dwccrew wrote:This is a good question. I'm not sure what it is considered by the government. In my eyes, it is an act of war. Not saying I don't believe you, but could you provide a link that supports your statement that we can kill enemy operatives that have been captured?

I could have been a little more clear here. I did not say captured. Let me give you an example of what I am trying to say. Lets say the FBI learned of a gathering of leaders of an organized crime sydicate. They would not under civilian law be able to rig the place with explosives thus killing those attending the meeting.

Under martial law military intelligence could learn of a gathering of suspected enemy combatants. A military officer(or group of them) could authorize the killing of those individuals by ordering the air force to drop a bomb on them. All this with no trial and proof other than intellegence provided to them on the field of battle that those in attendance are guilty as charged. In the case of martial law those military officers decide the guilt and sentence the individuals to death based on the evidence presented them abscent of public scrutiny.

As I have stated before our government not officially declaring a state of war on al qaeda, once an act of war was committed against us, allows for confussion of the issue. This is why the governement declares a state of emergency. It allows legal powers not allowed to them under common law.

dwccrew wrote:Herein lies the problem. As you said, which parts of the Constitution do we throw out? We already have thrown them out! The fact that they were not read their rights, given a lawyer present during questioning, etc.,etc. supports the argument of some that say we have violated the Constitution. In my last post I provided an excerpt and link from Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution.

Again, this just supports the fact that the way this situation was handled was totally botched. The Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that foreign combatants are granted habeas corpus. This is the fault of the former administration and current one. They neglected to follow proper procedure and now we are in this big mess.

I certainly want these guys to face punishment, but if they did walk on technicalities (which I don't think they will), it would be the fault of our government.

Under civilian law and the constitution they should walk. Otherwise it sets a legal precedent that some can be convicted and sentenced to possible death without following the protections afforded by the constitution.

dwccrew wrote:Many other "terrorist suspects" that have been caught plotting or planning ahve been tried in the US court system, what is the difference between them and these guys?

Nothing other than the government did not recognize them as acts of war. Evidence was gathered under the rules of civilian law.

Some examples of those tried by military tribunals during war against the US on US soil.

John Wilkes Booth and fellow conspiritors
http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln75.html
German saboteurs WWII
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=5244

2trap_4ever wrote: I have to say this may be a really good idea, what a better and legal way of torture than to get this cowards in twined in the American legal system, if we are lucky they will hang themselves in their holding cells waiting to go to court.

And send radical Islam into an even more frenzy.

Bad idea.

If we don't want them to go into a frenzy, the USA and the West should probably stop acting like modern-day Imperialists.

cbus4life wrote: If we don't want them to go into a frenzy, the USA and the West should probably stop acting like modern-day Imperialists.

Its funny how you so freely can use the word imperialist to describe the USA, but jump on anyone who uses the word socialist to describe members of its government.

majorspark wrote:
I could have been a little more clear here. I did not say captured. Let me give you an example of what I am trying to say. Lets say the FBI learned of a gathering of leaders of an organized crime sydicate. They would not under civilian law be able to rig the place with explosives thus killing those attending the meeting.

Under martial law military intelligence could learn of a gathering of suspected enemy combatants. A military officer(or group of them) could authorize the killing of those individuals by ordering the air force to drop a bomb on them. All this with no trial and proof other than intellegence provided to them on the field of battle that those in attendance are guilty as charged. In the case of martial law those military officers decide the guilt and sentence the individuals to death based on the evidence presented them abscent of public scrutiny.

As I have stated before our government not officially declaring a state of war on al qaeda, once an act of war was committed against us, allows for confussion of the issue. This is why the governement declares a state of emergency. It allows legal powers not allowed to them under common law.

Under civilian law and the constitution they should walk. Otherwise it sets a legal precedent that some can be convicted and sentenced to possible death without following the protections afforded by the constitution.

Nothing other than the government did not recognize them as acts of war. Evidence was gathered under the rules of civilian law.

Again, herein lies the problem. The government has screwed this situation up so bad, that these guys could possibly walk. That is why people (myself included) have said Gitmo should have been closed long ago.

As you said, they have not declared war, so how are these detainees supposed to be treated? Like war criminals that have little to no rights under the Constitution or like foreign combatants that do have some limited rights under the Constitution? I really don't know and I think that the previous and current administration have really fouled this up by not making it clear.

If they are considered war criminals, then by all means try them through military tribunal. I think what needs to happen is a concrete definition on what their status as prisoner is.

Regardless, they need to be brought to justice quickly, whether it be by tribunal or whatever. I truly believe that some of the detainees at Gitmo had nothing to do with any acts committed against the US and our troops. That they were falsely accused by warlords and rivals. I would like the US to sort through them and send them back to where they came from and to bring justice to those that did conspire or act against the US and our military.

majorspark wrote:

cbus4life wrote: If we don't want them to go into a frenzy, the USA and the West should probably stop acting like modern-day Imperialists.

Its funny how you so freely can use the word imperialist to describe the USA, but jump on anyone who uses the word socialist to describe members of its government.

I definitely feel that the US acts as imperialist nation. There is no reason to "spread democracy". Spreading your way is imperialism.

I also feel that the government has many socialist tendencies and that we become more of a socialist country every day.

I think both terms can apply to the US.

majorspark wrote:

cbus4life wrote: If we don't want them to go into a frenzy, the USA and the West should probably stop acting like modern-day Imperialists.

Its funny how you so freely can use the word imperialist to describe the USA, but jump on anyone who uses the word socialist to describe members of its government.

Maybe because they aren't socialist, or, if they are, not even on the same level as European-style Democratic Socialists. So yes, i don't think it is accurate to call members of our government socialists. In the grand scheme of things, we're not even close.

And, i mostly like to jump on people who through around idiotic statements that Obama is some sort of communist, or Marxist, or calling America "Amerika," etc.

dwccrew wrote:Again, herein lies the problem. The government has screwed this situation up so bad, that these guys could possibly walk. That is why people (myself included) have said Gitmo should have been closed long ago.

As you said, they have not declared war, so how are these detainees supposed to be treated? Like war criminals that have little to no rights under the Constitution or like foreign combatants that do have some limited rights under the Constitution? I really don't know and I think that the previous and current administration have really fouled this up by not making it clear.

If they are considered war criminals, then by all means try them through military tribunal. I think what needs to happen is a concrete definition on what their status as prisoner is.

Regardless, they need to be brought to justice quickly, whether it be by tribunal or whatever. I truly believe that some of the detainees at Gitmo had nothing to do with any acts committed against the US and our troops. That they were falsely accused by warlords and rivals. I would like the US to sort through them and send them back to where they came from and to bring justice to those that did conspire or act against the US and our military.

Our opinions are not that far apart on the matter. I feel much greater harm will come to the constitution through a civil trial. We have tried combatants and conspiritors in past "undeclarled wars". But no doubt an actual declaration of a state of war would have made this crystal clear.

As for the underlined part of your reply, I agree 100% it is time sort through these detainees and send those home that may have been falsely accused and punish those that deserve it.

cbus4life wrote:

majorspark wrote:

cbus4life wrote: If we don't want them to go into a frenzy, the USA and the West should probably stop acting like modern-day Imperialists.

Its funny how you so freely can use the word imperialist to describe the USA, but jump on anyone who uses the word socialist to describe members of its government.

Maybe because they aren't socialist, or, if they are, not even on the same level as European-style Democratic Socialists. So yes, i don't think it is accurate to call members of our government socialists. In the grand scheme of things, we're not even close.

And, i mostly like to jump on people who through around idiotic statements that Obama is some sort of communist, or Marxist, or calling America "Amerika," etc.

Maybe some of us believe the USA is not an imperialist nation, or, if it is, not on the same level as the European style colonial era or Imperial Japan etc. So I don't think it is accurate to call the USA imperialist. In the grand scheme of history we are not evan close.

I always chuckle when I see a someone post the word marxist or communist. I know it will be bringing cbus out the woodwork.

majorspark wrote:

cbus4life wrote:

majorspark wrote:

cbus4life wrote: If we don't want them to go into a frenzy, the USA and the West should probably stop acting like modern-day Imperialists.

Its funny how you so freely can use the word imperialist to describe the USA, but jump on anyone who uses the word socialist to describe members of its government.

Maybe because they aren't socialist, or, if they are, not even on the same level as European-style Democratic Socialists. So yes, i don't think it is accurate to call members of our government socialists. In the grand scheme of things, we're not even close.

And, i mostly like to jump on people who through around idiotic statements that Obama is some sort of communist, or Marxist, or calling America "Amerika," etc.

Maybe some of us believe the USA is not an imperialist nation, or, if it is, not on the same level as the European style colonial era or Imperial Japan etc. So I don't think it is accurate to call the USA imperialist. In the grand scheme of history we are not evan close.

I always chuckle when I see a someone post the word marxist or communist. I know it will be bringing cbus out the woodwork.

Well said, my friend.

majorspark wrote:
Maybe some of us believe the USA is not an imperialist nation, or, if it is, not on the same level as the European style colonial era or Imperial Japan etc. So I don't think it is accurate to call the USA imperialist. In the grand scheme of history we are not evan close.

I always chuckle when I see a someone post the word marxist or communist. I know it will be bringing cbus out the woodwork.

You are correct that we do not have a Euro style imperalist system. Mostly because that type of system is too costly and does not have good results. We have a neo-imperialist system that is much cheaper and far more effective.

eersandbeers wrote:

majorspark wrote:
Maybe some of us believe the USA is not an imperialist nation, or, if it is, not on the same level as the European style colonial era or Imperial Japan etc. So I don't think it is accurate to call the USA imperialist. In the grand scheme of history we are not evan close.

I always chuckle when I see a someone post the word marxist or communist. I know it will be bringing cbus out the woodwork.

You are correct that we do not have a Euro style imperalist system. Mostly because that type of system is too costly and does not have good results. We have a neo-imperialist system that is much cheaper and far more effective.

LOL Eers. If the US neoimperialism is "a lot cheaper", I'd hate to see what an expensive version would look like.

Indeed.

Footwedge wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

majorspark wrote:
Maybe some of us believe the USA is not an imperialist nation, or, if it is, not on the same level as the European style colonial era or Imperial Japan etc. So I don't think it is accurate to call the USA imperialist. In the grand scheme of history we are not evan close.

I always chuckle when I see a someone post the word marxist or communist. I know it will be bringing cbus out the woodwork.

You are correct that we do not have a Euro style imperalist system. Mostly because that type of system is too costly and does not have good results. We have a neo-imperialist system that is much cheaper and far more effective.

LOL Eers. If the US neoimperialism is "a lot cheaper", I'd hate to see what an expensive version would look like.

Well think of how much money it would cost to occupy a dozen Afghanistans. I have no idea how the British and French did it for so long in Africa.

eersandbeers wrote:Well think of how much money it would cost to occupy a dozen Afghanistans. I have no idea how the British and French did it for so long in Africa.

Colonial empires actively governed their colonies. They profited from the natural recources that their colonies held.

majorspark wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:Well think of how much money it would cost to occupy a dozen Afghanistans. I have no idea how the British and French did it for so long in Africa.

Colonial empires actively governed their colonies. They profited from the natural recources that their colonies held.

And you think we don't profit monetaritly from our imperialist policies?

cbus4life wrote:

majorspark wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:Well think of how much money it would cost to occupy a dozen Afghanistans. I have no idea how the British and French did it for so long in Africa.

Colonial empires actively governed their colonies. They profited from the natural recources that their colonies held.

And you think we don't profit monetaritly from our imperialist policies?

Please don't say Halliburton.

cbus4life wrote:

majorspark wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:Well think of how much money it would cost to occupy a dozen Afghanistans. I have no idea how the British and French did it for so long in Africa.

Colonial empires actively governed their colonies. They profited from the natural recources that their colonies held.

And you think we don't profit monetaritly from our imperialist policies?

There you go again using that word "imperialist".

I was giving eersandbeers an answer as to how Britain and France were able to afford to maintain control of their colonies.

And to answer your question. Yes we do and should profit from the money we spend on foreign policy. Not saying I agree with every dollar we spend. But when we do decide to invest our treasure over seas it should be to gain a return on our investment. Exeption being acts of charity or good will.

majorspark wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:Well think of how much money it would cost to occupy a dozen Afghanistans. I have no idea how the British and French did it for so long in Africa.

Colonial empires actively governed their colonies. They profited from the natural recources that their colonies held.

Agreed, but if there were that many profitable resources in Africa those countries shouldn't be in shambles.

To be fair, Britain and France are still very much imperialist powers in Africa. They left, but still maintain a great deal of control.