Land Of The Free? Imprisonment Without Trial

[Biggles]

I had something more organic in mind.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Whose truth? Yours or mine? They would, necessarily, be different. I think it would be more correct to state your opinion rather than attempt to claim unassailable truth[/b]

I&#39;m talking about historical facts that are agreed upon by mainstream historians. You seem to be implying that there is no such thing as objective verifiable truth?

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>U.S. foreign policy has been far from perfect. This does not preclude us from acting abroad; it should, though, advise us in current matters, and in the future[/b]

I agree whole heartedly with that sentiment but I dont recall ever having said that the US should never act abroad.

Originally posted by j2k4
EBP-what do you mean by, "....is no excuse"? Genuinely curious about that.

I mean that if the USA has done something bad that has a direct bearing on the topic at hand it is anti-american to mention it. In my experience at least.

Originally posted by j2k4
You mean we can&#39;t engage in that which provides so much entertainment for others? How can we be anti-French if no one is being anti-American? We can play the game, too, can&#39;t we?

I never claimed that no one is anti-american, merely that the term is loosely applied to anyone who questions any aspect of US foreign policy.

Also if you believe something is wrong, in this case being anti-insertCountryHere, then when you do exactly the same thing it makes you look rather hypocritical. You can of course be anti-French if you wish (e.g your &#39;green&#39; comment in another thread) but that inevitably means that when you get on your high horse about anti-americanism, it does tend to make your moral highground look a little dubious.

"Well he abused my kid so I abused his kid. Whats the problem?"

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
Honestly EBP, you ought to swear off the use of the word "hypocrisy" and all it&#39;s permutations; you over-use it.[/quote]

See above and apply a little common sense to the issue. "They do nasty things to us so we can do nasty things to them" is hardly the most convincing argument.

In a nutshell.. to avoid being hypocritical yourself you must either;

a. stop complaining about anti-americanism even when its a valid complaint.

or

b. stop the ludicrous anti-French rubbish

Im afraid you cant have it both ways. What on Earth is hypocritical about that?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Is this some poorly executed attempt to launder or otherwise purify the intent of your post? Another of your patented proclamations from the presumptive moral "high ground"?[/quote]

No. See the sections beginning "I mean that if the USA " and "I never claimed that" for an answer to this.

I think the moral of this section would be akin to the boy who cried wolf.

Also my post is not &#39;impure&#39; in any sense. It&#39;s merely a mixture of common sense and stating the obvious for those who seem to determined to avoid it.

I&#39;ll assume your implying my &#39;intent&#39; is Anti-American. As usual.

[j2k4]

QUOTE (j2k4)
Whose truth? Yours or mine? They would, necessarily, be different. I think it would be more correct to state your opinion rather than attempt to claim unassailable truth



I&#39;m talking about historical facts that are agreed upon by mainstream historians. You seem to be implying that there is no such thing as objective verifiable truth?

You almost make my point, EBP.
The whole debate, such as it is, suffers from a lack of mainstream agreement as to cause/effect/intent; hell, no one can even agree on basic facts-Yes, we dropped a nuclear weapon on Nagasaki-our reasons for doing so are still being spun by "mainstream historians"

So-to answer your question:
"Objective verifiable truth" is limited, and very much in the eye of the beholder; you and I both think we&#39;re right, don&#39;t we? THAT is what I mean when I say this.




QUOTE (j2k4)
U.S. foreign policy has been far from perfect. This does not preclude us from acting abroad; it should, though, advise us in current matters, and in the future



I agree whole heartedly with that sentiment but I dont recall ever having said that the US should never act abroad.

No, but you DO think we ought not act unless specifically instructed to do so, and within very strict parameters, by the U.N., or whatever country requires our help, in which case we should offer uncompensated mercenary services, &#39;cuz we&#39;re rich.
We should function as a "hammer" to be wielded only by others.

There-see how I "spun" your previously expressed sentiments? Its purely a matter of perception.


QUOTE (j2k4)
EBP-what do you mean by, "....is no excuse"? Genuinely curious about that.



I mean that if the USA has done something bad that has a direct bearing on the topic at hand it is anti-american to mention it. In my experience at least.

I&#39;m still puzzled by your use of the word "excuse", but never mind, its not important.
Again, though, the idea the U.S. has "done something bad" may be solely the perception of someone such as yourself; even though the U.S. is not terribly popular, this sentiment is not universally held, and it is irritating to see those who opine act as if it is.




QUOTE (j2k4)
You mean we can&#39;t engage in that which provides so much entertainment for others? How can we be anti-French if no one is being anti-American? We can play the game, too, can&#39;t we?



I never claimed that no one is anti-american, merely that the term is loosely applied to anyone who questions any aspect of US foreign policy.

I, likewise, think such terms are thrown around a bit loosely; and I do not complain as often as is perceived, about anti-Americanism.

I think you&#39;d agree, though (not to be TOO picky), that what you term a "question" is more often couched as a "criticism".

Also if you believe something is wrong, in this case being anti-insertCountryHere, then when you do exactly the same thing it makes you look rather hypocritical. You can of course be anti-French if you wish (e.g your &#39;green&#39; comment in another thread) but that inevitably means that when you get on your high horse about anti-americanism, it does tend to make your moral highground look a little dubious.

"Well he abused my kid so I abused his kid. Whats the problem?"

Can I deal with this for my own self right now, and be done with it?

I personally am not getting along with "France" (insofar as it is embodied by Jacque Chirac) right now; I expect to have a rocky relationship with "France" until he leaves office.

After that, I fully expect to once again love all things French-for the nonce, though, I shall indulge my pique.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Honestly EBP, you ought to swear off the use of the word "hypocrisy" and all it&#39;s permutations; you over-use it.



See above and apply a little common sense to the issue. "They do nasty things to us so we can do nasty things to them" is hardly the most convincing argument.

In a nutshell.. to avoid being hypocritical yourself you must either;

a. stop complaining about anti-americanism even when its a valid complaint.
b. stop the ludicrous anti-French rubbish

Im afraid you cant have it both ways. What on Earth is hypocritical about that?

Forget I said that; feel free to use the word(s) whenever and wherever you like.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Is this some poorly executed attempt to launder or otherwise purify the intent of your post? Another of your patented proclamations from the presumptive moral "high ground"?



No. See the sections beginning "I mean that if the USA " and "I never claimed that" for an answer to this.

I think the moral of this section would be akin to the boy who cried wolf.

There is no crying in the forum-its in the FAQ.

Also my post is not &#39;impure&#39; in any sense. It&#39;s merely a mixture of common sense and stating the obvious for those who seem to determined to avoid it.

Some would argue you have no sense, common or otherwise, nor any acquaintance with what is "obvious", EBP.

The same goes for me-remember: We debate here; we INSTRUCT at our peril.

I&#39;ll assume your implying my &#39;intent&#39; is Anti-American. As usual.

I wouldn&#39;t term you "anti-American", EBP, though, other than that comment you made about our impending involvement in Liberia, I don&#39;t recall you making any positive noises about the U.S.

You are still a contrarian, though.


Rat-

I know how to "take "you. Worry not.


Biggles-

Had I known you would be posting, I would have very pointedly excluded you from my comment.

No offense intended.

[lynx]

Originally posted by lynx@16 August 2003 - 14:38
So we are to be offered no insight into why they are being held outside US jurisdiction.

I&#39;m sure you know the reasons, j2k4, surely you merely have to ask the same source who told you that they "have relevant knowledge of the terrorist Al Qaeda organization".

I think you will find that the overwhelming sentiment is that any who are innocent should be released, and that the others should receive a fair and open trial, something which the US government seems unwilling to grant them.

Let&#39;s get this back on topic instead of the usual &#39;anti-x&#39; diversionary tactics which always seem to crop up.

[j2k4]

[quote]Originally posted by lynx@20 August 2003 - 03:57

So we are to be offered no insight into why they are being held outside US jurisdiction.

Let&#39;s get this back on topic instead of the usual &#39;anti-x&#39; diversionary tactics which always seem to crop up.

Devil&#39;s advocate, here-

Why not hold them at Gitmo?

Why is a civilian trial deemed necessary?

[lynx]

There is a term for holding someone without lawful reason.
It is called abduction and carries severe international penalties.

But since there won&#39;t be any recourse to those, some factions may well decide to take similar actions against US citizens. Don&#39;t you dare cry foul when they do.

[Barbarossa]

I think it&#39;s a case of "guilty until proven guilty" ...

[Neil__]

Originally posted by barbarossa@20 August 2003 - 13:46
I think it's a case of "guilty until proven guilty" ...

Especially if you hold all the evidence.

Lynx

There is a term for holding someone without lawful reason.
It is called abduction and carries severe international penalties.

But since there won't be any recourse to those, some factions may well decide to take similar actions against US citizens. Don't you dare cry foul when they do.

Do you think America would send troops into Britain to rescue their citezens if they were held illegally in the U.K.

I'm not so sure they wouldn't.

Neil

[j2k4]

Relative to the detainment of "unlawful combatants" (which term was coined during WWII to describe those conducting acts of sabotage against U.S. interests while using civilian garb as "cover"):

The Geneva Convention doesn&#39;t define rules, laws or other sanctions having to do with participants in terrorist activities; that is to say, the body of policy has to do with NATIONS and their minions, signatory or not.

Terrorists, having no signatory entree or ability, fall outside the convention&#39;s dictates, thus the exceptional treatment, I believe.

They are an undefined quantity re: the convention.

The extant term "unlawful combatant" comes closest to describing their activity.

Given now the apparent need for a new set of rules to deal with the problem presented by the need to prosecute terrorists, why not amend the convention? An adjunct certainly would seem a solution to the international furor over continued detention.

I&#39;m sure the U.N., in it&#39;s infinite wisdom, could whip up a nifty set of rules for dealing with the "unlawful combatants", and could count on U.S. cooperation as long as said rules consisted of more than an immediate and penalty-free re-patriation.

How about it? Give that fancy new I.C.C. something to do.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Neil__@20 August 2003 - 08:04

Do you think America would send troops into Britain to rescue their citezens if they were held illegally in the U.K.

Neil-

Have you given any thought as to why the U.S. chose Guantanamo over, say, Rammstein AFB?

Tell me what you think.