Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 01-03-2005, 04:47 PM

well this is interesting: in what way is this "war on terror" really a war? it does not involve conflict between nation states---there is no entity against which to declare war--because there is no discrete state/entity against which war can be declared, it follows that there can be no "front" really (between what and what?)--so it seems that the analogy of suspending basic legal rights in teh context of a conventional military conflict does not apply here.
it is also obvious that the administration is more than willing to stretch to meaninglessness the notion of the "war on terror" to include places like iraq--so obviously they feel little bound by the rules that might have obtained in a conventional war in the present context.

what kind of war is this then?
and if you cannot define the war in any conventional sense, how do you define a combattant?
i mean, if nothing is clear, really--not the parties, not the theater, not the status of actor within it, etc,--how do you do it?
it seems what the bush people want to do is simply make a declaration and not be bothered by proof.
given that the old-school notion of war is tangential here at best, why would it follow that it would be ok for this administration to arrogate this power to itself?
you already know that they are kinda arbitrary in application of their own notion...
you already know that the administration has a strange understanding of evidence (witness the "case" they tried to make for the iraq war)
you already know that they have shown themselves willing to create and fill legal black holes (gitmo, say) and to use these black holes as spaces within which most of the other rules of war do not apply (like restrictions on torture, or on outsourcing torture--cant remember the quaint cia term for it--relegation or something like that...)

it seems that another way to see the problems with the article at the outset of the thread lay here. mojo was talking mostly about questions of whether the notion was formally legal or not--to do this he had to stick to a very narrow understanding of what was at stake--but now other questions are on the table, yes?

01-03-2005, 04:47 PM	#95 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well this is interesting: in what way is this "war on terror" really a war? it does not involve conflict between nation states---there is no entity against which to declare war--because there is no discrete state/entity against which war can be declared, it follows that there can be no "front" really (between what and what?)--so it seems that the analogy of suspending basic legal rights in teh context of a conventional military conflict does not apply here. it is also obvious that the administration is more than willing to stretch to meaninglessness the notion of the "war on terror" to include places like iraq--so obviously they feel little bound by the rules that might have obtained in a conventional war in the present context. what kind of war is this then? and if you cannot define the war in any conventional sense, how do you define a combattant? i mean, if nothing is clear, really--not the parties, not the theater, not the status of actor within it, etc,--how do you do it? it seems what the bush people want to do is simply make a declaration and not be bothered by proof. given that the old-school notion of war is tangential here at best, why would it follow that it would be ok for this administration to arrogate this power to itself? you already know that they are kinda arbitrary in application of their own notion... you already know that the administration has a strange understanding of evidence (witness the "case" they tried to make for the iraq war) you already know that they have shown themselves willing to create and fill legal black holes (gitmo, say) and to use these black holes as spaces within which most of the other rules of war do not apply (like restrictions on torture, or on outsourcing torture--cant remember the quaint cia term for it--relegation or something like that...) it seems that another way to see the problems with the article at the outset of the thread lay here. mojo was talking mostly about questions of whether the notion was formally legal or not--to do this he had to stick to a very narrow understanding of what was at stake--but now other questions are on the table, yes? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 01-03-2005 at 04:52 PM..