The wuestion is, was thi sna act of war? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
How about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
Or this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

These are more relative to what happened at the embassy. Terrorists attacked US sovereign soil (or in the case of the Cole, the US Navy).

No, I actually agree that many of these militant groups should be classified as military organizations, and thus subject to the Geneva Conventions on POWs when they fall under US custody, as a high contracting power.

"The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya have all been High Contracting Parties since 1956. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 are the Supreme Law of the United States under Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the United States, and have been since their ratification on February 8, 1955.

So, it's good to see y'all agreeing with me that every prisoner the US has taken during the War on Terror should be accorded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. I urge you to petition your congressional representative to allow the prisoners to receive and send mail, that torture against them be strictly prohibited, and that we live up to the standards to which we as a nation agreed, and that they be allowed free access to the court system when those rights are denied, given your evident concord with me regarding their rights.

@Tyran - the "angry mob" was nothing of the sort. It was a terrorist attack on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/10/16/white-house-takes-hits-on-libya-attack/1636623/

It can't be much clearer.

@damian - Obama himself didn't say it, but his staff has (see the USA today story) and any backpedaling to try and cover their (and his) asses is just that, backpedaling and spindoctoring.

@Bob - I do agree and I have already. I don't like Gitmo and I don't like the NSA running roughshod over my rfights as an american citizen or the rights of an enemy POW using some lame ass excuse Bush's administration thought up.

so see, I'm *not* the hard right "Republicans can do no worng and Democrats can do no right" wing nut you might think I am. We shoudl necver have been in Iran as irt was just an excuse for Bush to finish what he thought his daddy hadn't when his father had done exactly what he was mandated to do by Congress and then got out. I believe that a military prison for terrorists should be run like a PoW camp and that the current means of detaining our PoWs is unacceptable. The conditions they are in are deplorable.

Iran? I think you mean Iraq don't turn into Biden on us Draug

Congratulations, Draugnar. You're the first righty I've ever encountered who thought that the solution to captured al Qa'eda members wasn't torture them for jollies. You should make up a logo.

As far as Obama goes, screw him. He lost my support forever when his Attorney General stated that due process does not necessarily mean judicial process, and still remained Attorney General three days later.

And I think planning mass murder and terrorism should take away th majority of your rights.

So, you'd support indefinite detention or extrajudicial murder for the majority of US Presidents, possibly excepting Carter, then?

Sure. Everyone of them. The minute someone gets elected we should lock them up.

Typo/brain fart. Iran is on my mind of late because I think the UN is being to weak but the US is trying to be a little too strong. We have the means of doing more inspecting with out risk to any humans via spy planes and unarmed drones. We should do that as much as possible and then use any evidence we get from that to determine the best course of action, if any. Sure, it means violating Iranian airspace, but then they aren't abiding by the UN accords they agreed to, so economic sanctions along with mechanical spying is perfectly acceptable in my book.

@Bob - I've said it numerous times... I'm fiscally a conservative, but socially a liberal, and I am a firm believer in human rights and in the freedoms guaranteed to me and the rest of the US by our Constitution. This borderline police state that Bush put us in and Obama hasn't done anything to get us out of (and Romney will also keep us in, they both are fucking idiots on that regard) is borderline intolerable. I believe in doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. Sure, terrorists are want to lop off heads of their captured. But just because they do something horrendous doesn't mean we should answer in kind. the true measure of a civilization is it's ability to rise above it's enemies attorcities and *not* return action with similar action, but to stick to it's principles in the face of adversity and attrocity and say "We will not stoop to your level. We are not barbarians."

No I'm saying people like Osama bin laden hitler and their servants who go around blowing people up shouldn't have their rights protected as much as your everyday guy.

@Tyran - The moment we declare someone less worthy of rights is the moment we become that person. Everyone is worthy of equal protection under the law and rights should *never* be stripped form anyone. Freedoms are another story. Freedom to vote. Gone! Freedom to walk around a free man. Gone! But the right to a fair trial in a reasonably time frame and to not be tortured or abused. Still intact no matter what the attrocity one is accused of. We are a nation that believes in innocent until proven guilty (at least in principle) and to toss that out the window for one class of person (tthose charged as errorists and/or war criminals) is the first step to throwing it out for *all* individuals.

I see your point but I think that some people are so terrible they don't deserve trials....

Tyran....Are you American? Because...hate to tell you this...but the "rebels"...those guys used to tar and feather British tax collectors, who were just poor shmucks doing their job.

Yeah...the dudes that freed this country, in part, were terrorists...

So you need to be careful when you start saying "So and so doesn't deserve a trial...just death..." because you are condemning the people the founded this nation...

duhhhhh....

@Draug....the radical leftist morons can't comprehend that preferring "conservative" policies means you are "all Republicans are right, All demon-crats are wrong". It is telling...it reveal the truth that left-wing nutjobs ARE the true "absolutist" is out society....those that call for the murder of people they hate, instead of their simple political defeat. And yet they *try* to claim the mantel of moderate, "big tent" policy.

The nation has learned better...and liberalism with be defeated overwhelmingly in short order...

@Draug - you try to dismiss what I say about an act of war -- about 20 posts ago -- and say "terrorsits, train in camps...blah blah blah..." but it is **VITALLY IMPORTANT** that you IDENTIFY State (country) sponsors....otherwise who is the war against? Libyan officials knew Al Quedi or whoever the fuck sponsored this shit was in their country and **let it happen**...thus, it is an act of war *speicifcially* because they had a state sponsor. WITHOUT a State sponsor...it is a simple criminal act.

If you think criminal acts are acts of war, then you have a "war" situation in every major city in the US in which gangs are active.

Libya doesn't have the power to fight a war against insurgents on their own.

@Tyran -- that doesn't even make sense....BUT...what Libya DOES have the power to do is this: Support Anit-american militants to drive US influence OUT of the country becaus they understand Obma is a weak-ass bitch...and once the US influence is gone, invite in the influence of other nations that will provide them with the weapons, etc that they seek.

Open up a history book and understand how the world works before you make stupid comments.

"Obama himself didn't say it, but his staff has (see the USA today story) and any backpedaling to try and cover their (and his) asses is just that, backpedaling and spin doctoring."

I didn't ask that question. Someone else did.

"Hey damina... Get with the times. there were no riots at the embassy. Even Obama admits now that the riots over the movie didn't exist. They were a fabrication by his stuff to cover up and try to excuse a terrorist attack on US soil.

I repeat. there were no riots at the embassy. That was a lie by the current administration."

I didn't say they were over the movie. But they are riots.
The same way the riots by the black panthers in Chicago that I linked were riots.
Terrorists are civilians, hostile, and armed civilians. Whose actions are not ordered by the government.

"Libyan officials knew Al Quedi or whoever the fuck sponsored this shit was in their country and **let it happen**...thus, it is an act of war *speicifcially* because they had a state sponsor. WITHOUT a State sponsor...it is a simple criminal act."

I agree with half of this, war cannot occur without a state sponsor. You are under the delusion that inaction is sponsorship. The Libyan government did not order the attack, the Libyan government is not led by a member of the terrorist organization behind the attack, the Libyan governments inability to stop the attack is not a sponsorship of the attack in the same way that the American government's inability to stop the black panthers was not a sponsorship of them. (frankly I condone the attack (though not the killing), seriously, fuck US foreign policy)

"once the US influence is gone, invite in the influence of other nations that will provide them with the weapons, etc that they seek."

The fact that you have to that once your oppressive foreign influence is gone they will attempt to break free of it and find powers they want to work with says a lot about how disgusting your foreign policy is.

Every nation should hold a US embassy day. Storm all the embassies (without killing anyone) take the flags, and burn them.

So, I agree that when 4 americans die in an embassy that that is not optimal.

An act of war requires only an organization and *not* state sponsorship. See definition definition 3 of 18 USC 1, 118b, 2223 (I think thats the number).

@ Bob Genghiskhan

I stopped tolerating Eric Holder when Fast and Furious blew up in his face and he did not provide the appropriate documents to Congress.