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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (22006)	6/24/2006 1:58:09 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543439

I think calling a response to an ongoing problem a "war" is just stupid. I think the language shapes the mentality people use to deal with the problem. I've talked about my approach to terrorism many times on this thread and elsewhere- this is a brief response, if you use advanced search you can find much longer posts on this topic written by me. It's a problem, but imo it's nowhere near our major problem. I think we should concentrate on the borders, including container shipping, and I think it would be beneficial to mend international relationships since the global networks require global efforts. I'm not one of those folks who blames Bush for 9/11. In a free society a certain amount of terrorism is bound to occur- we have surprisingly little (imo). I think better communication and coordination between agencies could have prevented 9/11 but I don't blame anyone for the failure of the agencies in not being perfect. I expect the US to work within the framework of the constitution to prevent terrorism, and I expect people to tolerate a little bit of risk when it comes to terrorism in exchange for a free society.

To: Jim S who wrote (22006)	6/25/2006 9:03:23 PM
From: thames_sider	Respond to of 543439

"Another problem with calling the war on terror a "war" is that it won't ever end, since terrorism never ends, so any power grabs made over this "war are likely to be permanent power grabs." I'm of the opinion that there's more at stake than semantics. 1. The POTUS designates a current policy focus a 'War'. Never mind if there's no clear or declared enemy, or if said enemy if a state of mind, an abstract concept, or a white powder; if the POTUS declares it a war, it's a War. 1.1 The POTUS shall decide when the War is over. 2. In times of War the powers of the POTUS as related to the War are without limit. 3. In times of War the POTUS decides what might be related to the War. 3.1 Anyone not with the POTUS in this War is against the POTUS --> anyone against the POTUS may be an enemy --> anyone against the POTUS may be subject to whatever rules the POTUS decides are suitable for the enemy. 3.2 The conduct of the War is a matter for the POTUS, including all intelligence thereof, and no one but the POTUS can decide what may be germane to the War. 3.3 Laws passed by Senate or Congress may not restrict or require the POTUS if he deems that they are not appropriate to the conduct of the War. That's the sequence so far, and the semantics of 'War' are really quite important. Of course, it might be fun to see these powers applied by a really decisive Democratic president declaring (say) a war on poverty... but somehow I doubt this will ever happen.