"Horn, John" wrote: > > > From: Jeffrey Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Some of the more choice bits from General Ashcroft's expert legal mind: > > > "I think it's important to understand that we are at war now." > > > [except that we're NOT at war, as no declaration of war has been made by > > congress..] > > I'm not sure exactly how I feel about the military tribunals, but I'm not > sure this is a fair statement. I've felt that the main reason that we > having officially declared war is because there's no one to actually declare > war ON.
Perhaps, but there's certainly legal issues regarding war, the declaration thereof, and the powers that the government can LEGALLY exercise - all dependant upon an actual declaration of war.. not to mention social and poitical realities. I'm sorry, but we are not at war. Dropping some bombs from the safety of 30,000 feet while our puppet army (a corrupt, monarchal puppet army with a shoddy human rights record that China would be ashamed of) attacks is NOT war (unless, somehow, we're now going to retroactively declare all the other military actions we've taken like this in the past "war" and prosecute the Executive branch at the time for overstepping their bounds.. its Congress that declares war, NOT President Cheney) Me: 3000 American civilians were blown up on September 11th. That's why we're at war. Apart from your contention that 1 - air combat operations, at any altitude, are "safe", and 2 - Your willingness to completely ignore the Green Berets and Marines on the ground in Afghanistan _right now_ risking their lives to protect you, with, apparently, little in the way of gratitude or appreciation in return. As I've pointed out in a different post, in fact, it was resolved during the Administration of _Thomas Jefferson_ that a formal declaration of war is not necessary for the President to assume war powers. The War Powers Act, in fact, which was passed to _limit_ the powers of the President with regards to warfare (and is, in my opinion, almost certainly unconstitutional in the limits that it does impose) clearly acknowledges the President's power to use war powers to deal with immediate threats without Congressional approval. Also, when the world's liberal humanitarians look at the job postings, "Afghan Rebel Leader" isn't really high on their list of choices. Thomas Jefferson isn't really likely to spring up out of the Hindu Kush like Athena from Zeus's forehead. The Northern Alliance have two main things going for them. 1) They're on our side and 2) They're a _lot_ better than the Taliban. That should be enough to satisfy anyone. Did you miss the pictures from liberated Kabul on CNN? You know, the people dancing in the streets, rejoicing, things like that? It looked like Paris in 1944 for God's sake. The Northern Alliance is acting with a degree of restraint that is nothing short of extraordinary. This is _Afghanistan_. There is nothing in Afghan history, for example, that supports taking prisoners. Yet that's what they're doing - presumably at the behest of the US. They even seem to be coming to an agreement to create a multi-ethnic, democratic government in negotiations being conducted right now. Masood, the assassinated leader of the Northern Alliance, signed a petition the day before his death calling for greatly improved rights for the women of Afghanistan. In fact, that petition did _not_ call for women to be allowed to be elected to office - and he hand wrote an addition including that right before he would sign. Men and children rushed into the street to play soccer and fly kites _the same day_ that their cities were liberated. The first newscaster on Afghan TV once the Taliban expelled was...a 16 year old girl who did not wear a burqa. Men lined up to shave their beards. Think how confident they had to be that the Taliban were never coming back, and how happy they must have been at that fact, before they were willing to do that. Warfare is not a sport. The idea is to beat the other guy while taking as few casualties of your own as possible, not equalize the sides to provide spectators with the maximum possible entertainment. The American military (with British assistance) has just smashed a government on the other side of the world in less than three months after September 11th, starting with _no_ troops in the area, _no_ bases in the area, and _no_ close allies in the area. There has never, ever, been anything like it. It did so while taking _2_ casualties, plus a CIA agent killed, and did so with a degree of discretion and care for innocent lives that is, so far as I am aware, unprecedented in military history. Your contention that trying to fight a war in a way that imposes minimal risks upon our soldiers makes it not a war is, well, surreal. Gautam
