Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Whatever happened to...
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: [QB] I think that the most basic problem here is the definition of the word "war." In the traditional sense a war is a massive conflict between nations, each with an established government, clearly defined borders, an economy, and an organized military. In the case of the "War on Terror," many of those definitions need to be twisted around. Al-Qaida does not have a "government" per se, but it does have an authority structure, controlled by Bin Laden. It also has a military, although it's not organized at all like any national army. And it has no defined borders at all. It was originally easy to pick on Afghanistan because that was a location where it was confirmed (or at least strongly suspected) that Bin Laden and Al-Qaida had their bases. The Oklahoma City bombing was basically an isolated incident. Yes, it was certainly an act of terror, but it was still the act of a criminal, a US citizen. Due process was upheld in that case, mainly because it was isolated. However, in the case of many of the terrorist suspects, the problem is that having public hearings, and use of due process, works in the REAL terrorists' favor, because a great deal of information relating to their activities (and the direction of the government's attention) is published. But then... there's the fact that if we ARE at "war," then captured agents/soldiers of the "enemy" would then fall under the Geneva Convention. Which means no interrogations, proper treatment, and so on. It's like the administration is trying to argue on both sides of the issue. Damn, this is a can of worms. To get reasonably back on track... One of the key problems is that the terrorists' methods of operation are tailored to take advantage of the weaknesses of our system. Due process? That's just a way of "going easy" on them to give them a chance to get their things done. The trouble is, how do we know WHO is guilty? If we knew in advance, this would all be a lot easier... I guess what it comes down to is, "do you trust the government?", and "do you trust the system?" Although a lot of the actions taken certainly stretch the definitions of the Constitution and our laws to the limit, I do believe that they're taking actions with the interests of best combating the threat of terrorism. Yes, some toes are being stepped on, but consider how many more lives could be lost if another attack on the scale of the World Trade Center were carried out? "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." (Yes, I admit that I believe this partially because my toes aren't being stepped on. In that regard, Snay's quote about taking away the amendments is very appropriate, and very disturbing.) Furthermore, while I don't really trust the current administration (good ol' Dubya and his clowns), I certainly trust the SYSTEM. There's the immediate, short-term actions to be taking to face the threats, and then there's the longer-term policies. I trust the SYSTEM of our government to get things sorted out and maintain the principles and rights which the Constitution originally set forth. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3