Reply
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 10:20 pm
The Guantanamo farcical military tribunal setup to try alleged terrorists is a dirge to the credibility of the United States; the world is beginning to see the US for what it really is; an aggressive bully interested in pushing its hegemony in the face of world opinion.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article3359595.ece
We still haven't been attacked since 9-11, though..have we?!
Ragman wrote:We still haven't been attacked since 9-11, though..have we?!
(Ignoring Anton's little rant)
Rag, Do you really think that has anything to do with Bush? I think they hit us with their best shot and they were only successful because the Bush administration was still partying over winning the White House. I think any other administration would have been more on guard and might have prevented the whole tragedy by paying attention.
Ragman wrote:We still haven't been attacked since 9-11, though..have we?!
I agree you haven't been attacked but your credibility in the world has suffered; world opinion of the US is definitely at an all time low and that isn't going to change in a hurry ... Remember the old adage; "No man is an island," that also applies to countries.
Re: American Justice - Bush Style!
So what exactly should we do with these "fine people" who we can prove had a direct involvement in the attacks that killed 3,000 Americans?
Should we set them free? Maybe we should send them to Austrailia for holiday?
Tell me what we should do with these folks.
Green Witch wrote:Ragman wrote:We still haven't been attacked since 9-11, though..have we?!
(Ignoring Anton's little rant)
Rag, Do you really think that has anything to do with Bush? I think they hit us with their best shot and they were only successful because the Bush administration was still partying over winning the White House. I think any other administration would have been more on guard and might have prevented the whole tragedy by paying attention.
Really?
You suppose any other administration would have hired better airport screeners to keep Muslims with razor blades from boarding those planes? Do you think other administrations would have had airlines reinforce cockpit doors and create new regulations regarding hijacking to prevent the events of 9/11?
I think you are full of it when you write things like this. It was a well planned and executed attack and no administration in US history would have been able to stop it from happening.
Thing is though, the Bush administration has made many changes since the attack to ensure all precautions have been taken to prevent a smilar attack from happening in the future. So far, they seem to be effective.
It is not American justice
but a justice based on
compassionate corporate controlled christian justice..
A country- I mean a country- like usa can pick up a candidate to torture, dehumanize, and butcher
to uphold the value of DEMOCRACY
without this nonsensical waste of money.
Believe me please that Democracy or liberty is not American English.
I feel extremely sorry for the Americans.
I repent and regret for their faulty way to shape/ shake the decency.
I am human with radical/rational interpretation.
It is not my intention to hurt any nut .
Rama Fuchs
Yes
It is a typical American English.
Am I wrong?
If yes i correct my thinking..
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is all about the detention and prosecution of 'alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States.' It suspends the writ of Habeas Corpus to all those to whom it is agreed the Act applies (and using some liberal interpretation of the wording, something not uncommon today, the Act could apply to US Citizens). It has been noted that it could violate the principle of Ex Post Facto by reclassifying crimes that have already been prosecuted. Most tellingly, it denies these detainees the ability to invoke the rights imbued by the Geneva Convention.
We're talking about the desecration of the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution.
Ragman, you point out that we haven't been attacked since 9/11. Allow me to respond to that. Any controversial legislation that involves the revocation of the rights of the individual in the name of preventing terrorism can be in place forever and see one of the following two logical and necessary outcomes.
1. That there are no more terrorist attacks, at least in a given time period. This proves nothing, since it's impossible to determine with any certainty that without this legislation there would have been an attack. However, proponents will point to the legislation and claim it is the reason there have been no attacks. This is a logical fallacy.
2. That there is an attack in a given time period. In this situation, proponents will simply claim that the legislation obviously wasn't strong enough, and the next move is to produce even more powerful civil rights destroying legislation in the name of national security.. note how unwilling any of the candidates in the current race are to appear 'soft on terrorism,' a phrase which might be equatable to 'against the rape of the Constitution.'
Green Witch, I'm not sure that the 9/11 attack can be blamed on anyone in particular, and to say that it's because the administration was partying too much in the seven months following the inauguration of Bush is a littly silly, isn't it?
And, Woiyo, to answer your question, we need to try them appropriately, in a court of law where everyone can see the proceedings and there is given legitimate, publicly noted proof of their guilt before a verdict is drawn, and following that we need to prosecute them appropriately. We don't need to hide them away in Guantanamo Bay, waterboard them, deny them the rights noted in the Geneva Convention, and keep everything top secret. If you feel that my suggestion is roughly the same as sending them away on holiday to Australia, then I hate to say it but you're what's wrong with America today. The solutions to a problem like this are not so polarized as to be 'destroy them in secret' or 'send them on holiday.' There's a middle ground. We need to find it again.
edit: I see that you're located in Australia, Woiyo. In which case you're obviously not part of what's wrong with America. My point was, if you lived in America today and had that sort of thinking, then you'd be part of what's wrong with America.
Green Witch wrote:Ragman wrote:We still haven't been attacked since 9-11, though..have we?!
(Ignoring Anton's little rant)
Rag, Do you really think that has anything to do with Bush? I think they hit us with their best shot and they were only successful because the Bush administration was still partying over winning the White House. I think any other administration would have been more on guard and might have prevented the whole tragedy by paying attention.
Well the first attempt to take down the World Trade center by Islamist terrorists occurred in 1993, during the first year year of the Clinton Administration. Were they partying? During the following seven years we experienced numerous additional terrorist atttacks - the Kobhar towers bombing; the simultaneous bombings of our embassies in kenya and Tanzania; and the bombing od the USS Cole. It appears that "any other administration" does not include the Clinton/Gore one.
McGentrix wrote:...You suppose any other administration would have hired better airport screeners to keep Muslims with razor blades from boarding those planes?
As one who flies a lot for my job, averaging over 50,000 miles per year since 1995, you are very wrong with this statement. They took mostly the same screeners, weeded a few out, made them gov. employees, unionized them and gave them fancy uniforms. But for the most part they are not that much better. You would be sick if you really knew some of the stuff that still goes through security. I myself, on more than one occassion, mistakenly taken forbidden items through the screening points. Just from the amount of electronics I carry with all of the supporting wires jammed in my bag, I would search the thing every time it goes through the xray.
tommrr wrote:McGentrix wrote:...You suppose any other administration would have hired better airport screeners to keep Muslims with razor blades from boarding those planes?
As one who flies a lot for my job, averaging over 50,000 miles per year since 1995, you are very wrong with this statement. They took mostly the same screeners, weeded a few out, made them gov. employees, unionized them and gave them fancy uniforms. But for the most part they are not that much better. You would be sick if you really knew some of the stuff that still goes through security. I myself, on more than one occassion, mistakenly taken forbidden items through the screening points. Just from the amount of electronics I carry with all of the supporting wires jammed in my bag, I would search the thing every time it goes through the xray.
I think you missed my point then as I agree the screeners today still pretty much suck. You must agree then that trying to blame 9/11 on the inaction of the Bush administration is rather lame.
[quote="McGentrix
I think you missed my point then as I agree the screeners today still pretty much suck. You must agree then that trying to blame 9/11 on the inaction of the Bush administration is rather lame.[/quote]
Yes it is. Tyring to blame 9/11 on just one administration is just being blind to the facts.
woiyo wrote:Ramafuchs wrote:It is not American justice
but a justice based on
compassionate corporate controlled christian justice..
A country- I mean a country- like usa can pick up a candidate to torture, dehumanize, and butcher
to uphold the value of DEMOCRACY
without this nonsensical waste of money.
Believe me please that Democracy or liberty is not American English.
I feel extremely sorry for the Americans.
I repent and regret for their faulty way to shape/ shake the decency.
I am human with radical/rational interpretation.
It is not my intention to hurt any nut .
Rama Fuchs
American English?
Woiyo, try not to be such a dickhead. What are you, bilingual, trilingual maybe?
"And, Woiyo, to answer your question, we need to try them appropriately, in a court of law where everyone can see the proceedings and there is given legitimate, publicly noted proof of their guilt before a verdict is drawn, and following that we need to prosecute them appropriately. We don't need to hide them away in Guantanamo Bay, waterboard them, deny them the rights noted in the Geneva Convention, and keep everything top secret. If you feel that my suggestion is roughly the same as sending them away on holiday to Australia, then I hate to say it but you're what's wrong with America today. The solutions to a problem like this are not so polarized as to be 'destroy them in secret' or 'send them on holiday.' There's a middle ground. We need to find it again.
edit: I see that you're located in Australia, Woiyo. In which case you're obviously not part of what's wrong with America. My point was, if you lived in America today and had that sort of thinking, then you'd be part of what's wrong with America."
Well, you are wrong again. I AM, in your view, what is wrong with AMERICA.
They are enemy combatants, not US Citizens and should never be afforded any protection under our Constitution. They should be tried under US Military rules and if found guilty, the penalty must be death.
I completely agree. They should be tried by military tribunal. They should not be kept hidden in a secret base indefinitely where they can be 'tortured,' based on your strict definition of 'torture,' and be denied the Geneva Conventions.
The Advocate wrote:I completely agree. They should be tried by military tribunal. They should not be kept hidden in a secret base indefinitely where they can be 'tortured,' based on your strict definition of 'torture,' and be denied the Geneva Conventions.
We are talking about Guantanamo, what are you talking about?
Re: American Justice - Bush Style!
woiyo wrote:
So what exactly should we do with these "fine people" who we can prove had a direct involvement in the attacks that killed 3,000 Americans?
Should we set them free? Maybe we should send them to Austrailia for holiday?
Tell me what we should do with these folks.
If you believe they are guilty of a crime why not send them for trial in an American court as you would any American citizen ... I always believed, in US Law, a prisoner is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
McGentrix wrote:Green Witch wrote:Ragman wrote:We still haven't been attacked since 9-11, though..have we?!
(Ignoring Anton's little rant)
Rag, Do you really think that has anything to do with Bush? I think they hit us with their best shot and they were only successful because the Bush administration was still partying over winning the White House. I think any other administration would have been more on guard and might have prevented the whole tragedy by paying attention.
Really?
You suppose any other administration would have hired better airport screeners to keep Muslims with razor blades from boarding those planes? Do you think other administrations would have had airlines reinforce cockpit doors and create new regulations regarding hijacking to prevent the events of 9/11?
I think you are full of it when you write things like this. It was a well planned and executed attack and no administration in US history would have been able to stop it from happening.
Thing is though, the Bush administration has made many changes since the attack to ensure all precautions have been taken to prevent a smilar attack from happening in the future. So far, they seem to be effective.
Innocent until proven guilty, or doesn't that apply anymore?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace