Gotcha
-
I could agree on this one, but what about Justice ? What about the people perhaps standing near the bombed car ? What about a mistake ??
Who gives a f*ck If my life sucks ? I just know one day I won't give up Beg For Me/KoЯn
KaЯl wrote: I could agree on this one, but what about Justice ? What about the people perhaps standing near the bombed car ? I agree with your concern, but I feel that all are responsible for what they allow their country (region) to support to at least some extent. They support harboring these criminals so have taken on that risk. KaЯl wrote: What about a mistake ?? Also agree with your concern here. However other options for my country do not exist other than doing nothing (because we may make a mistake) and just sit back for more of our citizens to be randomly murdered. "We are what we repeatedly do. excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle
-
I say Hmmmm because the US has not come out with a solution. All the US has done is reject the ICC. Why do other nations accept not having the double jeporday clause? Why do other nations accept a trial by a "partial" jury? If these problems the US have with the ICC are so fundamental why is the ICC even going ahead? Surely other nations would not join if the foundations of the ICC are so flawed. Has the US said they will join the ICC if these parts are rectified? If so, has the ICC deliberated on it or at least tried to find a work around? I would like to see the US come up with a version of the ICC they find agreeable and work it out with the other nations. All I have seen is the US rejecting the rest of the world. Considering that the US is in a position where it's actions and impending actions could go very, very wrong, I can see why it does not want to enter into the ICC. Mayber after countries have been flattened, dictators overthrown and terrorists killed the US will join the ICC and reap the benefits (if there are any.) Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The US has always supported being accountable. I think only US citizens really believe that. Speaking from another country our view of the US is a big nation with a big stick which does what it wants. Sorry Michael but that is how we see the US. Your president has backed that view up immensely with his "you are either with us or against us" speeches and his "with or without you we will bring about regime change in Iraq." So whether the world agrees or not, it does not matter. Just imagine for a minute that Al-Qaeda had attacked South Africa and killed thousands. Just imagine for a minute that SA had the military resources to know go and invade Afghanistan. Do you for one moment think the US would allow that? I will bet not. SA would be reviled and sanctions imposed again. So how come the US can?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul WatsonPaul Watson wrote: I say Hmmmm because the US has not come out with a solution. Come on Paul, Go back and look at history. The US has always (since 1918) supported world forums and has been the principle backer for them. Paul Watson wrote: Just imagine for a minute that Al-Qaeda had attacked South Africa and killed thousands. Just imagine for a minute that SA had the military resources to know go and invade Afghanistan. Do you for one moment think the US would allow that? I will bet not. Yes I can see that and firmly believe you would have been supported by the US. At this point I think we will just have to disagree. I am simply taking your agruments as "Big Bad US is automatically at fault no matter what facts exist." I have to leave to go vote. Take care. "We are what we repeatedly do. excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The same court that the terrorist are answering to for killing 1000's of people. The court of popular opinion ? The US is screwed..... Michael A. Barnhart wrote: This would not be the case if all others would support bringing terrorist to justice, but that is does not happen, so to defend ones country you are forced into action like this. Bollocks. The world at large does not want to support terrorism, we also don't want to be ruled and bullied by the US. That is a different matter entirely. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The US is not randomly going in and killing innocent people. (I am not saying errors do not happen, I do feel that the US goes too much further lengths than anyone else to minimize those errors.) I am saying that errors DO happen, and also that this provides an umbrella for the US to kill people and claim that they were involved. I'm not saying it IS happening, I'm saying that there is no independant force that is allowed to judge if this is the case or otherwise. Basically the USA is a law unto itself in the world arena. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: I am saying that errors DO happen OK, Question: Do you allow your police or military to handle weapons? They may make an error and kill someone. Why do you allow this? "We are what we repeatedly do. excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle
-
Paul Watson wrote: They want accountability in this world, but they won't be a part of the ICC. Hmmmm. Paul, You jeopardize your credibility with this statement. The ICC topic has been discussed more than once and answers as to why have been given. The way you suggest ulterior motives with your Hmmm is very poor. http://ezdragon.cortland.edu/log/us/us741/us741.htm Under the ICC, American citizens and U.S. military personnel are not protected by the same rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, U.S. citizens have the right to a "trial by an impartial jury." The ICC does not acknowledge this right. Instead, a panel of United Nations-appointed judges hears each trial where a majority vote decides the fate of the defendant. With the loss of a trial by an impartial jury, the accused may face judges biased towards their home country and government. Under the Fifth Amendment, U.S. citizens are protected against double jeopardy. Again, the ICC does not acknowledge this right. Therefore, an individual may face prosecution more than once for the same crime. The US has always supported being accountable.
Here is the root of my problem with the situation: As a citizen of another country I want to be assured of two things. One, that the US alone does not just invade and destroy my country without worldwide agreement that we "deserve" it. i.e. The US must discuss things with the rest of the world and then even if the decision is not to their liking, comply. Right now this point is feeling very shaky what with Bush not giving a toss what even other bigger nations think. Two, that if a US soldier performs some kind of atrocity in my country that he is held up to our law, or at least a law that we agree to (like the ICC.) i.e. Right now that soldier is held to US law and my country may not agree with US law. When a US soldier enters another country they should do so with full realisation that they are outside of the US now, that this is not their personal stomping ground, that if they do something wrong they will be responsible for it according to the law of the country (or the the law the country agrees to.) I am sure there have been plenty of US soldiers court marshaled and locked up for doing something wrong in another country. But I think a lot of people feel that if the US soldier happens to be someone important to the US, then the US will step in and tell the rest of the world to fuck off. All in all none of us have faith that the US respects the rest of the world. You are untouchable and we don't like that. Enjoy the voting :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson -
KaЯl wrote: but what about Justice ? Justice! Justice takes many forms and I'd quiet like the justice of a known terrorist dying by the methods he employs. He who lives by the bomb will die by the bomb. KaЯl wrote: What about the people perhaps standing near the bombed car ? What about a mistake ?? Obviously we need to take this on an incident by incident basis. This time the Americans seem to have executed a reasonably accurate take down. Next time they might not be so lucky. Michael Life’s not a song. Life isn’t bliss. Life is just this. It’s living. -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once more, with feeling
Michael P Butler wrote: Justice takes many forms Justice means IMHO the right to have a fair trial and the right to defend. Michael P Butler wrote: He who lives by the bomb will die by the bomb It's also true for the bomber of the bomber, right ?
Who gives a f*ck If my life sucks ? I just know one day I won't give up Beg For Me/KoЯn
-
Christian Graus wrote: It's easy to say 'good for them', but what international court does the US answer to as it kills people on foreign soil ? The same court that the terrorist are answering to for killing 1000's of people. This would not be the case if all others would support bringing terrorist to justice, but that is does not happen, so to defend ones country you are forced into action like this. The US is not randomly going in and killing innocent people. (I am not saying errors do not happen, I do feel that the US goes too much further lengths than anyone else to minimize those errors.) I hope this is not what you meant, although it is easy for me to read it that way. "We are what we repeatedly do. excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: This would not be the case if all others would support bringing terrorist to justice, but that is does not happen, so to defend ones country you are forced into action like this. Amen. Islamic society could end terrorism tomorrow if it really wanted to. Either it does not want to, or its political/social structure is simply too incompetent to deal with the problem. In either case, the U.S. is not answerable to any external political authority to do what we must to avoid being attacked. The rest of the world can help us, get out of our way, or fight with the bad guys, makes me no never mind either way. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The same court that the terrorist are answering to for killing 1000's of people. The court of popular opinion ? The US is screwed..... Michael A. Barnhart wrote: This would not be the case if all others would support bringing terrorist to justice, but that is does not happen, so to defend ones country you are forced into action like this. Bollocks. The world at large does not want to support terrorism, we also don't want to be ruled and bullied by the US. That is a different matter entirely. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The US is not randomly going in and killing innocent people. (I am not saying errors do not happen, I do feel that the US goes too much further lengths than anyone else to minimize those errors.) I am saying that errors DO happen, and also that this provides an umbrella for the US to kill people and claim that they were involved. I'm not saying it IS happening, I'm saying that there is no independant force that is allowed to judge if this is the case or otherwise. Basically the USA is a law unto itself in the world arena. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: Basically the USA is a law unto itself in the world arena. A right we've earned. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
KaЯl wrote: I could agree on this one, but what about Justice ? What about the people perhaps standing near the bombed car ? I agree with your concern, but I feel that all are responsible for what they allow their country (region) to support to at least some extent. They support harboring these criminals so have taken on that risk. KaЯl wrote: What about a mistake ?? Also agree with your concern here. However other options for my country do not exist other than doing nothing (because we may make a mistake) and just sit back for more of our citizens to be randomly murdered. "We are what we repeatedly do. excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: They support harboring these criminals so have taken on that risk. Do you really think this ?! How a child playing around might be a support of terrorism and deserve to die ? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: However other options for my country do not exist other than doing nothing (because we may make a mistake) and just sit back for more of our citizens to be randomly murdered. I don't think so. If sometimes it's a valid option, it can't be a policy. Violence generates violence, so does hatred. Using terrorist methods changes the user in terrorist as well. The French Army did that during the Algerian Independance War, and the resulting wounds are still there as in our History than in the memories of the soldiers changed in torturers.
Who gives a f*ck If my life sucks ? I just know one day I won't give up Beg For Me/KoЯn
-
Christian Graus wrote: Basically the USA is a law unto itself in the world arena. A right we've earned. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Christian Graus wrote: but what international court does the US answer to as it kills people on foreign soil ? I understand your concerns but isn't it about the time we took the gloves off and fought these bastards on their own terms. If they can strike anywhere at anytime against innocent civilians - why can't we do the same to the bad guys. Michael Life’s not a song. Life isn’t bliss. Life is just this. It’s living. -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once more, with feeling
Michael P Butler wrote: why can't we do the same to the bad guys. Because when you start playing by their rules you are giving them an open moral card to do the same. Ever heard of the phrase "don't stoop to their level"?
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
"If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain" - Dolly Parton
-
Paul Watson wrote: They want accountability in this world, but they won't be a part of the ICC. Hmmmm. Paul, You jeopardize your credibility with this statement. The ICC topic has been discussed more than once and answers as to why have been given. The way you suggest ulterior motives with your Hmmm is very poor. http://ezdragon.cortland.edu/log/us/us741/us741.htm Under the ICC, American citizens and U.S. military personnel are not protected by the same rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, U.S. citizens have the right to a "trial by an impartial jury." The ICC does not acknowledge this right. Instead, a panel of United Nations-appointed judges hears each trial where a majority vote decides the fate of the defendant. With the loss of a trial by an impartial jury, the accused may face judges biased towards their home country and government. Under the Fifth Amendment, U.S. citizens are protected against double jeopardy. Again, the ICC does not acknowledge this right. Therefore, an individual may face prosecution more than once for the same crime. The US has always supported being accountable.
From Biography of William Calley: After deliberating for 79 hours and 57 minutes, the jury returned a verdict. They had found Lieutenant Calley guilty of premeditated murder of 22 of the villagers of My Lai, Viet Nam. After seven hours the jury sentenced Calley to life of hard labor. In the end, he served less than five months. Finally, he was pardoned by President Nixon.
-
Paul Watson wrote: I say Hmmmm because the US has not come out with a solution. Come on Paul, Go back and look at history. The US has always (since 1918) supported world forums and has been the principle backer for them. Paul Watson wrote: Just imagine for a minute that Al-Qaeda had attacked South Africa and killed thousands. Just imagine for a minute that SA had the military resources to know go and invade Afghanistan. Do you for one moment think the US would allow that? I will bet not. Yes I can see that and firmly believe you would have been supported by the US. At this point I think we will just have to disagree. I am simply taking your agruments as "Big Bad US is automatically at fault no matter what facts exist." I have to leave to go vote. Take care. "We are what we repeatedly do. excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The US has always (since 1918) supported world forums and has been the principle backer for them. And yet it felt the League of Nations wasn't worth its time? I understand that one of the reasons behind them not backing the LoN was because there were in an isolationist phase and the country felt the problems in Europe were just that: Europe's problems, not the US's problems. But, I always wonder who much stronger the LoN would have been if the US had been involved. Would the appeasement of Germany happened? As a Canadian, we often see it as the "Big Bad US". (They mentioned in the news recently about how people from the Middle East, but living permanently in Canada, would be treated more harshly at the Canada-US border, than those who aren't). Used to be that all Canadians were treated equally when crossing the border. Anyways, sometimes it's just not worth it to argue about someone's country, because they won't change their mind, and I doubt they'd say anything to get me to change mine. That's why I ramble so much. If you're short and quotable, there's a much greater danger of ending up in a sig. [Christopher Duncan on how to prevent yourself from ending up in a sig]
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The US has always (since 1918) supported world forums and has been the principle backer for them. And yet it felt the League of Nations wasn't worth its time? I understand that one of the reasons behind them not backing the LoN was because there were in an isolationist phase and the country felt the problems in Europe were just that: Europe's problems, not the US's problems. But, I always wonder who much stronger the LoN would have been if the US had been involved. Would the appeasement of Germany happened? As a Canadian, we often see it as the "Big Bad US". (They mentioned in the news recently about how people from the Middle East, but living permanently in Canada, would be treated more harshly at the Canada-US border, than those who aren't). Used to be that all Canadians were treated equally when crossing the border. Anyways, sometimes it's just not worth it to argue about someone's country, because they won't change their mind, and I doubt they'd say anything to get me to change mine. That's why I ramble so much. If you're short and quotable, there's a much greater danger of ending up in a sig. [Christopher Duncan on how to prevent yourself from ending up in a sig]
Atlantys wrote: And yet it felt the League of Nations wasn't worth its time? I understand that one of the reasons behind them not backing the LoN was because there were in an isolationist phase and the country felt the problems in Europe were just that: Europe's problems, not the US's problems. But, I always wonder who much stronger the LoN would have been if the US had been involved. Would the appeasement of Germany happened? You're kidding, right? US President Woodrow Wilson was the driving force behind the creation of the LON. However, once the Europeans got done corruptingdefining it our congress didn't want any part of it. Too bad we didn't do the same with the UN.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2402479.stm[^] A new tactic for the Americans? Play the terrorists at their own game? Sort of like something from a Tom Clancy Novel. The first time the bad guys will realise they've been found, is as their car explodes. Michael Life’s not a song. Life isn’t bliss. Life is just this. It’s living. -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once more, with feeling
OK, everyone sit down and remove any sharp objects from your immediate vicinity I'm about to shock you: I, Mike Mullikin, agree that the US/CIA should not have targeted and killed these individuals. They should have been captured alive, tried and convicted of their crimes under due process. This is a serious mistake in world relations and should not be repeated. We cannot continue to be arbitrary judge, jury and executioner. That said, once convicted these individuals should have been publicly tortured to death in an attempt to gain knowledge of their organization and for general entertainment purposes.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
OK, everyone sit down and remove any sharp objects from your immediate vicinity I'm about to shock you: I, Mike Mullikin, agree that the US/CIA should not have targeted and killed these individuals. They should have been captured alive, tried and convicted of their crimes under due process. This is a serious mistake in world relations and should not be repeated. We cannot continue to be arbitrary judge, jury and executioner. That said, once convicted these individuals should have been publicly tortured to death in an attempt to gain knowledge of their organization and for general entertainment purposes.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
It's easy to say 'good for them', but what international court does the US answer to as it kills people on foreign soil ? Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Normally, I don't think an event like this would even have been publicized. It was news to me that 4 similar attacks had been made prior to this in Afghanistan. And personally, I don't think it's right to throw out the concept of "due process" simply because these are really bad guys. On the other hand, I guess we're at war with Al Queda, although, again, there hasn't been any formal declaration of war that I'm aware of (except for Bush's speeches "war on terror"). I guess the CIA is back in business. But I think they also needed some political coup's, as they really f*cked up with the information they had on the 9/11 attacks. This whole business makes me sick, especially how politics costs people their lives. Hey, but when has it been different??? Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
-
OK, everyone sit down and remove any sharp objects from your immediate vicinity I'm about to shock you: I, Mike Mullikin, agree that the US/CIA should not have targeted and killed these individuals. They should have been captured alive, tried and convicted of their crimes under due process. This is a serious mistake in world relations and should not be repeated. We cannot continue to be arbitrary judge, jury and executioner. That said, once convicted these individuals should have been publicly tortured to death in an attempt to gain knowledge of their organization and for general entertainment purposes.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: They should have been captured alive, tried and convicted of their crimes under due process. We cannot continue to be arbitrary judge, jury and executioner. Well said Mike. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
OK, everyone sit down and remove any sharp objects from your immediate vicinity I'm about to shock you: I, Mike Mullikin, agree that the US/CIA should not have targeted and killed these individuals. They should have been captured alive, tried and convicted of their crimes under due process. This is a serious mistake in world relations and should not be repeated. We cannot continue to be arbitrary judge, jury and executioner. That said, once convicted these individuals should have been publicly tortured to death in an attempt to gain knowledge of their organization and for general entertainment purposes.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: We cannot continue to be arbitrary judge, jury and executioner. An eye for an eye. Besides the fact that you can never 'win' against a terrorist that is willing to die for thier cause, you HAVE to look deeply into what motivates them. They kill us and we do nothing, they win because we look scared. They kill us and re retalliate, they win because we look like the stong armed opressors. To paraphrase a quote from someone here form a while back "I would rather coem to bail you out then come to identify the body". Moral? These situations are loose / loose no matter how you look at it. The winder in this case is the person who looses the least. Mike Mullikin wrote: They should have been captured alive, tried and convicted of their crimes under due process. The problem with this is that they have no due-process. They are not citizens, they are not ruled by our constitution, why should we treat them as such? You don't honestly think that if we just pulled back and just decided to ignore every country, and stay out of world politics, that things would get better do you? We are doing what we are doing becasue these countries have clearly shown a complete inability to regulate thier own peoples activities.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: We cannot continue to be arbitrary judge, jury and executioner. An eye for an eye. Besides the fact that you can never 'win' against a terrorist that is willing to die for thier cause, you HAVE to look deeply into what motivates them. They kill us and we do nothing, they win because we look scared. They kill us and re retalliate, they win because we look like the stong armed opressors. To paraphrase a quote from someone here form a while back "I would rather coem to bail you out then come to identify the body". Moral? These situations are loose / loose no matter how you look at it. The winder in this case is the person who looses the least. Mike Mullikin wrote: They should have been captured alive, tried and convicted of their crimes under due process. The problem with this is that they have no due-process. They are not citizens, they are not ruled by our constitution, why should we treat them as such? You don't honestly think that if we just pulled back and just decided to ignore every country, and stay out of world politics, that things would get better do you? We are doing what we are doing becasue these countries have clearly shown a complete inability to regulate thier own peoples activities.
Ray Cassick wrote: Besides the fact that you can never 'win' against a terrorist that is willing to die for thier cause, you HAVE to look deeply into what motivates them. Stooping to their level is not the answer. If we continue down that road we become them. Ray Cassick wrote: The problem with this is that they have no due-process. They are not citizens, they are not ruled by our constitution, why should we treat them as such? The US constitution is more than a set of rules for American citizens, it also is a set of ideals that we mean to live up to. Due process is one of these ideals. Ray Cassick wrote: You don't honestly think that if we just pulled back and just decided to ignore every country, and stay out of world politics, that things would get better do you? No. I didn't say these individuals should be ignored. I said they should be captured, tried, convicted. If you read the fine print I also mentioned something about their punishment.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
KaЯl wrote: I could agree on this one, but what about Justice ? What about the people perhaps standing near the bombed car ? I agree with your concern, but I feel that all are responsible for what they allow their country (region) to support to at least some extent. They support harboring these criminals so have taken on that risk. KaЯl wrote: What about a mistake ?? Also agree with your concern here. However other options for my country do not exist other than doing nothing (because we may make a mistake) and just sit back for more of our citizens to be randomly murdered. "We are what we repeatedly do. excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I agree with your concern, but I feel that all are responsible for what they allow their country (region) to support to at least some extent. They support harboring these criminals so have taken on that risk. The citizens of those regions being bombed probably have no idea what is going on and why they're under fire. They work and struggle daily to make barely enough to support themselves and perhaps their families. You think ordinary people would put in the time and effort to harbor terrorists? Terrorists exploit weaknesses in infrastructure, and infrastructure is the responsibility of the government. Go after the governments! Bilal