Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

It's actually a so called fallacy ;)
Still works among us lil' wannabe lawyers :D

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

It's a circular argument form of a very rare type. It actually requires two arguers.

It goes approximately like this:

Arguer A: Your guy's a fascist!
Arguer B: No! Your guy's a fascist!
Repeat.

It is closely related to two other well known argumentative fallacies, the Argument from Say the Same thing Louder, and the Argument from I say X therefore X.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Well apparently after GW Bush had the audacity and ill-sense to speak of Nazi appeasement while speaking to Isreal, Nazi/Hitler references are in vogue again.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

That is *far* too simplistic an argument on what down the Weimar republic. Massive unemployment, war debts, disaffected youth, hyperinflation, and a belief that the country had been betrayed.
Looking from the german perspective, at the time of the armistice it was not nearly so obvious that germany had lost - and so what was a smart move by the germans military .. turned against them politically as rabble rousers drummed up a distrust of the govt.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Just to stir a little :), but I can think of two other greatest empires of all time: British (certainly covered the greatest area) and Roman (pretty impressive longevity and impact on western ways of thinking). Both ran a form of democracy (I wouldn't call them very representative democracies, though - OTOH, is a system where a 52%/48% split of the popular vote can equate to a 70%/30% college vote really that representative?), with a noticeable proportion of politicians who were corrupt or held extreme viewpoints. They had two-house systems of government, and rich and influential families kept on getting members elected to positions of political power on the basis of name and family influence for multiple generations.

I match you, and raise you one herring!

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

For someone who argues for the validity of extraneous circumstances, it seems like there is an incredibly thin comparison between current United States, and Germany between WW1 and WW2. That said, -your- description of the problems that Germany was facing, does very much sound like the America that GW Bush has gifted us all with.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I won't get into lengths about it on an internet forum, but it's, distilled into one sentence, what managed to end the Weimar republic being a republic with multiple parties and turning it into a dictatorship. As to the why and how, the reasons, and the "dagger-thrust" legend and so on, I expect that people educate themselves about that elsewhere, but not on an internet forum.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

See,

This is the problem with politics. I felt the 8 years under clinton were *horrible*. A president *lied* under oath, before a court, and then his political allies said party is more important than principle and ensured he got away with it.

Clinton tomahawked sudan - knowing osama wasn't there, and ended up paying restitution just to sway the wavering and distract attention from the impeachment vote. And while you leftists decry that 'bush lied and people died'.. pretty much you ignore the same thing when Clinton did it.

But, I have no problem giving obama a chance - I think we all should. I do think his shutting down gitmo and granting terrorists the rights of us citizens is appauling. I really can't understate that enough. Keep a lawyer employed!

But my real objection was the statement 'the worst governance in our history'. I doubt it actually qualifies as that - I can think of plenty of other stellar examples.

But even if it does, I include democrats in that 'worst governance'. I consider much of this financial debacle to be democrat inspired - from running Fannie and freddie like a democratic piggy bank, to requiring banks to make a certain percentage of their loans be to non credit worthy customers..

I guess what I'm trying to say Jim, is we can continue in this endless cycle of recrimination, or we can tone the invective down, agree that we have problems, and try to solve them civilly.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Actually, IMHO, it goes more this way:

A: My guy wants to help the poor and lower taxes! And he loves animals so much he became vegetarian!
B: Hey, you know who else lowered taxes? Hitler! And he was also vegetarian! Your guy's exactly like Hitler so! He's gonna put on a Nazist regime, kill the innocents etc. etc.

Totally illogical of course, but of great effect on the weak minds (Star Wars FTW) as every logical fallacy. :o

This one is often used currently against Atheists. I met and heard people saying that Nazism did what he did because Hitler was atheist :eek:
Of course "forgetting" the motto -Gott mit uns- and Hitler's famous speech "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."; the "German Reich Christian Church" he established in 1933 etc...

Not of course that one would say that he did his utterly evil actions because he was Christian or whatever, it would be crazy c'mon :re: But many today like to go anti-atheism going for "Stalin and Hitler were mass-murder tyrants because they didn't believe in God" :rolleyes: I'm not even atheist but you know, some things should really p*ss off any rational being.

Long OT, sorry ^^

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Well, Rome was quite proud and wealthy, but the ultimate power was more of an Aristocracy than anything. They had a rather effective means of keeping public favor, by involving the plebes to a degree, essentially letting them deal with petty affairs, while the wealthy elite maintained their own agendas - funded by the state.

Great Britain is not really a good example though. The map that I saw that seemed unreasonably comprehensive - actually was. It seemed to simply highlight every piece of land that Britain ever "claimed". Bear in mind, there are miles of grey area between "claiming" something, and actually governing or administering to it. For example, Australia was largely a penal colony. Britain itself had little dealings with most of the landmass, but in absence of a powerful and organized governing body, they "claimed" the entirety. The irony here is that this did not even begin to occur until America established independence. That is to say, while the map shows most of North America, as well as Australia as being owned by Great Britain, Britain did not own both at the same time. I am not really looking to do a comprehensive search on the rest, but I would postulate that many of the regions of Africa that Britain "claimed", it also simply did so in the absence of any other "claimant" with world power, and they similarly did little with that claim other than show it on maps - for later of course, I'm sure. ;)


As to your point about how our system works - I totally agree. I will not balk at the implication that our political system is broken. I think we'd be in much better shape with 30 parties running, and candidates being victorious with 10% of the vote (though for President I would think 2 rounds of voting would be in order, the first narrowing to 3 candidates, then everyone voting again - something like that, not married to it).

Personally I believe that as far as the Senate goes, that on the state level many more representatives should be elected - but with a very meager salary, and little actual responsibilities. Their responsibility would be mainly to raise awareness in their particular district to the issues at hand, and to collect votes, which they would then forward on a 1:1 basis to the Federal level.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I was listening to NPR and they said our dear congress is planing on making the Patriot Act permanent. Please call your congress person and tell them your against this. Please don't let this slide. For your children if nothing else. If we don't stand together on this issue we will truly regret it.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Yeah, you should turn down the right of an equal trial to whoever is accused of being a terrorist. And any other right you don't like.

Let me play with Godwin's Law too! :cool:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

[Martin Niemöller]

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Nobody is "granting terrorists the rights of us citizens."

Simply saying that the US government does not have the right to detain whoever it feels like for as long as it wants without even having to make a case to the judicial branch.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Thats what is happening right now to us, American citizens. Guys and Gals now is the time to speak out. Before we lose that right. Turn your radio to NPR, listen to the tragedy thats unfolding before us right now. Don't blow this, it could be the last gasp of our Republic. I'm not joking, I'm afraid.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I sort of hinted at that in my post. And IIRC a lot of the public favour bit was arranged by throwing circuses, providing food and having lots of public holidays. Elections were often bought through family wealth, or just won on the basis of family reputation.

It's not exactly as if various wealthy families in the States don't get more than their fair share of political power, after all. That's getting close to aristocracy if you ask me.

Here's a (arbitrarily chosen) map from 1897, showing British territories at that point only. Is that slightly clearer? As per most empires, governors and garrisons were appointed to claimed territories. Other local governmental and social structures were left mostly intact. It's what Alexander and Rome did, so you can hardly quibble on that point.

For the sake of being argumentative: At the point the map linked above was made, transportation had been discontinued for 45 years. Convict labour had ended 30 years previously. Australia was being mined for gold and opals (and other minerals), forested for hardwoods, and probably several other things I don't know about.


How about gold and diamond mining, rare hardwoods and other natural resources? Africa was something of a feeding trough at the time, and European nations were all pushing for their share of it. There was hardly an absence of claimants for African land - it's very likely one of the reasons modern African governments don't like non-African nations interfering with their political problems. And of course, for an empire with a heavy reliance on sea trade and naval power there's a very good reason to keep hold of and use sea ports and islands. Britain had a strong tendency to go to war rather than lose territory, which is why their claims were taken seriously.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Actually, they are, that is the thrust of Obamas decision, at least as floated at trial balloon.

First, let me say that I am not in favor of indefinite detentions. However, giving enemy combattants lawyers, and flying them to the united states and trying them in court is - lunacy. In the same article it said 250 of these were waiting to be released - but their home countries wouldn't take them.

Now, we bring them into the US and what happens next - we give them resident alien status? That is sheer.. brilliance. Yep, take terrorists that demonstrate a willingness to blow themselves up, and bring them to the united states.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Just curious, there are ten sections to the Patriot act. What is the wording that you are opposed to in it? Can you quote any of it? Can you explain what it supplanted? Or is this just a blanket "I hate everything connected with Bush"?

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Simply breathtaking.

You compare an america with unemployment of 6.7% or so with the weimar republic where it was north of 25% You compare a place with hyperinflation measuring in the thousands of percent to a country with 3%. You compare a place where they had lost a war and suffered 50,000 people dead in one battle (Verdun) to where we are winning a war and the deaths are less than 5,000.

And you really think the circumstances are similar? See I think this is part of the problem Jim. Partisanship to such an extreme level that one simply can't be objective.

The sun still rises. Mail is still being delivered. Farmers grow food. We stil have an amazing university system- we still have the ability to worship as we chose, to vote, to assemble. We still have the right of free speach. We still have the ability to get ahead in life if we work hard. And on top of that, there's Dominions.

Most of the people in the world would die to come here.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

You know, McCain was suggesting the exact same thing, oddly enough. You try them before deciding that they are terrorists, instead of jailing them.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Maybe he remembers a thing or two from being a P.O.W.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

As I said, I don't mind the idea of trying them. Flying them to the US and affording them the same protections of a US citizen is a huge expansion of judicial oversight, with not a shred of constitutional justification.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

What do you mean by "affording them the same protections of a US citizen"?

How does our criminal justice system distinguish between US citizens and foreigners? Are you suggesting a British citizen (for example) would have less protections in a US court if accused of a crime?

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Rights of a British citizen (consular access, jurisprudence etc) are covered under a whole host of agreements, treaties and laws that are already established.

An aide leaking that the Obama campaign *is going* to to shut down Gitmo. etc (as in original post) and making that determination in advance of choosing an attorney general, in advance of consulting with JCS, or your secretary of state, especially in the case of setting legal precedent is troubling.

Closing gitmo may *be* the best course of action. Bush tried to willy nilly establish a new set of rules; he was shot down - but just because Obama is making a diametrically opposite position doesn't mean it is the correct decision, and it doesn't mean it isn't a willy nilly decision. But I would rather have confidence that Obama has the participation of his team on this. I'd rather have the knowledge that the ramifications have been discovered - and on such a polarizing issue, I'd like him to explain the decision.

Some things require haste - the banking crisis. Somethings require deliberative speed.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

America has built its self-image and place in the world on an assumption of having the moral high ground, of being a country with exceptional liberties. But in recent years it has been trying to do this while simultaneously committing astonishing human rights violations at Guantanamo. America would have no hesitation in condemning any other country guilty of the same things, and indeed the rest of the world has had no hesitation in condemning America. The damage to America's international reputation has been, in my opinion, enormous. It is hard to respect the morality of a country which tolerates such abuses. To be honest, even if you don't care a jot about human rights, it's worth putting considerable effort into fixing Guantanamo just for the foreign relations benefits it offers.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Well spoken llamabeast. But it is important to remember that Guantanamo is bit a small peice of a great puzzle. I am not convinced that "fixing" it makes much of a difference unless part of a massive program to abolish the practices it represents. Neither gitmo or Abu ghraib are unique in any way, they just happened to get exposed.

Just like international law and human rights in general, right? You do know these rights are confirmed in several international agreements. But it sure seems like the american goverments have agreed with you so far, since those agreements have been sytematically violated for decades.

Furthermore since the trial is necessary to confirm the status of "enemy combattant" or "terrorist" your reasining falls because they are not (yet) confirmed as such when those rights are granted. Hence any rights cannot be denied for this reason until after trial.

I am not at all convinced Obama represents any real change on those issues, but I hope so.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Yeah, Guantanamo is too much, they should have done as before : torture them on the spot. I mean, isn't it a sign of responsibility to admit you have concentration camps for people you don't like ?

Jokes put aside : there aren't hundreds of way to obtain info people won't give you.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I would say that the US, as inherited from Britain and the Magna Carta, is established on the Rule Of Law. The rule of law in America I believe also states quite unambiguously, as an essential premise, that all should be equal before the eyes of the law. It doesn't matter whether it's a foreign terrorist or a local pickpocket. I cannot say enough how much that is a principle America or any other civilised nation should be proud of, admired for, and right to uphold.

Currently, Guantanamo Bay humiliates the above principles. If you're American, you may have no idea how much it harms your national reputation in the eyes of the world. Bush, and therefore the US government, has caused the mess. If the next administration needs to make some unpalatable decisions to clear it up and restore the nation's honour, so be it.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Guantanamo has this particular trait that it is officially admitted as existing by the government. That is unpreceded in american history. But I find it naive to think that, before it, american did not torture prisonners.

So lets say that, by closing Guantanamo, USA will restore their apparent honour.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Cell-phone cameras have really done a number on plausible deniability.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Arf,Arf ! What technology have done for you today ?

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I agree with everything you said.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Really, a great deal of this is uncalled for.

First: No, you are factually incorrect on several fronts. There are no laws giving US citizen rights to enemy combattants.
The rights of enemy combattants and governed by things like the Geneva conventions, and other documents.

Second: No, it has never been historically necessary to have a trial to determine that someone was an enemy combattant. Nor has it ever been established that you fly them to the United States, determine that an American Court has jurisdiction (if so, which, praytell?) and grant process the same as an American citizen.

Third: I do agree that human rights issues need to be addressed.
I do think the situation needs to be fixed. However, they are issues because they are difficult.

For example, the Geneva conventions apply, when both sides of a conflict are signatories, or so long as the non signatory respects the conventions of the geneva accord. Now, Al-Qaeda has not respected said conventions. But in fact it is probably not realistic to expect any terrorist movement to respect such conventions. So what then *are* the standards? Everyone agrees there should be standards, but I don't know what they are - and more to the point - I don't know anyone who does.

Secondly, something like 40% of the detainees who were released were caught again in conflict with americans. So they as a class basis, they represent a threat to american servicemen.

Thirdly - if you are going to bring them to american courts - which court. How do you determine standing?

American courts give the defendent the ability to question his opponents. Are you going to allow enemy combattants to ability to make american soldiers appear in court - while they are involved in military action?

So lets suppose that some of these people are guilty. You've brought them to the US. Now you are going to send them to jails in the US? So you're going to take an extremist who want to blow up people - and you're going to jail them with people who might have an ax to grind. Fertile recruiting grounds, indeed.

And these are just problems off the top of my head.


For those that don't read my posts, but rather just jump in and pile on with criticism, I'll say it again: I'm in favor of fixing the problem. Hearing someone say they are going to close down gitmo - with a lack of other details - does not inspire me to believe that the problems (for there are several) will be considered, let alone fixed. It rather much appears as if you are pandering to public opinion rather than actually considering the issues. As I said in the ealier post, its a decision that should take the best minds. The AG, SoS, JCS, SoD - etc.

You announce that you want to convene at camp david to brain storm what to do about Gitmo - I'd applaud.

Announce that you want to draft legislation on what to do about non-signatory resistance movements - I'd applaud.

Just announce that you are going to close gitmo.. without announcing how you are going to solve these other issues - and I am way less than impressed.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I think it is illusory to believe USA will rebuilt it's image of a pure country respecting morality. I even wonder who ever believed it in the first place : people come to live in the States for economical reasons, it dominated the world thanks to its economy. Not thanks to its supposed morality : minorities of white fanatics say oppenly on TV they burn black people when they can, and you call this morality ? Freedom to the point of absurdity is more like it. Normally, your freedom is supposed to stop were other people freedom starts... Not were you want it to stop, or not to stop.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Something of an issue that I have with this paragraph, the Geneva conventions are being ratified by countries, not associations.
They cover how to treat prisoners of war, and other types of "combattants". The US denied members of the Taliban these kind of rights by declaring them "illegal combattants", a new term that was invented by the US government under Bush during the war on terrorism. The US-american courts are increasingly adopting a position that differs from the government on this.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Few would pretend the USA is whiter-than-white and hasn't done morally dubious things in its self-interest, nor that it doesn't have bad people in it. But by and large the USA as a nation has tried to stand up for or represented values the West finds attractive: lawfulness, democracy, human rights and many more. Particularly in comparison to other major powers like China or the old USSR, whose regimes have been repellent.

And yes, many people want to go to the USA for money. But I think you're underestimating how many people admire the USA for its respect for laws, individual rights and egalitarian society, even those in nations that view the USA as an enemy. Furthermore, people who believe in Enlightenment values want a nation that was founded on them and still espouses them to act on them.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

It seems to me the main value in USA is money, if you have none then the society will seem less egalist( you cannot afford a lawyer = less rights). There is also a surprising percentage of black people in prison, but I'm sure you have the right explanation ? Do you think they are more inclined to criminal acts ? Or are they refused a correct education/equal rights ? But maybe USA judges tend to condemn them more ?

The democracy can also be contested, as people doesn't directly vote for their president, but for people who promise they'll do the right choice, so if it is a democracy, it is highly indirect.

What history has learned to me is that you can be sure anyone reaching a position of domination will pretend being better in various domains, like morality and human rights in the present case.

Must I also say this country, where white people are a minority, has a surprising number of white people at interesting positions, but no doubt this is due to natural superiority of white people ? Or...?

I won't even discuss the organized exploitation of southern america people (the so called 'latinos'), it disgusts me too much.

All in all, I don't say USA is worse than the states that came before it to world domination (IE :french, england), but it tends to repeat the same stupid schemes, telling to who would listen them they are superior 'moraly', negating the fact they became what they are by following an opportunistic military strategy. And, in the particular case of USA, having clever leaders in terms of economical development.

I do agree with you that the constant propaganda we can see on TV, and in hollywood films tend to convince the most gullible that USA is a perfect place, where morality and freedom are always respected, were rivers of milk and honey flows, blablabla....

END SEQUENCE : everyone watches, a tear in the eye, an american flag floating in the air...

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Regrettably, I think the USA has become markedly worse than many European countries with regard to all of these things. I would be happy to be corrected - I have no agenda on these things, but that's certainly the perception. With regard to individual rights, I would say that Guantanamo is a horror inconceivable by most Western European countries (I know less about the east, but believe the same is true for most Eastern European countries too). With regard to an egalitarian society, America is obviously notoriously bad, with its tendency to right-wing politics making its provision for the less fortunate far worse than in Europe. I believe in that respect the UK is intermediate between the US and much of the rest of Europe.

I think this is a pity. The US makes a far bigger deal about its history of freedom and equality than in Europe (here in the UK it is common to be deeply cynical about our country), while actually being not especially good at it.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

This is so similar to the whole "we need to negotiate with Iran" problem. Politicians in general, but Republicans especially, seem to have taken a liking to protraying an -extreme- level of cautiousness. We are so critical of our Presidents, that now they either try to hide what they do, or in cases that they can't hide it, they are openly as slow and deliberate as possible, so that at least when they fail, they can say they "took proper measures" or at least "really thought about it a lot", and at least try to show that they didn't fail in some way due to impulsiveness.

However, this is now being turned into an illusory critical flaw in someone who is willing to stand up and announce that he will take action. So far, when confronted, Obama has stated that while he has made his goals clear, that it in no way implies that he is planning to behave irresponsibly. Until something outrageous happens (doubt it, but it could) along these lines, then I would suggest that every time Obama says that he will do something about something, that you read it as "I will figure out, with my advisers, how to deal with this issue, and then act". It is somehow vaguely ridiculous to think that someone as obviously intelligent as he is, could rise to such a high office, and then run around like an idiot, doing things with no thought of the repercussions. Besides, no one will be able to pull that off as well as GW did, and I think Obama knows that.


See, this is silly. Someone saying they want to "talk about what to do", is not only acting like total wimp, but they are directly implying that if it's somehow deemed appropriate, that they'll let things continue rather than stopping them. All he has basically said is that one way or another, those things WILL stop. Obviously it is yet to be determined the most appropriate and effective means to do so, but stating that a certain result is the goal, in no way implies a lack of process.


We were supposed to be the good guys. Maybe not saintly, as a nation, but "good". So if humanity were graded on a curve, we took pride in, and the rest of the world seemed to praise us for, being on the "right" side of that curve somewhere.

Perhaps we are where we are because of our economy, but it cannot be discounted that our diplomatic position has long been seen as very strong, and that our economy has only been bolstered by our ability to negotiate favorable agreements around the world. Thus it is incredibly ironic, and a bit telling, that during 8 years of diplomatic strength our economy did better than most Republicans want to give anyone credit for, and then during 8 years of diplomatic disappointment, our economy slides into a terrible slump (a trillion dollars for a ridiculous war might have something to do with it, too.....). Of course, we can always blame Clinton, he got a couple blowjobs in office and didn't want to tell anyone, so he must have seriously sabotaged our economy beyond what any man as brilliant as GW Bush could have possibly fixed.....

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Factually not true. Combattants as you say, are covered so long as they *always* wear something that visually identifies them as member of a militia or resistance group.

Part of the hallmark of a guerilla or terrorist group is the need to slip into the civilian population. Hence, why I said it was unlikely that Al-Qaeda or similar would be, or could be expected to, follow the convention.

This is just one of multiple complex reasons.

Hence it is incorrect to say that the United States violated the Geneva convention.

Go read Title III of the Geneva conventions to see what I mean.
I for one would argue that there should be standards. However, there are none as I know them now, and hard to imagine the process by which they would be developped. Russia in Georgia, China in Tibet, Myanmar in general, Israel in Palestine, Spain with the Basques - each of these countries would have different national goals and perspectives - and developing an accord would be difficult.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Doesn't conflict with what I said. Yes, that's the case. My main beef with your paragraph was that you said something which made it sound like Al-Quaeda had to ratify the Geneva conventions in order to benefit from it.

The rest what I wrote is true as well. And IMHO it's a good thing that the courts allow themselves to deviate from the government line if they consider it unlawful. :up: for that.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

It is a well known fact : when you don't wear a bright red and blue shirt so that USA fighter-bombers can shoot at you freely, you're a terrorist, and deserve to be tortured till death. (and beyond...)

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

We can argue all day about what we are bound to do according to notoriously flimsy precedents of international laws of war. What's more important is the question of what we *ought* to do.

We may be able to legally wrangle our way out of adhering to the international standards that other civilized nations adhere to, on the basis that our enemy is not acting as a civilized nation. And it's also clear that people who like to argue this way usually have the UN-bashing conservative's contempt for the very idea of international law.

But no legal argument, or ideological rejection of international law, changes the fact that acting the way we've been acting is *morally* shameful, and leads to justifiable suspicion about our motives and methods.

Even if the moral argument doesn't sway you, the tactical advantages of having the perceived moral high ground should. We did a lot better on the ground when enemy soldiers perceived surrendering to U.S. troops as a ticket to a safe place to sleep, a meal and not-getting-shot-at, instead of a bag over the head and a one-way trip to the inquisition.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

You misunderstand me a bit here. I meant that the right to a fair trial is granted by the declaration of human rights. I agree that this might differ from the rights of a US citizen, but it does include similar aspects. Like having a lawyer defending you etc...

Perhaps not. But I am talking about terrorist suspects here. The habit of calling those "enemy combattants" is very questionable. They are suspected criminals, and just like other crimes you need a trial to confirm or discard that suspicion. The problem is not whether to try them in the US or somewhere else, but to ensure that the right to fair trial is granted. It weren´t for those detained at gitmo. And it still isn´t to those detained in less famous prison camps around the world.

You could start by granting them basic human rights. That is a resonable minimum standard don´t you think? Including for example the right not to be tortured or detained without trial:

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

IMO these standards would suffice, if they were actually used. No need to argue about "enemy combattant" or not, as these rights apply to everyone.


Um, ok. I don´t see what you want to prove, argue for or imply with this.

Well, I agree that american courts (or jails) are not optimal for these cases. A more secure system of international courts tied to the UN might be preferable. I know I´d prefer to be tried in such a court over an american one that might be biased against me.

I agree with this. It looks like it is mostly for show. My bet is that torture and summary detainment will remain one of the standard tactics for repressive systems around the world. Gitmo or not.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

You may not be aware how little appreciation a lot of US Americans have for the UN. The plan sounds good, but it won't find many friends in the US.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

We are mostly in accord. What I disagreed with in your paragraph was your statement 'The US denied members of the Taliban these kind of rights by declaring them "illegal combattants'

The US didn't deny them these kinds of coverages,
they never applied for multiple reasons alluded to before.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Chuckle...

You spend much time in south carolina lch?

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Ignoring that you apparently think I'm in favor of a moral low ground,


What you say is *exactly* the problem Tichy.

What do you think we *ought* to do?

Give me a problem free solution.

Let me shoot at *your* solution for awhile, and accuse you of unspeakable acts with animals.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Well, now that I know I'm exactly the problem, that clears everything up. What exactly is exactly the problem that I am? Is it the suggestion that we conduct war and foreign policy with an ethical thought or two and not just legal hair-splitting to wiggle our way around conduct befitting a civilized society? If that's exactly the problem, then color me exact.

Animals? I've got no idea what you're saying.

I think it's pretty clear what I think we ought to be doing...adhereing to the Geneva conventions even if our enemies don't. Not trying to wiggle our way into justifying interminable extra-judicial detention and torture through hair-splitting arguments. Who's claiming to offer a "problem free solution"? Maybe a "not-ethically-damning suggestion."

Animals?

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Bush's illegal operations in his War on Terror will lead to the eventual dismantling of almost everything he has done, including compromising any cases to be made against terrorists.

Efforts against international terrorist need to based on a legal frame work. If current laws are inadequate, the hard work needed to improve it must be part of the anti-terrorism process. Such an effort would last far beyond the administration that pursued it and would have the US courts aligned with it instead of against it. A law based reaction would have de-legitimize terrorism as a pollitical tool where Bush's reaction to terrorism (torture, illegal invasions) has legitimized it.

Within the current system of laws: If a prisoner is a fighter, he should be held as a POW with full red cross access, without torture. The kid held at Gitmo because he threw a grenade at American troops should instead just be a regular POW.

POWs should be held until the Taliban surrenders and Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan are all wiped out.

If someone is a suspected terrorist, a case should be made and they should be tried in federal court. If acquitted, they should be returned to their own country or to a POW camp as appropriate. If, like Uighurs from China, they are acquitted and they are not POWS, but their home country would kill them or torture them, they should be released in the US through normal political asylum procedures.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

So many things I disagree with.

Your own country just extended the amount of time a terror suspect may be held without requiring the surpervision of the courts, or charges. Doubled it didn't it?

Eastern Europe has well documented, state sanctioned secret prisons. Countries such as poland, rumania, italy. Where individuals of state interest were (are) held without court ccess or supervision.

Many here have talked about the holding of terror suspects at Gitmo. The term terror suspect presupposes what is at contention is a criminal trial, which is not correct.

Suppose for a moment that unmarked combattants set a bomb in a house and engaged in a firefight with US troops. In other wars they would have been deemed Prisoners of War - and held for the duration of the war. What exactly would you have the US do - release them to fight again?

Give me an example of Britain releasing all the German POWs. Or Russia.

As for the moral superiority of Western Europe - you're talking about nations such as Germany and France that made sub rosa agreements with the Red Brigades (and other terrorist organizations) that so long as terrorist incidents did not occur on French or German soil, brigadists were allowed free transit.

You're talking about a french system where guilt is presumed until proven innocent - and a French regime that allowed abuses of the Oil for Food program so long as the received below market rates on iraqi oil.

Gitmo is a horror inconceivable to Western Europeans is it? Last I checked western europe included germany which slaughtred millions of Jews, catholics, intellectuals and others in its Nazi death camps.

So spare me the moral superiourity.

As for being notoriously bad for an egalitarian society.. that could prompt an essay by itself. I'll content myself with two comments.

Liberte, egalite, fraternite are the french ideals, not American ones. America has never pretended otherwise. What America has always held is that if you work hard, keep your nose clean and invent a better widget - then you too can become filthy rich.

Lastly, if America were so notoriously bad - exactly why is it that we have 10 million people a year more or less sneaking there ways across our borders, or overstaying their visas. On top of millions more applyig for visas and green cards.

Ok. I lied. This is the last: 'I think this is a pity. The US makes a far bigger deal about its history of freedom and equality than in Europe, while actually being not especially good at it.'

We just elected a black man, raised at least part of the time in a single family President of the United States.

Let me know when you do the same in Britain, or France.