Democracy and Freedom

Amigo - I find the idea that the U.S. would spend $20 billion a month in Iraq so that Halliburton could make an extra $100 million a year in profit a little far fetched.

My personal belief is that we are in Iraq due to hubris. Mr. Bush and his advisors believed they were at a crucial crossroads in history. And if they only had the will and the foresight to act decisively, the entire world would be changed for the better.

Hey - I'm not saying I believe that. But I suspect that is what Mr. Bush believed at the time.

0 Replies

It isn't a cross road. We have a long history in the middle east. All of this is true if you care to read it.

Blood, Oil, and Sand:
The Hidden History of America's War on Iraq

http://www.greens.org/s-r/30/30-03.html

0 Replies

Jim wrote:

Setanta wrote:
The Greeks invented the word, but they were just screwin' around, they didn't actually believe in democracy. And as anyone can plainly see, the French are no good at it either.

Thomas Jefferson had a few ideas about whether the French were ready for democracy. From "The Louisiana Purchase" by Thomas Fleming, page 165:

"In New Orleans, meanwhile, the new U.S. rulers were facing a hostile populace. Not a little enmity was generated by the government that President Jefferson had persuaded Congress to approve for the province. It contained not a trace of democracy. Every official, from the governor to judges, was appointed by the president. There was no provision for trial by jury. Jefferson has decided that the French Creoles lacked the education and experience to participate in democracy."

Of course, the results of the latest French elections prove beyond any doubt that the French are fully able to participate in democracy in the present.

The French (and to some extent Louisiana) legal system is based on Roman Law. Under this system an accused person is presumed to be guilty even before trial. Trial judges can take an active role in investigating crimes and (if I remember right) accused persons have no right to legal counsel and have no right against self-incrimination.

Some democracy.

BTW: It has usually been customary for all government officials in U.S. territories to be appointed by the president, but this was mostly due to small populations and large distances.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

It isn't a cross road. We have a long history in the middle east. All of this is true if you care to read it.

Blood, Oil, and Sand:
The Hidden History of America's War on Iraq

http://www.greens.org/s-r/30/30-03.html

We did not invade Iraq and we have not been involved in the Middle East because of oil.

U.S. oil imports by country as of November 2005:
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html#imports

Iraq 5%
Saudi Arabia 12%
Kuwait 3%
Algeria 3%

Canada 18%
Mexico 15%
Venezuela 10%
Nigeria 12%
Angola 6%

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

The French (and to some extent Louisiana) legal system is based on Roman Law. Under this system an accused person is presumed to be guilty even before trial. Trial judges can take an active role in investigating crimes and (if I remember right) accused persons have no right to legal counsel and have no right against self-incrimination.

It's getting more and more stupid here.

Sorry, Jim, but I'm out of this thread.

(flaja:
one of oldest known concepts in Roman law is: "Homo praesumitur bonus donec probetur malus" - Marcus Porcius Cato lived 234 BC - 149 BC
French trial judges never take any role in the investigation of crimes - and less than 5% of crimes are investigated by a juge d'instruction (investigating judge).
)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Sorry, Jim, but I'm out of this thread.

Sorry to see you leave, Walter. Your comments are always welcome.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

flaja wrote:
The French (and to some extent Louisiana) legal system is based on Roman Law. Under this system an accused person is presumed to be guilty even before trial. Trial judges can take an active role in investigating crimes and (if I remember right) accused persons have no right to legal counsel and have no right against self-incrimination.

It's getting more and more stupid here.

Sorry, Jim, but I'm out of this thread.

(flaja:
one of oldest known concepts in Roman law is: "Homo praesumitur bonus donec probetur malus" - Marcus Porcius Cato lived 234 BC - 149 BC
French trial judges never take any role in the investigation of crimes - and less than 5% of crimes are investigated by a juge d'instruction (investigating judge).
)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec97/french_9-3.html

French cops can hold criminal suspects for (at least?) up to 20 hours without letting the suspects have an attorney and even then the attorney isn't allowed to really give legal advice. The police use this time to pretty much gather evidence without any legal restraints.

Furthermore suspects can be held in uncomfortable conditions while the police extract statements from them. Criminal suspects in France have no Miranda rights as Americans know them.

While the French cannot legally compel someone to testify against themselves suspects are not informed of this fact and any silence on a suspect's part is taken pretty much as admission of guilt.

Also in France a defendant can be convicted just on the preponderance of the evidence. The government need not prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I've also seen it claimed that a criminal suspect in France has no right to bail before trial and no right to trial by jury.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

[
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec97/french_9-3.html

French cops can hold criminal suspects for (at least?) up to 20 hours without letting the suspects have an attorney and even then the attorney isn't allowed to really give legal advice. The police use this time to pretty much gather evidence without any legal restraints.

Furthermore suspects can be held in uncomfortable conditions while the police extract statements from them. Criminal suspects in France have no Miranda rights as Americans know them.

While the French cannot legally compel someone to testify against themselves suspects are not informed of this fact and any silence on a suspect's part is taken pretty much as admission of guilt.

Also in France a defendant can be convicted just on the preponderance of the evidence. The government need not prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I've also seen it claimed that a criminal suspect in France has no right to bail before trial and no right to trial by jury.

Any idea how many legal systems in how many countries still use the jury system?

Certainly you can give some quotes from 1997 ..-.

Well, where did you study French law, you said? (I admit that it's more than 30 years ago that I had classes about French law at "law school" [law faculty], but I'd thought to remember still a bit.)

0 Replies

Jim wrote:

What I am not so certain of is that they gave enough consideration to what happens after the conventional military actions are over.

Absolutely--i personally don't think they gave it any thought at all, i suspect that, sadly, they bought their own bullshit line about the people strewing flowers at the feet of the troops.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

flaja wrote:
[
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec97/french_9-3.html

French cops can hold criminal suspects for (at least?) up to 20 hours without letting the suspects have an attorney and even then the attorney isn't allowed to really give legal advice. The police use this time to pretty much gather evidence without any legal restraints.

Furthermore suspects can be held in uncomfortable conditions while the police extract statements from them. Criminal suspects in France have no Miranda rights as Americans know them.

While the French cannot legally compel someone to testify against themselves suspects are not informed of this fact and any silence on a suspect's part is taken pretty much as admission of guilt.

Also in France a defendant can be convicted just on the preponderance of the evidence. The government need not prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I've also seen it claimed that a criminal suspect in France has no right to bail before trial and no right to trial by jury.

Any idea how many legal systems in how many countries still use the jury system?

Likely not enough for liberty to be secure in the world. But I guess it's only fitting for a German to be opposed to such legal due process.

Quote:

Well, where did you study French law, you said? (I admit that it's more than 30 years ago that I had classes about French law at "law school" [law faculty], but I'd thought to remember still a bit.)

If you can document that the French legal system is comparable to the Anglo-American legal system do so. But if it is not, you must conceded that the French don't uphold liberty as their God-given inalienable right.

0 Replies

Quote:

If you can document that the French legal system is comparable to the Anglo-American legal system do so. But if it is not, you must conceded that the French don't uphold liberty as their God-given inalienable right.

I think what Walter was asking for was - seeing as you are making all these claims about the French Legal System, and he having actually studied it, found some of your claims to be misleading, and not recalling any of your claims - would like you to back up your claims.

You logic is flawed by the way "I claim this & that without links, you claim I'm wrong without links, but if you can't provide links, I'm right!"

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

If you can document that the French legal system is comparable to the Anglo-American legal system do so. But if it is not, you must conceded that the French don't uphold liberty as their God-given inalienable right.

Just a bit slower, for stupid people like me.

You said that the French use the Roman law system. I fully agree.

If I've said different, I deeply regret that.

You see, you compare both - apples look indead different from one kind to the other. And so people gave then different names ....

On the other hand, not every nation has got God-given rights:

Quote:

« Le peuple français proclame solennellement son attachement aux Droits de l'homme et aux principes de la souveraineté nationale tels qu'ils ont été définis par la Déclaration de 1789, confirmée et complétée par le préambule de la Constitution de 1946, ainsi qu'aux droits et devoirs définis dans la Charte de l'environnement de 2004.

En vertu de ces principes et de celui de la libre détermination des peuples, la République offre aux territoires d'Outre-Mer qui manifestent la volonté d'y adhérer des institutions nouvelles fondées sur l'idéal commun de liberté, d'égalité et de fraternité et conçues en vue de leur évolution démocratique. »

That laws are following the constituion is overseen by the Conseil Constitutionnel - the highest court in constitutional affairs, different of course to other highest courts.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

Absolutely--i personally don't think they gave it any thought at all, i suspect that, sadly, they bought their own bullshit line about the people strewing flowers at the feet of the troops.

Isn't that business as normal.

I saw a programme about the bullshit line that you could put a bomb into a pork barrel from 25,000 ft and the "Shock and Awe" tactic at Omaha beach based on the assertion left the German defences untouched although on full alert. A few Rangers on the film testified to that effect anyway.

And there was the Nasser thing to which I think Mr Eden, were he here, would say led to what you've had and got now.

And even the British Government declined to offer assistance in Vietnam.

Is the boycott of French goods still going strong? Anybody who participated in the villification of France because they didn't buy the bullshit and had a large Islamic population, a NATO ally too, must have bought the bullshit goodstyle and especially if he's a believer in free trade; which is enough in itself to justify questioning his intelligence.

0 Replies

Two more have come to mind.

The bullshit that the objections to allowing advertising on television were bullshit.

And Mrs Clinton's health "initiative" as an unelected person with no responsibilities that I could see. Send for Achilees.

0 Replies

The Four Foods campaign.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
If you can document that the French legal system is comparable to the Anglo-American legal system do so. But if it is not, you must conceded that the French don't uphold liberty as their God-given inalienable right.

I think what Walter was asking for was - seeing as you are making all these claims about the French Legal System, and he having actually studied it, found some of your claims to be misleading, and not recalling any of your claims - would like you to back up your claims.

You logic is flawed by the way "I claim this & that without links, you claim I'm wrong without links, but if you can't provide links, I'm right!"

Jim Lehrer's Newshour isn't source enough?

0 Replies

I've been trying to think of how best to reply to some of the recent posts.

I have no doubt that how Christianity is practiced in Bolivia is different than how Christianity is practiced in Iceland. But I do not believe that their form of worship is invalid in either of these countries.

Similarly, the legal systems are different in countries around the world. In fact, as Flaja has pointed out, the very basis for the legal systems can be different around the world. Some legal systems are based on the Roman system while some are based on the Norman system. I fully admit I have never been to France and have no experience with their legal system. But just because their legal system is different from the American legal system does not automatically invalidate it.

Just as there are different legal systems between countries, the way that democracy is practiced, and how freedom is perceived is different around the world. The American concept of freedom and representative government in 1800 is very different than today. But this invalidates none of them. There is a very wide spectrum of freedom and representative government throughout the world today. None of them are perfect, but I would take any of them over the Taliban in Afghanistan prior to 9-11.

Let me return to my original question. Is it feasable that any form of freedom and representative government practised in the world today can be imposed onto cultures with no history of freedom and representative government? Do we have the right to do this imposition? If a majority of the people of the mythical country of Outer Begonia decide they are fed up with dictatorship, and ask for our assistance in establishing a representative government, then of course we should offer an appropriate amount of assistance. But in cases where no assistance was requested?

0 Replies

There is a very interesting passage in the Bible about what happened when the people of Israel tried to install a more democratic form of government.

A group of people came to Moses (the Israeli leader) with this argument...

Quote:

You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD's assembly

This upset Moses quite a bit, so he went to the leaders of the community who said

Quote:

We will not come! Isn't it enough that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the desert? And now you also want to lord it over us? Moreover, you haven't brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey or given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Will you gouge out the eyes of these men? No, we will not come!"

What happens next is what happens to so many nascent democracies. It was ended in a bloodbath.

The Bible makes it clear that God wanted a dictator.

The story is in Numbers 16.

When Moses went to the leaders

0 Replies

The Marquis de Sade asked-

Quote:

Is it a just law which orders him who has nothing to respect him who has everything? What are the elements of a social pact? Doesn't it consist in demanding a little of one's freedom and property to assure and maintain the preservation of both?

So you give up some freedom to preserve freedom eh?

That's not freedom. As I said- "There's no such thing as freedom in society". A Democracy or otherwise.

The Marquis was talking about an oath to respect private property. And what possible interest do those who have nothing have in taking such an oath. To expect them to is surely an injustice.

Hence any freedom those who have everything have can only be maintained by fear.

de Sade was a republican of the most extreme type. I presume at least some of the Founding Fathers were familiar with his ideas as they were circulating in educated European thought in the mid 18th century.

What on earth does theft have to do with evolution theory which some enlightened members of certain School Boards wish to see legitimized by insisting it is taught in schools whilst at the same time getting their name up in lights and being allowed to make speeches sounding vaguely scientific designed to influence people who are into rap music and who own guns, presumably as an aid to the chances of sexual selection, and whose destiny is, in the main, routine work such as taking away the garbage and bringing in fresh supplies.

These anti-Christian arguments are posited on the notion that the power elite in the US consists of 300 million people with no one left to exercise it upon.

0 Replies

nobody gives a **** about democracy unless they have a full belly.

give a starving man a choice between a ballot or bread and watch what happens.

0 Replies

Democracy and Freedom

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know