Tweet
wrong button
-
Last edited by Lefty Scaevola; December 4, 2003, 18:05.Gaius Mucius Scaevola Sinistra
Japher: "crap, did I just post in this thread?"
"Bloody hell, Lefty.....number one in my list of persons I have no intention of annoying, ever." Bugs ****ing Bunny
From a 6th grader who readily adpated to internet culture: "Pay attention now, because your opinions suck" -
"RE: UN charter of 1945. It does not outlaw war"
And I have not said so. Right to war (ius ad bellum) is terminus technicus for the unrestricted right of the state to start a war. That was abolished with the restrictions you mention.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Oerdin, are you trying to win the Joe ****** Prize for Legal Ignorance? If so, you're on a good track.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Nah, Oerdin is just cozying up to the Admin, trying to get a post at GITMO, rather than being detailed to Iraq.
"Prize for Legal Ignorance" Of course that is what I think about almost all the laymen who post here, with a few notable exceptions, and I have been retired from law since 1983.Last edited by Lefty Scaevola; November 6, 2003, 13:40.Gaius Mucius Scaevola Sinistra
Japher: "crap, did I just post in this thread?"
"Bloody hell, Lefty.....number one in my list of persons I have no intention of annoying, ever." Bugs ****ing Bunny
From a 6th grader who readily adpated to internet culture: "Pay attention now, because your opinions suck"Comment
-
I think he's on a mission of intellectual sabotage....
“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
****ed-up server dp....“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
This is just precious: a group of individuals uses methods outside accepted civilized practices and any measure of legality, and then their supporters cry foul when they are dealt with summarially. LOL. Here's an idea: How about not being an unlawful combatant in the first place?
Assessing their guilt is a different matter from them being detained as unlawful combatants, child or not. Its the actions of a faction of individuals that initiated this whole situation, anyway...Last edited by MrBaggins; November 6, 2003, 13:48.Comment
-
my main concern is, that some (or maybe even most) people in Gitmo have nothing to do with the accusations brought up here. I can´t think of any greater injustice than punishing someone for something he had never even thought of.
you can state a thousand times, that you don´t care for so called unlawful combatans, it doesn´t make the thing better as long as their guilt hasn´t been proven or at least linked.
if they even would be remotely guilty, then why do they get no trial? even a military tribunal would be better than nothing. so what does the Pentagon hide here?
my second concern is that a goverment, who says it only wants to spread freedom, justice, democracy and human rights, is not even able to care for these values in its own country. the world doesn´t want that kind of "freedom" as the world didn´t want Stalin´s, Hitler´s, Nero´s or Saddam´s "freedom".
my third concern is that this kind of policy will provoke even more terrorist attacks 911-style. that would only cause more innocent casualties. believing, that Gitmo would prevent future terrorist attacks is ridiculous.
the Bush goverment has zero credibility anymore. worldwide. not Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld, but the American people will pay the price for it.Last edited by oedo; November 6, 2003, 14:44.justice is mightComment
-
Guantanamo and Stalin/Hilter/Saddam et al aren't apples to apples.
Firstly, we aren't talking numerically significant numbers.
Secondly, whilst it might be utterly inconvienient (at least) for these folks, as long as they aren't physically harmed by the process, I have no moral objection. Better to harm the civil rights of a dozen people, who acted suspiciously enough to get caught, than to let one terrorist go free.
Thirdly, the attitude that detaining terrorists MIGHT cause more people to become terrorists, is irrelevant. Yes, outsiders MIGHT... but at least those terrorists detained absolutely WONT. Plus, intelligence gained from them can be used to infiltrate and destroy the secretive organizations.Comment
-
"people, who acted suspiciously enough to get caught"
Well there are obvious problems with that standard. Not to mention that even that standard is not subject to review.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Right. The problem with having full judicial process for terrorists, is that they work outside the system, and subvert it wherever possible.
If you have a full system of checks and balances, and a generous commitee to oversee things, you'll catch no-one, and the terrorists will go on their merry way, killing civilians, unchecked.
One terrorist working outside the system necessitates a new less resistrictive (or unrestricted) system to deal with that.Comment
-
Every criminal works "outside the system". Also, the higher efficiency of police state methods is highly questionable.
As for "checks and balances, and a generous commitee", I can't comment because I have no idea what that is supposed to mean in the given context.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Not quite. The system had been perfectly fine dealing with existing criminal behavior. The regular kind based on personal or corporate greed, revenge or insanity.
Terrorists commit crimes against random targets based on a ideology.
Its the fact that they are non-discriminating that are the problems.
The organization that they've set up are "at war" with a nation... but there is no target to fight back at, except for these individuals.
So... the response is to go after individuals. You don't *know* they are terrorist until after you've interrogated them and others. And you can't let them have access to outsiders, either.Comment
-
your normal criminal can be dealt with by the police. Some, like organized crime are capable of intimidating the police and much of the Judicial system. To deal with that various states have adopted techniques that go beyong what they use with ordinary criminals. In the US that has included laws against "conspiracy" that go beyond the limit of traditional criminal law.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Every criminal works "outside the system". Also, the higher efficiency of police state methods is highly questionable.
.
Just as large scale organized crime goes beyond ordinary crime, large scale global terrorism has unique aspects. Responses must reflect that.
Just as in the case of organized crime that does not mean there should be NO restrictions on the state. And indeed there continue to be numerous restriction on the US. Where those restrictions should lie is a legitimate subject for democratic debate."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
lord of the mark> I agree.Comment
Comment