0
   

What's happening with those poor devils at Camp Xray ???

 
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 03:41 pm
Thomas wrote:
Scrat wrote:
Next, would you assert that every person who becomes a judge must be considered an "expert of law"?

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, yes. There are incompetent judges just like there are incompetent pilots. But we consider every pilot to be an expert in flying unless he gratuitiously crashes a plane. Likewise, we should consider every judge an expert of law unless he does the legal equivalent of a pilot crashing a plane. Reaching different conclusions than His Scratness doesn't fall in that category. And if you have anything else to hold against this particular judge, you haven't told us what it is yet.

Groovy. I think the judge in question crashed his plane in putting forth the opinion he did. Fair enough?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 03:49 pm
Scrat wrote:

Then you would not disagree with any opinion reached by any judge?


I'm not sure about "any judge". And, indeed, sometimes I disagree with highest judges.

However, although I studied law myself, I would never consider me to be an expert.
Which others are, certainly those with such an reputation as the here mentioned.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 03:56 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Scrat wrote:

Then you would not disagree with any opinion reached by any judge?


I'm not sure about "any judge". And, indeed, sometimes I disagree with highest judges.

However, although I studied law myself, I would never consider me to be an expert.
Which others are, certainly those with such an reputation as the here mentioned.

Ah, then your position is (if I understand you) that even if all judges are "experts of law", that does not mean they are incapable of reaching a flawed conclusion in your opinion.

Then of what value is your appellation "expert of law"? And why should I or anyone give someone's words credence simply because you claim that person is an "expert of law" when you yourself now reveal that you at times disagree with "experts of law"? The reason I ask this is that your previous assertion seemed to be that the opinion of the judge you cited should be heeded because he is a judge and therefor an "expert of law".

Clearly the question of whether or not this judge is an "expert of law" is secondary to whether or not this judge has offered an opinion with which you agree. It is clearly your agreement with his opinion that causes you to find his opinion valuable, not his status as an "expert of law".
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 04:23 pm
Your logic and your understanding of law is far above my horizone, I must admit.

I think, I just can discuss with other intellectual underdeveloped minorities.

Thanks for your try, Scrat.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 04:43 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Your logic and your understanding of law is far above my horizone, I must admit.

I think, I just can discuss with other intellectual underdeveloped minorities.

Thanks for your try, Scrat.

Walter, I'm sorry if my pointing out your absurd and inconsistent standards is a nuissance.

I made NO claims to any great "understanding of law", though I'll concede that my grasp of logic may be above yours (if you insist on telling me so). What I did was point out the silly inconsistency in your telling me that I should care what this judge thinks because he is an "expert of law", then admitting that you don't always care what every "expert of law" thinks.

If you can't see how stupid that is, it is neither my fault nor my problem.

Feel free to shoot at the messenger all you like, but you won't hit a thing. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2003 02:35 am
Powell said in an interview with the GUARDIAN about some detainees that they
Quote:
" ...have not yet gone through the entire intelligence and interrogation process that exists in Guantanamo to determine whether or not they have done something wrong and therefore should be subject to some judicial process, or whether they should be released, and what danger they present."


Ehem, yes.

Powell: no quick deal on Guantanamo
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2003 10:45 am
walter

It is very thorough process the guests enjoy, there at Guantanamo.

First, there is the salutory reminder, assisted by an initial viewing of the trailer for the first Alien movie, that in Guantanamo, 'no one can hear you scream'.

Following, there's a period of three months in relaxing sensory deprivation, broken only at excitingly unpredictable moments by flashes of arc lamps and high volume recordings of Don Rumsfeld's Aunt Katherine jabbing her knitting needles into a non-American pig.

Then, a six month re-education course (paid for by the state!) where they listen to Barry Manilow while receiving a constant intravenous input of liquid apple pie (paid for by the state!)

The remainder of the guests' stay is fill with a rich and varied schedule of social activities and physical exercise - group beatings (applied by swarthy and smiling non-nationals whose services are paid for by the state!) and with manacled sports day events (100 metre relay with grenade-batons is a favorite).

At the end of the fifteen year stay, those guests who clearly understand the benificence of American justice are bused (paid for by the state!) to either (their choice, mind!) a greyhound bus depot or a porn theatre. The satellite tracking electronic device in their thigh they get to keep. Free.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2003 01:05 pm
blatham wrote:
It is very thorough process the guests enjoy, there at Guantanamo.


Laughing

I forgot about that.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 08:26 am
Quote:
Terror camp Britons to be sent home

Guantanamo Bay deal 'before Xmas'

Kamal Ahmed and Tracy McVeigh
Sunday November 30, 2003
The Observer

A deal to return British terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay is to be sealed before Christmas, according to officials from America and the United Kingdom.
The 'returns policy' is now believed to be the leading option being considered in Washington which has made clear that it wants to end the tension between the US and Britain over the issue.

Under the agreement, the nine British detainees will be sent back to Britain, either after pleading guilty to charges in America and being sent to serve their sentences in British prisons, or without being charged.

It is then likely that some of them will be sent to Belmarsh prison in south London and held under prevention of terrorism legislation. At least two, Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal, the so-called 'Tipton Two' could be freed.

The agreement will end one of the most damaging conflicts between the White House and Downing Street, which has been pressing for fair trials for the Britons who have been held under military command at the US base in Cuba for two years.

Many observers thought that a deal would be signed to mark President George Bush's visit to London two weeks ago. But complex legal arguments, which are still on-going, meant a delay.

America has been moving rapidly in recent weeks to solve the Guantanamo problem which has seen strained relations with a number of countries whose citizens are held at the same base.

Last week Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, indicated that although a deal was not yet done with Britain, they had finished questioning two of the nine detainees, thought to be Rasul and Iqbal.

An American diplomat also recently announced the release of 20 other non-British inmates. Australia has also agreed a deal on its nationals held there.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, have consistently made it clear that they wanted to see the suspects sent back to face British justice. The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, has also made trips to Washington to try to secure a deal.

British human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, who is working with the suspects, said he was confident that a deal had been struck.

'The British Government has finally realised it has to help the Americans out of the corner they have painted themselves into,' he said. 'This deal will most likely consist of the British having to plead guilty on some nonsense charge and come back here to serve their sentence.

'However it seems highly improbable that Iqbal and Rasul will be charged with anything. There simply is nothing there.'

It appears that Downing Street would be comfortable with some charges being brought but it is clear that the British Government could not guarantee a trial of anyone sent back to the UK, one of the original demands made by the US.

'The Americans just want these people to plead guilty so that it looks as if they have been telling the truth that these are all "bad dudes",' Stafford Smith said. 'We know that is nonsense. There is no evidence of any kind against them. In one man's case all he was doing was running a school.'

Stafford Smith said Iqbal had been taken abroad for an arranged marriage by his parents who were concerned about his 'westernised ways', including a fondness for Manchester United.

He disappeared on his stag night and turned up several weeks later in an Afghan jail. At the time the US was offering local people $4,500 to hand in 'foreign Taliban fighters'.

'The idea this rowdy football supporter from Tipton is a terrorist is laughable,' Stafford Smith said. 'He doesn't know how to load a gun.'

The families of the two men had not been told of the imminent deal but professed delight if their relatives were to be returned home. Iqbal's sister, Nasreen Iqbal said: 'We have heard nothing about this at all. If it is true then obviously we would be very happy but I don't really want to say anything until we know the details for sure.'

source
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 04:40 pm
Bounties
Quote:
At the time the US was offering local people $4,500 to hand in 'foreign Taliban fighters'.


This policy was terminated because peole were turning in anyone that they could for the bounty. Also, In Iraq where a low figure of $50 had people turning in "insurgents" that were afterward deemed innocent. Nice way to waste USA tax money.

If another country had done the Q. thing to US soldiers there would have been an uproar.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 06:28 pm
Ve haff vays off makink you talk:Torture,
Quote:
These complaints are all from people who have no qualms about using torture to get information from men like Sheikh Mohammed. Their concern is that merely using coercion amounts to handling terrorists with kid gloves. But the busts of al-Qaeda cells worldwide, and the continuing roundup of al-Qaeda leaders, suggest that some of those in custody are being made to talk. This worries people who campaign against all forms of torture. They believe that the rules are being ignored. Responding to rumors of mistreatment at Bagram and Guantánamo, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have written letters and met with Bush Administration officials. They haven't been able to learn much.

Is the United States torturing prisoners? Three inmates have died in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, and reportedly eighteen prisoners at Guantánamo have attempted suicide; one prisoner there survived after hanging himself but remains unconscious and is not expected to revive. Shah Muhammad, a twenty-year-old Pakistani who was held at Camp X-Ray for eighteen months, told me that he repeatedly tried to kill himself in despair. "They were driving me crazy," he said. Public comments by Administration officials have fueled further suspicion. An unnamed intelligence official told The Wall Street Journal, "What's needed is a little bit of smacky-face. Some al-Qaeda just need some extra encouragement." wThen there was the bravado of Cofer Black, the counterterrorism coordinator, in his congressional testimony last year. A pudgy, balding, round-faced man with glasses, who had served with the CIA before taking the State Department position, Black refused to testify behind a screen, as others had done. "The American people need to see my face," he said. "I want to look the American people in the eye." By way of presenting his credentials he said that in 1995 a group of "Osama bin Laden's thugs" were caught planning "to kill me."

Describing the clandestine war, Black said, "This is a highly classified area. All I want to say is that there was 'before 9/11' and 'after 9/11.' After 9/11 the gloves came off." He was referring to the overall counterterrorism effort, but in the context of detained captives the line was suggestive. A story in December of 2002 by the Washington Post reporters Dana Priest and Barton Gellman described the use of "stress and duress" techniques at Bagram, and an article in The New York Times in March described the mistreatment of prisoners there. That month Irene Kahn, the secretary-general of Amnesty International, wrote a letter of protest to President Bush.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2003 10:19 am
hobitbob - If any penal institution in the US has had deaths, suicides, or both, does that mean they torture their inmates? If a depressed parishioner commits suicide after going to confession, should we suspect that she was tortured by the priest in the confessional?

Your citation is lonnnnnnnnnnnng on weak innuendos and short (to the point of lacking any whatsoever) on substance.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2003 08:48 pm
Scrat wrote:
Walter, I'm sorry if my pointing out your absurd and inconsistent standards is a nuissance.


Talking of absurd standards ...

Scrat wrote:
What I did was point out the silly inconsistency in your telling me that I should care what this judge thinks because he is an "expert of law", then admitting that you don't always care what every "expert of law" thinks.


... if I get this right ... though I'm having trouble grasping the logic ... if I sometimes disagree with a judge on some legal case, it would by consequence be a "silly inconsistency" for me to call judges experts on legal cases Question

OK - lemme backtrack on this to get it right. What Walter pointed out was that the judge in question was an expert on the subject - and he referred to the judge's studies, professional experience and stature at home and abroad to motivate why one could call him an expert.

You then challenged him - "you would not disagree with any opinion reached by any judge?" - and when he answered, well, of course I sometimes disagree with judges, you pounced, "Ah, [so] even if all judges are "experts of law", that does not mean they are incapable of reaching a flawed conclusion in your opinion"!

Well, duh - no, of course not, would be my reaction. But to your mind that actually proves something, because, you continue, "why should anyone give someone's words credence simply because you claim that person is an "expert of law" when you yourself now reveal that you at times disagree with "experts of law"?"

Well, you should give someone's words credence because he's an expert - and then you're still of course fully allowed to respectfully disagree with him. The difference between disagreeing with a judge over law and disagreeing with Barbra Streisand over law is that, considering the former's expertise, one should at least mull his views over, whereas with Barbra Streisand ... well, indeed, "**** her". Thats how I would have interpreted Walter's point. But no, I guess it's just us:

Scrat wrote:
If you can't see how stupid that is, it is neither my fault nor my problem.


In Scrat's world, apparently, if you disagree with some people of category A, you can't call people of category A experts anymore - the real experts are those with whom you wouldnt ever disagree. Funny, that - that's exactly the kind of logic Scrat thought he'd "uncovered" in Walter's post, isn't it? "Mirror, mirror, I can see right through you!" ...

I, for one, would simply consider all those who've studied law extensively "legal experts" - even if their name is Posner - and will therefore not reject their opinion out of hand with some "**** you". Luckily, they sometimes dont agree with each other, either, so I can still weigh their opinions and make my own choice on who to believe most. Duh. But if I'd find a great many of such experts pleading the opposite of my case ... I might start to question my opinion ...
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 01:08 pm
nimh wrote:
Scrat wrote:
Walter, I'm sorry if my pointing out your absurd and inconsistent standards is a nuissance.


Talking of absurd standards ...

Scrat wrote:
What I did was point out the silly inconsistency in your telling me that I should care what this judge thinks because he is an "expert of law", then admitting that you don't always care what every "expert of law" thinks.


... if I get this right ... though I'm having trouble grasping the logic ... if I sometimes disagree with a judge on some legal case, it would by consequence be a "silly inconsistency" for me to call judges experts on legal cases Question

No, that isn't right. Let me run through the discussion for you, and see whether you still fail to grasp the logic:

1) Walter offered the opinion of a judge.

2) I asked Walter why I should care what this specific judge thinks.

3) Walter responded that I should care because this specific judge is an "expert of law".

4) I asked what made this specific judge an "expert of law".

5) Walter replied that merely being a judge made him an "expert of law".

6) I then asked Walter whether he ever disagreed with any judge.

7) Walter replied that he sometimes disagrees with the opinions of judges.

8) It was at this point that I questioned Walter's standard.

IF YOU FOLLOWED the exchange above, you must acknowledge that Walter is claiming that I should care what this specific judge thinks, purely because the man is a judge, yet Walter acknowledges that he himself holds no such standard, in that he disagrees with some judges. Clearly Walter's argument that I "should" care and heed this man's opinion purely because the man is a judge is not a standard to which Walter holds himself.

Get it now? I am not, as you suggest, claiming that "if [you] sometimes disagree with a judge on some legal case, it would by consequence be a "silly inconsistency" for [you] to call judges experts on legal cases", but rather I am pointing out how absurd it is for Walter to suggest that I must care what this man thinks simply because the man is a judge. I could easily come up with a judicial ruling with which either Walter, you, or both would disagree. Would you accept it if I claimed you must care about the opinion because it came from a judge, or would you expect me to recognize that simply being a judge doesn't mean every opinion you utter or put on paper is correct and must be heeded by all who read or hear it? Walter did not argue that I should care about this man because of his specific credentials, nor did he argue that it was this man's specific credentials that made him an "expert of law". He claimed being a judge did that, and said that alone should make me care what the man thinks.

Walter is completely free to care what this man thinks, but to argue that I must also care because the guy is a judge (again, a standard to which Walter does not even hold himself) is to make a foolish and unsupportable argument.

And you are free to play fast and loose with your attempt to replay the exchange, but it doesn't alter the actual sequence of events.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 01:46 pm
Quote:
Walter is completely free to care what this man thinks


Thanks :wink:
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 01:51 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Quote:
Walter is completely free to care what this man thinks


Thanks :wink:

No problem, and sorry for the sarcasm/insulting tone earlier. I need to learn to harness my frustration and channel it in more civil ways.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 08:13 pm
Scrat wrote:
IF YOU FOLLOWED the exchange above, you must acknowledge that Walter is claiming that I should care what this specific judge thinks, purely because the man is a judge, yet Walter acknowledges that he himself holds no such standard, in that he disagrees with some judges.


Followed it, see no contradiction in any of the above whatsoever. Coulda been me.

I claim, for example, that when people talk soccer, they should care for what Van Marwijk, the Feyenoord coach, has to say about it. He obviously is an expert on the matter, and I, too, will listen a lot more closely to what he has to say about the game than what my second-floor neighbour has to say about it. Yet when Van Marwijk says that his Feyenoord is gonna win against (my) Ajax, I'm a-gonna respectfully disagree. And?

Scrat wrote:
Clearly Walter's argument that I "should" care and heed this man's opinion purely because the man is a judge is not a standard to which Walter holds himself.


I think the simple bit where our universes collide is that, in yours, "I should care what he thinks" is apparently synonimous to "I should agree with him". But nobody's made that latter point. When Walter - and I think I can speak for both of us here - points out that you should "care what this man thinks" because he is an expert, he doesnt mean you have to necessarily agree with him in the end, just that the man is an expert and his opinion therefore deserves to be paid closer attention to than that of just anyone. "**** him" not being the most succinct expression of close attention.

Perhaps, sadly, it's a deeper difference of worldview we're bumping up against here ... I am perfectly able to consider people with whom, bottom line, I often still have to disagree, experts on a matter, and will "care for what they think" a great deal even if in the end I sometimes can't agree with them. To you, however, apparently, such reasoning is evidence of a "silly [..] absurd and inconsistent" logic. After all:

Scrat wrote:
"Ah, then your position is that even if all judges are "experts of law", that does not mean they are incapable of reaching a flawed conclusion in your opinion. Then of what value is your appellation "expert of law"?


Well, the value is exactly that - they are an expert of law, and sometimes one disagrees even with the experts. It's just that cause of knowing they're experts, you'll have listened to them closely. And posted their comments on a thread like this. Especially when they're not just any judge. Which brings us to ...

Scrat wrote:
I could easily come up with a judicial ruling with which you would disagree. Would you accept it if I claimed you must care about the opinion because it came from a judge [..]? Walter did not argue that I should care about this man because of his specific credentials, nor did he argue that it was this man's specific credentials that made him an "expert of law". He claimed being a judge did that, and said that alone should make me care what the man thinks.


Talk about "playing fast and loose with replaying the exchange" ... no, it wasn't just that he was "a judge". Lemme make a list - no editing, just Walter's words - the man is:

- "One of Britain's most senior judges"
- "[a] Law Lord"
- "a quite wellknown expert. Even in the USA."
or, in short, as Thomas reiterated:
- "an expert of law, in a legal system not too different from America's"

To which your reaction was: "F#$% him. [..] who gives a rat's ass what he thinks?"

And yes, if you came up with an interesting story, defending the Guantanamo Bay practice, from one of America's most senior judges, who sat on some foremost legal institution and was recognized as a wellknown expert even in Europe, I would gladly accept it if you claimed that I should care about his opinion. I might still end up disagreeing with him, but I'd definitely read what he had to say (as opposed to going, oh, **** him, who gives a rat's ass).

Funny thing is, you have given no other rationalisation for rejecting Lord Steyn's opinion out of hand other than that you disagreed with it. Kinda like the most extreme possible example of the practice you were accusing Walter of (caring only about whether someone agrees with you rather than about his credentials). "Mirror, mirror ..."

Well, the good thing there I guess is that at least you apparently see what is so annoying in this thing you do - it's just that thus far, you're projecting it on the other person rather than recognising that it's you, yourself ...

Ah well. Sh!t happens.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 12:11 pm
nimh wrote:
Scrat wrote:
Clearly Walter's argument that I "should" care and heed this man's opinion purely because the man is a judge is not a standard to which Walter holds himself.


I think the simple bit where our universes collide is that, in yours, "I should care what he thinks" is apparently synonymous to "I should agree with him".

That's a valid point. Yes, I did kind of take it to mean I must value that opinion, but no, that isn't precisely what Walter wrote. Fair enough.

Had Walter focused on the man's credentials it might be one thing, but that "he's an expert of law" comment looked like one that would be pretty easy to tear down, so perhaps that's why I jumped on it. In the end, my point to Walter was simply that I did not "have to care" what this man wrote simply because he is a judge. That seemed to be part of what Walter was attempting to suggest, and again, I probably attacked that point because it looked like it would be easy to attack. (Hey, sometimes I'm lazy.)

But, having done that, I should have kept the sarcasm and hostility out of it. Walter - Sorry for that. Mea culpa.

And again, Nimh, you're right, I can "care" what this man thinks (be aware of it, factor it into my own "big picture" without having to agree whole heartedly with him. My knee jerk reaction at the outset was that it was no shocker that you could find a judge in Europe willing to take a position against the US, and my response was meant as a big "so what?"

So there we are. Cool
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 09:12 pm
Sorry if I went on and on about it ... Sometimes, I get hold of something, and then I just get like a terrier about it or something ... cant let it go. Dunno why I do that. Anyway. Thanks for being gracious about it, and seeing my point despite the bluster with which it was presented.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2003 10:06 am
nimh wrote:
Sorry if I went on and on about it ... Sometimes, I get hold of something, and then I just get like a terrier about it or something ... cant let it go. Dunno why I do that. Anyway. Thanks for being gracious about it, and seeing my point despite the bluster with which it was presented.

Well, I think all of that can be said of my writings above as well, so definitely no worries at this end!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/05/2025 at 01:48:48