does'nt that make the 9/11 attack even worse? PH could at least be justified for being a military target.

On 9/11, it was 3,000 innocent civilians who died.




I would say your english skills are just fine. :)

We never gave Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrows a chance to surrender. John Dillinger either for that matter. Some people are just too dangerous to try and take alive.

The only reason AQ is in shambles is because of the war effort being mostly successful. The question doesn't make sense; a state brought to its knees by warfare is in the same position. War can be made against such an organization just as war can be waged against a state approaching defeat.

That isn't a bad comparison at all. The only difference is that the Japanese were a peer competitor to the US, and as such, the strategy and tactics used were different than AQ's today. 2nd and 3rd generation warfare instead of 4th generation.

It is commonly said that 9/11 is the "worst attack on the US since Pearl Harbor."

It's a legitimate question. Myself, I don't care about Pakistani sovereignty in the least. they are culpable in terrorist activity themselves, specifically the Taliban (and hence AQ). In addition, in this particular case, Pakistan approved of it anyway—they gave blanket permission to the US during the Bush administration for raids that might be needed in the future.

So technically it was entirely legal regardless of what side you take assuming the had NOT given such approval before, at least from an international standpoint. From a US law standpoint, Obama even ordered a drone attack on the "American AQ" guy. He's a US citizen, so you'd presume he'd enjoy due process. Since he is a member of AQ, his citizenship should be revoked (as should that "american taliban" jerk (our passports say joining a foreign military can result in revoked citizenship).

All this is odd, since it would seem that the "hates Gitmo" camp that wants civilian trials (Obama claimed that, at least) should also be for mirandizing those we grab up, and should also be against killing these jerks without due process. Complaining about gitmo, and sanctioning drone strikes is like a devout Catholic being concerned about the morality of stealing money—when said money will be used to pay for an abortion that she has no problem with.

I'm for bumping these guys off wherever they happen to be. If the country "matters" then clearly we need to ask. If it is itself a pal to terrorists? Who cares? They should be thankful we don't simply area bomb. I'm also fine with locking up those we catch, and interrogating them in any way which is effective—subject to reciprocal agreements we have with the enemy (meaning if they follow the rules, then we should, and if they don't... all bets are off).

wow tater "hates gitmo" "complaining about gitmo"....yet you still havn't been able to come close to justifying that facility:rotfl2:
Remind me again of the hundred and one "reasons" you have for the facilty that don't apply to that facility at all

Be careful about that. Remember our justification for Gitmo is based on our interpretation that AQ was NOT a military organization and therefore NOT covered by the version of the Geneva Convention the US uses.

According to our story, UBL did not declare war and was not a leader of an army. And we are sticking to that story. :)

If he was, then he and his minions would be afforded Geneva Convention protections and that is something that was inconvenient for us.

The only way the concentration camp at Gitmo could be justified constitutionally is if we have trials there. Then it would be constitutional under Article 3 section 2.

BANG! "Halt!" BANG! BANG! "Or I'll shoot!" BANG!

It is a POW camp for terrorists (trans-national combatants).

I've entirely justified it. You have to put such POWs someplace, after all. We could move it, and give it a new name, would that make you feel better? Regardless, we capture anyone we think is associated with AQ or her allies, and we should hold them until hostilities cease. Period. As far as I'm concerned they should not have a trial until after the war is over. Myself,I'm in favor of requiring unconditional surrender from them.

What, exactly is your problem with a facility for holding soldiers who work for a transnational military that explicitly violates all rules of warfare (no uniforms, mixes with civilians, intentionally attacks and murders civilians, etc)?

Should it not be in a US territory, but a State? Should they get ACLU lawyers even though the war is not over?

It's not a concentration camp. You are aware of what a concentration camp is I assume? It is actually a word that dates to the British in South Africa. Gitmo has 225 or so inmates, it hardly qualifies even for that definition, much less the nazi camps with vastly more inmates who were worked to death or immediately murdered. It's as hyperbolic as the idiotic comparison to a gulag (with a similar death toll to the nazi camps).

We're talking about a vanishingly small % of people. Not enough to matter, frankly. They are POWs, and should be held until hostilities cease. At that point those guilty of war crimes can face trial.

The trouble is that "war" defines a condition between nations, not transnational entities, something that needs to change.


Regardless, if gitmo is wrong, then all drone attacks, and other extra-legal killing is similarly wrong. There is no defensible position to attack gitmo, and not the killing of bin laden. If you are glad we got bin laden, you have to "eat" gitmo.

That idiot, Chomsky is at least consistent in this regard.

that's just plain wrong. Because the AQ and the Taliban target civilians, don't wear uniforms, hide amongst civilians, and commit other war crimes, they are generally regarded as illegal combattants and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions. This is the same as the Nazi Sabateurs in WWII. It does not mean we are not in an armed conflict, it means AQ does not play by "the rules."

And no US official would ever say that AQ/Bin Laden did not declare war on the US.

I forget if they played that game with Dillinger but with Bonnie and Clyde :o:

"Each of us six officers had a shotgun and an automatic rifle and pistols. We opened fire with the automatic rifles. They were emptied before the car got even with us. Then we used shotguns ... There was smoke coming from the car, and it looked like it was on fire. After shooting the shotguns, we emptied the pistols at the car, which had passed us and ran into a ditch about 50 yards on down the road. It almost turned over. We kept shooting at the car even after it stopped. We weren't taking any chances."

You know, the precept behind the existence of this thread, or simillar discussions, absolutely kills me, and defies belief.

So, if i have this straight...... The most wanted man in the US, if not the entire world, for over the last decade, the man who was responsible for thousands of deaths; has finally been brought to justice - and there are people who feel compelled to debate the legality of it? That's just crazy.

I'm curious about some things. Did this guy actually attack the US? He gave praises for those who did the assaults on the US people. But did he actually shoot any Americans? Where is the proof of this? Just because a leader doesn't like certain nation doesn't mean they're responsible for the attacks. Did I miss something or is this some kind of lynching going on.:hmmm:

If a nation follows the laws they should respect there laws. It doesn't mean they can bend the rules to suit there personal agendas. Ether your true to your laws or your legal criminals.

Like all news not all the truth is shown. So its hard to speculate what is real and what is manipulated.