Haezed

Ok, how much did this hurt

Or North Korea or N. Vietnam or Iraq in Gulf War I.

The reason may be that they want plausible deniability if the thing goes awry. Instead, they voted for an authorization of force resolution. Eh? Your Aussie wasn't detained because he was Moslem. I'm intrigued by your word "potentially." That's not a lot of confidence that we'll be able to stop a terrorist organization for destroying a US, British or Australian city. Of course, if they ever do take out a city, they can count on much of the world to say it must have been a CIA plot. Part of the problem with this discussion is that we are using different time frames. You are wrapped up in the specifics of what the US is doing now, as if every war would not have atrocities and degredations. The difference with this "war" is that the press is far less pro-US than it was in WWII. My perspective is long term. I want to make sure that my children grow up in a world with some Iota of liberty and that's not going to happen unless we keep terrorists from hiding behind nation-states and cooking up WMDs. I don't expect any "war" effort, or any human endeavor, for that matter, to be perfect but I see the democratic processes established hundreds of years ago from the founders of this country kicking in and addressing the problem. There are too many checks and balances for us to devolve into tyranny UNLESS we lose a city. If that happens, all bets are off. That threat is not immediate but will become more plausible in the next ten to twenty years.

Now to discuss the specifics of the portions of the article you excise: I do not know the ramifications of this. Should a suspected enemy combatant be allowed to invoke habeas corpus? I really dont' know what that involves. Do you? You mean they didn't publically announce to the world exacdtly what to expect when captured. Shocking. These pages must allow castration. I'd have to read the actual bill to see if this is an accurate assessment, i.e. that there is no legal consequence for violating the ban on torture. There may be consequences that are outside of the proceedings. The basic issue this presents is like with Miranda warnings. Should a confession obtained without a Miranda warning be admissable in court or should we just punish the policeman for not following practice. This was not an immediately obvious issue although now we are trained to believe the former. Again, I sense a process wrestling with complex issues and none of the complete "lack of due process" you fear.

I did. My goal was not to make you feel better but to at least make the discussion informed. Er... right. This just may not be a great time to be a bloody twit. The lengths to which you will go to excuse this guy. Amazing. If he was fighting for the Taliban then he was an enemy combatant. As I said, the rules are evolving and everyone is having to deal with this. This is a paradigm shift in terms of what the US and the rest of the civilized world is having to address. Has there been terrorism before? Yeppers, like for thousands of years and it didn't start with anti-US sentiment. The problem is the confluence of this age old mind set of the underdog looking for a way to kick the big dog with the destructive power of tech ramping upwards along an exponential curve. I'm sure the advice being given to GWB is that the risk of city killing tech following into terrorist hands will only increase in the next twenty years. It will be interesting to see what the next Pres will do when given the inside scoop. There you go again. "No concept of justice." "No due process." You'd make your case a lot better if you didn't degenerate into such extremes. What his guilty plea? I don't know. A lot of factors would go into that. If you read my posts, you'll see that I also have problems with calling this a "war on terrorism." On the other hand, it's not "criminal justice as usual." Your last sentence presents a false choice. A balance has to be struck and institutions do not turn on a dime, particularly those bound by precedents. We're working on it. So the way we win is... what?? You act as if the threat of a certain religion's extremists started hating the US because of Gitmo. This is not factual. Are they using Gitmo for propaganda purposes? Yeah, sure. Should we close it just to get rid of the symbol? I dont' know because we are still going to house those we think are suspected terrorists. Are the rules today perfect? Probably not but ultimately the Supreme Court will have its say as it did in the Hamden decisison as will voters. Democracy in action is not always pretty to watch but those who are educated should understand that people are acting in good faith in addressing a helluva problem. A nice platitude to which I agree. Our principles allow a process to deal with these issues. Let's see how it does. That is a vast and irrelevant oversimplification. The history of what created Al Queda is centuries long. Kind of funny here because really you are advocating for GWB. Past presidents have been way too practical in propping up any POS that says he will lean our way and that has been the problem. GWB genuinely doesn't think that way IMO. This is also not an easy issue you are trotting out. Well, for starters, after the Church commission in the 1970s the CIA could not be accurately termed such. If they falsely labeled an arm of the US government a terrorist organization and took our citizens, there would have to be consequences for such stupidity. I don't think this compares with an Aussie who decides to be a bloody twit and go to Afghanistan and fight either with the Taliban or Al Queda. With logic and force if necessary and practical. This is a strawman. I have never advocated using "any tactic."

Actually, you are incorrect in your assumption that a President can't take a country into war based on a use of force resolution such as was given to Bush. Otherwise, we'd have lawsuits from coast to coast to stop the unconstitutional war. I think part of the problem is both sides want to over-simplify the fight/war against "terrorism" into the "war" or "non-war" category. This is something entirely new as terrorists will be more and more able to capitalize on the historic exponential growth in technological power that has occurred in our lifetimes. We are obviously struggling with what the rules should be and I'm appalled at the lack of slack the international community has given the US. We deserve better from our allies besides whom we have fought and bled for common values. Here to me is the problem with the "war"/"no war" dichotomy: If you say "war" and apply all of the traditional rules to an ongoing conflict against an ill defined enemy who will fight for generations, you erode our liberties. If you say "no war this is a criminal justice exercise," you are giving up an American city some day with the resulting chaos and ultimate loss of liberty that would cause. We simply cannot allow terrorist organizations to hide behind nation states with impunity. We must be aggressive and go on the offensive and even then we may still suffer large losses. The truth of this debate is in the middle - a balance must be struck that doesn't fit the legal pidgeon holes that arose from 20th century conflicts. Did GWB get this balance exactly right? No. Would Nancy Pelosi et al, have gotten it exactly right? No.

I tend to think yes, although they should be regulated very much like alcohol. What a blow to crime that would be in this country. After legalization and investors have built huge companies based on the sale of MJ and crak we can turn the trial lawyers on them and grind them into dust. The circle of life.... The only down side to all of this is that it would further enrich the trial lawyers which would benefit the democrat's fund raising.

I don't see it could be an unfair assessment although who knows what the Iranians were thinking at the time. I'm well aware of the post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy but the release being within minutes of Reagan taking office can't be entirely coincidental. There has to be some connection, although it could just be to spit in Carter's face as a further show of disrespect. I never could figure out why the Country didn't demand more of Carter given that Iran captured US territory.

I'm not sure it's possible to be "more perfect" than any thing but I certainly agree that America makes good and bad decisions as is true in any human endeavor. At the same timme, I can list several other nations that I would not trust with America's power. Yes, according to Uncle Ben. I'm not sure what Aunt Mae would have to say on the subject.

Carter and his staff deserve great credit for freeing the Iranian hostages literally minutes before Reagan took office. It took them 444 days but, hey, that was some skillful negotiating. It was agreed: The US would not intervene in Iranian internal affairs The US would remove a freeze on Iranian assets and trade sanctions on Iran Both countries would end litigation between their respective governments and citizens referring them to international arbitration, namely the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. The US would ensure that US court decisions regarding the transfer of any property of the former Shah would be independent from "sovereign immunity principles" and would be enforced Iranian debts to US institutions would be paid We sure taught Iran that hostage taking doesn't pay. Way to go Warren! Why not take more hostages given the results? FWIW, I dont' give Reagan a free pass either for what happened on his watch. *shrug* No President is perfect but Carter was pitiful. Iran did more than take hostages, abeit through proxies. Iran invaded sovereign US territory and all that happened is that we rewarded them for the act. How? I completely agree. It's not our business. What are you suggesting?

Lol. Your history lesson was unnecessary and not really to my point.

It's always possible to criticize in this country (thank God). However, in policy debate eventually you have to propose an alternative to the present policy if you want to be taken seriously.

Wonderfully said.

America earned the right to have nukes by (i) developing them first to prevent the world from being violently nazified and (ii) only using nukes to stop a world war instead of cramming down policies as might a Hussein, Stalin, Hitler, et al had they been the first on the planet to gain nukes. Life's not fair and neither is history. We got nukes first and are going to keep them because they can't be disinvented. Again, who cares? The balance of terror has preserved the peace for 62 years. The US has been responsible with nukes and the Iraq war does nothing to change that. I disagree GWB is as suspect in his potential use of nukes as is the Iranian administration, the president of which has vowed to wipe Israel off of the face of the map. Damn straight we are dangerous. Good thing for the world, too. If it makes you feel better to feel hypocritical, I won't stand in the way. For myself, I didn't ask Hitler to invade Poland, for Einstein to write FDR to encourage the initation of the Manhattan project or for E to equal MC2. It just happened and for us to get rid of nukes all would be the most dangerous policy imaginable. Hypocricy has nothing to do with it.

The Iranians got away with an act of war until the day Reagan was inaugerated. Now they are testing the Brits. We'll see. FWIW, The answer to the question is because the main stream media in America along with Bush are downplaying the situation. There is a rare moment of alignment in their interests.

I'll wager these former Clinton appointees were pereceived as having an anti-republican bias.

Something this massive won't get done unless there is a profit to be made. Think back to the transamerica railways. That only happened because the government incentivized private industry.

I expect those investigations to continue. Does anyone know anything to the contrary? I doubt this has anything to do with particular investigations. THe problem, I'd wager, is that they white house felt there was an anti republican bias that would be very correctable but for the left's media lap dogs.

Who cares? Nor should he. We should have all options on the table although we should never use nukes except in response to a nuclear attack. I'd have to see the form of this pandering. Each side panders to its base though and 1/2 of Limbaugh's material against the left is just that - people saying things they dont' really mean to win votes from the base. The US could have established global dominance in 1945 through the threat of nukes. That gives us some credibility although I don't lay at wake at night worrying whether "someone in the Middle East" doesn't think we can be trusted with nukes.

When has a war ever gone according to anyone's plan?

What principles are being compromised? I've yet to have anyone actrually read the Hamden decision and tell me what is so bad about the ultimate resolution by the Supreme Court. I would say our system is doing a pretty good job of protecting security and principles although it is a truism that all of these decisions are balancing processes.

When was the last time a war was officially declared? Your assumption is that wars can only be between countries. The US fought "wars" against pirates the past.

No... we were there to overthrow Hussein. Mission accomplished! Seriously, though, a veto is part of our democratic process. *shrug*

True, I did not understand this post.

Does anyone have any substantive criticisms of the evolving rules of the Military Commissions Act: Out of curiosity, , what was Aussie David Hicks doing in Afghanistan? I'm not being confrontational in this; for all I know he worked for a humanitarian agency or had relatives in Kabul. Here he is training for this humanitarian work in Albania.