I don’t give a flying fuck about the habeas corpus of some goat fucking Islamic terrorist in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Ben Franklin was speaking of American citizens when he wrote those words.
[/quote]
No, he was speaking about people.
Also, you do not know that the people detained were terrorists and you never will.
Finally, you, as an American citizen can be kidnapped or killed if your president says so.
So maybe it would have been wise to give a fuck in the beginning. [/quote]
He’s one of those wanna-be he-man drones who shouts USA! USA! mindlessly and pays no attention to the details. Heck, why should any American? Our wise overlords know best.
Maybe im wrong but from what i remember the reason 9/11 happened was because we had troops on there land. What Im saying is would if china did to us, what we do to other countries. They have 10s of thousands of troops on our soil. Occupying our land. Like would we put up with it. We would obviously want military troops from another country to go away. Once people get tired of it, there become more drastic measures(suicide bombers).
Look at it from there point of view. You dont think we would do the samething? I would hope we would.
I believe in Ron Paul. What right do we have to tell countries what to do and have troops in foreign countries. Its really none of our business. Who makes us the country that polices the world. We wouldnt like it done to us. We wonder why other countries hate us.
The video below explains it much better. I like the end of this video. So smart this man is. This was for the 2008 election and his comments on Osama Bin Laden and Pakistan are dead on.
I don’t give a flying fuck about the habeas corpus of some goat fucking Islamic terrorist in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Ben Franklin was speaking of American citizens when he wrote those words.
[/quote]
No, he was speaking about people.
[/quote]
Actually, you are correct. I believe he was. But not soldiers captured in a war.
There is no verifiable evidence that habeas corpus was EVER intended to apply to enemy combatants. Ever. It has never been employed as a right in any war in history by any country, especially yours.
[/quote]
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
But out of all of our efforts in Afghanistan (ignoring Iraq for the time being since it had nothing to do with Al Qaeda), can we really say Bin Laden didn’t “win” in a pretty meaningful way? Sure we killed him, eventually, but what did we give up to make that happen? A few of the major highlight:
an intractable military engagement that has lead to the deaths of untold numbers on both sides (including more dead American’s than Bin Laden every killed himself) and has no real end in sight
[/quote]
US servicemen and women killed in Afghanistan over the last 10 years:
1648
US CIVILIANS killed in less than an hour on 911:
Nearly 3000
What’s the matter pal? Can’t count?
Nonsense.
More nonsense. The suspension of habeas corpus only applies to non-US citizens.
Would you prefer OBL was still alive and well in Pakistan? What’s your point here?
[quote]
We basically sold our soul and much of what we stood for as a nation in order to get one man who posed no systemic threat to the US. Our operations have been a Pyrrhic victory at best.[/quote]
No, you didn’t ‘sell (your) soul and much of what (you) stood for as a nation’. More nonsense. AQ did and does pose a threat to the US.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
But out of all of our efforts in Afghanistan (ignoring Iraq for the time being since it had nothing to do with Al Qaeda), can we really say Bin Laden didn’t “win” in a pretty meaningful way? Sure we killed him, eventually, but what did we give up to make that happen? A few of the major highlight:
an intractable military engagement that has lead to the deaths of untold numbers on both sides (including more dead American’s than Bin Laden every killed himself) and has no real end in sight
[/quote]
US servicemen and women killed in Afghanistan over the last 10 years:
1648
US CIVILIANS killed in less than an hour on 911:
Nearly 3000
What’s the matter pal? Can’t count?
Nonsense.
More nonsense. The suspension of habeas corpus only applies to non-US citizens.
Would you prefer OBL was still alive and well in Pakistan? What’s your point here?
Apologies, I was thinking of the ‘war on terror’ (Iraq + Afghanistan) numbers both of which were instigated on the basis of 9/11, but we were just looking at Afghanistan. I concede the point here.
And you do not believe the Patriot Act was the largest single curtailment of American freedoms directly legislated? Which do you consider worse?
Regarding Habeas Corpus, suspension was used against at least 3 US citizens. I included a link of one such example. I would also, again, point out that it seems odd that our founders would claim people (not “Americans”) have inalienable rights and then we go about treating any non-citizen as if they do not also have these rights. A point no one here is touching is the fact we locked foreigners up indefinitely often without any evidence and used extraordinary rendition to torture them in many cases.
My point on violating Pakistan’s sovereignty? Namely that we just sold the farm on any sort moral high ground in dealing with other nations in order to kill one man who had not pulled off an attack of any magnitude in a decade. Is the world a better place without him? Sure it is. Should we have willfully flouted the sovereignty of another nation in order to get him? No. Not if you want to actually be a country that abides by the rule of law and not just pay lip service to it. Or does the rule of law not matter when it becomes unsavory to do so?
And what sort of serious, systemic threat does AQ pose to the US? In all of history, the very few times terrorism has ever been effective is in convincing occupying forces to leave by making the costs of staying too high (sound familiar?). But don’t take my word for it: http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/spring09papers/archivespr09/lutz.pdf
If you read the paper, terrorism has never been shown to be anything other than an abject failure at overturning a government outside of driving out occupying forces. Please note the French case in Algeria where the French “won” militarily, but were eventually forced to give the whole business up because they could not extirpate the terrorists and the French were exhausting all their resources to try and maintain that occupation. They had to give up the country despite a “successful” ground war because, lo and behold, you just cannot get rid of terrorism through conventional warfare unless you are willing to kill every living thing in the area.
So I don’t think it is too much of a hindsight bias to say we should have seen what a foolish and rash move this was. AQ served no existential threat to us and OBL would have died on the vine if we had not been goaded into invading Afghanistan. While not conclusive proof by any means, it would appear us invading was all a part of Bin Laden’s plans anyways and that we probably should have known it: Bin Laden wanted US to invade Iraq, author says - ABC News
So yes in fact, I would say we sold out for not much. We have tortured, invaded, violated a nations sovereignty, killed innocent people (admittedly accidental, but this is the brute reality of war), detained at least 3 US citizens without evidence, detained a host of other non-citizens without evidence, nearly bankrupted ourselves and de-legitimized many of our other foreign policy efforts for what? One dead body and an organization that is arguably growing stronger because of our actions than if we had done nothing (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/01/al-qaeda-growing-strength-north-africa/)? Great deal.
It was predictable if we had thought it through rationally. But we let fear and anger guide our policy, not objectivity and reason.
And you do not believe the Patriot Act was the largest single curtailment of American freedoms directly legislated? Which do you consider worse?
[/quote]
I consider NOT enacting the Patriot Act would’ve been worse than enacting it.
The link you posted above is dead. A precedent for the suspension of habeas corpus was set by the Supreme Court ruling Ex parte Quirin:
So you think people in Gitmo should have the same rights as free Americans including trial by criminal courts which don’t have jursidiction for anything done outside the United States? I don’t know what to say to this. Perhaps have a little think about the fact that you’d probably be speaking Japanese if FDR had gone about things that way.
Poor islamic fundamentalists. You’re really tugging at my heartstrings here.
The US would have lost the moral high ground if it had NOT violated Pakistan’s sovereignty and whacked OBL. To allow Pakistan to harbour OBL would have been immoral. I’m guessing I don’t have to explain why.
NOTE: Pakistan was and is at WAR with both the US and India. Also note that the United States has been the champion of human rights and international law since WWII. Surely I needn’t elaborate?
A very real one:
No, you are confusing guerrilla warfare with terrorism. That’s why it sounds familiar. Also, you will note in the first paragraph of your link; “Terrorist groups supported or tolerated by governments that target their own citizens have been something of an exception to this pattern of failure for obvious reasons.”
Really? What about Lenin? Hitler? Mao Zedong? Ho Chi Minh? Castro? All overthrew governments with terror.
Nonsense. See my link above to the more than 30 Islamic fundamentalist plots foiled on US soil since 911.
“In 2009, at least six planned terrorist plots against the United States were foiled. This has led some to wonder whether the U.S. is experiencing the results of a resurgence in terrorism. However, these latest acts were not a new phenomenon: At least 30 terrorist plots against the U.S. have been foiled since 9/11. It is clear that terrorists continue to wage war against America.”
I am aware of the theory that OBL goaded the US into Afghanistan. I believe he called Afghanistan the ‘graveyard of empires’. However there is no reason to believe that OBL or AQ would have ‘died on the vine’ and EVERY reason to believe that they were and are still determined to wage war on the US and US civilians everywhere in the world.
You’re breaking my heart. The Pakis’ sovereignty?
[quote]
detained at least 3 US citizens without evidence, detained a host of other non-citizens without evidence, nearly bankrupted ourselves and de-legitimized many of our other foreign policy efforts for what? One dead body and an organization that is arguably growing stronger because of our actions than if we had done nothing (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/01/al-qaeda-growing-strength-north-africa/)? Great deal.
It was predictable if we had thought it through rationally. But we let fear and anger guide our policy, not objectivity and reason. [/quote]
Objectivity and reason should tell you that AQ is a MAJOR threat to the US and the rest of the free world.
Just clearing something up here: the october revolution wasnt a terrorist attack, it was a coup.
The february revolution wasnt a terrorist attack either for those who are confused.
The cuban revolutionarys wherent tarrorists, they used guerilla warfare.
Terrorism doesnt equal someone who opposes the current government btw.
[quote]florelius wrote:
Just clearing something up here: the october revolution wasnt a terrorist attack,
[/quote]
It wasn’t a ‘terrorist attack’ but ‘terrorism’ was certainly a key tactic. Take the assassination of Czar Alexander II by the left-wing terrorist group Narodnaya Volya in 1881 for example:
“I was deafened by the new explosion, burned, wounded and thrown to the ground. Suddenly, amid the smoke and snowy fog, I heard His Majesty’s weak voice cry, ‘Help!’ Gathering what strength I had, I jumped up and rushed to the tsar. His Majesty was half-lying, half-sitting, leaning on his right arm. Thinking he was merely wounded heavily, I tried to lift him but the czar’s legs were shattered, and the blood poured out of them. Twenty people, with wounds of varying degree, lay on the sidewalk and on the street. Some managed to stand, others to crawl, still others tried to get out from beneath bodies that had fallen on them. Through the snow, debris, and blood you could see fragments of clothing, epaulets, sabers, and bloody chunks of human flesh.” - Police Chief Dvorzhitsky
‘Narodnaya Volya’s activity became one of the most important elements of the revolutionary situation in the late 1880’s…At the turn of the century…increasing numbers of former members of Narodnaya Volya were released from prison and exile, these veteran revolutionaries helped to form the Socialist Revolutionary Party, which revived many of the goals and methods of the former narodniki, including peasant revolution and terror.’ - Wikipedia entry on Narodnaya Volya
The Socialist Revolutionary Party played a key role in the February revolution of course. The October revolution was actually diabolically arranged by Ludendorff with the approval of the General Staff. They sent Lenin on a train from Geneva to Petrograd(Leningrad/St Petersburg) like ‘a plague bacillus.’ Lenin’s brother had attempted to assassinate Czar Alexander III on the sixth anniversary of the assassination of his father.
In a sense, yes.
Obviously the February revolution wasn’t a ‘terrorist attack’ but a revolution. However, terrorism was a key factor in the February revolution as I have shown above.
So by that logic Al Qaeda aren’t terrorists because they wage guerrilla warfare? The Cuban revolutionaries used terrorism and murder.
