# 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:** 4
**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, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/61 "2005-07-31T13:40:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I wish you would have answered my questions. It helps the debate when both sides have an accurate understanding the other’s position. Very well, if my position is still unclear to you, I will spell it out. Every person, regardless of nation origin, detained on charges of terrorism or violent opposition to US forces is entitled to a trial, by either civil or military authority, and entitled to legal counsel and an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges. > [@](#): > > If you take a ruling by SCOTUS as a sign to stop thinking, that’s you’re right. I don’t. You have misjudged me. On this we agree. > [@](#): > > I think that the ruling was a huge mistake. That is your right. I think they made a huge mistake in Bush v, Gore, yet surprisingly, Bush remains president. > [@](#): > > 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. That certainly would be more efficient, but don’t you see the hypocrisy of voicing a goal of spreading democracy around the world, yet denying the accused representation? > [@](#): > > Dealing with such people is one of the reasons military tribunals exist. Not one of the Guantanamo detainees has had the opportunity to be represented before a military tribunal. I would be satisfied if this opportunity was provided. > [@](#): > > 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.) I will not dignify your veiled slander with a response. If all your arguments are going to devolve thusly, they no longer rise to the level of debate. Do try to keep it out of the gutter. > [@](#): > > 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. Yeah, democracy is so messy. > [@](#): > > We shouldn’t allow the enemy to turn our Constitution into a weapon to be used against us. This is suicide by political correctness. Are you accusing those who brought this case before the Supreme court of treason? > [@](#): > > 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? As I have said, I often disagree with SCOTUS decisions, but I recognize that my arguments are significantly weakened when the highest court in the land finds them unpersuasive. ---
**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, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/62 "2005-07-31T13:52:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. > 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? Wrong, false, incorrect, mistaken. If an enemy is captured on a battlefield, that makes him a POW, not a terrorist. If he is a POW, certain rules apply. As a POW, the Geneva conventions apply. If he was caught planting bombs on a bus, he is a terrorist and a criminal. In that case he is subject to trial and punishment. If we afforded a trial to every enemy? How about we go all the way. If we afford a trial to anyone at all it would handcuff our law enforcement efforts. After all “we know” nobody gets accused unless they are guilty. Right? Trials are a huge waste of money, and the criminals will just use lawyers to get away with it. Let’s scrap all courts and go straight to imprisonment for all accused. Let’s scrap the Constitution too. It just gets in the way. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/63 "2005-07-31T17:39:58Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > 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. […] > > 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. […] > > 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. Sorry, but sneering attempts to dismiss the issue as trivial or mere partisan bickering won’t wash. The point of my previous post was that _it has been **conservatives themselves** , particularly the Administration, who have been constantly harping on the importance of calling antiterrorism efforts a “war”._ In the process, they’ve been accusing liberals who objected to that terminology of being “soft on terrorism”. If the Administration, or conservatives in general, now choose to abandon their insistence on “war model” terminology because it’s “incorrect” or inaccurate, they need to (a) apologize for their error and their nasty slams against the liberals who were trying to point it out to them, or (b) give a rational explanation why using the term “war” was so crucial earlier, when it’s incorrect now. Attempting to switch from one position to an opposing one without accounting for it is what conservatives used to call “flip-flopping”. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/64 "2005-07-31T19:41:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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? The irrational, fear-and-anger based, primitive-chimpanzee part of my brain answers no, the savages deserve whatever they get. Fortunately, the rational, advanced, thinking part of my brain intervenes, and reminds me that that would be inhumane and unAmerican. ---
**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, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/65 "2005-07-31T19:55:02Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Very well, if my position is still unclear to you, I will spell it out. Every person, regardless of nation origin, detained on charges of terrorism or violent opposition to US forces is entitled to a trial, by either civil or military authority, and entitled to legal counsel and an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges. Do you mean even those captured on the field of battle and classified as POWs? That aside, I would sign on for the military tribunals, at a rate that military manpower will allow. That might be a long wait–and I don’t say that to be flippant–but I do think it is to stand on firmer ground to give the accused an opportunity to defend himself, even if it slow in coming. By the way, do you (anyone) know what the procedure was on the battlefiled during WWII? > [@](#): > > That is your right. I think they made a huge mistake in Bush v, Gore, yet surprisingly, Bush remains president. That is your right. And, I would add, completely understandable. > [@](#): > > That certainly would be more efficient, but don’t you see the hypocrisy of voicing a goal of spreading democracy around the world, yet denying the accused representation? Yeah, I see how you can say that. But I’m willing to err on the side of security. Especially when the sheer numbers involved in a war (or struggle) make the alternative near impossible. > [@](#): > > Not one of the Guantanamo detainees has had the opportunity to be represented before a military tribunal. I would be satisfied if this opportunity was provided. Again, as manpower would allow. But it is not at the top of my list of military responsibility. > [@](#): > > I will not dignify your veiled slander with a response. Rightly so. I’m glad you feel that way. Please accept my personal apology. But I’m sure you know that they’re are some (a tiny minority) that would love to handcuff our military efforts, and they wouldn’t have found my observation so offensive. > [@](#): > > Yeah, democracy is so messy. > [@](#): > > Are you accusing those who brought this case before the Supreme court of treason? No. I don’t think they all share the motive of undermining the U.S. war effort (though I’m sure some do). I think most take the honorable position of placing human rights above military caution. I just disagree with their position. > [@](#): > > As I have said, I often disagree with SCOTUS decisions, but I recognize that my arguments are significantly weakened when the highest court in the land finds them unpersuasive. I agree. And a unanimous decision that is counter to my position makes me think my argument was weaker than one that was 5 to 4 against. ---
**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, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/66 "2005-07-31T20:08:19Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Wrong, false, incorrect, mistaken. If an enemy is captured on a battlefield, that makes him a POW, not a terrorist. If he is a POW, certain rules apply. As a POW, the Geneva conventions apply. If he was caught planting bombs on a bus, he is a terrorist and a criminal. In that case he is subject to trial and punishment. I’d be happy applying the Geneva Convention to those who were captured and are now it Gitmo. Would you? Also, you seem to draw a hard line between an enemy on the field of battle and a terrorist. But what if the enemy considers Manhattan and DC and LA and Chicago and Miami and Denver the field of battle? At what point, if any, do terrorists fighting for the enemy, but outside a perceived “filed of battle”, become a military problem and not a law enforcement one? ---
**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, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/67 "2005-07-31T22:19:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Do you mean even those captured on the field of battle and classified as POWs? No, they are governed by the Geneva Convention. I would amend my position to exempt them. > [@](#): > > That aside, I would sign on for the military tribunals, at a rate that military manpower will allow. That might be a long wait–and I don’t say that to be flippant–but I do think it is to stand on firmer ground to give the accused an opportunity to defend himself, even if it slow in coming. But there must be a limit to the delay. Some of the detainees have been there for nearly two and half years. I believe that is already too long, and they should be tried without further delay. > [@](#): > > But I’m willing to err on the side of security. I am not; I would gladly trade the some of the security for myself and my family for their liberty. When liberty is unlawfully diminished for one person, it is diminished for all. > [@](#): > > I’d be happy applying the Geneva Convention to those who were captured and are now it Gitmo. It should be noted that the Bush Administration has opposed any efforts to classify the Gitmo detainees as POWS under the Geneva Convention, as this would require visits by the International Red Cross and other concessions the White House is loath to grant. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/68 "2005-07-31T22:52:37Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Some of those guys aren’t getting out of that prison alive, and rightly so. Like these guys? There is Shafiq Rasul from Tipton in the West Midlands, who took his wardrobe of designer clothes with him to Pakistan, was captured with his friends Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed by the Northern Alliance, and was handed over to the US in Shebergan in northern Afghanistan in December 2001. Jamil al-Banna and Bisher al-Rawi, two refugees living in Britain, were arrested in the Gambia in west Africa and handed over to the US by the Gambians. Moazzam Begg and Richard Belmar, two other Britons, were arrested in Pakistan and handed over to the US by the Pakistanis. David Hicks, an Australian, who had previously led a life of shark fishing and kangaroo skinning, and had fathered two children, ended up in the Shebergan prison after fighting with the KLA in Albania and the Kashmiri insurgency group Lashkar-e-Taiba. Mehdi-Muhammed Ghezali, who grew up in the Swedish town of Rebro and whose father was Algerian and mother Finnish, had a promising career as a footballer ahead of him before turning up with the Taliban in Afghanistan and being captured. Nizar Sassi and Mourad Bechnellali grew up in Venissieux, a suburb of Lyons. Their lives came to revolve around the mosque on Lenin Boulevard before they travelled east. Ibrahim Fauzee, a citizen of the Maldives, was arrested in Karachi while staying in the home of a man with suspected al-Qaida links. Tarek Dergoul, from east London, thought to have been arrested during the battle for Tora Bora in southern Afghanistan, is reported to have had an arm amputated as a result of wounds. Sami al-Haj, a Sudanese assistant cameraman with the al-Jazeera TV station, was picked out and held while leaving Afghanistan for Pakistan after the fall of Kabul with the rest of his crew. They never saw him again. Another Briton, Martin Mubanga, from north London, was handed over to the US by Zambia. Jamal Udeen, from Manchester, born into a devout Catholic home, and converted to Islam in his 20s and was seized in Afghanistan only three weeks after he left England. Airat Vakhitov, one of eight Russians on Guantanamo, thought he had been liberated when a reporter from Le Monde discovered him in a Taliban jail, where he had sat in darkness and been beaten for seven months on suspicion of spying for the KGB. But he only exchanged the Taliban prison for an American one. And there is Mish al-Hahrbi, a Saudi schoolteacher. After he tried to kill himself on Guantanamo, he suffered severe and irreversible brain damage. > **[Special investigation: inside Guantanamo Bay (part one)](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/03/guantanamo.usa1)** > > It is almost two years since the Guantanamo prison camp opened. Its purpose is to hold people seized in the 'war on terror' and defined by the Bush administration as enemy combatants - though many appear to have been bystanders to the conflict. On what basis do you think people like this should get life imprisonment or execution? Do you think your attitude helps or hinders the terrorists? ---
**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 31, 2005, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/69 "2005-07-31T23:56:27Z")
Unlawful combatants aren’t afforded prisoner of war status, and may be tried by an appropriate tribunal and punished accordingly. As such, I felt justified in making that statement, considering the way we’ve treated unlawful combatants in the past. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2005, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/70 "2005-08-01T00:01:38Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Unlawful combatants aren’t afforded prisoner of war status, and may be tried by an appropriate tribunal and punished accordingly. Can you justify an indefinite delay in bringing their cases before a tribunal? It has been two and a half years, when do they get to plead their case? When to they get to talk to counsel? Even with the SCOTUS ruling against them, Rumsfeld & Co. are still stonewalling. How long is too long? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/71 "2005-08-01T01:56:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’d be happy applying the Geneva Convention to those who were captured and are now it Gitmo. Would you? Definitely. Are we somehow arguing the same side of the argument? I used “battlefield” literally. Pitched battle between two armed forces, both operating in a military manner and following military methods / procedures / protocol. Two armed enemies going at it. Those who escape or are not killed live to fight another day. Those that are captured are POWs and should be given the same protections we want our soldiers to have. They are detained so they can not rejoin their forces. They are not treated like criminals. They are contained and controlled, but should not be degraded or demeaned. **However** , if someone considers a school, night club, office building, or a bunch of noncombatant civilians to be targets, and thinks of (let’s say for example) a schoolyard as the battlefield, they are terrorists and should be tried, convicted and made to pay. A good way to start dealing with this would be to hold these two very different groups in completely separate facilities - put POWs in a traditional military POW camp and put terrorists in a federal prison to await trial. We already have laws and methods to deal with them. We can charge them with terrorism and / or sabotage. Sabotage during war carries the death penalty. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/72 "2005-08-01T04:08:28Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > How long is too long? While there are still votes to be gleaned by panicking the soccer moms, there is no too long. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/73 "2005-08-01T04:37:10Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > **However** , if someone considers a school, night club, office building, or a bunch of noncombatant civilians to be targets, and thinks of (let’s say for example) a schoolyard as the battlefield, they are terrorists and should be tried, convicted and made to pay. > A good way to start dealing with this would be to hold these two very different groups in completely separate facilities - put POWs in a traditional military POW camp and put terrorists in a federal prison to await trial. We already have laws and methods to deal with them. We can charge them with terrorism and / or sabotage. Sabotage during war carries the death penalty. We are basically in agreement. We are on POWs and the field of battle. And I’d be with you about terrorists if a particular terrorist act is in isolation. I consider the DC Snipers terrorists, as I do MacVeigh and Rudolph. I agree: arrest them, convict them, and fry them (if you are so inclined). But the question is what do we do when the enemy expands the battlefield to include schools and shopping malls _outside_ of where soldiers are fighting. If they are part of the enemy’s war effort, they should have to answer to the military (tribunals). Otherwise, a concerted effort be a relatively small group could bring our court system to a virtual halt. Plus, I see no reason why a terrorist who is acting on behalf of the enemy trying to blow up non-military targets in America should be afforded more legal protections those blowing up a coffee shop in Baghad. If anything, I’d find it easier to argue for less. (not that I am) ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/74 "2005-08-01T08:42:12Z")
**megellan01** , some absolutely dreadful countries have been _very_ secure. I really don’t think you would like martial law or a police state. Just a hunch. As for myself, I’ll stick with the _Constitution_ or try to change it through Constitutionally proscribed procedures. But, hey, that’s what a loyal patriotic American does. 😉 ---
**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:** [August 1, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/75 "2005-08-01T14:41:52Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > 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_.” The jaded view that many hold of this administration is one that has been earned through five years of misdirection and lies. I know a lot of Republicans who are appalled by GW’s contempt for the American people and his belief that he can do anything to anyone and get away with it (so far, he’s not too far off). The administration did not just suddenly one day decide to become warm and close to leftist thinking. Every utterance by this president is carefully crafted by others and designed to push public opinion a certain direction, or more importantly to create a diversion from the real issues. If they are now talking ‘struggle’, it’s because the war has become unpopular, GW’s approval rating is sagging, and there is an election to win in three years for whatever flying monkey they decide to run. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/76 "2005-08-01T16:20:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > We are basically in agreement. We are on POWs and the field of battle. And I’d be with you about terrorists if a particular terrorist act is in isolation. I consider the DC Snipers terrorists, as I do MacVeigh and Rudolph. I agree: arrest them, convict them, and fry them (if you are so inclined). I agree. > [@magellan01](#): > > But the question is what do we do when the enemy expands the battlefield to include schools and shopping malls _outside_ of where soldiers are fighting. If they are part of the enemy’s war effort, they should have to answer to the military (tribunals). Otherwise, a concerted effort be a relatively small group could bring our court system to a virtual halt. Plus, I see no reason why a terrorist who is acting on behalf of the enemy trying to blow up non-military targets in America should be afforded more legal protections those blowing up a coffee shop in Baghad. If anything, I’d find it easier to argue for less. (not that I am) Then they are terrorists, no matter what argument or justification they use. For them, we have either federal court trial, or military tribunal. But while we are holding them for trial or tribunal, we hold them separately. Do not commingle them with legtit POWs, and do not commingle them with some dummy who was just swept up in a “dragnet”. If you catch someone attacking or trying to attack or planning to attack noncombatant civilians, they are terrorists. If you have surveillance reports and /or tapes and/or sworn testimony and/or outright admission of guilt they are terrorists (evidence). Whether it is a court trial or military tribunal, it is still a hearing. There will still be requirements for evidence and testimony. If it turns out the prisoner had no involvement, turn him loose. If he is a POW, put him in the appropriate camp. If he is a terrorist or saboteur, he is in deep shit and rightly so. Just as in any other court, innocent people do get busted. They should be “acquitted” and turned loose. For those that are guilty, let the full weight and fury of the law come crashing down on them. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/77 "2005-08-01T17:00:29Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > The jaded view that many hold of this administration is one that has been earned through five years of misdirection and lies. I know a lot of Republicans who are appalled by GW’s contempt for the American people and his belief that he can do anything to anyone and get away with it (so far, he’s not too far off). The administration did not just suddenly one day decide to become warm and close to leftist thinking. Every utterance by this president is carefully crafted by others and designed to push public opinion a certain direction, or more importantly to create a diversion from the real issues. If they are now talking ‘struggle’, it’s because the war has become unpopular, GW’s approval rating is sagging, and there is an election to win in three years for whatever flying monkey they decide to run. 'Mkay, feel free to count me in the camp of Republicans that absolutely hate this administration, disagreed with Iraq from day one, yada yada yada. Basically your point is that you know their evil, so then if they do something that you actually agree with, you’re too bright to fall for that because they’re inherently evil and it’s actually just a clever ploy in reverse psychology or something equally sinister. You completely overlook the more innocuous and probable situation, that through a combination of both the electorate becoming more sophisticated and the administration doing so as well, regardless of the source of the influence. Hopefully, now that the Administration is toning down some of it’s war rhetoric, dumbasses like **magellan01** will stop clamoring for extrajudicial processing of “terrorists” because, hey, all’s fair in love and war. Basically, you’ve basically gotten what you wanted, but you’re still upset. There is nothing that this administration could ever do to make you happy let alone stop posting stupid pit OP’s that decry every shift in policy that the administration makes. An OP that was based upon Daily Show quote mining at its worst. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/78 "2005-08-01T17:23:05Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I agree. > > Then they are terrorists, no matter what argument or justification they use. For them, we have either federal court trial, or military tribunal. But while we are holding them for trial or tribunal, we hold them separately. Do not commingle them with legtit POWs, and do not commingle them with some dummy who was just swept up in a “dragnet”. If you catch someone attacking or trying to attack or planning to attack noncombatant civilians, they are terrorists. If you have surveillance reports and /or tapes and/or sworn testimony and/or outright admission of guilt they are terrorists (evidence). Whether it is a court trial or military tribunal, it is still a hearing. There will still be requirements for evidence and testimony. If it turns out the prisoner had no involvement, turn him loose. If he is a POW, put him in the appropriate camp. If he is a terrorist or saboteur, he is in deep shit and rightly so. Just as in any other court, innocent people do get busted. They should be “acquitted” and turned loose. For those that are guilty, let the full weight and fury of the law come crashing down on them. I _think_ we’re in complete agreement. The only point that _might_ separate us is that I make a distinction between the DC Snipers/MacVeighs/Rudolphs and those that might expand their war effort against the U.S. to our soil. It hasn’t happened since we’ve gone into Iraq, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it does. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/79 "2005-08-01T18:27:12Z")
The Administration was pretty honest with us back when they were releasing the dogs of war, weren’t they? I mean, they came right out and said, “Everyone hates Saddam, and we know we have the muscle to slap him around and get the voters all jazzed up before the next election. So we’re gonna invade. We hope that once we go in, we’ll find some nukes or germs so we can tell everyone ‘We told you so’ and head off any possible opposition. Especially considering that some of our most trusted advisors are telling us that a lengthy occupation will result, requiring the use of many thousands more soldiers than we’re saying we need right now. We’ll really need those nukes so we can wave the bloody shirt when the unwinnable struggle starts.” They said something like that, right? 'Cause if they didn’t, I might have to alter some of my views on the honesty of the people in charge. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2005, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738/80 "2005-08-01T18:37:27Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > 'Mkay, feel free to count me in the camp of Republicans that absolutely hate this administration, disagreed with Iraq from day one, yada yada yada. > > Basically your point is that you know their evil, so then if they do something that you actually agree with, you’re too bright to fall for that because they’re inherently evil and it’s actually just a clever ploy in reverse psychology or something equally sinister. You completely overlook the more innocuous and probable situation, that through a combination of both the electorate becoming more sophisticated and the administration doing so as well, regardless of the source of the influence. Hopefully, now that the Administration is toning down some of it’s war rhetoric, dumbasses like **magellan01** will stop clamoring for extrajudicial processing of “terrorists” because, hey, all’s fair in love and war. > > Basically, you’ve basically gotten what you wanted, but you’re still upset. There is nothing that this administration could ever do to make you happy let alone stop posting stupid pit OP’s that decry every shift in policy that the administration makes. An OP that was based upon Daily Show quote mining at its worst. Hmmm. . .that’s at least twice you’ve referred to me as ‘stupid’, so apparently I’ve plucked a nerve. As for your assumptions as to what I’m thinking or as to what motivates me, that’s just so much chaff and bullshit being thrown into the argument. I choose not to play the namecalling game with you this time around. Maybe next time. I hope you’re not terribly disappointed that your baiting didn’t work. Oh, wait, that’s incorrect. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwinnable-struggle-replaces-the-war/314738.md?page=5)