Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 13:38 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:bb4c$45abb155$49ecfc6$17870(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:2c02e$45aba54a$49ecfc6$17552(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eofssu$8u0_004(a)s960.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <eodof8$gus$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <eodeen$8qk_004(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>[....] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Anybody who insists that the extremists are criminals. To treat >>>>>>>their actions as criminal, you must arrest and put them on trial. >>>>>>>This implies that the arresting officiers have jurisdiction wherever >>>>>>>and whenever these extremists reside. This approach requires a >>>>>>>global police force that is not answerable to any single nation. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, you have it wrong. You don't need a global police force to do it. >>>>>>Criminals who have crossed borders are dealt with all the time. If >>>>>>someone commits a murder in the US and then runs to England, he is not >>>>>>safe. This is how it would be for the terrorists if they were called >>>>>>the >>>>>>criminals they are. >>>>>> >>>>>>When you call it a "war" you make them soldiers. When they are >>>>>>soldiers >>>>>>in a cause against you the other governments can't arrest them. When >>>>>>you >>>>>>stop calling it "war" and start calling it "crime", other governments >>>>>>can >>>>>>arrest them. This is part of why calling it a war is such an awful >>>>>>idea. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>But nobody was arresting them, especially in Europe. >>>> >>>> >>>>Yes they were. Terrorists have been getting arrested (or shot if they go >>>>to Gibraltar) in Europe for decades. There are more terrorist >>>>organisations than the Al Qaeda bogey monster you know. >>>> >>>>Currently, if as you say the fight against terrorism is a "war" then >>>>there is no requirement for _any_ nation to arrest terrorists. Nations >>>>not explicitly allied to the US should actively _not_ impede the passage >>>>of the Terrorist Soldiers. >>> >>>Wrong. Any military force crossing neutral territory must have >>>permission from that country to transit, otherwise they are >>>violating that country's neutrality and territory. Check out >>>German ships entering neutral ports during WW2. >> >> >> Only if the countries are declared "neutral." I said not allied to the >> US. If the country does not recognise the declaration of war then it is >> not treated as "neutral" under the Geneva accords (which were written in >> 1948 following the problems of WW2). > > In that case they fall under the laws regarding immigration and > weapons controls along with whatever "conspiracy to commit" > laws are on the books in the host country, "soldiers" or not. Probably true and a better example than the one I gave. Sorry. However, this reinforces the fact that it is criminal law which will deal with the terrorists better than military action.
From: Phil Carmody on 15 Jan 2007 13:38 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>From what I see, most people are suggesting the extremists be ignored & > >>marginalised and the terrorists be treated as criminals. > > > > How can you marginalize a billion people? > > What on Earth makes you think there are a billion extremists? > > The extremists are a minority (otherwise they aren't called "extremists"). > > Your line of "reasoning" is shockingly bad. When the IRA were killing > protestants, did it mean _all_ Catholics supported it? And if you consider where large proportions of IRA funding came from, there would be 250 million guilty Americans too using BAH's, oh god I hate to use this word in this context, logic. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 13:44 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:8d3b$45abb26d$49ecfc6$17926(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:45ABA0D5.D518B9EC(a)hotmail.com... >> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>What else can you treat terrorists as, other than criminals? They are >>>>>>not >>>>>>"soldiers" fighting for an opposing power. >>>>> >>>>>Certainly the way Guantanamo is run suggests that too. Soldiers should >>>>>be >>>>>treated according to the Geneva Convention(s). >>>> >>>>This isn't a Geneva convention styled war. >>> >>>In that case it's not a *war* - period ! >> >> I concur. As a signatory to the Geneva Accords of 1948, the US does not >> have the "right" to decide which wars the accords apply to and which they >> don't. > > Words and terms always evolve in advance of legal formalities. Very true. This is a dangerous ground to head down though. If, for example, the US were to decide that despite signing the Geneva Accords of 1948, they were no longer bound by them if the regulations impeded the US militaries ability to wage war (which is what this sub-thread is implying). At that point, what is to stop _any_ other nation deciding it would also re-define the terms of the Articles of War and (for example) make Civilans a legitmate target. While words and terms do evolve, the requirment of legislation is that it is maintained in both letter and spirit. If the US feels the Geneva Accords prevent it fighting war "properly" then it can renounce it's status as a signatory. A lot of it depends on what role you see the Accords having. It is similar to the conversation about police forces being bound by the rule of law. I am sure the police could arrest more criminals if they were able to do anything they wanted, but when they are criminals as well it becomes a touch insane. The Accords were signed by a different generation than the one that lives today, so it may well be the case that the Articles of War are no longer relevant. It makes prosecuting Serbian war criminals harder though.
From: Lloyd Parker on 15 Jan 2007 08:56 In article <eodhg2$8qk_002(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <eobnu0$oor$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <8af1c$45a7b0e1$4fe7610$13591(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>[...] >>>How do you declare war on Hesbalah or al qaeda? >> >>You don't any more than you declare war on the Mafia. >> >>> If you >>>win, who signs the surrender documents? >> >>When the jail door goes "clang" on them, no signing is needed. >> >>[....] >>>> I agree, the conflict is far from simple. It is not a war either, >therefore >>>> invoking "war powers" is dishonest. >>> >>>For the US it is the only tool currently available. I believe >>>UK has a strong history of dealing with Irish terrorism in >>>precisely the same way. >>> >>>I'm open to hearing about some other model. There's no one to >>>negotiate with, so what's left? >> >>Treat them like the IRA and or the Mafia. To help take down organized >>crime, the RICO law was created. If tools are needed, they can be made. > >So you are expecting a UN jurisdiction to handle these people and >the messes they make. Are you also willing to subject the >Constitution to the UN charter? > Actually, since we ratified the UN charter as a treaty, it already is US law. >That's what you are asking for and demanding. > >/BAH >
From: Lloyd Parker on 15 Jan 2007 08:55
In article <eodgi5$8qk_005(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <o57hq2hgacs104ki37lf6fd2d8lgjjulru(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:37:27 -0000, "T Wake" >><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>news:l6hfq2hq3pl65gn8pceon4g8l0fbhvc9r3(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:17:34 -0000, "T Wake" >>>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>"MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in >>>>>message news:qe6eq25v7vr2l8gqjagd38781phaa5v4kq(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:15:18 +0000, Eeyore >>>>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The simple answer is that the terrorists are criminals and what's >>>>>>>required >>>>>>>is >>>>>>>international *police* action to stop it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There is. It's called the Worldwide Struggle Against Terrorism, >>>>>> >>>>>> AND IT IS A WAR. >>>>> >>>>>No it isn't. >>>>> >>>>>You do not declare war on things like terrorism any more than you declare >>>>>war on poverty or childhood obesity. It sounds good, it makes a nice >>>>>rallying call and fits soundbites. But it is not a declaration of war. >>>>> >>>>>Unless of course I missed the bit where the declaration was made official >>>>>by >>>>>a duly recognised authority. >>>> >>>> It's rhetoric from the administration with no other purpose at all >>>> than to give it an excuse it can use to justify anything and >>>> everything it does without having to make a rational argument to >>>> anyone about it. The really sad thing is that the rhetoric actually >>>> seems to gell with far too many here in the US. >>> >>>Aren't there certain conditions which have to be met before a "war" can be >>>declared by the US? >> >>You know? I had thought so in my earlier years. Honestly believed in >>the idea I was taught, that Congress declares wars. Of course, >>reality has a way of making one more circumspect about this issue. > >I'm starting to think whether the Constitution has assumed that >the only kinds of war can be the European-style in which the >conflict is clearly nation against nation. I'm wondering if >any Constitutional scholars have thought about a war that can't >be nation against nation. > ><reluctant snip> > >/BAH Like the war on drugs? The war on poverty? The war on inflation? |