Terror is a tactic, not a nation. You are letting the quirks of language muddy your reasoning. By your logic drug users, dealers, and trafficers should be tried in military courts -- not to mention Tim McVeigh, Richard Reid, Ted Kazsinsky, abortion clinic bombers....

The entire purpose of trying these people in civil courts is to muddy the waters, and to show the rest of the world that Americans suck.

That's all.

Radwaste: that makes no sense. Who wants to muddy the waters and show that America sucks? Do you truly believe Obama is some kind of Manchurian candidate who hates America? Because that, you know, is completely off-the-rails cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

I'm pretty sure that reacting to terrorist acts in a calm, intelligent fashion and granting our enemies a fair and public trial only shows the world what is awesome about America.

Obama is an idealistic idiot with no connection to the real world.

This surprises ANYONE?

franko is right terrorism is a tactic.

However franko is aslo willingly inoring the obvious. While we can never be at war with a tacti we are at war with a multi national group called al-Queda.

The panty bomber readily admited he was trained, supplied, and given specific orders by this group which openly declared war on us. Therefore if the panty bomber was trained by a group at war with us, was supplied by a group at war with us, and was following the orders of a group at war with us then he is indeed a military prisoner.

Drug dealers, users, and trafficers are no part of a single group which has openly declared war - they are individuals seeking to cricumvent their punishment in breaking laws.

I'm pretty sure that reacting to terrorist acts in a calm, intelligent fashion and granting our enemies a fair and public trial only shows the world what is awesome about America.

No, it shows our enemies that we are weak and unwilling to actually fight them.

You live in a fantasy world where everyone is rational.

I live in the real world where some people aren't.

And our enemies in this ill-named venture are not rational by Western standards of rationality.

If Bush had an ounce more spine, he'd have called this what it is - the War on Islam.

Terror is a tactic, not a nation. You are letting the quirks of language muddy your reasoning. By your logic drug users, dealers, and trafficers should be tried in military courts -- not to mention Tim McVeigh, Richard Reid, Ted Kazsinsky, abortion clinic bombers....

Posted by: franko at January 11, 2010 1:03 AM
===============================
Tim McVeigh and Ted Kazinsky are U.S. citizens and under the U.S. Constitution are entitled to a civilian trial.

Richard Reid was mistakenly given a civilian trial and should not have been-just like other non U.S. citizens.

Obama is a fucking idiot. That there are still people who approve of him speaks very, very poorly of our average intelligence here in the US.

The ignorance and blind stupidity of this administration is, frankly, astonishing to me.

You'd think we were in 1980, prior to Beirut, prior to the first World Trade Center attempted bombing, prior to the USS Cole bombing, prior to NINE ELEVEN for crying out loud!!!! Prior to our going to war to attempt to stamp out (or at least subdue) a terrorist organization which exists to destroy our nation and Israel from off the planet.

but no, our commander in chief attempts to reassure the public--three days after the incident--that this is an "isolated incident" and one individual acting alone. What kind of fools does he take us for? Is he really that f'ing stupid?? Everyone in this country has heard of A-Q.

Franko, your comments are patently absurd. I cannot think of a single reason why we should afford the rights of a UNITED STATES CITIZEN to a foreign terrorist who was attempting to blow up an airline and murder some 200+ U.S. citizens....Brian is right--it simply makes us look WEAK to our enemy.

I don't know how many more innocent Americans are going to have to be murdered on U.S. soil before this administration pulls its collective head out of its arse.

Beth, I was just thinking that it's 1993 all over again. That was the year of the first Islamist attempt to destroy the WTC, and Clinton's mis-handling of that led directly to 9/11. Obama is making all of the same mistakes that Clinton made then.

BTW, I'm not sure, but my guess is that Mr. Franko is our Butthole friend's latest bit of sock puppetry.

No, franko is a progg-troll who first came over when the feminazis declared war on Amy for heresy, and he still comes around to poke us troglodytes.

He's still dumber than a sack of hammers.

Brian is right--it simply makes us look WEAK to our enemy.

What's more, it forces the prosecutors to expose secret info in a public trial, thus endangering people and sources of intelligence. This has been written about extensively by McCarthy, who I believe was the lead prosecutor on the 93 WTC bombing.

I know everyone wants to beat up the justice system and scream about the Panty Bomber not being tried in military court but there really are legal reasons why that can't and won't happen. First and foremost is the fact that he was not captured in a designated war zone. He was captured on a civilian airliner. So unless we want someone to designate all of our planes and our homeland as a war zone he has to be tried in FEDERAL court. He won't be tried in the superior court of Michigan which would be way worse because of the back log of cases that the state courts have, not to mention the endless appeals process. Federal courts tend to operate more like military tribunals and justice tends to be swift and without much recourse. Don't get me wrong, because I think they should have thrown the piece of sh*t into a dark hole in Gitmo and tortured him until he gave up the info we want and need from him. Fortunately (or undfortunately depending on your viewpoint) we have not yet digressed to being the ass backward morons that are terrorizing us. We are still, for the most part, a civilized nation with laws.

How does it make us look weak when we try people in civilian courts? Is weak for us to make it clear that our system of justice can fairly try and convict terrorists? To try this guy in military courts is to buy into the terrorists' rationale that they are warriors. To try him in civilian court is to make them into ordinary criminals. There's no glory in that that.

What's more, it forces the prosecutors to expose secret info in a public trial, thus endangering people and sources of intelligence.

This is not correct. In this case, there is no need to divulge anything secret. Man had explosives, tried to blow up plane, got stopped.

Don't get me wrong, because I think they should have thrown the piece of sh*t into a dark hole in Gitmo and tortured him until he gave up the info we want and need from him.

I cannot comprehend some Americans' enthusiasm for torture. It is abject cowardice. It is also stupidity. Torture gets people to divulge things - but they will say whatever they think their interrogators want. It creates fantastic propaganda and recruiting opportunities for the terrorists when we do these things. The more we become like the terrorists in response to what they do, the more they win.

To try him in civilian court is to make them into ordinary criminals. There's no glory in that that.

Bullshit. He gets to spend as much time as he wants lecturing the "infidel" and using his system against him. He shows how the infidel is weak, and loves life too much.

There is only one way to deal with Islamist terrorists that don't self-detonate: hang them with the lower intestine of a pig.

Sara: "he was not captured in a designated war zone"

Sounds a lot like "come here and attack only innocent civilians so you'll be charged and tried with all the rights offered under the Constitution."

Your nonsense that if airplanes aren't designated war zones terrorists have to be tried in Federal Court is, fortunately, just made up. He could be tried in a Military Tribunal, or held indefinitely at GITMO. Just because Obama chose the obscenity of providing the guy with all the rights of an American citizen doesn't make it our only option.

Hey Brian, I like to say "Smarter than a sackfull of hammers."

I respect your opinion Franko, but think you are off-base on this one. This was an act of war, and his ass should be in Gitmo. Course, I wouldn't mind seeing some of our south-of-the-border drug lords treated to our finest military accomadations.

Question: Does this terrorist now have the right to plead the fifth, or only speak through an attorney? That would be plain absurd while we have combat troops dying in at least two countries. Actionable intelligence from a guy like this has a very short shelf life I would imagine.

First and foremost is the fact that he was not captured in a designated war zone.

So what? If an enemy soldier sneaks into one of your cities he stops being a combatant and becomes a criminal?

This is not correct. In this case, there is no need to divulge anything secret. Man had explosives, tried to blow up plane, got stopped.

Maybe, maybe not. But regardless, will you say the same of the 9/11 guys they're now planning to try in NYC? Think there's no intelligence that will have to be divulged there? It's a matter of precedent. Once it becomes common practice to treat these guys as criminals, that's what will be done across the board, and no doubt there will be intelligence divulged if that's the case. McCarthy has written about his experience with this phenomenon in the 93 WTC case. You can read up about it if you're interested.

Bullshit. He gets to spend as much time as he wants lecturing the "infidel" and using his system against him.

He does not. Federal courts simply don't permit that kind of grandstanding.

Whatever: "This is not correct. In this case, there is no need to divulge anything secret. Man had explosives, tried to blow up plane, got stopped."

Sorry, bub, but that's simply not accurate. Think outside the box for a second. Where do you think he got the funding for the explosives? Who else is part of his network? What other operatives are they planning? For you to say what you have is as overly simplistic, ignorant and dangerous as the president's "one isolated extremist" remark.

"I cannot comprehend some Americans' enthusiasm for torture. It is abject cowardice. It is also stupidity. Torture gets people to divulge things - but they will say whatever they think their interrogators want. It creates fantastic propaganda and recruiting opportunities for the terrorists when we do these things. The more we become like the terrorists in response to what they do, the more they win."

Two points to make on torture. First of all, what is your definition of torture? Using fear tactics? Waterboarding? I believe there is a vast difference between some of the interrogation techniques used to extract information and true torture: cutting off fingers, shoving wood underneath fingernails, etc.

Secondly: it is not hard for a skilled interrogator to realize when he's being given "I'll say anything to make this stop" answers. It becomes pretty obvious, pretty fast when that's occurring.

Many Americans are not "enthusiastic" about the use of "torture" as liberals define it. But it is effective. It works and saves lives.

Lastly, were we to ban all questionable techniques and give the terrorists everything they wanted, we would not earn a single extra iota of respect from them.

Think outside the box for a second. Where do you think he got the funding for the explosives? Who else is part of his network? What other operatives are they planning?

This information is not needed to convict the man of what he has been charged with. However, our agents can use him giving up that information as part of a plea deal.

Two points to make on torture. First of all, what is your definition of torture?

Waterboarding, stress positions, extended sleep deprivation, mock executions, etc. All of these "enhanced interrogation tactics". Because someone doesn't end up mutilated doesn't mean it's not torture.

Secondly: it is not hard for a skilled interrogator to realize when he's being given "I'll say anything to make this stop" answers. It becomes pretty obvious, pretty fast when that's occurring.

Really? How do you know that? Most skilled interrogators oppose the use of torture.

But it is effective. It works and saves lives.

Do you have an iota of evidence to support this? Not simply, that Dick Cheney says torture works, but actual evidence that we got useful information through torture that has saved lives.

Your nonsense that if airplanes aren't designated war zones terrorists have to be tried in Federal Court is, fortunately, just made up.

Robin it is not made up. It is fact. Check military law. I work in the field of military law every day with a JAG attorney.

Lastly, were we to ban all questionable techniques and give the terrorists everything they wanted, we would not earn a single extra iota of respect from them.

I don't give a damn about them respecting us. I give a damn about us respecting us. Our allies respecting us. People who aspire to better things in this world respecting us. The inhumanity of our actions in places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib advanced the jihadis cause immeasurably.

Our allies respecting us.

That explains the support for socialized medicine.

People who aspire to better things in this world respecting us.

Won't happen. They're too busy being jealous of us.

The inhumanity of our actions in places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib advanced the jihadis cause immeasurably.

Inhumanity my foot! This is bullshit on stilts. Our VERY EXISTENCE is what advances the cause of jihad.

Take the time to learn even the most basic facts about our enemy before you make yourself look like even more of a fool.

"Check military law." Even Obama hasn't tried to justify his decision by saying he's required by military law to try the guy in US civilian court.

I think you may be saying that to get into a military tribunal, one must have been captured in a war zone, but that is also incorrect.

"This information is not needed to convict the man of what he has been charged with. However, our agents can use him giving up that information as part of a plea deal."

Missing the point entirely, my friend. I am concerned very little with *convicting* this kid compared to how concerned I am with the information that he has (had) that can be used to disrupt and prevent future terrorist attacks. This is NOT simply a law enforcement issue as you seem to imply. You really think he gives a sh*t about a plea deal?? He was ready to blow himself up if it meant taking down a few hundred infidels. His only interest would be getting out sooner so that he can continue to wage holy war.

"Because someone doesn't end up mutilated doesn't mean it's not torture."

OK, that's your opinion. Can't argue with that. It is a subjective definition.

"Do you have an iota of evidence to support this? Not simply, that Dick Cheney says torture works, but actual evidence that we got useful information through torture that has saved lives."

I have a TS clearance. I'll let you draw your own conclusions, but the simple answer is yes.

I will grant you that we did an enormous amount of damage to our image and our mission with Abu Ghraib. That behavior was disgusting; but that was *torture* for sport and entertainment; not interrogation done under appropriate supervision for a valid purpose. You can't possibly lump the events at Abu Ghraib into the same thing as enhanced interrogation techniques to extract information from suspected terrorists.

OK, that's your opinion. Can't argue with that. It is a subjective definition.

No, notwithstanding John Yoo's pathetic attempts at legal justification of this criminality, things such as waterboarding, mock executions and the rest are clearly torture and against U.S. law and our treaty obligations.

You can't possibly lump the events at Abu Ghraib into the same thing as enhanced interrogation techniques to extract information from suspected terrorists.

The tactics employed at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from what was done at Gitmo. Miller was sent there to do exactly that. Abu Ghraib got out of control, of that there is no doubt; but what happened there was a direct extension of authorized torture policies. The fall guys for that were low level MP-types; they didn't just up and decide to do what they did without the encouragement of their superiors.

I have a TS clearance. I'll let you draw your own conclusions, but the simple answer is yes.

I'll draw the conclusion that you're writing on an anonymous blog and therefore I have no reason to believe you about this.

Sorry, I posted accidentally before completing a thought.

...that is also incorrect because the act of war automatically designates the "war zone". As soon as the guy attacked the US, the locale of his attack was subject to military law.

Is the JAG office as well-run as the medical branch?:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FORT_HOOD_PENTAGON_REVIEW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-01-11-07-48-17

"He does not. Federal courts simply don't permit that kind of grandstanding."

Maybe, maybe not. But federal prisons do. In the immortal words of a top criminologist: "go yee forth and do no crime, but if you do, do federal time". It's cushy. Too damn cushy for terrorists.

"However, our agents can use him giving up that information as part of a plea deal"

Listen to you! Now you want to give a man who tried his damnedest to kill more than 200 innocent people a deal? What do you think, 5 years including time served? Really, what sort of plea bargain works for a terrorist? After all, we'd hate for him to grow old waiting to get out and succeed at his mission this time, wouldn't we? He wanted to die. I say let's oblige the man, quickly.

Maybe, maybe not. But federal prisons do. In the immortal words of a top criminologist: "go yee forth and do no crime, but if you do, do federal time". It's cushy. Too damn cushy for terrorists.

Try reading about life in the sort of SuperMax prison these people end up in. It's not "Club Fed". Heard many rants from Moussaoui or the shoe bomber recently?

Listen to you! Now you want to give a man who tried his damnedest to kill more than 200 innocent people a deal?

I'd be willing to offer him incentives, yes, if he provided information that led to the capture or killing of the people who funded him, prepared the explosives, or otherwise supported his operation. Turning him loose in 5 years is, of course crazy.

I say let's oblige the man, quickly.

While understandable, your thinking in this matter is entirely tactical. Our strategic ends are served better by getting this man to talk than by executing him.

He was talking before some pussy decided that he should be mirandized as a street criminal rather than interrogated like a war criminal.

"No, notwithstanding John Yoo's pathetic attempts at legal justification of this criminality, things such as waterboarding, mock executions and the rest are clearly torture and against U.S. law and our treaty obligations."

Really. How are they "clearly" torture? Whose definition are you using? Again, my point is that the definition of torture is indeed a subjective one. Your contention that waterboarding is torture has as much validity as mine which contends that it is not.

"The tactics employed at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from what was done at Gitmo."

uh, no. There is no general in their right mind who would allow and encourage such behavior on the simple grounds that it's too damn risky and an guaranteed career ender if caught. Regardless of how morally bankrupt he/she is, the desire for self-preservation will always win out. Poor supervision and an appalling lack of leadership at many different levels? Absolutely. Intentional tactics employed as part of a scheme because Bush and Cheney are the collective antichrist? Not so much.

"I'll draw the conclusion that you're writing on an anonymous blog and therefore I have no reason to believe you about this."

Ok then.

Won't happen. They're too busy being jealous of us.

Brian, have you spent any significant time traveling outside the U.S.? My experiences with it suggest that this is a gross misconception.

Really. How are they "clearly" torture? Whose definition are you using?

U.S. CODE:

§ 2340. Definitions

As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

If an enemy soldier sneaks into one of your cities he stops being a combatant and becomes a criminal?

Under the internationally accepted rules of war, if he's not wearing something that clearly identifies him as an enemy soldier (i.e., a uniform), he's a spy and can be summarily shot.

This guy represents a beligerent foreign power (granted, not a nation-state) and was attempting to destroy an airliner and kill civilians within sovereign US territory.

Seems to me, a good case could be made to treat him as a spy or non-uniformed enemy combatant.

Look, I'm not for the use of true torture against POW's or enemy combatants. But I hardly think that every item used as an enhanced interrogation technique qualifies as such, by your definition above or any other.

And, they have been proven to be effective. Just because you don't read about it on the internet or watch it on the news doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And, they have been proven to be effective. Just because you don't read about it on the internet or watch it on the news doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Well, it's unfortunate for those who wish to make the case for torture that they can't produce evidence it works.

I rarely comment, but...

I believe that there is some over-generalization going on on both sides of this conversation. Leaving torture out of the conversation for a minute the question is whether the bvd-bomber should be tried as a civilian or in a military court. I fall on the side of civilian court. Terrorists are, at the end of the day, people that violate the laws of nations. In this case the guy apparently attempted murder. We have established laws on the books for dealing with this. Treating AQ like a nation benefits them, not us. This guy is not an enemy combatant, he is a piss-poor excuse for a criminal (luckily for the other passengers...) and should be treated as such. If there are issues with our criminal justice system then those issues need to be dealt with separately.

I have watched Iraq change over the course of three deployments. One of the largest catalysts for change there, for peace, is the establishment of rule of law. When civilized procedures for dealing with criminal actions are in place and utilized then the terrorists lose. When we act like them, not respecting our own rules and laws, then we lose. Terrorism has to subvert rule of law in order to be successful, not just in the initial act but in our reaction to it as well. If AQ wants the US to change then our disregarding our own procedures for dealing with criminals is a great way to begin.

I am far from some bleeding-heart liberal who thinks that this kid was just misled into a poor decision. Frankly I think everything would have been a lot easier is the passengers subduing him had "accidentally" broken his neck. But that did not happen, now he is just like any other non-US citizen that committed a crime on (or over) US soil. Try him the same way.

"Under the internationally accepted rules of war, if he's not wearing something that clearly identifies him as an enemy soldier (i.e., a uniform), he's a spy and can be summarily shot."

That depends on a declaration of war, which Congress has not done.

Yet another example of how sorry Americans are. they think they can do anything - even ignore their own Constitution.

Well-said, Gareth.

That depends on a declaration of war, which Congress has not done.

No, but al Qaeda has. bin Laden and al Qaeda declared war on the US...in the early 90s, I believe.

By the way, Congress also did not declare war for the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Gulf War I, Haiti, Kosovo, Gulf War II, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

In fact, I believe the last actual declaration of war passed by the US Congress (or asked for by the US President) was for World War II.

In his speech, Obama did say we are "at war with al Qaeda." And he is a Constitutional scholar.

Rad, I'm not talking about ignoring the Constitution.

I said a case could be made for treating this young man as a non-uniformed enemy combatant. He's not a US citizen. He came here from a foreign country to commit what would be considered an act of war if he represented a nation-state.

A case could also be made for treating him like a pirate. He was operating on the behalf of no nation state. He was impeding international commerce and obstructing the right of free passage.

And a case can be made for trying him in a civilian criminal court with its attendant Consitutional protections.

The fact is, al Qaeda has thrown a monkey wrench into the mechanism of criminal justice and tied knots in the internationally accepted rules of warfare. It's going to take a while before the world gets things sorted out. The civilian trial vs military tribunal debate is just one step in this sorting things out. And it's a debate we need to have.

But, in the meantime, there are terrorists that need to be locked up, interrogated, and prevented from harming innocent civilians.

"When we act like them, not respecting our own rules and laws, then we lose. "

No one's saying don't respect our laws. Respect the heck out of them, and FOLLOW them to the letter with regards to terrorists. Who have no Constitutional protections, and whether they even rate a trial in any form at all is legally debatable. A very good case can be made for legal summary execution.

Trying them in civil court opens up the door for dismissal on a technicality (did the citizens read him his rights while keeping him from blowing up the plane?) and liberal judges to make statements. Bad, bad idea. The day one of these guys go free from court, America has truly lost.

Yes, they are resources with info on terrorism. We need to take that info, not ask them for it nicely pretty please if you feel like it, if we give you enough incentives. Then we need to toss them in the slaughterhouse refuse, dead. They have no compunction about killing you. Make no mistake about that. They've had no compunction about it for millenia. It is a mistake to show them mercy, they see it as weakness and it encourages them. This is a lesson other generations have learned painfully, and I worry ours won't learn it in time.

I'm not military and have never been to the middle east. But my family has been military every generation since the original hillbillies (anyone up on their scottish history?) on one side, and is choctaw on the other. Native Americans could teach us a lesson or two in enemies who just want to eradicate you. So could the scots. Neither would give this dude a trial.

What's missing in the general debate on military versus civilian trials (and not just here but across the board) is the history and reality behind military tribunals and commissions.

To that end, David Glazier's done some of the top work in the field - a Google search sound turn up some of his work.

The real question here is: did the criminal-prosecution route work in 1993? It is inarguable, non-debatable, that it failed. If you say otherwise, you are an idiot who is in complete and utter denial of reality. It's like denying that the sky is blue. Period.

So the question is: if it didn't work in '93, what's different that's going to make it work now?

momof4:
"regards to terrorists. Who have no Constitutional protections"

This is my point. Yes, quoting you slightly out of context here and I hope that I can be clear enough that I communicate what I am trying to get across. I am not arguing that terrorists have constitutional protections. My argument is predicated on the assumption that we, the US, want to maintain our own constitutional freedoms. When we restrict others, based on their attempt to attack us, then we also restrict ourselves. Nothing is free - which sounds like a non sequitor (sp?) but is not. Our freedoms, which we presumably cherish, are predicated on responsibilities. We as citizens are responsible for not only knowing our own laws but adhering to the same. And holding those that commit criminal acts within our territorial boundaries responsible to the same laws that we submit to as citizens of the US.

Ignoring our laws in favor of expediency is tantamount to terrorism. And before I get called names I am not pointing fingers here. The point is that we have to look at the whole picture, not just a piece of it. Strategically, long term, we win more when the rest of the world sees what freedom is and demands more of that for themselves. When people all over the world want, and demand, the same abilities that we take for granted then terrorism will fail. We cannot get there if we act like the same people we denounce. Terrorists hide behind their acts, they are afraid of transparency. They have to be because what they do cannot be reconciled with basic humanity.

Our greatest strength is our ability to show their failure. It is the long war and it will not be won through short term goals.

And I cannot believe I wrote this. Good grief, I sound ridiculous. All this to state that we do not need to extend our constitutional protections to terrorists, but we do need to adhere to our constitutional responsibilities to those that commit criminal acts within our boundaries.

It is inarguable, non-debatable, that it failed. If you say otherwise, you are an idiot who is in complete and utter denial of reality. It's like denying that the sky is blue. Period.

How did it fail?

A jury convicted the four defendants on March 4, 1994, in federal court on all 38 counts against them. On May 25, 1994, a judge sentenced each of the four defendants to 240 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. On February 7, 1995, authorities in Pakistan arrested the prime fugitive wanted in connection with the bombing and subsequently rendered him to U.S. authorities. This suspect, the mastermind behind the bombing, was sentenced to 240 years in prison on January 8, 1998.

"It is the long war and it will not be won through short term goals."

Over 1000 years and counting. I grasp your opinion, but can't get on board. I don't want to be blown up flying (or walking down the street from a federal building). Nor do I want to be strip-searched every time I fly. That means we need to be targeting those who commit the crimes.

It's not that AQ doesn't see our freedoms. They do. They hate them. They aren't demanding them for themselves. They're living in caves like rats, just to be able to kill some of us. That level of dedication is hard to fathom to us, who have always had so much, and are pretty damn live and let like (Luj's religion rants notwithstanding).

Sure, educating the masses of middle easterners about us might shrink their recruitment pool, but it also might not. The pantybomber was living in freedom in the UK, and was rich. Not exactly some ignorant dirt farmer scratching for food, who can be convinced their troubles are the US's fault.

All this to say, punishing our enemies swiftly and severely and appropriately takes nothing from our freedoms. In fact it does more to guarantee them than a "show" of our fairness. To GET our Constitutional rights, our founders fought and fought ferociously, and not "fairly" according to the times. We would do well to remember that.

momof4: by and large I agree with you. Where I differ is the term "rights." From my perspective I have responsibilities, not rights. When I uphold these responsibilities I garner freedoms. They are not rights, they are freedoms that I earn through my actions. This is a personal perspective, not to be taken as the pointing of fingers by any means.

My point is that our actions are not taken to be "fair" to others, we take actions in order to get to where we, as a society, want to be. We desire certain objectives, if we define freedom as one of them then we need to be willing to pay for that freedom. Restricting others, via military tribunal, does nothing to further our goals of societal freedom. Sure, there may be short-term gain. In the long run, strategically, we lose. Restrictions on others translates into restrictions on ourselves. I submit the TSA as an example. They react - underwear boy tried to blow up a plane so we react by restricting actions. Do these restrictions increase security? I believe they do not.

AQ has a very small subset of people that are inner core, if you will. They have an agenda. They subvert idiots, who end up trying to light their underwear while on international flights. There will always be stupid people that think they will get laid (by 72ish virgins) if they blow their sack off. Can't fix stupid like that. What we can do is openly display the results of said stupidity. And AQ cannot counter that particular truth. Their greatest downfall is their inability to admit to or discuss truth. AQ lives in the cracks in society, you cannot punish cracks in society - all you can do is pave over the cracks and keep trying to repair them.

I am wandering too far afield. We absolutely cannot guarantee freedom, all we can do is try and protect what we have and ensure that those protections continue through into the next generations. I firmly believe that our founding fathers, and mothers and kids etc, understood that they did not "get" squat. They earned it through willingness to submit themselves to rule of law and what was eventually ratified as our constitution.

Another perspective: we are signatories to the Hague and Geneva conventions. Should we treat personnel we meet on the battlefield, non-signatories, as if those conventions do not matter? They did not sign so why should we bother to adhere? My point being: we signed, regardless of what other nations did. We should adhere to what we agreed to even when others do not.

All this to say that I know that AQ does not care about our freedoms. But we do not gain additional freedoms, nor do we gain securities, through "punishment" of our enemies. We gain, we progress, by ensuring that all people know what freedoms are and how they are paid for. And the only way to do that is through transparent processes that show that violations of societal rules garner appropriate punishments. I think that is how we earn our constitutional freedoms and that is one of the reasons that I serve in the Army. Just my personal perspective, not to be taken as a view on how others should live.

To GET our Constitutional rights, our founders fought and fought ferociously, and not "fairly" according to the times. We would do well to remember that.

Really? How so? I'd love a link. Since I recall reading about George Washington insisting on humane treatment of captives when that was not the practice of the day.

Another perspective: we are signatories to the Hague and Geneva conventions. Should we treat personnel we meet on the battlefield, non-signatories, as if those conventions do not matter? They did not sign so why should we bother to adhere?

I don't believe these conventions apply to those fighting out of uniform.

"Really? How so? I'd love a link"

Read a history book. They did not line up and meet the british on a feild and take turns volleying-at least, not often and not for long. They did early guerilla warfare, and spec-ops to create fear. Neither were considered gentlemanly at that time.

I do have some rights. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. I'd agree with you everything else is earned. And even those can obviously be lost through one's actions. But those 3, especially the first, I can use deadly force to defend legally, and I expect my gov't to do the same.

"How did it fail?"

9/11 was planned by the same group of people. Did it stop them?

I don't believe these conventions apply to those fighting out of uniform.

I believe they do. And they allow that those fighting out of uniform are spies and can be summarily executed.

To GET our Constitutional rights, our founders fought and fought ferociously, and not "fairly" according to the times. We would do well to remember that.

Really? How so? I'd love a link.

They did not line up and meet the british on a feild and take turns volleying-at least, not often and not for long. They did early guerilla warfare, and spec-ops to create fear. Neither were considered gentlemanly at that time.

The British infantry were regarded as the best in the world at the time. Washington realized that the Royal Army could lose time and time again and replenish their ranks, but the Continental Army could lose only once. So, he avoided set piece battles as much as he could. That meant the majority of the fighting in the early years of the Revolution was the guerilla warfare described above.

And, as far as following the gentlemanly rules of war, neither side was very good at that.

The American Revolution (especially in the South) was not a gentlemanly European war. It was a nasty, brutal, campaign in a colonial backwater. Parts of the country we think of as always having been populated and civlized were thick forests and frontier land in the 1770s.

British Legion commander, Banastre Tarleton, became a bogeyman for the Continentals for his numerous acts of cruelty to civilians. "Tarleton's Quarter" became a Continental rallying cry after the Waxhaw Massacre.

On the other side, stories of cruelty to Loyalists (Tories), including tarring and feathering, are legion.

Since I recall reading about George Washington insisting on humane treatment of captives when that was not the practice of the day.

In those days a POW's care and feeding was the province of private charity, the POW's own family and friends, his government, and his army. He was allowed to write letters home asking for money to buy food and supplies.

Sometimes prisoners were paroled or exchanged, usually higher-ranking prisoners.

The Continental Congress had no power to print money or levy taxes and, so, had no money to provide for the care of American prisoners. The Continental Army had trouble feeding and clothing itself, much less sending provisions to the British for prisoners.

Which may not have mattered since the British government had declared the American rebels to be traitors, thus denying them prisoner-of-war status. Accordingly, they treated American prisoners more harshly than the standards of the day allowed POWs to be treated.

The idea was to hang them all. But, British commanders in the Americas resisted that idea hoping for negotiated end to the war and then later to avoid reciprocal cruelty to their own men captured by the Americans.

Desperate for space to house prisoners, the British used old, obsolete, and abandoned ships as prisons. Conditions were appalling and thousands of American prisoners died of neglect and starvation.

The Americans held British prisoners in various hastily contructed barracks under less-than-ideal conditions and often paroled prisoners to local farmers as laborers in return for room and board.

I don't believe these conventions apply to those fighting out of uniform.

I believe they do. And they allow that those fighting out of uniform are spies and can be summarily executed.

That's what I meant, Conan. That out-of-uniform combatants are not entitled to the protections of these conventions.

That's what I meant, Conan. That out-of-uniform combatants are not entitled to the protections of these conventions.

Certain non-uniformed persons are to be granted POW status by the GenCons.

Briefly:
1] those who are variously employed by the military - generally speaking: contractors [e.g., me]
2] ex-military who may be deemed as soldier-able
3] civilians responding to active invasion of their nation by creating [and this is important,: every criteria must be satisfied]:
* a spontaneously formed militia
* ranked by those living in the invaded nation
* the purpose of which is to resist the invasion
* which carries their arms openly
* follows a military chain of command, and
* follows all the other rules of war.

For purposes of the recent US history, those we are fighting in A'stan technically only abide by the military chain of command thing. They are commonly not Afghani; they pre-existed the US invasion of A'stan; their purpose was to make unofficial war against the US prior to the invasion; they only rarely carry their arms openly; and they almost never follow "the other rules of war".

They are, in point of fact, mercinaries whom we could summarily execute if we chose. The GenCons, if we were to follow them to the letter, do not impart any humane treatment upon them.

Trying these people in a military court only demonstrates that we don't really believe in our own justice system, and makes us look like fools with an incompetent government. It looks to the world like we are afraid to give a fair trial, because our judiciary doesn't really work. It makes all our talk of democracy, freedom and justice ring hollow.

It looks to the world like we are afraid to give a fair trial, because our judiciary doesn't really work. It makes all our talk of democracy, freedom and justice ring hollow.

A military tribunal is not a kangaroo court. It is a fair trial. The military tribunal had different rules of evidence.

And how does our talk of democracy, freedom, and justice ring when the president says of concerns about the civilian trial, "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him." So, the president already knows the outcome of the trial?