JMS on Usenet
Message
Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Have you seen this? Shades of Nightwatch? Date: 25 Jul 2002 00:53:29 GMT From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated >So, you are saying that the Korean War and Vietnam War >weren't wars? Get real! Hmm...let me go over what I actually wrote, and see...nope, I didn't say that. (It's been my experience that when somebody begins with "So are you saying," the odds are extremely good that in fact you NEVER said that, just as I didn't say it here, the person is reacting to something that they want to fight about.) >It is possible to be in a de facto >_state_ of war without the existence of a de jura >_declaration_ of war. Granted, and that was never the point. The point I was making was that for someone to start changing the laws under which this country operates, you can only do so under conditions which allow you to make such sweeping changes. If someone like Bush wants to start making those changes, which are considered only appropros in time of declared war, then he should declare war and get Congress to authorize it. In neither of the cases noted above did anyone try to change as drastically as now the laws under which this country operates. >Additionally, a declaration of war >can only be issued against another nation state. At present >we are in a de facto state of war against a non-governmental >entity (actually a group of entities), so there is no nation >against which to declare war. I doubt very much that anyone would let semantics get in the way of something like this. If one can declare war *without* congress without naming a nation, why could you not declare it *with* congress? And I don't recall seeing or hearing anything indicating that it HAD to be a nation-state. Where is this stated? >I am of the opinion that a DoW should have been issued >against the Taliban, although I can understand the reasons >for not doing so: a DoW would have recognized the Taliban >as the rightful government of Afghanistan, something that >was not necessarily desirable.) Except of course that in the months leading up to 9/11, the Bush administration was, according to some published accounts, in negotiation with the Taliban to see if they could work out an oil pipeline deal, so I don't think this would have been much of an issue either way. >Sorry if there is a bit of >ranting here, but this is a comment that _really_ gets my >dander up. Understandable...except the part where I pointed out that I never *said* the coment that "gets your dander up." Perhaps it's a dander problem. Have you considered Head and Shoulders? >With a couple of exceptions, all of the detainees in >_military_ custody are foreign nationals, not US citizens. Exceptio Probat Regulum: the exception puts the rule to the test. First, there should be NO exceptions, that is the law of this country, that a civilian cannot be held in this fashion without being charged, without being given access to an attorney, without due process. It doesn't matter if it's one, three, fifty or a hundred, the law is the law is the law. Second, you don't KNOW that it's only "a couple of exceptions." We only found out about Padilla *six months* after he'd been picked up. How many other American citizens are currently being detained without counsel? In fact, you have no idea how many there are, because we haven't been told, because the administration doesn't feel it HAS to tell us. So this part of your argument goes out the window on both counts. >All the detainees at Guantanamo were armed enemy captured in >a combat zone by US military forces. The Guantanamo >detainees should _not_ be in civilian custody. Never said they should. Again, it would be most constructive if you were to respond to what I actually said than responding to what I *didn't* say as if I had said it. >As I have stated in a couple of other posts, I do not see >that TIPS or the Citizen Corps really makes any difference >in this matter. And lots of other people, including any number of Republicans, DO see it as making a huge difference to the tone, tenor and structure of this country. Your mileage may vary. But I imagine the STASI were put in with similar justifications about the general good. jms (jmsatb5@aol.com) (all message content (c) 2002 by synthetic worlds, ltd., permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine and don't send me story ideas)