Ten years is up.....time to release everyone from Gitmo

[Remodeling Maidiac]

How long of a time period of them not doing that is acceptable to you before we should declare the war over?

It's a moot point as you and I both know they won't stop. As far as I'm concerned we should pull out of Afghanistan and use our air power to bomb any suspected terrorist camp on site. But I'm not in control so what I think really doesn't matter.

Is the possibility of a terrorist attack reason enough for our country to be in a constant state of war or with these strikes on an as needed basis can the whole "war" label and all that comes with it be dropped?

WOT is an accurate description. What is the problem with that label? It's all semantics.

 

[Article 15]

It's a moot point as you and I both know they won't stop. As far as I'm concerned we should pull out of Afghanistan and use our air power to bomb any suspected terrorist camp on site. But I'm not in control so what I think really doesn't matter.

Is the possibility of a terrorist attack reason enough for our country to be in a constant state of war or with these strikes on an as needed basis can the whole "war" label and all that comes with it be dropped?

WOT is an accurate description. What is the problem with that label? It's all semantics.

In the War on Terror there are enemy combatants that we lock up indefinitely without a trial.

Is the case the same with the War on Drugs?

There's more to it than semantics, no?

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry, but that asshole got a bomb dropped on his ass.....thanks to GWB.

The detainees at Gitmo are guilty of numerous crimes....but none that can be proved. They are prisoners of war....a war they started.

This is not a war against Islam....but the sickness that it breeds in men.

Trust me your honor....they did bad things

I just cant prove it

Will stand up in any court in the world......as long as it is a kangaroo court

They were caught on the field of battle asswipe. But YOU wouldn't know, would you?

And don't insult me with an answer of any kind.

I would hope they have done a lot worse than being caught on the field of battle

You want to keep them for life without so much as a trial

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Is the possibility of a terrorist attack reason enough for our country to be in a constant state of war or with these strikes on an as needed basis can the whole "war" label and all that comes with it be dropped?

WOT is an accurate description. What is the problem with that label? It's all semantics.

In the War on Terror there are enemy combatants that we lock up indefinitely without a trial.

Is the case the same with the War on Drugs?

There's more to it than semantics, no?

WTF kind of comparison is that? Were not bombing drug dealers and they aren't blowing themselves up killing civilians.

Peddling drugs is a crime attacking our country and its people is an act of war.

 

[Article 15]

WOT is an accurate description. What is the problem with that label? It's all semantics.

In the War on Terror there are enemy combatants that we lock up indefinitely without a trial.

Is the case the same with the War on Drugs?

There's more to it than semantics, no?

WTF kind of comparison is that? Were not bombing drug dealers and they aren't blowing themselves up killing civilians.

Peddling drugs is a crime attacking our country and its people is an act of war.

How many innocent people have gotten caught in the crossfire and died in drug turf battles? How many of our civilians have been killed by a drug overdose?

 

[Intense]

Define civil.

How long, in your opinion, must these savages be civil before we declare victory and end the war? Or will some form of surrender come along with them becoming civil? If so, who will be surrendering to us?

Are you serious? I have to define civil for you?

Them acting civilized would consist of them not blowing up innocence in the name of JIHAD.

How long of a time period of them not doing that is acceptable to you before we should declare the war over?

I think if ever the time does come, evidence of it would be manifest by the Jihadists Declaring a Permanent Cease-Fire. When the Bombings and Assassinations stop, We will know. Should that indeed happen, the targeting on both sides, needs to be addressed, up front.

 

[Article 15]

Are you serious? I have to define civil for you?

Them acting civilized would consist of them not blowing up innocence in the name of JIHAD.

How long of a time period of them not doing that is acceptable to you before we should declare the war over?

I think if ever the time does come, evidence of it would be manifest by the Jihadists Declaring a Permanent Cease-Fire. When the Bombings and Assassinations stop, We will know. Should that indeed happen, the targeting on both sides, needs to be addressed, up front.

But with whom do we address that with? Former terrorist organization or cell leaders? Is that what happens? How do we know we are dealing with everyone?

It seems to me like there will always be someone, somewhere who would like to do us harm but I don't see that as a reason to be in a perpetual state of war.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

WTF kind of comparison is that?

It’s a very good comparison. One can no more make war on ‘drugs’ than ‘terror.’ Both are Orwellian contrivances, designed to keep those in power, in power.

The only question is do the American people continue to buy into the lies associated with ‘wars’ on terror or drugs.

 

[dblack]

If you want a more specific time frame your going to have to ask them. They are the ones with the vest and car bombs.

Sounds like they're pretty much in charge.

 

[dblack]

They were caught on the field of battle asswipe. But YOU wouldn't know, would you?

And don't insult me with an answer of any kind.

I'll oblige. There is no 'field of battle' (which battle? which field?). Because it's not a war.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

In the War on Terror there are enemy combatants that we lock up indefinitely without a trial.

Is the case the same with the War on Drugs?

There's more to it than semantics, no?

WTF kind of comparison is that? Were not bombing drug dealers and they aren't blowing themselves up killing civilians.

Peddling drugs is a crime attacking our country and its people is an act of war.

How many innocent people have gotten caught in the crossfire and died in drug turf battles? How many of our civilians have been killed by a drug overdose?

What's your point? These circles are tiring. Besides football is on.

 

[dblack]

Will the police ever stop arresting even shooting criminals when needed?

There is your answer.

I'll buy that. So you're acknowledging its a crime problem, and not really a war?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If you want a more specific time frame your going to have to ask them. They are the ones with the vest and car bombs.

Sounds like they're pretty much in charge.

I'll submit to you that they are.

 

[Article 15]

WTF kind of comparison is that? Were not bombing drug dealers and they aren't blowing themselves up killing civilians.

Peddling drugs is a crime attacking our country and its people is an act of war.

How many innocent people have gotten caught in the crossfire and died in drug turf battles? How many of our civilians have been killed by a drug overdose?

What's your point? These circles are tiring. Besides football is on.

The point is that if you can gather enough evidence to drop a bomb on someone's head then you have enough evidence to put them on trial.

The point is that if you had enough evidence to lock someone up in GITMO then you should have enough evidence to put them on trial.

The point is that the perceived threat of something happening is not a good enough reason for a never ending, undefined war where we can just do the above mentioned wherever, whenever we want.

 

[dblack]

WOT is an accurate description. What is the problem with that label? It's all semantics.

Semantics are crucial. In this case, it makes a huge difference, because we are willing to suspend our normal limitations on government power to protect our sovereignty. In other words, if it really is a matter of our country being invaded and taken over by an enemy, we shoot first ask questions later, and basically do whatever it takes to defend ourselves from defeat. So it matters a great deal whether we call it a war or not. If it's a war, we give government all the power it asks for. That's exactly why GW chose the term 'War on Terror' - to invoke, or at least justify with the people, extreme measures.

But what you are defining isn't a temporary state of emergency. They're not protecting us from an invading army. It's an ongoing state of emergency that will, apparently, last as long as there is some asshole with a homemade bomb hiding out in a cave somewhere. In other words, forever. Letting the terrorists control the agenda essentially puts us into a permanent state of emergency and gives them exactly what they hope to achieve with the terrorist acts in the first place.

 

[Intense]

How long of a time period of them not doing that is acceptable to you before we should declare the war over?

I think if ever the time does come, evidence of it would be manifest by the Jihadists Declaring a Permanent Cease-Fire. When the Bombings and Assassinations stop, We will know. Should that indeed happen, the targeting on both sides, needs to be addressed, up front.

But with whom do we address that with? Former terrorist organization or cell leaders? Is that what happens? How do we know we are dealing with everyone?

It seems to me like there will always be someone, somewhere who would like to do us harm but I don't see that as a reason to be in a perpetual state of war.

I hear you. With some, it is a perpetual State of War, because of competing Ideologies. We deal with Leaders, of State, Mullahs, Popular and Political, as circumstance dictates. Let's hope that our best Prospects are not targeted for assassination. The State Department needs to play a more visible roll. They may also be reminded of who's team they are on. We had a strong relationship with Iran, back in the days of the Shah. It wasn't perfect. I'm just pointing out that Peace is attainable. With all of the War and Reconstruction, I am bothered that there was not more focus on Human Rights, in both Iraq and Afghanistan Restructure. The Understanding of the Value of One's own Life on this Earth, may inhibit People choosing Martyrdom on all sides, just saying.

 

[Intense]

WOT is an accurate description. What is the problem with that label? It's all semantics.

Semantics are crucial. In this case, it makes a huge difference, because we are willing to suspend our normal limitations on government power to protect our sovereignty. In other words, if it really is a matter of our country being invaded and taken over by an enemy, we shoot first ask questions later, and basically do whatever it takes to defend ourselves from defeat. So it matters a great deal whether we call it a war or not. If it's a war, we give government all the power it asks for. That's exactly why GW chose the term 'War on Terror' - to invoke, or at least justify with the people, extreme measures.

But what you are defining isn't a temporary state of emergency. They're not protecting us from an invading army. It's an ongoing state of emergency that will, apparently, last as long as there is some asshole with a homemade bomb hiding out in a cave somewhere. In other words, forever. Letting the terrorists control the agenda essentially puts us into a permanent state of emergency and gives them exactly what they hope to achieve with the terrorist acts in the first place.

Yep. Factor in Known Threats that the Public is not aware of, and that complicates the equation, even more. Security, Emergency Response, Infrastructure,is an Executive Branch Responsibility, Federal, State, and Local. Having the Capability, the Authority to use it, and knowing when to flip that switch on and off, under what circumstances and conditions, is a tough call. That's why we need People with minds at the controls, not clones or robots, but people that can tie their own shoes.

 

[Article 15]

WOT is an accurate description. What is the problem with that label? It's all semantics.

Semantics are crucial. In this case, it makes a huge difference, because we are willing to suspend our normal limitations on government power to protect our sovereignty. In other words, if it really is a matter of our country being invaded and taken over by an enemy, we shoot first ask questions later, and basically do whatever it takes to defend ourselves from defeat. So it matters a great deal whether we call it a war or not. If it's a war, we give government all the power it asks for. That's exactly why GW chose the term 'War on Terror' - to invoke, or at least justify with the people, extreme measures.

But what you are defining isn't a temporary state of emergency. They're not protecting us from an invading army. It's an ongoing state of emergency that will, apparently, last as long as there is some asshole with a homemade bomb hiding out in a cave somewhere. In other words, forever. Letting the terrorists control the agenda essentially puts us into a permanent state of emergency and gives them exactly what they hope to achieve with the terrorist acts in the first place.

 

[Crackerjack]

WOT is an accurate description. What is the problem with that label? It's all semantics.

Semantics are crucial. In this case, it makes a huge difference, because we are willing to suspend our normal limitations on government power to protect our sovereignty. In other words, if it really is a matter of our country being invaded and taken over by an enemy, we shoot first ask questions later, and basically do whatever it takes to defend ourselves from defeat. So it matters a great deal whether we call it a war or not. If it's a war, we give government all the power it asks for. That's exactly why GW chose the term 'War on Terror' - to invoke, or at least justify with the people, extreme measures.

But what you are defining isn't a temporary state of emergency. They're not protecting us from an invading army. It's an ongoing state of emergency that will, apparently, last as long as there is some asshole with a homemade bomb hiding out in a cave somewhere. In other words, forever. Letting the terrorists control the agenda essentially puts us into a permanent state of emergency and gives them exactly what they hope to achieve with the terrorist acts in the first place.

Buy stock in defense contractors.

 

[Iggy]

I don't think the government would need to show anything more than the circumstances of their capture and ten years' worth of confessions to damn 99% of these guys. But the point is that the government should show it. I think it is a dangerous precedent to just take the state's word on this.

If you're upset about the 2012 NDAA, you should definitely be pulling for this sort of transparency.

Saboteurs in WWII were executed on the spot.

What changed?

WAR is ugly business.

We got soft.

Saboteurs in WWII were executed on the spot.

Shortly after midnight on the morning of June 13, 1942, four men landed on a beach near Amagansett, Long Island, New York from a German submarine, clad in German uniforms and bringing ashore enough explosives, primers, and incendiaries to support an expected two-year career in the sabotage of American defense-related production. On June 17, 1942, a similar group landed on Ponte Vedra Beach, near Jacksonville, Florida, equipped for a similar career in industrial disruption.

FBI — George John Dasch and the Nazi Saboteurs

The purpose of the invasions was to strike a major blow for Germany by bringing the violence of war to our home ground through destruction of America's ability to manufacture vital equipment and supplies and transport them to the battlegrounds of Europe; to strike fear into the American civilian population; and to diminish the resolve of the United States to overcome our enemies.

Shades of 9-11. Yet some want to give our new foe all the power to end our Capitalist Democratic exercise in freedom.