Military Tribunals

Or the oil rig workers when Greenpeace manages to find a boat they can cruise around in...

 

But if the companies and oil rig workers just ignored Greenpeace, what would happen? Or what if an oil rig worker shot a boat thief dead? Would the Greenpeacers shoot back?
It's all a matter of semantics. IMO, a "terrorist" is just that. "Terror-ist". One who utilizes terror. Not inconvenience. Terror. I guess it all depends on your point of view and what's important to you.
And Jinxed, I've said it before -- No one deserves to die. I don't like capital punishment. I have said regarding military tribunals that terrorists should either be killed in action or tried under International Law, because the MT idea sounds like a scam designed to circumvent the judicial system.

 

Some people deserve to die...in my spare time I dream of being a vigilante :rifle:.

 

Let's just agree to disagree on this. As I said, I think it's all just semantics. Who the Hell started this thread, anyway?
I'm waiting for my pizza to arrive! It's another exciting Saturday night in the Kane household. :smile:
And where'd ya get th' new smilie, mister?

 

Check the site feedback for them. We'll be seeing some smiley action soon

EDIT: My mistake, looks lke the action's already started :winknudge:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2001-12-09 16:33 ]</font>

 

Calis just uploaded a shitload of new smilies :smile:. Some are really cool, like the rifle one...

:minigun:

Watch out, it's a shoot out!

 

Military tribunal is fine with me. It's not like we are talking about American Citizens. I don't think they should be in secret but i can understand why they would want them in secret.

 

(Ooh, I love discussions like this!)

Are you somehow implying that American Citizens are better than everyone else? That no one deserves a fair trial apart from Americans?

(Note, I do not necessarily believe what I'm saying here, I'm just having a thought provoking discusssion).

 

NO that's not what I was implying What I mean is that any illegal alien suspected of commiting a crime in a foriegn country should not expect to be afforded the rights of a citizen of that country regardless of what country that is

 

Finally, someone who has a similar opinion on a similar subject!

I get pissed off when boat-people land on our shores, and suddenly start claiming all sorts of rights, benefits and dues that they believe are owed to them! It shits me off no end...

 

Gave a thought to consequences?

"Yeah, you're absolutely right" - just not in this world. Since American Citizens won't be judged in MTs then it's OK since all the consequences will be suffered by the worse part of humanity ie non-american part. Congratulations for such an approach. I just wonder what you'll say when one day due to rising number of crimes or some other factor similar courts will be set up for Americans and you'll get sentenced based on gossip. Doesn't sound so fine anymore now does it?


_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dragoon on 2001-12-10 03:29 ]</font>

 

I've been pretty much holding my piece ... um ... peace ... during all this, but I'd just like to ask what you think it is that "boat people" (you can insert another random impoverished/persecuted group if you like) have done that is so wrong?

They've had pretty rough lives - fucking awful compared to ours, I'd guess - been attacked, starving, abused, etc and pretty much lived in poverty and hardship their whole lives. You think they're wrong for trying to escape that? You think you'd righteously stay in the shit to which you born in their position?

I wouldn't mind so much if their existence actually had much of an impact on your life, but they don't. What are you worried about - a tax rise that may require you to spend 5 minutes less on the internet a day while they're grubbing around for food and shelter?

EDIT: :smash: there now, see, you made the smilies start attacking each other. Will the madness never stop?

Btw, sorry for my rant. I think I feel a little guilty sometimes about not helping people more instead of sitting on my arse telling the world what I think through a BBS.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2001-12-10 03:53 ]</font>

 

I don't have a problem with immigrants. I do have a problem with people who bitch, scream and whine when we don't let them have their way - when we took those people off the Tampa to somewhere else, they tore up the boat they were being transported in, and one woman actually broke her kids arm by throwing her to the ground in a tantram.

Boat people are queue-jumpers, and that just isn't right. Sure, some of them are genuine refugees, but it isn't cheap to get on a boat - it costs tens of thousands of dollars (I'm not joking here) for them to get the chance to come here, and I assume they get pissed off because their gamble failed.

They have to build detention centres over here to keep them, and then they riot in the detention centres because we won't give them the dole (our welfare system), let them go free etc etc etc.

Their attitude is what pisses me off the most though. The idea that because they took a gamble by getting on a boat they should be rewarded by us pisses me off like almost nothing else can. It's not like I can't sympathise and empathise with the genuine refugees, but they should do it the proper way if they want to get the benefits of living here.

 

Actually Sheriff immergrants effect all our lives. Yes their lives were hard but that is the fault of their govenment. When they come to a foreign country and accept work for less money the economy of that country suffers greatly. Immergants mean cheap labor for big corperations and thus those native to that country get placed on unemployeement which futher taxes the economy. Don't get me wrong i am not against immergration (Einstien was an immergrant) but to say that it has no effect is just not true.

If i have to choose between a poor native to my country or an immergrant I am sorry but I feel you can not help others until you can help yourself. And since 9/11 immergration as taken on new meaning, should i feel compeled to select an immergrant with questionable loyalties and motives over a citizen born and raised here? I don't think so.

Now for Lord Dragoon, I am not sure if you know this but we are at WAR with these guys! Your suggestion would only become relivant if we were in a state of "civil war". anything else would be a paranoid fantasy. Yes we must be watchful of our rights and to insure that they are not taken from us. But to imply that a prisoner of war should be entitled to the same rights I have for fear of losing those rights is insane.

anyway this is a good clean debate and everyones replies seem to be well thought out. I hail all of you, I for one am always willing to agree to disagree with a person of thought and honest consern. Just because I don't agree with your pov will never mean that I don't respect it or your right to air it :wink:

 

Except for obvious degenerates like rapists (who should all be shot and sent to hell in my opinion - the genuine rapists if you catch my drift. It's a little hard to define generally, suffice to say they should be shot and sent to hell on a case-by-case basis) and people like them, everyone has some basic human rights, which shouldn't be violated. I mean, innocent until proven guilty is the motto for the legal system isn't it?

 

Whom do you mean by these guys ?

If you mean Afghans or Talibs to be more precise then MTs idea is wrong because MTs would be for all foreigners not just for them.

If you mean terrorists then there would be inequality in law because American terrorists would be judged in front of ordinary courts having all rights granted. By American terrorists I refer for example to those citizens who sent Anthrax to all those innocent people. Also you mentioned loyalties in your post. Large numbers of Americans have their loyalties really screwed to say the least.

I just hope you don't mean all foreigners because then we would have WWIII :grin:


You seem to be mistaking human rights with citizenship rights. Human rights are granted to any person of any nation while citizenship rights are granted to those of a certain citizenship Let me quote you a few bits just one of international human rights declarations. (note: this is my own and hastily done translation, I'll try to edit it later to smooth it a bit).

International Pact of Civil and Political Rights.

Article 6 point 4 sentence 1

Every person sentenced to death penalty has the right to appeal for pardon or change of sentence.

Article 14 point 1 sentence 1

All people are equal in front of courts and tribunals.

Article 14 point 5

Every person sentenced for a crime has the right to appeal to court of higher instance to have their guilt and penalty investigated once more.


Thus MTs are not about not granting citizenship laws but about taking away basic human rights and in turn braking vital international pacts. US has already done it more than once before but now due to nature of what these pacts state the line must be drawn even for this country.
Now picture a situation. A loyal foreigner living in US for some time refuses to help terrorists. They are caught and during investigation they tell of him as their organization's member just because he didn't want to help them. He's tried in front of MT based on gossip and sentenced to death. This is actually a true victory of terrorism. And it's what I'm against. I'm really not against dealing with crimes in a firm manner.

 

Rex, you're argument is 100% sound, but only in an economy that treats immigrants as cheap labour. If you were to pay all people a fairs days wage for a fair days work, regardless of their country of origin, the exploitation you describe would not be possible.

I just hope he doesn't mean all foreigners, because that would mean ME.

If you're interested in the link between human rights and US civil rights, read up on the history of your constitution, paying particular attention to who was involved in its writing and the philosophical justifications they gave for the decisions taken.

Basically, until recently, I've been pretty pro USA. When elements of the international community were dis'ing 'em for trying to "police the world" I thought, "Why not? They're fair minded and humanitarian."

When the twin towers were bombed I was naturally outraged, and when the war against the Taliban was taken to Afghanistan, I was saddened but couldn't see what option the USA had been given.

Since then my opinion of US citizens has dropped hugely. Why? Was it the actions of the US government? No. It was the jingoistic attitude of a huge proportion of US internet users.

Fair enough - there are people like Milo and Feldon who seem pretty sane (well, about politics, anyway) and quite aware that the world outside the USA, including the middle-east, is populated by people, not some kind of sub-race. However, it seems for each person like that, there is a ravening hoard calling for blood.

Up until now I have been compromising my own principles by choosing to believe that most of the dangerous hate-mongering came from younger people caught up in something they didn't understand. Normally, I try not to equate being young with being stupid, but it gave me some peace of mind.

Now I'm not so sure. For me there is nothing scarier than someone who rationally and articulately argues that a broad section of human society are not deserving of the same rights as everyone else.

 

A question about these two paragraphs Sheriff. Do they refer to me or to Eros Rex?

If they refer to me then:

1. Regarding first paragraph what's the deal with a link between US civil rights, human rights and Polish constitution (and which one of Polsih constitutions)?

2. As for the last paragraph, if it refers to me I really fail to see in which place I argue that "a broad section of human society are not deserving of the same rights as everyone else

If you're not referring to me then... well nothing I guess.

I'm sorry but I really caouldn't make it out for sure whom do you refer to. :smile:

 

Dragoon, I was not referring to you in either paragraph. I could see that you are Polish from your profile, and am unfortunately not as informed as I could be regarding Polish civil rights, but would never assume you had a constitution (we don't have one ourselves). Were they set up by Solidarity (sp?) when Poland became independent? Sorry if this display more ignorance.

The last paragraph was not directed at Eros Rex, although it was party prompted by some of the things he said. To be honest, it was more to do with an argument I had in a pub when some friends visited me from New York about 2 weeks after the bombing. One of the girls was quite scared, naturally and lashed out a bit, I think. The trouble was, she was trying to rationalise her opinions into validity (rather than recognising them as a fear response), and had this terrifying tendancy to refer to anyone with a middle-eastern cast to their features as the same "them" she used when speaking about the (unidentified) suspects of the bombing.

The SCARIEST part of the whole thing was the way everyone else went quiet instead of saying "Isn't that a bit racist?" because noone wanted a heavy conversation.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2001-12-10 09:52 ]</font>

 

my small piece...?

note: every point has a counter-point, even moderate ones.

I don't like Rumsfeld... As a typical television watching American with political interests, I can't appreciate a politician who never smiles on camera.

I don't like Ashcroft... my dog thinks he smells funny, and I can't help but think he has much more than his own political agenda in mind... not a good trait to have in the Attorney General of the U.S., esp. in times like this.

I don't like Bush at all... I watched a discovery special a couple nights ago where they observed that the pre-historic ancestors of whales and dolphins had brain sizes equivalent to that of a ping-pong ball. Who woulda thunk that one of them could survive all this time to become the most powerful man in the world?

I'd trade in all three of them to have Powell, Reno, and Clinton back in their respective positions without hesitation.

Will type a little more on the actual matter of military tribunals after lunch.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: karma on 2001-12-10 10:53 ]</font>