Guantanamo Hilarity

[John Uskglass]

If you can do nothing than simply assume that the children were right, and the British citizen is just lying, then there is clearly no debating with you. Instead of just thinking that maybe, just maybe, this prisoner could be speaking the truth, you immediately think "Liberal lies!!"

So you think that the American government hired whores to tempt good Muslims in Guantanamo? Do you also belive that I am a part of the massive Zionist conspiricy to kill all the Muslims as I am an American? This guy is a lying Islamofascist, clear and simple.

I would trust the kid, as the kid is less likely to be totally imbeded in Islamofascist beliefs.

That's just historically ignorant. There's rarely one cause for any event, and the complexity of events leading up to enormous historical shifts like fascism and nazism aren't one man running into a building with a bomb strapped to his back. I mean c'mon...

Fair enough. My Weimer and early WW2 history is not what it should be.
But I think the comparison is fine-America, when faced with thousands dead, rising Islamofascism and a failing economy set up guantanamo. Germany went to Nazism

The moment you give the USA the right to take prisoners and sound them out on their own with no right given, they have the right and ability to do this to anyone.

A) They dont. You are over rationalizing this, they just dont, nor will they, do this.
B) The comparison is silly. A prisoner at guantanmo can save hundreds of lives by waring him down until he confesses.
C) If you think Guantanamo is permanant, you are clearly, flat out wrong. America reacts to a crisis, thus it builds Guantanamo- you would do the same, most assuredly. When the crisis is over, we can just get rid of it. Look at the interment camps-are any of those left?

What if they pluck me out of my house 'cause they think I'm a terrorist? Nobody can stop them, really, it's "legal" and "morally justified"

We would have to apprehend you in a nation with terrorist links or in the USA, first of all, and secondly, name a time this has happened with that level of absurdity (throwing a Dutchman who works at a Bookstore in Rutterdam into Guantanamo).

Or are you proposing we should just *trust* the government? The country that has a second amandement to check up on the government...The country that stood on the forefront of introducing democracy to check up on the government...That country would just let the country pick of people on random, because they *trust* them? Blindly?

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that this has happened before, and it has always worked out. Guantanamo is not "here and it's here to stay (guantanamo o boy, guantanamo what a joy, guantanamo oi oi). It is a temporary adjustmant to America's nature to save thousands of lives.

And no, 9/11 does not justify this.

If someone amputated three of my sister's legs, raped her, then cut out her tounge and most of her genetalia, and then I killed the guy who did it with a sledgehammer, you would say "it is not justified". But it's not your place to say that, not at all.

I would like to remind you of the fact that all this blowing out of proportions of terrorism is rather new. History has seen much more horrible events, nothing to do with terrorism

.

Well then expand the definition of terrorism. I would say that most of what the Soviets where doing when the Nazis started taking power where really bad. True, it is diffirent, Mexico is not the Soviet Union of Islamofascism, and the Islamofascists, despite what they think, will never wipe us out, but all the same a similarity is there- the German people where scared shitless by the Soviets, so they elected Hitler.

It's simply international pressure. International pressure to do what is "right" by Western definition, to uphold "morality" and "the basic rights of man" has never been higher. Is it really that surprising then that the US, a country pressured from the outside, by countries that can look on lazily and act high and mighty because they don't have to take the helm, as well as from the inside, by that portion of the populace who hold value to doing what is "right", will be forced to stay its hand more so than any other country in history?

You have a point here.

You immediately start thinking about "better" and "worse". You immediately have to start putting Europe down. Same with Sander, really. Can't you people understand that different is not necessarily better or worse.

Some truth here, but then again, "European" politics are not what they used to be. Everywhere Social Democratic governments are failing in the face of Christian Democrat or more American style parties. Tayyip Erdogan, most recently Karamanlis, Berlisconi (more Italian then American, though), the death of the Socialist wing of the Labor party, and the Watermelons or the Reds have about as much chance of winning in Germany as megatron does getting into a Unitarian church.

So you're saying that because it hasn't gone over the edge before, it won't now. Does anyone else see a problem with that line of reasoning?

Nope. None.

1) It wasn't 1936, but 1933(IIRC, could've been 1932...)
2) They did not win the next general election, they used it as an excuse to imprison a load of communists and get a two-thirds majority for their plans in parliament through the lack of communists(who were imprisoned) and the manipulation of the Christian party.
So it was NOT a reaction to

Bulloks. The Nazis where a reaction against the Communists. The bombing of Parliment was just something that helped them be pushed over the edge.

Again, the nature of the Reds and the Greens (Islamofascists) is mostly diffirent, yet the Greens can do as much damage as the Reds in most circumstances, and controlling them cannot be done with the simple maintanance of a good army- you need to restrict certain liberties to avoid shit like 9/11.

Of course, you do realise that for all the thigns that went badly through terrorism, there have been a lot of cases where things did not go badly after terrorism or economic hardship.

Like?
Does 1848 ring a bell? A series of revolutions that set Europe back politically half a century.

Bad economies+revolutionaries=revolutionaries/reactionaries. Almost the entire time.

And the USA invades two countries, installs the PATRIOT Act to violate the privacy of people, becomes more and more xenophobic and creates a place outside of the law so they can do things without being bothered by such pesky things as "regulations".

But at the same time 1/2 of all Americans agree with you. And they could win the next eleciton. If that number was 1/6, or some other number, I'd be scared shitless (actually, I wouldnt, but thats just me).
Secondly, the invasion of Iraq was really kind of a matter of time, and both of these invasions will certainly help people in the long run.
Thirdly, again, the Patriot act is obviously temporary and not even used.

Ehmm....riiight. You're saying that by not treating him in accordance with the law, you're going to save lives? How exactly? It's not as if the terrorists will not realise that he's gone and not adjust their plans them. And it's not like Bin Laden will divulge information through seperation. The only thing that I can think of that could be done then would be torture. And THAT goes against EVERY regulation of every modern institution.

Thru seperation his info will still be valid. If they found out that the Americans had found Osama, they would immideatly stop everything Osama knew about as to minimize the possibilty of Americans thrwarting thier plans. If we where to keep Osama hidden away and get info out of him, his info can save lives.

But, that aside, the PATRIOT Act might(MIGHT) save some lives, but is much more likely to cause a lot of invasion of privacy, and problems. Furthermore, I don't like it if the government can just incarcerate me by saying "We think he's a terrorist." It puts way too much power in the hands of the government.

I already dealed with this, but it is A) Never used and B) Could save lives.

*smacks CCR* We've had war. We've been invaded by the Germans and hundreds of thousands lost their lives because of it. You've had one attack causing 3000 deaths. Compare.

And you got Nuremburg. And Germany gave up the Sundentland and Prussia, kicking out millions of ethnic Germans. We have done nothing like that.

Plus, this doesn't make what the USA is doing any better.

The actions, no, the actions within contentext, yes.

A) Religion v. A-religion.

Bullshit, a majority of people in your part of the woods still belive in God, and you are comparing Western Europe, which is tiny, with America, which is huge. If you include Bavaria, Austria, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, Greece, the former Yugoslavia, Poland and Malta you get a continent that is almost s religious as we are. Not to mention Abghazia, Circassia, Armenia, Georgia...

B) Social welfare v. Bad social welfare

I fail to see the diffirence here, as both of us have social welfare, and some continental social systems (Greece, Germany) are just as fucked as ours. And we are not the ones who killed our grandparents because we could not give them enough money in medicare to afford air conditioning.

C) Europe is more liberal.

Interesting, so in your view Berlisconi never exsisted?

D) European political systems are completely different.

*looks at France, Britan*
o rly?

E) European views on such matters as sex, drinking and whatnot are more liberal.

It's called California. Or New York. Ever been?
Ever watched American television? We have a religious right more then you do, anyway, but that will change.

F) Class-action lawsuits.

This is tiny.

Stop bitcing that I don't respond, I get around to it.

 

[Brother None]

I would trust the kid, as the kid is less likely to be totally imbeded in Islamofascist beliefs.

I would note here, completely at the beginning of this stuff, that you use theterm Islamofascism too freely and as a justification for too much.

But I think the comparison is fine-America, when faced with thousands dead, rising Islamofascism and a failing economy set up guantanamo. Germany went to Nazism

And I don't think the comparison is fine, but my explanation of this "historical situationalism" has been accepted by you, so it's fine

A) They dont. You are over rationalizing this, they just dont, nor will they, do this.

OH! Ok, that's fine then.

Remember that before WW 1, people said the same about Germany. "They'll never do it" Don't be presumptious in thinking you know what can and can not happen with American politics in the future.

B) The comparison is silly. A prisoner at guantanmo can save hundreds of lives by waring him down until he confesses.

So? The same was true if colonialists captured some of the founding fathers and tortured them into spilling the beans, that does not make it alright. More on this below.

C) If you think Guantanamo is permanant, you are clearly, flat out wrong. America reacts to a crisis, thus it builds Guantanamo- you would do the same, most assuredly. When the crisis is over, we can just get rid of it. Look at the interment camps-are any of those left?

I don't, I stated a few posts up I believe it will go away, but the problem, next to "what if it doesn't", is "if this is ok, what else is ok"?

We would have to apprehend you in a nation with terrorist links or in the USA, first of all, and secondly, name a time this has happened with that level of absurdity (throwing a Dutchman who works at a Bookstore in Rutterdam into Guantanamo).

But without any trial, how do you differentiate between the innocent "bookstore clerk" (not a bookstore, by the way, we're not recognised by the Dutch "Leage of Book Shops") and the guilty "terrorist"?

Who is to say that the people in Guantanamo aren't innocent book clerks? I'm not saying there are any people in Guantanamo that aren't justly held, but my problem is this: how can I know? Maybe every prisoner in Guantanamo is held for a good reason, but I have no way of telling except for the word of the American government.

And frankly, after the Iraqi WMD fiasco, I don't put as much stock in that as I used to.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that this has happened before, and it has always worked out. Guantanamo is not "here and it's here to stay (guantanamo o boy, guantanamo what a joy, guantanamo oi oi). It is a temporary adjustmant to America's nature to save thousands of lives.

So you say, and a good chance you're right, but you're ignoring my point. Fact is, as I mentioned above, the US *could* be holding innocent people, and all you have is your trust for your government as proof that this is not so. How can you justify that, really?

If someone amputated three of my sister's legs, raped her, then cut out her tounge and most of her genetalia, and then I killed the guy who did it with a sledgehammer, you would say "it is not justified". But it's not your place to say that, not at all.

My place? Maybe not. But you would go to jail, and that would be right, because you broke the law.

Y'know, to grab back to Norbert Elias, he theorized that the patterns of governments and monopolies of power have been expanding since the start of human history. As he always grabs back to the Dark Ages, this theory is easy to support, seeing as how the area of the "centre of power" grew from the early Dark Ages from the smallest terrorities of practically independant knights to huge "coalitions of states" like the United States and European Union now. The UN fits into this scheme. Good chance the UN will once be a centre of power of patch of land consisting of the whole eart.

The point of that disjointed rant is this: we have an international law. And despite Bullshit from Bush, this law has proven its value over and over again. I, personally, may not have the right to call Guantanamo unjustified, but the law DOES.

The US opposing this fact is a statement that the law doesn't apply to them. Why? Because they're the strongest. You mentioned "throwing Europe back half a century politically" (man, had to hate those post-Napoleonatic rebellions), well this is what America is doing. Simply bringing "might is right" back into international politics.

Well then expand the definition of terrorism.

No. I refuse point-blank to read history backwards. Just because we fear terrorism now, I'm not going to pretend it's been a prevalent motion throughout history. I hate that kind of thinking, it's so 1984-esque.

Some truth here, but then again, "European" politics are not what they used to be. Everywhere Social Democratic governments are failing in the face of Christian Democrat or more American style parties. Tayyip Erdogan, most recently Karamanlis, Berlisconi (more Italian then American, though), the death of the Socialist wing of the Labor party, and the Watermelons or the Reds have about as much chance of winning in Germany as megatron does getting into a Unitarian church.

No kidding...But meh, we've seen this before, and worse, no reason to think it's impossible for the tide to turn and Europe going back to it's old status...I dunno, it does look kind of shitty, what with Schröder's new-found troubles in Germany, and God knows who would replace Aznar if he lost because of the recent bombings.

So you're saying that because it hasn't gone over the edge before, it won't now. Does anyone else see a problem with that line of reasoning?

Nope. None.

Bad economies+revolutionaries=revolutionaries/reactionaries. Almost the entire time.

Hay, he's right. But Sander also has a point, history has ocasionally seen hardships turn to good on the short term, but this depends very much on the situations surrounding it.

Secondly, the invasion of Iraq was really kind of a matter of time, and both of these invasions will certainly help people in the long run.

Hay.

But same problem as Guantanamo. We kind of know the wars were justified, but we only know it out of trust and "gut instincts". There's no real proof of it.

My biggest problem with Iraq is that it *wasn't* originally justified by "we're ridding the world of a terrible dictator", which, on international agreement of dictatorstatus, would've been alright in my book. But the US couldn't do that. Plenty of dictators they *do* like (like any rich country, really, we're a filthy lot). Some lame-ass as such a country being an "international threat" is really weak, especially considering that, say, Israel is a much more agressive and better armed country.

Bullshit, a majority of people in your part of the woods still belive in God, and you are comparing Western Europe, which is tiny, with America, which is huge. If you include Bavaria, Austria, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, Greece, the former Yugoslavia, Poland and Malta you get a continent that is almost s religious as we are. Not to mention Abghazia, Circassia, Armenia, Georgia...

Yeah, no kidding...

Greeks are fucking weird.

I fail to see the diffirence here, as both of us have social welfare, and some continental social systems (Greece, Germany) are just as fucked as ours. And we are not the ones who killed our grandparents because we could not give them enough money in medicare to afford air conditioning.

You trivialise euthanasia. Interesting, but meh.

Interesting, so in your view Berlisconi never exsisted?

Despite that he's still, for Nort-West Europe, right. The Scandinavian country, the Benelux, Germany and France are all pretty mcuh "more liberal" than the US (even if only slightly so)

'cor, that's only a portion of the EU, not to mention of Europe, but y'know, thinking in the box and all

*looks at France, Britan*
o rly?

Eheheheeh

Can't blame the boy for thinking in the box, boy.

It's called California. Or New York. Ever been?

European generally prefer to compare our more liberal laws to your most archaic laws and those states of the US that have rediculously tight laws on drinking and sex.

Funny, n'est pas?

 

[Sander]

So you think that the American government hired whores to tempt good Muslims in Guantanamo? Do you also belive that I am a part of the massive Zionist conspiricy to kill all the Muslims as I am an American? This guy is a lying Islamofascist, clear and simple.

I would trust the kid, as the kid is less likely to be totally imbeded in Islamofascist beliefs.

First of all, you assume that the guy is somehow an islamofascist(which would still not be a justification) and that the kid is not.
Second of all, you don't even CONSIDER the possiblity that the guy may be speaking the truth. You see something you don't like, and you immediately say "Liberal lies!!".
This does not make you realistic in any way, it merely makes you someone who wants to believe in his own truth.
Lastly, you also insulted me for no good reason. For your information, I read two different newspapers every day, I watch three or four different channels for the news, if I were to get a subscription to a newspaper it would be a sucbscription to the most right-wing newspaper in the country.
So don't tell me I only listen to liberal lies.

Fair enough. My Weimer and early WW2 history is not what it should be.
But I think the comparison is fine-America, when faced with thousands dead, rising Islamofascism and a failing economy set up guantanamo. Germany went to Nazism

1) The situation in Germany in the 1920s-30s was way worse than the position of the USA now.
2) The USA does not have some sort of treaty of Versailles breathing down its neck.
3) The USA has not recently lost a war on its own ground, and it does not blame its previous leadership for giving in.
4) The USA does not have something like communism on its eastern borders.

We would have to apprehend you in a nation with terrorist links or in the USA, first of all, and secondly, name a time this has happened with that level of absurdity (throwing a Dutchman who works at a Bookstore in Rutterdam into Guantanamo).

It's an example.
Besides that, I seem to recall a certain completely innocent Canadian being captured and interred in Guantanamo Bay.

Some truth here, but then again, "European" politics are not what they used to be. Everywhere Social Democratic governments are failing in the face of Christian Democrat or more American style parties. Tayyip Erdogan, most recently Karamanlis, Berlisconi (more Italian then American, though), the death of the Socialist wing of the Labor party, and the Watermelons or the Reds have about as much chance of winning in Germany as megatron does getting into a Unitarian church.

Too true. But the latest polls in the Netherlands give us hope. But....meh.

Bulloks. The Nazis where a reaction against the Communists. The bombing of Parliment was just something that helped them be pushed over the edge.

The Nazis were just a reaction the communists?
Not only do you completely ignore what I just said, you continue on rambling historical inaccuracies and plain un-truths.
There were two major opposition groups in germany in the 1930s. The communists and the Nazis. The nazis eventually won, but the nazis were in no way a reaction to the communists. They were a right-wing extremist party that gained a lot of votes by playing on the misery an unhappiness of the people. They won through the charisma of Hitler, and the playing on the discontent over the Treaty of Versailles, the so-called backstabbing(which hadn't happened) by the hgiher-ups during WW1, the economic crisis and whatnot. Hitler also gained power because his opponents thought that he'd fuck up, so that if they'd let him at it for a couple of years, the people would be discontent and kick him out.
But due to smart manipulation of the icnident with the bomb(ie. getting a load of communists out of the parliament momentarily so he could get a two-third majority(This has NOTHING to do with the people voting, though)), he rose to absolute power.
.

Again, the nature of the Reds and the Greens (Islamofascists) is mostly diffirent, yet the Greens can do as much damage as the Reds in most circumstances, and controlling them cannot be done with the simple maintanance of a good army- you need to restrict certain liberties to avoid shit like 9/11.

Of course. But Guantanamo Bay is unnecessary, and goes too far.

Like?
Does 1848 ring a bell? A series of revolutions that set Europe back politically half a century.

Does 1928 ring a bell? Economic crises all over the world, yet the only thing to go "wrong" was Hitler. Only Germany faltered, and the rest of the world didn't.

Bad economies+revolutionaries=revolutionaries/reactionaries. Almost the entire time.

Yep. So? Revolutionaries always happen, but this still does not mean that the USA is somehow doing a justifiable thing, simply because there have been worse things.

But at the same time 1/2 of all Americans agree with you. And they could win the next eleciton. If that number was 1/6, or some other number, I'd be scared shitless (actually, I wouldnt, but thats just me).

So? There's no guarantee that they will win it. And if they don't, Bush will have four years to do whatever he wants. He even has a majority in the Senate(IIRC).

Secondly, the invasion of Iraq was really kind of a matter of time, and both of these invasions will certainly help people in the long run.

Yet it was not justified. It called upon non-existing "facts" to support the invasion, instead of just claiming to rid the world of a dictator, which would've been fine.
Now, a precedent has been created, where the USA can simply ignore the international laws and do whatever it wants.

Thirdly, again, the Patriot act is obviously temporary and not even used.

*points at Kharn's post*

Thru seperation his info will still be valid. If they found out that the Americans had found Osama, they would immideatly stop everything Osama knew about as to minimize the possibilty of Americans thrwarting thier plans. If we where to keep Osama hidden away and get info out of him, his info can save lives.

Bullocks. Terrorists have contact with their leader. If they fail to make contact with their leader, they'll realise that he's gone, and change their plans anyway.

I already dealed with this, but it is A) Never used and B) Could save lives.

yet if it isn't used, how can it save lives?

And you got Nuremburg. And Germany gave up the Sundentland and Prussia, kicking out millions of ethnic Germans. We have done nothing like that.

Ehh..we got Nuremberg? So? Does this suddenly mean that we did not have any kind of invasion?
And, in case you hadn't noticed, Nuremberg did not violate anuy kind of civil rights. It did not rquire such a thing as Guantanamo bay.

The actions, no, the actions within contentext, yes.

And that's your mistake. You actually look at the context as if it would justify anything. Context does not justify anything.

Bullshit, a majority of people in your part of the woods still belive in God, and you are comparing Western Europe, which is tiny, with America, which is huge. If you include Bavaria, Austria, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, Greece, the former Yugoslavia, Poland and Malta you get a continent that is almost s religious as we are. Not to mention Abghazia, Circassia, Armenia, Georgia...

Ugh. You do realise that the religious worship, and the religious eeffects are much more obvious and severe in the USA? The USA is simply more religious.
Yet this does not matter here, because I was talking about "civilised" Western Europe. Because that is the main point of divergence.

I fail to see the diffirence here, as both of us have social welfare, and some continental social systems (Greece, Germany) are just as fucked as ours. And we are not the ones who killed our grandparents because we could not give them enough money in medicare to afford air conditioning.

That's FRance. France sucks.
But overall, the social welfare in a lot of countries(more specifically: Scandinavia, Netherlands, Germany(well, for a while anyway) and Belgium) is still a lot "better".

Interesting, so in your view Berlisconi never exsisted?

Berlusconi is an incident rather than a rule. Compare the laws of the USA and Europe and you'll find that Europe is more liberal on different points than the USA(eg. personal freedom, but not gun control )

looks at France, Britan*
o rly?

In general.

It's called California. Or New York. Ever been?
Ever watched American television? We have a religious right more then you do, anyway, but that will change.

Bullshit. We have porn on the normal networks at night. No pay, no nothing, simply porn. No fuss about it all. If Janet Jackson would've shown a nipple during the European Soccer Finals(for example) there wouldn't be sucha huge problem. We have gay marriages, there are no problems with gays at all, we(well, the Netherlands anyway) have legalised prostitutes. I could go on and on, but overall, Europe is more liberal towards sex, drinking and such things.

Plus, New York and California are only two places in the entire USA.

This is tiny.

So? It's a small example.

The entire culture, and even the way of working is completely different in the USA.

 

[EyeMaster7]

This guy is a lying Islamofascist, clear and simple.

Remember these - the ones in Guantánamo Bay are killers. They don't share the same values we share

Bush said that after the guantanamo base was formally accused by The Amnesty International of torture and humans right abuse.

I was talking to a friend of mine specialized in International law about this issue and he recommend this site because it is the best site about anything related to Us law. Federal or local.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20040105.html

Its interesting to see that the Judicial system is dominated by Islamofascists.

In concluding last month that prisoners held on the Guantanamo naval base in Cuba have the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit focused on the question of Guantanamo's legal status. Much of the court's long and scholarly opinion is taken up by a close examination of the terms of the 1903 lease agreement between the U.S. and Cuba, their meaning in Spanish, their interpretation in analogous treaties, and other fairly technical minutiae.

But a few phrases that lie near the end of the majority opinion grab the reader's attention. According to the government's stated position in the case, the detainees have absolutely no legal right to question U.S. actions on Guantanamo. Federal court jurisdiction should be foreclosed, government counsel insisted during oral argument before the Ninth Circuit, even if the plaintiffs were to claim that their captors were committing "acts of torture" on Guantanamo or were "summarily executing the detainees."

Run CCR Run!!!

 

[Executioner]

3) The USA has not recently lost a war on its own ground, and it does not blame its previous leadership for giving in.
4) The USA does not have something like communism on its eastern borders.

3a. War, no. However many people blame Bill Clinton for not doing enough to stop terrorism. People just keep yammering on about how his lack of action led to 9/11.

4a. Not Communism, but we have lots of friendly, lets suck the life out of the American economy, Mexicans just waiting to sneak across the border and take up all of our 'unwanted' jobs.

I know plenty of people without jobs because the Mangy Mexican Menace has arrived. George 'Duuuuhhh' Bush needs to get his head out of his ass and start helping Americans get jobs, not illegal immigrants.

 

[Brother None]

owever many people blame Bill Clinton for not doing enough to stop terrorism. People just keep yammering on about how his lack of action led to 9/11.

That's such bullshit

I'm so tired of people blaming everything on Clinton. He's one of the best president the US has had in decades. "He didn't burst the internet bubble." You think Bush sr. would've? Or Bush jr.? "He didn't do anything about terrorism." Aye, 'cause he should've seen a totally invisible threat coming

It's so stupid

 

[Wooz]

Kharn wrote:

I'm so tired of people blaming everything on Bush. He's one of the best president the US has had in decades.

I hope you meant *Clinton*.

 

[victor]

You mean Clinton? Right? Yeah, he was probably one of the nicest, and he got blammed for it (i.e sex scandals and such).

 

[Brother None]

Kharn wrote:

I'm so tired of people blaming everything on Bush. He's one of the best president the US has had in decades.

I hope you meant *Clinton*.

Eet is fixed

Also, it would help if you just did quote="name" isntead of Kharn wrote: quote, comprend?

 

[Executioner]

owever many people blame Bill Clinton for not doing enough to stop terrorism. People just keep yammering on about how his lack of action led to 9/11.

That's such bullshit

I'm so tired of people blaming everything on Clinton. He's one of the best president the US has had in decades. "He didn't burst the internet bubble." You think Bush sr. would've? Or Bush jr.? "He didn't do anything about terrorism." Aye, 'cause he should've seen a totally invisible threat coming

It's so stupid

I couldn't have said it better. I thought he was a really good president, he seemed more 'down to Earth' than the rich snobs from previous years. I always get a kick out of the video clip of him and Boris Yeltsin laughing their asses off at some podium.

 

[Sander]

4a. Not Communism, but we have lots of friendly, lets suck the life out of the American economy, Mexicans just waiting to sneak across the border and take up all of our 'unwanted' jobs.

I know plenty of people without jobs because the Mangy Mexican Menace has arrived. George 'Duuuuhhh' Bush needs to get his head out of his ass and start helping Americans get jobs, not illegal immigrants.

Might I say that with me having just read Pratchett's "The Truth" this is a very telling piece of text?
That said, it's absolutely bull.

How can you possibly compare an entire country which is relatively hostile towards you, and probably has no problem with invading you to a bunch of Mexicans getting jobs?

 

[APTYP]

1. American government propaganda
2. Fundamental Islamist propaganda

*yawn*
Take your pick, I don't believe either.

 

[welsh]

]I think it is, if anything, an interesting anecdote on American nature that we have responded in a fairly moderate fashion when compared to other historical incedents. Have we attempted to wipe out the Afghani like the French did the Algerians? No. Have we even done anything in retaliation against a group of people even resembeling the British, the least evil of the colonial powers? Nope.

It's for debates like these that I miss CC.

I had this discussion with welsh before.

And here I was ignoring this thread as a joke thread. Ok, a quick comment in response to Kharn.

The USA has been doing better than other countries. That's not the question.

I agree. The issue is whether the US should be doing this. THe acts of a state define what that state is about.

A lot of you have been focuing on the normative or ethical elements of this case. For me this is a matter of 'rule of law'. It's an American military base, it's under US law, if so than it should be under US jurisprudence. As those who are incarcerated are entitled to court review, it's simply a matter of allowing legal review.

The argument here is a question of seperation of power. As the commander chief and head of state, the president and the executive branch have wide powers. The irony is that these folks are not considered prisoner's of war, yet the president is claiming power under it's war powers. Strange. IF they are not POWs or criminals, what are they?

To me it's simple. If the executive incarcerates you, than you are entitled to Habeus Corpus. If the King's men throw you in a dungeon than you have the right to petition the court to have you released. You have the right to be presumed innocent of the charges brought against you by the state.

That's a core idea of the US we borrow from the English. That is not true in many countries. So it was and perhaps is fairly unique to the US.

The question is *why*? Because the US is somehow holier than all other countries in history? Fuck no.

I think this matter of whether "the US is holier than thou" is something that the Bush administration has played up to far. Bush has taken an early stand that the US is representative of truth, justice, democracy and equality. Regretfully, that impression is not universal and arguably Bush's own policies are contradicting those impressions.

That said, is the US holier than thou? Well, if you look at the legal systems, the normative values that governments are held accountable to, than perhaps the US is.

Unstained? No. But restricted? Yes, more so than many states.

If the US is "holier than thou" it has less to do with a mandate from heaven (which Bush has played on) but the quality of our actions.

Make this simple- it's a matter of character and integrity. A person can say lots of good stuff, but the merit of a person is judged by his actions. That the US does things that are moral or not has much to do with the workings of American culture matched to it's political processes.

THe US is a country that has, historically, been one governed by law as made by the democratic practices.

Law is a consequence of moral choices shaped by political processes. In a dictatorship, those political processes are defined by one or a few leaders. But in a democracy, that is more complex.

It's simply international pressure. International pressure to do what is "right" by Western definition, to uphold "morality" and "the basic rights of man" has never been higher. Is it really that surprising then that the US, a country pressured from the outside, by countries that can look on lazily and act high and mighty because they don't have to take the helm, as well as from the inside, by that portion of the populace who hold value to doing what is "right", will be forced to stay its hand more so than any other country in history?

ANd that is where I disagree. Does international pressure matter? Yes, probably, to some extent. Is it controlling? No.

This is a matter of complex causal processes.

THink about the formation of storms. High pressure and temperatures, wind, moisture, all relate to the making of storms. But in what combination? Storms are unique in the mixture of causal variables that create the them.

Does international pressure matter? Well it hasn't mattered that much in terms of the war in Iraq or the Guantanamo policies. In these cases it has more to do political choices and popular pressure. If there were a million people protesting the war on the Mall in DC on a regular basis, you'd have more pressure than if a million people protest in Paris.

What if the American people unified against these policies? Perhaps you would have change. If the country was 60% against the war, would that be enough? Maybe.

Maybe not. Remember it's moral choices shaped by political processes. The President wants to be reelected, but has committed to this policy. To rollback now under political pressure would look bad on his chances to get reelected.

But there is more to it- the president doesn't need to win everyone, just a bit over 50% to win (not even that by the last election). That means if 49% of the country won't reelect him, he still wins. The trick would be to turn enough people to get that 51%. Everything more is extra.

Add that to special interests. Campaigns cost money. There is a reason why the Bush administration is willing to drill for oil in the North of Alaska but not raise the miles per gallon on SUVs or force SUVs to be more fuel efficient. COuld it be because the Bush administration gets a lot of money from both the auto industry and the energy lobbies? Are there special interests at work here in Iraq and regarding Qitmo? You bet.

Which is where democracy begins to look less than democratic.

But international pressure. Yes and No. The US is pretty much an island and there is a strong sense of American Exceptionalism. Part of that means that we don't really care what you think about us, what matters is whether we think we're doing the right thing. And it's important that Americans feel they are doing the "right thing". This is one of the reasons why civil rights are more likely to be found in democracies than in dictatorships. People people want to be fair and moral and right.

Now if you are yelling at us as a friend that we are making a mistake, we might listen. If you are condemning us, chances are Americans will just tell you to fuck off "who are you to tell us we are wrong", take some responsibility for the world and show some balls.

Lack of a real enemy is another factor that always kept America at bay. The terrorist attacks, while a very real threat, are of another order than a country, like the USSR, directly threatening to exterminate you with nuclear weapons.

Not exactly. The US was fairly a late comer to the game of imperialism. The conquest of the west was seen as manifest destiny- our god given mission to conquer the frontier and tame the savage indian- or so goes the story. During that time the Monroe Doctrine was enforced by the British Navy. It was only aroudn the time of the Spanish American War does the US become imperialistic.

Yes, we force open Japan with our black ships, but our open door policy to China was different. When we took the Philippines after the Spanish American War, there was a lot of self-reflection on the US as colonial power and we found we didn't much care for the practice. Like England, we have taken a rather commercial attitude to international politics.

The US was willing to duck out of the early stages of World War 1 and World War 2, keeping its hand in international politics without getting too involved. After World War 2, the US again drew back, for a short time, in part hoping that the UN system would cover it's international concerns. When Marshal went to Europe to see what was going on he came back with a report that if the US didn't get involved in Europe, Europe would go Communist and lose what it gained in World War 2. Thereafter the US really begins to get involved in international relations.

On the issue of Legality of Guatanamo-
From the Economist-

Guantánamo Bay and the Supreme Court

A lawless enclave?

Apr 22nd 2004
From The Economist print edition


Amid much noise and fury from abroad, American justice inspects itself

IN A case that pits the powers of a wartime president against the federal courts, the Supreme Court struggled this week to decide whether the 595 foreigners being held at an American naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, should have the right of access to American courts. Most have been held for more than two years without charge and without access to lawyers, family or consular officials. It is the biggest test so far for the Bush administration's aggressive legal strategy.

Arguing on behalf of 14 detainees from Kuwait and Australia (the two British detainees originally involved in the case were released in February), John Gibbons, a retired federal appellate judge, accused the American authorities of creating a “lawless enclave” at Guantánamo. “What is at stake is the authority of the federal courts to uphold the rule of law,” he said, arguing that people in federal detention have had the right to petition the American courts for habeas corpus for 215 years.

Theodore Olson, the solicitor-general, replied that allowing judicial review of the detainees' rights “would place the federal courts in the unprecedented position of micro-managing the executive's handling of captured enemy combatants from a distant combat zone” and of “super-intending the executive's conduct of an armed conflict.” This, he said, would raise “grave constitutional concerns” regarding the separation of powers.

The Bush administration asserts the right to hold and interrogate the detainees for as long as it likes—indefinitely, if necessary—without formal charges or trial, though it is planning to bring some before military commissions. It claims that the men, mostly picked up in Afghanistan, are neither prisoners of war nor “protected persons” under the terms of the Geneva Conventions, and that they therefore have no legal protections at all.

Despite the howls of fury from around the globe about the detainees' plight, the current case does not concern their innocence or guilt, but simply whether American courts have jurisdiction. The key is the status of the Guantánamo base, leased in perpetuity to the United States by Cuba in 1903. Under the terms of that agreement, the United States has “complete jurisdiction and control” over the base, while Cuba retains “ultimate sovereignty”.

Mr Gibbons pointed out that Cuban law had never had any application inside the base. “A stamp with Fidel Castro's picture on it wouldn't get a letter off the base,” he noted. But the government argued that “sovereignty, not mere control, is the touchstone”, and so it was beyond the remit of American courts.

“Friend of court” briefs have been filed on behalf of the detainees by, among others, former American prisoners of war and 175 members of the British Parliament. Arrayed on the other side are various former attorneys-general, other retired soldiers and numerous conservative jurists, including Robert Bork. “If the court, for the first time in history, interposes the federal judiciary between our armed forces and enemy belligerents held abroad,” he warns in his brief, “the court will effect a dangerous and unprecedented revolution in the separation of powers and undermine the ability of the US military to protect our citizens from attack.”

There is the usual desperate searching for clues as to the nine supreme justices' inclinations. One supposed hope for the detainees: to some ears, most justices sounded sceptical about the administration's claim that the president alone had control over the fate of the detainees. On the other hand, the court has been reluctant to challenge executive decisions in time of war. As expected, conservatives (such as Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia) seemed more sympathetic with the government; liberals (Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) appeared to lean towards the prisoners.

Next week, the court is due to hear arguments concerning the rights of two American “enemy combatants” being held on naval brigs off the mainland, who have also been denied access to the courts. The Supreme Court's ruling in both cases is not expected until the end of June.

ALso from NPR-
A discussion-
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1843884
and more-
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1845544
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1843524
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1844490
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1843918

 

[SkynetV4]

Ah welsh, now that Xotor's gone is good to know that we still have someone that does good research and interesting posts.

 

[Azael]

Why, just look at Marc Dutroux, the pedophile now on trial in Belgian, he arguably treated the kids in caption ok, so I suppose we should let him go to!

Don't tell me you people are actually that stupid.

Not to get sidetracked, but how is regular rapes being treated OK?

As for Gitmo, it's a blight on American "justice".