respond to indisputable acts of war with completely valid retributive acts under the same laws of war.

BOTH misinterpretations and misapplications seriously threaten our national security. We can ill afford either.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I get that war has different rules but how are we planning to separate people who are part of the cause from crazies from innocent morons. Am I a member of ISIS because I've been to their Facebook page or does helping a neighbor fix his truck qualify?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I get that war has different rules but how are we planning to separate people who are part of the cause from crazies from innocent morons. Am I a member of ISIS because I've been to their Facebook page or does helping a neighbor fix his truck qualify?

With slightly different phrasing, I believe we could reshape that into a Ishmule or Putzpiss post.

If you're a member of our armed forces attempting to clear buildings "house-to-house" in a foreign theater of combat and you encounter someone with a weapon, you are free to engage.

If your Middle Eastern Studies professor seems unusually critical of U. S. policy in the region and sympathetic to Islamic militant jihad, then I would suggest taking detailed notes in class. But you've no cause for further action.

Beyond war and law enforcement having different rules, we don't have a playbook that let's us parse suspicious neighbors from black hearted traitors. Nor are we supposed to.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Ouch my feelings. Okay over it.

Which I guess having reread one of your posts and then done some subsequent research if I'm understanding properly at this point everybody gets a trial to challenge if they are being lawfully detained?