Triple, I respect the things you have to say, but a couple of statements in recent posts don't seem to jibe. I'm sure you can provide clarification, though. I refer to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripleblack
Just as it was once a good idea to support the Mujahideen (including a nascent Al Qaeda) in the war against the Soviets...
But in an earlier post, you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripleblack
If they can help get a more secular government in Iran (right now, I'd settle for a COMMUNIST secular government), fine by me.
With hindsight being all it is, I feel we must accept that supporting Al Queda against the Soviets was not a good idea, even if it helped achieve our short-term goal. As you say, any secular government - even a communist one, even a Soviet one in fact, would have been preferable to the Taliban or other fundamentalist Muslim regime. Of course, the U.S.S.R. would still have fallen (likely even more quickly if they had to spread more thinly to try and maintain control of Afghanistan), so the T-ban might have ended up in power, anyway. The difference would be that at least we wouldn't have provided weapons, support and training to the people who attacked us on 9/11.
As I said, though, that's hindsight. However, while we can't revise our past actions, no matter how clear the scene in the rearview, we can learn from them. What's the cliche? He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it? What I'm saying is, giving any real support to a fundamentalist terror organization is likely a mistake because, after their main enemy is defeated, they will look at us and find us 'lacking' when measured by their impossible, fundamentalist yardstick. Terrorists will always bite the hand that feeds them (unless that hand belongs to someone who agrees with them 100% and is willing to wear the proverbial hair shirt to prove it), so let's not help sharpen their teeth.
That being said (and this could be the most naive statement I have made), maybe this is a chance to help divert Syria away from the path of terrorist support. We would have to offer real support (in exchange for real returns), not just enough to use them as a 'tool', and we would want to proceed cautiously. I am afraid we missed a real opportunity last week. Had I been calling the shots, Bush and others would have lavished praise (not money, no material support, but lots of praise) on the 'bravery and dedication of the Syrian personnel in the area around our embassy'. You know, carefully constructed phrases that could stroke egos and show gratitude without actually voicing support of the government, per se. Doing so, and opening a crack in the door of possible goodwill, would cost us nothing and could gain much.
Its what I call "realpolitik". 1988, Soviets throwing weight around Afghanistan, and we put some support behind the guys fighting THEM. Surrogates, much cheaper and more efficient than our own troops, and helps to bring about the fall of the Soviet Empire sooner rather than later.
Unintended consequences: A young Osama bin Laden gets his first taste of jihad (and he likes it), makes friends, influences people (easy to do when your dad is the 2nd wealthiest man in Saudi Arabia), and plants the seeds that turn into MAK, and ultimately, Al Qaeda. But of course no one knew it back then, and our main focus for support was not bin Laden or even the groups that ultimately formed the Taliban, but the Northern Alliance - which is decapitated just when it looks like they will take over, dumping Afghanistan into chaos for years... and so on.
We gave some support to the mujahideen to use as tools to go after the Soviets. Had the "Lion" of the Northern Alliance lived long enough, he might well have established a stable govenment at least neutral to the US, if not actually friendly. Which is why bin Laden helped out his Taliban buddies by getting some mirmidons to blow up the Lion with fake recording equipment while posing as journalists.
The next item involves the MEK, an Iranian nationalist group (secular, even communist, in philosophy) that can be useful against the mullahs and Revolutionary Guardsmen running Iran. Just because we remove them from a terrorist/proscribed list doesn't mean we have to LOVE or even LIKE them - just that they are more useful to us right now than the scary yahoos running things in Tehran.
Realpolitik. Hard boiled geopolitical moves focused upon forwarding our own objectives and obtaining safety for our own people.
What I was saying is the literal truth as I see it.
Better to have a coalition government with the MEK (communist theories and all) included than the current group.
Better still if the guys who took over from Ahmedijani were secular libertarians, but I'm not holding my breath. Just so we can change Iran from an active enemy with nuclear ambitions and a habit of state-sponsored terrorism to nothing more than a neutral country that pumps a lot of oil but will NEVER be our friend, I'll call that a win.
As for supporting "al Qaeda" against the Soviets, that never happened - I believe I said a "nascent" (not yet born, or just born) al Qaeda. Bin Laden had no such huge organization then - he was little more than a rich dilletante playing at jihad - so I'm inclined to give the CIA of the day a pass as to that. The Taliban were a known (and disturbing) quantity, but the Northern Alliance were "our" group, its just too bad the plan didn't pan out.
In the 20 year ago world of the Cold War and MAD, eliminating the Soviet Union and essentially freeing over 100,000,000 people from their totalitarian rule (and greatly reducing the threat to ourselves, of course) was a high and worthy goal. One worth risking even the difficult-to-forsee rise of islamofascist terrorism as such a strong force coming in to attempt to fill some of the "evil" vacuum.
Even in light of 9/11, and as much as that event affects me, we cannot lose sight of the huge victory brought about by such events as the Soviet military and political defeat in Afghanistan. Even with perfect prediction powers, such a trade-off would be a good idea at any time.
It would be nice if every effort to change a bad situation toward something better could result in dramatic freedom for all the folks involved. The ugly truth (realpolitik) is that often you use one evil to fight a greater evil.
Its why Jimmy Carter emasculated the CIA in the first place - and why we've been paying the price for no human intel ever since. Its a world where you deal with ugly, nasty, people who are not the type you invite home to meet your daughter.
But its better than the alternative. Its having some clue as to what it going on, if not being able to perfectly predict future events.
Its reality - gritty, grimey, bloody reality.
Realpolitik.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB02GT
Triple, I respect the things you have to say, but a couple of statements in recent posts don't seem to jibe. I'm sure you can provide clarification, though. I refer to:
But in an earlier post, you said:
With hindsight being all it is, I feel we must accept that supporting Al Queda against the Soviets was not a good idea, even if it helped achieve our short-term goal. As you say, any secular government - even a communist one, even a Soviet one in fact, would have been preferable to the Taliban or other fundamentalist Muslim regime. Of course, the U.S.S.R. would still have fallen (likely even more quickly if they had to spread more thinly to try and maintain control of Afghanistan), so the T-ban might have ended up in power, anyway. The difference would be that at least we wouldn't have provided weapons, support and training to the people who attacked us on 9/11.
As I said, though, that's hindsight. However, while we can't revise our past actions, no matter how clear the scene in the rearview, we can learn from them. What's the cliche? He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it? What I'm saying is, giving any real support to a fundamentalist terror organization is likely a mistake because, after their main enemy is defeated, they will look at us and find us 'lacking' when measured by their impossible, fundamentalist yardstick. Terrorists will always bite the hand that feeds them (unless that hand belongs to someone who agrees with them 100% and is willing to wear the proverbial hair shirt to prove it), so let's not help sharpen their teeth.
That being said (and this could be the most naive statement I have made), maybe this is a chance to help divert Syria away from the path of terrorist support. We would have to offer real support (in exchange for real returns), not just enough to use them as a 'tool', and we would want to proceed cautiously. I am afraid we missed a real opportunity last week. Had I been calling the shots, Bush and others would have lavished praise (not money, no material support, but lots of praise) on the 'bravery and dedication of the Syrian personnel in the area around our embassy'. You know, carefully constructed phrases that could stroke egos and show gratitude without actually voicing support of the government, per se. Doing so, and opening a crack in the door of possible goodwill, would cost us nothing and could gain much.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
Its what I call "realpolitik". 1988, Soviets throwing weight around Afghanistan, and we put some support behind the guys fighting THEM. Surrogates, much cheaper and more efficient than our own troops, and helps to bring about the fall of the Soviet Empire sooner rather than later.
Unintended consequences: A young Osama bin Laden gets his first taste of jihad (and he likes it), makes friends, influences people (easy to do when your dad is the 2nd wealthiest man in Saudi Arabia), and plants the seeds that turn into MAK, and ultimately, Al Qaeda. But of course no one knew it back then, and our main focus for support was not bin Laden or even the groups that ultimately formed the Taliban, but the Northern Alliance - which is decapitated just when it looks like they will take over, dumping Afghanistan into chaos for years... and so on.
We gave some support to the mujahideen to use as tools to go after the Soviets. Had the "Lion" of the Northern Alliance lived long enough, he might well have established a stable govenment at least neutral to the US, if not actually friendly. Which is why bin Laden helped out his Taliban buddies by getting some mirmidons to blow up the Lion with fake recording equipment while posing as journalists.
The next item involves the MEK, an Iranian nationalist group (secular, even communist, in philosophy) that can be useful against the mullahs and Revolutionary Guardsmen running Iran. Just because we remove them from a terrorist/proscribed list doesn't mean we have to LOVE or even LIKE them - just that they are more useful to us right now than the scary yahoos running things in Tehran.
Realpolitik. Hard boiled geopolitical moves focused upon forwarding our own objectives and obtaining safety for our own people.
What I was saying is the literal truth as I see it.
Better to have a coalition government with the MEK (communist theories and all) included than the current group.
Better still if the guys who took over from Ahmedijani were secular libertarians, but I'm not holding my breath. Just so we can change Iran from an active enemy with nuclear ambitions and a habit of state-sponsored terrorism to nothing more than a neutral country that pumps a lot of oil but will NEVER be our friend, I'll call that a win.
As for supporting "al Qaeda" against the Soviets, that never happened - I believe I said a "nascent" (not yet born, or just born) al Qaeda. Bin Laden had no such huge organization then - he was little more than a rich dilletante playing at jihad - so I'm inclined to give the CIA of the day a pass as to that. The Taliban were a known (and disturbing) quantity, but the Northern Alliance were "our" group, its just too bad the plan didn't pan out.
In the 20 year ago world of the Cold War and MAD, eliminating the Soviet Union and essentially freeing over 100,000,000 people from their totalitarian rule (and greatly reducing the threat to ourselves, of course) was a high and worthy goal. One worth risking even the difficult-to-forsee rise of islamofascist terrorism as such a strong force coming in to attempt to fill some of the "evil" vacuum.
Even in light of 9/11, and as much as that event affects me, we cannot lose sight of the huge victory brought about by such events as the Soviet military and political defeat in Afghanistan. Even with perfect prediction powers, such a trade-off would be a good idea at any time.
It would be nice if every effort to change a bad situation toward something better could result in dramatic freedom for all the folks involved. The ugly truth (realpolitik) is that often you use one evil to fight a greater evil.
Its why Jimmy Carter emasculated the CIA in the first place - and why we've been paying the price for no human intel ever since. Its a world where you deal with ugly, nasty, people who are not the type you invite home to meet your daughter.
But its better than the alternative. Its having some clue as to what it going on, if not being able to perfectly predict future events.
Its reality - gritty, grimey, bloody reality.
Realpolitik.
Thanks for the clarification, and now your position makes perfect sense. I still don't necessarily agree that available tools should necessarily always be used, but I can certainly see from where you are coming. I still think that fundamentalist groups (a.k.a. terrorist organizations) are a risky, unreliable tool at best and, like a carelessly used chainsaw, will likely do as much harm as good in the long run.
Also, I am not sure I agree that the fall of the Soviet Union was worth any price we had to pay. For all their sabre-rattling and professed idealism, I am not sure I believe that we or the world at large is safer or better off without them. This, however, is where you have the [age] advantage over me. While I am certainly old enough to remember the fear, propaganda and [only partially justified] paranoia of the Cold War, I was a High School junior in 1988 and much more interested in a certain female Senior and cashier where I worked than in world politics (several years later, I ended up re-connecting with, dating and marrying said female, so it wasn't a total waste.)
Of course, when we have supported possible 'terrorist' groups in the past, it hasn't been when we were in the middle of a declared, specifically articulated 'War on Terror' - complete with toppling entire governments for doing the very thing we are discussing - supposedly supporting terrorist organizations. To do so in today's climate would be like the CIA being allegedly involved in drug trafficking in the middle of a declared 'War on Drugs'. Oh, wait...
Terrorism (1986) and Terrorism (2006) are very different things. Oh, you still have the T-86 version hanging around, popping up their Shining Path to browbeat peasants and snatch tourists for ransom - but its the new, organized, focused and driven T-06 that we have to cope with now.
The MEK is more of a T-86 group (at best - trying to find things they have done against us is a very short list, with vague accusations and disjointed speculation more than facts and body counts). Like many organizations (the IRA comes to mind), the MEK has the bulk of its efforts pushing toward a single goal (regime change WITHIN Iran), with most of its local influence political rather than paramilitary.
The Mujahideen were very similar. Other than bin Laden (who was the exceptional case, then and now), they were focused on regime change within Afghanistan. Even after the Taliban fumbled their way to the control of most (but never all) of Afghanistan, their agenda was very much internal. The fact that Al Qaeda found them to be useful idiots doesn't change the fact that the estimate in 1986 that they could be counted on to confine whatever they did in the future largely to the inner workings of Afghanistan proved correct.
Once the grand plan of the Wahabists and such as al Qaeda (which came into being after the Afghan conflict was over) became known, no sane western government (and I doubt even Russian or Chinese) would select them as useful tools of any kind.
Thus, the playing field has done what it always does - it has changed.
Old-realpolitik still may work with efforts to stir up trouble within Iran using Iranian groups bent on Iranian agendas. Its only fair - Iran never hesitated to do the same to us, to Iraq, to Israel, and of course via the Hezbollah, to Lebanon.
Realpolitik as a strategy has limited utility when applied to Al Qaeda or the other Wahabists.
With them, I have decided direct force of all kinds makes the most sense. Our best outcome with them is that the movement loses its allure, and their source of support can be affected (this indirect attack on their supporters CAN utilize surrogates and all the nasty weapons of realpolitik).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB02GT
Thanks for the clarification, and now your position makes perfect sense. I still don't necessarily agree that available tools should necessarily always be used, but I can certainly see from where you are coming. I still think that fundamentalist groups (a.k.a. terrorist organizations) are a risky, unreliable tool at best and, like a carelessly used chainsaw, will likely do as much harm as good in the long run.
Also, I am not sure I agree that the fall of the Soviet Union was worth any price we had to pay. For all their sabre-rattling and professed idealism, I am not sure I believe that we or the world at large is safer or better off without them. This, however, is where you have the [age] advantage over me. While I am certainly old enough to remember the fear, propaganda and [only partially justified] paranoia of the Cold War, I was a High School junior in 1988 and much more interested in a certain female Senior and cashier where I worked than in world politics (several years later, I ended up re-connecting with, dating and marrying said female, so it wasn't a total waste.)
Of course, when we have supported possible 'terrorist' groups in the past, it hasn't been when we were in the middle of a declared, specifically articulated 'War on Terror' - complete with toppling entire governments for doing the very thing we are discussing - supposedly supporting terrorist organizations. To do so in today's climate would be like the CIA being allegedly involved in drug trafficking in the middle of a declared 'War on Drugs'. Oh, wait...
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
KS, I have no qualms about calling Mcain, Graham, Powell, and others who are doing this lunacy of protecting terrorist and equating them to uniformed military,cowards! Not only are they acting cowardly they are fools.
This is 2006 not 1968. What Powell and Mcain did then is history and they need to remember their history. As far as Graham goes he was an Air Force JAG officer. A slip and fall lawyer!
__________________
06' GT Tungsten gray,seq. turn sigs. no spoiler.
XM,
An armed man is called a citizen.A disarmed man is called a subject.
I believe McCain, Powell and Graham are equating the terrorists to uniformed military for purposes of treatment under the Geneva Convention rules.
__________________
Sometimes I think that government fits that old-fashioned definition of a baby: An alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
- Ronald Reagan
I believe McCain, Powell and Graham are equating the terrorists to uniformed military for purposes of treatment under the Geneva Convention rules.
Me, too, and while I don't necessarily agree that terrorists should be considered 'military' or have any rights under the Geneva Convention - in fact, I think all of the signing countries need to reconvene and write a new 'Convention' that specifically excludes terrorists - I also haven't spent five years as a POW. I imagine that, for good or ill, would give one a bit of a different perspective.
Al-quada deserves no protection under Geneva Conv. rules. Look at what they do to the people they capture. They wear no uniform,are not under the flag of any country,and violate all rules of battle( hiding behind civilians,using children as weapons,etc.) and all of the Geneva conv. rules.
This includes other terrorist orginazations(Hamas,Hezbolla etc.).
These Senators need to pull their heads out of the sand and face reality.
I would not vote for Mcain for dog catcher.
__________________
06' GT Tungsten gray,seq. turn sigs. no spoiler.
XM,
An armed man is called a citizen.A disarmed man is called a subject.
Me, too, and while I don't necessarily agree that terrorists should be considered 'military' or have any rights under the Geneva Convention - in fact, I think all of the signing countries need to reconvene and write a new 'Convention' that specifically excludes terrorists - I also haven't spent five years as a POW. I imagine that, for good or ill, would give one a bit of a different perspective.
I'm beginning to come around to the idea that we should treat terrorists as non-uniformed saboteurs and spies. They can be summarily executed. All under the Geneva Convention rules.
Wouldn't that be funny? The President caves, agrees that we will just treat them as the rules dictate, and watch the high fives and celebrations on the left (including the left of the Republican Party, of course) - then see the uproar when we start standing them against walls and offering them blindfolds.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
- then see the uproar when we start standing them against walls and offering them blindfolds.
Nah, don't even give 'em the luxury of a blindfold!!!
__________________
1992 Deep Emerald Green Mustang GT Hatch, 5 speed, 2.73s, Mac fenderwell cold air intake, '93 Cobra MAF, Mac 70mm throttle body & spacer, Explorer intakes, Mac unequal headers & offroad pipe, Magnaflow catback, Walbro 110lph fuel pump, Jet adjustable FPR, MSD Blaster coil, Accel 8mm wires, FRPP aluminum quadrant, UPR firewall adjuster, stock cable, Granatelli upper control arms.
Waiting to go on: Granatelli lower control arms, and GT40 Iron heads!
Our dedication to libertarian principles, inspired in large part by the works and example of the late Murray N. Rothbard, is reflected on this site. http://antiwar.com/who.php
After three years at Guantanamo, Afghan writers found to be no threat to United States
Pehawar, Pakistan — Badr Zaman Badr and his brother Abdurrahim Muslim Dost relish writing a good joke that jabs a corrupt politician or distills the sufferings of fellow Afghans. Badr admires the political satires in "The Canterbury Tales" and "Gulliver's Travels," and Dost wrote some wicked lampoons in the 1990s, accusing Afghan mullahs of growing rich while preaching and organizing jihad. So in 2002, when the U.S. military shackled the writers and flew them to Guantanamo among prisoners whom Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared "the worst of the worst" violent terrorists, the brothers found life imitating farce.
_____________________________________________
Shouldn't we find out if they ARE terrorists first?
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
Shouldn't we find out if they ARE terrorists first?
Of course.
Then interrogate them. Then shoot them.
In the case of Afghanistan, I would have considered the Taliban members to be primarily enemy conbatants. They were, after all, running the bulk of the country, so they were in fact a national military. Lack of uniforms complicates things, of course.
Al Qaeda members regardless of dress are terrorists and should have been segregated from the Talibani.
I never agreed with the cute dodge of dumping them all together down in Gitmo. Aside from the "combantant-vs-terrorist" question, its just dumb.
Of course, if the Talibani are still fighting back in Afghanistan (they are), then their soldiers held in our camps are STILL POW's, and will remain so until the war is over. Three years is actually no big deal - we had guys in Vietnam that were in prison for over 10 years.
As for finally figuring out that we scooped up some guys that were just set up, we obviously were far too focused on our cute plan to see how it was a mistake. Dumb mistake.
Keeping terrorists alive longer than is necessary to confirm their status and extract information from them is another dumb mistake.
No worries. Pretty soon these guys will have more legal rights (and fun new loopholes for their ACLU lawyers to exploit) than we do.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
In the case of Afghanistan, I would have considered the Taliban members to be primarily enemy conbatants. They were, after all, running the bulk of the country, so they were in fact a national military. Lack of uniforms complicates things, of course.
Al Qaeda members regardless of dress are terrorists and should have been segregated from the Talibani.
I never agreed with the cute dodge of dumping them all together down in Gitmo. Aside from the "combantant-vs-terrorist" question, its just dumb.
Of course, if the Talibani are still fighting back in Afghanistan (they are), then their soldiers held in our camps are STILL POW's, and will remain so until the war is over. Three years is actually no big deal - we had guys in Vietnam that were in prison for over 10 years.
As for finally figuring out that we scooped up some guys that were just set up, we obviously were far too focused on our cute plan to see how it was a mistake. Dumb mistake.
Keeping terrorists alive longer than is necessary to confirm their status and extract information from them is another dumb mistake.
No worries. Pretty soon these guys will have more legal rights (and fun new loopholes for their ACLU lawyers to exploit) than we do.
How do you figure that?
do you believe our soldiers should not know what they are accused of? that they should not be able to present evidence of their innocence? That our soldiers can be tortured, held without trial, and locked up without contact to their families because some dictator somewhere declares them terrorists?
Special Forces would be especially vulnerable to this new "interpretation" of the Geneva Conventions.
Any idiot could declare any US citizen an unlawful combatant/spy.
Travelling to China? Russia? Ukraine?
That's why we HAVE treaties, law, and international laws. I don't know if you recall the businessman who was accused of being a spy in the USSR in the early 80s?
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
I'm beginning to come around to the idea that we should treat terrorists as non-uniformed saboteurs and spies. They can be summarily executed. All under the Geneva Convention rules.
Wouldn't that be funny? The President caves, agrees that we will just treat them as the rules dictate, and watch the high fives and celebrations on the left (including the left of the Republican Party, of course) - then see the uproar when we start standing them against walls and offering them blindfolds.
That is correct, they would be eligible for the death penalty if proven to be terrorists. Absolutely correct.
But first, both the Constitution AND the Geneva Conventions (which were BASED upon our Consitution) demand a free and fair trial of civilians, and humane treatment of soldiers.
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
KS, read the post. I agreed with you. We should "first determine they are terrorists" before we shoot them. Obviously.
As for what rights our soldiers "should have" in a conflict with any enemy that respects those rights upon being captured, they need only give their name, rank and serial number, then sit back and try to cope with being a POW. Trying them as criminals would be against those Geneva Conventions, assuming both sides are signatories, UNLESS they committed some crime not involving military service on the battlefield.
If they are dressed in mufti and running around tossing bombs in kindergartens, I hope they ARE shot when caught. Saves us the trouble.
Again, read my post. I'm even granting that the Taliban were soldiers (of a sort - its entirely too convenient to be able to seamlessly blend into the civilian mass - which is why they should have had some sort of identifying uniform item).
Special forces are uniformed troops 99.9% of the time. They are prone to being treated as spies and shot the other 0.1% of the time, and are very aware of that danger. In point of fact, few of the current opposition in the middle east are what you would call "concerned" about the Geneva Conventions. Has, for instance, Al Qaeda offered to leave off chopping heads and to start obeying the restrictions of the Conventions? Has the Taliban, for that matter?
I don't think that we need to do tit for tat - but applying gentile rules to ungentle monsters gains us nothing but their contempt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscoyote
How do you figure that?
do you believe our soldiers should not know what they are accused of? that they should not be able to present evidence of their innocence? That our soldiers can be tortured, held without trial, and locked up without contact to their families because some dictator somewhere declares them terrorists?
Special Forces would be especially vulnerable to this new "interpretation" of the Geneva Conventions.
Any idiot could declare any US citizen an unlawful combatant/spy.
Travelling to China? Russia? Ukraine?
That's why we HAVE treaties, law, and international laws. I don't know if you recall the businessman who was accused of being a spy in the USSR in the early 80s?
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
