ISIS didn't commit San Bernardino or Orlando. Even if they did, so what? There are still rules we are bound by, whether through the Geneva Conventions or not, by our own law and treaties otherwise.

You seem to suggest that because ISIS isn't a country or doesn't recognize or conform to the Geneva Conventions that therefore we should not hold ourselves to the standards of the GC when engaging them.

Edit: And this is even granting that ISIS is a threat to the US. I don't believe ISIS is. I think they threaten our sociopathic "leadership"'s interests in certain regions of the world, but they aren't a threat to us.

Seems to me you're the one making crazy statements. Seems to me that you're as dangerously unhinged as Hillary if you actually think we should be attacking ISIS (directly or by proxies). Seems to me you should explain yourself before asking anybody else to explain a third-party's statements.

I am very impatient with Stein and with the Green Party for reasons I need not detail. (It's as though they insist on never becoming a viable party.) However, I will gladly vote for Stein in November for the same reason I supported Sanders in the primary. However, for Sanders, I also worked, donated and fundraised. I don't know if I will be doing that for Stein, but what ever I do, I will do gladly.

I am voting for Stein to have my vote say that I want someone well to the left of Hillary, Trump and Johnson on both economic and "cultural" issues. I want my vote to say that I want the bleeding country to stop going further and further right, as it has since Carter. I think that is the best possible use of my vote I can make this go round. I hope that, in the next four years, we can unite and turn the Greens into a truly great and viable party. Even then, I would not expect it to be my dream party. However, this go round, we're out of time.

Stein is not going to become President anyway, so her every statement and position does not matter all that much to me, unless she starts advocating genocide or something else that is horrific.

If you do not vote for Stein, for whom will you vote? Trump? Hillary? Johnson? No one? And what message will your vote send? (These are rhetorical questions, just for your consideration. I am not prying. For whom you vote is your business.)

Seems like you infer much based on a clip that obviously clips Stein off toward the end. Don't know why you think Drudge has more credibility than free beacon.

to have a "solution" regarding ISIS? I'm seriously not trying to attack your post or be snarky. You raised some questions for discussion, no problem, that's what we're here for. So let's discuss.

The questions appear to be based on a premise that the US president/government/military have to have a "solution" regarding ISIS. Which it seems is based on the idea that because a few individuals who purportedly believe in their "philosophy" (or religion, or whatever you want to call it) committed acts of violence, the entire United States is under an immediate threat as a nation, such that it justifies war (unless there's another "solution" you have in mind).

Do you really think that? Is ISIS on the verge of, or even remotely capable of destroying or invading or causing crippling damage to our country?

There have been individuals who believe in or subscribe to many different ideologies who have committed acts of violence based on their beliefs. For one example, Christianity, which has inspired far more shootings and murders and violence in this country and elsewhere than ISIS. Christians have launched attacks on abortion providers, gay people, witches and pagans, etc., all based on their religion/ideology. If ISIS is an imminent threat to the United States because of a few individuals who committed violence in their name, should we also demand a "solution" to Christian-inspired violence, and deem their adherents a threat? Only those who preach rhetoric that inspires these types of attacks, of course, which still includes a large swath of Christianity. Do you begin to see the problem with going down this road?

We are being sold a bill of goods that ISIS demands a solution - in particular a military one - because they are a threat, and the entire framing of the question "what will you do about them?" requires buying what they are trying to sell. It seems you have bought it wholesale. I'm suggesting you examine your purchase, and consider rejecting it.

Does ISIS promote a violent and horrible belief system? Yes! Do some of their adherents act on those beliefs and cause harm? Yes. Does that make them such a special or "imminent threat" to the United States that it calls for war? I don't think so. Not unless we're going to wage war on every wacky group who believes dangerous things and causes harm.

In which case, let's start with declaring war on corporate greed, which has been and continues daily to cause far, far more death and destruction than any other group or belief system on earth.

The plutocracy really do pose an imminent threat to all of us. Let's start asking our politicians what their solution is to that threat.

When someone can point out the Navy ISIS has with which to mount an invasion of US soil, I will start to get concerned.

Why am I not surprised they went with the usual "Hippie" smear.

Totally ignored the fact that we fund em indirectly, and Dr. Stein specifically called out for us to stop supporting the governments that fund em.

Glad to know the MSM did everything they could to restrict access to the party's message, then when they couldn't get proper smear soundbites went right back to their old calls of "Weak On Defense".

will do nothing to save us from nuts in the US is correct. See http://abcnews.go.com/WN/fullpage/isis-trail-terror-isis-threat-us-25053190

ISIS primarily focused its attention on its regional ambitions prior to the U.S.-led bombing campaign. But as the U.S. and others continue to bombard ISIS targets, the group has repeatedly called on its followers in Western nations to conduct deadly attacks at home.

Gee, ya think it might be something we did? And yet they're busy establishing a caliphate in the ME, not coming here. Anyone who would harm us on their say-so is already here.

Also, a non-state actor does not have to be a country. We are required to act according to the rules of war. The UN charter, article 51, makes it clear that attack is only approved as self defense. This has been interpreted to extend beyond actual attack to imminent threat, but not "we don't like those guys". See my comment above in response to another poster for more. I'll reproduce the links here. Enjoy!

UK legal counsel on UN article 51, http://www.un.org/law/counsel/Bethlehem%20-%20Self-Defense%20Article.pdf

2011 DOJ white paper on why it's OK to go after any "imminent" threat, https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/1903-doj-white-paper (we don't adhere to imminence all that well, but the claim is sprinkled all over the place)

Original AUMF, 2001, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm

New AUMF not yet passed, https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/29

Extremely Conservative site, that has been described as "decadent and Unethical".

Oh and the founder believes all Liberal bloggers are basement dwelling Dungeons and Dragons Players.

Don't think we want to be believing their spin, since it's dedicated to knocking down anybody who questions neoliberal ideas.

Did I scare you?

ISIS is a group foisted on the world by the MIC to justify their pigging out at the trough of taxpayer money. a rather disproportionate amount spent on them and their latest toys to the extent we out spend multiple nations combined in comparison. They did not want a "Peace-time" economy as that would have shrunk their fat pay checks from the Gov't.

Welcome to the Corporate States of Oligarchia.