Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 23 Jan 2007 12:15 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:a9ef5$45b618fb$4fe7715$22595(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > <snip> >> >> This is an argument heading down a moral maze. If this is true, then the >> prisoners must be detained and treated in a manner fully in keeping with >> the law. Chaining them in the foetal position is not in keeping with the >> law. > > Cite please, of Cuban law. > >>>That law is different from place to place. > >> Do you mean to say that American soldiers / government representatives in >> foreign countries are not bound by American laws? > > They are bound by local laws. If we didn't observe local laws > we'd insult the host country. > As an aside, despite your odd idea that because GTMO is on Cuban soil, the US Naval Base does not have to follow US legislation it seems the US Supreme Court think otherwise: In litigation regarding the availability of fundamental rights to those imprisoned at the base, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the detainees "have been imprisoned in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control." Therefore, the detainees have the fundamental right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. A district court has since held that the "Geneva Conventions applied to the Taliban detainees, but not to members of al Qaeda terrorist organization." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Detention_of_prisoners)
From: T Wake on 23 Jan 2007 12:17 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ep54j0$8qk_002(a)s826.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ca129$45b603e6$4fe7715$22116(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: <snip> >> >>I hear nothing in this thread other than America bashing at >>every turn. Perhaps you both need to take a look at your >>motivations because they sure don't rise to any "standard" >>of reasonability. > > That America bashing got started with the Democrat leadership > doing Bush bashing in their speeches overseas. The reason > they are insane is they never have considered the consequences > of these foreigners doing the natural thing by substituting > the words 'USA' or 'America' for 'Bush'. > You really cant help yourself making some US political reference can you? You are fixated with President Bush being the great hope, aren't you? By the way, the "American bashing" is largely a figment of the imagination as well, and seems to stem from the school of thought that if you disagree with policy X you must be insulting the country.
From: T Wake on 23 Jan 2007 12:21 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:b1307$45b61972$4fe7715$22595(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:7f314$45b60722$4fe7715$22176(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>><snip preamble> >>> >>>>Yet here we have an example of how it is still fraught with problems. My >>>>parents were also in touch with what went on, but certainly in an age >>>>before the Internet (before TV in the UK), their knowledge and >>>>understanding of what went on in the colonies and elsewhere was biased. >>> >>>Time has no hold on bias. People are just as biased about >>>an event that happened 5 minutes ago as one that happened >>>36,500 days ago. Your persistent America bashing shows your >>>bias despite the internet and TV, so it isn't a communications >>>and information issue. > > Here you conveniently jump subjects... Really? Does your paragraph not end with "Your persistent America bashing shows your bias despite the internet and TV, so it isn't a communications and information issue." I am sorry if that means "I" am jumping subjects but it strikes me that all I have done is respond to your last comment. The earlier bit becomes irrelevant as I realise you are fixated on people "bashing America." (Even when it is not happening). >> It is a shame you think I am bashing America. I think America has a lot >> going for it and should be prepared to live up to the high standards. >> >> Your comments seem to imply America is a barbaric nation, where suspected >> criminals are denied their rights and convicted prisoners are treated in >> an arbritrarily cruel manner. But I am the one bashing America. >> >> Oh well. >> >> >>>>>I have every reason to believe that there are lots of people >>>>>in the middle east with a similar history, and at my age we >>>>>tend to be community leaders. 100 year old history is pertinent >>>>>to today. >>> >>>>>>Lawrence was there stirring up the currently existing issues the >>>>>>tribes in the region had, so blaming him is a bit arbitrary. >>> >>>>>That's what we call a copout. That there were pre-existing >>>>>issues is true enough, but that Lawrence didn't increase the >>>>>problems isn't a realistic conclusion. >>> >>>>Well, here we hit an impasse. I say it is bad practice to make >>>>judgements like this based on an arbritrary date in the past, and you >>>>seem to want to use it when you get to pick the dates and >>>>interpretation. >>> >>>Then there's never any discussion to be had because whether we >>>speak of 5 minutes ago, or 5 hours ago, or 5 days ago, or 5000 >>>days ago, or even 36,500 days ago we encounter exactly the same >>>problem. >>> >>>Yet clearly we have discussions, so the premise must be flawed. >> >> >> No, the conclusion is flawed. I said it was bad practice to make >> judgements not that there could never be any discussion. >> >> >>>>>He also showed the >>>>>Arabs of the day how to beat the British Army, not a very >>>>>cool move then or now. This is kind of like the 4 minute >>>>>mile. Once someone did it it became commonplace. Until that >>>>>time, it was considered an insurmountable barrier. >>> >>>>The British Army had been beaten many times prior to this. >>> >>>But the Arabs sure didn't know that and didn't have any of the >>>tools to do it with. >> >> Actually they did. > > The ones Lawrence helped them to take away from the Turks.
From: Eeyore on 23 Jan 2007 12:23 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote > >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote > >>>T Wake wrote: > >>>>"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote > >>>>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>I thought he was referring to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners taken by > the US >>>>>>forces, and the treatment of people at Guantanamo. I may be > wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>>Yes exactly. The US needs to hold to its standards in what it does. > >>> > >>>Armchair philosophers emerged again. > >> > >> > >> And you consider yourself something different? > >> > >>>The "standard" is what the law allows, nothing more, nothing less. > >> > >> This is an argument heading down a moral maze. If this is true, then the > >> prisoners must be detained and treated in a manner fully in keeping with > >> the law. Chaining them in the foetal position is not in keeping with the > >> law. > > > > Cite please, of Cuban law. > > GTMO is a US Military institution. It is not subject to Cuban law. It is not > run by Cuban officials. The detainees are not interrogated by Cubans. > > Can you cite where in Cuban law the US FBI have the right to inspect > detention centres? Where indeed does Cuban Law allow for the existence of private prisons ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 23 Jan 2007 12:26
T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > >T Wake wrote: > >> > >> This is an argument heading down a moral maze. If this is true, then the > >> prisoners must be detained and treated in a manner fully in keeping with > >> the law. Chaining them in the foetal position is not in keeping with the > >> law. > > > > Cite please, of Cuban law. > > > >>>That law is different from place to place. > > > >> Do you mean to say that American soldiers / government representatives in > >> foreign countries are not bound by American laws? > > > > They are bound by local laws. If we didn't observe local laws > > we'd insult the host country. > > As an aside, despite your odd idea that because GTMO is on Cuban soil, the > US Naval Base does not have to follow US legislation it seems the US Supreme > Court think otherwise: > > In litigation regarding the availability of fundamental rights to those > imprisoned at the base, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the > detainees "have been imprisoned in territory over which the United States > exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control." Therefore, the detainees have > the fundamental right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. A > district court has since held that the "Geneva Conventions applied to the > Taliban detainees, but not to members of al Qaeda terrorist organization." > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Detention_of_prisoners) That sounds pretty logical. The Taliban should be treated as POWs and the Al Qaeda suspects as private individuals. Graham |