I could have sworn the AUMF mentioned nations specifically.
Guess what?
Regards,
Shodan
I think that qualifies as “making things up” or “pulling things out of… thin air.”
So, there’s literally nothing in writing you can point to to support your position? How is that argument supposed to be convincing?
You’ll be convinced by whatever you find convincing. :shrug: That includes a definition of war that includes targeting individuals and organizations, like the war on the Mafia or the war on crime. If that doesn’t seem like “making things up” to you, then no wonder.
Shodan, states are not the primary targets defined, but essentially an afterthought. There is no suggestion that a state committed the 9/11 attacks, no matter what Cheney used to rationalize invading Iraq and no matter that you continue to believe him.
In the list of targets, nations are the first thing listed. Are your afterthoughts typically announced before your thoughts?
Let’s try the opposite.
Is an attack against NATO not a war? They’re just an organization made up of people from different States.
If it’s just a sporadic murder with no real political motives by a few people looking to steal wallets and such, then no. But couldn’t it rise to the level of a war if it was committed by a State/Armed Rebel force, who planned a number of surprise attacks that killed thousands, and vowed to keep doing it until NATO left the country, and NATO responded to the attacks with massive military force. Would that be a war in your mind, or just a bunch of crimes? It would sure look a lot like a war.
No, it’s an alliance of states. Come on now. And who, in your hypothetical, is doing the attacking? A state, or some individuals or conspiracies of individuals?
But it would still be just a bunch of crimes, no matter what else you try to call it.
Consider that the propaganda at the time (and, for some, still) was that Saddam, and therefore Iraq, was responsible, and was supported by the Taliban.
What the heck is your point again? That Iraq is an an afterthought that was actually the main hidden agenda of the resolution that was a law enforcement authorization for the FBI to go after Saddam Bin Laden in the secretly planned strike against Iran?
On preview - never mind. You made a false statement, I cited that you were making a false statement, you respond by making another false statement.
:shrugs:
Regards,
Shodan
That context cannot be ignored. In this case, it included Congress being cowed into authorizing whatever the hell Cheney said he wanted out of fear of what the Foxbots would say.
The fact was and is that no state other than arguably Afghanistan, and even that barely qualified as one or as an official state support group for Al Qaeda, had anything to do with 9/11, and Congress’ authorization was limited to those who had.
Shodan, accusations of lying belong in the Pit. Now get a clue and get a grip, in either order, please.
Then Cheney also influenced NATO and the UN within 24 hours of the attacks.
NATO invoked Article 5, which states that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all. Article 5 had never been invoked previously.
The UN issued resolution 1368 (PDF) the day after too. It declared the terrorism attacks as a “threat to international peace.” The UN can authorize war in 3 circumstances (act of aggression; breach of peace; threat to international peace).
The AUMF came a week later. Context, indeed.
I see. Have there been other cases in American jurisprudence in which the “Vice President is Evil” argument has swayed the plain reading of laws?
Now I’m really not sure you have even read the authorization. For better or for worse, the authorization gives the President the authority to decide which countries, organizations, or people were involved in the 9/11 attacks. If Obama were to decide that the RNC was involved in the plot, I would be very glad I am not Michael Steele. (I’m already glad I’m not, but I would be VERY glad.)
Again, your idea that the resolution must be read as “Oh, well, the text doesn’t really matter… here’s what Congress REALLY intended once we exclude the Vice President’s evil influence and read between the non-existent lines” is just… spectacularly fanciful.
In many ways that makes them very similar to the Ku Klux Klan, and they could meet a similar fate. The KKK is pretty much a literal group of clowns at this point, with such a small and ineffective membership that most people only know them from semi-comedic and denigrating portrayals of the “concept” of the KKK as seen on film and television.
I can see saying that indefinite detention in this specific case is wrong. But do you really mean that as a universal maxim? Was it morally wrong to hold Germans as POWs during WWII? Keep in mind, their detention was not definite and they were never going to face trial. We of course now know when their detention ended, but that’s only after the fact. It was open ended during the war itself, and for some time afterward.
Also, opposition is just verbal. The executive branch can operate its business day-to-day without approval from congress, the Department of Justice is 100% able to conduct any criminal trials it wants without approval from Congress.
Actually there are three categories (or more):
-
Civilians arrested for criminal action by valid police or government forces in a certain jurisdiction, subject to the laws of that or other jurisdictions and tried in that jurisdiction or whatever other jurisdiction had standing.
-
Military personnel taken prisoner during military operations, to be held until the cessation of hostilities. (This class exists because prior to the international treaties protecting POWs anyone caught by the enemy was routinely killed–save the wealthy who were ransomed off.)
-
Persons engaged in generally recognized “illegal actions” as part of a larger war. Examples: Privateers, Saboteurs, and Spies. For well over three hundred years those types of individuals have existed, and they have generally been tried by military courts in the United States. Terrorists are really just a modern day version of saboteurs. Confederate and Union saboteurs, if caught behind enemy lines, were almost universally executed. Same thing for spies. Same thing for Axis saboteurs captured during WWII in the United States.
There are actually probably more, if you include categories like those espoused at the Nuremberg trials:
-Combatants engaged in traditional war against other combatants but who commit war crimes, such as slaughter of prisoners and etc
-Persons who, during times of war, oversee or participate in genocides and etc
Also, to reiterate something that has already been stated by CoolHandCox, the Geneva Convention (as relating to Prisoners of War) does indeed recognize different classes of individual.
I think somewhere in the mix of things with all the emotional debate that has raged on since 2003 people started to assume we really did just make up this concept of unlawful combatant.
I haven’t read through the relevant sections of the GC in a long time, but it definitely talks about persons captured during a war who are not in fact GC POWs.
All the GC really does for those people is say they must be treated in a humane manner. It doesn’t really go much further than that, what is done with them after that really comes down to the laws and policies of the power holding them.
For most powers, for most of the history of the GC, that meant they were either eventually released as part of general amnesties or were tried. Most often the crimes they were tried for would be things like espionage or crimes related to sabotage. The GC was also written in a time not far removed from the age of Privateers (while it was post-Age of Sail many people had lived during that time when the GC was written) so it was definitely written with those persons in mind.
There is nothing at all inconsistent with history of international law in capturing someone in a war and saying “this person isn’t a POW.” Really all that being a POW means (under the GC) is that you have to be released when the fighting is over and the power holding you has to provide you with certain care and treatment and not do certain things to you. One of the key things you can’t do to a GC POW is try them for crimes just for the act of waging war against the detaining power. The GC does not view individual acts of soldiers in state vs state wars as being per se illegal, although it doesn’t preclude lawful soldiers of being capable of committing illegal actions.
For example, detaining powers could try and even execute a POW if the POW committed a murder in the POW camp (we did this to a group of Germans who killed a fellow prisoner in a POW camp in the U.S.)
Also, it wouldn’t preclude a detaining power for trying someone with a crime if they were operating as a spy or a saboteur. If I was a member of the German military, with a uniform and a CO and all that, but I was running around in disguise on the continental U.S. planning to blow up civilian bridges I would be held by the military and later tried by the military.
It wasn’t the existence of unlawful combatants as a concept that was really controversial or new with the war on terror. I think that is a distorted perception primarily informed by ignorance. What was new with the War on Terror is Bush wanted to hold the unlawful combatants forever. In the past most governments haven’t wanted that or even tried to do that. If they were holding saboteurs or privateers, they either tried them and hanged them, or sometimes they might negotiate their return to their original country after hostilities.
And torture them, sometimes to death.
Cite? Specifically for the claim that it’s a new thing, started with Bush, that one side in a war wants to torture certain persons from the other side (sometimes to death.)
Stop that at once. You’re arguing a position that actually appears in the Geneva Conventions. No one else in the thread is doing that!
Again, Great Debates.
It remains a mystery why you are free to simply make shit up in this forum.