[ExI] QRE: barack W. obama

Emlyn emlynoregan at gmail.com
Tue Sep 29 02:29:58 UTC 2009

2009/9/29 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
>> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn
>> ...
>> I agree with what (I think) Stefano is saying. If you've got
>> no way to legally detain these people, then let them go...
> Emlyn, what consequences could you imagine from doing that?  What message
> would you be sending to the other aspiring terrorists?

What message are you sending now? How does that compare? Surely the
whole sending-a-message idea has been exposed as a clusterf**k by now.

>> ...precedent being set here is far worse for the US than the
>> danger posed by a handful of people...
> It isn't the handful of people that is a danger, it is the loud and clear
> message that the US will not defend itself from terror.

You can defend yourself from terror by calming down. It's an emotion.

This kind of detention and warfare and what not would likely be more
about defending yourself from hostile people intent on doing you harm.

I think the world is largely clear on the idea that the US will defend
itself against such people.

>> In the future, declare war where appropriate...
> Where appropriate, sure.  But the picture gets very pixellated with
> non-state actors.  The only reason we can do anything at all is that al
> Qaida and the Taliban *did* declare war on the US, in 1994.  Of course it
> took us several years to notice, but Osama bin Ladin declared war.  The
> COTUS did not acknowledge the declaration, nor did it declare war against
> aQ.

So is there no way to do the equivalent of declaring war on an
organisation? If not, why not?

> So now I suppose we can semi-legitimately hold as POWs, all known aQs and
> Taliban, but I can easily imagine independent terrorists acting on foreign
> soil against western interests but not associated with aQ or Taliban.  Then
> what?  Can we assume them criminals, like the Somali pirates?  What if you
> do?  How do you work the whole 8th amendment rights notion with foreign
> non-aQ non-state actors?

If they are on US soil, and they commit criminal acts (including
"intent"), then they are criminals.

A non-aQ, non-state actor against whom you have no evidence of wrong
doing and who is on foreign soil, well, that could be describe me! I'd
say you could also call that person an innocent foreigner who you
could leave well enough alone.

>> It seems to me that there's a problem with the law here, in
>> that you've got no good system for dealing with "asymmetrical warfare"
>> combatants, and "non state actors". So fix that, and move forward...
> Do offer some suggestion on how to fix that.

Yep. Declare war on organisations. If it's even more complex than
that, then maybe you're doing it wrong?

>> Surely, if you find yourself detaining people indefinitely on
>> foreign soil, it's a sign that you are approaching things the
>> wrong way. If it was a movie, it's what the bad guys would be doing...
> Emlyn
> How would the good guys deal with this maddening situation?

They'd send Rambo in to free the hostages.

> If you can figure out how, we will elect YOU as the POTUS, against your will
> if necessary.  We can do that Emlyn, for altho our constitution specifically
> requires that one be a natural born US citizen to be POTUS, it does not
> actually say that one is required to *prove* that one was born in the USA.
> spike

Hawaii is a real state you know. Just because you can't drive there,
it still counts :-)


http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list