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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rascal who wrote (127719)	3/29/2004 8:52:40 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This delineation between treating terrorism as a military action A/K/A "Forward Defense" (How Orwellian of you.)vs. a police action is dicey Sure, for those who have no alternative policies to propose for dealing with terrorism. You deal with internal criminal activity with your internal security infrastructure, namely Law Enforcement agencies. Because these criminal enterprises focus primarily on subverting the rule of law and engaging in illegal enterprises for profit. And while domestic terrorists might not be engaged in a profit motive, but rather a political one, domestic law enforcement still is the predominant authority for dealing with domestic terrorist activities. But international terrorism originates OUTSIDE of domestic US legal jurisdictions. And since the UN has no statutory authority, jurisdiction, or enforcement capability (outside of that specifically agreed to by member nations on a per case basis), and because terrorist enterprises are often front's for the political and intelligence agencies of a foreign power, the military has jurisdiction and authority to take actions. But that's not to say that LEA don't have the authority to request military support from Federal authorities to enforce the law and preserve order. We did it back in the 1800s to fight various gangs, as well as Indian tribes. And this is what we did in Afghanistan, by overthrowing the Taliban who were harboring Al-Qaeda forces. But since this also a War on Terror, by no means is the US limited to solely acting against Al-Qaeda. That is not the mandate Bush gave the military. His mandate is to identify, disrupt, thwart, and eliminate any existing, or potential, terrorist threat against the US and it's interests. For Pakistan, since these groups were operating within their territory, they have every right to treat them as criminals and not POWs. We would do the very same thing to any armed group that advocated or attempted to overthrow our government. But were these groups residing in the US, and attempting to attack Pakistan, and were they to fall into the hands of Pakistani authorities, they would find themselves in the same boat that Guatanamo detainees find themselves in... in a limbo between actual combatant status, and that of a common criminal. So the only thing "dicey" is your interpretation... Hawk