Post #151,400
4/16/04 10:43:31 AM
|
It's an old problem.
It's similar to what the US and Europe had to deal with when confronting the [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=150713|Barbary pirates]. The US and Europe didn't treat piracy as a law enforcement problem, but rather as a something that the military often had to address.
[link|http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/blackbea.cfm|Edward Teach - aka Blackbeard] - didn't spend his last days in a prison cell - he was killed in battle.
The US did effectively declare war on terrorism on [link|http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/useofforce.htm|September 14, 2001]. The wording is similar to that used to enter WWII.
It's not simply a law enforcement issue.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #151,404
4/16/04 10:51:31 AM
|
And that attitude.
It's not simply a law enforcement issue.
is what we are shredding the BoR for. "We are at War" so we have to give up some, maybe just a few, of our liberties.
You can't protect anything by destroying it.
|
Post #151,406
4/16/04 10:57:17 AM
|
If you want it to be a "law enforcement issue"
You have to be willing to give law enforcement the proper tools to do it. Which you aren't.
4 lilly whites cannot be investigated until they commit some type of crime. You have to stop them before they start building it. But you can't, because you're not allowed to investigate them.
See a problem here?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #151,409
4/16/04 11:01:14 AM
|
You want it to be a "war"?
How's about you telling me the object of any war?
Hint: It ain't victory.
'Nother hint: It's PEACE.
Now, how's about you telling me with whom we reach this peace?
Wars are of finite length and result, ultimately, in peace. What's the end-game for this "War on Terrorism"?
Hint: There isn't one.
'Nother hint: There can't be because this is not a war at all.
|
Post #151,410
4/16/04 11:12:01 AM
|
I want it solved.
By the most effective means possible.
And I don't like the term "War on Terror" because its not entirely accurate. Nor do I like the term "police action" because thats not entirely accurate.
But to pretend that we can use the same rules that got us into this mess to get us out of it is just that. Pretend.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #151,417
4/16/04 11:48:30 AM
|
Simple solution
Kill off the entire population of the world except for you. Short of having only one inhabitant, nothing can prevent all terrorism. They, the terrorist, is fighting for an idea. Tim McVey was a terrorist.
The only thing that makes us civilized are laws. Realizing that I'd rather obey the law than go to jail. If I didn't care about the results of my actions then I'm freed to do whatever I want.
If a terrorist is willing to die for his beliefs, then war won't stop him. Neither will police action. Believing that any agency could infiltrate all organizations and prevent further terroristic actions in an exercise in fantasy. There will always be terrorists.
A War on Terrorism is ludicrious. Unless the War is only a front to restrict our freedoms. "We're at war, therefore ...". A war must be against a country with whom we can negotiate a ending. ObL cannot end the terrorism. So we cannot declare "war" on ObL.
When will Schrub declare "peace"? Week after his reselection?
|
Post #151,438
4/16/04 2:06:32 PM
|
When, indeed!
"We're at war with Eastasia. We've alwasy been at war with Eastasia!"
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #151,468
4/16/04 4:57:41 PM
|
That's not a declaration of war.
A declaration of war is a very specific thing. That ain't it.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #151,472
4/16/04 5:09:12 PM
|
But Peter,
We have a War on Drugs -- ends when everyone is high.
And a War on Poverty -- Ends when Shrub & Co has all the money.
And locally we have a war on prostitution -- Ends when everyone is hard up ;-j
Must have a few more, but that's all that I can think of right now.
|
Post #151,474
4/16/04 5:18:40 PM
|
Can someone please fork a new thread (or several)?
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #151,476
4/16/04 5:24:10 PM
|
It'll probably die soon.
Threads usually croak after I've posted more than 3 replies. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #151,493
4/16/04 8:31:59 PM
|
Yeah darnit...FORK this thread!
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #151,535
4/17/04 12:48:40 PM
|
Knifing it is too much work
--
Buy high, sell sober.
|
Post #151,475
4/16/04 5:22:25 PM
|
Not in the traditional sense.
In the traditional sense, terrorism isn't a cross-border phenomenon. E.g. The Red Brigades, Bader-Meinhoff, and even the IRA didn't operate across (more than one) border(s). They were domestic terrorists.
Al Qaeda is different. It's closer to the Barbary Pirates than to a traditional terrorist organization.
As you say, traditionally, states-of-war can only exist between governments.
The [link|http://www.luminet.net/~tgort/tonkin.htm|Gulf of Tonkin] resolution was probably closest to the 9/14/2001 resolution. It didn't state that the US was at war with North Vietnam, but it authorized the use of military force to repel and prevent further aggression.
I think if we apply the Duck Test, then the 9/14/2001 is a declaration of war. YMMV.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
