The Term "Enemy Combatant"

[King of the Americas]

To Jocko:

I have nothing further, for you...

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Jocko:

I have nothing further, for you...

You have nothing, for anyone. That's the point.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Re: To Dan:

Firstly, I'd like to say that I didn't come here to prove to the world that the President and his Administration were acting unlawfully. Indeed, I did 'only' come here with MY personal interpretations of Constutitional Law, and bits and pieces of lawyers' speak on the matter.

If you didn't come here to prove that then why on Earth did you make the accusation? Oh, and we have courts to interpret the Constitution for us. We thank you for your effort and concern but your services are not required at this time, nor do we anticipate needing them in the future.

As with almost EVERY other topic I have started within this forum, I come to state MY case, why I believe it, and then offer my stance up for rebuttle by some of the most well read and well researched posters on the internet. I have no problems conceeding to superior points and or better reasoning skills. That said, suggesting that I haven't 'proven' my case beyond a reasonable doubt does little to provide evidence that my original accusations were incorrect... Now that is NOT to suggest that it is your duty or responsibility to do so.

You stated a case in there somewhere? I suggest you take a basic logic course. If your premise is flawed then it can't be used to support your position. So your position has no support. You can't tell us why it's right so we're just supposed to believe you after I've shown you how little you know about the subject at hand.

What I am looking out of this exchange is an informative swap of views... An, I think the way I do because of X-information, why do you believe the way you do.

I see that x-information is a null set. If you'll look at my posts, I think I've provided evidence for my arguments. No matter how deficient you may think that evidence is you must admit that some of anything is greater than none at all.

I disagree with almost everything you offered here:

And yet you don't know why you disagree. How sad.

Lincoln action's during the Civil War have nothing to do with this instance. However, I will conceed your point about what I actually bring to this exchange, in the way of arguable facts about present Law. For the record, WHAT IS YOUR STANCE??? Given that neither of us actually create or interpret Law, what do you 'think' about what has happened to Padilla, and do you have a problem with holding an American in such a manner?

More blatant assertion. Care to tell us why Lincoln's actions have no relevance to this conversation? For the record, my position is that of realist. I accept that the world and the people in it are not perfect and that blindly seeking perfection leaves you vulnerable to those who would take advantage of you. What do I think about Padilla? I think the courts haven't spoken yet, although I think Hamdi v. Rumsfeld makes a pretty clear statement that the President has the power and authority to do what he is doing.

Okay, I have re-thought my postion, and I STILL believe that an American's Constitutional Rights should be protected, FIRST AND FOREMOST. I have difficulty imagining an instance wherein it would be 'ok' to abandon an American's Rights...

(needless link to the Constitution deleted, I've read it all, have you?)

As I mentioned in a previous post, the right to self-defense is absolute, it is implied in the right to life outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Along with the right to individual self-defense there is a right of collective self-defense. Now in a self-defense situation, if warranted, I can kill or maim you without fear of reprisal by the government. Societies work on the same principal, that when there is an immediate threat the normal rules have to change to account for the new situation. This can lead to potential problems caused by making the wrong decisions, but making no decision at all and conducting business as usual is not an option. The President is empowered by the Constitution and Congress to make those decisions for us within the limits he is given. You haven't shown where he has overstepped any of them.

I think there is a difference in presenting a 'reasoned' argument, and presenting an iron clad argument with complete and total evidenciary support. Why not take a position and present some of your own evidence, rather than pontificating on what I am and am not capable of?

I have presented plenty of my own evidence to refute your position, which may also be used in support of my position if you like. And you're quite right, everybody here knows you're not capable of constructing a reasoned argument in defense of your crackpot notions. No reason to pontificate further.

Honestly, I couldn't say, but I would 'think' that the first punch, was when We moved our military forces into 'greater Arabia' for the purpose of affecting political influence in the area... I am not exactly sure 'what' the first punch was, I just know that it WASN'T the 9.11. attacks.

If you can't say, then isn't it patently ridiculous for you to blame anyone? And just what is 'Greater Arabia' by the way?

During War, civilians die. We targeted two Japanese cities with nuclear bombs, killing tens of thousands of 'innocent women and children'... When we started our country, many of the revolutionists fired upon the Red Coats from behind trees, rocks, and civilian houses. These acts were NOT in keeping with the Rules of War of the period. THIS is simply 'historical truth', and one would be hard pressed to find ANY army that didn't inflict damages to their perceived enemy in a manner not adhearing to to the Rules of War, again of that period. I am not sure what acts are or are not 'acceptible' during War anymore. Moreover, I am not sure what an 'act of terror' is. If my hometown were suddenly to suffer an invasion from an Islamic army and their families, 'I' may very well reduce myself to attacking ALL of them in an effort to resist an outright invasion and occupation, even their women and children. And I am just s SURE that among these invaders, the speak would be about how 'inhuman' and 'savage' my attacks were, giving reason for labeling me a mindless animal deserving of little more than extermination... In the end, maybe all IS fair during Love and War.

I'm afraid you wouldn't know 'historical truth' if it fell on you. As anyone who knows history will tell you: history has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the truth. Now, if you're not sure what acts are or are not acceptable then you're in luck! Some really smart guys went and wrote all of them down on paper! You can actually read the laws of war and if you can read above 6th grade level you can even understand them. After that you can then see how they evolved and how they've been used and abused over the years instead of making more stupid assertions.

Padilla is NOW, what he is, an American citizen captured on American soil who has been denied his Consitutional Rights. A Court may 'legally affirm' this as rightious action, but the fact remains that his rights were violated...if only for 'good enough' reasons. Again, I am NOT here to state, make, or offer legally binding interpretations of the Law. I am merely saying that Padilla is an AMERICAN taken into custody in America, and as such that entitles him to certain rights.

Padilla is also a member of Al Qaeda. We have his friggin' enlistment papers. Being an American citizen is no protection from the consequences of making war against the United States. Read applicable case law and you'll get an earful of very eloquent whys. It's the law that will decide what happens to Padilla, in the meantime I am content with a couple facts: The government did not just disappear Padilla like just about every other government would, and the courts are reviewing the case while quite properly maintaining that the government has a responsibility to defend all of us.

A look back at this post, reminds me of my original accusation, that this Administration has taken steps BACKWARDS in the protection of individuals' rights, be they prisoners taken during this War on Terrorism from foreign lands, OR be they American Citizens. I feel furthermore that there has been more than enough evidence posted here to back up that claim. Now, I believe that it is a separate argument to have upon the 'rightiousness' or 'legality' of those actions. Regardless of the courts' findings, or your opinion on the matter, there is no arguing that this Administration has sought to limit, reduce, or otherwise undo rights and priviledges accorded to persons by the Geneva Conventions & Our Constitution.

You have not posted a single reliable shred of information supporting your position throughout this exchange. You have made blatant assertions that have all been shot down in flames. Every one of them. You are just making an argument by assertion: it's true because I say it's true, I wouldn't say it if it wasn't, trust me!.

So regardless of what the government says, regardless of what the courts say, regardless of what our elected representatives say and regardless of what the rest of us say, you are the person who is most capable of deciding what is right and what is wrong and the most capable of telling us? Is that right? Is that what you're saying here? You don't post a single shred of evidence to support your position and then tell me you know best like some sort of modern Solomon.

Well, you're not. You're just another moron that gets his information in the commercial breaks of the sitcoms and believes everything he is told. You spoke of sheeple earlier in the thread, well buddy, you're smack dab in the middle of the flock and not likely to ever move up to shepherd, sheep dog or even wolf.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Dan:

I think you are wrong...

Hamdi & Padilla are both examples of the results of the Presdient's direct actions leading to the 'limiting' of rights of American individuals, in pursuit of the War on Terrorism.

Labeling captured enemies "Enemy Combatants" is ANOTHER example of this 'limiting' of rights to persons.

My 'accusation' was that this Administration has taken steps BACKWARDS in the protection of individual rights.

YOUR argument is that this isn't happening, OR that it is happening justly???

OR, is your argument is that ALL Presidents have this right endowed within their inheriant abilities???

Regardless, this Administration HAS sought 'new' powers to hold Americans and foreigners, in manners less protected, than previously.

You keep saying I have provided nothing...but I suggest that you aren't 'addressing' what I have offered.

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Dan:

I think...

My 'accusation' was...

You keep saying I have provided nothing...but I suggest that you aren't 'addressing' what I have offered.

One more time: you're all opinion, no fact. How does one address that?

Try it the other way around. It's generally "thought" that you're an idiot and you're ofted "accused" of wasting people's time. Why haven't you "addressed" that?

 

[King of the Americas]

Are you suggesting that Americans Padilla & Hamdi were NOT label 'Enemy Combatants' in order to limit their Constitutional rights, and that prisoners taken during this War on Terrorism are NOT being held at GITMO under conditions less than acceptible by the Geneva Convention???

Your ignorance is truly remarkable...

 

[Dan Beaird]

Re: To Dan:

I think you are wrong...

Wow! Really? You think I'm wrong? Too bad you dont have the ability to prove it. I, on the other hand, have shown that you are wrong by presenting evidence in support of my position. You have not been able to refute any of it or provide any of your own without having to lie about it. Face it, you are witless buffoon and the rest of us are just pointing at you and laughing. Brings back those memories of school doesn't it?

Hamdi & Padilla are both examples of the results of the Presdient's direct actions leading to the 'limiting' of rights of American individuals, in pursuit of the War on Terrorism.

More assertions? Haven't you realized that these don't get you anywhere? Every time you've been asked to support your assertions you stick your fingers in your ears and go lalalalalala until the questions go away. Unfortunately for you these questions aren't going away and ignoring them just makes you look even stupider....if that's possible.

Labeling captured enemies "Enemy Combatants" is ANOTHER example of this 'limiting' of rights to persons.

Does anything about this statement strike you as even more idiotic than your usual drivel?

My 'accusation' was that this Administration has taken steps BACKWARDS in the protection of individual rights.

Yes that's your accusation. You've just failed to support it.

YOUR argument is that this isn't happening, OR that it is happening justly???

Bub, you can't even express your own arguments clearly. What on earth would make you think you can express the arguments of someone else? You're way off target and even the extra punctuation doesn't help.

OR, is your argument is that ALL Presidents have this right endowed within their inheriant abilities???

There are no special rights granted to presidents, only powers; there is a critical difference there which I am sure totally escapes your grasp. After all these pages, if you still wonder what my argument is then you've surpassed all my estimates at your idiocy. My argument is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about and you are too stupid to know that you don't know. Is that clear enough for you?

Regardless, this Administration HAS sought 'new' powers to hold Americans and foreigners, in manners less protected, than previously.

Oh....so "regardless" means "in spite of all the evidence to the contrary"? Don't you get it? This is nothing but an assertion, it means nothing (even less than that considering the source) without some evidence to support it.

You keep saying I have provided nothing...but I suggest that you aren't 'addressing' what I have offered.

Care to tell me exactly what you've offered besides baseless assertions? I have repeatedly asked for citations and all I've received is one link to a short story on the pitiable condition of a man who wants to kill Americans by the millions.

I want you to think about something for a second. Do you know what a dirty bomb would do in the vicinity of a major city? Do you care?

 

[Jocko]

Are you suggesting that Americans Padilla & Hamdi were NOT label 'Enemy Combatants' in order to limit their Constitutional rights, and that prisoners taken during this War on Terrorism are NOT being held at GITMO under conditions less than acceptible by the Geneva Convention???

No, I am suggesting that it would be more intellectually profitable to discuss this (or indeed any) issue with a doorknob than to discuss it with you. As much as you'd like to divorce your own silliness from the debate, you won't succeed.

Your ignorance is truly remarkable...

Yeah, well, I guess I'll just have to live with the king's scorn. I've managed to do quite well in the past few years in spite of your regal opinion (see qualifications on adulthood mentioned above).

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: To Dan:

Wow! Really? You think I'm wrong? Too bad you dont have the ability to prove it. I, on the other hand, have shown that you are wrong by presenting evidence in support of my position. You have not been able to refute any of it or provide any of your own without having to lie about it. Face it, you are witless buffoon and the rest of us are just pointing at you and laughing. Brings back those memories of school doesn't it?[/B]

KOA was never big on school, Dan. Too many annoying details, not enough UFO theory. He bailed out when he learned "Jedi Training" wasn't part of the P.E. curriculum.

Besides, why be a student when you can use the internet to pretend you're a professor (or a king, for that matter)?

I want you to think about something for a second. Do you know what a dirty bomb would do in the vicinity of a major city? Do you care?

He would only care if it happened in a country that hates America with as deep a passion as he does. If it happened here, it would just be more comeuppance for our "oppressive policies" and "global occupations."

Seriously, you should have seen the crap he was spewing before night fell on 9/11/01. The guy is a certified psychopath.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Are you suggesting that Americans Padilla & Hamdi were NOT label 'Enemy Combatants' in order to limit their Constitutional rights, and that prisoners taken during this War on Terrorism are NOT being held at GITMO under conditions less than acceptible by the Geneva Convention???

Your ignorance is truly remarkable...

Two different questions, the answers are yes and yes.

The administration has given their reasons for declaring Padilla and Hamdi enemy combatants. You choose to believe that the government is lying and has other motives, but you have no evidence to support this belief because, face it, you're an idiot.

You were asked earlier to explain what rights a prisoner of war would receive under the Geneval Conventions that has not been offered to the prisoners at GITMO. You ignored the question, which I take to mean that, again, you don't have a clue. The government holds that some of the Detainees at GITMO are illegal combatants and as such have no right to claim protection from the Geneva Conventions. The government never said that the prisoners were being treated in any other way than that ordered by law which complies with our interpretation of the Geneva Convention.

There's an old saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You might want to meditate on the meaning of this.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Re: Re: Re: To Dan:

KOA was never big on school, Dan. Too many annoying details, not enough UFO theory. He bailed out when he learned "Jedi Training" wasn't part of the P.E. curriculum.

I'm pretty sure that he attended some sort of institution where he was regularly mocked. He's way too good at ignoring reasoned arguments and ridicule to have never faced them before.

Besides, why be a student when you can use the internet to pretend you're a professor (or a king, for that matter)?

I really hope I'm not getting involved in his fantasy world.

He would only care if it happened in a country that hates America with as deep a passion as he does. If it happened here, it would just be more comeuppance for our "oppressive policies" and "global occupations."

I figured as much. I'm seriously thinking about starting a thread that asks everybody to write to congress and have them declare KOA an enemy combatant. He really needs to be locked up somewhere for his own safety, but if we did that I wouldn't be able to laugh at him.

Seriously, you should have seen the crap he was spewing before night fell on 9/11/01. The guy is a certified psychopath.

Well he probably believes dubya planned the 9/11 attacks himself and had Cheny and Rumsfeld go out and kidnap 19 innocent middle eastern men and strap them into remotely controlled airplanes. I can understand people questioning and challenging government policies, but lying about it to try and build hatred against your own country seems really really stupid. Of course if you read back a ways KOA seems to think that if we give the terrorists whatever it is that they want they'll stop attacking us. Edmund had a lot of success with that tactic against Ivar the Boneless if I recall.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: Re: To Dan:

Well he probably believes dubya planned the 9/11 attacks himself and had Cheny and Rumsfeld go out and kidnap 19 innocent middle eastern men and strap them into remotely controlled airplanes. I can understand people questioning and challenging government policies, but lying about it to try and build hatred against your own country seems really really stupid. Of course if you read back a ways KOA seems to think that if we give the terrorists whatever it is that they want they'll stop attacking us. Edmund had a lot of success with that tactic against Ivar the Boneless if I recall.

You're not far off. KOA suffers from the same delusion as most apologists: he assumes that because America has more power than anyone else in the world, it is the greatest source of evil, injustice and oppression in the world. Obviously, QED. Duh.

Therefore, he concludes we are the problem. He may not have the guts to use the actual word, but he believes terrorist attacks are deserved. If he can't find a solid reason to believe it, he'll steal some other lunatic's or invent his own out of whole cloth. Then he drizzles a few misspelled quasi-legal terms on top and calls it a "reasoned argument."

See, in KOA's world, the attackers are just lashing out against an uncaring, insensitive global behemoth. They're not to blame, America is. They're misunderstood, innocent victims... sound like a self-characterization of anyone here in this thread?

KOA defends terrorists because he feels kinship with them, IMHO.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Dan:

You choose to believe that the government is lying and has other motives,

No I don't.

I don't CARE about their 'motives'. I assign their ACTIONS as 'bad', 'going backwards in standards', or 'wrong'.

I don't believe there are good enough reasons, to make us look bad, by NOT adhearing to previously acceptible standards...

Believe it or not, I have read fully, all of the links provided, and I find that NONE of them provide enough justification 'for me', for us to reduce the rights of prisoners, be they Americans or foreigners.

We are supposed to be the 'protectors' of Freedom, not the limiters of it.

This War is one of image, we have to be seen as justice bringers, not tyrants who'll just make up ◊◊◊◊ as they go along.

Talk about stone throwing glass house occupancy...WE are either law abiders, or the law protectors. In this case, we seem to be the new law makers...

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Dan:

Believe it or not, I have read fully, all of the links provided, and I find that NONE of them provide enough justification 'for me', for us to reduce the rights of prisoners, be they Americans or foreigners.

You're not bitching about reducing them, you're bitching about them being infringed AT ALL.

Tell me, KOA, why aren't incarcerated felons allowed to exercise their constitutional right of freedom of movement?

The right to free association?

To own a firearm?

To vote?

And then tell me, KOA, did George Bush have anything on God's green earth to do with any of these pre-exsting and perfectly legitimate restrictions on constitutional rights where prisoners are concerned?!

And when you're done with that, tell me how George Bush also has caused the erosion of civil liberties in schools, such as the evil, GOP-led movement to crush freedom of speech! Of religion! When was the last time a child was protected from censorship or allowed to sacrifice a goat to Ba'al in Home Ec?

You are such an idiot, it boggles the mind to imagine how you ever made the transition to solid foods.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Re: To Dan:

No I don't.

When the President or the administration issue a statement giving their reasons and citing the legal grounds of their authority to take actions you cannot disagree with either unless you are also saying they are liars.

I don't CARE about their 'motives'. I assign their ACTIONS as 'bad', 'going backwards in standards', or 'wrong'.

Just to spell this out for you: nobody cares what you think. This whole exercise is now little more than an experiment in developing new ways to humiliate you that you cannot understand.

I don't believe there are good enough reasons, to make us look bad, by NOT adhearing to previously acceptible standards...

Now it's about looking bad? There's a constitutional ammendment somewhere against making us look bad? Why the hell isn't Vidal Sassoon our ambassador to the U.N. then? Once again you utterly fail to grasp any part of the discussion.

Believe it or not, I have read fully, all of the links provided, and I find that NONE of them provide enough justification 'for me', for us to reduce the rights of prisoners, be they Americans or foreigners.

That's because you did not understand the things you said you've read fully. Thankfully the United States of America does not have to justify a damn thing to you, because the only thing you would accept is our immediate unconditional surrender to the islamic fascists that are blowing up children and cutting the heads off foreign aid workers.

You don't know what the rights of prisoners are supposed to be, you don't know what those rights have been historically and you do not know what rights they actually have. You cannot quantify your statements at all. Only that you feel sorry for the men who want to kill me and my family....oh, and you too.

We are supposed to be the 'protectors' of Freedom, not the limiters of it.

Here's some news for you sweetheart: The Constitution is not a suicide pact. In times of emergency the protections of the Constitution may be suspended or altered to fit conditions. So far I'd say the government has bent over backwards to impose as few limitations as they can while still meeting their duty to protect us.

This War is one of image, we have to be seen as justice bringers, not tyrants who'll just make up ◊◊◊◊ as they go along.

A war of image? You can say that when 1,800 of your countrymen and thousands of Iraqis, Afghanis and others have died? Don't you understand what a war is? Are you really this dense? Frankly, the only image we need to project is the one that tells everyone in the world that we can and will destroy them if provoked. That includes American citizens in the mix.

Talk about stone throwing glass house occupancy...WE are either law abiders, or the law protectors. In this case, we seem to be the new law makers...

We are none of the above. We are a nation at war with an enemy that refuses to act in accord with the laws of civilization. And it is an outrage for you to sit in your comfy air-conditioned room and talk about how evil we are when the enemy is killing as fast as they can make bombs and take hostages.

There's an old saying from Cicero: Inter arma silent leges.

In times of war, the laws are silent.

That's not quite how we approach things thankfully, but it is certainly how the terrorists choose to fight. So which side are you on?

 

[King of the Americas]

To Dan:

How do you think we are to win this war?

I mean, do you think we have to kill or capture "all the terrorists", in order to win?

NEWSFLASH: That ain't EVER gonna happen!

We have to get our enemies to 'relent' to our rule, and lay down their weapons. How the hell are we going to get someone to submit to our rule, when we keep changing the rules to beneifit whatever situation We are facing!?!?

Our enemies have to 'trust' in our ways, if we are to win them over...

You asked what 'side' I am on...

I am on whatever 'side' that realizes that to trade liberty for security will soon find one deserving of neither.

I love America, and what is it 'supposed' to stand for. I do NOT appreciate what it has become under this Administration.

The United States would be hard pressed to find an enemy that could match us, militarily. So we can and should win ANY War we find ourselves in. However, this War isn't with a powerful military enemy, it is with a flawed ideology. We CAN'T and WON'T win with our own version of hypocrisy.

Find and read a book called "How America Lost Iraq", I think you'll find the points therein enlightening.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Re: To Dan:

How do you think we are to win this war?

The traditional way is to destroy the enemy's ability and will to resist.

I mean, do you think we have to kill or capture "all the terrorists", in order to win?

Well that would work too, but no that isn't at all what I think. So far you've failed miserably every time you've tried to tell other people what they think. Maybe you shouldn't try. Concentrate on the gaping holes in your own argument before you try to poke them into those of others.

NEWSFLASH: That ain't EVER gonna happen!

Newsflash: You don't know what the hell you're talking about!

We have to get our enemies to 'relent' to our rule, and lay down their weapons. How the hell are we going to get someone to submit to our rule, when we keep changing the rules to beneifit whatever situation We are facing!?!?

See previous comment.

The traditional way to get someone to submit to your rule in a war is give them the very real choice of doing so or dying.

I've asked you before to give specifics and you've failed miserably. So unless you care to show that we have changed the rules you need to step back and build a logical premise for your inane conclusions.

Our enemies have to 'trust' in our ways, if we are to win them over...

Strange that I never read that line in Sun Tzu. Our enemy only needs to trust that attacking us gets them hurt very very badly. You keep wanting their hearts and minds, and I don't set my sights that high.

You asked what 'side' I am on...

Is it too late to say it was a rhetorical question?

I am on whatever 'side' that realizes that to trade liberty for security will soon find one deserving of neither.

Ooooh....so let's see, is that then the side of the people that hang homosexuals in public? Or the side that shoots women for not wearing body covering veils? Or is it the side that stones women to death for the crime of being raped? Maybe it's the side that issues public hit contracts against authors for exercising their freedom of speech?

Listen up Ben: failing to take appropriate action in response to a threat is not fighting for liberty, it is suicidal stupidity. I'm not saying the Constitution should be suspended, but I am saying that we have to take reasonable steps to defend ourselves.

In every major war fought by the United States we have found it necessary to restrict a few activities that are normally protected by the Constitution and defended by the courts. The courts have consistantly upheld the idea that the same privileges we have in peace may provide aid to an enemy or put at risk the people who we have sent into harms way to protect us. Read the damn case law. There's even an opinion written by Rhenquist in 1998 that specifically stated that there is no reason to assume that courts would rule any differently on this matter today than they had in the past.

For the slow people this means that there is a difference between times of peace and times of war. In times of war civil liberties may be restricted to preserve order, protect the population and military and deny comfort and information to the enemy. Any high school student can point to any number of examples of the same sorts of things happening with usually much more drastic measures than have been used by the current administration. Go look up the Aliens and Sedition Act for a start, and that wasn't really invoked in a time of war even.

I love America, and what is it 'supposed' to stand for. I do NOT appreciate what it has become under this Administration.

You don't even know what it has become under this administration. You can't define or describe anything other than dubya is a bad, bad, scary man and you are ridiculously more afraid of him than you are of people who want to kill you. You want to roll over for the guy stealing your milk money just like you did in kindergarten. You evidently didn't learn a damn thing then, most of all you didn't stand up for yourself. The reason you are fighting the Bush administration buddy is because you are a coward and it is safe to criticize the President, where the fundamentalist nutcases that we're fighting will kill you given the chance and you're afraid of their bombs. It doesn't matter how far you bend over for them, they want you dead. Pity you don't know or care why.

The United States would be hard pressed to find an enemy that could match us, militarily. So we can and should win ANY War we find ourselves in. However, this War isn't with a powerful military enemy, it is with a flawed ideology. We CAN'T and WON'T win with our own version of hypocrisy.

Gee, just a few lines ago you said we can't win. Now you say we can't lose....except this war...we can't win because the enemy doesn't fight by rules. So instead of holding the enemy accountable for breaking the rules, instead of taking reasonable steps to mitigate the damage caused by the enemy breaking the rules, instead of punishing the enemy for breaking the rules you want to surrender and beg them not to hurt you.

Find and read a book called "How America Lost Iraq", I think you'll find the points therein enlightening.

Do you have any reason to believe that I haven't read it? I have many reasons to believe that you haven't. For one you are unable to present any argument nearly as compelling as the things that Glantz drops as throwaways. That doesn't mean I agree with Glantz and frankly a book written by a reporter from Pacifica is so obviously trying to sell something that if you don't read it with a critical eye then you're stupid enough to be sold as natural fertilizer. Look at the sources. For cryin' out loud stop letting NPR, or Fox or Pacifica or anybody else spoon feed you your opinions. Think about what is happening around you.

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Dan:

We have to get our enemies to 'relent' to our rule, and lay down their weapons. How the hell are we going to get someone to submit to our rule, when we keep changing the rules to beneifit whatever situation We are facing!?!?

Not to divert from Dan's excellent demolition job on the rest of the latest mini-manifesto, but this strikes me as an odd thing to say.

KOA, simple question, deserving of a simple answer:

Who are we (i.e., America) ruling, apart from ourselves? You used the term twice so I can only assume you choose it with precision. Who are you talking about?

 

[Dan Beaird]

I'm growing tired of this Jocko. KOA isn't even making an attempt to address the gaping flaws in his drivel. Poking a rat with a stick isn't as much fun after the rat stops wiggling.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Dan:

You are wrong, period.

Let's do some role playing, shall we?

I am an Imam is in front of mosk telling me how evil Americans are and how they torture Muslims, blah blah blah...then you go out and get captured.

The actions taken by those G.I.'s will either confirm or contradict what it was that I told you to begin with...

What actions are most likely to have you form a 'good' opinion about American forces???

Regardless of what you think, we are in War of Ideology. If we are to win we have to demonstrate a superior set of rules. When you lower standards for the treatment of prisoners, you play into the hands of our enemies. However, when you treat even the worst among our enemies, like human beings, then you disarm those who would accuse us of injustice.

The tail of this tale is how you treat those 'innocent' so-called combatants. Sooner or later, the innocent wil be set free (we hope), and when they return to their homes they will tell their tale. Your course of actions insures that this his tale will cause others for form a bad opinion of us and how we treat people.

In every major war fought by the United States we have found it necessary to restrict a few activities that are normally protected by the Constitution and defended by the courts. The courts have consistantly upheld the idea that the same privileges we have in peace may provide aid to an enemy or put at risk the people who we have sent into harms way to protect us. Read the damn case law. There's even an opinion written by Rhenquist in 1998 that specifically stated that there is no reason to assume that courts would rule any differently on this matter today than they had in the past.

During WWII, we inturned or held captive Asian Americans, and the Courts at that time upheld the decision.

THAT was F*CKED up! Regardless of the 'need', I find that same notion injust to say the least. Just because we have done it in the past, and had Courts holdup the decision, does NOT mean that I want it happening again!

I am going to address the rest of your retort later, for now I have to return to jury duty...