[quote]You further illustrate your mindset by assuming that I held a certain set of beliefs that you deemed necessary to combat even though I never accepted or denied those beliefs.<hr></blockquote>
If you actually *read* my post, you will find that I was asking a question, rather than making an assumption. (One of those sentences that has a "?" at the end of it). You decided to label my point as rhetorical. However, I think it was a fair question: I feel it is important that the rest of the world sees the United States judicial system as being a beacon of fairness and justice, rather than a grotesque Taliban-style hotchpotch of kangaroo courts (and secret military tribunals).
Do you agree with many of the other folk in this thread who don't give a damn about how the rest of the world sees the United States? Or, do you favor open communication and sober diplomacy (not quite so sexy I realize, but it does have a better track record).
I asked the question(s) because it's very hard to know where you stand on the topic since in most of your posts, you are more concerned with slapping people down rather than adding a constructive contribution to the thread.
[quote]If you actually *read* my post, you will find that I was asking a question, rather than making an assumption.<hr></blockquote>
I trust you are in support of the concept "justice for all"...
Don't assume anything.
I am for justice, it's a good thing. I don't think what's going on right now in Cuba is anything approaching injustice.
[quote]I feel it is important that the rest of the world sees the United States judicial system as being a beacon of fairness and justice,<hr></blockquote>
They do?
You could fool me with all the chic anti-US sentiment that has been thrown around for the last decade.
I don't see how something that isn't there could be important to maintain.
[quote]rather than a grotesque Taliban-style hotchpotch of kangaroo courts (and secret military tribunals).<hr></blockquote>
Good thing we aren't that.
*phew*
[quote]Do you agree with many of the other folk in this thread who don't give a damn about how the rest of the world sees the United States?<hr></blockquote>
I don't give a shit what the rest of the world thinks about the United States, no.
[quote]Or, do you favor open communication and sober diplomacy (not quite so sexy I realize, but it does have a better track record).<hr></blockquote>
How are those two mutually exclusive?
Your bias is that you pin one side of the argument down. You create a caricature from which there can grow no decent argument since you assume those who might think that the rest of the world shouldn't dictate U.S. policy are uneducated troglodytes.
I don't think we need the hand-wringing of pseudo-socialist nations with questionable civil rights policies to steer us and our actions. **** them. We'll be nice. Trade is good, so is diplomacy. But I won't lose sleep with the EU whines, and I pray to God that Dubya doesn't either.
[quote]I asked the question(s) because it's very hard to know where you stand on the topic since in most of your posts, you are more concerned with slapping people down rather than adding a constructive contribution to the thread.<hr></blockquote>
I think the link I provided was the most constructive thing posted to this thread. I also asked a simple question.
<strong>It also makes a mockery of the United States and everything it is supposed to be defending. That's the kind of kangaroo-court justice that we are supposed to abhor.
But I guess when it is inconvent to be just, might makes right. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I've challenged you several times now regarding your views on the military tribunals and you have yet to respond. Calling them kangaroo courts doesn't make them so. Lloyd Cutler, former counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton, believes such trials can be fair. He participated in a 1942 Justice Department case against eight German saboteurs who were captured in this country. <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001664"; target="_blank">He recently wrote about</a> the lessons that can be learned from that case:
[quote]...All of the Supreme Court justices who participated in the 1942 case are gone. It is dangerous to predict what the current court would say about a military tribunal today, particularly since the court has expanded the constitutional rights of all criminal defendants, citizen or noncitizen, well beyond the case law as it stood 60 years ago. But Anthony Lewis of the New York Times and Harvard professor Laurence Tribe - both strong advocates of fair trials for criminal defendants - have recently said they do not doubt that leaders of al Qaeda could properly be tried before a military commission.
I do not doubt it either. I would bet the farm that if Osama bin Laden or some lesser participant in knowingly planning the Sept. 11 attacks were tried, convicted and sentenced to death by a military court that observed the constitutional fair trial rights of all criminal defendants under the case law as it stands today, the Supreme Court would not upset the conviction...<hr></blockquote>
Are you only stroking your ego by pretending that you are fighting for the Constitution by railing against the military tribunals? Where were your objections to them before 9-11? If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to explain what it is that you know that has escaped the attentions of Lawrence Tribe and Lloyd Cutler.
[quote]I don't give a shit what the rest of the world thinks about the United States, no.<hr></blockquote>How sad. Because that approach is a bit insular, isn't it? Ever been outside the U.S.?
Do we now have the U.S. *and* the Free World? I thought we were all in it together.
There would be no free world with out the united states, so yes, of couse we are part of the free world. But I could care less about what chic Euro trash hippies think of our foreighn policy as long as the Euro leaders still kiss our ass (like they do now and will continue to do so). The public is another matter, becuase frankly they don't matter.
<strong>Are you only stroking your ego by pretending that you are fighting for the Constitution by railing against the military tribunals?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's pretty harsh - he can't disagree without just stroking his ego? You know that others, like Safire, came out against the use of the tribunals. And Cutler, in that article you linked, cites several mistakes FDR made in applying the tribunals, and says he hopes Bush doesn't make the same ones. It's more of an endorsement of the principle of tribunals, rather than any specific application of them.
Cutler says FDR's tribunals were upheld by the Supreme Court. But Bush's order says there are no appeals - so they're trying to prevent the Supreme Court from even reviewing it. In that editorial, Cutler says FDR didn't challenge federal jurisdiction over the tribunals, and he doesn't think Bush will either. But Bush's order claims that there is no federal jurisdiction, so we just don't know yet. And that also may relate to putting them in Cuba - to avoid US judicial review.
I disagree with aspects of the tribunals - am I just stroking my ego, too? Uh, on second thought, don't answer that.
You presented a reasoned argument. DocG throws in cute pseudo-intellectual quips and leaves it at that. I think it's fair to say that he is stroking his ego.
[QB]The BBC, CNN, and the New York Times all state that there are both members of the Taleban and al-Qaeda at Camp X-Ray. Those are the sources I've been using, so if they're wrong, my apologies.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ouch. Good one. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[quote]Violence against US citizens on US soil is going to have to be proven with direct ties to the events of September 11.<hr></blockquote>
[quote](1) engaging in a conspiracy, while outside the United States, to kill nationals of the United States outside of the United States, namely, United States nationals engaged in the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan (2) providing, attempting to provide, and conspiring to provide material support and resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations, namely, al-Qaeda and Harakat ul-Mujahideen ("HUM"); and (3) engaging in prohibited transactions with the Taliban.<hr></blockquote>
None of those are linked to 9/11. And this is even regular criminal court we're talking about, not these tribunals, which are probably what they'd use. The tribunal order says they can be tried simply for being a member of al Qaeda, or even for just harboring or conspiring with them. I really don't think they'll have any trouble convicting any of these people, but we won't know for sure until we know exactly who they are and whether or what they're going to be charged with.
If you consider them mercenaries, especially the al-Qaeda, then their legal status becomes very vague. I was trying to find some information on mercenaries and the Geneva Convention and it seems that they are not afforded protection. But I'm not totally sure. If anything the UN wants to get rid of them since they have caused a lot of problems in several African nations. To my mind al-Qaeda are no different.
As far as their treatment, I don't see it being any worse than how SuperMax inmates are dealt with. Both groups are dangerous and need to be controlled.
[quote]I don't think we need the hand-wringing of pseudo-socialist nations with questionable civil rights policies to steer us and our actions. **** them. We'll be nice. Trade is good, so is diplomacy. But I won't lose sleep with the EU whines, and I pray to God that Dubya doesn't either.<hr></blockquote>You mean the above bit, groverat? [quote]There would be no free world with out the united states, so yes, of couse we are part of the free world. But I could care less about what chic Euro trash hippies think of our foreighn policy as long as the Euro leaders still kiss our ass (like they do now and will continue to do so). The public is another matter, becuase frankly they don't matter.<hr></blockquote>There were quite a few Americans who after Sep. 11 looked rather bewildered asking, "Why does everyone hate/dislike us?" You weren't one of them by any chance were you, Outsider?
I take it you actually mean, that you *couldn't* care less?
There were quite a few Americans who after Sep. 11 looked rather bewildered asking, "Why does everyone hate/dislike us?" You weren't one of them by any chance were you, Outsider?
No, not I. I know why many people hate us. Because of our freedom of worship, our right to bear arms, economic stability, our military might, better living here, our right to vote (or not vote), jealousy, abundance of food, we've been around as a country for over 225 years, etc. It's lonely at the top.
I take it you actually mean, that you *couldn't* care less?
I could conceivably care even less than I do now. It is possible you know.
It wasn't meant to be a bitter retort. All those organizations have been known to make mistakes in the past - most often by getting their information from one of the others.
[quote]<strong>For example, check out what Johnny Walker is being charged with:
[...]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm still concerned that given the proper representation, there's very little chance of any of these guys being found guilty of anything that will provide affected people with the retribution they're looking for.
I may be wrong on this, but the more I think about it, this whole Camp X-Ray business seems like an attempt by the government/military to deflect attention from the fact they've as yet captured nobody of any importance in either the Taleban or al-Qaeda.
That's pretty harsh - he can't disagree without just stroking his ego?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, it's harsh. So are DG's posts. Where's your complaint against him? DG has done several little "hit-and-run" posts about the Constitutional "horror" of military tribunals. Each time when I've directly challenged him, he's failed to back it up. I have no problem with disagreement. I do have a problem with make-believe "defenders" of the Constitution.
[quote]<strong>...And Cutler, in that article you linked, cites several mistakes FDR made in applying the tribunals, and says he hopes Bush doesn't make the same ones. It's more of an endorsement of the principle of tribunals, rather than any specific application of them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So?
[quote]<strong>Cutler says FDR's tribunals were upheld by the Supreme Court. But Bush's order says there are no appeals - so they're trying to prevent the Supreme Court from even reviewing it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, so? Among the defendants in FDR's tribunals were several U.S. citizens so Supreme Court review was necessary. The Gitmo defendants are not U.S. citizens. Where's the Constitutional conflict? And I don't believe the order says there are no appeals, only that the military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction.
Hold on a sec while I shed a tear for the poor little Al Qaeda/Taliban member while he sits in an 8' x 8' cell and contemplates his situation. Poor fella doesn't get TV.
Let me shed a tear that he gets food to eat - that I'm paying for.
Let me shed a tear that he gets TP to wipe his ass.
Let me shed a tear that he gets prayer mats and culturally acceptable meals.
Let me shed a tear for the terrorist, who would gladly kill my child, while he sits in Cuba and gets reading and writing materials.
I'll think about it everyday while I drive down the same road I was driving down when I saw that plane smash into that building with my own two eyes. Let me think about shedding a tear for the terrorist when I walk down the same road to my house that I walked down after seeing thousands lose their life in a flash of fire for no good reason.
They wanted a fight, they got a fight. No tears left for them who lost the fight they started.
>Do you agree with many of the other folk in this thread who don't give a damn about how the rest of the world sees the United States? Or, do you favor open communication and sober diplomacy (not quite so sexy I realize, but it does have a better track record). <
Israel has been trying to pound into our heads that the rest of the world is clueless. They started to care about what the rest of the world thought about them and it got them 300+ dead Israelis. Well, **** the world, then. Most countries are so ****ing clueless they wouldn't know common sense if it struck them between the eyes. Let us figure out how to deal with the assholes we managed to defeat so far from our home. If any country cares so much about the murdering, violent barbarians then let us ship them to your shores and you can all give them blowjobs.
Seb-great post, couldn't have said it better myself............................................ .....
From the bit of readig I have done there has been nothing untoward in how the US is handling its prisoners from Afghanistan. The prisoners have admitted that if given a chance they would try to kill the US Soldiers guarding them. So they are not being given said chance, thus the black goggles, handcuffs, etc...
They are also being treated quite fairly. Sure, it is not the Ritz, or even the local jailhouse, but its not the Hanoi Hilton either. There have been more an more articles released lately speaking to how the orgional articles were masly kneejerk reactions to pictures seen with no real facts presented. I think that as time goes on people who really care to know the truth will find this to be correct also.
As to whether I think this is detrimental to the US case in the world. It is hard for me to care. The world by and large thought so little of the US before the attacks, and they have not changed after. Some have shown true sadness, and some have shed crocodiles tears for us. Some have show true friendship through actions (Britain and Tony Blair) and some have show fairweather friendship through inaction and wait and see politics (most of the rest of the world). These criminals/terrorists are being treated well enough and Amnesty international and the like need to have a look around and then take that square knot out of their shorts...
[quote]No, not I. I know why many people hate us. Because of our freedom of worship, our right to bear arms, economic stability, our military might, better living here, our right to vote (or not vote), jealousy, abundance of food, we've been around as a country for over 225 years, etc. It's lonely at the top. <hr></blockquote>
I will agree with these as reasons for the hatred of the US. But I also think that that hatred is compounded by the fact that we are arrogant about the above list and that we often don't recognize that there is a discrepency of consumption that makes possible that above list in many cases.
An example of conditions like this that might make people hate us: in many countries (like Jamaica) the governments are bound by IMF/World Bank loan agreements to allow tax free production of goods made for the US markets on their soil, and also, those agreements make it necessary that those countries accept no trade barriers and must therefore accept US government subsidized exports, that are much cheaper than local products because they are subsidized, that destroy local economies . . . .keeping people in poverty because they are unable to compete with subsidies from the worlds richest government.
In our eyes (and the IMFs) we are merely stimulating their economies by fostering competition and openning them to the world market. But to them, (and they can't help but feel this way when their once prosperous industries (albeit in a poor country) are forced to close down and the people are left with no work but pandering to tourists or sweat shops . . .sweat shops that export all of the profits and pay extrememly little and no local taxes) these people feel that this is slavery at a distance, under the name of 'economic exspansion'. From what I have seen that is what many people don't like . . .and especially when they feel this way --and very hungry too-- and are told that they are Only jealous and we didn't do anything else to warrant their anger.
They may be wrong and we don't deserve any dislike at all . . .but to them our refusal to even look at conditions, such as exist in Jamaica with the World Bank, to even acknowledge that there might be a forced discrepancy, is maybe also a source of dislike . . . besides Jealousy.
<strong>Yeah, it's harsh. So are DG's posts. Where's your complaint against him?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The difference is that his was a political position, yours was a personal attack against another board member.
[quote]So?<hr></blockquote>
So... just because Cutler wrote an article supporting the principle of tribunals doesn't mean the way they've been implemented by Bush is beyond criticism.
[quote]And I don't believe the order says there are no appeals, only that the military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction.<hr></blockquote>Then what does "exclusive" jurisdiction mean? And read the next paragraph in the order:
[quote](2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual's behalf, in (i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii) any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international tribunal.<hr></blockquote>
And I don't believe US citizenship is the key to judicial review - US citizens have been lawfully shot on the battlefield by their commanders, while non-citizens have had full legal rights.
Comments
[quote]You further illustrate your mindset by assuming that I held a certain set of beliefs that you deemed necessary to combat even though I never accepted or denied those beliefs.<hr></blockquote>
If you actually *read* my post, you will find that I was asking a question, rather than making an assumption. (One of those sentences that has a "?" at the end of it). You decided to label my point as rhetorical. However, I think it was a fair question: I feel it is important that the rest of the world sees the United States judicial system as being a beacon of fairness and justice, rather than a grotesque Taliban-style hotchpotch of kangaroo courts (and secret military tribunals).
Do you agree with many of the other folk in this thread who don't give a damn about how the rest of the world sees the United States? Or, do you favor open communication and sober diplomacy (not quite so sexy I realize, but it does have a better track record).
I asked the question(s) because it's very hard to know where you stand on the topic since in most of your posts, you are more concerned with slapping people down rather than adding a constructive contribution to the thread.
I trust you are in support of the concept "justice for all"...
Don't assume anything.
I am for justice, it's a good thing. I don't think what's going on right now in Cuba is anything approaching injustice.
[quote]I feel it is important that the rest of the world sees the United States judicial system as being a beacon of fairness and justice,<hr></blockquote>
They do?
You could fool me with all the chic anti-US sentiment that has been thrown around for the last decade.
I don't see how something that isn't there could be important to maintain.
[quote]rather than a grotesque Taliban-style hotchpotch of kangaroo courts (and secret military tribunals).<hr></blockquote>
Good thing we aren't that.
*phew*
[quote]Do you agree with many of the other folk in this thread who don't give a damn about how the rest of the world sees the United States?<hr></blockquote>
I don't give a shit what the rest of the world thinks about the United States, no.
[quote]Or, do you favor open communication and sober diplomacy (not quite so sexy I realize, but it does have a better track record).<hr></blockquote>
How are those two mutually exclusive?
Your bias is that you pin one side of the argument down. You create a caricature from which there can grow no decent argument since you assume those who might think that the rest of the world shouldn't dictate U.S. policy are uneducated troglodytes.
I don't think we need the hand-wringing of pseudo-socialist nations with questionable civil rights policies to steer us and our actions. **** them. We'll be nice. Trade is good, so is diplomacy. But I won't lose sleep with the EU whines, and I pray to God that Dubya doesn't either.
[quote]I asked the question(s) because it's very hard to know where you stand on the topic since in most of your posts, you are more concerned with slapping people down rather than adding a constructive contribution to the thread.<hr></blockquote>
I think the link I provided was the most constructive thing posted to this thread. I also asked a simple question.
<strong>It also makes a mockery of the United States and everything it is supposed to be defending. That's the kind of kangaroo-court justice that we are supposed to abhor.
But I guess when it is inconvent to be just, might makes right.
I've challenged you several times now regarding your views on the military tribunals and you have yet to respond. Calling them kangaroo courts doesn't make them so. Lloyd Cutler, former counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton, believes such trials can be fair. He participated in a 1942 Justice Department case against eight German saboteurs who were captured in this country. <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001664"; target="_blank">He recently wrote about</a> the lessons that can be learned from that case:
[quote]...All of the Supreme Court justices who participated in the 1942 case are gone. It is dangerous to predict what the current court would say about a military tribunal today, particularly since the court has expanded the constitutional rights of all criminal defendants, citizen or noncitizen, well beyond the case law as it stood 60 years ago. But Anthony Lewis of the New York Times and Harvard professor Laurence Tribe - both strong advocates of fair trials for criminal defendants - have recently said they do not doubt that leaders of al Qaeda could properly be tried before a military commission.
I do not doubt it either. I would bet the farm that if Osama bin Laden or some lesser participant in knowingly planning the Sept. 11 attacks were tried, convicted and sentenced to death by a military court that observed the constitutional fair trial rights of all criminal defendants under the case law as it stands today, the Supreme Court would not upset the conviction...<hr></blockquote>
Are you only stroking your ego by pretending that you are fighting for the Constitution by railing against the military tribunals? Where were your objections to them before 9-11? If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to explain what it is that you know that has escaped the attentions of Lawrence Tribe and Lloyd Cutler.
[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
Do we now have the U.S. *and* the Free World? I thought we were all in it together.
Please include that in your analysis.
Roger, don't expect a response from DocG, it's his style to throw in an overused "free-thinker" zinger and then flee the scene.
<strong>Are you only stroking your ego by pretending that you are fighting for the Constitution by railing against the military tribunals?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's pretty harsh - he can't disagree without just stroking his ego? You know that others, like Safire, came out against the use of the tribunals. And Cutler, in that article you linked, cites several mistakes FDR made in applying the tribunals, and says he hopes Bush doesn't make the same ones. It's more of an endorsement of the principle of tribunals, rather than any specific application of them.
Cutler says FDR's tribunals were upheld by the Supreme Court. But Bush's order says there are no appeals - so they're trying to prevent the Supreme Court from even reviewing it. In that editorial, Cutler says FDR didn't challenge federal jurisdiction over the tribunals, and he doesn't think Bush will either. But Bush's order claims that there is no federal jurisdiction, so we just don't know yet. And that also may relate to putting them in Cuba - to avoid US judicial review.
I disagree with aspects of the tribunals - am I just stroking my ego, too? Uh, on second thought, don't answer that.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
You presented a reasoned argument. DocG throws in cute pseudo-intellectual quips and leaves it at that. I think it's fair to say that he is stroking his ego.
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belle:
[QB]The BBC, CNN, and the New York Times all state that there are both members of the Taleban and al-Qaeda at Camp X-Ray. Those are the sources I've been using, so if they're wrong, my apologies.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ouch. Good one. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[quote]Violence against US citizens on US soil is going to have to be proven with direct ties to the events of September 11.<hr></blockquote>
I don't think so.
For example, check out what <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/uswlindh11502cmp.html"; target="_blank">Johnny Walker is being charged with</a>:
[quote](1) engaging in a conspiracy, while outside the United States, to kill nationals of the United States outside of the United States, namely, United States nationals engaged in the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan (2) providing, attempting to provide, and conspiring to provide material support and resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations, namely, al-Qaeda and Harakat ul-Mujahideen ("HUM"); and (3) engaging in prohibited transactions with the Taliban.<hr></blockquote>
None of those are linked to 9/11. And this is even regular criminal court we're talking about, not these tribunals, which are probably what they'd use. The tribunal order says they can be tried simply for being a member of al Qaeda, or even for just harboring or conspiring with them. I really don't think they'll have any trouble convicting any of these people, but we won't know for sure until we know exactly who they are and whether or what they're going to be charged with.
As far as their treatment, I don't see it being any worse than how SuperMax inmates are dealt with. Both groups are dangerous and need to be controlled.
I take it you actually mean, that you *couldn't* care less?
No, not I. I know why many people hate us. Because of our freedom of worship, our right to bear arms, economic stability, our military might, better living here, our right to vote (or not vote), jealousy, abundance of food, we've been around as a country for over 225 years, etc. It's lonely at the top.
I take it you actually mean, that you *couldn't* care less?
I could conceivably care even less than I do now. It is possible you know.
<strong>Ouch. Good one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It wasn't meant to be a bitter retort.
[quote]<strong>For example, check out what Johnny Walker is being charged with:
[...]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm still concerned that given the proper representation, there's very little chance of any of these guys being found guilty of anything that will provide affected people with the retribution they're looking for.
I may be wrong on this, but the more I think about it, this whole Camp X-Ray business seems like an attempt by the government/military to deflect attention from the fact they've as yet captured nobody of any importance in either the Taleban or al-Qaeda.
<strong>
That's pretty harsh - he can't disagree without just stroking his ego?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, it's harsh. So are DG's posts. Where's your complaint against him? DG has done several little "hit-and-run" posts about the Constitutional "horror" of military tribunals. Each time when I've directly challenged him, he's failed to back it up. I have no problem with disagreement. I do have a problem with make-believe "defenders" of the Constitution.
[quote]<strong>...And Cutler, in that article you linked, cites several mistakes FDR made in applying the tribunals, and says he hopes Bush doesn't make the same ones. It's more of an endorsement of the principle of tribunals, rather than any specific application of them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So?
[quote]<strong>Cutler says FDR's tribunals were upheld by the Supreme Court. But Bush's order says there are no appeals - so they're trying to prevent the Supreme Court from even reviewing it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, so? Among the defendants in FDR's tribunals were several U.S. citizens so Supreme Court review was necessary. The Gitmo defendants are not U.S. citizens. Where's the Constitutional conflict? And I don't believe the order says there are no appeals, only that the military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction.
[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
Let me shed a tear that he gets food to eat - that I'm paying for.
Let me shed a tear that he gets TP to wipe his ass.
Let me shed a tear that he gets prayer mats and culturally acceptable meals.
Let me shed a tear for the terrorist, who would gladly kill my child, while he sits in Cuba and gets reading and writing materials.
I'll think about it everyday while I drive down the same road I was driving down when I saw that plane smash into that building with my own two eyes. Let me think about shedding a tear for the terrorist when I walk down the same road to my house that I walked down after seeing thousands lose their life in a flash of fire for no good reason.
They wanted a fight, they got a fight. No tears left for them who lost the fight they started.
Israel has been trying to pound into our heads that the rest of the world is clueless. They started to care about what the rest of the world thought about them and it got them 300+ dead Israelis. Well, **** the world, then. Most countries are so ****ing clueless they wouldn't know common sense if it struck them between the eyes. Let us figure out how to deal with the assholes we managed to defeat so far from our home. If any country cares so much about the murdering, violent barbarians then let us ship them to your shores and you can all give them blowjobs.
Seb-great post, couldn't have said it better myself............................................ .....
They are also being treated quite fairly. Sure, it is not the Ritz, or even the local jailhouse, but its not the Hanoi Hilton either. There have been more an more articles released lately speaking to how the orgional articles were masly kneejerk reactions to pictures seen with no real facts presented. I think that as time goes on people who really care to know the truth will find this to be correct also.
As to whether I think this is detrimental to the US case in the world. It is hard for me to care. The world by and large thought so little of the US before the attacks, and they have not changed after. Some have shown true sadness, and some have shed crocodiles tears for us. Some have show true friendship through actions (Britain and Tony Blair) and some have show fairweather friendship through inaction and wait and see politics (most of the rest of the world). These criminals/terrorists are being treated well enough and Amnesty international and the like need to have a look around and then take that square knot out of their shorts...
I will agree with these as reasons for the hatred of the US. But I also think that that hatred is compounded by the fact that we are arrogant about the above list and that we often don't recognize that there is a discrepency of consumption that makes possible that above list in many cases.
An example of conditions like this that might make people hate us: in many countries (like Jamaica) the governments are bound by IMF/World Bank loan agreements to allow tax free production of goods made for the US markets on their soil, and also, those agreements make it necessary that those countries accept no trade barriers and must therefore accept US government subsidized exports, that are much cheaper than local products because they are subsidized, that destroy local economies . . . .keeping people in poverty because they are unable to compete with subsidies from the worlds richest government.
In our eyes (and the IMFs) we are merely stimulating their economies by fostering competition and openning them to the world market. But to them, (and they can't help but feel this way when their once prosperous industries (albeit in a poor country) are forced to close down and the people are left with no work but pandering to tourists or sweat shops . . .sweat shops that export all of the profits and pay extrememly little and no local taxes) these people feel that this is slavery at a distance, under the name of 'economic exspansion'. From what I have seen that is what many people don't like . . .and especially when they feel this way --and very hungry too-- and are told that they are Only jealous and we didn't do anything else to warrant their anger.
They may be wrong and we don't deserve any dislike at all . . .but to them our refusal to even look at conditions, such as exist in Jamaica with the World Bank, to even acknowledge that there might be a forced discrepancy, is maybe also a source of dislike . . . besides Jealousy.
<strong>Yeah, it's harsh. So are DG's posts. Where's your complaint against him?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The difference is that his was a political position, yours was a personal attack against another board member.
[quote]So?<hr></blockquote>
So... just because Cutler wrote an article supporting the principle of tribunals doesn't mean the way they've been implemented by Bush is beyond criticism.
[quote]And I don't believe the order says there are no appeals, only that the military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction.<hr></blockquote>Then what does "exclusive" jurisdiction mean? And read the next paragraph in the order:
[quote](2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual's behalf, in (i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii) any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international tribunal.<hr></blockquote>
And I don't believe US citizenship is the key to judicial review - US citizens have been lawfully shot on the battlefield by their commanders, while non-citizens have had full legal rights.