Time for crow pie!

[Rags]

Thanks ALPBM.... I thaught I was a voice in the wilderness there (not that I gave a damn about that!).....

And I agree with ALBPM too.

Rags.... (If I may adress your points in reverse order)

It's your post, do what you want with it. Just quote me accurately.

There was an article on Radio 4 yesterday about tabloid news coverage in the UK about the War and Sept 11th. Until 2 weeks ago, the Mirror, a UK tabloid (not one I read) had devoted an average of 12 pages to the war, EVERY SINGLE DAY from sept 11th. That was MORE than any US tabloid. This is excessive, exceeding by far every other paper (including most US ones). OK there is not MUCH happening in the UK which deserves local coverage (how in hell will we survice recession, the weakness of the opposition in Parliment at the moment, the fall and fall of UK manufacturing capacity) Other issues (the advent of the Euro andits impact....) which might have some relivence to the average UK citizen..... (On a point to note the Mirror reported its poorest quarter in terms of readership since 1964!!!! (The people of the UK are NOT as intrested in this as the media.)

What's your point? Answer that. How many stories were there on our election 'fiasco' in Europe?

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A true terrorist organisation does not have tanks. Remember there has been a terror campaign running here for decades. Binladen does not need tanks. He needs martyrs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


mmmmmmmmkaaaaayyyyy. Hyuck.


I dont understand this, but I assume you mean that its not important.... dream on. A british MP yesterday described the Afghan conflict as "treating a cancer with a blowtorch". It will make this organisation spread like a malignant tumour ripped open.....

Don't assume, it's a nasty thing. I was being sarcastic in my repsponse as to show I am a complete dumbass, as that is what you are taking me as. OF COURSE I AGREE WITH THAT! When did I imply it was any different? OUR PRESIDENT SAID JUST THAT!!!!!!!!!! Christ, you are muddying the issue.

quote
If AlQuaeda is destroyed AND we never find laden, AND he is never heard from again, then it's the same as his death.

dream on.... that is now 3 'ifs'.
1.
AlQuaeda (and Hammas)has a bloody postal address in Syria.... I havent seen any airstrikes there!

Actually that's one if and two ands Anyhow, we aren't done.

2
If he is alive, you might not.... Robin Hood syndrome... He doesnt HAVE to be alive!

You make it sound like there are just so many millions of these people out there and they are all starving to eat civilians alive. It's almost like you think that since the Taliban and AlQuaeda were in Afganistan doing what they pleased, that the Afgan civilians were followers and would pick up where they left off. Well, I don't see it happening for the most part. Are there bad organizations and people left? Yes. How do you deal with it? The countries where these people live need to coral them rather than turning a blind eye. That's the goal. If you get true leadership and not corrupt dictatorship in these countries, then some light may be seen at the end of the tunnel.

3
All he needs is a couple of mates with a VCR to have the Pentagon examining their navel to see where he will strike next.

If he is still making videos, he isn't quiet so that goes against what I have said.

A direct quote then, for the next point

In order for him to remain at large, he will have to remain silent both publically and militarily (active aggression). I was saying if we don't find his body or never hear from him again, then it's the same thing as having him dead. If we hear from his ass again, we will get him.

Ba**ocks.
he is the figurehead for that evil organisation, he hasnt pulled a trigger (as far as we know) since he was set up by the US to fight the Russians. It is as a figurehead he operates. It is as a banner to which every misguided and dispossessed muslim extreemist can rally to.

Sorry, but ballocks isn't a nasty word, no need to censor it. The US didn't set him up, they may have aided him, but he wasn't set up by the US first and foremost. That's like saying that every disefranchised person of the world will take arms because there is a fool running around with an organization that attacks who they are pissed with. That doesn't happen unless there are countries where this is left unchecked. Again, this is the ultimate goal, to have local governments with leadership.

I will accept the point that it wasnt the Talibhan, it was AlQueada... too much chrimbo cheer.....

The problem with the Taliban is they didn't hand them over, in fact they nurtured the existance of this group. It all goes back to what I have echoed in this post. LEADERSHIP.

The whole of the rest of your pos next!

Sorry.... I feel that you are not correct on this AT ALL. No european schoolchild sings a Euro-Anthem nor pledges allegance to a euro-flag. Most homespun american schoolchildren (and that is NOT meant to be an insult - I am referring to 2nd-3rd+++ generation here) DO this as part of their daily lives. The flag of the US flies on many public buildings (schools etc).... Not in Most Euro countries. You paint all of Europe with the same brush, and Ihave a problem that. Europe is still mearly a 'common market', with some harmonisation. It is not yet a European Superstate'.

Most schools don't do the pledge any longer. You are studying pre 1980 America. That's funny, I saw the French flag flown just about everywhere I went in France, including the schools I got to visit. And I am not painting Europe at all with any brush. Where have I said this?

I was mearly trying to differentiate between the individual and the state. There was NO debate on this, in my earlier post. My negative comments are aimed at the Governmental apparatus of the US NEVER at individuals. If you agree with them all then I think you would be a fool. Even you have agreed with MDhome that the US has made mistakes in some of its forien policies.....

RedRed

I have no problem with attacking specific policies of the US gov't. I do it all the time. The problem I am having is taking a broad stroke and being so general and ho-hum about it. You had earlier implied that we are following our gov't blindly (as has mdhome), but now you are recanting that. That's fine, you are denying you said it, but the fact that you admit that's false is fine by me.

Yes, I admit the US gov't has made MANY mistakes on foreign policies. Funny thing though, I think they have made more mistakes here at home...but anyhow...

Contrary to what you believe, we didn't start the mess in the mideast. We are an easy target to blame just because of our mere presence there. But you are mistaken if you don't think we have any business there right now, as our CIVILIANS are being targetted here and abroad.

On another note, I just saw a press conference by Mr. Rumsfeld, and he said something that just pissed me off. He said something to the effect that "Bin Laden is a coward, and evil because he sat in those caves while his people went out into the line of fire while he was relatively safe..." How hypocritical. Mr Rumsfeld never goes into battle, neither does the president, vice president, our generals, etc. What do you think about that?

Rags

[The PIT]

Sorry forgot to press the quote button.

"The US didn't set him up, they may have aided him, but he wasn't set up by the US first and foremost."

I'm going to disagree on this one by providing arms they allowed him to come a sigificant force in the country. You can therefore say that he was setup by the west. By the way Britain also supplied arms and training hence using the word west rather than US.
In hindsight this was a mistake. However no doubt he would have tried to order arms either via china or via a third party.

[Joel]

I'm going to disagree on this one by providing arms they allowed him to come a sigificant force in the country. You can therefore say that he was setup by the west. By the way Britain also supplied arms and training hence using the word west rather than US.

I'm sure no one at the time would have thought that ole Binny Boy would become this evil ***hole hell bend on destroying the west. The very west that helped him and others liberate Afghanastan from the Russians. Actually IMO his biggest problem is that he has no honor.

Joel

[RedRed]

Thanks Pit.

Rags

Lost of stories about your election troubles here.... for thats what they were.... There would have been the same here, it it had happened here... it didnt. I am not saying our system is best.... it just didnt happen here....

I was being sarcastic in my repsponse as to show I am a complete dumbass, as that is what you are taking me as. OF COURSE I AGREE WITH THAT! When did I imply it was any different? OUR PRESIDENT SAID JUST THAT!!!!!!!!!! Christ, you are muddying the issue.

It is usual to use rolleyes or simmilar to express sarcasm... albpm appeared to be confused by this comment.... I know you arent a dumass... if you were, I wouldnt respond to your posts.....

Anyhow, we aren't done.

if the US attacks Syria... Then all hell WILL break loose.... Afghanistan was a parriah state... Even most of the Middle east hated them.... you wont get support for other Middle East countries, But we have been here before....

You make it sound like there are just so many millions of these people out there and they are all starving to eat civilians alive.

Ahh sorry... no. It only takes a few hundred, perhaps a thousand, committed terrorists to wage a terrorist war. It takes many thousands more to support the organisation, which is a different matter. (Northern Ireland is a case in point... The IRA is reconed to have had MAX about 700 active members.... they kept a war here going for almost 30 years!)

If he is still making videos, he isn't quiet so that goes against what I have said.

I take it you conceed the point then? Could this be a first?

The US didn't set him up, they may have aided him, but he wasn't set up by the US first and foremost.

The US and UK provided STINGER missiles, which transformed the original war in afghanistan. Training was provided by 'advisors... Set up is perhaps a bad choice... Made an effective force perhaps thats better?

I have no problem with attacking specific policies of the US gov't. I do it all the time. The problem I am having is taking a broad stroke and being so general and ho-hum about it.

I have never critised american citizens directly.... try to understan this. I have critized the policies of the STATE. If the Polls of the US citizenry are supporting The STATE to 80% + on its anti terrorism legislation (including the 'tribrunal' legislation) then I think the citizens of the US are, for the most part following the govenment spin blindly. It is unlikely that most americans would stop to consider the ramifications of this legislation... I believe that more would be 'Undecided' or 'against' this legislation, if they did think about it through. I think this applies to the UK and other countries too, though...

You assume that I think that all US citizens are like yourself, (and that most europeans are like myself) I think that this is not correct...

Contrary to what you believe, we didn't start the mess in the mideast. We are an easy target to blame just because of our mere presence there. But you are mistaken if you don't think we have any business there right now, as our CIVILIANS are being targetted here and abroad.

I know that the US didnt start it... But I feel that they DID rekindle it and 'westernise' it with interferance in the Lebanon and the work done during the League of Nations, setting up Israel... But we have been here before... lets not re open it....

On another note, I just saw a press conference by Mr. Rumsfeld, and he said something that just pissed me off. He said something to the effect that "Bin Laden is a coward, and evil because he sat in those caves while his people went out into the line of fire while he was relatively safe..." How hypocritical. Mr Rumsfeld never goes into battle, neither does the president, vice president, our generals, etc. What do you think about that?

Mr. Rumsfeld is a fool, and trying to apply a spin, which many (IN the US and OTHER COUNTRIES) will believe it.
reasons...
1
Binladen believes he is already dead (there is some Muslim term for it)... that Allah kept him alive for this work. He has said as much. He has carried a gun. He fought as a Mujhadeen against the Russians. As it happens, Mullah Omar requested a duel between himself and GB Jnr earlier in the war, to settle the differences....
2
Rumfeld copuld be describing his own job!

On this Rags, Me old sparring partner.... we AGREE!!!!

RedRed

[RedRed]

Joel... Its the perception.....

BinLaden has a problem with percieved US interference in Israel, and Saudi.

He would see that support as sacralige.

He has no honour, correct, because he feels that the West is dishonourable. Where does Honnour fit in the 21st Centuary?

Many leaders in the world have no honnor... it is the way of the world... It probably always was....



RedRed

[The PIT]

Bin Laden sees the percieved US interference as a tool and way to gain power. Whether he really belives it or not doesn't matter but he knows that theres plenty will believe it.
Pity we can't get some look alikes to do some alternat videos to confuse his message somewhat.

[Rags]

if the US attacks Syria... Then all hell WILL break loose.... Afghanistan was a parriah state... Even most of the Middle east hated them.... you wont get support for other Middle East countries, But we have been here before....

I said we aren't through, not that we are going to march into Syria. There are many ways you can deal with a country that has legit trade going for itself. I am sure Syria doesn't want attacked, and I am also sure we don't really want to drop bombs there either. You have to remember what GWB said. This is not a conventional war where you will see headlines every day. Some battles will be won and not a single news source will know. The whole point is to get these nations to become accountable for allowing these forces to thrive, I would hope you and I agree on that.

Ahh sorry... no. It only takes a few hundred, perhaps a thousand, committed terrorists to wage a terrorist war. It takes many thousands more to support the organisation, which is a different matter. (Northern Ireland is a case in point... The IRA is reconed to have had MAX about 700 active members.... they kept a war here going for almost 30 years!)

It is rumored that the IRA has silent membership in the tens of thousands, including citizens from the US. We have actually seen citizens here arrested through the years for their connections.

I take it you conceed the point then? Could this be a first?

Nope, you obviously missed my original point. I said that we don't need a dead body or him alive to have won. If we never hear anything out of him again, we can assume he is dead.

The US and UK provided STINGER missiles, which transformed the original war in afghanistan. Training was provided by 'advisors... Set up is perhaps a bad choice... Made an effective force perhaps thats better?

We bolstered the Afghan resistance to Russia, I agree. I disagree we wined and dined Bin Laden, although we helped him.

I have never critised american citizens directly.... try to understan this. I have critized the policies of the STATE. If the Polls of the US citizenry are supporting The STATE to 80% + on its anti terrorism legislation (including the 'tribrunal' legislation) then I think the citizens of the US are, for the most part following the govenment spin blindly. It is unlikely that most americans would stop to consider the ramifications of this legislation... I believe that more would be 'Undecided' or 'against' this legislation, if they did think about it through. I think this applies to the UK and other countries too, though...

The poll is a job approval rating where you overall approve of a job the president is doing, show me a link to where we approved of tribunals (which is not legislation, in fact that's an executive power that has been used for two hundred years). Also remember polls are as good as their questions. If you asked an American walking on the street "Are you for or against GWB signing Anti terrorist legislation" I bet you get 80%+ approval. If you ask "Do you think, keeping in mind you are losing 55 personal liberties with it, GWB's Legislation is the best choice" You would probably get reverse the poll.

You assume that I think that all US citizens are like yourself, (and that most europeans are like myself) I think that this is not correct...

Nope. I have never said as such, so wipe that from your mind.

I know that the US didnt start it... But I feel that they DID rekindle it and 'westernise' it with interferance in the Lebanon and the work done during the League of Nations, setting up Israel... But we have been here before... lets not re open it....

Fair enough, we tried to help, and it pissed some people off.

Mr. Rumsfeld is a fool, and trying to apply a spin, which many (IN the US and OTHER COUNTRIES) will believe it.
reasons...
1
Binladen believes he is already dead (there is some Muslim term for it)... that Allah kept him alive for this work. He has said as much. He has carried a gun. He fought as a Mujhadeen against the Russians. As it happens, Mullah Omar requested a duel between himself and GB Jnr earlier in the war, to settle the differences....
2
Rumfeld copuld be describing his own job!

On this Rags, Me old sparring partner.... we AGREE!!!!

RedRed

This surprises you? We agree on a lot more you know.

Rags

[The PIT]

Originally posted by RedRed

Binladen believes he is already dead (there is some Muslim term for it)... that Allah kept him alive for this work.

Proves he's a total nut and fruit cake then doesn't it. Boy that guys going to get a shock when he finally gets nailed.

Just had a thought if he really believes he's dead he could have gone on the flight himself and then walked out from the flames. I don't think he really thinks he's dead but thinks it's more good crap for his misguided followers to soak up.

[RedRed]

The whole point is to get these nations to become accountable for allowing these forces to thrive, I would hope you and I agree on that.

Completely!! provided that the US stops supporting or makes itsself accountable for its own terrorists.....

It is rumored that the IRA has silent membership in the tens of thousands, including citizens from the US. We have actually seen citizens here arrested through the years for their connections.

Yup, thats what I meant.... a few hundred 'active' members in 20-30 cells... a couple of thousand, willing to provide cash, succour etc for 'the lads', as they are referred to......

I said that we don't need a dead body or him alive to have won. If we never hear anything out of him again, we can assume he is dead.

My original point was that it didnt really matter.... He has become a robin hood type figure to those misguided people willing to follow him or some other imram.....

We bolstered the Afghan resistance to Russia, I agree. I disagree we wined and dined Bin Laden, although we helped him

OK we agree on this too!!! (i never said he was wined & dined.... I said traind and armed.....) American action in this original conflict was as wrong as Russias....

tribunals (which is not legislation, in fact that's an executive power that has been used for two hundred years).

Actually Rags.... it IS in the anti terrorist legislation..... this is because it is on ly an 'exuative power' when 'articles or war' have been posted. This has not happened in this case.... I posted some links on it before, I dont have them now.....

If you asked an American walking on the street "Are you for or against GWB signing Anti terrorist legislation" I bet you get 80%+ approval. If you ask "Do you think, keeping in mind you are losing 55 personal liberties with it, GWB's Legislation is the best choice" You would probably get reverse the poll.

Thats the point! I dont believe that the President nor his men have described it in this way.... Many Americans have not taken the time to look at the legislation... Just as many residents here havent looked at theirs....

Fair enough, we tried to help, and it pissed some people off.

I know.... and that is part of the reason we have the mess we have today.... had neither the West nor the Soviets interfered at all, then this place would be ok, as they probably would be reduced to bows & arrows!

Bin Laden sees the percieved US interference as a tool and way to gain power. Whether he really belives it or not doesn't matter but he knows that theres plenty will believe it.

Pit:
What makes you think we havent? the 'smoking gun video' was such a gift to the US government that almost everyone in the middle east believes it to be a fake. It might well be! It is what propaganda is all about.....

RedRed

[Rags]

Completely!! provided that the US stops supporting or makes itsself accountable for its own terrorists.....

The only problem with that is that our P.C. crowd sees any interference with these 'ethnic' organizations as racism.

Actually Rags.... it IS in the anti terrorist legislation..... this is because it is on ly an 'exuative power' when 'articles or war' have been posted. This has not happened in this case.... I posted some links on it before, I dont have them now.....

Actually there is precedent that proves you wrong. There has to be no articles of war in congress. Our president is commander in chief and as such he can make those executive powers enabled any time we are threatened or our military has been deployed, which by the way was approved by congress. Whether it's right....It depends on how it is used.

Thats the point! I dont believe that the President nor his men have described it in this way.... Many Americans have not taken the time to look at the legislation... Just as many residents here havent looked at theirs....

No, the point is the question is pointed and there wasn't enough information given in the poll question. You can make a poll say anything you want, you just have to ask the right question.

I know.... and that is part of the reason we have the mess we have today.... had neither the West nor the Soviets interfered at all, then this place would be ok, as they probably would be reduced to bows & arrows!

I don't think that's completely true. If they didn't have a resource the US and the rest of the world wants/needs then they would be reduced to bows and arrows. China and other countries have contributed far more arms to this area than the US.






Rags

[RedRed]

Rags You said:
__________________________________________________ _
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually Rags.... it IS in the anti terrorist legislation..... this is because it is on ly an 'exuative power' when 'articles or war' have been posted. This has not happened in this case.... I posted some links on it before, I dont have them now.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Actually there is precedent that proves you wrong. There has to be no articles of war in congress. Our president is commander in chief and as such he can make those executive powers enabled any time we are threatened or our military has been deployed, which by the way was approved by congress. Whether it's right....It depends on how it is used.
__________________________________________________ __

I think you are wrong:


This is the execuative order:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...011113-27.html

This is the URL in wired which eplains it:
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,48443,00.html

As I understand it:

(e) To protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks, it is necessary for individuals subject to this order pursuant to section 2 hereof to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals.

This allows for military tribunals....

and

(f) Given the danger to the safety of the United States and the nature of international terrorism, and to the extent provided by and under this order, I find consistent with section 836 of title 10, United States Code, that it is not practicable to apply in military commissions under this order the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts.

allows for the fact that evidence need not be that which would be admimissable in a court of law... (a single person testifying would be sufficent, in theory)

This allows for the Death penalty..

Sec. 4. Authority of the Secretary of Defense Regarding Trials of Individuals Subject to this Order.
(a) Any individual subject to this order shall, when tried, be tried by military commission for any and all offenses triable by military commission that such individual is alleged to have committed, and may be punished in accordance with the penalties provided under applicable law, including life imprisonment or death.

Also in sec 4

(2) a full and fair trial, with the military commission sitting as the triers of both fact and law

(how can this be? thats what Judicery and council is for?)

The only appeal/review is to the president:

(8) submission of the record of the trial, including any conviction or sentence, for review and final decision by me or by the Secretary of Defense if so designated by me for that purpose.

The defendant, nor his/her state appointed defence has the right to see the evidence set against him/her, if the tribunal feels that the evidence is classified:

(4) in a manner consistent with the protection of information classified or classifiable under Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995, as amended, or any successor Executive Order, protected by statute or rule from unauthorized disclosure, or otherwise protected by law, (A) the handling of, admission into evidence of, and access to materials and information, and (B) the conduct, closure of, and access to proceedings;

This order has only been drafted befor in times of war, and when the articles of war have been posted. It has NEVER been applied before. (the case of the 4 Germans in WWII, the last time this was used, caused a rift between the Judicery and Execuative. This time there is no formal war....

This is where GB Jnr takes the action into his own hands (and away from the Judicery):

(g) Having fully considered the magnitude of the potential deaths, injuries, and property destruction that would result from potential acts of terrorism against the United States, and the probability that such acts will occur, I have determined that an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense purposes, that this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling govern-ment interest, and that issuance of this order is necessary to meet the emergency.

The Terrorism bill, which was different, has some of these ramifications:
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47901,00.html
RedRed

[Rags]

Oh boy, someone who cannot keep my posts straight is going to try and read a legal document. This should be interesting

I think you are wrong:


This is the execuative order:

As I understand it:

"(e) To protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks, it is necessary for individuals subject to this order pursuant to section 2 hereof to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals."

This allows for military tribunals....

No, this section is a finding, a setup if you will explaining the the meat of the order.

and

"(f) Given the danger to the safety of the United States and the nature of international terrorism, and to the extent provided by and under this order, I find consistent with section 836 of title 10, United States Code, that it is not practicable to apply in military commissions under this order the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts. "

allows for the fact that evidence need not be that which would be admimissable in a court of law... (a single person testifying would be sufficent, in theory)

Again, this is a finding, a setup or explanation for the order, this isn't the general order itself, it comes later. A single person testifying in a civilian court can be enough to convict at times....but anyhow, you are missing the point.

"Sec. 4. Authority of the Secretary of Defense Regarding Trials of Individuals Subject to this Order.
(a) Any individual subject to this order shall, when tried, be tried by military commission for any and all offenses triable by military commission that such individual is alleged to have committed, and may be punished in accordance with the penalties provided under applicable law, including life imprisonment or death. "

This allows for the Death penalty..

The boldface type was my doing to point something out to you. Provided under applicable law. That means just that, it shall follow the law in both evidence weight and punishment, both of which will be decided upon in a commission as described in the order, not one man.

Also in sec 4
"(2) a full and fair trial, with the military commission sitting as the triers of both fact and law"

(how can this be? thats what Judicery and council is for?)

No, no, no. The commission is going to be the Judge, and the trial is a bench trial. Simple as that

The only appeal/review is to the president:
"(8) submission of the record of the trial, including any conviction or sentence, for review and final decision by me or by the Secretary of Defense if so designated by me for that purpose. "

No, that is giving the president the power to direct the result and record of the trial to him for review and the right to oversee the final decision. The appeals will be dealt with in accordance to the military courts, which his defense can submit at the end of the trial.

The defendant, nor his/her state appointed defence has the right to see the evidence set against him/her, if the tribunal feels that the evidence is classified:
"(4) in a manner consistent with the protection of information classified or classifiable under Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995, as amended, or any successor Executive Order, protected by statute or rule from unauthorized disclosure, or otherwise protected by law, (A) the handling of, admission into evidence of, and access to materials and information, and (B) the conduct, closure of, and access to proceedings; "

You are close, but there isn't a feel to classified information, either it is or it isn't. If information is classified, then it cannot be made public.

This order has only been drafted befor in times of war, and when the articles of war have been posted. It has NEVER been applied before. (the case of the 4 Germans in WWII, the last time this was used, caused a rift between the Judicery and Execuative. This time there is no formal war....

The last military tribunal we had was Noriega IIRC EDIT, no it wasn't, he was tried in civilian court. The executive order that is issued is allowing for expedience in the gathering of those that fall under this order rather than having infinite detention until the military action is complete. It also makes certain rules evident during that time. The Korean war there was a similar executive order, yet there were no articles of war drafted.

This is where GB Jnr takes the action into his own hands (and away from the Judicery):
(g) Having fully considered the magnitude of the potential deaths, injuries, and property destruction that would result from potential acts of terrorism against the United States, and the probability that such acts will occur, I have determined that an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense purposes, that this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling govern-ment interest, and that issuance of this order is necessary to meet the emergency.

No. You are wrong. First that is in the findings section, where AGAIN, it's an explanation of the order. The execution of this order is to help keep the civil courts freed of those who may be here in the US and may or may not fall under a tribunal if the order were not here. This may also be in the best interest of the defendant. With sensationilizing of current events, it may be hard for the general public to fairly try the accused, and it would be very difficult to manage a jury of his peers at any rate. Some civil actions would include deportation, but in this case, we cannot let them go back to their countries for trial, and we cannot allow public spectacles of their trials. This is the finding of the need of the order, not the order itself.

The Terrorism bill, which was different, has some of these ramifications:
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47901,00.html
RedRed [/B]

Wow, you just admitted you were wrong. Hell hath frozen over. They ARE two different things after all!

Rags

[RedRed]

A couple of points....

I used the Finding first because the whole Execuative Order was for the tribunals....I wasnt going to post the entire thing!

The Quality of the evidence does NOT have to the standard required for a court... that was the point of the second quote....

The boldface type was my doing to point something out to you. Provided under applicable law. That means just that, it shall follow the law in both evidence weight and punishment, both of which will be decided upon in a commission as described in the order, not one man.

I never said it was on man.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only appeal/review is to the president:
"(8) submission of the record of the trial, including any conviction or sentence, for review and final decision by me or by the Secretary of Defense if so designated by me for that purpose. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, that is giving the president the power to direct the result and record of the trial to him for review and the right to oversee the final decision. The appeals will be dealt with in accordance to the military courts, which his defense can submit at the end of the trial.

Sorry, it wasnt section 8, I mis-pasted......
What I meant to post was:-


The only appeal/review is to the president:

(b) With respect to any individual subject to this order --

(1) military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to offenses by the individual; and

(2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual's behalf, in (i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii) any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international tribunal.

you said

The executive order that is issued is allowing for expedience in the gathering of those that fall under this order rather than having infinite detention until the military action is complete. It also makes certain rules evident during that time. The Korean war there was a similar executive order, yet there were no articles of war drafted.

The Order was last acted upon during WWII, as far as I am aware... It was not acted upon during either the Korean nor Veitnam war, It HAS already been enacted this time round.... Also the Order do NOT make provision for the length of time a suspect may be held...

The execution of this order is to help keep the civil courts freed of those who may be here in the US and may or may not fall under a tribunal if the order were not here. This may also be in the best interest of the defendant. With sensationilizing of current events, it may be hard for the general public to fairly try the accused, and it would be very difficult to manage a jury of his peers at any rate. Some civil actions would include deportation, but in this case, we cannot let them go back to their countries for trial, and we cannot allow public spectacles of their trials. This is the finding of the need of the order, not the order itself.

So this action was taken to keep it simple for civil courts? I dont think so... Earlier you said "The executive order that is issued is allowing for expedience in the gathering of those that fall under this order rather than having infinite detention until the military action is complete". It was done to protect information gathered, sources etc... It is to allow evidence which would be inadmissible in a civil cout. It was done to throw a veil of secrecy over the govenments actions with regards to suspects.... How many have been 'lifted' so far?

Wow, you just admitted you were wrong. Hell hath frozen over. They ARE two different things after all!

I have admitted I am wrong before....?

Lets kill this though.... I am getting a headache seraching through execuative orders!


RedRed

[Joel]

Welcome to the Rags and RedRed hour.

Our subject... , I done lost track.

Joel

[Rags]

Originally posted by Joel
Welcome to the Rags and RedRed hour.

Our subject... , I done lost track.

Joel

It's all in good discussion

Rags