# Unwinnable "struggle" replaces the "war" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 29, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738 "2005-07-29T14:42:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/41 "2005-07-29T19:11:29Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > So, you are a republican, and you don’t like Bush. I can understand how this can happen. However, I don’t understand where the term South Park Republicans comes into the picture. After all, the author [South Park Conservatives : The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias](http://www.manhattan-institute.org/southparkconservatives/reviews.html), seems to apply the term to young people who agree that Bush is always right, and that the “liberal media” is always wrong. > > Now, this is not to say I don’t cheer for republicans who dislike Bush. However, I was wondering how the term escaped from the author is such a short period of time. 😕 That author did not author the term. This author did: [South Park Republicans](http://www.techcentralstation.com/100702A.html) South Park Republicans are true Republicans, though they do not look or act like Pat Robertson. They believe in liberty, not conformity. They can enjoy watching The Sopranos even if they are New Jersey Italians. They can appreciate the tight abs of Britney Spears or Brad Pitt without worrying about the nation’s decaying moral fiber. They strongly believe in liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, and free markets. However, they do not live by the edicts of political correctness. The South Park Republicans are an incredibly diverse group encompassing a variety of nontraditional conservatives, such as the Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Bruce Willis supported Republicans because of their commitment to lower taxes and fiscal discipline. Rap artist and movie actor LL Cool J recently endorsed NY governor George Pataki. If he were alive today, John F. Kennedy could very well be a South Park Republican. He rightly proclaimed, “An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget-just as it will never produce enough jobs or profits.” You read that right. JFK was a supply-side tax cutter. His alleged private exploits would place him squarely within the South Park wing of the Republican Party. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/42 "2005-07-29T19:13:06Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > …make up your fucking mind… OK. I just made up my mind. You are a Partisan Pudding Head™®© ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/43 "2005-07-30T02:02:27Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Look, shithead, make up your fucking mind. In the other thread, you asked me to save my outrage for things that really matter. Here, you seem to think my outrage is misdirected, but you can’t say the subject isn’t important. > > You don’t like me, it’s clear. But if you must attack me, be consistent. Don’t just grab whatever rhetorical arrow happens to be in your quiver at the moment. Remember this? > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Some of those guys aren’t getting out of that prison alive, and rightly so. That got my hackles up. It sounded like a thinly disguised "kill em all’. How many were charged with anything, or tried? How about that US soldier who was beaten so bad by his own people that he has fits, as part of a “training exercise”? IF any of the prisoners are guilty, then charge them, try them, and THEN deal with them as harshly as they deserve. Neurotik, who I rarely agree with, pegged it. > [@Neurotik](#): > > Wonder how many who die in there will actually deserve it. But they don’t matter, apparently. Fuck 'em and fuck justice, right, Moto? He said it straightforward, clean, elegant and pure. But if the White House says or does anything at all, then it’s A-OK isn’t it? It isn’t that I don’t like you, I don’t like what you said. Deal with it. Now instead of a war which MIGHT actually end some day, we have an open-ended “struggle”. It was built on lies. The lies were covered by more lies. And now, we are being “conditioned” to accept that it may never end. We are locking “enemy combatants” up with no bother to file charges. Our people are accused of committing atrocities (with video for Chrissake). Shouldn’t some of your outrage be reserved for that? In that other thread, you were all hopped up about OLD NEWS about Air America, that was already dealt with. Here, you are hunky dory with REAL obscenities, conducted by our own country. ---
**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:** [July 30, 2005, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/44 "2005-07-30T02:18:59Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Remind me again, how many Guantanimo detainees have tried by a military commission? The process has been held up by court challenge, as I’m sure you’re aware. Not held up was an administrative review process, revisited annually, under which many detainees have been released. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/45 "2005-07-30T02:21:19Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > Happily. Not only did Roosevelt err in Japanese internment camps (unless saying, “it was WW-II, everything America did was great!” is now your debate strategy), this was another mistake in the efforts to wage WW-II. Basically, it was thrown off to the public as the FBI successfully interupting the German infiltration plans, but in reality, the individuals captured and executed virtually turned themselves in and weren’t going to be successfully pursuing any sabotage anyway. This is a _perfect_ example of why due process shouldn’t be suspended for convenience in “war.” > > Listen all about it here: > [www.thislife.org](http://www.thislife.org) > Go to the 3/12/03 show entitled, “The Facts Don’t Matter.” > The relevant section takes around 36 minutes and is well worth the time. It requires some sort of Real compatible player. > > Anyway, back to **Chefguy’s** dumbass OP. This is a weak rant inspired by an even weaker episode of the Daily Show. I watched it last night, and although I usually enjoy the show, it immediately struck me that there wasn’t much news to make fun of that day. Basically, this “news item” started out with a clip from February of 2005. Then it goes on to prove the administration had a stead-fast policy of referring to, “the war on terror,” by providing six examples of officials using the phrase, and then goes to some random clip of how they are now “combining the two” that actually comes from September 2004. So, the damnable things that the administration has actually done is: > > 1. Use the phrased, “War on Terror” more than six times > 2. Used the phrase, “Struggle against extremism” > > The Daily Show even went off on a really stupid tangent of some general dismissing the army as being the automatic solution for terrorism. Well, duh, that’s what 95% of this Board has been arguing for the past two years, and yet the Daily Show plays it off as some sort of faux-paux of denigrating the work of soldiers in Iraq. Equally as idiotic as some beer-guzzling redneck demanding to know, “why do Liberals hate America?” > > And this is pit-worthy, why, exactly? A struggle against terrorism is a more accurate phrase than war. We’re not engaged in armed combat with a foreign state, and an army isn’t the sollution. You people should be happy. Yet all this shows is that some stupid liberals will find fault with the Bush Administration no matter what is does and that they’ll sound like stupid, shrill hacks for it as well. ::yawn:: ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/46 "2005-07-30T03:25:40Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Perhaps George could write a book entitled “My struggle”? I’ll wait for the German translation, thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/47 "2005-07-30T04:33:38Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > The process has been held up by court challenge, And shame on them. ---
**Author:** ![mack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mack)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/48 "2005-07-30T05:12:48Z")
It’s good the administration waited until after the election to roll this out. I mean who could run as a struggle-time president? I suppose “war” has outlived it’s usefulness. > [@threemae](#): > > So, the damnable things that the administration has actually done is: > > 1. Use the phrased, “War on Terror” more than six times > 2. Used the phrase, “Struggle against extremism” Well, it’s a little more concerted than _that_. > [@The Heritage Foundation](#): > > Recently, top officials of the Bush Administration have changed the way that they are talking about terrorism. They have stopped talking about a “war on terrorism.” Thinking it too narrowly defined, Administration officials now speak of a “struggle against global extremism.” > \ > It may not alter U.S. tactics or goals in the short run but could, over time, have a profound effect on the way Americans think about the current conflict against radical Islamic terrorist groups. > > The Administration made the change for a number of reasons. The “war on terror” incorrectly focused too much attention on the military side of the campaign. Other efforts—such as homeland security, law enforcement, and international diplomacy—were not captured by a phrase that conjures an image of soldiers in uniform combating other soldiers in uniform—something that the current struggle decidedly is not. [http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm805.cfm](http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm805.cfm) ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/49 "2005-07-30T05:51:26Z")
> [@](#): > > **Mr.Moto** : The Supreme Court has ruled that military tribunals may proceed in the cases of the Guantanamo prisoners. I believe that you may be mistaken, **Mr. Moto**. It is my understanding that the Pentagon is proceeding to prepare for military trials based on the recent ruling of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. If I am the one who is mistaken, then please provide a cite. The Chief Justice himself has spoken out about the dangers of rushing into such military trials as were held for the Germans during the Roosevelt years. So have other former Supreme Court Justices. > [@](#): > > Not held up was an administrative review process, revisited annually, under which many detainees have been released. Why were so many detainees released when their cases were reviewed? Who had ordered the administrative review process and for what purpose? Why did the Pentagon want it overturned? What was the decision of the Supreme Court about giving the detainees access to our court system? Did the Pentagon act as quickly on that decision as they seem to be on the District Court’s decision on military trials? Will these military trials be secret? Will the detainees be allowed to call whatever witnesses they want in their own defense? Will they be able to have their own attorneys? Why don’t the Pentagon and the President trust our justice system? Will the detainees be given Prisoner of Struggle status now? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/50 "2005-07-30T10:31:14Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Perhaps George could write a book entitled “My struggle”? Best line of the week. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/51 "2005-07-30T20:42:55Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > A struggle against terrorism is a more accurate phrase than war. We’re not engaged in armed combat with a foreign state, and an army isn’t the sollution. Exactly. So that means that when the Administration habitually used the term “war” in this context, it was just sheer opportunistic jingoism, wasn’t it? For years, [conservative war hawks pounded away at liberals](http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4016) who objected to the “war” jargon, calling them “weak” and “soft” and behind the times: > [@](#): > > At other times, however, Mr. Kerry dismisses the war and its importance. In January 2004, after acknowledging that the war on terror is “occasionally military - and it will continue to be for a long time,” he described it as “primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation.” He has reiterated this point about the conflict not really being a war several times since, and most memorably in an interview earlier this month. […] > > Others in Mr. Kerry’s camp also disdain the war concept. Richard Holbrooke, touted as the Democrat’s possible secretary of state, says that “We’re not in a war on terror, in the literal sense. The war on terror is like saying ‘the war on poverty.’ It’s just a metaphor.” To which Bush replies, “Anyone who thinks we are fighting a metaphor does not understand the enemy we face and has no idea how to win the war and keep America secure.” […] > > As Fred Barnes succinctly puts it, “George W. Bush is a September 12 person. John Kerry is a September 10 person.” The American electorate will make a profound choice next week, deciding whether to turn back the clock to the law enforcement model in place before September 11 or whether to continue with the war model in place since that day. Now that the Bush “war model” isn’t selling so well any longer, he drops it in favor of a more Kerry-esque “nuanced” term like “struggle”, without even bothering to admit that the earlier term was misleading and inadequate, and that the liberals had a point when we objected to it. Why yes, that does annoy me. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/52 "2005-07-30T23:55:44Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > ::yawn:: Substantiative. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/53 "2005-07-31T00:05:08Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > Substantiative. right back atcha babe- I noted you stepped daintily over substantive posts such as **Kimstu’s** in order to reply to a throw away one. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/54 "2005-07-31T02:15:42Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Exactly. So that means that when the Administration habitually used the term “war” in this context, it was just sheer opportunistic jingoism, wasn’t it? > > For years, [conservative war hawks pounded away at liberals](http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4016) who objected to the “war” jargon, calling them “weak” and “soft” and behind the times: > Now that the Bush “war model” isn’t selling so well any longer, he drops it in favor of a more Kerry-esque “nuanced” term like “struggle”, without even bothering to admit that the earlier term was misleading and inadequate, and that the liberals had a point when we objected to it. Why yes, that does annoy me. That “article” or editorial also completely ignores something else. After 9/11, the country was united in support of Bush (me included) and his promise to go into Afghanistan, catch Bin Laden, crush Al Queda, and topple the Taliban which had been supporting and sheltering them (that sounded great to most of us, including me). That was every liberal, Democrat, damn near everyone. What did we do? We toppled the Taliban (good), let everyone else get away(bad), and then farmed it out to the local warlords (stupid) and went on a “side adventure” (Iraq). Even that was met with some support until it started to go sour - none of the claims made as justification ever panned out. That’s when people started to turn away. It has nothing to do with what you call it - war, invasion, crush, smash, destroy, whatever. It has all to do with what is being seen more and more as blatant manipulation for no discernable logical reason other than personal ambition and ego. So, now the change in phraseology is being perceived as just another manipulation. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/55 "2005-07-31T02:43:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Mr. Moto > Why don’t you explain how the Roosevelt Administration erred when they set the precedent to deal with all of this that we’re using now. > > I refer again to the case of Herbert Haupt, Edward Kerling, Herman Neubauer, Richard Quirin and Werner Thiel, who were tried as enemy combatants by a military commission appointed on July 8, 1942 and then executed one month later at the District of Columbia Jail. > > The legality of this process was upheld at the time by the landmark case ex parte Quirin, and reaffirmed some weeks ago. > [@Fear Itself](#): > > Remind me again, how many Guantanimo detainees have tried by a military commission? The same number that have been executed: zero. Are you saying that you think enemy combatants should be treated like ordinary criminals? And be afforded all the legal rights someone enjoys as a citizen? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/56 "2005-07-31T03:31:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The same number that have been executed: zero. > > Are you saying that you think enemy combatants should be treated like ordinary criminals? And be afforded all the legal rights someone enjoys as a citizen? What I think pales in comparison to what the[Supreme Court of the United States thinks](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5316401/): > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court dealt a setback to the Bush administration on Monday, ruling that both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals seized as potential terrorists can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts. > > The court refused to endorse a central claim of the White House since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: That the government has authority to seize and hold suspected terrorists or their protectors and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers while interrogating them. > [@](#): > > \*\*Foreigners held at a Navy prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can also have their day in U.S. courts, the justices said. \*\* I would really like to hear what your response is to this, before you fade back into the woodwork. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/57 "2005-07-31T05:29:40Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > What I think pales in comparison to what the[Supreme Court of the United States thinks](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5316401/):I would really like to hear what your response is to this, before you fade back into the woodwork. I wish you would have answered my questions. It helps the debate when both sides have an accurate understanding the other’s position. To those ends… If you take a ruling by SCOTUS as a sign to stop thinking, that’s you’re right. I don’t. I think that the ruling was a huge mistake. (There were actual multiple rulings, so I don’t know which one in particular, if any, you are referring to.) But, as a rule, I would say that any foreigner captured on the field of battle or is suspected of terrorism, and anyone classified as an enemy combatant, has no claim to the legal protections of the U.S. Constitution. Dealing with such people is one of the reasons military tribunals exist. If we afforded the right to a trial to every one of the enemy, can you imagine how much that would handcuff our war efforts? (Which might be your goal, I don’t know.)We’d need almost as many lawyers as medical personnel, if not more. And even if we could make the trial system for these people efficient, it puts the U.S. in a very awkward position. For those guilty of certain crimes, we’d be seeking the death penalty and no doubt be swimming in years of appeals. For those not found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”, we’d have to let them go and risk the very real possibility that they weren’t _fully_ innocent and would rejoin the fight against us. We shouldn’t allow the enemy to turn our Constitution into a weapon to be used against us. This is suicide by poliictal correctness. In addition to the questions pending I’d ask you to anwer one more: Do you defer to SCOTUS on all matters that come before it, or do you consider this one special? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/58 "2005-07-31T06:01:45Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If we afforded the right to a trial to every one of the enemy, can you imagine how much that would handcuff our war efforts? (Which might be your goal, I don’t know.) It is no longer a war, get with the program. (Forgot to mention that the economy is not yet on war footing, no formal declarition of war, no taxes to beat the axis, etc.) > [@](#): > > We’d need almost as many lawyers as medical personnel, if not more. And even if we could make the trial system for these people efficient, it puts the U.S. in a very awkward position. For those guilty of certain crimes, we’d be seeking the death penalty and no doubt be swimming in years of appeals. For those not found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”, we’d have to let them go and risk the very real possibility that they weren’t _fully_ innocent and would rejoin the fight against us. > > We shouldn’t allow the enemy to turn our Constitution into a weapon to be used against us. This is suicide by poliictal correctness. The founding fathers would like to have a word with you. Also, the avoidance of basic checks is likely what got us the war in Iraq. The New Yorker recently revealed that the FALSE connection of Saddam to Al-qaeda came from the torture of an Al-qaeda man that was rendered to other torture country just to avoid even the current military codes of dealing with the enemy. With that record, yes, we should face that awkward position, we are strong and have the capability to do what it takes to show the rest of the world that we can do the right thing. Positions that claim the current status to be peachy keen are actually acknowledging that we are weak. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/59 "2005-07-31T07:29:02Z")
> [@wring](#): > > right back atcha babe- I noted you stepped daintily over substantive posts such as **Kimstu’s** in order to reply to a throw away one. Fuck you. First off, I hardly think that you’re the first one to notice the irony in that post, but if you’d like a gold-star, feel free to put one on your forehead for the rest of the day. Now that I have some more time, I will address some of the other posts: As far as **Kimstu’s** “substantiative” post, all she really expressed was annoyance because a politician she disagreed with failed to prostrate himself upon the ground, exclaim, “I was wrong, I was wrong!” and pat her on the head for being right all along. This isn’t even a policy change, this is a “name change” derived from quote mining by the Daily Show because they didn’t have anything better for the show in a particular night. From **mack** : > [@The Heritage Foundation](#): > > The “war on terror” incorrectly focused too much attention on the military side of the campaign. Other efforts—such as homeland security, law enforcement, and international diplomacy—were not captured by a phrase that conjures an image of soldiers in uniform combating other soldiers in uniform—something that the current struggle decidedly is not. Here’s the crux of the issue. 95% of this board have taken position A (including myself) while the Bush administration has taken position B. The Bush administration begins to align themselves more closely with position A, and this garners them a pit thread, making a number of fools in the process. I’m for homeland security (who isn’t). I’m for law enforcement (as opposed to extrajudicial military tribunals). I’m for international diplomacy (as opposed to general Bush foreign policy of “all ya’ll’s can go fuck yourselves”). I’m against using the military to “fight terrorism” in Iraq. My guess is that you are as well. And yet, when conservatives start talking in a similar manner, everyone gets all full of shit because it might just contradict their long-standing belief that Repugs, Tighty-Righties, RW-Nut jobs, etc. might not be inherently evil. Actually having to judge a statement or idea based upon it’s content as opposed to it’s originator? “The horror, the _horror_.” ---
**Author:** ![Eolbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@Eolbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eolbo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/60 "2005-07-31T13:09:02Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Why don’t you explain how the Roosevelt Administration erred when they set the precedent to deal with all of this that we’re using now. > > I refer again to the case of Herbert Haupt, Edward Kerling, Herman Neubauer, Richard Quirin and Werner Thiel, who were tried as enemy combatants by a military commission appointed on July 8, 1942 and then executed one month later at the District of Columbia Jail. > > The legality of this process was upheld at the time by the landmark case _ex parte Quirin_, and reaffirmed some weeks ago. The Roosevelt administration didn’t err, the situations just aren’t really comparable. For those not familiar with the men Mr Moto is naming they were saboteurs the Germans landed in the United States in 1942. Eight men were sent to destroy american industrial plants making war materiel. The entire 8 were captured before undertaking any sabotage, and other then 2 of them who gave away the others, they were all executed as spies. As foreign nationals working for a nation that had declared war on the US they were tried by military commission but it was pretty much a formality as there was no doubt they were guilty as charged. It is internationally recognised that spies and saboteurs who enter a country in civilian clothes in wartime are illegal combatants and are not subject to the protection that legal combatants are due. They are traditionally sentenced to death without much fanfare. Therefore in their case trial by military commission was legal and appropriate. By contrast this issue of legal vs illegal combatants is a very hot potato at the crux of the Guantanamo detainees case. It’s pretty clear that by previously accepted standards many of them should be classed as legal combatants. Furthermore the fact that many detainees have been released as they were found not to be combatants of **any** type, should give anyone pause for thought. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738.md?page=4)