Post by: Guest on March 26, 2006, 08:39:16 AM
For this discussion, crimes are adjudicated in courts by judges and juries and with the assistance of prosecutors and defense council.
Wars occur when one nation attacks another.
I admit in advance that this is a somewhat tricky question. Later I am going to talk about Jose Padilla and Zacarias Moussaoui.
Post by: Standing Wolf on March 26, 2006, 12:36:14 PM
Post by: Fly320s on March 26, 2006, 12:44:51 PM
Post by: RevDisk on March 26, 2006, 12:51:15 PM
Declaring war on a concept hasn't work out so well in the past.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 26, 2006, 01:02:42 PM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 26, 2006, 01:30:23 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
What difference does it make? Your definitions are not current with realities.
Indeed. 3000 people die and everyone wants to argue about what to call it.
Post by: Tallpine on March 26, 2006, 01:41:05 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 26, 2006, 02:32:30 PM
Calling it a crime marginalizes what took place that day. Sept 11 was no mere crime. The people involved were not mere criminals.
Post by: grampster on March 26, 2006, 02:53:07 PM
In the past, war has been mostly defined as state vs state. But underlining that, is there still was always a philosophical difference that led to war between states. Today, we still have the underlying philosophical differences but the difference is that not always are the states that harbor these people are, in some cases unwilling participants. Things change. Definitions need to be revisited, especially when one's national security is jeapardized by bogging down with debate about what is painfully obvious. I hate to say it, but the Left seems preocupied more with debate that grasping reality.
In my humble opinion a philosophical act of war has been comitted. Whether states are involved is not germain. Those acts happened some time ago and have been steadily ramping up and culminating on September 11th and continue to the present on a world wide scale. The world is truly engaged in WW III and some folks that ought to get it, just don't. If there is a crime, it is one of compelling failure to grasp reality.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 26, 2006, 03:18:00 PM
Quote from: grampster
The trap has been sprung. If you define the events of September 11th as a crime, then the only way you can confront it is by using the legal system, sworn police and officers of a court. The problem with that is the criminals have no base as they are a loose pohilosophical confederation with a world wide geography. Their acts are hidden behind and use a religious basis for their actions. They justify their acts as a directive from a higher power. They subvert governments, destabilize cultures all the while proclaiming that they are righteous and the rest of the world is not. The rules of engagement by defining the acts as criminal and then dealing with criminals place more constraints on orderly societies when they have to deal with these folks.
In the past, war has been mostly defined as state vs state. But underlining that, is there still was always a philosophical difference that led to war between states. Today, we still have the underlying philosophical differences but the difference is that not always are the states that harbor these people are, in some cases unwilling participants. Things change. Definitions need to be revisited, especially when one's national security is jeapardized by bogging down with debate about what is painfully obvious. I hate to say it, but the Left seems preocupied more with debate that grasping reality.
In my humble opinion a philosophical act of war has been comitted. Whether states are involved is not germain. Those acts happened some time ago and have been steadily ramping up and culminating on September 11th and continue to the present on a world wide scale. The world is truly engaged in WW III and some folks that ought to get it, just don't. If there is a crime, it is one of compelling failure to grasp reality.
Grampster hits it straight on. It is not an either/or issue. Thus my comment about the definitions. How do you define al Qaeda? It is not a gov't in the traditional sense yet it has many of the same functions and characteristics as a government.In the past, war has been mostly defined as state vs state. But underlining that, is there still was always a philosophical difference that led to war between states. Today, we still have the underlying philosophical differences but the difference is that not always are the states that harbor these people are, in some cases unwilling participants. Things change. Definitions need to be revisited, especially when one's national security is jeapardized by bogging down with debate about what is painfully obvious. I hate to say it, but the Left seems preocupied more with debate that grasping reality.
In my humble opinion a philosophical act of war has been comitted. Whether states are involved is not germain. Those acts happened some time ago and have been steadily ramping up and culminating on September 11th and continue to the present on a world wide scale. The world is truly engaged in WW III and some folks that ought to get it, just don't. If there is a crime, it is one of compelling failure to grasp reality.
The question will shake out as follows: if it is a crime, then the scenario Grampster laid out is right. It is pursued with police, courts etc. If it is war, then which nation declared war on us? It is a no-win argument because the terms have been defined to ensure this.
It was a terrorist act. It is neither crime nor war but a third type of entity unique to our times, committed by people who are not defined by their passports (indeed those change regularly) but by their ideology. Terrorist acts are dealt with by pursuing terrorists across whatever lines necessary, denying them sanctuary afforded by friendly nation-states, and degrading their ability to wage terrorist acts by destroying their command and control and financial resources. All of which we are doing quite well.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 26, 2006, 03:28:50 PM
Post by: RevDisk on March 26, 2006, 04:30:07 PM
Quote from: grampster
The trap has been sprung. If you define the events of September 11th as a crime, then the only way you can confront it is by using the legal system, sworn police and officers of a court.
That might be a shock to Manuel Noriega. Our legal system arrested him for drug trafficking with 27,684 soldiers and zero sworn police officers. 
Which is kinda ironic, because he worked for the CIA until three years before Just Cause.
Militant Islam is indeed a threat. However, as unpolitically correct as the concept is, I view it as a relatively minor threat compared to other threats we've historically faced. Naturally, the greatest threat against our way of life is our way of life. Trading liberty for the illusion of safety. It's more of a philosophical threat, as most people want to gut the American ideals in some specific fashion.
Compared to the British, Germany, Japan, and Soviet Union, militant fanatics of Islam are a drop in the bucket. The British managed to burn Washington to the ground, Germany more than likely would have defeated or stalemated the Allied Forces if they weren't fighting a two front war, Japan wiped out a significant percentage of our Pacific Fleet and read up on Guadalcanal for how iffy that was at times, and the Soviet Union had the capability to wipe out the entire US within a few hours.
Perhaps my estimate of Islamic fundimentalist capabilities are off, but I do not believe they are capable of burning DC to the ground, holding by force of arms the majority of Europe, destroying a very large percentage of our Navy or wiping out the entire US within a couple of hours. Terrorism and guerrilla warfare are not tools of occupation. They can wound, they can cause symbolic/morale damage, and they can kill moderate numbers (comparatively speaking, sigh) of civilians or military personnel.
If anyone asked me what I see the greatest threat on the horizon is, I'd have to say China. They are rapidly modernizing their military and economy. They have a long history of expanionism. And oh yea, they have more than a few nuclear weapons. Not today, not tomorrow, but sometime down the road, they will be a problem. We fought them once, in Korea. The DMZ hasn't moved an inch in over half a century.
My thoughts on 9/11 are simple. Hunt down those who attacked us and kill them. Turning this into an all out religious war would be a very bad idea. Someday it might happen regardless, but avoiding a religious war would be to our benefit. For now anyways.
Post by: grampster on March 26, 2006, 06:06:39 PM
The same thing is true with respect to terrorism. We are learning a lesson about something we've never had to deal with before. We have ignored it or stood by and poo pooed it, or sadly exclaimed how terribe it is, or worse pilloried ourselves over how did we bring this onto ourselves. Yet we refuse on many levels (are actually divided-Left vs Right on the issue) to have a RATIONAL national policy discussion about what we should do and then do it. We can't just put this in a box and use old definitions and follow paths well worn. It is not the same. It's also time for our "leaders" to quit politicizing this travesty for the purpose of power. This is a national problem, not a republican or democrat problem. Somehow we need to demand this of our elected officials and get them to shut up and start to lead. Our administration is doing the best that they can in the face of the hometown opposition. History dumped it in their laps. It might be wrong in some ways. It is probably right in others. At least they are doing some things differently and need the support. LOYAL opposition is fine. I think it has crossed the line and borders on using petty obstructionism to promote an avaricious lust for power. We need to quit blaming ourselves. A careful examination of history will show that America, even with our warts, has been the single stabilizing force for good in the world for at least 100 years. This national division that is being fomented by competing political entities, and gleefuly aided and abetted by sensationalistic media is causing our young men and women to be put in harms way to a greater extent than any roadside bomb. It is also dividing our nation when we need unity more than ever, as we are being torn assunder from more than one direction, culturally.
To solve new problems we need to cut new paths. They may be false paths, dangerous paths, suspicious paths etc. We are blessed with republican form of self government. If we as a nation only decided to look at ourselves as our national slogan implies; e Pluribus Unum, out of the many, one and join together to walk those paths, we may survive and be the better for it. If we continue to be confronted with dangerous and hostile situations, and in the face of that, continue to "celebrate diversity" (that which makes us different) creating or believing in erratic and irrational conspiracy theories, or actual outright lies, instead of promoting our unity, we are done as a nation. We'll be the 21st century Balkans and we'll be making tennis shoes for the Chinese.
Post by: Ron on March 26, 2006, 06:30:55 PM
It is diplomacy with teeth.
It is better than diplomacy with UN resolutions.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 26, 2006, 06:42:53 PM
Quote from: RevDisk
Declaring war on a concept hasn't work out so well in the past.
Don't get trapped by semantics. We are waging war, and enforcing law, against real enemies in real places. The War on Terror is just a phrase, just as The War on Drugs is a phrase that means more intense law enforcement efforts against a particular type of crime.
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on March 26, 2006, 08:22:36 PM
Wars have been started by the pretext of the death of just one man. Crime? Act of war? Semantics.
How many angels dance on the head of YOUR pin?
Just checking.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: Lennyjoe on March 26, 2006, 08:33:05 PM
The attack on 9/11 is exactly as grampster explained it.
Post by: Guest on March 27, 2006, 08:03:14 AM
Quote from: grampster
... I hate to say it, but the Left seems preocupied more with debate that grasping reality..
Let's put this to rest once and for all, sir: I am a libertarian market anarchist. I am totally non-partisan and the furthest thing from a "leftist" or "rightist".
Post by: grampster on March 27, 2006, 08:19:32 AM
Post by: Guest on April 04, 2006, 12:43:24 PM
I think it is very important to decide what to call 9/11-type attacks because if someone is later accused they have a right to know immediatley if they are a prisoner of war or an accused criminal.
There should not be a "third way" charge in a free society in which one is accused of being a "whatever" and stripped of rights as in a dictatorship. For those that said that 9/11 was an initiation of war, how do you rationalize that with Moussaoui's trial?
Is the "war on terror" a real war?
Post by: K Frame on April 04, 2006, 04:28:49 PM
Ever hear of war crimes tribunals?
Crimes against humanity?
Post by: Guest on April 05, 2006, 08:32:15 AM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
"Therefore, the other 9/11 perpetrators would logically be considered to have been criminals, too, not soldiers."
Ever hear of war crimes tribunals?
Crimes against humanity?
Yes, but I don't like them, Mike. I don't like the idea of residents of one continent trying residents of another continent in bogus world courts.
Ever hear of war crimes tribunals?
Crimes against humanity?
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 05, 2006, 08:49:35 AM
Post by: K Frame on April 05, 2006, 09:03:57 AM
Post by: Art Eatman on April 06, 2006, 04:58:11 AM
Think "France".
Note that where there are large groupings of Islamics--England, Canada, e.g.--there is a peaceful call for them to install Sharia in those areas.
In France, during the riots and car-burnings, the French police were told, "You can't come here; this is OUR territory."
Consider the will to impose Sharia in some African countries, over the non-Arab portions of the populaions.
Consider that US foreign policies don't create the Islamic unrest in Indonesia.
I look at the totality of all this and figure it's a resurgence of the Islamic expansionism of the middle ages. The Moors into Spain, the movement into the Balkans.
It's a war against western culture. The methodology is different from any of those of the past, insofar as the word "war" itself is concerned. And, actually, it's a collection of different methods. Some of it's killing, some of it's just like what was done in the Texas of the 1820s and 1830s: Immigrants from the US came to outnumber the Mexicans, and the new majority wanted a cultural and political change.
Art
Post by: Guest on April 10, 2006, 08:19:34 AM
Quote from: fistful
As an anarchist, you presumably don't agree with the idea of having laws (and therefore criminals) or soldiers, so what's your point?
In market anarchy, there would be nothing wrong with simple, local standards of behavior and private courts to arbitrate disputes between persons that interact face-to-face. There would be nothing anti-anarchistic about private police or soldiers hired to protect individuals or private property.My point is that I object to the United States Government initiating a new type of overriding law that is legislated, prosecuted and defined solely by the executive branch.
BTW, I assume, a priori, that a localized, peaceful market anarchist community would have virtually zero chance of being attacked by "terrorists", as popularly-defined.
Post by: Guest on April 10, 2006, 08:34:58 AM
Quote from: Art Eatman
Anybody read up on the Aztlan notion of, "We'll out-breed you, then out-vote you, then take over!"?
That's what's wrong with voting/democracy.Quote
Think "France".
That's what's wrong with "countries".Quote
Note that where there are large groupings of Islamics--England, Canada, e.g.--there is a peaceful call for them to install Sharia in those areas.
Key word here: "peaceful".Quote
In France, during the riots and car-burnings, the French police were told, "You can't come here; this is OUR territory."
Who's territory is it? Remind me about what were they rioting, Art.Quote
Consider the will to impose Sharia in some African countries, over the non-Arab portions of the populaions.
Consider that US foreign policies don't create the Islamic unrest in Indonesia.
I look at the totality of all this and figure it's a resurgence of the Islamic expansionism of the middle ages. The Moors into Spain, the movement into the Balkans.
It's a war against western culture. The methodology is different from any of those of the past, insofar as the word "war" itself is concerned. And, actually, it's a collection of different methods. Some of it's killing, some of it's just like what was done in the Texas of the 1820s and 1830s: Immigrants from the US came to outnumber the Mexicans, and the new majority wanted a cultural and political change.
Art
All great points. I, personally, don't care what happens to a "country" or "culture" after I am gone. I don't intend to kill anyone to prevent future humans from running their lives any way they see fit. I still believe in personal defense, of course.
Consider that US foreign policies don't create the Islamic unrest in Indonesia.
I look at the totality of all this and figure it's a resurgence of the Islamic expansionism of the middle ages. The Moors into Spain, the movement into the Balkans.
It's a war against western culture. The methodology is different from any of those of the past, insofar as the word "war" itself is concerned. And, actually, it's a collection of different methods. Some of it's killing, some of it's just like what was done in the Texas of the 1820s and 1830s: Immigrants from the US came to outnumber the Mexicans, and the new majority wanted a cultural and political change.
Art
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 10, 2006, 08:37:06 AM
Quote
In market anarchy, there would be nothing wrong with simple, local standards of behavior and private courts to arbitrate disputes between persons that interact face-to-face. There would be nothing anti-anarchistic about private police or soldiers hired to protect individuals or private property....BTW, I assume, a priori, that a localized, peaceful market anarchist community would have virtually zero chance of being attacked by "terrorists", as popularly-defined.
Now what keeps the private police from attacking and enslaving such a community, and how would the whole system differ from Medieval fealty and feudalism?Private courts? Both parties would agree to adjudication? And what weight would their decisions have? What force would make their decisions meaningful?
This could be an interesting discussion.
Post by: Guest on April 10, 2006, 09:17:58 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote
In market anarchy, there would be nothing wrong with simple, local standards of behavior and private courts to arbitrate disputes between persons that interact face-to-face. There would be nothing anti-anarchistic about private police or soldiers hired to protect individuals or private property....BTW, I assume, a priori, that a localized, peaceful market anarchist community would have virtually zero chance of being attacked by "terrorists", as popularly-defined.
Now what keeps the private police from attacking and enslaving such a community, and how would the whole system differ from Medieval fealty and feudalism?The police would be paid voluntarily by customers. Police firms that displeased the populace would lose customers. The populace would be at least as armed as the police and would outnumber them. The police might resemble current security firms like Brinks.
How did Medieval fealty and feudalism work?
Quote
Private courts? Both parties would agree to adjudication? And what weight would their decisions have? What force would make their decisions meaningful?
Maybe each contract would mention in which court future arbitration would take place. Anyone that refused to attend court or abide by the ruling would be considered to have relinquished his own similar rights and would be fair game to all. For instance, if someone took delivery of a good but didn't pay and didn't attend court, he would be publically stripped his rights to personal property. Anyone could take his property.
If one assaulted another and didn't show up for court, he would forfeit his right to personal safety. He could be then treated like a marauding grizzley or other uncivilized animal.
Boycott and shunning would be effective to make the offender have to move away.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 10, 2006, 12:45:44 PM
Quote from: mercedesrules
[
How did Medieval fealty and feudalism work?
Not too good. Which is why it became extinct.
How did Medieval fealty and feudalism work?
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 10, 2006, 02:18:05 PM
Quote
There is no utopia.
I agree, that is, as long as human beings are in charge. The expectation of a perfect world is unrealistic in political science, although one should hope for the best system. Quote
Also, I don't know exactly how everything would work in a market anarchy.
Good starting point; let's be honest about our ignorance. I am not an expert in Constitutional law, and haven't read much Locke or Montesque.Quote
The police would be paid voluntarily by customers. Police firms that displeased the populace would lose customers. The populace would be at least as armed as the police and would outnumber them. The police might resemble current security firms like Brinks.
How did Medieval fealty and feudalism work?
I bring up feudalism because you spoke of private police or armies in the pay of individuals, and by extension, groups. I wonder why the larger group or those with the best or largest army could not make slaves of a neighboring group. This is what happened throughout history. There were governments involved, sure, but these were only powerful individuals with wealth and military forces, perhaps with the backing of religious ideas. I can't see how anarchy would last or even truly develop, as people naturally band together under good leadership for their own protection from real or perceived threats. Under the feudal system of Europe, which began in an age of horrific Viking raids, everyone pledged loyalty to someone more powerful than they and often recieved loyalty from others with less resources. Contracts were honored, which bound people to certain plots of land, and to give a certain share of crops, labor for road-maintenance, etc. At least this is what I learned from a survey course of Western History. I welcome any corrections or other perspectives.How did Medieval fealty and feudalism work?
Or, what if a large security force becomes respectable in the community and begins to run things. Soon you have mafia rule.
Quote
The populace would be at least as armed as the police and would outnumber them
The masses have always outnumbered those who opress them, so that doesn't help. Being equally or better armed is desirable, but I doubt it would happen. Why would you hire police and military that weren't better armed than those around them? And why wouldn't this populace surrender to weapons control as other peoples have done? Why would these people be more jealous of thier liberties than others?Quote
Maybe each contract would mention in which court future arbitration would take place. Anyone that refused to attend court or abide by the ruling would be considered to have relinquished his own similar rights and would be fair game to all.
For instance, if someone took delivery of a good but didn't pay and didn't attend court, he would be publically stripped his rights to personal property. Anyone could take his property.
If one assaulted another and didn't show up for court, he would forfeit his right to personal safety. He could be then treated like a marauding grizzley or other uncivilized animal.
Boycott and shunning would be effective to make the offender have to move away.
OK, with contract law, I suppose that might work. They could agree on things ahead of time. With criminal law, though, I don't understand this. If you accuse me of stealing from you, what court decides? You insist on your father as presiding judge, with your mother and siblings as jury. When I refuse this court, your family declares me "fair game," and what recourse do I have? What if one is a wealthy elderly widow, with no friends or family, accused by a family with money and hired security? I suppose the community must decide who to side with. Then the widow must stand her ground and lose all property or be sucked dry by those who will offer her "protection."For instance, if someone took delivery of a good but didn't pay and didn't attend court, he would be publically stripped his rights to personal property. Anyone could take his property.
If one assaulted another and didn't show up for court, he would forfeit his right to personal safety. He could be then treated like a marauding grizzley or other uncivilized animal.
Boycott and shunning would be effective to make the offender have to move away.
I suppose these things could and have happened with governmental systems in place, but I doubt your market anarchy will protect anyone's rights better than our Constitutional republic. My view is this: Someone will always have power over others; Government legitimizes that power, regularizes it, and, especially under popular governments, brings it under control.