Gimpo Options

[Dogmeat]

if you don't die or suffer irreversable physical harm, it isn't fucking torture.

oh wah, the terrorist subjects feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel bad. they feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel like they're drowning. awwwwwwwwwwww poooooooooe poeeeeeeeeeeee tewwowist subjects, wet owr owebamma save woo so that woo feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell good

[Dogmeat]

but then again i also think that a public stupid enough to elect obama deserves whatever end it will bring to this country.

if you think bush was a fascist wait until this asshole gets rolling

[chook]

I actually like Bush. I think people around him abused his trust.

I did vote McCain.

If we tote that America is free and fair and bring that ideal to another country its a good thing. Taking people from that country and holding them without the ideals we are showing that country is shitty. About 60 of the 500 that have been released have returned to fight. In America our parole system has a much higher repeat rate than that.

Seth use you interpretation of American Law to justify it.

On the other hand. I do think we should have all the bullets we use against Al Qaeda dipped in pigs blood so they don't get to enjoy their 40 virgins.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp

[THECHICKEN]

I actually like Bush. I think people around him abused his trust.

I did vote McCain.

If we tote that America is free and fair and bring that ideal to another country its a good thing. Taking people from that country and holding them without the ideals we are showing that country is shitty. About 60 of the 500 that have been released have returned to fight. In America our parole system has a much higher repeat rate than that.

Seth use you interpretation of American Law to justify it.

On the other hand. I do think we should have all the bullets we use against Al Qaeda dipped in pigs blood so they don't get to enjoy their 40 virgins.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp

Chuck i've been explaining how american law DOES justify this.. its called law of war. Its internationally and historically normal and fair. Explain to me how you think soldiers fighting should be held criminals instead of enemy combatants that go home once the war is over?

[Dogmeat]

they should have just killed them until they died

[chook]

Chuck i've been explaining how american law DOES justify this.. its called law of war. Its internationally and historically normal and fair. Explain to me how you think soldiers fighting should be held criminals instead of enemy combatants that go home once the war is over?

Because we are at war with an ideal and not with a nation. That is where the laws used for fighting a nation get reinvented.

[THECHICKEN]

Because we are at war with an ideal and not with a nation. That is where the laws used for fighting a nation get reinvented.

we are not at war with an ideal, we are at war with two orginizations (taliban and al'queda). You think that because kabul was proclaimed free of taliban that means they are toppled and war over. All branches of government disagree.

Being at war with an "ideal" would mean we are at war with ALL terrorists... and we aren't. Hezbulah etc. are NOT among the groups we declared war on and they are as militant islam/ terrorists you can get.

[Mommy]

I always get Hezbulah and Hamas mixed up.

I agree with Seth.

[woody]

we're at war with terrorism

we just chose to focus on taliban & al'queda

some others we are at war with:
Fatah al-Islam
Mujahideen
Al-Shabaab

And yes, we are at war with Hezbulah and Hamas, they just don't get as much attn.

I think the jist of things is this.
The Geneva Conv. was written for war against nations. Hence the rules & regs of wearing a uniform (distinguishing between armed soldiers & civilians), open arms, show of nation, etc. Since terrorist groups do not adhere to this, that creates the grey line.

[THECHICKEN]

we're at war with terrorism

we just chose to focus on taliban & al'queda

some others we are at war with:
Fatah al-Islam
Mujahideen
Al-Shabaab

And yes, we are at war with Hezbulah and Hamas, they just don't get as much attn.

I think the jist of things is this.
The Geneva Conv. was written for war against nations. Hence the rules & regs of wearing a uniform (distinguishing between armed soldiers & civilians), open arms, show of nation, etc. Since terrorist groups do not adhere to this, that creates the grey line.

Actually NO, the use of armed forces by Congress and President were against "Taliban, al-Qaida or associated forces" as identified by the 2006 Military Commissions Act. So though we use the term "war on terror" its just more catchy than saying war against "Taliban, al-Qaida or associated forces".

[woody]

Actually NO, the use of armed forces by Congress and President were against "Taliban, al-Qaida or associated forces" as identified by the 2006 Military Commissions Act. So though we use the term "war on terror" its just more catchy than saying war against "Taliban, al-Qaida or associated forces".

(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

1i.: Says anyone who is not a lawful enemy combatant including...taliban, a'q, or associated forces, doesn't say exclusively.
1ii.: the tribunal can say if you're an unlawful enemy combatant or not

so it doens't matter what terrorist group your in...it's damn near at their discretion if you're caught...hence, war on terrorism

source

This post has been edited by woody: Jan 26 2009, 06:50 PM

[THECHICKEN]

Yes, but no other terrorist force has been recognized by congress or any other branch as engaging in hostilities against america. So yes, if hezbullah, hamas, etc. engaged in attacks such as the ones carried out by al'queda, they would become targets allowed under the act. But since no such attack or recognition of other forces exist right now, the "war on terror" is against al'queda, taliban, and associated forces.

Its not a blank check as you can obviously read from the wording of the statute.

[woody]

Yes, but no other terrorist force has been recognized by congress or any other branch as engaging in hostilities against america. So yes, if hezbullah, hamas, etc. engaged in attacks such as the ones carried out by al'queda, they would become targets allowed under the act. But since no such attack or recognition of other forces exist right now, the "war on terror" is against al'queda, taliban, and associated forces.

Its not a blank check as you can obviously read from the wording of the statute.

Fatah al-Islam

8/2007
Lebanon Group Given Terrorist Label by U.S.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7081100599.html

[THECHICKEN]

Being labeled a terrorist does not mean you fall under that statute. If you read it, there is no "terrorist" requirement under unlawful enemy combatant. The statute applies to those who have committed hostilities (effectively "attacked" the U.S.). So while thats interesting that we've blacklisted another orginization, that doesn't mean they fall under the 2006 military commission act.

[woody]

Being labeled a terrorist does not mean you fall under that statute. If you read it, there is no "terrorist" requirement under unlawful enemy combatant. The statute applies to those who have committed hostilities (effectively "attacked" the U.S.). So while thats interesting that we've blacklisted another orginization, that doesn't mean they fall under the 2006 military commission act.

it goes further than that if you read it:

a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);

Co-Belligerent:
CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

So effectively, it's not just attacking the US.

It's those who attack the US, those who support attacking the US, or those who support attacking anyone who is helping the US against a common unlawful enemy combatant.