They don’t have a homeland called “Terroristas”

It’s funny you use that made up country. I was going to write exactly that in my previous comment, spelled exactly that way, but instead asked the question. Odd, no?

But getting back on track…

Well, you may hate “WoT”, but that’s what we’ve got and the definition of what is and isn’t a war is vitally important. Frankly, this isn’t a war and never has been. Sure, Bush and company tried to make it into a war by invading a country who only had tenuous ties with terrorists, but it didn’t work and now the tide is turning against their intellectually lazy foreign policy doctrine.

Also, I absolutely disagree that they are more dangerous because they don’t originate from a single point. They could never wreak anywhere close to the historic havoc that nations have. Terrorism has existed since god knows when, and while its effects are disconcerting and deadly, it’s not simply not equivalent to when a nation decides to start involving it citizens in the struggle. Not anywhere close.

But, in the end, what we’re debating is does the fact that we were sucker punched by a group of terrorists give us, as a nation, the right to kidnap people from anywhere in the world and detain them indefinitely without access to legal counsel. Put another way…do those acts on 9/11/01 mean that we can completely strip somebody of their rights at any time for any reason?

The answer is obvious to me. I’m sorry it isn’t to you.

Jimmy, had the Bush administration offered something, anything, other than just indefinite, unrepresented detention, this probably wouldn’t have happened.

I would argue that they have offered something, namely these military tribunals, which many Democrats in congress also support and wish to develop. I don’t think the supreme court would adjudicate based on a lack of action by the president on addressing the issue of detainees. Lawyers had brought this to the court’s attention on behalf of those detainees, and the courts were forced to make a decision.

I think we need to cut our military spending by about 80% and relocate that money to fight modern ‘wars.’

Fighting asymmetrical wars, especially when you have to do it perfectly without any troop casualties – as all war critics demand – is more expensive than you think. Network-centric “4G” warfare calls for enormous technological capabilities, research, intelligence operations ect… Not to mention you still need a large navy to enforce embargoes, and air power to dominate the skies.

whats needed is a lift on the ban on state-sponsored assassinations.

This we can agree on.

how can you define this current situation as a war when it’s against a tactic?

Because its not a war against a tactic. I hate the misnomer, “War on Terror” as much as the next guy, but thats because the war is really against a clandestine nation of radical Islamists, existing ubiquitously amongst populations of Islamic countries in the ashes of the Ottoman Caliphate. They don’t have a homeland called “Terroristas” that you can locate on a map, but that makes them more dangerous. When America became the dominant superpower that could never be fought straight on, the ideology of Islamic hegemony – whether it is Salafist or Khomeinist – never died, but evolved a new mechanism of survival and expansion through terrorism (and Da’wa, gradual demographic dissolution of their western enemies from within, but thats a whole other battlefield.)

There is a ban on state-sponsored POLITICAL assassinations, ie, assassinating the political leaders of other countries. A terrorist organization leader is not covered by this ban.

The ban was created by executive order (by President Gerald Ford), not by congressional law. Following 9/11, Bush has authorized an “Intelligent Finding” permitting lethal covert operations against Osama bin Laden–previously, Clinton authorized attacks on terrorist leaders in Afghanistan–arguably, both actions are not political assassinations.

The only political assassination since Ford was arguably President Reagan, who authorized bombing the home of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s home in 1986 in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. troops. Reagan’s people argued that this was response to a criminal act, rather than a political act.

Anyway, back on topic, the U.S. policy of Gitmo and secret detentions in other countries has been a national embarrassment. If I was going to even consider McCain, this clinches it.

You think we need a huge military, or so you’ve stated to me. I think we need to cut our military spending by about 80% and relocate that money to fight modern ‘wars.’ If our enemies are going to fight us asymmetrically, we ought to do the same.

Whats needed isn’t indefinite holding of supposed terrorists, whats needed is a lift on the ban on state-sponsored assassinations. We’ve got the worlds finest scout snipers, we ought to be using them far more effectively than we are. Fight terrorism with a little terror of our own. Nothing like instant death you can never see coming, can’t stop, and can’t fight back against to send a message.

When did foreign nationals detained during wartime while taking up arms against America ever have habeas rights in the first place?

Okay, question…how can you define this current situation as a war when it’s against a tactic?

One, two or three years later, we let them go.

It still will take time, perhaps years, to clear a terrorist suspect who was picked up mistakenly, even if they are tried in a federal court of law. Should we allow these detainees to post bail too?

The President and the Congress have been working on developing a system of military tribunals to deal with these problems of guilt/innocence. It has never been fully implemented, as they have been dealing with these legal issues over the past few years. If it ever got off the ground, you might see innocent detainees released more promptly, as you point out that the military indeed has released detainees who they find to be mistakenly picked up, eventually. It won’t be perfect, but obviously neither is this ruling.

We can’t keep doing this, and the only way to change it is to restore habeas rights.

When did foreign nationals detained during wartime while taking up arms against America ever have habeas rights in the first place?

So…this is obviously a flawed policy. We can’t keep doing this, and the only way to change it is to restore habeas rights.

Also, another potential positive to emerge from this decision is now we’ll have to make absolutely sure that the people we’re snatching can actually be tried and convicted.

Or we will have to make absolutely sure that any and all evidence that leads us to the terrorist can be released to the public without compromising national security, even if it is absolutely clear that he is guilty – otherwise we let him go, ship him off to Egypt, or we don’t take prisoners.

If, heaven forbid, we have a large-scale war in the future, this decision is going to wreck havoc on the legal system.

Don’t worry. There is no such thing as war anymore. If Iran ships thousands of rockets to Hezbollah, perhaps with WMD’s affixed to the warheads in order to be launched at Israeli civilians, its not an act of war. Its a government sponsored crime wave.

God forbid there is an actual conventional war where enemy soldiers wore uniforms and obeyed the Geneva conventions – we might have to detain them indefinitely without trial! Thank God the option is available to use human shields and saw off the heads of women and children, therefore you can preserve your “rights.”