aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes US kills 40 in mosque attack in Iraq Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Spring in Action this week in the Spring forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "US kills 40 in mosque attack in Iraq" Watch "US kills 40 in mosque attack in Iraq" New topic
Author

US kills 40 in mosque attack in Iraq

Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Victor Hess Victor Hess:
Some stuff

Please take your complaints to the JavaRanch forum or email me or one of the other moderators. This is not the proper forum for this. If on the other hand you would care to rationally discuss the issues and point out where you differ from me, then we might be able to do that.
On a personal note.... I'm sorry you don't care for my opinions. You may find in life that there are many people whose opinions differ from yours. Such would seem to be the case here. Btw, I recognize your IP and where it geolocates to, but I can't remember what name you used to post by. Do you care to enlighten me so I know who I'm speaking with?
[ April 13, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
Originally posted by Victor Hess Victor Hess:

I am calling the situation as I see it. if we are going to have rules, then we have to make sure that those rules apply to everyone who posts on this board; Mr menard included. This is not about one person, the bigger issue is the sanctity of human life and Mr menard post was very callous and insensitive. (perhaps the other bartenders in this forum may want to review it as to its intent and meaning).

Victor, ... umm, sorry, Victor Hess Victor Hess (what is this, some kind of reference to the duality of the human soul and the symmetry of the body?), -- we have people from virtually every meridian posting here, representing just about every point of view. We've had many heated discussions here, illuminating and enlightening, and the lava was all over the place. When everything cooled down, we were tired but satisfied, just like after a good consensual sex. But some of the discussions deteriorated to the "you are an asshole and a nazi" arguments, and that felt like rape, an ugly perversion of a dialogue. Invariably, the sparks of ugliness always began when the points of view switched from the subject of discussion to the parties from where the points of view originated. Two parties viewing the subject from two different points form a perfect triangle, and the subject matter is grasped firmly, and examined in two dimensions. But when the points of view direct at each other, the subject matter is lost in space, unsupported, and appearing as a remote dot in the peripheral vision.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Victor Hess Victor Hess:
To do otherwise is have this forum degrade to an animal farm (i.e all animals are equal but some are more equal than others) thosw who have read the novel "Animal Farm" will understand what i mean. That's all for now

Just to be clear, do you see the little word under your name that says "greenhorn"? Do you see the word under Jason's name that says, "bartender"? That means that Jason is a moderator of JavaRanch and as such he has earned the respect and trust of the owner of this forum. You are a new person here so that means that we recommend that you before you start attacking people here you learn more about the culture. JavaRanch Saloon is not a typical forum that permits anything to go.
Now that I have your attention, when you registered here you agreed to abide by the rules of JavaRanch and one that we take very seriously is our naming policy. Please use your real name and not the name of a famous person or celebrity or a repeated name.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Victor Hess Victor Hess:
This is not about one person, the bigger issue is the sanctity of human life and Mr menard post was very callous and insensitive. (perhaps the other bartenders in this forum may want to review it as to its intent and meaning)
There is no rule against being callous and insensitive. There is a rule against being insulting to another member. That will get you banned.
Victor Hess Victor Hess
Greenhorn

Joined: Apr 13, 2004
Posts: 3
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Just to be clear, do you see the little word under your name that says "greenhorn"? Do you see the word under Jason's name that says, "bartender"? That means that Jason is a moderator of JavaRanch and as such he has earned the respect and trust of the owner of this forum. You are a new person here so that means that we recommend that you before you start attacking people here you learn more about the culture. JavaRanch Saloon is not a typical forum that permits anything to go.
Now that I have your attention, when you registered here you agreed to abide by the rules of JavaRanch and one that we take very seriously is our naming policy. Please use your real name and not the name of a famous person or celebrity or a repeated name.

I think your respect and trust is misplaced.I think moderators on this forum
should be held to a higher standard. If a moderator is callous and insensitive, he/she does not deserver my respect ot trust or anybody else's either. Anyway, just a word of advice, if you want forum to have meaningful discussions, you need to apply your "rules" to everyone. Moderators included.I really don't care if I am banned, and I believe your threats are misdirected.
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118
Victor,
Please change your alias on this forum, as I think it distracts from the content of your posts. Victor Hess should be sufficient, I think?
Regarding the content of your post. If you feel that you're being treated unfairly, then please articulate your reasons. To date, I'm not aware of Jason making any personal remarks on this forum: you, however, have done so. Regardless of validity or invalidity of your argument, that's not how civilized people should debate.
You don't care for Jason's posts? You think they're unjustified? Fine, make your points. Being uncivil undermines you, and the positions you advocate.
I think that one of the reasons that people tend to 'win' debates is their tone. There's no reason in the world why you can't make articulate posts that focus on facts, and steer clear of character assassination. I encourage you to do so.
M


Java Regular Expressions
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Victor Hess Victor Hess:
I think your respect and trust is misplaced.I think moderators on this forum should be held to a higher standard.
For a person with only four posts you certainly have quite a few opinions about how we should run JavaRanch. And considering you have no idea of the other things that Jason does behind the scenes to make JavaRanch the great site it is I find your opinion truly... uninformed.
Now please follow our naming guidelines. You will remember them since you agreed to follow them when you registered.
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118
I would appreciate it if everyone on this forum make an effect to be nice: even those people who were wonderful enough to give my humble book a good review.
All best,
M
[ April 14, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
Bin Laden has a new tape out today. Did I hear Tenat/Bush say it was going to take five years to silence this guy? They have access to Afghanistan. They have access to Iraq. I know the world is a big place. But the CIA and the Bush administration have had enough time. Could we have a new excuse or a new president?
OBL's call for a truce with Europe is a divide and conquer scheme. The EU can accept OBL's truce agreement with a demand for his surrendered to the World Court.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
...with a demand for his surrendered to the World Court.

Which would either find not enough evidence to hold him, release him on some minor technicality, or if convicted, sentence him to the lengthy sentence of 10 years. With time off for good behavior (hey, he's devoutly religious after all), the World Court would probably commute his sentence after three years. Of course they might make him wear one of those ankle bracelet things while he was on parole. :roll:
[ April 15, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
OR, he keeps running and keeps masterminding operations to slaughter innocent civilians around the world!
I wouldn't mind giving the first one a chance, even if it doesn�t do justice to the victims of his past acts of terror!
Well, correct solution is ofcourse, catch him, trial & punish him.


[ flickr ]
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118

Which would either find not enough evidence to hold him, release him on some minor technicality, or if convicted, sentence him to the lengthy sentence of 10 years.

Logically speaking, what's the basis for this assertion? I'm not aware of the world court being noted for it's softness on defendants. Or is the argument that all courts are thus inclined? Would a United States court of law be satisfactory? It was, I think, sufficient to convict and execute the world's last major terrorist.
M
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Max Habibi:
Logically speaking, what's the basis for this assertion? I'm not aware of the world court being noted for it's softness on defendants. Or is the argument that all courts are thus inclined? Would a United States court of law be satisfactory? It was, I think, sufficient to convict and execute the world's last major terrorist.

The "world court" or International Court of Justice (ICJ) is an arm of the UN. I have little faith in most international bodies, chief among them the UN. The ICJ however does not prosecute individual criminal cases, so therefore the international body that people may turn to is the ICC (Internationa Criminal Court).
The ICC has no death sentence, and only in exceptional cases may a term of life imprisonment be handed down. The ICC's maximum penalty is normally 30 years. But, the US does not recognize the ICC, and rightfully so, so it is doubtful that would be the venue used.
The next alternative then would be a war crimes tribunal set up, like the UN one in the Hague that is prosecuting war criminals from the Bosnian war. If that is an example of how these things are going to be conducted, there's not too much to have confidence in. Aside from the fact that it is an arm of the UN, the sentences being handed down are ridiculous. Recently the tribunal found Serbian General Radislav Krstic guilty of the crime of genocide for his role in the 1995 murders of 8000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica. Genocide! I'm not sure if there is a greater crime. You would think the punishment for such a crime would be extreme. So what was his sentence? Forty-six years. Forty-six years! Can you believe that? For genocide! That's just insane.
I get the impression that the biggest driver in "international justice" is Western Europe. Western Europe has been the biggest proponent of the ICC. If you look at the ICC and the UN war crimes tribunal, you will see that they reflect Western European sensibilities. These sensibilities lead to miniscule sentences and even letting heinous criminals go free, such as the Germans recently have done with one of the 9/11 conspirators. Their tendency towards small sentences, no death penalty, letting criminals go free, and inability to prosecute terrorist cases such as 9/11 doesn't give me much confidence in any system that Western Europe would play a major part in with regards to prosecuting someone like Bin Laden. This isn't a knock on anyone, it's just how I see it. We're different cultures and we each have our own definition of justice. As we are the most agrieved party, our sense of justice should prevail in this matter.
So would a US court be sufficient? It would be preferable to the other options I mentioned, but it certainly wouldn't be the best option. US civilian courts are not suited to try people like Bin Laden. The 9/11 attacks were nothing short of an act of war and he needs to be tried as a war criminal. As such, the best venue for him would be through a US military tribunal. Unlike civilian courts, they are equipped to deal with such cases and will ensure that he receives proper justice.
[ April 15, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118
So would a US court be sufficient? It would be preferable to the other options I mentioned, but it certainly wouldn't be the best option. US civilian courts are not suited to try people like Bin Laden. The 9/11 attacks were nothing short of an act of war and he needs to be tried as a war criminal. As such, the best venue for him would be through a US military tribunal. Unlike civilian courts, they are equipped to deal with such cases and will ensure that he receives proper justice.

Let's focus on this bit, as it's a interesting perspective. How are US courts not suited to try people like Bin Laden? That is,
1. justification for this statement: have other people like OBL failed to be effectively prosecuted in US courts?
2. Why would a US military tribunal be better then, say, any other sort of judicial process? What supporting evidence is that for the qualifier 'best'?
M
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
Jason: The "world court" or International Court of Justice (ICJ) is an arm of the UN. I have little faith in most international bodies, chief among them the UN. <...> But, the US does not recognize the ICC, and rightfully so, so it is doubtful that would be the venue used.
To put it into historical perspective, it's worth mentioning a little known but relevant fact, -- The USA was found guilty of state-sponsored terrorism by the World Court. Thus, the relationship between the USA and the World Court is that of a convicted felon and the justice system.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Max Habibi:
Let's focus on this bit, as it's a interesting perspective. How are US courts not suited to try people like Bin Laden? That is,
1. justification for this statement: have other people like OBL failed to be effectively prosecuted in US courts?
2. Why would a US military tribunal be better then, say, any other sort of judicial process? What supporting evidence is that for the qualifier 'best'?
M

The US civilian courts are not suited to try Bin Laden because he is a war criminal. The proper venue for trying war criminials, by law, is military tribunal. The rules a military tribunal must follow are different than a civilian court. One chief benefit of this is that it is easier to hold them in closed sessions when necessary, in order to protect the level of information that would be used by the prosecution to obtain a conviction. The prosecution would be loathe to use all available tools at its disposal in a civilian court, even if one were hypothetically able to prosecute war criminals there. The difficulties in prosecuting Moussaui only serve to back this up.
As for which terrorists have failed to be effectively prosecuted in US civilian courts, Moussaui comes to mind as one who has actually made it to trial. You could probably add Bin Laden to the list as well, who previously to 9/11 was treated as a law-enforcement problem and had been indicted in a New York court.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
To put it into historical perspective, it's worth mentioning a little known but relevant fact, -- The USA was found guilty of state-sponsored terrorism by the World Court. Thus, the relationship between the USA and the World Court is that of a convicted felon and the justice system.[/QB]

From what I skimmed, Eugene, you're playing fast and loose with the term "state-sponsored terrorism." That aside, Nicaragua dropped its claims later, albeit under threat of losing aid dollars from the U.S. According to the ICJ's own standards this action, if I read the linked documents correctly, moots the ICJ's findings.
[ April 15, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

The US civilian courts are not suited to try Bin Laden because he is a war criminal.

Can you please elaborate on this? Which country was he representing when he committed his crimes?

The proper venue for trying war criminals, by law, is military tribunal.

And which law is this?

The rules a military tribunal must follow are different than a civilian
court. One chief benefit of this is that it is easier to hold them in closed sessions when necessary, in order to protect the level of information that would be used by the prosecution to obtain a conviction.

I believe it is just as easy to hold a closed, secure session in civilian courts, especially at the federal level. As I understand it, this is how even highly classified treason offenses are handled.

The prosecution would be loathe to use all available tools at its disposal in a civilian court, even if one were hypothetically able to prosecute war criminals there. The difficulties in prosecuting Moussaui only serve to back this up.

I believe the difficulties in prosecuting Moussaui stem from the ineptitude of the prosecution team, per the judge in the case.

As for which terrorists have failed to be effectively prosecuted in US civilian courts, Moussaui comes to mind as one who has actually made it to trial.

Again, I believe the difficulties in prosecuting Moussaui stem from the ineptitude of the prosecution team, per the judge in the case.

You could probably add Bin Laden to the list as well, who previously to 9/11 was treated as a law-enforcement problem and had been indicted in a New York court.
[/QB]
Is your statement, than, supported by the supposition that if OBL had been captured and in custody before 9/11, we would have failed to prosecute him? As I understand it, we have captured and convicted many others. How do they fit in this logic?
M
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Jason: The "world court" or International Court of Justice (ICJ) is an arm of the UN. I have little faith in most international bodies, chief among them the UN. <...> But, the US does not recognize the ICC, and rightfully so, so it is doubtful that would be the venue used.
To put it into historical perspective, it's worth mentioning a little known but relevant fact, -- The USA was found guilty of state-sponsored terrorism by the World Court. Thus, the relationship between the USA and the World Court is that of a convicted felon and the justice system.

Actually the US was indicted for "acts of aggression" against Nicaragua. There is no mention anywhere of "state sponsored terrorism". Further regarding my quote, I'm not sure if it was creative editing or a simple mistake, but there is a difference between the ICJ and the ICC. Your edit of my text makes it appear to the casual reader that I stated that the US does not recognize the ICJ (which it may or may not, but I never stated that).
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Can you please elaborate on this? Which country was he representing when he committed his crimes?
There is no requirement that one must be actively representing a government in order to be considered a war criminal.
And which law is this?
As interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, part of the answer is the Constitution. The full answer to your question may be found on p19 of this document (pdf).
Is your statement, than, supported by the supposition that if OBL had been captured and in custody before 9/11, we would have failed to prosecute him?
No, my statement is merely highlighting the fact that we treated bin Laden as a law enforcement issue instead of a military threat.
I believe the document I linked above should answer most of your questions on this matter though.
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
ME: From what I skimmed, Eugene, you're playing fast and loose with the term "state-sponsored terrorism."
JN: Actually the US was indicted for "acts of aggression" against Nicaragua. There is no mention anywhere of "state sponsored terrorism".
I will admit that "state-sponsored terrorism" is my term that was never used by the World Court in reference to the USA. However, Nicaragua claimed that
"the United States, in breach of its obligation under general and customary international law, has killed, wounded and kidnapped and is killing, wounding and kidnapping citizens of Nicaragua."
One of the dozen World Court rulings (all against the USA) was that
"the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State. <...> the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law.
And the the dictionary definition of "terrorism" is:
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
Putting all three references together make a pretty strong case for the use of the "state-sponsored terrorism" and "international terrorism" terms. My earlier point, however, was not so much to condemn the USA, but rather to bring to light the historical relationship between the World Court and the United States, which may explain the current relationship between the USA and the UN and its institutions.
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Max Habibi:

I believe it is just as easy to hold a closed, secure session in civilian courts, especially at the federal level. As I understand it, this is how even highly classified treason offenses are handled.

Actually, I think the most highly classified treason offenses aren't handled at all. Or rather, the traitor in question is exchanged to the country they were helping for one of our 'assets' who was caught in that country. At least, that's what happened in the Cold War.
A closed session helps some, but not enough for things that you really really want to keep secret. What if the jurors don't have and aren't qualified for the necessary security clearance? What if the judge doesn't? What if some of your evidence to convict has to come from a mole in an enemy country, and you can't bring the mole in to satisfy the Constitutional requirement that the defendant has a right to confront the witnesses against him?

I believe the difficulties in prosecuting Moussaui stem from the ineptitude of the prosecution team, per the judge in the case.

Some of what the judge considered 'ineptitude' the administration considered 'necessary to national security'. For example, the government had legitimate reasons not to want bin al-Shaibah in the U.S. testifying for Moussaoui. Because of this, the judge barred a substantial amount of the prosecution's evidence. I think this is exactly what Jason means by treating it as a 'law enforcement activity' rather than a 'war'.
[ April 15, 2004: Message edited by: Warren Dew ]
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
There is more to this issue than just the sentence passed to bin Laden (I don't think there's many who would think that he'd be found innocent). IF he were to be captured and taken before a court, the case would have major international interest, and the result and manor of the court case would have a huge effect on people who have sympathies with terrorist organisations. If he was to be tried in an American court then (rightly or not), the Americans would be accused of not administering justice in a fair way, and bin Laden would become a martyr, especially if executed. Bringing him before an international court, especially if it was one endorsed by some Arab nations, would help to reduce the chances of the court case being used as propaganda material. Better still, lets have a panel of judges with a Muslim cleric being (at least) one of them - lets show the world that it is the international opinion that bin Laden is guilty and not the American opinion.
On a slightly different issue, I'd personally not give bin Laden the death sentence. Firstly it would make him a martyr, and secondly (far more an important reason), death is too good for him - where is the suffering in that? I'd like to see him suffering in the worst possible prison we can find for a long long time.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Joe King:
On a slightly different issue, I'd personally not give bin Laden the death sentence. Firstly it would make him a martyr, and secondly (far more an important reason), death is too good for him - where is the suffering in that? I'd like to see him suffering in the worst possible prison we can find for a long long time.

I don't understand this myth of creating martyrs. Dead people make lousy leaders. A living OBL in a US prison would stir every Arab terrorist to kidnap and kill US citizens to get him released.
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

I don't understand this myth of creating martyrs. Dead people make lousy leaders. A living OBL in a US prison would stir every Arab terrorist to kidnap and kill US citizens to get him released.

Alternativley if he is executed, the terrorists may call for revenge.
Prison could also be considered a worse punishment - some of the terrorists may be ready to die (especially if they think that they are going to paradise), but they may not be quite so ready to spend the next 60 years in prison. Maybe showing how bad a life in prison could be for terrorists may act as a slight deterent. One current terrorist recurtement line is probably "kill these infidels and you will go to paradise". This would change to "kill these infidels and you will go to paradise, but only after a really long wait in a scanky prison in cuba".
Its a hard one to call - there probably hasn't ever been a terrorist before who has grabbed as much world wide attention as OSB, so there aren't any precedents to look to.
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

There is no requirement that one must be actively representing a government in order to be considered a war criminal.

As I understand it, there is. the supposition is that there must be a war before one can commit a crime in that war. No war -> no war crime. Thus, no war + crime -> crime.

And which law is this?
As interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, part of the answer is the Constitution. The full answer to your question may be found on p19 of this document (pdf).

The following quote from the document, page 20, seems to contradict the assertion that Constitution, As interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, supports tribunals.
There is no express language in the Constitution and very little mention in the legislative authorities that clearly authorized tribunals. However, there is historical precedent that may form the basis for an interpretation of the authorities to support the order.

Is your statement, than, supported by the supposition that if OBL had been captured and in custody before 9/11, we would have failed to prosecute him?
No, my statement is merely highlighting the fact that we treated bin Laden as a law enforcement issue instead of a military threat.

So if your statement in not supported by the supposition, than what is it's basis?
Thank you, it was a interesting read.
M
[ April 16, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
As I understand it, there is. the supposition is that there must be a war before one can commit a crime in that war. No war -> no war crime. Thus, no war + crime -> crime.
This seems to be a different argument than you tried to make originally. Your original question was what state did bin Laden represent, implying that since he didn't represent a state he couldn't be considered a war criminal. You do not have to represent a state to be considered a war criminal.
The document I linked to very clearly addresses whether or not those actions are an act of war. While it is not a clear cut issue, apparently the legal interpretation being used is that it was an act of war. The UN even tacitly went along with this interpretation with their resolution acknowledging our right to attack Afghanistan. Therefore the question of whether or not it was an act of war is moot since the legal interpretation being used both by the administration and the UN is that it was an act of war.
The following quote from the document, page 20, seems to contradict the assertion that Constitution, As interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, supports tribunals.
Not at all. It is commonly recognized that the authority for military commissions derives from the US Constitution, as well as statutory law. This link might help you out. I don't believe either of us are lawyers and therefore can only apply a laymen's interpretation, but from what I can tell two of the more often cited cases of precedent are Yamashita and Quirin.
So if your statement in not supported by the supposition, than what is it's basis?
My point is simply that we had treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem prior to 9/11, and that such a disposition of him had no effect on him whatsoever concerning his organization and ability to act. My other point is that civilian law enforcement and civilian courts of law are not the proper means of dealing with international terrorist organizations who have declared war on the United States.
Is it your assertion that the proper means of dealing with bin Laden and those like him is via civilian law enforcement agencies and the civilian courts? If so, which agencies? Whose courts? What powers do these civilian entities have which would enable them to effectively deal with such threats?
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
As I understand it, there is. the supposition is that there must be a war before one can commit a crime in that war. No war -> no war crime. Thus, no war + crime -> crime.
This seems to be a different argument than you tried to make originally.

I haven't presented an argument, so you may be thinking of someone else. I'm sincerely trying to understand the reasoning that leads to some of the conclusions you've drawn. I'm very much a moderate American(strong on defense, strong on civil rights), and I'm trying to understand your position through the use of logic.

Your original question was what state did bin Laden represent, implying that since he didn't represent a state he couldn't be considered a war criminal. You do not have to represent a state to be considered a war criminal.

My original question is still not addressed, only the implication that you've drawn from it. Let me rephrase for the sake of clarity: What, in your opinion, constitutes a war criminal, and why, specifically, makes you believe that American Law is incapable of dealing with such?

The document I linked to very clearly addresses whether or not those actions are an act of war.

The document you linked makes the case that given the scale of the murders, it might be interpreted as an act of war. This is not a supporting argument: this is a case of one definition) depending on another(the document's). AFIK, the document's position is a novel one, and not supported by American Law.

While it is not a clear cut issue, apparently the legal interpretation being used is that it was an act of war. The UN even tacitly went along with this interpretation with their resolution acknowledging our right to attack Afghanistan.

This seems like a subjective reading of the Un position: may I have the section you're referring to?

Therefore the question of whether or not it was an act of war is moot since the legal interpretation being used both by the administration and the UN is that it was an act of war.

Is your argument that 911 retroactively became an act of war( and correspondingly, OBL a war criminal), once we declared war on Afghanistan?

The following quote from the document, page 20, seems to contradict the assertion that Constitution, As interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, supports tribunals.

Not at all.

The document very clearly states that there is no express language in the Constitution and very little mention in the legislative authorities that clearly authorized tribunals

There is no express language in the Constitution and very little mention in the legislative authorities that clearly authorized tribunals. However, there is historical precedent that may form the basis for an interpretation of the authorities to support the order.


It is commonly recognized that the authority for military commissions derives from the US Constitution, as well as statutory law. This link might help you out. I don't believe either of us are lawyers and therefore can only apply a laymen's interpretation, but from what I can tell two of the more often cited cases of precedent are Yamashita and Quirin.


Interestingly, I noticed the following

Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 US 304 (1946). At issue in this case was whether military commissions established during wartime in Hawaii had the authority to sentence civilians to prison. The Supreme Court held that martial law alone was no excuse for replacing civilian courts with military commissions.


So if your statement in not supported by the supposition, than what is it's basis?
My point is simply that we had treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem prior to 9/11, and that such a disposition of him had no effect on him whatsoever concerning his organization and ability to act.

From a logical point of view, this is important, but irrelevant. The question is this: why would a civilian, American court not be able to try him? This has not been addressed.

My other point is that civilian law enforcement and civilian courts of law are not the proper means of dealing with international terrorist organizations who have declared war on the United States.

I understand your assertion: I'm trying to understand the reasoning that leads to it. That is, how is American Law is not sufficient? Where has it failed in cases like this?

Is it your assertion that the proper means of dealing with bin Laden and those like him is via civilian law enforcement agencies and the civilian courts? If so, which agencies? Whose courts? What powers do these civilian entities have which would enable them to effectively deal with such threats?
[/QB]
The power to try, convict, and execute, as they did with the last major terrorist to attack American.
All best,
M
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: US kills 40 in mosque attack in Iraq