U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey Urges Declaration of War on al Qaeda & Taliban

Why shouldn't we declare war on them?

Al Qaeda and the Taliban have already declared war on us.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080721/pl_nm/security_usa_detainees_dc

 

Has the 'Taliban' declared war on us? 'could be just didn't hear of an actual declaration, they have been fighting us on their home turf, they did not come for us'

As far as the Al Qaeda thing goes on the surface it does make sense, I do see how it could be abused though 'plus' why it wouldn't of been done in the first place as it would go against everything the admin had done from the beginning, trying to claim captured members did not deserve geneva convention rights for instance.

 

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

 

Well the supreme court did rule against him

 

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are no better than the barbary pirates. At the time Jefferson has assumed the office of President, the US had already paid $2,000,000, or about one-fifth, of the entire annual income of the United States government.

The 1st military tribunal has started this week in Guantano for Bin Laden's driver and bodyguard

 

I'd stay far away from that suggestion. Both Obama and McCain will probably dramatically change the US's approach to people captured in connection to terrorism and the ongoing process of jailing them and ultimately trying them in court. At some point Bush wanted to or declared a war on terrorism.

I'd leave the status of this unchanged so that the new administration could deal with these issues in a new way disconnected from the current administration and not bogged down by any kind of further legal developments tied to the current administration's way of thinking.

 

Under Janet Reno terrorism became a law enforcement matter. The 1st World Trade bombing and other al-Qaeda attacks where handled as crimminal matters. This approach clearly didn't work. National defense is a military matter.

It doesn't make sense that the military captures armed terrorists on the battlefield and they are released to attack the US again. Combatants should be kept confined to the end of the conflict.

 

There was one big difference with the first World Trade Center bombing. The terrorists were living on our soil and could be arrested and brought to trial. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily the case when we are dealing with terrorist fugitives in most other countries.

One of the big issues with releasing captives from Gitmo has been that their home countries don't want to take them back. You have to find a place to send them where they will not engage in combat activities again. At last count I think there have been 30 former Gitmo detainees that have been either killed or captured on the Afghan battlefield after being released. So what else do you do with them? I dunno.

 

Another huge difference is the will of the American people to support such actions. The will for actual all out military action was not there until 9/11 happened.

 

You need to keep them in POW camps until the conflict ends of the US decides to parole them. Otherwise they will return to the battlefield.

Ronald Reagan launched a huge strike against Lybia in 1987 after Kadahfi was implicated in a cafe bombing in Berlin targeting US troops.

There was a long string of bombings and attacks against the US that went unanswered. In addition to the 1993 World Trade Tower Bombing, there was the 1996 suicide bombing against a US Troop barracks in Saudi Arabia, attack on US Embassies in Sudan, and USS Cole attack.

Today some of the terrorist organizations are getting very powerful and becoming states within a state. A good example is Hezbollah which like al-Qaeda maintains its own army.

 

Any of this changes the fact that the US public would not have supported the current 'war on terror' pre 9/11 exactly?

 

Agreed. I don't think there is a better solution.

But that sure does infuriate the liberal weenies who think that our enemies should have rights equal to those of the US citizens.

A lot of people are not aware of the fact that we kept some German POWs in the USA for several years after WWII. I met an old timer in Germany many years ago. He told me had been to the USA and worked on a peach farm in Georgia during the war. When I questioned that, he told me that he was POW that was captured in 1944. We shipped him to Georgia and put him on a work farm with a lot of other German POWs. He wasn't released until 1948, but he said several German POWs were in the states until the early 1950s. He also said he liked that much better than fighting the war.

 

'liberal weenies'

You are failing to see the point that Bush bypassed the entire concept of POW status and camps causing this mess in the first place.

Had it been actual POW camps, I highly doubt many would have had a problem with it.

POW camp is meeting in the middle, something I would support. Bush and the 'ra, ra' cronies however went well beyond that, supporting breaking international law.

 

What would a declaration of war matter, is it just for the PoW thing?

 

Isn't that how this thread started? Don't you have to have a declared war in order to have POWs?

I don't think the jerk-offs they picked up in Afghanistan qualified as POWs because they were not in uniform and there wasn't a declared war. That's why the term "enemy combatants" was applied.

The don't even qualify as POWs who are entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention because they were not in uniform.

They are technically mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from the international protections of the Geneva Convention.

Council on Foreign Relations - Enemy Combatants

Wikipedia - The Geneva Convention and Mercenaries

 

You are incorrect, the Geneva Convention does apply, look at the posts above you.

They are not 'mercenaries' we are in fact sending 'mercenaries' in Iraq, to try to claim those in Afghanistan were mercenaries makes me think you need to look up the definition.

 

I think you are correct. Great Post. Mercenaries are excluded from the international protections of the Geneva Convention.

 

How are those in Afghanistan mercenaries?