Article

2004-03-22 Terror Networks

War on Terrorism suffering legal setbacks

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-03-22 12:16:56 AM|| || Front Page|| [11137 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Does jock itch ever go away on its own?

Posted by Anonymous 2004-3-22 12:33:01 AM|| [http://AmericanDefenseLeague.com] 2004-3-22 12:33:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 No, it NEVER goes away on its own. There is only one cure and it has been invented by a Joooooo so you will have to withstand the itch for life.

Posted by JFM 2004-3-22 12:50:59 AM|| 2004-3-22 12:50:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 At some point, it will become even clearer that the slow sure legal systems of the West, so heavily weighted in favor of the defendent, will be unworkable, unusable, and self-defeating.

The old saw about a rumor making it half-way around the world before the truth has even gotten its boots on is true of terrorism, as well. While our ponderous agencies, made 10x moreso by the necessity of inter-agency cooperation and international sensitivities, are still working out the outline of an attack, the asshats have 2 more in the cooker.

One day, when it has become so painful that we can bear no more, we will take off the gloves and create the antithesis of the terrorists: global hunter-killer teams that take the intel as it comes in and act sans the imprimatur of imaginary agents of moral legitimacy.

I KNOW that the concept is repellant to the squeamish and that there are those who could never accept such pragmatism, so steeped are they in their ethereal principles. Fine. They can sleep the sleep of the innocent and keep their warm 'n fuzzy moral superiority. It is but a precept that they've personally elevated to basic self-apparent truth - a snobbish pretense that suits their egotistically-rooted sensitivities. Sleep on, children. Others will make it safe for you to live in your dreamworld.

Gloves off, ASAP, please.

Posted by .com 2004-3-22 1:03:47 AM|| 2004-3-22 1:03:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 The concept is not necessarily repulsive however it does raise a few questions as tho who makes the final decision and based on what evidence. What you are insinuating is that this process would be closed and not open to standard judicial oversight. This I do find rather disturbing. There have been a number of cases reported from both Afghanistan and Iraq where people pointed fingers at others purely because of past disputes which in many cases had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, just some old family disputes which lead to the loss of innocent lives. A 'hit team' which acts on raw intel without further corroboration, which is how I read your proposal, reminds me Stalinist USSR, Cambodia under Pol Pot...as well as many others.

Posted by Igs 2004-3-22 2:45:23 AM|| 2004-3-22 2:45:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Well, you gotta fight fire with fire. If they wanna stand up and fight, let's get it on. If they wanna lurk in the shadows, we can do that too. But, gloves off, in either case.

Posted by Texan 2004-3-22 2:56:05 AM|| 2004-3-22 2:56:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Igs - Your response is anticipated - because I understand your reservations. The truth is, we are all forced to trust in the judgement of others - every day - from the judges of the judiciary to the cop on the beat to the teachers who influence our children to the President or Prime Minister.

I am also anticipating a future in which the Bad Guys are hurting us because they have discovered how to take advantage of our social systems -- of our good intentions, honorable institutions, and ethical restraint. At this point I won't argue WHO and I don't much care if we agree upon that point - you will know them when your child is murdered on a bus or a train or while at the daycare center in the basement of a toppled office building.

The judicial oversight you apparently feel comfortable with, is merely yet another sequence of one or more humans exercising individual judgement. You obviously believe there are checks and balances - thus errors are avoided or caught in time. Every system involving humans has sufficient examples where a common ideological mindset, or other human foible, can and does negate these mechanisms. Check history, it happens. It also happens that the potential for negative manipulation can and does occur in systems based upon trust - but not with significant frequency, else it wouldn't be "news" and a large number of our judges and police and teachers would be in jail.

So where does your confidence in your version come from? It's just as fallible as any other - including mine. Why the assumption that the people in my pragmatic self-preservation response are less honorable or intelligent or ethical? In fact, they would be from among the very same people you / we are trusting right now - in the US, most are professional soldiers, but they are backed up by a large number of citizen soldiers. Is it because they can and do kill? Do you actually know anything about war? Do you actually know anything about soldiers? American soldiers? British soldiers? Aussies? Poles? I do. The people who must do it are, by an amazingly wide margin, the most loathe to do it except when it is forced upon them. Had you been reading the real-world blogs of the soldiers, you might get an inkling of what I'm talking about. Life is full of these moments: trust me, or not, the US Soldier is extremely humane.

Honestly, your response is rife with your own personal assumptions. Perhaps you're more astute and beyond the norm, I don't know that, nor pretend to.

On average, most people are not astute - that's why it's an outstanding quality. Most cary around mindsets which have been served up ten thousand times in movies and books and conventional wisdom. It has been standard fare for the last 15-20 years to represent the Bad Guys as either Bad Gov't or Rogue Elements within lax or corrupt Gov't. Yadda3. Does this collection of Hollywood fantasies make it so? Lol! No. As the Firesign Theater routine goes, "Ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, as played by rich Hollywood movie stars." They know not whereof they spin their yarns - amd mere yarns they be.

The fact is, you have no evidence to support your supposition. I will not be disingenuous and suggest the effort would be perfect, but what it reminds you of is of no consequence and has no value in point of fact.

I have stated the case that the choice may well be taken away - this may be what MUST be done to preserve our way of life. And it will be what it will be. If you carry high ethical standards and conduct yourself with presence of mind both in times of peace and times of danger, then perhaps you should be a part of the decision-making process when the time comes. If that doesn't occur and if the nightmare comes true, you will pray somebody, somewhere, has had the guts to consider and implement the idea.

Sorry for being so windy, but it's not a simple topic nor is it easy to prove a negative. I haven't proven anything, neither did you, but I hope you recognize that your fears are out of proportion to reality. And nightmares do happen. Being open-minded and prepared beats being decimated.

Posted by .com 2004-3-22 4:24:05 AM|| 2004-3-22 4:24:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 And the Madrid bombings that killed 202 people last week showed that while investigators struggle to build judicial cases against suspects, terrorists are still successfully plotting and carrying out attacks.

Anyone who has been reading my posts re: collecting information vs acting on it - will know that this quote allows me a big, "I TOLD YOU SO!"

btw .com ...good post.

Posted by B 2004-3-22 7:49:34 AM|| 2004-3-22 7:49:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 IGS - it's bad to set fires - no?

Is it bad to set a backfire? You are setting a fire to put out a big fire that will overwhelm you.

To the little birds and baby ducks burned in the backfire, it's no consolation or less painful to them that their death was for a good cause. Yet, if their death allows millions of other birds and baby ducks to survie - is the backfire a bad thing.

Evil out of control is like a fire - it starts to build it's own momentum and will burn until it is either stopped or burns everything in its apth.

Our CIA and military are like a backfire. Fire fighting fire on it's own terms. And the sooner you put out a fire, no matter how you accomplish it, the less people who will get burned.

Posted by B 2004-3-22 7:57:12 AM|| 2004-3-22 7:57:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 The Constitution grants Congress the power to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal, decidedly non-judicial, violent means to attack and destroy the enemies of the United States. It's really up to Congress to either exercise this power or delegate it to the Executive branch.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-3-22 12:00:53 PM|| 2004-3-22 12:00:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Jarhead... ever do any training in boarding parties? Once we get our Letter of Marque (Squire Cingold 20% of gross?) we'll need a small (tho well-armed) landing team.

I volunteer to personally take charge of the galley and it's fine assortment of food from the world over.

Posted by Shipman 2004-3-22 3:20:45 PM|| 2004-3-22 3:20:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Squire Cingold 20% of gross?

OK, OK, as long as weâre really aggressive. I want all the toys! Now, off to do the pro bono stuff I call working (or is it working stuff that should be called pro bono?) . . .

Posted by cingold 2004-3-22 3:28:45 PM|| 2004-3-22 3:28:45 PM|| Front Page Top

19:14 CAG Hotshot
07:48 B
07:40 B
05:57 The Dodo
00:41 .com
00:15 Texan
00:00 CrazyFool
23:51 CrazyFool
23:49 Barbara Skolaut
23:48 Super Hose
23:47 Removed
23:45 .com
23:43 Super Hose
23:39 Barbara Skolaut
23:38 Texan
23:37 Super Hose
23:34 Mr. Davis
23:26 Darth VAda
23:17 Alaska Paul
23:05 .com
22:57 .com
22:48 .com
22:47 tu3031
22:38 eLarson