THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

JW Wrote:

Quote:

Cyclo - pessimism is a conscious choice. You can as easily wake each morning and make the conscious choice to be optimistic.

BTW...what are you majoring in at UT? Just wondering

I'd like to be more optimistic; even today I still tell myself there's a chance we'll pull this thing out.

But I really disagree with the basic strategies we are using in the region. I'm not even talking about the question of whether or not we should have invaded/taken out Saddam; but rather what really wins wars like this, guns or ideas?

We've got a ton of guns, but are failing so hard in the idea dept. that it is hard not to be pessimistic.

As for the degree, it's history/philosophy minor. I'm done with class; but I still work at UT, in the Physics dept.

Cheers to one and all

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

British Court Says Detentions Violate Rights
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

Published: December 17, 2004

reat Britain"/>LONDON, Dec. 16 - Britain's highest court ruled Thursday that the government could not continue to indefinitely detain foreigners suspected of terrorism without charging or trying them, saying the practice violated European human rights conventions.

A special panel of nine law lords of the House of Lords, England's rough equivalent to the Supreme Court, ruled 8 to 1 in favor of nine foreign Muslim men, at least one of whom has been in detention for three years. Most of the men are being held in Belmarsh prison in London, which has been called "Britain's Guantánamo" by human rights groups.

In a powerfully worded, groundbreaking decision, the lords said the unlimited detention policy was draconian, discriminated against foreigners and was unjustifiable, even in the face of possible terrorist attacks.

The law lords deemed the detentions a clear violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, which applies to all European Union nations, in a ruling that removes one of the government's most significant antiterrorism tactics.

The ruling paralleled a June decision by the United States Supreme Court that those regarded as enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, must be given the ability to challenge their detention before a judge or other neutral "decision maker." That ruling stated, "A state of war is not a blank check for the president."

Taken together, the rulings complicated the efforts of the two strongest allies in the campaign against terrorism.

Charles Clarke, in his first day on the job as home secretary, said that he would not immediately release the detainees and that it was up to Parliament to amend the law in accordance with the law lords' decision.

Using perhaps the sharpest language of the nine British justices' separate opinions, Lord Hoffmann said the case was one of the most important decided by the House of Lords in recent years.

"It calls into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention," he wrote, and went on to say that the detentions posed a greater threat to the nation than terrorism.

"The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these," Lord Hoffmann wrote. "That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory."

The British ruling is also a strong example of the increasing interdependence of domestic and international law, at least outside of the United States. While American law derives from British legal tradition, on Thursday, the law lords in London repeatedly cited decisions from the United States Supreme Court to bolster their rejection of the British government's actions. But they did not cite the June Supreme Court ruling.

The government of Prime Minister Tony Blair passed the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act in 2001, shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. To enact the measure, the British government had to invoke an article of the European Convention on Human Rights allowing countries to opt out of certain human rights obligations.

The law, intended to expire in 2006, allows the Home Office to indefinitely detain, without charges, foreigners it suspects of terrorist-related activities who cannot be deported because they would face persecution in their home countries. But the detainees may choose to return to their home countries voluntarily, and they are allowed to go to any other country that will accept them.

The detainees are not told why they are in prison and have no access to the evidence the government holds against them, primarily because the government believes it to be too important to reveal.

They also are not allowed to hire lawyers. Instead, the government has appointed lawyers with security clearance for them and permitted the lawyers to see the evidence and argue on the detainees' behalf. The lawyers, however, have been barred from discussing any of the information with their clients.

Human rights groups said the law, which infuriated Muslims, made a mockery of British civil rights.

0 Replies

This is not good news for the soldiers now in uniform.
************************************

Yoni Brook/The New York Times
"People have the misconception that everyone goes to war and gets killed," said Sgr. Daniel Mak, an Army Guard recruiter in Brooklyn.

Guard Reports Serious Drop in Enlistment
By ERIC SCHMITT

Published: December 17, 2004

ASHINGTON, Dec. 16 - In the latest signs of strains on the military from the war in Iraq, the Army National Guard announced on Thursday that it had fallen 30 percent below its recruiting goals in the last two months and would offer new incentives, including enlistment bonuses of up to $15,000.

In addition, the head of the National Guard Bureau, Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, said on Thursday that he needed $20 billion to replace arms and equipment destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan or left there for other Army and Air Guard units to use, so that returning reservists will have enough equipment to deal with emergencies at home.

The sharp decline in recruiting is significant because National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers now make up nearly 40 percent of the 148,000 troops in Iraq, and are a vital source for filling the ranks, particularly those who perform essential support tasks, like truck drivers and military police.

General Blum said the main reason for the Army National Guard's recruiting shortfall was a sharp reduction in the number of recruits joining the Guard and Reserve when they leave active duty. In peacetime the commitment means maintaining their ties to the military with a weekend of service a month and two weeks in the summer.

0 Replies

Author of expose on UN peacekeepers says his contract not renewed.....

Tue Dec 14, 1:02 AM ET

WELLINGTON, (AFP) - A New Zealand doctor and United Nations (news - web sites) employee who co-wrote a book exposing sex, drugs and corruption among UN peacekeeping forces said his contract with the world body was not being renewed.

Andrew Thomson, who co-authored "Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures, a True Story from Hell on Earth", told New Zealand National Radio that his contract with the UN would terminate at the end of the year.

He said he was "fired" for exposing catastrophes, but his sacking was not a surprise.

Thomson said his contract had previously been renewed every year for the past 12-years. A recent letter saying it would not be renewed this time gave no reasons, he said, adding that there was a strong code of silence at the United Nations.

Published in June, "Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures, a True Story from Hell on Earth" alleged that corruption and failed leadership contributed to disasters in Rwanda in 1994 and in Bosnia at about the same time.

Thomson wrote the book along with former co-worker Kenneth Cain, and UN employee Heidi Postlewait.

Thomson told New Zealand National Radio from Washington it was "scandalous" that a million people were killed in Rwanda and Bosnia and not a single official was investigated or disciplined.

Referring to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), Thomson said: "On the one hand you can be in charge of the peacekeepers, as he was in the '90s when these catastrophes happened, and get promoted to the top job in the organisation.

"But if, like myself, you work in those mass graves with the result of those catastrophes and then write about it, with the stories of all the victims and survivors I worked with, you get fired.

"If that's the message they're sending then I have more concerns for the United Nations than I have for myself.

"I won't become bitter about this. I hold out hope for the future of the UN in the long term, but they're heading about it in the wrong way if they kick out the very people who remain loyal to them."

Thomson said he would continue his aid work, but with another organisation.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

McTag, your refusal to answer a simple question is answer enough.

Hold your horses there Bill. I'm in a different time zone from you, and I was out last night. Now Mistress McTag wants me to accompany her on a Xmas shopping trip to a nearby city (Manchester), and I must obey. There are several points I wish to come back on, but they must wait a little longer.
Breakfast time here now; you will be asleep I suppose. Slumber on, sweet dreams, and await the next epistle of McTag.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

You have used (US) and "benevolent" in the same sentence. Most world opinion sees the US as an overbearing, arrogant, xenophobic, warmongering, colonialist and even fascist country and not "benevolent" at all

does "india" ring a bell ?? bermuda ? hong kong. north america, aka, the colonies ?

easy buddy. not like there's no blood on the hands of english history. don't like bush? fine. either do i. don't like the iraq expedition? fine. either do i. don't like america or americans? too bad.

people here talk about the french having a short memory. righhhhttt... or is it just me that remembers that "le boche" nearly conquered britania. until the us stepped in, that is.

in the same way that some americans forget that without the french, we'd be saying "ta, gov'" instead of "thankya" and having tea at four, it seems that you forget that without the malvolent americans, grosvenor square would be die goebelsplatz and you'd be having struedel instead of scones.

of course, none of this response is directed at my u.k. pals that know the difference between an administration and a people.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I've always been the fool for freedom of speech by all citizens of this planet. Criticising the US is one of them.

i am too, c.i. ... except when they come off like they putt in floral scent.

anybody who comes off like their country has done nothing but good is either rhetorically blind or goofin' on you.

both scenarios are wrong, wrong, wrong...

0 Replies

The detaining of foreigners might seem against human rights, but put yourself in the governments position. They are responsible for the security of their people. That should be the number 1 priority. What do you suggest the government do? Just let everyone in? And then if there was a terrorist action, people would jump and down at the government for not protecting them.

Most people just want to go to their office block or work and not get bombed. They entrust the government to try and ensure this to the best of its ability.

All these courts that rule " oh you can't do that, it is against human rights". Okay, fair enough. But there should be a law that says if one of the foreigners that the judge let go, goes on to commit terrorist activities, the judge should be put up on manslaughter charge. This seems like justice to me.

0 Replies

A good argument ...... in the pre-Bush world.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

revel wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
Let's see, who's next up the ladder? Hmmmmm

Quote:
Pentagon Threatens[/color] Germany over Rumsfeld Suit

The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and Berlin's Republican Lawyers' Association has filed suit in Germany against Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of 4 Iraqis who allege they were mistreated by American troops. A number of other high-ranking US officials are also named. AFP writes:

' The groups that filed the complaint said they had chosen Germany because of its Code of Crimes Against International Law, introduced in 2002, which grants German courts universal jurisdiction in cases involving war crimes or crimes against humanity. It also makes military or civilian commanders who fail to prevent their subordinates from committing such acts liable. '

What is interesting about the Pentagon reaction to this suit is how frantic the Department of Defense seems. Although spokesman Larry DiRita dismissed it as "frivolous," he threatened Germany with dire consequences if the suit goes forward.
DiRita said,

'"Generally speaking, as is true anywhere, if these kinds of lawsuits take place with American servicemen in the cross-hairs, you bet it's something we take seriously . . . I think every government in the world, particularly a NATO ally, understands the potential effect on relations with the United States if these kinds of frivolous lawsuits were ever to see the light of day." '

These remarks raise several questions. Why is DiRita hiding behind the fact that American servicemen are "in the cross-hairs? What have Rumsfeld's policies or legal problems got to do with grunts on the front line? You think they like Rumsfeld? Look what happened when he let them ask him questions.

Then, if the lawsuit is frivolous, why should it produce grave consequences for Germany? It should produce frivolity and hilarity if it is frivolous. It seems actually to be taken very seriously.

Is the real threat the damage to Rumsfeld's public image, or the danger that the lawsuit may prompt a discovery process?

Finally, surely DiRita is not suggesting that the Federal government actively interfere with a legal process? Wouldn't that be the Executive squelching the Judiciary? Isn't that contrary to the separation of Powers? Or is the new monarchism to be imposed on Germany as well, now that it is the model in Washington?

Wed, Dec 15, 2004 0:36

What good does filing lawsuits against the military in other countries do? We don't put in ourselves in the position of being judged by any international court. It is not as though they can force us into anything is it?

Then we wonder why so many people feel so threatened[/color] by the US.

If you had a grievance against the U.S.A. involving war crimes, where would you go? Judge Judy?

I see where you are coming from, however from a realistic point of view, I just don't know what good it is going to do to charge the US with anything from anywhere because we don't recognize the authority of anyone else.

It is a sad state of affairs that I hope disappears once this four years is over and George Bush can't run for President again. That is my way of being "optimistic."

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

revel wrote:
What good does filing lawsuits against the military in other countries do? We don't put in ourselves in the position of being judged by any international court. It is not as though they can force us into anything is it?

Then we wonder why so many people feel so threatened by the US.
If they feel threatened, it's because their own leaders are biting off more than they can chew. Perhaps they should show a little appreciation for our benevolence and relatively few excesses when you consider what many of them would do with such power. Look how Chirac thinks he's the leader of the free world, when in reality he's just a blowhard who's true power measures only slightly higher than total irrelevance. Imagine how drunk with power that fool would be if his position afforded him the power of the U.S. Presidency. And Germany is going to play arbiter of the human rights to the world? Really? Had Germany been blessed with the resources of the United States, would the world be better or worse? Perhaps in an ideal world, the U.S. is a merciless brute but in the real world, they are probably the kindest, fairest Alpha we could reasonably hope for.

Forgive me but I think this arguement is the weakest I have heard to date in trying to excuse this administrations policies and decisions that they have made regarding Iraq and terrorism in general.

A person can always find someone worse than themselves but that does not mean you can then lower the bar on your standards as long as you make sure that you are not at the bottom of the barel.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

More people believe the opposite. It's demonstrated daily by their desire for all things American. From our music to our movies to our food to our fashions.

This American could not really give 2 bits hoe McTag seea the US. Should we examine the general consensus of the English?

This is another weak arguement that makes no sense in the context of the discussion that started this debate.

It so happens that I like the easy dress of China where they wear loose light clothes. But I would not want to live in China to save my life because of their policies.

0 Replies

Australia wrote:

Quote:

All these courts that rule " oh you can't do that, it is against human rights". Okay, fair enough. But there should be a law that says if one of the foreigners that the judge let go, goes on to commit terrorist activities, the judge should be put up on manslaughter charge. This seems like justice to me.

Let's run that out to its logical end. What happens when a judge and jury in your own country makes what they think is a fair decision, in accord with the facts and the law, and then the man who was not imprisoned shoots down a school full of kids the next year. Should the judge and jury be up on manslaughter charges?

This is not a perfect world, but the House of Lords has it right.

Lord Hoffman said in part:

Quote:

"It calls into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention," he wrote, and went on to say that the detentions posed a greater threat to the nation than terrorism.

"The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these," Lord Hoffmann wrote. "That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory."

The above comment was taken from this NYTimes front-page piece today:

British Court Says Detentions Violate Rights

0 Replies

revel wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
More people believe the opposite. It's demonstrated daily by their desire for all things American. From our music to our movies to our food to our fashions.

This American could not really give 2 bits hoe McTag seea the US. Should we examine the general consensus of the English?

This is another weak arguement that makes no sense in the context of the discussion that started this debate.

It so happens that I like the easy dress of China where they wear loose light clothes. But I would not want to live in China to save my life because of their policies.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
It ain't discouraged Osama none.
Osama is a terrorist, not a despot. He has no shot at legitimacy and no country to lose. Khadafi is a better example

Gosh, had Bush had that simple clarity of thought then the whole Iraq mess wouldn't have started.

0 Replies

Obvioulsy the law lords ruling isn't liked here, Kara, since I posted that yesterday already - with no reaction at all. :wink:

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

I'm chiming in here on Cyclops' side. Anti-American?? What utter nonsense. Those who bring their minds to bear on the problems of this country, ponder the state of the US in the world, look at where we are and what we are doing with an open but disinterested outlook are only doing their job of bearing the responsibilities as a citizen of a democracy (well, a republic.) We must inform ourselves, and not by soundbites or the evening news. I see Cyclops not as a wimp to be brought in line by a Master of the Universe type (you know who you are...) but as a questioner and thinker, not slave-like follower of some party line.

[/b]
I could not agree more with everything you said.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

McTag wrote:
You have used (US) and "benevolent" in the same sentence. Most world opinion sees the US as an overbearing, arrogant, xenophobic, warmongering, colonialist and even fascist country and not "benevolent" at all

does "india" ring a bell ?? bermuda ? hong kong. north america, aka, the colonies ?

easy buddy. not like there's no blood on the hands of english history. don't like bush? fine. either do i. don't like the iraq expedition? fine. either do i. don't like america or americans? too bad.

people here talk about the french having a short memory. righhhhttt... or is it just me that remembers that "le boche" nearly conquered britania. until the us stepped in, that is.

in the same way that some americans forget that without the french, we'd be saying "ta, gov'" instead of "thankya" and having tea at four, it seems that you forget that without the malvolent americans, grosvenor square would be die goebelsplatz and you'd be having struedel instead of scones.

of course, none of this response is directed at my u.k. pals that know the difference between an administration and a people.

[/b]

agreed.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

revel wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
More people believe the opposite. It's demonstrated daily by their desire for all things American. From our music to our movies to our food to our fashions.

This American could not really give 2 bits hoe McTag seea the US. Should we examine the general consensus of the English?

This is another weak arguement that makes no sense in the context of the discussion that started this debate.

It so happens that I like the easy dress of China where they wear loose light clothes. But I would not want to live in China to save my life because of their policies.

typical.

0 Replies

Walter, as you know the US Supremes made virtually the same ruling, which is now being appealed by the Bush administration.

What separates us from despotic regimes, such as the one of Saddam Hussein, is that we do not detain people, our own or foreign, for years without charges or trial.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know