# Question for Bush voters in 2004 (a trip down memory lane) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 21, 2008, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363 "2008-01-21T11:46:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/41 "2008-01-22T16:59:35Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] If you want to see a MidEast country that is moving toward true representative government, then look to Iran. There is no reason to believe that the theocrats will be able to hold on forever and the day-to-day functioning government is actually an elected one. Even the games that the theocrats have played in recent years (in direct response to GWB’s sabre-rattling) have not quenched the desire of the people to rule themselves and a bit more patience and more carrot-and-stick interactions with Iran would quite possibly have led to the ouster of the theocrats, leaving behind a large, stable nation with a good economy and a representative government. [/QUOTE] You are kidding yourself. Iran was pretty repressive already, and became more so throughout the 1990s. Whatever elections were held there did not change the power of the mullahs, which hold ultimate control, as you do know. Elections alone do not determine whether a country has democracy or representative government, and Iran has neither. As for their economy, it isn’t doing so hot, owing to decades of socialist mismanagement, the demands of their population, and the diminishing of their oil revenues. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/42 "2008-01-22T17:05:42Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Now, the biggest issue we face is the war and terrorism - yet the Democrats want to talk about the economy, and just that. In no sane party would terror issues be a “blindside” yet it is seen by many Democrats as just that. [/QUOTE] A year ago, I would have agreed with the first sentence. But all the polling I’ve seen recently has terrorism way down on the people’s concerns. Your charge that the Democrats ignore national security issues is without merit. I believe that all the remaining three Democratic candidates are well versed in security matters and would handle the problem infinitely better than Bush. [QUOTE=Smiling Bandit] Leftists don’t seem to understand that legally speaking, we can’t do much to the people held there. They aren’t criminals. They have committed no crime. We have no charges and no ability to charge them with a crime. It’s not a crime t attack America or Americans or to plan on doing so, and frankly, those prisoners’ other options pretty much include being executed by a foreign government. [/QUOTE] This is baffling. It’s not a crime to attack America or Americans? Says who? And we have to hold them because they’re not guilty of anything? [QUOTE=Smiling Bandit] Finally, since they don’t wear uniforms, we’d be fully justified in just killing them on the spot when captured. [/QUOTE] If they have committed no crimes, how would murdering them be justified? [QUOTE=Smiling Bandit] So far, no leftist has actually given me any kind of straight answer on the matter. In fact, most simply pretend the issue (“What to do instead of Guantanamo Bay”) doesn’t exist, which tells me an awful lot. [/QUOTE] What is so difficult? Try them and convict them, or free them. What we don’t have is the right to hold anyone indefinitely without charges being brought. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/43 "2008-01-22T17:10:43Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] I believe that all the remaining three Democratic candidates are well versed in security matters and would handle the problem infinitely better than Bush. [/QUOTE] Hey, here’s a newsflash… BUSH ISN’T RUNNING. So maybe you ought to wonder whether your candidates would handle the problem better than any of the Republican frontrunners. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/44 "2008-01-22T17:16:47Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Hey, here’s a newsflash… BUSH ISN’T RUNNING. So maybe you ought to wonder whether your candidates would handle the problem better than any of the Republican frontrunners. [/QUOTE] None of whom differ from Bush in any substantial way on foreign policy and have, in fact, been just as frat-boy belligerent about it in debates and interviews as Bush has been in the actual job\*. McCain has Nutso Norman Podhoretz (Nuke Iran!) advising him on foreign policy, f’r godsake! \*with the notable but meaningless exception of Ron Paul. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/45 "2008-01-22T17:23:46Z")
[QUOTE=jayjay] None of whom differ from Bush in any substantial way on foreign policy… [/QUOTE] Do the Democrats differ much from each other in this area, with the notable but meaningless exception of Kucinich? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/46 "2008-01-22T17:27:51Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Do the Democrats differ much from each other in this area, with the notable but meaningless exception of Kucinich? [/QUOTE] Unfortunately, not really. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/47 "2008-01-22T17:28:53Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Hey, here’s a newsflash… BUSH ISN’T RUNNING. So maybe you ought to wonder whether your candidates would handle the problem better than any of the Republican frontrunners. [/QUOTE] Running against a guy not running is a tried and true technique. Republicans ran against Carter in 1976, 1980, 1984, and 1988. The Republican candidates are much in agreement with continuing the failed Bush policies. The Democratic candidtates are much in agreement with setting a new course. A Clinton-McCain debate on security issues wouldn’t be a lot different than Obama-Romney or Edwards-Guiliani. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/48 "2008-01-22T17:35:47Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] A Clinton-McCain debate on security issues wouldn’t be a lot different than Obama-Romney or Edwards-Guiliani. [/QUOTE] Oh, sure it would. While Hillary Clinton was writing dissertations and delivering valedictory addresses, John McCain was imprisoned in a POW camp. John Edwards used his law degree to sue corporations - Giuliani used his to bust the mob. People bring different things to debates. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/49 "2008-01-22T17:53:35Z")
Good responses, Mr. Moto and Crotalus. I’d like to hear from more folks. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/50 "2008-01-22T17:59:44Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] John Edwards used his law degree to sue corporations - Giuliani used his to bust the mob. [/QUOTE] John Edwards sued on behalf of common people who were being wronged by the system. That’s why Republicans hate trial lawyers- they fight for the people and not the corporations. [Crossing Mayor Guiliani was dangerous.](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22776911/) > [@](#): > > Mr. Giuliani was a pugilist in a city of political brawlers. But far more than his predecessors, historians and politicians say, his toughness edged toward ruthlessness and became a defining aspect of his mayoralty. One result: New York City spent at least $7 million in settling civil rights lawsuits and paying retaliatory damages during the Giuliani years. > > After AIDS activists with Housing Works loudly challenged the mayor, city officials sabotaged the group’s application for a federal housing grant. A caseworker who spoke of missteps in the death of a child was fired. After unidentified city workers complained of pressure to hand contracts to Giuliani-favored organizations, investigators examined not the charges but the identity of the leakers. > > “There were constant loyalty tests: ‘Will you shoot your brother?’ ” said Marilyn Gelber, who served as environmental commissioner under Mr. Giuliani. “People were marked for destruction for disloyal jokes.” [QUOTE= Mr. Moto] People bring different things to debates. [/QUOTE] They certainly do. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/51 "2008-01-22T17:59:54Z")
I was under the impression that you were asking for our opinions for greater understanding, not intending to bicker and argue as we always do. Regardless. > [@](#): > > I believe that all the remaining three Democratic candidates are well versed in security matters and would handle the problem infinitely better than Bush. Regardless of what you think of Bush, how can yiou even come close to saying that Obama, Edwards, and Clinton are in any way shape or form “well versed in security matters”? Again, completely leaving anything political out of it. None of them have anything to do with any security matter, although Obama has some vague experience as a junior Senator on the Sentae Foreign relations committee. Clinton, though, has nothing much, except that she was First Lady. I really don’t count that as a qualification. Yes, I’ve seen her argument. I don’t believe it for a second. > [@](#): > > This is baffling. It’s not a crime to attack America or Americans? Says who? And we have to hold them because they’re not guilty of anything? Well, no, it’s _not_. People in a foreign country are not breaking any laws by killing Americans except in their local jurisdiction. In Afganistan, that WAS the Taliban we were fighting. In Iraq, . > [@](#): > > If they have committed no crimes, how would murdering them be justified? It has nothing to do with criminality, except in the vague “war crimes” theory. But as a rpactical matter, the purpose of a uniform is to provide immediate recognition of what is a target and what is not. Not wearing one is potential grounds for execution. It doesn’t have to be fancy: a disinctive scarf or something will do. And it can be camoflauge, even. People who do not wear them but take part in hotile operations can be immediately executed as spies, and that applies to Americans as well. This was adopted by all militiaries in the world for two reasons: unit cohesion, and to prevent unneccessary civilian casualties. It was formally adopted via the Geneva Convention, but applied to warfare between Europeans powers long before that. > [@](#): > > What is so difficult? Try them and convict them, or free them. What we don’t have is the right to hold anyone indefinitely without charges being brought With what laws? With whatever arbritrary rules we make up? _These people have committed no crime._ There is no law against what they did, and in Iraq, they have good (legal if not moral or practical) grounds for saying that the government is illegitimate. Charging them and trying with anything would be a sham; holding them is honest. You may not like Bush, but everything he has done in regards to Afganistan and Iraq has been consistent with normal practices among nations, and he has gone much farther than he had to, such as with the farcical U.N. hocky. So you wish to release them. So, in the future, can a terrorist simply shoot a U.S. soldier overseas, immediately surrender, and then be released? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/52 "2008-01-22T18:44:38Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] I’ll say one other thing here. I just saw an article written by Thomas Edsall and posted on the Huffington Post: [Will the GOP Blindside the Democrats on Terror Issues?](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/17/will-the-gop-blindside-th_n_82110.html) Now, the biggest issue we face is the war and terrorism - yet the Democrats want to talk about the economy, and just that. In no sane party would terror issues be a “blindside” yet it is seen by many Democrats as just that. If it is a blindside, it is because Democrats are blind on that side. And that isn’t the Republicans’ fault - Democrats put the stick in their own eye on that one. For as many reasons I cannot be a Democrat, this is a huge one. [/QUOTE] If terrorism is as important today as you say, I’d think that Rudy (9/11) Giuliani would have made it out of singe digits. Do you really think the average American is more scared of being blown up by a terrorist than losing his or her job? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Controvert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@The\_Controvert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Controvert)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/53 "2008-01-22T18:48:57Z")
[QUOTE=smiling bandit] But in Iraq, we had the option of demonstrating that democracy could flourish in the MidEast, and that everyone could participate. That’s pressure no amount of diplomacy could accomplish. It’s also ironic. Al-Quaeda hated us for our influence on their society (and showing how weak and pathetic they were). So they hurt us in the name of some freakish cultural manifesto. In response, we smack them around and… start working our culture into the MidEast. Ha! [/QUOTE] I wonder how you feel about the cost of the Iraq war. Sure, it feels great to get the last laugh… if it cost you perhaps $30. Would you still be laughing if you are asked to pony up $15,000 or $30,000? Please feel free to multiply that amount by the number of family members and dependents you support. Now that you have that number, how do you feel about achieving the same result for a thousand times less money? I’d feel cheated, scammed, and ripped-off by the person who wasted 500x or 1000x of my money. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Controvert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@The\_Controvert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Controvert)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/54 "2008-01-22T19:23:54Z")
Oops, I think my numbers are off by a factor of 10. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![sockswsandals](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@sockswsandals](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sockswsandals)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/55 "2008-01-22T20:29:05Z")
[QUOTE=smiling bandit] It has nothing to do with criminality, except in the vague “war crimes” theory. But as a rpactical matter, the purpose of a uniform is to provide immediate recognition of what is a target and what is not. Not wearing one is potential grounds for execution. It doesn’t have to be fancy: a disinctive scarf or something will do. And it can be camoflauge, even. **People who do not wear them but take part in hotile operations can be immediately executed as spies** , and that applies to Americans as well. This was adopted by all militiaries in the world for two reasons: unit cohesion, **and to prevent unneccessary civilian casualties**. It was formally adopted via the Geneva Convention, but applied to warfare between Europeans powers long before that. [/QUOTE] \*_Bolding mine for emphasis_ How are these two statements compatible? How are soldiers supposed to tell if random person in civilian clothing is an enemy or not? If soldiers are allowed to immediately execute individuals for simply not looking like the opposing side I’m confused as to how this _helps_ to reduce civilian casualties. \*Edit: Sorry for the hijack, Controvert. I just really wanted to know how this reasoning works… I’ll back off now. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/56 "2008-01-22T20:30:34Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] If terrorism is as important today as you say, I’d think that Rudy (9/11) Giuliani would have made it out of singe digits. Do you really think the average American is more scared of being blown up by a terrorist than losing his or her job? [/QUOTE] It’s that kind of thinking that put the Democrats at a severe disadvantage in seeking the White House in the first place, for years. You’re a big party. You have more than one expert. It ought to be in your power to have policies for numerous things. The notion that you can get “blindsided” by something like antiterrorism policy is just nuts. You may have had that excuse once - you don’t have it anymore. You’ve had years to study for that test. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/57 "2008-01-22T20:52:58Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] It’s that kind of thinking that put the Democrats at a severe disadvantage in seeking the White House in the first place, for years. You’re a big party. You have more than one expert. It ought to be in your power to have policies for numerous things. The notion that you can get “blindsided” by something like antiterrorism policy is just nuts. You may have had that excuse once - you don’t have it anymore. You’ve had years to study for that test. [/QUOTE] We have the Bush anti-terrorism policy, which seems to be ignoring the terrorist mastermind and invading a country having nothing to do with terrorism. We have the Giuliani anti-terrorism policy, which seems to be saying 9/11 at every opportunity and proposing that being mayor of a city attacked is foreign policy experience. I think Romney’s is making Gitmo bigger. And Huckabee’s pursuing bin Laden to the gates of hell isn’t exactly a policy. I’d have to check, but I’m sure that all the Dems have a policy - but since it’s not a big differentiator and because it is low on the importance list, it is not getting a lot of play. If there was an attack, would it make everyone scared and vote Republican, or would it indicate that the Republican anti-terrorism policy didn’t work? That I don’t know. I think some Republicans are fantasizing about going back to the good old days of late 2001, when everyone cared and they had a big edge. Wishful thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/58 "2008-01-22T21:00:46Z")
[QUOTE=smiling bandit] It has nothing to do with criminality, except in the vague “war crimes” theory. [/QUOTE] So what you’re saying is that the US has no jurisdiction to judge illegal combatants fighting US soldiers abroad in violation of the laws of war. I find this hard to believe, after all, I think many countries have passed laws authorizing them to judge such crimes, even when they happen outside their borders (sorry, I know there is a name for this kind of law, but I can’t think of it now). Still, I don’t doubt you, but I’d like to see a cite, and I’d like to know if you think it would be feasible for the US to eventually judge such combatants. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/59 "2008-01-22T21:42:42Z")
> [@The COntravert](#): > > I wonder how you feel about the cost of the Iraq war. Sure, it feels great to get the last laugh… if it cost you perhaps $30. Would you still be laughing if you are asked to pony up $15,000 or $30,000? Please feel free to multiply that amount by the number of family members and dependents you support. If I had that much, yes, I’d do it. > [@](#): > > Now that you have that number, how do you feel about achieving the same result for a thousand times less money? I’d feel cheated, scammed, and ripped-off by the person who wasted 500x or 1000x of my money. Never gonna happen. Never coulda happened. Oh, I’ll grant that if we had magic advanced management and > [@sockswsandals](#): > > How are these two statements compatible? How are soldiers supposed to tell if random person in civilian clothing is an enemy or not? If soldiers are allowed to immediately execute individuals for simply not looking like the opposing side I’m confused as to how this helps to reduce civilian casualties. Pretty simple, actually. They have a gun and are shooting at? Spies. Demolishing bridges? Spies. Ok, it’s not really that simple and whole volumes of theory and rpactice could be written. And the U.S.'s policy isn’t to kill these people. But the purpose is to horribly punish anyone who tries to cheat the system. The thinking is (and ti worked in the fundamentally self-interested European context) that if your soldiers will be murdered for trying to rely on the opponent’s sense of mercy and justice, well, they won’t. And you’ll have no reason to because it would make the war messier and less predictable. And when it comes down to it, decent people don’t particularly mind. > [@Voyager](#): > > We have the Bush anti-terrorism policy, which seems to be ignoring the terrorist mastermind and invading a country having nothing to do with terrorism. We were hit by Al-Quaeda, it’s true. But we’re also going after the financing and organizing of global terror - and it is a global issue, with radical muslim attacks from Africa to Singapore. We started with Afganistan, and as a practical matter we can’t go into Pakistan and will have to deal with it. Iraq, however, was a huge financier and supplier of terrorism ( a biz they msotly got into after Desert Storm), and one step toward shutting down global terror and starting some progress toward softening the eternal crisis in the MidEast. And it has worked, by-the-by. Democracy movements haven’t simply taken over, of course, but the issue has gotten stronger in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, and even the West Bank. > [@Hypnagogic Jerk](#): > > So what you’re saying is that the US has no jurisdiction to judge illegal combatants fighting US soldiers abroad in violation of the laws of war. I find this hard to believe, after all, I think many countries have passed laws authorizing them to judge such crimes, even when they happen outside their borders (sorry, I know there is a name for this kind of law, but I can’t think of it now). Still, I don’t doubt you, but I’d like to see a cite, and I’d like to know if you think it would be feasible for the US to eventually judge such combatants. And here we get into the real issue. AFAIK, no, it’s not a crime in the U.S. And while it may be unpleasant to keep people in prison, I cannot and can never condone dishonesty, especially in government. Our government has no moral, legal, or ethical right to what people do in other countries. We may execute them if we must, we may imprison them if we must, under the claim that it is a neccessity and not something we enjoy, but to claim we have a right to do so is wickedness itself. It amounts to a claim we have the _right_ to apply our laws to anyone we want. Heck, under your idea, we could apply a tax to everyone in the world and imprison them for not paying! Better to admite we don’t have a good legal justification (because these people have deliberately avoided either the shield or pressure of any laws anywhere) and do what we must solely because we have been forced to do so. Moreover, there’s an issue with evidence. Soldiers in the field can’t be called back on a whim for testimony, (the Pentagon brass certainly aren’t going to go for that) and they are fundamentally soldiers, not police officers. Things like “Chain of Custody” and jurisdiction are going to kill any such case, or drag it out for years at best. And at the end of the day, what will it prove? Aside from which, what about crimes committed in the past? Usama ibn Laden’s crimes are in the past. Look up Ex Post facto and then read the Billl of Rights. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363/60 "2008-01-22T22:23:18Z")
[QUOTE=jayjay] So, Fox News and the WSJ editorial page. The TASS for our times. How…informative… [/QUOTE] And kinda funny they are not considered MSS. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-bush-voters-in-2004-a-trip-down-memory-lane/434363.md?page=4)