<strong>Israel has been trying to pound into our heads that the rest of the world is clueless.
[...]
Most countries are so ****ing clueless they wouldn't know common sense if it struck them between the eyes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The US is assisting Israel for political reasons to meet its own ends. The rest of the world isn't clueless, just uninterested in entering into a situation that's none of their business (or really a situation they'll get no return on).
I'd be very, very careful about blanket statements about the rest of the world being clueless. Whenever I'm in Europe, people there seem to have a much better understanding of the various situations in the Middle East, in Ireland, and most certainly in Afghanistan before September 11. Newspapers and TV news also cover these situations almost daily, which is most certainly not the case here in the US.
I understand the media have their reasons for reporting this stuff - usually it's down to tear-inducing melodrama - but it's reported nonetheless.
Until September 11, the US was a hugely insular and inward looking nation. The only reason it's looking outward now is because it was affected directly on that date.
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 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>Do we now have the U.S. *and* the Free World? I thought we were all in it together.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny, I don't recall hearing about the rest of the Free World volunteering to house these prisoners...
I think it's a little early to start accusing the US of human rights violations. The goggles, mufflers, and masks from that article you posted were for the prisoner's protection. Military equipment is loud, as in, a person risks permanent hearing damage with prolonged, unprotected exposure. Cruel would have been to not give them any kind of protection. Small prison cells? Give me a break. If that's the best dirt the bbc can dig up, it must have been a slow news day.
I am wondering, though, what the long range plans are for these prisoners? Releasing them to their countries seems impractical, since I bet a lot of them would just end up back with Al Qaeda, or some other terrorist organization, and I don't like the idea of the US having to house them permanently.
The difference is that his was a political position, yours was a personal attack against another board member.<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that's why I went to the trouble of quoting Lloyd Cutler.
Interesting how you distilled my post down to nothing more than a personal attack. But let's talk instead about what I really did. I attacked his political position. I attacked his tactics and I asked a question - which has yet to be answered. Yes, it was a very pointed question but it isn't the question, but his unwillingness or inability to answer it, that is damning. He could have easily (well, maybe not easily) thrown it right back in my face if he'd produced an even vaguely substantive argument. Hasn't happened yet.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
You know damn well that DG's dismissal of the military tribunals as kangaroo courts goes well beyond simple criticism. Besides, how is Bush's order at odds with what Mr. Cutler would support?
[quote]Then what does "exclusive" jurisdiction mean?<hr></blockquote>
What do you think it means? Any appeal will be to the military court. Perhaps a different 3 judge panel - I don't know. Maybe you have a problem with this, I'd understand that. If you do, then I guess the court that tried Slobodan Milosevic is a kangaroo court too. The same rule applies. The same rule also applies to that International Criminal Court that so many liberals think is such a great idea.
[quote]... US citizens have been lawfully shot on the battlefield by their commanders...<hr></blockquote>
Which is why I also asked DG about his position on military tribunals before 9-11. (Your example goes to the broader category of military justice.)
[quote]... while non-citizens have had full legal rights...<hr></blockquote>
And where is that in the Constitution? I know. I know. We're talking about the "evolving" Constitution. Even so, just because some judge or judges have expanded the rights of non-citizens that doesn't mean there's some Constitutional flaw in trying these defendants before a military tribunal. Remember? - That was my question: Where's the Constitutional conflict?
<strong>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...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not looking to get into a debate about the IMF/World Bank. I'm not very fond of many of it's policies too. I'm just wondering: what are these exports you are talking about? I'm not saying these subsidies don't exist. They do. I'm just not at all clear about those that would compete with Jamaican (to use your example) goods.
<strong>I've searched my heart and my head for sympathy and compassion for these people, but both said "let the f**kers rot".
I know people say "If we treat these people like animals that makes us no better than them". To those people I say let's rewind the clock two years and we'll ship all of you out to Afghanistan to teach the Taleban compassion.
Whether the individuals in the camp on Cuba committed atrocities, or merely sanctioned them by being fully paid-up members of an organization which condones such behavior, they deserve treatment an awful lot worse than they're currently receiving.
My aggression has nothing to do with September 11, but their treatment of men, women, children, and even animals in Afghanistan. They're destructive, humanity-hating, evil f**ks with no respect for the lives of others.
Subsidized food exports: chicken, corn, chiquita bananas(not grown in the US but owned) and grains and milk, all of which were produced locally in Jamaica before.
As for why one would travel "accross the great water"? just to see that America is a country --sure, a powerful and somewhat unique country with lots and lots of great stuff and people and history -- but still it is just a country amoung a bunch of other countries on a twirling rock with water.
Al Queda is wrong when they think that they are doing G-ds will, and so are we . . .we are not chosen among nations, we are a nation among nations that happens to be powerfull, and, in many cases, our ideas are based on an notion of law where the law is supposed to be objectively reasonable --that's fine --it doesn't make us divine or chosen,
<strong>Interesting how you distilled my post down to nothing more than a personal attack.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where did I say your whole post was nothing more than a personal attack? I was referring to just that part of it that was... the personal attack.
[quote]"while non-citizens have had full legal rights"
And where is that in the Constitution?<hr></blockquote>
Where does it say in the Constitution that non-citizens don't have rights? The only rights of non-citizens that are explicitly limited in the Constitution are the right to vote and hold office, AFAIK.
If a non-citizen came before a court, the court couldn't just throw out all the rules. The limits on the court's power would still apply. They might have other options, like deportation or extradition, but if the non-citizen was tried in a criminal court, the court couldn't say "you don't get this right or that right because you're not a citizen." These military tribunals aren't inherently limited to non-citizens - just Bush's specific implementation of them. Their legal status wouldn't be any different if he had included citizens in the order.
[quote]Any appeal will be to the military court.<hr></blockquote>
OK - that's possible. As I understand it, the president or sec. of defense have final say, so you could even call that an appeal. I was talking about appeals to the US courts.
<strong>And what should time spent across the big water bring me, member?
A revelation that maybe the U.S. should let the EU dictate domestic policy?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Reply to 1st question: No, but you might get a broader view of the world around you, groverat.
Reply to 2nd question: There are of course other countries apart from the 15 that are in the EU. You could always go and see how people live and think there.
Until September 11, the US was a hugely insular and inward looking nation. The only reason it's looking outward now is because it was affected directly on that date.
Thats ridiculous. We are the worlds' policemen and have been since the end of WWII. An insular country wouldn't be getting involved in everyones problems. Of course, then Europeans would complain that we didn't care about anyone but ourselves........
If we mind our own business the Europeans accuse us of being introverted. If we take part in external conflicts we are seen as bullies. There is no winning with them.
Come live in Texas for 20 years. That will also give you a different view of the world. Get locked up in a supermax prison for 40 years, that will give you a different view of the world. Live as a prostitute on the streets of Guatemala for 4 years, that will give you a different...
What's the point?
What magical revelation will the advanced people of the EU give me that I don't already have?
Should foreign nations dictate the domestic policies of another nation?
--
[quote]Where does it say in the Constitution that non-citizens don't have rights?<hr></blockquote>
It doesn't say that gang-raping yaks in the Canadian wilderness is bad in the Bible... yet somehow I think it's implied...
The power in the Constitution is given *by* the people of the United States. If you aren't one of those people the Constitution has nothing to do with you.
<strong>The only rights of non-citizens that are explicitly limited in the Constitution are the right to vote and hold office, AFAIK.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Douglas Kmiec, dean of the Catholic University School of Law; Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union; and Loretta Lynch, the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York discuss SECURITY VS CIVIL RIGHTS?
<strong>It doesn't say that gang-raping yaks in the Canadian wilderness is bad in the Bible... yet somehow I think it's implied... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, that's covered in Leviticus. You have to stone the yaks to death - unless they're menstruating female yaks, in which case you bathe them first.
[quote]Actually, that's covered in Leviticus. You have to stone the yaks to death - unless they're menstruating female yaks, in which case you bathe them first.<hr></blockquote>
I think John looks better with a shaved head. He should be thanking them. [stolen from = The Onion]It was tacky for him to be walking around in blackface like that.[/The Onion]
Comments
<strong>Israel has been trying to pound into our heads that the rest of the world is clueless.
[...]
Most countries are so ****ing clueless they wouldn't know common sense if it struck them between the eyes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The US is assisting Israel for political reasons to meet its own ends. The rest of the world isn't clueless, just uninterested in entering into a situation that's none of their business (or really a situation they'll get no return on).
I'd be very, very careful about blanket statements about the rest of the world being clueless. Whenever I'm in Europe, people there seem to have a much better understanding of the various situations in the Middle East, in Ireland, and most certainly in Afghanistan before September 11. Newspapers and TV news also cover these situations almost daily, which is most certainly not the case here in the US.
I understand the media have their reasons for reporting this stuff - usually it's down to tear-inducing melodrama - but it's reported nonetheless.
Until September 11, the US was a hugely insular and inward looking nation. The only reason it's looking outward now is because it was affected directly on that date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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>Do we now have the U.S. *and* the Free World? I thought we were all in it together.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny, I don't recall hearing about the rest of the Free World volunteering to house these prisoners...
I think it's a little early to start accusing the US of human rights violations. The goggles, mufflers, and masks from that article you posted were for the prisoner's protection. Military equipment is loud, as in, a person risks permanent hearing damage with prolonged, unprotected exposure. Cruel would have been to not give them any kind of protection. Small prison cells? Give me a break. If that's the best dirt the bbc can dig up, it must have been a slow news day.
I am wondering, though, what the long range plans are for these prisoners? Releasing them to their countries seems impractical, since I bet a lot of them would just end up back with Al Qaeda, or some other terrorist organization, and I don't like the idea of the US having to house them permanently.
[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: jesperas ]</p>
I consider statements like DocG made a personal attack on my intelligence.
Re: IMF/World Bank holding people down.
That's an agreement they made. They can hate the United States for their own ignorance if they like, but I'll be damned if I worry about it.
The difference is that his was a political position, yours was a personal attack against another board member.<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that's why I went to the trouble of quoting Lloyd Cutler.
Interesting how you distilled my post down to nothing more than a personal attack. But let's talk instead about what I really did. I attacked his political position. I attacked his tactics and I asked a question - which has yet to be answered. Yes, it was a very pointed question but it isn't the question, but his unwillingness or inability to answer it, that is damning. He could have easily (well, maybe not easily) thrown it right back in my face if he'd produced an even vaguely substantive argument. Hasn't happened yet.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
You know damn well that DG's dismissal of the military tribunals as kangaroo courts goes well beyond simple criticism. Besides, how is Bush's order at odds with what Mr. Cutler would support?
[quote]Then what does "exclusive" jurisdiction mean?<hr></blockquote>
What do you think it means? Any appeal will be to the military court. Perhaps a different 3 judge panel - I don't know. Maybe you have a problem with this, I'd understand that. If you do, then I guess the court that tried Slobodan Milosevic is a kangaroo court too. The same rule applies. The same rule also applies to that International Criminal Court that so many liberals think is such a great idea.
[quote]... US citizens have been lawfully shot on the battlefield by their commanders...<hr></blockquote>
Which is why I also asked DG about his position on military tribunals before 9-11. (Your example goes to the broader category of military justice.)
[quote]... while non-citizens have had full legal rights...<hr></blockquote>
And where is that in the Constitution? I know. I know. We're talking about the "evolving" Constitution. Even so, just because some judge or judges have expanded the rights of non-citizens that doesn't mean there's some Constitutional flaw in trying these defendants before a military tribunal. Remember? - That was my question: Where's the Constitutional conflict?
[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>Yes, member, I mean that bit.</strong><hr></blockquote>Oh, I see.
So, have you ever travelled outside the U.S., like maybe across "The Big Water", groverat, with travel broadening the mind and all that?
<strong>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...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not looking to get into a debate about the IMF/World Bank. I'm not very fond of many of it's policies too. I'm just wondering: what are these exports you are talking about? I'm not saying these subsidies don't exist. They do. I'm just not at all clear about those that would compete with Jamaican (to use your example) goods.
<strong>I've searched my heart and my head for sympathy and compassion for these people, but both said "let the f**kers rot".
I know people say "If we treat these people like animals that makes us no better than them". To those people I say let's rewind the clock two years and we'll ship all of you out to Afghanistan to teach the Taleban compassion.
Whether the individuals in the camp on Cuba committed atrocities, or merely sanctioned them by being fully paid-up members of an organization which condones such behavior, they deserve treatment an awful lot worse than they're currently receiving.
My aggression has nothing to do with September 11, but their treatment of men, women, children, and even animals in Afghanistan. They're destructive, humanity-hating, evil f**ks with no respect for the lives of others.
'Scuse my language.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Marry me, Belle
The coolest post you've ever written.
A revelation that maybe the U.S. should let the EU dictate domestic policy?
<strong>
Marry me, Belle
The coolest post you've ever written.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You heard it here first, pscates proposed!!! Belle?
As for why one would travel "accross the great water"? just to see that America is a country --sure, a powerful and somewhat unique country with lots and lots of great stuff and people and history -- but still it is just a country amoung a bunch of other countries on a twirling rock with water.
Al Queda is wrong when they think that they are doing G-ds will, and so are we . . .we are not chosen among nations, we are a nation among nations that happens to be powerfull, and, in many cases, our ideas are based on an notion of law where the law is supposed to be objectively reasonable --that's fine --it doesn't make us divine or chosen,
[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>Interesting how you distilled my post down to nothing more than a personal attack.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where did I say your whole post was nothing more than a personal attack? I was referring to just that part of it that was... the personal attack.
[quote]"while non-citizens have had full legal rights"
And where is that in the Constitution?<hr></blockquote>
Where does it say in the Constitution that non-citizens don't have rights? The only rights of non-citizens that are explicitly limited in the Constitution are the right to vote and hold office, AFAIK.
If a non-citizen came before a court, the court couldn't just throw out all the rules. The limits on the court's power would still apply. They might have other options, like deportation or extradition, but if the non-citizen was tried in a criminal court, the court couldn't say "you don't get this right or that right because you're not a citizen." These military tribunals aren't inherently limited to non-citizens - just Bush's specific implementation of them. Their legal status wouldn't be any different if he had included citizens in the order.
[quote]Any appeal will be to the military court.<hr></blockquote>
OK - that's possible. As I understand it, the president or sec. of defense have final say, so you could even call that an appeal. I was talking about appeals to the US courts.
<strong>And what should time spent across the big water bring me, member?
A revelation that maybe the U.S. should let the EU dictate domestic policy?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Reply to 1st question: No, but you might get a broader view of the world around you, groverat.
Reply to 2nd question: There are of course other countries apart from the 15 that are in the EU. You could always go and see how people live and think there.
[edit: typo]
[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: Member ]</p>
Until September 11, the US was a hugely insular and inward looking nation. The only reason it's looking outward now is because it was affected directly on that date.
Thats ridiculous. We are the worlds' policemen and have been since the end of WWII. An insular country wouldn't be getting involved in everyones problems. Of course, then Europeans would complain that we didn't care about anyone but ourselves........
Come live in Texas for 20 years. That will also give you a different view of the world. Get locked up in a supermax prison for 40 years, that will give you a different view of the world. Live as a prostitute on the streets of Guatemala for 4 years, that will give you a different...
What's the point?
What magical revelation will the advanced people of the EU give me that I don't already have?
Should foreign nations dictate the domestic policies of another nation?
--
[quote]Where does it say in the Constitution that non-citizens don't have rights?<hr></blockquote>
It doesn't say that gang-raping yaks in the Canadian wilderness is bad in the Bible... yet somehow I think it's implied...
The power in the Constitution is given *by* the people of the United States. If you aren't one of those people the Constitution has nothing to do with you.
<strong>The only rights of non-citizens that are explicitly limited in the Constitution are the right to vote and hold office, AFAIK.</strong><hr></blockquote>
from <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/october01/civil2.html"; target="_blank">the NewsHour</a>:
Douglas Kmiec, dean of the Catholic University School of Law; Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union; and Loretta Lynch, the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York discuss SECURITY VS CIVIL RIGHTS?
<strong>It doesn't say that gang-raping yaks in the Canadian wilderness is bad in the Bible... yet somehow I think it's implied...
Actually, that's covered in Leviticus. You have to stone the yaks to death - unless they're menstruating female yaks, in which case you bathe them first.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Damn that tricky Bible!
I think John looks better with a shaved head. He should be thanking them. [stolen from = The Onion]It was tacky for him to be walking around in blackface like that.[/The Onion]