Or to put it less politely, we don’t actually care about terrorism at all unless it is directed at us. Nor do we care much about terrorism directed at us, except as an excuse to restrict civil rights, spy on political rivals, or invade countries.
There IS no actual “war on terror”; Islamic or otherwise.
I don’t know - it doesn’t roll off the tongue as nicely.
OK, here’s a blog article (so the usual caveats apply) from Jan 25 of this year giving a bit more background on al-Oufi/al-Harbi. Although it doesn’t say precisely where he was turned over to the US for shipment to Gitmo, it does state that he was originally detained for supposedly providing travel assistance for jihadists going to and from Afghanistan via Iran, under the front of a charitable organization named al-Wafa.
Now, I’m certainly not going to argue that he’s not now fully on board with al-Qaida (he’s been pretty vocal about that, apparently), but it seems apparent that the US, for whatever reason, decided he was not a particular threat at the time they released him, and based on the admittedly incomplete info I could find, I can’t blame them much. If nothing else, this seems to point up the fact that the canard that all Gitmo detainees were captured on a ‘battlefield’ of some sort is just that: a canard.
Sorry, I’m lacking in time, so I’ll leave this for someone else to take further if they want.
And we shouldn’t actually care about terrorism directed at others. Unfortunately we do.
No, that language has been expunged.
It’s a war against Al Qaeda and any person or organization that help plan or aided them and any nation that harbors them. That’s the definition of the enemy, however broad.
The “goal” of the war is to prevent future acts of terrorism; the enemies main tactic in fighting us.
The “Global War on Terror” is a buzzword to encompass the above statute and it’s goal.
I know I know Oceania is on the offensive.
Since when? Americans don’t even care about Americans, much less foreigners.
For something that’s been “expunged” I sure hear it a lot.
More anti-American nonsense.
Can you show me cites of official policy using the terminology ‘War on Terror’ since Obama has been elected?
IOW a government can absolve itself from following any laws, including its own, by the simple expedient of a choice of terminology.
Going out on a pretty long limb there, ain’tcha?
FTR, if these guys were thought safe to release by the Cheney administration itself, then it sure would be better if more people took the opportunity to STFU about it, wouldn’t it?
No. The Government is not absolving itself of laws, but being in an armed conflict confers certain rights they can employ against an enemy and other laws and customs they must follow. And it’s not a matter of choosing to use a term, but a matter of fact regarding the state of affairs. (This is why declarations of war are a relic).
I heard Lieberman say that we need to make a preemptive strike on Yemen. At least that’s what I think I heard. I was napping at the time, but some things do manage to leak into the subconscious. Did anyone else hear this?
Surely you can’t be referring to the Geneva Conventions?
Have they regained their former importance now that a Democrat is in office?
No it ain’t. It is the declaration of war that publicly establishes a government’s intentions to follow the rules of war. It is a “relic” only in that recent administrations have repeatedly found it convenient not to be bound by those rules, but it hardly means that those rules no longer exist or that the rules that apply in the absence of a declaration of war no longer exist either. That IS a matter of “choosing a term”, and it’s disheartening to see anyone rationalizing it away.
Speaking of tactics, I do wish we’d won the War on Bullshitting before we engaged in the War on Terror.
Yes. That would be part of the laws/customs belligerents must follow once engaged in a war, among other things.
I think they’ve always been important during a war/armed conflict.
I disagree. The laws and customs of war apply to every armed conflict whether that country declares war or not. While you can still declare war to trigger the laws/customs, it’s no longer necessary. (The rules apply when you declare war, are engaged in an “armed conflict,” or occupy a country).
I don’t think any Government has declared war in a very long time.
And you’re absolutely right, the rules apply whether there is a declaration or not. But just because there is not declaration, doesn’t mean you don’t have to follow the rules. I think we may actually be talking past each other here.
I was being sarcastic. We do agree.
Quick question:
Osama Bin laden surrenders tomoorrow and tells Al Qaeda to stop with the terror campaign? Is the war over? Of course I am being facetious, but the point is clear, there can be no cessaion of hostilities with terrorism. The only way to fight a war against terrorism is to try an end or at least minimize the ideological causes of terrorism. You cannot cure the world of wackos and extremists, but you can certainly make it more likely that those folks are further and further out on the taild of the bell curve.
So how does that happen? Does getting tough work, preemptively attacking places like Yemen, harsh detention policy, prisoner humiliations (Abu Graib), torture and racial and ethnic profiling relive these causes? Not likely, IMO, but some are free to disagree. I would think that the best solution is to be “better than the terrorists” if you get my drift. Pnish terrorists, seek and attempt tothwart their plans, but do not resort to humiliations, torture and racism that are not going to accomplish anything.
Actually FAIR is . They have printed lots of articles that refuted liberal stances. But when you are wrapped up in right wing Fox type beliefs ,anything that does nor agree with island America against the wold is rejected.
Ah, America! The Shining Citadel on the Hill!