Would This Be a Right Or a Wrong Course Of Action In Light of Yesterday?

[Milossarian]

wring:

** If Germany had demanded we extradite Rudolph to them (since wasn’t it a German tourist who was killed in Atlanta?), should Germany now look at us as an enemy since we haven’t turned him over?

**
You would probably be well-served to not make comparisons. Or have we had 30,000 civilians killed on an attack on American soil, brutally using innocent, horrified Americans as the weapon, before?

The way we are going to react here is going to be influenced by what has just occurred against us. I believe you believe that is wrong-thinking; but I also believe that you are wrong.

**You posted above postulating that we’d identified groups X & Y, that operated out of countries A & B. Now, what does the ‘this is war’ position dictate at this point, that differs from my position -which is, again, identify those responsible,( and I’m fine if it’s even such a thing as ‘Holt JayCees’ vs. ‘mid michigan males’ ), locate and secure them.

Does the war model include, say bombing (Holt in my example) because the group is there? Mine wouldn’t.

where does your plan differ then?

**
I think you’ve already outlined the differences in our two positions, wring.

What on earth does “locate and secure them” even mean? Do you honestly think, with a straight face, that a military strike that annihilates the perpetrators of this isn’t forthcoming? Be it targeted or more widespread. Which, of course, will be predicated on varying nations’ complicity.

**Things I don’t want:

1. Military Excusions into another sovriegn nation w/o their permission (unless there is an open declaration of war against that nation. Currently there is not).

2. Wholesale bombing of cities on the basis of ‘we know/think/presume so and so is there’

**

1. From what I’ve heard, essentially every nation on the planet is in solidarity with us, and any response we deem necessary.

And we won’t be getting the permission of any nation we attack, sorry. And there doesn’t need to be a formal declaration of war, though perhaps their will be. See below.

2. Won’t happen, so don’t worry about it. We’ve been down that road. Things changed Tuesday.

What you might need to get used to, however, is a rather grisly reality that because we are at war, we may not spare civilians at all costs - if the cowards that are our military targets are willing to put those civilians in harm’s way.

We won’t not hit the terrorist cells that were involved in this if they happen to be intermingled in a neighborhood of civilians, for example. And the idea that said hypothetical civilians are not supportive of those they are harboring there is rather ludicrous, anyway. Take, for example, the dancing in the streets in Lebanon Tuesday, where at least two radical Islamic terrorist organizations I know of operate.

**Things I do want:

1. Identification of those responsable (and, since it is most likely a terrorist group, no, I don’t think we would need to demonstrate much more than belonging to that group).

2. Declaration of war against another sovriegn nation only when we have some evidence to support the allegation they are supporting/hiding the persons responsible.

**

1. Who doesn’t? And it’s going to happen. And it doesn’t appear it’s going to take that long.

2. Wouldn’t happen any other way. (Although the president does not need a formal declaration of war to act militarily. That he would get an overwhelming resolution of support from Congress at least is a foregone conclusion, when it’s determined that we have a credible military target involving terrorists and/or supporting nations that are complicit.)

**Keep in mind, too, that this could easily become a witch hunt of massive proportions.

**
If by witch-hunt you mean we take every nation that could remotely be involved in this, scrutinize it with vigor, essentially turn it upside down and shake it to see who we find that might have been involved in these atrocities, or at least put pressure almost amounting to force on the nations to do it to themselves in a very real way … then I certainly hope so.

[_authority]

The point I was trying to make in my original response to Bills question was that I have no problem with hunting theses bastards down and killing them provided they were not US citizens with Constitutional protections. I guess the point I was really making was the differentiation between an act of war and a domestic crime. What Tim McVeigh did was a crime and he was dealt with in a constitutional fashion, had McVeigh been a foreign national not in the US, as we assume the perpetrators of this act of terror are, he would not in my opinion be covered by the constitutional protections that he enjoyed.

In stating this (in a less than eloquent fashion) I was told by Monty:
“?authority: You are possibly a greater danger than the outside terrorism. Last time I read the US Constitution, the words “only applies to US citizens” did not appear.”

I guess my response to Monty should have been “F@#$ You” as I do take it to be a personal attack, but instead I quoted the first 7 words of the Constitution to illustrate that it said “people of the United States” and not “people of the world”.
A better response may have been to ask how he interprets the Constitution to protect non-US citizens.

Since Urban1 ask the question:
“Just where do you get ‘only citizens’ from those first 7 words?”
I will have to ask back, just where do you get any reference to non-US Citizens in the entire document?

My opinion stands that what Bill has suggested is not all that bad (or original) of an idea.

[sailor]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It says who establishes the constitution; it does not say “which shall only apply to us Americans and the rest of the world be dammed”.

I believe the US Supreme Court has repeatedly established in their rulings that, except for the right to remain in the USA, the constitutional protections apply to everybody.

[xenophon41]

from ?authority:
Since Urban1 ask the question:
“Just where do you get ‘only citizens’ from those first 7 words?”
I will have to ask back, just where do you get any reference to non-US Citizens in the entire document?

Here’s one place:
Amendment 14, Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; **nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Bolding added.)

[/quote]

There are no stupid questions. But there are many inquisitive idiots.

[_authority]

I stand corrected.
?authority, the inquisitive idiot.

[wring]

Milo

What you might need to get used to, however, is a rather grisly reality that because we are at war, we may not spare civilians at all costs - if the cowards that are our military targets are willing to put those civilians in harm’s way.

We won’t not hit the terrorist cells that were involved in this if they happen to be intermingled in a neighborhood of civilians, for example. And the idea that said hypothetical civilians are not supportive of those they are harboring there is rather ludicrous, anyway

For example. Apparently one cell was located in Sarasota County Florida, another in Boston. so it’s your position then, that my dad should have moved? Or only cells we find in countries we don’t like are subject to attack?

The authorities have already amassed quite a bit of information. The kind of money and travel that was necessary leaves records. Should all the countries of the world actually agree on this matter, there will be no safe haven for them.

[Ben]

*Originally posted by Wildest Bill *
**Hell of point Guin. Let me give that some thought.

Are you sure we trained Bin Laden? I did not know that. So he is like a rogue CIA agent or what? **

Wildest Bill, if you want to learn more about bin Laden, here’s a good place to start:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/

-Ben

[Monty]

*Originally posted by ?authority *
I stand corrected.
?authority, the inquisitive idiot.

Now would be a good time to apologize for that not-so veiled “fuck you” comment to me above, wouldn’t it?