split emerges in US-UK axis
The Critic
Senior UK Defense Minister Hoon stated categorically that the European
Convention on Human Rights meant the UK could not hand over Osama Bin
Laden, the main suspect in the 11 September attacks on the US if he
faced the death penalty.
US Vice President Cheney had earlier demanded "We made it very clear
that we want Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar and their senior
leadership, and if they're taken alive we expect to take custody of
them,"
So, is the UK to defy its more powerful crony? Or is it to abandon its
much trumpeted commitment to human rights when the humans in question
happen to be Moslems?
Despite the insidious efforts of Satan's forces,
Truth will ultimately prevail victorious.
The TRUTH is now online at:
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/samoa/1382/index.html
andrew wainwright
because they refused to let justice run its cause- i.e. round up the
terrorism suspects and hand them over to international authorities.
Legally, the EU can only extradite those facing the death penalty to an
international war crimes court, not to any state.
But recent actions by the US government deny suspected terrorists a fair
trial. As far as I'm concerned, innocence till proven guilty is represents
everything the west stands for. Those who wish to curtail it are no better
than the terrorists themselves.
There's two choices. America vs Bin Laden or The World vs Bin Laden. The
world united is surely the best chance of beating terrorism. Bush needs to
listen to his allies and co-operate with them to bring those responsible for
sept 11 to justice.
Šee
get him despite what the Brits say. What Human Rights are we talking about
here?
If this does not happen, America would be more than willing to punish
Britain and the Europena Union.
--
Reminder: Dogs and books are man's best friends...
"The Critic" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c153c45...@news.freeserve.net...
athomik
>
> Senior UK Defense Minister Hoon stated categorically that the European
> Convention on Human Rights meant the UK could not hand over Osama Bin
> Laden, the main suspect in the 11 September attacks on the US if he
> faced the death penalty.
>
> US Vice President Cheney had earlier demanded "We made it very clear
> that we want Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar and their senior
> leadership, and if they're taken alive we expect to take custody of
> them,"
>
custody if some of the wilder Mujahideen groups get their hands on them
first?
--
athomik
Hotblack Desiato
"andrew wainwright" <an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9v3iff$nuj$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> IMO, Hoon is justified. I supported military action against the Taliban,
> because they refused to let justice run its cause- i.e. round up the
> terrorism suspects and hand them over to international authorities.
The Taliban did not refuse to hand over the suspect requested. The taliban
requested the evidence implicating bin-Laden before they'd consider handing
him over to any authority. This is entirrely justifiable and to be expected
of any governing body. No governing body should or could possibly hand
someone over just because the US, or indeed anyone else, demanded it
Duncan Idaho
"Hotblack Desiato" <judge...@gatec.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9v59n2$pk0$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "andrew wainwright" <an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9v3iff$nuj$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > IMO, Hoon is justified. I supported military action against the Taliban,
> > because they refused to let justice run its cause- i.e. round up the
> > terrorism suspects and hand them over to international authorities.
>
> The Taliban did not refuse to hand over the suspect requested. The taliban
> requested the evidence implicating bin-Laden before they'd consider
handing
> him over to any authority. This is entirrely justifiable and to be
expected
> of any governing body. No governing body should or could possibly hand
> someone over just because the US, or indeed anyone else, demanded it
You are entitled to your opinion. I might add that the right of
self-defense is also well-understood among nations. America is presently
exercising this right in Afghanistan. I hope that the dear chaps who chose
to aid, abet, and give comfort to Bin Laden and Al-Quaida, and not turn him
over to American justice, are happy with the results of their decision. I
know I am.
--
Roger J. Buffington
--
"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10
empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." --
President George W. Bush
Šee
cannot be exercised unilaterally. It has to be sanctioned by the UN. This is
the international law that The US agreed to abide by, but did not in this
case. That is why some of the allies are uneasy about the whole thing.
On the other hand. What happened to America imo justifies the reaction,
albeit the US should have resorted to the UN first. I doubt very much that
any country would have opposed eliminating terrorism in all its forms,
including State terrorism which is what we have with both Mugabe and Sharon,
however. I think Bush decided that this is not the time for debating, rather
it is time for action. This is why there is fear and opposition to expanding
the war beyond Afghanistan.
--
Reminder: Dogs and books are man's best friends...
"Duncan Idaho" <Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1tzR7.5404$Ha.15...@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
M1LT1ADES
convicted murderers is contrary to human rights. Though I agree that the use of
military tribunals is in poor taste. But wait a minute, isn't that what the UN
would set up to try the baddies? Of course the US Constitution guarantees a
speedy and public trial by jury to all of it's citizens and necessitates the
presumption of innocence. Unfortunately for most of these terrorist, they aint
American citizens. Nonetheless, I think it would have been better to give them
the same sort of legal process just to insure the world that everything is on
the up and up.
This could lead to a new interpretationof the US Constitution by the way,
depending on how events are laid out. The Fourteenth Amendment maintains that
there shall be equal protection under the law. This has not traditionally been
interpreted to guarantee foreign war criminals defendant's rights equal to
citizens but that could change. If for example a convicted person from one of
these military courts were to appeal to the Supreme Court and it agreed to hear
arguments things could get shook up real fast. It's a long shot (the court is
presently relatively conservative) but not imposible. The Supreme Court has
already ruled that certain protections afforded by law belong to non-citizens
on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment (and the fact that none of the
negative rights given in the Constitution specifically mention citizenship as a
prerequisite). We'll see, I suppose.
athomik
news:20011212024757...@mb-fz.news.cs.com...
Snip>
> This could lead to a new interpretationof the US Constitution by the way,
> depending on how events are laid out. The Fourteenth Amendment maintains
that
> there shall be equal protection under the law. This has not traditionally
been
> interpreted to guarantee foreign war criminals defendant's rights equal to
> citizens but that could change. If for example a convicted person from one
of
> these military courts were to appeal to the Supreme Court and it agreed to
hear
> arguments things could get shook up real fast. It's a long shot (the court
is
> presently relatively conservative) but not imposible. The Supreme Court
has
> already ruled that certain protections afforded by law belong to
non-citizens
> on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment (and the fact that none of the
> negative rights given in the Constitution specifically mention citizenship
as a
> prerequisite). We'll see, I suppose.
If the Laws and Constitution of a country are to be applied to try and
hopefully convict a foreigner of a crime, should those Laws and
Constitutions not automatically also apply when it comes to the rights they
grant?
Or is there something in American law which specifies that only one half
applies to foreigners?
BTW does the concept of 'war criminal' not imply an international court and
crimes against humanity? Otherwise it is merely a trial of an enemy for
doing what enemies do.
--
athomik
Raven
> Of course the US Constitution guarantees a speedy and public trial by jury
> to all of it's citizens and necessitates the presumption of innocence.
> Unfortunately for most of these terrorist, they aint American citizens.
The Bill of Rights never uses the word "citizen", but speaks of "persons"
such as "the accused" having rights.
[Fifth:] "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,
when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation."
[Sixth:] "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
By contrast, the right to vote and hold office is relevant to, and therefore
restricted to, citizenship.
[Fifteenth] "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of
race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Clearly the Constitution does distinguish rights held by citizens alone
(voting, holding office) from rights held by all, whether citizens or not;
and most rights are *not* restricted to citizens.
The founding document of the USA declares this principle of universal rights:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
-- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ...."
In turn, the Constitution of the United States also adheres to that principle,
by speaking of "persons" rather than "citizens" not only in the Bill of Rights,
but also in the Fourteenth Amendment:
"... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws."
That's not restricted to citizens. The Supreme Court spelled this out,
in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356 <http://laws.findlaw.com/us/118/356.html>
"The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they
complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of
China. ... The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the
protection of citizens. It says: 'Nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' These provisions
are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial
jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of
nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the
protection of equal laws."
This year's Supreme Court ruling Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) said that "the Due
Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including
aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."
<http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-7791.html>
The Constitution protects due process for citizen and foreigner alike.
Go back even further, to ex parte Milligan (1866):
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people,
equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection
all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances."
The idea that foreigners have no rights is itself foreign to the American
Constitution and Declaration of Independence. It is UN-American.
> The Fourteenth Amendment maintains that there shall be equal protection
> under the law. This has not traditionally been interpreted to guarantee
> foreign war criminals defendant's rights equal to citizens but that could
> change.
The 1949 Geneva Conventions (which the USA signed) do require that a foreign
defendant so charged must receive the same appeal rights as a soldier of the
nation trying him -- but Bush's order expressly denies such appeal rights.
See Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare. Chapter 8 covers War Crimes.
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/Ch8.htm
See particularly section II, paragraphs 502-511.
"Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 as War Crimes ...
"wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully depriving
a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial....
"Killing without trial spies or other persons who have committed hostile acts."
"... prisoners of war accused of war crimes benefit from the provisions of
GPW [Geneva Convention re Treatment of Prisoners of War], 27 July 1929,
especially Articles 82-108...."
This includes the *same right to appeal as the captor's own soldiers*.
Now quoting the Geneva Convention, in chapter 3 of the same manual:
"Every prisoner of war shall have, in the same manner as the members of the
armed forces of the Detaining Power, the right of appeal or petition from any
sentence pronounced upon him, with a view to the quashing or revising of the
sentence or the reopening of the trial. He shall be fully informed of his right
to appeal or petition and of the time limit within which he may do so."
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/CH3.htm#p181
> If for example a convicted person from one of these military courts were to
> appeal to the Supreme Court and it agreed to hear arguments things could get
> shook up real fast. It's a long shot (the court is presently relatively
> conservative) but not imposible.
Again, Bush's order *makes* that impossible, by denying such appeals:
"the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any
proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding
sought on the individual's behalf, in (i) any court of the United States, or
any State thereof, (ii) any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any
international tribunal."
This would mean that all the defendant's *other* rights could also be
violated, because without appeal none of those rights could be *enforced*.
Raven
> If the Laws and Constitution of a country are to be applied to try and
> hopefully convict a foreigner of a crime, should those Laws and
> Constitutions not automatically also apply when it comes to the rights they
> grant?
Yes. And according to our Supreme Court, they *do*:
Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) said that "the Due Process Clause applies to all
persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence
is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."
<http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-7791.html>
> Or is there something in American law which specifies that only one half
> applies to foreigners?
They lack only the rights to hold and vote office -- and not to be deported.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) was equally clear: "The fourteenth amendment to the
constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: 'Nor shall
any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws.' These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons
within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race,
of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge
of the protection of equal laws."
<http://laws.findlaw.com/us/118/356.html>
> BTW does the concept of 'war criminal' not imply an international court and
> crimes against humanity? Otherwise it is merely a trial of an enemy for
> doing what enemies do.
No, the Geneva Conventions recognize "universal jurisdiction" over war crimes,
crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace; any nation may prosecute
such offenses. The tribunal need not be international, although it *may* be.
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/jurisdiction-universal.html
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-humanity.html
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/categories-of-warcrimes.html
http://www.afla.unimaas.nl/en/act/index.html (and select the "Report for the
Seminar on Universal Jurisdiction for Crimes against Humanity", April 2000)
http://www.amnesty.ie/about/law5.shtml -->
"In line with the common provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions,
which are recalled in their Protocols, each state party undertakes
'to enact legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions'
for persons involved in grave breaches.
"In addition, the principle of universal jurisdiction would apply to
such crimes. Therefore, each state party: 'shall be under the obligation
to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be
committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless
of their nationality, before its own courts.'
"The Geneva Conventions allow a party, if it prefers, to hand such persons
over for trial to another state party, and require that, 'in all circumstances,
the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence'."
Duncan Idaho
"Šee" <pawnp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ylBR7.19291$%26.22...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Sorry to inform you that the "right to self defence" you are talking about
> cannot be exercised unilaterally. It has to be sanctioned by the UN. This
is
> the international law that The US agreed to abide by, but did not in this
> case. That is why some of the allies are uneasy about the whole thing.
Well, now. I am an attorney, and know something about the law. Would you
mind telling me where in the US Constitution, or by what law, the US is
required to ask permission of the UN before it defends itself? You cannot;
I assure you that no such requirement exists in American law, thought,
custom, or practice.
When the US does go through the UN for sanction, frankly, it is strictly for
political purposes.
> On the other hand. What happened to America imo justifies the reaction,
> albeit the US should have resorted to the UN first.
But it did not. America is a country that respects its own laws.
Accordingly, it is pretty obvious that you statement above that "the right
to self defense [I am talking about] cannot be exercised unilaterally" is
simply rubbish.
You need to learn to distinguish between the world as it is, and the world
as you would like it to be, or wish to pretend.
> I doubt very much that
> any country would have opposed eliminating terrorism in all its forms,
> including State terrorism which is what we have with both Mugabe and
Sharon,
> however. I think Bush decided that this is not the time for debating,
rather
> it is time for action. This is why there is fear and opposition to
expanding
> the war beyond Afghanistan.
I wish very much that the US would cut all ties with the Sharon government.
A different issue for a different thread. The fact is that the rest of the
world can either fall into line and follow the US lead, or not, as it
chooses. President Bush has made it clear that he is going to exterminate
the terrorists whether the seigneurs in France and other Leftists like it or
not. Remind us to thank the French for sending seven old, obsolete jet
planes to Afghanistan once the war was virtually over and won. Spineless
venality, thy name is France.
--
Roger J. Buffington
-----------------------------
"There is no avoiding the war we are in today, any more than we could have
avoided world war after our fleet was bombed at Pearl Harbor. America is
under attack by a depraved, malevolent force that opposes our every interest
and hates every value we hold dear."
Sen. John McCain
Duncan Idaho
> This could lead to a new interpretationof the US Constitution by the way,
> depending on how events are laid out. The Fourteenth Amendment maintains
that
> there shall be equal protection under the law. This has not traditionally
been
> interpreted to guarantee foreign war criminals defendant's rights equal to
> citizens but that could change.
It is unlikely that the US Supreme Court would rule against the tribunals
because it has already ruled on this precise issue. Forgive me for not
remembering the case, but it involved the War Crimes Trial of Japanese Gen.
Yamashita (the "Butcher of Manilla") by a US Military Commission. Yamashita
was found guilty and hanged, but his case was appealed to the Supreme Court
which upheld the right of the government to try foreign enemies by Military
Commission.
The SCOTUS is unlikely to reverse itself in light of the foregoing.
--
Roger
--------------
"We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and
those who harbor
them."
- President George W. Bush Sept. 11, 2001
Duncan Idaho
"athomik" <ma...@askadrian.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9v7n63$dh4qj$1...@ID-109418.news.dfncis.de...
> If the Laws and Constitution of a country are to be applied to try and
> hopefully convict a foreigner of a crime, should those Laws and
> Constitutions not automatically also apply when it comes to the rights
they
> grant?
>
> Or is there something in American law which specifies that only one half
> applies to foreigners?
>
to USS rights OR OBLIGATIONS. They are simply our deadly enemies, to be
disposed of as such. There is ample precedent for this.
Jon°
go along with the term axis, it has always seemed to me to be a term applied
to a continental type alliance between neighbour nations, such as France and
Germany, but I will let this go.
I am a 100% fan of Brit/American alliance, it makes sense, it has a
tradition and it works. What I would like to say though is that in your
posts in this thread you have never once mentioned Britain has having any
say in the future developments of the war on terrorism. We have been right
behind America, as we were in the gulf and we will no doubt continue to
follow this line. It is the right thing for people of the English speaking
world (even the Irish!!!) to help one another but it would be nice if you
over the other side of the Atlantic considered our feelings on future
operations a little. Wadda ya say ?
"Duncan Idaho" <Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ezoS7.3361$37.3...@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
Raven
> It is unlikely that the US Supreme Court would rule against the tribunals
> because it has already ruled on this precise issue. Forgive me for not
> remembering the case, but it involved the War Crimes Trial of Japanese Gen.
> Yamashita (the "Butcher of Manilla") by a US Military Commission. Yamashita
> was found guilty and hanged, but his case was appealed to the Supreme Court
> which upheld the right of the government to try foreign enemies by Military
> Commission.
>
> The SCOTUS is unlikely to reverse itself in light of the foregoing.
In that case (and the case of the German saboteurs, ex parte Quirin),
there had been a declaration of war by Congress (the only branch of
government authorized to declare war), which changes the balance of
military-vs-civilian powers. The USA has not declared war since 1941.
Duncan Idaho
"Jon°" <noty...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:CwpS7.2481$XF1.11...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>It is the right thing for people of the English speaking
> world (even the Irish!!!) to help one another but it would be nice if you
> over the other side of the Atlantic considered our feelings on future
> operations a little. Wadda ya say ?
I thought we did exactly that in the Gulf War. In fact, if memory serves,
Maggie flew over and admonished George not to "go wobbly" before the thing
got going.
It is true that we are a bit more out in front on this latest one, but come
on, we were attacked and you weren't. If the opposite were the case, I
presume that you all would be out in front with us coming along.
--
Roger J. Buffington
---------
France sent troops into Mazar-e Sharif after the fighting had stopped, noted
that renowned military analyst Jay Leno. ("Their mission?" asked Leno. "To
teach the Taliban how to surrender.")
Jon°
the Brits for supporting the Yanks physically and not just with words. I
have yet to read in any American newspaper the superb job our SAS has done
on your behalf, behind the Taliban lines.We have a quotation over here when
we remember our war dead it goes "Lest Ye forget".
Yep!, you was the one's bombed, but we did not take that into consideration,
90% of us (forget the small number of "merchant bankers" who post here, my
figure is the correct one) were right behind you, we thought that the attack
on you was also an attack on us, rightly so. We will be with you next time
and the time after and ad infinitum. Mind we have pretty good memories, give
yours a jog Duncan, there's a good chap.
("merchant banker" is Cockney rhyming slang, if your legally attuned mind
cannot work it out just ask)
"Duncan Idaho" <Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wvDS7.4621$37.5...@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
Duncan Idaho
> I can remember so many Americans posting here last September and thanking
> the Brits for supporting the Yanks physically and not just with words. I
> have yet to read in any American newspaper the superb job our SAS has done
> on your behalf, behind the Taliban lines.We have a quotation over here
when
> we remember our war dead it goes "Lest Ye forget".
Actually, the SAS, SBS (which I had never heard of before the instant war)
and other British contributions to the present conflict have gotten a great
deal of coverage here. I don't think you would feel that there was anything
to complain about if you were actually here seeing it, meaning no offense.
>
> Yep!, you was the one's bombed, but we did not take that into
consideration,
> 90% of us (forget the small number of "merchant bankers" who post here, my
> figure is the correct one) were right behind you, we thought that the
attack
> on you was also an attack on us, rightly so. We will be with you next time
> and the time after and ad infinitum. Mind we have pretty good memories,
give
> yours a jog Duncan, there's a good chap.
I don't understand what I am supposed to have forgotten. As I said, I know
of no one here who is unaware of Britain's contributionss and who is not
appreciative of same. You will recall that President Bush, in his address
to the nation and the Congress following 9/11, made the point of
acknowledging the close cooperation and support between our two countries,
and acknowledging the presence there of your PM. As an American of British
descent myself, I am pleased to see the strong US-UK alliance continue to
endure. There has been a great deal of discussion in the American press
(particularly TV and radio) about the US-UK alliance, and the fact that it
is unusually effective. Some of this discussion has also discussed how this
alliance will be affected by the absorbtion of the UK into the EU. The EU
has not been anything like as steadfast as Britain always is.
Jon°
my computer, have not shown as much as you say has been covered. I of course
totally accept that what you say is true and I am delighted.
Its Hollywood that is beginning to make us a little tetchy you know, recent
movies from the American film making industry have not shown the English in
a good light and perhaps some of us are becoming a little contentious
because of this. However we both know where our true feelings are, I think.
Incidentally, SBS stands for "Special Boat Services", now I do not know too
much about this regiment myself, but I have been told that their training
is equal to the SAS but they have added water wings technology.
"Duncan Idaho" <Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dDKS7.4626$37.5...@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
Duncan Idaho
> Ok Duncan I accept what you say, maybe the online American papers I read
on
> my computer, have not shown as much as you say has been covered. I of
course
> totally accept that what you say is true and I am delighted.
>
> Its Hollywood that is beginning to make us a little tetchy you know,
recent
> movies from the American film making industry have not shown the English
in
> a good light and perhaps some of us are becoming a little contentious
> because of this. However we both know where our true feelings are, I
think.
Which Hollywood movies made the UK look bad? Anyhow, Hollywood couldn't
possibly make you look any worse than it makes us look, grin.
>
> Incidentally, SBS stands for "Special Boat Services", now I do not know
too
> much about this regiment myself, but I have been told that their training
> is equal to the SAS but they have added water wings technology.
My understanding is that the Special Boat Service specializes in waterborne
assaults, hostage rescues, etc. just as the SAS emphasizes (I understand)
paratroop training.
Jon°
older then me (I am a late forties baby boy) but your fortitude and
resilience will make up for your extended maturity. I will rely on my skill
and ability to stay afloat and end up the victor in most circumstances.
At the present time it is 6/4 on me and 5/1 against you. However don't let
the odds frighten you, with a little massaging from Hollywood publicity you
will be favourite before the off.
May the best man get well and truly pissed.
"Duncan Idaho" <Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1HOS7.4639$37.6...@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
Duncan Idaho
> I challenge you to a three Olympic lengths breaststroke race. You may be
> older then me (I am a late forties baby boy) but your fortitude and
> resilience will make up for your extended maturity. I will rely on my
skill
> and ability to stay afloat and end up the victor in most circumstances.
>
> At the present time it is 6/4 on me and 5/1 against you. However don't let
> the odds frighten you, with a little massaging from Hollywood publicity
you
> will be favourite before the off.
>
> May the best man get well and truly pissed.
Actually, I am quite sure you would beat me at the breastroke, or any
swimming event, since I only swim a few times a year. We are about the same
age, BTW. I might have a better shot at beating you at bike riding or
running, those being my athletic passtimes.
Anyway, my point on this thread has simply been to reiterate that Americans
are very appreciative of the US-UK partnership/special relationship and it
does in fact receive a great deal of publicity over here. There is a bit
more flag-waving over here right now than usual because Americans are, quite
frankly, pretty ticked off at these terrorists. But this patriotism is not
intended to, and does not in fact, take away from the importance of the
US-UK alliance.
Jon°
forget though that a wild beast is at its most dangerous when cornered. I
fear that this bed Linen bloke may have saved something for a finale. He
knows he is a dead man and he may wish to leave a legacy. Therefore I hope
and pray that the intelligence services of the western world are not
underestimating his power to let leash one last evil shot.news:Ab5T7.4874$37.9...@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
Duncan Idaho
> You have every right to b pleased, your strategy has paid off. We must
never
> forget though that a wild beast is at its most dangerous when cornered. I
> fear that this bed Linen bloke may have saved something for a finale. He
> knows he is a dead man and he may wish to leave a legacy. Therefore I hope
> and pray that the intelligence services of the western world are not
> underestimating his power to let leash one last evil shot.
Yes, that possibility is discussed quite a bit over here as well. With
Ramadan ending and the Al-Quaida pretty much done in in Afghanistan, one
wonders.
--
Roger J. Buffington
--------------
"All human beings are guilty of being imperfect. But those who are quick to
blame America or Western civilization are seldom willing to compare our
imperfections with those of others. Instead, they condemn America or the
West for failing to come up to their arbitrary standard, while showering
others who fall even further below those standards with "understanding" in
the psychobabble sense."
Prof. Thomas Sowell
Duncan Idaho
"Raven" <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
news:7d8764ba.01121...@posting.google.com...
> Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) was equally clear: "The fourteenth amendment to
the
> constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: 'Nor
shall
> any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due
process
> of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of
> the laws.' These provisions are universal in their application, to all
persons
> within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of
race,
> of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a
pledge
> of the protection of equal laws."
Trial of war criminals outside of America's borders by US Military
Commissions is well-established under American law. If done properly, the
Supreme Court has already held that this does not violate the Constitution.
Basically, such trials do constitute "due process." Simply not the same due
process that would be afforded citizens.
As I recall, the Nazis got due process at Nuremburg. But not in American
courts.
--
Roger J. Buffington
------------------------------
Other great news over the weekend: Anthony Lewis quit. He's no longer
writing columns for the Times. Saturday's was his last. To give you an idea
how an out-of-touch liberal this guy was, in the same Week in Review
section, they asked him, "Have you changed your views on socialism?" He
responded, "...I'm still for it. But it doesn't work."
---Rush Limbaugh
Duncan Idaho
> In that case (and the case of the German saboteurs, ex parte Quirin),
> there had been a declaration of war by Congress (the only branch of
> government authorized to declare war), which changes the balance of
> military-vs-civilian powers. The USA has not declared war since 1941.
True but not relevant. American law generally recognizes that a
Congressional resolution supporting military action is sufficient for most
legalities applicable to a state of war to similarly be applicable. There
is some grey area, that is true--which is why Jane Fonda was not tried for
treason. In my opinion as an attorney she could have been and should have
been.
--
Roger J. Buffington
---------
France sent troops into Mazar-e Sharif after the fighting had stopped, noted
that renowned military analyst Jay Leno. ("Their mission?" asked Leno. "To
teach the Taliban how to surrender.")
'Twas the Dubya
The moon shone down on the new-fallen snow
And lit up the valley with an ominous glow,
When what to my one good eye should appear,
But a dozen Apaches, and tanks in the rear,
And their leader, so fearless, his troops he did push,
I knew in an instant it must be George Bush.
More rapid than eagles his forces they came,
And they whistled, and shouted, and called out our names;
'Now Omar! Osama! Muhammad! Abdul!
'We come for you now; we've taken Kabul!
'To the top of the cliffs! To the back of their caves!
'When you chose this war, you dug your own graves!'
-Author unknown
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>> Duncan Idaho <Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It is unlikely that the US Supreme Court would rule against the tribunals
>>> because it has already ruled on this precise issue. Forgive me for not
>>> remembering the case, but it involved the War Crimes Trial of Japanese
>>> Gen. Yamashita (the "Butcher of Manilla") by a US Military Commission.
I'm sorry, I should have provided you with a URL for that case:
Application of Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946):
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/327/1.html
>>> Yamashita was found guilty and hanged, but his case was appealed to the
>>> Supreme Court which upheld the right of the government to try foreign
>>> enemies by Military Commission.
>>>
>>> The SCOTUS is unlikely to reverse itself in light of the foregoing.
>>
>> In that case (and the case of the German saboteurs, ex parte Quirin),
>> there had been a declaration of war by Congress (the only branch of
>> government authorized to declare war), which changes the balance of
>> military-vs-civilian powers. The USA has not declared war since 1941.
>
> True but not relevant.
*Directly* relevant, as the Yamashita ruling itself states. The tribunal
(commission) which tried and convicted Yamashita had jurisdiction due to
"the authority sanctioned by Congress to administer the system of military
justice recognized by the law of war. That sanction is without qualification
as to the exercise of this authority so long as a state of war exists --
from its declaration until peace is proclaimed."
Likewise, the USA's military are subject to the death penalty for certain
offenses (striking or disobeying a superior officer, revealing a password,
abandoning or being drunk or asleep at a sentry post) only in time of war,
not in time of peace (UCMJ Articles 90, 101, and 113 respectively).
Various other parts of US Code grant the President certain powers in war
he lacks in peace, including suspending major privacy rights. So the
presence or absence of a "state of war" makes a major difference in law.
That "state of war" can only be "turned on" by a declaration of war from
the Congress, under Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution.
There are several ways it can be "turned off" afterwards, also unambiguously:
"'The state of war' may be terminated by treaty or legislation or Presidential
proclamation. Whatever the modes, its termination is a political act. ... The
same considerations of reason, authority, and history... led us to reject
reading the statutory language 'declared war'* to mean 'actual hostilities'..."
(* [footnote 16] "We should point out that it is conceded that a 'state of war'
was 'formally declared' against Germany. Act of December 11, 1941....")
-- Ludecke v Watkins (1948) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/335/160.html
> American law generally recognizes that a Congressional resolution supporting
> military action is sufficient for most legalities applicable to a state of
> war to similarly be applicable.
No. The War Powers Resolution (in 50 USC 1541) authorizes the President to
send US Armed Forces into hostilities under three circumstances, listed as:
"(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a
national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories
or possessions, or its armed forces."
The resolution you mention, such as the authorization passed this September 14,
would be item 2. That is a different matter from item 1 (declaration of war).
If they were the same thing, one of those items would be superfluous due to
the redundancy. But the law is not to be interpreted in such a way, which
would commit "the evil of rendering duplicative two statutory provisions
simultaneously adopted by Congress. [...] It is this sort of redundancy --
i.e., the suggestion that Congress intentionally adopted, at a single time,
two separate provisions having the same meaning - that calls a particular
statutory interpretation into question."
-- 486 U.S. 825 (1988) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/486/825.html
> There is some grey area, that is true --
No, it's a binary state, on or off. A clear act is required, either way.
What may have confused you is that a formal "state of war" might not exist
despite actual hostilities occurring, but the two are not the same (as SCOTUS
pointed out in Ludecke, above). The word "war" is often used generically for
any armed conflict; but "state of war" is a term of art, and quite specific.
The fact that newspapers and flacks eagerly label every conflict a "war"
(including the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Poverty") does not make it
legally a "state of war". Hype doesn't toggle that *legal* condition.
As the US Congress had not declared war since WWII, the provisions triggered
by the "state of war" have not applied since then, even during the conflicts
in Korea and Vietnam, as Supreme Court Justices have occasionally commented:
"[T]here had been no declaration of war accompanying the Korean conflict."
-- Holmes v U.S. (1968) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/391/936.html
"There has been no declaration of war by the Congress." [said re Vietnam]
-- Morse v Boswell (1969) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/393/1052.html
"No declaration of war has been made respecting Vietnam."
-- Sarnoff v Schultz (1972) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/409/929.html
All the references to these as the Korean WAR and Vietnam WAR are unofficial,
because legally there was no "state of war".
The absence of a "state of war" is why the Rosenbergs in the US (like Klaus
Fuchs in the UK) were not charged with treason, because there was no *war*
with the USSR. (The Rosenbergs were executed for espionage, a crime not
dependent on the "state of war").
Likewise, ABC News reported on December 10 about John Walker, the captured
American among the Taliban, John Walker: "some legal analysts say charging
him with treason could be difficult because there's been no American
declaration of war."
> which is why Jane Fonda was not tried for treason. In my opinion as an
> attorney she could have been and should have been.
Roger, I'm afraid that is unlikely to help your professional reputation as
an attorney. I have just cited the comments that there was no state of war
declared for the Vietnam conflict (it was not *officially* the "Vietnam War"),
so there was no *enemy* for her to give aid and comfort to. Absent such an
official "enemy", the US Constitution's definition of "treason" can't apply.
Duncan Idaho
> All the references to these as the Korean WAR and Vietnam WAR are
unofficial,
> because legally there was no "state of war".
>
> The absence of a "state of war" is why the Rosenbergs in the US (like
Klaus
> Fuchs in the UK) were not charged with treason, because there was no *war*
> with the USSR. (The Rosenbergs were executed for espionage, a crime not
> dependent on the "state of war").
>
> Likewise, ABC News reported on December 10 about John Walker, the captured
> American among the Taliban, John Walker: "some legal analysts say
charging
> him with treason could be difficult because there's been no American
> declaration of war."
While other legal scholars feel otherwise. American law has evolved
considerably since WW2, and there is a growing legal consensus that a
Congressional resolution such as the one in connection with the Gulf War, or
the War on Terror, is sufficient to activate those legal exceptions that are
only effective in "time of war." Your "black-or-white" and "binary"
approach to legal theory is usually (and in this case is definitely) a sure
sign of error--things are rarely that clear cut in law.
Put simply, it appears that a "Declaration of War" is becoming increasingly
irrelevant from both a legal and political standpoint. Tens of thousands of
American soldiers, and thousands of American civilians, have been killed
since WW2 without the existence of a Declaration of War--before, during, or
after the occurrence of these deaths. A little logic (and perhaps a little
less pomposity on your part) would have revealed to you that President Bush
would not have authorized trial by military commissions had he not been
advised by competent counsel in the Department of Justice that there was
sound legal ground for this. This does not equate to your simplistic
"binary" black-or-white point of view, does it?
I am always amazed by people who are utterly unable to see the other side of
an argument. Occasionally such persons become lawyers. I regularly trounce
such persons in court.
>
> > which is why Jane Fonda was not tried for treason. In my opinion as an
> > attorney she could have been and should have been.
>
> Roger, I'm afraid that is unlikely to help your professional reputation as
> an attorney.
My professional reputation is incapable of being touched by any action,
opinion, or statement you might make.
>I have just cited the comments that there was no state of war
> declared for the Vietnam conflict (it was not *officially* the "Vietnam
War"),
> so there was no *enemy* for her to give aid and comfort to. Absent such
an
> official "enemy", the US Constitution's definition of "treason" can't
apply.
Too bad lots of legal scholars disagree with you. However, since you are
incapable of seeing any point of view other than your own, it is useless to
argue.
--
Roger J. Buffington
______
"Anyone who represents himself in court has a fool for a client. And a
jackass for a lawyer." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1845
Raven
>> unofficial, because legally there was no "state of war".
>>
>> The absence of a "state of war" is why the Rosenbergs in the US (like
>> Klaus Fuchs in the UK) were not charged with treason, because there was
>> no *war* with the USSR. (The Rosenbergs were executed for espionage, a
>> crime not dependent on the "state of war").
>>
>> Likewise, ABC News reported on December 10 about John Walker, the captured
>> American among the Taliban, John Walker: "some legal analysts say
>> charging him with treason could be difficult because there's been no
>> American declaration of war."
Again, I should have provided a cite.
"Walker Talking, Recuperating at U.S. Base", by ABCNEWS.com, Dec. 10, 2001:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/abc/20011210/ts/strike_walker011209_1.html
> While other legal scholars feel otherwise.
Cite?
> American law has evolved considerably since WW2,
Yes, that was the problem with Bush's tribunal order. It was based on the
1942 FDR order, and ignored subsequent changes in US law including the UCMJ
(and the 1949 Geneva Conventions).
> and there is a growing legal consensus that a Congressional resolution
> such as the one in connection with the Gulf War, or the War on Terror,
> is sufficient to activate those legal exceptions that are only effective
> in "time of war."
Er, no. It's one of the three circumstances * sufficient to authorize the
President's use of military force, as the War Powers Resolution specifies.
[* "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a
national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories
or possessions, or its armed forces." -- 50 USC 1541.]
But authorization (item 2) ia a separate matter from the legal "state of war"
which only a Congressional declaration of war (item 1) can trigger.
The Supreme Court (in Ludecke v Watkins) rejected equating a state of
"actual hostilities" to the state of "declared war".
I'd welcome your citing a "legal consensus" that disregards a SCOTUS ruling.
> Your "black-or-white" and "binary" approach to legal theory
Not to "legal theory" in general; to the legal "state of war" in specific.
> is usually (and in this case is definitely) a sure sign of error --
Yet I'm saying so *because* the Supreme Court has said that the military-over-
civilian authority dependent on a "state of war" doesn't exist unless and until
Congress expressly and unambiguously declares it. To borrow the phrasing
from Coleman v Tennessee, "no such intention should be ascribed to Congress
in the absence of clear and direct language to that effect." Since Congress
*can* declare war unambiguously, and has declined to do so, the presumption
must be that the *legal* "state of war" is not in existence.
This also fits a more general principle of law, that for someone to have fair
notice of what the laws are and therefore what he is obliged to do, the law
must be clear, and if there is ambiguity as to criminal liability -- especially
when the sentence may be death -- he should be given "lenity". This is benefit
of doubt about the law, as distinct from benefit of doubt about factual guilt.
That is, when there *is* a grey area, it is resolved in the favor of peace.
> things are rarely that clear cut in law.
Again, "law" in general was not the question; "state of war" was the question.
> Put simply, it appears that a "Declaration of War" is becoming increasingly
> irrelevant from both a legal and political standpoint.
No, Congress has had bills introduced to *declare* war since September 11:
House Joint Resolutions 62 and 63 (H.J. Res. 62 & H.J. Res. 63), on Sept. 13.
With these bills, the question of declaring a state of war was specifically
brought up for consideration. They were not adopted. The resolution that
*was* adopted *omits* any declaration of war. That speaks to intent.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.+Res.+62:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?
dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:hj62ih.txt.pdf (cut-and-paste 2 lines)
[HJRes62] "DECLARATION OF WAR. Pursuant to Article 1, section 8 of the United
States Constitution, the Congress hereby declares that a state of war exists
between the United States and -- (1) any entity that committed the acts of
international terrorism against the United States on September 11, 2001, or
commits acts of international terrorism against the United States thereafter;
and (2) any country or entity that has provided or provides support or
protection for any entity described in paragraph (1)." [NOT adopted.]
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.+Res.+63:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?
dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:hj63ih.txt.pdf (cut-and-paste 2 lines)
[HJRes63] "DECLARATION OF WAR. Congress hereby declares that a state of war
exists between the United States of America and any entity determined by the
President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks
against the United States on September 11, 2001." [NOT adopted]
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.+Res.+64:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?
dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:hj64ath.txt.pdf (cut-and-paste 2 lines)
[HJRes64] "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. ... the
President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against
those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts
of international terrorism against the United States by such nations,
organizations or persons." [THIS was adopted.]
If Congress had wanted to declare war, it could have done so. It declined.
This was not an oversight, because two express declarations were considered.
> Tens of thousands of American soldiers, and thousands of American civilians,
> have been killed since WW2 without the existence of a Declaration of War --
> before, during, or after the occurrence of these deaths.
Certainly: in police actions, U.N.-authorized and otherwise; and in automobile
accidents, house fires, and tavern brawls, among other incidents -- none of
which constitute a legal "state of war". You're making irrelevant objections.
> A little logic (and perhaps a little less pomposity on your part) would have
> revealed to you that President Bush would not have authorized trial by
> military commissions had he not been advised by competent counsel in the
> Department of Justice that there was sound legal ground for this.
Alas, the head of that Department, Attorney General John Ashcroft, is not
a good example in support of your argument, as you might want to be aware.
> This does not equate to your simplistic "binary" black-or-white point of
> view, does it?
Since you mistake a statement that the "state of war" is a binary state
(on or off -- so that UCMJ Articles 90, 101, and 113 either *do* or *do not*
carry the death penalty) for a general statement about the entire field of law,
you haven't shown yourself able to tell whether *anything* "equates" to it.
If your idea that "legal exceptions that are only effective in 'time of war'"
are not black and white but grey areas had been generally adopted, then who,
including judges, could ever be sure whether we were or were not under martial
law, whether the civilian courts could or could not open for business today,
or whether anyone might be subject to arrest or possibly execution for acts
the law treats differently between "time of peace" and "time of war"?
Perhaps the mayor and city council have no business making regulations today,
and we should be turning to our military commander for orders? What *is* the
chain of command? Who's in charge, the military or the civil government?
If someone breaks a shop window, should he be arrested or shot on sight as a
looter? If arrested, should he be taken to a civilian or a military hearing?
If convicted, should he be imprisoned or executed? These are not trivial
matters. Your version of the law would leave them unsettled and undetermined,
for no-one could be certain just what the status of the law really *is* --
there would be no clear *notice* to anyone of which laws they were to obey.
The Supreme Court has rejected such reasoning, as do I.
> I am always amazed by people who are utterly unable to see the other
> side of an argument. Occasionally such persons become lawyers.
> I regularly trounce such persons in court.
Given your incapacity to address an argument here, I'll reserve my opinion.
>>> which is why Jane Fonda was not tried for treason. In my opinion as an
>>> attorney she could have been and should have been.
>>
>> Roger, I'm afraid that is unlikely to help your professional reputation
>> as an attorney.
>
> My professional reputation is incapable of being touched by any action,
> opinion, or statement you might make.
Alas, your professional reputation is capable of being touched by your *own*
actions, opinions, and statements, such as the one "that" I was referring to.
Luckily, you have not tried making it in a professional capacity. A judge
might issue a much more scornful correction than I was inclined to do.
>> I have just cited the comments that there was no state of war declared
>> for the Vietnam conflict (it was not *officially* the "Vietnam War"),
>> so there was no *enemy* for her to give aid and comfort to. Absent such
>> an official "enemy", the US Constitution's definition of "treason" can't
>> apply.
>
> Too bad lots of legal scholars disagree with you.
Feel free to cite them. If the Rosenbergs (like Fuchs in the UK) couldn't
be charged with treason when there was no declared war, the same principle
applies to Jane Fonda and John Walker. Given Nixon's attitudes toward dissent
in general, if he'd been able to charge treason, he would have done it.
> However, since you are incapable of seeing any point of view other
> than your own, it is useless to argue.
Roger, you haven't shown yourself capable of even understanding the statements
you've quoted and responded to, so indeed it is useless for you to argue.
But Merry Christmas, and may you and your family have a joyous New Year.
Raven
>> Your "black-or-white" and "binary" approach to legal theory
>
> Not to "legal theory" in general; to the legal "state of war" in specific.
>
>> is usually (and in this case is definitely) a sure sign of error --
>
> Yet I'm saying so *because* the Supreme Court has said that the
> exist unless and until Congress expressly and unambiguously declares it.
> To borrow the phrasing from Coleman v Tennessee, "no such intention
> should be ascribed to Congress in the absence of clear and direct
> language to that effect."
To quote Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University,
writing in the Los Angeles Times ("A War Powers Quandary", December 21):
"Under the Constitution, the state of war carries enormous significance.
It allows a president to do things that he could not do in peacetime.
The Supreme Court has allowed even the internment of Japanese Americans
in World War II under the constitutional wartime powers of a president. ...
"The Constitution requires Congress to declare a war and, in the process,
to define both our enemies and our objectives in taking up arms. It is
with this exclusive authority that Congress moves a nation from a state
of peace to a state of war. ...
"Under the Constitution, the state of war is not defined by the means used
by a president or the threat faced by the nation. ...
"It is dangerous to treat an ambiguous resolution of Congress as the
functional equivalent of a declaration of war. Such precedent would allow
for tremendous abuse in future administrations, allowing a war to drift
from country to country without any formal declaration."
Duncan Idaho
>
What are you: incapable of thought? Who do you think advised President Bush
on the tribunal issue? Hint: the US Department of Justice. How is that for
a cite? How about Attorney General Ashcroft's testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee two weeks ago? Are his statements there a sufficient
cite for you?
You have done in your post what a lot of USENET posters do: you have made a
bunch of arguments that are not reflective of reality, and perhaps you have
even convinced yourself. Unfortunately, this form of masterbation doesn't
bear any more fruit than the other kind. :-)
> Er, no. It's one of the three circumstances * sufficient to authorize the
> President's use of military force, as the War Powers Resolution specifies.
>
> [* "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3)
a
> national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its
territories
> or possessions, or its armed forces." -- 50 USC 1541.]
Er, sorry my dear chap, but Attorney General Ashcroft and DOJ has concluded
that the instant Congressional resolution supporting action against
terrorism is sufficient. Too bad if you don't think so, and I am sure that
you can make all kinds of arguments (none very interesting) that they are
mistaken, but there is no reality in your opinions. They are just, well,
er, opinions....
Wrong ones.
>
> But authorization (item 2) ia a separate matter from the legal "state of
war"
> which only a Congressional declaration of war (item 1) can trigger.
>
> The Supreme Court (in Ludecke v Watkins) rejected equating a state of
> "actual hostilities" to the state of "declared war".
>
> I'd welcome your citing a "legal consensus" that disregards a SCOTUS
ruling.
Sorry. It is Christmas Eve and I don't feel the need to go look up some
obscure case that no one is citing. In reality if you paid any attention to
the Ashcroft testimony before the Senate, you would have seen that even the
Senators did not really question the legality of our Military Commissions.
They merely felt that more Congressional involvement was desirable. In
other words, no one but you is interested in your arguments.
> Yet I'm saying so *because* the Supreme Court has said that the
military-over-
> civilian authority dependent on a "state of war" doesn't exist unless and
until
> Congress expressly and unambiguously declares it.
Notice that they didn't say: "declare war by the means specified in the
Constitution." Once again, you are starting with a false premise and going
nowhere with it. Sorry, not valid and not even very interesting.
> That is, when there *is* a grey area, it is resolved in the favor of
peace.
In your dreams. Try telling Usama Bin Laden that, pal. There is no
declaration of war, but he apparently got a cruise missile up his ass a week
ago. He is probably a goner.
> With these bills, the question of declaring a state of war was
specifically
> brought up for consideration. They were not adopted. The resolution that
> *was* adopted *omits* any declaration of war. That speaks to intent.
I run across hacks like you all the time. You fall in love with an argument
you have concocted and then you ignore reality. The reality is that no one
agrees with you for the reasons I have given. Too bad if you are too in
love with your point of view to see this.
> Roger, you haven't shown yourself capable of even understanding the
statements
> you've quoted and responded to, so indeed it is useless for you to argue.
You have shown yourself incapable of perceiving reality. A dangerous trait
in a would-be lawyer.
I am not interested in showing you anything. As I said, I run across fools
like you often. They never accomplish anything.
--
Roger J. Buffington
---------------------------------
I have only met a few men who didn't deserve shooting at one time or
another, and I can't remember liking any of them.
--
A free market economy can operate without the public's understanding how it
operates. But it will not be permitted to operate if demagogues play on that
ignorance to gain the power to impose massive political controls, as some
are always trying to do.
--Thomas Sowell
Duncan Idaho
>
> "It is dangerous to treat an ambiguous resolution of Congress as the
> functional equivalent of a declaration of war. Such precedent would allow
> for tremendous abuse in future administrations, allowing a war to drift
> from country to country without any formal declaration."
He may even be right. But that is what we are doing. There is a broad
consensus in the legal community that the instant resolution is sufficient
for all of the purposes that the President has invoked it: including bombing
of foreign countries, the introduction of US troops into combat, and the
trial of war enemies by US Military Commissions. You may feel that this is
illegal or improper, but you are wrong.
In legal thought there is a concept of which you are grossly ignorant: it is
called "legal realism." What this means broadly put is that the law is what
the consensus of judges and other legal authority says it is. [The classic
definition of "legal realism" is that the law is what courts rule it to be.]
In this case it is plain that despite all your funsy arguments, America will
place troops in combat, use high levels of military force, and try enemies
by Military Commissions based upon the existing resolution. You may deny
reality all you like, but that is plainly what is happening. You have
fallen in love with your point of view to the exclusion of reality.
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>> Duncan Idaho <Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>>>> All the references to these as the Korean WAR and Vietnam WAR are
>>>> unofficial, because legally there was no "state of war".
>>>>
>>>> The absence of a "state of war" is why the Rosenbergs in the US (like
>>>> Klaus Fuchs in the UK) were not charged with treason, because there was
>>>> no *war* with the USSR. (The Rosenbergs were executed for espionage, a
>>>> crime not dependent on the "state of war").
>>>>
>>>> Likewise, ABC News reported on December 10 about John Walker, the
>>>> captured American among the Taliban, John Walker: "some legal analysts
>>>> say charging him with treason could be difficult because there's been no
>>>> American declaration of war."
>>
>>> While other legal scholars feel otherwise.
>>
>
> What are you: incapable of thought?
Not at all. It is because I *think*, not blindly accept all you say,
that I ask whether you can support your claims. Apparently you cannot.
> Who do you think advised President Bush on the tribunal issue?
That's a question, not an answer. I might *speculate* that it was someone
within his administration, but then he has advisors both in and out of it,
the Heritage Foundation for an example of outside advisors. He also has
made notorious gaffes (like "crusade"), so it's not a safe assumption that
his advisors are the source of his statements.
You claimed that legal *scholars* feel otherwise. That suggests the
existence of a scholarly argument which can be cited. If the position
is coming from Karl Rove or Karen Hughes, well, they're not scholars.
> Hint: the US Department of Justice.
Hint? So is that a definite answer? Or a guess?
> How is that for a cite?
It sucks. That's a department, not the name/URL/cite of a position paper
justifying an argument with legal scholarship.
If I'd given just "The Supreme Court" as a cite, that would have sucked just
as badly. When I relied on them as a source, I *cited* specific rulings,
with enough information (usually the URLs) to look them up.
If you don't know the difference, it speaks ill of your professional skills.
> How about Attorney General Ashcroft's testimony before the Senate Judiciary
> Committee two weeks ago? Are his statements there a sufficient cite for you?
Here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2001/
1206transcriptsenatejudiciarycommittee.htm
(Long URL, split in two for line length limits; cut-and-paste to use)
What did he say about trying Walker for treason, or how there could be a legal
"state of war" in the absence of a Congressional declaration of war? Nothing.
So what use was it to cite something that doesn't *mention* the question
you cite it to answer? None.
> You have done in your post what a lot of USENET posters do: you have made a
> bunch of arguments that are not reflective of reality, and perhaps you have
> even convinced yourself. Unfortunately, this form of masterbation doesn't
> bear any more fruit than the other kind. :-)
What a marvelous self-description, Roger. I cited sources, you couldn't.
You began debating with me using the pompous claim of superior opinion --
"In my opinion as an attorney" -- yet when your position is debunked by
reference to actual cases, you decry *that* as pomposity. You solemnly
claim support from "legal consensus" and "other legal scholars", but when
asked for cites you cannot name a single one. Argument weak, yell like hell.
>>> and there is a growing legal consensus that a Congressional resolution
>>> such as the one in connection with the Gulf War, or the War on Terror,
>>> is sufficient to activate those legal exceptions that are only effective
>>> in "time of war."
>>
>> Er, no. It's one of the three circumstances * sufficient to authorize the
>> President's use of military force, as the War Powers Resolution specifies.
>>
>> [* "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3)
>> a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its
>> territories or possessions, or its armed forces." -- 50 USC 1541.]
>
> Er, sorry my dear chap, but Attorney General Ashcroft and DOJ has concluded
> that the instant Congressional resolution supporting action against
> terrorism is sufficient.
Sufficient to authorize military force, Roger. Its actual title says so:
"Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces". That makes it an
item 2 (specific statutory authorization), not item 1 (declaration of war).
I've already cited for you the two separate declarations of war that were
proposed and *not* adopted. Congress chose *not* to declare war.
> Too bad if you don't think so, and I am sure that you can make all kinds
> of arguments (none very interesting) that they are mistaken, but there is
> no reality in your opinions. They are just, well, er, opinions....
>
> Wrong ones.
You have yet to cite anything to support this opinion of yours.
I have cited multiple sources, and you are free to go back and read them.
>> But authorization (item 2) ia a separate matter from the legal "state of
>> war" which only a Congressional declaration of war (item 1) can trigger.
>>
>> The Supreme Court (in Ludecke v Watkins) rejected equating a state of
>> "actual hostilities" to the state of "declared war".
>>
>> I'd welcome your citing a "legal consensus" that disregards a SCOTUS ruling.
>
> Sorry. It is Christmas Eve and I don't feel the need to go look up some
> obscure case that no one is citing.
Nor could you cite anything to support your own position.
That's convincing in your view, is it?
> In reality if you paid any attention to the Ashcroft testimony before the
> Senate,
For which, please note, I, not you, provided the URL citation.
> you would have seen that even the Senators did not really question the
> legality of our Military Commissions.
The "Military Commissions" order was directed to the Department of Defense,
not to the Department of Justice. The Senators did not question Ashcroft
about drilling for oil in the Arctic, either, for the same reason: it was
not being done through his department.
> They merely felt that more Congressional involvement was desirable.
Congress involved in writing laws and setting due process? What a concept.
> In other words, no one but you is interested in your arguments.
Gee, the tax rebate debate didn't involve this argument, either. We could
cite endless reams of discussions on *other topics* which don't involve this
argument. Which would only show they were discussing something else instead.
Your irrelevant objections, Roger, are mere handwaving, trying to distract
discussion from the present issue. I take that as your concession that you
cannot address the issue and are too ashamed to admit the fact.
>> Yet I'm saying so *because* the Supreme Court has said that the
>> military-over-civilian authority dependent on a "state of war"
>> doesn't exist unless and until Congress expressly and unambiguously
>> declares it.
>
> Notice that they didn't say: "declare war by the means specified in the
> Constitution."
Handwaving again, Roger? The Congress had bills introduced to declare war.
It didn't adopt them. The bill adopted didn't declare war.
> Once again, you are starting with a false premise and going nowhere with it.
Straw man, Roger. You're fighting an argument you concocted yourself.
> Sorry, not valid and not even very interesting.
I'll forgive you this time, but try to keep your arguments valid and...
well, if not *interesting*, at least *relevant* to the topic at hand.
>> That is, when there *is* a grey area, it is resolved in the favor of
>> peace.
>
> In your dreams. Try telling Usama Bin Laden that, pal. There is no
> declaration of war, but he apparently got a cruise missile up his ass a week
> ago. He is probably a goner.
Just as North Korean and North Vietnamese forces got bombed (strafed, napalmed,
or other forms of attack), yet the United States was legally in a time of peace
such that the treason statute did not apply. Once again, you mistake "actual
hostilities" for a "declared war", which is just what the Supreme Court said
it rejects as a reading of law. Ludecke v Watkins, 1948. Again.
>> With these bills, the question of declaring a state of war was specifically
>> brought up for consideration. They were not adopted. The resolution that
>> *was* adopted *omits* any declaration of war. That speaks to intent.
>
> I run across hacks like you all the time. You fall in love with an argument
> you have concocted and then you ignore reality.
No, I've asked you for cites supporting your position. You couldn't give any.
However, I've given you bunches of cites -- which you didn't bother to read.
If one of us is ignoring reality, Roger, it isn't me.
> The reality is that no one agrees with you for the reasons I have given.
Ah, no-one agrees with Ludecke? Then no doubt it's overturned. Where? When?
You can give a cite of this, yes? No? Then it's still the law of the land.
> Too bad if you are too in love with your point of view to see this.
From you, Roger, this is hilarious. You have *nothing* to go on, no facts,
no cites, no reasoning, nothing at all. You merely burble on, pompously.
>> Roger, you haven't shown yourself capable of even understanding the
>> statements you've quoted and responded to, so indeed it is useless
>> for you to argue.
>
> You have shown yourself incapable of perceiving reality. A dangerous trait
> in a would-be lawyer.
Roger, I'm not a "would-be lawyer", and have never claimed to be.
I merely cite the facts, which you then ignore; and ask you for cites, which
you show yourself incapable of finding. Readers can judge for themselves.
> I am not interested in showing you anything.
In other words, you give up, because your position is insupportable.
> As I said, I run across fools like you often.
People who treat you as a reasonable person, you mean? People who cite both
statutes and rulings, or notable precedents like the Rosenbergs, in the hope
that you will emerge from your dreamworld to see how the law actually behaves?
> They never accomplish anything.
Not for you, poor Roger. Dream on, while others around you are awake.
Raven
>> writing in the Los Angeles Times ("A War Powers Quandary", December 21):
>> "It is dangerous to treat an ambiguous resolution of Congress as the
>> functional equivalent of a declaration of war. Such precedent would allow
>> for tremendous abuse in future administrations, allowing a war to drift
>> from country to country without any formal declaration."
>
> He may even be right. But that is what we are doing.
Er, no. So far, what has actually been *done* is to treat a statutory
authorization for the use of military force *as* a statutory authorization
for the use of military force. That's item 2 on the 3-item list of reasons
the War Powers Resolution gives as authorizing the President to send troops
into hostilities (or imminent hostilities). A declaration of war is item 1.
These are two separate things. A declaration of war *also* triggers various
other provisions of US law, creating a legal "state of war". The statutory
authorization does not. Congress considered both options, and chose item 2.
There has been no declaration of war by the USA since World War II.
> There is a broad consensus in the legal community that the instant
> resolution is sufficient for all of the purposes that the President
> has invoked it: including bombing of foreign countries,
Correct, although notice that we are in *cooperation* with the recognized
government of the foreign country in question -- the Northern Alliance --
and have *not* declared war on them. There is no war between the USA and
Afghanistan; just a joint police action against armed criminals there.
> the introduction of US troops into combat,
Again, correct, as specifically authorized under the War Powers Act.
> and the trial of war enemies by US Military Commissions.
The problem being that, legally, there is no *war*, thus no "war enemies".
> You may feel that this is illegal or improper, but you are wrong.
Again, I welcome your citing this "legal consensus". So far, you haven't.
If it existed anywhere outside your own mind, you could do so. But you can't.
That makes the rest of your yammering about "reality" and "realism" rather
ironic. It would even be funny, if it weren't so pitiful.
> In legal thought there is a concept of which you are grossly ignorant: it is
> called "legal realism." What this means broadly put is that the law is what
> the consensus of judges and other legal authority says it is. [The classic
> definition of "legal realism" is that the law is what courts rule it to be.]
> In this case it is plain that despite all your funsy arguments, America will
> place troops in combat, use high levels of military force, and try enemies
> by Military Commissions based upon the existing resolution. You may deny
> reality all you like, but that is plainly what is happening. You have
> fallen in love with your point of view to the exclusion of reality.
In short, I have cited laws and rulings which you haven't bothered to read,
and you have cited nothing, despite repeated invitations.
Pound the table all you like, it's still just "Argument Weak, Yell Like Hell".
Duncan Idaho
> >>
> >>> While other legal scholars feel otherwise.
> >>
> >> Cite?
> >
> > What are you: incapable of thought?
>
> Not at all. It is because I *think*, not blindly accept all you say,
> that I ask whether you can support your claims. Apparently you cannot.
I gave you support, as well as cites. Good article by military source
(annotated with cites) about the "Declaration of War" not being the
threshhold for war at www.usni.com -- enjoy.
>
> > Who do you think advised President Bush on the tribunal issue?
>
> That's a question, not an answer. I might *speculate* that it was someone
> within his administration, but then he has advisors both in and out of it,
> the Heritage Foundation for an example of outside advisors. He also has
> made notorious gaffes (like "crusade"), so it's not a safe assumption that
> his advisors are the source of his statements.
No, it was an answer, not a question. The Attorney General and his staff,
the entire Department of Justice, officially advised President Bush that in
order for trial of war enemies by military commission to be legal, the
existing declaration by Congress was sufficient. This was the substance of
Mr. Aschcroft's testimony before the Senate two weeks ago.
It appears that when I offer you a cite that conflicts with the
Potemkin-Villiage argument you have constructed, you simply ignore it.
Again, article at usni.com also notes that the former "Declaration of War"
requirement is moribund.
Basically, on the one hand I appear to have the bulk of authority. On the
other hand, you have an argument you have constructed which carefully
ignores all contrary authority. That won't get you far.
>
> You claimed that legal *scholars* feel otherwise. That suggests the
> existence of a scholarly argument which can be cited. If the position
> is coming from Karl Rove or Karen Hughes, well, they're not scholars.
If we were talking rather than writing, I would assume that it was my
American accent that caused you to be incapable of assimilating the
information that I have provided you. You have deliberately and selectively
ignored most of my points.
Well, tough. The US military is moving the war enemies to Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba (US Military installation there) and has announced that these persons
will be tried by US Military Commission. You can reconcile that with all
your bogus arguments.
There's a cite for you, come to think of it...
The rest of your post was merely a pathetic attempt at name-calling, so I
will give it what it deserves--I am ignoring it.
--
Roger J. Buffington, W6VZV
Duncan Idaho
> authorization for the use of military force *as* a statutory authorization
> for the use of military force.
What is this "er, no" crap? Do you have some kind of wierd keyboard
impediment?
> > There is a broad consensus in the legal community that the instant
> > resolution is sufficient for all of the purposes that the President
> > has invoked it: including bombing of foreign countries,
>
> Correct, although notice that we are in *cooperation* with the recognized
> government of the foreign country in question -- the Northern Alliance --
> and have *not* declared war on them. There is no war between the USA and
> Afghanistan; just a joint police action against armed criminals there.
You are out of your mind. The presence of the Northern Alliance was a
convenience, not a legal justification. And the only person that has called
the instant war a police action is you. President Bush and his
administration, as well as Congress, have called it what it is, a war.
Like I said, you have constructed a bogus argument that has a following of
one, and proceeded from there. That kind of logic can lead anywhere, except
to reality.
The reality is that the prisoners are being moved to Cuba for trial by US
Military Commission.
Tough luck if you can't reconcile that with your laughable, silly arguments.
Raven
>> authorization for the use of military force *as* a statutory authorization
>> for the use of military force.
>
> What is this "er, no" crap? Do you have some kind of wierd keyboard
> impediment?
As you said to another: "No sense of humor today, hey?"
>>> There is a broad consensus in the legal community that the instant
>>> resolution is sufficient for all of the purposes that the President
>>> has invoked it: including bombing of foreign countries,
>>
>> Correct, although notice that we are in *cooperation* with the recognized
>> government of the foreign country in question -- the Northern Alliance --
>> and have *not* declared war on them. There is no war between the USA and
>> Afghanistan; just a joint police action against armed criminals there.
>
> You are out of your mind.
No, in fact the Congress hasn't declared war against *anyone*. Two such
declarations were introduced on September 13, but they were not adopted.
> The presence of the Northern Alliance was a convenience, not a legal
> justification.
True, but nonetheless *they* are the recognized government of Afghanistan,
and the USA is obviously *not* at war with them, no matter what you believe.
> And the only person that has called the instant war a police action is you.
Clearly you didn't do a Google search on "police action" usama/osama/taliban...
Congress declined to declare a *war*, so there is no "instant war".
Bush got the U.N. Security Council's support; it authorized police action:
http://lcnp.org/pubs/Bombsaway!SPE01/article1.htm
As for Bush's somewhat careless use of terms (like "crusade"), Arthur
Schlesenger Jr commented: "... our president had better take more care with
his language. As Calvin Coolidge put it, 'One of the first things a president
has to learn is that every word he says weighs a ton.' When Bush spoke of
wanting to capture Bin Laden 'dead or alive,' he no doubt pleased his domestic
audience, but he sent a chill through the chancelleries of our allies already
fearful of 'cowboy diplomacy.' When he spoke of organizing a 'crusade,' he
angered Middle Easterners who still harbor ancient resentments of the
Crusaders. His persistent use of the word 'war' recalls Harry S. Truman's
preference in the Korean War for a more appropriate term -- 'police action.'
The terrorists are criminals; we should not bestow on them the dignity of a
sovereign state. 'Police action,' not 'war,' is what we should be talking
about today."
Again, the President (especially in his informal utterances) doesn't have the
authority to declare *war*. Many people refer to the Korean conflict as the
Korean War, but that too was not a declared war, not a legal "state of war".
> President Bush and his administration, as well as Congress, have called it
> what it is, a war.
Bush, yes. Some of his administration, yes. *They* can't make it legally a
war by calling it one. Congress *could* have declared it a war, by passing
either H.J.Res. 62 or H.J.Res. 63; Congress did *not* pass either of these.
The bill Congress *did* pass, H.J.Res. 64, is not a declaration of war.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.+Res.+62:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.+Res.+63:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.+Res.+64:
As was noted in the Prize Cases (1862), the state of war "must be recognized
or declared by the war-making power of the Government. No power short of this
can change the legal status of the Government or the relations of its citizens
from that of peace to a state of war, or bring into existence all those duties
and obligations of neutral third parties growing out of a state of war."
"An idea seemed to be entertained that all that was necessary to constitute a
war was organized hostility... that conflicts on land and on sea... constituted
war with all the belligerent rights belonging to... war. ... Now, in one sense,
no doubt this is war, and may be a war of the most extensive and threatening
dimensions and effects, but it is a statement simply of its existence in a
material sense, and has no relevancy or weight when the question is: what
constitutes war in a legal sense, in the sense of the law of nations, and of
the Constitution of the United States? For it must be a war in this sense to
attach to it all the consequences that belong to belligerent rights. Instead,
therefore, of inquiring after armies and navies, and victories lost and won, or
organized rebellion against the general Government, the inquiry should be into
the law of nations and into the municipal fundamental laws of the Government.
For we find there that to constitute a... war in the sense in which we are
speaking, before it can exist, in contemplation of law, it must be recognized
or declared by the sovereign power of the State, and which sovereign power by
our Constitution is lodged in the Congress... war, therefore, under our system
of government, can exist only by an act of Congress...."
> Like I said, you have constructed a bogus argument that has a following of
> one, and proceeded from there. That kind of logic can lead anywhere, except
> to reality.
You are on one side, and the United States Supreme Court -- which in Ludecke
v Hopkins (1948) expressly rejected reading "actual hostilities" as equivalent
to "declared war" -- is on another. Do have fun tilting at that giant windmill.
> The reality is that the prisoners are being moved to Cuba for trial by US
> Military Commission.
How nice. Since that is one option for dealing with crimes against humanity,
crimes against peace, and war crimes -- even in the absence of a legal war --
(see http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/Ch8.htm for details),
this event says nothing about whether a legal state of war exists, or whether
Jane Fonda could be charged with treason for her dealings with North Vietnam.
But perhaps by now you have forgotten what the issue actually was. This is
often a failing of the mentally incapable, so I am not terribly surprised.
It is consistent with your making irrelevant objections as if they were
relevant, your asserting "authority" (eg professional standing & support by
unnamed others) while palpably lacking elementary debate skills (eg can't cite
any support), your pompous chest-thumping that you're right-right-right while
being utterly unable to prove it. These are recognizable traits; see below.
> Tough luck if you can't reconcile that with your laughable, silly arguments.
For more "laughable, silly arguments", I recommend my source for the above:
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html -- searchable db of SCOTUS rulings
- - - - -
"For some reason at this point I think of what has been
called the Right Man syndrome.
"This is not a concept from clinical or experimental
psychology. It is a mere empirical generalisation by the
writer A.E. Van Vogt, in a pamphlet _Report on the Violent
male_, cited by [Colin] Wilson in _Criminal History_...,
pp64-71...The Violent Male...seems to be a man who literally
cannot, _ever_, admit he might be wrong, he _knows_ he is
right...Van Vogt found that an astonishing amount of violence
is committed by these males, and he calls the type _The Right
Man_, because this man always insists he is Right...."
-- Robert Anton Wilson, _The New Inquisition_, pp139-140.
- - - - -
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
December 1999, Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134:
"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
by Justin Kruger and David Dunning,
Department of Psychology, Cornell University
Abstract
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social
and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs,
in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual
burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make
unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive
ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants
scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly
overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores
put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive
skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically,
improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive
competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.
[...]
We argue that when people are incompetent in the strategies they adopt to
achieve success and satisfaction, they suffer a dual burden: Not only do
they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their
incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it. Instead, [...]they
are left with the mistaken impression that they are doing just fine. As
Miller (1993) perceptively observed in the quote that opens this article,
and as Charles Darwin (1871) sagely noted over a century ago, "ignorance
more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" (p. 3).
In essence, we argue that the skills that engender competence in a
particular domain are often the very same skills necessary to evaluate
competence in that domain –- one's own or anyone else's.
- - - - -
Raven
> The reality is that the prisoners are being moved to Cuba
> for trial by US Military Commission.
But the reality of the real world, as distinct from Roger's dreamworld, is...
. vvvvvvvv
"[Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld said the military has made no plans
to hold military tribunals at the Guantanamo Bay base. President Bush has
authorized military tribunals to try terrorist suspects from other countries,
but defense officials said Thursday Rumsfeld has not decided how, where or
even if those tribunals would take place." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"US to Take Detainees to Cuban Base" by Matt Kelley, Associated Press:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/ap/20011227/wl/afghan_us_military_70.html
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>> Duncan Idaho <Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>>>>> While other legal scholars feel otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> What are you: incapable of thought?
>>
>> Not at all. It is because I *think*, not blindly accept all you say,
>> that I ask whether you can support your claims. Apparently you cannot.
>
> I gave you support, as well as cites.
No, you asked whether I was incapable of thought.
> Good article by military source (annotated with cites) about the
> "Declaration of War" not being the threshhold for war at www.usni.com
> -- enjoy.
I presume you mean "Are We Really at War?" by LTC Gary D. Solis, USMC (Ret.):
http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles01/PROsolis12.htm
If not, then please cite more specifically.
Among the claims this article makes:
"We were at war at 0845 on 11 September 2001..."
This would refer to the time of the first WTC impact, that and the related
terrorist actions of that day being "*acts* of war". However, what sovereign
nation was responsible? Not Afghanistan, for we do not hold its recognized
government (the Northern Alliance) responsible for these actions. A private
(non-governmental) attack is not an act of war, though it may be piracy or
even "war *crime*". The USA was not at "war" with pirates when it attacked
them during the Jefferson administration; that's a type of police action.
"... a war 'declared' by the Commander-in-Chief in his 20 September address
before a joint session of Congress."
The President (even as Commander-in-Chief) cannot *declare* war. That is a
power reserved exclusively to Congress.
"Congress swiftly followed his declaration with a joint resolution supporting
the use of force against terrorists."
Just as Congress approved Jefferson's attack on pirates, also not a war.
But Solis has his sequence wrong. Congress passed that joint resolution on
September 14, nearly a week *before* Bush's September 20 address.
And it was not a declaration of war. Congress declined to pass either of the
two proposed declarations of war introduced on September 13.
"Our armed forces are now fighting that war, Professor Walzer's assessment
notwithstanding."
We see here reference to an opposing view by an actual legal scholar, Michael
Walzer, a professor at the Institutute of Advanced Study, who wrote in
"First, Define the Battlefield," New York Times, 9/21/2001:
"So is it a war? The word is unobjectionable so long as those who use it
understand what a metaphor is. There is, right now, no enemy state...."
(Resuming quotes from Solis:)
"But what legally constitutes a war?"
This is the relevant question. Unfortunately Solis doesn't try to answer it:
"There is no court case, no text, no treaty that conclusively answers the
question or defines the word."
Of course a number of court cases have discussed this, including some I cited
and quoted earlier in this thread. The extended quote from the Prize Cases
is to the point: "... what constitutes war in a legal sense, in the sense of
the law of nations, and of the Constitution of the United States? For it must
be a war in this sense to attach to it all the consequences that belong to
belligerent rights. Instead, therefore, of inquiring after armies and navies,
and victories lost and won, or organized rebellion against the general
Government, the inquiry should be into the law of nations and into the
municipal fundamental laws of the Government. For we find there that to
constitute a... war in the sense in which we are speaking, before it can exist,
in contemplation of law, it must be recognized or declared by the sovereign
power of the State, and which sovereign power by our Constitution is lodged
in the Congress... war, therefore, under our system of government, can exist
only by an act of Congress...." Likewise, Ludecke v Hopkins (1948) rejected
the idea that "actual hostilities" mean the same thing as "declared war".
Solis, on the contrary, equates the two. That is the basis of his argument.
"Only Congress can declare war -- which it has not done --"
This completely concedes the legal question; legally, there is no state of war.
"but can a state of war exist without a congressional declaration? On the basis
of history alone, the answer is yes. The United States, which has employed
military force more than 220 times in its history, has declared war only five
times, most recently more than half a century ago. Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf
War all were undeclared combat actions."
But by the same token, they were not legally states of *war*. Solis is taking
"actual hostilities" as equivalent to a legal state of "declared war". This is
the mistake that both the above cites warned against. Solis falls into it.
A legal state of war changes the laws in the United States, making some
military offenses punishable by death (when they are not, during peacetime),
giving the President legal powers he would otherwise lack, and changing the
balance of powers between the civilian and military spheres of action.
It also changes relations with the declared enemy state, and with all "third
party" nations who may be either neutrals in that war or allied with one side.
The property of enemy nationals may be seized (though those resident in US
territory may be allowed to leave with property intact). And US nationals
who give aid and comfort to that declared enemy may be liable for treason,
a condition that cannot exist when there is no war and thus no legal enemy.
Foreign actions, however vicious, cannot enact a legal "state of war" in the
United States, though they may provoke such a declaration by Congress. Only
Congress has the authority to declare that such a legal "state of war" exists.
*That* state does not depend on whether shots are being fired, forces are
being deployed, or people are being killed. It is a *separate matter* from
"actual hostilities". A legal state of war can even exist in the *absence*
of "actual hostilities" -- as the state of war declared for World War II
lasted until 1951, six *years* after the "actual hostilities" had ceased.
Solis treats the two conditions as identical, but clearly they are not.
This simply demolishes Solis's argument, which is founded on that mistake.
>>> Who do you think advised President Bush on the tribunal issue?
>>
>> That's a question, not an answer. I might *speculate* that it was someone
>> within his administration, but then he has advisors both in and out of it,
>> the Heritage Foundation for an example of outside advisors. He also has
>> made notorious gaffes (like "crusade"), so it's not a safe assumption that
>> his advisors are the source of his statements.
>
> No, it was an answer, not a question. The Attorney General and his staff,
> the entire Department of Justice, officially advised President Bush that in
> order for trial of war enemies by military commission to be legal, the
> existing declaration by Congress was sufficient. This was the substance of
> Mr. Aschcroft's testimony before the Senate two weeks ago.
I gave the URL for the Department of Justice's own copy of that testimony.
(That URL is below the dashed line herein.) Please quote the relevant portion.
> It appears that when I offer you a cite that conflicts with the
> Potemkin-Villiage argument you have constructed, you simply ignore it.
Again, *I* gave a URL for it. The text there doesn't say what you say it says.
> Again, article at usni.com also notes that the former "Declaration of War"
> requirement is moribund.
In the opinion of a retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel, who based his argument
on equating a legal "state of war" to a condition of "actual hostilities",
showing that he did not understand the difference, as the Supreme Court does.
> Basically, on the one hand I appear to have the bulk of authority.
You have a retired Marine LTC on your side. This is good, in a firefight.
However, it lacks something of legal scholarship and legal authority.
> On the other hand, you have an argument you have constructed which
> carefully ignores all contrary authority. That won't get you far.
Oh, woe is me, only the Supreme Court backs me against you and LTC Solis.
If the venue were a battlefield, I'd be in trouble now. But it isn't.
>> You claimed that legal *scholars* feel otherwise. That suggests the
>> existence of a scholarly argument which can be cited. If the position
>> is coming from Karl Rove or Karen Hughes, well, they're not scholars.
>
> If we were talking rather than writing, I would assume that it was my
> American accent that caused you to be incapable of assimilating the
> information that I have provided you. You have deliberately and selectively
> ignored most of my points.
No, in fact I've read your points carefully. Perhaps more so than you wrote.
> Well, tough. The US military is moving the war enemies to Guantanamo Bay,
> Cuba (US Military installation there) and has announced that these persons
> will be tried by US Military Commission. You can reconcile that with all
> your bogus arguments.
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said ... the military has made no plans
to hold military tribunals at the Guantanamo Bay base. President Bush has
authorized military tribunals to try terrorist suspects from other countries,
but defense officials said Thursday Rumsfeld has not decided how, where or
even if those tribunals would take place." (Associated Press, 12/27/2001)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/ap/20011227/wl/afghan_us_military_70.html
> There's a cite for you, come to think of it...
Roger, you didn't *cite* anything there -- just made a claim, which *my* cite
shows to be premature at best, and possibly false in the outcome.
> The rest of your post was merely a pathetic attempt at name-calling, so I
> will give it what it deserves -- I am ignoring it.
As you have ignored all the cites I've given, while accusing me of "ignoring
reality". Well, at least you admit now that you're the one ignoring things.
As for "name-calling", I replied in the same tone and tenor you used. Here is
the remainder of the post you thus dismiss, no additional ">>" nesting:
- - - - -
> Hint: the US Department of Justice.
Duncan Idaho
> and the USA is obviously *not* at war with them, no matter what you
believe.
Another false premise by you: the notion that "war" can only be with a
nation state. This is not required. In fact the US fought a war with the
Barbary Pirates--"millions for defense but not one cent for tribute" as you
may (or may not) recall.
>
> > And the only person that has called the instant war a police action is
you.
>
> Clearly you didn't do a Google search on "police action"
usama/osama/taliban...
This is a war, not a police action.
>
> Congress declined to declare a *war*, so there is no "instant war".
Saying it doesn't make it true. In point of fact, the war enemies we
capture who are found to merit it are going to be tried by secret US
Military Commissions. Apparently in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
>
> Bush got the U.N. Security Council's support; it authorized police action:
> http://lcnp.org/pubs/Bombsaway!SPE01/article1.htm
>
> As for Bush's somewhat careless use of terms (like "crusade"), Arthur
> Schlesenger Jr commented: "... our president had better take more care
with
> his language.
Well, President Bush has performed admirably. As far as I am concerned the
word "crusade" was just fine. A more faithless bunch of allies than the
Islamics is impossible to imagine. In point of fact, they fell into line
because President Bush made it damned clear to them that "those who are not
with us are against us." Few had the courage to be against us. Those are
the words that mattered, not (as some Democrat would have you believe) the
use of the (entirely appropriate) word "crusade."
> His persistent use of the word 'war' recalls Harry S. Truman's
> preference in the Korean War for a more appropriate term -- 'police
action.'
Wrong. It is a war and the country is at war.
> The terrorists are criminals; we should not bestow on them the dignity of
a
> sovereign state. 'Police action,' not 'war,' is what we should be
talking
> about today."
Utterly wrong. In fact, you would have to be blind or willfully ignorant to
miss the fact that there is a broad national consensus that President Bush
did precisely the right thing by NOT treating the 9/11 attack as a "crime."
It was an act of war against the United States and we replied not with
police. We brought the military to bear. You don't use the military
against criminals. You use your military against war enemies. That is what
the United States is doing.
>
> Again, the President (especially in his informal utterances) doesn't have
the
> authority to declare *war*. Many people refer to the Korean conflict as
the
> Korean War, but that too was not a declared war, not a legal "state of
war".
I find this point too trivial to concern me. The present conflict is a war.
It is not an action against criminals. It is an action against war enemies.
>
> The bill Congress *did* pass, H.J.Res. 64, is not a declaration of war.
"Declaration of War" is passe--it was a sufficient declaration of
Congressional intent to allow the President to attack other countries and
try war criminals by US Military Commission. That is a war.
>
> > Like I said, you have constructed a bogus argument that has a following
of
> > one, and proceeded from there. That kind of logic can lead anywhere,
except
> > to reality.
>
> You are on one side, and the United States Supreme Court -- which in
Ludecke
> v Hopkins (1948) expressly rejected reading "actual hostilities" as
equivalent
> to "declared war" -- is on another. Do have fun tilting at that giant
windmill.
You are the ones tilting at windmills. As we speak, the US is at war. It
is preparing to try war criminals by secret US Military Commissions. In
fact, we may have already done so. Have fun with your textualist arguments
that this cannot be happening. It is happening.
>
> > The reality is that the prisoners are being moved to Cuba for trial by
US
> > Military Commission.
>
> How nice. Since that is one option for dealing with crimes against
humanity,
> crimes against peace, and war crimes -- even in the absence of a legal
war --
> (see http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/Ch8.htm for
details),
> this event says nothing about whether a legal state of war exists, or
whether
> Jane Fonda could be charged with treason for her dealings with North
Vietnam.
Jane Fonda should have been tried for treason.
>
> But perhaps by now you have forgotten what the issue actually was. This
is
> often a failing of the mentally incapable, so I am not terribly surprised.
No, actually name calling and personal attacks is often a failing exhibit by
persons such as yourself who essentially are unable to distinguish reality
from imaginary arguments that you perhaps win with yourself.
>
> It is consistent with your making irrelevant objections as if they were
> relevant, your asserting "authority" (eg professional standing & support
by
> unnamed others)
By the way, someone should have taught you brevity along the way. Your
whiney, windy posts are overlong, repetitive, and unimpressive.
The personal remarks continue. Post terminated (with disgust).
--
Roger J. Buffington
------------------------
"If we're so cruel to minorities, why do they keep coming here? Why aren't
they sneaking across the Mexican border to make their way to the Taliban?"
--Ann Coulter
Raven
>> and the USA is obviously *not* at war with them, no matter what you believe.
>
> Another false premise by you: the notion that "war" can only be with a
> nation state.
With a state, or *government*, at least. (The US did not acknowledge that the
rebel states in the Civil War constituted a separate *nation*.)
The premise is not "by me", Roger, as it predates me by a couple of centuries.
> This is not required.
When Harry Browne (recently the Libertarian candidate for US President) wrote -
"The terrorist attacks are a criminal matter, not a war. War is by definition
an armed conflict between governments. No government has claimed responsibility
for the September 11 attacks, and no government has been so accused." * - he
was in accord with the United States Army's legal definition of war, "a legal
condition of armed hostility between States" (The Law of Land War, FM 27-10).**
* http://www.americanlibertyfoundation.org/911/5_p.htm
** http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/Ch1.htm
> This is not required. In fact the US fought a war with the Barbary Pirates
> -- "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute" as you may (or may
> not) recall.
Ah, the wars with Tripoli and Algiers -- both of them "nation states",
which contradicts the claim you are trying to make.
>>> And the only person that has called the instant war a police action is you.
>>
>> Clearly you didn't do a Google search on "police action" usama/osama/taliban
>
> This is a war, not a police action.
So, your factual claim failing, you revert to argument by mere assertion,
as though your merely saying it (ad nauseam) would make it true.
>> Congress declined to declare a *war*, so there is no "instant war".
>
> Saying it doesn't make it true.
From you, again, this is hilarious. That's been your entire strategy.
Actually, *Congress* saying (declaring) that a state of war exists *does*
make it true -- and nothing else does. Only Congress's declaration can move
the United States from the legal condition called "state of peace" to the
legal condition called "state of war". Actual conflict is a separate matter.
> In point of fact, the war enemies we capture
To capture someone does not make him a "war enemy" if no state of war exists.
> who are found to merit it are going to be tried by secret US Military
> Commissions. Apparently in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
You continue to ignore what the US Secretary of Defense actually said, as
twice cited to you in this thread:
"[Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld said the military has made no plans
to hold military tribunals at the Guantanamo Bay base. President Bush has
authorized military tribunals to try terrorist suspects from other countries,
but defense officials said Thursday Rumsfeld has not decided how, where or
even if those tribunals would take place." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"US to Take Detainees to Cuban Base" by Matt Kelley, Associated Press:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/ap/20011227/wl/afghan_us_military_70.html
>> Bush got the U.N. Security Council's support; it authorized police action:
>> http://lcnp.org/pubs/Bombsaway!SPE01/article1.htm
>>
>> As for Bush's somewhat careless use of terms (like "crusade"), Arthur
>> Schlesenger Jr commented: "... our president had better take more care
>> with his language.
>
> Well, President Bush has performed admirably. As far as I am concerned the
> word "crusade" was just fine.
Interesting, because the US is not attempting to "carry the cross" against
the religion of Islam, and Bush himself has said that Islam is not the enemy;
he has spent a great deal of time trying to undo the implications of "crusade".
> A more faithless bunch of allies than the Islamics is impossible to imagine.
> In point of fact, they fell into line because President Bush made it damned
> clear to them that "those who are not with us are against us." Few had the
> courage to be against us. Those are the words that mattered, not (as some
> Democrat would have you believe) the use of the (entirely appropriate)
> word "crusade."
I'm sure that the Bush Administration (if it ever sees your words) will be
deeply grateful that you are not one of its spokesmen. You are every bit as
graceful as a diplomat as you are persuasive as an advocate, i.e. not at all.
>> His persistent use of the word 'war' recalls Harry S. Truman's preference
>> in the Korean War for a more appropriate term -- 'police action.'
>
> Wrong. It is a war and the country is at war.
Once again, your repetition of a false claim does nothing to make it true,
but does much to reveal your lack of concern for truth.
>> The terrorists are criminals; we should not bestow on them the dignity of
>> a sovereign state. 'Police action,' not 'war,' is what we should be
>> talking about today."
>
> Utterly wrong.
Again you offer nothing but repeated assertion in the place of factual support.
> In fact, you would have to be blind or willfully ignorant
Oh, yes, and invective in place of investigation. Not at all persuasive.
> to miss the fact that there is a broad national consensus that President Bush
> did precisely the right thing by NOT treating the 9/11 attack as a "crime."
> It was an act of war against the United States and we replied not with
> police. We brought the military to bear. You don't use the military
> against criminals. You use your military against war enemies. That is what
> the United States is doing.
I note that Schlesenger's example, the Korean conflict, involved sending the
military, not the "beat cops", so a "police action" *can* involve military.
>> Again, the President (especially in his informal utterances) doesn't have
>> the authority to declare *war*. Many people refer to the Korean conflict
>> as the Korean War, but that too was not a declared war, not a legal "state
>> of war".
>
> I find this point too trivial to concern me. The present conflict is a war.
> It is not an action against criminals. It is an action against war enemies.
If it is not an action against criminals, then for what would they be *tried*?
One doesn't try enemy soldiers who have committed no crime; one merely holds
them as prisoners of war and repatriates them at the end of the war.
By contrast, Congress authorized military force specifically against those who
partook in *criminal* (specifically, terrorist) acts -- "planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons".
>> The bill Congress *did* pass, H.J.Res. 64, is not a declaration of war.
>
> "Declaration of War" is passe--it was a sufficient declaration of
> Congressional intent to allow the President to attack other countries and
> try war criminals by US Military Commission. That is a war.
Again you offer nothing to support this assertion except your own repetition.
>>> Like I said, you have constructed a bogus argument that has a following
>>> of one, and proceeded from there. That kind of logic can lead anywhere,
>>> except to reality.
>>
>> You are on one side, and the United States Supreme Court -- which in
>> Ludecke v Hopkins (1948) expressly rejected reading "actual hostilities"
>> as equivalent to "declared war" -- is on another. Do have fun tilting at
>> that giant windmill.
>
> You are the ones tilting at windmills. As we speak, the US is at war.
The civilian courts are still open, etc.; there is legally no "state of war",
because only Congress declaring war could trigger that state, and (as your
own lonely citation from LTC Gary Solis notes) Congress has not declared war.
> It is preparing to try war criminals by secret US Military Commissions.
One can be a "war criminal" in the absence of a war. Genocide, for instance,
is a war crime, illegal in war as in peace. It doesn't become legal in peace.
> In fact, we may have already done so. Have fun with your textualist
> arguments that this cannot be happening. It is happening.
Again, you mistake the existence of "actual hostilities" for the legal
condition of a "declared war". They are not equivalent, and need not
even coincide -- as, for instance, the "declared war" of the USA against
Germany continued for six years after "actual hostilities" had ceased.
Simple ignorance explains your not knowing this the first time through,
but what could justify your refusal to learn, once the facts were given you?
>>> The reality is that the prisoners are being moved to Cuba for trial by
>>> US Military Commission.
>>
>> How nice. Since that is one option for dealing with crimes against humanity,
>> crimes against peace, and war crimes -- even in the absence of a legal war
>> -- (see http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/Ch8.htm for
>> details), this event says nothing about whether a legal state of war exists,
>> or whether Jane Fonda could be charged with treason for her dealings with
>> North Vietnam.
>
> Jane Fonda should have been tried for treason.
The sole permitted definition of treason in US law requires that there be an
"enemy" to whom aid and comfort are given. It is the declaration of war that
identifies such an "enemy". In the absence of a declaration of war, there is
legally no "enemy" and thus no possibility of "treason". This is why the
Rosenbergs (like Klaus Fuchs in the UK) were not charged with treason.
Your failure to understand this simple point after repeated explanation
brings into question your capacity to comprehend the "elements of offense".
Yet you claim to be a barrister? Surely not in criminal law.
>> But perhaps by now you have forgotten what the issue actually was. This is
>> often a failing of the mentally incapable, so I am not terribly surprised.
>
> No, actually name calling and personal attacks is
Do pay attention to agreement in number, Roger. You meant to say, "are".
As in, "Actually, name calling and personal attacks *are* [Roger's] fall-back
strategy, and [Roger will] deeply resent anyone turning them back around."
But I'll tell you, as I tell all other bullies (verbal or otherwise) who whine
and snivel when the tables are turned on them: don't dish it out if you can't
take it. Yet you complain, after all *your* name-calling and personal attacks?
> often a failing exhibit
And what did you think it would be when you were doing it? Rush-like rhetoric?
Ohhhh, but that's *it*, isn't it? You were trying to emulate Mr Limbaugh!
What you forgot is that Limbaugh doesn't let anyone answer him back, let alone
in kind. Your using his technique, in an *open* debate, was doomed to fail.
> by persons such as yourself
But you thought it would work as long as *you* were the one doing it, being
such a special person and entitled to special dispensations for being you.
> who essentially are unable to distinguish reality from imaginary arguments
No problem. Here's the distinction:
Reality: the quotes and cites I gave of actual legal sources.
Imaginary arguments: the "legal consensus" you said supported you, but which
(when asked repeatedly) you were unable to cite; your idea of "legal realism"
which amounted to Humpty-Dumptyism ("the law is whatever I [*] say it is").
[* "and my imaginary six-foot-tall invisible white rabbit, Legal Consensus" ]
> that you perhaps win with yourself.
I don't have to "win"; I cited arguments that already won at the Supreme Court.
They don't have to persuade *you*, Roger, because you have no such authority,
and are unlikely ever to be given any when you so lightly ignore the law.
I have taken this time with you only out of charity, nothing more.
You are of course free to cover your ears, shut your eyes, and scream NO NO NO
until I go away, then count your refusal to learn as a "victory" of sorts.
To everyone else that confirms your stupidity, but don't let that bother you.
Duncan Idaho
wrote -
> "The terrorist attacks are a criminal matter, not a war. War is by
definition
> an armed conflict between governments. No government has claimed
responsibility
> for the September 11 attacks, and no government has been so accused." * -
he
> was in accord with the United States Army's legal definition of war, "a
legal
> condition of armed hostility between States" (The Law of Land War, FM
27-10).**
Nonsense. It need not be a state.
>
> Ah, the wars with Tripoli and Algiers -- both of them "nation states",
> which contradicts the claim you are trying to make.
Too bad you are wrong about that. But hey, that hasn't stopped you.
According to you, the war in Afghanistan against Al-Quaida isn't even
happening. I understand that reality is not important to you.
>
> "[Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld said the military has made no plans
> to hold military tribunals at the Guantanamo Bay base. President Bush has
> authorized military tribunals to try terrorist suspects from other
countries,
> but defense officials said Thursday Rumsfeld has not decided how, where or
> even if those tribunals would take place."
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that if the terrorist
war-enemies are in detention in Guantanamo, that that is probably where they
will be tried.
The rest of your post, in typical fashion, degenerated into immature, windy,
whiney name calling. It was also overlong and boring, so I clipped it
without response.
--
Roger J. Buffington
--
"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10
empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." --
President George W. Bush
Raven
>> wrote - "The terrorist attacks are a criminal matter, not a war. War is
>> by definition an armed conflict between governments. No government has
>> claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks, and no government
>> legal definition of war, "a legal condition of armed hostility between
>> States" (The Law of Land War, FM 27-10).
>
I notice that once again you cite nothing to support you, but dismiss even
the United States Army's own manual about the law of war as "nonsense", as
earlier you had dismissed rulings of the United States Supreme Court.
Apparently you expect people to accept you, not them, as a legal authority.
>> Ah, the wars with Tripoli and Algiers -- both of them "nation states",
>> which contradicts the claim you are trying to make.
>
> Too bad you are wrong about that.
Easily documented, Roger. For example:
http://www.ccasonline.org/publicaffairs/Parker3282001.htm --
"Middle East Wars: US Involvements from Jefferson to Bush", summarized from a
talk given by Ambassador Richard Parker, former US ambassador to Algeria,
Lebanon, and Morocco, and noted historian on American involvements in Middle
East wars, at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, March 28, 2000:
"The Barbary states, which included Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis and Morocco, were
engaged in privateering and raided as far as the coasts of Ireland and Iceland.
... The Barbary states considered themselves at war with any country that did
not have a peace agreement with them. Abdel Rahman Al-Ajar offered the US
representatives such a peace for 30,000 guineas and 3000 pounds for himself,
an amount worth $1.75 million in today's terms. European powers had contended
with the Barbary privateers for centuries, and nearly all of them were paying
tribute to North African rulers to secure the safety of their fleets. ...
While the Moroccans had entered into a permanent treaty with the United States,
the other Barbary states continued to insist on regular tributes. ... [T]he US
government agreed to pay Algiers $335,000, and had given them several ships.
The total given to the Algerians was $990,000 (today's equivalent would be
nearly $14 million), when the total annual revenues for the US government were
only $6-7 million. The US government also agreed to pay the bey of Tunis
$50,000, but he demanded more on hearing the news of America's payment to the
bey of Algiers. The situation was made worse by the capture of 11 American
ships in 1793, a situation that was only resolved ten years later with the
payment of $585,000 to Algiers. The United States government could not afford
to continued making such payments, and finally sent Commander Decatur to impose
treaties on the Barbary states by force. The war with the Barbary pirates
lasted four years. ... [I]t marked the United States' first foreign military
intervention, as well as its first attempt to interfere with the internal
politics of a foreign state."
As you quoted the motto, "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute".
(Of course, that was said after the tribute had already been paid.)
You brought this up as an example of how war doesn't require a "nation state",
but -- unfortunately for your argument -- the Barbary states *were* states.
> But hey, that hasn't stopped you.
Why would your spouting falsehoods stop me? They are so easily refuted.
> According to you, the war in Afghanistan against Al-Quaida isn't even
> happening.
Last time I said "There is no war between the USA and Afghanistan," you replied
"You are out of your mind." I see you're backing down from that. But "war
*in* Afghanistan" might refer to there being a civil war within that country,
which is changing the subject from whether the *USA* is legally at war. Then
you try and attribute this change of topics to me ("According to you,...").
So you're smokescreening, because you've realized your position's wrong.
> I understand that reality is not important to you.
Then again your "understanding" is in fact a false belief. No surprise there.
>> "[Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld said the military has made no plans
>> to hold military tribunals at the Guantanamo Bay base. President Bush has
>> authorized military tribunals to try terrorist suspects from other
>> countries, but defense officials said Thursday Rumsfeld has not decided
>> how, where or even if those tribunals would take place."
>
> Doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that if the terrorist
> war-enemies are in detention in Guantanamo,
Notice that Rumsfeld refers to them, not as "war-enemies" but as "suspects",
i.e. people suspected of participating in a crime (terrorism).
> that that is probably where they will be tried.
You said before, "It is not an action against criminals. It is an action
against war enemies." I asked you, "If it is not an action against criminals,
then for what would they be *tried*?" You merely snipped the question.
Here again you insist they will be *tried*. For what, if not a *crime*?
Perhaps you think that terrorism is not a crime. But it is. The terrorists
violated both US federal statutes against terrorism and international laws
(which give "universal jurisdiction" so that any nation can prosecute crimes
against humanity, crimes against peace, and war crimes). This is what gives
legal justification for the US to pursue and capture participants & accessories
wherever they are. No declaration of war was needed, because this is not war,
it is law enforcement -- in short, a "police action".
> The rest of your post, in typical fashion, degenerated into immature, windy,
> whiney name calling.
Where I quoted your text verbatim. Should I snip your name-calling from now on?
But then what would be left to reply to?
Duncan Idaho
now on?
>
> But then what would be left to reply to?
Do as you like. Your posts have degenerated into trivia. You also appear
to lack a life.
I assume you have read the latest news reports that the plan to try war
criminals ("detainees"--we are denying them POW status) by US Military
Commission.
Hope the reality doesn't shatter you too badly.
--
Roger J. Buffington
----
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human
passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only
for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government
of any other."
President John Adams
"When an American says that he loves his country," Adlai Stevenson once
said, "he means that he loves an inner air, an inner light in which freedom
lives and in which a man can draw the breath of self-respect."
Raven
>> But then what would be left to reply to?
>
> Do as you like.
Thank you for this gracious permission... but I would have done so anyway.
> Your posts have degenerated into trivia.
As where you make claims and I cite sources to show your claims to be false;
ah, you do find those hard facts to be inconvenient pesky things, don't you?
> You also appear to lack a life.
If I had much more of a life, I couldn't post the few-times-per-day that I do.
Sorry to say, I'll miss your charming conversation for a bit (a busy non-life,
don't you know?), but I wish you and yours a happy new year (and New Year's).
> I assume you have read the latest news reports that the plan to try war
> criminals ("detainees"--we are denying them POW status) by US Military
> Commission.
>
> Hope the reality doesn't shatter you too badly.
Poor Roger, you still haven't seen the self-contradiction you're engaging in.
You said before, "It is not an action against criminals." Now you refer to
them as "war criminals." In short, you concede. How could this shatter me?
You said before, "It is an action against war enemies." That would make the
prisoners "prisoners of war". Now you say "'detainees' -- we are denying them
POW status". Hasn't it occurred to you that this is because there's no *war*?
You keep evading the question: for what would they be *tried* if not a *crime*?
The USA did not declare war, because it is not fighting a war. It went after
criminals who committed mass murder, with the goal of preventing further such
crimes by the same criminals. It plans to try those criminals it captures.
This is the classic goal of law enforcement, in short a "police action".
When the USA's police agencies went after domestic gangsters in the 1920s
and 1930s, that also was sometimes loosely referred to as a "war"; however,
despite that popular or press usage, there was no declaration of war by the
US Congress, and legally no "state of war". Criminals are not sovereign
states, and fighting criminals does not involve the legal meaning of "war".
Feel free to share that popular or press usage, which as Professor Walzer said
"is unobjectionable so long as those who use it understand what a metaphor is."
But, as someone who claims to be an attorney, you should know that this does
not carry with it the legal status of an actual declared war. The provisions
of law that apply in a legal "state of war" have not been triggered. That's
the reality -- all your flustered bluster and busted bluffs to the contrary.
Duncan Idaho
>
> But, as someone who claims to be an attorney, you should know that this
does
> not carry with it the legal status of an actual declared war. The
provisions
> of law that apply in a legal "state of war" have not been triggered.
That's
> the reality -- all your flustered bluster and busted bluffs to the
contrary.
Sorry, old bean, but as a Judge once said to me about something unrelated,
"I just don't see it your way..."
We are fighting a war. You are right about one thing though--the people we
are fighting against are not soldiers, and unlike soldiers they are not
POWs. They are detainees who are subject to trial by US Military
Commissions.
Look, nothing personal about all of this and there is no call for personal
comments. We simply disagree. I have merely pointed out that in my opinion
the weight of authority is against you. If you disagree, fine. No reason
to get personal about it.
Raven
>> does not carry with it the legal status of an actual declared war. The
>> provisions of law that apply in a legal "state of war" have not been
>> triggered. That's the reality -- all your flustered bluster and busted
>> bluffs to the contrary.
>
> Sorry, old bean, but as a Judge once said to me about something unrelated,
> "I just don't see it your way..."
>
> We are fighting a war.
You keep saying that as if saying it would make it so. *Congress* declaring
that a state of war exists would make it so. You, Roger, are not Congress.
> You are right about one thing though --
Legally there is not a "state of war" now in the United States of America.
> the people we are fighting against are not soldiers,
Oooh. If it *were* a war, what would attacking non-soldiers be classified as?
But in a law enforcement (or "police") action, the targetted criminals may
be either civilians or soldiers.
> and unlike soldiers they are not POWs.
That's right; they are not prisoners of war, because there is no war.
> They are detainees who are subject to trial by US Military Commissions.
Yes, and if (as you said before) "It is not an action against criminals",
then for what would they be *tried* if not for *crime*?
At what point will you *answer* that question instead of snipping it?
If they were merely non-criminal soldiers of an enemy nation, that's not
an offense to be tried. They'd be held until war's end and repatriated.
But if an object of this exercise *is* to take and try people for a crime,
then this *is* (in your words) "an action against criminals".
At what point will you *acknowledge* that you're contradicting yourself?
> Look, nothing personal about all of this and there is no call for personal
> comments.
Do you mean personal comments like your previous derogatory remarks --
"You are out of your mind"; "hacks like you"; "fools like you"; "you are
incapable of seeing any point of view other than your own"; "What are you:
incapable of thought?" (this last was in reply to my question "Cite?") --
or was it my saying "What a marvelous self-description" that you objected to?
> We simply disagree.
Indeed. Pity you didn't take that tack before, instead of getting personal.
> I have merely pointed out that in my opinion
... which turned out (when asked for cites) to have no facts to support it...
> the weight of authority is against you.
My question is, what do the facts (rather than your or my opinion) say about
where the "weight of authority" presses? I've cited a number of authorities
(eg SCOTUS rulings, citations of US federal law, and the US Army's own manual
on the law of war). For your part, after all your bluffs about "authority"
and "legal consensus", all you've cited was a retired Marine's short essay
(apparently printed as a letter to the editor), and that was easily refuted.
You've snipped my cites and factual questions, ignored factual issues, and
relied on bluster like "you would have to be blind or willfully ignorant" etc,
in a desperate attempt to give your unsupported claims "self-evident" stature.
Thus my passing reference to your "flustered bluster and busted bluffs".
> If you disagree, fine. No reason to get personal about it.
Then I take it you'll avoid future personal remarks, so that there will be no
tables to turn, and then you won't look so hypocritical complaining about it.
Raven
>> authorization for the use of military force *as* a statutory authorization
>> for the use of military force.
>
> What is this "er, no" crap? Do you have some kind of wierd keyboard
> impediment?
As you said to another: "No sense of humor today, hey?"
>>> There is a broad consensus in the legal community that the instant
>>> resolution is sufficient for all of the purposes that the President
>>> has invoked it: including bombing of foreign countries,
>>
>> Correct, although notice that we are in *cooperation* with the recognized
>> government of the foreign country in question -- the Northern Alliance --
>> and have *not* declared war on them. There is no war between the USA and
>> Afghanistan; just a joint police action against armed criminals there.
>
> You are out of your mind.
No, in fact the Congress hasn't declared war against *anyone*. Two such
declarations were introduced on September 13, but they were not adopted.
> The presence of the Northern Alliance was a convenience, not a legal
> justification.
True, but nonetheless *they* are the recognized government of Afghanistan,
and the USA is obviously *not* at war with them, no matter what you believe.
> And the only person that has called the instant war a police action is you.
Clearly you didn't do a Google search on "police action" usama/osama/taliban...
Congress declined to declare a *war*, so there is no "instant war".
Bush got the U.N. Security Council's support; it authorized police action:
http://lcnp.org/pubs/Bombsaway!SPE01/article1.htm
As for Bush's somewhat careless use of terms (like "crusade"), Arthur
Schlesenger Jr commented: "... our president had better take more care with
his language. As Calvin Coolidge put it, 'One of the first things a president
has to learn is that every word he says weighs a ton.' When Bush spoke of
wanting to capture Bin Laden 'dead or alive,' he no doubt pleased his domestic
audience, but he sent a chill through the chancelleries of our allies already
fearful of 'cowboy diplomacy.' When he spoke of organizing a 'crusade,' he
angered Middle Easterners who still harbor ancient resentments of the
Crusaders. His persistent use of the word 'war' recalls Harry S. Truman's
preference in the Korean War for a more appropriate term -- 'police action.'
The terrorists are criminals; we should not bestow on them the dignity of a
sovereign state. 'Police action,' not 'war,' is what we should be talking
about today."
Again, the President (especially in his informal utterances) doesn't have the
authority to declare *war*. Many people refer to the Korean conflict as the
Korean War, but that too was not a declared war, not a legal "state of war".
> President Bush and his administration, as well as Congress, have called it
> what it is, a war.
Bush, yes. Some of his administration, yes. *They* can't make it legally a
war by calling it one. Congress *could* have declared it a war, by passing
either H.J.Res. 62 or H.J.Res. 63; Congress did *not* pass either of these.
The bill Congress *did* pass, H.J.Res. 64, is not a declaration of war.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.+Res.+62:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.+Res.+63:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.+Res.+64:
As was noted in the Prize Cases (1862), the state of war "must be recognized
or declared by the war-making power of the Government. No power short of this
can change the legal status of the Government or the relations of its citizens
from that of peace to a state of war, or bring into existence all those duties
and obligations of neutral third parties growing out of a state of war."
"An idea seemed to be entertained that all that was necessary to constitute a
war was organized hostility... that conflicts on land and on sea... constituted
war with all the belligerent rights belonging to... war. ... Now, in one sense,
no doubt this is war, and may be a war of the most extensive and threatening
dimensions and effects, but it is a statement simply of its existence in a
material sense, and has no relevancy or weight when the question is: what
constitutes war in a legal sense, in the sense of the law of nations, and of
the Constitution of the United States? For it must be a war in this sense to
attach to it all the consequences that belong to belligerent rights. Instead,
therefore, of inquiring after armies and navies, and victories lost and won, or
organized rebellion against the general Government, the inquiry should be into
the law of nations and into the municipal fundamental laws of the Government.
For we find there that to constitute a... war in the sense in which we are
speaking, before it can exist, in contemplation of law, it must be recognized
or declared by the sovereign power of the State, and which sovereign power by
our Constitution is lodged in the Congress... war, therefore, under our system
of government, can exist only by an act of Congress...."
> Like I said, you have constructed a bogus argument that has a following of
> one, and proceeded from there. That kind of logic can lead anywhere, except
> to reality.
You are on one side, and the United States Supreme Court -- which in Ludecke
v Hopkins (1948) expressly rejected reading "actual hostilities" as equivalent
to "declared war" -- is on another. Do have fun tilting at that giant windmill.
> The reality is that the prisoners are being moved to Cuba for trial by US
> Military Commission.
How nice. Since that is one option for dealing with crimes against humanity,
crimes against peace, and war crimes -- even in the absence of a legal war --
(see http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/Ch8.htm for details),
this event says nothing about whether a legal state of war exists, or whether
Jane Fonda could be charged with treason for her dealings with North Vietnam.
But perhaps by now you have forgotten what the issue actually was. This is
often a failing of the mentally incapable, so I am not terribly surprised.
It is consistent with your making irrelevant objections as if they were
relevant, your asserting "authority" (eg professional standing & support by
unnamed others) while palpably lacking elementary debate skills (eg can't cite
any support), your pompous chest-thumping that you're right-right-right while
being utterly unable to prove it. These are recognizable traits; see below.
> Tough luck if you can't reconcile that with your laughable, silly arguments.
For more "laughable, silly arguments", I recommend my source for the above:
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html -- searchable db of SCOTUS rulings
- - - - -
"For some reason at this point I think of what has been
called the Right Man syndrome.
"This is not a concept from clinical or experimental
psychology. It is a mere empirical generalisation by the
writer A.E. Van Vogt, in a pamphlet _Report on the Violent
male_, cited by [Colin] Wilson in _Criminal History_...,
pp64-71...The Violent Male...seems to be a man who literally
cannot, _ever_, admit he might be wrong, he _knows_ he is
right...Van Vogt found that an astonishing amount of violence
is committed by these males, and he calls the type _The Right
Man_, because this man always insists he is Right...."
-- Robert Anton Wilson, _The New Inquisition_, pp139-140.
- - - - -
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
[...]
- - - - -
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven)
Newsgroups: opera.test,comp.lang.c,alt.politics.british
Subject: cmsg cancel <7d8764ba.01122...@posting.google.com>
Control: cancel <7d8764ba.01122...@posting.google.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 05:22:37 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.7d8764ba.0...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009788944 23272 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 08:55:44 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 08:55:44 GMT
X-No-Archive: yes
Comment: Anarchy! Fuck You!
X-Commentary: I love NewsAgent 1.10, Sandblaster Build 74 (19 March 1999) and the Polaris Cancel Engine V. 6.1
X-Unacanc3l: yes
This message was cancelled from within Mozilla...not
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>> Duncan Idaho <Barri...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>>>>> While other legal scholars feel otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> What are you: incapable of thought?
>>
>> Not at all. It is because I *think*, not blindly accept all you say,
>> that I ask whether you can support your claims. Apparently you cannot.
>
> I gave you support, as well as cites.
No, you asked whether I was incapable of thought.
> Good article by military source (annotated with cites) about the
> "Declaration of War" not being the threshhold for war at www.usni.com
> -- enjoy.
I presume you mean "Are We Really at War?" by LTC Gary D. Solis, USMC (Ret.):
http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles01/PROsolis12.htm
is to the point: "... what constitutes war in a legal sense, in the sense of
the law of nations, and of the Constitution of the United States? For it must
be a war in this sense to attach to it all the consequences that belong to
belligerent rights. Instead, therefore, of inquiring after armies and navies,
and victories lost and won, or organized rebellion against the general
Government, the inquiry should be into the law of nations and into the
municipal fundamental laws of the Government. For we find there that to
constitute a... war in the sense in which we are speaking, before it can exist,
in contemplation of law, it must be recognized or declared by the sovereign
power of the State, and which sovereign power by our Constitution is lodged
in the Congress... war, therefore, under our system of government, can exist
>>> Who do you think advised President Bush on the tribunal issue?
>>
>> That's a question, not an answer. I might *speculate* that it was someone
>> within his administration, but then he has advisors both in and out of it,
>> the Heritage Foundation for an example of outside advisors. He also has
>> made notorious gaffes (like "crusade"), so it's not a safe assumption that
>> his advisors are the source of his statements.
>
> No, it was an answer, not a question. The Attorney General and his staff,
> the entire Department of Justice, officially advised President Bush that in
> order for trial of war enemies by military commission to be legal, the
> existing declaration by Congress was sufficient. This was the substance of
> Mr. Aschcroft's testimony before the Senate two weeks ago.
I gave the URL for the Department of Justice's own copy of that testimony.
(That URL is below the dashed line herein.) Please quote the relevant portion.
> It appears that when I offer you a cite that conflicts with the
> Potemkin-Villiage argument you have constructed, you simply ignore it.
Again, *I* gave a URL for it. The text there doesn't say what you say it says.
> Again, article at usni.com also notes that the former "Declaration of War"
> requirement is moribund.
In the opinion of a retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel, who based his argument
on equating a legal "state of war" to a condition of "actual hostilities",
showing that he did not understand the difference, as the Supreme Court does.
> Basically, on the one hand I appear to have the bulk of authority.
You have a retired Marine LTC on your side. This is good, in a firefight.
However, it lacks something of legal scholarship and legal authority.
> On the other hand, you have an argument you have constructed which
> carefully ignores all contrary authority. That won't get you far.
Oh, woe is me, only the Supreme Court backs me against you and LTC Solis.
If the venue were a battlefield, I'd be in trouble now. But it isn't.
>> You claimed that legal *scholars* feel otherwise. That suggests the
>> existence of a scholarly argument which can be cited. If the position
>> is coming from Karl Rove or Karen Hughes, well, they're not scholars.
>
> If we were talking rather than writing, I would assume that it was my
> American accent that caused you to be incapable of assimilating the
> information that I have provided you. You have deliberately and selectively
> ignored most of my points.
No, in fact I've read your points carefully. Perhaps more so than you wrote.
> Well, tough. The US military is moving the war enemies to Guantanamo Bay,
> Cuba (US Military installation there) and has announced that these persons
> will be tried by US Military Commission. You can reconcile that with all
> your bogus arguments.
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said ... the military has made no plans
to hold military tribunals at the Guantanamo Bay base. President Bush has
authorized military tribunals to try terrorist suspects from other countries,
but defense officials said Thursday Rumsfeld has not decided how, where or
even if those tribunals would take place." (Associated Press, 12/27/2001)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/ap/20011227/wl/afghan_us_military_70.html
> There's a cite for you, come to think of it...
Roger, you didn't *cite* anything there -- just made a claim, which *my* cite
shows to be premature at best, and possibly false in the outcome.
> The rest of your post was merely a pathetic attempt at name-calling, so I
> will give it what it deserves -- I am ignoring it.
As you have ignored all the cites I've given, while accusing me of "ignoring
reality". Well, at least you admit now that you're the one ignoring things.
As for "name-calling", I replied in the same tone and tenor you used. Here is
the remainder of the post you thus dismiss, no additional ">>" nesting:
- - - - -
> Hint: the US Department of Justice.
> They never accomplish anything.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven)
Newsgroups: opera.test,comp.lang.c,alt.politics.british
Subject: cmsg cancel <7d8764ba.01122...@posting.google.com>
Control: cancel <7d8764ba.01122...@posting.google.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 05:04:48 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.7d8764ba.0...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009788886 23272 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 08:54:46 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 08:54:46 GMT
Raven
>> But then what would be left to reply to?
>
> Do as you like.
Thank you for this gracious permission... but I would have done so anyway.
> Your posts have degenerated into trivia.
As where you make claims and I cite sources to show your claims to be false;
ah, you do find those hard facts to be inconvenient pesky things, don't you?
> You also appear to lack a life.
If I had much more of a life, I couldn't post the few-times-per-day that I do.
Sorry to say, I'll miss your charming conversation for a bit (a busy non-life,
don't you know?), but I wish you and yours a happy new year (and New Year's).
> I assume you have read the latest news reports that the plan to try war
> criminals ("detainees"--we are denying them POW status) by US Military
> Commission.
>
> Hope the reality doesn't shatter you too badly.
Poor Roger, you still haven't seen the self-contradiction you're engaging in.
You said before, "It is not an action against criminals." Now you refer to
them as "war criminals." In short, you concede. How could this shatter me?
You said before, "It is an action against war enemies." That would make the
prisoners "prisoners of war". Now you say "'detainees' -- we are denying them
POW status". Hasn't it occurred to you that this is because there's no *war*?
You keep evading the question: for what would they be *tried* if not a *crime*?
The USA did not declare war, because it is not fighting a war. It went after
criminals who committed mass murder, with the goal of preventing further such
crimes by the same criminals. It plans to try those criminals it captures.
This is the classic goal of law enforcement, in short a "police action".
When the USA's police agencies went after domestic gangsters in the 1920s
and 1930s, that also was sometimes loosely referred to as a "war"; however,
despite that popular or press usage, there was no declaration of war by the
US Congress, and legally no "state of war". Criminals are not sovereign
states, and fighting criminals does not involve the legal meaning of "war".
Feel free to share that popular or press usage, which as Professor Walzer said
"is unobjectionable so long as those who use it understand what a metaphor is."
But, as someone who claims to be an attorney, you should know that this does
not carry with it the legal status of an actual declared war. The provisions
of law that apply in a legal "state of war" have not been triggered. That's
the reality -- all your flustered bluster and busted bluffs to the contrary.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven)
Newsgroups: opera.test,comp.lang.c,alt.politics.british
Subject: cmsg cancel <7d8764ba.01123...@posting.google.com>
Control: cancel <7d8764ba.01123...@posting.google.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 05:24:09 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.7d8764ba.0...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009786490 23272 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 08:14:50 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 08:14:50 GMT
Raven
>> and the USA is obviously *not* at war with them, no matter what you believe.
>
> Another false premise by you: the notion that "war" can only be with a
> nation state.
With a state, or *government*, at least. (The US did not acknowledge that the
rebel states in the Civil War constituted a separate *nation*.)
The premise is not "by me", Roger, as it predates me by a couple of centuries.
> This is not required.
When Harry Browne (recently the Libertarian candidate for US President) wrote -
"The terrorist attacks are a criminal matter, not a war. War is by definition
an armed conflict between governments. No government has claimed responsibility
for the September 11 attacks, and no government has been so accused." * - he
was in accord with the United States Army's legal definition of war, "a legal
condition of armed hostility between States" (The Law of Land War, FM 27-10).**
* http://www.americanlibertyfoundation.org/911/5_p.htm
** http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/Ch1.htm
> This is not required. In fact the US fought a war with the Barbary Pirates
> -- "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute" as you may (or may
> not) recall.
Ah, the wars with Tripoli and Algiers -- both of them "nation states",
which contradicts the claim you are trying to make.
>>> And the only person that has called the instant war a police action is you.
>>
>> Clearly you didn't do a Google search on "police action" usama/osama/taliban
>
> This is a war, not a police action.
So, your factual claim failing, you revert to argument by mere assertion,
as though your merely saying it (ad nauseam) would make it true.
>> Congress declined to declare a *war*, so there is no "instant war".
>
> Saying it doesn't make it true.
From you, again, this is hilarious. That's been your entire strategy.
Actually, *Congress* saying (declaring) that a state of war exists *does*
make it true -- and nothing else does. Only Congress's declaration can move
the United States from the legal condition called "state of peace" to the
legal condition called "state of war". Actual conflict is a separate matter.
> In point of fact, the war enemies we capture
To capture someone does not make him a "war enemy" if no state of war exists.
> who are found to merit it are going to be tried by secret US Military
> Commissions. Apparently in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
You continue to ignore what the US Secretary of Defense actually said, as
twice cited to you in this thread:
"[Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld said the military has made no plans
to hold military tribunals at the Guantanamo Bay base. President Bush has
authorized military tribunals to try terrorist suspects from other countries,
but defense officials said Thursday Rumsfeld has not decided how, where or
even if those tribunals would take place." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"US to Take Detainees to Cuban Base" by Matt Kelley, Associated Press:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/ap/20011227/wl/afghan_us_military_70.html
>> Bush got the U.N. Security Council's support; it authorized police action:
>> http://lcnp.org/pubs/Bombsaway!SPE01/article1.htm
>>
>> As for Bush's somewhat careless use of terms (like "crusade"), Arthur
>> Schlesenger Jr commented: "... our president had better take more care
>> with his language.
>
> Well, President Bush has performed admirably. As far as I am concerned the
> word "crusade" was just fine.
Interesting, because the US is not attempting to "carry the cross" against
the religion of Islam, and Bush himself has said that Islam is not the enemy;
he has spent a great deal of time trying to undo the implications of "crusade".
> A more faithless bunch of allies than the Islamics is impossible to imagine.
> In point of fact, they fell into line because President Bush made it damned
> clear to them that "those who are not with us are against us." Few had the
> courage to be against us. Those are the words that mattered, not (as some
> Democrat would have you believe) the use of the (entirely appropriate)
> word "crusade."
I'm sure that the Bush Administration (if it ever sees your words) will be
deeply grateful that you are not one of its spokesmen. You are every bit as
graceful as a diplomat as you are persuasive as an advocate, i.e. not at all.
>> His persistent use of the word 'war' recalls Harry S. Truman's preference
>> in the Korean War for a more appropriate term -- 'police action.'
>
> Wrong. It is a war and the country is at war.
Once again, your repetition of a false claim does nothing to make it true,
but does much to reveal your lack of concern for truth.
>> The terrorists are criminals; we should not bestow on them the dignity of
>> a sovereign state. 'Police action,' not 'war,' is what we should be
>> talking about today."
>
> Utterly wrong.
Again you offer nothing but repeated assertion in the place of factual support.
> In fact, you would have to be blind or willfully ignorant
Oh, yes, and invective in place of investigation. Not at all persuasive.
> to miss the fact that there is a broad national consensus that President Bush
> did precisely the right thing by NOT treating the 9/11 attack as a "crime."
> It was an act of war against the United States and we replied not with
> police. We brought the military to bear. You don't use the military
> against criminals. You use your military against war enemies. That is what
> the United States is doing.
I note that Schlesenger's example, the Korean conflict, involved sending the
military, not the "beat cops", so a "police action" *can* involve military.
>> Again, the President (especially in his informal utterances) doesn't have
>> the authority to declare *war*. Many people refer to the Korean conflict
>> as the Korean War, but that too was not a declared war, not a legal "state
>> of war".
>
> I find this point too trivial to concern me. The present conflict is a war.
> It is not an action against criminals. It is an action against war enemies.
If it is not an action against criminals, then for what would they be *tried*?
One doesn't try enemy soldiers who have committed no crime; one merely holds
them as prisoners of war and repatriates them at the end of the war.
By contrast, Congress authorized military force specifically against those who
partook in *criminal* (specifically, terrorist) acts -- "planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons".
>> The bill Congress *did* pass, H.J.Res. 64, is not a declaration of war.
>
> "Declaration of War" is passe--it was a sufficient declaration of
> Congressional intent to allow the President to attack other countries and
> try war criminals by US Military Commission. That is a war.
Again you offer nothing to support this assertion except your own repetition.
>>> Like I said, you have constructed a bogus argument that has a following
>>> of one, and proceeded from there. That kind of logic can lead anywhere,
>>> except to reality.
>>
>> You are on one side, and the United States Supreme Court -- which in
>> Ludecke v Hopkins (1948) expressly rejected reading "actual hostilities"
>> as equivalent to "declared war" -- is on another. Do have fun tilting at
>> that giant windmill.
>
> You are the ones tilting at windmills. As we speak, the US is at war.
The civilian courts are still open, etc.; there is legally no "state of war",
because only Congress declaring war could trigger that state, and (as your
own lonely citation from LTC Gary Solis notes) Congress has not declared war.
> It is preparing to try war criminals by secret US Military Commissions.
One can be a "war criminal" in the absence of a war. Genocide, for instance,
is a war crime, illegal in war as in peace. It doesn't become legal in peace.
> In fact, we may have already done so. Have fun with your textualist
> arguments that this cannot be happening. It is happening.
Again, you mistake the existence of "actual hostilities" for the legal
condition of a "declared war". They are not equivalent, and need not
even coincide -- as, for instance, the "declared war" of the USA against
Germany continued for six years after "actual hostilities" had ceased.
Simple ignorance explains your not knowing this the first time through,
but what could justify your refusal to learn, once the facts were given you?
>>> The reality is that the prisoners are being moved to Cuba for trial by
>>> US Military Commission.
>>
>> How nice. Since that is one option for dealing with crimes against humanity,
>> crimes against peace, and war crimes -- even in the absence of a legal war
>> -- (see http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/Ch8.htm for
>> details), this event says nothing about whether a legal state of war exists,
>> or whether Jane Fonda could be charged with treason for her dealings with
>> North Vietnam.
>
> Jane Fonda should have been tried for treason.
The sole permitted definition of treason in US law requires that there be an
"enemy" to whom aid and comfort are given. It is the declaration of war that
identifies such an "enemy". In the absence of a declaration of war, there is
legally no "enemy" and thus no possibility of "treason". This is why the
Rosenbergs (like Klaus Fuchs in the UK) were not charged with treason.
Your failure to understand this simple point after repeated explanation
brings into question your capacity to comprehend the "elements of offense".
Yet you claim to be a barrister? Surely not in criminal law.
>> But perhaps by now you have forgotten what the issue actually was. This is
>> often a failing of the mentally incapable, so I am not terribly surprised.
>
> No, actually name calling and personal attacks is
Do pay attention to agreement in number, Roger. You meant to say, "are".
As in, "Actually, name calling and personal attacks *are* [Roger's] fall-back
strategy, and [Roger will] deeply resent anyone turning them back around."
But I'll tell you, as I tell all other bullies (verbal or otherwise) who whine
and snivel when the tables are turned on them: don't dish it out if you can't
take it. Yet you complain, after all *your* name-calling and personal attacks?
> often a failing exhibit
And what did you think it would be when you were doing it? Rush-like rhetoric?
Ohhhh, but that's *it*, isn't it? You were trying to emulate Mr Limbaugh!
What you forgot is that Limbaugh doesn't let anyone answer him back, let alone
in kind. Your using his technique, in an *open* debate, was doomed to fail.
> by persons such as yourself
But you thought it would work as long as *you* were the one doing it, being
such a special person and entitled to special dispensations for being you.
> who essentially are unable to distinguish reality from imaginary arguments
No problem. Here's the distinction:
Reality: the quotes and cites I gave of actual legal sources.
Imaginary arguments: the "legal consensus" you said supported you, but which
(when asked repeatedly) you were unable to cite; your idea of "legal realism"
which amounted to Humpty-Dumptyism ("the law is whatever I [*] say it is").
[* "and my imaginary six-foot-tall invisible white rabbit, Legal Consensus" ]
> that you perhaps win with yourself.
I don't have to "win"; I cited arguments that already won at the Supreme Court.
They don't have to persuade *you*, Roger, because you have no such authority,
and are unlikely ever to be given any when you so lightly ignore the law.
I have taken this time with you only out of charity, nothing more.
You are of course free to cover your ears, shut your eyes, and scream NO NO NO
until I go away, then count your refusal to learn as a "victory" of sorts.
To everyone else that confirms your stupidity, but don't let that bother you.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!newsengine.sol.net!news-feed.riddles.org.uk!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven)
Newsgroups: opera.test,comp.lang.c,alt.politics.british
Subject: cmsg cancel <7d8764ba.01122...@posting.google.com>
Control: cancel <7d8764ba.01122...@posting.google.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 04:48:16 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.7d8764ba.0...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009788193 23272 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 08:43:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 08:43:13 GMT
Raven
> The reality is that the prisoners are being moved to Cuba
> for trial by US Military Commission.
But the reality of the real world, as distinct from Roger's dreamworld, is...
. vvvvvvvv
"[Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld said the military has made no plans
to hold military tribunals at the Guantanamo Bay base. President Bush has
authorized military tribunals to try terrorist suspects from other countries,
but defense officials said Thursday Rumsfeld has not decided how, where or
even if those tribunals would take place." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"US to Take Detainees to Cuban Base" by Matt Kelley, Associated Press:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/ap/20011227/wl/afghan_us_military_70.html
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven)
Newsgroups: opera.test,comp.lang.c,alt.politics.british
Subject: cmsg cancel <7d8764ba.01122...@posting.google.com>
Control: cancel <7d8764ba.01122...@posting.google.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 04:58:01 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.7d8764ba.0...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009788930 23272 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 08:55:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 08:55:30 GMT
Raven
>> wrote - "The terrorist attacks are a criminal matter, not a war. War is
>> by definition an armed conflict between governments. No government has
>> claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks, and no government
>> legal definition of war, "a legal condition of armed hostility between
>> States" (The Law of Land War, FM 27-10).
>
I notice that once again you cite nothing to support you, but dismiss even
the United States Army's own manual about the law of war as "nonsense", as
earlier you had dismissed rulings of the United States Supreme Court.
Apparently you expect people to accept you, not them, as a legal authority.
>> Ah, the wars with Tripoli and Algiers -- both of them "nation states",
>> which contradicts the claim you are trying to make.
>
> Too bad you are wrong about that.
Easily documented, Roger. For example:
> But hey, that hasn't stopped you.
Why would your spouting falsehoods stop me? They are so easily refuted.
> According to you, the war in Afghanistan against Al-Quaida isn't even
> happening.
Last time I said "There is no war between the USA and Afghanistan," you replied
"You are out of your mind." I see you're backing down from that. But "war
*in* Afghanistan" might refer to there being a civil war within that country,
which is changing the subject from whether the *USA* is legally at war. Then
you try and attribute this change of topics to me ("According to you,...").
So you're smokescreening, because you've realized your position's wrong.
> I understand that reality is not important to you.
Then again your "understanding" is in fact a false belief. No surprise there.
>> "[Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld said the military has made no plans
>> to hold military tribunals at the Guantanamo Bay base. President Bush has
>> authorized military tribunals to try terrorist suspects from other
>> countries, but defense officials said Thursday Rumsfeld has not decided
>> how, where or even if those tribunals would take place."
>
> Doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that if the terrorist
> war-enemies are in detention in Guantanamo,
Notice that Rumsfeld refers to them, not as "war-enemies" but as "suspects",
i.e. people suspected of participating in a crime (terrorism).
> that that is probably where they will be tried.
You said before, "It is not an action against criminals. It is an action
against war enemies." I asked you, "If it is not an action against criminals,
then for what would they be *tried*?" You merely snipped the question.
Here again you insist they will be *tried*. For what, if not a *crime*?
Perhaps you think that terrorism is not a crime. But it is. The terrorists
violated both US federal statutes against terrorism and international laws
(which give "universal jurisdiction" so that any nation can prosecute crimes
against humanity, crimes against peace, and war crimes). This is what gives
legal justification for the US to pursue and capture participants & accessories
wherever they are. No declaration of war was needed, because this is not war,
it is law enforcement -- in short, a "police action".
> The rest of your post, in typical fashion, degenerated into immature, windy,
> whiney name calling.
Where I quoted your text verbatim. Should I snip your name-calling from now on?
But then what would be left to reply to?
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!newsengine.sol.net!169.207.29.20.MISMATCH!newsfeed4.cidera.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven)
Newsgroups: opera.test,comp.lang.c,alt.politics.british
Subject: cmsg cancel <7d8764ba.01122...@posting.google.com>
Control: cancel <7d8764ba.01122...@posting.google.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 05:59:56 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.7d8764ba.0...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009787487 23272 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 08:31:27 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 08:31:27 GMT
Duncan Idaho
> and the USA is obviously *not* at war with them, no matter what you
believe.
Another false premise by you: the notion that "war" can only be with a
nation state. This is not required. In fact the US fought a war with the
Barbary Pirates--"millions for defense but not one cent for tribute" as you
may (or may not) recall.
>
> > And the only person that has called the instant war a police action is
you.
>
> Clearly you didn't do a Google search on "police action"
usama/osama/taliban...
This is a war, not a police action.
>
> Congress declined to declare a *war*, so there is no "instant war".
Saying it doesn't make it true. In point of fact, the war enemies we
capture who are found to merit it are going to be tried by secret US
Military Commissions. Apparently in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
>
> Bush got the U.N. Security Council's support; it authorized police action:
> http://lcnp.org/pubs/Bombsaway!SPE01/article1.htm
>
> As for Bush's somewhat careless use of terms (like "crusade"), Arthur
> Schlesenger Jr commented: "... our president had better take more care
with
> his language.
Well, President Bush has performed admirably. As far as I am concerned the
word "crusade" was just fine. A more faithless bunch of allies than the
Islamics is impossible to imagine. In point of fact, they fell into line
because President Bush made it damned clear to them that "those who are not
with us are against us." Few had the courage to be against us. Those are
the words that mattered, not (as some Democrat would have you believe) the
use of the (entirely appropriate) word "crusade."
> His persistent use of the word 'war' recalls Harry S. Truman's
> preference in the Korean War for a more appropriate term -- 'police
action.'
Wrong. It is a war and the country is at war.
> The terrorists are criminals; we should not bestow on them the dignity of
a
> sovereign state. 'Police action,' not 'war,' is what we should be
talking
> about today."
Utterly wrong. In fact, you would have to be blind or willfully ignorant to
miss the fact that there is a broad national consensus that President Bush
did precisely the right thing by NOT treating the 9/11 attack as a "crime."
It was an act of war against the United States and we replied not with
police. We brought the military to bear. You don't use the military
against criminals. You use your military against war enemies. That is what
the United States is doing.
>
> Again, the President (especially in his informal utterances) doesn't have
the
> authority to declare *war*. Many people refer to the Korean conflict as
the
> Korean War, but that too was not a declared war, not a legal "state of
war".
I find this point too trivial to concern me. The present conflict is a war.
It is not an action against criminals. It is an action against war enemies.
>
> The bill Congress *did* pass, H.J.Res. 64, is not a declaration of war.
"Declaration of War" is passe--it was a sufficient declaration of
Congressional intent to allow the President to attack other countries and
try war criminals by US Military Commission. That is a war.
>
> > Like I said, you have constructed a bogus argument that has a following
of
> > one, and proceeded from there. That kind of logic can lead anywhere,
except
> > to reality.
>
> You are on one side, and the United States Supreme Court -- which in
Ludecke
> v Hopkins (1948) expressly rejected reading "actual hostilities" as
equivalent
> to "declared war" -- is on another. Do have fun tilting at that giant
windmill.
You are the ones tilting at windmills. As we speak, the US is at war. It
is preparing to try war criminals by secret US Military Commissions. In
fact, we may have already done so. Have fun with your textualist arguments
that this cannot be happening. It is happening.
>
> > The reality is that the prisoners are being moved to Cuba for trial by
US
> > Military Commission.
>
> How nice. Since that is one option for dealing with crimes against
humanity,
> crimes against peace, and war crimes -- even in the absence of a legal
war --
> (see http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/Ch8.htm for
details),
> this event says nothing about whether a legal state of war exists, or
whether
> Jane Fonda could be charged with treason for her dealings with North
Vietnam.
Jane Fonda should have been tried for treason.
>
> But perhaps by now you have forgotten what the issue actually was. This
is
> often a failing of the mentally incapable, so I am not terribly surprised.
No, actually name calling and personal attacks is often a failing exhibit by
persons such as yourself who essentially are unable to distinguish reality
from imaginary arguments that you perhaps win with yourself.
>
> It is consistent with your making irrelevant objections as if they were
> relevant, your asserting "authority" (eg professional standing & support
by
> unnamed others)
By the way, someone should have taught you brevity along the way. Your
whiney, windy posts are overlong, repetitive, and unimpressive.
The personal remarks continue. Post terminated (with disgust).
--
Roger J. Buffington
------------------------
"If we're so cruel to minorities, why do they keep coming here? Why aren't
they sneaking across the Mexican border to make their way to the Taliban?"
--Ann Coulter
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "Duncan Idaho" <Barri...@socal.rr.com>
Newsgroups: opera.test,comp.lang.c,alt.politics.british
Subject: cmsg cancel <AA0X7.20216$37.52...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>
Control: cancel <AA0X7.20216$37.52...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 07:16:27 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.AA0X7.20216$37.52...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009788607 23272 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 08:50:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 08:50:07 GMT
Duncan Idaho
now on?
>
> But then what would be left to reply to?
Do as you like. Your posts have degenerated into trivia. You also appear
to lack a life.
I assume you have read the latest news reports that the plan to try war
criminals ("detainees"--we are denying them POW status) by US Military
Commission.
Hope the reality doesn't shatter you too badly.
--
Roger J. Buffington
----
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human
passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only
for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government
of any other."
President John Adams
"When an American says that he loves his country," Adlai Stevenson once
said, "he means that he loves an inner air, an inner light in which freedom
lives and in which a man can draw the breath of self-respect."
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "Duncan Idaho" <Barri...@socal.rr.com>
Newsgroups: opera.test,comp.lang.c,alt.politics.british
Subject: cmsg cancel <SmJX7.3321$0b.7...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>
Control: cancel <SmJX7.3321$0b.7...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 06:39:09 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.SmJX7.3321$0b.7...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009786904 23272 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 08:21:44 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 08:21:44 GMT
Duncan Idaho
wrote -
> "The terrorist attacks are a criminal matter, not a war. War is by
definition
> an armed conflict between governments. No government has claimed
responsibility
> for the September 11 attacks, and no government has been so accused." * -
he
> was in accord with the United States Army's legal definition of war, "a
legal
> condition of armed hostility between States" (The Law of Land War, FM
27-10).**
Nonsense. It need not be a state.
>
> Ah, the wars with Tripoli and Algiers -- both of them "nation states",
> which contradicts the claim you are trying to make.
Too bad you are wrong about that. But hey, that hasn't stopped you.
According to you, the war in Afghanistan against Al-Quaida isn't even
happening. I understand that reality is not important to you.
>
> "[Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld said the military has made no plans
> to hold military tribunals at the Guantanamo Bay base. President Bush has
> authorized military tribunals to try terrorist suspects from other
countries,
> but defense officials said Thursday Rumsfeld has not decided how, where or
> even if those tribunals would take place."
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that if the terrorist
war-enemies are in detention in Guantanamo, that that is probably where they
will be tried.
The rest of your post, in typical fashion, degenerated into immature, windy,
whiney name calling. It was also overlong and boring, so I clipped it
without response.
--
Roger J. Buffington
--
"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10
empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." --
President George W. Bush
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "Duncan Idaho" <Barri...@socal.rr.com>
Newsgroups: opera.test,comp.lang.c,alt.politics.british
Subject: cmsg cancel <lGiX7.769$0b.2...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>
Control: cancel <lGiX7.769$0b.2...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 07:56:28 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.lGiX7.769$0b.2...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009788053 23272 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 08:40:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 08:40:53 GMT
Duncan Idaho
>
> But, as someone who claims to be an attorney, you should know that this
does
> not carry with it the legal status of an actual declared war. The
provisions
> of law that apply in a legal "state of war" have not been triggered.
That's
> the reality -- all your flustered bluster and busted bluffs to the
contrary.
Sorry, old bean, but as a Judge once said to me about something unrelated,
"I just don't see it your way..."
We are fighting a war. You are right about one thing though--the people we
are fighting against are not soldiers, and unlike soldiers they are not
POWs. They are detainees who are subject to trial by US Military
Commissions.
Look, nothing personal about all of this and there is no call for personal
comments. We simply disagree. I have merely pointed out that in my opinion
the weight of authority is against you. If you disagree, fine. No reason
to get personal about it.
--
Roger J. Buffington
--
"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10
empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." --
President George W. Bush
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "Duncan Idaho" <Barri...@socal.rr.com>
Newsgroups: opera.test,comp.lang.c,alt.politics.british
Subject: cmsg cancel <t3TX7.3844$0b.10...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>
Control: cancel <t3TX7.3844$0b.10...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 05:57:51 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.t3TX7.3844$0b.10...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009786420 23272 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 08:13:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 08:13:41 GMT