Comments on: WAR? WHAT WAR?

By: Robert Palmer

Robert Palmer — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:08:26 +0000

I would love to watch the Republican candidate conclude that he/she would not have detained the 9/11 highjackers even if the FBI knew about the plot beforehand.

Yes, I could see how a decision that does nothing to preclude the government from arresting anyone though was involved in terrorism might cause a candidate to say that.

Not.

Is there some weird distortion in the air that keeps common sense decisions (the president does not have absolute power) from making sense to you?

By: mikeca

mikeca — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:55:33 +0000

I hope your Democrat Presidential candidate stands behind this decision. I would love to watch the Republican candidate conclude that he/she would not have detained the 9/11 highjackers even if the FBI knew about the plot beforehand. You guys have had the luxury for 6 years to bash President Bush without having the responsibility to carry out policy. The public wants to know how they would prevent attacks, not simply how they would respond to one. Soft on terrorism will send real chills down voters backs.

Fritz, what on earth are you talking about?

There are laws on the books already against planning terror attacks. We have arrested a number of terrorists before they were able to carry out their attack. I can remember several such arrests in both the current Bush administration and the Clinton administration. This court ruling does not put any obstacles in the way of any administration arresting terrorists before they make an attack. All this ruling says is they cannot be detained forever without presenting some evidence, but they can certainly be arrested.

By: ErTan

ErTan — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:27:06 +0000

To put this in perspective: Imagine Hillary Clinton with that power.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:44:20 +0000

Mikeca, gregdn,
I hope your Democrat Presidential candidate stands behind this decision. I would love to watch the Republican candidate conclude that he/she would not have detained the 9/11 highjackers even if the FBI knew about the plot beforehand. You guys have had the luxury for 6 years to bash President Bush without having the responsibility to carry out policy. The public wants to know how they would prevent attacks, not simply how they would respond to one. Soft on terrorism will send real chills down voters backs.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:43:37 +0000

Absent a formal declaration of war this crap will continue. All is needed is to issue a formal declaration of war against the entity known as AQ. Where is it written that war can only be declared against a nation?

Really, though, if we are really at war it is with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and perhaps Syria. Let’s cut to the chase. They harbor terrorists, terrorists attack us, they are then our enemies. You know…walks like a duck, etc. etc.

Lastly there really is no Global War on Terror in my view for that implies a unified global effort to fight the war. What we have is battles occurring in various parts of the globe perpetuated by radical Islam. There are many mini-wars being fought.

By: Kn@ppster

Kn@ppster — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:41:19 +0000

Incredibly Stupid Statement of the Day, 0613/07…

Only Congress has the power to declare war. Not only has Congress not declared war, it has been very careful to specify that it hasn’t declared war. Therefore, the US is …

By: David M

David M — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:40:00 +0000

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 06/13/2007
A short recon of whatâ€™s out there that might draw your attention.

By: The Thunder Run

The Thunder Run — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:36:00 +0000

Web Reconnaissance for 06/13/2007…

A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention….

By: Larry your brother

Larry your brother — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:32:52 +0000

Thank you, Drongo. I’ve been quoting that scene since 2001. I think this country, since the founding, has taken the attitude that the laws are meant to protect the innocent. Their experience demanded this approach.

Now, are these bad guys? Of course they are. But there must be a law somewhere that allows us to arrest, try, convict, and incarcerate these people. Aren’t we doing that with Padilla in Miami? And Judge Motz provided legal circumstances under which al-Mari could be held. We can’t keep them in a prison forever.

By: mikeca

mikeca — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:37:59 +0000

To extend what I said above, what I think the court was saying here, was that under the constitution and laws past by Congress, the only choices at this point are to charge Ali al-Marri with a crime, start deportation procedures against him, or let him go.

If we need other options for cases like this, then Congress has to pass a law spelling out what those options are, and that law must pass constitutional muster. The administration has had lots of time to ask for new laws in this area, but they have not asked for anything that I know of. Maybe it is time they did.