The Democrat Party Hates America

[Alexis Jacobi]

In other words, why would it be wrong to class criminal organizations that come with drugs and guns as terrorist organizations or enemy combatants?

I think you know the answer: it is a specific term for enemy fighters and soldiers. The Trump administration is attempting that designation. I don’t think it will fly. But I won’t say that I don’t wish that it could. I am no fan of criminal gangs and believe they must be uprooted.

There are other reasons why I oppose Trump’s brusque methods, as I have explained.

[Immanuel Can]

In other words, why would it be wrong to class criminal organizations that come with drugs and guns as terrorist organizations or enemy combatants?

I think you know the answer: it is a specific term for enemy fighters and soldiers.

I see no justification in that. An enemy combatant or terrorist can come with all kinds of weapons...a gun, a bomb, a knife, some drugs, or an any tool used to subvert the authority of the state. I would say that Chinese espionage, for example, will prove even more destructive than Muslim body bombs. It doesn't make the Chinese spy less a combatant or terrorist, just because his methods are more subtle.

The Trump administration is attempting that designation. I don’t think it will fly.

It certainly should, I would say. What's the difference, in relation to Americans, whether it's MS 13 killing them or the Taliban, and what difference does it make if the weapon is a rocket or fentanyl, except that the second is far more destructive than the first?

Those who set out to kill Americans are those who set out to kill Americans. I think the name of the sponsoring organization makes no difference at all to the dead or to their grieving loved ones.

[Alexiev]

In other words, why would it be wrong to class criminal organizations that come with drugs and guns as terrorist organizations or enemy combatants?

I think you know the answer: it is a specific term for enemy fighters and soldiers.

I see no justification in that. An enemy combatant or terrorist can come with all kinds of weapons...a gun, a bomb, a knife, some drugs, or an any tool used to subvert the authority of the state. I would say that Chinese espionage, for example, will prove even more destructive than Muslim body bombs. It doesn't make the Chinese spy less a combatant or terrorist, just because his methods are more subtle.

The Trump administration is attempting that designation. I don’t think it will fly.

It certainly should, I would say. What's the difference, in relation to Americans, whether it's MS 13 killing them or the Taliban, and what difference does it make if the weapon is a rocket or fentanyl, except that the second is far more destructive than the first?

Those who set out to kill Americans are those who set out to kill Americans. I think the name of the sponsoring organization makes no difference at all to the dead or to their grieving loved ones.

"Enemy combatants" are subject to the Geneva Convention. The U.S would actually be required to treat them better than they would treat criminals.

In addition, treating terrorists as "enemy combatants" valorizes and glorifies them. Why did the IRA terrorists starve themselves for the right to be treated as enemy combatants instead of criminals?

This is an idiotic idea.

[FlashDangerpants]

I think you know the answer: it is a specific term for enemy fighters and soldiers.

I see no justification in that. An enemy combatant or terrorist can come with all kinds of weapons...a gun, a bomb, a knife, some drugs, or an any tool used to subvert the authority of the state. I would say that Chinese espionage, for example, will prove even more destructive than Muslim body bombs. It doesn't make the Chinese spy less a combatant or terrorist, just because his methods are more subtle.

The Trump administration is attempting that designation. I don’t think it will fly.

It certainly should, I would say. What's the difference, in relation to Americans, whether it's MS 13 killing them or the Taliban, and what difference does it make if the weapon is a rocket or fentanyl, except that the second is far more destructive than the first?

Those who set out to kill Americans are those who set out to kill Americans. I think the name of the sponsoring organization makes no difference at all to the dead or to their grieving loved ones.

"Enemy combatants" are subject to the Geneva Convention. The U.S would actually be required to treat them better than they would treat criminals.

In addition, treating terrorists as "enemy combatants" valorizes and glorifies them. Why did the IRA terrorists starve themselves for the right to be treated as enemy combatants instead of criminals?

This is an idiotic idea.

"Enemy combatant" is a special War on Terror status that only America defines, it's what they designate people who are headed to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. It doesn't confer rights under Geneva Conventions.

It's an obvious attempt to find a new way to deny due process rights, and to justify snatch squads and extraordinary renditions. Unlikely to survive contact with the courts.

[Immanuel Can]

"Enemy combatants" are subject to the Geneva Convention.

Only as prisoners. As active combatants, they get shot or blown up. Deporting seems mild, by comparsion to what the normal treatment of combatants is.

In addition, treating terrorists as "enemy combatants" valorizes and glorifies them.

Naw. It's not like calling them "noble adversaries" or something. It's a negative term, at the very least. Neither the word "enemy" nor the word "combatants" has any valour or glory in it.

[Alexiev]

"Enemy combatants" are subject to the Geneva Convention.

Only as prisoners. As active combatants, they get shot or blown up. Deporting seems mild, by comparsion to what the normal treatment of combatants is.

In addition, treating terrorists as "enemy combatants" valorizes and glorifies them.

Naw. It's not like calling them "noble adversaries" or something. It's a negative term, at the very least. Neither the word "enemy" nor the word "combatants" has any valour or glory in it.

Nonsense. "Common criminals" are clearly less glorified than "enemy combatants". I admit I didn't know official U.S. categories. Thanks FDP.

[Immanuel Can]

"Enemy combatants" are subject to the Geneva Convention.

Only as prisoners. As active combatants, they get shot or blown up. Deporting seems mild, by comparsion to what the normal treatment of combatants is.

In addition, treating terrorists as "enemy combatants" valorizes and glorifies them.

Naw. It's not like calling them "noble adversaries" or something. It's a negative term, at the very least. Neither the word "enemy" nor the word "combatants" has any valour or glory in it.

"Common criminals" are clearly less glorified than "enemy combatants".

Neither's a term of honour, by any stretch of the fevered imagination. You're imagining things.

And one more thing you haven't thought of: "common criminals" get arrested; "enemy combatants" get shot. Which is better?

[Alexiev]

Only as prisoners. As active combatants, they get shot or blown up. Deporting seems mild, by comparsion to what the normal treatment of combatants is.


Naw. It's not like calling them "noble adversaries" or something. It's a negative term, at the very least. Neither the word "enemy" nor the word "combatants" has any valour or glory in it.

"Common criminals" are clearly less glorified than "enemy combatants".

Neither's a term of honour, by any stretch of the fevered imagination. You're imagining things.

And one more thing you haven't thought of: "common criminals" get arrested; "enemy combatants" get shot. Which is better?

Which do you think the 9/11 suicide terrorists would prefer to be called by history? How about the IRA terrorists who starved themselves because they were treated as "common criminals" instead of "enemy combatants"? Good grief! This is so obvious.

[Belinda]

Tithing for Old Testament Jews , and taxation for Europeans in 2025...

They have this much in common: both are cases of the rich exploiting the poor. But one was in the name of religious rule, and the other is in the name of "the public good." Both were or are being done by groups of thieves who lied or lie about what they were or are doing, so that's another similarity.

What's the point? I don't assume it means you're advocating theft and exploitation, are you?

Certainly not!
Societies are societies by reason of their being organised by a ruling elite. At one time and place the ruling elite was the individuals with the most economic or defensive power. The ruling elite evolved into the priest/kings and their supporters. Ancient Israel separated priests and kings into two estates. The Bible as you will know tells about good priests (e.g. Elijah), and good kings (e.g. Solomon).
Good priests and good kings are recognisable by what they did for others. Civilisation happens when the ruling elite generally supports and protects mutual help between individuals.

[henry quirk]

This could go in the In The News thread, but here seems more appropriate...

Nearly 800 illegal immigrants, including violent fugitive gangbangers, were rounded up in a massive, first-ever sweep by Florida cops working with federal immigration agents, authorities said.

“Operation Tidal Wave,” a joint effort between the feds and local police in the Sunshine State, needed just four days to lock up some of the country’s most wanted migrants, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said.

The operation was launched last week.

“We appreciate our [Department of Homeland Security (DHS)] partner’s commitment to public safety,” ICE wrote in a statement.

The announcement was made after two judges were arrested this week for allegedly hiding illegal immigrants from ICE.

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan is charged with obstruction of an official proceeding and concealing an individual to prevent discovery and arrest for allegedly shielding a migrant from ICE agents.

Former Doña Ana County Magistrate Judge Joel Cano, 68, and his wife, Nancy Cano, 67, were charged with evidence tampering amid allegations they harbored a member of Venezuela’s violent Tren de Aragua gang, Cristhian Ortega-Lopez.

-New York Post

[Walker]

Maybe The Democrat Party That Hates America will use politically activist judges to stymie these deportations with injunctions and lawsuits over alleged lack of due process, which these days means Infinite Process.

If so, there will likely be a loud, well-publicized by agenda-driven media and an organized, NGO-funded cheerleading section in the peanut gallery for the minions to echo, while the illegals sit in a concentration camp with barbed wire, guards with guns* and a regiment of NGO-funded class action attorneys practicing the Art of Infinite Delay (AOID), dreaming of that big payday.

After all, it is the Left that keeps bringing up the topic of constitutional crisis. One might get the impression that this is their intent.

Maybe the governor has other plans, conspiring with The President against those pushing for a constitutional crisis.


*memes for the next election

[Immanuel Can]

Which do you think the 9/11 suicide terrorists would prefer to be called by history?

I think they'll be called by whatever we call them. They have no justification to expect to be regarded by anything else but what their actions warrant.

[Immanuel Can]

Societies are societies by reason of their being organised by a ruling elite.

That's a very aristocratic view, I must say.

Civilisation happens when the ruling elite generally supports and protects mutual help between individuals.

That's not at all how civilization came about, of course. It came about under the rule of local strongmen, who eventually styled themselves as kings. The ancient world was a place of power, of vicious rivalries and of conquest. The last thing you would ever say about these ancient kings is that they were interested in creating "mutual help between individuals." They were working on their own personal agendas of increasing their power and prestige.

You really would never say that Nimrod, or Nebuchadnezzar, or Thumose, or Alexander, or Ghengis Khan, or Julius Caesar were proto-Socialists working on a welfare state; that's for sure.

[Walker]

What a despicable sycophant for tyranny you are.

FlashDangerpants, does your avatar indicate that your gender is a crazy girl, or does it demonstrate a failed attempt at irony?

[FlashDangerpants]

And one more thing you haven't thought of: "common criminals" get arrested; "enemy combatants" get shot. Which is better?

Enemy Combatant is a term thrown together to justify - rightly or wrongly - using military personnel, military contractors, or the security services of 3rd party nations to scoop up people in foreign lands who are suspected of enmity and then not granting them rights guaranteed under international law to a PoW nor any civilian due process either, thus placing them in a Kafkaesque shadowland with few (or perhaps no) enumerated rights and specifically no protections from torture.

The whole gambit requires them to never enter the USA and it often required friendly nations to not look at what was happening in their own territory where such arrangements are probably not legal. This was a serious issue when the USA was shipping ECs via civilian airports in Scotland using the notorious and probably very illegal Guantanamo Express.

This thing will not work in the USA. It is legally doomed. You can't suspend the fifth and fourteenth amendments using a trick that only worked by keeping the "combatant" out of US court jurisdiction.