Dear Glenn Beck: The Answer You've Been Wanting...

[A Son of Liberty]

Mr. Beck,

Recently, you've been wondering why "libertarians" won't "accept" you. Well, I have an answer for you.

Yesterday during your radio program, you mockingly read THIS (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/opinion/hunger-striking-at-guantanamo-bay.html?_r=0) NY Times op-ed letter from a Guantanamo "detainee". From the letter:


ONE man here weighs just 77 pounds. Another, 98. Last thing I knew, I weighed 132, but that was a month ago.
I’ve been on a hunger strike since Feb. 10 and have lost well over 30 pounds. I will not eat until they restore my dignity.
I’ve been detained at Guantánamo for 11 years and three months. I have never been charged with any crime. I have never received a trial.


The only reason I am still here is that President Obama refuses to send any detainees back to Yemen. This makes no sense. I am a human being, not a passport, and I deserve to be treated like one.
I do not want to die here, but until President Obama and Yemen’s president do something, that is what I risk every day.
Where is my government? I will submit to any “security measures” they want in order to go home, even though they are totally unnecessary.
I will agree to whatever it takes in order to be free. I am now 35. All I want is to see my family again and to start a family of my own.

This is why true libertarians don’t accept you, Mr. Beck. There is nothing funny about the circumstances of this and many other of the “detainees” the U.S. government continues to hold. Regardless of the reasons that these people are being held, as potentially innocent human beings, they deserve the dignity to be made aware of why they are being held, and to be given the chance to answer those accusations. We libertarians agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said that it was better for one hundred guilty men go free than one man wrongly imprisoned, because we understand that the violence of government poses a far greater threat than those one hundred guilty men. Ignoring some of the root causes of international “muslim” terrorism, we also recognize that accepting human liberty means life can sometimes be unpredictable and dangerous. We accept that fact because the alternative, petitioning government to “protect us”, contravenes nature, rarely works, and is a deadly gamble for it will not be long before the security state turns its gaze inward.

This security state that you advocate has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of children in numerous Middle Eastern/North African countries. No decent human being, let alone a libertarian, mocks this. Rational people also are capable of understanding how these murders contribute to the threats this country faces. We libertarians reject these injustices; we reject all wars except those which are fought in self-defense. We embrace peaceful, non-coercive exchange between people everywhere. We know that such interaction promotes understanding, wealth, and peace. We reject the confiscation of our wealth at the hands of government for domestic welfare and foreign aid to ALL countries, and foreign interventions overt and covert.

We value and cherish ALL human life; not just those lives which happen to have been born in the United States. True libertarians do not mock the indefinite detention of people we even know are guilty, and we do not ignore the root causes of terrorism and war.

Until you accept these self-evident realities, true libertarians will NEVER “accept” you. We will agree with you, as I do, on a great many things, but we will never refer to you as a libertarian while you mock abuses of human rights, and ignore the suffering of innocent people.

[itshappening]

Alex Jones was attacking him yesterday... their war continues...

will be interesting to see if Beck responds later.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrfrPYsrVDQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrfrPYsrVDQ

[COpatriot]

Beck simply found the next bandwagon and hopped on it. He is pure trash. Getting tired of hearing him whine about why he is almost universally hated by libertarians when he knows damn well why. Fuck Glenn Beck.

[Brett85]

I agree that all of the prisoners that we're holding at Gitmo should receive some kind of trial, but a lot of the prisoners that we've simply released back to their country of origin have later rejoined the war and killed our troops on the battlefield.

[paulbot24]

Excellent OP. I love how everybody rallies around Alex when they get afraid of what the govt is up to and then when things calm down they go back to making fun of his "tin foil hat" bullshit . He's the tough guy that people don't talk about and never call except when they are scared. Then all of a sudden they are "friends." Then when their little crisis is over, they say thanks with a fake weak smile and then can't wait to shove him out the door so they can go back to talking shit about him again. If the truth causes you discomfort than take a Midol and turn the station to something more soothing like "News Entertainment." Glenn will be one of those again before the next election, telling everybody the spandex wrestling scripted "news" they're watching is real and to get their credit cards ready for the PPV event.

[shane77m]

I agree that all of the prisoners that we're holding at Gitmo should receive some kind of trial, but a lot of the prisoners that we've simply released back to their country of origin have later rejoined the war and killed our troops on the battlefield.

If our soldiers weren't over there we wouldn't have to worry about them being attacked and killed by the ex-Gitmo prisoners.

Perhaps I am just being too Pollyannaish though.

[erowe1]

Great OP!

[paulbot24]

I agree that all of the prisoners that we're holding at Gitmo should receive some kind of trial, but a lot of the prisoners that we've simply released back to their country of origin have later rejoined the war and killed our troops on the battlefield.

True. Then again, many of the felons we've "released" back to our society eventually get charged and convicted for further crimes, but at no point do they no longer deserve due process and no criminal rap sheet could ever justify NDAA.

[jmdrake]

I agree that all of the prisoners that we're holding at Gitmo should receive some kind of trial, but a lot of the prisoners that we've simply released back to their country of origin have later rejoined the war and killed our troops on the battlefield.

The ones that were released were likely CIA linked. That's why they got released.

[cajuncocoa]

Great OP... +rep!

[FrankRep]

"I'm more libertarian than you!!!!"

[Christian Liberty]

I agree that all of the prisoners that we're holding at Gitmo should receive some kind of trial, but a lot of the prisoners that we've simply released back to their country of origin have later rejoined the war and killed our troops on the battlefield.

And who exactly is the aggressor in this war? The United States is.


If our soldiers weren't over there we wouldn't have to worry about them being attacked and killed by the ex-Gitmo prisoners.

Perhaps I am just being too Pollyannaish though.

No, you're simply right. +1.

[Brett85]

And who exactly is the aggressor in this war? The United States is.

Which war? We were the aggressor in the Iraq War, but the original military action we took in Afghanistan was a result of an attack on our soil.

[cajuncocoa]

"I'm more libertarian than you!!!!"
I think you may have completely missed the point.

[A Son of Liberty]

I agree that all of the prisoners that we're holding at Gitmo should receive some kind of trial, but a lot of the prisoners that we've simply released back to their country of origin have later rejoined the war and killed our troops on the battlefield.

"Our troops" have no business being there.

Those detainees would never have been detained had the U.S. government not sent "our troops" into "their" countries.

And the 35 year old man who wrote the letter referenced in the OP could have spent his youthful, productive years with his family if he chose, rather than having a decade of his life stolen from him. Had he not chose to spend it with his family, but to engage in acts of terror against innocent people, then he could have justly been arrested and accused.

[A Son of Liberty]

"I'm more libertarian than you!!!!"

If you agree with Glenn Beck that indefinite detention is something to be mocked, and that the murder of children is something to be ignored when considering the roots of terrorism, then I'm more libertarian than you in the same way that a kangaroo is more kangaroo than you, too.

[The Gold Standard]

I agree that all of the prisoners that we're holding at Gitmo should receive some kind of trial, but a lot of the prisoners that we've simply released back to their country of origin have later rejoined the war and killed our troops on the battlefield.

You mean killed our troops in their country.

[Christian Liberty]

Which war? We were the aggressor in the Iraq War, but the original military action we took in Afghanistan was a result of an attack on our soil.

By terrorists. Criminals. Not the Afghani State. Not to mention the fact that we killed way more innocent people than they did, and the fact that the attacks were sparked by our foreign policy. We were justified to go after Bin Laden but the cure may have been worse than the disease.

[cajuncocoa]

Which war? We were the aggressor in the Iraq War, but the original military action we took in Afghanistan was a result of an attack on our soil.
Afghanistan didn't attack us....we were attacked by 19 hijackers, none of whom called Afghanistan home.

[Brett85]

Afghanistan didn't attack us....we were attacked by 19 hijackers, none of whom called Afghanistan home.

Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the attack, and he was located in Afghanistan. How do you think we should've responded to the 9-11 attacks if you disagree with going into Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden?

[FrankRep]

If you agree with Glenn Beck that indefinite detention is something to be mocked, and that the murder of children is something to be ignored when considering the roots of terrorism, then I'm more libertarian than you in the same way that a kangaroo is more kangaroo than you, too.

Wow. I'm just pointing out that Libertarians hate anyone who doesn't think exactly like them. Glenn Beck is allowed to have "non-libertarian" options and still be librarian.

I don't agree with Glenn Beck on this issue. lol.

[Brett85]

By terrorists. Criminals. Not the Afghani State. Not to mention the fact that we killed way more innocent people than they did, and the fact that the attacks were sparked by our foreign policy. We were justified to go after Bin Laden but the cure may have been worse than the disease.

I think the cause of terrorist attacks in the U.S is a little more complex than that. I think that blowback is basically one of many theories that are true. But I think you basically have a small group of Islamic extremists who hate us and would want to attack us even if we had a non interventionist foreign policy, but our current foreign policy helps with their recruiting, makes their numbers larger than they would be otherwise, and gives them more of an incentive to attack us than they would have otherwise. But, I don't really agree with those who say that it's the sole reason why they attack us. That isn't really true either.

[The Gold Standard]

Wow. I'm just pointing out that Libertarians hate anyone who doesn't think exactly like them. Glenn Beck is allowed to have "non-libertarian" options and still be librarian.

I don't agree with Glenn Beck on this issue. lol.

I don't think anyone said this is why Beck isn't a libertarian. I know people are saying that this is why Beck is a worthless piece of human shit.

[cajuncocoa]

Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the attack, and he was located in Afghanistan. How do you think we should've responded to the 9-11 attacks if you disagree with going into Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden?
Going in Afghanistan to get bin Laden (which I supported in 2001) should not have included a 12 year campaign and thousands of casualties.

[Anti Federalist]

Wow. I'm just pointing out that Libertarians hate anyone who doesn't think exactly like them.

Glenn Beck is allowed to have "non-libertarian" options and still be librarian. (sic - I know you meant libertarian. - AF)

I don't agree with Glenn Beck on this issue. lol.

Mmmm, no, I don't think he is...I think that taking the position that it is somehow OK for government to just throw people in a cage with no due process, for any reason, or no reason at all, and hold them until dead is pretty much a deal breaker.

[Brett85]

Going in Afghanistan to get bin Laden (which I supported in 2001) should not have included a 12 year campaign and thousands of casualties.

I agree. I only supported a limited military campaign to go after Bin Laden, not the full fledged nation building campaign that we have today. But I simply brought up the 9-11 attacks and our military response to point out that we weren't the "aggressors" in the war. I understand the "blowback" theory, but that is really just one of several reasons why they attacked us on 9-11, not the only reason. Our military bases in Germany and Japan haven't caused the people of those countries to blow up our buildings.

[FriedChicken]

*never mind

[A Son of Liberty]

Wow. I'm just pointing out that Libertarians hate anyone who doesn't think exactly like them. Glenn Beck is allowed to have "non-libertarian" options and still be librarian.

I don't agree with Glenn Beck on this issue. lol.

I'm perfectly fine with Glenn Beck referring to himself as a librarian. Since he's starting that archive thing I've heard him talk about, at least that would be a somewhat accurate title.

[Brett85]

Mmmm, no, I don't think he is...I think that taking the position that it is somehow OK for government to just throw people in a cage with no due process, for any reason, or no reason at all, and hold them until dead is pretty much a deal breaker.

They shouldn't be held without any due process, but they shouldn't simply be released either, which we've done in the past with some prisoners. They should all be tried in military tribunals immediately, and those who are found guilty should receive the death penalty, and those who are found innocent should be released to their country of origin.

[A Son of Liberty]

Going in Afghanistan to get bin Laden (which I supported in 2001) should not have included a 12 year campaign and thousands of casualties.

This.

Also, ultimately, a special forces assault directly targeting and attacking bin Laden himself is how justice was served. The 12 year war full of the blood of innocents barely entered into it.

[paulbot24]

Afghanistan didn't attack us....we were attacked by 19 hijackers, none of whom called Afghanistan home.

Indeed. Even if they all had been Aghans, it still does not justify invasion, full regime change, occupation, and mass murders throughout the entire region to bring them to justice. When CIA and Mossad agents disguise themselves and open fire on the general public in Iraq and Afghanistan, pretending to be the local government, with the intent to cause civil unrest and instablility, does that give Afghanistan or anybody else the right to invade the USA or Israel, overthrow the current administration and just hang out here for years, making sure American "locals" don't show any hostilities or ingratitude about all their militarized help?

[A Son of Liberty]

Mmmm, no, I don't think he is...I think that taking the position that it is somehow OK for government to just throw people in a cage with no due process, for any reason, or no reason at all, and hold them until dead is pretty much a deal breaker.

Exactly. There are no exceptions for "indefinite detention" in libertarianism.

I meant exactly what I said - libertarians reject Glenn Beck because he is NOT a libertarian.

[The Gold Standard]

I agree. I only supported a limited military campaign to go after Bin Laden, not the full fledged nation building campaign that we have today. But I simply brought up the 9-11 attacks and our military response to point out that we weren't the "aggressors" in the war. I understand the "blowback" theory, but that is really just one of several reasons why they attacked us on 9-11, not the only reason. Our military bases in Germany and Japan haven't caused the people of those countries to blow up our buildings.

We were the aggressors in every action other than pursuing Bin Laden.

[sailingaway]

If our soldiers weren't over there we wouldn't have to worry about them being attacked and killed by the ex-Gitmo prisoners.

Perhaps I am just being too Pollyannaish though.

That's not the point. We have criminals here we let go because we don't have enough evidence, when they are guilty, and they commit more crimes, including murder, as well. Remember the nature of this 'battlefield'. It is what we used to call crime. These people need to be treated, at this long removed date, as such. (Or, rather, as suspects of being such.) This 'battle' will never end, it isn't like WWII where there would be a prisoner exchange or release at the end, or where sending them back to a country meant sending them to the 'enemy' in the same sense, either. The shocking thing is how many DON'T return to the 'battlefield' yet we kept them locked up for a decade. For what? With no trial? Many were wholly innocent.

The kicker is that I am pretty sure there are those who were, in the 'national security' situation we were in initially, treated in ways to get information, that our courts would never allow that information to be used in court.

There are at least a couple of options there.

First, the Supreme Court could tailor it's ruling on fruit of the poisonous tree evidence for a national security threatening situation where huge numbers were at risk. Remember, this doctrine was created in a 'what is permissible' situation that may not have included the same level of risk to the public as the specific prisoners may have reasonably been considered to be in a 'time of war' as may actually have REALLY applied to some of them (not this fake 'we are at war on the homeland' nonsense to take advantage of legal standards for times when courts can't be in session). This would not make it ok to torture, but would be saying that a different standard might apply to evidence once it has long since been done, one that requires demonstration of enforceable change of procedure going forward. The Supreme Court would need to create a standard, as they initially did to govern their own court system - or find that a military system is under a slightly different scheme, as I believe they have done in the past, in smaller ways. Remember, this standard was created in a 'this is the only way we have of governing our justice system' way, the military, under a federally enforceable system might lend itself to different ways of doing this. There has to be a way to deal with these people or there will never be ANY due process for them. That is where the 'indefinite detention' concept comes from to begin with. Right now these people have no way of challenging that it wasn't them, at all. But in the end, if one person goes 'free' because we tortured them and held them for ten years, isn't that a level of punishment society can tolerate? We may think they will do more in the future, but how often do we think that of gang members who serve their sentences and have paid their debt to society, yet we expect to end up again in prison in the future?

Second, the amount of time the people have already been held should be taken into account. Many murderers get out with ten years served, mind you, many murderers are less prone to recidivism.

Another problem is that we won't send people to 'torture countries' and others won't take them. That is what the Yemen guy seems to be referring to, and shouldn't it be their choice? And isn't it ironic that at the same time we are saying we can't give people trials because they are too dangerous to release but we found that out in ways that would never allow evidence to stand up in court can't be released because their homelands practice torture?

We have to fish or cut bait. This system is disgraceful and WE are the criminals. At least let the other side fill that role.

The last problem is those no one wants. I think if we return them to where we got them, that should be first option. They put themselves there. At this point we have no moral standing as regards those people to not send them to a particular country. They are not 'in' the US, that was the reason they were taken to Guantanmo to begin with. Use that to let them go.

[A Son of Liberty]

But, I don't really agree with those who say that it's the sole reason why they attack us. That isn't really true either.

We happen to fortunately live in a land in relative isolation from the rest of the world. If the day ever would have come that hordes of muslim terrorists managed to invade en masse, then a war may have been justified. The fact of the matter is, whatever their ideology, the U.S. government went to them, first.

Whack a hornet's nest, get stung.

[Brett85]

We happen to fortunately live in a land in relative isolation from the rest of the world. If the day ever would have come that hordes of muslim terrorists managed to invade en masse, then a war may have been justified. The fact of the matter is, whatever their ideology, the U.S. government went to them, first.

Whack a hornet's nest, get stung.

Like I said, I accept the blowback theory as being true. However, I also realize that Osama Bin Laden cited other reasons for why he supported attacks against us, such as our government's policy of allowing legal pornography. So while the blowback theory is true, it's not the only factor at play. It's multifaceted.

[erowe1]

I agree that all of the prisoners that we're holding at Gitmo should receive some kind of trial, but a lot of the prisoners that we've simply released back to their country of origin have later rejoined the war and killed our troops on the battlefield.

Source?

[itshappening]

Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the attack, and he was located in Afghanistan. How do you think we should've responded to the 9-11 attacks if you disagree with going into Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden?

How do you know this? You can accuse a man on your say so? From what I remember he initially denied it. But you wont hear that in the sanitized news and fake tapes.

The FBI also never indicted him or anything.

"HE DID IT!!" because we say so.

[Brett85]

How do you know this? You can accuse a man on your say so? From what I remember he initially denied it. But you wont hear that in the sanitized news and fake tapes.

The FBI also never indicted him or anything.

"HE DID IT!!" because we say so.

He claimed credit for the attacks.

[Brett85]

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_former_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees_alleged_t o_have_returned_to_terrorism

[itshappening]

He claimed credit for the attacks.

No he didn't he denied it.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/interview-with-osama-bin-laden-denies-his-involvement-in-9-11/24697

If he had any involvement the correct thing to do is indict him. He was never indicted. They launched a ground invasion against a country to "get him" based on nothing but an accusation and change the regime. They've been there 12 years and its cost untold lives and money.

[amy31416]

Anyone who thinks we went into Afghanistan in order to kill Osama should read up on the battle of Tora Bora. Either our military is idiotic or some of the conspiracy theorists are right that we intentionally re-routed our forces into Iraq and didn't take out Osama when we had him.

Those were the turning points for me after 9/11, I realized that even if I didn't know everything, I knew this much: that's seriously messed up and intentional. If we'd killed Osama then, then they wouldn't have any "justification" to go into Iraq or stay in Afghanistan.

[amy31416]

Anyone who thinks we went into Afghanistan in order to kill Osama should read up on the battle of Tora Bora. Either our military is idiotic or some of the conspiracy theorists are right that we intentionally re-routed our forces into Iraq and didn't take out Osama when we had him.

Those were the turning points for me after 9/11, I realized that even if I didn't know everything, I knew this much: that's seriously messed up and intentional. If we'd killed Osama then, then they wouldn't have any "justification" to go into Iraq or stay in Afghanistan.

[Anti Federalist]

They shouldn't be held without any due process, but they shouldn't simply be released either, which we've done in the past with some prisoners. They should all be tried in military tribunals immediately, and those who are found guilty should receive the death penalty, and those who are found innocent should be released to their country of origin.

I could argue that as well, but it's a moot point, nobody is going anywhere, even the ones not charged or tried for anything, like the man in the OP.

[Brett85]

No he didn't he denied it.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/interview-with-osama-bin-laden-denies-his-involvement-in-9-11/24697

If he had any involvement the correct thing to do is indict him. He was never indicted. They launched a ground invasion against a country to "get him" based on nothing but an accusation and change the regime. They've been there 12 years and its cost untold lives and money.

Like Ron, Rand, Justin Amash and others, I supported a limited military action to take out Osama Bin Laden and the others who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks. (And yes, Osama Bin Laden admitted to and praised the attacks) I never supported a nation building campaign in Afghanistan. We shouldn't be in Afghanistan now. But apparently you would've been content with just allowing our country to be attacked and not responding with any kind of military force.

[belian78]

Which war? We were the aggressor in the Iraq War, but the original military action we took in Afghanistan was a result of an attack on our soil.
LOL How many years later is it now?

[jmdrake]

Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the attack, and he was located in Afghanistan. How do you think we should've responded to the 9-11 attacks if you disagree with going into Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden?

If we went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, why did we let him escape at Tora Bora? And we indeed let him escape. Based on the account of CIA officer Gary Bernstein, and Delta Force operative pen named "Dalton Fury", the U.S. let local Afghan militia and Pakistani troops guard the escape route. OBL was the most wanted man in our nation's history, and we outsourced his capture to groups possibly sympathetic to him. That's one thing that John Kerry actually got right in his debate with Bush.

On top of that, check out the "airlift of evil" where we allowed Pakistan to pull out its pro Taliban fighters? Is that the way to catch America's most wanted?

See: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340165/ns/world_news-brave_new_world/t/airlift-evil/#.UW1cJaDzsUQ

[Brett85]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm sure Glenn Beck is on the radio today drumming up suspicions that the Boston bombing was perpetrated by "Muslim extremists". And I'm sure his voice is wavering over the death of an 8 year old boy... as well it should.

Regardless, it's just a shame that, to Beck, the murder of an 8 year old boy in Boston is a tragic, villainous crime, but the murder of 180 children in Pakistan is "collateral damage".

[Brett85]

If we went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, why did we let him escape at Tora Bora?

I don't know. I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq and to stop pursuing Bin Laden. I agree that that was one thing John Kerry actually was right about in the debates with Bush.

[belian78]

Like I said, I accept the blowback theory as being true. However, I also realize that Osama Bin Laden cited other reasons for why he supported attacks against us, such as our government's policy of allowing legal pornography. So while the blowback theory is true, it's not the only factor at play. It's multifaceted.
They hate us for our freedoms. LOL You're pathetic.

[A Son of Liberty]

Like Ron, Rand, Justin Amash and others, I supported a limited military action to take out Osama Bin Laden and the others who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks.


The issue of marque and reprisal was raised before Congress after the September 11 attacks[31] and again on July 21, 2007, by Congressman Ron Paul. The attacks were defined as acts of "air piracy" and the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 was introduced, which would have granted the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. The terrorists were compared to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means.[32] Congressman Paul on April 15, 2009, also advocated the use of letters of marque to address the issue of Somali pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden. However, the bills Congressman Paul introduced were not enacted into law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

[jmdrake]

Like Ron, Rand, Justin Amash and others, I supported a limited military action to take out Osama Bin Laden and the others who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks. (And yes, Osama Bin Laden admitted to and praised the attacks) I never supported a nation building campaign in Afghanistan. We shouldn't be in Afghanistan now. But apparently you would've been content with just allowing our country to be attacked and not responding with any kind of military force.

OBL actually denied the attacks. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html

And yes I've see the supposed "video confession." The CIA has admitted to making fake OBL videos, even though they haven't admitted that this particular video was a fake. (See: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/cia_group_had_wacky_ideas_to_d.html)

Regardless, I initially supported the Afghan campaign, but not after I found out that we purposefully did not fully go after Osama Bin Laden.

[jmdrake]

I don't know. I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq and to stop pursuing Bin Laden. I agree that that was one thing John Kerry actually was right about in the debates with Bush.

And the airlift of evil? Remember, that happened before the invasion. We let Pakistan pull out pro-Taliban fighters. Why would we do that if we really wanted to get OBL?

[itshappening]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html

They're all fake.

He was likely dead very early on and denied it on 29th Sept 2001.

So you have accused a man. He's denied it in a Pakistani newspaper with impeccable source who interviewed him at length.

Now what?

Present your evidence of his involvement to a Grand Jury or leave him alone.

The fact is they had no evidence to present. That's why they didn't do that.

Of far more interest was the funding sources for the hijackers which were from Saudi and Pakistan. Hundreds of thousands wired to them from these easily identifiable sources. Why wasn't that chased up?

[A Son of Liberty]

Anyone who thinks we went into Afghanistan in order to kill Osama should read up on the battle of Tora Bora. Either our military is idiotic or some of the conspiracy theorists are right that we intentionally re-routed our forces into Iraq and didn't take out Osama when we had him.

Those were the turning points for me after 9/11, I realized that even if I didn't know everything, I knew this much: that's seriously messed up and intentional. If we'd killed Osama then, then they wouldn't have any "justification" to go into Iraq or stay in Afghanistan.

So good, it needed to be said twice. ;)

+rep

[Brett85]

They hate us for our freedoms. LOL You're pathetic.

-Rep. You intentionally lied about what I said. I said I accept the blowback theory, but I also accept the other reasons Osama Bin Laden has given for why he wanted to attack us.

[belian78]

Neg rep me all you want, that tired old line is still pathetic, as are the people who still cling to it. If we hadn't been sticking our thumbs in their pie for the last few generations, and they still were striking out at us, then you'd have a point. But we have been, and you don't.

Neg rep me all you want.

[cajuncocoa]

Anyone who thinks we went into Afghanistan in order to kill Osama should read up on the battle of Tora Bora. Either our military is idiotic or some of the conspiracy theorists are right that we intentionally re-routed our forces into Iraq and didn't take out Osama when we had him.

Those were the turning points for me after 9/11, I realized that even if I didn't know everything, I knew this much: that's seriously messed up and intentional. If we'd killed Osama then, then they wouldn't have any "justification" to go into Iraq or stay in Afghanistan. I agree that it would be foolish to continue to believe that killing Osama was ever our true primary mission. It didn't take long to figure it out.

[Brett85]

Neg rep me all you want, that tired old line is still pathetic, as are the people who still cling to it. If we hadn't been sticking our thumbs in their pie for the last few generations, and they still were striking out at us, then you'd have a point. But we have been, and you don't.

Neg rep me all you want.

I neg repped you because you lied by saying my position is that they attack us because we're free. I said the reason why they attack us is multifaceted, that it's too simplistic to say that there's only one reason why they attack us. If you're going to take Osama Bin Laden at face value when he points to our foreign policy as a reason why they attack us, then you should also take him at face value when he gives additional reasons for why they want to attack us.

[cajuncocoa]

They hate us for our freedoms.

If they attacked us because they "hated us for our freedoms", then they were completely successful. We've lost so many freedoms since that attack, it's hard to remember the country we were before 9/11/01.

[amy31416]

I don't know. I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq and to stop pursuing Bin Laden. I agree that that was one thing John Kerry actually was right about in the debates with Bush.

So I'm confused, you know about Tora Bora, and you're still defending most of our military actions, indefinite detention (and by extension, the torture that comes along with it) because there's a *possibility* that they could possibly join (or rejoin) the people who are fighting to get our troops out of there, while you agree that we shouldn't be there at all.

Do you believe that Afghanis have the right to fight for their country and get us out of there, especially when we're killing so many civilians? I think it's obvious that you believe that a US troop's life is worth more than a civilian or a possibly wrongly detained person.

[Brett85]

So I'm confused, you know about Tora Bora, and you're still defending most of our military actions, indefinite detention (and by extension, the torture that comes along with it) because there's a *possibility* that they could possibly join (or rejoin) the people who are fighting to get our troops out of there, while you agree that we shouldn't be there at all.

Do you believe that Afghanis have the right to fight for their country and get us out of there, especially when we're killing so many civilians? I think it's obvious that you believe that a US troop's life is worth more than a civilian or a possibly wrongly detained person.

I don't understand how people keep misrepresenting my positions. Point to a post in this thread where I advocated indefinite detention or defended "most of our military actions." You obviously can't read.

[Brett85]

The correct answer is that I never advocated indefinite detention, and the only military action I think was justified was the military action we took initially as a response to the 9-11 attacks.

[A Son of Liberty]

I neg repped you because you lied by saying my position is that they attack us because we're free. I said the reason why they attack us is multifaceted, that it's too simplistic to say that there's only one reason why they attack us. If you're going to take Osama Bin Laden at face value when he points to our foreign policy as a reason why they attack us, then you should also take him at face value when he gives additional reasons for why they want to attack us.

Granted, but there are a lot of countries in the world with similar social norms to those in the U.S., yet the vast majority of "Muslim terrorism" is focused and directed at the U.S. and it's interests. All other things being equal, what separates the U.S. from those countries is our near century long meddling in the internal affairs of numerous ME/NA countries.

[TheTexan]

Which war? We were the aggressor in the Iraq War, but the original military action we took in Afghanistan was a result of an attack on our soil.

And why did they attack us on our soil?

[TheTexan]

They hate us for our freedoms. LOL You're pathetic.

Yep.

[Brett85]

And why did they attack us on our soil?

Like I said, it's multifaceted, with blowback being one reason, but not the only reason.

[Brett85]

Granted, but there are a lot of countries in the world with similar social norms to those in the U.S., yet the vast majority of "Muslim terrorism" is focused and directed at the U.S. and it's interests. All other things being equal, what separates the U.S. from those countries is our near century long meddling in the internal affairs of numerous ME/NA countries.

I don't disagree with that. I'm just saying that our foreign policy is one reason why they hate us, but not the only reason.

[TheTexan]

However, I also realize that Osama Bin Laden cited other reasons for why he supported attacks against us, such as our government's policy of allowing legal pornography.

Part of the reason they hate us is for our freedoms? How's that different from saying "They hate us for our freedoms."

If you take that position at least stand by it, instead of running away from it....

[itshappening]

Beck's not there today... it's the talentless nobodies of Pat and Stu filling in.

If anyone is listening have these two said anything about AJ? I can't listen.

[Brett85]

Part of the reason they hate us is for our freedoms? How's that different from saying "They hate us for our freedoms."

If you take that position at least stand by it, instead of running away from it....

So when Osama Bin Laden says that they hate us because of our foreign policy, you take him at face value, but when he says that he hates our country's social policies, you just assume that he's lying. Like I said, it's multifaceted. Anyone who says that there's only one reason why they attack us is wrong. The neo-cons who say that they only attack us because we're free and prosperous are wrong, and some libertarians who say that they only attack us because of our foreign policy are wrong. It's a mix of both and other reasons as well.

[jmdrake]

I don't understand how people keep misrepresenting my positions. Point to a post in this thread where I advocated indefinite detention or defended "most of our military actions." You obviously can't read.

Maybe because you argued against a position which nobody had taken that being "just release them." That said, the "blowback" argument itself is weak (it doesn't explain why the CIA run visa desk in Jeddah Saudi Arabia purposefully let terrorists through for decades and let 15 of the 19 hijackers through leading up to 9/11). And the "Part of the reason for 9/11 was porn" argument is laughable. And yes I know Ron made the "blowback" argument. He doesn't support interventionist foreign policy, and he didn't want to expose himself any more to the "9/11 truther" smear, so he didn't dwell on obvious "mistakes" the government made which made 9/11 possible. In retrospect, I believe Ron made a tactical blunder. Many republicans interpreted "blowback" as either "blame America" or "turn your back on Israel", two positions that they found unacceptable. Had Ron instead concentrated on "blunders" like visa express and Tora Bora and the FBI's on informant making the bomb for the 1993 WTC bombing he might well be president now.

[itshappening]

Like Ron, Rand, Justin Amash and others, I supported a limited military action to take out Osama Bin Laden and the others who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks. (And yes, Osama Bin Laden admitted to and praised the attacks) I never supported a nation building campaign in Afghanistan. We shouldn't be in Afghanistan now. But apparently you would've been content with just allowing our country to be attacked and not responding with any kind of military force.

Well I didn't support it and OBL had no due process just mere accusations from liars in government.

If there was evidence of his involvement then present the case to a grand jury.

The constitution is clear... accused persons have the right to due process. Not to be accused and assassinated or the country they're staying in invaded, raped, pillaged and occupied for 12 years.

[TheTexan]

So when Osama Bin Laden says that they hate us because of our foreign policy, you take him at face value, but when he says that he hates our country's social policies, you just assume that he's lying. Like I said, it's multifaceted. Anyone who says that there's only one reason why they attack us is wrong. The neo-cons who say that they only attack us because we're free and prosperous are wrong, and some libertarians who say that they only attack us because of our foreign policy are wrong. It's a mix of both and other reasons as well.

And I suppose the other pornography-allowing countries have had their skyscrapers hit with jumbo jets?

[Brett85]

Maybe because you argued against a position which nobody had taken that being "just release them."

Perhaps, but I never advocated any military action other than the military action that we took right after 9-11, which you also said you support. But apparently I'm a "neo-con" for saying that it's justified to use military action when our country gets attacked. That's what I'm getting from the comments here. Apparently the libertarian position is to support pacifism and not support military action under any circumstances. We weren't justified in using military action after 9-11 since we provoked the attack on ourselves, and we weren't justified in using military action after the attack on Pearl Harbor since we provoked that attack through sanctions. Since every time the U.S gets attacked we apparently provoke the attack in some way, it's never justified to use military action under any circumstances. I think that pretty much sums it up. (I'm referring to others here, not you.)

[nano1895]

Sure perhaps the totality of the reason why we were attacked on 9/11 was multi faceted. But you're not going to convince a group of people to hijack airplanes and drive them into a building because "hey, these guys allow legal porn, get em!"

[Brett85]

And I suppose the other pornography-allowing countries have had their skyscrapers hit with jumbo jets?

Our foreign policy may be the determining factor in why they attack us rather than these other countries. I'm just saying that it's not the only reason why they hate us.

[itshappening]

It was clearly a government run operation. Either by the USG or a foreign intelligence agency.

A man in a cave didn't plan 9/11. It was far too sophisticated to pull off.

[itshappening]

Our foreign policy may be the determining factor in why they attack us rather than these other countries. I'm just saying that it's not the only reason why they hate us.

It was the USG or foreign intelligence agency that attacked on 9/11 not a rag-tag band of fighters in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

[amy31416]

I don't understand how people keep misrepresenting my positions. Point to a post in this thread where I advocated indefinite detention or defended "most of our military actions." You obviously can't read.

Well, you defended indefinite detention when you said that we can't let these people go because they'll kill our soldiers. I read that just fine. Later you said something critical of a person who thinks we shouldn't have had troops there in the first place, which is true and prompted me to bring up Tora Bora to you, because I figured you weren't aware of it given your defense of our military actions that were such obvious BS.

I found it disturbing that you know about it and STILL defend US military action that kills civilians and enrages many others. And you do. I don't have a great internet connection, so there's no way I'm going through your posts to point out the obvious.

Oh, and you lied in your neg rep when you said that you rarely give neg reps. You've done at least two in this thread alone. If so many people are "liars" for interpreting your words the way we do, perhaps you ought to look at how you communicate what you really believe.

[jmdrake]

So when Osama Bin Laden says that they hate us because of our foreign policy, you take him at face value, but when he says that he hates our country's social policies, you just assume that he's lying. Like I said, it's multifaceted. Anyone who says that there's only one reason why they attack us is wrong. The neo-cons who say that they only attack us because we're free and prosperous are wrong, and some libertarians who say that they only attack us because of our foreign policy are wrong. It's a mix of both and other reasons as well.

Actually OBL never, even according to the MSM, cited pornography as a reason for the attack. His "letter to America" in 2002 was broken into two questions:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
(Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

Q1 was all of the foreign policy stuff including support attacks on Muslim nations and support for Israel.

Q2 was criticisms of America on everything for the charging of interest, to pornography, to the Patriot Act. Think about this. Did OBL attack the U.S. because of the Patriot Act when the Patriot Act was passed after 9/11?

[A Son of Liberty]

Perhaps, but I never advocated any military action other than the military action that we took right after 9-11, which you also said you support. But apparently I'm a "neo-con" for saying that it's justified to use military action when our country gets attacked. That's what I'm getting from the comments here. Apparently the libertarian position is to support pacifism and not support military action under any circumstances. We weren't justified in using military action after 9-11 since we provoked the attack on ourselves, and we weren't justified in using military action after the attack on Pearl Harbor since we provoked that attack through sanctions. Since every time the U.S gets attack we apparently provoke the attack in some way, it's never justified to use military action under any circumstances. I think that pretty much sums it up. (I'm referring to others here, not you.)

Nonsense.


The issue of marque and reprisal was raised before Congress after the September 11 attacks[31] and again on July 21, 2007, by Congressman Ron Paul. The attacks were defined as acts of "air piracy" and the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 was introduced, which would have granted the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. The terrorists were compared to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means.[32] Congressman Paul on April 15, 2009, also advocated the use of letters of marque to address the issue of Somali pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden. However, the bills Congressman Paul introduced were not enacted into law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

As Ron has argued, a country which has been attacked is right to defend itself.

It's foolish to ignore root causes.

[A Son of Liberty]

It was clearly a government run operation. Either by the USG or a foreign intelligence agency.

A man in a cave didn't plan 9/11. It was far too sophisticated to pull off.

Please don't turn this thread into a 9/11 debate.

[belian78]

Sure perhaps the totality of the reason why we were attacked on 9/11 was multi faceted. But you're not going to convince a group of people to hijack airplanes and drive them into a building because "hey, these guys allow legal porn, get em!"
It's totally because we wear white after Labor Day, totally.

[Brett85]

Well, you defended indefinite detention when you said that we can't let these people go because they'll kill our soldiers. I read that just fine. Later you said something critical of a person who thinks we shouldn't have had troops there in the first place, which is true and prompted me to bring up Tora Bora to you, because I figured you weren't aware of it given your defense of our military actions that were such obvious BS.

I found it disturbing that you know about it and STILL defend US military action that kills civilians and enrages many others. And you do. I don't have a great internet connection, so there's no way I'm going through your posts to point out the obvious.

Oh, and you lied in your neg rep when you said that you rarely give neg reps. You've done at least two in this thread alone. If so many people are "liars" for interpreting your words the way we do, perhaps you ought to look at how you communicate what you really believe.

Like I said, you can't read.


They shouldn't be held without any due process, but they shouldn't simply be released either, which we've done in the past with some prisoners. They should all be tried in military tribunals immediately, and those who are found guilty should receive the death penalty, and those who are found innocent should be released to their country of origin.

[The Gold Standard]

Well, you defended indefinite detention when you said that we can't let these people go because they'll kill our soldiers. I read that just fine. Later you said something critical of a person who thinks we shouldn't have had troops there in the first place, which is true and prompted me to bring up Tora Bora to you, because I figured you weren't aware of it given your defense of our military actions that were such obvious BS.

I found it disturbing that you know about it and STILL defend US military action that kills civilians and enrages many others. And you do. I don't have a great internet connection, so there's no way I'm going through your posts to point out the obvious.

Oh, and you lied in your neg rep when you said that you rarely give neg reps. You've done at least two in this thread alone. If so many people are "liars" for interpreting your words the way we do, perhaps you ought to look at how you communicate what you really believe.

To be fair, about indefinite detention he said we should either kill them or release them. The rest of your point stands though.

[jmdrake]

Perhaps, but I never advocated any military action other than the military action that we took right after 9-11, which you also said you support.

Correction. I said I SUPPORTED AS IN PASSED TENSE! Once I found out that even before we took any military action in Afghanistan, we purposefully opened the back to let Osama Bin Laden escape (again, have you read the airlift of evil story I linked to?) I came to the conclusion that even the Afghan war was a farce.



But apparently I'm a "neo-con" for saying that it's justified to use military action when our country gets attacked. That's what I'm getting from the comments here. Apparently the libertarian position is to support pacifism and not support military action under any circumstances. We weren't justified in using military action after 9-11 since we provoked the attack on ourselves, and we weren't justified in using military action after the attack on Pearl Harbor since we provoked that attack through sanctions. Since every time the U.S gets attacked we apparently provoke the attack in some way, it's never justified to use military action under any circumstances. I think that pretty much sums it up. (I'm referring to others here, not you.)

I guess what is confusing to me, and possibly others, is why after been shown incontrovertible evidence that our reason for going into Afghanistan was a farce (again, you don't go in to capture someone but pause first to let his allies escape), that you're still holding onto the position that the action was justified?

[Brett85]

Well, you defended indefinite detention when you said that we can't let these people go because they'll kill our soldiers. I read that just fine. Later you said something critical of a person who thinks we shouldn't have had troops there in the first place, which is true and prompted me to bring up Tora Bora to you, because I figured you weren't aware of it given your defense of our military actions that were such obvious BS.

I found it disturbing that you know about it and STILL defend US military action that kills civilians and enrages many others. And you do.

No, that is an outright lie. Quit lying. I don't support any of our current military actions. I supported a limited military response after 9-11 to go after those responsible for the attack.

[Brett85]

I guess what is confusing to me, and possibly others, is why after been shown incontrovertible evidence that our reason for going into Afghanistan was a farce (again, you don't go in to capture someone but pause first to let his allies escape), that you're still holding onto the position that the action was justified?

I think that it's justified to use military action after we've been attacked. That's part of the Christian just war theory. I don't know whether sending in so many troops to Afghanistan was the right way to do it or not, but there's absolutely nothing wrong or immoral about using military action as a response to an attack on our soil.

[jmdrake]

Afghanistan didn't attack us....we were attacked by 19 hijackers, none of whom called Afghanistan home.

And 15 of those 19 hijackers were let into this country by the CIA controlled visa desk in Jedda Saudi Arabia. Why weren't CIA agents responsible put in indefinite detention?

[Brett85]

To be fair, about indefinite detention he said we should either kill them or release them. The rest of your point stands though.

After they've been tried and convicted or tried and aquitted.

[itshappening]

I think that it's justified to use military action after we've been attacked. That's part of the Christian just war theory. I don't know whether sending in so many troops to Afghanistan was the right way to do it or not, but there's absolutely nothing wrong or immoral about using military action as a response to an attack on our soil.

So if it turns out that this guy who attacked yesterday was Saudi, was trained there and financed by them should we launch a ground invasion of Saudi Arabia?

[Brett85]

So if it turns out that this guy who attacked yesterday was Saudi, was trained there and financed by them should we launch a ground invasion of Saudi Arabia?

It wouldn't be practical to do that, but if we did it, it wouldn't be an example of preemptive war or an act of aggression.

[jmdrake]

I think that it's justified to use military action after we've been attacked. That's part of the Christian just war theory. I don't know whether sending in so many troops to Afghanistan was the right way to do it or not, but there's absolutely nothing wrong or immoral about using military action as a response to an attack on our soil.

Let me make an analogy. You live in the frontier. Your neighbor has a visitor that you believe shot your dog. You plan to attack your neighbor for harboring your enemy. Your enemy (the neighbor's visitor) has a friend that's a mutual friend of yours. This mutual friend has sons who are part of your enemies gang. Your friend says "Please let my sons escape." So you say "Okay". You back you and your men away from the house and turn a blind eye. Your enemy escapes with your friend's sons. Even though you know this is a likely possibility, you proceed to attack your neighbor anyway, killing members of his family. Surprise? Your enemy is not there. Was your attack on your neighbor justified?

[itshappening]

It wouldn't be practical to do that, but if we did it, it wouldn't be an example of preemptive war or an act of aggression.

But it was practical for Afghanistan ??

Who makes the decision? people in govt'.. No thanks.

[jmdrake]

It wouldn't be practical to do that, but if we did it, it wouldn't be an example of preemptive war or an act of aggression.

President Obama recently announced that he was restarting the Saudi "visa express" program, which was responsible for allowing 15 of the 19 hijackers in. If the person who did the attack yesterday turned out to come through via "visa express" should someone in the U.S. government be held to account before we even THINK about invading another country?

[Brett85]

President Obama recently announced that he was restarting the Saudi "visa express" program, which was responsible for allowing 15 of the 19 hijackers in. If the person who did the attack yesterday turned out to come through via "visa express" should someone in the U.S. government be held to account before we even THINK about invading another country?

Sure, I agree with that.

[Brett85]

But it was practical for Afghanistan ??

Who makes the decision? people in govt'.. No thanks.

Like I said, I believe that we were actually attacked on 9-11 and it wasn't just a government conspiracy, so I think it was justified to use military action after 9-11. Whether we did it in the most practical way or not, I don't know. Perhaps it would've been a better idea to just send in special operation forces to Afghanistan and make it more of a surgical attack. But, I support using military action when we get attacked, which as I've stated before, is consistent with the Christian just war theory. I'm not a pacifist.

[itshappening]

Like I said, I believe that we were actually attacked on 9-11 and it wasn't just a government conspiracy, so I think it was justified to use military action after 9-11. Whether we did it in the most practical way or not, I don't know. Perhaps it would've been a better idea to just send in special operation forces to Afghanistan and make it more of a surgical attack. But, I support using military action when we get attacked, which as I've stated before, is consistent with the Christian just war theory. I'm not a pacifist.

But if you accept that premise then America was attacked by hijackers who are DEAD. Not a man in a cave. He did squat. In fact, he denied it.

[Brett85]

Let me make an analogy. You live in the frontier. Your neighbor has a visitor that you believe shot your dog. You plan to attack your neighbor for harboring your enemy. Your enemy (the neighbor's visitor) has a friend that's a mutual friend of yours. This mutual friend has sons who are part of your enemies gang. Your friend says "Please let my sons escape." So you say "Okay". You back you and your men away from the house and turn a blind eye. Your enemy escapes with your friend's sons. Even though you know this is a likely possibility, you proceed to attack your neighbor anyway, killing members of his family. Surprise? Your enemy is not there. Was your attack on your neighbor justified?

Some sort of military action was justified after 9-11. I'm not sure whether the way we did it was the best way to do it or not, but we can't just allow people to attack us and not respond with some kind of military action.

[Brett85]

But if you accept that premise then America was attacked by hijackers who are DEAD. Not a man in a cave. He did squat. In fact, he denied it.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that you're not a 9-11 truther and you believe that we were attacked by terrorists on 9-11. Are you saying that when we get attacked by terrorists, we should just sit back and do absolutely nothing?

[itshappening]

no action was justified but to deal with the people who gave them the visa's and the incompetent FBI (if you believe the official story)

The people who allegedly attacked are DEAD... they died in those planes.

[A Son of Liberty]

Like I said, I believe that we were actually attacked on 9-11 and it wasn't just a government conspiracy, so I think it was justified to use military action after 9-11. Whether we did it in the most practical way or not, I don't know. Perhaps it would've been a better idea to just send in special operation forces to Afghanistan and make it more of a surgical attack. But, I support using military action when we get attacked, which as I've stated before, is consistent with the Christian just war theory. I'm not a pacifist.

I'll admit that I'm not an expert with regard to Christian just war theory, but according to my understanding of it, the invasion of a sovereign country for the actions of a citizen, let alone a non-citizen, is not at all consistent with JWT.

[itshappening]

Let's just say for the sake of argument that you're not a 9-11 truther and you believe that we were attacked by terrorists on 9-11. Are you saying that when we get attacked by terrorists, we should just sit back and do absolutely nothing?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

What do you want to do? Invade every country that allegedly has a link to an attacker? So we should invade Saudi if this guy turns out to be saudi and financed by them? of course not. That's stupid.

The attackers are dead.

You grieve with the families and deal with the incompetence of the FBI and the visa desk.

And if like me you believe it was someone else, you deal with the foreign intelligence agencies that actually planned it, carried it out and financed it. The financing is easy to trace and came from Pakistan.

[Brett85]

I'll admit that I'm not an expert with regard to Christian just war theory, but according to my understanding of it, the invasion of a sovereign country for the actions of a citizen, let alone a non-citizen, is not at all consistent with JWT.

They were harboring Bin Laden. We tried to get the Taliban to give him up, and they wouldn't do it. Even non interventionists like Jack Hunter supported the original war in Afghanistan since we were attacked.

[Brett85]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

What do you want to do? Invade every country that allegedly has a link to an attacker? So we should invade Saudi if this guy turns out to be saudi and financed by them? of course not. That's stupid.

The attackers are dead.

I would advise you to never run for public office if you think that military action is never justified, that we should just allow anyone to attack our country and not ever respond with any kind of military force.

[A Son of Liberty]

They were harboring Bin Laden. We tried to get the Taliban to give him up, and they wouldn't do it. Even non interventionists like Jack Hunter supported the original war in Afghanistan since we were attacked.

So are you saying that according to JWT, if a country harbors a suspected criminal, it is acceptable to invade that country?

Edit to add "suspected"

[itshappening]

They were harboring Bin Laden. We tried to get the Taliban to give him up, and they wouldn't do it. Even non interventionists like Jack Hunter supported the original war in Afghanistan since we were attacked.

They can harbor whoever they want.

OBL denied any involvement and was not on those planes. He no more attacked than you or me.

[jmdrake]

Some sort of military action was justified after 9-11. I'm not sure whether the way we did it was the best way to do it or not, but we can't just allow people to attack us and not respond with some kind of military action.

Okay. You didn't answer the question. I will try it again. Once you, through your own actions, have missed the opportunity to take legitimate military action, is it okay then to take illegitimate military action just so that you can say you "did something?"

[itshappening]

I would advise you to never run for public office if you think that military action is never justified, that we should just allow anyone to attack our country and not ever respond with any kind of military force.


I'm not running for public office.

The people who attacked are DEAD... they died on those planes.

End of story.

Stop trying to use the US military for your adventures and your "theories"... that's what they did after 9/11 and it's been an expensive mess.

[Brett85]

So are you saying that according to JWT, if a country harbors a criminal, it is acceptable to invade that country?

I'm not talking about supporting a long term nation building mission like we're involved in now. I oppose the current war in Afghanistan. I'm saying that it was morally acceptable originally to fight off the Taliban in order to get to Bin Laden.

[itshappening]

So are you saying that according to JWT, if a country harbors a suspected criminal, it is acceptable to invade that country?

Edit to add "suspected"

An alleged criminal. Let's not forget OBL was never indicted for crimes relating to 9/11.

He was wanted for other stuff and that was not even proven either/

[Brett85]

The amazing thing about all of this is that I'm being painted as being some crazy neo-con, and if I were in the U.S Senate I would be the most non interventionist member of the Senate, by far. I'm far more of a non interventionist than Rand is. I support closing down all of the foreign bases, ending all foreign aid, opposing sanctions and preemptive war, etc. But yet I'm some warmongering neocon because I support responding militarily when we get attacked and that we shouldn't just release all of the prisoners at Gitmo before we've tried them.

[itshappening]

I'm not talking about supporting a long term nation building mission like we're involved in now. I oppose the current war in Afghanistan. I'm saying that it was morally acceptable originally to fight off the Taliban in order to get to Bin Laden.

Slippery slope. If you support the initial action you open yourself up to the MIC taking over and being there for decades. These actions always end up not going well... look at Vietnam. People dont like their country invaded and occupied and tend to fight back. Even with crude methods they can be effective against a powerful military and now they have a cause to rally behind and more death and destruction ensues.

In short, nothing good comes of it

[jmdrake]

They were harboring Bin Laden. We tried to get the Taliban to give him up, and they wouldn't do it. Even non interventionists like Jack Hunter supported the original war in Afghanistan since we were attacked.

World War I was started because the a Serbian assassinated the royal couple of Austria and Serbian wouldn't give the killer up to Austria. Over 16 million people died in World War I. Oh yeah, and we entered WW I ultimately on the side of the Serbian terrorists. WWI also is the catalyst for the rise of communism in Russia. Were those 16 million deaths justified under your understanding of the just war theory?

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm not talking about supporting a long term nation building mission like we're involved in now. I oppose the current war in Afghanistan. I'm saying that it was morally acceptable originally to fight off the Taliban in order to get to Bin Laden.

I don't think that answers my question.


Like I said, I believe that we were actually attacked on 9-11 and it wasn't just a government conspiracy, so I think it was justified to use military action after 9-11. Whether we did it in the most practical way or not, I don't know. Perhaps it would've been a better idea to just send in special operation forces to Afghanistan and make it more of a surgical attack. But, I support using military action when we get attacked, which as I've stated before, is consistent with the Christian just war theory. I'm not a pacifist.


I'll admit that I'm not an expert with regard to Christian just war theory, but according to my understanding of it, the invasion of a sovereign country for the actions of a citizen, let alone a non-citizen, is not at all consistent with JWT.


They were harboring Bin Laden. We tried to get the Taliban to give him up, and they wouldn't do it. Even non interventionists like Jack Hunter supported the original war in Afghanistan since we were attacked.


So are you saying that according to JWT, if a country harbors a suspected criminal, it is acceptable to invade that country?

Edit to add "suspected"

(I wish this site had multi-quoting functionality)

[amy31416]

To be fair, about indefinite detention he said we should either kill them or release them. The rest of your point stands though.

I stand corrected on that point...I hope he's the one willing to pull the trigger to kill anyone he wants killed though.

[ravedown]

regarding the OP-i still don't understand why Beck would call himself a libertarian but not understand the fundamental principles of being libertarian. most of us have full time jobs and busy lives and still find time to research the basic economic ideals and philosophies of libertarianism...but it's Becks damn JOB to know this stuff. he makes a living discussing political issues and yet we seem to still be stuck holding his hand on what it takes to be liberty minded. WTF? if he doesn't understand it by now, or wants to water it down into republican-lite-then fuck him. he's not trying hard enough to get it, or would rather re-define it. give up Beck....go back to hanging with santorum and bachmann already, they're a far better fit for you.

[A Son of Liberty]

regarding the OP-i still don't understand why Beck would call himself a libertarian but not understand the fundamental principles of being libertarian. most of us have full time jobs and busy lives and still find time to research the basic economic ideals and philosophies of libertarianism...but it's Becks damn JOB to know this stuff. he makes a living discussing political issues and yet we seem to still be stuck holding his hand on what it takes to be liberty minded. WTF? if he doesn't understand it by now, or wants to water it down into republican-lite-then fuck him. he's not trying hard enough to get it, or would rather re-define it. give up Beck....go back to hanging with santorum and bachmann already, they're a far better fit for you.

It's my opinion that he knows full-well what libertarianism is; it is his intention to attach to the popular understanding of libertarianism his views on foreign policy. Or, in other words, to "co-opt" it.

There are obvious reasons that he avoids fleshing out Ron Paul's FP views, and marginalizes him. There are obvious reasons he no longer has Tom Woods on his show. He reads the same stuff we do. He's not stupid.

[jmdrake]

The amazing thing about all of this is that I'm being painted as being some crazy neo-con, and if I were in the U.S Senate I would be the most non interventionist member of the Senate, by far. I'm far more of a non interventionist than Rand is. I support closing down all of the foreign bases, ending all foreign aid, opposing sanctions and preemptive war, etc. But yet I'm some warmongering neocon because I support responding militarily when we get attacked and that we shouldn't just release all of the prisoners at Gitmo before we've tried them.

Good for you! Nobody that you're arguing against has said we should just release all of the prisoners at Gitmo without a trial or at least some kind of hearing. And nobody has said we should never respond militarily to an attack. Some found it curious as to why you chose to belabor the obvious when the OP was not at all about military tribunals versus civilian trials, but rather indefinite detention versus non indefinite detention. Some are also curious as to how you can still support invading a country after giving our primary reason for invading ample opportunity to leave. That you see it differently doesn't make you a "neocon", but it doesn't make your opponents "naive pacifists" either.

[jmdrake]

It's my opinion that he knows full-well what libertarianism is; it is his intention to attach to the popular understanding of libertarianism his views on foreign policy. Or, in other words, to "co-opt" it.

There are obvious reasons that he avoids fleshing out Ron Paul's FP views, and marginalizes him. There are obvious reasons he no longer has Tom Woods on his show. He reads the same stuff we do. He's not stupid.

^This. Ann Coulter has tried the same thing, but with less success.

[ravedown]

^This. Ann Coulter has tried the same thing, but with less success.
so, do you think he see's the title 'republican' as such a liability that he needs to move over into whichever political category seems to be trending. is he smart enough to (unlike limbaugh) be willing to gamble on the idea that the neo-con movement is on it's death bed and the next wave needs to be hopped onto? it's such an act, his two crony co-hosts clearly have no interest in libertarianism and they all seem really tight....so what the hell is with beck?

[cajuncocoa]

President Obama recently announced that he was restarting the Saudi "visa express" program, which was responsible for allowing 15 of the 19 hijackers in. If the person who did the attack yesterday turned out to come through via "visa express" should someone in the U.S. government be held to account before we even THINK about invading another country?
Definitely, but don't hold your breath.

[cajuncocoa]

regarding the OP-i still don't understand why Beck would call himself a libertarian but not understand the fundamental principles of being libertarian. most of us have full time jobs and busy lives and still find time to research the basic economic ideals and philosophies of libertarianism...but it's Becks damn JOB to know this stuff. he makes a living discussing political issues and yet we seem to still be stuck holding his hand on what it takes to be liberty minded. WTF? if he doesn't understand it by now, or wants to water it down into republican-lite-then fuck him. he's not trying hard enough to get it, or would rather re-define it. give up Beck....go back to hanging with santorum and bachmann already, they're a far better fit for you.


It's my opinion that he knows full-well what libertarianism is; it is his intention to attach to the popular understanding of libertarianism his views on foreign policy. Or, in other words, to "co-opt" it.

There are obvious reasons that he avoids fleshing out Ron Paul's FP views, and marginalizes him. There are obvious reasons he no longer has Tom Woods on his show. He reads the same stuff we do. He's not stupid.
Exactly. Glenn Beck wants to change what it means to be a libertarian; to fit his view of what it should mean (according to Glenn Beck).

[cajuncocoa]

so, do you think he see's the title 'republican' as such a liability that he needs to move over into whichever political category seems to be trending. is he smart enough to (unlike limbaugh) be willing to gamble on the idea that the neo-con movement is on it's death bed and the next wave needs to be hopped onto? it's such an act, his two crony co-hosts clearly have no interest in libertarianism and they all seem really tight....so what the hell is with beck?

I think Glenn Beck has a huge ego and just likes to lead movements...he had that "9/12" thing, and then he tried to co-opt the Tea Party. I think he's done other things as well, and none of them have had much sticking power. So, this is just his latest attempt to co-opt an already existing movement and try to remake it in his image.

[itshappening]

Beck does seem to see himself as some sort of leader:

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/650A0837_1-620x413.jpg

He does have a very neocon outlook when it comes to FP though, that's why he shouldn't claim to be a libertarian. or he should change his views.

I doubt he will because the MIC run him and are behind him.

Either that or he's deduced being a neocon makes him a lot of money because that's where America is.

[Christian Liberty]

I think the cause of terrorist attacks in the U.S is a little more complex than that. I think that blowback is basically one of many theories that are true. But I think you basically have a small group of Islamic extremists who hate us and would want to attack us even if we had a non interventionist foreign policy, but our current foreign policy helps with their recruiting, makes their numbers larger than they would be otherwise, and gives them more of an incentive to attack us than they would have otherwise. But, I don't really agree with those who say that it's the sole reason why they attack us. That isn't really true either.

Certainly possible. I'm not a utopian. Crime is still going to be a problem even in the best of libertarian societies. And you deal with crime when it happens. But crime-fighting and war are not the same thing.


Mmmm, no, I don't think he is...I think that taking the position that it is somehow OK for government to just throw people in a cage with no due process, for any reason, or no reason at all, and hold them until dead is pretty much a deal breaker.

I have to agree. I'm usually willing to support a "Big Tent" but if you get indefinite detention wrong that automatically makes you worse than Dennis Kucinich. There's no room for people like that in the "Tent."

I thought Glenn opposed the Patriot Act? This is worse. Why is he supporting it?


I agree. I only supported a limited military campaign to go after Bin Laden, not the full fledged nation building campaign that we have today. But I simply brought up the 9-11 attacks and our military response to point out that we weren't the "aggressors" in the war. I understand the "blowback" theory, but that is really just one of several reasons why they attacked us on 9-11, not the only reason. Our military bases in Germany and Japan haven't caused the people of those countries to blow up our buildings.

Well, they actually want us there. The problem there is that we're stealing money from the American populace to pay for the bases and troops there.

Exactly. There are no exceptions for "indefinite detention" in libertarianism.

I meant exactly what I said - libertarians reject Glenn Beck because he is NOT a libertarian.

You might want to add "Without trial" there, because I don't think there's anything intristically unlibertarian about life imprisonment, or at the very least, punishment theory is usually an in house issue.


We happen to fortunately live in a land in relative isolation from the rest of the world. If the day ever would have come that hordes of muslim terrorists managed to invade en masse, then a war may have been justified. The fact of the matter is, whatever their ideology, the U.S. government went to them, first.

Whack a hornet's nest, get stung.

Yep, pretty much what happened.


Like I said, I accept the blowback theory as being true. However, I also realize that Osama Bin Laden cited other reasons for why he supported attacks against us, such as our government's policy of allowing legal pornography. So while the blowback theory is true, it's not the only factor at play. It's multifaceted.

Did Osama even ever say that? There are also lots of countries which legalize porn and don't have this issue.


Like Ron, Rand, Justin Amash and others, I supported a limited military action to take out Osama Bin Laden and the others who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks. (And yes, Osama Bin Laden admitted to and praised the attacks) I never supported a nation building campaign in Afghanistan. We shouldn't be in Afghanistan now. But apparently you would've been content with just allowing our country to be attacked and not responding with any kind of military force.

I'm pretty sure Ron regrets it now. Rand, by contrast, is still "Walking the line" as it were...

I'm sure Glenn Beck is on the radio today drumming up suspicions that the Boston bombing was perpetrated by "Muslim extremists". And I'm sure his voice is wavering over the death of an 8 year old boy... as well it should.

Regardless, it's just a shame that, to Beck, the murder of an 8 year old boy in Boston is a tragic, villainous crime, but the murder of 180 children in Pakistan is "collateral damage".

Sadly...

They hate us for our freedoms. LOL You're pathetic.

I think what he said was a little more complicated than that...



I neg repped you because you lied by saying my position is that they attack us because we're free. I said the reason why they attack us is multifaceted, that it's too simplistic to say that there's only one reason why they attack us. If you're going to take Osama Bin Laden at face value when he points to our foreign policy as a reason why they attack us, then you should also take him at face value when he gives additional reasons for why they want to attack us.

What were the other reasons?


If they attacked us because they "hated us for our freedoms", then they were completely successful. We've lost so many freedoms since that attack, it's hard to remember the country we were before 9/11/01.

Oh my, yes. This was honestly my position a few years ago before Ron Paul woke me up. I believed that the terrorists were trying to fight us to get rid of our freedom and that our government policy was helping them succeed. I honestly bought the neocon lies, but was at least smart enough to figure out that sacrificing freedom in order to fight the guys who "Hate us for our freedoms" makes zero sense.

Thank God for Ron Paul. In 2011 I finally started waking up.

So I'm confused, you know about Tora Bora, and you're still defending most of our military actions, indefinite detention (and by extension, the torture that comes along with it) because there's a *possibility* that they could possibly join (or rejoin) the people who are fighting to get our troops out of there, while you agree that we shouldn't be there at all.

Do you believe that Afghanis have the right to fight for their country and get us out of there, especially when we're killing so many civilians? I think it's obvious that you believe that a US troop's life is worth more than a civilian or a possibly wrongly detained person.

I do think TraditionalConservative is probably supporting "Our troops" a little too much, but that's a pretty common flaw and not necessarily a fatal one. I do not see where he said he supports most of our military actions. I'm sure TraditionalConservative would oppose the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq...


Granted, but there are a lot of countries in the world with similar social norms to those in the U.S., yet the vast majority of "Muslim terrorism" is focused and directed at the U.S. and it's interests. All other things being equal, what separates the U.S. from those countries is our near century long meddling in the internal affairs of numerous ME/NA countries.

Yeah, pretty much.


Part of the reason they hate us is for our freedoms? How's that different from saying "They hate us for our freedoms."

If you take that position at least stand by it, instead of running away from it....

"They hate us for a lot of reasons, and our socially liberal leaning social mores may be one of those many reasons, albeit not the most serious of those reasons" and "They hate us for our freedoms" are different statements. I think TraditionalConservative is supporting something closer to the first one than the second...


And I suppose the other pornography-allowing countries have had their skyscrapers hit with jumbo jets?

No, they haven't, which is why I'm having trouble agreeing with TraditionalConservative here, although I also think there are several strawmen being thrown at him right now.


Perhaps, but I never advocated any military action other than the military action that we took right after 9-11, which you also said you support. But apparently I'm a "neo-con" for saying that it's justified to use military action when our country gets attacked. That's what I'm getting from the comments here. Apparently the libertarian position is to support pacifism and not support military action under any circumstances. We weren't justified in using military action after 9-11 since we provoked the attack on ourselves, and we weren't justified in using military action after the attack on Pearl Harbor since we provoked that attack through sanctions. Since every time the U.S gets attacked we apparently provoke the attack in some way, it's never justified to use military action under any circumstances. I think that pretty much sums it up. (I'm referring to others here, not you.)

I think its fair to say that the US was justified in some level of retaliation against Japan (Although I think "Unconditional surrender" was excessive as were the atomic bombings, their imperial possessions in Asia were truly none of our business) while still saying that we bear some degree of responsibility for the sanctions. FDR clearly wanted to get us into the war. If someone assassinated FDR on the same day that Pearl Harbor happened, I would fully expect and support his successor defending the country. We could still say that FDR did something bad, however. In reality, we had the same President, but what FDR did after Dec. 7 1941, which was absolutely the only legitimate possibility, does not justify what he did before that date.

The last war I could fully justify in US history was the War for Southern Independence, or the War in 1812 if you don't count the CSA secession. In both of those wars, there were absolutely no provocations, and one side (England, or the North, respectively) bear all the guilt. I can't say he same thing for WWII. I don't think Japan had a right to do what it did, but I can understand why they did it.


Nonsense.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

As Ron has argued, a country which has been attacked is right to defend itself.

It's foolish to ignore root causes.

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul also defended WWII as well. Some of the ultra-radicals, such as Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, put all the fault for those wars on the United States. While I do recognize that we did some stupid things to provoke the Japanese attack, I still believe Japan had a choice not to attack us, and should have known that we would defend ourselves if they did.


I think that it's justified to use military action after we've been attacked. That's part of the Christian just war theory. I don't know whether sending in so many troops to Afghanistan was the right way to do it or not, but there's absolutely nothing wrong or immoral about using military action as a response to an attack on our soil.

The difference is that there was no war. Band of criminals =/= DOW. If the Taliban themselves attacked us you'd have a point.

So if it turns out that this guy who attacked yesterday was Saudi, was trained there and financed by them should we launch a ground invasion of Saudi Arabia?

Nope.


It wouldn't be practical to do that, but if we did it, it wouldn't be an example of preemptive war or an act of aggression.
If we were actually attacked "Practical" wouldn't come into it. That's what "Defense" is. You don't really get a choice in those cases...


But if you accept that premise then America was attacked by hijackers who are DEAD. Not a man in a cave. He did squat. In fact, he denied it.


Just becasue he denied it doesn't mean he actually didn't do it. Two different things there.


Some sort of military action was justified after 9-11. I'm not sure whether the way we did it was the best way to do it or not, but we can't just allow people to attack us and not respond with some kind of military action.

Military Action wasn't really justified. If absolutely necessary, after public publication of evidence to the world showing who, and why was behind the attacks, I would accept targeted killings of the particular individuals involved. Even better would be to get some level of cooperation with local police and place them under arrest and trial. But an invasion of the entire country for the acts of criminals is clearly out of line.


I would advise you to never run for public office if you think that military action is never justified, that we should just allow anyone to attack our country and not ever respond with any kind of military force.

I don't think any of us here have a chance. I seriously doubt even you would have a chance in this country. Even you would be called "Pacifist" in this political climate.

The amazing thing about all of this is that I'm being painted as being some crazy neo-con, and if I were in the U.S Senate I would be the most non interventionist member of the Senate, by far. I'm far more of a non interventionist than Rand is. I support closing down all of the foreign bases, ending all foreign aid, opposing sanctions and preemptive war, etc. But yet I'm some warmongering neocon because I support responding militarily when we get attacked and that we shouldn't just release all of the prisoners at Gitmo before we've tried them.

Yeah, I think you're significantly better than Rand Paul on this. Rand Paul is still supporting some intervention.


It's my opinion that he knows full-well what libertarianism is; it is his intention to attach to the popular understanding of libertarianism his views on foreign policy. Or, in other words, to "co-opt" it.

There are obvious reasons that he avoids fleshing out Ron Paul's FP views, and marginalizes him. There are obvious reasons he no longer has Tom Woods on his show. He reads the same stuff we do. He's not stupid.

Why does he still have Judge Nap?


^This. Ann Coulter has tried the same thing, but with less success.


Beck does seem to see himself as some sort of leader:

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/650A0837_1-620x413.jpg

He does have a very neocon outlook when it comes to FP though, that's why he shouldn't claim to be a libertarian. or he should change his views.

I doubt he will because the MIC run him and are behind him.

Either that or he's deduced being a neocon makes him a lot of money because that's where America is.
Glenn actually sounds like a libertarian leaning conservative. Ann Coulter sounds more like a witch...

[cajuncocoa]

..
OT: Wow, I'm impressed with the number of quotes you were able to manage in the above post!! That must have taken awhile!!

[Brett85]

I stand corrected on that point...I hope he's the one willing to pull the trigger to kill anyone he wants killed though.

I never said anything of the sort. That's utter and complete bullshit. I was talking about the death penalty through lethal injection if they're found guilty, which is the same penalty that murderers in the U.S receive.

[sailingaway]

Why does Beck still have Judge Nap? Because Nap had a show on Fox and carefully chooses how to say what he says about foreign policy, and when to say it, imho, whereas Ron seeks 'teachable moments' and gets more 'in your face' trying to stop bad actions from occurring when public opinion is going TOWARDS the bad action.

[Brett85]

Some found it curious as to why you chose to belabor the obvious when the OP was not at all about military tribunals versus civilian trials, but rather indefinite detention versus non indefinite detention.

I didn't listen to Beck's show when he talked about this, but when did Beck specifically say that we should hold the prisoners at Gitmo indefinitely without giving them any kind of trial?

[sailingaway]

I'll admit that I'm not an expert with regard to Christian just war theory, but according to my understanding of it, the invasion of a sovereign country for the actions of a citizen, let alone a non-citizen, is not at all consistent with JWT.

In Afghanistan they refused to turn over a fleeing felon who was taking credit for an attack against us, using their power as a state to defend him away from us. That was state action. I agree Ron's suggested letters of marque were the way to go, but at the time Bush was seen as the LESS militarily adventurous guy as opposed to Clinton, he ran on a humble foreign policy. When he asked for 'elbow room' to decide what needed to be done, to have more leverage, he was given too much, but I think people really never expected it to turn into what it did nor for the AUMF to be after the fact reinterpreted into something the majority of those who voted for it never intended. (THAT they never intended it is clear since the house passed a clarification that it only applied to Afghanistan and Pelosi had to remove it in conference committee from the bill in question.)

[shane77m]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pollyannaish

Pollyannaish.

[torchbearer]

He claimed credit for the attacks.I could claim credit for them to, doesn't prove i did it.

[kcchiefs6465]

Back to the OP, is there a tube or audio of Glenn Beck mocking the letters? It definitely sounds like something he would do. I've looked through all of the pages and haven't seen the actual video or audio. I apologize in advance if it is here but I overlooked it.

[Brett85]

Back to the OP, is there a tube or audio of Glenn Beck mocking the letters? It definitely sounds like something he would do. I've looked through all of the pages and haven't seen the actual video or audio. I apologize in advance if it is here but I overlooked it.

Yeah, and I haven't seen any evidence that he came out and said that he supported indefinite detention without any kind of a trial.

[itshappening]

LOL @ FF's long screed.

' Just becasue he denied it doesn't mean he actually didn't do it. Two different things there.'

Then give him some due process and establish the facts before you launch a trillion dollar war.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yeah, and I haven't seen any evidence that he came out and said that he supported indefinite detention without any kind of a trial.
Well, with that being said, I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

You know, in those inconvenient, extenuating, circumstances.

If he was indeed mocking the man's letter, he is for indefinite detention in some sense of the definition. And I have seen him and his co-host mock other things they were not well informed of. The OP's description definitely sounds like Beck, I will say that.

[Christian Liberty]

LOL @ FF's long screed.

' Just becasue he denied it doesn't mean he actually didn't do it. Two different things there.'

Then give him some due process and establish the facts before you launch a trillion dollar war.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm strongly against the Afghanistan War. It actually never ceases to amaze me that Barbara Lee was able to figure out where the AUMF was going to lead before Ron Paul did ("Playing politics" doesn't really strike me as Ron Paul's MO so I have to assume that he thought it was a good idea at the time) considering how Lee is a big government Democrat and Ron Paul is nearly always able to see what's coming ahead of time...

Even if Bin Laden were absolutely guilty, beyond a doubt, it would STILL not have been worth it to kill over a hundred thousand people to get him, or spend a trillion dollars. And I wasn't denying that he should have got a trial. All I was saying is that just because he denied it doesn't mean he didn't do it. I thought that was pretty much a "No duh." Obama would deny being a mass murderer, but how many of us here legitimately believe him?

[Christian Liberty]

OT: Wow, I'm impressed with the number of quotes you were able to manage in the above post!! That must have taken awhile!!

Less than a half hour. The reason I actually read the entire thread (I usually don't when its thirteen pages) is because I responded the first time while I was in school and didn't have much time, and was then shocked when the thread grew that fast.

[jmdrake]

I didn't listen to Beck's show when he talked about this, but when did Beck specifically say that we should hold the prisoners at Gitmo indefinitely without giving them any kind of trial?

But you did actually read the OP right? The detainee that Glenn Beck mocked was complaining about being held without trial. He never made a demand to be unilaterally released.

ONE man here weighs just 77 pounds. Another, 98. Last thing I knew, I weighed 132, but that was a month ago. I’ve been on a hunger strike since Feb. 10 and have lost well over 30 pounds. I will not eat until they restore my dignity. I’ve been detained at Guantánamo for 11 years and three months. I have never been charged with any crime. I have never received a trial. The only reason I am still here is that President Obama refuses to send any detainees back to Yemen. This makes no sense. I am a human being, not a passport, and I deserve to be treated like one.

I do not want to die here, but until President Obama and Yemen’s president do something, that is what I risk every day. Where is my government? I will submit to any “security measures” they want in order to go home, even though they are totally unnecessary. I will agree to whatever it takes in order to be free. I am now 35. All I want is to see my family again and to start a family of my own.


Edit: What may be confusing you is the point the detainee has made about Obama not sending detainees back to Yemen. But there have been other detainees sent back to other countries. His point is, why can't he be sent back to his country of origin if other detainees have been sent back, some to Afghanistan? He has a valid point. Yemen is supposedly an "ally" in the GWOT. While I wouldn't want to be sent there, he apparently does. Why do we assume that the Yemeni government can't detain him?

[Christian Liberty]

I never said anything of the sort. That's utter and complete bullshit. I was talking about the death penalty through lethal injection if they're found guilty, which is the same penalty that murderers in the U.S receive.

I'm in agreement with the death penalty at the state level, but I can't justify letting the Feds kill anyone or decide that anyone should die. Truth be told, to my knowledge they aren't even usually allowed to constitutitonally punish crimes at all.

To let mass murderers inflict the death penalty makes little sense. Do you really trust them to do it correctly?

[pcosmar]

I agree that all of the prisoners that we're holding at Gitmo should receive some kind of trial, but a lot of the prisoners that we've simply released back to their country of origin have later rejoined the war and killed our troops on the battlefield.

Correction..
Killed invaders of their countries.

Get the troops out of their countries and they won't fight them.

[Brett85]

Edit: What may be confusing you is the point the detainee has made about Obama not sending detainees back to Yemen. But there have been other detainees sent back to other countries. His point is, why can't he be sent back to his country of origin if other detainees have been sent back, some to Afghanistan? He has a valid point. Yemen is supposedly an "ally" in the GWOT. While I wouldn't want to be sent there, he apparently does. Why do we assume that the Yemeni government can't detain him?

My position is that all of the prisoners being held at Gitmo should be tried in military tribunals as soon as possible, and those who have been found innocent should be released to their country of origin, and those who have been found guilty should receive the death penalty. If people object to the death penalty, then we should just hold them in prison for life. Would you and others object to keeping Gitmo open if we were only holding people who had been found guilty of terrorism in a military tribunal?

[Brett85]

I'm in agreement with the death penalty at the state level, but I can't justify letting the Feds kill anyone or decide that anyone should die. Truth be told, to my knowledge they aren't even usually allowed to constitutitonally punish crimes at all.

To let mass murderers inflict the death penalty makes little sense. Do you really trust them to do it correctly?

Terrorism is a federal crime, and I don't have a problem with using the death penalty in a federal crime. I think that there should be a lot less federal crimes than there are now, but terrorism is obviously something that the federal government has the authority to prosecute.

[bunklocoempire]

I agree that all of the prisoners that we're holding at Gitmo should receive some kind of trial, but a lot of the prisoners that we've simply released back to their country of origin have later rejoined the war and killed our troops on the battlefield.

Which declared war is that and against which country? And exactly what battlefield is to be held/won and for what purpose?

The worlds the battlefield right? And everyone is a potential enemy combatant.

It's a complete cluster**** when the horse is behind the cart.

[Brett85]

Which declared war is that and against which country? And exactly what battlefield is to be held/won and for what purpose?

The worlds the battlefield right? And everyone is a potential enemy combatant.

It's a completer cluster**** when the horse is behind the cart.

I'm not saying that I support the war on terror. I'm opposed to the idea of having a "global war on terror" with no geographical limits. That's inconsistent with limited government. At the same time, I'm not in favor of importing terrorists into America, or just releasing them in Afghanistan and having them go back to killing our troops there. I support getting out of Afghanistan, but as long as we have troops there, I don't want them getting killed by people that we released from Gitmo. There's no reason to release any prisoner from Gitmo unless they've been aquitted in a military tribunal. I'm not advocating indefinite detention without a trial, but I'm advocating that we should try all of the prisoners in military tribunals right away. If they're aquitted they should be released, but if they're found guilty they obviously shouldn't be released.

[itshappening]

Terrorism is a federal crime, and I don't have a problem with using the death penalty in a federal crime. I think that there should be a lot less federal crimes than there are now, but terrorism is obviously something that the federal government has the authority to prosecute.

is it one of the federal crimes enumerated in the constitution ?

[sailingaway]

Terrorism is a federal crime, and I don't have a problem with using the death penalty in a federal crime. I think that there should be a lot less federal crimes than there are now, but terrorism is obviously something that the federal government has the authority to prosecute.

Why? If it is an international plot, I can see that, but this 'domestic terrorism' reclassification of serial or mass murderers as 'terrorism', why so? States have dealt with murderers forever.

[Brett85]

is it one of the federal crimes enumerated in the constitution ?

If a U.S citizen is engaged in terrorism it's treason. The Constitution also specifically authorizes military tribunals.

[Brett85]

Why? If it is an international plot, I can see that, but this 'domestic terrorism' reclassification of serial or mass murderers as 'terrorism', why so? States have dealt with murderers forever.

I'm talking about international terrorism, not domestic terrorism. If an international terrorist comes here and attacks us it falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

[sailingaway]

If a U.S citizen is engaged in terrorism it's treason. The Constitution also specifically authorizes military tribunals.

If it is overthrow of the government it is treason. If it is garden variety mass murder it is mass murder and the state has dealt with mass murderers forever.

[itshappening]

If a U.S citizen is engaged in terrorism it's treason. The Constitution also specifically authorizes military tribunals.

Then he should be charged for 'treason' not 'terrorism' under unconstitutional laws passed by Congress.

[bunklocoempire]

I'm not saying that I support the war on terror. I'm opposed to the idea of having a "global war on terror" with no geographical limits. That's inconsistent with limited government. At the same time, I'm not in favor of importing terrorists into America, or just releasing them in Afghanistan and having them go back to killing our troops there. I support getting out of Afghanistan, but as long as we have troops there, I don't want them getting killed by people that we released from Gitmo. There's no reason to release any prisoner from Gitmo unless they've been aquitted in a military tribunal. I'm not advocating indefinite detention without a trial, but I'm advocating that we should try all of the prisoners in military tribunals right away. If they're aquitted they should be released, but if they're found guilty they obviously shouldn't be released.

I understand what you're saying. What I don't understand is expecting/trying to make deliveries with the cart in front of a horse and thinking that it is somehow going to be less dangerous for the delivery guys.

Bad analogy? Maybe. But as far as I can tell there is no 'making the best of the situation' when the strategy is doomed to fail.

[Brett85]

Then he should be charged for 'treason' not 'terrorism' under unconstitutional laws passed by Congress.

Isn't terrorism similar to piracy? Piracy is also a federal crime.

"Piracy is typically an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea. The term can include acts committed on land, in the air, online, or in other major bodies of water or on a shore. It does not normally include crimes committed against persons traveling on the same vessel as the perpetrator (e.g. one passenger stealing from others on the same vessel). The term has been used throughout history to refer to raids across land borders by non-state agents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy

[Brett85]

I understand what you're saying. What I don't understand is expecting/trying to make deliveries with the cart in front of a horse and thinking that it is somehow going to be less dangerous for the delivery guys.

Bad analogy? Maybe. But as far as I can tell there is no 'making the best of the situation' when the strategy is doomed to fail.

I'm just saying that although all of us oppose a "global war on terror", we still have to try the people that we've captured during this war. After WWII was over, we still had to try the Nazis even though the war had concluded. We weren't going to simply release the Nazis, and we weren't going to try them as ordinary criminals in a civilian court. We tried them in military tribunals, which was the appropriate thing to do. With the Nazis who were found guilty, it was also appropriate for them to either receive the death penalty or be held in prison for life. We weren't going to release the Nazis because we somehow felt that it wasn't right to hold anyone in prison for life.

[bunklocoempire]

Isn't terrorism similar to piracy? Piracy is also a federal crime.

"Piracy is typically an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea. The term can include acts committed on land, in the air, online, or in other major bodies of water or on a shore. It does not normally include crimes committed against persons traveling on the same vessel as the perpetrator (e.g. one passenger stealing from others on the same vessel). The term has been used throughout history to refer to raids across land borders by non-state agents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy

As far as I can tell "terrorism" is simply a tactic. While piracy is theft using a tactic.

The war on tactics is a great way to obscure what the users of the tactic motive actually is. Perfect for fear mongering.

[A Son of Liberty]

Back to the OP, is there a tube or audio of Glenn Beck mocking the letters? It definitely sounds like something he would do. I've looked through all of the pages and haven't seen the actual video or audio. I apologize in advance if it is here but I overlooked it.


Yeah, and I haven't seen any evidence that he came out and said that he supported indefinite detention without any kind of a trial.

I listened to him and his intellectually-challenged playmate Pat make fun of the letter at the end of the 10 o'clock hour, I believe. I'm sure there is video or audio out there somewhere either for pay or for free on the interwebz.

[sailingaway]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm strongly against the Afghanistan War. It actually never ceases to amaze me that Barbara Lee was able to figure out where the AUMF was going to lead before Ron Paul did ("Playing politics" doesn't really strike me as Ron Paul's MO so I have to assume that he thought it was a good idea at the time) considering how Lee is a big government Democrat and Ron Paul is nearly always able to see what's coming ahead of time...

Even if Bin Laden were absolutely guilty, beyond a doubt, it would STILL not have been worth it to kill over a hundred thousand people to get him, or spend a trillion dollars. And I wasn't denying that he should have got a trial. All I was saying is that just because he denied it doesn't mean he didn't do it. I thought that was pretty much a "No duh." Obama would deny being a mass murderer, but how many of us here legitimately believe him?
Re bolded, she was on the other team and the blue team is typically skeptical of the red team. Ron was on the red team and his team leader was assuring him, and had run on a modest foreign policy. Even so he tried to get more limited authority through letters of marque. He did feel he needed to defend the people, as well, though, since we had been attacked and no one was willing to do anything less. He could have said no, but under those circumstances didn't, and massively regretted it when things played out as they did. It was a definite bad vote, but against the lifetime of not pandering or playing politics, I think he has earned belief in the sincerity of his vote, at the time. He did vote against the Patriot Act EVEN in that framework, where his vote was very unpopular, but his duty to defend was not pushing in the opposite direction.

[sailingaway]

Isn't terrorism similar to piracy? Piracy is also a federal crime.

"Piracy is typically an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea. The term can include acts committed on land, in the air, online, or in other major bodies of water or on a shore. It does not normally include crimes committed against persons traveling on the same vessel as the perpetrator (e.g. one passenger stealing from others on the same vessel). The term has been used throughout history to refer to raids across land borders by non-state agents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy

When it is outside the boundaries of the country. Federal government governs relations with foreigners across borders in that sense, or crimes against the federal government, but not crimes against and amongst citizens, generally, with few exceptions which are against the federal government. Counterfeiting. Treason. Interference with the mails. Cross state border crimes were later added. All this new crap where 'federal case' means 'we want to deem it so', I consider illegitimate.

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm not saying that I support the war on terror. I'm opposed to the idea of having a "global war on terror" with no geographical limits. That's inconsistent with limited government. At the same time, I'm not in favor of importing terrorists into America, or just releasing them in Afghanistan and having them go back to killing our troops there. I support getting out of Afghanistan, but as long as we have troops there, I don't want them getting killed by people that we released from Gitmo. There's no reason to release any prisoner from Gitmo unless they've been aquitted in a military tribunal. I'm not advocating indefinite detention without a trial, but I'm advocating that we should try all of the prisoners in military tribunals right away. If they're aquitted they should be released, but if they're found guilty they obviously shouldn't be released.

I have to disagree with this. "Our troops" should not be there, and should not have been from the beginning, according to just war theory. Therefore, everyone detained at Guantanamo should be released where they were found, and "our troops" should not be there when they get are.

I trust no government to hold a fair and speedy trial (nor, heaven forbid, a 'military tribunal'), let alone one which has for at a minimum the past decade shown to be utterly abusive to human rights.

[green73]

It wouldn't be practical to do that, but if we did it, it wouldn't be an example of preemptive war or an act of aggression.

LOL

[Brett85]

I have to disagree with this. "Our troops" should not be there, and should not have been from the beginning, according to just war theory. Therefore, everyone detained at Guantanamo should be released where they were found, and "our troops" should not be there when they get are.

I trust no government to hold a fair and speedy trial (nor, heaven forbid, a 'military tribunal'), let alone one which has for at a minimum the past decade shown to be utterly abusive to human rights.

So you're not even in favor of trying the prisoners at Gitmo in civilian courts?

[Brett85]

LOL

So you're saying that every war is illegitimate and an example of preemptive war and an act of aggression, even when our country has been attacked?

[Brett85]

I have to disagree with this. "Our troops" should not be there, and should not have been from the beginning, according to just war theory.

I don't feel like going back and re-reading this thread again. What exactly did you say we should've done as a result of the 9-11 attacks? Just sit back and do nothing? The just war theory states that it's appropriate to use military force as the result of an attack.

[A Son of Liberty]

So you're not even in favor of trying the prisoners at Gitmo in civilian courts?

Frankly, yes. I would at least grant a "military tribunal". I would be "content" with a civilian trial. But - ultimately - none of these people posed a direct and imminent threat to my life nor the lives of my family members. It is factual to state that those people would not be detained had the U.S. government not sent troops to those far-flung ME countries, and I favor the odds that they wouldn't have threatened me nor mine between now and then. Therefore, as a matter of principle, I do indeed default in favor of individual human liberty.

Turning the substance of your question back on you, I have to ask if you so deeply dread for your life, liberty and/or property that you are willing to see that most precious gift of the Creator the rights of another human being infringed?

[itshappening]

So you're saying that every war is illegitimate and an example of preemptive war and an act of aggression, even when our country has been attacked?

No country attacked on 9/11, those who attacked are dead. There's no country to attack back in retaliation.

[Brett85]

Turning the substance of your question back on you, I have to ask if you so deeply dread for your life, liberty and/or property that you are willing to see that most precious gift of the Creator the rights of another human being infringed?

I don't think that trying the prisoners at Gitmo in military tribunals infringes on their rights. I've never advocated indefinitely detaining anyone without trying them, citizen or non citizen.

[A Son of Liberty]

I don't feel like going back and re-reading this thread again. What exactly did you say we should've done as a result of the 9-11 attacks? Just sit back and do nothing? The just war theory states that it's appropriate to use military force as the result of an attack.

I've made very specific, detailed replies to you in this thread addressing just this very point, to which you have not responded. I'll leave it to you to read what I've written on this topic.

Don't be lazy. We're discussing an eminently important topic.

[A Son of Liberty]

I don't think that trying the prisoners at Gitmo in military tribunals infringes on their rights.

I wonder if you will feel the same way when the same sort of justice is turned upon you?

[Brett85]

No country attacked on 9/11, those who attacked are dead. There's no country to attack back in retaliation.

So if a country like North Korea doesn't like us very much and wants us to be attacked, all they have to do is send an individual to the United States to blow up one of our towers, and they won't have to worry about us retaliating against them.

[Brett85]

I wonder if you will feel the same way when the same sort of justice is turned upon you?

I'm a U.S citizen, and the Constitution guarantees a jury trial for U.S citizens. If I went over to some other country and blew up one of their buildings, I would expect to be tried in a military court.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Excellent OP. I love how everybody rallies around Alex when they get afraid of what the govt is up to and then when things calm down they go back to making fun of his "tin foil hat" bullshit . He's the tough guy that people don't talk about and never call except when they are scared. Then all of a sudden they are "friends." Then when their little crisis is over, they say thanks with a fake weak smile and then can't wait to shove him out the door so they can go back to talking shit about him again. If the truth causes you discomfort than take a Midol and turn the station to something more soothing like "News Entertainment." Glenn will be one of those again before the next election, telling everybody the spandex wrestling scripted "news" they're watching is real and to get their credit cards ready for the PPV event.I never insulted him but used to think a lot of his crap was BS, until I got really close to some people in politics and found out some really disturbing things.

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm a U.S citizen, and the Constitution guarantees a jury trial for U.S citizens. If I went over to some other country and blew up one of their buildings, I would expect to be tried in a military court.

Ah. I see. According to you, there are no human rights; there are only "American" rights.

What happens, then, when "America" ceases to exist, as it will inevitably. Will rights cease to exist?

[jmdrake]

I don't think that trying the prisoners at Gitmo in military tribunals infringes on their rights. I've never advocated indefinitely detaining anyone without trying them, citizen or non citizen.

Not under the old rules when Bush was president. Under those rules they had greater protections in a military tribunal. The old rules were that even if you "confessed" to a capital crime, there still had to be a full trial. Your "confession" could not be used against you for fear that it might have been coerced. There is no such "problem" in civilian court, which is why the Obama administration (Eric Holder to be exact) stated that he was certain he could get a conviction of Khalid Sheik Mohamed in civilian court. But nooooooooo....stupid conservatives thought having the trial in civilian court was giving KSM a "break" so they blocked it. Enter the NDAA. You know, the one that allowed indefinite detention of U.S. citizens? In that same act they removed the prohibition of accepting a confession in a capital case in a military tribunal. So, you may say "Well good! So now military tribunals are just like civilian courts!" Well...no not really. Civilian courts have the protection of the Federal Rules of Evidence which state, among other things, that hearsay cannot be used against you. In other words your lawyer has to have the right to cross examine any witness testifying against you. (The right to face your accusers). So under the current law someone can be convicted in a military tribunal on the word of a witness who doesn't testify in open court. Now you might say "Well of course! The witness may be an operative deep under cover in another country." Well...there are ways around that....if you really want justice. Witnesses testify remotely and with voice and facial distortions to maintain cover. Trials can be postponed. (Over the course of 11 years just about any witness should have been available at some point.) And, under certain circumstances, even hearsay is admissible in court.

[jmdrake]

I'm a U.S citizen, and the Constitution guarantees a jury trial for U.S citizens. If I went over to some other country and blew up one of their buildings, I would expect to be tried in a military court.

And if you didn't go blow up someone's building but you were accused of doing that? Besides, from what I gather most Gitmo detainees have not been accused of being part of 9/11. One more thing, under certain bills that have been floated in congress in recent years, you could be stripped of your citizenship for being of a terrorist organization. I'm still trying to understand how Republican congressman Peter King gets around this.

[Brett85]

Ah. I see. According to you, there are no human rights; there are only "American" rights.

What happens, then, when "America" ceases to exist, as it will inevitably. Will rights cease to exist?

Every country has their own Constitution. We have a United States Constitution, not a World Constitution. Our Constitution doesn't apply to the entire world. In some Muslim countries, rape is basically legal. We're not going to go into one of these Muslim countries and arrest a Muslim male for rape because he violated our Constitution.

[Brett85]

One more thing, under certain bills that have been floated in congress in recent years, you could be stripped of your citizenship for being of a terrorist organization.

I don't support that.

[A Son of Liberty]

Ah. I see. According to you, there are no human rights; there are only "American" rights.

What happens, then, when "America" ceases to exist, as it will inevitably. Will rights cease to exist?


Every country has their own Constitution. We have a United States Constitution, not a World Constitution. Our Constitution doesn't apply to the entire world. In some Muslim countries, rape is basically legal. We're not going to go into one of these Muslim countries and arrest a Muslim male for rape because he violated our Constitution.

Well this is the second time you've dodged answering the actual question in this thread. I'm beginning to believe that you're disingenuous.

I ASK YOU AGAIN - will rights cease to exist when America no longer exists?

[A Son of Liberty]

One more thing, under certain bills that have been floated in congress in recent years, you could be stripped of your citizenship for being of a terrorist organization.

This bears repeating, and emphasizing.

Do rights exist for non-Americans?

[sailingaway]

Natural rights are natural but a constitution states what rights that country defends and to what extent. The Constitution requires due process for all but the details are different on what you are guaranteed depending on if you are a citizen or not. Carryover of rights of Englishmen concept, that a state has an interest and duty in protecting its citizens.

[Brett85]

Well this is the second time you've dodged answering the actual question in this thread. I'm beginning to believe that you're disingenuous.

I ASK YOU AGAIN - will rights cease to exist when America no longer exists?

No, but rights are going to be different from country to country, because each country has their own Constitution. Are you in favor of world government?

[A Son of Liberty]

No, but rights are going to be different from country to country, because each country has their own Constitution. Are you in favor of world government?

Wrong. Rights are not different from country to country. Rights exist as a consequence of our humanity, not because some arbitrary state says we have them. We do not have "constitutional rights"; we have rights which are (supposedly) guaranteed from infringement by a constitution.

Do not try to change the subject with your disingenuous question - governments do not grant rights. They either acknowledge them, or they infringe upon them. I am in favor of... nay, I recognize the objective reality of universal human rights. No government - local, state, federal, or world - grants them to us. They exist whether YOU acknowledge them in all cases or not. You may deny them, just as you may hold your hand over my mouth and deny my ability to breathe, yet they exist and will exist no matter what you do to me or any one of my brethren.

[Brett85]

Wrong. Rights are not different from country to country. Rights exist as a consequence of our humanity, not because some arbitrary state says we have them. We do not have "constitutional rights"; we have rights which are (supposedly) guaranteed from infringement by a constitution.

Do not try to change the subject with your disingenuous question - governments do not grant rights. They either acknowledge them, or they infringe upon them. I am in favor of... nay, I recognize the objective reality of universal human rights. No government - local, state, federal, or world - grants them to us. They exist whether YOU acknowledge them in all cases or not. You may deny them, just as you may hold your hand over my mouth and deny my ability to breathe, yet they exist and will exist no matter what you do to me or any one of my brethren.

What exactly do those rights consist of? Are there any limits on rights?

[talkingpointes]

What exactly do those rights consist of? Are there any limits on rights?

Too not hurt others.

[T.hill]

We were the aggressors in every action other than pursuing Bin Laden.

Pursuing Bin Laden and others involved in 9/11, directly and indirectly.

[anaconda]

Excellent OP.

Yep.

[torchbearer]

beck= confidence man.

[T.hill]

They hate us for our freedoms. LOL You're pathetic.

Are you so narrow-minded that you think there is no other reason for why terrorists attack us? The situation is multifaceted and although the primary reason for why they attacked us is our foreign policy, there is a small minority of terrorist groups who use the Jihadist theory of self-defense to propagate Islam. They use Islam as a scapegoat to justify their actions like the KKK justified lynching black men through the Bible and Christianity.

[Sola_Fide]

Wrong. Rights are not different from country to country. Rights exist as a consequence of our humanity, not because some arbitrary state says we have them. We do not have "constitutional rights"; we have rights which are (supposedly) guaranteed from infringement by a constitution.

Do not try to change the subject with your disingenuous question - governments do not grant rights. They either acknowledge them, or they infringe upon them. I am in favor of... nay, I recognize the objective reality of universal human rights. No government - local, state, federal, or world - grants them to us. They exist whether YOU acknowledge them in all cases or not. You may deny them, just as you may hold your hand over my mouth and deny my ability to breathe, yet they exist and will exist no matter what you do to me or any one of my brethren.

Not that I disagree with you on the conclusion of your conception of rights, but I do come at it differently being a Christian.

I believe that rights come from God's negative command to men, not from man's nature. For example, when God says "You shall not steal" and "You shall not murder", these negative commands present the (temporal) right of self-ownership.

Christians believe in the principle of Scripture alone, so whatever I believe about rights must come from Scripture.

[kcchiefs6465]

Are you so narrow-minded that you think there is no other reason for why terrorists attack us? The situation is multifaceted and although the primary reason for why they attacked us is our foreign policy, there is a small minority of terrorist groups who use the Jihadist theory of self-defense to propagate Islam. They use Islam as a scapegoat to justify their actions like the KKK justified lynching black men through the Bible and Christianity.
It is hard to say what the countries would be like without our involvement. Without us sending textbooks to children that glorify repelling invaders. Without the attempted assassination of Abd al-Karim Qasim and subsequent coup. The installation of the Shah. The CIA funded and fueled domestic uprisings in Syria. (1949) The creation of Israel and the displacement and murder of Palestinians. It is multi-faceted. But they would have no reason or need to hate us if we had not already done as much as we've done. As I've stated a few other times, sure, there may be some illiterate man in the Middle East who hates us for our freedoms. But it wouldn't take much for him to find a legitimate reason. The starved babies in their own city might have our fingerprints on it. (sanctions)

As for radical Islamists, the way I understand it is that they are mainly upset we are stationed in the Arabian Peninsula. They are upset with our unwaivering allegience to Israel. (who truth be told, has committed some war crimes) The sanctions killing Iraqi babies has been mentioned as one of their grievances. I'm sure depleted uranium birth defected babies is now on the list. It really isn't hard to get a grasp on why they may hate us.

If we left today, the killings probably would not stop. The hatred towards us would not all of a sudden disappear. We need to issue a sincere apology for our past sins. We need to acknowledge and show respect to their dead. This is all very basic, though it will never occur because certain companies' interests are at stake. The oil fields are too lucrative, for example. Genie Energy (Rothschild, Cheney as well as other very powerful men's company) just got the first permits to drill in the Golan Heights. (from Israel) Makes you start to question 'history,' doesn't it?

[T.hill]

It is hard to say what the countries would be like without our involvement. Without us sending textbooks to children that glorify repelling invaders. Without the attempted assassination of Abd al-Karim Qasim and subsequent coup. The installation of the Shah. The CIA funded and fueled domestic uprisings in Syria. (1949) The creation of Israel and the displacement and murder of Palestinians. It is multi-faceted. But they would have no reason or need to hate us if we had not already done as much as we've done. As I've stated a few other times, sure, there may be some illiterate man in the Middle East who hates us for our freedoms. But it wouldn't take much for him to find a legitimate reason. The starved babies in their own city might have our fingerprints on it. (sanctions)

As for radical Islamists, the way I understand it is that they are mainly upset we are stationed in the Arabian Peninsula. They are upset with our unwaivering allegience to Israel. (who truth be told, has committed some war crimes) The sanctions killing Iraqi babies has been mentioned as one of their grievances. I'm sure depleted uranium birth defected babies is now on the list. It really isn't hard to get a grasp on why they may hate us.

If we left today, the killings probably would not stop. The hatred towards us would not all of a sudden disappear. We need to issue a sincere apology for our past sins. We need to acknowledge and show respect to their dead. This is all very basic, though it will never occur because certain companies' interests are at stake. The oil fields are too lucrative, for example. Genie Energy (Rothschild, Cheney as well as other very powerful men's company) just got the first permits to drill in the Golan Heights. (from Israel) Makes you start to question 'history,' doesn't it?

I'm just trying to analyze the situation objectively, I don't think radical Islamic terrorists simply existing justifies an interventionist foreign policy and I don't think it negates the idea that having a reduced military presence or non-interventionist foreign that many libertarians advocate for would decrease blowback if not almost completely halt it and by extension terrorist attacks.

A non-interventionist foreign policy might make our allies less safe, which is debatable and really I think a weak argument, but it for sure makes the United States safer.

[A Son of Liberty]

Not that I disagree with you on the conclusion of your conception of rights, but I do come at it differently being a Christian.

I believe that rights come from God's negative command to men, not from man's nature. For example, when God says "You shall not steal" and "You shall not murder", these negative commands present the (temporal) right of self-ownership.

Christians believe in the principle of Scripture alone, so whatever I believe about rights must come from Scripture.

I agree with you, sir.

[Brett85]

Too not hurt others.

I'm pretty sure that a terrorist who kills a bunch of civilians hurts others, which is what we're discussing here.

[A Son of Liberty]

What exactly do those rights consist of? Are there any limits on rights?

Accepting the undeniable fact that all humans are born equal - in that we are all born equally human and that there is no plainly defined 'ubermenschen' - individual rights are self-evident. One understands intuitively, objectively, that one cannot logically demand a right to oneself that another cannot claim himself. Thus, demanding the right to kill logically allows for one's own murder, and is a consequentially a logical paradox. Therefore, the limits upon one's rights come at the distance between a set of one person's knuckles and another person's nose, as it were.

Rights logically, self-evidently, exist as a consequence of our humanity. No human-composed piece of paper grants them to us individuals. Those contracts delimit, if we are lucky (and, historically, we are NOT) the extent to which "we" allow those natural (God-given) rights to be infringed upon.

Even the founders of the U.S. government understood this.

[robert68]

I'm just saying that although all of us oppose a "global war on terror", we still have to try the people that we've captured during this war. After WWII was over, we still had to try the Nazis even though the war had concluded. We weren't going to simply release the Nazis, and we weren't going to try them as ordinary criminals in a civilian court. We tried them in military tribunals, which was the appropriate thing to do. With the Nazis who were found guilty, it was also appropriate for them to either receive the death penalty or be held in prison for life. We weren't going to release the Nazis because we somehow felt that it wasn't right to hold anyone in prison for life.


Every country has their own Constitution. We have a United States Constitution, not a World Constitution. Our Constitution doesn't apply to the entire world. In some Muslim countries, rape is basically legal. We're not going to go into one of these Muslim countries and arrest a Muslim male for rape because he violated our Constitution.

Your posts contradict. The Nazi's weren't convicted of breaking US laws, and you support their "trials" and convictions in a world court.

[belian78]

Wow, I really appreciate all the rep guys. And thanks TC, I don't think I've gotten this much rep in one day before. LOL Just another example of blowback I suppose. :toady:

[Brett85]

Wow, I really appreciate all the rep guys. And thanks TC, I don't think I've gotten this much rep in one day before. LOL Just another example of blowback I suppose. :toady:

Awesome. You only posted two or three times in this thread as well.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

No country attacked on 9/11, those who attacked are dead. There's no country to attack back in retaliation.


FUCKIN FINALLY SOMEONE SAID IT.


Read this whole dumbass thread and the whole time, that was my thought. itshappening, I'd like to give you a cheeseburger, but all I can do is give you a +rep and this picture. Please accept with my sincere thanks. TradCon, it's time to abandon the thread. No one wins a flame war.

http://www.elements.nb.ca/theme/ecologicalfootprint/ray/cheeseburger.jpg

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

So if a country like North Korea doesn't like us very much and wants us to be attacked, all they have to do is send an individual to the United States to blow up one of our towers, and they won't have to worry about us retaliating against them.

Are you off your meds?

If NK sends a guy to bomb our shit, be my guest and blow up their shit. I'll hold the door open for you as you rush out the hangar into some bomber jet, okay? And I'll buy you a beer when you get back, too.

No Iraqi, no Pakistani, nor any Afghan blew up our shit.

The end.

[jmdrake]

And if you didn't go blow up someone's building but you were accused of doing that? Besides, from what I gather most Gitmo detainees have not been accused of being part of 9/11. One more thing, under certain bills that have been floated in congress in recent years, you could be stripped of your citizenship for being of a terrorist organization. I'm still trying to understand how Republican congressman Peter King gets around this.


I don't support that.

Irrelevant. There are people who do support that. And should it pass all of a sudden the entire "There are no rights if you aren't a U.S. citizen" regime could end up pointed at you. The PTB know they can't get everyone to agree to 100% of their tyranny, so the get people to agree to parts of it, hoping that each group will discount the parts they don't support.

[Brett85]

Irrelevant. There are people who do support that. And should it pass all of a sudden the entire "There are no rights if you aren't a U.S. citizen" regime could end up pointed at you. The PTB know they can't get everyone to agree to 100% of their tyranny, so the get people to agree to parts of it, hoping that each group will discount the parts they don't support.

I don't know if I would say that there shouldn't be any rights for non U.S citizens suspected of terrorism, but I just don't think they have the exact same rights that U.S citizens have. I don't think we should be in Afghanistan, but as long as we're there, we shouldn't be required to read Miranda rights to the people who are trying to kill our troops on the battlefield. It just isn't possible or realistic to give non U.S citizens suspected of terrorism the exact same legal rights that U.S citizens have. But, I'm not saying that we should hold them indefinitely without trying them. We should release them if we don't actually have evidence to convict them, which makes me part of the 26% of Americans who hold that position.