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: KonKilo who wrote (72163)	6/14/2008 12:32:00 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542009

If so, with whom? In the crazy kaleidoscope of our changing security policies, the enemy has been defined as extremists, militants, jihadists, terrorists, AQ, other violent Islamic groups and so on. The fallacy of saying we can come up with a legal solution to all these "combatants" is the utter impossibility of defining them as a group. Right now, anyone with a militant viewpoint who might consider violence against others could be included. And we are at "war" with that universe of people. How will we ever define victory? An absence of violence? An absence of militancy? An absence of antiwestern violence worldwide? That will never happen. It's impossible. So the "war" definition is absurd on its face, and conducting legal proceedings on that premise is equally absurd. Someone in DC needs to sit down, admit that and create a new body of coherent law for dealing with terrorism instead of this pseudo-contrived BS we have now.

To: KonKilo who wrote (72163)	6/14/2008 3:03:10 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542009

You didn't answer my question: Are we at war? If so, with whom? I do not know the answer to that. [The official US position is that we are. With Islamo-Fascist terrorists. I find that an intuitively shaky proposition.] I think you have your questions backwards. The objective of the exercise is to determine if we have war or crime. In other words, to answer your question. My question is designed to inform that process. It's an is-it-bigger-than-a-breadbox question. Your calling the question preempts analysis designed to answer it.