Brian,

Your reasoning is faulty. You cannot declare war on a loosely based organization and claim that anyone in that organization (or, in fact, anyone that you think may be part of that organization) that attacks you is an unlawful combatant.

That would be like declaring war on organized crime and saying that any criminal that shoots at a police officer is an unlawful combatant and does therefore not have normal civil rights.

I know that police officers sometimes get very frustrated over the fact that they must follow the law whereas the criminals that they fight don't follow the law. But they must. Otherwise the whole system crumbles.

The same thing applies in the war on terrorism (and that's what this is). You can't make up your own rules just because the crimes committed are heinous, or because it's difficult to follow the rules.

/Gunnar

Gsyren,

I think our back and forth is at an end. Your position has been exposed as so ludricrous it defies any logic or commonsense.

Al Qaeda declared war on us (something organized crime never did) remember so they seem to think they can be at war.

Treat the members of Al Qaeda as mere criminals would mean we could not lawfully attack them in any fashion at all. We would need arrest and search warrants and would have to extrradite people whose identities are not clear. No more bombings of their meetings or missile strikes at their leaders would be permissable if they are just criminals. They would then have MORE rights and privileges than lawful combatants in a war.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent and thoughtful guy but your argument here takes the prize as the most wacked out nonsense I have ever heard.

I recognize even in the case of unlawful combatants that there should be rules than govern their treatment and detention and there are (fashioned by US using the relevant international agreements). You don't an instruction manual on how to build a motorcycle to build a space station. The "manuals" we have are designed primarily to cover conventional and traditional conflicts and are lacking in much detail about engaging in a conflict like this one.

That is not to suggest that the normal criminal justice processes of our country are not playing a part in this conflict. We are using traditional methods and means where they are appropriate.

The legitimate debate here is about how to balance our practical wartime needs and goals against our obligation to treat these detainees in a humane fashion. The unconventional nature of this conflict has exposed the clear inadequacies of our current international treaties and the problems of applying rules of civilized war when the other side has no interest in them.

We tried using the criminal justice approach for more than 8 years and made very little progress - and we were rewarded with a string of brutal attacks on our buildings, emabssies, warships, barracks etc. that killed hundreds of innocent people. Then came 9/11 where they killed over 3,000 of our citizens and caused catastrophic economic damage to our nation. It was at that point we decided to abandon our foolish and ineffective strategy (much like the nonsense you are advocating) and try something more aggressive. In other words we finally realized we were already at war (Al Qaeda said as much) and decided to act like it.

I hope your nation never has to endure such a bloodthristy attack.

Brian

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
I lost the will to live whilst reading this. So I'm not going to attempt to unravel it.

Why am I not surprised. 

Unicus old friend, stop using this 'rolls eyes' emoticon so often, you are reminding me of someone else

Quoting sugarjoe:

Quote:
Thank you very much Gunnar for being the voice of reason in this thread.

BTW, I don't think there is something like Al Qaeda, at least not like it is being portrait in the media. And when was the last time anybody has seen Bin Laden?

And Brian, there is nothing wrong with Gunnar's logic.

I agree with you but I think we just need to give up this thread.

It seems to have reached an end of civilisedl debate.

Lets all just move on to another thread

It's official I've received my first red arrow!

I guess you are not allowed to lambaste in the slightest way an opinion that so richly deserves it.

I'm not sure who decided to become the thought police but it doesn't surprise me.

I would note that I didn't attack GSyren directly but rather unloaded on his ridiculous assetion that the US is obligated to treat Al Qaeda as a purely criminal justice problem. That's crazy because it would prevent us from doing almost anything to stop them from launching another vicious and brutal attack.

If you can't stand the heat of robust debate of the issues then stay away.

Oh well. Sometimes people don't understand that tolerating opinions you don't agree with one of the hallmarks of a free society.

Brian

Quoting Beastus:

Quote:
Quoting sugarjoe:

Quote:
Thank you very much Gunnar for being the voice of reason in this thread.

BTW, I don't think there is something like Al Qaeda, at least not like it is being portrait in the media. And when was the last time anybody has seen Bin Laden?

There's always some silly conspiracy theories like this. Some people have watched too much X-Files.

Brian is IMO correct. Al Quaida declared war, and the US responded, as any country would to defend their citizens. It's not just an option, it's an obligation. Not saying that all choices may be right, but I'm sick of all Europeans sitting at home having the right answer to these questions, even more than every American and their government.

We should all support USA for sacrificing so much as they have, because what they're fighting for will benefit all people, including us Europeans. I think people would've felt differently if their own country was attacked.

I couldn't agree more!!  Stating that there is no such thing as Al Qaeda, is IMO the same as denying the Holocaust! 

The fact remains that without US involvement in WWII it would have dragged out many more years, and their response to the cowardly 9/11 attacks were as justified and necessary as could possibly be!

The coalition forces will get my    any old day, and if Guantanamo is a side effect of the war on terror, then so be it! Keep on rockin' US! 

By the way: I saw Bin Laden today at the supermarket - at least it looked like him...   

Quoting Beastus:

Quote:
There's always some silly conspiracy theories like this. Some people have watched too much X-Files.

The last episode I watched together with Colin Powell. Afterwards he had an appointment at the UN to tell them about 'weapons of mass destruction'. 

Quoting Berak:

Quote:
I couldn't agree more!!  Stating that there is no such thing as Al Qaeda, is IMO the same as denying the Holocaust! 

Don't you ever misuse the Holocaust again !     

I feel deeply offended by this comparison, denying the Holocaust is a crime in Germany.