GOP: Bush, 9/11, et al

[Dengen-Goroth]

Of course it is "bad". All wars are bad, everything is atrocious which deals with destruction. I have to add my opinion, because this debate is very interesting. Now of course some of the numbers may be dilluted. That is expected, as the Government may not want the public to lose support, and our dear pretzle-choking President is very aware that before this occured he was under great scrutiny:economy plummiting, international policies crude and destroying much which was built in Clinton's era, took month long vacation in the middle of it all, etc. Afterwards he finds himself at all time high, rallying the nation and knowing full well that now all support him and if the bmbings continue the Presidency for another 4 years is basically his. Isreal, in my opinion, has gone to far with it's relations to Arafat. Restricting him from attending Christmas Mass, bombarding his security centers. Are they in control, can they make demands of him? Is Palestin(sp) their country? No, and they would not dare commit any of these actions without or jolly President and Cold-War era cabinet behind them. Now that i've gone of the topic a bit, back to the casualty issue. Do not forget Vietnam, and the rallies and undermining of the National Government. In WWII where were the rallies? The peace demonstrations? We were fighting a threat which was cruel and just to destroy. Korea, Vietnam, even Somalia simply show how untolerant the American Public is to seeing their soldiers returning amung the dead. Somalia was a disaster, and the Gulf War ended quickly ithout much ado. Bush is not as much a fool as many believe, he knows to keep his statues up he must keep the war going, but without revealing the truth of what occurs there. The answer you might ask? I little word called spin.

[TheJospeh]

I agree Bush is doing all those things BUT that's the very problem. You can't run a democracy and manipulate the citizens!!

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Ciryaher]

NPR is extremely liberal, I wouldn't trust them.

And Bush isn't what's "destroying much which was built in Clinton's era". Clinton's policies were too short-termed and were beginning to show signs of a slowdown even before the 2000 Elections. IMHO, Bush isn't perfect, but he IS doing a good job when it comes to terrorism.

[Grond]

Originally posted by TheJospeh
I agree Bush is doing all those things BUT that's the very problem. You can't run a democracy and manipulate the citizens!!

Sincerely,
The Joseph And Mr. TheJoseph, you can run a government and manipulate the citizens. It is a word called politics. Politics from all forums, whether it be labor, big business, futhering a specific agenda or putting one's constiuents ahead of the interest of the whole of the nation is just that, manipulation of the citizens.

In my country's defense, I would rather trust to my own instincts, knowing that someone is trying to manipulate me, than to have ideas and beliefs force fed me by any other form of government.

BTW, TheJoseph, I take from your comments that you are not an American. When was the last time your country sent any aid to the U. S.? When was the last time your country got aid from the U. S.? It never ceases to amaze me how many countries depend on us for Foriegn aid and yet are the first in line to criticize our policies.

[TheJospeh]

I never said you can't run a government. I said you can't run a democracy.

Let me see, being Canadian the last time my country helped out the United States was when we landed all those American planes in Canadian on Sept. 11th. The last time the U.S. helped us? Well there was Bush's big speech praising Britain who did almost nothing and completely ignoring Canada...OH wait that's called snubbing and is far from help.

In response to your claim you would rather trust to your instincts, well you are being foolish. The whole point of subtle manipulation is to circumvent instincts. To make you think what is wrong is right, to make the weaker argument the stronger. So you are playing right into the hands of the manipulators.

I must however commend you for a noble attempt at defending the undefendable. However, I would suggest you cut your losses now. You simply can't win the argument that the US acts is a just manner. You CAN argue that justice doesn't exist once war starts, but I certainly don't agree with that.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

P.S. As to running a government through manipulation. Let me make the point that evil and corruption don't just show up over night. They come with tiny baby steps. So manipulation in the way we are talking should be avoided at all costs, lest America follow the path of Rome...actually, keep up the good work!!! If only we had some barbarians around we could get rid of you guys all the sooner.

[Bill the Pony]

Grond, about giving foreign aid, it is true that in absolute sense the US is the second largest donor (after Japan) in the world, but in relative sense, it's the worst. US gave only 0.1% of its GNI (gross national income), compared to 0.25% for Canada and 1.06% for Denmark (and 0.86 for Holland, I'm glad to say) The US giving the smallest percentage has been the case for years.
(see website OECD (http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00022000/M00022968.pdf), Cir, I'm sure they can't be trusted either ;) )

And I'm glad that you notice that you are being manipulated (since then the manipulation failed). Unfortunately, a lot of people don't, and that's when things get scary.

ps let's keep this discussion nice.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Bill the Pony
ps let's keep this discussion nice. I didn't realize my comments weren't nice..... but if I offended anyone, I apologize. I will not apologize for defending my country.

[Ciryaher]

Hehe, I believe you Bill :D

Yes, we are very very greedy...If I had money, I'd probably try to not be greedy ;)

[Bill the Pony]

Grond, your comments were nice, and this remark was made in general, because I thought I noticed some kind of irritation in the last few posts. I've been scared away from a number of threads recently, and had some bad experiences with 'real life' discussions about this topic, so I was hoping with this remark to prevent things from starting to go bad. Maybe I'm just too sensitive for that kind of stuff. I enjoy the debate, and appreciate your contribution (even if I don't agree...)

[ReadWryt]

"1. US troops in the Holy country Saudi Arabia, 2. Sanctions on Iraq resulting in millions of people dying"- Bill the Pony

Ok, I have a problem with both of these remarks in that the first is an expedience for the purpose of argument. By that I mean that Saudi Arabia didn't feel that it was a "Holy Country" when they invited our troops in out of fear of being attacked by Saddam Hussein, and if it is so damned holy to muslims why would Saddam threaten to attack a "Holy Country"? It doesn't add up, it's just a term invented by people who want to have an excuse to ***** about us being in that place we were asked to be in by the government in rule there.

The second is problematic because it cannot be proven. There is nothing but sentimental claptrap that anyone can point to that shows that the sanctions were to blame for the deaths of people, especially in those numbers. This reminds me of the liberal yahoo nutbars that claim that our imigration laws are to blame for so many Mexican Illegal Aliens falling to death in the dessert from exposure while trying to sneak into California. Neither the Mexicans nor the Iraqis would have to die were they abiding by the law. The way I see it, were so many deaths attributable to the Iraqi Government's steadfast and flagrant flauting of the UN's decision to hold them accountable for Weapons of Mass Destruction which THEY have used, in well documented cases, against their OWN population, and assuming that "millions" of people are falling dead in the wake of the sanctions caused by their govenrnment's decision to throw out the UN inspectors, it would appear that the population has a choice...starve to death because of their government, or fight their government and die trying to make certain their children do not suffer at the hands of it. All in all history has proven that the Iraqi government has consistently been the greatest threat to the lives of the Iraqi population, not the UN or the US.

As for Negotiating with Terrorists, the Isreali government...the British Government and the US have all, from time to time attempted this to no avail. We have tried both ways and we know which one gets the job done, that's to use force in controlled and proper measure.

There is an old Arab proverb about this very thing..."Never provoke a mad dog, Kill it or leave it alone." the problem being that when left alone innocent people die, and the ones killing are the folks I keep hearing people suggest we "negotiate" with. In America we don't negotiate with murderers, we catch them, put them on trial and get them away from the Civilised People.

[Gloer]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
- Bill the Pony

Ok, I have a problem with both of these remarks in that the first is an expedience for the purpose of argument. By that I mean that Saudi Arabia didn't feel that it was a "Holy Country" when they invited our troops in out of fear of being attacked by Saddam Hussein, and if it is so damned holy to muslims why would Saddam threaten to attack a "Holy Country"? It doesn't add up, it's just a term invented by people who want to have an excuse to ***** about us being in that place we were asked to be in by the government in rule there.

It adds up:

1. Saudi Arabia is close to holy for ordinary muslim people. Mecca is prohibited from infidels. There are laws guarding that Quran is followed. Saudi Arabia is ruled by Saudi family that invited americans troops in. I do not think the population does agree with their long term presence there. This poses a risk of internal collapse of Saudi dynasty.

2. Saddam Hussein is first a materialist dictator in the style of Stalin. He is not and is not seen as a muslim leader. But he is seen as an arab nationalist. That is not the same thing as the fanatic islamic movement. Saddam does not hold Saudi Arabia holy.

I would see the american presence in Saudi Arabia as a guarrantee for Saudi royal family that US troops will keep them in power. The threat however is not only Saddam but also the local population that is turning towards fundamental Wahhabi islam.
This can easily lead to weakening of the Saudi support inside the country.

USA should continue by
1. creating good relations with Iranian moderate islamic government. Leave the Central Asia for Iran.
2. overthrowing the Baath party and Saddam in Iraq with full occupation of the country.
3. establishment of first democratic government in the Arab world in Iraq.
4. Military alliace with the new Iraq.

Basically USA should follow the path taken with Japan after the WWII.

Iraq has a very strategic position in Middle East. It has a large population, water resources and export income from oil.
If that country could be a modern islamic democracy ala Turkey it would stabilise Middle East a lot.

[Bill the Pony]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
- Bill the Pony
Ok, I have a problem with both of these remarks in that the first is an expedience for the purpose of argument.
Apologies if I did not make myself clear. I did not mean to imply that I thought those statements were true. What I meant to say is that there are quite a lot of people in the middle east who believe they are true, which is used by Bin Laden et al. to recruit new terrorists. The US is perceived as a big bad bully. I feel that bombing Afghanistan did not help in this perception.
*very simplified picture* Imagine someone who has been bullying your friend trying to convince you that he is actually a nice guy. Would you believe him if he gave you a black eye, and said: "you had better believe that I'm a nice guy, or I'll hit you even worse"

Now for your arguments themselves, they are valid from an American point of view. But Gloer has a point that there is a difference between being invited by a democratically elected government, or being invited by a goverment that is being kept in place by the US in the first place. I have heard that the Saudi Arabi people did not agree (or at least no longer agree) with inviting the US, which is why they think the US is invading their holy land. (again, believe whatever you like, I don't know what to believe anymore)

As far as the sanctions go. It seems that the Iraqi people choose to starve rather than to try and overturn Saddam. So even though sanctions sounded to me like a reasonable measure back when they started, they seem to have failed. Is it then time to change tactics? Again, I don't know what to do then.
Gloer, I'm curious how you think to achieve points 2-4. (preferably without collateral damage...)

[Gloer]

Well... that's one way you might intrepret the following (I didn't mean that though):

"Basically USA should follow the path taken with Japan after the WWII. "


I meant the policy ran by McArthur's government in Japan after the war. Not the bomb.

How to achieve 2.-4.?

Well. I suppose you did that already 1991 ?
George Bush I did a really good job but did not finish it. And I am sure he was being too smart there thinking that there should be a balance against Iran. Wrong. USA should have made a deal with the moderate Iranians and finished the job.

USA should assassinate Saddam Hussein and then attack Iraq (because Saddam and Iraq might have been helping al Quaida, maybe - who cares, they attacked Quwait ! ).
It might cost a lot more collateral damage - but then again Iraq might surrender without a fight when their leadership is wiped out. They don't want to be bombed. Then occupy the country.

BTW: The Afghans are again left alone with their domestic problems? What the heck is the matter - does USA want to see al Quaida back in power as fast as Saddam threw weapons inspectors out of Iraq???

[Dengen-Goroth]

You have brought up a good topic. What do we do with Iraq, Somalia, and pehaps the trubling situation in the Philippenes. Should we attack again, or not. And what of the Wall Street Journal Journalis who was taken captive. What can be done to keep these people safe in hostile countries?

[daisy]

Wow, do I have a lot to say, although I'll probably forget most of it before I can type it down. In no particular order:

In terms of this being America's war, which is the way it sounded there for awhile on this thread, it is no longer. There are many other nations involved and directly affetced by the offensive taking place in Afghanistan.

Although I was relieved that the U.S. did not begin to bomb anything with a beard on September the 12th, I do not think we should assume the loss of Afghani life is anything short of huge. Please do not forget refugee deaths, death in childbirth, death from landmines, disease, hunger...these things were there way before the 'war', but have worsened.

Most people who study current events, globalism, foreign policy etc. accept as fact that the Gulf War resulted in huge Iraqi casualties that were supressed by the American government. And we should not forget Gulf War syndrome which continues to ravage the lives of the men and women who fought for their country. The government still insists these people are making it up and refuse insurance benefits or disability settlements for the poor sick veterans.

Pacifistic discussion will not work with zealots. Period.

Friendly fire is not friendly. And that's how most Americans have died in this confrontation. One man, the C.I.A operative was killed by enemy fire. I think that's it.

I have no idea where the notion that because someone is not American they do not have a right to an opinion came from. But I do know this attitude is the root of all of the United States' problems re: foreign policy. We are all on this planet and the U.S. is a globalised super-power. If you guys want this much power be prepared for the responsibilities that come with it. And my country is in Afghanistan too, as Joe pointed out, seeing as we have the same one.

Michele Landsburg of the Toronto Star recently reported her outrage that, though George Bush has constantly spoken of his commitment to helping the Afghanis rebuild their country and aid etc., he recently denied funding to an organisation that gives pregnant women a five daollar emergency birthing kit. This kit has a sterile plastic sheet, blanket, scissors, string, and alcohol.

Afghanistan is a corner of hell people. It is worse than Vietnam, Somalia, Rwanda, in terms of political stability, infrastucture, natural resources, literacy....

I guess after my way too long post the message is this.If we cannot start thinking as ourselves as a global village or community, we do not have a prayer.

And I believe twent-five Canadians died on September 11th
David Barkway
Ralph Gerhardt
Garnet Bailey

I actually can't continue...

[TheJospeh]

Americans do capture murderers and try them. Of course, they do it through a secret military tribunal in which the onus of proof is practically non-existant.

Daisy is right. When you are on top--i.e. the most powerful--you have more responsibility to act morally. You can't fight the enemy with their own tactics because then what makes them wrong? They moment--if it hasn't already happened--America purposefully causes the death of an innocent, regardless of the "greater good" they are just as bad as the Taliban. Of course, you could argue as soon as they invade a sovereign nation they are as bad...and I guess they have done that already haven't they? Geeeeeeez. It really makes me scared...but according to George W. Bush I'm evil anyway. He called me evil right in the state of the Union address, "People once thought America was materialistic. Well now it has been shown they were as wrong as they are evil." Evil, evil me! I thought a capitalistic society that consumes per person, I think, more than 5 times the goods of the average Asian was materialistic! Hisssssssss, I'm coming to get you! ... ... ... ... ... BOO!!!

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[ReadWryt]

Actually, the Military Tribunal system in the Post World War Two era had a lower conviction rate then the Federal Court System had or has, so I am all for sending these guys to Federal Court, except that it is so slow that there is no imperative on the part of the accused to turn over usefull information in hopes that the tribunal might be lenient on them...information that could save lives, not create death.

There is a general distain on the part of many people who wish to promote the concept that the Military Tribunal system will guarantee 100% conviction rates and that it is Unconstitutional. Both of these are patantly false. Many a member of the Military has been held accountable for their actions through this system and never once has the Supreme Court deemed this method as Unconstitutional, and as stated above, of the 1200 Japanese and over 2000 German soldiers that were tried by military tribunals after the second world war there was a lower conviction rate then the Federal Courts, so I suppose that in the lack of evidence on the part of the Knee Jerk Detractors to the Tribunal System one has to take these cries of "Foul" as the parroting of propaganda proffered by pacifistic politicos.

[Moonbeams]

It never ceases to amaze me how many countries depend on us for Foriegn aid and yet are the first in line to criticize our policies.

Ok, this was not very well thought through. I have heard this thing mentioned, not just from you, but many others. What does Foregin aid have to do with politics? Are you people trying to imply that if you give aid to a country they should just shut their mouth and do as you say, or agree with everything you do? You do give aid to a lot of countries, and mine is one of them, but it does not mean we should be at your side 100% of the time.

The attack on Afganistan was inevitable, it had to happen, the world works that way, and the second they crashed those planes to WTC, they knew themselves that this is going to come. Any peaceful diplomatic attempts had to have happened BEFORE the attack.
If the US said after WTC, oh yes, they attacked us, but let's just talk with them, the government would have been concidered weak and as if doing nothing, even at home, let alone from Taliban. They would just say the US is weak and scared, that god is on their side. Like this, they say US is a tyrant, and a bad, bad country, and god is on their side. Whichever way the US took, it wouldn't have been a "good" way. So out of two evils they chose the most expected way, and there's nothing that can change it now.
It is nice to think that anybody could act in a "turn the other cheak" christian type of way, but in real world, it is impossible. People that act like that get run over. If a whole country acts that way, even worse concequences accur.
I do not approve of the attack, but at least the did not bomb the whole country flat, and they did not put all Afgans in the US in camps, like with Japanese people in WWII. Things could have been much worse.
And I belive that the victim count is in reality much bigger, because the news never find out half of the things that are happening in a war. In a war, reporters are tools of goverment more than you belive they are.
The thing I have the worst problem with is the fact they attacked Afganistan without any proof that Bin Laden did it. There is not a singe shread of evidence, only the general belif of everybody that he did do it. What if he didn't? Then you've just waged war on a poor country for no reason what so ever. What if some Egiptian extremist organisation did it? What would the US do? Say "sorry Afganistan", turn around, and bomb Egipt? Honestly, they were acting too fast.

[ReadWryt]

The US allready looked weak according to the interview that Bin Laden made in October for the Arabian Satalite New Service. He claimed that he realized that he could get away with attacking the US after Somalia..he claimed that events there, and after, made him "realize" that the US was too weak to do anything in or outside of it's borders. CNN displayed this interview just last week...

Years of simply lobbing a couple of missles at targets in retribution for Al Queda's activities...blatant attacks against the US...with little or no reaction from us, the "only superpower" gave this evil mastermind the impression that he could defy the US, continue attacking..and direct the murder of as many innocent civilians as it took to get what he wanted, which over in that part of the world means one thing and one thing only, to be Top Dog in Islam. It's what Saddam wanted, it's what the Ayatolla thought he would get after standing up to the US...It's not about Saudi Arabia or Palestine or any of that, it's about being the top Warlord in a realm ruled by smaller warlords...period.

All this romatic altruistic rhetoric that Bin Laden has produced, introducing new themes almost every time, have all been about rousing more support for his personal pi**ing contest with the US no matter what the cost to the poor brainwashed people he talked into killing themselves for HIS sake, and by HIS I certainly don't mean Allah.

What he didn't plan on was that while he was pi**ing for distance, we could come in and pi** for accuracy. While warfare in that region means fractious warrior clans working side by side while each waits for the chance to stab the other in the back and take their power, Americans united in mind and cause..we came together...and as Dennis Miller noted "We hate to be together, so we would do whatever it took in Afghanistan so that we could get everyone else the hell away from us...".

As for the enemy which has caused the majority of US military personel being killed in Afghanistan, I've seen this before and trust me this IS the truth, it's the attrition of boredom. They are getting sloppy with little to do. They have Battlefield Blue Ba**s and they want to get back to the thrill of doing what they never get to do and constantly train for. More and more accidental deaths will occur so long as we have so many troops over there and so little to do so far from home and loved ones. I saw this in the buildup to the Gulf War...it's happening again.

[Gloer]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Actually, the Military Tribunal system in the Post World War Two era had a lower conviction rate then the Federal Court System had or has, so I am all for sending these guys to Federal Court, except that it is so slow that there is no imperative on the part of the accused to turn over usefull information in hopes that the tribunal might be lenient on them...information that could save lives, not create death.

There is a general distain on the part of many people who wish to promote the concept that the Military Tribunal system will guarantee 100% conviction rates and that it is Unconstitutional. Both of these are patantly false. Many a member of the Military has been held accountable for their actions through this system and never once has the Supreme Court deemed this method as Unconstitutional, and as stated above, of the 1200 Japanese and over 2000 German soldiers that were tried by military tribunals after the second world war there was a lower conviction rate then the Federal Courts, so I suppose that in the lack of evidence on the part of the Knee Jerk Detractors to the Tribunal System one has to take these cries of "Foul" as the parroting of propaganda proffered by pacifistic politicos.

I fail to see the validity of the conviction rates. If you try 100 innocent people in a court of law you should get a conviction rate of 0%, right? And if 100 guilty people are tried they all should be convicted, right? Any difference between two different courts mentioned is very much likely to portray the special characteristics of the cases tried in Nürnberg compared to the general courts. They probably investigated and tried too many Germans just to make sure they get the main Nazis I guess.

ReadWryt, let me guess... you have not studied law but instead something that has to do with numbers and statistics, right?

American military tribunals fail to guarrantee a fair trial, there is no guarrantee of hearing the both sides on all the issues. The hearings should be public for all the more because most non-US people doubt American impartiality. The trials will be closely followed and criticised wheather public or secret.

There is a problem of legal basis with which conviction can be given. "Conspiracy" should be intrepreted restrictively. Most al-Quaida fighters had nothing to do with USA until USA troops took them to Guantanamo. Like mr. Walker-Lindt they were in Afghanistan to aid Taliban. Can you convict someone for being a loose member of a religiously motivated islamists? This is the true reason why those people are convicted: for hanging around with the wrong people, not for what they did.

Furhter more: President of the USA has no legislative powers to set up a court. Further USA has comited to international treaties that make such ad hoc courts illegal because they violate the basic human rights.

Lastly I must add that in Finland we had to hold tribunals against those government ministers that were "guilty" for the war with the Allied (Russia and UK, not including USA). The tribunal was held by us, not the Russians, because that was the only way we could guarrantee a fair trial. The Russians wanted to blame our government, but they also wanted it to seem fair. That is why they went with it. The longest conviction was for 10 years for the former president Ryti.
The Russians would have rather hung the lot. AT least they had the objectivity to understand that this would have never been viewed as justice by others. Americans could try to be that objective, maybe?
Nevertheless the Russians failed since Stalin was and is and always will be the criminal of war for finnish people.

[Grond]

Gloer, apparently you are not fully informed in the way Law works in the United States. In many states, mine included, an individual who knows a crime is being committed, particularly a capital crime, is guilty of the offense if he does nothing to prevent it. Hence, we have accomplices charged with murder all the time though they did not "pull the trigger". An implication that someone belonging to Al-Quaida doesn't know that the organization is about "the disruption of non-Islamic countries in general and the United States in particular" is lunacy. (aka crazy). These guys knew what they signed up for.... it is why they left their homes in Saudi or Somalia or Chechneya or even America (John Walker Lind) The fact that these people never took action against Americans is irrelevent, it was the intent to harm which makes them susceptible to indictment and the fact that they were active participants in the organization which carried out the horrible acts of 09/11.

As to America jumping the gun without having proof that Osama Bin-laden was involved. Everyone should get real. He has now admitted it on tape for all to hear. And it is an absolute that our Intelligence Agencies had this information before we began the campaign. We are not barbarians.

And, finally, if you don't like the American System of Justice, whether in Federal or State Courts or Military Tribunal, then don't kill thousands of innocent people of all nationalities in our country. If you do, we will find you, we will try you in our Courts and we will exact retribution. For those for whom English is a second language... here is the definition of Retribution in Webster's Dictionary
Retribution - 1. Something justly deserved; recompense.
2. Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment

[TheJospeh]

Gloer, very apt post in response to ReadWryt. I don't want to generalize but I've never come across an American who understands the argument that it is not a good idea to introduce small injustices because they have a way of ballooning into huge injustices. It is partly a tribute to America's history that its citizens believe it to be impervious of corruption. And pride comes before the fall yadda yadda yadda and so I can confidently predict that American will be fundamentally changed (hopefully destroyed in a political sense not a violent sense) before I die. I just might get to see humanity start again in its ever present cycle of mucking things up as soon as they get a monopoly on power. I can't say it enough, the powerful have to commit themselves to a higher moral standard and to greater scrutiny than the weak. Not less!

And Grond instead of looking up retribution look up revenge. Then try and figure out the purpose of the penal system of America (and Canada). It's to rehabilitate. Maybe people have lost site of that.

ReadWryt, obviously, you missed the point of my post. Gloer recognized it however. Conviction rates aren't important, the fact that an innocent man can be legally convicted for no other reason than they don't like the cut of his jib is important. Mind you if forced alliteration wins a debate than hats off! You've won.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Grond]

I disagree with your assertion TheJoseph. Our penal system is one of punishment for injustice as it should be. Prison is a place where one is sent when one wrongs another. Many people feel that society's injustices force people into patterns of behavior which the individual has no control over and, hence, should bear no responsibility for their evil acts. I don't subscribe to the theory. Everyone, especially in America, can make what they want of their life. My father was a depression child from a family of 15. He grew up in abject poverty, knowing hunger and deprivation. He fought in WWII, earned a degree from LSU and became a career Veteran. He then taught school for 15 years and has since started four successful buinesses. It's amazing the power of one little word. It's called initiative.

As for my comments on retribution. I used it because it is appropriate and purposefully avoided revenge.
Retribution = Something justly deserved; recompense.
Revenge = To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult).

The difference is that retribution is just and Revenge may not be. The retribution I speak of is the lives of those who plotted and committed the acts of 09/11. Under our law, the penalty one faces for those acts is death and not rehabilitation. If you come in our country, you should expect that type of punishment for that type of crime. If you disagree, stay out of our country.

[Gloer]

Good points Grond. Before I try to answer them I have to make a statement that my motivation behind the earlier post is not general anti-american sentiment as seems to be with The Jospeh (Who never-the-less is often well founded with his views). I have known americans since I was a kid. Americans are a bit out of place when abroad, but let me tell you a stunning secret: When I finally went to USA I realized that Americans fit their land like a glow in the hand! Everything is just so naturally economical, efficient, alive. Old things are destroyed whit no hesitation when new things are to be built up. Especially your farms were stunningly REAL businesses compared to European conserved & subsidized family farming. I liked USA.

"1. Gloer, apparently you are not fully informed in the way Law works in the United States. In many states, mine included, an individual who knows a crime is being committed, particularly a capital crime, is guilty of the offense if he does nothing to prevent it. Hence, we have accomplices charged with murder all the time though they did not "pull the trigger". "

In the defence of the al Quaida trooper X I would refer to the fact that knowledge of planned terrorist acts was limited to very few key figures. Even Osama bin Laden claimed he did not know the date of the strike before and only the pilots knew the targets and purpose of the mission. Al Quaida seems to be a binch of people held together by witholding of real information and feeding religious indoctrination.
Secondly there must be a reasonable and realistic way to react to stop a defined crime from being commited to conclude criminal neglect as a basis for conviction.

" 2. An implication that someone belonging to Al-Quaida doesn't know that the organization is about "the disruption of non-Islamic countries in general and the United States in particular" is lunacy. (aka crazy). These guys knew what they signed up for.... it is why they left their homes in Saudi or Somalia or Chechneya or even America (John Walker Lind) "

If I was the judge I would demand this definition of Al-Quaida from their own documents and testimonies. Easy I suppose, but it is way too general. This kind of aim and target should also be linked with the reasons why each individual was in Afghanistan. There is a doubt that these people really knew what Al Quaida was doing other than supporting Taliban against Northern Alliance.
For example: Why was Walker Lindt there? I have thought he went there to fight Jihad and gain access to Paradise like all young muslims do. Further more it is pretty much more likely that he was planning to fight his holy war alongside the Taliban and against the Northern Alliance. A war in which USA had pretty much not picked sides before 9/11. And he is not the only one as you mentioned. The Al-Quaida is a bunch of very very different kinds of people with very different reasons to be in Afghanistan. They all deserve to be thoroughly examined, heard, advocated and accused in a public and fair trial in an firmly established impartial court.

" 3. The fact that these people never took action against Americans is irrelevent, it was the intent to harm which makes them susceptible to indictment and the fact that they were active participants in the organization which carried out the horrible acts of 09/11. "

If thoughts could kill we should all be imprisoned, right?

" 4. As to America jumping the gun without having proof that Osama Bin-laden was involved. Everyone should get real. He has now admitted it on tape for all to hear. And it is an absolute that our Intelligence Agencies had this information before we began the campaign. We are not barbarians."

I agree with you in that USA had enough grounds to single out Osama bin Laden. The criminal left his finger prints in the method of the crime. Still I don't think your intelligence had anything concrete enough to stand against him in a trial before the house search with an international warrant.
This is how police work is done: with a controlled use of violence to retrieve evidence and arresting the suspects. It is just not the way trials are run. Courts do not use force to get to a just result. Today no-one calls it a fair trial if force is used to get a result that is desired. Inquisition did that. To withold the Al Quaida any aspects of an open and fair trial, is same as using force to get a certain result. The trial must be uncontrollable by US government to be just.

" 5. And, finally, if you don't like the American System of Justice, whether in Federal or State Courts or Military Tribunal, then don't kill thousands of innocent people of all nationalities in our country. If you do, we will find you, we will try you in our Courts and we will exact retribution. For those for whom English is a second language... here is the definition of Retribution in Webster's Dictionary
Retribution - 1. Something justly deserved; recompense.
2. Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment"

I like american system of justice. That is why I would like to see a grand jury in Guantanamo and a lot of press coverage. Even more I would prefer the calm and elegant way you convicted the 1992 WTC bombers in an ordinary court in N.Y.

[Grond]

Interestingly you state that the purpose of our penal system is to rehabilitate. Where did you come by that information. The definition of penal =
1. Of, relating to, or prescribing punishment, as for breaking the law.
2. Subject to punishment; legally punishable: a penal offense.
3. Serving as or constituting a means or place of punishment: penal servitude; a penal colony.

Where is rehabilitation in that definition?

The original idea of a penal system was to punish. To make the experience so unpleasant as to alter the behavior so as to avoid repeating the penal experience. It was only when new age psycho-babble became involved that rehabilitation became talked about.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for offering any types of education and personal improvement courses we can to the criminal offender. But it should remain a place of punishment and not be rendered to a rehab hospital for the functionally challenged. In my experience, a "free ride" teaches nothing and simply reinforces a behavior since there is no real penalty involved.

[TheJospeh]

I'm sorry if you believe me to be a hippie, left-wing beatnik. I'm not. I don't believe people are purely subject to their environment and criminals are poor victims. I despise criminals. Here, we have technology that is unrivalled and a world connectedness that is amazing and instead of trying to make things even better there are actually people who want to feed like vultures on weakness. I hate certain kinds of criminals. However, if we are just punishing them then what is the point? To protect the rest of us? To sate our need for revenge? Don't you think we can do a little bit better than that? Haven't we evolved past that need? Having a prison system, to me, only makes sense if we are trying to rehabilitate them.

So now, I've explained myself, and you know I hold great respect for people like your father.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[ReadWryt]

The Military captured the combatants in a military action and so it is only right that the president gave his permition for the military to try them, and as for ad hoc courts, Military Tribunals are permitted under the Geneva Conventions, especially in cases where Illegal Combatants, who include military personel not attired as military personel as defined by the self same conventions, are captured committing acts of war. There is nothing being "Set up" here, it's allways BEEN there. It's the same Tribunal that may be called upon to take action against American Soldiers who were involved in the deaths of those 20 or more Afghans who were killed last week and may very well have been Civilians and Anti-Taliban/Pro-Interim government citizens. This is the same Military Tribunal that handled the now infamous "Tail Hook" matter and doled out sentences on US Navy Personel.

As for treaties blocking the use of these "ad hoc courts", lest we all forget that Nuernberg was a MILITARY TRIBUNAL. Before that there had never BEEN an International Military Tribunal..ever! You wanna talk Ad Hoc?? Geez, were WE all ever duped to have thought that any JUSTICE was served out at Nuernberg when it was just another one of these illegal ad hoc courts!

The problem is the presumption before there is EVIDENCE that the Military Tribunals will not be fair. This assumption is based on the idea that ALL Military tribunals are not fair, and so because of this the ignorant sieze the oportunity to demonstrate their lack of knowlege by stating that the accused get no representation, that they cannot have access to evidence or witnesses prior to the trial and other assumptions...all before the Defense Department finalizes rules governing the use of the tribunals.

They are currently leaning toward the Uniform Rules of Procedure, Military Tribunals, Nuernberg, Revised to 8 January 1948. Anyone who has read the document can see that it is so close to what we are used to in our domestic civilian courts as to be nearly indistiguishable. These include Rule 7. Right to Representation by Counsel, Rule 10. Motions and Applications, Rule 11. Rulings during the Trial, Rule 12. Production of Evidence for a Defendant and Rule 23. Interviewing of Witnesses.

This certainly doesn't sound like the Corrupt Kangaroo Courts that the foreign press is inventing in their editorial pages, and especially in nations like France, who benefitted a great deal from the trials of Nazi War Criminals who committed horrible acts against their own citizens under the same rules. Once more we see that Europe and other regions are more ready to accuse the US of what they have been party to in the past themselves simply because it's not THEIR National Security potentially being dragged into a public court for everybody to scrutinize.

Every time I watch the International Channel I have to wade through lies from the foreign press about something that the US is doing, if not Military Tribunals then it's the Kyoto Treaty that not ONE of them have signed onto themselves...if not that then it's Missle Defence. MISSLE DEFENCE!! God forbid that ANY nation DEFEND themselves. I can see why France is against this, they have a long standing tradition of failing to be capable of defending themselves against attack and would rather we all level the playing field and give up the entire notion of a Defence other then Mutually Assured Destruction, but what is up with all these OTHER nations? Why are our NATO allys voicing objection to something that they themselves benefitted from after WWII?

It must just be coincidental that the same NATO allys were complaining that we didn't employ them in our actions in Afghanistan...but what they are failing to realize is that we don't need them nearly as much as they need us.

[TheJospeh]

I don't need America at all. In fact, I would like to see it fall. And this is the point being made, which ReadWrty, you are totally missing: We aren't claiming that injustice is occuring we are claiming that in secret military tribunals there is no check or balance to insure injustice is not committed. America, when it still had a soul, created a government with checks and balances! They are going away from this noble spirit with this military tribunal.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[daisy]

As usual, the thread has become a place dominated by American politics, government, etc. when in fact the topic was supposed to be about the next step the world should take in the war on terrorism. But it seems it is impossible for some Americans participating on this thread to let go of the notion that you are fighting this 'war' in a vacuum.
And France was around long before the godd old U.S. of A. and in fact heloed to colonise North America so I don't know what you're going on about about France being a weakling nerd cousin of the mighty Liberty Bell.
There are people with uncertain terrorist links being held indefinitely in American holding cells. The P.O.W.'s in Guantanamo Bay are being held without due process so far. Their beards have been shaved, a direct violation of the Geneva Convention as that is part of their religion. They are blindfolded, wearing shackles, earplugs, and masks. What the hell is that?
Hey, I don't like terrorists but I also don't like governments who do not hold by the dictates of civilized society including the Geneva Convention. Hey,my country breaks its own laws all the time and I'm the first to whine about it because I want it to be better.
The United States also owes more than one billion dollars to the U.N. unless Ted Turner paid already.
Can't we discuss this global issue without it becoming a flag waving or burning excercise?

daisy - je suis fatigue - le bouches est tres grande est dangereux.

[Grond]

No!

[daisy]

but why not?

Then the terrorists win!!!

Oh wait...that's overused.

But you know what I mean, if we can't even work globally on a little itsy bitsy Tolkien forum what the hell are we going to do?
And Canadian troops are over there now so watch out because our choppers are about fifty years old and will fall out of the sky and crush people - that's our secret weapon!!

We're the only country that has promotion media videaos for our SECRET FORCES.

We're so cute.:)

eh?

[Gloer]

Advertising Canadian Secret Froces with pr-videos is only a cheap smoke screen covering the fact that Canadians have no Intelligence.
(They must rely on the american intelligence provided by the CIA.)

I think ReadWryt and Grond, you have certain point of view behind your strong arguments backing US government. You seem to want things done, you want to see progress, you want the Al-Quaida matter processed efficiently and terminally. Because after this 9/11 matter is resolved USA can go back to the normal life. In short there is emphasis on executive action.

I have always felt that one aspect of a fair trial is that this executive action is halted, checked and evaluated. There should never be prejudice before the trial - even if the evidence was condemning. The accused has right to be treated as innocent before proven quilty.

There is a problem that those people held in Guantanamo bay are labelled as "illegal combatants". According to Geneva convention this is a judgement in itself. It is not in the power of US government executive branch to make this judgement.

Or naming them as "terrorists" which is certainly very very very far reaching. What is a terrorist? What is terror? These need a legislative definition. Where these people guilty for terrorist action? Is there evidence for it? We need a juridical procedure to find out. Before that it is very abstract to say that "there are still terrorists at large".

Or talking about "Al Quaida members" which is a nice example of an abstract label with very little factual grounds. Al Quaida is arabic for a base - a general word for the camps that Osama bin Laden had in Afghanistan. Al Quaida member = person that has been in those camps. I wonder if all of those people were indoctrinated enough to be even considered terrorist recruits against US and the west. Membership must be established and liked to the terrorist action.

You just can't label these people and then "reason" that an individual that was fighting with Taliban, is a foreign muslim in Afghanistan is automatically an Al Quaida member and therefore a terrorists and more specificly in conspiracy against USA to bomb the WTC and Petagon and he should be shot.



Labelling people in segmented groups makes it easier and faster to make decisions regarding them. Nevertheless this segmentation is artificial. And it is something that does not belong to a judicial system.

[Ciryaher]

TheJoseph, you don't need America in all, eh? I'm assuming that you of course have no assets in the global economy (whose axis is on Wall Street), and that you are living in some lost land that has never been afflicted with either World War I or II. I'm fairly globalist, and I respect all nations for all which they contribute to humanity, but for you to hope for the fall of the most powerful nation on Earth is not only ridiculous, it's downright ludicrous. If we were to fall, every other industrialized nation would also. Look what happened when OUR stock markets crashed in 1929; in fact, whenever our economy slips, so does the rest of the world's.

[ReadWryt]

Assuming for a moment, perhaps foolishly, that the Military Tribunal accepts the Uniform Rules of Procedure, Military Tribunals, Nuernberg...where is the lack of Checks and Balances? I'm still failing to see the argument or any evidence that there is a lack of it...just accusations that have no evidence to back them up which is, in it's very act, a lack of checks and ballances...*shrug*

Gloer,

All I want is the expedient delivery of justice without undermining U.S. national security in the process. If this means that 30, 50 or 70% of the people being held are found innocent then all the better that we get it over in a manner that is fast and fair. One of the problems, and not directly related to the main problem but a problem none the less, is that Defending Lawyers don't like Fast and Fair...it makes them no money and scares them. Fast and Fair is not high on their lists because they like to attempt to drag evidence into trial that is so contravercial that judges have to get together with the National Security Agency to determine if it would undermine our national security to permit the whole world to see some aspect of our internal operations to make it part of the public record in a public court, staving off the possible guilty conviction for a few more days/weeks/months. They are, in matters like this, notorious for doing everything they can to keep the trial from happening in the first place. Look at Lockerbee and all the mechinations leading up to, and involved in, the trial of the men who planted the bomb on that jet...

I'm certainly not crying for a chopping block and assembly line executions in Cuba to do away with these people, but with the way the court system works it would be far better for these people if they have their trial in a Military Tribunal where their cases can be expidited so that if they are indeed innocent then they can get home and help in the building of their new government.

At this time the official legal designation of these prisoners is "Illegal Combatant", which is a definition created in the Geneva Convention. There is no overt attempt to railroad these people, much less sacrifice their fair trial for expediency. As a matter of fact the Defence Department lawyers are currently working the bugs out of the APPEALS process..hows THAT for a lack of Checks and Ballances?

__________________________________________________ _____________
01/11/2002 - Updated 01:02 AM ET
Reservist judges could hear terror appeals
By Toni Locy, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Alleged terrorists brought before U.S. military tribunals could appeal convictions to a panel of state and federal judges who also are reservists, according to a proposal being considered by Defense Department lawyers who are drafting rules for the tribunals.

Sources familiar with the lawyers' work say the proposed appellate panel would be separate from civilian and military appellate courts. There are about 140 federal, state, municipal and administrative law judges in the Army and Navy reserves, spokesmen say.
__________________________________________________ _______________

But still the presumption of so many is that Military Tribunals, by default, cannot be fair because they are not handled in the Public Courts, which only leads me back to that Kangaroo Court that ravaged justice and made a mockery of fair judicial practice that we held in 1948 in Nuernberg.

[Grond]

Gloer, it would have been perfectly legal for the USA to have declared war on Afghanistan after the 09/11/01 attacks. They were harboring the group that had, with the tacit approval of the Taliban, attacked and killed some 3000 people on U. S. soil. That is exactly what happened the last time an idenitifiable group of people did this to us in 1941.

We handled it differtly. We went to the world community. We were united in our determination that this type of behavior is unacceptable. Afghanistan was attacked and many people have died, both justly and unjustly. Military action is never a pretty thing and there are always civilion casualties. But the world must be an ordered place lest chaos reign. I would rather that freedom for all people reign. And Freedom has always come at a cost.

[Gloer]

I find it funny that USA has a consistent practice of avoiding official declarations of war. Not that it has any practical consequences to the actual warfare. Still USA could be honest and admit that the country is legally in a state of war with a regime or a state if that is a fact of life.

I recall that during Vietnam war USA did never declare it officially against North Vietnam which was a acknowledged country. I do not remember but I doubt that the Gulf War was preceded with a declaration of war.

And again now USA did not declare war (legally not, rhetorically yes). This time it is understandable since USA has not acknowledged the Taliban government as the legal representative of Afghanistan the state. (It would have been legally close the same to Canada declaring a war with the Republican party of the USA!)

Nevertheless after Pearl Harbour Japan was accused of "illegally" starting a war without a proper declaration. They missed declaring war by one hour.

Anyway it seems pretty idealistic to expect declarations of war etc procedures. Those manouvers belong to pre-Napoleonic ages when wars were fought according to an etiquette. Still there must be some benefits of not defining the legal status of the operations and the conflict. Maybe the fact that a war is too official and too "rigid" status for dynamic situations. If something goes wrong the operation can be finnished without an official defeat - maybe? "Loosing face" just does not sound like a material reason enough.

[Grond]

orignally quoted by Gloer
...If something goes wrong the operation can be finished without an official defeat - maybe? "Loosing face" just does not sound like a material reason enough.No Gloer, losing face has nothing to do with it. Losing more lives has everything to do with it. Rest assured that the U. S. Government will continue to fight the "Nazgul" of this world, where ever they may be. They cannot hide, they will be found. Argue all you want, listen to the drums..... "We are coming."

[Gloer]

I was only wondering about what are the reasons to avoid the legal definition of war whenever USA is taking part of a conflict. Could it be the risk of maybe failing in an official confrontation? Or is that USA wants to remain above minor adversaries with which it has a remote and restricted conflict? Or something else? Anyway, usually it appears to be a relief when US government manages to fight the war under the UN banner or finds another way around declaring open hostilities. What is so awkward about that?

Grond:
I rest assured that USA has the power to protect it's interests and also partially mine. Our countries share close economic ties through IT industries. A stable world is beneficial for economical advancement.

However I am not fooled to think USA is aiming to protect finnish interests any further than those interests are parallel to american ones. Please don't expect to be thanked and hailed for being the protector of the free world since you are acting as long as it serves your interests. At least the present Bush-government acts only on the basis of US interests. (Clinton did intervane in Bosnia and Kosovo in a conflict with a greater European than US interests. By the way: Kosovo operation had no legal foundation either. Thanks anyway.)

[Grond]

Gloer, I will bow out of the current political debate. I am too emotionally involved in the realities of the attacks and their aftermath to really think of anything other than bringing the guilty parties to justice. My mentality right now is probably more of an Old West lynch mob and can't be deemed logical in this argument. I have been a champion of "due process" in the past but the acts of 09/11 were so hienous that I doubt I will ever be able to react favorably to anyone of certain religions and ethnic backgrounds ever again. That is truly a disaster on a monumental scale. My (and many other American's) very psyche and intellect have been damaged to a degree to where my pre 09/11 values may be irrepairable.

I hope that justice can be done and the world restored to a more normal frame of mind. In posting to this thread, I have realized how intense is my anger, even today, almost five months after the evil deed. I apoligize for my offensive remarks and stance but the wound to me and my country is deep and blood still oozes.

[daisy]

Hey Grond, I haven't actually noticed anything offensive in your posts, especially seeing as this is a topic that is very sensitive and difficult.
I took a group of students to the American consulate on September 14th and the sidewlak was so full of people you could barely walk and there were all these letters from schoolchildren and drawings, and we all left an object that was important to us and a group of Canadians stood there and sang," America the Beautiful." I will never forget this.
We had 100,000 people on Parliament Hill - that's like, a huge part of our population, for a memorial service with your Ambassador. A moment of silence, the Star Spangled Banner.
We flew flags at half mast for a month.
Hundreds of schools started September 11th funds, including mine.

Canadians are emotionally and spiritually connected to Americans in a way that allies and neighbors can be. We ***** and whine and get irritated ( especially over that damn softwood lumber - let it go for God's sake) with your country often. But please, I hope you have not gotten the impression that we did not mourn for you, and continue to do so.

Where were you when you found out?

I was in the guidance office at my school and it was about 9:03 a.m. I was getting a file and the secretary had the radio on, and I just heard little parts of the broadcast and I walked like a zombie into my classroom and told my co-worker...and one hour later I had to stand in front of twenty-five grade nines and tell them.
I had to shield my daughter from the news and from my own grief, and I still do . She would take my hand and ask, " Did people die, mommy?"

It is by far the greatest tragedy of my lifetime...hopefully.

[Grond]

Daisy, I was in bed not feeling well on the morning of 09/11. My wife called from work to tell me of the first plane hitting the building. I turned on CNN and watched, horrified, as fifteen seconds or so later, the second plane flew into the other building. Images that will stay with me forever.

And I wasn't apologizing for being ugly, I was apoligizing for being unjust. My anger and my Nation's anger demand answers and justice. We need to make sure that we wait for the answers before we rush to dole out the justice.

[Gloer]

No offense taken. I myself often regret failing to take emotional aspects in consideration. It is better to feel free and able to express ones feelings over something than surpress them. So I wish you don't get offended. If my "reasoning" makes you feel that you should not express your emotions about the issue that is certainly not what I am aim at. No one could "reason" your feelings about 9/11 away anyway.

By the way ... On the 11th of September just before 6 pm I was lining up in my local McDonnalds outlet. There was a guy infront of me who asked for the TV remote and they couldn't find it first. It was irritating because I was hungry like a wolf and I needed my burger fast. Finally I got my burger, fries and coke and sat down. That TV -guy sat close to me and opened the TV and started surfing channels. I started watching too. There was a news text running across the lower part of the screen: " A terrorist attack in USA. An airplane has hit the WTC tower in New York. A special news broadcast at 18:30". And then he found a channel with a direct broad cast. There was a clear blue sky like a bluescreen...and a glass skyscraper...and then the plane just hit it ... and there was an explosion like in some movie. Suddenly I realised I had not eaten my burger and people in the restau rant started to gather arround the TV set. The fellow who had opened it explained that he did not own a TV but his friend had just send him an SMS message so he came to see it at McDonnalds.
I could not really believe what was happening because the next thing was the second plane hitting the other tower. And then the Pentagon plane and so on... I sent some messages to my girlfried my parents and friends. There was just nothing I could do and still I felt like doing something.

What I now find very nice is that when I heard of the news I was in the most american establishment I could possibly find: McDonnalds. That shows my colours quite clearly, right?

[Bill the Pony]

Grond, I just wanted to say that that was a very nice post, and I'm very impressed. I think it's very difficult to wait for the emotions to calm down a bit, and then make decisions. I wish I (and everybody in the world) was able to look at myself like you just did, and analyze why I do/say things.

[Dengen-Goroth]

Ah yes, Kosovo, the foul mistake of the Clinton administration. I am a Democrat, and quit a strong one at that, but feel that that was a very large mistake. And I would prefer if we did not go into the Incident to much,as in where you were and the like. Let's keep from that, the emotions evoked may be great and strong. Some may get a bit carried away, and I do not want to see any mis-placed hate here.

[daisy]

So, while people are having heated discussions about national policy and the legal system no problem but the moment we actually start to share some common experience - and do it well and with real meaning, it becomes too much? That's a little backwards isn't it?
Read the last four or five posts concerning where we were when we heard about the terrorist attacks. Are any of them disrespectful or attacking ? I felt that sharing this memory would point out our common reality.

[TheJospeh]

People who avoid strong passion--whether love, anger, hate, etc, etc--are "fake human beings".

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Grond]

Well TheJoseph, thank you for the compliment. It is apparent from our past debates that neither of us suffer from being "fake" human beings, even if I do like golf. :)