A Real Surveillance Scandal

[William Black]

<headers snipped because Hines is a shit>

Dallas is absolutely right. The trouble with Ray O'Hara and the rest of

the

Bush haters is that they will simply not admit that we are involved in a
war.

If it's a war then the people you attack are soldiers.

No, that is a half-truth used to propagate a falsehood. Any person who
attempts to change or otherwise influence domestic or foreign
governmental policy by participating in the use of hostile armed force,
sabotage, espionage, or other relevant hostile activities is perforce a
combatant, legal or illegal, in a public war.

So Al Capone and Co could be attacked by soldiers?

You can't drop bombs on suspected terrorists in civilian clothes and

claim

it's a legitimate military action.

That is a false statement. Combatants of any kind, legal or illegal, may
be attacked almost anywhere, with exceptions for some few special
circumstances, other than the territories of neutral states.

Well as there's no declared war anywhere at the moment, so everyone's a
neutral...

If you're fighting a war you need an enemy.

The enemy are any and all persons engaging in, aiding, or abetting
hostile acts such as armed force, sabotage, and espionage for the
purpose of changing the domestic and/or foreign policies of the
government by force and armed intimidation.

So next week the US Marines are attacking South Central Los Angeles...

Terrorists are criminals. While you may need soldiers to act 'in

support of

the civil power' it's a civil matter and the criminals caught should be
tried and, if convicted, put in jail.

No, it is not, and it never has been so. There is no basis in
Anglo-American law or legal precedent for such a claim. Terrorists are
by definition persons who are attempting to change governmental policy
by the use of armed force, sabotage, and espionage against the
government and against the non-combatants being used as hostages in acts
of intimidation against a government.

Again we're back at gangsters...

Terrorists are by definition

combatants and/or unlawful combatants.

The status 'unlawful combatant' can only be decided by a properly
constituted tribunal.

A government may treat a lawful

combatant as a criminal only when the combatant has committed a war
crime or when the combatant has committed a civil crime, as described by
the Law of Armed Conflict and the Conventions. A government may also at
its own option treat an unlawful combatant as a criminal when the
unlawful combatant has committed a war crime or when the combatant has
committed a civil crime, as described by the Law of Armed Conflict and
the Conventions. Lawful and unlawful combatants may be prosecuted for
violations of civil criminal laws or not at the option of the detaining
Power. Lawful and unlawful combatants are by definition lawful objects
of belligerant acts.

So you accept that their status is of PoW until such time as they are
convicted of a crime...

The idea of a 'war on terror' is as daft as 'the war on drugs', and

likely

to be about as effective.

What is "daft" is your bizarre idea that a government cannot engage in
belligerant acts against persons and communities who are committing
belligerant acts of hostility against the government.

War on the border crossers next then...

Some of them take the odd shot at a border guard now and again...

Because 'terror' is used by just about every country in the world to

pursue

its objectives. You can't ban a tactic...

The United Nations did so, so you are obviously making another false
statement.

I love it. One of the moon-bats appealing to the UN as an authority for
something...

[D. Patterson]

Post by William Black
<headers snipped because Hines is a shit>

Dallas is absolutely right. The trouble with Ray O'Hara and the rest of

the

Bush haters is that they will simply not admit that we are involved in a
war.

If it's a war then the people you attack are soldiers.

No, that is a half-truth used to propagate a falsehood. Any person who
attempts to change or otherwise influence domestic or foreign
governmental policy by participating in the use of hostile armed force,
sabotage, espionage, or other relevant hostile activities is perforce a
combatant, legal or illegal, in a public war.

So Al Capone and Co could be attacked by soldiers?

Yes, whenever their violent activities impinged upon U.S. sovereignty as
happened when their rumrunning operations violated the territorial
borders of the United States and they were counterattacked in naval
interdiction operations by the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy in
what was termed as the "Rum War."

You keep trying to confuse the differences between civil crimes and
punishments versus war crimes and punishments. The difference is in the
act and the citizenship of the actor.

Post by William Black

You can't drop bombs on suspected terrorists in civilian clothes and

claim

it's a legitimate military action.

That is a false statement. Combatants of any kind, legal or illegal, may
be attacked almost anywhere, with exceptions for some few special
circumstances, other than the territories of neutral states.

Well as there's no declared war anywhere at the moment, so everyone's a
neutral...

That is an outright lie, as you well know from my previous quotations of
the U.S. Congressional joint resolutions, the U.S. Presidential
proclamations, and the U.N. Security Council resolutions. There is
currently a "mixed war" underway between the sovereign states who are
members of the United Nations versus the non-govermental terrorist
organizations who have the legal status of international pirates,
bandits, and terrorists.

Post by William Black

If you're fighting a war you need an enemy.

The enemy are any and all persons engaging in, aiding, or abetting
hostile acts such as armed force, sabotage, and espionage for the
purpose of changing the domestic and/or foreign policies of the
government by force and armed intimidation.

So next week the US Marines are attacking South Central Los Angeles...

Which is, of course, a non-sequitur and thoroughly stupid remark.

Having spent a lot of time in South Central Los Angeles and walked its
streets, I can say the criminal gangs and gang members there have often
demonstrated considerably greater personal respect and personal courtesy
than I have found in many so called respectable communities and
considerably greater than what can be found in many neighborhoods of
London, Paris, and Rome. Unlike many of the casual crooks, thieves, and
common liars to be found elsewhere, many of the gang members have
learned that a failure to pay due respect and courtesy can have fatal
consequences. You could benefit by understanding this phenomenon and
reflecting upon its implications with respect to your own comments.

Post by William Black

Terrorists are criminals. While you may need soldiers to act 'in

support of

the civil power' it's a civil matter and the criminals caught should be
tried and, if convicted, put in jail.

No, it is not, and it never has been so. There is no basis in
Anglo-American law or legal precedent for such a claim. Terrorists are
by definition persons who are attempting to change governmental policy
by the use of armed force, sabotage, and espionage against the
government and against the non-combatants being used as hostages in acts
of intimidation against a government.

Again we're back at gangsters...

You obviously lie to yourself by refusing to acknowledge the obvious
fact that lawful combatants have the capacity to commit civil crimes and
war crimes, while unlawful combatants have the same capacity to commit
civil crimes and war crimes. "Gangsters", like any other unlawful
combatant or lawful combatant, can be loyal or disloyal to a sovereign
and the sovereign's policies. A terrorist may be a "gangster", but not
all "gangsters" are terrorists or commit acts of terrorism for the
purpose of changing governments or governmental policies. So, no, we are
not "back at gangsters...."

Post by William Black
Terrorists are by definition

combatants and/or unlawful combatants.

The status 'unlawful combatant' can only be decided by a properly
constituted tribunal.

That is another ridiculously obvious false statement. The status of
'unlawful combatant' is often decided by numerous other factors,
including but not limited to, a bullet, a suicide belt of explosives and
ball bearings, crashing jet airliners into tall buildings, planting IEDs
in public roadways, and so forth. Unlawful combatants are also sometimes
civil criminals when they rob banks, smuggle drugs to finance their
irregular warfare, and kidnap civilians for ransom to finance their
warfare; but some unlawful combatants do not engage in such civil crimes
and limit their ulawful activities to unlawful combat against purely
military targets.

Post by William Black
A government may treat a lawful

combatant as a criminal only when the combatant has committed a war
crime or when the combatant has committed a civil crime, as described by
the Law of Armed Conflict and the Conventions. A government may also at
its own option treat an unlawful combatant as a criminal when the
unlawful combatant has committed a war crime or when the combatant has
committed a civil crime, as described by the Law of Armed Conflict and
the Conventions. Lawful and unlawful combatants may be prosecuted for
violations of civil criminal laws or not at the option of the detaining
Power. Lawful and unlawful combatants are by definition lawful objects
of belligerant acts.

So you accept that their status is of PoW until such time as they are
convicted of a crime...

The idea of a 'war on terror' is as daft as 'the war on drugs', and

likely

to be about as effective.

What is "daft" is your bizarre idea that a government cannot engage in
belligerant acts against persons and communities who are committing
belligerant acts of hostility against the government.

War on the border crossers next then...
Some of them take the odd shot at a border guard now and again...

Which, of course, was done with the Mexican Punitive Expedition that
counterattacked Pancho Villa's irregular forces. Pancho Villa's
irregular forces were used by the Government of Mexico to covertly
incite a conflict leading to an insurrection in the U.S. Southwest and
war with the United States. Pancho Villa's irregular forces and other
irregular Mexican forces committed a series of civil crimes and war
crimes. The U.S. responded to the war crimes and civil crimes by the
irregular Mexican forces and terrorists with military force.

Post by William Black

Because 'terror' is used by just about every country in the world to

pursue

its objectives. You can't ban a tactic...

The United Nations did so, so you are obviously making another false
statement.

I love it. One of the moon-bats appealing to the UN as an authority for
something...

Using a derogatory term like, "moon-bats", is not going to change the
indisputable fact that the United Nations has banned, proscribed, and
made unlawful the "tactics" of terrorism and declared a number of
organizations to be unlawful terrorist organizations. Of course, you
already knew these facts from our previous discussions and chose to lie,
rather than admit the unlawfulness of terrorism practiced by the Islamic
groups you prefer to defend.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Post by D. Patterson
Having spent a lot of time in South Central Los Angeles and walked its
streets, I can say the criminal gangs and gang members there have often
demonstrated considerably greater personal respect and personal courtesy
than I have found in many so called respectable communities and
considerably greater than what can be found in many neighborhoods of
London, Paris, and Rome. Unlike many of the casual crooks, thieves, and
common liars to be found elsewhere, many of the gang members have
learned that a failure to pay due respect and courtesy can have fatal
consequences. You could benefit by understanding this phenomenon and
reflecting upon its implications with respect to your own comments.

A very interesting observation. I have a friend, now an academic but
who spent lots of time on the streets, in an area of Canada where the
Hell's Angels are an undergovernment. While we wound up not having the
visit, before a trip, she very carefully instructed me on the formal
but invisible rules of a "civilian" in a bar catering to "the boys".

The ritual involved in being challenged by a lesser member to buy him a
drink, and responding with due dignity, respect to the senior member
present, and assorted other details reminded me of some Japanese court
procedures. When I brought up that point, she agreed from the
anthropological perspective, but explained the difference that in a
Japanese court, I would be expected to perform seppuku in the event of
error, while in this situation, do-it-yourself would not be required.

After numerous rehearsals, she declared me ready. I was then informed
that if I did it REALLY well, I might be offered someone's girlfriend
for the night, and it would be a mortal insult to refuse.

In a quite different context, years ago, when I was active in DC local
politics (i.e., when Marion Barry was still competent), I learned to
speak as well as understand ghetto dialect. It opened up some
fascinating interactions, often very educational and satisfying for all
participants.

[William Black]

Post by D. Patterson

Post by William Black
Well as there's no declared war anywhere at the moment, so everyone's a
neutral...

That is an outright lie,

He's off again...

as you well know from my previous quotations of

Post by D. Patterson
the U.S. Congressional joint resolutions, the U.S. Presidential
proclamations, and the U.N. Security Council resolutions. There is
currently a "mixed war" underway between the sovereign states who are
members of the United Nations versus the non-govermental terrorist
organizations who have the legal status of international pirates,
bandits, and terrorists.

You can't have a war without at least one sovreign state on each side.

That's as close a definition of war as you can get.

I doubt the UN calls it a war.

Post by D. Patterson

Post by William Black
So next week the US Marines are attacking South Central Los Angeles...

Which is, of course, a non-sequitur and thoroughly stupid remark.
Having spent a lot of time in South Central Los Angeles and walked its
streets, I can say the criminal gangs and gang members there have often
demonstrated considerably greater personal respect and personal courtesy
than I have found in many so called respectable communities and
considerably greater than what can be found in many neighborhoods of
London, Paris, and Rome. Unlike many of the casual crooks, thieves, and
common liars to be found elsewhere, many of the gang members have
learned that a failure to pay due respect and courtesy can have fatal
consequences. You could benefit by understanding this phenomenon and
reflecting upon its implications with respect to your own comments.

I'm sure that people can be polite criminals.

I personally like to be able to seperate the gangsters from the 'naughty
boys' myself.

Post by D. Patterson

Post by William Black
Again we're back at gangsters...

You obviously lie to yourself by refusing to acknowledge the obvious
fact that lawful combatants have the capacity to commit civil crimes and
war crimes, while unlawful combatants have the same capacity to commit
civil crimes and war crimes. "Gangsters", like any other unlawful
combatant or lawful combatant, can be loyal or disloyal to a sovereign
and the sovereign's policies. A terrorist may be a "gangster", but not
all "gangsters" are terrorists or commit acts of terrorism for the
purpose of changing governments or governmental policies. So, no, we are
not "back at gangsters...."

Post by William Black
The status 'unlawful combatant' can only be decided by a properly
constituted tribunal.

That is another ridiculously obvious false statement. The status of
'unlawful combatant' is often decided by numerous other factors,
including but not limited to, a bullet, a suicide belt of explosives and
ball bearings, crashing jet airliners into tall buildings, planting IEDs
in public roadways, and so forth. Unlawful combatants are also sometimes
civil criminals when they rob banks, smuggle drugs to finance their
irregular warfare, and kidnap civilians for ransom to finance their
warfare; but some unlawful combatants do not engage in such civil crimes
and limit their ulawful activities to unlawful combat against purely
military targets.

Nope. The various laws of war are unequivocal about this one.

You're just wrong.

Post by D. Patterson

Post by William Black
War on the border crossers next then...
Some of them take the odd shot at a border guard now and again...

Which, of course, was done with the Mexican Punitive Expedition that
counterattacked Pancho Villa's irregular forces. Pancho Villa's
irregular forces were used by the Government of Mexico to covertly
incite a conflict leading to an insurrection in the U.S. Southwest and
war with the United States. Pancho Villa's irregular forces and other
irregular Mexican forces committed a series of civil crimes and war
crimes. The U.S. responded to the war crimes and civil crimes by the
irregular Mexican forces and terrorists with military force.

But the were, in your own words, 'used by the Government of Mexico'

They were undoubtedly the agents of a foreign power.

Post by D. Patterson

Post by William Black
I love it. One of the moon-bats appealing to the UN as an authority for
something...

Using a derogatory term like, "moon-bats", is not going to change the
indisputable fact that the United Nations has banned, proscribed, and
made unlawful the "tactics" of terrorism and declared a number of
organizations to be unlawful terrorist organizations.

So they're criminals.

No problem there...

Of course, you

Post by D. Patterson
already knew these facts from our previous discussions and chose to lie,
rather than admit the unlawfulness of terrorism practiced by the Islamic
groups you prefer to defend.

Nope.

I know they're criminals.

It seems you do, but you're in denial about it some of the time.

[Fred J. McCall]

"William Black" <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

:You can't have a war without at least one sovreign state on each side.
:
:That's as close a definition of war as you can get.

The fact that it is an incorrect definition doesn't bother you, I'm
sure.