DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - American Citizens no longer need a trial before execution.

**Lån-Penge** · 10-07-2011, 06:19 AM

I'm no fan of the current administration, but they did the right thing here. This is pretty run of the mill during war. We didn't go around arresting and trying all of the confederates during the civil war - we killed them because they declared war against the U.S. Much like american "citizen" in question.

On this note, did the abolishment of slavery really require the price of so many American lives? We weren't the first and we weren't the only nation that engaged in the act of slavery in our history, yet how many of those other countries have slaves now? How many of them experienced civil wars to change it? I can tell you this, it wasn't all of them. Ever wonder why that might be? What did they do different? Bears some thought I'd imagine.

Let's pretend for the moment that the Civil War was 100% beyond dispute necessary to accomplish that objective. An important distinction here is what is being attacked and defended, and whether the use of force to accomplish objectives is proportional to the amount of resistance met. Back then the odds were relatively even, and force was applied until the threat was nullified, not necessarily extinguished. If you had the means to do so without significant risk to your own mission, you absolutely took prisoners.

This type of warfare is new, in a war that is not declared by Congress and has given virtually unbounded constraints to the Executive branch towards its execution, and in absolute secrecy, all in the name of this nebulous facade of "security". The targets now are not just objectives, they are individuals, and the force applied is far disproportionate to which is necessary to accomplish these objectives, in the sovereign territory of nations we are also not officially at war with. We never offered the option of surrendering themselves to due process under our own laws. It boggles my mind how we simply rule out the option of building solid partnerships with these nations to bring terrorists to justice. They have as much and sometimes more to fear from AQ than we do. They have to live around it. I can only begin to articulate how demoralizing it would be for the infrastructure of AQ to see peaceful Muslim's in the Middle East standing with the United States in bringing AQ to justice. What people so frequently fail to recognize is the power of the psychological elements in this modern war. The terrorists set us back a long way and steered us towards a nearly bankrupt and tyrannical system of government. This very thing caused the USSR to fall apart, when they were fighting the very same enemy. I don't see how we can possibly believe the very strategy that fragmented our chief rival of half a century might have a different result if we take the very same actions in response.

I believe there's a way we can throw them off completely, we can cease intruding in their internal affairs and let them face the people who they had victimized before they could use us and the USSR as a scapegoat for their ineptitude. When critical thinking Muslims don't have a big powerful foreign empire sailing their ships off their coastlines, establishing major bases for their own military to exercise control of their government on their own soil, and causing collateral damage to innocent civilians in the process of waging war on a few individuals in hiding, there will be no one left to blame for what ails them then those who seek to govern by fear and terror. If, when it angers them enough, they can rise up to throw off this tyranny, and should they wish embrace us as future partners in a freer society. Either way, AQ will have more than enough to worry about locally to worry about harming a country that has so much military power at its command and would not have otherwise been involved.

10-07-2011, 06:19 AM	#28
Lån-Penge Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 398 Senior Member	I'm no fan of the current administration, but they did the right thing here. This is pretty run of the mill during war. We didn't go around arresting and trying all of the confederates during the civil war - we killed them because they declared war against the U.S. Much like american "citizen" in question. On this note, did the abolishment of slavery really require the price of so many American lives? We weren't the first and we weren't the only nation that engaged in the act of slavery in our history, yet how many of those other countries have slaves now? How many of them experienced civil wars to change it? I can tell you this, it wasn't all of them. Ever wonder why that might be? What did they do different? Bears some thought I'd imagine. Let's pretend for the moment that the Civil War was 100% beyond dispute necessary to accomplish that objective. An important distinction here is what is being attacked and defended, and whether the use of force to accomplish objectives is proportional to the amount of resistance met. Back then the odds were relatively even, and force was applied until the threat was nullified, not necessarily extinguished. If you had the means to do so without significant risk to your own mission, you absolutely took prisoners. This type of warfare is new, in a war that is not declared by Congress and has given virtually unbounded constraints to the Executive branch towards its execution, and in absolute secrecy, all in the name of this nebulous facade of "security". The targets now are not just objectives, they are individuals, and the force applied is far disproportionate to which is necessary to accomplish these objectives, in the sovereign territory of nations we are also not officially at war with. We never offered the option of surrendering themselves to due process under our own laws. It boggles my mind how we simply rule out the option of building solid partnerships with these nations to bring terrorists to justice. They have as much and sometimes more to fear from AQ than we do. They have to live around it. I can only begin to articulate how demoralizing it would be for the infrastructure of AQ to see peaceful Muslim's in the Middle East standing with the United States in bringing AQ to justice. What people so frequently fail to recognize is the power of the psychological elements in this modern war. The terrorists set us back a long way and steered us towards a nearly bankrupt and tyrannical system of government. This very thing caused the USSR to fall apart, when they were fighting the very same enemy. I don't see how we can possibly believe the very strategy that fragmented our chief rival of half a century might have a different result if we take the very same actions in response. I believe there's a way we can throw them off completely, we can cease intruding in their internal affairs and let them face the people who they had victimized before they could use us and the USSR as a scapegoat for their ineptitude. When critical thinking Muslims don't have a big powerful foreign empire sailing their ships off their coastlines, establishing major bases for their own military to exercise control of their government on their own soil, and causing collateral damage to innocent civilians in the process of waging war on a few individuals in hiding, there will be no one left to blame for what ails them then those who seek to govern by fear and terror. If, when it angers them enough, they can rise up to throw off this tyranny, and should they wish embrace us as future partners in a freer society. Either way, AQ will have more than enough to worry about locally to worry about harming a country that has so much military power at its command and would not have otherwise been involved.
	Quote