Should US declare war on Al Qaeda?

[m21sniper]

Bush law chief seeks new Qaeda war declaration

By Randall Mikkelsen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress should explicitly declare war against al Qaeda to make clear the United States can detain suspected members as long as the conflict lasts, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said on Monday.


Mukasey urged Congress to make the declaration in a package of legislative proposals to establish a legal process for terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo, in response to a Supreme Court ruling last month that detainees had a constitutional right to challenge their detention.

"Any legislation should acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us," Mukasey said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute.

"Congress should reaffirm that for the duration of the conflict the United States may detain as enemy combatants those who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully supported al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations," he said.

New legislation should also prohibit courts from ordering a detainee to be released within the United States. It should protect secrets in court hearings, ensure that soldiers are not taken from the battlefield to testify and prevent challenges from delaying detainee trials, he said.

Democrats in control of Congress and civil rights groups reacted coolly, saying Mukasey's proposals would avert legal oversight and stack the deck in favor of the administration.

"Essentially it means that if a president declares someone to be a terrorist, they would then have the authority to hold that person without trial forever," said Chris Anders, senior legislative counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Bush has said the antiterrorism effort would be open-ended.

Mukasey spoke as the first U.S. war crimes trial began at the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where prisoners are held in a detention center condemned internationally for harsh treatment. The Supreme Court's decision on detainee rights did not invalidate trials for those already charged.

The attorney general said the administration already has the authority to detain suspected terrorists. But he said, "It would do all of us good to have the principle reaffirmed, not that that principle itself is in doubt."

A week after the September 11, 2001 attacks, Congress authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against nations and groups that planned or supported the attacks. It did not specifically mention al Qaeda, which carried out the attacks, or their Taliban allies.

Some critics have said the Bush administration was too broad in asserting a nameless "war on terrorism."

The Supreme Court has upheld the government's right to hold al Qaeda detainees. But a U.S. appeals court last month rejected the government's argument that an ethnic Uighur Chinese Muslim could be held under the September 2001 authority as someone affiliated with al Qaeda.

The man, Huzaifa Parhat, had been seized in Pakistan after crossing from Afghanistan in December of that year with 17 other unarmed Uighurs.

DETAINEE CHALLENGES

Mukasey's proposals would also limit the courts' role in

determining a suspect's ties to terrorism, said Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

He said the proposals would sidestep earlier court rulings and predicted more administration legal defeats. "This will be the third time, after a very clear Supreme Court ruling on what the law is, that Congress has been called upon to ... stack the deck in favor of the administration," Warren said.

But Mukasey said new rules were needed to establish an orderly process for challenges and end delays in trying those already charged. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the latest Supreme Court decision "actually raised a lot more questions than it answered."

The Democratic U.S. Senate leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said it would be hard to pass Mukasey's proposals before U.S. President George W. Bush leaves office next January. "The courts are well equipped to handle this situation and there is no danger that any detainee will be released in the meantime," Reid said.

The terrorism trial of Osama bin Laden's former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, began at Guantanamo on Monday. He faces life in prison if convicted by a U.S. military jury.

The Guantanamo prison houses about 265 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban members, including accused September 11 plotters.

A federal judge last week said the Hamdan trial could proceed despite the Supreme Court ruling.

(Editing by Cynthia Osterman and Philip Barbara)

[Superman]

I can see the potential problems. We are at war with terrorism, inclusive of Al Queda. Neither "terrorism" nor Al Queda are sovereign nations.

[alf]

If we declarded a War on Crime and a War on Drugs will we be able to hold criminals and druggies without charge indefinately too?

[mikester]

We should handle this the way we handled communism - a policy of containment. We prop up regimes that support our ideals or at least are able to be bought with our money.

I would recommend that we shy away from turning our back on them at a moment's notice and then stabbing them in the back however; that doesn't seem to go over well.

[Rick V]

Shouldn't we finish the was we already started first?

[Superman]

Originally Posted by mikester

We should handle this the way we handled communism - a policy of containment. We prop up regimes that support our ideals or at least are able to be bought with our money.

I would recommend that we shy away from turning our back on them at a moment's notice and then stabbing them in the back however; that doesn't seem to go over well.

This is the wimpy foreign policy suggestion the Dubya-worshippers here have railed against for eight years now. The predominant political thinking here, and across America I assume, is that our interests are best served by punching everyone else in the nose. That thinking has made us very lonely in terms of coordinating efforts with other nations.

[mikester]

Originally Posted by Superman

This is the wimpy foreign policy suggestion the Dubya-worshippers here have railed against for eight years now. The predominant political thinking here, and across America I assume, is that our interests are best served by punching everyone else in the nose. That thinking has made us very lonely in terms of coordinating efforts with other nations.

I should have used the green text.

It doesn't take a history major to know that our policy of containment we very aggressive.

Latin America, Cuba, Southeast Asia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and there are more examples! Given the opportunity to ask a question to McCain or Obama it would be a history question. I'm sure the McCain would likely be able to answer quite a few based on his life long experience. There is no doubt that Obama is intelligent in my mind either - what I want to know is can they compare or contrast what these actions in various instances and how the way we handled them helped or hurt the US. What would he have done differently during the bay of pigs and Cuban missile crisis.

[red-beard]

Go after the money and support, and it will wither and die.

Co-opt the popy growers and detroy those who give aid and comfort.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Go after the money and support, and it will wither and die.

Co-opt the popy growers and detroy those who give aid and comfort.

Correct. Sure, there are times when the best course of action is to open a jumbo-sized can of Whoop-Ass. John Kennedy played Chicken with the Russians and won the gamble. It was the right approach. Dubya chose the wrong approach. Sure, it's just possible that we might be able to contain or partially mitigate the mess we have made in Iraq but that does not make invasion the right decision. Our goal was (or should have been) to cripple terrorism. As Red Beard says, that is best done with minimal use of firearms and bombs. It is done with intelligence and diplomacy. Diplomacy in the sense of having access to international bank accounts when we learn of their existence, for example. Al Queda should be on the ropes by now, ready to go down for the count. It is hard to believe we did not finish the job in Afghanistan. I like to think Dubya is an idiot and that is why he makes so many bonehead decisions. If he is not an idiot, then he is an opportunist who has no allegiance to America. He is best off as an idiot, in my mind.