News GITMO detainees and Obama's promise

[SW VandeCarr]

I have read about the USSC decision. Unfortunately the USSC has no teeth, they have no ability to actually enforce their decisions. It makes a decision and it is up to federal or state legislators to actually do something about it. Technically the executive and legislative branches can ignore the Supreme Court if they choose. This is dangerous in a way though and probably why their decision did not include any remedial measures, perhaps concerned about the precedent of Supreme Court instructions being ignored.

Hmmm. Richard Nixon famously said "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."



Of course NIxon went down in flames; the only US president to resign in the face of virtually certain conviction by the Senate. The US is a nation of laws and if a suit is brought which leads to a release order by a federal court, how will Obama handle it? How should he handle it? Obey? Ignore it? Stall with appeals? Take a vacation?

Yes, the US Constitution is just a piece of paper (figuratively). As Commander in Chief, the President could surround the Capitol with tanks and order Congress to disband in Cromwellian fashion. He could lock the USSC justices in the Justices' Washroom of the Supreme Court building and proclaim himself to be the Supreme Decider. It has happened before in many other countries.

As far as I know, only one president openly defied the USSC and got away with it; Andrew Jackson. Of course, his action only affected Native Americans, so no one (who counted) cared.

 

[brainstorm]

I don't know Brainstorm, if I had an answer to that question I'd be accepting my Nobel. You make a great point... and in history insurrection has only been successfully met with overwhelming and nearly indiscriminate force (decimation for instance). Conversion or destruction of a people is no longer tolerated, but that is the cure for insurrection. I'm not advocating this, just taking some lessons from history.

Unfortunately, insurrection often resorts to the same intensity of force. The question is what is needed to bring democratic discourse and empowerment to a level that potential insurgents would feel it was worthwhile to pursue their politics by democratic means? Ideally, global democracy should be able to accommodate all reasonable interests - but how much of global 'democratic' discourse is devoted to repression and coercion of other views and interests, and what do you do when that escalates to insurrection and/or war except fight fire with fire?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Yes we should. Is that not the moral thing to do?

No, I think they should be treated like criminals for so doing: sentenced to an appropriate term in prison (minus time served, of course). I'm slightly surprised you feel they should be released without having served that time.

 

[CRGreathouse]

There were many foreign fighters involved in addition to the Taliban. I would have focused on them as likely al-Qaida fighters or supporters. They would have been easy to identify. The Afghan Taliban spoke Pashtun while most of the al-Qaida fighters spoke Arabic.

But you would release these foreign fighters at the end of hostilities, yes? You wouldn't charge them with crimes, try them, and have them sentenced?

 

[nismaratwork]

Really? N. Ireland and Iraq come to mind - examples of successful defeats of insurrection that did not require destruction of a people. The US at least has detailed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-insurgency" processes in place now: take, hold, build, using X troops per unit of native population, etc. Seems to be at least a rationale alternative, if not a proven guarantee for defeating insurgencies.

3 kids were just killed in NI, and Iraq is in chaos and likely to remain so. Your point?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

But you would release these foreign fighters at the end of hostilities, yes? You wouldn't charge them with crimes, try them, and have them sentenced?

I left an out for myself in that I don't define the end of hostilities with foreign fighters as the withdrawal of coalition troops from Afghanistan. Foreign fighters are more likely to be al-Qaida operatives or supporters. When do hostilities end with al-Qaida?

Afghan Taliban fighters were recruited or drafted from the local population. I would expect them to resist an invasion of their country. I would hold Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders responsible because they chose to protect al-Qaida, but Afghan Taliban fighters were most likely just following orders or acting out of patriotism or local self-interest.

Foreign fighters chose to come to Afghanistan. Why? Most likely to train with al-Qaida. Obviously these assumptions need to be backed by some evidence, but I think we could hold these fighters indefinitely. I would put the onus on them to explain why they were in Afghanistan where Osama-bin-Laden had set up his headquarters and training camps. As POWs, they could not be interrogated but they could be rewarded for information implicating others. In any case, I'm sure we've gotten all we can from "enhanced" interrogation.

In summary. focus on the foreign fighters. Charge who we can and hold the rest indefinitely unless evidence is developed to support guilt or innocence. Not much evidence is needed to charge them. To me, just being a foreigner fighting US forces in Afghanistan in 2001 is enough. For Afghan Taliban fighters, I'm inclined toward early repatriation unless specific evidence exists to try them.

 

[CRGreathouse]

In summary. focus on the foreign fighters. Charge who we can and hold the rest indefinitely unless evidence is developed to support guilt or innocence. For Afghan Taliban fighters, I'm inclined toward early repatriation unless specific evidence exists to try them.

I have no issue with this, but I'm not convinced it's germane. We might very well wish to repatriate them before an end to hostilities.

I left an out for myself in that I don't define the end of hostilities as the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan for foreign fighters. They are more likely to be al-Qaida operatives or supporters. When do hostilities end with al-Qaida?

Let's say we were really lucky and they ended tomorrow. Would we want to release captured al-Qaida operatives? I would say no, and as a result I don't want to label them POWs. They should be treated like criminals, not soldiers: membership alone would merit little or no penalty (unlike POWs, for whom simply being a member of enemy forces can mean detention until the end of hostilities), while court-proven guilt means imprisonment until the sentence is served (unlike POWs, who are repatriated at the end of hostilities).

 

[mheslep]

3 kids were just killed in NI, and Iraq is in chaos and likely to remain so. Your point?

Your https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2852632&postcount=59", if I understand it, was that a "destruction of a people" is "the cure for insurrection" which sounded to me like something born of too many readings of Gibbon's Decline and Fall. I suggested that is counter to most modern observations of insurrection warfare, thinking we might have some reasonably similar definition of what constitutes such; for me destruction is something close to a genocide, like Rwanda in 1994, the Sudan more recently, Cambodia under Pol Pot, but no not 3 kids killed in NI last month

What's the basis for saying Iraq is 1) in 'chaos', and 2) likely to remain so? Because Iraq's parliament hasn't formed a government? For comparison, the violent fatality rate in Iraq is about twice that of the homicide rate in the US which is tragic, but not what I would call chaos. Pakistan, with the floods, is in chaos. Somalia, rampaged by the psychopathic Ali Mohadum 'Rage' and populated by pirates, is in chaos. Or at least those are the conditions for which I reserve the term.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I have no issue with this, but I'm not convinced it's germane. We might very well wish to repatriate them before an end to hostilities.

This choice is available. However, as POWs we can hold them indefinitely. I don't see the end of hostilities with al-Qaida and their allies anytime soon. If we do charge them, the right to a "speedy trial" amendment comes into play.

EDIT: To be clear, classification as a POW doesn't foreclose filing charges in the future if new evidence comes to light.

Let's say we were really lucky and they ended tomorrow. Would we want to release captured al-Qaida operatives?

No we would not. However, the possibility of an end to hostilities with the al-Qaida network in the foreseeable future is so remote, it's not worth considering now. They remain active in Iraq, and are expanding into Yemen and Somalia. If such a miracle were to occur, who can anticipate what the terms and conditions of peace might be?

 

[CRGreathouse]

No we would not. However, the possibility of an end to hostilities with the al-Qaida network in the foreseeable future is so remote, it's not worth considering now.

I'm speaking to the correct classification of those captured, which should not be based on the likelihood of military success.

EDIT: To be clear, classification as a POW doesn't foreclose filing charges in the future if new evidence comes to light.

I'm considering the (presumably common) case where conduct of the captured persons was impermissible under ordinary circumstances but permissible if they were waging declared war on the US. Examples: setting bombs and shooting soldiers. If I did either I would be jailed, but if the Duchy of Grand Fenwick declares war on the US and shoots a US soldier, then at the conclusion of hostilities the Duchy soldier would not be liable for that conduct (as the nations were at war).I'm quite honestly stunned that there's any debate on this matter. Perhaps I fail to communicate my point adequately, or perhaps there is some subtlety I miss...?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'm speaking to the correct classification of those captured, which should not be based on the likelihood of military success.
I'm considering the (presumably common) case where conduct of the captured persons was impermissible under ordinary circumstances but permissible if they were waging declared war on the US. Examples: setting bombs and shooting soldiers. If I did either I would be jailed, but if the Duchy of Grand Fenwick declares war on the US and shoots a US soldier, then at the conclusion of hostilities the Duchy soldier would not be liable for that conduct (as the nations were at war).I'm quite honestly stunned that there's any debate on this matter. Perhaps I fail to communicate my point adequately, or perhaps there is some subtlety I miss...?

If you insist that a formal declaration of war is necessary to "legalize" killing, I would agree with you. However, I've already posted links stating that virtually all wars since 1945 (not just US wars) have been waged without a formal declaration of war.

I'm taking the position that native Afghan fighters were acting in self-defense against a US invasion even though I believe the US was justified in invading. Therefore, they were not guilty of any crimes when they took hostile action against US forces. The US could just as well be accused of committing crimes against the Afghan Taliban. To me, it was simply war, even if not declared.

Foreign fighters were presumed to be al-Qaida operatives or supporters. As such, they can be suspected of criminal activities as associates of al-Qaida. Since they were foreigners in Afghanistan, they could not argue they were defending their homeland when they fired at US troops. They were simply criminal elements trying to avoid capture. However, since we are not able to charge them all and expect a conviction under US law, it may be useful hold them as POWs so we are not forced to release them by court order. I've said this tactic may not be acceptable to US courts just as it doesn't appear to be acceptable to you.

 

[alt]

I'm speaking to the correct classification of those captured, which should not be based on the likelihood of military success.



I'm considering the (presumably common) case where conduct of the captured persons was impermissible under ordinary circumstances but permissible if they were waging declared war on the US. Examples: setting bombs and shooting soldiers. If I did either I would be jailed, but if the Duchy of Grand Fenwick declares war on the US and shoots a US soldier, then at the conclusion of hostilities the Duchy soldier would not be liable for that conduct (as the nations were at war).


I'm quite honestly stunned that there's any debate on this matter. Perhaps I fail to communicate my point adequately, or perhaps there is some subtlety I miss...?

It's not a subtlety at all. It's called "Might IS Right" !

 

[SW VandeCarr]

It's not a subtlety at all. It's called "Might IS Right" !

OK. That's one answer to the specific question I posed in post one and repeated in post 61. This discussion has been veering off topic with the discussion of the general issues regarding uprisings and rebellions.

I don't like this answer and say why in post 61 as it relates to Statutory Ape's suggestion that the US courts can be ignored.

 

[nismaratwork]

Your https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2852632&postcount=59", if I understand it, was that a "destruction of a people" is "the cure for insurrection" which sounded to me like something born of too many readings of Gibbon's Decline and Fall. I suggested that is counter to most modern observations of insurrection warfare, thinking we might have some reasonably similar definition of what constitutes such; for me destruction is something close to a genocide, like Rwanda in 1994, the Sudan more recently, Cambodia under Pol Pot, but no not 3 kids killed in NI last month

What's the basis for saying Iraq is 1) in 'chaos', and 2) likely to remain so? Because Iraq's parliament hasn't formed a government? For comparison, the violent fatality rate in Iraq is about twice that of the homicide rate in the US which is tragic, but not what I would call chaos. Pakistan, with the floods, is in chaos. Somalia, rampaged by the psychopathic Ali Mohadum 'Rage' and populated by pirates, is in chaos. Or at least those are the conditions for which I reserve the term.

No, I said that overwhelming force, or conversion of a people is the proper way to commit to warfare. Overwhelming force (in my example, decimation) is NOT the destruction of a people, and I don't believe that successful conversion works very often (perhaps Northern Ireland is a decent example). Decimation is specifically killing one in ten people, which is a minority. As for Iraq, I'd call it chaotic for reasons that seem to obvious to get into. Somalia is ALSO in chaos, and arguably more so now, but that doesn't make Iraq's future any brighter. How long do you think what little "stability" has been instilled by US combat operation in Iraq is going to last?

 

[brainstorm]

If you insist that a formal declaration of war is necessary to "legalize" killing, I would agree with you. However, I've already posted links stating that virtually all wars since 1945 (not just US wars) have been waged without a formal declaration of war.

What is needed to legalize killing then?

I'm taking the position that native Afghan fighters were acting in self-defense against a US invasion even though I believe the US was justified in invading. Therefore, they were not guilty of any crimes when they took hostile action against US forces. The US could just as well be accused of committing crimes against the Afghan Taliban. To me, it was simply war, even if not declared.

I'm not sure this logic of national self-defense applies at the globalist level. Terror networks can connect agents and interests across many national territories. If one national government has to declare war against another national government each time police action is pursued, won't national sovereignty become little more than a means of harboring fugitives? I could see the argument that allowing governments to protect refugees from abusive regimes would be a legitimate use of sovereign power, but on the other hand if sovereignty itself becomes a political instrument in globalist power struggles, wouldn't that render complaints of violating sovereignty as crocodile tears, for lack of a better way to explain it?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

What is needed to legalize killing then?

Well, there's been a lot of wars since 1945. I don't think anyone denies they were wars even though there were no formal declarations of war. Just a short list not directly involving the US: 4 Arab-Israeli wars, 3 between India and Pakistan, one between India and China, Indonesia and the Netherlands (Western New Guinea), Indonesia and Malaysia, UK and Argentina (Falklands), Iran and Iraq, USSR in Afghanistan, the Balkan War, and others. As far as I know, only the Balkan conflict resulted in major war crimes charges.

So, it appears that killing is legal in war situations and formal war crime charges are relatively rare. Terrorism, as the tactic of deliberately targeting unarmed civilians, is a crime but it is also a category of conflict which neither international nor US law handle very well.

 

[mheslep]

...As for Iraq, I'd call it chaotic for reasons that seem to obvious to get into. Somalia is ALSO in chaos, and arguably more so now, but that doesn't make Iraq's future any brighter. How long do you think what little "stability" has been instilled by US combat operation in Iraq is going to last?

What's obvious to me is that there is no comparison between Somalia and Iraq in terms of stability, societal structure, economics, or practically any measure one cares to name. With regards to Iraq's future, well we'll see. But, given that some http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/dec/16/iraq.jonathansteele" (millions) turned out at no little risk to themselves in the big 2005 election, that Iraq exports are around $30B now, that foreign troops have been out of Iraqi cities and towns since June, then I guess the odds are that Iraq will enjoy some relative stability for some time to come. Iraq may even splinter as did the former Czechoslovakia, that's their choice, but I doubt such a split will be violent.

BTW recall that the foreign combat troops in Iraq also included the UK in no small part.

 

[brainstorm]

Well, there's been a lot of wars since 1945. I don't think anyone denies they were wars even though there were no formal declarations of war. Just a short list not directly involving the US: 4 Arab-Israeli wars, 3 between India and Pakistan, one between India and China, Indonesia and the Netherlands (Western New Guinea), Indonesia and Malaysia, UK and Argentina (Falklands), Iran and Iraq, USSR in Afghanistan, the Balkans War, and others. As far as I know, only the Balkan conflict resulted in major war crimes charges.

So, it appears that killing is legal in war situations and formal war crime charges are relatively rare. Terrorism, as the tactic of deliberately targeting civilians, is a crime but it is also a category of conflict which neither international nor US law handle very well.

The way you are reasoning, basically anything that goes on globally is legal until someone claims otherwise - and then I'm guess you don't recognize just any claim of criminality as legitimate. So the question is what authority can legitimately outlaw and punish killing except established governments?

If you cite the geneva convention, then don't you have to apply sanctions where it is breached? The problem with that, imo, is that the typical approach is to target certain high ranking officers to make examples of and everyone else is excused as "just following orders." I hesitate to even mention that, because every time I do I get attacked but this is known as the "Nuremberg defense" and it was deemed unacceptable during the war tribunals of WWII. So the question is what fair and effective method exists to enforce rules of war except law enforcement by existing governments or acts of war? Can terrorism be used to fight terrorism?

Also, when you define terrorism as violence deliberately targeting civilians, are you claiming that military personnel can't be the target of terrorism? Or that all violence directed toward military personnel is war and not terrorism or civil conflict? Also, do you disagree that fear can't be generated without physically attacking people? If, for example, the anthrax letter scare was a hoax that resulted in the same media hype, would this be any less an act of terrorism? The effect is the same whether it is achieved through sending an actual letter or doing it as a hoax, right?

Could ethical or legal guidelines for terrorism be created similar to the way rules of war are?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The way you are reasoning, basically anything that goes on globally is legal until someone claims otherwise - and then I'm guess you don't recognize just any claim of criminality as legitimate. So the question is what authority can legitimately outlaw and punish killing except established governments?

It's not the way I'm reasoning. It's my observation of the way these issues have evolved since WWII.

So the question is what fair and effective method exists to enforce rules of war except law enforcement by existing governments or acts of war?

That appears to be the case.

Can terrorism be used to fight terrorism?

IMO, no.

EDIT: To clarify, terrorists can certainly be attacked wherever they are found, but I'm against "retaliatory" terrorism against a population.

Also, when you define terrorism as violence deliberately targeting civilians, are you claiming that military personnel can't be the target of terrorism?

I didn't say or mean to imply that. However, generally terrorism is thought of as the tactic of targeting civilians in non-combat situations.

Or that all violence directed toward military personnel is war and not terrorism or civil conflict?

Violence directed against military personnel is either legal or illegal as defined by the Geneva and Hague Conventions, at least in theory. In practice, nations observe certain rules out of self interest. What I do to them, they can do to me. Hence, chemical and biological warfare were practically absent in WWII.

Also, do you disagree that fear can't be generated without physically attacking people? If, for example, the anthrax letter scare was a hoax that resulted in the same media hype, would this be any less an act of terrorism? The effect is the same whether it is achieved through sending an actual letter or doing it as a hoax, right?

I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, there's psychological warfare with and without attending violence.

Could ethical or legal guidelines for terrorism be created similar to the way rules of war are?

IMO no. Terrorism as a tactic is by definition outside any set of rules that nations observe.

Now that I've attempted to respond to you, will you and others please respond to me? If you were in Obama's shoes and the Supreme Court ordered you to release a terror suspect from GITMO who you thought might be dangerous, what would you do?

 

[nismaratwork]

Now that I've attempted to respond to you, will you and others please respond to me? If you were in Obama's shoes and the Supreme Court ordered you to release a terror suspect from GITMO who you thought might be dangerous, what would you do?

I'd see they died of "natural causes" shortly after release.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'd see they died of "natural causes" shortly after release.

This will likely be a recurring problem since the US has over 170 detainees at the present time. So do you propose that they all die of "natural causes"? BTW, the choice for Obama would be to charge them or release them.

If we charge them, the Sixth Amendment (right to a speedy trial) kicks in, but it would buy some time. For most detainees, the US either lacks the evidence for a conviction under US law or the evidence is tainted by "enhanced" interrogation methods.

 

[brainstorm]

It's not the way I'm reasoning. It's my observation of the way these issues have evolved since WWII.

You are reasoning that your observations of a pattern indicate something about relative legality or legitimacy generally. You are assuming that trends imply legitimacy. If everyone jumps of a cliff, that doesn't make it a good thing to do.

EDIT: To clarify, terrorists can certainly be attacked wherever they are found, but I'm against "retaliatory" terrorism against a population.

So am I, but what do you think migration controls are? Basically each government decides what level of security to levy against everyone with the same passport, based on political relations between the governments. Also, nationalist stereotypes promote broad prejudices and discrimination on the basis of stereotypes. So, for example, I have heard people condemn Serbians or Germans in general as "criminal types" by reference to war activities associated with those national identities. When these kinds of prejudicial sentiments are widespread, the effect is that people identified with the respective population are subject to systematic discrimination or they must relegate themselves to someplace where such prejudices and discrimination are absent.

I didn't say or mean to imply that. However, generally terrorism is thought of as the tactic of targeting civilians in non-combat situations.

But that may just be a popular definition because it prevents scrutiny of other methods of fear-based control because those are the hegemonic tactics of choice in the modern political economy. It's more comfortable to blame insurrection for terrorism instead of seeing it as the illegitimate child of modern governing techniques.

Now that I've attempted to respond to you, will you and others please respond to me? If you were in Obama's shoes and the Supreme Court ordered you to release a terror suspect from GITMO who you thought might be dangerous, what would you do?

Put them on parole? Some kind of halfway house? Come up with a level of security that allows them to re-integrate without allowing them the opportunity to pursue terrorist activities? Assuming they are suspects who have never been proven guilty of any crime, maybe they should be offered protection and compensation to prevent their lost opportunities from harming their life-chances. To legitimate the negative effects of their apprehension and detainment, wouldn't you have to prove them guilty in a court of law?

 

[Office_Shredder]

So am I, but what do you think migration controls are? Basically each government decides what level of security to levy against everyone with the same passport, based on political relations between the governments.

So forming a good relationship with Canada and allowing automatic visa status to their citizens is the equivalent of committing an act of terrorism against Indonesia?

 

[brainstorm]

So forming a good relationship with Canada and allowing automatic visa status to their citizens is the equivalent of committing an act of terrorism against Indonesia?

Answer it yourself by putting the shoe on the other foot. If the EU automatically grants a visa request from someone with an Australian passport but rejects it for someone with a US passport, all because of governmental relations - how is this not directing political conflicts at non-military individuals?

 

[nismaratwork]

This will likely be a recurring problem since the US has over 170 detainees at the present time. So do you propose that they all die of "natural causes"? BTW, the choice for Obama would be to charge them or release them.

If we charge them, the Sixth Amendment (right to a speedy trial) kicks in, but it would buy some time. For most detainees, the US either lacks the evidence for a conviction under US law or the evidence is tainted by "enhanced" interrogation methods.

I don't see how these people can be allowed to go free, given what we've done to them already, and the threat they may represent. Assuming, as in your hypothetical scenario, that X individual is dangerous, then I say disappear them. Some can die of "natural causes", others can be found dead having "rejoined" their friends in Afghanistan... others can be said to have gone into hiding in Yemen, or Chechnya. The world is a big place. This is all under the assumption that you set out however, that this individual, or individuals are DANGEROUS. I do not propose that people who merely fell afoul of an insane program of incarceration and interrogation be killed.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Assuming, as in your hypothetical scenario, that X individual is dangerous, then I say disappear them. ...

This is all under the assumption that you set out however, that this individual, or individuals are DANGEROUS. I do not propose that people who merely fell afoul of an insane program of incarceration and interrogation be killed.

OK. I have no real idea as to exactly how the US government has been dealing with this situation since 2001. The Bush, and I assume the Obama, administrations have been slowly winnowing down the number of detainees, but they've clearly already made some mistakes since some of those released have rejoined al-Qaida or affiliated groups. I think it's safe to say that we really don't have a very good fix on who's dangerous and who isn't.

Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM) is not in this class. Almost all the detainees were delivered to US forces by the Northern Alliance in 2001. The US took them for their potential intelligence value. We intended from the start to interrogate them by whatever means necessary in order to extract information. KSM was arrested by Pakistani police and delivered to the US. He will be tried sooner or later and may or may not get a death sentence.

Possibly a few of the rest will face charges, but most will remain in limbo unless Obama can come up with a plan. I'm sure he will not endorse your plan (but I could be wrong). So assuming your plan is off the table, do you or anyone else have any other ideas?

EDIT: Remember, Obama is under the gun. The USSC has ruled that we must charge or release the detainees. When a specific case reaches the Court, the likely ruling will be for the US to charge the detainee in short order or release him, or perhaps simply to release him immediately.

 

[brainstorm]

I don't see how these people can be allowed to go free, given what we've done to them already, and the threat they may represent. Assuming, as in your hypothetical scenario, that X individual is dangerous, then I say disappear them. Some can die of "natural causes", others can be found dead having "rejoined" their friends in Afghanistan... others can be said to have gone into hiding in Yemen, or Chechnya. The world is a big place. This is all under the assumption that you set out however, that this individual, or individuals are DANGEROUS. I do not propose that people who merely fell afoul of an insane program of incarceration and interrogation be killed.

For one thing, your methods of "disappearing" people sound cruel and unusual, or maybe just unusual because creative, which maybe automatically means cruel as well - not sure. Second, how can you know if any suspect is legitimately dangerous without establishing their guilt or innocence by some form of trial? I understand that when people get off on a technicality that it seems like a failure of the justice system, but surely if there is sufficient evidence for SOME crime, those charges could be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe I just still have some faith in the ideals of a justice system that in actuality has evolved beyond the possibility of functioning correctly. If that's the case then what do you do to or for anyone? Allow vigilanteism to rule the Earth?

 

[Office_Shredder]

I don't see how these people can be allowed to go free, given what we've done to them already, ... I do not propose that people who merely fell afoul of an insane program of incarceration and interrogation be killed.

Actually that's kind of exactly what you said.

Obviously these people wouldn't be held if there wasn't some belief that they could be dangerous, but that doesn't mean there's convincing evidence they are terrorists (if there was, we could charge them and throw them in jail!).

brainstorm, the default setup is that people need a visa to enter other countries. The fact that some countries then make deals to avoid the hassle of a visa is not an act of violence against civilians, and I find it hard to believe you really think it is

 

[brainstorm]

Obviously these people wouldn't be held if there wasn't some belief that they could be dangerous, but that doesn't mean there's convincing evidence they are terrorists (if there was, we could charge them and throw them in jail!).

But if US soldiers were being held prisoner for a long time without charges, would you accept the reasoning that they were dangerous and automatically not assume that they were hostages?

brainstorm, the default setup is that people need a visa to enter other countries. The fact that some countries then make deals to avoid the hassle of a visa is not an act of violence against civilians, and I find it hard to believe you really think it is

Whether something is "default" or not doesn't speak to its effects or legitimacy. Since the cold war, the threat of nuclear annihilation is by default a deterrent to war and insurrection, but does that change the effect it has?

Besides, I wasn't saying that so much to criticize visa policies as I was simply pointing out that visa policies, trade policies, etc. are a method for exercising power against soldiers and civilians alike, i.e. against "the general public," which was the definition of terrorism put forth, I think by SWV.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Besides, I wasn't saying that so much to criticize visa policies as I was simply pointing out that visa policies, trade policies, etc. are a method for exercising power against soldiers and civilians alike, i.e. against "the general public," which was the definition of terrorism put forth, I think by SWV.

I was describing terrorism as a tactic in the context of the deliberate use of deadly force against innocent civilians in a non-combat situation.