"D. Simmons" wrote:
> Martin Smith responded:
> >>>Yes, but, their stated objectives are much more complex than killing
> >>>Americans.  For example,  they want the Saudi dictatorship dismantled.
> >>>That facet of their objectives is legitimate.  The point is that there
> >>>are legitimate grievances among their list of grievances, and someone
> >>>should fight for those causes.  With respect to that specific grievance,
> >>>America is on the wrong side.
>
> >>   And with what do they wish to replace the Saudi dictatorship? That's
> >> right -- an Islamic theocratic dictatorship. Please explain why that is
> >> legitimate and why you apparently support it.
>
> >It isn't legitimate.  I didn't say it was legitimate.  You know I
> >didn't; you see that you have no defense, and now you are trying to
> >avoid the issue by claiming that a theocratic state would be just as
> >bad, if not worse.  So I can reject your demand, because I don't support
> >the creation of a theocratic state, and your accusation that I
> >apparently did support it is false.  What I say is "...they want the
> >Saudi dictatorship dismantled. That facet of their objectives is
> >legitimate."  There is no ambiguity there, and it does not imply what
> >you say it does.  All states must be secular.
>
>   Their objectives are "much more complex than killing Americans"?

Yes.  Note that you again refused to address the issue.  This time you
went back two messages to find something to dispute that you didn't deem
worthy of comment in your orginal response.

> In what way are their other objectives relevant to how we respond to this
> organization or its members ?

Obviously, if we really want to solve the problem of terrorism, rather
than just kill or imprison the current crop of terrorists, we have to
understand how and why terrorism arises, and where there are legitimate
grievances, we must deal with those grievances.  It is also obvious that
if we hope to prevent an organization from achieving its objectives by
use of terrorism, we need to know what those objectives are.

> Hitler's objectives were also "much more
> complex" than simply killing Jews.

Yes, they were.  And we didn't enter the war to stop him from killing
Jews.

> You would have us believe that Al Queda
> and other such organizations seek to throw off the shackles of the
> 'oppressed', when at best, they wish to exchange them for even more
> constricting ones. It is this silliness that is without a defense, Martin.

No, that is *not* what I would have you believe, and I'll bet you are
the only person here who thinks that I *would* have you believe it.  And
you certainly knew it yourself, since your next remark and my response
to it prove so, and they were sitting right in front of your eyes when
you wrote your spanking remark above.

> >> Furthermore, they have no legitimate grievances that justify the killing
> >> they are doing around the world.
>
> >That's right.  Nobody said their actions were justified.  I certainly
> >didn't.  Again you are trying to deflect legitimate criticism of your
> >position by claiming that explanation and justification are the same
> >thing.  They're not.  When I say that removal of the Saudi monarchy is
> >one of their objectives, I am explaining why they are acting, not
> >justifying their acts.  When I say that removal of the Saudi monarchy is
> >a legitimate objective, I am saying that removal of the Saudi monarchy
> >can be justified, not that the killing of civilians is justified.
>
>    They are not a national liberation movement, Martin. And my position
> remains the same -- Al Queda members are dedicated to killing Americans and
> others (including fellow Muslims who are not fundamentalist enough for them),
> and would not simply lay down their arms and go home if released.

I note that now you are not including Taliban.  Bravo.  Social
consciousness rising.  But stick to the issue.  The issue here is what
the treatment of the prisoners of war represents, what it reveals, what
it means.  These prisoners are being held under no legal system - not
the US legal system, not the Geneva Conventions, not under the auspices
of the UN, not under authority of the world court - no system of justice
at all.  They are being held at Guantanamo precisely so that no legal
system will apply to them.  What this means is that the US is
deliberately operating as a lawless state.  It is not operating as a
"nation of laws."  It is responsible to no one.

> >> Could you also be specific as to what "causes" should be fought on their
> >> behalf, and by whom?
>
> >On their behalf?  No.  On everyone's behalf?  Yes.  I've already stated
> >one.  All states should be secular.  It should be a crime against
> >humanity to establish a non-secular state.  All killing of civilians
> >should be classified as terrorism, including the US's killing of
> >civilians, including the death penalty, including collateral damage.
> >The term "freedom fighter" should be defined in light of the definition
> >of terrorism, so that it remains possible to fight for freedom.  Thus,
> >killing the soldiers of an occupying force should not be classified as
> >terrorism.
>
>   You dropped the final part of your comment, Martin, which was:
> "The point is that there are legitimate grievances among their list of
> grievances, and someone
> should fight for those causes.  With respect to that specific grievance,
> America is on the wrong side.""
>
>   What you chose to repeat, as well as what you conviniently left out, simply
> makes no sense -- other than your desperate desire to find even the silliest
> thread that would make it possible for you to say "America is on the wrong
> side". If it is an Al Queda desire to establish Islam as the governing
> structure where  ever it can, then they are committing what you have labeled
> "a crime against humanity".

That's right, and it does make sense.  In fact, it is the only context
in which GW's "axis of evil" remark applies to the government of Iran.
I'm saying that theocratic states should be seen as crimes against
humanity.  To return to my remark, which you quoted, I didn't leave it
out.  I wrote it.  I meant it.  The Saudi monarchy is a crime against
humanity.  It should be dismantled.  In saying it should be removed, I
am not advocating that we should invade Saudi Arabia, although by now I
understand that is how you see these problems should be solved.  We, the
US, are supporting the Saudi monarchy in multiple ways, including with
technology, weaponry, and our military.  We should not be supporting the
continued existence of that government.  We should be working toward its
eventual replacement with a secular, democratic state of some kind.  I
don't imagine that this will happen overnight, but we are clearly on the
wrong side at the moment.  Al Qaeda shouldn't be allowed to establish
any Islamic states.  No one should.  There shouldn't be any Christian
states either, nor Jewish ones.  A secular state is one that does not
depend on any religion, ie its laws do not depend on any particular
religion.

> I am also confused as to how you are arriving at
> the conclusion that the office workers in the WTC are somehow an occupying
> force, and how killing them will overthrow the Saudi regime -- unless you
> have simply gone off on a tangent.

I'm not arriving at that conclusion, so wherever your confusion
originates, it is not with my position.

> So, I ask again, what legitimate causes in
> the Al Queda "list of grievances" are you referring to -- other than
> overthrowing the Saudi  government (is that supported by the majority of
> Saudi's, by the way)?

Well, I referred to one legitimate cause, and now you demand another one
as if you think you have dismissed the first one as not actually
legitimate.  Then you must mean that the Saudi government, being a
brutal monarchy, is legitimate, and that we ought to continue supporting
it.  I'm sure that very few of the Saudis support my argument, since a
"Saudi" is a member of the extended royal family and not likely to
advocate his or her own removal from power.  But I must admit I don't
know for sure whether the majority of Saudi Arabia's citizens
support my position, and since the Saudi family is not likely to allow a
referendum on the issue, we are not likely to get a complete and
accurate poll.  What should we assume then?  Or what data should we
believe?

> >> I'm primarily addressing the nonsense that they are being
> >> inhumanely treated.'
>
> >I agree about that nonsense.  But what is not nonsense is that the US is
> >acting outside any body of law.  It doesn't matter whether the US is
> >acting according to its own laws, even if it can be eventually agreed
> >that US law is a good basis for world law.  What is important is that
> >the US is not currently answerable to anyone, because it has effectively
> >dismantled all world institutions.  That makes the current world
> >situation one of lawlessness, and the US is now acting outside the law,
> >ie it is lawless.  That's the real problem that the prisoners in Cuba
> >represent.
>
>     A nation state has the right to self defense. Engaging in self defense is
> not an act of lawlessness. It is answerable only for how it conducts that
> self defense.  How do you think the United States has exceeded its right to
> defense?

The right to self defense is a separate subject.  The right to
self-defense must be encoded in a law that the US is following.  That
law must be part of a body of law, and that body of law must be
adjudicated by a judicial system.  In this case, the right to
self-defense is encoded in UN resolutions, but the US does not recognize
the authority of the UN, except, of course, when it serves US
interests.  Holding prisoners of war under no legal system is an act of
lawlessness.  There has been no evidence put forward that any of the
prisoners has committed a crime against Americans, so you can't even
call this an act of self-defense, unless you call detainment of anyone
who dislikes the US an act of self-defense.

> >>>The point is that, from now on, Americans taken prisoner can expect to
> >>>be killed.  There are no rules anymore.  The US does not recognize any
> >>>international laws with respect to prisoners, so the US no longer holds
> >>>any ethical high ground.  You can argue that the prisoners in Cuba are
> >>>being treated ok, and I won't disagree, but regardless of the state of
> >>>the prisoners in Cuba, the US is clearly and deliberately refusing to
> >>>follow any international law with regard to these prisoners.  So why
> >>>should anyone else?  You either work to establish world standards of
> >>>criminal law, or you work to undermine them.  The US has worked
> >>>tirelessly to undermine them, and now there aren't any.
>
> >>   How long do you think international law would keep an American soldier
> >> alive who has been captured by Al Qaeda?
>
> >What is the point of the question?  It sounds like you are saying we can
> >be brutal because Al Qaeda is brutal.  That path leads exactly to where
> >we are, always fighting the same fights based on our righteous beliefs,
> >exactly what Al Qaeda is doing.  There shouldn't be an Al Qaeda.  Al
> >Qaedas arise because of situations, not because of the devil.
>
>   Again, to replace the portion of my post that you left out, "And with the
> leadership of nation-states it is fear of US wrath, not international law,
> that keeps American POWs alive". The point should be obvious. It is silly to
> claim that international law somehow protects American POWs. And, since we
> are not treating the prisoners in Cuba in a brutal manner (as you have
> already agreed), the rest of your argument is academic.

I think I have already addressed that point.  You are referring to
gangsta' "law" as if it is legitimate.  It is as if you are saying that
it is legitimate to carry a gun around the streets of New York and point
it at anybody you want to "respect" your gang members.  And, of course,
you have to shoot a few people once in awhile, to establish
credibility.

> >>>Your attitude exactly conveys my point.  You don't care about the rest
> >>>of the world.
>
> >>   You are in no position to know what I do or do not care about.
>
> >Yes, I am.  You have been quite clear, especially with your last point.
> >You define peace to be a state of terror in which you have the superior
> >weapons and power.  The rest of the world is always afraid of you, and
> >you are always suspicious of the rest of the world.  It's not a
> >definition of peace I can agree with.
>
>   Nor is it a definition I made -- as you well know. Indeed, it required that
> you attribute to me a point of your own making.

Yes, I made my point.

martin

--
Martin Smith               email: [log in to unmask]
Vollsveien 9               tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482               mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway