[NudiJuicervich]

It's not like they hold AQ membership cards. How do you define "member"? Simply hanging out in the same room as one? Cmon O'Sullivan what your proposing is rather ridiculous.

If anything, it's common sense. Do Norteño and Sureño gang members hold membership cards? How about legal organisation members like Alcoholics Anonymous members where the first five of its traditions have some similarities to how AQ operates? Does a spy hold a spy ID?

Twelve Traditions

1. Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon AA unity.
2. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
3. The only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking.
4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole.
5. Each group has but one primary purpose—to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers.

. . . Twelve-step program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can one prove someone is a member of AA? Sure. There can be evidence such as admissions of AA membership, direct and testimonial evidence of attending AA meetings, sponsoring other AA members, etc. Can someone prove someone is a member of MS-13? Sure, by similar evidential means such as admissions, tattooing, actions, etc. It's the same with proving someone to be a spy.

It makes no sense whatsoever to not call AQ and its adherents exactly what they are--extremely dangerous criminal conspirators--and deserving of being treated as the type of threat such people pose. It also makes sense to directly treat the movement as such where it's made expressly known to anyone that if you choose any association with it, you'll spend your days behind bars or dead insofar as being handled to eradicate the threat such a person poses. That even goes right after the propaganda and recruitment, etc, because the mere admission of membership itself will be deemed evidence to put you on the hit and removal list from society.

[NudiJuicervich]

I see what you're saying, but there's a certain nebulousness to the organization, and a reasonable suspicion that not everyone who claims membership is a credible threat (never mind that darn old Constitution that guarantees free association).

The mere fact that we don't like an organization, or that certain parts of an organization are unpleasant, doesn't mean that we can make association with an organization unlawful (and certainly not a capital offense). That line becomes far too blurry far too quickly.

To prove any criminal charge, the evidence must be sufficient for a jury or judge as the case to make that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. For sample manner of proving that, see my last post above to Danny.

There is no right to be a member of a violent organisation like AQ whatsoever within the right of association, which is intended for peaceful and reasonable conduct. There is no right to be a criminal conspirator in ordinary or serious crime, e.g., a group of burglars or insider traders, or a violent street gang, etc. As for a capital offence, IMO that can be applied in the case of criminal conspiracies sanctioning and conducting premeditated murder(s), of which AQ is most certainly engaged.

[Mjypksun]

To prove any criminal charge, the evidence must be sufficient for a jury or judge as the case to make that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. For sample manner of proving that, see my last post above to Danny.

There is no right to be a member of a violent organisation like AQ whatsoever within the right of association, which is intended for peaceful and reasonable conduct. There is no right to be a criminal conspirator in ordinary or serious crime, e.g., a group of burglars or insider traders, or a violent street gang, etc. As for a capital offence, IMO that can be applied in the case of criminal conspiracies sanctioning and conducting premeditated murder(s), of which AQ is most certainly engaged.

But what about an organization that has multiple arms?

An organization like Hamas, for example, that has legitimate political movements as well as its less legitimate movements. Can we kill all Hamas members because some are violent?

[NudiJuicervich]

It's disingenuous to say that the President and Commander in Chief can't close Gitmo if he wants to. That he ran into certain realities and deferred to others is a different issue. Congress controls the funding but if the President forced the issue, he could get it done. Sure, he signed an executive order, nice gesture, but he let Congress override him.

It's the truth whether one likes it or spins away on it for partisan reasons. Signing an executive order is not a 'nice gesture'--it's an official act. He honoured his promise very publicly with an executive order and it was 'filibustered', if you will, by Congressional opposition and defunding. It would be extremely irresponsible for him to not back down in the case of defunding. The prisoners need to be properly housed and tried speedily or else otherwise discharged, a totally unacceptable outcome. These things include involuntary discharge by the courts, such as a speedy trial rights violation and/or release from detention pending trial or following sentencing relating to prisoner's rights violations once on US soil. Prisons must be funded to keep such people housed or else there will be no prisons for them, it triggers constitutional dilemmas regarding an unfunded mandate, etc.

As for ordering them to the US anyway, it once again raised the question of an enforceable order due to it being an unfunded mandate as well as other issues of propriety. All courts below the SCOTUS are not constitutionally guaranteed and are established by the Congress, including scopes, venue, etc. Congress also has the 'purse power.' I have no doubt whatsoever such a move would be made into a political football, and especially so by his political enemies who would be howling for impeachments and making endless siren calls about the 'tyrant of DC,' etc.

Congress did this move and it rightly owns it, although the usual self-serving talking points and deflections and spins will emanate from their orifices as usual.

In addition, I think it is of highly dubious Constitutional validity for Congress to purportedly attempt to limit funding for a specific flight to the mainland carrying an enemy combatant in military custody. In doing so, it would be essentially usurping the role of Commander in Chief. But their actions in this regard have provided some political cover for Mr. Obama, allowing him to blame Congress for the failure to "close Gitmo," and worthy gentlemen such as our own O'Sullivan Bere have been carrying the water for him on this. It's smart politics but has done nothing to ameliorate the problem.

I'm carrying his water on this because it deserves to be carried.

The defunding had more to do that just the prisoner transport flights to the US, a very minor cost of the whole funding issue and especially so since it's just a puddle jump from Gitmo to the US. They could even be transported on flights or ships already making such trips if one wished to be that frugal about it where the cost would be reduced to the usual prisoner chow or even less than that if it's a puddle jump flight.

As for Congress' power of the purse and the nature and role of the lower federal courts, see above.

As for Obama getting any political cover from Congress' action, that's absurd IMO. He already made his commitment with the executive order and thus committed to the direction. He then got blocked by Congress where its members did their pandering at his expense. He got no benefit from rescinding the order although compelled by circumstances to do so but rather flak from his own base--it's not like the GOP base was ever going to vote for him even if he chose to break the campaign promise like many Congressional Democrats did, which was where Obama got the "Et tu, Brute?" (Even you, Brutus?) from the Congressional Dems, including progressives. The GOP base and politicians mostly favoured keeping Gitmo open and using the tribunals and so did many Blue Dogs. But the progressive Congressional Dems? They mostly bashed Bush over Gitmo and championed that cause until Obama actually honoured it and then they stuck him like Brutus, exposing their insincerity of political convenience during the Bush years.

[NudiJuicervich]

But what about an organization that has multiple arms?

An organization like Hamas, for example, that has legitimate political movements as well as its less legitimate movements. Can we kill all Hamas members because some are violent?

That's a different and more interesting question, as some things can have legal and illegal aspects. For example, I'll cite some Irish examples, e.g.,the Sinn Féin party (legal) in Ireland that was regularly viewed as the political arm of the IRA (illegal) during the time of 'The Troubles' prior to the Good Friday Agreement

Sinn Féin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or the Molly Maguires (illegal) insurrectionists that were inside local Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH) chapters (legal) in Pennsylvania during the 1860s-1870s.

Molly Maguires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ancient Order of Hibernians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AQ is not a legal political party organisation, though, no more so than gangs like Los Zetas or Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) are, etc. They are just straight up criminal organisations. Even if AQ had some kind of legal wing under a different name, AQ would still be a separate and distinct illegal organisation like the IRA, Molly Maguires, etc.

[Mjypksun]

That's a different and more interesting question, as some things can have legal and illegal aspects. For example, I'll cite some Irish examples, e.g.,the Sinn Féin party (legal) in Ireland that was regularly viewed as the political arm of the IRA (illegal) during the time of 'The Troubles' prior to the Good Friday Agreement

Sinn Féin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or the Molly Maguires (illegal) insurrectionists that were tucked inside local Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH) chapters (legal) in Pennsylvania during the 1860s-1870s.

Molly Maguires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ancient Order of Hibernians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AQ is not such a political party organisation, though, no more so than the Los Zetas or Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gangs are, etc. They are just straight up criminal organisations. Even if AQ had some kind of legal wing under a different name, AQ would still be the illegal wing like the IRA, Molly Maguires, etc.

Yes, but not yet is the key. AQ may very well turn into a political organization. Right now it's a bunch of angry young men who want to kill people. At some point those men will get older and less willing to die.

[boltondd]

The escape of nearly 500 inmates, most of them Taliban members, from Kandahar’s Sarposa prison is likely to push the security of Kandahar and neighboring parts of Afghanistan in a perilous direction. We could have sent the 160 inmates to Sarposa Prison, saved a lot of legalities, and freed them with the other 500 escapees.

[NudiJuicervich]

Yes, but not yet is the key. AQ may very well turn into a political organization. Right now it's a bunch of angry young men who want to kill people. At some point those men will get older and less willing to die.

'Angry men' is an understatement. They're are murderous criminal conspiracy. It already has plenty of sympathiser groups and individuals that pass legal scrutiny, or at least are being given that determination whether they deserve it or not. Take this dangerous asshole for example in the UK, Anjem Choudary, who has been a 'weasel word' agitator for AQ and other extremist force and violence along with his advocacy of Islamic fundamentalism and extremism, including this month's agitations of subtly endorsing that the royal wedding this week be attacked

Anjem Choudary Says Royal Wedding Attractive Target For Al Qaeda - ABC News

and that Obama be killed when he visits his Irish ancestral town of Moneygall shortly thereafter in May:

Copyright 2011 MGN Ltd.
All Rights Reserved

Sunday Mirror
April 17, 2011 Sunday
Eire Edition
NEWS; Pg. 4,5
734 words
WE'LL BLOW UP OBAMA IN IRELAND;
BARACK 2011 TERROR ALERT
KEITH FALKINER

MILITANT Islamic extremists are plotting to attack and kill US President Barack Obama during his State visit to Ireland next month.

The Irish Sunday Mirror has learned that a terror cell operating here, with links to an Egyptian cleric banned from the UK, is planning a spectacular attack to disrupt and destroy the historic visit.

Last night, hate preacher Anjem Choudary warned: "I definitely think he will be a target for an attack in Ireland."

The extremist added: "By his own actions Obama has proven himself to be a conqueror, butcherer and occupier and we wish the worst for him. Killing him would be a great reward."

The President will visit Ireland on May 23 where he is expected to give a speech at Croke Park before travelling to his ancestral home of Moneygall, Co Offaly. He will then leave Ireland for a visit to the UK.

. . . LexisNexis News - Latest News from over 4,000 sources, including newspapers, tv transcripts, wire services, magazines, journals.

all in addition to generally calling that Ireland be attacked given support for Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.

Jihadist lawyer: Ireland could be targeted - Jihad Watch

But he's the 'weasel word' type when it comes to his extreme advocacies that gets a legal pass (sometimes not appropriately IMO) given how he crafts his words. Even FOX News has had him interviewed along with loads of other media and cable news networks, all of which I find very troubling in making a media sensation out of him and giving him print and airwaves for his advocacies instead of close police scrutiny with immediate arrests for any words that cross a line and where a revival of enacting and/or enforcing sedition laws ought to be given a look given seditious speech is likewise unprotected, even in the US.

[Mjypksun]

'Angry men' is an understatement. They're are murderous criminal conspiracy. It already has plenty of sympathiser groups and individuals that pass legal scrutiny, or at least are being given that determination whether they deserve it or not. Take this dangerous asshole for example in the UK, Anjem Choudary, who has been a 'weasel word' agitator for AQ and other extremist force and violence along with his advocacy of Islamic fundamentalism and extremism, including this month's agitations of subtly endorsing that the royal wedding this week be attacked

Anjem Choudary Says Royal Wedding Attractive Target For Al Qaeda - ABC News

and that Obama be killed when he visits his Irish ancestral town of Moneygall shortly thereafter in May:



LexisNexis News - Latest News from over 4,000 sources, including newspapers, tv transcripts, wire services, magazines, journals.

all in addition to generally calling that Ireland be attacked given support for Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.

Jihadist lawyer: Ireland could be targeted - Jihad Watch

But he's the 'weasel word' type when it comes to his extreme advocacies that gets a legal pass (sometimes not appropriately IMO) given how he crafts his words. Even FOX News has had him interviewed along with loads of other media and cable news networks, all of which I find very troubling in making a media sensation out of him and giving him print and airwaves for his advocacies instead of close police scrutiny with immediate arrests for any words that cross a line and where a revival of enacting and/or enforcing sedition laws ought to be given a look given seditious speech is likewise unprotected, even in the US.

Very interesting perspectives, OSB.

Yes, the organization as a whole does have some really really bad people who call for some really horrific things. But, there are also some boys who call themselves AQ because they're lost, have no real options, and AQ provides something at least (kind of like the various street gangs in the US). These kids aren't hardened criminals any more than many of the dumb kids who called themselves "crips" or "bloods" in my high school were. They're just kids looking for some sort of identity, and aren't being given any real options.

Killing these boys, IMHO, isn't a satisfactory answer.

Now, as far as the douchebag calling for the murder of our President? Well, I can't say he deserves to die for his words, either. But does he deserve scrutiny? Yeah.


I mean, think about it OSB. What finally stopped the Troubles? Was it the English killing enough Irish?

[Eagevawax]

Thank you.

Can you clarify as to why try or release won't work? I'm actually arguing against indefinite detention as a punishment for simple association.

Because membership in a foreign organization is not a crime ... certainly not a crime over which the U.S. has jurisdiction. Thus, with respect to your run-of-the-mill al Qaeda terrorist for whom we have no evidence of the commission of a crime over which the U.S. has jurisdiction (such as an attack within the domestic territory of the United States or, possibly, on a U.S. citizen abroad), release would be mandated under a try or release policy. Obviously, you cannot win a war by letting your enemy walk. The whole idea is to render him hors de combat, i.e. out of the fight. Further, such a policy would encourage our soldiers to kill enemy they encounter rather than doing the more humane thing -- capturing them -- so as not to encounter them again in the field of battle. It's a fool's errand all around.

...

As for Obama getting any political cover from Congress' action, that's absurd IMO. He already made his commitment with the executive order and thus committed to the direction. He then got blocked by Congress where its members did their pandering at his expense. ...

We've been through all this before. He wasn't "blocked," but I understand that's your position. The political cover comes in the fact that he (and his followers) can blame Congress for his failed promise.

[Mjypksun]

Because membership in a foreign organization is not a crime ... certainly not a crime over which the U.S. has jurisdiction. Thus, with respect to your run-of-the-mill al Qaeda terrorist for whom we have no evidence of the commission of a crime over which the U.S. has jurisdiction (such as an attack within the domestic territory of the United States or, possibly, on a U.S. citizen abroad), release would be mandated under a try or release policy. Obviously, you cannot win a war by letting your enemy walk. The whole idea is to render him hors de combat, i.e. out of the fight. Further, such a policy would encourage our soldiers to kill enemy they encounter rather than doing the more humane thing -- capturing them -- so as not to encounter them again in the field of battle. It's a fool's errand all around.

Ahhh, thank you for the clarification. That makes good sense.

The problem I see, though, is that capturing and indefinitely detaining/imprisoning isn't necessarily more humane, especially if we're realistically going to be holding these men until they die.

[GtmFeqJJ]

All the story from the OP tells me is neither president seems to have a real good idea how to handle 160+ high-risk detainees.

[Eagevawax]

Ahhh, thank you for the clarification. That makes good sense.

The problem I see, though, is that capturing and indefinitely detaining/imprisoning isn't necessarily more humane, especially if we're realistically going to be holding these men until they die.

Well, let's note -- first of all -- that the only problem you see is with respect to whether or not it's more humane to kill your enemy or hold him prisoner. I take the position that it is more humane to capture and hold him prisoner, especially provided that you do so in a humane manner, which is no doubt U.S. policy. I suppose if execution were more humane, we could adopt some sort of sign up sheet for those who want to be executed or just give our soldiers new ROE. :: shrug ::

More important, of course, is the impact on military objectives. The goal is to remove your enemy from the fight. A "try or release" policy runs counter to that objective. Mr. Obama realized that once he became tasked with the Commander in Chief role and has, therefore, balked at carrying forward some of the ideals of his campaign supporters.

[NudiJuicervich]

Very interesting perspectives, OSB.

Yes, the organization as a whole does have some really really bad people who call for some really horrific things. But, there are also some boys who call themselves AQ because they're lost, have no real options, and AQ provides something at least (kind of like the various street gangs in the US). These kids aren't hardened criminals any more than many of the dumb kids who called themselves "crips" or "bloods" in my high school were. They're just kids looking for some sort of identity, and aren't being given any real options.

Killing these boys, IMHO, isn't a satisfactory answer.

I'd say the entire organisation is membered by really bad people who call for some really horrific things.

Are there some boys who call themselves AQ because they are lost? Likely so, lost in the sense that whatever was dysfunctional in their lives has resulted, if not already predisposed, into a truly malignant disposition enough to join such a horrid movement and purpose that poses such danger and harms to others.

As for having no real options, that part I don't believe. In the case of gangs, some people are forced into them although that's not the rule and even then many such people who really don't accept that try to escape when possible. People ordinarily have choices whether or not to join a criminal gang even when poor with other problems. The sinister allures of being part of a gang, easy money and other perks or even forced perks via crime, the desire to act out on evil urges born of their disposition and/or experiences, etc, motivate that kind of choice.

Being poor or having a 'bad childhood' are no excuses given so many don't go that direction in the same situation. Even if it does explain some of the reasons why a person may have gotten there, it makes no difference as to what society often ought to do about them. In many cases, it's like trying to debate why the vicious dog is chewing your leg apart. Something played a role in making the dog that way, but the fact remains that it is a vicious dog and you must beat it off your leg with whatever you have, and it likely will have to be destroyed either voluntarily or by law as a vicious dog.

For example, many Mexicans and other Latin American are poor with other problems. Yet, the gangs prey on the poor by robbing, raping, murdering, intimidating, enslaving for sex trafficking, drug trafficking, etc. Who are the victims and perpetrators in that? There is no excuse for me for joining those gangs. They are ruthless and destructive and for bad reasons by bad people.

Insofar as you might be referring to some kid who calls himself a 'Crip' or 'Blood' because he's a juvenile idiot with bad facts leading to bad judgement rather than an actual member and does not actually participate in it, I'd agree such a person might be a candidate for juvenile rehabilitation before he actually acts upon it. I also believe it's the kind of organisation one can leave at their own risk but it has to be on their own call.

But once someone joins it, and so long as they remain in it, all bets are off IMO...they belong in prison as a social menace and criminal conspirator in serious crime. And being in the business of dealing with them as I am, a large number remain in that way of life until they are incarcerated or killed, and whilst out on the street, their entire purpose is harmful and deadly to society.

As for AQ, they have even less excuse along the lines you said. People join that different kind of organisation because they believe in very radical and violent aims that aren't even grounded in common criminal enterprising schemes and therefore lacking any rationality in them. A gang member may not bother you if you're not bothering with them or they may curtail or be more guarded about certain behaviours due to reactions to them, but to an AQ person, they are doing it because they have an extreme view of a Higher Power and its callings for people on Earth. What is a person going to offer a suicide bomber thinking he'll get 72 virgins in Paradise with Allah's eternal rewards programme? A weekend in the Bahamas? Some life counselling?

Now, as far as the douchebag calling for the murder of our President? Well, I can't say he deserves to die for his words, either. But does he deserve scrutiny? Yeah.

I think he belongs in prison and he's getting more leniency than actually entitled under any application of rights within their proper boundaries.

I mean, think about it OSB. What finally stopped the Troubles? Was it the English killing enough Irish?

There are a few reasons for that, the main thrust of which was enough people wanting to deal reasonably, fairly and peacefully with others. But it's not completely over yet. Whilst most took the reasonable path with a reasonable settlement, there are some dissidents on each side and although they are very small in number, they're trying to punch above their weight with violence to get things going again. As with other examples above, many of those types have found recruits from 'young tough' types from poor neighbourhoods with 'bad childhoods' with major chips on their shoulders, anger issues, passions for extreme responses, etc, but you can see how unreasonable and malignant types can be so destructive and seek wider destruction via their means.

[Mjypksun]

Well, let's note -- first of all -- that the only problem you see is with respect to whether or not it's more humane to kill your enemy or hold him prisoner. I take the position that it is more humane to capture and hold him prisoner, especially provided that you do so in a humane manner, which is no doubt U.S. policy. I suppose if execution were more humane, we could adopt some sort of sign up sheet for those who want to be executed or just give our soldiers new ROE. :: shrug ::

Oh, it's not the only problem. I'm just trying to keep myself brief. I have a definite tendency towards verbosity that I work very hard to control here.

I don't know that we as a country do indeed have humane standards for imprisonment. Look at our liberal use of solitary confinement, even on the mentally ill.

I'm just saying that indefinite internment isn't a great solution.

More important, of course, is the impact on military objectives. The goal is to remove your enemy from the fight. A "try or release" policy runs counter to that objective. Mr. Obama realized that once he became tasked with the Commander in Chief role and has, therefore, balked at carrying forward some of the ideals of his campaign supporters. And, of course, there's the question of military involvement. I mean, I'm taking OSB's words to mean that AQ membership would be illegal anywhere, even within the US, by US citizens. No military issue there.

[Mjypksun]

I'd say the entire organisation is membered by really bad people who call for some really horrific things.

Are there some boys who call themselves AQ because they are lost? Likely so, lost in the sense that whatever was dysfunctional in their lives has resulted, if not already predisposed, into a truly malignant disposition enough to join such a horrid movement and purpose that poses such danger and harms to others.

As for having no real options, that part I don't believe. In the case of gangs, some people are forced into them although that's not the rule and even then many such people who really don't accept that try to escape when possible. People ordinarily have choices whether or not to join a criminal gang even when poor with other problems. The sinister allures of being part of a gang, easy money and other perks or even forced perks via crime, the desire to act out on evil urges born of their disposition and/or experiences, etc, motivate that kind of choice.

Being poor or having a 'bad childhood' are no excuses given so many don't go that direction in the same situation. Even if it does explain some of the reasons why a person may have gotten there, it makes no difference as to what society often ought to do about them. In many cases, it's like trying to debate why the vicious dog is chewing your leg apart. Something played a role in making the dog that way, but the fact remains that it is a vicious dog and you must beat it off your leg with whatever you have, and it likely will have to be destroyed either voluntarily or by law as a vicious dog.

For example, many Mexicans and other Latin American are poor with other problems. Yet, the gangs prey on the poor by robbing, raping, murdering, intimidating, enslaving for sex trafficking, drug trafficking, etc. Who are the victims and perpetrators in that? There is no excuse for me for joining those gangs. They are ruthless and destructive and for bad reasons by bad people.

Insofar as you might be referring to some kid who calls himself a 'Crip' or 'Blood' because he's a juvenile idiot with bad facts leading to bad judgement rather than an actual member and does not actually participate in it, I'd agree such a person might be a candidate for juvenile rehabilitation before he actually acts upon it. I also believe it's the kind of organisation one can leave at their own risk but it has to be on their own call.

But once someone joins it, and so long as they remain in it, all bets are off IMO...they belong in prison as a social menace and criminal conspirator in serious crime. And being in the business of dealing with them as I am, a large number remain in that way of life until they are incarcerated or killed, and whilst out on the street, their entire purpose is harmful and deadly to society.

As for AQ, they have even less excuse along the lines you said. People join that different kind of organisation because they believe in very radical and violent aims that aren't even grounded in common criminal enterprising schemes and therefore lacking any rationality in them. A gang member may not bother you if you're not bothering with them or getting involved with them or they may curtail or be more guarded about certain behaviours due to reactions to them, but to an AQ person, they are doing it because they have an extreme view of a Higher Power and its callings for people on Earth. What is a person going to offer a suicide bomber thinking he'll get 72 virgins in Paradise with Allah's eternal rewards programme? A weekend in the Bahamas? Some life counselling?

I think he belongs in prison and he's getting more leniency than actually entitled under any application of rights within their proper boundaries.

There are a few reasons for that, the main thrust of which was enough people wanting to deal reasonably, fairly and peacefully with others. But it's not completely over yet. Whilst most took the reasonable path with a reasonable settlement, there are some dissidents on each side and although they are very small in number, they're trying to punch above their weight with violence to get things going again. As with other examples above, many of those types have found recruits from 'young tough' types from poor neighbourhoods with 'bad childhoods' with major chips on their shoulders, anger issues, passions for extreme responses, etc, but you can see how unreasonable and malignant types can be so destructive and seek wider destruction via their means.

This is a side of you I hadn't seen or anticipated. I wonder how much of this relates to the loss that you experienced at the hands of AQ, and how much bitterness that gives you (and justifiably - I'm not judging you here).

I have to respectfully disagree on much of this, though. Yes, in some areas there are groups of bloodthirsty killers who are doing horrible things, and they deserve everything they get back, and then some. In other areas, there are people in abject poverty, with little to no education, no real chance for escape from their lives but their religion, who are fooled into signing up to call themselves AQ, but who also walk away when the real violence starts, and who would take any other opportunity were it available.

I think the difference in what we're seeing is the solution to the problem. I'm saying that we can defeat AQ not with more bombs and missiles and drones, but with schools and education and opportunity.

[Eagevawax]

Oh, it's not the only problem. I'm just trying to keep myself brief. I have a definite tendency towards verbosity that I work very hard to control here.

I don't know that we as a country do indeed have humane standards for imprisonment. Look at our liberal use of solitary confinement, even on the mentally ill.

I'm just saying that indefinite internment isn't a great solution.

Execution is not without its appeal, I suppose. But I don't think it's a good solution for the folks already housed at Guantanamo Bay, for example. We would get way too much flak for that though it would have the benefit of allowing Mr. Obama to keep his campaign promise.

And, of course, there's the question of military involvement. I mean, I'm taking OSB's words to mean that AQ membership would be illegal anywhere, even within the US, by US citizens. No military issue there. I must admit ... I've not been reading all of OSB's words. [He's an excellent poster, but sometimes the posts are just too long for me. ] I guess I'll offer these comments:

(a) I'm not sure I see how exactly that can be done. First, the U.S. has no jurisdiction to proscribe purely extra-territorial conduct such as membership in foreign organizations.

Second, I fail to see how the government can outlaw membership in a group domestically for the reason you've already mentioned, and I'm not aware of any attempt, for example, to make it a crime to be a member of AQ within the United States. Are you? I mean, we have violent organized street gangs here and known members of those gangs, and I've never heard of police arresting anyone and charging them with the commission of a crime simply for membership in a gang. Can it be that they just haven't thought of outlawing it when they have every right to do so?

Now, racketeering statutes have been enacted to get at organized crime, but it still requires (to my knowledge) the commission of actual offenses by the accused, not simply membership in an organization. And I have never heard of AQ members being prosecuted under a racketeering statute much less being prosecuted when there is no evidence of actions by the accused in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy.

(b) There is still a military issue because a war is going on. So, just because some of these fellows may have committed a crime over which the U.S. has jurisdiction, it does not mean that they are not enemy combatants. If they're enemy combatants, they need to be taken out of the picture ... one way or the other. This means shooting them or taking them prisoner. If they can be tried and convicted of a crime after capture that may be thought of as a bonus I suppose.

[NudiJuicervich]

Because membership in a foreign organization is not a crime ... certainly not a crime over which the U.S. has jurisdiction. Thus, with respect to your run-of-the-mill al Qaeda terrorist for whom we have no evidence of the commission of a crime over which the U.S. has jurisdiction (such as an attack within the domestic territory of the United States or, possibly, on a U.S. citizen abroad), release would be mandated under a try or release policy. Obviously, you cannot win a war by letting your enemy walk. The whole idea is to render him hors de combat, i.e. out of the fight. Further, such a policy would encourage our soldiers to kill enemy they encounter rather than doing the more humane thing -- capturing them -- so as not to encounter them again in the field of battle. It's a fool's errand all around.

AQ is an international movement, and one that both seeks and has roots in the US. It's just as much domestic as it is foreign in that regard. That it specifically is engaged in attacking the US and its citizens is self-evident. Unless AQ would actively cease all dealings within the US and restrain all its criminal activities and purposes to non-US theatres and citizens, the US has jurisdiction over any person affiliated with AQ under the theories and type of laws I suggested earlier (conspiracy, vicarious liability, etc). In short, a movement can't be 'a little bit pregnant' with criminally conducting itself against the US...in for a penny, in for a pound.

As for dealing with a criminal wanted for such crime and in flight or fight, law enforcement authorises them to use deadly force using deadly force rules. So too does a battlefield soldier fighting a combatant, though. All have rules of engagement concerning use of force, including deadly force.

Characterising any AQ person as an 'illegal combatant' is IMO very counterproductive. Such categorisation was traditionally reserved for honourable adversaries in a valid conflict who generally violated rules of war relating to proper identification (spies, saboteurs, etc). They were not seen as criminal in the general sense but rather honourable warriors performing a certain common 'cheating' that carries penalties because the whole concept of having identifiable combatants versus civilians for conducting the rules of war would be placed in jeopardy.

John Andre and Nathan Hale, the respective British and US spies hanged for being so in the American Revolution? Yes. They were warriors doing their duty for their country and died doing so and are treated as war heroes today. That any local malignant person could decide to call himself AQ and put a bomb in a local restaurant, etc, and have himself deemed a warrior rather than a vile criminal is handing these murderous thuggish scum an honour they can use for propaganda against the US and others and one they don't earn or possess on the merits.

[NudiJuicervich]

. . . I must admit ... I've not been reading all of OSB's words. [He's an excellent poster, but sometimes the posts are just too long for me. ] . . .

I submit that there's plenty evidence to convict me of that beyond a reasonable doubt at times. Often times, these are very good debates that can't justifiably be addressed with quick responses for anyone to get a proper benefit from it. Even the ones I offer that are lengthy are very often still very insufficient and generalised for a good understanding that's actually necessary. If anything, IMO, there's too much bumper sticker answering anymore in societal debate and discussion and it too often leads our citizenry to ill informed decision making. There's only so much we can do via a VBulletin format, though.

[Eagevawax]

AQ is an international movement, and one that both seeks and has roots in the US. It's just as much domestic as it is foreign in that regard. That it specifically is engaged in attacking the US and its citizens is self-evident. Unless AQ would actively cease all dealings within the US and restrain all its criminal activities and purposes to non-US theatres and citizens, the US has jurisdiction over any person affiliated with AQ under the theories and type of laws I suggested earlier (conspiracy, vicarious liability, etc). In short, a movement can't be 'a little bit pregnant' with criminally conducting itself against the US...in for a penny, in for a pound.

Though it may be foolish to disagree with a criminal defense attorney, I'm going to have to on this point. I will agree that the U.S. can (and does) exercise jurisdiction over foreign conspiracies to commit specific crimes within the United States. However, that cannot automatically be applied broadly to anyone in the world with an AQ membership card. The prosecutor must prove a specific conspiracy (i.e. a plot to bomb the WTC), that the accused was part of the specific conspiracy (not just carried an AQ membership card) and made an overt act in furtherance of that specific conspiracy. Picking up a random AQ guy in Afghanistan, Iraq or what-have-you with no knowledge or evidence of his intentions and steps to carry out an attack in the United States is a non-starter from a criminal perspective. If you can provide an example of a gentleman, picked up overseas, who was successfully prosecuted in the United States based solely on his status as a member of al Qaeda I will be happy to reconsider.

I submit that there's plenty evidence to convict me of that beyond a reasonable doubt at times. Often times, these are very good debates that can't justifiably be addressed with quick responses for anyone to get a proper benefit from it. Even the ones I offer that are lengthy are very often still very insufficient and generalised for a good understanding that's actually necessary. If anything, IMO, there's too much bumper sticker answering anymore in societal debate and discussion and it too often leads our citizenry to ill informed decision making. There's only so much we can do via a VBulletin format, though.

Oh, I agree with you, and I certainly appreciate all the work you put in. It's just that I've only got so much time.