posted
politics/politicians suck, where as a vacuum is supposed to.....
Has the UN really made plans to invade the US??? If so, is it a bad thing???
The original state of consideration was probably made to gauge public opinion on if such a stupid thing would be acceptable... Which, on the surface, people would think, 'Yes, get them fucks!', then, if they actually think about it (which doesn't seem to be a great human passtime) they would think, 'Fuck no, then we are opening ourselves up for the same treatment, by letting them set such a precedent!'.....
The Nazis line of defense.... "I was just following orders."
The terrorists line of defense.... "Die you western devil."
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
"Hey, aren't y'all the ones always yelling about how court rulings ARE law, regardless of any superceeding law?"
I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly wouldn't say any such thing. (Incidentally, I also wouldn't misspell "superseding" in the process.)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
There is a difference between being opposed to something in general, and being opposed to something in its current form.
For instance: One need not be eternally opposed to a Court of International Law to be opposed to the current form it seems to be taking.
Or, one need not be opposed to the death penalty in general to be opposed to the way in which it is currently being administered.
OR, one need not be an atheist to disbelieve in the JudeoChristian version of "God."
These black and white either-or fallacies become very tiresome after a while. a Bad Idea may still contain elements which are Good Ideas.
In other words, despite the smokescreen, just because I don't like the current direction the World Court idea seems to be going in does NOT mean I reject all International tribunal decisions and activities.
I even support the concept of a world government... so long as it's more libertarian than authoritarian, and toward the center economically.
Back to topic: One of my sources seems to assert that the entire SS, including the Waffen SS, was tried and convicted in absentia. This would seem to support the precedent. Still waiting for more data.
quote:If in past tribunals, and I'm not saying it happened at Nuremburg, there were due process problems, how does that make it ok now?
Because people have been silent on the subject for 50 years. It's one of those 'you're protesting this, why aren't you protesting that? It's the same thing' things. Plus its amusing to imagine the looks on their faces when they realize that their position supports pardoning Nazis.
quote:If Omeychops can show that even one of those people, who has an opposing viewpoint to his, has ever expressed such an opinion regarding court rulings, then that means that every single one of these people who don't agree with him are wrong about everything, ever. Because he's never contradicted himself, and he's always right.
Funny, that's the same thing Jay is doing when he made his "since conservatives reject international action now, how can you now lay claim to past international adjudication?" speech.
Well, you at least left the part alone about the police warrant and being a "wannabe librarian" ... good for you.
One big difference is this, however. The Nazi officers tried were known to be members of the Nazi party. There was signifigant evidence of their crimes (like all those dead Jews), and that they were in charge. The Nuremberg Trials were more about how far one could be defended under "I was only obeying orders."
What we discuss here is completely different. How do we know that the men and women our government will haul before its tribunals are members of terrorist organizations WITHOUT evidence that they are?
posted
How do we know we're going to be hauling them without evidence?
I see a lot of assertions here of 'these people are going to be tried on no evidence,' but not even the original article seems to back that up.
It says they're having trouble gathering enough evidence to charge them with 'traditional' war crimes, but that's not the same as not having enough evidence to charge them with ANY crime.
If we DO consider "to have been a senior member or officer of a Qaeda unit that was involved in any of the regular crimes of war" as a crime (and given the precedent I discussed before, there's no reason we shouldn't), that's a different story. I don't think that there's any doubt that the folks being held at Guantanamo ARE officers (not necessarily high-ranking Osama confidantes, but officers nonetheless in the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda). IIRC, that was one of the qualifications to be shipped there rather than held in Afghanistan.
I'm assuming that there's evidence enough to support that particular charge, which is why the government is going with that. Actually, I suspect that particular evidence wouldn't be all that hard to come by. You could glean some every time one guy referred to another by rank, or took orders from him.
[ April 27, 2002, 08:56: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:I don't think that there's any doubt that the folks being held at Guantanamo ARE officers (not necessarily high-ranking Osama confidantes, but officers nonetheless in the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda). IIRC, that was one of the qualifications to be shipped there rather than held in Afghanistan.
What do you base this on?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. officials say privately that they expect only a small number of them will face charges before the tribunals; a larger number, they say, are likely to be detained indefinitely without being charged. That is because U.S. officials are having trouble obtaining information about the detainees, and most are turning out to be low-ranking fighters.
This is from a Washington post article that I posted on April 2 in the Topic: A shocking view of Military Tribunals from a Liberal Thread. The url to the article is there.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
I heard it on some news report, that the people being held at Guantanamo were primarily officers, or what passes for officers among the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. I forget exactly where. Perhaps I misheard, or perhaps I'm wrong. Or perhaps it's newer data.
Still, A lieutenant is an officer, but he isn't of high rank. (Or by Trek, an ensign is an officer, but he's hardly of high rank.)
[ April 27, 2002, 14:15: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Wait -- I thought the Taliban didn't HAVE officers or a chain of command! At least, isn't that what people were saying when some were wondering about the Geneva Convention?
posted
Uh, English major god-like being? If you'll excuse me for a second. "We've captured bin Laden's lieutenants" doesn't mean "We've captured bin Laden's low-ranking military officers."
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
I've checked, and you seem to have a variant that's considered incorrect. Another relic of the French, apparently.
As for the continued use of the Nürnberg trials as "precedent", what's next? The Star Chamber? The Spanish Inquisition?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I stand corrected. Looks like it squirmed into my MS Word dictionary.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It's not in mine either. We'll have to give this round to the Yank, Tom.
But never fear. We shall ultimately triumph!
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
