i believe it's always been called a war on terror, which has brought us to fighting in three different countries. afganistan, iraq, and pakistan. we certainly haven't declared against any country, but you knew that. but then, we didn't declare war against korea or vietnam either. that wasn't much solace to the families of the soldiers who were killled, much like it's not now either.

as i said, if this isn't a war, then some soldiers should be arriving home any day, and gitmo and any other camps holding enemy combatants should have been closed 1/20/09.

Exactly. We haven't declared war on any country.

Seriously - are you just ignoring the international uproar, the illegalities, the back and forth about treatment of those detained, of those in other countries, of the past eight years? Where all this has already been, to put it mildly, "discussed previously"?

honestly, i don't give a rats behind about international uproar in this regard. 9/11 and the recent attack happened here-attacks against the u.s. it was the contention of the previous administration, as well as congress who gave approval, that this fight against terror is a war. therefore, any combatants held at any location such as gitmo, are being lawfully detained under the geneva conventions. as enemy combatants, the fourth geneva explicitly states the enemy combatants who are tried are to be tried by a military tribunal. this convention also goes into detail about the treatment of said combatants, including labor, medical care, and the like.
i'm not sure what illegalities you mean.

Either did Cheney. That cost our country a bit. Well, in some of our eyes.

Well, that all you talked about, above, about war, doesn't apply when you haven't declared war on a country.

we have to do what is in our best interests. those interests may not necessarily jibe with what some other countries believe. that's too bad. as for cheney, i don't care for him.

you do realize we didn't declare war on korea or vietnam either? i'd imagine tho that any enemies captured by us were treated under the geneva conventions.

Yes, I do. What has that to do with terrorists across the world, in multiple countries? We are not at war with Afghanistan or Pakistan, are we?

The treatment of terrorists by the United States (and other countries) has been under a microscope for the past eight years. I think it's been pretty clearly decided what we can and cannot do with them.

we're at war with a verb, riot. get on board.

i'm hoping it works out better than our wars on the nouns. drugs and poverty kicked our ass.

:D :tro:

nope, not at war now, or in the previous eight years with a country. and as i said above, if it's not a war, why is our president continuing whatever it is we're doing? if it is not a war, then our soldiers need to come home, and our prisoner camps need to be closed. hasn't happened in the last year with a new admin, and a democratic majority in both houses. doesn't that make you wonder why? perhaps it's not as cut and dried as you think?
as for my attitude towards other countries, and you saying i sound like cheney...unlike cheney, i don't make policy, so what i think doesn't mean a thing anyway.

and actually, god, i agree with you. i didn't think sending troops to two countries would do anything other than get some of them killed and cost us money.

'Zig, over the past 4-8 years, multiple courts have already decided how we have to treat our enemies in the war on terror: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantan...detention_camp

I always laugh when the "international uproar" card is pulled. Uproar from who? Amnesty international? If a terrorist gets caught in China they are never seen or heard from again. Hell they treat thier own people like ****. Remember we couldnt send those chinese guys at Gitmo back to China? Remember why? Because they had the firing squads primed and ready for them as soon as they got off the planes. What about the Russians? Think they are worried about the "rights" of terrorists? Hell 2 years ago they invaded a country with guns blazing and havnt left. What about the treatment of Chechen rebels? Where is the "uproar" about that? What has the UN and all those other "outraged" parties done about them?

Nothing. And I say screw the countries who dont like they way we handle things. It is our security that should come before the "rights" of terrorists and if it is technically illegal by international law than those laws simply need to be changed.

Like Charles Barkley said about treatment of prisoners in penitentiaries, "They are criminals, they are supposed to be treated badly"

John Wayne Gacy had his supporters as well.

So you think our Supreme Court is supporting terrorists, and that's the same as Gacy.

Okaaaaaay .....

Not as much fun as laughing over the multiple legal battles within our own country, between the Executive and Judicial branches, huh?

I was responding to a specific comment. It is a stretch to say that there is "international uproar" over the our legal proceedings.

The U.S. hasn't won a propaganda war since the 50's. Except for Global Warming and conning people into thinking Govt. provided Healthcare is a constitutional right. Thanks Left.

excerpted from the article you linked:

There is a dispute over whether (and how) detaines may be incarcerated and tried. David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey claimed that the Supreme Court's Hamdan ruling affirms that the United States is engaged in a legally cognizable armed conflict to which the laws of war apply. It may hold captured al Qaeda and Taliban operatives throughout that conflict, without granting them a criminal trial, and is also entitled to try them in the military justice system—including by military commission.[79]

The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has not required that neither members of al Qaeda nor their allies, including members of the Taliban, must be granted POW status. [5] However, the Supreme Court stated that the Geneva Conventions, most notably the Third Geneva Convention and Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (requiring humane treatment) applies to all detainees in the War on Terror. In July 2004, following Hamdi v. Rumsfeld—ruling the Bush administration began using Combatant Status Review Tribunals to determine whether the detainees could be held as "enemy combatants".[80]

The ruling also disagreed with the administration's view that the laws and customs of war did not apply to the U.S. armed conflict with Al Qaeda fighters during the 2001 U.S. invasion of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, stating that Article 3 common to all the Geneva Conventions applied in such a situation, which—among other things—requires fair trials for prisoners. Common Article 3 applies in "wars not of an international character" (i.e., civil wars) in a signatory to the Geneva Conventions—in this case the civil war in signatory Afghanistan. It is likely that the Bush administration may now be forced to try detainees held as part of the "war on terror" either by court martial (as U.S. troops and prisoners of war are) or by civilian federal court. However, Bush has indicated that he may seek an Act of Congress authorizing military commissions.

a military tribunal is what the geneva conventions state as the means of trial for combatants. nothing from the above belies anything i said, so thanks.
i went back and bolded the part about the supreme court and the 'war on terror'.

Maybe if we stop feeding the Middle East and drill for our own oil, we can get out from behind this 8-ball.

My main point is simply that, although I (and I'm sure, 'Zig) would personally like to take the terrorists, tie them naked to stakes in the sun, and have them eaten by dogs slowly while alive, our judicial system since 9-11 has decided what we can and cannot do with them, legally.