Tales from the Bay (2) - Charges? Trials? Nah, let's just kill 'em   

slight correction: "Status in international law"

The use of military tribunals in the case of alleged terrorists is a very grey area, legally speaking. As you say, it is a case of transferring a civilian from a civil system of law to a military one. Obviously there are problems in defining when a civilian becomes a serving member of a military, plus lots of others.

I'm no expert on constitutional law but as far as I know, foreign nationals are not given constitutional rights. However, I did read somewhere that foreign nationals in US custody are granted constitutional rights. You'd have to ask an American with a good grasp of constitutional law about this.

This also comes under the points you raise about the US and their involvement in international treaties, but the US government has already shown it believes itself to be above international law by dismissing the geneva convention.

My greatest concern with this is that it allows the executive branch to bypass the legal system and assume the role of judge, jury and executioner; without any congressional or judicial oversight. Very like the 47 detainees at Guantanamo who the government have declared are too dangerous to free, but admit have no evidence to prove this. Guilty until proven innocent indeed.

Hi Tony!

I think there has been some confusion between the use of military tribunal and military commission in this whole discussion--which is understandable. It's confusing.

Please see this link if you'd like more info: http://www.search.com/reference/Military_tribunal

I would suggest that you read the Geneva Convention. Civilians fighting not in their country have no rights. GC rights apply only to those countries and are afforded to those countries who have signed the treaty.

Holly,

thanks.

I also had an interesting conversation with Lilwonders about this - see beneath. It is quite educational, learning something new about what is involved (you cannot learn anything new at my age? Not so!). You're right about confusing though. It looks like that it has got so complicated, everything has been put on hold (for a very long time) while they get things sorted out.

And then they let politics (and politicians!) get in the way of the law, which is never to be recommended.

It is time something was done, but it looks like that will be more to do with politics than with law - sadly.

Holly -

Thank you for the link, very informative. I had looked at military tribunals and the Military Commissions Act 2006, but this article helps to clarify certain issues ina simple and helpful manner. It is always a grey area when you are dealing with terrorists. They don't wear uniforms and their allegiance is usually to some paramilitary organisation who fight for a cetain cause and not a nation state. This makes it hard to classify them. This country had a problem with the Provisional IRA who requested to be treated as prisoners of war, but this request was denied and they they were treated the same as civilian prisoners.

And this is the problem the US is having. Any attempts to use military tribunals are being held up by the various legal actions in the pipeline as the article states. The only alternative is to try such prisoners designated as 'unlawful combatants' in the civil courts. I gather this idea is facing problems also e.g. security. I find this to be a poor excuse, as Tony has pointed out in box#5, other countries have managed to do this. Perhaps the US government's admission that it does not have any evidence against some detainees which would stand up in a civil court might have something to do with this. Also if a military tribunal was used then the rules of evidence e.g. the admissibility of hearsay as evidence may explain the Bush administrations eagerness to pursue the military tribunal system rather than the civil system.

Oh yeah
@bobmnu

"Every person in enemy hands must have some status under the law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution - not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view."

-

Oops, missed out the origin of the above quote

- The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention

@Tony!

Meant to respond to this sooner--my apologies! As for learning something new--I don't think age has anything to do with it, although I believe you were joking a little. Life is one long laboratory for learning I think. If one ever loses the want or ability to do that, then it might as well be over as far as I'm concerned. :-)

As for your points about international law and extradition--as you say--it's a problem. One that my country has run into more than once--and I'm fairly sure will see more problems in the future. I have no answers for that, as even better minds than mine seem to not know how to handle it. I guess it will be addressed on a case by case basis until or if someone figures out something better. :-(

@EoE

"Perhaps the US government's admission that it does not have any evidence against some detainees which would stand up in a civil court might have something to do with this. Also if a military tribunal was used then the rules of evidence e.g. the admissibility of hearsay as evidence may explain the Bush administrations eagerness to pursue the military tribunal system rather than the civil system."

Well said--and I completely agree that that is why nothing has been done so far. At least as far as the Guantanamo prisoners are concerned, I believe that to be true. When it comes to American born terrorists, I believe that the government's policy to kill them is to circumvent even military commissions or tribunals. If they need confirmation of a purported American terrorist's guilt, how likely is that to happen? Better to "off" them and save all the trouble and costs of convening altogether. That's what I believe they're thinking--not me.

Ps--you are both welcome for the link--I just happened to be lucky to come across it. :-)

Yes Rollo, he was indeed talking about US citizens engaging in terrorist activity. In which case your government may be justified in taking them out. But that's not the real question here. This policy gives the executive the power to play judge, jury and executioner with no oversight, congressional, judicial or otherwise. This means that the executive can declare that someone is engaged in terrorist activity without any explanation for that judgement. And you think this is okay?

"Yes Rollo, he was indeed talking about US citizens engaging in terrorist activity. In which case your government may be justified in taking them out."

Good, I am glad you agree.

"But that's not the real question here"

So, why didn't you ask the real question? You asked: "What about your government targeting American citizens for assassination? "

How many US citizens are in Gitmo? As far as I know, there were or are 3, all of whom were captured inside Afghanistan. See, that's that terrorist activity we were talking about.

Why didn't I ask the real question? Well I assumed that you, as an American citizen, would have been well aware of this story and it's implications. My apologies for overestimating your level of knowledge and awareness regarding American current affairs.

So let me ask you the 'real question' in nice simple terms.

Are you, as an American citizen happy with your government - executive branch - having the power and the authority to carry out extrajudicial killings without any oversight from the other two branches of government, or the need to produce evidence supporting their reasons for carrying out such killings?

You have indeed overestimated me if you believe I will continue to answer a new question every time you don't like the answer to the original question.

You have overestimated me if you think that I can relate your new question to the OP which states "The Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, told the House Intelligence Committee that the government has the right to kill Americans abroad."

As you previously agreed, this refers to Americans in other countries who are associating with known terrorists and actively engaging in terrorism themselves and become collateral damage during a military strike on enemy combatants.

And yes, I think they should kill Anwar al Awlaki and any other US citizen who has become a traitor to his country and organizes or encourages attacks on US citizens or on US soil.

Um I don't know if you know this.....but you do realize there is a whole set of processes, rules and procedures that the military has to follow for a tribunal. It is not something new. It was started by George Washington (one of the founding fathers of our country) in 1812 because of the American Revolution. It has been used in the Native American wars, the civil war, Spanish American War, WW1, WW2 and Vietnam.
It is the normal way for this country handle "enemy combatants" during war. Our civilian court systems are not set up to deal with them...because our military is.
It is not just a couple of guys standing around deciding what happens to a prisoner. They do get a trial. They get a lawyer, a judge, a jury...all that. There is even an appeals process for the prisoner if they are found guilty. They get to appeal the ruling.There are standards they have to uphold.

Lil, it's not really worth explaining to him. Enemy is happy to be ignorant and clearly refuses to entertain the idea of learning the truth. He wants to hate Americans and spread that hatred so he'll choose to lie both to himself and others on mylot. Odds are he'll have no trouble finding a few people dumb enough to believe him without looking at the facts. America bashing is becoming quite the pastime for some.

@Rollo

If you have difficulty in relating my question concerning your government having the power and authority to carry out extrajudicial killings, to my OP, which concerned your government having the power and authority to carry out targeted assassinations of American citizens abroad, then I won't burden you with any further questions. If in future you see one of my discussions and are concerned about questions I might ask which aren't explicity spelled out in the OP, then just PM me and I'll send you a list of possible ones so you can be fully prepared, that's only fair really isn't it? My apologies if I couldn't quite match my question word for word to the particular sentence you picked out from my OP. I'll try and be a little more pedantic in future.

@ lilwonders

Thank you for the info. This is a very confusing area, which is probably why your government is having so much trouble processing detainees. I did look at military tribunals and the Military Commissions Act a couple of years ago when some people, including former prosecutors at Guantanamo, were criticising the military tribunal system because they thought it did not give defendants a fair trial. Having read the article linked to by Holly above I can see why they might criticise the system on the grounds of the differences between military tribunals and civil courts, in particular the admissibility, in military tribunals, of hearsay, coerced evidence and the possibility of a prisoner being convicted by evidence kept secret from the defendant and his lawyer. Conviction on the basis of evidence kept secret from the defence doesn't sound like a fair trial to me. Yes there is an appeals process, but not through the federal courts, and the final arbiter of the appeals process is the President, who may well have been the person who designated the defendant as an unlawful enemy combatant in the first place. This raises the possibility of an institutionalised bias against the defendant. Again, not good.

@ Taskr

Au contraire taskr, au contraire, it's always worth explaining things to me. I don't know everything and don't pretend to. I spend an awful lot of my time learning all about the world around me, from astronomy to quantum physics; and I'm always grateful when someone informs me of something I'm not aware of. I learn every day taskr.

Now why would I want to hate Americans taskr? I have many American friends, both on the net and in real life; I even have relatives in America. Maybe you should ask my American friends if they think that I want to hate them.

So I spread hatred and tell lies to people on MyLot do I? Careful with your accusations taskr, hope you can back them up. Don't worry though, I'm not about to hit the -ve button for a little bit of flaming like this, such childish insults don't bother me, I have better things to do with my time.

As an American friend of Eoe, I can verify that he is far from being a hater of America. I've known him quite awhile--before myLot. As I am an intuitive person, I'm certain I would have known before now whether he was or not.

You may not like his methods, you may not like his questions, you may not like the points of view he holds--I don't always either. :-)

However, you have to admit, he makes us think. He makes us peer more closely at our government's actions and words. He makes us discuss with each other the various and sometimes conflicting information that we perceive.

I can also verify that he researches his thoughts before he ever adds a post.

If he makes you angry, then perhaps you need to ask yourself what the underlying reasons for that anger might be. Does he perhaps come too close to the truth sometimes? Do his questions make you uncomfortable because we are inclined to believe that only our perceptions of our country are right and therefore no one else should have a point of view?

If you truly feel that EoE's discussions have no merit, then don't read them and don't comment. Have a nice day!

What Holly said!

'terror suspects' Your words not mine.

This is the key point. These people are suspects, but you are quite happy for your government to kill them without providing any reasons other than "We say they're terrorists, so that's that". This is what dictators do, dispense justice behind locked doors, in secret.

'I don't give a crap what others get all wee-wee'd up about when it comes to American business'

This sums up quite nicely the attitude of some - not all thankfully - Americans towards anyone from the rest of the world having the nerve to comment on America. It was perfectly exemplified by a former leader of yours, George Bush, in 1988

"I will never apologize for the United States of America. Ever, I don't care what the facts are."

Good. I'm glad I was able to sum it all up for you.

If it's not one thing, it's another one on the way when it comes to people outside of America wanting to bash it for something.

"Oh, you guys don't have universal healthcare -- how can you call yourselves the "greatest" nation, much less civilized!?"

"You guys go to war to fight terror and do nothing but kill innocent women and children!"

"America is responsible for terrorism -- their cruel capitalist ways have oppressed so many and now they're reaping what was sewn."

"America tortures! Waterboarding is torture! Blowing smoke is torture! Yelling at them is tourture!"

Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...

It's always something. Always.

So, forgive me if I have a F-it attitude about another holier-than-thou, ultra enlightened Euro dweller telling America what it should be doing.

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't on the world stage.

We're arrogant. We're hypocrites. We're lacking on empathy and social justice. Etc, etc. Always something.

The fact that you'll find the UK putting the US on constant blast and not the other way around says everything anyone ever needs to know about the actual reasons behind the criticisms.

I'm wondering to myself here: Would the criticisms that end with "and they call themselves the greatest country in the world!" stop or increase if America suddenly conformed to how the supposed enlightened think it should be done?

...

You wouldn't catch the "attitude" if you were simply commenting. But your'e not; you're bashing. So don't try to wiggle out of it with some Bush name drops and other BS. Own up!

"We're arrogant. We're hypocrites. We're lacking on empathy and social justice. "

Those are some of my favorite things. I am damn glad we don't appeal to the panty-waist, mealy-mouthed socialists.

I perfer to look at as we are fiercely independent,proud, yes even arrogant, self thinkers,motivated and don't let people get away with f**king with us.
We are great people and a great country. We are generous to a fault with the rest of world. How many millions do we just give away each year to foreign aid?How many countries have we helped? The world seems to always forget all the good we do. They just focus on the bad. But don't screw with us. Don't endanger the lives of our citizens. Don't come into OUR country and kill OUR people. If you do...all bets are off...no punches pulled...we will come after you. We WILL be ruthless. We won't care about "fair".
So the moral of this story....stay on our good side and no one gets hurt.

cute little rant matersfish, always good as an evasionary tactic, but do try and learn to distinguish between bashing and asking questions.

Let me ask you again.

Are you, as an American citizen, happy with the fact that the executive branch of your government is going to carry out extrajudicial killings without offering any evidence of guilt?

You UK lot condescend like no others in the history of the planet.

"Are you, as an American citizen, happy with the fact that the executive branch of your government is going to carry out extrajudicial killings without offering any evidence of guilt?"

You can refer to Rollo's response to see how poorly this question is framed pertaining to what is actually going on. It's almost as if your opinion is locked, loaded and ready to shoot west.

Did you ask me this before?

I trust an Executive order to execute any person labeled a threat to national security -- regardless of where they were born or where their bodies lie at the time of their demise.

This whole "no evidence" spin (read: innocent) is just another way to sneak that whole cruel, cruel American Empire thing in there. Hence bashing.

I'm sure some have an entire encyclopedia's worth of reasons the US would kill an innocent person: Gang initiation, psychopathy, laziness, drunk, mad the Colts lost the Super Bowl, tired of Celebrity Rehab reruns, etc.

I, on the other hand, although not trusting of the government 90% of the time, do not think they would kill innocent Americans abroad without sufficient evidence for them.

Maybe not ironclad proof for our courts and maybe not enough for sensitive types who only seem to care about the judicial process when it's time to get on some nanny-nanny-boo-boo hype about their high moral standards and compassion compared to others. But in wartime, being the branch of government responsible for America's security, enough evidence to immediately act and eliminate the threat is A-OK with me.

But that's just me.

Enemy is a riot if you look at his posts. Once he tried to claim that the UK never invaded other countries. You know, because they've never invaded India, Australia, Africa, etc. He just wants to bash America and pretend his country is perfect.

@ matersfish

So although you don't trust your government 90% of the time (very wise), you don't think they would kill innocent Americans abroad without sufficient evidence; and you're A-OK with the targeted assassination policy in general. Well there you go, that's all you had to do, answer a simple question. Now that was easy enough wasn't it? No need for little rants.

Now, where was I. Oh yes, America bashing. If I wanted to indulge in America bashing, I'd make a far better job of it than this little discussion. But then I'd be just like all the Obama bashers on here who post disc after disc after disc, finding new ways to bash Obama and new things to blame him for. Now that would be pathetic. And why would I want to go America bashing in the first place? That kind of thing is destructive, not constructive, and is pretty pointless. Anyway, it would be far too easy and not much of a challenge. I prefer to take a harder road.

@ taskr

Hello again taskr, you keep cropping up everywhere, you must find my discussions really interesting.

Could you please direct me or give me a link to my post where I claim that the UK never invaded other countries. I must have forgotten that one. I'll deal with the rest of your comment when you post the directions or link to my post.

You can read my reasons for accusing you of America bashing down below. I explained down there where you martyred yourself on some woe-is-me, what-did-I-ever-do nonsense.

And, yeah, I'm reading it everywhere: It's not your game; you want a harder road. You could certainly do a better job if you wanted. lol ... You won't own up. To each his own.

What seems "pointless" to me is misrepresenting the context of our exchange to act as if I refused to answer some simple question. For one, it's not some simple matter, and leaving the substance out to frame it as a simple yes or no question still doesn't make it simple. You even condensed my answer down to nothing -- my guess is to make it fit what you want it to be rather than what it is.

It's always fun to go back and forth on myLot. I'm often surprised at how self-satisfied some folks are. It makes me wonder why they seek opinions from others in the first place. It's not as if some want further information on a subject or even to see why others believe what they do. It's more to reaffirm the starter's stance it seems.

Who knows? It takes all kinds. And that's what makes the world great. Well, that and brunettes. And pizza.

But I can't keep going back and forth with you. I'm dropping places like I'm falling out of a plane! I think you're hittin' me up with the minus sign -- someone is. And that makes it too rude to continue.

Okay, no going back and forth. I'll reply to you down there where you suggest. But this is a problem here when people comment in other boxes and you end up in two different conversations with the same person. But that'll be later today 'cos it's well into tomorrow here, if that makes any sense.

I don't know who's negging you but it's not me. I've only hit the neg button twice since I've been here. Once when an idiot was getting abusive on a friend's disc and once when someone tried to pass off a scientific article as his own work. I don't do stuff like that, not even when people start throwing insults and abuse at me. But this is the politics section, it's common practice here and many people stay away from this section because of that.

Changed my mind, I'll deal with everything here.

First and foremost, if you're dropping places and your star is taking a battering, don't blame it on me. As I said earlier, I don't indulge in negging people who disagree with me; that's childish. Neither do I neg people for flaming me, insulting me or hurling abuse at me (unless it's extreme or contains references to my family); I'm openly and deliberately provocative at times so I expect flak and thus have no complaints when it comes my way. I'm a big boy and I don't need to go running to teacher every time someone calls me names. Everybody who reads the responses and comments on this discussion has access to that little -ve button. During the course of this discussion I have climbed about 20 places in the politics rankings and my little star has notched up two more points. When you compare your situation to mine, doesn't that tell you something, it should do. But if you're not happy, feel free to rate me negatively anywhere you like. I don't care about numbers and pretty coloured stars.

Second, I don't consider myself to be indulging in America bashing if I call into question the actions and policies of your government; you are quite welcome to do the same thing with my country, I do it often enough. I also feel perfectly justified in commenting on American politics etc as your government's foreign policy decisions impact on everyone else in this world because of the extent of your country's influence around the world.

Third, I shortened some questions and your answers because I don't have 500 posts yet so I can't cut n paste. This makes it very time consuming to flick back and forth between open tabs to copy sections of text, but the essentials always remain. You may disagree, but that's your opinion and you have a right to it.

Fourth, you may see my posts as antagonistic, I see them as provocative. If you don't like the way I phrase questions or write in general then nobody's forcing you to respond to any of my discussions. If it was simply a case of the two of us disagreeing with each other, then why have I been able to have a civilised discussion on the issues surrounding my OP with spalladino who is diametrically opposed to my views on this issue?

Lastly, you and others here object to my phrasing of questions and appear to have difficulties in answering them. I simplify things and you call me condescending. Well I'll tell you now that there is no way I am going to rephrase my questions just because you don't like them, others don't have problems with them. I am not going to change my style just to accomodate you or anyone else. I will not drop down a level and spell everything out ABC in ittee bittee bite-sized chunks to spoon feed you with. Why don't you try stepping up a gear and start thinking about what I say, how I say it and why I say it, instead. If you want ABC then go buy an ABC book. If however you want to think then you're always welcome. And no, you'll never come close to guessing the nature of my game. Not until you remove the jingoistic blindfold, learn to question the belief systems you have been given and, most importantly of all, step beyond the fear. Can you do this? I don't know, it's up to you.

There, I'm done. What you think of this or me, I don't care. If you don't like my discussions then nobody is forcing you to come and respond to them. The choice is yours.

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

If I was an American citizen Dawn, I'd be thinking not as well. But this is what the world sees when they look at America, and that's a rational person talking. Imagine how potential terrorists see your country. Is this going to deter them or make them even more determined to commit acts of terrorism againct the US?

But that's not the real point. The real point is are US citizens happy with their executive being the sole judge of someone's guilt without ever having to produce any evidence of guilt, and then executing them?

I'm certainly not happy with that, but there is quite a large element that believes wholeheartedly that that is how we need to deal with some situations. We don't want to give the terrorists and edge, etc. etc. How the heck do you fight that?

'How the heck do you fight that?'

You can't fight it. This is what people have to realise. The war on terror like the war on drugs is a bogus war. You can't have a war on terror, the very phrase itself is ridiculous as it proposes that the enemy is an act and not a specific nation state who has engaged in hostilities towards you.

Therefore the war on terror is a war in which the enemy cannot be defined, it is effectively an endless war. I remember reading a book once, in which there was an endless war and the only information the people had about the war was what the government fed to them through their TV screens and government produced newsreels. That book was called 1984.

The methods being employed by the US and other governments involved in the 'war on terror' can be summarised as reactionary, or end of the pipe solutions; and do not address the possible causes of the terrorist activity itself. I've already stated this in a discussion of Annies but I'll repeat it here.

Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that the US military is bombing and killing muslim civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen? Or that the Us gives $3 billion a year in military aid to Israel , which they then use to kill muslim civilians in Gaza? What do you think muslims around the world think when they see this, especially impressionable young adults?

And when you've thought about that for a while, try thinking of what it would be like if the US wasn't involved in any of this. Then how do you think the muslim world would see your country, and by extension your people.

This is one reason why I asked if Americans were happy with the way this latest piece of foreign policy made their country look in the eyes of the world.

Sorry, I meant how do you fight the fact that people believe these tactics are ok?

And obviously the US government's actions overseas, both direct and indirect (ie financing), have a HUGE impact on how this country is perceived.

Sorry for the short response, not in the mood for politics today. Maybe we could have another discussion about hiding bodies.

So, EofE, you're saying that if the U.S. wasn't friends with Israel, the muslim extremists would like us and not consider us infidels? Also, please keep in mind that the U.S. was attacked prior to our involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen...attacked more than once.

What I'm saying is that the US's continued support - militarily and politically - of Israel will be seen as an attack on muslims by America, and that this could engender a deep seated hatred of America in the eyes of some muslims. The official line is that they hate you for your freedoms and your democracy or that Islam itself is on a perpetual mission to take over the world and kill all infidels in the process.

True, some extreme muslim clerics and fundamentalists have expressed such views, but are these people representative of Islam as a whole? This is the official narrative which I question.

Yes, you suffered terrorist attacks prior to 911, but then The US support of Israel and it's continued oppression of the Palestinian people of the West Bank and Gaza, predates the current conflicts in Iraq and elsewhere by a long way. What I am saying is that this is the initial cause of hatred from muslims towards America and everything which came afterwards has contributed to exacerbating this initial situation.

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, I'm only suggesting that this is something which you should perhaps consider before coming to any conclusions as to why muslim extremists hate America; and not just to blindly accept the government narrative.

I'm not blindly accepting any government narrative and I certainly don't attach the hateful rehtoric of fundamentalist extremists to Islam as a whole. But, every time there's an attack, anywhere in the world, some extremist group takes credit for it and I don't buy the contention that it's ALL strictly based on Israel.

Even if that were true, EofE, are you saying that America should end a long standing relationship with an allied nation because it's ticking off some muslim extremist murders? We should bend to the will of extortionists? Even if that stopped the hatred of the U.S. by these people (which I don't believe it would because they hate so many other things about us) what kind of message would THAT send to the rest of the world? How safe would we be if certain other leaders saw us as weak and believed, for that reason, that they could do as they pleased without repercussions?

We're not a weak nation who bends...who allows others to force their will upon us and, in all honesty, I don't care why the extremists hate us. Those who plan, recruit, train and target others for terrorist attacks deserve whatever happens to them.

Israel is just an excuse for them to attack us. These freaks will find ANY reason to attack those who don't subscribe to their way of life. Heck a CARTOON printed in a newspaper was a good enough excuse for them to riot, attack embassies, and kill anyone that got in their path of destruction.

I didn't expect you to blindly accept the official story, or to project the actions of a few onto the many, I credit you with a lot more intelligence than that spalladino. I was merely commenting on what a lot of people do, not you personally. It isn't all based on Israel but I think that the US support of Israel lies at the heart of much of it. I'm not the only one who expresses this view either, her are some others:

"America's policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world."

"By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus towards the United States stemmed not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with US policy favouring Israel."

These are both taken from the 9/11 Commission Report, pages 376 and 147 respectively.

"Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf States.

"Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy."

- Unclassified study published by the Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense Science Board on September 23rd 2004

Even Di*k Cheney listed US "support for Israel" as one of the "true sources of resentment" in his speech to The American Enterprise Institute on May 21st 2009

So you must judge for yourself how much of an effect US support for Israel has on Muslims and, in particular, extremists and terrorists.

And no, I'm not suggesting you should end America's long standing relationship with Israel, that would be foolish and has the potential to lead to greater conflict in the Middle East. I think the US would be better off using it's influence to get Israel to change some of it's policies towards the Palestinians e.g. it's military blockade and consequent oppression of the people of Gaza, and its apartheid policies towards the Palestinian people of the West Bank. And I'm sorry but I can't simply dismiss over 1,000 civilians killed in Operation Cast Lead as 'ticking off some muslim extremist murders' (murderers?).

Neither am I suggesting that you give in to extortionists. I just happen to think that it is better to solve problems by looking at all possible sources of a problem and seeing what can be done, rather than assuming that the military solution is always the best option.

@taskr

Hello again taskr. My, you have been a busy little boy on this one haven't you

Please see my above reply to spalladino concerning the issue of Israel.

If these people are proven to be engaged in terrorist activity then they could be regarded as traitors who were worthy of execution. The problem with many detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere is the difficulty of dealing with them through military tribunals as they are civilians who have been labelled terrorists only on the say so of the executive. The government admits it has no evidence of their guilt, which is why they cannot be tried in civilian courts.

And now this principle is being extended from detention without evidence or charges, to execution without evidence. Is that really okay with you, for your government to carry out extrajudicial killings without any evidence of guilt being offered?

Have we actually executed any of them? No.Has anyone at Gitmo been executed without a trial?No. Will we? Well that depends on what happens after the trials. Which I admit need to be done faster.None of them should have sat there for years without a trial. That was wrong. And I hope it gets fixed quickly. But they can't just say...your guilt because we think so therefore we are going to kill you. They do have to try them in a court. Just a military one instead of a civilian court. The issue with trying them in a civilian court is that they are NOT US citizens nor were the crimes they are accused of happen on US soil. So therefore the civilian court system is not set up to deal with them.
Also most American do not want them tried on our civilian court system. They are scared that it will open up the court, city and state that the trial is held in at greater risk for a terrorist attack.
Why do you think New York is now saying they DO NOT want Khalid Shaikh Mohammed tried in their city and in their courts? Well it is because they are scared that it will cause more terror attacks in New York. That and also the cost of putting him on trial. The extra security needed for the city during the trial and afterwards would cost millions. Not to mention what the actual court costs would be.

As for their rights. The supreme court has ruled that " the Constitution applies to unlawful enemy combatants at Gitmo." So even though they have are NOT US citizens...they are being given our constituional rights. But due to the Patriot Act...well that makes things more complicated. If someone is charged under the patroit act...well then you DON'T have the same constitutional rights as everyone else. US citizens charged under the Patriot Act don't even have all of their constituional rights. I don't like the Patriot Act. Never did. But all we can do is work to get rid of it. Obama said he would get rid of it...but he hasn't so far.


I know I would not want a terrorist put on trial in my city.

My problem with this is that the way people are tried and the rules for applying extradition are tied together much of the time, and are related to how they are defined in the agreement between the two countries.

There is a guy from California called Adam Gadahn (now know under some Arabic nom-de-plume) who has turned up in some of the infamous Al-Qaida tapes explaining why Allah has got it in for the US. He is now wanted for treason - unsurprisingly.

He is now assumed to be in Pakistan. Assume he gets picked up by a traffic cop in, say, Peshawar, for dangerous driving. The legal authorities realise that he is wanted in the US, and want to send him back. At this point though he is in the hands of the civil authorities, not the military authorities, and mention of any of these military tribunals falls outside the extradition agreement. At this point your villain faces a charge of dangerous driving, serving some time for that, and could then walk free.

The current Pakistani government is fragile at best, the danger from Islamic militants there is enormous, and handing even a native-born American over to face one of these military tribunals (which look increasingly to be a distinctly American thing - their place under International Law I cannot comment on) could cause a very serious incident. So much so that the Pakistani government could easily fall if they did not let him go, and be replaced by a government that is far less sympathetic.

It would also not be the first case of an application for extradition from the US government to fail in a similar case. In 2006 or 2007, the US government asked for the extradition of the last member of the Hamburg Cell. I believe that the German government complied with the request, but the German High Court threw it out. He was then subsequently charged in Germany, got off with the major accusation, found guilty of lesser charges, and is now doing 13 years - after which he will be deported to his native country.

Anyway, what I think that this says is that extradition treaties need looking at, and new agreements may have to be signed, if the US appears to be changing its way of trying these people.

Oh Pakistan is definately in a sticky situation. If they turn a wanted terrorist over to us they will have a lot of trouble on their hands. Even if we were trying them in a civil court. Not much we can do about it. Not much they can do about it.

As for us "changing how we are trying them". Well I don't know what you mean. We have been trying "enemy combatants" in a military tribunal sence the American Revolution in 1812. In every war our militarty has used Military Tribunals. This is nothing new. In fact it is what we have always done. I guess in the past no one paid much attention to you or did not realize it was standard pratice for us.

As for the rest of the world.We are not the only country that has or still uses Military Tribunals. Infact there were several "international" military tribunals after WW2 to try the Nazis. A lot of countries took part in those.That is just to name one. There have been several international military tribunals through out history and even some recently.

I know about Nuremberg.

Realise that I am getting old, and I have lived in a number of countries. I can never recall in my lfetime anything like this being used in the European countries in which I have lived (the UK (my native country), Germany (where I now live), France (where I was a student and lived for three years after), Belgium (where I spent a year working), and the Netherlands (where I lived for 9 years)).

All these countries have had to deal with "terrorists", and have put them on trial. Often in courts which had to be heavily protected, but always under the auspices of the civil authorities.

I was trying to check out the last instance of it happening in the USA. The last I can come up with is Roosevelt and the German spies in 1942! Which, if it is the last instance, explains why so little is known on this subject. There has been anything more recent?

@ lilwonders

Apologies if I have confused things here. When I was talking of executions i was referring to Americans abroad who might be engaging in terrorist activity as these are the people the assassination policy is directed at. Not to be confused with the remaining detainees at Guantanamo.

I do struggle to understand the reluctance to put the gitmo detainees on trial in civil courts though. We did it with members of the Provisional IRA and had no problems. I honestly don't believe there is any risk of a terrorist attack happening anywhere near a court in which they were being tried. What would it achieve from the terrorist's point of view? If the defendants are found not guilty and freed, and if they are terrorists, then their organisation would have a victory to celebrate. If they are found guilty then their organisation has a martyr, live martyrs are more valuable than dead ones in terms of their propaganda value, so why kill one of your assets? And terrorists don't need trials like this as excuses for any action, the whole idea behind terrorism is to terrorise without any warning.

I'm not going to go into the Patriot Act. I've spent enough time trying to make Americans aware of the potential dangers to them, rather than terrorists, from this legislation. Obama said he'd scrap it, but he said lots of things before he got into the White House...

Fair point

If that's the case, I'll enter for the Marathon in the London Olympics. It will probably kill me, as I'll be 60 by then, but it beats waiting for the world to end, or getting hit by the 'friendly fire' of an American death squad.

If we're all going to die in 2012 anyway, I think I'm going to move to Hawaii and enjoy my last 2 years snorkeling...

marathon...hawaii...marathon...hawaiii...mmmm...I think I'll take Hawaii, I've never snorkled so that might be fun, and I'm damned if I'm going to spend my last days running around.

And I hear they do very nice chocolate wildebeests there

Actually Bush can be blamed for the Tea Party people. He managed to tick them off so many that they formed groups (there are more than just hte tea party nation you know) and got active in politics. Before Bush a lot of people did not pay attention to politics. So yes...you can blame Bush...he pushed a lot of people past their breaking point and now they are not going to take it anymore and now Obama gets to deal with them.
I personally screamed bloody murder over the patriot act...but there were not many of us doing it so no one paid any attention. It took a while for rest of country to catch on and get mad enough to do something. But I can tell you...it is kinda nice to not be screaming on my own anymore. Less lonely. More people pay attention.

@ Karen

Yes there are Americans like yourself and others who aren't happy with the policies their government are pursuing in the so-called 'war on terror', which is why I specifically asked for American's opinions on whether or not they were comfortable with the image of your country which is presented to the rest of the world. I believe this image is very important because many people cannot separate the actions of a country's government from that country's people and their thoughts. I can, I've had to because I've spent a lot of my time being hated around the world for the actions of past British governments. For instance, the terror campaign of bombing civilian targets on the British mainland by the provisional IRA was a direct result of the British government's policies towards the catholics in Ireland past and present.

@ Karen & lilwonders

I am surprised that more Americans weren't screaming about the patriot act, but I'm prepared to cut them some slack, considering how traumatised your country was in the wake of 911. After the tragic events of that day I suppose picking your way through a 600 page bill wasn't high on most people's list of priorities. So I'm not going to judge the American public harshly for that.

I don't want to go into the tea party movement here because spalladino has a good discussion on that and I think my comments would be better on that discussion than this one.

I'm referring to the policy outlined by Dennis Blair, in which American citizens can be targeted for assassination, purely on the recommendation of the executive branch, without congressional or judicial oversight and without accountability to the people. In other words the government don't have to produce any evidence that such a 'target' has actually been directly engaged in terrorist activity; all they have to do is say that they were and you have to take the government's word for it.

IMO this is a dangerous way of dealing with things. Over here the Metropolitan Police had a shoot to kill policy when dealing with suspected terrorists. This resulted in the shooting to death of an innocent man - Jean Charles De Menezes - when officers from the Met. pumped 7 bullets into his head from point blank range; and then proceeded to run misinformation and lies through the media in an effort to cover up for their mistake. Their intelligence got it wrong and someone paid for this with their life.

I'm not saying that the assassination of a terrorist is wrong, I'm saying that to rely on the government to be correct in their assessments of suspected terrorists without providing evidence of this is shaky to say the least.

My question was not only are American citizens happy about this policy, but are they also happy with the image it presents to the rest of the world. I suppose I'm really asking you how you think this makes your country look to young muslims who are at risk of being radicalised and swept up into a general war agaist the US. For a further look at this aspect you might like to read my last comments to Dawn.

But I guess I'm maybe wasting my time as all I seem to get in reply are accusations of America bashing. This OP may be seen as that by some but believe you me, if I wanted to go America bashing then I'd make a much better job of it than this. And what would be the point of America bashing anyway? There's plenty of people who like nothing more than doing that; but that's not the nature of my game.

I'm not accusing you of America bashing, EofE, and I believe that your questions are sincere but I also believe that we're world's apart on this issue.

One thing I don't understand is why you're pinning this on the government in general when these asssessments are made by the military...and, yes, I trust them. What's the point of having military leaders if you're not going to trust them to do their jobs?

As far as our image to the rest of the world, yes, I would prefer that my country is perceived as strong and determined...especially considering the fact that we are dealing with an enemy who has stated that our weakness is one of the things they hate about us. I don't think that young muslims who are at risk of being radicalised will somehow decide not to take up the cause if we are doves militarily. More likely we would be viewed as an easy target and the recruitment of such young men would continue unabated. The attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11 was not the first one. Doing nothing cost thousands of Americans their lives.

Oh I know you're not accusing me of America bashing spalladino. I realised after I'd posted my reply that that was how it looked, but I wouldn't expect that from you. It's the standard reply I get from a lot of people here, including two responders on this disc, whenever I try to get Americans to question the actions of their government, or take a look at America from an outsider's viewpoint.

As for pinning it on the government in general, well, although the initial assessmets are made by the military or intelligence services, Blair said that any targeted assassinations had to have "high-level government approval", but he wasn't prepared to say anymore. So one has to assume that these operations are decided upon by government.

If you trust your military, intelligence services and government to get it right every time then fine, I'm not going to argue with you. I don't, which is why I gave the example of Jean Charles De Menezes.

As for your country's image, it is a matter of perception. While you see this policy as being part of appearing strong and determined, there are many muslims around the world who have already had their perceptions of America skewed before this. How do you think muslims feel when they see Blackwater's mercenaries shooting and killing civilians in Iraq, then walking away scott free? What are they to make of unmanned drones whose missiles kill groups of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan? I'm not saying that their perceptions sre right, I'm only asking Americans to try and understand what goes on in the minds of muslims around the world when they see all of this happening. How would you feel in their place? Could you remain perfectly objective, without feeling any anger towards the country who was doing this?

No, of course not...and I hate to sound unfeeling, but what they think is not more important than the security of my fellow Americans and that of our allies. War is not pretty and war is not fair. Countries who give safe haven to terrorists were warned in advance. Should we, and our allies say "Oh, never mind" because civilians might get hurt? Get them the hell out of there. They at least have a better chance than the people who were in the World Trade Center, in the Pentagon and on that plane had on 9/11.

I do appreciate input from those outside of my country but you have to also realize that there are some things about us that you don't understand because you don't live here. We have a true pioneer spirit because that's where our roots lie. We have strong beliefs, we don't have evil hearts, we don't seek to take over other countries, and we don't cower in fear.

Of course I don't believe that my military and intelligence service gets it right every time...no one is perfect...and as badly as I feel for anyone wrongly targeted, I take comfort in the fact that terrorist organizations no longer have free reign and are being driven out of areas they once called home. And the U.S. is not the only country responsible for that. If fighting back, if taking a stand against the horrors these monsters try to inflict upon so many is so wrong, why is it that the U.S. does not stand alone in this quest?

High level government approval could be anyone, EofE...my guess would be the Pentagon...but whoever it is, IMO, is strictly military.

"...whenever I try to get Americans to question the actions of their government, or take a look at America from an outsider's viewpoint."

For my accusation of America bashing personally: Frame the questions better and don't come across so condescending and self-righteous and I would be more than happy to go tit for tat on all concerns.

It surely does not seem as if you're trying to get Americans to question the actions of their government or entertain your viewpoint. It seems you're opposed to America's government and implying that, unless we agree with you, we must be torture-loving, rights-denying, innocent-people-murdering sheep of the government.

Things like, "you seem to be happy enough to remove habeas corpus" "you seem okay about using torture" and the "warrantless arrest" and "death squad" stuff comes across to me as sanctimoious and antagonistic and not a way to engage in honest, productive debate about any matter -- especially matters concerning another country.

But you know full well how you framed it. I guess that's your "game."

@ spalladino

Contrary to the opinions of some people here, I have a deep seated affection and respect for the American people. I can make the distinction between a country's people and a country's government; a lot of people can't. I know you don't have evil in your hearts and nobody should have to cower in fear. Yes you cannot stand idly by while terrorists threaten and attack your people; but I believe there are other ways to solve the problem of terrorism.

The British people have a greater experience of terror activity than your people do. That is not meant as some sort of warped boast either, it is simply fact. My mother lived through the London Blitz as an 8 yr old child. She never knew if the air raid shelter she was sitting in was going to suffer a direct hit, or whether a V-1 rocket would suddenly descend silently in broad daylight and blow them all to pieces. Many cities in England went through the same thing, night after night. In the '70s and '80s I and the rest of this country lived through the terror campaign waged by the Provisional IRA. For more details of this please read my response to taskr in box#12. You may see some parallels there between your current situation and ours then. It should also offer some insights into my attitudes to terrorism.

And please remember, I have no intention of judging you or the rest of the American people. Whatever your country does should be because of the will of it's people, not me.

I wouldn't dream of lumping you in with the rest of them. Because of all the comments on the boards here concerning terrorists, the war on terror, torture etc, anyone looking in could easily get the impression that most Americans think that all of this is perfectly acceptable. Personally I don't believe that for one second. But this is why I deliberately worded my OP to ask Americans if they were happy with their country's image in the eyes of the world, especially the muslim world. And fortunately, not all Americans are, as your response proves.

If I wanted to go America bashing, as some here accuse me of, I'm sure I could find a lot more than this to do it with. The same as I can and often do, in the case of my country.

Okay now that makes sense. I apologize for coming off strong but not all of us Americans support fascism.

No apology necessary. My discussions often have provocative titles and wording. I find that this helps to kickoff some discussions. It usually gets me some flak but I expect that and can handle it.

A very balanced response Holly. You can acknowledge the reasons behind this policy, while still recognising it's shortcomings and potential dangers.

I didn't want to raise your final point, I wanted it to come from an American, I would probably have been accused of fear mongering. But this IMO is the real danger of policies like this. You are currently engaged in a 'war on terror', a phrase which I find absolutely ridiculous, and wonder why others don't. This is a war which cannot be won. It is an endless war. If the policies of governments around the world continue in the same vein then the only way that this phony war can ever be won, is by ensuring that every potential terrorist is dead.

Instead of acknowledging that their foreign policies have a detrimental effect on people around the world, engendering resentment which can be easily be manipulated and turned into burning hatred by those who have their own agendas, creating blowback; governments have embarked on a military solution abroad and a surveillance/security policy at home. This results in increasing levels of hatred towards their countries from those who perceive themselves as victims of the developed nations' foreign policies; and an erosion of civil rights and liberties amongst their domestic populations. The longer this situation goes on, the more fearful people become. Fear breeds hatred, hatred creates more fear. Fear and hate are inseparable, they are intertwined and locked together in an escalating spiral.

Fear is also the mind killer, removing all reason and logic, turning us from rational beings into bundles of knee-jerk emotional responses. It is when a population has reached this point that they become only too willing to relinquish their rights and liberties for the promise of security. You know the rest of the story, it's called 1984.

Will this targeted assassination policy have any effect on young muslims around the world? No, not in the slightest I would have thought. It is US foreign policy which will form their opinions of your country. Every muslim under the age of 40 has grown up within the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Their lives have been filled with hatred from both sides. Now they sit and watch as Israel carries on with it's oppression of the Palestinian people of Gaza and it's apartheid policies towards the Palestinians of the West Bank. And all the time, in the background, there is America. America, who supply Israel with the weaponry which they use against the Palestinians. America, who consistently veto UN security council resolutions passed against Israel for violations of international law and human rights. While the rest of the world condemns Israel for it's actions, America defends and supports them. How can you ever expect young muslims to view America with anything other than hate. On this note you may care to read my last reply to spalladino in Dawn's box.

Once again, you step into one of my discussions and write a response not far removed from what I would have written.

Hello again, my friend!

Thank you for a strong and thoughtful response to my novel!

I have a feeling, if we did ever meet that we would probably never stop yapping!

I do try to maintain balance when I delve in politics, as it is very easy to allow emotions to carry us away. But, that also puts up roadblocks for learning and being coherent. Two things that I like. It does not matter to me whether others agree with my points or not, and so I don't feel an emotional hold on those views. Nor do I find it necessary to convince others of my points of view. They are entitled to theirs. I am entitled to mine. I'm making the assumption that a person who has an opposing view has information to back up their feelings, as I do.

As per my point about people speaking out against American war policies and being labeled a terrorist, naturally, that is the last thing any of us want to see. But, I did find it necessary to bring it up. We do have the First Amendment to the Constitution--which should prevent that from happening to any loyal American citizen. However, any of us who have lived long enough, have seen stranger things happen here and elsewhere. Better to think about it and be wrong than to not be prepared with a plan if it starts happening.

A war on terror--although the phrase may be ridiculous and I can see why you think so, how else would you describe it? There is no particular target or country to name. It's a war against particular actions. It's also why it's a never-ending war. While I believe we would all like to see an end to terrorism of any sort, I doubt we will ever see that happen, as long as it is productive behavior. And it has been, for the terrorists.

Fear, as you say--is their ultimate weapon. Our President, Franklin D. Roosevelt said as much to the American people back during WWII: "There is nothing to fear, but fear itself." Fear is an emotion. Terror--another name for fear-- is an emotion. It's like fighting smoke. But, the terrorists know that, which is why they have been as successful as they have been.

And now we are coming to a part where you and I have had different views before. I do agree that some of the US policies with the Israelis has fueled the fire in the Middle East. I do not see the USA and Israel ever parting ways completely. If that was a possibility, I think it would have happened already. We, as a nation, do not always like what the Israelis do. They do not always like and agree with us. But, it's such a long standing and intertwined alliance that our two nations will never completely secede. I'm sure you must know that the North American continent holds nearly half of the Jewish population in the world. That New York City is the second largest "Jewish" city after Tel Aviv. For those reasons alone, the alliance will not change. As most everyone knows, the US has tried to broker peace with Israel and their enemies many times, including the Palestinians. For reasons that are too complicated to go into here, most of those peace talks/treaties have either gone nowhere or did not last--and it was not always the Israelis who went back on their word.

I also feel that there is more to the hatred of the US by the Muslims. If Israel was the predominant reason, and our policies there, why don't all the Middle Eastern Islamic countries join forces and stand behind the Palestinians and go to war against us and Israel? If they are capable of maintaining and training terrorist camps and cells, continuing recruitment and constantly staging new attacks around the world, why haven't they all joined forces as a united front? That at least would truly give us one enemy to fight.
Their hatred of us is more deep-seated than Israel, imho. That's just an added reason. One that gives them pats on the back from other nations who hate us for their own reasons. They hate the very essence of us. As you say, fear and hatred are always intertwined. Their fear has turned into hate, and we retaliate in kind for the same reasons. I don't know what the difference is between the Provisional IRA and these terrorists, but it's going to take more than changing a few policies and talking to get them to stop.

I can't help but feel that the biggest difference is that the Provisional IRA was attacking and being attacked in their own country and in England, with which of course they had a great bond, whether they liked it or not. There was perhaps more motivation for them to stop. I was relieved that they did stop, finally.

I have read all the points of view here in this discussion--yours as well as others. Spalladino's views are well thought out and explained. It has been interesting reading all around and I'm glad that you posted the discussion. I do find it interesting that this discussion got more response than your first "Bay" discussion did--can't really explain it.