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: Hawkmoon who wrote (127725)	3/30/2004 12:03:10 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I said...This delineation between treating terrorism as a military action A/K/A "Forward Defense" (How Orwellian of you.)vs. a police action is dicey. You said...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.... Thanks for taking the time to share your crystal clear understanding of these situations. As for me, I will continue to open my self to new fact patterns as they appear in an effort to minimize dicey thoughts. Because there's this: "A key question in the Hamdi and Padilla cases, for example, is whether the generally worded September 2001 act of Congress authorizing war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban was intended to authorize indefinite military detention of American citizens alleged to be members. The 4th Circuit said yes; the 2nd Circuit suggested no. Why should the Supreme Court have to guess? Congress should provide the answer (which should be yes), together with a detailed process for resolving difficult issues such as who is an enemy combatant; how long such combatants can be interrogated before being given hearings at which to challenge their detentions; how Êsensitive intelligence information should be handled; how long enemy combatants can be held; and how the rights of citizens and noncitizens should differ." theatlantic.com And then, just today, there is this: Legal Actions Over Foreign Misdeeds The Alien Tort Claims Act authorizes federal courts to hear suits by foreigners when their rights under "the law of nations or a treaty of the United States" have been violated by individuals, companies or government agents. nytimes.com I bet training programs offered to and by our military spend much time discussing these fact patterns so their interpretation isn't dicey like mine. Probably Bush took this into account when he issued his mandate to the military which is, according to you, "His (Bush) mandate is to identify, disrupt, thwart, and eliminate any existing, or potential, terrorist threat against the US and it's interests." Thank goodness Gore wasn't selected! Rascal @AlwaysLearning.com