*
How could anyone be against that? What do they want, an O.J. style outcome?
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
A standardized approach, quick-to-install hardware, and a simplified design make building custom casework cost-effective.
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
*
Criminals should be tried in criminal court.
*Doesn't much of it depend on where the "trial" is held?If they are dragged back here in the States, I'd think that they would go through our standard criminal system...If they are tried overseas, then it could be done via the Military Tribunal system.I could be in error, but overseas, the military dispenses justice via the Courts Martials system most each and every day.I'm no JAG and am not familiar with how a trial would get tracked into one system or the other, but when I was stationed overseas, we had a few instances of military personnel who had committed crimes against the civilian community. Most were tried via CMs, but one was tried under the local legal system.I really don't want these criminals jailed. I simply want them dead.
*Military tribunals for military crimes or civil crimes committed during military action is okay by me. I would draw the line on trying civilians for civil crimes outside the normal justice department protocol. And yes, terrorism would be considered a military crime with terrorists classified as soldiers not civilians.Our constitution mandates a trial by a jury of one's peers. A soldier should be tried by other soldiers.My $.02Eric
*American justice is for U.S. citizens, military tribunals are for wartime enemies. They are not criminals, they are enemies. We can't go around the world arresting people for breaking our laws unless they live in this country, if they are at war with us then we should deal with them as such.
*RJT, ITA! Look at the other bin Laden playmates that hit the WTC eight years ago. They just now are starting to serve their life sentences in cushy U.S. prison better than how Afghani civilians are living today, thanks to their kind. I refuse to spend a nickel of my tax money to inject these scum into our so-called civil justice system. Fairness? You want fairness? Fine. Execute them summarily when you find them, just as their brothers did to us, and they would if given a chance.Tom Carter
*I think it's wrong to treat terrorists as soldiers, that only validates their actions - let them be tried in Afganistan under Islamic law after the dust settles. I can't recall, is taking a life a beheading crime or a stoning crime in their system ?
*bs... the attack on our constitution continues.. led by ashcroft...if they are military.. then they become POW's.. and the geneva convention rules.. if they are civilians they are subject to US law or what ever jurisdiction they are under.. don't confuse the two just because it is convenient.. it won't be convenient when YOU are the one being tried..same old bs... first step is to make everyone else into an "other" then make them subject to different laws...this is a bigger threat to the citizens of the US than any terrorist... same crap they pull with the war on drugs...."well , it's expedient"... KMA..either we're going to live by the rule of law.. or we might as well let the terorists win...what is it the armed forces are sworn to defend ?or did i miss something when i took the oath ?now quit your whining and get out there and defend it.. the constitution...it's not just a convenient thing , you know....
*So Mike Smith you are saying Ashcroft is trashing the constitution. Maybe we would be better off with janet reno, seems to me your liberial buddies did a splended job with Waco, ruby ridge and oh yes lets not forget months of ellian gonzalas.
*armin... do you really want to be on the opposite side of keeping elion from his dad...?i'll pick my own "liberal buddies"...and my own conservative buddies.... mostly i'll pick buddies who can seperate the wheat from the chafe, but if you wanna suck up to ashcroft that's ok....is this proposal gonna make America a better country.. or a worse one?so... tell me true.. ya fer it ... 'er agin it?military tibunals, that is ?
*Me personally.... I think I prefer firing squads for terrorists. No need to keep them from Allah and all those wonderful virgins for too long.PeteBTW Mike, I'd like to know how this thread became a discussion about ashcroft and the constitution.
*me ,too, pete...(?)..uh.. it was ashcroft who proposed military tribunals for non-citizens detained as terrorist suspects...
*Japanese officers accused of war crimes were tried by military tribunals during the occupation. Several hundred were shot. Likewise with lower-level Nazis who weren't important enough for Nuremburg.There's an air of "victor's justice" about the practice, but the tribunals do examine evidence and responsiblity to make sure they've got the right person and that he did what he's accused of. The defendant is given legal counsel, usually of his own choice.The Supreme Court has already ruled that the tribunals are constitutional. But that was back in the forties, and a new challenge may be raised after any future convictions.I can't imagine that any prison would be "cushy".
*Hello, it's me again at home.Are you guys really conflicted about squashing the Al Q'Aida organization like a tick under your thumbnail? Wherever it exists in the world, Sudan, Indonesia, Iran, or wherever; and by both overt and covert means? Are you troubled by that? You think these pigs deserve the protection of OUR Constititution? MY Constitution? The Constitution written by Americans for Americans?Why?Tom Carter
*tom.. that is not what is being proposed....i could give a good red rat's ass what the cia ..or the seals are doing..we're talking about changing the rule of law HERE.. in the US... this is more of threat .. a direct threat ..to the average citizen .. than the terrorists...same old same old... are we going to have a system of laws to protect the innocent...or punish the guilty?this is MILITARY tribunals in the US.. for people detained by civil authorities...nope.. no safeguards there... and what would we scream if our citizens were denied legal protection in other countries...what's good for the goose is good for the gander....remember our goals here ?... we going to win the battle and loose the war?..short term gain / long term lossor are we going to create a world safer for everyone.. including american citizens traveling abroad ......
*Mike,You're confused: the objective right now is to squash a bug. I believe as strongly as you, I'm sure, in the rule of constitutional (and not religious) law. But I'm sorry, I just want these bugs to be no more threat--ever again--to your family or mine. I don't admire you're undercutting of our national resolve to finish the hard part of slaughtering a pig.Tom
*too bad about your definition of who's undermining and who's a patriot... an assault on the constitution is just that .. and it lasts a lot longer than you or i...why would you be SO QUICK to surrender what all the blood and treasure of every war from the revolution to this one has been fought to preserve...you and i have a lot more in common than any enemy you can think of.. and you oughta quit thinking of your fellow citizens as the enemy...
*Mike has been confused for some time now, lets just leave it at that and move on and be grateful his opinion carries about as much weight as a cream puff.
*twc3...a bug???......some fuckin' bug......Ruined my year......And some to come......Peace......n...
*I would think it's a moot point. If the UN move into Afghanistan, any trials are likely to go to The Hauge.
*Armin,I got yer cream puff right here.Puff this.
*armin.. here's a source even u cud unnerstan...http://www.usatoday.com/news/acovthu.htmthose are military tribunals proposed for HERE...winter on the upa already , huh....come on down to sunny RI and i'll pour u 1....uh... i still am disarmed by your choice of a nom-de-plume....
*...Right On, Luka......Peace.....Opposing...Bite Me...[Bart Simson] copywritten1990...n...
*The best thing that could happen to Osama in regards to the USA, is for the Northern Alliance to catch him exclusively. Their brutality makes the Columbian drug lords look like diplomats. If caught, Osama will take the tribunals anyday. He's not running away from us, he's running away from his own kind now. GW
*So if we find any of those spitune licking rat turds in this country we should just shoot them as spies and sabatours(spelling).. and be done with the jerk offs.
*Mike, the weather up here is quite nice thank you. Read your article, so whats the point? From where I sit I see no problem with treating terrorist as war criminials, why spend millions defending them and worse yet subject the country to the humiliation of another johny cockroach, if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit civilian trial. Just my opinion.If it makes you happy I'll de-plume my posts to John Smith.
*You're right, the law was absolutely clear in the Gonzalas case; that little boy should have been on a plane back to Cuba the next day.
*Does seem ridiculous that we are all fine about lobbing 50,000 pound daisy cutters on their heads but if they happen to get caught alive to worry about their civil rights. But that is the beauty of our system, balance of powers. It's the Constitution, the heart of this nation, and (to borrow a line used on me a lot) if you don't like this country (and its occasionally dysfunctional court system) go live in a better one!
*Seriously though, with all the spys, double agents, informants etc. involved , the Bush admin. had to make this decision. It doesn't mean we should feel comfortable with it...It really tarnishes the Constitution and what this country stands for. What is this war costing us in freedom?
*Mike better watch what you say,that military tribunal is on it's way to a town near you. Pete and Armin will have you up before it in a heart beat.And they get to try you in secret. Vince
*First, the executive order is not about trying war criminals, but terrorists for violation of US criminal law in the US. The only difference is that it will be done in secret without any constitutional protections, such as due process. Forget the hyperbole about spending millions on Johnny Cochrane. Absolute nonsense, it just doesn't work that way. Forget the nonsense about needing a search warrant to storm a cave, or reading Miranda rights. Our constitutional protections stop at our borders. But once you bring them into the US, they become entitled to the fundamental fairness required by the Constitution.Too many bad, embarrassing decisions have been made in the heat of anger in this country, where good people have been willing to let down their guard and good sense because of anger and base emotion. Here, people are fighting to safeguard our way of life while simultaneously arguing that our way of life is unworthy of maintenane when the going gets tough or we don't life the enemy. Surprise! We never like the enemy, but we put the principles that bind our country together ahead of our transitory anger. Someday, we will look back and judge the worthiness of our society by how we handled our darkest moments.The best option is for Osama to be killed in his cave. But if he isn't, then there are only two options that preserve our integrity (not his). Either try him in a Nuremberg style open war crimes trial (like Milosovic)where he is represented by counsel, is given discovery of the charges and evidence against him and the opportunity to confront witnesses against him and present his own defense. In this way, the world will see the evidence upon which he is convicted and will rest assured that the US model of constitutional government is real and worthy. This is not because Osama deserves it, but because we deserve it.And if we bring him back to the US, then we try him like we try anyone else. Why? Because we are the United States and we don't adopt the ways of animals or the star chamber because it suits our conveniene in this instance. We are a nation of laws, and we believe (at least some of us) in our Constitution in good times and bad.By the way, has it ocurred to anyone that we have never learned about any of the evidence against Osama? We only know that government officials tell us that it's overwhelming. So if it is, let us know and let the world know. What do we have to fear from the truth?SHG
*interesting discussion but I think he'll go out in a blaze and we'll be doing good to find a body part.....sort of the way Hitler did.I bet the Taliban prisoners sure wish they could have surrendered to the Americans.
*SHG:Well said. I agree for the most part. But I still think of ObL as a crazy foreign individual who masterminded a terrible attack on our sovereign homeland, with devastating results. IMHO, he deserves NO protection under the US Constitution, no matter where he might be found or transported. I don't see the importance of venue in this case. I also don't share the paranoia of some here who feel that this military tribunal decision undermines the constitutional protections that American citizens enjoy. We're doing what America has always done: defending our people and interests at home and abroad. Long history of that, from letters of marque and attainder, Barbary Pirates, to WW II and the less-convincing case of VietNam (my war). I stil say we should not lose either resolve or momentumm and should press on and kill ObL and his kith&kin wherever we find them. I hate the idea of importing him to this country to stand trial under our laws. America paid the price for our legal system--he didn't,Tom
*Tom, very well said!
*Mike, you missed your calling as a criminal defense attorney.This isn't vietnam. We were attacked. That makes him military in my book.I don't care how they kill him or string him up. I'm not worried about my constitutional rights, and never have been, as I am a law abiding citizen of this country. Results are what matter in this situation. As a liberal, you should be familiar with the concept of results at any cost.
*geesh , tommy.. and law-abiding citiizens don't get jammed up everyday , now , do they ?yur rights.. u only need when u need 'em... and then it'll be too late for you....hah, hah, hah...but don't cum cryin to me...
*>Long history of that, from letters of marque and attainder, Barbary Pirates, to WW II and the less-convincing case of VietNam (my war). These represent flaws in our history, not moments of which we are proud. There is no one who would dispute the essential justice of ObL dying by the sword in a cave. I certainly don't. The problem arises, as well stated by William Safire last Sunday in the NY Times, if he shows up with the white flag. That's where the world watches our response and we see whether the platitudes we spout, and precepts that bind our society, are for real.Most of us don't come into contact with our system of justice too frequently. It doesn't work all that well, but few realize it's flaws because of our lack of in depth familiarity with it. Most confuse the anomolies with the norm, because only the anomolies get reported and it's workings tend to be so arcane that few laypeople (not to mention lawyers) truly understand it.But we purport to be a civilized society. We purport to be a nation of laws, not men. The fact that we have adandoned principle in the past does not make it right, or justify doing it again. There is no question that ObL and his people are unworthy of our ideals. But if we fail to live by our ideals, then we are unworthy of them as well. This is not about whether he deserves fairness, but whether we stand by our ideals in good times or bad.ObL believes, in his bizarrely righteous way, that what he does is justified by god. We must be different and cannot rationalize away our integrity.SHG
*I have been reading about just this topic in my newspaper for the last few days and wondering when it would appear here.I am not suprised to see that Mike Smith and SHG are about the only people looking at the long term effects of this.why are so many ,so eager to tie american flags to their pick-up truck antennaes in a lame attempt to feel manly and patriotic----while at the same time basically BEGGING the federal government to erase some of their most valued RIGHTS if only they can feel safe again?SHG----thanks for laying it out there.
*Mike, don't come crying when some suspected terrorist gets off on a technicality and gets a second chance to nuke your sorry ass.
*It kills me to say it, because I want Osama DEAD. But should he be captured, I believe he should be given a fair trial (as fair as possible, anyway). Be it military tribunal or regular criminal court. For exactly the reasons SHG has stated. Nobody is above the law; nobody should be beneath it, either. All men are created equal, no matter how f*cked in the head they are.We'll kinda have to just see what happens. In the meantime, I'll be hoping that the Northern Alliance gets a hold of him and is trigger happy when they do. I think there'd be fewer repercussions that way than if a SpecOps warrior did the same.
*Armin nah he wouldnt do that(nuke his ass) he would just plant a car bomb outside a mall and kill his wife and kids.....remember folks thats what were dealing with here...
*I still love ya Mike.Awe, I don't know if an excessive amount of law abiding citizens get jammmed up every day, I don't think so.I get sick of the "yeah, I was an accomplice in the armed robbery (or whatever) when the cop got killed but I didn't want to be, or I didn't pull the trigger, or I was molested as child, etc., etc., etc." That is when the law works against us. Perps like binladen, o.j., and many others get way to many breaks in the legal system.I am all for guilty going free befor innocents are convicted, but it happens. We don't need the media circus on something like this. Not to mention the fact that the guy declared war on the U.S. Doesnt that make him military? And eligible for the tribunal treatment?I've been screwed by the criminal justice system in a minor way. Looking back, I deserved it.
*So you'd be happy with the sentences given to militry leaders by US military courts for mass murders of civilians ? Let's see, Lt. Calley served how many years ? Something like 4 wasn't it ?
*So Phil, are you saying that you think Lt. Calley's actions were premeditated?JonC
*No, I'm saying that your military courts have a history of being very lenient to US soldiers who have been mass murderers, and even those who killed large groups of civilians through negligence (like the gondola in Italy). As one of the cornerstones of US law is that it be applied evenly to all, this is the kind of sentence that would be expected. As Lt. Calley's own testimony was that he was ordered in advance to kill everyone in the village by his commander (Captain Ernest Medina), that's surely premeditated.
*Phill.....what do your military courts do..Oh yea or military hasnt done anything after WW2 forget the question.
*Philll,Sounds like you have something to say about mass murder of civilians as a matter of national policy. Why dont you just spit it out. You have spit it out before havent you?JonC
*No Ron....the USA has been the worlds policeman all on it's own. ( at least that is the way your media would present it)... I was amazed recently when one of your country men expressed surprise that Australia had troops on the ground in Vietnam. Maybe you'd like to tell us who exactly is involved in the war in Afghanistan? And what the extent of their commitment is? Or do you think the USA is doing it on their own?
*Of course, Australian, British, Indian, Greek, and Canadian troups, as well as others I'm sure, all accounted for themselves very well in the Korean War too.
*I don't know how you made this amazing and distant logic shift in this thread. Why do you believe that the US has a national policy of mass murder and how does that connect to a military trial for terrorists ?
*You guys know that American's truly believe that the rest of the world only exists as wannabe Americans. We do all the heavy lifting so that you guys can watch us on TV and wish you were here, right?Americans forget that we have more of our own in prison than almost any other country. We have capital punish which most of the world has abandoned as brutal and pointless. We have this amazing ability to ignore our flaws and jingoism and believe that we have the answers to all questions, no matter how often those answers change or how mercurial we are with our application of our answers.As Lt. Calley said, "What? My Lai?"SHG
*Mark,I know the Brits are there (God Bless'em I love those guys) I also know quite a few other countries have offered help, to what extent and actually in a combat role..I dont know. I do know Im tired of Phill sitting on his sorry ass bagging on my country like his is so great and pure. I also know that if we catch binny alive he will be tried in a US military tribunal. Theres a reason for that tell me why. So the USA is a policeman all on its own. Bosnia for example a European problem but whose helping them let me see.... Oh the US we got more troops there then the europeans hmmmmm..why maybe you can answer that for me also. Who does the rest of the world come crying to when something happens please tell me that also. I guess I need to be educated. Guide me Mark help me understand my countries policy and why the world cries for our help and we're assholes if we dont and bullies when we do.
*i Bosnia for example a European problem but whose helping them let me see.... Oh the US we got more troops there then the europeans hmmmmm..why maybe you can answer that for me also. Who does the rest of the world come crying to when something happens please tell me that also. I guess I need to be educated Ever heard of NATO Ron? Why do you think the US has more troops there then any one country? As your own Defense Dept says, " The US is the engine of NATO". as for Bosnia being a European problem, unfortunately the same Dept of Defense doesn't agree with you. Quote from them i "The security of the United States is inextricably intertwined with the security of Europe. We know this from the harsh lessons of experience. We have learned that when the United States turns its back on European instability, in the long run we are forced to return at much greater price.i Therefore, after World War II we made the conscious decision to stay directly involved in European security. We have re-examined the importance of that commitment in the post-Cold War era, and two administrations -- Republican and Democrat -- have decided that our interests require us to stay involved." Don't forget that the US is the Superpower of the world Ron, with a population unmatched in the western world. On a pro-rata basis for instance, Australias contribution to Afghanistan would be something like a Division of troops, a dozen frigates and support ships, a squadron of fighters and refuellers.And so on for other countries.
*> By the way, has it ocurred to anyone that we have never learned about any of the evidence against Osama? We only know that government officials tell us that it's overwhelming. So if it is, let us know and let the world know. What do we have to fear from the truth? It looks like some people in government have some problem with revealing the evidence against bin Laden. What might that problem be? Here's some speculation:If some of the evidence comes from human intelligence, from spies in the caves with Usama, revealing it to the world reveals it to Usama, who might be able to deduce who the spies are. This is not good for our spies. It makes it harder to recruit new spies if we are so stupid as to get them killed like that. In the case of conventional domestic crime, we have witness protection programs. But this goes beyond the limits of what any such program can hope to achieve.-- J.S.
*well, john.. in the court of world public opinion... especially in the arabic world... keeping this evidence secret is playing into the hands of those who say osama was falsely accused...so.. what's it going to be ?
*Mike, there will always those who will say that Osama was falsely accused, no matter what the evidence. If he is killed rather than captured, there will always be those who will say that he escaped and is hiding out in Havana or someplace. There are those who say that Elvis is still alive. So what will it be? A fight and a compromise. Get the agents out to safety if possible, get the same information from other sources if possible, release it only if we have to because he gets captured alive.-- J.S.
*Mark to quote you "No Ron....the USA has been the worlds policeman all on it's own. " Now help cuz I got a public school education isnt NATO the North Alantic Treaty Organization. You act like the US is a over grown version of John Wayne pushing itself on the world. Now doesnt NATO have a choice or votes on where it sends it troops .
*>If some of the evidence comes from human intelligence, from spies in the caves with Usama, revealing it to the world reveals it to Usama, who might be able to deduce who the spies are. John, would these be the same assets that alerted us to the attack in advance so we could prepare and stop the terrorists? It's a fine theory, but not terribly likely given how one of the points made immediately after the attack was how unfortunate it was that we have no assets in the terrorist ranks, and how we no longer use human assets in general, relying instead on technology.But still a good theory.SHG
*Well said...SHGGabe
*Congratulations Ron.....nicely taken out of context.For the record Ron...I said,i "No Ron....the USA has been the worlds policeman all on it's own. ( at least that is the way your media would present it)..As for a public school education, you aren't Robinson Crusoe mate.Does NATO have a choice? mmmmm...probably not I'd answer. Under Article V if any one member is attacked, support from all member States is automatic.
*Mark They have choices they always have choices weather or not to support a action/sanction or not. its not our media presenting it that way but the way the world percieves it.
*I have been reading in my morning paper today some of the facts behing President Bushs' Military tribunal. As of november 13 Bush has issued an executive order which gives him the power to prosecute any non-citizen living in this country ,or not, if the president " has reason to believe" that person is a terrorist or even just threatened to cause injury to this nation.the president has "Sole Authority' to determine who shall be prosecuted. No right of appeal to ANY court US,foreign,or international tribunals.the president allows these trials to take place in secret---in this or any other country. The president allows use of "classified material ' against the defendant which neither the defendant,nor his attorney will be able to confront nor refute.( in other words a person the the president "has reason to believe" is a terrorist can be found guilty by the use of secret evidence to which there is no defense.the military tribunals are 3 officers, the ranking officer is the judge----but he also votes on guilt or innocence. the tribunal is judge and jury.Only 2 officers are needed to convict and sentence the defendant to death. the outcome is decided before the trial begins.since congress has not declared war,bush may lack the authority to create these tribunals---but he has done so anyhow.bush claims these tribunals are to be used against only non-citizens.Of course if the Tribunals are in fact empowered ,they can easily be used against citizens since the supreme court ruled in 1942 that military tribunals can be used against citizens acting on the side of the enemy.Of course Bush has already reserved for himselfthe "Sole authority" to determine this.So folks, It looks like our chief executive ,sworn to uphold the constitution,Has abandoned our basic constitutional checks and balances. Bush can decide if you are a terrorist,he doesn't need to show you or your attorney any evidence since it is " classified" and he only needs 2 officers to rubberstamp your death penalty.BTW, what do you call it when one man assumes life and death power,at his own whim, over ANYBODY he cares to point a finger at?this is way more scary to me than anthrax or planes falling out of the sky.
*But will they have a large star in the centre of the floor of the court-room ?
*Yep, that's the scariest thing since 9/11. Will the next thing be King George the first? The first president absolutely refused to be King tho many pleaded that he become King George. Somehow, I don't have the confidence the current king will have the decency to refuse to become a tyrant. That description of the tribunals and powers Bush has taken sounds like the puppet trials the recently rescued aid workers were facing from the Taliban before we began bombing.Mary
*Hey I have an idea , let's not do anything, then when they (or someone else) does it again we still won't do anything then soon we won't be here and we won't have to worry about it any more that was ez no fuss no mess Some times we have to do things we don't like we don't live in a perfect world Daniel
*You're being very simplistic Daniel. It is not a choice between accepting kangaroo courts and doing nothing.
*A great thread. Thanks for the great posts Mike, SHG and Stephen.The military tribunals are morally wrong, mostly unnecessary, and probably counterproductive.Rich Beckman
*Thanks Rich. I've enjoyed this thread too, and found it quite enlightening. About 10 years ago, a survey was conducted asking people (somewhat covertly) if they thought that certain rights contained in the Fourth Amendment should be granted the People of the United States. The majority responded that they did not. Of course, this is a more enlightened bunch than the general public.SHG
*No matter what it will be a kangaroo court How is it possible for any one to get a fair trial in this case? There might be 12 people out there that haven't heard of 9/11 but they have the iq of a rock.
*Let the Afghanistan's try him for crimes against Islam, the Afghanistan people, and the US: it's the most trouble-free solution.
*> but not terribly likely given how one of the points made immediately after the attack was how unfortunate it was that we have no assets in the terrorist ranks, and how we no longer use human assets What I remember from the news in the weeks after 9-11 was that we were trying to play catch-up in the area of human intelligence. Idealists don't like spies, but sometimes spies are necessary to our survival.Sometimes the government will make decisions that surprise us because they are based on information that we, for legitimate reasons, don't have. In WWII, the navy busted a captain for trying to capture a German submarine's code machine. He didn't know that Enigma had been broken, that the Germans didn't know it had been broken, and that capturing one would just cause them to change their codes and destroy all the work that had gone into breaking those codes. In our open democratic system, we usually have access to all the relevant facts, often more facts than we have time to bother with. In war, things are a little different, and there'll be some important stuff that we won't find out about for a while.-- J.S.
*Coventry was bombed because the Britsh didn't have a second source to idicate they knew of the raid. Only source Enigma.
*>What I remember from the news in the weeks after 9-11 was that we were trying to play catch-up in the area of human intelligence. Idealists don't like spies, but sometimes spies are necessary to our survival. So you figure it's likely that there was a whole bunch of spies in place two days after 9/11 when there were none that day? John, you have to give it a little more thought. I realize you're hung up on this, but it just doesn't play.As for idealists not liking spies, I don't recall anyone here saying that they don't like spies. But more to the point, spies went out of fashion that with the Great Idealist, Ronald Reagan. You have a problem with Ronnie too? Forget the spy angle, which I might add is not the official rationale but, near as I can tell, yours and yours alone.SHG
*Coventry was bombed because the Germans chose to bomb it. The British had an Enigma decrypt from Bletchley Park a few hours before the raid, and the city was warned. But there wasn't much they could do on such short notice. Enigma (or Ultra, the British code name for the code breaking project) was a conduit for many sources, not just one source. Bletchley Park did a lot more than just break codes and decrypt messages. They did a lot of analysis on the contents of German messages. For instance, they kept files on German personnel, and could deduce that if a certain guy was sent one place shortly before the Germans put in a temporary air strip, seeing him get sent someplace else might mean that another air strip was going in there. -- J.S.
*>So you figure it's likely that there was a whole bunch of spies in place two days after 9/11 when there were none that day? No, no, only that the long slow difficult business of building up our human intelligence network suddenly became a much higher priority than before. Spies are very sensitive people. They notice that kind of stuff. ;-)>Forget the spy angle, which I might add is not the official rationale ....Well, of course it wouldn't be the official rationale. It's just my speculation, and I labeled it as such. If it were the truth, would it be smarter of the government to tell that truth or keep it secret? That's what makes all this cloak and dagger stuff so much fun. ;-)-- J.S.
*Hey, didn't we all love James Bond? Or that girl, what was her name?If so, the government could do what they usually do, and claim that the information came from confidential informants and that disclosure of their identities would risk their lives and undermine the ability to gather further intelligence. It's done all the time.It will be years before, and if, the US can establish a viable network. Worse yet, we used to know who to spy on. Now, we have no idea who to spy on, since no one quite knows where the next evil empire (or tent) will be. If we have a million spys, all in the wrong places, it doesn't help.I remember being interviewed by the CIA years ago. I still get a chuckle when I remember them telling me that when they capture Igor, Ivan takes his place. I asked if all spies had names beginning with "I". They didn't think I was funny at all.I wish we had spies. I wish we had no need for spies. I wish we had no need to discuss the need for spies. Such is life.SHG
*Daniel,I wouldnt waste by time those boring the poor kangaroos with the details just take him out and use a decent rope.
*just got briefed yesterday by our new commander. He said dont expect this war to be over anytime soon. He said we could expect the venue to change, The strategy to change and a good possibility to see some of our guys coming home in body bags. He said he was in Bosnia for 9/11 with 101st airborne that they were ready to go. God Bless our boys keep safe and give them hell...
*Ron From what I hear don't even need to waste the rope he wants his boys to cap him.... ooh darn.....chicken sh#% won't even fight for his own life..
*Thats not fair, I wanna the opportunity to do ..maybe he can hold a raffle or a drawing
*Just read in the paper this morning about some of our special forces. Seems they snuck up on a convoy of Afghans transporting fuel. They said they were doing it for the Taliban. So in the dead of night, our boys crept up to the sleeping Afghans, captured them all, moved them to their humvees, got some helicopters to come in a blow up the convoy without a single loss of life - ours or theirs. Gotta be impressed. And I'm glad those folks are on our side.Mary
*Mike,So are you saying that if the US was ever invaded and let's say we win the war and have captures all the aggressors, we should take them all to court because they were here when it happened? That is ludicrous.These people are not American citizens and therefor cannot be considered as deserving of our constitutional rights. THere is a different set of rules for em, mike.Pete
*Vince,Sorry, but as much as I may like Mike, I have no interest in "trying him in private"...that's just sick, you perv!Pete
*How is it that giving tribunals to NON-AMERICAN, terrorists is tarnishing our constitution... you know, the constitution that protects AMERICAN CITIZENS?????
*SHG,How do you come to the conclusion that ObL be given the protections of the constitution when he is not an American Citizen?
*Stephen,I've got to ask you the same question that I am asking athers. How do you come to the thinking that OsB is deserving of the constiutional rights that protect American citizens when he is not and American citizen?
*Well then MArk, I suppose that folks are not so off base when they think that America fights the wars alone (or at least most prominently)When you build a house and a pal stops by and humps lumber for you for one day, do you tell folks that he and you built the house or do you just tell folks that you built it?You said it yourself, the USA is the engine of NATO and we all know that without the USA, there would be no NATO as we know it and they would have little power if any.I am not discounting the help from other nations but in the granbd scope of things the US does fight the war.Pete
*Nonetheless, SHG, regardless of the intricate details of why the evidence is not being publicly revealed, I am sure that there are many areas of sensitivity that must be protected.
*yo....pete... where ya been ?can't just pop in and out and raise a commotion ya no ..kinda destroys the continuity of the thing..if you read the constitution. u'd no u don't have to be a citizen to be protected by it....
*Stephen, you're grasping for straws, and they are thin one's.Plain and simple, this is an action against non-citizens (ie non-Americans, the enemy, etc)
*So then maybe we should mosey on into Canada and other such countires and straighten things out when they deny one of their citizens of our constitutional rights.Lemma aks you, Mike.... do dis ring a bell?We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. How does that translate into rights for non-American's?
*BTW, I been real busy. Just started a new company (non-construction related) Got the go-ahead to start on the day before Thanksgiving.
*bein reeeaaal bizzy is no xcuse for abandoning your defense of the draganic position on just about anything...but, gud to have u back..now... what's this new company yur so bizzy with ?
*Watcha hocking Pete you aient starting a certified contractors network of your own are ya. Selling tapes, cd's and haveing your own bootcamps ....
*Boy is this fun. Not really. I am suprised that no one has mentioned a nice fellow by the name of Manuel Noriega. Kidnapped from Panama, and brought to the US and tried as a civilian for crimes committed in Panama! The Brits tried this. Its called extraterritoriality. gesundheit. I don't like it. Anyone read a recent fiction piece called The Trial of Henry Kissinger? In a fictional account(roman a clef) if you will, the theory is made that bombing a non-combatant nation,Cambodia,is a war crime and that Henry should be in jail or dead.Interesting isn't it? The people who flew planes on 9/11 resided legally on our soil and had they lived would be tried in civil courts. Osama, not in this country, could be linked to the crime via money and explicit/implicit orders, kidnapped, and brought here like Manuel. Only problem is, for every day he sits here there will be an act of violence or terror against all of the west. If terror is judged by the supreme court to be an act of war, a tribunal can try him. If terror is an act of war, why was not McVeigh tried in a tribunal? Do you see what this will cause in the Supreme Court? A precedent of a terrorist tried as a civilian? Johnny Cochran says, "If it was good enough for Tim, its good enough for Osama bin!" Better to use Osama's logic on himself. He says this is a holy war. Fine, send him to the clerical court in Mecca. The clerics have already said he has wronged Islam by killing women and children. The penalty is death for this, even in Islamic courts.
*...This site is wide reaching......Cool it......n...
*I wont be denied seeing that jerk off tried and fried in a US court.
*If you try and fry here, there will be more suicide bombers up to and after the fact. Cruise ship in the Caribbean. BOOM! Truck bomb, Hoover Dam. SPLASH! Boat Bomb, Panama Canal. WHOOSH! Truck Bomb, Verazzano Narrows Suspension Tower. SPROING! We should not be afraid to get this guy, but the greater good is that he be gotten rid over there, by whom it matters little. Why go out of our way to be a target for fanatics? These people simply do not understand justice as we see it. And they have no Western logic in their little heads. And they are forgetful. Ten minutes after the Taliban is gone and Osama is gone, every foreigner on Afgan soil will now be the new enemy. Better they do our dirty work for us and I am sure they will. The alternative is that you are not trying Osama, you are trying Islam- in THEIR minds. Then the people who were on your side in the war are now against you for trying a Muslim! Its a mad world!
*>Too many bad, embarrassing decisions have been made in the heat of anger in this country, where good people have been willing to let down their guard and good sense because of anger and base emotion...examples please?
*Pete: I'll answer that for you. You see, there are a lot of sour grapes amongst the old Al & Tipper fans that have been burning with jealousy over the zealous appreciation of Dubya. They've been waiting for the opportunity to pounce on any little thing that comes up, and now with this military tribunal thing they think they've got their cause. The whale campaign went belly up, the global warming thing has gone cold, the environment issues went to seed.... we have a bunch of poor losers looking for an issue. yeah, I never knew that our forefathers and veterans gave of their lives so that foreign terrorists would benefit. That's a new one!
*What a crock.What dark, dank and smelly hole did you pull that piece of 'logic' out of ?Just where are you getting your logic from ? The insides of toilet paper rolls ? Maybe you found it written out by bubble gum stuck under the table at your favorite diner. Maybe you saw it written in the grease stain in a taco shell.That is the most ridiculous, twisted, stretch of an assumption I have heard in a while. I hope you meant it as a joke.
*nice slam Luka, but let's talk turkey. confront me on the issues, don't jettison words from your AK-47 keyboard. I've a tender heart under this big burly chest of mine.
*In a nutshell, this is how the crybabies "logic" works: it is 'undignified' to try terrorists before a military tribunal, so let's do it under U.S. constitutional law. Once they've won that battle, the next scenario is that the death penalty is 'cruel and unusual punishment', a phrase that they found in our own constitution! End result? OBL spends his end days in a cushy american prison that finances his health needs and gives him an opportunity to write his memoirs. For every soldier at war, just to be on the safe side, have a lawyer at your side before you pull that trigger! Did the enemy surrender? Or did he say F... You? You better get it right as the difference is between being a hero or a criminal!
*rjt... the only discussion is about wether to try people DETAINED in the US under military tribunals or not... what they do with prisoners of war in theater is not part of the discussion about constitutional protections ... anything you assumed into the rest of the mix is just crap that you put there...and ..i guess we'll let congress have a look at this ill advised assault on the constitution...so much for your read of what has been posted...
*Wow, Pete. A little pent up there, are we. Haven't seen you on such a rant in a long time. Anyway, civics 101, the Constitution isn't limited to American citizens, but anyone tried within our borders. It's a systemic thing. Either we have a system or not. We can't change it whenever it suits us, because then the Constitution becomes an inconvenience rather than the rule. Once you get it all out, you'll agree.SHG
*RJT,You're entitled to your opinion, but when you write about crybabies and Al Gore, your opinion becomes, how do I say this, marginalized. Try to focus real hard on the topic and, if you actually have a reason for your opinion that has something to do with the topic, then even you could add to the discussion that someobody might care about and without making it look like your third grade teacher was an abject failure. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. And next time, don't hold back.SHG
*Dave,If you havent noticed they already are doing those things. They will do them more especially ssince were bombing the heck outta them
*RJT,I don't mean to hurt your feelings. You should know that. If you were actualy talking about the issues, I would confront you on them. But you didn't present anything on the issue. All you stated was an assinine assumption, based on who knows what.Your statement itself was no more than a generalized 'slam'.Instead of just ascribing ridiculous motives, willy-nilly, to anyone who does not agree with what you think, use that tender heart of yours, and try to figure out the fact that the world is not black and white, us and them. We are all human. We do not all have cold, calculating hearts just because we disagree with you. In fact, whether anyone else will admit it or not, the majority of people out there have tender hearts. Even if it's hidden away because it's inconvenient. Or because it actualy tells you something that is contrary to what you really want to believe.I'll just bet that even most republicans have tender hearts.
*I think the difference is the martyr complex they have and the response this part of the world has to brute force. Bombing Taliban soldiers may incur terror here, but as they get the crap kicked out of them, they are percieved as weak THERE. If you have a trial here, terrorist there can unify Moslems-pull from the more moderates into the radical fold. Again, to the Northern Alliance(of Heroin Smugglers) we are bombing their enemy. As soon as the enemy is gone, we are now just another group "putting Islam on trial". People change their allegiances there quick as a wink. I am for the bombing in that it allows the NA to believe they have of their own accord and ability run out the enemy. These people believe this IMHO, "The US is not helping us, we have tricked them into throwing out the foreigners and Pakis." Bombing is not the cause of more terror. Illogical thinking, win lose thinking and children soldiers indoctrinated by Saudis and Pakis will cause more terror. The 2nd largest Muslim group in the world lives in India. Yup. And the relative peace they have with the Hindus is from a secular government that supports secular schools and promotes civil law.
*...A Rabbi, a Preist, and a Minister go to a gay bar......Lighten up......n...
*Luka,Now that you've turned 180 degrees from wild and rabid to warm and fuzzy, could you find it in your tender heart to at least tell me how a non-American terrorist should be afforded the rights of the constitution?Pete
*Mike,Good to have me back? I'm sure that feeling is shared by all here, LOL.Anyhow, I've just started my own satellite TV company. I have just acquired my retailership from Dish Network. Dish Network is the largest supplier of satellite TV service in North America and they've just purchased Direct TV to top things off.My company is DISHOHIO. Just got our toll free number activated and we're ready for bear as soon as the holiday weekend is over.So, how's all with you and your dear of a wife?Pete
*You know, that's not a bad idea . All I need is someone who actually knows what the heel they are doing to run the program. LOL.I've actually just started a satellite tv company as a retailer for Dish Network. It's a swell business.... the kind where you can shoot for the stars everyday (get it?).Pete
*Hi Pete....Here's one view....
*SHG,That's funny, cuz I don't recall any ranting on my part. Just asking a question that you've still failed to answer. Is it cuz you don't have an answer. Seems, so far, that you are more willing to throw out the constitution when it meets your needs and yet accuse others of doing so. Peculiar, I was really expecting an intelligent and insightful answer from you.Pete
*...5:25pm... Both of ya......Anybody here think that Pi & Pete are the same person???...
*...[grin]...
*Hey Pi,How are ya?Anyhow, The article that you've directed me to is nothing more than a heavily opinionated view, that leans so far to the left, it's fallen over already.Still, I seek an answer as to what it may be that gives non-Americans the right to the protection of the American constitution.Actually your article did invoke a very important idea in my little head. It mentioned evidence and the rules for gathering it. The rules of evidence provide that such evidence that will be used in a court of law, constitutionally that is, must be obtained in certain fashions that do not disregard constitutional protections. Therefore, it would be safe to assume that large or important pieces of evidence, gathered against Ossama and his ilk, would not be admisible in a court of law due to the manner in which they were obtained.I appreciate your shedding of this light upon me while I still seek an answer to my question.Pete
*We are not the same but merely two siblings from different mothers.LOL, wait till Pi hears of your accusation!
*Ah, Pete, I'm just trying to enlighten you.....There are always two avenues when one asks a question.....Actually, the Village Voice is one of the saner voices in all of this.....Would you like a link for the New Republic or The American Spectator.....One of my dearest friend's husband writes for the New Republic and I still love her!! I have very spirited debates with him....He marched with MLK and now is a Republican....Imagine that.....Seriously, I am really concerned that our(yours and mine) rights will become eroded if Ashcroft or whoever will get their hooks into our civil rights.....Sorry I didn't give you what you wanted.......
*Sort of like Romulus and Remus......I be the she wolf, he be the he wolf.......Ok, Newf, that did it.....
*...did what????...
*...123 threads & counting,... "I love to Count Things"..."The Count"......Let the battle begin...
*Pi,When you speak of "our civil rights" you muddy the waters. We are talking about non-American terrorists.
*That's just the point.....Are you speaking of the Afghan terrorists?PS...I like to muddy the waters, makes for a good debate.....
*...Are you shore[sic]?...
*...Hello...
*...All we need is 404 for the record, so maybe we could talk, discuss why teachers, & police people in the States get shitty pay in the States, and in CANADA THEY ARE TOP DOG???......Like, that's what happens to the end of my stick???......peace......n...
*Pete,sorry I didn't get back to you sooner but I have been out of State for a few days.I am not so much thinking of Osama Bin Ladden as I am thinking of the approx. 1,100 people who have been rounded up here in the U.S. See, the funny thing is,we hear about these people being "detained"---but we don't hear about any of them being charged,we don't hear about any evidence,and we don't really hear how many ,if any ,have been released.What we do hear is our president assuming that he has the right to do some pretty dictatorial things that he might not actually have the right to do.SHG can give you plenty of tutorials in constitutional law----you might want to read it before you proclaim that it doesn't apply.not that it is in the constitution----but there still are people out there who actually believe " That all men are created equal" and people who believe that men are "endowed with certain in-alienable rights"the question is,do we believe these things all the time( even when times are tough) or do we only believe it when it is convenient?
*...Stephen...You should move to Canada & run for election, you have my vote, all thought that and some money will buy you a dougnut..., & a coffee, or something like that......Hell, have the whole Country......Peace......n...
*hey since dishnetwork bought out direct tv (thats what i got) can i whine at you when they hose me about something??? good luck with your new biz bud..
*Its pretty cool that a bunch of guys can argue constitutional fine points on a computer over hundreds or thousands of miles. Thats why in the end the terrorist lose. We're smarter.
*Pete,When I said rant, I was just talking about the number of posts. Seems like you had a lot of catching up to do.I thought I had laid out my position with my usual long-winded yet boring style early on here, so I was reluctant to do it again for all the people who say to themselves when they read my posts, "Please, make him shut up already." I guess I wasn't as persuasive as I should have been, but the Constitution is something you either believe in or not.As far as throwing it away when it's convenient, not that's something I don't do. I live with it in good times and bad. There are certainly times when it gets in the way of what I would like to see happen, but that's a visceral response rather than principled response. And the feeling usually passes.I, for one, am always glad to see you around, even when I disagree with you. SHG
*Mike: the military tribunal discussion is not about terrorists detained in this country, but about bringing terrorists to this country to try them here in civil court as opposed to trying them right there where they are apphrended in a military tribunal. As far as your other abusive outburst is concerned, it doesn't apply.
*SHG: I'm just amazed that nobody responded to my Al Gore generalization that an equal number of conservatives are also opposed to military tribunals. I throw you guys an opportunity and you waste it.
*Luka: I know you did not mean to hurt my feelings, I apologize for making a statement that was mocking a perceived mindset... let us let it go at that.... some things do not convey well in this media. But likewise your statement was not not on the issue, it emanated from an attitude that certain ideas are out of line. I don't think any of us here are going to fold if we stoke the fire some. And as for republicans having tender hearts... I would venture to say that very few American voters strongly identify with being either democrat or republican. I think we all for the most part have tender hearts.
*...I think God has rented my basement apartment......n......coinkydink???...
*rjt... so solly, but you're rong again...<<>well, actually , they are quite specific .. and both the president AND ashcroft have said it is about BOTH the ones detained HERE and the ones detained in foreign lands....u cud look it up...
*Not just that; but, I'm told that as written, the domestic tribunals could be applied to US citizens.
*140 posts later........ 1946 Nurenburg. Goerhing, Goebbels, Himmler, Hess etc. Military Tribunal. Ropes around the neck. 1946 Tokyo. Tojo and friends. Military Tribunal. 2001 Afganistan. Osama. Military Tribunal. There is a precedent. Now why,pray tell, did we not drag those evil men over here and try them? Hmmm? If anyone worries about insufficient punishment on this soil there is Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for example. Old Sparky for them. Tribunals for war crimes, or courts for espionage. Take your pick.
*Well gosh, sure, anything done in the past must be good, right ? Let's bring back the dunking stool and trial by ordeal; it certainly would cut down on the not-guilty pleas in traffic court.
*Dave,Nurenburg was a tribunal but not a military one it also was not done in secret.Vince
*Thanks guys,those are very good points. A friend pointed out that the Nazi's and Japanese were in fact represented by appointed lawyers and they were not in secret. One reason things in the past count(no, not dunking stools) is that they carry the weight of precedent, at least if done on these shores. Make no mistake, Julius and Ethel were indeed guilty of espionage. I think they fried more for being Jewish than anything. If it had been a different religion, they could still be rotting away somewhere. Sad case. So, let me restate the matter. Military tribunal, secret or not, has a precedent. Would the Supreme Court sustain as precedent something this country did in an extraterritorial(overseas)manner? I really have no idea. I would also note(I am not a lawyer,but starting to sound like one)that not all citizens of this country have equal rights. Naturalized citizens may be stripped of their rights much more easily IF it can be proved that they commited crimes or obtained citizenship under false pretenses. Naturalized citizens can not be president. There are court cases that support these differences. Gotta go, my cable provider is going tu today.
*Sorry folks,but i'm gonna do it - I found this while searching a concordance this morning (for the childrens message, non related topic)Lev 24:22 "You are to have the same law for the alien and the native born. I am the Lord your God." And it's not even taken out of context - I wouldn't even go here, except both the president and AG thump the bible as they wrap themselves in the flag - Jesus even weighed in on the matter-Mt24:28 - FWIW, IMO the military in the field need a lot of latitude to deal with situations, altho if the 'war on terrorism' is to receive overwhelming worldwide support (is their any other way it will be effective?), we need exemplify the best of 'rule by law'. Domestically, this is the slippery slope - suspected terrorists, do child pornograhers deseve any better? they are terrorists of a sort - there has been a lot of effort to hang 'terrorist' on a lot of acts, remember a ski lodge developement getting burned down during construction a couple of years ago; politician&law enforcement were adamant it was a 'terrorist' act - - drug war, lots of places that secret evidence could grease the wheels of .... justice? how would Wen Ho Lee (Los Alamos scientist) have fared before a tribunal?I hope this (domestic military tribunals) is just a stall tactic, but have no faith that it is -
*It seems to me that the whole ideology of treating terrorists with any respect or fairness is part of why we've become such an easy and desirable target to them. They see us as soft.... a bunch of pushovers. I think GW's strategy is to get tough with them and I agree with it. I still do not see the big problem with theswe tribunals nor how they have anything to do with the constitution or the rights of the American people. All I've seen is smokescreening and avoidance of direct answers by the tribunal oppositionists.
*Just try'em and fry'em be done with 'em give them the same treat as they gave us. eye for and eye.
*.......until all are blind. And toothless. Just a thought that Joseph Stalin said, "One person gets killed and that's called a tragedy. Kill a million and that's just a statistic." Except we in the West can count, and every life gets one count. Life is not cheap here. We will count every one of those killed in New York. Every single one. No 'statistics' for me. I read about a kid whose dad died in the tower. He thinks dad isn't coming home from work because "there aren't enough taxis to bring him home" He's five. I'm a grown man and I cried my eyes out. That said, I work most every day with immigrants. One of the Somalis I know here got his business shut down for no reason. After 2 weeks he got his groceries back for his store but no charges were brought, no explanations, nothing. I know the guy. He wants a house for his kids, an education for his kids and a nice dinner at home in the evening. No, he is not like me, speaks with an accent and gets angry at the drop of a pin. But he chose to be here and is making it here and his kids are the best kids I can think of. So tribunals for the Osama's of the world are ok by me, but for people who have become citizens, there are different rules. If they are simply from the middle east, but have followed all the rules to become citizens and are citizens in good standing, they deserve our civil rights. I feel that tribunals overseas are acceptable, but if they are held in secret, why bother with a process. Just declare ourselves the winner and line em up. Question: If they are held in secret, how long will the records be sealed? Will the Freedom of Information Act apply eventually? I still say let the Islamic court in Mecca do in their own. But better these guys in Afganistan just go out in a hail of bullets.
*There are other outcome possibilities of a M.T. other than the death penalty. I think one compelling reason for them is the fact that 68% of terrorist cases are unconvicted due to lack of substantial evidence. In a M.T. it would be different.
*Pete, I think all terrorists should be taken out and shot.That being said, I'd like to see proof that they are in fact terrorists.I don't want to just take someone's word for it,Even Bin Ladin,The Gov. says they have proof.Ok, you don't want to show it now for security reasons,but with a secret tribunal they never have to show us.So whether or not they have proof or if they're just covering up the fact that they just don't know who really planed the wtc attact we must blindly go along ,Not me!Also,so you don't like the non citizen down the street, he's cutting into your construction buisness.You call your brother in law who's a cop,bingo, he's a suspected terrorist.I don't like it, to much room for abuse.Vince
*Pete:"It seems to me that the whole ideology of treating terrorists with any respect or fairness is part of why we've become such an easy and desirable target to them."If you think real hard, and didn't sleep through all of your civics lessons in grammer school, you might recall a little concept called the presumption of innocence.It is our system of justice as much as our economic opportunities which has attarcted people to the US since the 18th century."All I've seen is smokescreening and avoidance of direct answers by the tribunal oppositionists."Try looking again. You seem to see only what you want to see.
*I like V Carbone's post. As a matter of reality, the lower paid construction/landscape workers here are all Mexican/Indian/Somali/Ukrainian etc. I could not work like they do for the wages they do. If people become snitches, as opposed to the governments "alert, watchful" or whatever, you will see lots of normal people get abused. Like it or not, our low wage workers in this country are mostly foreign born. And I see more of them with flag pins on their lapels than people who were born here. The mere accusal of being a terrorist could ruin their lives. If the government wants to kick down ANY doors here they better have proof of what they want to charge you with.
*But isn't that what the ultra-conservatives really want ? To drive out all those "furiners" and discourage more from coming ?
*Phil, your post is a topic near and dear to my heart. I have a very conservative friend who has a business that serves the restaurant trade. As he has learned, it "furriners" doin the crap work of our world. He and I agree, either put the army on the borders or come up with a reasonable plan for immigration. God knows what that would be but anything is better than the wink and nod system we use now. There is really zero border enforcement with regard to Mexico. As for Asia, we are a seive from Canada. If we did not have these people, who would dig the trench to put in the new water main to your house? Who would roll the 2 man rocks around? Immigrants don't bother me, just the lack of a reasonable process to make them legal. The ultra-conservatives are funny. People south of the border are church going family oriented people. Same for India. Same for Ethiopia. They just happen to be poor, which should tell you something about the true agenda of conservatives. Let me toss this one out: If you call yourself a Republican, are you a Teddy Roosevelt Republican or a Pat Robertson-Jerry Falwell-Jim Jones U. Republican? Think about the characters of these men and ask if they belong in the same party. Sorry to rant.
*I be a Teddy Roosevelt Bull Moose - I would trade Falwell/Limbaugh republicans for immigrants, 2 for 1 -
*Sorry David, no one is goin`to take them off your hands.
*And after cleaning toilets for 10 years or so, many of those same "furiners" become the hard-working new entrepreneurs who are the engine for growth. But just to set one little bit of the record straight, an overwhelming proportion of Canada's refugee-type immigrants from Asia; well, from anywhere for that fact, come to us through the US, not the other way around.
*I am very glad to hear that the spirit of the Bull Moose lives on. Seems the Bull Moose Republicans were men of character. Maybe thats why no one in public office seems to want the mantle of Bull Moose. Phill, are you in Canada? Do we send Canada illegals? There is a pretty porous border with Canada, which has been a plus so far.......
*Most of our refugee claimants are 3rd country arrivals (that means they've been allowed into another country before trying to immigrate to Canada); and, most often, that 3rd country is the US.
*They come here for the ice fishing.Gabe
* In the finial analyses it will all boil down to only one thing, the human race is programmed for survival and will do whatever is necessary to achieve that end. Had there been a follow up attack of any magnitude after the WTC disaster this thread would not even have been an issue, since no one in their right mind would have wanted to put the breaks on Achcroft & Co. But now that things have somewhat tapered off the liberals are crawling out of their holes and mumbling hands off our civil rights. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favor of government having a free reign but difficult situations call for difficult solutions. I certainly see the danger in letting the government prosecute cases in secret, the long term repercussions could be disastrous as to who will decide what cases can be tried in secret and who has the final say. However this country is so infested with money grubbing, egotistical lawyers that due process of law has been reduced to entertainment status and can hardly be counted on to solve the problem of National security or, should I say rather the lack of. It is pretty much a given that another attack will occur, we need to give law enforcement the necessary tools to deal with it. In the end the body count will be determined to a large degree by how much influence the intellectual bottom feeders can exert on our political process. I don’t profess to have the answer but for those that feel Ashcroft has too much of a strong-arm approach should consider the current headlines “Taliban on the Verge of Surrender”. This could just as easily have read, “Gore fiddles while Washington Burns.”
*armin.. anytime yur thru puffin platitudes about fookin liberals... you can get me another 'gansett...
*I like liberals, they talk in fancy pants and play riddles with reality. Put a blue collar on them pull their little snots out of prep school and see them snatch a view of what life is like for the rest of us.
*rest of whhoooooo?... me , i work for a livin.... you poor right wing bastids r the 1's who think the whirld o's u a livin...hah, hah, hah.. now... where's my beer ?ever tell ya 'bout my michigan roooots, armin ?
*......and of course no sense of humor. :)?
*David: I think you might have unproved your point. The scripture in Lev 24:22 is saying the opposite of what you suggest. Instead of offering more lenient justice towards aliens, it is commanding that they are subject to the same strict consequences as citizens. And what in the world you found in Mt 24:28 that had anything to do with the subject is something to wonder!!
*here's your beer Mike - anytime - you want humorless RJT, look no further than the new nazi's sponsored by the republicrats - young weasel prosecutor two counties north got himself elected - time for family values - takes on adult book store - 4 counts of anything he can think of - jury of 12 gives him nothing - does he consider that the community is telling him that his values should not be forced on everone? of course....not - statement for tv - we are going ahead with 4 more cases of the same sort - idiot - is this the thread about offending idiots? - oh - no, this is the one where some people think it's a good idea for himmler youth such as this to authorize surveilance without court oversight - I mean, this guy even had the hitler mustache - more beer nuts! - - more beer - I laugh - no good to cry - we live like kings and it's not good enough - more things! it's the american way -
*Mike, Much to your disappointment, I'm not considered by those who know me best as a nutcase right winger, In fact I'm ashamed to say, I did vote for Clinton (Once) and his morally bankrupt cohorts. I also like reading your posts; they amuse me and help dampen the cabin fever up here in the far north. Yeah, I'll buy you a couple of beers, bro but first tell me has your spell checker gone on the fritz or are you just conversing in the vernacular of the Rhode Island Red Neck. I have to assume you have some education considering your Michigan roots and all. Next summer I have a big staircase to build out in your neck o the woods, I might just surprise you and stop in and buy you a real beer, who knows you might even come to realize I’m not a turd bird with two right wings. Cheers bud!
*sorry, Mt 23:28 - - looked at the top of the page and the chapter changed. - Our president and AG have proposed different laws for aliens - 'star chamber justice' - perhaps they would like to change them for native borns also and this is one of my concerns -
*believe me armin, i no turd burds...they r usually not as amusin as u...and that's Rhode Island Reds... the most famous fowl in da whirl....so.. these stares you'll be building in RI.. or nearabouts.. would they be like 40 mile stares ?or the fancier type.....lately ... we build the exterior ones and shop the interior to someone like Cooper Stairworks...say... i do believe my glass is empty... and the wife is back from 2d shift at the foundary.. so i'll be turnin in.. nite armin..nite john boy....good nite mrs calabash, where ever you are ......
*David, aliens are subject to different law than citizens, the simplist in that you can get sent home. Until you are a citizen of this country, legal resident aliens may be deported for any minor crime. In other words, you want to live here prove yourself a good citizen, and if you don't, we are not a big hotel with 3 hots and cot. You don't go to jail, you go home. If your crime is heinous enough, we keep you in jail or fry you. If you finish jail, you are taken to a plane and sent home. If you are naturalized and have citizen rights, you are treated just like everyone else UNLESS you commit a crime related to your entry to this country. The legal hurdles here are low and you can lose your citizenship real quick. Here is the latest fly in this ointment: The 3 US citizens caught fighting for the Taliban. This is the best case for seeing what peoples rights are all about. Too bad we caught this trash at all. They are worse than mercenaries, which is a job title that gets you stripped of your citizenship posthaste.
*Yup
*I work for a living too.And just because I wear a blue collar doesn't mean I have to be led around by the nose,uneducated, bigoted, scared of change,ioslationist, protectionist,parrot for the right wing.Vince
*"I like liberals, they talk in fancy pants and play riddles with reality. Put a blue collar on them pull their little snots out of prep school and see them snatch a view of what life is like for the rest of us. "I wear Carharts 95% of the time.And look at what the current administration has done for i usworking folks. Bailed out a bunch of airlines and other industries; haven't done squat for working class people. Many have been thrown out of work by the 9/11 afteeffects (esp in travel and tourism.) Just what have the conservatives done for them?Talk about playing riddles with reality!
*Now,now Bob----lets play fair. After all the conservatives in power have graciously offered to allow their buddies in the oil companies to drill for oil in our National Parks.Surely all those oil derricks would be for our benefit?
*Well, actually, they're more like all those Americans who fought for the communists in the Spanish Civil War, including Hemmingway. They went to fight for the Taliban, not OBL. On the other hand they should have immediately withdrawn, and under "civilized" rules of engagement, the Taliban should have allowed them to withdraw, as soon as the US entered hostilities: supporting a foreign government over your own in time of war is first order treason.
*Bob, I wear Carharts 95% of the time. Kool but Mike Smith has you beat, rumor has it he wears his in the shower too. Man I love you guys, the entertainment value of your posts is awesome.Keep em coming.
*Phill, interesting concept save that if you fight for any foreign power, you are breaking US law, which is why the Abe Lincoln brigade members are not allowed any governmnent services(Veterans, etc) And as for Hemmingway et al fighting for communism, that is a specious argument. Wars make strange bedfellows. The Finns fought for the Nazis. I dare you to take a Finn to task for this, since all of Karelia was lost to the Russians the year before and Finland had the choice of the communist yoke or a chance for independence. And the West ignored their pleas for arms. What would you do in that situation. And by the way, the USA recognizes Red China, not Taiwan. Whose side are we on in reality there? The Finns had to PAY war reparations to the West. Can you defend that? They fought against communism, so did Hitler. You want an arm wrestling match between Stalin and Hitler to see who is the most evil? Maybe we can have Osama and Saddam arm wrestle for the king of evil and we can chase the winner. The world is just not so simple.
*They went and fought for the communists (I noticed you changed that to fighting for communism - whcih may or may not have been true). The Finns chose the wrong side ? Too bad.
*Phill, The Spanish Republican Army was a mix of many people of many politics. If you are saying the Republicans were all communists I would say I don't think so. The Finns did not choose the wrong side. They chose the side that gave the best outcome in the end. The result is not "too bad", its very good. Had they chosen to fight with the USSR they would have been under communism for 50 years. If these Americans fought for the Taliban, not Osama bin Laden, they may not fit the terrorist description based on our definition, which revolves around Al-Quaida.But how about this: as fighters for the Taliban they have chosen to enter into "crimes against humanity" based on their warfare tactics and their abuse of civilians. So, to the Hague with them? Nice cool cell next to Milosevic?
*phillllllllll..now there you go again.. spoutin about sometin you ain't researched..the republicans were not communists.. but they were the legitimately elected government of Spain.... and Franco was not..to label americans who fought in teh Lincoln brigade as commies is dumb.. more along the lines of McCarthyism and the red scare...the Spanish Civil war was a pretty complex thing.. but it was certainly NOT about Communists VS. conservatives...
*I think you may have missed the part of my note where I said the Americans had commited treason. If the Finns, in your opinion, made the right choice, then why are complaining that they paid the same as everyone else who made that choice ? I will now correct you for the second time about this: I did not say they were communists, I said they fought with the communists.
*David: The bible I own has mt 23:28 saying: "So you seem to men to be outwardly upright, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."How does this verse relate to military tribunals?
*Arm: Mike purposely misspells as a means of getting even with that witch grade school teacher that humiliated him in front of the whole class when he misspelled "Eisenhower".
*I can think of nothing more beautiful than the void Alaskan landscape peppered with oil rigs and pipelines while the Arab countries go begging for a buyers.
*Boy, the third time with the same correction I did not say they were communists, I said they fought with. Now, after the overthrow of King Alfonso in 1931, the government was a coalition of parties representing socialists (marxists), communists, Trotskyite workers party, anarcho-syndicalists (esp. in Barcelona), Basque & Catalonia separatists. (See any communists yet Mike ?) In 1933, the conservatives won; however, the president (elected separately, it was a republican system by now) cut out the largest conservative party, CEDA (which was really the Catholic Church) and it's leader Fr. Gil Robles and gives power to the Radical Party creating a lame-duck government. A year later there's a general strike led by the Marxist trade union Union General de Trabajadores (UGT), the anarcho-syndicalist CNT, and the communist Alianza Obrera (workers' alliance) which pretty much leaves the country in chaos (Still no communists, right Mike). In Feb 1936, the Popular Front won the election and started the "socialist revolution" (death squads hunting down priests and landowners, opposition politicians murdered, farms collectivized, businesses and factories nationalized - nope, no communism here, right Mike ?)In July '36, Franco, serving in Spanish Morrocco, responds to pleas from CEDA and the Catholic Church to step in. Franco tries to go to Spain, but is blockaded by the Spanish fleet. Hitler and Mussolini, avowed enemies of communism, send transport planes to get Franco around the blockade - Stalin responds (oh, did we mention that Stalin funded the Popular Front and had "advisors" in Spain assisting in the restructuring of the economy ?) by sending tanks and troups to defend Madrid, Valencia, Barcelona. (gosh, no communists here Mike). Stalin escalates with troups and arms and defacto takes over the republican party; Germany and Italy respond with STuka's; a Spanish submarine (on loan from Russia ?) attacks the German cruiser Leipzig and the Germans start tossing naval shells into coastal towns. Stalin and Hitler realize that they are close to war and decide to back off, complete with signing the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact, and leave the Spanish to figure it out for themselves. With the Russians gone, the Republicans have lost their military commanders, the core of their army, the top of their bureaucracy, and their funding - Franco, of course, still has everything he started with and takes the country. Most of the international brigades realize they are on the loosing side and leave (a few, like George Orwell claim they were being sold out by the communists {yes, he said the "C" word - read his Homage to Catalonia} and left totally disillusioned). Gee Mike, see any communists yet ? As an aside, even though Hitler assisted Franco, he was no fan of Nazi's and sat out WWII as a "silent ally" of the US and Britain.
*silent ally , my ass.. and..who wrtoe that little history...you give far too much credence to the influence of Communist Russia on the Spanish left...and Franco didn't come in with Germany because he was playing for favoritism with Hitler.. he wanted Gibralter.. Hitler wouldn't help ... since he was already bogged down in the Balkans..you could look it up... but try a different source than the John Birch society....hah, hah, hah....Phillllllllllllllllllll.....
*Try Ambass. Willard Beaulac's memoirs regarding who Franco supported, he did this in return for being recognized by the US in 1939 and for having the embargo not enforced. By the way Mike, Stalin didn't exactly send tanks to Spain to repell Franco, there's no Physical way they could have gotten them there that quickly - they were either there already or well on their way. I realize that you have no avenue other than name-calling and innuendo; however, do you really think George Orwell is in the John Birch Society ?
*lemme see... bottom line.. according to you..Franco good...Republicans bad...nah....yur backin the wrong side .. Phillllllllllllll
*I said nothing about Franco being good and I backed no side; however, I certainly do not favour communism. If you will go back to the debate; you made the statement that the Republicans were not communists - it is a matter of historical record that they were: full stop.
*I have read Homage to Catalonia, and have stayed in the hotel where George Orwell recovered from his wounds. All civil wars are messy but to give an association/illusion that the Americans who went there to fight were simply giving succor and aid to communists is patently absurd. The Americans who fought in the Taliban were there to support the outcome of 1. an Islamic State 2.the end of all secular rights 3. the loss of status by all women 4. the end of secular education. These men chose evil. Did the Americans in Spain seek similar goals. Read Orwell again. No mention of seeking reduced freedoms, disenfranchised womnen, the end of secular schooling. To return to the topic, the men who fought for the Taliban fought for a system that defiles humanity. They are criminals and should be stripped of all their rights. If someone really thinks the American Brigades in Spain can be equated with these Americans in the Taliban, then enjoy Lyndon LaRouche and equally enlightened reading. You would be better informed by drinking gin straight from the bottle.
*In both cases, the men went to support an ideology-based "government" was the point. There was no other comparison drawn. I realize you had to invent the rest to try and obscure the fact that these Americans were fighting on the communist side in Spain.
*Yeah Armin...he's atchally one of them swamp yankees.
*phillllllll..ur so wrong on this.. and the majority of the historians do not side with your viewpoint...Franco and his minions were right wing reactionaries.. the Loyalist Republicans were the duly elected government of Spain..Fascism was rampant in the western world.. and Franco fell into that same mold..the Neutrality of the west doomed the republican government.. the fascists could receive aid from Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, but the Republican could not..your history is revisionist and apologetic for the crimes of Franco...Communism is not what Republican Spain was about.. it was about the rights of the working class.. which you reject...
*In the 20's and 30's, communisim was not considered the great evil is is today by the western world. Much of the atrocities committed in Russia were not known. Most people thought of it as an altruistic attempt to gain justice and flatten the economic systems of countries so wealth would be more widespread. True capitalists were against it because they didn't want any flattening of wealth and wanted completely free reign to abuse their employees too. They were also opposed to antitrust legislation. The world was much more skewed than it has been in our lifetimes. People didn't have social security, retirement wasn't necessarily an option unless you did quite well for yourself, in the 30's the economy was in ruins worldwide and there were lots and lots of desparate people with little or no hope of improving thier lot. Communism was seductive and seemed to many good and thoughtful people to be an improvement over the rapacious capitalists and certaintly much better than fascism. We were also allied with Russia in WWII.After WWII, the west started realizing the communists were just as rapacious as the worst capitalists or facists. Political beliefs became more and more polarized as communism was demonized and bolstered by the cold war fears and news of Russian atrocities. Most of the Americans who once thought well of communism realized it was just as horrible as any other extreme system that didn't respect human rights and turned against it. A few continued to turn a blind eye to Russian atrocities and continued to believed in it. So to be very accusatory of communistic beliefs in the 20's and 30's is to not understand the world then. If they continued to believe in it after the truth came out, then that is another story. Everywhere where working class rights were politicized, communism was there trying to co-opt the cause, including in the Unions in this country early on. That is of course the ideology basis of communism - rights for the worker.Orwell was a staunch socialist and supported the communists in Spain. As Phil said, he left extremly disillusioned. As the truth about the abuses of communism in practice started coming into the western world, Orwell, that far leftward novelist, wrote 1984 and Animal Farm, two of the most damning satires against communism ever written and used in every high school to teach the dangers of communism.Funny how that is. You go too far right and you get fascism; you go too far left and you get communism, but to the people caught in either system, they look the same.Mary
*I made no apologies for the crimes of Franco, a cruel and brutal dictator. Nor did I reject any rights of the working class. If you believe that the Repubican cause was just, then I can respect that opinion; but, when they themselves openly called themselves communists I don't know how you can pretend they were not. Talk about a division of opinion, we have you stating that it was better to support the communists because the unacceptable alternative was facism while Mr. Riggs says the Finns had to support the facists because the unacceptable alternative was communism. As you two seem have the ideologies while I merely stated the facts, maybe you two should duke it out.
*I stand corrected, it's been pointed out that Mr. Riggs has taken positions for, and against, both the communists and the facists.
*phillllll.. if we follow your logic.. since there were communists in the coalitions that made up the Republic... then obviously.. the communitst that McCarthy found in the Eisenhower administration are proof that that Republic was also communist... nah....here's YOUR syllogism....there were communists in the Spanish Republic...there fore the spanish republic was communist...nope.. Acquinas would tell you your logic is faulty... towers....que ?
*A round of drinks for all, check out the attachment.
*Armin, YESSS!!!This discussion is fookin amazin! It goes everywhere! And there is a lot of smart, concealed.TC
*Just as I told myself to disappear from this page, I see Mike Smith's post, and it speaks better than I can. Phill, you really should read lots of Lyndon LaRouche. I think you might find it appealing. I support neither communism nor fascists. When anyone hurls the ephitat "communist" into a debate, its like tossing "racist" in. It usually shows that simplistic sloganeering is preferable to real world thinking. It is simply meant to draw a line in the sand, beyond which logic or observations of realpolitik need not pass. This is an interesting board of which I am new to visit and do enjoy. Hope all future discussions are equally enlightening.
*Thanks for that info, Mary. History bored me and the only tidbit I recall, which is in dispute last I heard, was that Santa Ana invented chewing gum. See why I love this place?
*No Mike, if you need the really simple connection; the ruling party in the government at the start of the civil war was the Popular Front. The Popular Front was a self-described communist party. I'm sorry if that connection is too obscure. Most countries in Europe had multiple "communist" parties then, and they're still around today. For example, Mitterand first became President of France in 1981 with the support of the French Communist Party which held the plurality in the assembly at the time (he later screwed them, but that's another topic.
*Communist parties are legitimate political forces throughout most of the world, I'd even guess that before the fall of the USSR, communism may have been the largest form of government in the world. Refering to people and governments by the labelsb they choseis hardly tossing an epithet any more than calling George Bush a Republican or Patton a soldier. Now, are you going to sit there and tell us that calling George Bush a Republican is "simplistic sloganeering" ?
*Lyndon LaRouche ? He's just another hack politician, why would anyone read his stuff ? Besides, he's an anti-communist in the Democratic Party, which means his political potential is zero.
*Gentlemen, Francisco Franco is still dead. Press on.SHG
*shg... shocked !, i am....that news made my day !
*The rules of engagement for debate seem's to be my point. If you are a communist, republican, democrat or anacharchist then you are indeed fair game for the words that go with it. But to use these titles to broadbrush large complicated world events is disingenuous at best. Lets poll the crowd: Did the United States armed forces go to Europe to fight against Hitler, or did they go as the Isolationist Reactionary Forces of Capitalism to fight for World Hegymony? Did the majority of the Spansh fighters go to fight for world communism or did they go to fight against Fascist Franco. By simply hollerin "commie" and not analyzing the situation, you get nowhere. Calling George Bush is not simplistic sloganeering. But to say that George Bush is Republican, all of whom trod on civil rights, give huges payouts to corporations, steal elections, disenfranchise black voters etc would be to say exactly what you have said of Spanish fighters. Yes Mr Bush is a Republican. No he does not match those descriptions. Nor would he necesarrily be held to any such accusations should any of his party ascribe to such actions. I am not arguing simple facts. I am arguing that the grounds for debate demand a broader view and that simple labels will result in very little critical thinking, in a time when our country needs lots of critical thinking.
*As more than 60% of the Americans who fought for the Republicans in Spain were members of the American Communist Party, I'd say a majority of them went to fight for communism.
*ROFLMAO!!! Thanks for the laugh to break up the history lesson.Mike
*ITA. Well said.Mike
*Phill did they all die like the dogs they were
*What dogs are you refering to ?
*the american commies. commies and terrorist are all the same to me. both using any means necessary to advance their agenda.
*sorry Mikie but you are wrong. The prez and a.g. have stated m.t. only for terrorists on foreign soil, not those detained here.
*For all you tireless debaters NEWSWEEK the current issue Dec,10,01 is devoted to the issue of Military Tribunals, some very good information worth reading also contains pictures for the intellectual bottom feeders that can't read.
*no, rjt .. they haven't....anyways... here's a fairly even handed essay on the Abraham Lincoln Brigade....easy read...http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/abe-brigade.htmlnot a lot different than TR's Rough Riders... just an unfortunate association with the communist party...that notwithstanding.... the villain in this piece was not the Republic.. it was Franco, his troops from Spanish Morocco... and the fascists....do you think Hemmingway was fighting with Franco ?hah, hah, hah.....
*Thanks Mike. A not too relevent fact to us but useful in the study of government action is the somewhat buried end to the story. What happened to the Spanish Republicans that crossed the Pyrenees into France? A very very hard topic to source out but here is the gist of it: They were put in concentration camps in Southern France. The French feared that giving them amnesty would incur a German strike outright. They also committed a very grave European crime in that they had no "papers". They were essentially without passport to avoid the consequences of being caught by Franco and shot. They lingered in camps for barely a year before the Nazis took France. The Nazis found the French prisons to their taste, changed the guards, or kept ones that went Vichy. One by one the Spaniards disappeared into the system and died. Hard to believe not one Frenchman would open the gates at the last minute and choose humanity. It is almost impossible to find remains of the camps now. They are tucked away and converted back to field and farm. The locals prefer not to talk about it.
*But the samei (using any means necessary to advance their agenda)could be said of the far right-wing, extreme religious groups, ideological extremists, racists, one-issue extremists, etc. too. Many died, often because their communist leaders decided to make martyrs of them. This was a major reason why so many of the survivors, like George Orwell, realized that they had been sold a bag of manure.
*Excellent article.....There is also an excellent piece by an agnostic as to why she is uncomfortable with the bringing of religion into every discussion of a patriotic American......
*That's part of a set, here's much of the rest of the set:http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/spancivwar/spancivwarhis.html This is more than you'll ever want to know:http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.htmlAnd here's another perspective:http://www.marxist.com/History/Spanishrev.html
*Phill, excellent links. If an argument between 2 parties can lead to endless squabbling,(D vs R), imagine these fractious countries like Spain, Italy, even Germany intially that have 5, 6, 10, etc parties vying for some kind of power. Not to mention muliple languages and religions. Your note of the abuses of both ends of the political spectrum is well taken. Stalin and Beria loved murder for the sake of it I think. I also think that the parliamentary system allows far too many voices to ring out with no clear consensus. When you get to a coalition system you have to listen to minority parties, but do you also have to accept a lower common denominator in your government. I have no idea. Thoughts?
*That is not a problem with the parlimentary system: Spain, France, and Germany all have republican systems similar to the US. It is a hazzard to all democracries which employ elected representatives when a time comes when no broad base of citizens feel adequately represented by an omnibusual party. One common cause are the small regional parties that represent a single issue, or sometimes multiple national parties that champion disparate solutions to a single issue. The other popular reason seems to be a lack of leadership able to build larger and broader support bases (sometimes this is as simple as a clash of egos).Many people feel that minority governments (i.e. where one party takes offical power with the official support of another) make the best governments as they prevent a single point of view from prevailing - much like the theory that having the Senate and the Congress have differnt parties in majority is good, or having the executive in one party and the legislative in another gives a check & balance. In the US, where elected positions are basically bought and party loyalties are almost genetically ingrained, there is little chance of small parties getting a toe-hold unless someone like Ross Perot (sp ?) comes along to bankroll it. In countries where it is easier for people to run for office and have their issues heard; they do.
*Phill, you really get into history, thanks for the interesting info on a little known topic.
*WSJ wednesday november 28, 2001:BUSH SAYS MILITARY TRIBUNALS TO BE USED FOR SUSPECTED TERORISTS CAPTURED ABROAD"Facing intensifying cricism of its plan to use military tribunals to try suspected terrorists, Bush administration officials say the unusual tribunals will be used for suspects captured abroad and rarely, if ever, to try suspects arrested in the U.S."
*thanks, rjt...saved me the trouble...<<<<Facing intensifying cricism of its plan to use military tribunals to try suspected terrorists, Bush administration officials say the unusual tribunals will be used for suspects captured abroad b and rarely, if ever, to try suspects arrested in the U.S." >>>>
*Phill,I find that remark very racist and degrading to both Italian people and those of Italian decent. You should be ashamed of yourself.
*Italians are a race now ? But I withdraw the remark.
*it's a big man o'you mike to admit that you were rongtanks
*Comon Ron lighten up, of all the people who post here I thought you had a sense of humor. Besides Italian is a nationality, Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic, etc are considered race. Cheers, have a cup of ice tea on me.
*rjt.... ur welkom..artillery
*Armin,i just get tierd of Phill self rightous jibber jabber I had to ping him on the one of the very things he bags on the US about ..
*mik-ee: eye unnerstan da communikashun problum: you libruls dont baleev wut is sed. wen dey say "rarely if ever" they mean "rarely if ever" but youse guys (liruls) are use to hearing mister bill say 1 ting and meen anudder, like: "i didunt have seks wit dat wimmun" and youse guys hear: "me un dis babe got hot and nasty big time!"it ain't dat way no moh
*BeeJeezzeoo Bro , I think this thread needs a translator.
*rjt.. " rarely if ever " is so reassuring..right up there with "trust me" and" read my lips"... who do you think you're shitting ?woah... got hurry up and catch up with that turnip truck i musta fell off....
*OK. Now we know what this is really about: symbolism. The US indicts one of bombers in Minnesota, who is probably the number one terrorist in the world now, and elects to try him in criminal courts?????? If tribunals are not for him, than who is it for??Will someone answer this question?
*> it ain't dat way no mohROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!Rich Beckman
*Like it has been said, Is the guy in Minnesota a citizen or not? If he's a citizen, he is subject to civil law. If he is not a citizen, it is at the governments luxury what to do. If it's a citizen who falsely obtained citizenship, he may be stripped of citizenship and again it's up to the government.
*Ah, we'd better warn all potential tourists to the US that they have no rights and no access to justice if they visit the US.
*They have the same right as other non citizens have. But if they come here for thje express purpose to blow something up for some pyscho like binny then we'll try him in front of a military court cuz it is a ACT OF WAR. If they speed down the fwy and cut people off well in L.A. we have our own "tribel justice" to stop that.
*my-key: I'll buy when "rarely" comes frequently and soon. Until then, you pay the tab... okay?
*Phill, guests to the USA do have rights and access to justice. If someone robs a tourist, cheats him out of money, steals his property, etc, the legal and law enforcement system will help him. In Washington state some psycho old fart married a mail order 20 year Russian bride. Then he killed her. The state tried the crime because 1. a crime is a crime regardless of race color or creed of the victim. In Saudi Arabia for example, if an American gets in a car wreck with a Saudi, the American is automatically guilty, because in their logic the accident would not have happened had the foreigner not been there. That is justice based on who you are, not what you did. And remember, it is the luxury of the government to decide what to do with the perpetrator of a crime, not a victim. If a Norwegian wants to come here and do a business deal, and an American of Swedish descent swindles him, he has full access to use our court system to get recompense if the deal is done on these shores. If same said squarehead beats the Swede to a pulp, the government may chose to prosecute him or can just send him home to Oslo. It is the governments choice. If you look at many of these cases, you will see many foreign non-citizens who break the law get jail via a civil trial and as they walk out the door INS escorts them to the plane. If the lawbreaker is from say Afrubblestan, or somesuch nowhere, 3 hots and a cot here is often preferable to farming rocks and gravel at home. So deportation is often times the harsher penalty.
*I still am not happy with the tribunal thing. I am not comfortable with the possibility that an innocent person could be executed. Even with all of the constitutional protections, we manage to occasionally convict an innocent person. I'm sure that's a lot easier without those protections.Rich Beckman
*Dave, then your argument is with the appender I responded to, who stated that a foreigner wasn't entitled to those rights. My note was a humourous response intended to point out how terribly wrong that point of view was. (this is semi-rhetorical, I also know you're arguing with yourself)
*Phill, no problem. Just cranky here. Got a cold. Cabin fever. Too much "news" that is not news etc, talking heads on TV. Better to vent here than shout at a TV or shake the newspaper. Keep the opinions coming.
*I know what you mean about the news, after being so happy that Gary Condit (sp?) was off the news 3 months ago, we were actually glad to see him reappear the other day and give us a break.
*Phill, sort of a sick topic Mr Condit. A colleage of mine teaches at a university and a relative of the missing person is her student. Regardless of the circumstances, having a relative disappear is pretty horrendous for the family. However, we can't get Mr. Condit with a military tribunal, so perhaps he deserves his own thread on the board. Personally, I think he is one big sicky. Right up there with Brock Adams. Funny how no matter how twisted you are, someone in society will suck up to the power and be a willing sycophant. I'm getting nauseous even thinking about these people.
*So, sounds like you think he's guilty in the disappearance and you'd be happy to have a lynching ? Please don't start a thread, we've learned more than we ever wanted know about him.
*Actually, I have no idea what happened any more than anyone else. But he makes my skin crawl. And no I won't start a thread. It would be like talking about OJ, which this thread started with. hehehehehehe
*True enough, they should just make him an honorary Kennedy and move on.
*Rich, scores of innocent persons have been executed throughout the centuries, and in our time. Not too long ago some 3,000 innocents lost their lives in New York city in a terrorist attack. I believe that these trials are for those obviously guilty, like UBL, but that for various reasons should not be tried in our country in our courts.
*> scores of innocent persons have been executed throughout the centuries, and in our timeOh, sure. Well, then, hey, it must be OK. Execute away!!!> I believe that these trials are for those obviously guiltyAnd who decides who's obviously guilty?? I assume UBL is. Based on what?? What my government has told me. That's all I've got. But if I accept that UBL is guilty and the tribunal is appropriate, what about others? Who decides? Who has the power? Remember, power corrupts.Rich Beckman
*And that's the real problem isn't it: no-one would ever be charged, let alone brought to trial unless someone thought they were obviously guilty. Isn't that why the US has 'grand juries' ? They're supposed to be a check and balance in the system of having elected police chiefs and elected district attorneys.
*The problem with "justice" and "legal due process" is that it extends only to the edge of our shores. And by its very nature, the due process of law is not equipped for extension to foreigners not on this soil. If it was, we should have invaded France and brought back Ira Einhorn. Or invaded Brazil and dragged back Martin Pang. And in Afganstan, there is no government, no law, therefore no extradition law for dear old Osama. So if you take the logic to its limits, treating the terrorists, at least foreign ones, to all our civil rights, we won't even be able to invite them here for tea! Which non-friendly regime is going to extradite any of their citizens to the US? For those who do not like tribunals, you have little ground to stand on unless you have a non USA territorial alternative. The Hague, the world court, a boat in the Atlantic with United Nations markings? A hot air balloon floating over no mans territory? The South Pole? Where what and how is there an alternative?
*.. i don't have any problem with military tribunals for prisoners under our military command and control and NOT on US soil..when they are extended to anything on US soil we are all in trouble...as far as that goes... we have gone into sovereign nations just to bring back prisoners for trial...hmmmm.. does noriega and panama ring any bells?
*Mike, yes it does, I posted on Noriega before. That is a very troubling situation. If we can catch Noriega and try him here, can the Vietnamese(communists now in power) catch Henry Kissinger or Robert MacNamara(sp) and put them on trial? Justice that applies only to the bigger guy on the block or the winners of conflict is not precisely justice. Which is why conservative Republicans are unilateralists. They don't want what we do to others to apply to us. It's just another way of saying the US is always and inarguably correct in all that we do.
*Is this like the argument that it's okay for the US to use nuclear weapons, but anyone else would be a "madman" ?
*no, phill... it's like the argument that whoever had the atomic bomb first in WWII was going to use it...and it was immoral then.. and would be immoral now.. but by it's nature , war was, is, and always will be,...immoral..if called i will serve....just like any other .. if i serve , i sure want to know my government is behind me.. and my fellow citizens...without a Declaration of War... how will we ever know that?... it just becomes a political football.. and Congress gets to run for re-election without being held accountable for their actions... it is a phony war.... no draft, no belt tightening, no sacrifice from anyone except our all-volunteer force...certainly sounds like a replay of Rome in it's decline.. bread and circus for the citizens, while the legions kept the vandals from the door...
*Mike: I was, and am still, opposed to the Noriega style treatment. I think to be opposed to that sort of action is consistent with being in favor of military tribunals: non-citizens that are enemies of our country should be under a different set of rules. I have never seen any basis for having capturing and trying Noriega.
*It is madness, or at least foolhardy to aquire nuclear weapons(pakistan, india, Israel, South Africa) while your population is starving, crapping in the streets, have already stolen the property of the locals without remorse or treat blacks as a seperate part of society. Even though we invented the bomb under less than favorable world events, we have a long track record of bringing the rest of society up a notch, not holding it down. How about if Pakistan put the same amount of $$$$ into sewers, streets, electricity for the rural areas, clean drinking water etc. that it puts into nukes? I agree that this is a "business as usual" kind of war. Tax breaks(retroactive) and zero belt tightening, not 1 penny of taxation to balance the budget or pay for the war? Bush is truly his father's son as we may see on the first Tues. of 2004. His prosecution of the war has been remarkably successful but it does not give him the next election, nor does it end the need to fund social security, secure travel, build infrastructure etc.
*
How could anyone be against that? What do they want, an O.J. style outcome?