Holy fucking shit, Ashcroft is a loon

[Beagle]

We are dealing with paramilitary organizations. Terrorism is not just “a crime.” In many cases, as with Al Qaeda, it is war disguised as crime. The organization declared war on the U.S. through a Fatwa.

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.”

Problem is, they NEVER follow any of the rules of war. Civilians are targeted on purpose and they hide among the civilian populations. To a superficial observer, I guess this is merely crime.

States, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq - to name three - support terrorism so that they do not have to suffer the consequences of war. I think it is time to take note of what is actually happening instead of pretending like these events are tantamount to a convenience store robbery.

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

OK, I’m caught up now. In concurrance with the OP, yes, advocating “internment camps” or anything close to it, is yet another sign that John Ashcroft is both politically tone deaf, and quite unbalanced. To most people, these are threatening clouds of fascism, which is closer to the nazi’s than most would like.

As for Ashcroft, I could go into the calico cat conspiracy, the statue coverings, but these are distractions. I’m more concerned with Abdullah Al Muhajir , who stands accused of a terrorist plotting to explode a dirty bomb. This is and was a stop-the-presses accusation, (which indeed may have been the point) No one else was arrested, no cell of terrorists were captured, and the plot?

There was no plot, we’re learning 3 months later. “I don’t think there was actually a plot beyond some fairly loose talk and (Al Muhajir’s) coming in here obviously to plan further deeds,” Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told CBS on Tuesday.

Or, another way to say it, is an U.S. Citizen was arrested in the U.S. on May 8th, for criminal thoughts and possible future acts and deprived of his basic constitutional protections as classified under ‘enemy combatant’ status of a vague war without definable end.

Who couldn’t be arrested under these conditions? Why, a single e-mail forgery could have us in jail tomorrow – and yet many people remain sanguine. I guess it’s not just the liberals who can be naive, eh?

Fortunately, ol’ Jose will be released real, real soon:

“Administration officials say Al Muhajir, who was once known as Jose Padilla, can be held and interrogated through the duration of the war on terrorism.”

[sailor]

>> Problem is, they NEVER follow any of the rules of war.

You are making my point

>> Civilians are targeted on purpose and they hide among the civilian populations.

Sound like crime to me.

>> To a superficial observer, I guess this is merely crime.

It is not “merely” a crime. It is crime and criminals should be punished for their crimes. If they were combatants in a war they would not be criminals.

In a country where there is the rule of law nobody can be punished if it is not for a crime which was a crime in the law when the act was commited and after due process of law. Terrorist acts are clearly criminal acts for which the law provides punishment. In the measure that you call it “war” you are decriminalising it. In the measure that you say this is not a crime in law but we will impose punishment anyway, you are undermining the rule of law. the rule of law is not there to be respected only when convenient and to be ignored as a matter of expediency.

>> States, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq - to name three - support terrorism so that they do not have to suffer the consequences of war

So they are sponsoring crime and you deal with that in the best way you can. You declare war on them, or you impose sanctions on them or you look the other way if that is all you can do. It does not mean you can ignore your own constitution.

[Beagle]

The last post, for me, was a not-so-far-afield hijack.

[Guinastasia]

BTW, the calico cat thing was never proven, and from what I understand, was thought to be a joke.

[Beagle]

So they are sponsoring crime and you deal with that in the best way you can. You declare war on them, or you impose sanctions on them or you look the other way if that is all you can do. It does not mean you can ignore your own constitution.

Ah, we agree. I think you need to read my earlier posts. Read London_Calling’s post also.

Note, you admit that we go after the “crime” by declaring war. That is not the usual procedure. I stand by everything I said.

[xenophon41]

originally offered by Beagle:
Note, you admit that we go after the “crime” by declaring war. That is not the usual procedure. I stand by everything I said.

Are you having trouble with your screen resolution, or is it just a some sort of inattention to detail? sailor’s comment re “declaring war” was offered as a possible option for dealing specifically with nations who sponsor terrorism. So NO, sailor (because he’s not a friggin’ idiot) did not “admit” that we go after criminals by declaring war. He said we could declare war on state sponsors of terrorism. A blindingly obvious distinction.

Moron.

[Beagle]

You obviously haven’t. Now would be a good time. Moron.

[Beagle]

Hey, xenophon41, you asshole. sailor, I would appreciate your attention too.

You agree that states sponsor terrorism, and that this may constitute sufficient reason to go to war with them. Right? This means that state sponsored terrorism is an act of war. Then, in the same breath, you argue that the actors are criminals. So, you are arguing that the state is at war, but the ‘soldiers’ are criminals. This is a major problem with your illogic.

Of course, nobody is clearly a state sponsored terrorist any more than someone is clearly a Methodist. This ruse is intentional so nations can hide their involvement in waging what amounts to secret wars through criminal means. That was my point. We cannot assume anything about anyone so I strongly oppose Ashcroft’s attempts to be the final arbiter on classification. That belongs in the courts.

It is quite possible that the way to get at terrorists is to punish them for war crimes. War crimes != crime.

I still oppose Ashcroft’s efforts to arbitrarily strip U.S. citizens of their constitutional protections without due process.

If you think that there are no “combatants,” in the so-called War on Terrorism, legal or illegal, nobody can help you.

[Revtim]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**BTW, the calico cat thing was never proven, and from what I understand, was thought to be a joke. **

Possibly. But the interesting thing I find about the story is that not only were his aides worried about the cats, they were also worried about a nude statue offending Ashcroft. And this story/joke came out before he had that statue at the Dept of Justice covered up with a tarp.

Certainly not proof, but it lends the story some creedence IMHO.

[xenophon41]

Y’now, I got up this morning thinking “Hey, I guess I’ll go apologize to everyone for being snarky in that Ashcroft thread.” Silly, naive little liberal that I am. Reading Beagle’s completely brainless response, I’m reminded that sometimes I’m right to be harsh.

History lesson, B-dog: criminals have always continued to exist within countries which are at war. International criminals have always continued to operate in a context of war. Wars are fought between nations, or at least between large organizations, each capable of representing a single polity. This does not make each citizen member of each warring nation a ‘combatant’, nor does it make every criminal act of a citizen member an act of war, nor do such criminal acts create ‘illegal combatants’.

Simpleton.

[London_Calling]

Whoa beagle ! with all due respect I was just identifying a problem. Namely that of relying on precedents designed and used in conventional warfare scenario’s against an asymmetric – and US born - enemy.

I wonder if the problem you might be having is with terminology:

The issue at hand is that the president has activated his Executive privilege (Executive Orders) on the basis of a “war against terrorism”. Now:

If it was a ‘war’ in conventional terms Geneva would apply – but it’s not (for example, the enemy has no uniforms) and Geneva doesn’t apply. Even though the president has assumed, and used, some wartime powers.

If they were ‘terrorist suspects’ (in legal terms), they’d have the protection of the Constitution (as criminals) – but they’re not, at least as far as the president is concerned.

Therein lies the debate: ‘Illegal combatants’ (so determined by the president) have no pre-existing rights - whether US citizens or otherwise, whether outside the US (on Cuba) or (now) inside the US – unless granted by the president (as per John Lindhl – afforded criminal status though, I believe, he is still, technically, an ‘illegal combatant’).

How, then, do you treat ‘illegal combatants’ if they’re neither POW’s or criminals but are US citizens – that is currently being addressed in the case now before the courts.

• *I think * the above is accurate, kind of getting confusing…

[xenophon41]

And while we’re on the subject, there aint no “war” on terrorism, jughead. That’s a meaningless political figure of speech that some cretins (not naming names, but if the shoe fits) are taking as literal truth in this country. In case you didn’t notice the change a few months ago, the Taliban are no longer ruling in Afghanistan, and in fact most surviving Taliban members are in Pakistan at the moment. We are at war with neither country. Neither are we at war with the Phillipines, although our military is hunting terrorists there.

[Beagle]

xenophon41

History lesson, B-dog: criminals have always continued to exist within countries which are at war. International criminals have always continued to operate in a context of war.

OK. This has nothing to do with what I argued.
Beagle

You agree that states sponsor terrorism, and that this may constitute sufficient reason to go to war with them. Right? This means that state sponsored terrorism is an act of war. Then, in the same breath, you argue that the actors are criminals. So, you are arguing that the state is at war, but the ‘soldiers’ are criminals. This is a major problem with your illogic.

Of course, nobody is clearly a state sponsored terrorist any more than someone is clearly a Methodist. This ruse is intentional so nations can hide their involvement in waging what amounts to secret wars through criminal means. That was my point. We cannot assume anything about anyone so I strongly oppose Ashcroft’s attempts to be the final arbiter on classification. That belongs in the courts.

Too bad a “was going to apologize” is not the same thing as an actual apology.

Criminal acting on his own != state sponsored terrorist I repeat, Criminal acting on his own != state sponsored terrorist

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

Good god, have we been hijacked again? OK, yes, any given act, depending on state sponsorship can run the gamut from:

crime—terrorism—state sponsored terrorism—war act

And we’re moooving on…

But I’m with Xeno, on one important point we are not at war with anyone, regardless of any anitpathy towards us. A “war” with no congressional declaration and no state to fight is a radical redefinition of the term. Aren’t the same guys using this term supposed to be strict constitutional constructionists?

I don’t know if you all read Scowcroft’s cautionary words about Iraq, but I liked what he called the war – “Global Anti-Terrorism Campaign.” That’s what I’m calling it from now on – or GATER for short.

[xenophon41]

Criminal acting on his own != state sponsored terrorist I repeat, Criminal acting on his own != state sponsored terrorist

Got it. How about these: Terrorist organization != state or State sponsorship of some terrorist organizations !=> statehood for all terrorists

Here’s why declaring war on terrorist organizations or considering terrorists as ‘combatants’ is dangerously dumb: Not only do we legitimize those organizations by such a declaration, since giving them that status profers de facto ‘statehood’ on them, we also obligate ourselves to legitimizing future actions similar to the attack on USS Cole. Think about it; an attack on a US military vessel, carried out by an organization on which we’ve declared war can no longer be considered a criminal act, and doesn’t fit the definition of ‘war crime’ either. If captured, the terrorists would, under the Geneva conventions, have to be treated as POW’s, and could not be lawfully prosecuted for the attack.

Congruently, treating some captured terrorists as ‘unlawful combatants’ prompts the question whether any members of terrorist organizations are lawful combatants. If so, how do we distinguish the lawful from unlawful combatants, since we’re recognizing the supremacy of membership in the terrorist organization as the individual’s political identity rather than their country of origin, with which we’re not at war? And if none of them is a lawful combatant, then how is this a lawful war? And if there are lawful combants, how are terms of war and peace to be drawn? Do we accept cease-fires from al-Qaeda? Would we accept or trust a peace agreement from bin-Laden or his successor? Come to think of it, do we accept bin-Laden or his successor as ‘head of state’ of al-Q?

All of those questions are pretty obvious, yet none of them seem to have been addressed by this government. Yet each of the questions can be easily and simply negated by treating the terrorists and their organizations as criminals rather than combatants.

[Beagle]

Beagle

the so-called War on Terrorism,

xenophon41

And while we’re on the subject, there aint no “war” on terrorism, jughead. That’s a meaningless political figure of speech that some cretins (not naming names, but if the shoe fits) are taking as literal truth in this country. In case you didn’t notice the change a few months ago, the Taliban are no longer ruling in Afghanistan, and in fact most surviving Taliban members are in Pakistan at the moment. We are at war with neither country. Neither are we at war with the Phillipines, although our military is hunting terrorists there.

** “so-called”** Did you even read the first page of this thread so you know which side I’m on? Archie? Hello?

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

Oh, and Revtim, yep, I’m inclined to believe the calico cat story, based on all his other lunacy. We’ve barely scratched the surface of how much of a raving leeche nut Ashcroft is. Oh, and did I mention incompetent? I’m no judge, but lawyer friends and analysts say his depts legal briefs are swiss cheese, and moldy swiss cheese at that.

You might say we believe in the Calico Cat Conspiracy (or CCC)because we can ‘connect the dots,’ a skill the governmental agencies are manifestly lacking.

P.S. if you’re lending Creedence, I’ll take “Walk on the Water,” indisputably the best CRC tune.

[xenophon41]

Beagle, I’m well aware of your arguments against Ashcroft and against the abandonment of due process. My initial response was to your incorrect assessment of sailor’s argument, and I continued in order to argue against the concept --which you are espousing-- of enemy combatant status for terrorists.

[Revtim]

*Originally posted by Ace0Spades *
**
P.S. if you’re lending Creedence, I’ll take “Walk on the Water,” indisputably the best CRC tune. **

Do’h!!! I always do that with the word “credence”… Listened to too much “Run Through Jungle” I guess.