We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Everybody's talking about the 4th Circuit's Al-Marri v. Wright decision. Orin Kerr proposes a hypothetical situation to try to clarify the issues. My question is this: If Moslem terrorists - who view themselves as combatants - aren't combatants, then what the heck are they? Do we need a new category? If we need a new category, may I propose one? Let's call it "Jihadists," and make the laws which would apply. Waiting until after they kill people seems lame to me, as it did to Lincoln and to FDR.
And besides, how do you arrest a successful suicide bomber anyway?
This surprised me. I looked it up because Muslims have personal 'jihads' which tend to be good things for Allah. I also checked out 'jihadist'.
jihadist |ji?hädist| noun a jihadi. USAGE There doesn't seem to be a pressing need for this English-friendly form since the Arabic term for a holy warrior, muj?hid, has already made it into English in the plural forms ( mujahideen, mujahedin), along with jihadi, a form more in keeping with Arabic morphology. Jihadist, however, is the preferred form for all writers who are vehemently anti-Arab or anti-Islam.
Let's just call them 'Targets'.
'We Want Tight P___: Who Are You Kiddingists'?
'Our Women Bore Us. aka: OWBUists'
(Qualifier to OWBUists- They bore us so bad we need to kill.)