Bin Laden is dead - Page 7

Jesus said something similar:


Apparently this is a human problem generally: Me is always better than thee.

Actually, I think it's needlessly inflammatory and not appropriate at all. You mean to say that the US is committing "atrocities?" You're comparing the lack of due process for international terrorists to Hitler's concentration camps? AYFKM?

And quite frankly, the quote as you present it is insulting to any person that holds the view that terrorists (at least terrorists like the ones we're talking about) do not deserve access to the US court system. It's stuff like this that cheapens debate. We have two differing positions here, and that's fine. We could debate the merits of each of them. Instead, we've got strawman bullshit. We've got sammi claiming I don't support the rule of law. We've got you throwing out Orwell, insinuating that people with my view "do not disapprove of atrocities committed by [their] own side"

I would really much rather read why mirandizing terrorists captured on foreign soil is a good idea. I'd much rather discuss why it would be better to have a trial for bin laden (and what that entails) as opposed to killing him. Anyone?

Two of the many problems with SDW's take on terrorism:

(a) He's got the proverbial cart before the horse, in that he supports the notion that anyone can be labeled an "international terrorist" by those within government who find it politically expedient to do such. This kind of extrajudicial procedure was used to smear Steven Hatfill by blaming him as a "person of interest" in the media, after the anthrax attacks of October 2001. This horrible miscarriage of justice was eventually resolved in Hatfill's favor, but only after the his career and personal life was trashed.

Hatfill was lucky, however, compared those prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and an unknown number (hundreds? thousands?..nobody knows for sure) at other US "extraordinary rendition" facilities in foreign nations, most of whom have been denied the opportunity to even defend themselves. In the last 10 years, there are still hundreds languishing in these camps, and how many successful convictions have there been? The tiniest handful, and all conducted in secrecy, so the legal integrity of these trials will always be in doubt.

A majority of the Gitmo prisoners have been released without ever having being charged with *any* crime, but having been kept behind bars for many *years*, with no legal recourse or challenge, often on solitary confinement, in abject conditions, undergoing abuse and torture at the hands of thugs. Others remain there after almost TEN YEARS, also without having been charged for any crime.

If a person is kept imprisoned for that long, there are some logical conclusions: they are either not guilty of anything... or the powers-that-be are too bloodyminded and self righteous to admit wrongdoing, or they are too incompetent and inept to even get their act together to even manufacture trumped-up charges. How much longer will it be before those who remain there are charged? Who knows. Some may remain for 20 or more years, without charges, before being released, without charge.. because the likes of SDW2000 HAVE LABELED THEM TERRORISTS, NOT ON ACCOUNT OF THE REALITY OF A CONVICTION BASED ON EVIDENCE, BUT JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN.

The conviction of a guilty party based on VERIFIABLE HARD EVIDENCE is what distinguishes the United States from, say, Uganda under Idi Amin's secret police, or Germany under the Gestapo or Schutzstaffel in the years prior to, and during WWII.. and many other evil regimes.... let us all hope that the US doesn't go all the way down that same, totalitarian SDW-approved path of condemning/killing people at the "pleasure of the federal government', without trial, based on that manipulative, easily abused, and heavily-loaded phrase "national security". That's the excuses and actions of rogue governments.

(a) He believes that terrorists who do dirty work for the US are OK. He believes that certain terrorists, because they are working within our jurisdiction, are exempted from the law. In other words, SDW2000 believes in the concept of "one law for some, and another law for others". How the fuck it possible to credibly address the issue of international terrorism when some people on our own payrolls have committed such?

*

Having said that, anyone found guilty in a real court of law, of terrorism, foreign or domestic, regardless of religious affiliation, regardless of personal wealth or lack thereof, should pay the very heaviest penalty... life in prison with no chance of parole.

I like your point of view except for the last statement. I am from India and we have the fucker who shot people in the railway station behind bars for a long time now. If you are combating scum bags that ruin your way of life, I don't see a point in wasting natural resources to keep them alive.

It's called free speech. Or are you okay with The State controlling that now, too? Surely Common Sense was considered "needlessly inflammatory and not appropriate at all" by the British statists.

That Orwell quote must have hit a nerve.

Do you think we can do no wrong? That everything we do in the name of "fighting terrorism" is justified? That the ends justify the means?

You want an example of atrocities? How can you turn a blind eye to the trophy killings of civilians in Afghanistan? Our soldiers are killing innocent people for sport and posing for photos with their corpses - all under the watch and care of our federal government, funded by your tax dollars.

That is one of hundreds of examples of human rights violations our government has committed in our name.

The ideals espoused in The Declaration of Independence - "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" - apply to ALL MEN EVERYWHERE...or they apply to no one.

Governments that deny those rights to ANYONE without due process are oppressive and despotic.

If you were "detained" tomorrow for "suspected terrorist ties" and shipped to Gitmo, there to stay for an undetermined period of time without a trial and subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" (TORTURE), I'm sure you would change your tune.

Oh that's right, you're an American Citizen. The government would never do that to an American Citizen...would it?

The problem with this is not that we think "terrorists" deserve due process, it's that we think people deserve due process before we can rightfully identify them as terrorists. And we cannot apply this due process of identification to merely some people, we must apply it to all people.

The problem with this in the US is twofold. First, even after conviction, convicted persons are frequently proved innocent.

Secondly, your 'wasting resources' claim is stupid. Because of the cost of litigation and appeal and review and reassessment and mental assessment in the States, it costs more to apply the death penalty than it does to keep a prisoner alive for the rest of his natural life.

I also think death is truly too easy an escape for the people who truly deserve punishment.

Which is why I mentioned Animal Farm. SDW believes that all men are created equal, but that some (American citizens) are more equal than others.

I have a problem with the death penalty. Here in the US, it is used quite a lot, and knowing that the justice system is long way from perfect, ie special privileges and favors often have a habit of rearing their ugly heads, as well as the converse, ie people being railroaded.. we have a situation where innocent people have been put to death by the state. How many remains unknown... dead people cannot appeal. I have no sympathy for anyone who uses violence against another, for whatever reason other than self defense... life in prison for terrorists is appropriate, imho.

Agreed.

This quote from Noam Chomsky on May 7 is very telling:


Well, well. Up until now, on this issue, Chomsky has infamously weaseled out. Has he, finally, in his old age, 10 years too late, grown a pair? Why did Obama have to tell a bald-faced lie? Why was the Taliban's offer squashed?... it could have saved the US hundreds of $$billions and the lives/health of thousands of our troops. Why did the FBI not charge OBL with 9/11?

The answer is obvious: The State needed an Emmanuel Goldstein. It needed the support of the people to expand its power. Rally them around a common enemy dedicated to "the destruction of our way of life" and infringe upon their liberties "for their own protection".

Compare and contrast the civil liberties of American citizens today with those they had on 9/10/01.

1. I've had about enough of being told what I believe. You're going to need a crane to lift the strawmen you're creating at present.

2. Hard evidence? Uh...15 years of evidence and admission from bin laden himself? I suppose that was doctored and/or propaganda. I mean, the reality is he's the victim here. There's no evidence he killed anyone! It's a sham!


And let's hope we don't go down the slippery slope you've created, one that is greased with exaggeration and intellectual dishonesty. Opposing a trial for bin Laden says NOTHING about what I think about the rights of others. No reasonable person thinks we should simply do away with due process of law. What some believe, including me, is that civilian-criminal justice system is not an appropriate venue for people like bin laden, members of AQ, etc. That system was designed primarily for violation of domestic laws for everything from theft to fraud to murder. It was not designed to deal with a man or group that committed an act of war against the country.

Speaking of which, where does your reliance on the courts end? Should we have had a trial before going to war with Japan? Perhaps we should have conducted a trial in absentia for Hitler before landing on D-Day? If not, what is the difference? Our government "pronounced" Germany and Japan "guilty" then. Why can we no do that for acts of war committed against us now?


Wow, sammi. Have you really sunk that far into your leftist conspiracy bunker as to not be able to distinguish terrorists like bin laden and company from the actions undertaken by US personnel? Now don't get me wrong, the US has done plenty wrong in foreign policy. We've intervened where we have no business. We've toppled governments, some of which were democratically elected. We've done many of these things, and they are wrong. But one thing we don't do is blow up skyscrapers, airplanes and train stations and tour busses with the explicit goal of killing as many people has possible. We seek to LIMIT the loss of civilians life. Terrorists seek to increase it. In my opinion, anyone who cannot acknowledge this obvious truth does not deserve to be part of the conversation. Following that, AQ itself has stated previously that "you value life, we value death." So there are clear differences as acknowledged by the enemy itself. But I suppose that statement was a just a concoction of Bush Administration? All part of the PR campaign, right sammi?

Jeez...what IS IT with you guys and the strawmen recently? I won't even dignify those questions with a response. "Must have a hit a nerve." LOL.


I am not claiming US soldiers have never done anything wrong. We both know that's not true. But.."atrocities" on the scale of the quote you posted? Atrocities like the Holocaust? That's what you posted. And why assume that I don't condemn those who commit such acts? Those soldiers were obviously wrong. But from my understanding, the succumbed to revenge for the death and injury of fellow soldiers. This is tragic, wrong, and terrible. But it's not an "atrocity carried out by the US government." We don't set out to command obedience by burning villages or carpet bombing cities. We don't have the policy that we have death squads like the one you referenced above. We deal with those people. We charge them under the military code of justice. How the hell can you compare these actions to those who fill mass graves?


See above. Would you have put the nation of Japan on trial before retaliating? That's what it sounds like. Sometimes the courts are not the right venue. Not everything can be solved with a legal pad. Like it or not, there people out there that we can't deal with like that.


It has on occasion, which is a problem. I do not believe any American citizen living within the United States should be held without charge. I oppose this completely. I'm more supportive using the "enemy combatant" designation on those who are actively fighting against the country on foreign soil. Then again, killing them in battle or trying them for treason seems like a better option.

Nice. You don't have to declare it a strawman if you don't want to respond. Just ignore it.


Murder is murder, mass graves or not. You are focused on scale. I believe each human life is precious and has "unalienable" rights.


A group of guys from Saudi Arabia attack us on 9/11 and our response is to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya and kill civillians (oh I'm sorry, you prefer the word "collateral")? Are you not seeing the disconnect, there?


So American citizens living outside of the United States can and should be detained and held as "enemy combatants" without due process if the government thinks they are "fighting against the country"?

At some point I feel like we're just playing fucking games with labels, words and semantics (e.g., "enemy combatant" vs. "criminal suspect", etc.) and someone ought to at least openly give credit "1984" as their inspiration for this annoying Newspeak approach to the issues of the world.

I agree. It's maddening. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" is a prime example.

I can only go on what you enter in your posts to understand what you believe, and you do put it quite plainly.


Obviously the "hard evidence" that you speak of was not "hard" enough for those doing the investigating. OBL was never charged or indicted for 9/11.

Since you seem to have more of a handle on this affair than our law enforcement or intelligence agencies, I ask you "why no charges etc."? What does the FBI etc. etc. etc. not know that the media and two successive administrations are so cock-sure about?


That is exactly where the potential problems start. It's not just Bin Laden, or al Qaeda ... its anyone who, on the arbitrary decision by US authorities, can now be designated as "a terrorist", if politically (or otherwise) convenient.


I agree. But there are A LOT of people, and some in positions of power, who are by no means even approaching a sense of "reasonable"... and this state of cognitive dissonance is represented across the entire political spectrum here.


So, when is it an appropriate act to invade an entire nation in order to catch one man (!), killing 10s of thousands of its civilians who HAD NOTHING TO DO with "said act of war"? One man, who was on the lam for various bombings, but who (initially) claimed that he had nothing to do with the 9/11 events.

When is it appropriate to invade another unconnected nation, a year and a half later, also killing 10s of thousands of its civilians, wrecking their infrastructure, while telling our troops the lie that its leader/s had planned and executed said "act of war"?


You are creating a huge strawman here, and drawing an absurd comparison. Not only that, but according your heroes in the prior administration, the "war on terror" was "a new type of war unlike any type of conflict we have had to deal with before... which transcends national boundaries etc. etc." So, how did the administration deal with it? They mounted invasions of specific places with national boundaries, as if those nations had invaded us. It's like Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, and we retaliate by mounting a full scale invasion of Australia. Repeating the same action expecting a different result is a definition of insanity... and that is how the "war on terror" has been exercised.


Tell that to the millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq who lost innocent loved ones as a result of US bombings, based on lies?


Good lord. Knock me down with a feather....

Has anyone ever been kicked out of office, or criminally charged, for authorizing such treasonous, anti-American acts? No.. and there's a huge problem. We really should be able to deal with our own demons; as a nation, we are now almost 235 years old. We really can handle publicly admitting we are not quite perfect... (nobody's perfect!) and such admissions, and severely punishing the parties who pull the stunts like you quoted, will hopefully prevent future shit from happening. It will only help our cause... but can you see that happening ever?


Uhm. Blow up skyscrapers? I assume you believe that al Qaeda blew up the Twin Towers and WTC#7?


Dropping thousands of tons of dumb ordnance and cluster bombs on non-military targets, and "infrastructure essential to the lives and well-being of the civilian population" is not "seeking to limit the loss of civilian life".. the former maximizes civilian loss, and the latter is regarded under international law as a war crime.

Anyway, who is "we"? It is singularly inappropriate and off-base to equate the mindset of the general public with that of the top brass in the Pentagon.....

Talking about "blowing up airliners"... recall Orlando Bosch (recently deceased) who blew up an airliner in 1976 killing all on board... as well as committing numerous other bombings, kidnappings and shootings over a period of many years? He lived quietly in Florida as a free man without being charged for any of his terrorist acts. One of his terror associates, Otto Reich, was appointed by the George W. Bush Administration as Assistant Sec. for Western Hemispheric Affairs: Appointing a known terrorist associate is not not exactly an appropriate signal for an administration whose primary agenda was fighting terrorists? Even for your fevered authoritarian leanings, that is a big blooper, surely?


True... but for all terrorists? Obviously you subscribe to the duplicitous version... ie *some* terrorists deserve to be thrown to the sharks, while others go on the lecture circuit at >$25,000 a pop, or live freely, immune to all criminal etc. etc. charges


Verifiable link please, to that statement?


Well, both the prior and current administrations have not exactly distinguished themselves as "paragons of honesty and transparent government". And now, when convenient, we assume that they are being 100% honest as regards terrorism. That is quite a leap of faith. I am not prepared to go that far, without the evidence to support their claims.

And one last comparison, as regards the "Bin Laden assassination": a quote from Noam Chomsky:

I agree that sounds wonderful. In reality it's something different. Think for a moment what a trial would entail. We'd never find impartial jurors...that would be impossible, don't you agree? Imagine the security risks, the media circus, the problems presenting evidence, witnesses, etc. And what if he "gets off" on a technicality, so to speak? My God, there would be riots. A trial is simply not practical nor feasible. Moreover, this is a guy that committed acts of war against the United States. Do you really think acts of war can be dealt with in a courtroom? Perhaps that would be nice, but we both know that's not the way the world works.


In an odd way, we agree to an extent...but for different reasons. The truth is we really don't use the death penalty very often, we sentence people to death. I understand the need to let the appeals process work, but I also think that process should be expedited and that such sentences should be carried out in a given amount of time (say, 5 years). The average stay on death row is something like 20 years. In effect, we don't have a death penalty. Unless you happen to live in Texas.


Noam Chomsky is the man who said the Iraq War was started because of "the white male ego." He's a self described "libertarian-socialist" and anarchist. In other words, he's a nut bag. He's a smart nut bag, but he's a nut bag.


You gave a list of things I "believe" and then proceeded to attack each "belief." Of course, these were not my stated beliefs, but your bizarre interpretation of them. How is that not a strawman?


Murder is not murder. Scale absolutely matters, as does circumstance. You mean to tell me there is no moral difference between a soldier that snaps and kills civilians in revenge and someone like Hitler that directed genocide?


Wow. You're ignoring the question and distorting the facts here. I'm not getting into another Iraq war debate with you, nor am I here to defend our actions in Libya. The point is that we don't have trials before conducting military operations. That's exactly what it seems like you and several others are proposing. sammi, tonton and yourself are all arguing that ALL people should get a "fair trial" before being pronounced "guilty." That's obviously absurd.


Yes. And don't play semantics games with me. You know perfectly well what "fighting against the country" means.

I think you're confusing me with tonton.


War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

Have you read 1984?

Murder is murder, whether it be one or six million.


Alright. Just want to know where you stand, here. You believe the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence do not apply to all mankind. Thanks for clarifying.


Again, thank you for clarifying. You believe life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only apply to American citizens who are not arbitrarily deemed a threat by The State.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

No, you're openly stating what I believe, then attacking those beliefs. It's a classic strawman. You can interpret my posts as you wish, but you're going further...you're drawing conclusions about my positions and belief and presenting them as "SDW believes...." Straw. Man.


No indicted...for 9/11. But he was indicated for a host of other attacks. One can surmise that he wasn't indicted (or "wanted") for 9/11 because if that happened, folks with your stated beliefs would push for a trial, which itself would be a fucking joke and a circus.


That is true, though we always need to be looking out for those who abuse their power. Court powers can and have been abused as well. That is why safeguards need to be in place, such as restricting the authority to designate people "enemy combatants" restricted the President or certainly high-level cabinet position. And in fact, this designation has only been used a handful of times. The other part of this...terrorist "soliders" caught during armed conflict is another matter. They are not POW's because they are not members of the armed forces of a nation state, covert or otherwise. In my opinion they are also not entitled to access our civilian-criminal court system. Therefore, military tribunals would seem the best option.


A matter of perspective. I think the fact that Harry Reid will not even discuss voting on a domestic oil-drilling bill is completely unreasonable. You might disagree.


1. We were not searching for only one man.

2. Link to him "denying" his involvement?


Bullshit. We did not "tell our troops" that Saddam executed 9/11. Iraq is another matter. We've been through that time and time again.


Again, let's not get into the justification for the Iraq war. My point was that we don't conduct a trial of whomever or whatever nation we're going to attack. I was not comparing Japan and/or Germany to Iraq/Afghanistan. I was simply a making a point about propriety and usefulness of due process "all the time" and for "everyone."


Millions of people? Millions? And what "lies" are you talking about?


Ha. That was actually really amusing for both of us. What I was really saying though is that we're not the moral equivalent to terrorist groups and terrorists themselves, despite our many mistakes and "warts."


Well...Nixon, I guess. Other than that, not really. The issue, to quote Al Gore, is the lack of a "controlling legal authority" on these matters. I'm not advocating for one, but without specific domestic laws, it's not going to happen other than through elections.


Oh...jeez, not this shit again.


1. We refers to the United States government and military.

2. We don't deliberately target civilians, period. Going any further with that line of thought of yours just appears ludicrous.


You're really stretching that connection thin and over simplifying it so you can use the term "terror associate" wrt Bush Administration. Bosch was backed by the CIA as while we actively seeking to overthrow Castro. I'm not defending that action, nor his subsequent terrorist attack on an airliner. But claiming Reich was a "terror associate" of Bosch's is very dubious at best, given that the only connection he appeared to have was getting him released and sent back to United States. There is no evidence Reich was involved in Bosch's activities.

Contrast this to President Barack Obama, who launched his Senate Campaign in terrorist Bill Ayers' living room. Whoops.


See, there again...you're drawing a conclusion but concealing it in the form of a loaded question. In other words, it's a strawman. I'll answer nonetheless. Given my relatively limited understanding of the Bosch case, I agree he should not be walking free. But I'm not sure that has much to do with the threat we now face. If you're saying we should tie up that "loose end" before going after others, fine. Let's do it.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110903618.html



Chomsky is fucking insane. "His crimes greatly exceed bin Laden's."

Looking back, you might be right.


Come on, dude. Just...come the fuck on.


Here's what I have to say to everyone that approaches this conversation we're having with the degree of moral superiority and condescension you're demonstrating with your quote above: Screw off. Discuss why you think a trial is the right thing, or why not. Don't quote the Declaration and then tell me I don't believe in it. And if you do, at least realize how ridiculous you sound, since you're the same people who claimed the Bush Administration was running around claiming people were unpatriotic for opposing the Iraq War.


Man, you ought to win some kind of award for how you frame questions. It's truly impressive. It's shitty, but impressive. That said, I can easily answer your question by asking another: When we attacked Nazi Germany, were we denying the German people their unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Hmmm.

Perhaps you should read up on the Non-aggression Principle to better understand where I'm coming from, here.

Is this what you are saying? "You want to deny a trial for someone because he has already been judged guilty, by parties outside of the legal system? Or what?


Despite the "lack of being wanted for 9/11, and lack of indictment for such", we invaded a sovereign nation on the a story based not on what the intelligence, law enforcement community or the Justice Dept. said, but the political agenda of the neocon element which stacked the Bush Administration in 2001. Said personnel, even as soon as late January 2001, had started planning for multiple wars in the region long before Osama bin Laden was designated by the media/Bush White House as the superstar bogeyman.


See my first comment. If Osama bin Laden had a part to play in the two Embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack, then a trial would not only establish said guilt in a legal framework but also reinforce the notion in the eyes of the public. However, in a real trial, subpoenas, discovery, cross examination of witnesses etc. come into play; perhaps that is a reason why either summary execution (in bin Laden's case).. which shuts his mouth permanently, or secret military tribunals, in which evidence (often cherry-picked) is heard in secret, are employed, to prevent off-message material from reaching the ears and eyes of the unwashed masses. Quite possibly, it is not genuine national security that's at stake here, but the personal security of people other than the defendant who may have also broken the law, could be unearthed.


This is getting into dodgy territory here. Take for example the Taliban. They had nothing to do with 9/11: they even offered to hunt for and arrest bin Laden, but for reasons one can only speculate upon, the Bush Administration wouldn't hear of it... perhaps the probability of the Taliban offering up OBL on a plate would have eroded the US publics' gung-ho attitude re. invading Afghanistan to "get bin Laden".

The Taliban were the the government of that nation, no matter how much one despises them, and there was no connection between them and what happened on 9/11.. although the US corporate media painted a different story, of course. Those Taliban guerrillas (if you don't feel comfortable calling them "soldiers") were fighting in defense of Afghanistan .. ie trying to repel a foreign invader. Those same people did likewise when fighting the USSR: Were they considered "terrorists" or "unlawful enemy combatants" by the US, (or even the Soviet Union!)? No way... President Reagan even likened the warlords who fought the Soviets and then formed the Taliban as "the Islamic freedom fighting equivalent to our founding fathers".

More duplicity.


Even though I feel the US is vastly under-exploiting renewable energy sources to its detriment, I am not opposed to drilling for oil in the continental US; the US is an industrial society and energy is king. If there are substantial deposits to be tapped, then go tap them... that is, provided the oil companies can be deemed responsible and civilized enough not to trash and pollute the environment in the process of profit maximization. But that's another story....


From what it seems, and what President Bush said on a couple of occasions, he wasn't concerned about OBL.


Even on CNN... amazed the link still exists!

Oh wait, isn't CNN is part of the Alex Jones empire? :P

Also, on September 28, 2001 in an interview with Karachi Ummat, bin Laden denied any involvement with the attacks and further denied that al-Qaeda had anything to do with plotting and carrying out the attacks.


Well, who the fuck did? Oh wait.... VP Cheney implied just that in 2003, just before the Iraq war.

So did the mainstream media. Fox News and the other networks were all over it. Who told the troops about Saddam doing 9/11? The US media, and mostly, military officials higher up in the chain of command, most likely to foster a "lets go kick some Iraqi ass" attitude in the US military. So, yes *we* did tell the troops just that.


Agreed... there was none.


So, are you now saying we have the right to attack anyone, for no justification whatsoever... just because 'we can'?


Japan attacked us, bringing us into WWII legitimately. (Although the issue of prior knowledge of Japan's assault is still controversial)


The overall death toll in Iraq is at least 500,000 as a result of the invasion (other surveys have extrapolated much higher figures). Therefore, if each person killed had, say, a mere 10 close relatives and friends, that would undoubtedly infer "millions" of people who closely knew someone killed.


See above: elements of the Bush Administration (including Cheney) dishonestly linking Iraq and 9/11, when they knew otherwise. That was a lie.
Colin Powell also admitted prior to his infamous speech to the UN on February 5, 2003, that he had been requested to lie in his speech. Accounts of him, furious in the briefing room slamming a wad of papers onto the table yelling "This is Bullshit"! I cannot go with this!.. referring to material prepared by the White House to present to the US.

Then there's this:

"Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it." Drumheller retired from the CIA in 2005 after a 26-year career there.

"Twisting" information is a euphemism for lying. How much closer can one get without using the L word?


It's not going away until we have answers... which probably means it's never going away. Sadly.

*

more in a bit.

I wonder if your attitude would be different if one of your family members Died in 9-11 or the other tragic events that happened that day? Your course of action would entirely be different than what you are saying now. When it hits home it hurts.remember that!

Fair enough. I certainly understand your position on global militarism, so to speak. I, too, think that we have our military spread too far across the globe. Where I differ is that I support more military intervention than you do. For example, I supported the Libya operation (at least at the outset...I'm getting concerned now).

But the larger point is when we use the courts. Contrary to your statements re: unalienable rights, we do not use the courts (and should not) in matters of war. Terrorists/AQ declared war on the United States many years ago. We finally started responding as if we were at war after 9/11. The reason I draw analogies to WWII is solely to illustrate a situation where the courts were not the appropriate venue to mediate conflict. Despite our commitment to the Declaration, the Constitution and the principles outlined in each, we must recognize that due process does not apply in matters of war. It never has. I think that is the central disagreement we have here: I view this as a matter of war, and you view it as a matter of law enforcement. At least, that's what I'm getting. If that's not how you view it, please elaborate.

If a family member were killed on 9/11, I would want those responsible to be brought to justice. I wouldn't all of the sudden lose my respect for the law and start wanting the death of people who it couldn't be proven had a connection. Vigilante justice should not be acceptable in MY United States of America, thank you very much. To allow it would make us just as bad as them.

"Shoot first and ask questions later" mentality. Nice.

The problem here is that war has not been formally declared against any nation or people. It has been declared against an idea: "terrorism".

It is being used as an excuse to invade and conquer nations. Anyone who tries to defend themselves against our invasion for ANY reason is conveniently and arbitrarily labeled a "terrorist" and killed or detained.

Not only is this unconstitutional, it is wrong! Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Afghanistan did not attack us on 9/11. Pakistan did not attack us on 9/11. Libya did not attack us on 9/11. A group of radical Muslim extremists from Saudi Arabia attacked us.

Suppose a group of American extremists carried out a similar attack in Moscow, Russia. Does Russia then have the right to attack and invade the United States in the name of "fighting terrorism"?

Not that it would do so - we are a more formidable opponent than Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya. The United States only picks on the countries it can bully around.

Law has nothing to do with it. 9/11 was an act of war promulgated by an illegal arm (in the geneva convention sense). There is simply no way to treat this as a matter of law. Consider just for a moment that OBL was held up in a compound in different country prosecuting the war. The only way to "arrest" him was via seal team. How would we ask a judge for a warrant for a different country? How does someone that has 40 minutes or less collect evidence in a way that preserves the chain of evidence.

All of this is self evident and rehashed a billion times and yet the loony bin left sniffs at the illegality of it all.

Too right. And by "those responsible", the law clearly implies the planners, the perpetrators, those who aided and abetted the crimes, and those who are accessories before and after the fact.

Very clearly, justice has not been done. It took 441 days of foot-dragging, stonewalling and obfuscation by the Bush White House to reluctantly authorize an "investigation". And when it finally got started, the "investigation" (sic) was starved of funding and severe time constraints were imposed. It was billed as an "independent" commission, but the executive, Philip Zelikow, was a Bush insider. The Commissioners complained of being lied to by the White House and the Pentagon. One resigned in disgust. Now, the majority of the 10 senior Commissioners have admitted that their "investigation" was majorly compromised, even "set up to fail". Hows that for "justice being served"?

waits for the schoolboy chorus of "conspiracy theorist"....


As in, the action/response of psychopaths.


Nor mine neither. However, it can only be expected, when by endless repetition of a series of lies and simultaneously omitting pertinent facts, a population perceives that real justice is being done, when the reality is vigilante justice.

Arguably, the reality isn't even vigilante justice. Or at the very least it's the exception, not the rule.

The reality as I see it is American imperialism.

That depends on who "someone is. As a just explained above, the central difference here is that I view these acts as matters of war, not law enforcement. I'm sure you'd agree that courts cannot solve matters of war. The difference here as well is that the enemy "soldiers" in this conflict are not members of a military of a nation-state. That makes the process of "doing justice" very complex and somewhat uncharted.

Let me ask this...would you have felt better if Congress had formerly declared war on Al-Qaeda? Would it be better if we gave POW protections to enemies captured?


That's debatable and quite one-sided. Clinton had actually started planning an invasion of Afghanistan to go after AQ prior to leaving office. As for "invading a sovereign nation," well...that's what war is. Here again, you sound as if you're saying that we should had a trial in absentia for bin Laden, the Taliban and AQ before taking any military action. This begs the question, "what other military conflicts should have taken place only after our court system conducted a trial? If that not what you're saying, please clarify.


The difference is that after 9/11, we stopped looking at his actions as crimes and started looking at them as acts of war.


Link? And if true, you don't think "avoiding the full force of the US military" was a reason to pretend to help?


Wow, that is pretty twisted, sammi. The Taliban were brutal, oppressive and fanatical. They were harboring Al-Qaeda. And you're comparing them to our founding fathers?


OK.


I saw him say that once. I think it was a poor attempt to communicate he was not the only problem we faced.


But he first confirmed it. Then he denied it?


No, we did not. And don't tell me about people "implying" things. That's garbage. It's what people like you inferred.


That's an opinion I don't share.


Of course not.


And Germany did not. So I guess we should have had a trial before going in.


Oh, I see..now it's people that merely KNEW someone that got killed. Please. You're waffling all over the place.


There was no direct link with 9/11, which they made quite clear.


I have heard that as well. It's completely unsubstantiated.



No answer will satisfy you. None. You believe only what you choose to believe. Colin Powell lied because it fits your Americans-as-global-dominators-Bush-is-evil-corporations-suck mentality.

I, for one, propose that you are not allowed to say how you'd feel *if* you lost a family member on 9/11. Alternatively, we could just choose to ignore you.


Now we're talking semantics. Congress authorized President Bush to use force in finding and punishing the perpetrators


That is simply wrong. We're not "conquering" nations in any sense. And yes, people onm the other side of a conflict are usually perceived as...I don't know....ENEMIES.


What is unconstitutional? There was congressional authority for us to attack both countries. We didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11, we invaded because of how 9/11 changed the way we saw the world and threats in general. We invaded Afghanistan to root out Al Qaeda and the Taliban.


That is not even close to a reasonable analogy. It's laughable, actually.


Yeah, we're just a big, bad bully imposing our will on everyone. Man, you're really going over the edge now. Pretty soon you'll start making Star Wars references.


Exactly. There is no "law" here. This is war. The notion of putting a guy like bin Laden on trial is absurd....nothing more, nothing less.

Wait, are you saying this is a law enforcement action or a war? Make up your mind. Oh that's right, Congress never officially declared war. It's a "military action". Which is technically war. Why doesn't Congress just declare war? Confusing, isn't it?


It may not be imperialism in the same sense as the great empires of Britain, Spain, or Portugal in ages past, but it is imperialism all the same.

People fighting against who they perceive to be invaders are not necessarily terrorists. That is who we're supposed going after, isn't it? Terrorists?


There was never a formal declaration of war from Congress. Furthermore, Afghanistan and Iraq never declared war against us, nor did they initiate force against us that would make our use of force against them legitimate.

It is quite simple to understand when you view it in light of the non-aggression principle.


Don't want to answer that question? I understand.


Good one. No need for insults, though. Or are you done with this conversation?

Obi-Wan Kenobi Is Dead, Vader Says

Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff Col. Lawrence Wilkerson:

Bush, Cheney *not interested* in getting bin Laden.

This was not just expressed once, but on numerous occasions.

Why the lack of interest in catching OBL? The war in Afghanistan was reportedly launched because the Taliban were harboring him... which was a lie in the first place.

Bush and Cheney probably knew what the FBI, the DoJ, the CIA, and many other parties already knew and demonstrated: OBL was not responsible for 9/11.

Fuck you, I was responding to someone who explicitly asked how we would feel, you ass.