Declaration of War... Against An Organization

[MA-Caver]

Bush law chief seeks new Qaeda war declaration

By Randall Mikkelsen Mon Jul 21, 4:28 PM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080721/pl_nm/security_usa_detainees_dc
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress should explicitly declare war against al Qaeda to make clear the United States can detain suspected members as long as the conflict lasts, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said on Monday.
Mukasey urged Congress to make the declaration in a package of legislative proposals to establish a legal process for terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo, in response to a Supreme Court ruling last month that detainees had a constitutional right to challenge their detention.
"Any legislation should acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us," Mukasey said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute.
"Congress should reaffirm that for the duration of the conflict the United States may detain as enemy combatants those who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully supported al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations," he said.

Now hold on a second... declaring war against a country I can understand. But against a group, an organization? Almost as bad as declaring war against a substance like Drugs.
Ok I can understand it and appreciate it but it still makes it kinda difficult to wrap my mind around the whole concept.... just part of it anyway but not all the way.
Like the war on drugs, crime, poverty, terror and so on it's not going to end. al Qaeda isn't just Osama Bin Laden and a couple of other guys... it's bigger than that. Like trying to wipe out the drug cartels. A herculean hydra if you will.
These guys aren't the only ones... they're the most visible yes, most well known of course, splattered all over our newspapers how could they NOT be? But there are other groups, organizations and they're not necessarily of Middle Eastern descent.

This line had me saying ... "WRONG!!" when I first read it.

"Essentially it means that if a president declares someone to be a terrorist, they would then have the authority to hold that person without trial forever," said Chris Anders, senior legislative counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Bush has said the antiterrorism effort would be open-ended.
Mukasey spoke as the first U.S. war crimes trial began at the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where prisoners are held in a detention center condemned internationally for harsh treatment. The Supreme Court's decision on detainee rights did not invalidate trials for those already charged.
The attorney general said the administration already has the authority to detain suspected terrorists. But he said, "It would do all of us good to have the principle reaffirmed, not that that principle itself is in doubt."

So does this mean if I piss off the President he can point his finger at me and say... "He's a terrorist!" and off I go? That's what it sounds like. That's what it looks like! More importantly... that's what it feels like.
Didn't they do this in Germany and Soviet Union? Say anything bad about the government and whoosh... you're not there anymore? That your cause of death was a sudden brain hemorrhage?

Maybe I'm not understanding this though I've read the article twice already to make sure I can believe what my eyes were reading...

Thoughts?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Now hold on a second... declaring war against a country I can understand. But against a group, an organization? Almost as bad as declaring war against a substance like Drugs.
Ok I can understand it and appreciate it but it still makes it kinda difficult to wrap my mind around the whole concept.... just part of it anyway but not all the way.
Like the war on drugs, crime, poverty, terror and so on it's not going to end. al Qaeda isn't just Osama Bin Laden and a couple of other guys... it's bigger than that. Like trying to wipe out the drug cartels. A herculean hydra if you will.
These guys aren't the only ones... they're the most visible yes, most well known of course, splattered all over our newspapers how could they NOT be? But there are other groups, organizations and they're not necessarily of Middle Eastern descent.

This line had me saying ... "WRONG!!" when I first read it.


So does this mean if I piss off the President he can point his finger at me and say... "He's a terrorist!" and off I go? That's what it sounds like. That's what it looks like! More importantly... that's what it feels like.
Didn't they do this in Germany and Soviet Union? Say anything bad about the government and whoosh... you're not there anymore? That your cause of death was a sudden brain hemorrhage?

Maybe I'm not understanding this though I've read the article twice already to make sure I can believe what my eyes were reading...

Thoughts?

Al qaeda is a sentiment and not so much an organization. This is why the "Glass Parking Lot" idea is so appealing to republican fear mongers. They want you to Love America or die.
Sean

 

[Big Don]

Al qaeda is a sentiment and not so much an organization. This is why the "Glass Parking Lot" idea is so appealing to republican fear mongers. They want you to Love America or die.
Sean

"Sweeping Generalizations, & Broad Paintbrushes"
Before painting any group in broad terms, be prepared to back those terms up, and be aware that such sweeping generalities may be offensive to members of those groups who may see such as false.

just saying...

As to the topic:
A few words from the 9-11 Commission:

A Shock, Not a Surprise
The 9/11 attacks were a shock, but they should not have come as a surprise. Islamist extremists had given plenty of warning that they meant to kill Americans indiscriminately and in large numbers.

A few more words from the same source:

WHAT TO DO? A GLOBAL STRATEGY

The enemy is not just "terrorism." It is the threat posed specifically by Islamist terrorism, by Bin Ladin and others who draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within a minority strain of Islam that does not distinguish politics from religion, and distorts both.
The enemy is not Islam, the great world faith, but a perversion of Islam. The enemy goes beyond al Qaeda to include the radical ideological movement, inspired in part by al Qaeda, that has spawned other terrorist groups and violence. Thus our strategy must match our means to two ends: dismantling the al Qaeda network and, in the long term, prevailing over the ideology that contributes to Islamist terrorism.

A good way of dismantling Al Qaeda would be to kill them all, root and branch.
Smacking the bad guy so hard and so fast that others flinch is the heart of deterrence. To end the threat of organized terrorism is fairly simple: Kill those who practice it, those who fund it, those who plan it and those who finance it in such swift and brutal action that the fear of the same type of retribution lives on in the hearts and minds of those tempted to blow themselves up at discos, etc.
Making threats and not following through is the road to pariah status. No one fears paper tigers. The Clinton Administration's policy of treating terrorism as a criminal manner obviously doesn't work.
Again from the 9-11 Commission's report:

In February 1993, a group led by Ramzi Yousef tried to bring down the World Trade Center with a truck bomb. They killed six and wounded a thousand. Plans by Omar Abdel Rahman and others to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnels and other New York City landmarks were frustrated when the plotters were arrested. In October 1993, Somali tribesmen shot down U.S. helicopters, killing 18 and wounding 73 in an incident that came to be known as "Black Hawk down." Years later it would be learned that those Somali tribesmen had received help from al Qaeda.
In early 1995, police in Manila uncovered a plot by Ramzi Yousef to blow up a dozen U.S. airliners while they were flying over the Pacific. In November 1995, a car bomb exploded outside the office of the U.S. program manager for the Saudi National Guard in Riyadh, killing five Americans and two others. In June 1996, a truck bomb demolished the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. servicemen and wounding hundreds. The attack was carried out primarily by Saudi Hezbollah, an organization that had received help from the government of Iran.
Until 1997, the U.S. intelligence community viewed Bin Ladin as a financier of terrorism, not as a terrorist leader. In February 1998, Usama Bin Ladin and four others issued a self-styled fatwa, publicly declaring that it was God's decree that every Muslim should try his utmost to kill any American, military or civilian, anywhere in the world, because of American "occupation" of Islam's holy places and aggression against Muslims.
In August 1998, Bin Ladin's group, al Qaeda, carried out near-simultaneous truck bomb attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The attacks killed 224 people, including 12 Americans, and wounded thousands more.
In December 1999, Jordanian police foiled a plot to bomb hotels and other sites frequented by American tourists, and a U.S. Customs agent arrested Ahmed Ressam at the U.S. Canadian border as he was smuggling in explosives intended for an attack on Los Angeles International Airport.

There is a word for not fighting when the bad guys want to kill you: Suicide.

 

[Empty Hands]

Oddly enough, I would actually appreciate this move. It would show an honesty of purpose and intent that has been lacking from our last 60 years of undeclared "conflicts" and "police actions." Not that it wouldn't be abused somehow, I am sure.

 

[Empty Hands]

To end the threat of organized terrorism is fairly simple: Kill those who practice it, those who fund it, those who plan it and those who finance it in such swift and brutal action that the fear of the same type of retribution lives on in the hearts and minds of those tempted to blow themselves up at discos, etc.

So let me get this straight: to stop someone from killing themselves by suicide bombing...you are going to threaten to kill them?

Someone didn't think their cunning plan all the way through...

On the more general point, which I have said before, our enemies are no more puling cowards than we are. Stomp on someone long enough and hard enough and they won't cower all the more, they'll fight back. Hard.

 

[Big Don]

Basically, what it comes down to is this:
If you are going to act like a victim, you're gonna be victimized.
If you're going to act weak or refuse to act in the face of terrorism, you're going to suffer terrorism. Look at France in the last few years! Because the French authorities have been cowed by the huge influx of Muslims to France in the past few years, when youths rioted, Paris BURNED. Hitler famously asked, "Is Paris burning" when he asked it wasn't, years later, it did. Appeasement does not work, it didn't work when Chamberlin acceeded to the wishes of Hilter and assured the world "There will be peace in our time." It didn't work when Jimmy Carter's administration left 52 Americans in the hands of Iranian terrorists for 444 days. Namby pamby doesn't work either! It didn't after the 93 WTC bombing when Clinton promised the perpetrators would be brought "to justice" and Janet Reno's Justice Department issued a flurry of indictments. Sometimes, as impolitic and unfriendly that it is, when the carrot fails, and make no mistake, we (the US government, and by extension the US Taxpayers) hand out foreign aid like candy, you have to use the stick.

 

[Big Don]

So let me get this straight: to stop someone from killing themselves by suicide bombing...you are going to threaten to kill them?

Not at all what I said. You have to make the punishment exceed the realm of a proportional response.

On the more general point, which I have said before, our enemies are no more puling cowards than we are. Stomp on someone long enough and hard enough and they won't cower all the more, they'll fight back. Hard.

Stomp on them? By pouring TRILLIONS of dollars into the economies of Arab nations? By trying to negotiate peace? By daring to say, no, forcing your women to endure female genital mutilation and not allowing them to attend school is NOT OK in civilized society? Saying that Islam is a religion of peace and scholarship and that those teaching that homicide bombings and attacks on non-combatants pervert and distort Islam, warrants attacks? Insisting the same simple human rights apply everywhere is hateful? Watching as the likes of Arafat mouth peace while packing away untold billions of dollars while leaving the people living in Gaza and the West Bank to live in squalor? This is "Stomping"?

 

[Sukerkin]

Steady chaps. There's a frisson of high-pressure ranting building up here.

We, the readers, are far better served by cogent and supported arguments than emotive positions that are stated in isolation from their cultural context.

It's a subject that could yield much information if the disputants would be so kind as to provide it; I for one would be interested to see how the perspectives developed differ from my own.

Just take care not to de-rail it with partisanship. After all, statements that play well to your own 'circle' frequently appear nonsensical and unattached to actual world events when placed before those 'outside'.

 

[Empty Hands]

This is "Stomping"?

You're the one advocating harsh measures. I am answering that proposal with some realistic objections.

If someone threatened you in the street, would you immediately do what they said? If someone killed your friends and family, would that make you refuse to fight them? Of course not. It would enrage you to no end. Arab terrorists are no less human in that regard than you are. Harsh measures will make things worse, not better.

Not that I expect you to understand that. You have advocated summary execution for people that even the US government knows are innocent. No, my objections are posted for the others.

 

[MA-Caver]

Was I speaking about how bad it was to kill terrorist or how bad it was to allow our government(s) free reign to do what THEY think is best to deal with Terrorism in this country... This new law will apply to EVERYONE not just Islamic extremists!
And of COURSE it has to apply to everyone because they're not going to be accused of racism now are they?
I'm not Islamic nor am I an extremist but I do worry about how under this law they'll be able to put me away simply because I was exercising my right under the constitution of say free speech, or bearing arms or any one of my liberties granted by said document.
I'm upset with the government yes for a lot of reasons, but I'm not planning anything other than voicing my opinion as it is per my rights here in this country... without fear of being locked away and never heard from again.
As far as the terrorist goes, kill the suckers. Don't detain them. They're nuts and psychotic and stupidly follow a group of guys who wouldn't strap a bomb to their OWN chest and walk into a shopping mall full of people and push the button.
Dammit I love my country and yes, I'd die for it... defending it... HERE on THIS soil, since I can't join the military (and I've tried ... but was 4-F). But I'm not going to die just because someone else says to. My hearth, my home, my family, my friends and my country but NOT for the government.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'd like to see some kind of protocol where they define who is "al-qaeda" and who is not. I've heard way too many people on both sides of the isle defining a so called "fifth column" movement growing within the US. A broad declaration of war like this is not something that the Constitution is really even designed for. This could be an end run around ANYONES rights.

IMHO, I think that a declaration of this kind will go on indefinitely. People will be rounded up by this into prisons. Not by Bush or his ilk, but some administration down the road will use this to get rid of dissidents.

My gut tells me that this is all by design, my gut has ruminated for a long time on too many Fabian Socialists spewing visions of incremental utopia, so I trust that.

I also find the parellels between the comments by candidates advocating a "civilian defense force", the fact that national guard are contemplated being used on the streets to police the populace, and this disturbing declaration, to be very disturbing...

 

[Tez3]

Basically, what it comes down to is this:
If you are going to act like a victim, you're gonna be victimized.
If you're going to act weak or refuse to act in the face of terrorism, you're going to suffer terrorism. Look at France in the last few years! Because the French authorities have been cowed by the huge influx of Muslims to France in the past few years, when youths rioted, Paris BURNED. Hitler famously asked, "Is Paris burning" when he asked it wasn't, years later, it did. Appeasement does not work, it didn't work when Chamberlin acceeded to the wishes of Hilter and assured the world "There will be peace in our time." It didn't work when Jimmy Carter's administration left 52 Americans in the hands of Iranian terrorists for 444 days. Namby pamby doesn't work either! It didn't after the 93 WTC bombing when Clinton promised the perpetrators would be brought "to justice" and Janet Reno's Justice Department issued a flurry of indictments. Sometimes, as impolitic and unfriendly that it is, when the carrot fails, and make no mistake, we (the US government, and by extension the US Taxpayers) hand out foreign aid like candy, you have to use the stick.

Paris spends a lot of time burning, it's like a national pastime time in France. They have a long and honourable history of demonstrating in Paris and the barricades seem to roll out as if kept specially for these occasions! it's not just Muslims who demonstrate, there's the civil servants, the teachers, the farmers etc and always the students, bless them carrying on in the time honoured tradition of youths trying to get through to the old fogies. France has always had a large population of Muslims, it's not new.
Did you mean Neville Chamberlain?

 

[tshadowchaser]

My post will be a little off topic after reading the original post in thread but:

It seems to me this is much like the old time martial arts schools saying that they where at war with group “X” and all of group “x students should be hurt and hospitalized. No one in group X could ever be seen as an individual just a member of that group.
Now I am not saying that anyone that calls themselves a member of al Qaeda should be looked on as a friend but those of the faith of most members of al Qaeda should be looked at differently and on an individual bases and not grouped simply because of where they come from or their faith.
Do I personally want to see al Qaeda wiped out, YES. Do I think that declaring war on them will amount to any more than the war on drugs did to limit drugs from coming into our country NO

 

[arnisador]

The Barbary Wars against the Barbary States (really, against the Barbary pirates) had some elements of this.

 

[Twin Fist]

Harsh measures will make things worse, not better.

This is without a doubt incorrect.

half assed measures, like Clinton did make the enemy bold.

BOLD measures, like Bush has done, "seek them out and kill them all" measures have essentially broken AQ.

They cant move money like they used to, they are having a harder time recruiting, the locals in Iraq are against them now, etc

you know all this, weather you admit it or not.

The typical liberal mantra "let's just be nice to them and they will forget alll about us" simply does not work. I dont think it has EVER worked, but it damned sure doesnt work against radical islam.

 

[jkembry]

Kind of reminds of what I have read about the Christian Crusades. I would think that it would be very difficult to declare anything against ideologies....and in particular 'supposed' religious ideologies there there are no real geographical borders.

 

[Makalakumu]

There's a lot that we know and a lot that we don't know and there's a lot that we here from others and we just have to take it with a dram of faith in order to consider its veracity.

I don't think many Americans really know that much about Al Qaeda. I don't trust that the press or the government is telling us anywhere near enough about AQ to really think that a declaration like this is really needed.

I think there is a lot more to AQ then meets the eye. On one hand, its a convenient scarecrow. On the other, it may have started as a CIA psuedogang. And on the other, there may actually be a group of terrorists operating under that name for some purpose.

Sifting through all this is especially difficult.

So, I'll end with the easy stuff.

According to our government, AQ is an umbrella term for a bunch of different organizations that are hostile to the interests of the US. The popular theology says that UBL pulled "all" of these groups together into a "loose" network. "Elements" of this network have been causing terror attacks across the world and are responsible for 9/11.

Words like "all" or "loose" or "elements" really don't define much in the way that I think a declaration of war should...at least as I understand the Constitution. IMHO, its too ambiguous. Give this language to the lawyers and anyone could be AQ.

 

[MA-Caver]

There's a lot that we know and a lot that we don't know and there's a lot that we here from others and we just have to take it with a dram of faith in order to consider its veracity.

I don't think many Americans really know that much about Al Qaeda. I don't trust that the press or the government is telling us anywhere near enough about AQ to really think that a declaration like this is really needed.

I think there is a lot more to AQ then meets the eye. On one hand, its a convenient scarecrow. On the other, it may have started as a CIA psuedogang. And on the other, there may actually be a group of terrorists operating under that name for some purpose.

Sifting through all this is especially difficult.

So, I'll end with the easy stuff.

According to our government, AQ is an umbrella term for a bunch of different organizations that are hostile to the interests of the US. The popular theology says that UBL pulled "all" of these groups together into a "loose" network. "Elements" of this network have been causing terror attacks across the world and are responsible for 9/11.

Words like "all" or "loose" or "elements" really don't define much in the way that I think a declaration of war should...at least as I understand the Constitution. IMHO, its too ambiguous. Give this language to the lawyers and anyone could be AQ.

So basically SPECTRE ... great. Just what we need.
My concern is how this law will affect the everyday average citizen. It's going towards (if not there already) where no one will be able to write things like this, protesting the government or writing a dissertation or just giving an opinion on a discussion board because they'll be viewed as a terrorist or (worse) a potential terrorist.

 

[Twin Fist]

thats a pretty darned big leap there Caver.

 

[Sukerkin]

That is the real problem isn't it? In the end, all governments like to coalesce power to themselves and to regulate as much as they can.

Seizing on a pretext like a shadowy, ill-defined, terrorist organisation is ideal as a mechanism to apply stricter controls over what citizens can say, where they can go and how they may travel.

For a country like America, supposedly founded on the notions of freedom and democracy, to allow that to happen is the death knell of the political system.