Don't feel too bad about Gitmo

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Link.

We are currently having a thrash-around about torture of Afghan detainees turned over by the Canadian military to the Afghan authorities.  The current bash is about who knew what and when.

In Canada, and in many constitutional monarchies, this is the way the government falls.

[Larks2242 251]

Who feels bad about Gitmo if anything they should feel bad about closing it. As for the Canadian military i'm sure they did what was needed.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Larks2242

Who feels bad about Gitmoquote>

Quite a few people, actually, including many of the ones currently in office in Washington. The place has gotten an awful lot of bad press.

There's really no practical reason why it can't stay open just with its act cleaned up a bit, but it's become too iconic of mistratment of prisoners and thus it needs to cease being used as a place to detain captured terrorists for sheer PR reasons.

What bothers me, though, is the transering of these people over to the civilian justice system - that's not the proper jusridiction for enemy combatants. I'd instead just find some other isolated military installation to put a new prison with some better ground rules and more focus on bringing the cases to trial in a timely matter. Attu Island has been suggested for such a purpose, for instance. I like it, although there's no way it's hapenning under the current administration. Instead, we're gearing up for a crazy circus that could potentially make the OJ trial look like amazing speedy justice by trying five of these guys in New York.

All we need to do now is stick KSM in a Ford Bronco and chase him down the Jersey Turnpike.

[Larks2242 251]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Larks2242

Who feels bad about Gitmoquote>

What bothers me, though, is the transering of these people over to the civilian justice system - that's not the proper jusridiction for enemy combatants. I'd instead just find some other isolated military installation to put a new prison with some better ground rules and more focus on bringing the cases to trial in a timely matter.

All we need to do now is stick KSM in a Ford Bronco and chase him down the Jersey Turnpike.

quote>

Exactly there is no need to move them into this country, isn't that the reason they built Gitmo in Cuba? Also the people who are held there are terroists and eather killed or attempted to kill innocent civilians so i see no issue with torturing them as they torture any american they saw. To bring them into this country would only make matters worse.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Link.

We are currently having a thrash-around about torture of Afghan detainees turned over by the Canadian military to the Afghan authorities.  The current bash is about who knew what and when.

In Canada, and in many constitutional monarchies, this is the way the government falls.

quote>

I heard about that earlier this week. The Harper government needs to come clean, and stop trying to cover up information which can reveal their role, if any, in the entire disgusting affair. Obviously it was the Afghan government who committed the torture (which frankly puts we Canadians a step above the Bush government).

But it was the military's fault for turning them over to the Afghans in the first place. Why did they take these people prisoner, why were they transferred, and were these people subjected to the rules of fair justice? These questions must be answered, but the actions by Harper look suspicious to me.

Originally posted by: Larks2242

Exactly there is no need to move them into this country, isn't that the reason they built Gitmo in Cuba? Also the people who are held there are terroists and eather killed or attempted to kill innocent civilians so i see no issue with torturing them as they torture any american they saw. To bring them into this country would only make matters worse.quote>

What objection do you have to putting KSM and his compatriots to trial, with rights for all involved which will insure that actual justice is administered? Is it a travesty to actually put terrorists to justice? Is that not what Bush promised after 9/11?

Regardless of whether the terrorists and guerillas tortured Americans, it does not make it ethical for the American government to torture the terrorists and guerillas. The previous government you Americans had promised that their military would retain the "moral high ground". For once I agree with them. Americans should not stoop down to the level of criminal terrorists when fighting them, and they need to hold firm in their own ethical principles -- one of them being that physical and psychological assaults will not be used to force information from a prisoner.

Just because someone is a prisoner does not justify that assaults be committed upon them. They still have their rights as a human, which must be respected. The proper function of the government in these cases is to give them a fair trial and to dispense out justice based on evidence avaliable. It is immoral to hold a person as prisoner with no charge, no trial, and no sentence from a court.

That's my view. You can hold your own views, but keep in mind the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which makes what you are proposing illegal (hence the goverment cannot do that) regardless of the ethicality of it. Also consider the fact that, even if you are as cold as Stalin, that torture does not work for information purposes.

Originally posted by: Larks2242

Who feels bad about Gitmo if anything they should feel bad about closing it. As for the Canadian military i'm sure they did what was needed.quote>

I don't feel bad about Guantanamo. Indeed, the Cuban government has permitted use of the place as a naval port. What I feel bad about is the prisoners there who have been treated in the most egregiously unethical manner. They have been denied habeas corpus, they have been held for 8 years without charges, trials, convictions, or sentences, and on top of that they have been serially tortured.

Also, this is supposed to be a discussion concerning the Canadian treatments of their prisoners, not the treatment of American prisoners in Guantanamo.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Larks2242

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Larks2242

Who feels bad about Gitmoquote>

What bothers me, though, is the transering of these people over to the civilian justice system - that's not the proper jusridiction for enemy combatants. I'd instead just find some other isolated military installation to put a new prison with some better ground rules and more focus on bringing the cases to trial in a timely matter.

quote>

Exactly there is no need to move them into this country, isn't that the reason they built Gitmo in Cuba? Also the people who are held there are terroists and eather killed or attempted to kill innocent civilians so i see no issue with torturing them as they torture any american they saw. To bring them into this country would only make matters worse.quote>

I don't know where all this sentiment is coming from, but I believe that torturing anyone doesn't buy you anything.  Under torture that is severe enough, anyone will confess to anything.  You only have to look at the Spanish Inquisition for that.

If the object is vengence, then for shame!

[Easy Bakes 253]

N_O_Body  expects the Spanish Inquisition

here it is.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

What objection do you have to putting KSM and his compatriots to trial, with rights for all involved which will insure that actual justice is administered? Is it a travesty to actually put terrorists to justice? Is that not what Bush promised after 9/11?quote>

They have every right to a trial, as would anyone.

However, it being a civilian trial is absurd, as it is the wrong jurisdiction. They are not common criminals, they are opponents of America in an ongoing war (i.e. terrorists). They were not arrested by local police and extradited, they were captured by our troops and removed without the consent of the local authorities. They were not mirandized and, yes, they were waterboarded - both cause enough for a civilian judge to simply throw the case out and let them go free.

To try such people in civilian court is to make a travesty of our criminal justice system. They belong in military court.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

What objection do you have to putting KSM and his compatriots to trial, with rights for all involved which will insure that actual justice is administered? Is it a travesty to actually put terrorists to justice? Is that not what Bush promised after 9/11?quote>

They have every right to a trial, as would anyone.

However, it being a civilian trial is absurd, as it is the wrong jurisdiction. They are not common criminals, they are opponents of America in an ongoing war (i.e. terrorists). They were not arrested by local police and extradited, they were captured by our troops and removed without the consent of the local authorities. They were not mirandized and, yes, they were waterboarded - both cause enough for a civilian judge to simply throw the case out and let them go free.

To try such people in civilian court is to make a travesty of our criminal justice system. They belong in military court.

quote>

And to try them under the U.S. UCMJ is more like revenge.  That's why we have the international courts.  The U.S. needs to stop givinig itself such airs. 

One of the guys at Gitmo is a Canadian, and we want to try him here.  We have some new war crimes legislation that we have recently applied quite successfully.  Besides, I personally want to get the whole Khadr family before the body public in an adversarial situation.  You should read some the the things they have said about the country that took them in.

And returning to our muttons: Linky.

Guess who signed the "Official Secrets Act" as I did a few years ago.  If you ask me why, and I told you, I'd have to kill you.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

And to try them under the U.S. UCMJ is more like revenge.  That's why we have the international courts.  The U.S. needs to stop givinig itself such airs.  quote>

Meh. Fact of the matter is experience has shown us that international cooperation is limited in what it can accomplish. The UN is basically worthless because while it can pass resolutions all it wants it has no real authority to enforce what it declares. As for the ICC... no, just no. A court not associated with any government is illegitmate. Period.

One of the guys at Gitmo is a Canadian, and we want to try him here.quote>

Okay, I see no problem with that.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

And the reason we have international courts and organizations is?

I do tend to agree that all of them have had their teeth pulled, if they ever had any.  The U.N. used to have some (1951) before it became a ployglot debating soceity.  It used to be a coalitiion of the winners, but now their capabilities have been diluted.

Wouldn't it be nice if a new world body could be formed, with teeth, claws, and some international respect.  Third time's the charm.

[Larks2242 251]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Originally posted by: Larks2242

Exactly there is no need to move them into this country, isn't that the reason they built Gitmo in Cuba? Also the people who are held there are terroists and eather killed or attempted to kill innocent civilians so i see no issue with torturing them as they torture any american they saw. To bring them into this country would only make matters worse.quote>

 Americans should not stoop down to the level of criminal terrorists when fighting them, and they need to hold firm in their own ethical principles -- one of them being that physical and psychological assaults will not be used to force information from a prisoner.

Just because someone is a prisoner does not justify that assaults be committed upon them. They still have their rights as a human, which must be respected. The proper function of the government in these cases is to give them a fair trial and to dispense out justice based on evidence avaliable. It is immoral to hold a person as prisoner with no charge, no trial, and no sentence from a court.

quote>

Why not clearly terriosts don't follow the rules of war, if the information can save human lives i sure hope the Soldiers will do anything in their power to get it, even if i includes physical or psychological assaults. As for the rights they lose their rights when the decide they want to plan a attack on a country. It may be immoral to hold them but you can't just let them go.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Larks2242

Who feels bad about Gitmo quote>

As a naval base? Not a lot of people. As a detainment center?  Anyone with half a working conscience.

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

What objection do you have to putting KSM and his compatriots to trial, with rights for all involved which will insure that actual justice is administered? Is it a travesty to actually put terrorists to justice? Is that not what Bush promised after 9/11?quote>

They have every right to a trial, as would anyone.

However, it being a civilian trial is absurd, as it is the wrong jurisdiction. They are not common criminals, they are opponents of America in an ongoing war (i.e. terrorists). They were not arrested by local police and extradited, they were captured by our troops and removed without the consent of the local authorities. They were not mirandized and, yes, they were waterboarded - both cause enough for a civilian judge to simply throw the case out and let them go free.

To try such people in civilian court is to make a travesty of our criminal justice system. They belong in military court.

quote>

...where whatever trial they get will still make a travesty of your 'justice' system, but will at least make for a nice and efficient show trial, followed by the inevitable execution. (carried live on Fox, no doubt)

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Duke87

The UN is basically worthless because while it can pass resolutions all it wants it has no real authority to enforce what it declares.quote>

Yes, and I hope you know why.

As for the ICC... no, just no. A court not associated with any government is illegitmate. Period.quote>

Why is that? I supposed you're not too familiar with how the international judicial system functions. Arbritation is quite common, and in commercial disputes it is often preferable to have it done in courts not associated with any governments. CAS, or the Court of Arbitration for Sport is also frequently used for international sports disputes, without being a government court (it was founded by the IOC).

Also, a court is not illegitimate because it is not "associated with any government";  the New York Convention requires contracting states to enforce arbitration rulings. Also, private courts have a long tradition, see for example lex mercatoria for how merchants organised themselves from medieval times.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

...where whatever trial they get will still make a travesty of your 'justice' system, but will at least make for a nice and efficient show trial, followed by the inevitable execution.quote>

KSM is, by his own admission, guilty. You expect the trial not to be quick and efficient? That doesn't make it a "show trial".

As for an execution being inevitable... well, that kinda is SOP for such crimes. Your point?

Besides, Holder and his ilk are all shooting off their mouths about how "you'll stop criticizing us when these guys are found guilty and executed"... yeah, um, there's no way they can possibly be so certain unless a "show trial" is in the works here. Either they're being hubristic, or they're plotting fraudulent justice. Either way, we have a problem.

(carried live on Fox, no doubt)quote>

TV cameras generally aren't allowed at executions, so no, no live footage. As for FOX covering it, well, yeah, of course they're going to cover it - because IT'S NEWS!

Originally posted by: krbe

Why is that?quote>

1) Judiciary is a branch of government. It needs a democratically elected executive and legislature balancing its power. The ICC has neither.

2) Courts only have power that a sovereign nation gives them. The UN is not a sovereign nation and does not have the authority to grant any courts power. And, indeed, individual nations must choose to recognize the ICC before it has any bearing on them and their affairs. The US currently does not (and should not) recognize the ICC and thus... they have no judicial power so far as we're concerned.

Arbritation is quite common, and in commercial disputes it is often preferable to have it done in courts not associated with any governments. CAS, or the Court of Arbitration for Sport is also frequently used for international sports disputes, without being a government court (it was founded by the IOC).quote>

Civil disputes are a different matter. You can settle out of court or have arbitration all you want.

Criminal acts, on the other hand, can only be tried in official government court (aka civillian court).

And acts of war, which we're dealing with here, can only be tried militarily.

[Larks2242 251]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Originally posted by: Larks2242

Who feels bad about Gitmo quote>

As a naval base? Not a lot of people. As a detainment center?  Anyone with half a working conscience.

...where whatever trial they get will still make a travesty of your 'justice' system, but will at least make for a nice and efficient show trial, followed by the inevitable execution. (carried live on Fox, no doubt)

quote>

So what would you have in mind other than a detainment center for the terriosts?. I'm sure the executions won't be covered as much on tv as say Fidel Castro's executions were in cuba or even Saddam Hussein's that were "forced" to watch.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Duke87

And acts of war, which we're dealing with here, can only be tried militarily.

quote>

So what makes the ICC useless for this, as it is a tribunal for war crimes in the same way the Nuremberg Tribunal was an international one? Especially since Americans are mainly complaining about ICC standards relative to their constitution; though these guys are not to be afforded the same liberties.

Yes, it is truly a wonderful war you have going on there. What differentiates a terrorist? When is he a terrorist, and when is he a warrior? Were the victims of the attacks of 11. Sep. 01 victims of war?

And how long is it before the goal set out in "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" is reached?

Ultimately, our fight against terrorism will help foster an international enviroment where our democratic interests are secure and the values of liberty are respected around the world.quote>

[Odainsaker 2,137]

Makes me wonder how the modern state of Israel managed to pull off the sensational abduction and internationally live-televised trial of Nazi Holocaust planner Adolf Eichmann with far less handwringing, far less mess, and with a result no one really argues with. The Jewish state's triumph over the last major Nazi fugitive captured, even though Israel did not even exist at the time the crimes occurred. As internationally controversial as the spectacle was, somehow, they pulled it off.

Nah, instead we first jump to torture and secret prisons with secret evidence, and then berate ourselves for the impossibility of any sort of just trial, while quietly admitting we all really want the accused lynched, eviscerated, and disappeared without bothering with even the pretense of a trial ayway (though a secret trial with a predetermined and guaranteed verdict is just as good), and then tell ourselves we are the civilized beacon of democracy, rule of law, human rights, and blind justice. Of course, we rest assured that such Orwellianisms of government would only be directed at the evil terrorists, and never ~oh no!~ ever at our own troublesome citizens.

Just think, had we not even played these dangerous games against ourselves and had put together some sort of workable system from the outset, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and company would already be finding out that there are no heavenly virgins awaiting them. Like Ahmadinejad's outlandish fumbling before the disbelieving crowd of Columbia Univeristy and Eichmann's contortions in Jerusalem, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would have found less of a platform before the grieving righteousness of a just and honorable people than he would now with after this shortsighted  and self-made farce. Instead, now our justice choices seem to be either Beijing-style or OJ Simpson, while we also get to rightfully ponder additional trials for our own officers and politicians, which naturally will never happen, but probably should if we truly held ourselves to the claims we often make of ourselves. Look at the mess we are in already, and just imagine all the facts and photos that have still not been revealed to us yet.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: krbe

So what makes the ICC useless for this, as it is a tribunal for war crimes in the same way the Nuremberg Tribunal was an international one? Especially since Americans are mainly complaining about ICC standards relative to their constitution; though these guys are not to be afforded the same liberties.quote>

Well, "useless" isn't the word I would use. More like "improper".

The problem is that America's sovereignty is undermined if we go and submit to some international cooperative to try these guys - or anyone else, for that matter. Nuremberg was different because the people being dealt with were enemies of a lot of different nations. Here, the people in question are specifically enemies of America. 9/11 was an attack on us, the perpetrators of it are ours to deal with.

Yes, it is truly a wonderful war you have going on there. What differentiates a terrorist? When is he a terrorist, and when is he a warrior?quote>

A terrorist is a type of warrior.

Were the victims of the attacks of 11. Sep. 01 victims of war?quote>

Absolutely.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Duke87 

Here, the people in question are specifically enemies of America. 9/11 was an attack on us, the perpetrators of it are ours to deal with.

quote>

You forget that the goal of the global war on terrorism is more than just the perpetrators, and includes people who have carried out terrorist attacks in many different areas of the world. Being a Taliban fighting in Afghanistan fighting the foreign forces is enough—are they still all yours to deal with?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Let us all stop squabbling over jurisdictions and the contents of various national constitutional documents.  We have a treaty with the U.S. that allows us to get our hands on Omar Khadr, and our Supreme Court has ruled that our government must proceed with this with expedience.

As for the rest of the prisoners at Gitmo, your system of justice is a flop!  What ever happened to expedient trial facing their accusers?  Shilly-shallying over whose court the trial shall take place in is another example of the U.S. government's paralysis by analysis.

Poor old Omar has grown up in prison.  He was a kid when he committed his alleged crime.  Now he is in his late 20's.  Is this expedient justice?  Is it justice at all?  What is justice?  Who says it is?

Once upon a time, people like him would have been executed out of hand.  We don't do that anymore, thank heavens, but have we gone too far in seeing that "justice" is done?  Long detentions are a form of torture in themselves.  Isn't that against everyone's express feeling of human rights?

I am sure that the detention at Guantanamo (yes, I can spell it) has given all the detainees a great education in insurgency.  They do communicate with each other, no matter how hard the overseers try to prevent it.  It is getting stupider and stupider as time goes on.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Duke87

And acts of war, which we're dealing with here, can only be tried militarily.

quote>

So what makes the ICC useless for this, as it is a tribunal for war crimes in the same way the Nuremberg Tribunal was an international one? Especially since Americans are mainly complaining about ICC standards relative to their constitution; though these guys are not to be afforded the same liberties.

quote>

The ICC can only prosecute crimes committed after July 1, 2002. The al-Qaeda hijackings occured on September 11, 2001. Also the US is not a member of the ICC. So forget about the ICC.

Yes, it is truly a wonderful war you have going on there. What differentiates a terrorist? When is he a terrorist, and when is he a warrior? Were the victims of the attacks of 11. Sep. 01 victims of war?

quote>

Well, technically, at least according to my definition of the word, a person can be a terrorist and a warrior at the same time. Just look at General Sherman or LeMay for examples of this. A person can also be a terrorist and a criminal at the same time. Look at the guy that shot Dr. Tiller for an example of this (just a few months ago).

Terrorism is a tactic, albeit a despicable one, that can be employed by anyone. In my view it makes no difference in whether something is military or criminal. In the case of al-Qaeda and the hijackers, they fit the bill of a criminal more than a foreign military force. Not only that, but they also targeted civillians, not a military force as soldiers would, and they also have all the defining characteristics of organized criminal organizations, as well as not being a state-sponsored organization. Complicate this with the fact that no war was ever declared by Congress against al-Qaeda. No one else has the power to declare war, so technically there was no war to begin with .

In my view, the people that are being tried fit the bill of a criminal more than a soldier. They committed a crime against civillians. They were not in a military, nor did they attack a military¹, nor were they engaged in a war. They do not belong in military court. They belong in civillian court

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

As for the rest of the prisoners at Gitmo, your system of justice is a flop!  What ever happened to expedient trial facing their accusers?  Shilly-shallying over whose court the trial shall take place in is another example of the U.S. government's paralysis by analysis.quote>

If there was actually expedient justice, he would have been put to a trial shortly after he was captured. He would not be in unsentenced imprisonment now.

[q\Poor old Omar has grown up in prison.  He was a kid when he committed his alleged crime.  Now he is in his late 20's.  Is this expedient justice?  Is it justice at all?  What is justice?  Who says it is?quote>

[Larks2242 251]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Poor old Omar has grown up in prison.  He was a kid when he committed his alleged crime.  Now he is in his late 20's.  Is this expedient justice?  Is it justice at all?  What is justice?  Who says it is?

Once upon a time, people like him would have been executed out of hand.  We don't do that anymore, thank heavens, but have we gone too far in seeing that "justice" is done?  Long detentions are a form of torture in themselves.  Isn't that against everyone's express feeling of human rights?

quote>

Poor Omar? How about the poor kid who lost their father, poor wife that lost there husband, poor mother that lost their child ect., just because Omar wanted to kill Americans to "Get money" i feel much worse for the soldier's family than i could for Omar. Guilty or not for throwing the Grenade he confessed to wanting to kill Americans. That is a safety concern he needs to be kept away to keep America safe.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Larks2242

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Poor old Omar has grown up in prison.  He was a kid when he committed his alleged crime.  Now he is in his late 20's.  Is this expedient justice?  Is it justice at all?  What is justice?  Who says it is?

Once upon a time, people like him would have been executed out of hand.  We don't do that anymore, thank heavens, but have we gone too far in seeing that "justice" is done?  Long detentions are a form of torture in themselves.  Isn't that against everyone's express feeling of human rights?

quote>

Poor Omar? How about the poor kid who lost their father, poor wife that lost there husband, poor mother that lost their child ect., just because Omar wanted to kill Americans to "Get money" i feel much worse for the soldier's family than i could for Omar. Guilty or not for throwing the Grenade he confessed to wanting to kill Americans. That is a safety concern he needs to be kept away to keep America safe.quote>

Yes, poor Omar!  He should have been shot and killed during the "fire fight".  Keeping him in durance vile for over 10 years is neither humane nor just.

[grammar flame on]

Larks, you are one of the worst offenders who doesn't know the difference between "there" and "their".  What kind of language skills did you get taught, anyway?

[grammar flame off]

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Terrorism is a tactic, albeit a despicable one, that can be employed by anyone. In my view it makes no difference in whether something is military or criminal. In the case of al-Qaeda and the hijackers, they fit the bill of a criminal more than a foreign military force. Not only that, but they also targeted civillians, not a military force as soldiers would, and they also have all the defining characteristics of organized criminal organizations, as well as not being a state-sponsored organization. Complicate this with the fact that no war was ever declared by Congress against al-Qaeda. No one else has the power to declare war, so technically there was no war to begin with.quote>

It's my understanding that Al-Qaeda years ago (albeit informally) declared war on America. 

In my view, the people that are being tried fit the bill of a criminal more than a soldier. They committed a crime against civillians. They were not in a military, nor did they attack a military, nor were they engaged in a war. They do not belong in military court. They belong in civillian courtquote>

If they were just criminals, then we'd be illigitimately holding them from the beginning. Our military has no authority to make criminal arrests here, let alone on foreign soil. Only the local police can arrest them there and then they'd have to be extradited in order to be tried here in civilian court.

Or, our military can capture them as enemy combatants, remove them from the country without permission from the local authorities, and they can be tried in military court.

Can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Poor old Omar has grown up in prison.  He was a kid when he committed his alleged crime.  Now he is in his late 20's.  Is this expedient justice?  Is it justice at all?  What is justice?  Who says it is?quote>

That is too long to go without a trial, yes.

But that doesn't mean he never should have been captured and imprisoned. It's the excessive period of imprisonment that's the problem, not simply that he was imprisoned.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Formal declarations of war are a thing of the past.  Only a country can declare war upon another country.  Declaring a holy war (jihad?) or a bill of proscription (fatwa?) are the same as advertising (mere puffing).

However, let us look at the reality of today.  Many Jihadists are members of an international criminal conspiracy, and the word criminal fits them much better than terrorist.  Persons who issue fatwas are simply members of the conspiracy who have personal grievances.  Nice of them to publish these because it certainly warns the intended victim. 

One of the goals of these guys is publicity.  The fourth estate should make every effort to move these guys to small print on page 16.  There should be a limit to the methods used to sell papers, attract viewers, etc.  Discussing "terrorism" on the front page is the same as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.  I think Justice Holmes would be displeased.

If you look at the history of mass religious movements, Islam is about 600 years behind Christianity, and is repeating its history almost verbatim.  Their current radicalism is very reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades ("Deus vult").  We grew up, it is time for Islam to shed the clothes of childhood and try to grow up too.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

However, let us look at the reality of today.  Many Jihadists are members of an international criminal conspiracy, and the word criminal fits them much better than terrorist.  Persons who issue fatwas are simply members of the conspiracy who have personal grievances.  Nice of them to publish these because it certainly warns the intended victim. quote>

Except for one problem: these terrorists operate on foreign soil in countries where the government is unequipped to combat them or outright harbors them. Dealing with them in a criminal manner would work if the governments of countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, etc. were capable and willing to arrest these people themselves and then prosecute or extradite them. The reality, however, is that they are not (we gave Afghanistan the chance, they refused). And that forces us to handle things in a military fashion.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

However, let us look at the reality of today.  Many Jihadists are members of an international criminal conspiracy, and the word criminal fits them much better than terrorist.  Persons who issue fatwas are simply members of the conspiracy who have personal grievances.  Nice of them to publish these because it certainly warns the intended victim. quote>

Except for one problem: these terrorists operate on foreign soil in countries where the government is unequipped to combat them or outright harbors them. Dealing with them in a criminal manner would work if the governments of countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, etc. were capable and willing to arrest these people themselves and then prosecute or extradite them. The reality, however, is that they are not (we gave Afghanistan the chance, they refused). And that forces us to handle things in a military fashion.

quote>

I believe my post was aimed at the fourth estate.  This is a worldwide organization, and one of the ways to deal with these criminals is to trivialize them by relegating them to the also-ran section of the news media.  Front page or top story treatment is just falling into their hands.

Military action is all very well since we don't have a worldwide police force, but look at what is going on with the Bight of Benin piracy.  Even when pirates are apprehended, offended flag counties often decline to prosecute.  The world is going to Gehenna in a handbasket.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

This is a worldwide organization, and one of the ways to deal with these criminals is to trivialize them by relegating them to the also-ran section of the news media.  Front page or top story treatment is just falling into their hands.quote>

True enough, but the media isn't about to stop giving these guys coverage willingly and it would be unconstitutional to force them to do so.

So, that option's out.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, after Obama's speech tonight, I think we can now forget about Gitmo.  He now has said most publicly that it will close.