Terrorism: US approach doesn't meet criminal prosecution standards

Cheney complained that "if" Kerry were elected we'd drift back to the days when terrorism was approached in a "criminal" manner.

Wait a miniute, this presumes that we're using war; and that "our current methods" are exceeding those provisions that would otherwise be available had we taken the "prosecution route."

Unfortuanately for Cheney, the US's legacy fails to meet this standard.

Let's look at the record. What has the US government done in Guantanamo and in the US? Exactly the opposite of the "goal of prosecutions." Rather than impose justice on those who committed the crime, Cheeny-Bush et al have ~denied~ rights to all.

If the US was truly in "a war" we would afford full POW status to teh combatants at GITNO; however, this "leadership" has to be reminded of the war crimes laws and that it is a "bad thing" to kill, torture, and abuse prisoners.

There is no "threat" of the US "decending" into fighting terrorism with "just criminal sanctions"; we're already there, and the "decent" has "justified" allowing this government to take away the rights of US citizens.

If we were "truly at war" with terrorism, we'd focus on terrorism. We're not. Not in Afghanistan. Senator Graham [D-FL] stated that the evidence was clear: US failed to fight terrorism, did nothing to stop the flow of money from Saudi Arabia to Los Angeles; and continues to pretend that Saudi Arabia [in its effort to appease threats to the Kingdom] paid off those we now fight.

Moreover, because Pakistan-India continued to fight, Pakistan aligned itself with AFghanistan as the "fall back position". If the US was truly concerned with "terrorism" it would focus on terrorism, not make speaches about "what someone might do if elected" and actually ~do~ something about the problem.