|
The War on Terror has no endpoint, no goals, no reason for it not to go on as long as the War on Drugs, which has the same general conditions. Terror is after all an emotion; it cannot surrender, sign a peace treaty, or in any way give up. We can leave Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen but that isn't an end. We can/could at some point call it over, but that is not part of the public discourse. Much the same as when industry uses the technique of "linguistic detoxification," the Democratic party is the "velvet glove over the iron fist;" they phase words out of use while continuing not only policy, but the natural trajectory of such policy, following it to its full global extent. It is a global revenge mission we will never declare lost and that can never be won.
I never said anything about our prison system and warzones, you try them for treason or something less harsh if called for in Afghanistan or Iraq, the actual warzones. Other than that we pick up people through investigation and we can handle them in our prison system. I think you are underestimating what our prison system can handle it already handles quite a bit it wasn't designed to. You could also try them in military tribunals as combatants for any crimes they have committed, this is not ideal and is in general unusual, but by no means unheard of.
The problem is that they are currently detained indefinitely, without trial, without legal counsel, (which even illegal combatants are supposed to have) in a legal gray area you can coat with pretty terms, but that is completely unacceptable by reasonable ethical standards and is a very gray area. I feel like I have laid out my opinion, and I am about done with this discussion.
Note: Sadly good ethical standards are not those that sate blood-lust and notions of vengeance for wrongs done.
|
Only 5 declared wars in our entire history? We forget that we are like, a good looking youngish middle aged country when compared against our contemporaries.
Still, there is silver lining. We get to return to the time honed practice of constructing human pyramids. I am hoping for a truly stupendous effort this time round. 9th wonder style.
Honestly, I think this a sneaky attempt to return to abusive practices now that the public eye is out of the limelight of the Abu Ghraib incidents. Remember even supported by atrocities it was hard to get people to see others as humans.
|
I honestly don't see it changing anything, it has the potential to authorize acts of war but I believe Libya if not Afghanistan clearly demonstrate that Congress already has little to do with war authorization. The reason being is that nobody wants to be the scapegoat when everybody starts pointing the finger at Congress for pulling the purse strings on the latest conflict. Congressional war authorization is a formality which never even occurs unless Congress either feels forced into it due to the realities on the ground (Tonkin) or the war is basically defensive and universally popular (WW2, Iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11).
The fundamental framework for both these situations lies outside Congressional control, especially given U.S. precedent of deference in both the legislative and judicial branches to the executive in matters of armed conflict, so in hindsight it is easy to see why Congressional inclusion in the Constitution in the first place could be argued as a flaw. You don't want to restrict the arm of your only defense in times of need, so there can be almost no realistically effective prior restraint of the executive.
Normally I'm a raging liberal but in this case it seems more like they are changing the song to fit the tune. The fury of the public NEEDS to land on the president if we are to stop this sort of flagrant armed aggression, because that fury is too easily dispersed in Congress. So that being said, I'm really torn on this one, but I can see the good sides to this bill that the liberal propaganda is clearly ignoring.
|
I don't get the whole constitution here constitution there. If something is messed up, change it, and if the constitution doesn't allow for the change then change the constitution. And having one man, in effect, being able to bring a country into war is messed up. That this bill only legalizes what is already common practice is NO EXCUSE. If common practice is messed up you protest that common practice and make it change. You don't let people do bat shit crazy stuff and then say "hey they're already doing it, let's not make it awkward shall we?".
|
On May 13 2011 09:15 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Yes, every war since world war 2 has been unconstitutional. Furthermore, judicial decree doesn't determine what the constitution means. They are actually capable of interpreting it incorrectly. Shocking I know. Btw, deploying military force against another nation is an ACT OF WAR, meaning congress needs to declare war for it to occur.
Actually, it does determine what the constitution means. And while the judges on the Supreme Court of the US are capable of interpreting the Constitution incorrectly, who the hell are you to make that determination?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
