What comes after full retard?

chemical_angel: What comes after full retard?

Townhall.

Diogenes: We are lacking a global approach to terrorism.

What? Holy crap. Can you explain this, please?

Diogenes: Malkin's too dense to realize that whack-a-mole as a strategy to combat terrorism has not been working.

Of course it hasn't been. That's why you have to go to war with ALL the Muslim countries.

The wharrgarbl is strong with this one.

Pocket Ninja: The ability of the left to revise history to suit themselves just staggers the mind. Let's all pretend that the attack on the Cole didn't happen, and that President Bush didn't land on its deck the next day and, after leading the early repair efforts and single-handedly saving Ensign Hoover, who had been trapped in the flooding engine room for the entire night and was near death, delivered his speech from the bridge with a malfunctioning bullhorn. "We can't hear you," the crew cried out, and he threw down the horn and bellowed, "That's all right! I can hear you!" And then the Apache formation came over horizon and we were ready right then, right then to take Yemen down for good. But no. The democrats were filibustering and authorization couldn't come through in time and it was a total recall. And now look what happens. You reap what you sow, asshats. You reap what you sow.

I don't like confusion. It makes me cry.

of course it's GWs fault

Malkin and Townhall remind us all Bush was a Republican. Thanks Guys.

I'd be really disappointed if people forgot that. I really would.

Isn't it bad form to be the Weeners in a thread you submit?

With deep seated anger and willful ignorance like that, I can see why he couldn't help himself.

Pocket Ninja is on my favorites list because I usually like what he's saying. But I guess he's too smart, or just incoherent enough, for me this time to understand him.

Lionel Mandrake: In typical fashion, Malkin shrieks about nefarious lefties and their awful words and actions without citing a single fkn example.

Yes, that's annoying. I would point out that if you remove the ad hominem attacks on the left, her points are pretty solid. We need to work harder on stopping these d-bags. NPR was reporting that the undibomber was one of a couple dozen graduates of whatever school of hate he went to in Yemen. That makes me nervous. I'd like to know we're doing whatever we can to avoid any planes getting blown up.

Personally, I would favor jettisoning the Air Marshal program and replacing it with a Dutch filmmaker on every flight.

In his usual inspiring/listless cycle, he once more appeared chilly in his response to the chilling episode on Flight 253, issuing bulletins through his press secretary and hitting the links. At least you have to seem concerned.
- Maureen Dowd

Jeez, even O's own girlfriends are turning.

if we would have taken fire starter guy off the plane and shoved a slab of bacon down his throat and put a bullet in his head right there on the tarmac they might think about farking with our planes

Racht: Diogenes: Malkin's too dense to realize that whack-a-mole as a strategy to combat terrorism has not been working.

Of course it hasn't been. That's why you have to go to war with ALL the Muslim countries.

What about the terrorist cells operating in Europe?

As anyone, who isn't a cowardly ostrich understands, the US will never be safe until every other country is a glass parking lot.

A Townhall article written by Michelle Malkin?


Isn't that like dividing by zero?

Lionel Mandrake: In typical fashion, Malkin shrieks about nefarious lefties and their awful words and actions without citing a single fkn example

yeah, I kept reading waiting for the quote from someone saying "the reason the scrotum bomber attacked was because of W." but nope...nothing, Malkin is such a tool.

Maxout623: Pocket Ninja is on my favorites list because I usually like what he's saying. But I guess he's too smart, or just incoherent enough, for me this time to understand him.

Plot of Green Berets II, how Bush saved Christmas.

Pocket Ninja: The ability of the left to revise history to suit themselves just staggers the mind. Let's all pretend that the attack on the Cole didn't happen, and that President Bush didn't land on its deck the next day and, after leading the early repair efforts and single-handedly saving Ensign Hoover, who had been trapped in the flooding engine room for the entire night and was near death, delivered his speech from the bridge with a malfunctioning bullhorn. "We can't hear you," the crew cried out, and he threw down the horn and bellowed, "That's all right! I can hear you!" And then the Apache formation came over horizon and we were ready right then, right then to take Yemen down for good. But no. The democrats were filibustering and authorization couldn't come through in time and it was a total recall. And now look what happens. You reap what you sow, asshats. You reap what you sow.

You clearly forgot what happened after the forced recall of America's honor and dignity. After Bush was forced out of office by the Left and Clinton stole the Presidental seat he let Al Queda waltz right in and blow up the WTC on 9/11. Fortunately the righteous GOP was able to impeach his ass back to Arkansas and place George Bush back on the throne. If Bush hadn't been forced out for that year, 9/11 would never have happened and the bubble wouldn't have burst. Did the Left learn though? Hell no, we're seeing history repeat now because the Left didn't bother to learn from it. And those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The bleeding-heart ostriches of the left are blaming (who else?) cowboy George W. Bush for radicalizing poor, oppressed Yemenis. They'll never admit that it's time we disabled this jihadi revolving door

If only poor George Bush had had the authority, and position of power to deal with this threat during the last eight years, we wouldn't have to worry about al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Oh, wait...

Somebody hasn't been inviting me to the bleeding-heart ostrich meetings again. This is something I've never even given any thought to.

I must get in touch with Grand Inquisitor George Soros immediately. I simply cannot continue to be left out of these planning sessions if I'm going to continue to be an effective member of the communo-gay-fascist-imperial-anti-christian-left movement.

Ostriches!

Shryke: Diogenes: We are lacking a global approach to terrorism.

What? Holy crap. Can you explain this, please?

I can. Someone in amerika is scared of goat herders living on the other side of the planet.

Can you explain that?

Teh nine elevens? Al-CIA-duh? Terra alert code level red?

Target: Yemen

Consume, Obey.

gallo caldo: That makes me nervous. I'd like to know we're doing whatever we can to avoid any planes getting blown up.

Well, we could provide financial aid to the Yemeni like they are begging... but then some folk would whine about giving money to other countries.

Splinshints: Somebody hasn't been inviting me to the bleeding-heart ostrich meetings again. This is something I've never even given any thought to.

I must get in touch with Grand Inquisitor George Soros immediately. I simply cannot continue to be left out of these planning sessions if I'm going to continue to be an effective member of the communo-gay-fascist-imperial-anti-christian-left movement.

Look you haven't missed much. The last three meetings have degenerated into name calling by the pro-bacon faction and the vegans. I mean I'm all for the gay communist party to take over, but those vegans are not going to win anybody over by banning bacon.

Pocket Ninja: The ability of the left to revise history to suit themselves just staggers the mind. Let's all pretend that the attack on the Cole didn't happen, and that President Bush didn't land on its deck the next day and, after leading the early repair efforts and single-handedly saving Ensign Hoover, who had been trapped in the flooding engine room for the entire night and was near death, delivered his speech from the bridge with a malfunctioning bullhorn. "We can't hear you," the crew cried out, and he threw down the horn and bellowed, "That's all right! I can hear you!" And then the Apache formation came over horizon and we were ready right then, right then to take Yemen down for good. But no. The democrats were filibustering and authorization couldn't come through in time and it was a total recall. And now look what happens. You reap what you sow, asshats. You reap what you sow.

I find myself hoping your a woman so I don't have to answer strange questions about why I love you so much.

Who greens this nonsense? At least put some snark in the headline instead of sounding like you're speaking at a republican fundraiser.

So what did they just forget the last 8 years of trying to stop that revolving door or something? Like that was so successful. Maybe its time to do something other than ideologically blind flailing about. To use a metaphor, instead of trying to chop off the head of the hydra, let's try to stop it's heart.

... HA HA HA HAHA HA. Just kidding. Let's continue to just lob bombs blindly at them. War baby war. Balls over brains forever.

redpanda2: Who greens this nonsense?

I don't know exactly who does it, but I know WHY they do it (sfw, no pops, you have a back button).

chemical_angel: What comes after full retard?

Tardgarbl?

I'm not so sure the democrats are actually blaming Bush for this one... Though, I understand why Malkin would choose to assume this was the case.

I think Pocket Ninja is one of the few real Americans on Fark who REALLY understand what we're up against and how the libtard demoncrats are undermining our nation by coddling muslims both at home and abroad. The empty suit in chief has missed the message that you have to act immediately and move hard against all threats to our country, and there isn't time to wring hands and think things over.



Never forget what Clinton did to us!!!

I don't get it.

Tards like Malkin assume terrorism can only be fought in ways that can be covered easily by the media (read: embedded reporters following Marine units invading nations full of brown people, big explosions, dead bodies on film) rather than the less sexy but far more effective method of international policing, cooperation, and intelligence-sharing.

Stop assuming one side wants to defeat terrorism and the other is too cowardly to do so. Everyone wants it defeated, but the ends don't justify the means. The method in which justice is executed is important.

I read the whole damn thing, and it is completely lacking in one thing: a solution to the Yemeni problem.

Should we invade? Should we start a bombing campaign? Overthrow the Yemeni government? What, exactly, should we do about Yemen?

Because, here's the thing: in the future, if a successful terrorist attack comes from Yeman, they will scream loud and long about how Obama should have invaded it on 12-28-09, despite not having the balls to call for the invasion today.

And, a fun quote from McCain, about OBL in 1998. Link (new window)

You not only have had combat experience in Vietnam, but you were also a prisoner of war. When you look at terrorism right now, with people like Osama bin Laden, do you have any reservations about watching strikes like that?

You could say, Look, is this guy, Laden, really the bad guy that's depicted? Most of us have never heard of him before. And where there is a parallel with Vietnam is: What's plan B? What do we do next? We sent our troops into Vietnam to protect the bases. Lyndon Johnson said, Only to protect the bases. Next thing you know.... Well, we've declared to the terrorists that we're going to strike them wherever they live. That's fine. But what's next? That's where there might be some comparison.

The magazine says they dropped in on McCain for the interview in "mid-September" of 1998. The African Embassy bombings took place in August, 1998, or about one month earlier.

letdogsvote: I think Pocket Ninja is one of the few real Americans on Fark who REALLY understand what we're up against and how the libtard demoncrats are undermining our nation by coddling muslims both at home and abroad. The empty suit in chief has missed the message that you have to act immediately and move hard against all threats to our country, and there isn't time to wring hands and think things over.



Never forget what Clinton did to us!!!

We will nevar forget 09-11-02!

gallo caldo: Yes, that's annoying. I would point out that if you remove the ad hominem attacks on the left, her points are pretty solid. We need to work harder on stopping these d-bags. NPR was reporting that the undibomber was one of a couple dozen graduates of whatever school of hate he went to in Yemen. That makes me nervous. I'd like to know we're doing whatever we can to avoid any planes getting blown up.

If her real purpose in writing was to draw attention to that, she wouldn't have included the ad hominems. The only conclusion I can draw is that, if Malkin couldn't have attacked liberals, she wouldn't have written the article. Therefore, I consider her other points to be without merit, since I can get the same thing in non-'tarded form from other sources.

of course GW had nothing to do with us, or at least not as much as its Obama's fault

Good thinking 00Spy. Defeat the terrorists by acting like...terrorists.

RyogaM: I read the whole damn thing, and it is completely lacking in one thing: a solution to the Yemeni problem.

If you wanted that, you shouldn't have read a Malkin article.

Rickmansworth: I'm not so sure the democrats are actually blaming Bush for this one...

This stands in the fine tradition of partisan pundits telling one side what the other side thinks. Oh wait, did I say fine? Scratch that.

that chick who wrote the article doesn't even look American...

Lionel Mandrake: In typical fashion, Malkin shrieks about nefarious lefties and their awful words and actions without citing a single fkn example.

Citing examples? Michelle Malkin would rather be waterboarding.

Wombatzu: that chick who wrote the article doesn't even look American...

00spy: if we would have taken fire starter guy off the plane and shoved a slab of bacon down his throat and put a bullet in his head right there on the tarmac they might think about farking with our planes

What would that accomplish? These people are ready, willing, and even eager to die as it is . . . you aren't going to dissuade them by threatening their lives.

The Town Hall, Real Clear Politics and NRO icons littering the politics page today are making my eyes bleed.

TFerWannaBe: 00spy: if we would have taken fire starter guy off the plane and shoved a slab of bacon down his throat and put a bullet in his head right there on the tarmac they might think about farking with our planes

What would that accomplish? These people are ready, willing, and even eager to die as it is . . . you aren't going to dissuade them by threatening their lives.

Yes, but how else can you erode civil liberties without an religious and ethnic scapegoat? That's what's important, man. Come on. Baconnacht.

Dear Politics Tab:

After that one thread the other night where some of our favorite troll alts were publicly called out, this place seems slightly different.

Except for Phil who's been popping in regularly, all the other trolls I've highlit with pink-4 have disappeared. Yet the content in the threads hasn't really changed; there's just a lot less pink and I don't recognize most of the trolls' names.

Anyone else notice this? Or is it just me?

just found out karl rove is gay.
he just found out the gays don't want him either.
back under that rock turdblossom.

/malkin needs a ball gag, and by that
i mean to be gagged with my balls.

phaseolus: After that one thread the other night where some of our favorite troll alts were publicly called out

link?

phaseolus: Dear Politics Tab:

After that one thread the other night where some of our favorite troll alts were publicly called out, this place seems slightly different.

Except for Phil who's been popping in regularly, all the other trolls I've highlit with pink-4 have disappeared. Yet the content in the threads hasn't really changed; there's just a lot less pink and I don't recognize most of the trolls' names.

Anyone else notice this? Or is it just me?

Nope. I noticed a lot of new names cropping up in the politics tabs. Names I've never seen before, EVER, but have been registered for a couple of years.

Koggie: Hmmm...hmmm. "What ho!" said da 'ting wid the tree bonce. Don't meddle wid 'tings you don' understand.

*burp*

I was literally just thumbing through my ipod wondering what to listen to - bingo.

Aarontology: phaseolus: After that one thread the other night where some of our favorite troll alts were publicly called out

link?

this.

Aarontology: phaseolus: After that one thread the other night where some of our favorite troll alts were publicly called out

link?

Link (new window)

This is the problem with the far right and the far left right now -- each has lost the ability to make legitimate arguments for or against any issue without the ad hominem attacks that ultimately drag down the discussion.

Malkin is partially right, through perhaps no effort of her own, in that radical Muslims want all Americans dead -- but only after they a) refuse to become Muslim, and b) refuse to submit as second-class citizens to a worldwide Islamic Caliphate under their version of Sharia law. The first two are of course contrary to our Constitution and Bill of Rights and thus automatically unacceptable, so that leaves only c) die.

So, we can biatch about Bush being a cowboy, we can biatch about the CIA not being able to pounce on a dude whose name one of their agents in a shiatty posting heard for the first time in November, we can biatch about Obama wanting to treat them as criminals vs. unlawful combatants (unlawful combatant status actually may legitimize their cause in the eyes of others)...but until we acknowledge these people's Manifest Destiny and develop a workable strategy to counter it (which must involve the real threat of military action in addition to diplomacy), we'll just continue to spin our wheels.

/off to find articles on boobies

Headso: yeah, I kept reading waiting for the quote from someone saying "the reason the scrotum bomber attacked was because of W." but nope...nothing, Malkin is such a tool.

It's a typical Malkin article:

- Attack imaginary liberal strawmen, but offer no proof that they even exist.

- Deflect any criticism of Bush or conservative figures in general as Bush/Palin/etc Derangement Syndrome.

- Never makes any effort whatsoever to defend conservative policies. Malkin always seems to be saying "I don't know or care what conservatives stand for, but liberals are teh suck, so vote GOP!" She'd make a pretty good Fark Independent^TM, come to think of it.

phaseolus: Dear Politics Tab:

After that one thread the other night where some of our favorite troll alts were publicly called out, this place seems slightly different.

Except for Phil who's been popping in regularly, all the other trolls I've highlit with pink-4 have disappeared. Yet the content in the threads hasn't really changed; there's just a lot less pink and I don't recognize most of the trolls' names.

Anyone else notice this? Or is it just me?

Get a life, douchebag.

"Christmas Day terror attack over American skies"

How is setting your own crotch on fire a terror attack?

/attempted attack but c'mon.

chemical_angel: What comes after full retard?

Full-Liberal.

The only thing left after that is "Full-Progressive".

Ludicrous-speed fits in there somewhere, but I need another cup of coffee to remember.

phaseolus: Aarontology: phaseolus: After that one thread the other night where some of our favorite troll alts were publicly called out

link?

Link (new window)

Ah. I thought you meant the alts were outed as to who they really are. I've known those tools were alt-trolls for a long time. I'm also pretty sure that a lot of them are under the employ of the site, as they blatantly break the TOS constantly and openly, yet never have anything happen to them.

Gotta bring in that ad revenue after all.

You're right. The ten "#2 Al Queda operatives!" we got during the Bush administration really disabled this jihadi revolving door.

sparkmysmeg: Shryke: Diogenes: We are lacking a global approach to terrorism.

What? Holy crap. Can you explain this, please?

I can. Someone in amerika is scared of goat herders living on the other side of the planet.

Can you explain that?

Teh nine elevens? Al-CIA-duh? Terra alert code level red?

Target: Yemen

Consume, Obey.

A contender appears for beyond "Full-Retard".

Aarontology: phaseolus: Aarontology: phaseolus: After that one thread the other night where some of our favorite troll alts were publicly called out

link?

Link (new window)

Ah. I thought you meant the alts were outed as to who they really are. I've known those tools were alt-trolls for a long time. I'm also pretty sure that a lot of them are under the employ of the site, as they blatantly break the TOS constantly and openly, yet never have anything happen to them.

Gotta bring in that ad revenue after all.

More numbers on the right of a headline = more clickz = more $$$.

00spy: of course it's GWs fault

Well DUH. Brock said it so it must be true.

Can't we have a Malkin tag so I don't have to accidentally read this crap? That said, I thoroughly approve of her ratite metaphor, and would like to register my complaint about the heartless emus of the right sh*tting all over everything and then complaining about the smell.

Also, she needs to add more alliteration to her musings. Where are the nattering nabobs of negativity when you need them? Oh Spiro, I miss you so.

Fark Michelle Malkin and the horse she rode in under.

Oh, fark.

The brochure said there'd only be a few ostriches.

gilgigamesh: Aarontology: phaseolus: Aarontology: phaseolus: After that one thread the other night where some of our favorite troll alts were publicly called out

link?

Link (new window)

Ah. I thought you meant the alts were outed as to who they really are. I've known those tools were alt-trolls for a long time. I'm also pretty sure that a lot of them are under the employ of the site, as they blatantly break the TOS constantly and openly, yet never have anything happen to them.

Gotta bring in that ad revenue after all.

To be fair, you're breaking the TOS right now and so am I. You never know, but I doubt anything will happen to either of us.

The modmins are a little like the Greek gods of antiquity. Sometimes they smite you for your hubris, other times it's totally and completely random.

And sometimes they swoop down from heaven while you're tending sheep, screw you silly, and then her husband comes over and turns you into a llama for revenge.

Or was that just me?

Stabone33:
/off to find articles on boobies

Hahaha...
Made my day thanks...

Lionel Mandrake: it was the W administration that let the guys out.

Yeah, that bipartisan thing really bit someone on the arse, di'n'it?

Well, burned.

thurstonxhowell: Therefore, I consider her other points to be without merit, since I can get the same thing in non-'tarded form from other sources.

Yes, but then it wouldn't be green-lit in order to allow the libs to shriek.

RockIsDead:

Get a life, douchebag.


Well, aren't you the cutest little thing???

I'm not the smartest person on the politics tab. I'm not the best educated, or the funniest, or the best writer. I have a bad habit of responding to trolls. I'm not all that social -- in 4 years I haven't really made friends here, and I doubt I've even made that much of an impression on anyone, and being happy with my schizoid tendencies I'm okay with that.

While I'm occasionally accused of being unfocused & incoherent (thanks ADD) or sometimes being a little full of myself (which I'll cop to,) no one's ever accused me of trolling or going even partial-retard.

I'm proud of that, and I sleep well at night. How 'bout you??

abhorrent1: How is setting your own crotch on fire a terror attack?

Unsuccessful attack, but an attack, nonetheless, methinks.

mofomisfit: More numbers on the right of a headline = more clickz = more $$$.

There are ads on Fark?

/God bless ABP

phaseolus: I'm not the smartest person on the politics tab.

That may be a self-disproving statement.

gallo caldo: mofomisfit: More numbers on the right of a headline = more clickz = more $$$.

There are ads on Fark?

/God bless ABP

Yeah I'm with you, but the average internet user isn't. :P

/you should surf fark sometime on IE or something, it's jarring

I like the part where she says:

Like so many of his wealthy, educated jihad brothers and sisters before him, from Osama bin Laden to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to Fort Hood mass killer Nidal Hasan, M.D., Abdulmutallab targeted us for who we are -- dirty, unbelieving infidels -- not anything we've denied him.

Yes, and the left are ostriches.

"People just don't enjoy being ground to dust under someone else's boot. They don't like it -- it leads to hatred. You can endulge in fantasies if you like, but you certainly don't have to". - Noam Chomsky

"The bleeding-heart ostriches of the left..."

I can understand the animosity here but I don't understand the lack of names used. I mean, honestly, if there is a contingent of liberals undermining this nation's security then why not name them?

Wouldn't that be a patriot's duty to perform such an act, despite the noted journalistic credentials of Townhall? Even a commentator like Malkin can understand the need to let us know which liberals are out there purposefully placing American lives at risk.

Unless of course she is blowing smoke, like she always does, to try and get paid via the terrorist threats facing this country.

One name, Snaggletooth, just one name.

I thought not.

Malkin either has nothing other than her usual "get-paid" speculation or she hasn't the balls to point out anyone who is, intentionally or not, placing us at risk.

It's the same old same old from Mal-ware and Frown-hall. Shiat.

Obama is a Man of Peace and was awarded a prize for it.

All is well, peace in our time...


...and debt out the wazoo

The bleeding-heart ostriches of the left are blaming (who else?) cowboy George W. Bush for radicalizing poor, oppressed Yemenis. They'll never admit that it's time we disabled this jihadi revolving door

Why does Mann Coulter want to end the aviation industry?

/just guessing on the author
//Might be Krauthammer as well

Yes! Endless war with obscure, poorly defined goals!

The only way an unsustainable economy based on infinite growth can appear to succeed just a little longer.

And I was wrong on both accounts. When did Malkin start being active again? I thought she went silent after the whole whitey tape thing fizzled into nothing?

And now here's Shannon Sharpe with a reply to Ms. Malkin

I think it is time to radically expand Gitmo, and maybe stick some more people in there for the duration. AT this point, does anyone think that Obama is going to close it? Legally and historically it is fine to detain and even summarily execute spies, saboteurs and traitors. It is amazing how many of these "innocent bystanders" we catch after release firing at our troops or masterminding attacks. It is reasonable to look at Muslims a little differently than the rest of the population, the same way we should look at the radical pro life Christians, or the nut job Enviros. I hate this line of thinking, and wish I could believe like the people who desire peace and harmony among people,realistically though conflict is one of the core components of humanity and it just makes sense to take precautions.

zoombie: historically it is fine to detain and even summarily execute spies, saboteurs and traitors

The history of court cases against same says otherwise.

CanonicalNerd: I like the part where she says:

Like so many of his wealthy, educated jihad brothers and sisters before him, from Osama bin Laden to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to Fort Hood mass killer Nidal Hasan, M.D., Abdulmutallab targeted us for who we are -- dirty, unbelieving infidels -- not anything we've denied him.

Yes, and the left are ostriches.

"People just don't enjoy being ground to dust under someone else's boot. They don't like it -- it leads to hatred. You can endulge in fantasies if you like, but you certainly don't have to". - Noam Chomsky

Malkin sucks but you clearly missed the point of the article. The underwear bomber was not being ground to dust under someone else's boot.

00spy: if we would have taken fire starter guy off the plane and shoved a slab of bacon down his throat and put a bullet in his head right there on the tarmac they might think about farking with our planes

Oh, that's clever. Instant martyrdom. That'll really work out nicely.

WhyteRaven74: zoombie: historically it is fine to detain and even summarily execute spies, saboteurs and traitors

The history of court cases against same says otherwise.

that's why they are summarily executed and not tried :)

zoombie: It is amazing how many of these "innocent bystanders" we catch after release firing at our troops or masterminding attacks.

Yeah, but several of the Gitmo detainees were put there for wearing the wrong kind of wristwatch. (new window)

buckler: zoombie: It is amazing how many of these "innocent bystanders" we catch after release firing at our troops or masterminding attacks.

Yeah, but several of the Gitmo detainees were put there for wearing the wrong kind of wristwatch. (new window)

well that's the dilemma. How much wrongful imprisonment are we willing to tolerate?

zoombie: It is reasonable to look at Muslims a little differently than the rest of the population, the same way we should look at the radical pro life Christians, or the nut job Enviros. I hate this line of thinking,

I hate it too, and unfortunately, this is precisely the behavior radical Muslims want to see in us, because then it justifies their jihad to the non-radical Muslims, ultimately winning them over and making things much worse for us in the long run.

WhyteRaven74: zoombie: historically it is fine to detain and even summarily execute spies, saboteurs and traitors

The history of court cases against same says otherwise.

Roosevelt hung German spies caught in New Jersey during WW2. The Germans regularly executed Belgians cutting telegraph lines and damaging railroads in WW1. We hung resistance fighters in Germany and Italy after the cessation of hostilities following WW2. The British and French armies also followed similar policies. If you are fighting out of uniform, or striking against an explicitly civilian target, no treaty covers you. You are fair game for about anything. Personally I have no qualms about letting the CIA turn that bomber inside out if they have to. I feel the same way about any american citizen caught engaging in military action against the US, like John Lindh, who should be executed. The current bomber should not be allowed within a mile of a lawyer or a court room. He lost his rights when he attempted to murder hundreds of people. I am not trying to sound jingoistic, nor am I trying to insult your viewpoint, but pragmatically the easiest and best method to deal with these animals is summary execution and a denial of burial.It may not deter them, but at least we show we have the balls in this country to actually fight.

I really hated G Dubs, but I'm not going to blame him for this.

Sometimes shiat just goes down and someone should have known better. Yeah, some of this stuff was his fault, but not all of it. It's not fair to lay it all on him.

zoombie: . It is reasonable to look at Muslims a little differently than the rest of the population,

Oh and no, no it's not.

skullkrusher: buckler: zoombie: It is amazing how many of these "innocent bystanders" we catch after release firing at our troops or masterminding attacks.

Yeah, but several of the Gitmo detainees were put there for wearing the wrong kind of wristwatch. (new window)

well that's the dilemma. How much wrongful imprisonment are we willing to tolerate?

I have no good answer that would please an idealist so I am going to say we try to limit the harm. It is a bureaucracy, and mistakes will be made, but we cannot hamstring a military effort because it may harm an innocent.I think a good approach would be to try to balance the safety of Americans( whose lives should matter more to us than someone from any other nation) against the harm done to the individual. I am going to just go off gut instinct, no citation here, but I feel that about 85% of the detainees are there for easily provable crimes. We cant't try them in civilian court, as discovery motions could lead to the compromising of sensitive information, so we have to make them disappear. As to my imaginary 15%, I find that to be acceptable when weighed in the balance. It is not pretty, but it is how it has to be.

The only viable solution is to invade Yemen and Iran. Both pose great risks to the security and stability of the world. Diplomatic options never work, nor do sanctions. The only way to achieve peace is through war.

zoombie: It is amazing how many of these "innocent bystanders" we catch after release firing at our troops or masterminding attacks.

Ok, so detainees in Gitmo were released and allegedly masterminded the undiebomber plan. That much seems to be common knowledge. But has there been any proof that they were release because they were "innocent bystanders". I haven't heard it, and it seems like a strawman.

I'll set up my own strawman and say they were released because the proof that they were terrorist was obtained through torture and therefore inadmissable.

So now we have an example of someone almost blowing up a plane as a direct result of torture. That's reason to stop torturing detainees, right?

MiddleyMcCentrist: Oh, that's clever. Instant martyrdom. That'll really work out nicely.

Actually no. Instant conversion to Murikhan before assasinated! Bacon is all...ah!

zoombie: Roosevelt hung German spies caught in New Jersey during WW2.

Name one person the US has executed in recent history without due process, whether military or civilian due process.

The current bomber should not be allowed within a mile of a lawyer or a court room. He lost his rights when he attempted to murder hundreds of people.

Then you, are worse than he is.

skullkrusher: well that's the dilemma. How much wrongful imprisonment are we willing to tolerate?

I'm not fully directing this post at you, skull, just riffing off your thoughts...

The answer is none. There is nothing a wrongful imprisonment does for society.

Where the wrongfully imprisoned is merely accused, it deprives a man of liberty. Where the wrongfully imprisoned is convicted of another man's crime, a man's liberty is taken and the guilty walks free. It's better to merely let the guilty walk free, than to let them walk free while we complacently permit ourselves a false sense of security over the guilt of an innocent man, rotting away.

On the subject of why recidivism seems to be high among the recently released: If I was kidnapped from my home and family, held without trial, and accused of plotting murder, I would want to kill my jailers, even if I hadn't wanted to before.

Perhaps W. and the GOP should have spent a little more time building solid cases instead of playing snatch and grab, causing legitimate cases to be thrown into doubt, and illegitimate cases to become legitimate thirsts for vengeance.

WhyteRaven74: zoombie: . It is reasonable to look at Muslims a little differently than the rest of the population,

Oh and no, no it's not.

Really? It is not acceptable to look at the demographics and relationships that a group has, use the simple fact that most of the terrorist actions against the US come from Muslims, and say that while it is not in any way acceptable to say deport or imprison them simply for being Muslim, it is ok to look at them with a little bit more scrutiny? I have nothing against Muslims but facts are facts. If you noticed I also included anti abortion zealots and fringe greenies. I nowhere implied discriminating based on master status, I just said it is ok to use facts and figures to form policy.

zoombie: We cant't try them in civilian court

Yes we can. And we must, we can not cower in fear over what might happen, justice and the law must always come first, consequences be damned, for without justice and law nothing else matters, there is no freedom to maintain.

zoombie: that a group has

Muslims are as diverse as Christians, outside of a few religious points you can't say anything about them all as a monolithic group.

WhyteRaven74: zoombie: Roosevelt hung German spies caught in New Jersey during WW2.

Name one person the US has executed in recent history without due process, whether military or civilian due process.

The current bomber should not be allowed within a mile of a lawyer or a court room. He lost his rights when he attempted to murder hundreds of people.

Then you, are worse than he is.

I am worse than someone who attempted to needlessly murder hundreds and hundreds of people? By expressing an opinion? Look, some people do certain things that check them out of the human race. I apologize if you got the feeling I was insulting you personally,but I have to disagree with your conclusion.

Dr. Mojo PhD: skullkrusher: well that's the dilemma. How much wrongful imprisonment are we willing to tolerate?

I'm not fully directing this post at you, skull, just riffing off your thoughts...

The answer is none. There is nothing a wrongful imprisonment does for society.

Where the wrongfully imprisoned is merely accused, it deprives a man of liberty. Where the wrongfully imprisoned is convicted of another man's crime, a man's liberty is taken and the guilty walks free. It's better to merely let the guilty walk free, than to let them walk free while we complacently permit ourselves a false sense of security over the guilt of an innocent man, rotting away.

On the subject of why recidivism seems to be high among the recently released: If I was kidnapped from my home and family, held without trial, and accused of plotting murder, I would want to kill my jailers, even if I hadn't wanted to before.

Perhaps W. and the GOP should have spent a little more time building solid cases instead of playing snatch and grab, causing legitimate cases to be thrown into doubt, and illegitimate cases to become legitimate thirsts for vengeance.

we tolerate a certain level of wrongful imprisonment all the time even in regular criminal proceedings, however.
Just like we tolerate a certain level of highway deaths in order to have an efficiency maximizing speed limit. We could drastically reduce auto accident fatalities if we reduced the speed limit to 10 MPH.
Not saying that throwing someone in a secretive prison without evidence is the solution but NOT doing something to hold suspected irregular combatants without cut and dry evidence isn't either.

skullkrusher: Malkin sucks but you clearly missed the point of the article. The underwear bomber was not being ground to dust under someone else's boot.

No I didn't miss the point. I think the point was fallacious. I quoted the part that said he was wealthy. Malkin posits that its because we're infidels, but WSJ did a poll(*) shortly after 9-11 that asked "monied muslims" why there is such animosity towards the US. And the answer was policy. In other words, when you treat other sovreign nations as client states, it creates hatred.

Malkin is right in that it didn't start during George Bush's presidency. The animosity has been around since we started interfering in the region. But if Malkin was right about them hating us because we're infidels, then they would have hated us since our inception.

(*) Sorry, no citation. Did a quick google search but didnt' find anything. Take my words for what you will.

buckler: Yeah, but several of the Gitmo detainees were put there for wearing the wrong kind of wristwatch. (new window)

And holy shiat that is scary. He is a member of al Qaeda because he was traveling after 9/11 wearing a watch?

I mean, honestly? He wore a Casio watch, God knows how much of a market share they have, and he was traveling after 9/11. I guess after 9/11 it was expected by everybody that all Muzzies put themselves voluntarily under house arrest or something.

WhyteRaven74: zoombie: that a group has

Muslims are as diverse as Christians, outside of a few religious points you can't say anything about them all as a monolithic group.

hey, this is Fark. If I learned anything here it is the absolute kosher nature of demonizing all Christians based on Rev Phelps' actions.

Dr. Mojo PhD: buckler: Yeah, but several of the Gitmo detainees were put there for wearing the wrong kind of wristwatch. (new window)

And holy shiat that is scary. He is a member of al Qaeda because he was traveling after 9/11 wearing a watch?

I mean, honestly? He wore a Casio watch, God knows how much of a market share they have, and he was traveling after 9/11. I guess after 9/11 it was expected by everybody that all Muzzies put themselves voluntarily under house arrest or something.

it is right to imprison someone for wearing a Casio watch.



/you have the right to remain fabulous!

zoombie: WhyteRaven74: zoombie: historically it is fine to detain and even summarily execute spies, saboteurs and traitors

The history of court cases against same says otherwise.

Roosevelt hung German spies caught in New Jersey during WW2. The Germans regularly executed Belgians cutting telegraph lines and damaging railroads in WW1. We hung resistance fighters in Germany and Italy after the cessation of hostilities following WW2. The British and French armies also followed similar policies. If you are fighting out of uniform, or striking against an explicitly civilian target, no treaty covers you. You are fair game for about anything. Personally I have no qualms about letting the CIA turn that bomber inside out if they have to. I feel the same way about any american citizen caught engaging in military action against the US, like John Lindh, who should be executed. The current bomber should not be allowed within a mile of a lawyer or a court room. He lost his rights when he attempted to murder hundreds of people. I am not trying to sound jingoistic, nor am I trying to insult your viewpoint, but pragmatically the easiest and best method to deal with these animals is summary execution and a denial of burial.It may not deter them, but at least we show we have the balls in this country to actually fight.

>> The current bomber should not be allowed within a mile of a lawyer or a court room. He lost his rights when he attempted to murder hundreds of people.
While some cases are certainly as clear as this one, in general and as a matter of principle I don't trust the military, law enforcement, nor our intelligence and espionage agencies to infallibly catch and punish the correct people. The reason we have a court system is to make sure that we have the right guy before we execute them.

While prudence may demand that we give these organizations the right and resources to capture and execute people they believe are dangerous, American respect for human civil rights and dignity demand that we ensure we only punish the guilty. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the core of our judicial system and in fact justice is impossible without paying homage to that philosophy.

To reject that, even for clear cases of vicious attacks against civilians, sets a precedent implying that 1) not all people share the same civil rights, 2) that being accused of a crime is almost the same as being guilty of it, and that 3) American law enforcement and defense organizations have the wisdom and resources to determine guilt and innocence without public input. I wouldn't call your attitude necessarily jingoist, but if you *were to* add a nationalism or jingoism to it, you could easily end up with gross and pervasive perversions of justice.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Where the wrongfully imprisoned is merely accused, it deprives a man of liberty. Where the wrongfully imprisoned is convicted of another man's crime, a man's liberty is taken and the guilty walks free. It's better to merely let the guilty walk free, than to let them walk free while we complacently permit ourselves a false sense of security over the guilt of an innocent man, rotting away.

I have to agree. I'd rather see a guilty man go temporarily free than to see a single innocent man deprived of life or liberty.

WhyteRaven74: Name one person the US has executed in recent history without due process, whether military or civilian due process.

I meant to reply to this in my post above. how about using predator drones against those we suspect of terrorist activity? want to stop those too? How about every time before we send one of these thugs to hell we read them their rights, and patiently explain to the victims families we were just trying to preserve due process for people engaged in unlawful military activity? I understand that moral absolutism and a fawning love for idealism produces a great undeserved feeling of superiority, but it gets people killed.

CanonicalNerd: skullkrusher: Malkin sucks but you clearly missed the point of the article. The underwear bomber was not being ground to dust under someone else's boot.

No I didn't miss the point. I think the point was fallacious. I quoted the part that said he was wealthy. Malkin posits that its because we're infidels, but WSJ did a poll(*) shortly after 9-11 that asked "monied muslims" why there is such animosity towards the US. And the answer was policy. In other words, when you treat other sovreign nations as client states, it creates hatred.

Malkin is right in that it didn't start during George Bush's presidency. The animosity has been around since we started interfering in the region. But if Malkin was right about them hating us because we're infidels, then they would have hated us since our inception.

(*) Sorry, no citation. Did a quick google search but didnt' find anything. Take my words for what you will.

I took issue with your Noam quote. There is nothing to indicate that this guy had anything but a privileged life. There is absolutely no denying that American policy results in blowback - it would be foolish to insist otherwise. However, it is also silly to believe that these would-be suicide bombers are sent off to their deaths by ideological fanatics SOLELY because of US policy.
This guy wasn't driven to do what he attempted because of personal experiences of oppression and those who convinced him that this was his duty didn't do so because of US support of Israel and other interference in the Muslim world.

zoombie: I meant to reply to this in my post above. how about using predator drones against those we suspect of terrorist activity? want to stop those too? How about every time before we send one of these thugs to hell we read them their rights, and patiently explain to the victims families we were just trying to preserve due process for people engaged in unlawful military activity? I understand that moral absolutism and a fawning love for idealism produces a great undeserved feeling of superiority, but it gets people killed.

Battlefield action and court proceedings are two different things. There's already a process in place to prosecute for military war crimes against the innocent. Once they reach our custody as prisoners, they deserve the full course of due process under American law.

WhyteRaven74: zoombie: that a group has

Muslims are as diverse as Christians, outside of a few religious points you can't say anything about them all as a monolithic group.

Good point. I also know that aside from a few bombing, the tragedy of the Alfred Murrah building in OK City, and murdered doctors, Christians in America are lagging behind our Muslim friends in the body count and frequency of attacks. What is your plan for fighting these things?

skullkrusher: we tolerate a certain level of wrongful imprisonment all the time even in regular criminal proceedings, however.

No, we don't. We know they happen, but we don't tolerate them because we don't know which they are. We strive constantly to free them, even if it means we risk freeing the guilty as well.

I say "we" as in civil libertarians. Those who do not believe in authoritarianism, those who cannot actually state "if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear", "if they're innocent, they wouldn't have been arrested", and "it's better a few innocents suffer for the good of us" with sincerity.

skullkrusher: Just like we tolerate a certain level of highway deaths in order to have an efficiency maximizing speed limit. We could drastically reduce auto accident fatalities if we reduced the speed limit to 10 MPH.

The highway system, the road systems, are privileges. We are not forced to take them. We can opt out of them. We cannot opt out of living. We cannot opt out of detention, if we're sentenced. We can't simply say: No thanks.

I tolerate highway deaths because going on the highway is my prerogative. I can choose not to get on it. I can choose not to drive, or not to enter a car. If a person harms me, or kills a family member, I can choose to pursue charges of negligence against them, or recklessness, or malice.

skullkrusher: Not saying that throwing someone in a secretive prison without evidence is the solution but NOT doing something to hold suspected irregular combatants without cut and dry evidence isn't either.

I'm not arguing minor custody. I'm perfectly ok with soldiers, in a combat zone, exercising some level of control. Having been a soldier, I know one thing: The danger posed to a force is not through casualties. The danger posed is through lack of order. Casualties contribute to this: They lower morale, they destroy leadership, steal initiative. The application of order and control saves lives -- everybody's. Friendly combatants, enemy combatants, civilians. Some manner of temporary custody is understandable and indeed, even factoring out the order vs. chaos, separates folks from immediate harm such as stray bullets.

That's assuming 1. order can be imposed and 2. that order can be properly executed. Rounding up a neighbourhood because a farmer has a rifle and calling them terrorists, or as we see in the example above arresting a gentleman because he owns a Casio watch of unknown make, is not the method to impose order. In fact, it quite distinctly creates chaos.

zoombie: how about using predator drones against those we suspect of terrorist activity?

They're not in custody are they? They're military targets, not someone being held in military or civilian custody.

skullkrusher: I took issue with your Noam quote. There is nothing to indicate that this guy had anything but a privileged life. There is absolutely no denying that American policy results in blowback - it would be foolish to insist otherwise. However, it is also silly to believe that these would-be suicide bombers are sent off to their deaths by ideological fanatics SOLELY because of US policy.
This guy wasn't driven to do what he attempted because of personal experiences of oppression and those who convinced him that this was his duty didn't do so _^solely because of US support of Israel and other interference in the Muslim world.

/ftfm

zoombie: Good point. I also know that aside from a few bombing, the tragedy of the Alfred Murrah building in OK City, and murdered doctors, Christians in America are lagging behind our Muslim friends in the body count and frequency of attacks. What is your plan for fighting these things?

What are you even asking him here? How he plans to fight Christian radicalism's body count, or fight to get its body count higher?

buckler: Once they reach our custody as prisoners, they deserve the full course of due process under American law.

Why American law? Why not the law of the host nation? Can't we just turn them over to the local authorities for "processing"?

WhyteRaven74: They're not in custody are they? They're military targets, not someone being held in military or civilian custody.

You gotta admit, sticking somebody in a jail and then performing an extrajudicial execution on him by sending a predator drone after him in jail is a friggin' hilarious mental picture. It's just so Bond-villain complicated.

gallo caldo: buckler: Once they reach our custody as prisoners, they deserve the full course of due process under American law.

Why American law? Why not the law of the host nation? Can't we just turn them over to the local authorities for "processing"?

Sure. But as long as they *are* in our custody, they're subject to our laws.

zoombie: Muslims a little differently than the rest of the population, the same way we should look at the radical pro life Christians, or the nut job Enviros.

It must be tremendously freeing to be able to summarize individuals in 3 word maximum descriptions.

Dr. Mojo PhD: No, we don't. We know they happen, but we don't tolerate them because we don't know which they are. We strive constantly to free them, even if it means we risk freeing the guilty as well.

I say "we" as in civil libertarians. Those who do not believe in authoritarianism, those who cannot actually state "if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear", "if they're innocent, they wouldn't have been arrested", and "it's better a few innocents suffer for the good of us" with sincerity.

We recognize that our system imprisons innocent people yet we tolerate this to a point - that was what I was saying.

Dr. Mojo PhD: The highway system, the road systems, are privileges. We are not forced to take them. We can opt out of them. We cannot opt out of living. We cannot opt out of detention, if we're sentenced. We can't simply say: No thanks.

I tolerate highway deaths because going on the highway is my prerogative. I can choose not to get on it. I can choose not to drive, or not to enter a car. If a person harms me, or kills a family member, I can choose to pursue charges of negligence against them, or recklessness, or malice.

just an example of "evil" we tolerate in the name of the greater good. Not meant to serve as a direct analogy.

Dr. Mojo PhD: I'm not arguing minor custody. I'm perfectly ok with soldiers, in a combat zone, exercising some level of control. Having been a soldier, I know one thing: The danger posed to a force is not through casualties. The danger posed is through lack of order. Casualties contribute to this: They lower morale, they destroy leadership, steal initiative. The application of order and control saves lives -- everybody's. Friendly combatants, enemy combatants, civilians. Some manner of temporary custody is understandable and indeed, even factoring out the order vs. chaos, separates folks from immediate harm such as stray bullets.

That's assuming 1. order can be imposed and 2. that order can be properly executed. Rounding up a neighbourhood because a farmer has a rifle and calling them terrorists, or as we see in the example above arresting a gentleman because he owns a Casio watch of unknown make, is not the method to impose order. In fact, it quite distinctly creates chaos.

but you must also recognize the ability of the military to hold combatants in custody even without formal evidence of their guilt. Someone shoots at you from a house. You go into the house and there is an old blind lady in a wheelchair and a 25 year old guy. You don't have PROOF that the old lady wasn't the shooter but you'd have the military expedite a trial of the young man according to US civilian law in which he'd likely be released due to lack of evidence or would you accept their ability to hold him until hostilities end in that area?

zoombie: What is your plan for fighting these things?

Deal with them the only way that works, address those issues that allow such people to arise and gain an audience. In Peru the Shining Path was basically tearing the country to shreds. But by addressing directly the issue of the lack of recognition of the poor within the socio-economic life of Peru, they were rendered pretty well powerless. The Shining Path took advantage of the support of the poor who held no title to their land, who had no means by which to improve their lot in life. When those poor were given legal ownership of their land, the support vaporized. The Shining Path was brought to its knees by pieces of paper.

WhyteRaven74: zoombie: how about using predator drones against those we suspect of terrorist activity?

They're not in custody are they? They're military targets, not someone being held in military or civilian custody.

No they are probably targets. They are killed, without due process of law, based on the probability of their actions and implied guilt by their presence at a geographical location and those around them.


buckler:
Battlefield action and court proceedings are two different things. There's already a process in place to prosecute for military war crimes against the innocent. Once they reach our custody as prisoners, they deserve the full course of due process under American law.
Where is the battlefield exactly? Where are we fighting them at? The enemy is everywhere, can strike at anytime, and therefore I find it acceptable to consider the planet a battlefield.

WhyteRaven74: zoombie: how about using predator drones against those we suspect of terrorist activity?

They're not in custody are they? They're military targets, not someone being held in military or civilian custody.

I think the point was that we execute people all the time without trial - hell even without knowing for 100% sure that they are in the house we're dropping a bomb on.

gallo caldo: buckler: Once they reach our custody as prisoners, they deserve the full course of due process under American law.

Why American law? Why not the law of the host nation? Can't we just turn them over to the local authorities for "processing"?

When they're in your custody, you're "hosting" them. Being in a foreign warzone doesn't count; You either play by international law or accept that fact that if you're at war with a country you de facto do not accept its rule, including its rule of law, and must therefore process anybody in your custody as you would if they were within your borders. That is, your military presence confers jurisdiction (otherwise, you wouldn't have any authority to detain them).

skullkrusher: I think the point was that we execute people all the time without trial

Thing is there's a world of difference between executing summarily those we hold in custody and going after military targets.

Dr. Mojo PhD: It's just so Bond-villain complicated.

hah a Rube Goldberg device way of doing it.

zoombie: implied guilt

And therein lies the rub. If someone is in our custody our rules of law, civilian and military, do not allow us to just assume someone is guilty. Indeed the law assumes just the opposite until such time as it is proven they are guilty.

WhyteRaven74: zoombie: What is your plan for fighting these things?

Deal with them the only way that works, address those issues that allow such people to arise and gain an audience. In Peru the Shining Path was basically tearing the country to shreds. But by addressing directly the issue of the lack of recognition of the poor within the socio-economic life of Peru, they were rendered pretty well powerless. The Shining Path took advantage of the support of the poor who held no title to their land, who had no means by which to improve their lot in life. When those poor were given legal ownership of their land, the support vaporized. The Shining Path was brought to its knees by pieces of paper.

So you want us to spend money to build up a society of people that are hostile to our interests and will probably use the resources to further the fight against us? Brilliant. The link between poverty and terrorism is fragile at best. Maybe the real problem is the fact that most of the rulers of these countries use the anger at America as a way of placating the masses and diverting attention from their theft of national treasure? The main issue for the terrorists is death to America, what is the compromise solution?

WhyteRaven74: Thing is there's a world of difference between executing summarily those we hold in custody and going after military targets.

there's also a big difference between holding someone in custody without formal charges or trial during hostilities and assassinating someone based on presumption of guilt.

skullkrusher: We recognize that our system imprisons innocent people yet we tolerate this to a point - that was what I was saying.

And I disagree. I do not tolerate that at all. I think cases must always be under scrutiny, and open to appeal, to ensure that justice is served. I am aware that the innocent will be imprisoned. I also refuse to accept that as a "price to pay".

skullkrusher: just an example of "evil" we tolerate in the name of the greater good. Not meant to serve as a direct analogy.

And I'm again disagreeing. I tolerate evils I apply to myself as part of the greater good. I do not tolerate evils others choose to apply to me for the greater good. Risk of imprisonment when you're innocent of a crime goes beyond the norms of any social contract a person can reasonably be expected to have with their nation. It's one thing for me to pay taxes, it's another for the state to rob me blind. It's one think for me to accept a police officer stopping me on the street and attempting to ascertain the situation, it's another for them to arrest and detain me without cause. Etc., etc.

skullkrusher: but you must also recognize the ability of the military to hold combatants in custody even without formal evidence of their guilt. Someone shoots at you from a house. You go into the house and there is an old blind lady in a wheelchair and a 25 year old guy. You don't have PROOF that the old lady wasn't the shooter but you'd have the military expedite a trial of the young man according to US civilian law in which he'd likely be released due to lack of evidence or would you accept their ability to hold him until hostilities end in that area?

It's not that blind, or inept. Most REMFs include one or two tech types that can determine who fired a gun. Even assuming they can't, you can always treat them as a POW, which almost always grants unquestionable amnesty and a return to daily life when the fighting's over, barring a war crime trial or some such. You don't indefinitely detain them in neither a POW or civilian setting. You can't just create a third class of detention where you treat combatants as civilians for Geneva convention purposes but combatants for civil rights purposes.

WhyteRaven74: skullkrusher: I think the point was that we execute people all the time without trial

Thing is there's a world of difference between executing summarily those we hold in custody and going after military targets.

Dr. Mojo PhD: It's just so Bond-villain complicated.

hah a Rube Goldberg device way of doing it.

zoombie: implied guilt

And therein lies the rub. If someone is in our custody our rules of law, civilian and military, do not allow us to just assume someone is guilty. Indeed the law assumes just the opposite until such time as it is proven they are guilty.

But they don't fall under civilian law. They are subject to military law. Otherwise, anyone who could hide after he killed US troops would be let off scot free, so long as no definitive evidence was around that he did it. Supposition just has to suffice sometime.
FWIW, I think we are both equally interested in protecting the nation, we just seem to have different approaches philosophically. It is nice to have the debate with another person though. I recently moved back to Alabama, and don;t get too many chances to hear the other side.

zoombie: But they don't fall under civilian law. They are subject to military law. Otherwise, anyone who could hide after he killed US troops would be let off scot free, so long as no definitive evidence was around that he did it. Supposition just has to suffice sometime.
FWIW, I think we are both equally interested in protecting the nation, we just seem to have different approaches philosophically. It is nice to have the debate with another person though. I recently moved back to Alabama, and don;t get too many chances to hear the other side.

You can't just execute POWs.

Generalized question: does anyone see any chance that Gitmo or the secret prisons will actually close? Americans love war, and I think that the anti war left has been so successfully branded (unfairly) as a bunch of sissies, that the american public as a whole will not listen to them. Call it inherent American macho attitudes at work, but most Americans do not want to associated with a group that has that stigma.
/Good points Dr.Mojo. I disagree, but well written

Dr. Mojo PhD: skullkrusher: We recognize that our system imprisons innocent people yet we tolerate this to a point - that was what I was saying.

And I disagree. I do not tolerate that at all. I think cases must always be under scrutiny, and open to appeal, to ensure that justice is served. I am aware that the innocent will be imprisoned. I also refuse to accept that as a "price to pay".

skullkrusher: just an example of "evil" we tolerate in the name of the greater good. Not meant to serve as a direct analogy.

And I'm again disagreeing. I tolerate evils I apply to myself as part of the greater good. I do not tolerate evils others choose to apply to me for the greater good. Risk of imprisonment when you're innocent of a crime goes beyond the norms of any social contract a person can reasonably be expected to have with their nation. It's one thing for me to pay taxes, it's another for the state to rob me blind. It's one think for me to accept a police officer stopping me on the street and attempting to ascertain the situation, it's another for them to arrest and detain me without cause. Etc., etc.

I don't think we're on the same page. Whether or not we believe that imprisoning innocent people is tolerable at any level does not matter. The fact remains that we KNOW that our criminal justice system is imperfect and therefore will occasionally convict an innocent person of a crime yet we continue to utilize that system because, as a society, we've decided that the benefits of our system outweigh the very real, easily demonstrable drawbacks.

Dr. Mojo PhD: It's not that blind, or inept. Most REMFs include one or two tech types that can determine who fired a gun. Even assuming they can't, you can always treat them as a POW, which almost always grants unquestionable amnesty and a return to daily life when the fighting's over, barring a war crime trial or some such. You don't indefinitely detain them in neither a POW or civilian setting. You can't just create a third class of detention where you treat combatants as civilians for Geneva convention purposes but combatants for civil rights purposes.

right - however irregular combatants do not qualify for POW status although they probably should. POWs are held for the duration of hostilities as you said. They are not given civilian trials to determine their guilt.

Dr. Mojo PhD: WhyteRaven74: They're not in custody are they? They're military targets, not someone being held in military or civilian custody.

You gotta admit, sticking somebody in a jail and then performing an extrajudicial execution on him by sending a predator drone after him in jail is a friggin' hilarious mental picture. It's just so Bond-villain complicated.

Needs more lasers.

Dr. Mojo PhD: zoombie:

You can't just execute POWs.
I never advocated executing POW's. Prisoners of war are caught fighting in uniform, for a recognized nation state. The people we are catching do not meet the definition of POW.I served in the Navy, admin type so no heroics or anything, but I knew several marines very well, and I detest a policy that could put them in the way of needless harm. As an added note, the pointless rules of engagement we have now in Afghan. have got to be loosened.

skullkrusher: I don't think we're on the same page. Whether or not we believe that imprisoning innocent people is tolerable at any level does not matter. The fact remains that we KNOW that our criminal justice system is imperfect and therefore will occasionally convict an innocent person of a crime yet we continue to utilize that system because, as a society, we've decided that the benefits of our system outweigh the very real, easily demonstrable drawbacks.

Ok, on this I agree. I think that Western, English Common Law-derived systems do, in fact, provide for the fairest justice systems currently in existence. I think there is room from improvement. I was taking umbrage with your use of the term tolerate. I don't tolerate the faults, I grudgingly accept them because the alternatives, as they exist, do not solve them and we know of no cure for human nature.

skullkrusher: right - however irregular combatants do not qualify for POW status although they probably should. POWs are held for the duration of hostilities as you said. They are not given civilian trials to determine their guilt.

You mean illegal combatants, irregulars are just militiamen as opposed to a "regular" force like an army. But yes, I know. And that's my problem. These jerk-off games with "illegal combatants" is retarded. If I recall correctly, the primary mover behind declaring them "illegal combatants" was this notion that Afghanistan was a failed state, and therefore did not and could not qualify as having a legitimate armed force.

In a world of Blackwater/Xe, the Swiss Guard, the Air National Guard, and that's how we determine mercenaries, foreign fighters, and whatnot. Sweeping decrees of whether or not we feel the state we're at war with is THE AWESOMEST or not.

Worrisome, to say the least.

Dr. Mojo PhD: skullkrusher: I don't think we're on the same page. Whether or not we believe that imprisoning innocent people is tolerable at any level does not matter. The fact remains that we KNOW that our criminal justice system is imperfect and therefore will occasionally convict an innocent person of a crime yet we continue to utilize that system because, as a society, we've decided that the benefits of our system outweigh the very real, easily demonstrable drawbacks.

Ok, on this I agree. I think that Western, English Common Law-derived systems do, in fact, provide for the fairest justice systems currently in existence. I think there is room from improvement. I was taking umbrage with your use of the term tolerate. I don't tolerate the faults, I grudgingly accept them because the alternatives, as they exist, do not solve them and we know of no cure for human nature.

skullkrusher: right - however irregular combatants do not qualify for POW status although they probably should. POWs are held for the duration of hostilities as you said. They are not given civilian trials to determine their guilt.

You mean illegal combatants, irregulars are just militiamen as opposed to a "regular" force like an army. But yes, I know. And that's my problem. These jerk-off games with "illegal combatants" is retarded. If I recall correctly, the primary mover behind declaring them "illegal combatants" was this notion that Afghanistan was a failed state, and therefore did not and could not qualify as having a legitimate armed force.

In a world of Blackwater/Xe, the Swiss Guard, the Air National Guard, and that's how we determine mercenaries, foreign fighters, and whatnot. Sweeping decrees of whether or not we feel the state we're at war with is THE AWESOMEST or not.

Worrisome, to say the least.

I think we actually agree. No, I don't want to see innocent people imprisoned without trial but we do need to be more effective in keeping PROBABLY guilty illegal and/or irregular combatants off the battlefield - methinks the Geneva Conventions need to be updated a bit.

zoombie: Dr. Mojo PhD: zoombie:

You can't just execute POWs.
I never advocated executing POW's. Prisoners of war are caught fighting in uniform, for a recognized nation state. The people we are catching do not meet the definition of POW.I served in the Navy, admin type so no heroics or anything, but I knew several marines very well, and I detest a policy that could put them in the way of needless harm. As an added note, the pointless rules of engagement we have now in Afghan. have got to be loosened.

As it stands, "uniform" is such a bad metric its almost impossible to enforce. A uniform could consist of everybody having beards, or turbans. A uniform only implies a single unifying look. It's almost impossible to argue. Frankly, if somebody manages to get legitimately convicted of fighting out of uniform, they should be shot.

As for a recognized state, that's what I was saying about the "failed state". They were fighting for Afghanistan. To get out of THAT one, Afghanistan was declared a failed state. Afghanistan's sovereignty was recognized, and whether or not we are of the opinion that it was governed best doesn't matter.

Hell, even people fighting guerrilla wars for unrecognized states are tried civilly -- though usually not by the best civil authorities -- and aren't dumped in a mercurial third type of prisoner status.

skullkrusher: I took issue with your Noam quote.

Fair enough. The quote was from here (new window), the whole vids speaks well to Malkins claim that they hate us because we're infidels. I quoted part of it which can be easily be construed as misunderstanding TFA.

There is nothing to indicate that this guy had anything but a privileged life. There is absolutely no denying that American policy results in blowback - it would be foolish to insist otherwise.

So far we agree.

However, it is also silly to believe that these would-be suicide bombers are sent off to their deaths by ideological fanatics SOLELY because of US policy.

Well maybe its not only reason but I believe its a major one. And it happens to be the reason that Americans can control. We're responsible for our actions. And to the extent that we live in a society that has democratic elements, we (Americans) are responsible for our goverment's actions.

The fact that someone can convince another to go martyr themselves isn't in my control, or at least it comes secondary to what I am responsible for.


This guy wasn't driven to do what he attempted because of personal experiences of oppression and those who convinced him that this was his duty didn't do so because of US support of Israel and other interference in the Muslim world.

See, I don't see how you can conclude that. Didn't the Yemeni al Qaeda faction claim responsibility as a retaliation for exactly that?

CanonicalNerd: Well maybe its not only reason but I believe its a major one. And it happens to be the reason that Americans can control. We're responsible for our actions. And to the extent that we live in a society that has democratic elements, we (Americans) are responsible for our goverment's actions.

The fact that someone can convince another to go martyr themselves isn't in my control, or at least it comes secondary to what I am responsible for.

I think American wrongdoing (real and hyped) is an excellent recruiting tool for imams and others looking to get a few suicide bombers in their stable. However, the ideological leaders (in the case of the Wahhabis at least) aren't driven solely or even mainly by American injustices but rather a hatred for the West and desire for Muslim hegemony worldwide.CanonicalNerd: See, I don't see how you can conclude that. Didn't the Yemeni al Qaeda faction claim responsibility as a retaliation for exactly that?

sure - that sounds a lot better and justifiable than "waging war on the West to establish the global Caliphate"

being half facetious there.

CanonicalNerd:
however we do agree that US policy is at least partially to blame for much of the violence perpetrated against Americans and therefore needs to be amended - not only to save American lives - but because it is the right thing to do.
We have no business interfering in the affairs of other countries and we sure as shiat should not be sending American kids to die for those affairs.

skullkrusher: I think we actually agree. No, I don't want to see innocent people imprisoned without trial but we do need to be more effective in keeping PROBABLY guilty illegal and/or irregular combatants off the battlefield - methinks the Geneva Conventions need to be updated a bit.

They desperately need it. The problem with a lot of laws is they're written at a time when the legislators writing them cannot future-proof them.

Take the second amendment. In the time of muskets and cannon, owning these things was no big deal. The most deadly thing you could possible own was a few shipboard guns and the ship. It's clear the Bill of Rights wasn't written at a time when people considered tanks, or nuclear warheads, or anthrax.

If they'd said "bear small arms", it would be infinitely clear. Unfortunately, with modernization, we're left with "DID THE FOUNDING FATHERS MEAN YOU CAN OWN NUKES?!" and "THERE IS NO LIMITATION ON ARMAMENTS!!" arguments. I use that as the most salient example; the Geneva conventions are right up there. War has changed drastically from 1864 and 1949, and 1949 and today. (Fun fact: Germany is four of the original 12 signatories to the 1864 Convention.)

skullkrusher: I think we actually agree. No, I don't want to see innocent people imprisoned without trial but we do need to be more effective in keeping PROBABLY guilty illegal and/or irregular combatants off the battlefield - methinks the Geneva Conventions need to be updated a bit.


Glad to see you're having what looks like a good and interesting discussion. I would tack onto this point is that this insight of yours is why Protocol II came about in the 70s dealing with non-international conflicts. We've signed it, but have not ratified it, together with Iran, Pakistan (and probably a few others that I'm forgetting).

Damnhippyfreak: skullkrusher: I think we actually agree. No, I don't want to see innocent people imprisoned without trial but we do need to be more effective in keeping PROBABLY guilty illegal and/or irregular combatants off the battlefield - methinks the Geneva Conventions need to be updated a bit.


Glad to see you're having what looks like a good and interesting discussion. I would tack onto this point is that this insight of yours is why Protocol II came about in the 70s dealing with non-international conflicts. We've signed it, but have not ratified it, together with Iran, Pakistan (and probably a few others that I'm forgetting).

I always do. Not my fault that stupid people disagree with me ;)

zoombie: Really? It is not acceptable to look at the demographics and relationships that a group has, use the simple fact that most of the terrorist actions against the US come from Muslims, and say that while it is not in any way acceptable to say deport or imprison them simply for being Muslim, it is ok to look at them with a little bit more scrutiny? I have nothing against Muslims but facts are facts. If you noticed I also included anti abortion zealots and fringe greenies. I nowhere implied discriminating based on master status, I just said it is ok to use facts and figures to form policy.


Here's what a former Secretary of Homeland Security under GW Bush thinks about profiling -- from an interview (new window) Tuesday night, emphasis mine:

SIEGEL: How should the U.S. reconcile reasonable, ethical restraints on profiling with some obvious facts that this sort of thing has been done by Muslim men, typically, and also of a certain age. One could focus pretty heavily on Muslim men under 40 and come up with lots of the people who are posing threats.

Mr. CHERTOFF: Actually Robert, I'm going to argue that this case illustrates the danger and the foolishness of profiling because people's conception of what a potential terrorist looks like often doesn't match reality. In this case we had a Nigerian, for example, not a person from the Middle East or from South Asia. If you look at the airline plot of 2006, two of the plotters were a married couple that were going to get on a plane with a young baby. The terrorists understand that the more they vary the kind of operative they use, the more likely they're going to be able to exploit prejudices if we allow those prejudices to guide the way we conduct our investigation.

SIEGEL: Your objection to profiling is not just as an ethical matter, it's a point of efficacy also. You're saying it doesn't work.

Mr. CHERTOFF: I think it's not only problematic from civil rights' standpoint, but frankly, I think it winds up not being terribly effective.

SIEGEL: Michael Chertoff, thanks for talking with us once again.

Mr. CHERTOFF: Good to talk to you.

SIEGEL: Mr. Chertoff was secretary of Homeland Security from 2005 to 2009. He is co-founder of the security consulting firm, The Chertoff Group.

There are 1,570,000,000 Muslims, according to Wikipedia. Would it even be feasible to place them all under the microscope??

phaseolus: There are 1,570,000,000 Muslims, according to Wikipedia. Would it even be feasible to place them all under the microscope??

if they're already sliced thinly enough to fit under a microscope, isn't the point pretty moot?

phaseolus: zoombie:
I never said look at all f them, or even discriminate. I was just proposing that those who fit a certain profile( i included fringe right and left winger, esp. environmental terrorists, for some reason they infuriate me more than anything because they are anti progress) should face close scrutiny at air ports, abortion clinics and other places that are targets for terrorist activities. I don't find anything objectionable in this.

skullkrusher: if they're already sliced thinly enough to fit under a microscope, isn't the point pretty moot?

Zing.

Dr. Mojo PhD: WhyteRaven74: They're not in custody are they? They're military targets, not someone being held in military or civilian custody.

You gotta admit, sticking somebody in a jail and then performing an extrajudicial execution on him by sending a predator drone after him in jail is a friggin' hilarious mental picture. It's just so Bond-villain complicated.

These new rules on how to treat enemy combatants is going to ensure we take less prisoners and kill more on the field. It will be easier that way for you to convince yourself we are more humane as you won't have to see them.

Dr. Mojo PhD: As it stands, "uniform" is such a bad metric its almost impossible to enforce. A uniform could consist of everybody having beards, or turbans. A uniform only implies a single unifying look. It's almost impossible to argue. Frankly, if somebody manages to get legitimately convicted of fighting out of uniform, they should be shot.





Michelle wears a uniform.

Ontos: chemical_angel: What comes after full retard?

Full-Liberal.

The only thing left after that is "Full-Progressive".

Ludicrous-speed fits in there somewhere, but I need another cup of coffee to remember.

Apparently it's Ontos

Nemo's Brother: These new rules on how to treat enemy combatants is going to ensure we take less prisoners and kill more on the field. It will be easier that way for you to convince yourself we are more humane as you won't have to see them.

Wut? I never know what you're jabbering about. See what? The combatants? The dead bodies? Why are you writing this in reply to sending armed UAVs after people in jail cells?

ra-ra-raw: Michelle wears a uniform.

I will never get tired of that. Has he been back since then?

Dr. Mojo PhD:

ra-ra-raw: Michelle wears a uniform.

I will never get tired of that. Has he been back since then?

Yeah, he had another freak out a couple of days ago. Nothing meme worthy, though.

ra-ra-raw: Yeah, he had another freak out a couple of days ago. Nothing meme worthy, though.

Who was this?

Murkanen: ra-ra-raw: Yeah, he had another freak out a couple of days ago. Nothing meme worthy, though.

Who was this?

Here's a hint-

Pocket Ninja: The ability of the left to revise history to suit themselves just staggers the mind. Let's all pretend that the attack on the Cole didn't happen, and that President Bush didn't land on its deck the next day and, after leading the early repair efforts and single-handedly saving Ensign Hoover, who had been trapped in the flooding engine room for the entire night and was near death, delivered his speech from the bridge with a malfunctioning bullhorn. "We can't hear you," the crew cried out, and he threw down the horn and bellowed, "That's all right! I can hear you!" And then the Apache formation came over horizon and we were ready right then, right then to take Yemen down for good. But no. The democrats were filibustering and authorization couldn't come through in time and it was a total recall. And now look what happens. You reap what you sow, asshats. You reap what you sow.

Another swing and a miss. Don't quite your day blog.