Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 49thMIMOMander who wrote (16018)	4/27/2003 7:48:16 PM
From: Edscharp	Respond to of 21614

llmarinen, "without any sovereignty of their own" I was referring to the el-Qaeda terrorists who have no sovereignty of their own. Sorry, if I wasn't clear. "the controversial nature of the US decision" Maybe if I explain my above remark a little better. It appears to me that much of the world believes we should be applying the same laws reserved for ordinary criminals (bank robbers, rapists, etc) to the actions of the el-Qaeda terrorists. Therefore, the argument goes, if we are not treating them the same then we have illegally changed the rules and deprived them of their rights. This is the controversial point I alluded to. I utterly disagree with that reasoning. First, these terrorists are not US citizens. They do not possess the same rights as Americans. For instance, a non-American illegally in this country can be deported without a right to trial. Secondly, the terrorists, in every way that matters, operated as though they were soldiers, soldiers without a country perhaps, but soldiers nontheless. The only way we could bring many of them to justice was by military action in Afghanistan and, of course, cooperation with other governments. It is IMO reasonable to treat them in a manner consistent with laws of war rather than civil law. It would be the height of stupidity for captured el-Qaeda members to be given their 'Miranda Rights' upon capture. In order to defeat an organization of this kind the US has an obligation to interrogate prisoners and hold them incognito so that they may not pass information to their seniors. This is impossible to do if they enjoy the luxury of being treated like ordinary criminals. Even during the Vietnam conflict a North Vietnamese soldier taken prisoner wasn't entitled to a trial in the US. Why should el-Qaeda detainees be allowed? Lastly, there is the unique manner in which 911 was committed. In terms of the scale of destruction, the organizational abilities of the enemy, their finances, the protection of a friendly government, and the dedication of a group of men willing to commit mass suicide; this event was without precedent. Crimes as outrageous as 911 may require non-traditional and expedient methods. Our removal of the Taliban regime was certainly one of them. Whether you like him or not President Bush's oath of office requires him to protect against enemies foreign and domestic. I can think of nothing more dangerous than to aid and abet our enemies than by allowing them to hide behind laws that were written for domestic criminals and never gave any thought to the problems of international terrorism. The first President that allows this to happen will introduce the end of our way of life. Some of the laws in this country have already been change. More laws will follow.