Military Tribunals

Now you're just talking nonsense: everyone knows the most powerful man in the world is Superman, followed closely by Inspector Gadget and Dick Dastardly. Bush only has a passing remblance to two out of these three.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2001-12-10 11:06 ]</font>

 

The general consensus over here is that Bush is a psycho who wants a war. I don't pretend to know how everyone came to that conclusion, but seeing as I don't have a better one, I'll go with it.

Bush is a psycho who wants a war. He doesn't really care with who, he just wants to show off the USA's superiority.

Also, to further one of your points Fatman, I've lived in the Middle East, and most of the people there are pretty nice. That's pretty much all I have to say about that.

 

Let's see.
Dubya's family is in the oil business. Bush wants to start drilling in Alaska. If there's war in the Middle East, we can't get oil from there, so we have to get it at home.
Husein escaped death at the hands of Bush Sr. Hussein refered to Bush Sr. as "The Great Satan". Is there a chance that a son might want to avenge a stain on his father's record by doing away with Hussein?
Hmmm.
Still, this all goes back to the fact that over 4000 civilians were killed on September 11, 2001. No matter what happened in the past, those people didn't deserve to die.

 

Has anyone said they do though Feldon? I mean, apart from the people who bombed them or supported the bombers.

 

Just covering my ass, man, in case ECHELON is watching.
No, I haven't heard anyone say that.
The point is that Bush may want war, but he didn't fly planes into the WTC. That was an act of war, and the US didn't start it. I just wish Congress would actually declare war, but they won't, because that would make things too clear-cut. The way it is now, all sorts of shadowy things can be accomplished, and labelled as "war on terrorism".
This whole situation, politically speaking, has been a huge boon to Dubya. Before September, a lot of people thought he was an idiot. His approval rating was slipping, the economy is in the shitter...But now he's on top, and he can do anything he wants.

 

Want to talk boons for political leaders? Our prime minister (John Howard) was going to lose this year's election. No doubt about it. Large sections of the community were against him, the Liberal Party was losing state elections left right and centre.

Then came the Tampa. John Howard took his tough stance on it. You know what his approval rating was then? 97%!!! 97% of people thought he was doing the right thing. John must have been skipping round the bedroom each day the crisis went on and on. Then, Sept 11 happened. Another great political boon, he got to stand beside Dubya, declare Australia's support, he got to do everything that a leader should do, and people supported him for it.

He kicked arse in the election. Sept 11 sealed the deal for him, but he gained heaps of support from the Tampa crisis as well.

That's what I call political boons.

 

OK now this is out of line. I am no big fan of our current president but he DID NOT send those planes into the WTC and the pentagon. I wish I could make you guys that don't live here understand the damage and the horror that one day caused. We are not talking about some small hut in the middle of nowhere. Think of the largest structure in your part of the world and then imagen a crator there! Not only that but the smoke ash and toxic fumes from the aftermath. One of your countries most valueable contributions to world culture gone in less then 30 minutes.

So what we do nothing? until they get the statue of liberty or maybe the Empire state building? How many more Americans would you like to see die Jarinor before President Bush becomes justified in attacking back!!!?

No Sir. Mr. Bush maybe and may have done many, many things but he did not, I repeat DID NOT start this. He is looking for a way to end it and I say God Bless Him for trying. No nation or culture in it's right mind can say they are for protecting the rights of foreigners to come in learn from them and then plant bombs or distroy property.

No I do not mean all foreigners. My country is nothing but foreigners of one kind or another. This is the problem with the war we are in. This is a war against organizations and the countries that sponser them. Yet we have to also accept the citizens of that country and have faith and hope that they are not part of the very organiazations that are trying to KILL U.S.

Is this fair? Is it right? If you say it is then I say it's just as right that if anyone of those people that we place faith in is suspected of Terror then they LOOSE all rights except those basic ones provided by international law. And yes they should be tried in secret so that we don't have to spend millions protecting those that helped convict them or billions trying to prevent further crimes commited by people inspired by watching them.

Please do not miss understand. I love people of all races. As an American I have a muliticulural heritage. But I will be DAMNED if I loose one more friend or see anymore distruction to MY country in the name of someone elses right to spread terror. I am sorry there is no justification for it and implying that the leader of my counrty is somehow enjoying this mess is just a bunch of bull.

 

I never said that I wanted Americans to die. What I meant was (and I know I didn't make this clear at all) that Bush wanted a war before September 11. I don't like people dying, for any reason other than natural causes. I'm saying that Bush wanted a war to happend during his Presidency (like I said, not really my opinion, but one of the more popular opinions over here, again, before September 11).

Don't get me wrong, I'm behind the anti-terrorist war, I just think it should be conducted a little differently. I'm not pretending to be a military expert, but the USA isn't winning any friends by bombing the shit out of Afghanistan.

 

Just to add to Jarinor's post and maybe help him feel better. Many Americans feel the same way you do, in fact I don't feel bush should have ever been the president. All it looks to me he is doing is listening to his staff, the same as his father did during the gulf war. All his staff are doing is getting the Northern alliance to do most of the dirty work. Personally, I am glad they want to do all the fighting for us because that means I don't have to go there myself. I think the real problem was caused by our isolationist views towards the other countries of the world and until we change our foreign policy there will be no peace in the Middle East.

The facts are Bin Laden was on the FBI's most wanted list way before September 11th and the war in Afghanistan has been going on for years. "We" (the government and many of the citizens) did not care then and the only reason "we" care now is because 3000 Americans died on September 11th. “We� ignore world events until they harm the US directly.

Also you would think after the war is over the US would change their foreign policy but "we" will not do that. "We" have a history of forgetting these events until it bites "us" in the ass. "We" did it in World War 1 then again in World War 2 and now "we" did it again. There are many things I love about this country and its democratic government but we really need to figure out how to fit the role of the world leader we are looked at being. If you are going to accept the role you must accept the responsibility that goes with it.

Against my better judgment I will now press the "Submit" button.

 

oh boy, did someone drop a granade?

*monkey screams "incomming!" and then fleas from the field*

nasty topics are allways so fun, and so tense.

 

I've stuck some on my problem word. Rex, you seem like a nice guy and I've got a feeling many of our differences in this debate seem worse because of the limitations of the textual media. I have to object to a system where people lose rights by being accused, though.

Next year, chances are I'll have a US passport (if I bother to apply for one). If I move over there, I am then an immigrant. As US law stands, I'd be happily confident that between me and an unjustifed execution is a whole system requiring any accusers to back their accusations with evidence - an impossibility if I haven't actually committed the crime. Okay, that's an oversimplification, injustices still occur - but they are considered failures of the system, not part of it.

As soon as the burden of proof is relaxed, I can theoretically go from innocent to executed without the inconvenient "committing the crime" stage in between. Fortunately for me, being a white Brit, I'd still have my "sexy accent" and membership of the dominent ethnic group as protection, but whose to say an envy-based ( ) purge against Brits isn't around the corner? After all, America has had sympathetic leanings towards the IRA for a long time, and that's still a volatile situation right.

Even without such fantastic scenarios, I'm still unhappy with the idea that:

• Racists would have effectively been given a damn useful weapon against anyone who "looks like a terrorist" (i.e. falls in the appropriate ethnic group), if all they have to do is accuse someone to get that person's rights suspended.
• A precendent of "execution without fair trial" being set that anyone crackpot dictator will be able to point to in the future when wanting to dispose of random foreign nationals. If I was an American in the middle-east right now, I'd be pulling my hair out at Bush's actions.

 

First of all, people on the internet can say what ever they want, many may not believe or care what they say.

I am a patriot, or a "jingoist" if you want, but i see the rest of the world as "people"

However, i believe that Bin Ladin and the leaders of the Al Queda Network or other terrorist groups, cannot be allowed a standard trial.

What if some ass of a lawyer took the case for publicity, and Bin Ladin got off on a technicality. My government couldn't just say, "oops, guess our law system was right, lets let him go." And killing him after a trial would be bad.

These terrorist commit terrible murders of innocent civilians and don't deserve the rights of other people.

I do not condone illegal seizures of immigrants, but they did not earn the same rights as Citizens yet, and are more suspect than Americans who have lived in the USA their whole lives.

And jarinor, why do you think Bush wanted a war? Americans are not blood-thirsty animals, we are just not happy when thousands of American civilians die.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Clothos_Vermillion on 2001-12-11 05:45 ]</font>

 

Agreed, in fact I'd be happy if people could say whatever they want wherever they want. However, that doesn't mean they can say it without consequence. If people indulge in reactionism and hate-mongering, they risk excaerbating problems and shouldn't be too surprised if some of the message they've been peddling has negative knock-on effects.

I agree that the trial is likely to have its own peculiarities, but would prefer if it still had the spirit of a real trial, rather than a "confirmation of guilt already proven in secret." The difference being the presentation of evidence.

For you own protection you need to be very confident that your country's legal system is "right".

I'd say that until the trials have proved otherwise, its "These people accused/suspected of terrorism." That doesn't mean I want them in any other place except a high security facility before the trial, since I would guess they are guilty. My guess would not be enought to base an execution on though, and I really don't see how your guess is better than mine.

Some questions:

• What actions have you performed to earn your citizenship? I was under the impression it is conferred by birth rather than merit.
• What evidence have you seen that convinces you that none of the terrorist organisation were (legally) American citizens?

 

Sheriff[/] I wasn't sure because first you referred to Eros Rex in 2nd person than after quoting that line from my post you referred to him in the 3rd person and then you began writing in 2nd person thus I became a bit confused.

Anyway as for Polish constitution we now have one from 1997, it wav prepared by social-democrats [or post communists different people call them differently :smile: ] and the nation accepted it via referendum. The earlier constitution was prepared by solidarity and other groups which were in the parliament at that time (1992) and it consisted of 3 bills. It was a temporary one, called Small Constitution and it's purpose was to last till the new one and of course to remove those regulations which strongly reduced Polish sovereignty in 1952 Constitution (burn in hell f*cking comrade Stalin).

As for Britain to my best knowledge you do have a constitution actually only that it's not a formal but a material one ie it's not a single act but a set of bills, it does not have higher power than other bills and there are no special legislative procedures for changing it - your parliament simply issues new bills. It's not that I think you do not know this but I just felt this urge to boast a little and couldn't quench it :monkey:

 

Thanks for the info, Dragoon. I feel much better informed about both your country and my own :smile:

I was really talking about us not having a constition document as the US does. I never considered that our messed up system of Bills and amendments effectively gave us an equivalent.

So how does the Polish contitution compare to the older ones of the US and UK? Is it biased more toward protecting individual rights or toward empowering the government?

 

Clothos_Vermillion, Bush himself wants a war. Not America. Two different things. I also said that I'm going along with the opinion, as it was a pretty popular one over here, at least among my group of people.

No other reason.

 

Whoah, this is a topic you could write a book on. I don't know British constitution and acts that it consists of so that I couldn't make a credible comparison. I will do the US-Polish comparison but no sooner than after weekend. I have quite a serious test on Friday not to mention all the lessons (are they still called lessons at university?) during the week..

*** Must fight urge to post and get to learning. Must learn, Getting weaker, crave to post, must resist… Damn you forums you tool of the DEVIL ***

 

Damn you, I'm the one who says that around here :grin:. I know that Australia has a constitution, and I also know that there's rarely a big fuss made over it.

 

that's because a lot of people (me included) don't really know what's in the constitution and the only time it's come up (in my recollection) was during the whole republic arguement debacle
ok we've had the referendem, we voted not to do it (though i did because i think it may be time to stand on our own so to speak) so let's all just move on

 

Caught on plagiarism - I'm so ashamed. Damn you for catching me, Technological Wonder, you tool of the devil :grin: