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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (214977)	8/8/2007 9:11:16 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

why read it? Know your enemy. Why read it? Because terrorists are outside our traditional paradigms of criminality and war. Our systems are set up for that binary choice. Since terrorists present us with a disruption of our paradigms, we need to rejigger our systems. Either paradigm presents advantages and disadvantages. It's not helpful to deny that. Clark advocates the criminal paradigm and has presented two disadvantages to the military one as a justification for his conclusion. What he failed to do was present the advantages of the military one and the disadvantages of the criminal one. Still, his disadvantages to the military one are worthy of our attention since disadvantages always require some compensating or offsetting or evasive action if we're to be successful. It's foolish to take a path without recognizing its potholes. His conclusion that the criminal paradigm is preferable may be faulty but that doesn't mean that his description of the problems with the alternative is not valid. Know your potholes, I say. Someone who defines your potholes is useful. Writing him off as the enemy and ignoring the pothole warning is not helpful.

To: LindyBill who wrote (214977)	8/8/2007 11:25:12 AM
From: MrLucky	Respond to of 793955

Our Left doesn't like this. They want them criminalized so that they can come under our court system. So people like Clark and Raustiala write double-talking Op-Eds to try to confuse the issue and get them off. The good news is that Clark and Raustalia actually called them terrorists. More than the WAPO or NYT could ever bring themselves to do in their editorials. Raustalia is still hung up on a murder case from many years ago in the UK. The woman was tried without a jury and found guilty of killing her US military husband. Agreements existed between the UK and the US back then on how any such trials would be conducted on English soil. Raustalia thinks that case is a determining basis for how prisoners in Gitmo should be labeled and handled. Apples and pomegrantes.