posted on January 25, 2002 08:25:19 AM new
Thank you for that, Ken.
You know, my mother-in-law is a very kind and caring individual. Unfortunately, she has this annoying habit of repeating herself ad nauseum. Generally for her, cocktail hour begins at noon. And what passes for a mildly interesting observation or comment by her at 1 PM. has become maddeningly, teeth grittingly, irritating when she has made the same comment (word for word, verbotem) 200 times by the time we sit down at the dinner table at 7 PM. We must suffer through this "broken record" syndrome throughout our meal until our eyes glaze over and she either toddles off to bed, or falls face first into her plate. Of course, we wouldn't dream of telling her to "just shut up" because we don't want to hurt her feelings. We just get up and leave the dinner table, and she is left to talking to herself.
Here's a clue in case you haven't already guessed...everyone has left the dinner table.
posted on January 25, 2002 01:28:35 PM new
" ...or falls face first into her plate."
This was funny as a scene in "Where's Poppa?" but I'd imagine it's gruelling in RL, Katy.
Borillar, there was another movie -- "Black Like Me" -- in which (white actor) James Whitmore dyes his skin and lives as a black man. Naturally, he is outraged by the treatment he receives as a second-class citizen and much of the drama in the film centers around his railing against racial injustice. At one point, a black man asks him how he can stand to keep his level of rage so high and suggests that he'll die young (or certainly go mad) if he doesn't put some distance between himself and the obvious wrongs. In short, even the people who agreed with him couldn't stand to listen to him after a while...
posted on January 26, 2002 06:53:35 PM newI don't suppose that they are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. legal system either, since they are in Cuba. Am I right about this?
Guantanamo Bay is a US Naval installation and as such it's considered to be US soil. But that has no bearing on whether they fall under the jurusdiction of the US legal system. They don't. That's why they'll be charged in military tribunals instead of a US criminal court.
By the way, these criminals are not POWs, they're battlefield combatants. They don't fight under the flag of any nation or under the authority of any nation. The US is not at war with any nation, therefore it's impossible for them to be Prisoners Of War.
[ edited by MrBusinessMan on Jan 26, 2002 07:36 PM ]
posted on January 26, 2002 06:58:25 PM newI would not care to be a downed pilot in Irag, say, or anywhere else, hoping for treatment under the requirements of the Geneva convention after my country had so arrogantly and publically denied such treatment to others.
Our captured service personnel will most likely hit their knees and thank God if their Muslim captors treat them in a manner similar to how we're treating the terrorists in Guitmo.
One of our downed pilots in the Iraqi war was beaten for 5 hours a day with the large rubber hose from a truck radiator and sticks of various sizes. He was kicked in the groin and gut numerous times each day. He was given 1 CUP of water and a small bowl of rice for rations ONCE each day. He endured this for 13 days until the ground war ended and a prisoner exchange was negotiiated.
There is no comparison between the treatment we provide to our prisoners as opposed the their counterparts in Iraq or most any other Muslim country. For them, the Geneva Convention means nothing.
[ edited by MrBusinessMan on Jan 26, 2002 07:03 PM ]
[ edited by MrBusinessMan on Jan 26, 2002 07:38 PM ]
posted on January 26, 2002 07:14:53 PM newI want a formal Declaration of War from Congress as the United States Constitution demands.
First of all, the Constitution doesn't demand a formal declaration of war at all. This is why we fought for years in Korea and Viet Nam without a declaration of war in either instance. The Constitution simply states the US Congress MAY declare war. The President may NOT. So if there is a beef over war not being declared it's because of the failure of Congress to act, not the Administration.
Second, a formal declaration of war would be impossible in this case. Who would we declare war against? We aren't fighting against a country here, like Germany or Japan during WWII. We're fighting terrorists and thugs in several different countries at the same time, but we aren't fighting the army of ANY country.
We're fighting a war against terrorists. These people pledge allegiance to no nation and fail to follow the rules of law in any country that they happen to occupy at the time.
[ edited by MrBusinessMan on Jan 26, 2002 07:52 PM ]
posted on January 26, 2002 07:25:04 PM new
*However* they are being treated, it is certainly better than people in the WTC, Pentagon, and 4 airplanes received.
My son is still over there after being recalled into the military on Oct 1st.
Not my name on ebay.
[ edited by Valleygirl on Jan 26, 2002 07:30 PM ]
posted on January 26, 2002 07:46:00 PM new
Valleygirl
I'm very sorry to hear that your son is there.
MrBusinessMan
So, you must agree that bombing the country of Afghanistan is unjustified and wrong. As you indicated, we are not at war with the country of Afghanistan. Terrorists reside in over 50 countries throughout the world. To consider bombing every country in which terrorists reside is insane.
posted on January 26, 2002 07:57:24 PM newSo, you must agree that bombing the country of Afghanistan is unjustified and wrong.
Your premise is incorrect. We are certainly justified in bombing the terrorists and their Taliban co-criminals in Afghanistan, just as we were justified in bombing North Viet Nam and North Korea. A declaration of war is not required in order to justify military action.
You're confusing the legal ability of Congress to declare war if it so chooses with a (non-existant) "demand of the Constitution to formally declare war".
[ edited by MrBusinessMan on Jan 26, 2002 08:01 PM ]
posted on January 26, 2002 08:06:34 PM newTo consider bombing every country in which terrorists reside is insane.
On this point you're correct. We will actually drop bombs in just a few countries (Iraq is most likely next on the list).
Most of the terrorist cells in the various countries will be taken out by local police and military units with the assistance and training of a small contingent of US Special Forces personnel. This is taking place in the Phillipines and other unmentioned countries as we speak.
posted on January 27, 2002 07:25:33 AM new
MrBusinessMan
You state,
"Your premise is incorrect. We are certainly justified in bombing the terrorists and their Taliban co-criminals in Afghanistan, just as we were justified in bombing North Viet Nam and North Korea. A declaration of war is not required in order to justify military action."
I have a question. If, as you say above, we are certainly justified in bombing the terrorists in Afghanistan, it would follow that you believe that we are certainly justified in bombing the terrorists in all of the other countries in which they reside. Isn't that what you really believe?
Yet, you agree with me that this would be insane.
The truth is that we will never agree on any issue.
posted on January 27, 2002 07:32:36 AM new
It is being reported this morning that Colin Powell has asked President Dubya to declare the prisoners to be POW's and therefore be bound by the Geneva Convention in their treatment.
posted on January 27, 2002 07:46:55 AM new
MrBusinessman
Wow! We are learning a lot here...both you and I. You have learned, for example on another thread, that English is not the official language of this country and now, you are trying to tell me that we are having a military action in Afghanistan which is not a war. Prisoners of this action ( in which we are bombing the hell out of the country of Afghanistan) are being caged in Cuba but they are not Prisoners of War because we are not having a war.
posted on January 27, 2002 08:08:37 AM new
I guess we can take down all of thee black MIA/POW posters left over from Vietnam now, or make new ones without the "POW" portion.
US doesn't have the right to decide who is or isn't a PoW
Ignore the Geneva convention and we put our own citizens in peril
The Geneva convention also makes it clear that it isn't for Rumsfeld to decide whether the detainees are ordinary criminal suspects rather than PoWs. Anyone detained in the course of an armed conflict is presumed to be a PoW until a competent court or tribunal determines otherwise. The record shows that those who negotiated the convention were intent on making it impossible for the determination to be made by any single person.[/b]
posted on January 27, 2002 09:28:38 AM new
I'm not going to beat around the bush here. I'm mad as hell about 9/11 and I don't really care who decides the status of these (most likely) barbarians. And I don't care if they are handled however our military wants to handle them until "proper" steps are taken to charge them or to categorize them. I don't want those cancers on our homeland soil so Gitmo is a good place for them. We tried to keep them in Afgan. and had an uprising. They are being treated better than any prisoners of any conflict have ever been treated, which is way too well for me. I believe President Bush is also still madder than hell, so whatever he does or condones is fine. This is not my singular opinion- virtually every citizen I talk to here feels the same way. I don't know where some of the opinions are coming from, but here you'd find a 95% approval of everything that has taken place since 9/11. I got into this mood this AM while taking the Red-White-and-Blue out to fly high.
posted on January 27, 2002 09:52:04 AM new
It is now being reported that the prisoners are "organizing" and plotting. Leaders are emerging during prayer sessions.
I'll second that! They came here and killed innocent civilians, people who had nothing to do with them. They killed children. They killed people who probably didn't know they existed. They took fathers and mothers away from innocent children. They shook this country to its core.
They picked this fight - not us. They probably never thought the USA would come after them.
That picture would bother me if the Taliban hadn't attacked us. Since they did I don't really care what happens them.
posted on January 27, 2002 05:09:28 PM new"First of all, the Constitution doesn't demand a formal declaration of war at all."
You're stating the obvious. It is questionable for the Executive Branch to launch a "timely response" to millitary issues: for instance, say the Chinese land troops on American soil and we don't have the leisure of time to wait for Congress to gather together to take action, so the President, as head of the Executive Branch, has the TEMPORARY POWER to send millitary troops to respond to the immediate threat.
In this case, Afganistan was a well thought-out, planned, organized campaign, with plenty of time for preparation. Bush had NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to direct troops into Afganistan, nor to "bomb the hell out of them" as Helen puts it. In this situation, ONLY CONGRESS, declaring a State of War, has that authority. Period.
Therefore, these detainees are being held illegally. They were fought illegally, bombed illegally, captured illegally, and are being held and interrogated illegally. I can't make it any clearer than that to you.
So, if Congress would get off their Dead Asses and go on the record and DO THEIR JOB by declaring a State of War, then everything will be legitimate. Therefore, the so-called "detainees" will have to have the status of Prision Of War and can have a the benefits of civilized modern warfare, i.e. the Geneva Convention.
"Second, a formal declaration of war would be impossible in this case. Who would we declare war against?"
That's the B.S. being issued by the Bush Adminstration, and I'll admit that without giving it any thought, it sounds pretty good. However, Congress can declare a State of War exists in this country, thereby legitimizing ANY millitary action that we take! No where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that War can ONLY be declared against a Nation! That's a ridiculous assertion! We've gone to War before WITHOUT ATTACKING A NATION (Barbary Pirates, for instance). Sorry, I don't just let Bush Garbage, Inc. dump their propaganda into my head and call it reality!
posted on January 27, 2002 05:23:39 PM new"They came here and killed innocent civilians, people who had nothing to do with them...."
I probably should not say anything, but...
The people who came here and killed our innocent civilians are dead. They killed themselves along with all the others.
That they were funded or trained or ordered to do this by someone else has yet to be proven. Yes, I believe they had full support (in words anyway) from bin Laden's organization.
However, our President declared war (in a speech) on terrorism. He promised we would track down every last person responsible and bring them to justice.
I am all for that, but I am concerned about our methods. Are we now saying the Taliban was responsible for 9/11? If not, what grounds are we holding them on? Here's a link to the story I read that states our government is holding firm to their stand that these Taliban prisioners are not POW's:
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday visited the prison camp in Cuba where al Qaeda and Taliban captives are being held and said they would not be given the status of prisoners of war."
If they are not POW's what are they??? Did we just kidnap them and haul them to an entirely different country where we will hold them indifinitely because we don't like the way they were doing things and they are really not very nice people???
I find it all quite distressing and I am afraid there will be a great deal of "fallout" over our governments position and their actions.
posted on January 27, 2002 05:45:53 PM new
This war was planned before the terrorist attack and furthermore the terrorist attack was expected. Do you really believe that such an overwhelming response could be ready to go in just three weeks after the WTC attack? No, it was already planned. And,
it was planned not to go after terrorists but to go after ALMIGHTY OIL.. Why do you think we have already forgotten Osama bin Laden?
About the POW'S
We don't want the terrorists to force Americans to behave like barbarians. Accepting the guidelines of the Geneva Convention is BASIC, DECENT BEHAVIOR. Have these prisoners been found guilty of anything other than fighting as soldiers in their army for their country? They may have nothing to do with the bombing of the WTC or Pentagon.
For example, we as individuals cannot be held responsible for unscrupulous behavior perpetrated by the Bush administration, simply because we are Americans. He appears to believe that he is dictator of the world. Are we as individuals responsible for his agenda?
Osama bin Laden may be observing this debacle with glee since it appears to the rest of the world RUTHLESS and that is exactly how he would like to have us regarded.
Yes indeed a military operation like this can be launched in 3 weeks. As a matter of fact, the military has been given the task and prepared for 2 such operations to be supported simultaneously on opposite sides of the globe.
Borillar
The President can direct troops to anywhere, but Congress has to maintain them. Why don't you write your Congressman?
posted on January 27, 2002 08:02:21 PM new"That picture would bother me if the Taliban hadn't attacked us. Since they did I don't really care what happens them."
I do not believe anyone has claimed the Taliban is responsible for 9/11 in any capacity other than refusing to hand over ben Laden without proof he was directly responsible for the attack on America.
I don't think we would have demanded anything less if the tables were turned and some government was making demands for us to hand over someone considered a staunch defender and friend. (Don't forget America helped fund ben Laden and his efforts to defeat the Russians in Afganistan-our government obviously didn't consider him such a bad guy then)
OK, the Taliban are a bunch of ruthless, uneducated, barbaric monsters and Afganistan is better off without them, but they are NOT the people responsible for 9/11 nor do I believe they have been accused of any act of terrorism against our country (prior to our invansion anyway).
But, they were allowing ben Laden refuge in their country so we told them they either handed ben Laden over or we would come and get him. They didn't, so we did...only we didn't get him, but we got a bunch of them and now what are we to do with them?
posted on January 27, 2002 08:20:55 PM new
No, the president may not direct troops anywhere. The War Powers Act of 1973 is intended to "insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances".
posted on January 27, 2002 08:29:41 PM new
"if the Taliban hadn't attacked us"
Such a deception has taken place resulting in large numbers of the populace believing that Taliban attacked or invaded us, or anyone. They didn't. They supposedly harbored terrorists who may have or may not have attacked us, but they attacked no one at all.
Saudi Arabian nationals, whatever their motivations, DID attack us-that's about all that's been shown to be true.
