Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 15 Jan 2007 09:10 In article <cc3$45abb0d2$49ecfc6$17870(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:45AB9242.557FE4A7(a)hotmail.com... >> >>> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>But nobody was arresting them, especially in Europe. >>>>>> >>>>>>We are now. >>>>> >>>>>And then letting them go because of legal loop holes. This >>>>>is utter nonsense. >>>> >>>>Damn the law. Let us arrest everyone suspected of terrorism and detain >>>>them >>>>for at least 20 years. >>> >>>Like they can be detained without trial now in the USA ? >> >> >> :-) Exactly. If the law stops you "winning" then change the law and to >> [insert religious punishment place of choice] with the consequences. > >Actually the Geneva Convention permits incarcerating POW's till >hostilities have ceased. No trial necessary. Could be a few >hundred years, no? > > > > And treating them as POWs, don't forget. Heck, we don't even let the Red Cross into Gitmo!
From: Lloyd Parker on 15 Jan 2007 09:10 In article <45742$45abaef6$49ecfc6$17826(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:4b2bb$45aa932c$4fe76e9$25519(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> <snip> >> >>>We did what was best for the US. You don't like that, it is >>>historical fact, so tough. Iranian greed was the trigger. >> >> >> While, with the benefit of hindsight it seems the 1953 operation was >> misguided, I do actually agree with you here. >> >> The UK and US acted in their national best interests at the time. The fact >> it _may_ have been linked to the subsequent events of 1979 isn't the issue. >> It *could* be argued that a better solution would have been establishing an >> equitable deal with the Iranians (it is "their" oil etc), and that this may >> have prevented the Iranian revolution from ever happening - but we will >> never know for sure. > >The French provided a strings free haven for Ayatollah >Khomeini We propped up the Shah and overthrew an earlier elected government there, which created the mess in Iran in the first place. > and allowed him to pursue anti-western international >intrigue for decades. Had today's standards been applied >that should not have been permitted. If we (the USA) were >caught by surprise at his return to power then we did a >lousy job that we're still paying for. Unfortunately I >believe that's the case. > >> As an aside, this is why I tend to think trying to argue over the pros and >> cons of things which happened decades ago is always going to be flawed. > >But we do need to look at these things, hopefully not to >repeat them. >
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 15 Jan 2007 15:32 On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:57:03 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >news:o57hq2hgacs104ki37lf6fd2d8lgjjulru(a)4ax.com... >> 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 already wrote some material about the debate about war powers for >> the president, so folks can refer to that other post for more details >> about those powers as planned for by the federal convention. However, >> they also never expected to see (and did what they could to prevent >> it) the idea of a standing army in the US. They were downright >> frightened of the idea and pretty much did everything they could to >> prevent any possibility of it. Several Federalist Papers are mostly >> dedicated to this problem and it was debated in various legislatures >> convened to approve or reject the Constitution. >> >> I think they honestly believed they had taken all necessary steps to >> prevent the possibility of a standing federal army and didn't believe >> it would happen. With that assumption in mind, the question of a >> president as commander-in-chief was reduced to only one of being the >> executive officer over an army formed for specific purposes by the >> Congress. And for that, most agreed that the president should be in >> command. But this was a case where the Congress had to first act in >> order to create an army (which takes money to do.) When the army >> exists all the time and is funded all the time, the question >> re-arises. And if they had had to face it, I'm sure they would NOT >> have permitted him such power. >> >> They simply didn't believe there was any real risk of a President >> running amok with a military presence in the US or elsewhere without >> Congressional approval and funding, since that would be needed in >> order to create the military that the President would then command. >> Since there was no standing army to worry about, a President couldn't >> go around fielding a military presence elsewhere without the time and >> Congressional funding approvals required. >> >> They felt sufficiently comfortable with a President being commander in >> chief during times of war __enabled__ by Congress. They felt that >> they had eliminated any risks of a President as commander in chief at >> other times, by removing the possibility of a standing, well-trained >> army which, to create, would require Congress to act. But on this >> last point, it turns out they were dead wrong. They hadn't removed >> the possibility of a standing army and they didn't face the question >> of a Presidency in control over a perpetual military force. > >Thank you for the interesting post. > >I am still unsure though, in the US can anyone declare "war?" Anyone can use the word. There are no 'language police' like France may have. >Does there have to be a formal declaration of war? The Presidential office was given the right to command the army and the navy, when they are created for a time by Congress. His title is 'commander-in-chief' and, so far as I'm aware of the history (and by no means am I an expert on it) this means the ability to direct the day to day operations -- like a General in command. The power was not constrained. He can literally command them into the streets of a city here and direct them to hold a town square, if he wanted to. Whether or not the military, so ordered, would obey the command is another question because there is a requirement that they only obey orders that are Constitutional. But which of them would set themselves up as a Constitutional scholar and disobey? So I think the effect of all this is that the President has absolute control over the military, consistent with the military commanders' own understanding of what is Constitutional. The check against this is largely "the purse," which is controlled by the House of Representatives. They can pull the official funding. However, even that seems to be specious. Under Carter, a presidential executive order forbade any US citizen or official or business from being involved in supplying arms into Central America. This order was recinded under Reagan, an administration that wanted to supply arms to the Contras (and others.) The Congress reacted to this by passing a series of Amendments to bills, which came to be known as the Boland Amendments, that put Carter's executive order into law. In effect, the President's budget for this kind of thing was limited to 24 million dollars a year -- which his administration (most expecially, George Bush the VP and some of his cohorts) felt was completely useless for their intents. This led them to find other ways. (1) They added a piece to a 1982 banking bill that for the first time extended federal guarantees to each account, rather than to each citizen. This allowed them to go to the banks, convince them they would be insured by the feds when the accounts went sour, and ordered them to make offshore loans as they indicated which would be used to buy arms and pay necessary graft. (2) They started a process of bringing in cocaine into the US, having agents contact known importers of marijuana and giving them a non-choice (forcing) of either being killed or else having their operation otherwise shut down or else helping them break up the cocaine and sell it for money they needed. This led to the change here in the US from where marijuana imports were a serious problem to where cocaine rapidly became the 'new drug' here. (3) They over-priced arms sales to Iran (and probably others), transfered the the book-price to the US and kept the rest of the profits for use in buying arms to ship into Central America. So even when the House acts to remove (or almost remove) funding, that doesn't mean that a motivated executive won't find some other means. Some of the people who were personally involved in that debacle, are back in important appointed positions in this administration, by the way. >Is it a presidential prerogative or one retained by congress? The House (1/2 of the Congress) sets funding levels. The executive branch uses that funding. Even if the House set a low funding level in order to just fund certain operations explicitly in the law, the executive branch could ignore the restrictions and use the money for purposes specifically barred in the legislation. He remains the day to day operational manager of the funds he is given. >Can war be declared on things like obesity, heart disease, poverty etc? It can. But that wuold be an abuse of the word. We have a war on the middle class going on here, too. But again that is an abuse of the word, I think. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 15 Jan 2007 16:00 On Mon, 15 Jan 07 12:42:10 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <sivkq2pl0b7gv8urglv2oo9hkdcia9elvg(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >I cannot read your 651 block post because it's too large to fit in >my machine's core. Sorry. I had no idea. I'll set it into smaller form for you. I apologize for not realizing your limitations. Would you like me to respond to my 651 line post, breaking it up? Or respond to your post again, adding two or three separate items? Also, what is your limitation? Jon
From: Michael A. Terrell on 15 Jan 2007 16:55
Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > > The Presidential office was given the right to command the army and > the navy, when they are created for a time by Congress. His title is > 'commander-in-chief' and, so far as I'm aware of the history (and by > no means am I an expert on it) this means the ability to direct the > day to day operations -- like a General in command. The power was not > constrained. He can literally command them into the streets of a city > here and direct them to hold a town square, if he wanted to. Whether > or not the military, so ordered, would obey the command is another > question because there is a requirement that they only obey orders > that are Constitutional. Read and learn about the "Bonus Army", where President Hoover ordered the US military to fire on a group of assembled Veterans. They were there asking for what had been promised to them, but the "Commander in Chief" <http://www.google.com/search?as_q=bonus+army&hl=en&newwindow=1&rls=GWYA%2CGWYA%3A2006-31%2CGWYA%3Aen&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=VA.gov&as_rights=&safe=images> President Hoover knew he had to curb the escalating violence. He gave the order for Army Chief of Staff Gen. Douglas MacArthur to forcibly remove from the city the approximately 3,500 veterans, many with their wives and children, who refused to leave. No shots were fired, but many were injured by bricks, clubs and bayonets. Although there are conflicting reports on which side started the fires, some of the marchers' shacks burned down. In the end, the presence of federal troops effectively ended the bonus march. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |