Historical context applied to Current Events

immediately began rounding up suspected Anarchists.

"The government targeted immigrants and socialists," says Martin Miller, a professor of history and a terrorist expert at Duke University in North Carolina. Many of the thousands of people detained in the dragnet had nothing to do with the Wall Street bombing. The government eventually deported 300 people, he says.

How about the Civil War. The terroists were all U.S. american both north and south.

NEW RULES FOR AN OLD GAME

As the 19th century ended, it seemed no one was safe from terrorist attack. In 1894 an Italian anarchist assassinated French President Sadi Carnot. In 1897 anarchists fatally stabbed Empress Elizabeth of Austria and killed Antonio Canovas, the Spanish prime minister. In 1900 Umberto I, the Italian king, fell in yet another anarchist attack; in 1901 an American anarchist killed William McKinley, president of the United States. Terrorism became the leading preoccupation of politicians, police chiefs, journalists, and writers from Dostoevsky to Henry James. If in the year 1900 the leaders of the main industrial powers had assembled, most of them would have insisted on giving terrorism top priority on their agenda, as President Clinton did at the Group of Seven meeting after the June bombing of the U.S. military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Thomas, can you assert this is the first war that some soldiers did not act appropriately?

I disagree. In the war on terror, if there is information the person is an agent of a foreign terrorist group, and they are not a citizen of the U.S., I think they can be considered enemy combatants. What if during WWII, a few Germans were caught on the beaches of California, after swimming ashore from a small boat, would they have received full benefits of a civilian criminal justice system?

Very, very weak cases or examples cited. Not really applicable as a rebuttal.

I obviously conclude the examples do not compare in scope or exact type of problem that we are now confronted with. Further, we live in a day of the availability of WMD, which also adds gravity to the potential destruction possible. We are not confronted with a case of a few anarchists wanting to shoot a person or a few people.

Doesn't seem to far from our response today to terrorist attacks.

Quote:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1996/pomo-terror.htm

15 seconds on Google. Step up to the information age, Okie.

You will note that the president of France, the Prime minister of Spain, the President of America, and the king of Italy were all killed by terrorists in the space of just a few years. I think that qualifies as a huge problem, thanks very much. And we didn't build secret prisons or torture people to stop it.

Cycloptichorn

You haven't begun to demonstrate that problem is anywhere close to the one we are dealing with, in scope or type.

Setanta wrote:

okie wrote:

Can you provide any evidence that Bush authorized torture. Do terrorist suspects captured in Afghanistan or Iraq deserve the same rights as a civilian criminal?

Just off the top of my head, i find this one ridiculously easy. You beg the question. How do you know any person taken into custody is a "terrorist?" This question is particularly relevant in Afghanistan, where bounties were offered for "Taliban" fighters. Does it not occur to you that in an impoverished country there would be quite a lure to denounce someone for cash, especially if you felt fairly sure there were no family members who would react with a blood feud? (The possibility of blood feuds was about the only thing which kept one half of the male population from turning in the other half.)

What part of innocent until proven guilty do you have a problem with? Do American concepts of freedom and justice stop a the water's edge?

Can you cite any instance in American history where prisoners captured in foreign battle areas have ever been granted the same rights as civilians under the U.S. criminal justice system as standard procedure?

And in any or all wars, how did we know that every single person captured was an enemy combatant?

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

okie wrote:

Thomas, can you assert this is the first war that some soldiers did not act appropriately?

I never did. I am asserting that the Bush administration is defining torture down; the way Gonzalez defines it, the infliction of any pain lesser than that caused by death or organ failure is not torture. In my interpretation, this means that the Bush administration reserves the right to do submit captives to any treatment that does not fit their narrowed-down definition of torture.

okie wrote:

I disagree. In the war on terror, if there is information the person is an agent of a foreign terrorist group, and they are not a citizen of the U.S., I think they can be considered enemy combatants. What if during WWII, a few Germans were caught on the beaches of California, after swimming ashore from a small boat, would they have received full benefits of a civilian criminal justice system?

If they were legal residents of the United states at the time they were captured, they would have to enjoy full access to the American courts. If they were residents of Germany set out on a mission to spy on the US, they would have had their status determined by a competent tribunal -- could be a court martial -- and detained under military law.

The Military commissions Act of 2006 doesn't make this distinction, however. If I move to Silicon Valley and work there, which I intend to do once I get my lazy arse moving, and if George Bush doesn't like my nose, he can determine that I'm an enemy combatant and detain me. No federal court will be able to sack my detention. Do you approve of this?

Quote:

Even Clinton violated the law, if interpreted as you are doing.

(1) do you have evidence for this? (2) If you do have evidence for this, I'm not defending Clinton on this point.

okie wrote:

Very, very weak cases or examples cited. Not really applicable as a rebuttal.

There was nothing to rebut as no argument was made. I was merely answering your question. You asked for instances where the US has had to deal with the problem of terrorism and I answered. You haven't answered my question yet, though.

Quote:

I obviously conclude the examples do not compare in scope or exact type of problem that we are now confronted with. Further, we live in a day of the availability of WMD, which also adds gravity to the potential destruction possible. We are not confronted with a case of a few anarchists wanting to shoot a person or a few people.

And that leads you to the conclusion that ...

I thought your argument was that this administration is not doing anything significantly different from the way things were always done in wars. Yet now you are saying that the current situation is distinctly different. What exactly are you arguing?

McGentrix wrote:

Doesn't seem to far from our response today to terrorist attacks.

That's why I revised my original statement. Roosevelt was much farther out of line than Bush is.

My point was that there is a guiding principle in American jurisprudence which holds that persons are to be considered innocent until proven guilty. I suspect, as i stated before, that you consider concepts of freedom and justice which are enshrined in law and practice in the United States end at the water's edge.

Can you cite instances in history where the U.S. has had to deal with the problem of terrorism?

Setanta wrote:

My point was that there is a guiding principle in American jurisprudence which holds that persons are to be considered innocent until proven guilty. I suspect, as i stated before, that you consider concepts of freedom and justice which are enshrined in law and practice in the United States end at the water's edge.

Setanta, that applies in the criminal justice system of this country, however, would you suggest that as a soldier in combat, and upon facing a guy pointing a rifle at you, you would arrest him, read his rights, and appoint a lawyer to his case?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1996/pomo-terror.htm

15 seconds on Google. Step up to the information age, Okie.

You will note that the president of France, the Prime minister of Spain, the President of America, and the king of Italy were all killed by terrorists in the space of just a few years. I think that qualifies as a huge problem, thanks very much. And we didn't build secret prisons or torture people to stop it.

Cycloptichorn

You haven't begun to demonstrate that problem is anywhere close to the one we are dealing with, in scope or type.

Let me get this straight. Terrorists at the time manage to assasinate many different heads of state, and bombs were going off in America left and right; but it's not the scope of what we're dealing with today?

Have any of our top leadership been harmed by terrorism? Any western nation? Your argument that today's problem is worse than problems which were in the past is ludicrous, simply ridiculous.

Cycloptichorn

okie wrote:

Setanta wrote:

My point was that there is a guiding principle in American jurisprudence which holds that persons are to be considered innocent until proven guilty. I suspect, as i stated before, that you consider concepts of freedom and justice which are enshrined in law and practice in the United States end at the water's edge.

Setanta, that applies in the criminal justice system of this country, however, would you suggest that as a soldier in combat, and upon facing a guy pointing a rifle at you, you would arrest him, read his rights, and appoint a lawyer to his case?

I didn't say anything as stupid as that, and i'm not obliged to argue against your strawman.

I asked if you think that American principles of freedom and justice end at the water's edge.

I pointed out that the terms of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war embodies the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and linked the document for anyone to read.

If a man is being fired upon in combat, my advice is to shoot back, pronto, and to take good aim. If the man shooting at you is not killed, but is only wounded, or surrenders before you can kill him, then the terms of the Geneva Convention kick in--or should, since we signed it.

So, Okie, do you think that American concepts of freedom and justice end at the water's edge? If so, do you think we were wrong to sign the Geneva Convention?