While the Obama administration insists on treating terror suspects we hold like normal criminals and giving them due process in our civil courts, at the same time he is also having them killed outright with missiles shot from drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen without any visible evidence. You could argue Afghanistan is a war zone but what about P & Y? I guess they only have rights is we capture them? Doesn't make sense.

On the surface, your question on Pakistan and Yemen is a valid one. However, this conflict is not like traditional conflicts with clearly defined borders and fronts. Combatants fight from up to thousands of miles away (Predator pilots flying their drones from Missouri) and people planning missions from Yemen and other states. Combatants in Afghanistan move over the border into Pakistan to rest, recuperate, re-supply, and plan new missions. Some of the leaders of the forces fighting the Afghan and coalition forces never actually set foot in the country. So if they are going to wage war in Afghanistan from Pakistan, then the fight will come to them there. And if people in Yemen are going to wage a terrorist war from there, then the fight will be brought to them there.

It would be nice if we could capture some of these people instead of hitting them with missiles. But given the situation on the ground, that is often impossible. So a surgical missile strike in the only option available.

So P & Y can be considered part of the war zone and in a war zone the soldiers/enemy combatants are fair game, no concrete evidence needed. But if the other side sends their "soldiers" to our country to wage war (blow up airplanes, etc) why do they all of a sudden get treated as common criminals instead of soldiers/enemy combatants?

How is blowing up an airplane waging war against combatants? Sorry, but that is simple terrorism.

Now, if they got into the US and took out the command center for the Predators, yes, that would be pretty much the same, in my opinion. And, if captured and in uniform, they would have to be treated as POW's with the full protection of the Geneva Convention.

In war, no "concrete evidence" is needed. This is war. A soldier shoots at an enemy without an investigation if that enemy really intended to harm him.

War is bad, I agree. Bad things happen in war, I agree. Let's all live in peace, I agree. But that is for the people and the politicians to achieve. For the soldier, he or she just pursues the fight within their established parameters, and if that is taking out a Taliban commander in Pakistan who is directing the fight in Afghanistan, so be it.

(Or do you think that only the foot soldiers who are sent by these commanders to directly face coalition forces should be the ones to face personal risk?)

Please don't confuse me with our friend, PB. I want every last one of those terrorist bastards dead. Insurgents too. Taliban - dead. I want our fighting men & women to have every advantage over them so that they can kill more of them and faster. You mention the Geneva Conventions and being captured in uniform. I'm fine with that. Being caught out of uniform means you can be shot on the spot and we know they don't wear uniforms. The sooner they are all dead, the sooner we can move down the path of peace. Kumbaya!

I didn't mean to imply that blowing up a plane is "waging war against combatants". But it is the way al Qaeda wages war. They want to kill as many Americans as they can. Doesn't matter if they are in a military uniform or not. I think bin Laden even said we were all fair game because we pay taxes and elect the leaders. Anyway, since from al Qaeda's point of view they are waging war and their jihadists are "holy warriors" then we should treat the underwear bomber like any of his rat bastard terrorist buddies we catch in the war zone. Giving him the "right to remain" silent when we should be interrogating him is insane. If he were in uniform he could just give his name, rank & serial number. But he wasn't and should be interrogated. If that means doing unspeakable things to him, well, he didn't seem to concerned with the ~300 men, women, children; Christians, Muslims, etc aboard that plane on Christmas day so I certainly won't worry about anything unpleasant that happens to him. He could have stayed home and lived his privileged life. Instead, he made a bad choice and the last thing we need to do is coddle the piece of shit. This is war.

Any combatant not wearing a uniform should be treated as a spy. Hanging is too good for terrorists!

While the Obama administration insists on treating terror suspects we hold like normal criminals and giving them due process in our civil courts, at the same time he is also having them killed outright with missiles shot from drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen without any visible evidence. You could argue Afghanistan is a war zone but what about P & Y? I guess they only have rights is we capture them? Doesn't make sense.

On the surface, your question on Pakistan and Yemen is a valid one. However, this conflict is not like traditional conflicts with clearly defined borders and fronts. Combatants fight from up to thousands of miles away (Predator pilots flying their drones from Missouri) and people planning missions from Yemen and other states. Combatants in Afghanistan move over the border into Pakistan to rest, recuperate, re-supply, and plan new missions. Some of the leaders of the forces fighting the Afghan and coalition forces never actually set foot in the country. So if they are going to wage war in Afghanistan from Pakistan, then the fight will come to them there. And if people in Yemen are going to wage a terrorist war from there, then the fight will be brought to them there.

It would be nice if we could capture some of these people instead of hitting them with missiles. But given the situation on the ground, that is often impossible. So a surgical missile strike in the only option available.

It's just a pity that so many "surgical" strikes are imprecise or conducted on faulty intelligence. Would it be fair to say that in Afghanistan, more civilians have been killed than enemy combatants?

I didn't mean to imply that blowing up a plane is "waging war against combatants". But it is the way al Qaeda wages war. They want to kill as many Americans as they can. Doesn't matter if they are in a military uniform or not. I think bin Laden even said we were all fair game because we pay taxes and elect the leaders. Anyway, since from al Qaeda's point of view they are waging war and their jihadists are "holy warriors" then we should treat the underwear bomber like any of his rat bastard terrorist buddies we catch in the war zone. Giving him the "right to remain" silent when we should be interrogating him is insane. 

Yes, Al Qaeda does say this is waging war. On the other hand, who cares what they think?  If we catch the guy, then we have the power, so it is our opinion which matters.

When Al Qaeda captures a soldier or a journalist or a Korean aid worker, they feel it is a justifiable act of war to slowly behead him on video.  And in that particular moment in time, it is only Al Qaeda's opinion on that which matters.  All we can do is hope we have the opportunity to take action against those murders, to extract our own punishment for what we consider an illegal act. (And we have used guided munitions to do just that, take out men who have beheaded prisoners and then distributed videos of them doing it.)

Any combatant not wearing a uniform should be treated as a spy. Hanging is too good for terrorists!

Do you mean a tribesman in his own village defending it against invaders?

This is a problem when combatants refuce to wear uniforms and mix with civilians constantly.

This is a problem when combatants refuce to wear uniforms and mix with civilians constantly.

Do you honestly think they "refuse" to wear uniforms, or are they just too poor and disorganised? Or perhaps it is just not the way they fight, even when they fight amongst themselves.

Were there any combatants that fought for the Confederate Army that did not have uniforms?

I think it is unrealistic to invade a country and then say, "Ok Enemy, we're here to fight you. You'd better go off first and organise yourselves so that you have uniforms. We'll give you 3 weeks, then we start shooting."

Besides, many of these combatants are uneducated tribesmen.... how can you expect them to know and follow your set of rules?

Any combatant not wearing a uniform should be treated as a spy. Hanging is too good for terrorists!

Do you mean a tribesman in his own village defending it against invaders?

Actually, the comment about a uniform is really somewhat of a misunderstanding.  You don't really need a uniform, although that certainly leaves no room for misinterpretation.

If your home is being attacked, and you are openly defending it, there is no intention of hiding your allegiances.  If you are part of a town and you are manning the defenses, there is no mistaking your allegiances.  You can and usually are treated as a combatant.

However, if you use the lack of any identifying features on your clothing, then use that to mix with non-combatants in order to get close to a target for your attacks, then you have thrown away the protection given to combatants. 

On uniforms, I have always liked the tale of Erik Hazelhoff Roelfzema of the Dutch resistance making it past German guards by donning a British formal Navy uniform and basically bulling his way past the guards, berating them for their own appearance while on duty.

This is a problem when combatants refuce to wear uniforms and mix with civilians constantly.

Do you honestly think they "refuse" to wear uniforms, or are they just too poor and disorganised? Or perhaps it is just not the way they fight, even when they fight amongst themselves.

Were there any combatants that fought for the Confederate Army that did not have uniforms?

I think it is unrealistic to invade a country and then say, "Ok Enemy, we're here to fight you. You'd better go off first and organise yourselves so that you have uniforms. We'll give you 3 weeks, then we start shooting."

Besides, many of these combatants are uneducated tribesmen.... how can you expect them to know and follow your set of rules?

This is going to sound really crass but, that's their problem. Wrong place, wrong time. When the odds are that much stacked against you, you have two choices - lay down your arms or martyrdom. Reality can really suck sometimes.

Besides, many of these combatants are uneducated tribesmen.... how can you expect them to know and follow your set of rules?

This isn't a game.  This is war.  You don't have to "expect" anyone to know your "rules."  All you need to do is follow them yourself.  

A soldier fights those fighting him or her, and he or she treats those captured as per the "rules" to which his or her country has agreed.

It would be nice if we could capture some of these people instead of hitting them with missiles. But given the situation on the ground, that is often impossible. So a surgical missile strike in the only option available.

It's just a pity that so many "surgical" strikes are imprecise or conducted on faulty intelligence. Would it be fair to say that in Afghanistan, more civilians have been killed than enemy combatants?

And what is the alternative?  Sending V2's into London?  Firebombing Dresden or Tokyo?  Artillery barrages into Bastogne or Seoul?

Yes, war is bad.  I understand that. No argument here.  And civilians have pretty much always suffered more than combatants in almost every conflict.  So despite an errant missile or bomb, and despite a direct hit which takes out the Al Qaeda commander in Iraq along with three of his staff and unfortunately his wife and another half-dozen non-combants, a surgical strike capability is a far better option than what we (all of us) used to do in the past.

Oiiiiii my head hurts reading all these replies

That aside it is what it is & I see two sides here clearly stated.

To each their own.

As for uniforms proper this & that...They dont even have a real central government for goodness sakes.

Which is why none has gone to Afghanistan with any success even since Alexander the Greats time.

This will be the same. Because as the student marching in the streets there have shown they too want the US to leave.

So I do not expect the action to be a matter of chasing *terrorist*

As for the WMDs stories I guess some of us have different perspectives as to what WMD's are.

Personally I never thought of scuds & lobbed gas as WMD's now if they used White phosphorus

or Napalm that would be closer to the likes the US & Israel use but ............. Still I am talking about Nukes like the ones they now claim Iran is developing....A big story in itself.

As we saw yesterday Obama has requested yet another 33 Billion for their skirmish there & to aide the 30,000 more of our sons & daughter they are sending there. I hope everyone gets what it is they are hoping for out of this policing action.

All I see is home base burning & have a pretty good feeling we will hear the word depression more this year & recession less.

I also see this action escalating into Pakistahn which in itself will cause much grief. Yemen is a given as it has already been shown. Iran is at a tipping point.... We will see what this foreign policy brings this year & like I said I just hope all the cheer leaders get what they are hoping for out of it because it aint going to be pretty nor cheap at a time when the US teeters...Even if many are blind to it....Then again Obama did promise jobs

Besides, many of these combatants are uneducated tribesmen.... how can you expect them to know and follow your set of rules?

This isn't a game. This is war. You don't have to "expect" anyone to know your "rules." All you need to do is follow them yourself.

A soldier fights those fighting him or her, and he or she treats those captured as per the "rules" to which his or her country has agreed.

Agreed. But for some reason, this particular enemy is held in lower esteem because he does not fight to your rules. This implies an expectation that is unfullfilled.

He doesn't know your rules, so don't expect him to follow them.

In a war between Geneva Convention countries, contempt is warranted for a fighter that flauts the rules. This contempt is not warranted for Afghani combatants.

My angle is in response to UG's opinion of non-uniform wearers.

But this angle could be valid too for the way they conduct their combat. If they behead captured enemies, then they behead enemies. If you want to go up against them, expect that they will behead one of your own if captured. This doesn't mean they are a contemptible enemy....they just fight to their rules while you fight to yours.

But this angle could be valid too for the way they conduct their combat. If they behead captured enemies, then they behead enemies. If you want to go up against them, expect that they will behead one of your own if captured. This doesn't mean they are a contemptible enemy....they just fight to their rules while you fight to yours.

So, if their way to wage war is to behead people (journalists, contractors, other non-soldiers), we should understand that they are just following a different set of rules and accept it. Sure, OK. But, our way is to use higher-tech weapons including missiles shot from drones that will take out suspected terrorists and any non-combatants that may be too close. THAT'S how our side does it and I hope they understand and accept it.

Someone should also tell those "students" in Jalalabad with the professionally produced signs that and tell them to accept it an move on. They're students, that's what they are supposed to do - learn.

Agreed. But for some reason, this particular enemy is held in lower esteem because he does not fight to your rules. This implies an expectation that is unfullfilled.

He doesn't know your rules, so don't expect him to follow them.

In a war between Geneva Convention countries, contempt is warranted for a fighter that flauts the rules. This contempt is not warranted for Afghani combatants.

But this angle could be valid too for the way they conduct their combat. If they behead captured enemies, then they behead enemies. If you want to go up against them, expect that they will behead one of your own if captured. This doesn't mean they are a contemptible enemy....they just fight to their rules while you fight to yours.

Actually, both Iraq and Afghanistan are signatories to the Geneva Convention. And if some villager, as you selected as an example earlier, does not know that, well, that is hardly the problem of the other forces.  That is an issue of that villagers home government to address.

Yes, pretty much all coalition combatants in both Iraq and Afghanistan expect to be beheaded if they are captured. And yes, these kinds of enemies are held in contempt, and I am not sure how that is surprising or unwarranted.  Not to pick on Islam here, (contemptible actions have been committed by people of all religions,), but beheading prisoners is against these people's religion according to their holy book, so Geneva Convention aside, they are even acting against their own professed morality.  

The fact of the matter is that people are trying to kill each other.  Does it really matter who is held in higher esteem?

But this angle could be valid too for the way they conduct their combat. If they behead captured enemies, then they behead enemies. If you want to go up against them, expect that they will behead one of your own if captured. This doesn't mean they are a contemptible enemy....they just fight to their rules while you fight to yours.

So, if their way to wage war is to behead people (journalists, contractors, other non-soldiers), we should understand that they are just following a different set of rules and accept it. Sure, OK. But, our way is to use higher-tech weapons including missiles shot from drones that will take out suspected terrorists and any non-combatants that may be too close. THAT'S how our side does it and I hope they understand and accept it.

Someone should also tell those "students" in Jalalabad with the professionally produced signs that and tell them to accept it an move on. They're students, that's what they are supposed to do - learn.

All well and good....while you follow your own rules. Does America follow Geneva conventions all the time? Does America follow her own judicial process all the time?

No on both counts.

but beheading prisoners is against these people's religion according to their holy book, so Geneva Convention aside, they are even acting against their own professed morality.  

That is odd considering.....The occupiers....what holy book do they go by that condones their actions?

If it is that popular one they profess...does it not say something about not killing in general? I have not looked into it since I was a kid but I think it did eh?

Agreed. But for some reason, this particular enemy is held in lower esteem because he does not fight to your rules. This implies an expectation that is unfullfilled.

He doesn't know your rules, so don't expect him to follow them.

In a war between Geneva Convention countries, contempt is warranted for a fighter that flauts the rules. This contempt is not warranted for Afghani combatants.

But this angle could be valid too for the way they conduct their combat. If they behead captured enemies, then they behead enemies. If you want to go up against them, expect that they will behead one of your own if captured. This doesn't mean they are a contemptible enemy....they just fight to their rules while you fight to yours.

Actually, both Iraq and Afghanistan are signatories to the Geneva Convention. And if some villager, as you selected as an example earlier, does not know that, well, that is hardly the problem of the other forces. That is an issue of that villagers home government to address.

Yes, pretty much all coalition combatants in both Iraq and Afghanistan expect to be beheaded if they are captured. And yes, these kinds of enemies are held in contempt, and I am not sure how that is surprising or unwarranted. Not to pick on Islam here, (contemptible actions have been committed by people of all religions,), but beheading prisoners is against these people's religion according to their holy book, so Geneva Convention aside, they are even acting against their own professed morality.

The fact of the matter is that people are trying to kill each other. Does it really matter who is held in higher esteem?

It matters because the contempt that some Americans try to engender amongst us is, in part, part of trying to justify the invasion.

All I'm saying is that the contempt is not warranted, therefore that part of the justification is invalid.

It doesn't matter if Afghanistan is a signatory....the fighters are not representative of whoever signed it, and are illiterate anyway.

So, if their way to wage war is to behead people (journalists, contractors, other non-soldiers), we should understand that they are just following a different set of rules and accept it. Sure, OK. But, our way is to use higher-tech weapons including missiles shot from drones that will take out suspected terrorists and any non-combatants that may be too close. THAT'S how our side does it and I hope they understand and accept it.

Someone should also tell those "students" in Jalalabad with the professionally produced signs that and tell them to accept it an move on. They're students, that's what they are supposed to do - learn.

Not addressing the bombing of markets and schools, which is clearly aimed at non-combatants here, people fighting the Afghan and coalition forces often target combatant vehicles and such, killing bystanders.  Their stated reaction online to this is that the bystander casualties are a sacrifice to the greater good, and these "martyrs" will find their reward in heaven.  This, not the action to behead prisoners, is a direct comparison to how the coalition forces target and take out specific enemies.  And while it makes no difference to the bystander who gets killed or maimed, within the context of their press releases, yes, that is a cost of conducting war.

I have been the target of more than one IED.  And I can tell you that while we (military personnel) detest the bombers of the schools, markets, and places like the Golden Mosque, we don't hold the same feelings to snipers or IED bombers.  Sure, we would rather have them face us openly, especially given our superiority in conventional fighting, and we don't like IEDs, but still, we understand the concept and tactical advantage of using them.  We will kill the if we can, but we don't hold them in the same utter contempt as we hold those who send suicide bombers out to kill the innocent.  

It doesn't matter if Afghanistan is a signatory....the fighters are not representative of whoever signed it, and are illiterate anyway.

 OK, I've got it.  These people don't have the ability to act as part of a nation, responsible for their actions.  They are too ignorant to have a moral compass which has been accepted by pretty much the entire world.  "Right" or "wrong" should never be applied to them because they are illiterate. 

So, if their way to wage war is to behead people (journalists, contractors, other non-soldiers), we should understand that they are just following a different set of rules and accept it. Sure, OK. But, our way is to use higher-tech weapons including missiles shot from drones that will take out suspected terrorists and any non-combatants that may be too close. THAT'S how our side does it and I hope they understand and accept it.

Someone should also tell those "students" in Jalalabad with the professionally produced signs that and tell them to accept it an move on. They're students, that's what they are supposed to do - learn.

Not addressing the bombing of markets and schools, which is clearly aimed at non-combatants here, people fighting the Afghan and coalition forces often target combatant vehicles and such, killing bystanders. Their stated reaction online to this is that the bystander casualties are a sacrifice to the greater good, and these "martyrs" will find their reward in heaven. This, not the action to behead prisoners, is a direct comparison to how the coalition forces target and take out specific enemies. And while it makes no difference to the bystander who gets killed or maimed, within the context of their press releases, yes, that is a cost of conducting war.

I have been the target of more than one IED. And I can tell you that while we (military personnel) detest the bombers of the schools, markets, and places like the Golden Mosque, we don't hold the same feelings to snipers or IED bombers. Sure, we would rather have them face us openly, especially given our superiority in conventional fighting, and we don't like IEDs, but still, we understand the concept and tactical advantage of using them. We will kill the if we can, but we don't hold them in the same utter contempt as we hold those who send suicide bombers out to kill the innocent.

I can understand that and I hold you in respect for that.

It is the "propagandising" that seeks to get everyone on side using false or fallacious information that I detest.

 

OK, I've got it. These people don't have the ability to act as part of a nation, responsible for their actions. They are too ignorant to have a moral compass which has been accepted by pretty much the entire world. "Right" or "wrong" should never be applied to them because they are illiterate.  

No, you haven't got it. They are illiterate therefore they can not be condemned for not following a set of written rules.

On top of that, morals are ONLY a matter of opinion. Your moral compass is sure to vary from mine. I can not condem you as immoral just because you do not agree to MY set of morals.....you should not condem me as immoral

 

So, if their way to wage war is to behead people (journalists, contractors, other non-soldiers), we should understand that they are just following a different set of rules and accept it. Sure, OK. But, our way is to use higher-tech weapons including missiles shot from drones that will take out suspected terrorists and any non-combatants that may be too close. THAT'S how our side does it and I hope they understand and accept it.

Someone should also tell those "students" in Jalalabad with the professionally produced signs that and tell them to accept it an move on. They're students, that's what they are supposed to do - learn.

Not addressing the bombing of markets and schools, which is clearly aimed at non-combatants here, people fighting the Afghan and coalition forces often target combatant vehicles and such, killing bystanders. Their stated reaction online to this is that the bystander casualties are a sacrifice to the greater good, and these "martyrs" will find their reward in heaven. This, not the action to behead prisoners, is a direct comparison to how the coalition forces target and take out specific enemies. And while it makes no difference to the bystander who gets killed or maimed, within the context of their press releases, yes, that is a cost of conducting war.

I have been the target of more than one IED. And I can tell you that while we (military personnel) detest the bombers of the schools, markets, and places like the Golden Mosque, we don't hold the same feelings to snipers or IED bombers. Sure, we would rather have them face us openly, especially given our superiority in conventional fighting, and we don't like IEDs, but still, we understand the concept and tactical advantage of using them. We will kill the if we can, but we don't hold them in the same utter contempt as we hold those who send suicide bombers out to kill the innocent.

I can understand that and I hold you in respect for that.

It is the "propagandising" that seeks to get everyone on side using false or fallacious information that I detest.

Sometimes even using hyperboles.

It is the "propagandising" that seeks to get everyone on side using false or fallacious information that I detest.

And I can certainly respect that feeling.

 

OK, I've got it. These people don't have the ability to act as part of a nation, responsible for their actions. They are too ignorant to have a moral compass which has been accepted by pretty much the entire world. "Right" or "wrong" should never be applied to them because they are illiterate.  

No, you haven't got it. They are illiterate therefore they can not be condemned for not following a set of written rules.

On top of that, morals are ONLY a matter of opinion. Your moral compass is sure to vary from mine. I can not condem you as immoral just because you do not agree to MY set of morals.....you should not condem me as immoral

 

I was being sarcastic, which I thought was evident.  And sorry, I don't believe that being illiterate gives  someone a free pass to something which pretty much most cultures in the world would believe is wrong.

So it is OK to stone a woman to death in the Sudan because she was raped because in that culture, it is accepted?  So it is OK to execute a man in the US who committed a murder when we was a minor because that state allows it?  So it is OK in India to burn to death a Christian missionary and his son in their car because that is allowable under their culture?  So it is OK in Singapore to kill a seven-year-old girl because your culture says you can kill a virgin in order to have a good business?  So it is OK in the RSA to have a multitude of men rape a 2-year-old to death as they believe that only by having sex with a virgin will cure their HIV?

Sorry, I don't buy that. As a member of the human race, I have to think that there are some universal rights and wrongs. And nobody gets a free pass on that based on illiteracy or cultural imperatives.

It is the "propagandising" that seeks to get everyone on side using false or fallacious information that I detest.

And I can certainly respect that feeling.

And double standards. I detest double standards.

OK, I've got it. These people don't have the ability to act as part of a nation, responsible for their actions. They are too ignorant to have a moral compass which has been accepted by pretty much the entire world. "Right" or "wrong" should never be applied to them because they are illiterate.

No, you haven't got it. They are illiterate therefore they can not be condemned for not following a set of written rules.

On top of that, morals are ONLY a matter of opinion. Your moral compass is sure to vary from mine. I can not condem you as immoral just because you do not agree to MY set of morals.....you should not condem me as immoral

I was being sarcastic, which I thought was evident. And sorry, I don't believe that being illiterate gives someone a free pass to something which pretty much most cultures in the world would believe is wrong.

So it is OK to stone a woman to death in the Sudan because she was raped because in that culture, it is accepted? So it is OK to execute a man in the US who committed a murder when we was a minor because that state allows it? So it is OK in India to burn to death a Christian missionary and his on in their car because that is allowable under their culture? So it is OK in Singapore to kill a seven-year-old girl because your culture says you can kill a virgin in order to have a good business? So it is OK in the RSA to have a multitude of men rape a 2-year-old to death as they believe that only by having sex with a virgin will cure their HIV?

Sorry, I don't buy that. As a member of the human race, I have to think that there are some universal rights and wrongs. And nobody gets a free pass on that based on illiteracy or cultural imperatives.

I'm not condoning any of that. I am saying that some of these "crimes" (crimes in our eyes) are not crimes in the "perpetrator's", therefore they have not done a deliberate act of crime.

I'm not sure if there are any universal wrongs. There may be consensus. I reiterate: morals are ONLY opinions. Morals are not a law of nature.

If you think about it, it is the same with the insanity plea; he did not know what he was doing was bad.

An insanity plea is dealt with less harshly than a plea of a crim that knew what he was doing.

In effect, what you are saying is that the standards of the powerful are the standards that have to be applied, regardless.

Israel, too, has restrictive laws based on religion that they impose on the citizens. I don't see the US doing anything about that.

For example, they restrict freedom of expression in a law (very strictly enforced) that prohibits non-Jews from attempting to convert Jews away from Judaism. Even Messianic Jews, that are Jewish, can not preach to other Jews to convert them to a belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

Actually, I'll just withdraw my original comment. Bonobo has probably done a far better job of expressing my opinion than I could myself at the moment.

As for the WMDs stories I guess some of us have different perspectives as to what WMD's are.

Personally I never thought of scuds & lobbed gas as WMD's

You don't think that poisonous gas is a WMD? Pretty much the whole world would disagree with you.

Are we back on waterboarding again?