Legalities and Life
The wording is so important;
Will the AUMF apply in 2021 in Somalia, as it does in 2001, in Afghanistan? Now, I want to clarify something, although I’m not familiar with law. If something is right in 2011, isn’t it right in 2001, or 2021? And if it’s wrong in 2021, isn’t it wrong in 2011 or 2001?
You see, the Islamic law, called Shari’a, as most people who read about Islam at all will know, hasn’t changed in over 1,440 years! The Shari’a hasn’t changed, but applications can change, depending on different variables, and so on.
Slavery wasn’t completely abolished in Islamic Shari’a, because, as some people surmise, if slavery were abolished to the Muslims (no longer would they be allowed to have slaves), but somewhere in the future the non-Muslims align against the future Muslim state (under a Khalifah) for argument’s sake, and they decide it is in their best interests to have Muslim captives become their slaves, you can see how it would be really difficult for Muslims to retaliate in wise.
Whereas alcohol and pork are forever and always will be considered “haram”, slavery isn’t. “Slaves” doesn’t mean “blacks”, but anyone who is made a slave. In Islam, racism is totally, forever and always will be “forbidden”. During the early period of Islam, there were slaves among Muslims and non-Muslims. The Islamic state, under the Prophet Muhammad’s guidance, taught the people that one of the best forms of repentance was to “free a slave”. That’s why it was done so extensively. Since that time Muslims freed their slaves liberally and the number of slaves dwindled in the first few centuries of Islamic rule. Just one point, they are not permitted to free another’s slave, only a slave in their possession.
Did you ever think about Saddam Hussein’s trial; why was it done so quickly? Saddam was probably one of the few Iraqis, or Muslims in the ‘war on terror’ privileged enough to (avoid a long and dragged out) “due process”. However, the medical examinations he had to endure could be seen as “unusual punishment” (because he was a prominent figure).
There are lots of detainees still in Guantanamo or in black sites (as “disappeared” persons), who are in effect being held illegally, without trial, without charge, without legal representation, is this not the case? Isn’t this scenario against International law? What is being done about these men, (or if there are any women, about them)?
Can a Muslim government also use AUMF in/for their own country? Or is AUMF only okay for America, or American forces, but not Muslim governments or their forces? Also, is brutal use of force by law enforcement, or military - even “torture” justified in some instances? We are led to believe that “torture” is not justified, yet isn’t “torture” used even by America; as such America’s black sites are there for this specific purpose, to extract confessions out of people? Although he was innocent, Khaled El – Massri is a case in point - he was kidnapped and tortured in Afghanistan for five months, then dumped in Albania, left to find his way home. You can find out more about the ongoing case he’s fighting against the American government at WikiLeaks.
Faced by “terrorism”, and “extremists” torture or “enhanced interrogation” techniques is still an option most governments (will) use as a final option, whether it gets the desired results or not.
(The Authorized Use of Military Force)
For America as it stands now, the congress needed some powers to get Al-Qaeda, and Bin Laden or their operatives inside and outside America, so AUMF was used. Bush said, “We’ll smoke ‘em out”, or was it “him (Bin Laden) out”? At any rate, AUMF allows for long detentions, detention without trial and interrogation tactics, which may or may not look like torture to some of us, to name a few. The AUMF must be extended to 2011, now, or the date of the explanation by Ho, I read at opinionjuris.org.
Some problems:
A new bill – what’s wrong with the old one? Apparently these things run out, and have to be renewed.
The new language – the Obama administration (maybe) wants to Veto (the) (some) new language because (it) “if the set of detainee related provisions are included” (must be bad for the detainees). Mainly as explained by Deborah Pearlstein, the language being objected, more vigorously this time, has to do with “Gitmo (detainees) prosecution -and-transfer restrictions.”(opinionjuris.org)
Spaulding says, “[OBL] sparked the Global war”.
The reason that conspiracy theories exist, and by the theory of relativity, the opposite of them exist; I mean arguments (equally as unbelievable as the conspiracy theories and just as improbable) against the conspiracy theories (i.e. the 9-11 truthers theories, are the most recent and maligned of these), obviously can’t and shouldn’t be ignored, whichever side of the argument you fall on. The fact is, nothing has yet been proven or disproven to the whole population. Actually, the 9-11 camp has a lot of supportive evidence, which if someone is honest with himself, would realize is not all “crazy”. We should be as honest and straightforward as the truthers are being, should we not? (I’m speaking here as an omniscient outside voice, not taking sides, apparently). To tell the truth, I know what side I’m on, have no ambivalence about it whatsoever, but I’m trying to add my bit to keep the debate alive, otherwise it might die, and become another historically forgotten matter. But what about the next event, national disaster in America, or global jihadist group that comes along; it will...Is there a lesson, to be learned here, in the here and now?
It’s not true, what Spaulding says in her report; that America was pulled into the war with OBL and Al-Qaeda, at least, not completely true. There are ‘forces’ at work, or clandestine” men in black”, in the shadows who make conflicts happen.
Suzanne Spaulding, who wrote her report for the Senate Select Committee, “[The]events of 9-11 provoked the United States into declaring its own Global War, which Bin Laden used to support his own claim that Muslims were called to join in the Global Jihad”
I can’t believe, even in light of the fact that some 3,000 innocent people (innocent of attacking Bin Laden)were killed in New York in 2001, that America decides to start a Global War in ‘retaliation’. Was it not only to play the blame game, name OBL the mastermind, throw in a global Jihad, the Taliban, Mullah Omar, some Arabs the Pakistanis decide to turn in for the cash reward, who turn out to be largely innocent of a connection to 9-11, Khaled El Massri who is trying to get justice, or a highly paranoid KSM, who ranted in his diaries about all kinds of stuff, obviously mentally disturbed and possibly mentally handicapped, too, to plaster his photo, unkempt hair, chest hair and in undershirt to make one of the supposed “brains” of the operations; should we believe he is brilliant, yet deranged, taking a cheap shot at Muslims and their supposed “cream of the crop”, the leader who goes into hiding, in caves, and a one-eyed religious icon, Prophet, according to media hype, it all played out so well, in the hysterical aftermath of the crash of the stock markets, in the hysterical aftermath of the crashing of the ‘twin towers’ (in the financial center), never mind that at least one man, Silverstein made a lot of money when he agreed to sign, as he clearly says, in video footage (Loosechange, or other 9-11 theory information gatherers didn’t plan this, it just happened) to have his building (one of the no 5, or no 7, I’ll have to watch the video again to be sure) demolished, “brought down” with “controlled explosions” because as he casually, under no duress explains, his decrepit building is worth a lot torn down, and he wouldn’t have paid for the cost of refurbishing it, because his building had asbestos, an expensive do-it-yourself project on its own, he decides just before the “terrorist attacks” that anytime will be good to “bring (it) down”. The environmental impact of the attacks, and the destruction of the buildings which contained asbestos, clearly was terrible, and the impact on people’s lives continues, to this day. The insurance he got after the attacks (for that building alone) was 3 billion! I think.
The government claimed (i.e. Condoleezza Rice made statements which contradict her earlier actions, or statements) or members of the administration did, that they had no advanced knowledge of “the attacks”. < a href = http://www.opinionjuris.org > Condoleezza </a> received advanced notice, via information she received in a folder from then President Bill Clinton.
About the AUMF, if America could do so, please try using it to “target” those “belligerent individuals” in Libya ( who must surely exist) if America is involved in a campaign there (revised June 29), as opposed to an entire population in the urban centers which Nato is bombing daily; that might help cut down on the “collateral damage”, as some like to call non-military people in the crossfire or “run” of apache helicopters and “bombing raids” in a ‘war zone’, the civilian casualties. I happened to hear from a close family member that his sister saw a lone school girl outside of the school she attends get hit with fire from an apache helicopter, as it flew overtop the area. One of many “bringing freedom and democracy” to Libya - or is it too soon to hope? I see that beleaguered country and its people, most of all, facing a future, I’m afraid will be as much as Iraq, one of destruction and mayhem, and above all, occupation.
No comments:
Post a Comment