why haven't America and Australia been attacked

Sure, and that's a debate I'm always ready and willing to have. Which is why I always provide the law.

But if someone is going to make an argument like "the Patriot Act is bad because it gets people arrested for checking out library books," then it's going to be a rocky debate because it doesn't say that anywhere in the text.

But I never say such stupid things.

The Roe v. Wade analogy isn't too good because Roe v. Wade is a lot more straightforward than the Patriot Act. But otherwise, your point is well-taken.

 

Not at all. The access to briefings, information and the like would have been relevant to a follow up position but it seemed from the continuing lamentation that no "strategy paper exists on the war on terror".

Several strategy papers exist but because of their sensitive nature are highly cleared. I haven't read them myself because they're above my level, but because we have a CT focus in my section we're acutely aware of them.

Yes which leaves them, as non-jus cogens, as subject to voluntary enforcement and since they lack jus cogens authority to supercede state laws they are, in effect, guidlines.

Moreover, as an inherited principle of British constitutional law, any statute that contradicts the clear terms of a treaty or international agreement (except jus cogens) overrides that international treaty/agreement/law, regardless of when the statute was passed (ie before or after the international convention was ratified).

So, if the US did sign onto the Universal Declaration of human rights and then enacted legislation which contradicts that, as an heir of British constitutional legal norms the enacted statute overrides the international statute (see also: Common law).

HRW, like Amnesty, have taken their eyes of the goal. By ignoring the whole scale human rights abuses in developing or authoritarian states and focusing on the much smaller scale issues in the US, they've undermined their moral authority almost entirely.

These pieces here and here expand on this further.

The American Lawyer Association put me off instantly with their obvious bias and sloppy argument techniques. To state that the Justice Dept and DHS engaged in a fear campaign is an opinion, not a fact, and yet they present it as the latter.

No, they were all radicalised Muslims. So if you think there's anything illogical about scrutinising Muslim immigrants around the time of 9/11, I've little really to say.

They most certainly are not. I've just written two on some of the capacity building projects I manage and none of you will ever see them, chances are.

If you're referring to what we call "White Papers" in the West - a detailed document that outlines strategic policy objectives on a certain area - then no, there hasn't been one.

But strategy papers are developed by agenices to set a policy agenda. They are for internal eyes-only, and are shared with agencies on a relevance and need-to-know basis.

E_S

 

So i don´t want to add anything to the political discussion here. I see no point in it.

European approach on human rights and america´s oppinion are actually quite different. I can see Claire/SirakRomar smile when she read your post on human rights, again.

But on this strange discussion on strategy-papers.

You are both right. There are different systems of "classification" and "naming" of documents. SirakRomar works for the EU and there something of strategic-value is never called a strategy paper. Language issue.

"Strategy-paper" is only a word. Economy is using it every day. Thousands of "strategy-papers" fly around in firms.

But I meant the public papers the US has faxed to the Ministries of Internal Affairs all over Europe. I don´t know why, and they didn´t knew why, too. It called itself a "strategy-paper". To some extend it even was one. Until beginning of Iraq-War and the shism between Germany and the US the Ministry and even the press got them regulary. Most papers calling themselves "strategy-papers" are non-security related. So, no surprise you had different opinions about the term.

I actually said the sentence about them one time, only.

And yes, I have been part of a security-related branch for many years. I was there when 9/11 happened. I am not, anymore. Today I work for the automobile-industry.

 

Ok, I'm going back a page to something unanswered because, well, there is no way I'm qualified for this current debate, and there was something that went by unanswered that bugged me.

First of all, thats not an imaginary threat when you acknowledged it could happen. Second, that there have been terrorist attacks, and foiled plots, it clearly is NOT imaginary. Though I think the point you're attempting to make is that its significance has been exagerated, and that, I think, would be a more valid claim.

They have, however, been labeled as acts of TERRORISM. If they were against military installations or convoys, then they would, by definition, not be terrorism because the targets were chosen to do strategic damage to military capability. Terrorism IS choosing targets to instill fear and terror in a populace, rather than by focusing on targets that have a strategic benfit to being destroyed. For example, Pearl Harbor wasn't terrorism, it was striking a military base. One can argue that by choosing Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than, say, Tokyo, the atom bombs that ended hostilities with Japan chose targets that would also militarily damage Japan rather than just terrorise the populace (though that certainly was an effect of it, but I think I recall correctly that the cities targeted were tied to military as ports or factories or such. I could be wrong on that though). IEDs that are killing coalition forces in Iraq aren't terrorist attacks. The U.S.S. Cole wouldn't be a terrorist attack. In contrast, attacking civilians to create fear, as bombings in London, in India, in Iraqi markets, in Israel, in Madrid, in Bali, those are ALL attacks to create fear in the populace rather than any other goal, aside from wholesale killing. That is precisely what terrorism is, and what makes them be viewed as acts of war is specifically that they are all tied to promoting a single view, namely trying to increase the control of Islam.

What country are you in that you think no one questions Bush?

There have been several cells planning attacks in the U.S. that have been foiled. While the individual threat is minimal, the chances of another attack in the U.S. are existant. Thus far they haven't been successful, and I would say the threat is overhyped, but that doesn't mean its not foolish to claim that there is no threat.
In Iraq, many of those attacking the U.S. ARE Iraqis, and that can't be ignored. There are foreign fighters in some regions as well, but in areas such as Baghdad, I believe its nearly entirely Iraqis involved in the fighting.
The civlian bombings in Iraq are just another example of trying to create fear and, in some cases, trying to create conflict. Al-Qaeda is, for example, I believe still the primary suspect in the bombing of a mosque that started all the sectarian violence that has been continuing because they saw benefit in creating a climate of severe conflict between the Sunni and Shiites in Iraq.

 

Australia is just too far away to plan an attack. It's like a huge island down at the bottom of the world. Anyway, America is isolated by the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic. So that makes it hard to attack the US as well. Ok, I'm jumping into this debate and not digging too deep. So hope this isn't off topic, but a little history, the Japanese actually did make it to California in WWII, but only something around three small fighter planes made it to the west coast before they effectively crashed. An eyewitness, my father was just a little boy during WWII and he still remembers hearing about it on the radio, and the next day he found bullet shells on the ground from these Japanese fighter planes...so a few planes did actually make it to the west coast but didn't last very long, and it wasn't significant enough to really talk about.

 

However, I'd point out it is in relative proximity to Indonesia, which has a very large Muslim population, and not terribly far away from the Middle East, really... Indian Ocean isn't all tha big.

 

And "Al-Qai'da-affiliated" terrorists (such as JI) have attacked Australian sites in Indonesia/large tourist attractions - and there are others within SE Asia within Australia's proximity.

 

I would argue that by that standard, the 9/11 attacks were not terrorist attacks. One plane was supposed to attack the White House, one attacked the Pentagon, and two attack the WTC. These strikes, while they did inflict a great deal of terror, were strategically chosen to cause maximum disruption to the US military, political body, and economy. 9/11 attacks agains the WTC are like allied strategic bombing in WWII, attacks against civilian economic strength, but on a lower scale than in WWII due to limited resources.

I think that it's impossible at a certain level to seperate the military effects of a strike from the terror effects of a strike.

 

Okay, then how would you define the Provisional IRA's strikes against the British from the early '70s to the '90s? They considered themselves a real army: they attacked real and symbolic sites of the British Army, Royal Ulster Constabulary, MPs, and even narrowly missed assassinating Thatcher in the Brighton bombing in 1984. They even assassinated a member of the royal family: Lord Mountbatten. Nevermind that they frequently killed civilians in their bombing/assassination campaigns, the PIRA actually believed that they were striking legitimate military/political targets that they considered to be symbols of British oppression, and were willing to cause "disruption" of the UK's military, political body, and economy. A pub frequented by off-duty British soldiers would be legit target for bombing simply because soldiers or RUC constables were there. But it's safe to say that most people around the world considered these actions to be terrorist activities. Wouldn't you?



EDIT: spelling flubs...

 

Ok, you do raise a valid point, however, I would argue that first of all, the attack on the world trade center, as an economic center but not part of the government, is a civlian target, not a military/govt target. Second, they used commercial airliners, which are in no way attached to the government.
Had they, say, stolen military jets and crashed those into the Pentagon and the White House and just those two, then I'd be willing to consider those military targets. However, an attack on the 'economy' isn't an attack on the government.

 

I think that violent action by the military and by civilians is two totally different things. In World War II bombing of industrial centers was done by military forces who were fighting a war. The World Trade Center attacks however were done by civilians who have no business in carrying out such attacks. At best, a "terrorist" could be a freedom fighter should he uphold himself to certain morals, and if the circumstances truly make such action neccessary. This would most likely be true of resistance fighters against Nazi occupation during the Second World War, but less so of the Islamic militants we're facing today. Now this is probably pretty subjective, but there is a fine line where attacks against military targets are still considered terrorist acts depending on whether that violent action meant to overthow a government is truly warranted.

 

Hmmmmmmm I bet Bombing of Dresden doesn't come as close including the deaths of civillain Japaness as nuke bombs were dropped by the Boeing B-29 Enola Gay.

Nice

 

Alpha

Heard of a guy called Robert Strange McNamara?

E_S

 

As both recipients of Dresden and the A-bombs were involved in far more ghastly brutalization of civilians, they don't get a free card for losing a city or two, IMO.

 

So killing is ok as long as the recipients are the bad guys ?
Thats the Exact same tatics that Muslim extremist use to attacik the West or Israel


THere is no excuss for killing civillains is someting everyone learned after 9/11

 

I'd say anyone involved in the murder of 6 million Jews and countless Chinese lost any right to basic rights well before Dresden and the A-bombs. And don't give those bs excuses about Germans not knowing or they were simply following orders. Not knowing is clearly nonsense, and following orders isn't an excuse, either.

I'm not saying either side is more right; rather that the Axis powers brought these things on themselves, and should have considered the potential consequences more gravely before going to war.

 

So are you saying that civilians should be considered legit targets in war?

Isn't Al Qaeda's rational for attacking civilians that U.S. citizens, in a democratic nation, have allowed their government to occupy the holy land and support Israel?

 

Only one atomic bomb was dropped by the Enola Gay, the "Little Boy" bomb. The "Fat Man" bomb dropped on Nagasaki was delivered by the bomber Bockscar, three days later.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I don't get the title of the thread -- I thought America and Australia WERE attacked. America at least twice high profile: 9/11 and the DC sniper, who was inspired due to the political situation.

It was supposedly my nation and Jordan that were the only countries that had not been attacked. And then Jordan's hotel got bombed.

CRAP! That means we're due! *Jumps for cover*

 

Where're you from, Gonk?

I took it to mean "why haven't America and Australia been attacked RECENTLY"

 

Gonk's a Krazy Kanadian.

Besides, wasn't there a huge arrest made recently of some kind of Islamic terror cell plotting to do some destruction in Toronto? Or Montreal?

*waits for somebody else to do the research & post a link*

 

Given that Canada's overrun with musk ox, polar bears, and wolves, I wouldn't attack them either.

 

Well, the point was why we've not been attacked now that we've been 'wakened' so to speak. In other words, post-9/11. And I'm not sure I'd count the DC sniper only because the question seems to be posed in reference to an organised attack, not one or two gunmen working in isolation.

And Australia hasn't been attacked, to my knowledge. One could argue that Bali was an attack on Australians, but I wasn't aware of terrorism within Australia.

 

Well Bali was an attack on foreigners in general, it's just that most where Australians. The Australian Embassy in Jakarta was peppered with fragments from a bomb, however...

It boils down, though, to what I said earlier - Australia just isn't important enough to attack on a notable scale.

E_S