Originally Posted by P_Funk

You make a few assumptions here to justify your point. You insist that it was the softy Clinton's fault for 9/11. But bymany accounts the Clinton Administration was tracking the 9/11 attacks and tried to get the Bush Administration to follow it up but weren't taken serioiusly.

Secondly what war? Who declared war and who is it against? You can't create a state of war where there is no concrete enemy, no country to attack, or conditon of victory. In the name of a war that is so vague and indefinite you could justify anything. But if it is indeed justifiable, why do they need to hide all of this in some country thats not a democratic haven? If its so legitimate then it should be justifiable on native soil. But since it is not then it obvioiusly conflicts with everything that the USA stands for. If the US were actually at war (which technically hasn't been true since Korea, though someone told me recently apparently that even then the US didn't declare) then those measures wouldbe justifiable AT HOME. In Canada we call this "War Measures". And even then alleged torture is still forbidden by ratified international law. The US signed them and is bound by them. So it is a dual logic. No state of war in actuality but a phantom one that is meant to frighten all dissent away.