http://url.edna.edu.au/4bbN Buy Viagra Online…

The Bush administration is a perfect example of the flaws in Preemptive war.

Look at what Bush and his folks did. They lied to us. They lied to the world. The cowed Congress who should have been the breakwater to stop the tide of their war propaganda. They bullied and convinced us and other nations that Sadam HAD WMD. When that could not be proven have you forgotten all the changes in reasons to go to war, and in why we had to kill him anyway? WMD. Democracy. Regional murderer. He was a bad dangerous man.

If the “decider” has ulterior reasons for starting a preemptive war, (say for oil or politics) how can we trust him/her with our soldiers lives and our nations treasure?

We are now going to say we are in a war with terror, but we don't have to comply with the Geneva Conventions and other rules of war because terrorist do not have a nation and so are not soldiers. In other words we are not at war we are just in a war.

And, because there is no end in sight to the “WAR” on terror we will just imprison whom ever the President deems a substantial terrorist FOREVER.

This can't be the last word on this. MY United States has more virtue than this. MY United States Military, the good folks that are facing death and dying must see, in fact know, that this path creates an unending supply of “Substantial enemy combatants.”
,
There was/is more evil in Bagram/Guantanamo than just torture. They are also a Gulag; a political prison where one is held without rights, recourse to justice or a way to dispute one man's idea of “Substantial” danger.

AUWE AUWE

The Bush administration is a perfect example of the flaws in Preemptive war.

Look at what Bush and his folks did. They lied to us. They lied to the world. The cowed Congress who should have been the breakwater to stop the tide of their war propaganda. They bullied and convinced us and other nations that Sadam HAD WMD. When that could not be proven have you forgotten all the changes in reasons to go to war, and in why we had to kill him anyway? WMD. Democracy. Regional murderer. He was a bad dangerous man.

If the “decider” has ulterior reasons for starting a preemptive war, (say for oil or politics) how can we trust him/her with our soldiers lives and our nations treasure?

We are now going to say we are in a war with terror, but we don't have to comply with the Geneva Conventions and other rules of war because terrorist do not have a nation and so are not soldiers. In other words we are not at war we are just in a war.

And, because there is no end in sight to the “WAR” on terror we will just imprison whom ever the President deems a substantial terrorist FOREVER.

This can't be the last word on this. MY United States has more virtue than this. MY United States Military, the good folks that are facing death and dying must see, in fact know, that this path creates an unending supply of “Substantial enemy combatants.”
,
There was/is more evil in Bagram/Guantanamo than just torture. They are also a Gulag; a political prison where one is held without rights, recourse to justice or a way to dispute one man's idea of “Substantial” danger.

AUWE AUWE

Nonsense. That isn't the issue at all. Conspiracy to commit a crime, even if it is prevented by proactive action (capture, arrest, etc.) by the Government can and must still allow for judicial review. That is a basic concept of our entire body of law and governance. Without it, you have tyranny.

The problem here, is one I have argued for years, in that the 2001 AUMF is an astoundingly sweeping and wholly new idea that allows the President, and President alone sole authority to arrest, attack, kill anything, anyone, anywhere, anytime on his say so alone. Posse Comitatus be damned. How that squares with the basic concepts of our founding documents and principles is baffling to say the least.

It is not just a perversion of our system of checks and balances, the abdication of Congressional war powers, but a complete upending of our entire framework of rule of law.

And for those who think that this is weakening national security, or that Bush policies are the right way to go (or further) do a little thought exercise. For those right of center, imagine the Obama administration having full authority to raid, “disappear” even kill anyone they dislike for say, owning guns, being anti-abortion, etc. and there being no judicial review or oversight. For those left of center, imagine the same thing because targeting groups a GOP President doesn't like, gay-rights groups, environmental groups, anti-war groups, etc.

This is barely a semantics step towards correcting the problem, but those in hysterics that this very timid move towards rule of law is bad, is delusional (at best) in failure to see the very very dangerous ground upon which our system now stands because of the mindless reaction to 9/11.