FeedObama speaks in defense of habeas corpus
September 29, 2006 in Overset
I may be one of the last non-republicans in America who still things the toppling Saddam Hussein was justified in terms of national defense and who doesn’t buy the idea that we are creating terrorism that endangers Americans (the Islamofascists attacked us long before we invaded Iraq). Still, I have consistently, I believe, supported the idea that we have to behave like freedom-loving Americans as we defend out freedoms, which is why I’m no fan of the harsh interrogation tactics used against prisoners. That’s why I’m not happy with Congress giving President Bush a law that some say gives him the sole powers to determine interrogation tactics to use on these prisoners.
I’d go on, but I thought I would borrow the words of U.S. Senator Barack Obama:
Mr. President, I am proud to be sponsoring this amendment with the senior senator from West Virginia. He’s absolutely right that Congress has abrogated its oversight responsibilities, and one way to reverse that troubling trend is to adopt a sunset provision in this bill. We did that in the Patriot Act, and that allowed us to make important revisions to the bill that reflected our experience about what worked and didn’t work during the previous 5 years. We should do that again with this important piece of legislation.
But I want to take a few minutes to speak more broadly about the bill before us.
I may have only been in this body for a short while, but I am not naive to the political considerations that go along with many of the decisions we make here. I realize that soon, we will adjourn for the fall, and the campaigning will begin in earnest. And there will be 30-second attack ads and negative mail pieces, and we will be called everything from cut-and-run quitters to Defeatocrats to people who care more about the rights of terrorists than the protection of Americans. And I know that the vote before us was specifically designed and timed to add more fuel to that fire.
And yet, while I know all of this, I’m still disappointed, and I’m still ashamed. Because what we’re doing here today – a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused – should be bigger than politics. This is serious.
If this was a debate with obvious ideological differences – heartfelt convictions that couldn’t be settled by compromise – I would understand. But it’s not.
All of us – Democrats and Republicans – want to do whatever it takes to track down terrorists and bring them to justice as swiftly as possible. All of us want to give our President every tool necessary to do this. And all of us were willing to do that in this bill. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to the American people.
In the five years that the President’s system of military tribunals has existed, not one terrorist has been tried. Not one has been convicted. Not one has been brought to justice. And in the end, the Supreme Court of the United found the whole thing unconstitutional, which is why we’re here today.
We could have fixed all of this in a way that allows us to detain and interrogate and try suspected terrorists while still protecting the accidentally accused from spending their lives locked away in Guantanamo Bay. Easily. This was not an either-or question.
Instead of allowing this President – or any President – to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered.
Instead of detainees arriving at Guantanamo and facing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that allows them no real chance to prove their innocence with evidence or a lawyer, we could have developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused.
And instead of not just suspending, but eliminating, the right of habeas corpus – the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention, we could have given the accused one chance – one single chance – to ask the government why they are being held and what they are being charged with.
But politics won today. Politics won. The Administration got its vote, and now it will have its victory lap, and now they will be able to go out on the campaign trail and tell the American people that they were the ones who were tough on the terrorists.
And yet, we have a bill that gives the terrorist mastermind of 9/11 his day in court, but not the innocent people we may have accidentally rounded up and mistaken for terrorists – people who may stay in prison for the rest of their lives.
And yet, we have a report authored by sixteen of our own government’s intelligence agencies, a previous draft of which described, and I quote, “…actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay…”
And yet, we have Al Qaeda and the Taliban regrouping in Afghanistan while we look the other way. We have a war in Iraq that our own government’s intelligence says is serving as Al Qaeda’s best recruitment tool. And we have recommendations from the bipartisan 9/11 commission that we still refuse to implement five years after the fact.
The problem with this bill is not that it’s too tough on terrorists. The problem with this bill is that it’s sloppy. And the reason it’s sloppy is because we rushed it to serve political purposes instead of getting the job done.
I’ve heard, for example, the argument that it should be military courts, and not federal judges, who should make decisions on these detainees. I actually agree with that. The problem is that the structure of the military proceedings has been poorly thought through. Indeed, the regulations that are supposed to be governing administrative hearings for these detainees, which should have been issued months ago, still haven’t been issued because we’re so intent to rush this through in time for Election Day. And so we are once again creating a situation in which this legislation is vulnerable to Supreme Court challenge.
This is not how a serious Administration would approach the problem of terrorism. And I know the President came here today and was insisting that this is supposed to be our primary concern. He’s absolutely right it should be our primary concern – which is why we should be approaching this with a somberness and seriousness that they have not displayed with this legislation.
But politics is what won today.
The only thing I hope for those who plot terror against the United States is that God has mercy on their soul, because I certainly do not. And for those who our government suspects of terror, I support whatever tools are necessary to try them and uncover their plot.
But we also know that some have been detained who have no connection to terror whatsoever. We’ve already had reports from the CIA and various generals over the last few years saying that many of the detainees at Guantanamo shouldn’t have been there – as one U.S. commander of Guantanamo told the Wall Street Journal, “Sometimes, we just didn’t get the right folks.” And we all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria, and tortured, only to find out later that it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information.
And yet, in the future, people like this may never have a chance to prove their innocence. And they may remain locked away forever.
And the sad part about all of this is that this betrayal of American values is unnecessary. We could’ve drafted a bipartisan, well-structured bill that provided adequate due process through the military courts, had an effective review process that would’ve prevented frivolous lawsuits being filed and kept lawyers from clogging our courts, but upheld the basic ideals that have made this country great.
Instead, what we have is a flawed document that in fact betrays the best instincts of some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle – those who worked in a bipartisan fashion in the Armed Services Committee to craft a bill that we could have been proud of. And they essentially got steamrolled by this Administration and by the imperatives of November 7th.
That is not how we should be doing business in the U.S. Senate, and that’s not how we should be prosecuting this war on terrorism. When we’re sloppy and cut corners, we are undermining those very virtues of America that will lead us to success in winning this war. At bare minimum, I hope we can at least pass this provision so that cooler heads can prevail after the silly season is over. Thank you.
September 29th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
I am for whatever it takes to get important information out of these soul less madmen. If “torturing” gets a piece of intel that saves even one American soldiers’ life, then hey point me to the thumbscrews. Do we forget the images of innocent civilians jumping off the 80th floor of the burning WTC? I am not condoning the torturing of innocent civilians, I am speaking of proven terrorists. In my opinion we are losing this war, and it is because we have not been aggressive enough. We are constantly fighting wars in unfamiliar territory, which is a good thing, (ie. not on American soil), but we must obtain these crucial pieces of intelligence from apprehended terrorists. Do you think that they are going to give up sensitive information just because we ask them for it? THIS IS WAR!!! Make their life a living hell until they tell us what we need to know about how to protect our soldiers. They won’t talk, shock em until they do. We have been forced into this mess when they attacked us. How many civilians have been captured, tortured, and eventually beheaded? 1 is too many, and there have been a hell of a lot more than one. I am not even saying that it is a morally right thing to do, but we have to do whatever is possible to defeat this enemy. Hell, maybe we can even put on Al Jazeera. An eye for an eye brother. Kill em all and let Allah sort em out.
September 29th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Trey: I don’t know what to say. People who are overwhelming guilty of heinous crimes cannot be tortuted into confessing. People who are not citizens of the United States are still afforded fair trials. How can it be a foreign concept to people who grow up IN America that torture is wrong. Period. End or story. It makes US like THEM.
Fine. I’ll forgoe arguments against torture on moral grounds. Any adult who needs to be lectured on why it’s wrong is a lost cause.
Let’s discuss it on PRACTICAL grounds. Namely, if we do it to them, it makes it that much more likley to have it done to us. This war is going to be over eventually. And assuming we don’t quit fighting, we will win it. Our place in history and our ability to lead the world from a moral standpoint will depend on how the world perceives us, as a beacon of decency and democracy, or the biggest fucking bullies in the history of the world. I prefer the former. And THAT is worth the cost of any number of American lives.
September 30th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Not only is torture more likely to happen to us if we do it, but our opponents are much less likely to surrender if they know they might be tortured. The reason Iraqi soldiers surrendered to us en masse, especially during the first Gulf War, was that they knew that the American soldiers would treat them better than their own officers would. Now any enemy we face is much more likely to fight to the death. This isn’t going to make any difference to suicide bombers, but not all of our enemies have a death wish.
You’re also assuming guilt without proof. We know very little about those imprisoned at Guantanamo and nothing about any that might remain at these “black sites” around the world. However, there have already been cases in the media of innocents rounded up and tortured and imprisoned for years. One, a Canadian citizen of Syrian descent, was arrested in NYC while on his way back home to Canada. He was renditioned to Jordan and subsequently transported to Syria, where he was brutally tortured and kept in a cell the size of a coffin. A very thorough investigation in Canada has since found absolutely no connection between him and any terrorist group. Five Uighurs from the province of Xinjiang in China (a Muslim minority persecuted by the government there) were quietly released from Guantanamo recently. What was their crime? Being in the wrong place at the wrong time looking for work and for freedom from Chinese oppression. A group of Pakistani bounty hunters found some convenient foreigners to turn over to U.S. forces in Afghanistan because they were offering cash for “terrorists.” One of them, Abu Bakker Qasim, recently wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times telling how much he loved and respected America and hoped we would help his people in their struggle for freedom & democracy in opposition to Chinese dictatorship – and we imprisoned him without cause for 4 years!
We are enshrining in law a LEGITIMATE moral justification to oppose us. This is a horrible mistake. Hopefully there will be immediate legal challenges and this will be quickly struck down by the Supreme Court. Of course even if that happens, the President will just ignore it like every other law and legal decision that he’s found inconvenient. We’ll see.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:06 am
Trey,
How’s that new album coming?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:56 am
billy dennis said, “This war is going to be over eventually. And assuming we don’t quit fighting, we will win it”.
Holy Wow!! Does that sound like complacency or what? You make it sound like it will all be over after the next commercial break. I think we have a big time hit coming guys. One bigger than 9/11. We never know when but the pundits say this war won’t end in our lifetime - I’m 37. Yet all you guys want to do is make sure we fight fair and openly. LMAO! We are doomed if that kind of thinking prevails. War is ugly. You don’t win one by sending it to wardrobe and makeup. The war script was written long ago. Good guys finish last. Especially in a war like this.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:37 pm
We are doomed? Really? Name one country that has fallen to a terrorist organization. …. …. …. Hmmmm … there aren’t any, really. Certainly not the country with the most powerful military on Earth.
You could possible consider Iran, Lebanon & the Palestinian territories as terrorist nations. The Shah of Iran fell to a massive popular uprising that was then hijacked (an appropriate word, I think) by radical Islamic forces. The mullahs that run Iran are HUGELY unpopular with the general public there. That nut Ahmadinejad was elected because he promised economic reforms and exploited fear of American intervention – so we pretty much have ourselves to blame for his presidency. Iran’s military is certainly more formidable than Iraq’s, but they still do not have the capability to threaten much beyond the nations immediately surrounding them. Besides, their idea of great tactics is to send waves of 13 year olds with Korans at a machine gun emplacement until the gunners run out of ammo. Seriously - they did this during the Iran-Iraq war in the ’80s. It worked sometimes, but it’s not exactly a sustainable strategy.
Lebanon and the Palestinian territories have terrorist organizations as PART of their governments - but even if these countries were completely controlled by terrorists, do you SERIOUSLY consider them a THREAT??? Oooh, yeah … Lebanon is going to invade! Ohhhh no!!! The Palestinian territories are completely under Israel’s thumb. Not much of a threat there.
Al Qaeda caught us with our pants down BIG TIME on 9/11. A bunch of guys with box cutters and fake bombs strapped to their chests killed 3000 people. However, that particular strategy WILL NEVER WORK AGAIN now that we know what happened on 9/11. Of course we have to be vigilant and make sure that no terrorist group obtains nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Fortunately those capabilities require a significant investment of capital and technical expertise.
Yes, terrorists could come to our shores again and kill Americans, and we must be vigilant against that possibility. But to suggest that some army of jihadists are going to storm across our borders and take over … to say that we’re “doomed” if we don’t torture and imprison without trial … is completely ludicrous.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:46 pm
How about “doomed” as in living a lifestyle where you’re constantly looking over your shoulder and waiting for the next bomb to go off (like in parts of Israel)?
Take two more examples: Southern Thailand and the Philippines. Both countries are soft on these types of Islamic activities, and they’re both paying for it big time now. Tourists are being scared out of Phuket, once a beach paradise in Thailand. And in the Philippines, the second largest island of Mindanao (about 2/3rds the size of Illinois) is a complete No-Go for all westerners, even journalists.
knight says, “Oooh, yeah … Lebanon is going to invade! Ohhhh no!!!”
There’s no worry of an invasion, but there is a serious threat of a slow and steady infiltration by terrorists. I think you underestimate how easy it is for guys with box cutters to disrupt society. The DC Snipers (though not Islamic terrorists), were able to paralyze Washington DC for three weeks, and all it took were two men, a gun, and a Chevrolet Caprice.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:10 pm
I do not dispute a terrorist’s ability to disrupt and poison a society. I only contest those who exaggerate the threat, often for political reasons. You may think the thought of invasion is silly, just as I do … but I’ve been confronted for my beliefs with phrases like “its a fact you would rather pray 5 times a day than defend this country,” (a la Black Helicopter) insinuating that some Muslim invasion and forced conversion is just around the corner.
The comparisons with World War II are also endless, and there just is NO comparison. Yes, the initiating events have some similarities … the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor came as just as much of a shock to the American people. Beyond that, though … WWII killed 62 million people and involved the mightiest military forces on earth battling for survival and supremacy. It was the largest symmetric conflict in the history of humanity.
The War on Terror is an asymmetric war that needs to be battled mostly by political means – a battle for hearts & minds. Terrorists are like fungus - you stomp on one and you just release a bunch of spores, leading 10 more to pop up in other places. You need to attack, well … the “manure” - the poisoned ideology that feeds them. You don’t attack a poisoned ideology by becoming part of an equally poisoned ideology - in other words, by stooping to the level of the terrorists and torturing people.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:07 am
I guess there is no freedom of speech on this website when Commissar Billy is in charge.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:09 am
knight in drag you sound like you really know what you are talking about. Fungus. But as far as anything else you talk about, well you’re just another inexperienced stupid fuck with an opinion. And I’ll include myself in that characterization since I am not an alumna of any military or war college.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:56 am
In a war I think it is all about killing and destroying. Ok? I mean that is surely what the muslim extremists are all about.
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:11 am
Hey Billy Dennis? Do you have a policy anywhere for the public to read regarding this site?
Why do you use censorship and block IP’s? I thought democrats were all for free expression and freedom of speech. Why did you delete my previous Murphy posts?
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:31 am
Billy, why did I need to obtain a new IP to post here? Did you block my old IP? Why did my previous posts post but then 5 minutes later disappear?
Are you utilizing censorship? Is there a policy for this site that the public can read?
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:50 am
fyi…Obama will be in Peoria with Senator George Shadid and future Senator Dave Koehler on Wednesday, October 4, at the courthouse plaza at noon.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:35 am
I am not worried about these nuts invading our country with their military, Knight in Dragonland, I think that we all know that is probably impossibe. But just because that is not an imminent threat, does not mean that American lives are not being lost every day, because of this bullshit way of thinking that comes from people like you. “The War on Terror is an asymmetric war that needs to be battled mostly by political means – a battle for hearts & minds”. Are you fuckin crazy? What is wrong with you? The time for diplomacy is far behind us, and now we are in the stage of WAR! Why can’t you people see this? Do you think that our enemy has the same complacency and compassion for you as you have for them? They would kill you and your whole family if they ever had the chance. So why is this the time for politics? It is the time for war, and war is not pretty. And Billy Dennis, our reputation around the world has been tainted for years, so don’t try to pull this “do the right thing” bullshit. We ARE AlREADY percieved as the big bully, and have been for years. And what is wrong with that anyway? Do you think that countries in the past, have respected us because we were this great moral culture? Fuck no, they respected us because of our natural resources, economy, and our ability to stomp the shit out of any other country in the world. And thats the reason Knight in Dragonland, that the Iraqis surrendered to us in the first Gulf War. They were scared shitless. They saw this huge mass of military unlike anything they’ve seen before. Do u really think that they surrendered because they thought we would treat them better? You are a complete tool. Now they have been fighting us for years, and actually think that they have a chance to win. This is because we have given them this inkling of hope. I am scared for this country because of people like you. As a great nation, we will have to fight in wars. It is inevitable, there will always be somebody out there who hates us. When forced into this situation, we must show our domination and ability to crush our enemy not through diplomacy, but through brute force. We are not talking about morals here Billy, for there is no morality when it comes to war. War is about killing, and killing has been our business since the creation of our dynasty.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:34 pm
You sound like a bully nunan. Didn’t your parents teach you to play nice? Using those expletive deletives. watch it. these social democrats like to censor and banish your IP to the gulag.
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:05 am
Wow, Bill … I can’t guess who you’re referring to in your piece about your blog posting policy … I just can’t imagine who it might be…
Murphy. Knight in Drag? Wow Murph … that’s so … junior high! I’m impressed with your critique of the content of my post. Where did you graduate? Vonster’s School for Trolls?
Nunan. Wow. You have anger issues, my friend. Let me set something straight, here. I am not suggesting that we pursue Osama bin Laden with tea & roses. Those who take arms against us must be met with deadly force. I do not contest that one bit. However, we must be careful in the application of that force, or we end up creating more enemies than we kill.
An insurgency, especially one that uses suicide attackers, is completely dependent on its ability to recruit new members to sustain itself. It is also dependent on the assistance of the populace - either by actively supporting them or simply looking the other way and refusing to answer questions. The Middle East is still a region of tribes and clans. Those affiliations still define the social structure of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to a great extent. If we use our power indiscriminately, then we set off a whole cycle of vengeance and retribution that feeds right into the terrorists’ recruitment efforts and makes it more likely that our enemies will find aid within the general populace.
I’m NOT saying that we have to win the hearts and minds of the terrorists – and maybe I’ll forgive you a bit of your venom if that’s what you thought I was saying. Absolutely not. I’m talking about the general population of the countries we’re occupying and the Islamic world in general. We have to present a better ideal, a better solution, a better way of life – an alternative to the terrorist’s culture of death and medieval brutality. We can’t do that if we BECOME medieval brutes by torturing people!
Yes, the U.S. was already perceived as a bully by many even before the invasion of Iraq. That’s far different than codifying into law a policy that goes against everything we’re supposed to stand for as a country. Torture & indefinite imprisonment without trial – these are the tools of dictatorship, not democracy, and too many innocents have already been abused by this administration’s policies. We support those things and we prove those who oppose us right. They can say “Look at those hypocritical Americans! Their great laws and civil rights only apply when they feel like it! Anyone who gets in their way can be imprisoned, tortured and killed with impunity!” The great ideas of our founders are great because they are UNIVERSALLY true and should be applied thus.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:32 am
Listen Knight, I understand the point that you are conveying. I just feel that sometimes a situation gets to a point where diplomacy and democracy have failed and nothing that we ever try or do will change this. I believe that we have been cornered into one of these situations in the Middle East and a few other countries around the world. The general population of many countries has such a hatred for the American people and culture, that it will take generations, if not longer, before they gain an ounce of respect for us. Countries like North Korea and Venezuala believe that we represent everything that is evil to them. How do you suppose that we win the respect from states such as these? And these aren’t even countries in the Middle East!!! As soon as we figure out how to get out of this mess with the Islamofascists, we are going to find ourselves having to deal with these two countries. That is why I believe that we must send a message to the rest of the world that blatantly says
“Don’t Fuck With the USA. You may not respect us, but you will fear us.” We can not let them think that they have a chance to win a war against us. We must act with brute force to prove this point. We have done it before and we WILL do it again. I am just proposing doing it sooner than later. And as for your little founding fathers rambling, yeah that sounds good, but we abandoned that strategy decades ago. Hmm, I wonder how many civilians we killed in the in the two atom bombs we dropped on Japan? Umm, my guess would be hundreds of thousands. Ask old Thomas Jefferson, one of these great moral slave owning founding fathers, if that is a tool of democracy. We have been hypocrites since the inception of this great country, but isn’t everyone in some way or shape? Sometimes you must make harsh decisions that go against your particular beliefs or morals. Doing the right thing is not always possible. I am not justifying the torturing of innocent civilians or imprisoning people based on fruitless allegations. But I am saying that there are certain situations in which I would not be against using whatever means necessary to gain intelligence on possible terrorist attacks on American soldiers or on American soldiers. If they chose to be a terrorist and try to attack and kill Americans, then they should be treated like the dogs they are.
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Nunan,
You are pigeon-holing ENTIRE POPULATIONS of countries like North Korea and Venezuela. To say that they all hate Americans with a passion that will last generations is ridiculous in the extreme. In the three polls Hugo Chavez has faced in Venezuela - the 1998 & 2000 elections and the 2004 recall referendum - Chavez won between 56 and 60% of the vote with 30-44% of the electorate declining to participate. That hardly seems to be an overwhelming mandate for his position - although certainly more of a mandate than the U.S. electorate gave President Bush. As for North Korea, the people there are not allowed to have an opinion. They live under one of the most brutal totalitarian regimes left on Earth. Some there buy into the propaganda, I’m sure - but as evidenced by those who have fled to South Korea and China, many others do not. In Afghanistan the people DID celebrate us as liberators, although we’re losing that good will for the same reason we’ve lost it in Iraq - we’re failing to provide safety and security so people can get on with their lives.
It is precisely this belligerent “Don’t f@#k with the USA” “Kill ‘em all and let Allah sort ‘em out” attitude that people abroad find so disgusting - and frankly turns my stomach as well. Fear is a VERY POOR motivator psychologically. Has the death penalty reduced the incidence of capital crimes? Not a bit. Carrots are much more effective than sticks. Look at gambling as a prime example of this concept. Fear of the much more common outcome - losing your money - is EASILY overcome by the much less likely reward of winning a big jackpot.
Fear for one’s own safety certainly provokes a response, but it is often exactly counter to your desired goals. In Iraq, it makes the average citizen angry rather than trembling. As soon as the gun turns away from them, they are more likely to keep silent and let the terrorists do their work or even actively aid them. There are 25 million people in Iraq. We can’t keep a gun on everyone at all times. With the “make ‘em fear us” strategy we truly become occupiers and conquerors, not the rescuers and heralds of democracy that we claimed to be going into Iraq. What’s the next step after that? Genocide?
Just because hypocrisy has been a part of our history doesn’t mean we should just capitulate to it. Ohhh, we’re hypocrites … let’s just wallow in it! That’s a dangerous and lazy attitude.
October 4th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Alright Knight, do you really believe that we invaded Iraq to be the “rescuers and heralds of democracy”? Now come on, you are not really that naive are you? We are there because someone had to pay for attacking us on 9/11. And why not pick the country with vast oil reserves and a regime that we have wanted ousted for years? Make up some bullshit about weapons of mass destruction, and you have yourself a war. If we were these great saviors of democracy, then why haven’t we pursued wars in all of the other regimes around the world controled by ruthless dictators? Lets see, Cuba, which is no more than 90 miles off of our coast has been controled and ruled by a communist dictator for decades. Why haven’t we spread our great democracy to them? Because we don’t care. They don’t have anything we need, and they are of little threat to us politcally or militarily.
I just don’t uderstand how you can not understand the severity of the circumstances that we have been put in. I don’t know how you suggest fighting a war, but to me it seems sensible that the method that has been used since the beginning of existence, killing your enemy, has worked out pretty good when it comes to winning a war. Whoever kills the most people wins. That is how I see it. That is what history has proven to us. Why should we abandoned that strategy now. As I have said before, how did we win WWII in the Pacific? We killed as many innocent people as we could, to prove to Japan that they made a serious mistake for attacking us on our soil. And what did they do? They surrendered, and since then, we have not had a single problem with them. How can you argue these facts? If we are this great, moral, democracy srpeading country that you have conjured up in your head, why are we fighting a war in the first place. You can not have your cake and eat it too. So, by your account, as long as you are killing people in the name of democray it is alright and morally acceptable. I am sure that the Iragi people would totally agree with you, and were just counting down the days until we invaded their country. Occupiers are exactly what we are, how can you say any different. We went to someones country, militarily forced their government out of power, and installed a government that was hand picked by us. And now our troops are patroling their cities, and fighting the opposition to this new government. Umm, yeah that would pretty be the definition of “occupiers” or “conquerers”.
The reason we are there is a moot point now. What we all must understand is that we are in a full fledge war. We must treat it as such.