A Naive Question
TedTheCat
Saddam out of power and to end the threat from his weapons of mass
destruction. Then, that cause for war evaporated away. Next,
the reason for war mutated to the need to create a democracy in the
middle of the Arabic Islamic Middle East. As far as I know that
remains the current policy justification for the war. Make Iraq a
democracy.
So the USA invade Iraq in March 2003, defeated the opposition,
administered the conquered people, and finally built a government for a
new Iraq. In October 2005 the Iraqi people approved a new
constitution and in December a national parliament was elected.
Constitution. Elections. Parliament. Democracy.
Now, news stories report that 70% of the people in Iraq want the USA
to get out of their country and leave it to the IRaqis.
If the reason why the USA went to Iraq was to make it a democracy,
and if a democratic government has been created, and if 70% of the
people of Iraqis want us to leave . , , why don't we?
I propose that the USA ask the Iraqi government to schedule a
plediscite maybe six months off in the future with appropriate choices
on the ballot for the USA to stay or to leave. U.N. and international
monitors should be brouhgt in to ensure a fair election.
If a democratic election by the free people of Iraq votes to send the
US military home then the USA should respect the verdict of democracy.
Why can't the USA do this?
Dana Carpender
TedTheCat wrote:
> So, the oriigional reason why the USA went to war in Iraq was to throw
> Saddam out of power and to end the threat from his weapons of mass
> destruction. Then, that cause for war evaporated away. Next,
> the reason for war mutated to the need to create a democracy in the
> middle of the Arabic Islamic Middle East. As far as I know that
> remains the current policy justification for the war. Make Iraq a
> democracy.
>
>
While we erode fundamental freedoms here. I find it bitterly ironic
that we're "bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq" (not that I ever
believed that) while doing away with habeas corpus at home.
Dana
Dana Carpender
TedTheCat wrote:
Because it doesn't leave us in control?
Dana
Scott P
wrote:
Because the real reason for the war was to create a giant funnel that
pumps billions of tax payer dollars into the private sector. As long
as the cash keeps flowing it ain't ever gonna end.
Scott
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
You mean habeas corpus for the enemy. The US has very little recent
experience with being the battlefield. If you go back to the American
Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Suspension_during_the_Civil_War_and_Reconstruction
#begin quote
Habeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861, during the American Civil
War by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states,
including southern Indiana. He did so in response to riots, local
militia actions and the threat that the Southern slave state of Maryland
would secede from the Union leaving the nation's capital, Washington,
D.C., in the south. He was also motivated by requests by generals to set
up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and
those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause.
#end quote
The issue today is how to hold enemy combatants while still protecting
the rights of everyone else.
--
"You know I have ninety four percent recall of all conversations?"
"Ninety four percent?"
"I've tested myself.", Philip Seymour Hoffman, 'Capote'
Richard Evans
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> While we erode fundamental freedoms here. I find it bitterly ironic
>> that we're "bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq" (not that I ever
>> believed that) while doing away with habeas corpus at home.
>>
>You mean habeas corpus for the enemy.
For infinitely vague definitions of "enemy."
xho...@gmail.com
> So, the oriigional reason why the USA went to war in Iraq was to throw
> Saddam out of power and to end the threat from his weapons of mass
> destruction. Then, that cause for war evaporated away. Next,
> the reason for war mutated to the need to create a democracy in the
> middle of the Arabic Islamic Middle East. As far as I know that
> remains the current policy justification for the war. Make Iraq a
> democracy.
>
> So the USA invade Iraq in March 2003, defeated the opposition,
> administered the conquered people, and finally built a government for a
> new Iraq. In October 2005 the Iraqi people approved a new
> constitution and in December a national parliament was elected.
> Constitution. Elections. Parliament. Democracy.
>
> Now, news stories report that 70% of the people in Iraq want the USA
> to get out of their country and leave it to the IRaqis.
Has Iraq's parliment and prime minister/president asked for US troups to
leave Iraq? Does Iraq's new constitution call for the parliament, chosen
democratically via elections, to be ignored in favor of whatever some news
stories report that some percentage of the Iraqi people want?
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Finding a way to define the ememy without including anyone else is what
the goal is.
Richard Evans
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Richard Evans wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
>> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> While we erode fundamental freedoms here. I find it bitterly ironic
>> >> that we're "bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq" (not that I ever
>> >> believed that) while doing away with habeas corpus at home.
>> >>
>> >You mean habeas corpus for the enemy.
>>
>> For infinitely vague definitions of "enemy."
>>
>Finding a way to define the ememy without including anyone else is what
>the goal is.
That should have been resolved before the law was passed. No sign that
the current administration has been able to do so up until now, no
incentive whatever to do so now. An enemy is simply whoever the
administration so designates.
Dana Carpender
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?') wrote:
>
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>TedTheCat wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So, the oriigional reason why the USA went to war in Iraq was to throw
>>>Saddam out of power and to end the threat from his weapons of mass
>>>destruction. Then, that cause for war evaporated away. Next,
>>>the reason for war mutated to the need to create a democracy in the
>>>middle of the Arabic Islamic Middle East. As far as I know that
>>>remains the current policy justification for the war. Make Iraq a
>>>democracy.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>While we erode fundamental freedoms here. I find it bitterly ironic
>>that we're "bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq" (not that I ever
>>believed that) while doing away with habeas corpus at home.
>>
>
> You mean habeas corpus for the enemy.
With no proof that they're the enemy, nor need to prove it. If you
can't see the danger in that, and that it's a fundamental assault on
freedom, you're profoundly stupid.
Dana
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Richard Evans wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Richard Evans wrote:
> >>
> >> "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
> >> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> While we erode fundamental freedoms here. I find it bitterly ironic
> >> >> that we're "bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq" (not that I ever
> >> >> believed that) while doing away with habeas corpus at home.
> >> >>
> >> >You mean habeas corpus for the enemy.
> >>
> >> For infinitely vague definitions of "enemy."
> >>
> >Finding a way to define the ememy without including anyone else is what
> >the goal is.
>
> That should have been resolved before the law was passed. No sign that
> the current administration has been able to do so up until now, no
> incentive whatever to do so now. An enemy is simply whoever the
> administration so designates.
>
You can't be designated an illegal combatant for shoplifting Velveeta.
So there is something approaching a definition going on here.
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
If you can't see that some means to detain the enemy when the
battlefield is within the United States is required, I think questioning
your intelligence is in order. Treating a war like it's a police problem
is exactly not going to work.
Guy
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
news:451F3B57...@yahoo.co.uk...
>
>
> Richard Evans wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
>> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Richard Evans wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
>> >> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> While we erode fundamental freedoms here. I find it bitterly
>> >> >> ironic
>> >> >> that we're "bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq" (not that I
>> >> >> ever
>> >> >> believed that) while doing away with habeas corpus at home.
>> >> >>
>> >> >You mean habeas corpus for the enemy.
>> >>
>> >> For infinitely vague definitions of "enemy."
>> >>
>> >Finding a way to define the ememy without including anyone else is what
>> >the goal is.
>>
>> That should have been resolved before the law was passed. No sign that
>> the current administration has been able to do so up until now, no
>> incentive whatever to do so now. An enemy is simply whoever the
>> administration so designates.
>>
> You can't be designated an illegal combatant for shoplifting Velveeta.
Says who? As I understand it, you have freedom at the pleasure of the
President. If something you do displeases him, you can be declared an enemy
combatant.
danny burstein
[ snip ]
>If you can't see that some means to detain the enemy when the
>battlefield is within the United States is required, I think questioning
>your intelligence is in order. Treating a war like it's a police problem
>is exactly not going to work.
treading gently on Godwin, but it's a valid comparison:
"Victory in Europe Day" = 08-May-1945
The Nuremberg trials - the PUBLIC Nuremberg Trials, begin (depending
on your exact definition of a start date) October or November, 1945.
So... less than a half year after Goering, etc., are grabbed,
there's a PUBLIC trial.
How long should one of these new detainees
have to wait for at least the basics ?
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
And you get that because the Dirty Bomber and some nut with a bomb built
into his shoe to blow up an airplane got so defined? Where are the
shoplifter enemy combatants?
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
danny burstein wrote:
>
> In <451F415F...@yahoo.co.uk> "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> [ snip ]
>
> >If you can't see that some means to detain the enemy when the
> >battlefield is within the United States is required, I think questioning
> >your intelligence is in order. Treating a war like it's a police problem
> >is exactly not going to work.
>
> treading gently on Godwin, but it's a valid comparison:
>
> "Victory in Europe Day" = 08-May-1945
>
> The Nuremberg trials - the PUBLIC Nuremberg Trials, begin (depending
> on your exact definition of a start date) October or November, 1945.
>
> So... less than a half year after Goering, etc., are grabbed,
> there's a PUBLIC trial.
>
> How long should one of these new detainees
> have to wait for at least the basics ?
>
But that's because the enemy capitulated. Nazis who were caught in
combat areas were held until the end of the war.
Erich
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
> Dana Carpender wrote:
> >
> > Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?') wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Dana Carpender wrote:
> > >
> > >>TedTheCat wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>So, the oriigional reason why the USA went to war in Iraq was to throw
> > >>>Saddam out of power and to end the threat from his weapons of mass
> > >>>destruction. Then, that cause for war evaporated away. Next,
> > >>>the reason for war mutated to the need to create a democracy in the
> > >>>middle of the Arabic Islamic Middle East. As far as I know that
> > >>>remains the current policy justification for the war. Make Iraq a
> > >>>democracy.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>While we erode fundamental freedoms here. I find it bitterly ironic
> > >>that we're "bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq" (not that I ever
> > >>believed that) while doing away with habeas corpus at home.
> > >>
> > >
> > > You mean habeas corpus for the enemy.
> >
> > With no proof that they're the enemy, nor need to prove it. If you
> > can't see the danger in that, and that it's a fundamental assault on
> > freedom, you're profoundly stupid.
> >
> If you can't see that some means to detain the enemy when the
> battlefield is within the United States is required, I think questioning
> your intelligence is in order. Treating a war like it's a police problem
> is exactly not going to work.
So how does this work? First we declare a global war on terror, then we
declare the war is going on inside the United States, then we start
discarding freedom, liberty and the checks and balances that our nation
has cherished for over 200 years?
--
Erich
Nostradamus
<inf...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
><tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Richard Evans wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
>>> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> While we erode fundamental freedoms here. I find it bitterly ironic
>>> >> that we're "bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq" (not that I ever
>>> >> believed that) while doing away with habeas corpus at home.
>>> >>
>>> >You mean habeas corpus for the enemy.
>>>
>>> For infinitely vague definitions of "enemy."
>>>
>>Finding a way to define the ememy without including anyone else is what
>>the goal is.
>
>That should have been resolved before the law was passed. No sign that
>the current administration has been able to do so up until now, no
>incentive whatever to do so now. An enemy is simply whoever the
>administration so designates.
Not really a big problem. They just refer to the enemies list.
Greg Goss
>> > You can't be designated an illegal combatant for shoplifting Velveeta.
>>
>> Says who? As I understand it, you have freedom at the pleasure of the
>> President. If something you do displeases him, you can be declared an enemy
>> combatant.
>>
>And you get that because the Dirty Bomber and some nut with a bomb built
>into his shoe to blow up an airplane got so defined? Where are the
>shoplifter enemy combatants?
There was no evidence whatsoever that Padilla was a "Dirty Bomber".
No trial, no evidence. Just assertions by the administration that he
was evil. That is enough in today's America.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Pushmi-Pullyu
xho...@gmail.com wrote:
> Has Iraq's parliment and prime minister/president asked for US troups to
> leave Iraq? Does Iraq's new constitution call for the parliament, chosen
> democratically via elections, to be ignored in favor of whatever some news
> stories report that some percentage of the Iraqi people want?
>
> Xho
Hence the plebiscite.
P
Ryan Robbins
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
news:451F227C...@yahoo.co.uk...
> You mean habeas corpus for the enemy. The US has very little recent
> experience with being the battlefield.
There is no war going on here in the States, despite what the Bush
administration would like us to believe. One attack by a terrorist
organization does not a war make.
Guillermo el Gato
wouldn't that be nice?')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Treating a war like it's a police problem
>is exactly not going to work.
Maybe treating a police problem like a war is the real issue here.
Guillermo el Gato
Check.
then we
>declare the war is going on inside the United States,
Check.
then we start
>discarding freedom, liberty and the checks and balances that our nation
>has cherished for over 200 years?
Check.
It's the question of what happens next. Prepare yourself for some
kind of mixture between _1984_ and a PNAC policy document.
Opus the Penguin
Yeah, but the point is the lack of that big word you just used doesn't
make Iraq non-democratic. A lot of people in the US might like an
immediate referendum here on our occupation of Iraq. And that
referendum might have a different outcome from the decisions of Bush &
Co. The fact that we haven't had such a referendum and aren't going to
doesn't make us non-democratic.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Patrick M Geahan
> You mean habeas corpus for the enemy.
The enemy is who habeas corpus is *for*. Without habeas corpus(or
any other right) for people we disagree with, there's no point
in having it at all.
--
-------Patrick M Geahan---...@thepatcave.org---ICQ:3784715------
"You know, this is how the sum total of human knowledge is increased.
Not with idle speculation and meaningless chatter, but with a
medium-sized hammer and some free time." - spa...@pffcu.com, a.f.c-a
Dana Carpender
Don't have one at this point that I'm aware of, but of course, we
wouldn't be aware. I don't worry about shoplifters. I worry about war
protesters and outspoken critics of this administration.
Dana
Peter Boulding
wrote in <Yp-dnV_vQ85_SYLY...@insightbb.com>:
>I don't worry about shoplifters. I worry about war
>protesters and outspoken critics of this administration.
And, per the released portions of the April NIE, "leftists" and
"anti-globalization protestors".
--
Regards
Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
Peter Boulding
wrote in <bZydnTJeAeSQo4LY...@insightbb.com>:
>Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?') wrote:
<snip>
>If you can't see the danger in that, and that it's a fundamental assault on
>freedom, you're profoundly stupid.
And your point?
Peter Boulding
wrote in <m5LTg.444$If3.86@trnddc07>:
>There is no war going on here in the States, despite what the Bush
>administration would like us to believe. One attack by a terrorist
>organization does not a war make.
Don't fall into the Neocon/Bushie trap: there are bound to be further
terrorist attacks on the US and/or US interests, but *no* amount of
terrorist attacks make any kind of war other than as a "war on drugs" style
metaphor.
Such attacks represent more or less serious terrorism problem, not a war,
and they cannot be countered with armies. The United States is not currently
involved in a war anywhere, nor has been for several years - unless you
count a civil war.
If you continue - as you have done for some time - to allow your president
to define terrorism as a war that allows him to revoke the very civil
liberties that are the cornerstone of democracy, Godwin's law will have to
be suspended indefinitely; as of last Friday it would be ludicrously
hypocritical for any US citizen to invoke it.
Glenn Dowdy
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>>
> And you get that because the Dirty Bomber and some nut with a bomb built
> into his shoe to blow up an airplane got so defined? Where are the
> shoplifter enemy combatants?
>
And let someone post a recipe for explosives using Velveeta as the base and
shoplifters _will_ be treated as enemy combatants and terrorists.
_Toothpaste_ became a suspicious substance.
Glenn D.
Mary
It's a step in the wrong direction, though.
I do think that the W Administration is reasonably delusional about the
outcome of the Iraq war. Bring democracy to the region? Aren't these
people noting what the Iraqis are voting FOR?
Mary
Blinky the Shark
> And let someone post a recipe for explosives using Velveeta as the base and
> shoplifters _will_ be treated as enemy combatants and terrorists.
> _Toothpaste_ became a suspicious substance.
You'll wonder where the Boeing went
When you stuff your bomb with Pepsodent
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Richard Evans
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> That should have been resolved before the law was passed. No sign that
>> the current administration has been able to do so up until now, no
>> incentive whatever to do so now. An enemy is simply whoever the
>> administration so designates.
>>
>You can't be designated an illegal combatant for shoplifting Velveeta.
Once habeas corpus is gone, you certainly can, and there is no way to
contest the action.
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Habeas corpus isn't gone. The idea is to allow the holding of terror
suspects, not shoplifters.
Richard Evans
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Richard Evans wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
>> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> That should have been resolved before the law was passed. No sign that
>> >> the current administration has been able to do so up until now, no
>> >> incentive whatever to do so now. An enemy is simply whoever the
>> >> administration so designates.
>> >>
>> >You can't be designated an illegal combatant for shoplifting Velveeta.
>>
>> Once habeas corpus is gone, you certainly can, and there is no way to
>> contest the action.
>>
>Habeas corpus isn't gone. The idea is to allow the holding of terror
>suspects, not shoplifters.
Man, are you really that dense? Without HC, a terror suspect is anyone
BushCo says it is. Forget your trivial example of shoplifters,
Consider the very real possibility of imprisoning war protestors,
journalists who oppose the administration, dissidents of any kind. And
you and your ilk will sit on the sidelines cheering as long as they
don't come for you.
This country is only one postponed election away from becoming a
totalitarian state.
Dana Carpender
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?') wrote:
>
> Richard Evans wrote:
>
>>"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
>><tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>That should have been resolved before the law was passed. No sign that
>>>>the current administration has been able to do so up until now, no
>>>>incentive whatever to do so now. An enemy is simply whoever the
>>>>administration so designates.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You can't be designated an illegal combatant for shoplifting Velveeta.
>>
>>Once habeas corpus is gone, you certainly can, and there is no way to
>>contest the action.
>>
>
> Habeas corpus isn't gone. The idea is to allow the holding of terror
> suspects, not shoplifters.
But Bush gets to decide who is a terror suspect, with no one to say him
nay. And I repeat, no one's worried about shoplifters. We're worried
about outspoken critics of the administration being declared "enemies of
the state."
Dana
Richard Evans
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>Habeas corpus isn't gone. The idea is to allow the holding of terror
>suspects, not shoplifters.
Consider this dialog (paraphrased from memory) from "A Man for All
Seasons"
Norfolk: In pursuit of the Devil I would strike down every law in the
land.
Sir Thomas More: And where will you hide when all the laws are down
and the Devil turns 'round on you?
Peter Boulding
<glenn...@commiecast.net> wrote in
<jfednexcVokqfoLY...@comcast.com>:
>let someone post a recipe for explosives using Velveeta as the base
Now I have to worry about exploding toilet paper.
Bill Turlock
>
> "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > You mean habeas corpus for the enemy.
>
> The enemy is who habeas corpus is *for*. Without habeas corpus(or
> any other right) for people we disagree with, there's no point
> in having it at all.
>
> --
> -------Patrick M Geahan---
Bravo!
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
If this is a real problem, then agitate to have it fixed but to claim
that the US can't hold illegal combatants until the war is over is
silly.
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Why do you keep making these silly claims?
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
This is the argument. You think that 9/11 was a police problem. I think
it's a war.
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
They killed almost 3000 Americans in one day. They knocked down two huge
buildings and caused at least one other to collapse. They attacked the
Pentagon. What would it take to make it a war?
Dana Carpender
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?') wrote:
> Why do you keep making these silly claims?
>
>
Because Bush and Co have made serious inroads on freedoms long
considered fundamental. And because Bush has declared that he speaks
for God, made it clear that he considers himself infallible, stated that
he need not explain his decisions to anyone, and refused to listen to
anyone who disagrees with him.
Dana
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Greg Goss wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > You can't be designated an illegal combatant for shoplifting Velveeta.
> >>
> >> Says who? As I understand it, you have freedom at the pleasure of the
> >> President. If something you do displeases him, you can be declared an enemy
> >> combatant.
> >>
> >And you get that because the Dirty Bomber and some nut with a bomb built
> >into his shoe to blow up an airplane got so defined? Where are the
> >shoplifter enemy combatants?
>
> There was no evidence whatsoever that Padilla was a "Dirty Bomber".
> No trial, no evidence. Just assertions by the administration that he
> was evil. That is enough in today's America.
>
You are equating "no trial" with "no evidence".
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
The US has about the most robust free speech rights in the world.
Richard Evans
>> Don't have one at this point that I'm aware of, but of course, we
>> wouldn't be aware. I don't worry about shoplifters. I worry about war
>> protesters and outspoken critics of this administration.
>>
>The US has about the most robust free speech rights in the world.
Which rest on the basis of laws like habeas corpus. Dismantle the
laws, the free speech disappears.
Richard Evans
>> There is no war going on here in the States, despite what the Bush
>> administration would like us to believe. One attack by a terrorist
>> organization does not a war make.
>>
>They killed almost 3000 Americans in one day. They knocked down two huge
>buildings and caused at least one other to collapse. They attacked the
>Pentagon. What would it take to make it a war?
An attack by a recognized state, rather than a band of hooligans? By
your definition, Tim McVey conducted a war against the U.S. by bombing
a federal building.
Tim Bradshaw
> If this is a real problem, then agitate to have it fixed but to claim
> that the US can't hold illegal combatants until the war is over is
> silly.
Was a war declared?
Tim Bradshaw
> They killed almost 3000 Americans in one day. They knocked down two huge
> buildings and caused at least one other to collapse. They attacked the
> Pentagon. What would it take to make it a war?
A declaration of war.
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
A non-state actor isn't just one or two crazy guys with an ANFO bomb. Al
Qaeda was running Afghanistan, at least the part nominally controlled by
the Taliban. That they weren't a legitimate government doesn't mean that
you can't be at war with them. Do you think the history of mankind
hasn't been filled with wars between groups that didn't believe each
other was a recognized sovereign?
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Dana Carpender wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?') wrote:
> > Why do you keep making these silly claims?
> >
> >
>
> Because Bush and Co have made serious inroads on freedoms long
> considered fundamental.
>
Like what? You are still talking publicly and not worried about being
sent to Gitmo.
> And because Bush has declared that he speaks
> for God, made it clear that he considers himself infallible,
>
Bush never said he was ex cathedra.
> stated that
> he need not explain his decisions to anyone, and refused to listen to
> anyone who disagrees with him.
>
I don't know what you are referring to.
Richard Evans
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>A non-state actor isn't just one or two crazy guys with an ANFO bomb. Al
>Qaeda was running Afghanistan, at least the part nominally controlled by
>the Taliban. That they weren't a legitimate government doesn't mean that
>you can't be at war with them. Do you think the history of mankind
>hasn't been filled with wars between groups that didn't believe each
>other was a recognized sovereign?
History has also been filled with groups who routinely committed rape,
pillage, and torture and allowed no rights of habeas corpus. Doesn't
make it the standard for this situation. Please try to confine your
arguments to life in the U.S. in the 21st century.
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
What is wrong with you people? Habeas corpus isn't for prisoners of war.
Good grief!
Dana Carpender
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?') wrote:
>
> Greg Goss wrote:
>
>>"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
>><tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>You can't be designated an illegal combatant for shoplifting Velveeta.
>>>>
>>>>Says who? As I understand it, you have freedom at the pleasure of the
>>>>President. If something you do displeases him, you can be declared an enemy
>>>>combatant.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And you get that because the Dirty Bomber and some nut with a bomb built
>>>into his shoe to blow up an airplane got so defined? Where are the
>>>shoplifter enemy combatants?
>>
>>There was no evidence whatsoever that Padilla was a "Dirty Bomber".
>>No trial, no evidence. Just assertions by the administration that he
>>was evil. That is enough in today's America.
>>
>
> You are equating "no trial" with "no evidence".
If there was evidence, why no trial?
Dana
>
>
>
>
Dana Carpender
Really? More than Canada? More than England? More than Sweden?
Australia? Finland?
Can't speak to this moment, but 20 years back, my British boyfriend told
me he'd lived in England (of course,) the US, Canada, Venezuela,
Australia, South Africa, Iran (during the reign of Shah Reza Palahvi,)
and -- darn, it was some Scandinavian nation, Denmark or Norway I think.
He said that the US had far and away the most controlled media of any
nation he'd ever lived in. I thought that telling.
Dana
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Because a trial would expose means and operational details which could
compromise future investigations.
Dana Carpender
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?') wrote:
>
> Bill Turlock wrote:
>
>>Patrick M Geahan wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You mean habeas corpus for the enemy.
>>>
>>>The enemy is who habeas corpus is *for*. Without habeas corpus(or
>>>any other right) for people we disagree with, there's no point
>>>in having it at all.
>>>
>>>--
>>>-------Patrick M Geahan---
>>
>>Bravo!
>>
>
> What is wrong with you people? Habeas corpus isn't for prisoners of war.
> Good grief!
Give me an *explicit* definition of "prisoners of war" in The War On
Terror. Better yet, find me an explicit definition from the Bush
administration.
Dana
Dana Carpender
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?') wrote:
>
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?') wrote:
>>
>>>Why do you keep making these silly claims?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Because Bush and Co have made serious inroads on freedoms long
>>considered fundamental.
>>
>
> Like what? You are still talking publicly and not worried about being
> sent to Gitmo.
>
It's been less than a week since they gutted habeas corpus. I hardly
think we can know yet where this will go in the next two years.
>
>
>>And because Bush has declared that he speaks
>>for God, made it clear that he considers himself infallible,
>>
>
> Bush never said he was ex cathedra.
>
>
>
>>stated that
>>he need not explain his decisions to anyone, and refused to listen to
>>anyone who disagrees with him.
>>
>
> I don't know what you are referring to.
I know, Bill. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't know
anything you don't want to know. You and Bush are soulmates that way.
Dana
Erich
Richard Evans <inf...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Richard Evans wrote:
> >>
> >> "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
> >> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> That should have been resolved before the law was passed. No sign that
> >> >> the current administration has been able to do so up until now, no
> >> >> incentive whatever to do so now. An enemy is simply whoever the
> >> >> administration so designates.
> >> >>
> >> >You can't be designated an illegal combatant for shoplifting Velveeta.
> >>
> >> Once habeas corpus is gone, you certainly can, and there is no way to
> >> contest the action.
> >>
> >Habeas corpus isn't gone. The idea is to allow the holding of terror
> >suspects, not shoplifters.
>
> Man, are you really that dense? Without HC, a terror suspect is anyone
> BushCo says it is. Forget your trivial example of shoplifters,
> Consider the very real possibility of imprisoning war protestors,
> journalists who oppose the administration, dissidents of any kind. And
> you and your ilk will sit on the sidelines cheering as long as they
> don't come for you.
It's already happening to journalists in Iraq.
<http://www.cpj.org/news/2006/mideast/iraq17sept06na.html>
"New York, September 17, 2006 The Committee to Protect Journalists is
alarmed by news that a Pulitzer Prize-winning freelance photojournalist
working for The Associated Press in Iraq has been held by U.S. military
forces for five months without charge."
(end quote)
--
Erich
Dana Carpender
Erich wrote:
Well, shit.
Dana
>
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
I think the order is usually the US and then the UK. In Europe, there
are often laws which restrict the rights of people to just express
otherwise seemingly political opinions, for example that the Holocaust
didn't happen or that Nazism is peachy. Canada is another country with
hate speech laws. In the US, people are protected and allowed
essentially to say anything they want short of certain limits on
libelous and slanderous speech, making threats, inciting violence and
the like.
> Can't speak to this moment, but 20 years back, my British boyfriend told
> me he'd lived in England (of course,) the US, Canada, Venezuela,
> Australia, South Africa, Iran (during the reign of Shah Reza Palahvi,)
> and -- darn, it was some Scandinavian nation, Denmark or Norway I think.
>
> He said that the US had far and away the most controlled media of any
> nation he'd ever lived in. I thought that telling.
>
Controlled media? The US has Rush Limbaugh on one side and Al Franken on
the other. If the US doesn't have major media that comes across as
unAmerican, that might just mean there is no support for that in the
United States. It certainly doesn't mean you can't access that sort of
thing because of free speech limitations. Remember those cartoons there
was some question about being legal to publish? No issue in the US.
Tim Bradshaw
> Because a trial would expose means and operational details which could
> compromise future investigations.
Yes it would, and that's one of the costs you pay for living in a free society.
Tim Bradshaw
>
> Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?') wrote:
>> The US has about the most robust free speech rights in the world.
>
> Really? More than Canada? More than England? More than Sweden?
> Australia? Finland?
More than the UK, anyway (England is not the right entity here - there
are differences between English and Scottish (say) law, but I'm fairly
sure they don't matter much here). Or at least more *formalized* than
in the UK. That's not say that the US government doesn't seem to be
doing just as good a job as that of the UK at riding roughshod over
them.
--tim (English, living in Scotland)
Guillermo el Gato
wouldn't that be nice?')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Guillermo el Gato wrote:
>>
>> On 1 Oct 2006 06:29:43 +0200, "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis,
>> wouldn't that be nice?')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Treating a war like it's a police problem
>> >is exactly not going to work.
>>
>> Maybe treating a police problem like a war is the real issue here.
>>
>This is the argument. You think that 9/11 was a police problem. I think
>it's a war.
And you're wrong. Peter put it very well,
"Don't fall into the Neocon/Bushie trap: there are bound to be further
terrorist attacks on the US and/or US interests, but *no* amount of
terrorist attacks make any kind of war other than as a "war on drugs"
style metaphor.
"Such attacks represent more or less serious terrorism problem, not a
war, and they cannot be countered with armies. The United States is
not currently involved in a war anywhere, nor has been for several
years - unless you count a civil war.
"If you continue - as you have done for some time - to allow your
president to define terrorism as a war that allows him to revoke the
very civil liberties that are the cornerstone of democracy, Godwin's
law will have to be suspended indefinitely; as of last Friday it would
be ludicrously hypocritical for any US citizen to invoke it. "
Pixel Dent
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
My information is a few years old, so I'm sure one of our Canadian
readers will correct me if things have changed.[1]
Each Canadian province has a censorship board whose authority has been
upheld by the Canadian Supreme Court (overturning a ruling by one of the
provincial Superior Courts). They can pretty much ban any book or movie
at will and frequently demand changes for books to be allowed.
In addition courts in Canada have ordered that some sites in the US be
blocked by ISP so that Canadians can't view them (I think these were
mostly hate speech cases).
Also it's much easier for police to get permission to wiretap in Canada
and unlike the US they can get an order which allows them to eavesdrop
on all communication to/from a person with very few restrictions.
Now, I'm not saying Canada is one big gulag with samisdat being passed
furtively under coffeehouse tables; however, they passed their own
Anti-Terrorism Act and in many ways have fewer protections for free
speech than the U.S..
[1] I grew up across the border getting my news from the CBC and I have
a friend who was a candidate for Prime Minister on a minor party ticket
so at one point I was pretty up to date on Canadian politics and law.
However, I haven't followed nearly as closely for the last decade so
things may have change significantly.
Paul Ciszek
In article <t5idnT7qX4ygjb3Y...@insightbb.com>,
Dana Carpender <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
>
>But Bush gets to decide who is a terror suspect, with no one to say him
>nay. And I repeat, no one's worried about shoplifters. We're worried
>about outspoken critics of the administration being declared "enemies of
>the state."
And any lawyers who try to defend them will be offering "material support
to the enemy".
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Igor
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?') wrote:
> Dana Carpender wrote:
> >
> > TedTheCat wrote:
> >
> > > So, the oriigional reason why the USA went to war in Iraq was to throw
> > > Saddam out of power and to end the threat from his weapons of mass
> > > destruction. Then, that cause for war evaporated away. Next,
> > > the reason for war mutated to the need to create a democracy in the
> > > middle of the Arabic Islamic Middle East. As far as I know that
> > > remains the current policy justification for the war. Make Iraq a
> > > democracy.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > While we erode fundamental freedoms here. I find it bitterly ironic
> > that we're "bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq" (not that I ever
> > believed that) while doing away with habeas corpus at home.
> >
> Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Suspension_during_the_Civil_War_and_Reconstruction
> #begin quote
> Habeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861, during the American Civil
> War by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states,
> including southern Indiana. He did so in response to riots, local
> militia actions and the threat that the Southern slave state of Maryland
> would secede from the Union leaving the nation's capital, Washington,
> D.C., in the south. He was also motivated by requests by generals to set
> up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and
> those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause.
> #end quote
>
> The issue today is how to hold enemy combatants while still protecting
> the rights of everyone else.
But, according to Bush, there isn't anyone else.
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
You people are just crazy. You can't support giving up your means and
operational details each time you want to lock up a terrorist.
Igor
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?') wrote:
> Guillermo el Gato wrote:
> >
> > On 1 Oct 2006 06:29:43 +0200, "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis,
> > wouldn't that be nice?')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Treating a war like it's a police problem
> > >is exactly not going to work.
> >
> > Maybe treating a police problem like a war is the real issue here.
> >
> This is the argument. You think that 9/11 was a police problem. I think
> it's a war.
>
And just who are we supposed to be fighting?
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
I don't know what you are talking about.
Igor
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?') wrote:
> Bill Turlock wrote:
> >
> > Patrick M Geahan wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You mean habeas corpus for the enemy.
> > >
> > > The enemy is who habeas corpus is *for*. Without habeas corpus(or
> > > any other right) for people we disagree with, there's no point
> > > in having it at all.
> > >
> > > --
> > > -------Patrick M Geahan---
> >
> > Bravo!
> >
> What is wrong with you people? Habeas corpus isn't for prisoners of war.
> Good grief!
>
What's wrong with you? Isn't that what you were claiming a few posts
back? Or do you just make this all up as you go along?
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Al Qaeda and those who support its hypernihilistic world view.
Greg Goss
>> The US has about the most robust free speech rights in the world.
>
>Really? More than Canada? More than England? More than Sweden?
>Australia? Finland?
Um, yeah. The defense of free speech in the states is much higher in
the States than in Canada. We have popular laws prohibiting rather
blurry ideas of "hate speech". We routinely drop publication bans
across important stories.
A stock promoter whose previous gold mine had left Colorado with a
multi-billion superfund mess was promoting a new, very similar mine in
Venezuela. He somehow convinced a judge to issue a ban on newspapers
saying anything about his connection to the Colorado mess until after
the stock's IPO a week later. I think that this was the story where
the Globe and Mail published a "Somewhere in Canada, an important
business and environmental story is unfolding. This space on our
front page is where we would place that story, but we have been
forbidden from doing so. We are also prohibited from telling you the
judge's name or the location of his courtroom", followed by a
significant amount of blank white space.
The TV news made an issue of the crowd gathering on the sidewalk
outside a local bookstore, where they had a "free speech advocacy
bulletin board" set up on one of their plate glass windows. Inside
were taped several stories from a Colorado newspaper about the mine
promoter.
There was also a publication ban on any of the evidence used in the
trial of a serial killer. The government made a lousy plea bargain
deal for most of the evidence, and I believe wanted to keep quiet just
how lousy a deal they had made. I was explicitly contemptuous of that
court ruling, gathering reports on that trial from American sources
and "publishing" it to my friends as printouts. I'm not sure what the
Canadian statute of limitations says about contempt of court.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Greg Goss
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Richard Evans wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
>> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> That should have been resolved before the law was passed. No sign that
>> >> the current administration has been able to do so up until now, no
>> >> incentive whatever to do so now. An enemy is simply whoever the
>> >> administration so designates.
>> >>
>> >You can't be designated an illegal combatant for shoplifting Velveeta.
>>
>> Once habeas corpus is gone, you certainly can, and there is no way to
>> contest the action.
>>
>Habeas corpus isn't gone. The idea is to allow the holding of terror
>suspects, not shoplifters.
Where the administration can say who is a terror suspect, and the
evidence cannot be inspected, and no forum for inspecting the evidence
can be demanding.
Habeas corpus is gone. There may have been an idea there, but it
included removing a major historical right.
Mary
>
> A stock promoter whose previous gold mine had left Colorado with a
> multi-billion superfund mess was promoting a new, very similar mine in
> Venezuela. He somehow convinced a judge to issue a ban on newspapers
> saying anything about his connection to the Colorado mess until after
> the stock's IPO a week later. I think that this was the story where
> the Globe and Mail published a "Somewhere in Canada, an important
> business and environmental story is unfolding. This space on our
> front page is where we would place that story, but we have been
> forbidden from doing so. We are also prohibited from telling you the
> judge's name or the location of his courtroom", followed by a
> significant amount of blank white space.
Hijacking the thread a bit - when we were in Anchorage a few weeks ago
we visited the Anchorage Museum of Art and History (I think it was
called). One of the exhibits was about mining in the southwest part of
the state and what stood to be destroyed. They had those plaques on the
wall with an explanation of what the controversy was (the usual, jobs
vs. the environment) and there was a paragraph about how Canadian mining
companies have a history of not cleaning up mine sites after the ores
are extracted and leaving the local populace/government with the cleanup
bill.
Y'all are going to lose your reputation for niceness if they keep doing
that.
Mary
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Hardrock mining in general has that reputation mainly because they do
tend not to clean up their messes.
Tim Bradshaw
> You people are just crazy. You can't support giving up your means and
> operational details each time you want to lock up a terrorist.
It is *always* the case that holding public trials exposes means and
operational details.
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
There you go answering your own question.
Imagine in WWII you catch some spies because you had the code to the
Enigma Machines. Do you put them on public trial and reveal that you got
evidence on them from your knowledge of a secret code thus letting the
enemy know your means and operational details?
Dana Carpender
Do you have a special key for that on your keyboard?
Dana
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
No. I don't know what you are talking about so I tell you that. The
intent is that you should explain yourself.
bill van
Mary <mrfea...@aol.com> wrote:
The heavenly nature of Canada and Canadians has been somewhat
exaggerated. We do better than you guys in some areas, depending on your
political outlook. Some folks consider medicare a detriment, and
welcoming draft dodgers a crime, and our current federal government
leans in those directions.
But our mining companies are no nicer than anybody else's mining
companies. If nobody makes them clean up, they don't clean up. You
really need enforceable regulations if you want to host a mining
industry *and* you want things cleaned up when the mines close.
bill
Dana Carpender
What words above don't you understand?
Dana
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
I understand English, so that's not it. I don't understand where you get
the idea that everyone is an enemy combatant according to Bush.
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
bill van wrote:
>
> The heavenly nature of Canada and Canadians has been somewhat
> exaggerated. We do better than you guys in some areas, depending on your
> political outlook. Some folks consider medicare a detriment, and
> welcoming draft dodgers a crime, and our current federal government
> leans in those directions.
>
> But our mining companies are no nicer than anybody else's mining
> companies. If nobody makes them clean up, they don't clean up. You
> really need enforceable regulations if you want to host a mining
> industry *and* you want things cleaned up when the mines close.
>
Jared Diamond discusses hardrock mining and oil companies in his recent
book "Collapse". Apparently there are a long list of reasons why you'd
probably be better off inviting in Chevron than Asarco.
Guillermo el Gato
wouldn't that be nice?')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>A non-state actor isn't just one or two crazy guys with an ANFO bomb. Al
>Qaeda was running Afghanistan, at least the part nominally controlled by
>the Taliban.
Cite? All sources I've read say that the Taliban were in charge.
That they weren't a legitimate government doesn't mean that
>you can't be at war with them.
You might want to rethink that sentence.
Do you think the history of mankind
>hasn't been filled with wars between groups that didn't believe each
>other was a recognized sovereign?
A war between the Crips and the Bloods isn't really relevant here.
Guillermo el Gato
This is one of the things that makes me think that Bill Bonde is
actually multiple posters.
It's like they're performing some weird PNAC sociology experiment.
Tim Bradshaw
> Imagine in WWII you catch some spies because you had the code to the
> Enigma Machines. Do you put them on public trial and reveal that you got
> evidence on them from your knowledge of a secret code thus letting the
> enemy know your means and operational details?
No. But in WWII there had been a formal declaration of war with
resulting requirements on legal behaviour (for instance if they were
combatants then all you can do is intern them, blah). The issue is
that you don't just get to rewrite the laws to suit what is convenient
to you.
However, looking at the history of this thread, I don't imagine there
is anything I can say that will persuade you, so I'll shut up now.
--tim
Guillermo el Gato
wouldn't that be nice?')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On 2006-10-02 00:59:14 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't
>> that be nice?')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> said:
>>
>> > You people are just crazy. You can't support giving up your means and
>> > operational details each time you want to lock up a terrorist.
>>
>> It is *always* the case that holding public trials exposes means and
>> operational details.
>>
>There you go answering your own question.
>
>Imagine in WWII you catch some spies because you had the code to the
>Enigma Machines. Do you put them on public trial and reveal that you got
>evidence on them from your knowledge of a secret code thus letting the
>enemy know your means and operational details?
So, now imagine you're really in a war. Show me the declaration of
war for the current situation. Show me the reason that an American
citizen can be held and not charged for three years.
The reason? Because Americans now live in Oceania.
Pushmi-Pullyu
Opus the Penguin wrote:
> Pushmi-Pullyu (sandsto...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> > xho...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Has Iraq's parliment and prime minister/president asked for US
> >> troups to leave Iraq? Does Iraq's new constitution call for the
> >> parliament, chosen democratically via elections, to be ignored in
> >> favor of whatever some news stories report that some percentage
> >> of the Iraqi people want?
> >> Xho
> > Hence the plebiscite.
> Yeah, but the point is the lack of that big word you just used doesn't
> make Iraq non-democratic. A lot of people in the US might like an
> immediate referendum here on our occupation of Iraq. And that
> referendum might have a different outcome from the decisions of Bush &
> Co. The fact that we haven't had such a referendum and aren't going to
> doesn't make us non-democratic.
> Opus the Penguin
The big word was actually Ted's, though he spelled it creatively...
Xho seemed to be implying that a poll of Iraqis means little or
nothing, since the elected officials of Iraq have not asked the US to
leave.
This in response to Ted's call for a plebescite.
I merely attempted to point out that Ted had already called for a vote,
so complaining about it being a mere poll seems like misdirection.
I never said anything did or did not make us or them undemocratic, so
I'm not sure where that came from.
P
mdginzo
TedTheCat wrote:
> So, the oriigional reason why the USA went to war in Iraq was to throw
> Saddam out of power and to end the threat from his weapons of mass
> destruction. Then, that cause for war evaporated away. Next,
> the reason for war mutated to the need to create a democracy in the
> middle of the Arabic Islamic Middle East. As far as I know that
> remains the current policy justification for the war. Make Iraq a
> democracy.
>
> administered the conquered people, and finally built a government for a
> new Iraq. In October 2005 the Iraqi people approved a new
> constitution and in December a national parliament was elected.
> Constitution. Elections. Parliament. Democracy.
>
> Now, news stories report that 70% of the people in Iraq want the USA
> to get out of their country and leave it to the IRaqis.
>
> If the reason why the USA went to Iraq was to make it a democracy,
> and if a democratic government has been created, and if 70% of the
> people of Iraqis want us to leave . , , why don't we?
>
> I propose that the USA ask the Iraqi government to schedule a
> plediscite maybe six months off in the future with appropriate choices
> on the ballot for the USA to stay or to leave. U.N. and international
> monitors should be brouhgt in to ensure a fair election.
>
> If a democratic election by the free people of Iraq votes to send the
> US military home then the USA should respect the verdict of democracy.
>
>
> Why can't the USA do this?
Oil, money, greed. Next question?
Pushmi-Pullyu
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On 2006-10-01 21:14:18 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't> > If this is a real problem, then agitate to have it fixed but to claim
> > that the US can't hold illegal combatants until the war is over is
> > silly.
>
> Was a war declared?
Don't be silly.
We can't declare a war without alerting the terrorists to our
intentions.
P
Greg Goss
>On 1 Oct 2006 22:44:27 +0200, "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis,
>wouldn't that be nice?')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>A non-state actor isn't just one or two crazy guys with an ANFO bomb. Al
>>Qaeda was running Afghanistan, at least the part nominally controlled by
>>the Taliban.
>
>Cite? All sources I've read say that the Taliban were in charge.
The Taliban were in charge, but AQ was tightly involved. I believe
that there were even ties by marriage between OBL's family and one of
a top Talib.
Mary
*snort*
"You're either with us or against us" sort of tipped 'em off anyway.
Mary
Mary
OBL had about seventy siblings so that wouldn't be hard.
Mary
Glenn Dowdy
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
news:45202A90...@yahoo.co.uk...
>
>
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?') wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Greg Goss wrote:
>> >
>> >>"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
>> >><tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>>Velveeta.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>President. If something you do displeases him, you can be declared an
>> >>>>enemy
>> >>>>combatant.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>And you get that because the Dirty Bomber and some nut with a bomb
>> >>>built
>> >>>into his shoe to blow up an airplane got so defined? Where are the
>> >>>shoplifter enemy combatants?
>> >>
>> >>There was no evidence whatsoever that Padilla was a "Dirty Bomber".
>> >>No trial, no evidence. Just assertions by the administration that he
>> >>was evil. That is enough in today's America.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You are equating "no trial" with "no evidence".
>>
>> If there was evidence, why no trial?
>>
> Because a trial would expose means and operational details which could
> compromise future investigations.
>
Wasn't he arrested by the Brits on an airplane with a shoe full of
explosives? Where's the operational secrecy there?
Glenn D.
Glenn Dowdy
"Dana Carpender" <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote in message
news:yI2dnSg7i62lHb3Y...@insightbb.com...
>
>
> Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?') wrote:
>
>> I don't know what you are talking about.
>
>
> Do you have a special key for that on your keyboard?
>
<snort>
Yeah, all of them.
Glenn D.
Peter Boulding
<1159796944.7...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>"You're either with us or against us" sort of tipped 'em off anyway.
Sort of tipped off the rest of us, too.
(As did Prime Minister Blair's and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's comments
on "anti-Americanism" - meaning the mass anti-Iraq-invasion demonstrations:
"...the most dangerous game I know" and "...we shall reap the whirlwind".)
--
Regards
Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> So, the oriigional reason why the USA went to war in Iraq was to throw
> Saddam out of power and to end the threat from his weapons of mass
> destruction.
One of the multitude of reasons, yeah, the lead ones in fact.
> Then, that cause for war evaporated away.
Sure, he was out of power and we could finally verify the WMD situation.
> Next, the reason for war mutated to the need to create a democracy in
> the middle of the Arabic Islamic Middle East.
THis was another goal, yeah.
> As far as I know that remains the current policy justification for the
> war. Make Iraq a democracy.
It's the reason why we're still there: we'd rather not see Iraq collapse
into a failed state and be an incubator for Teorrism.
> So the USA invade Iraq in March 2003, defeated the opposition,
> administered the conquered people, and finally built a government for a
> new Iraq. In October 2005 the Iraqi people approved a new
> constitution and in December a national parliament was elected.
> Constitution. Elections. Parliament. Democracy.
Yep, Plus Saddam is out of power and the WMD threat has been neutralized.
> Now, news stories report that 70% of the people in Iraq want the USA
> to get out of their country and leave it to the IRaqis.
Good on them: they need to get with thier elected government to express
that: those folk happen to know better however...
> If the reason why the USA went to Iraq was to make it a democracy,
> and if a democratic government has been created, and if 70% of the
> people of Iraqis want us to leave . , , why don't we?
Because "democracy" doesn't mean that the latest poll rules. The Iraqi
people set up via democratic processes, the rules for how things would be
decided: they've got themselves a government, and right now, that
government knows that it would be a disaster if we were to just cut and
run and come here from time to time to pretty much beg us not to cut them
off before they can stand on thier own.
> I propose that the USA ask the Iraqi government to schedule a
> plediscite maybe six months off in the future with appropriate choices
> on the ballot for the USA to stay or to leave. U.N. and international
> monitors should be brouhgt in to ensure a fair election.
I propose we let thier pretty resonable consittutionally elected
government run thier business the way they want to, and if we think
they're doing an OK job, we continue to help them along.
> If a democratic election by the free people of Iraq votes to send the
> US military home then the USA should respect the verdict of democracy.
Sure, and that's what we're doing right now: the verdict of democracy is
"please don't do to us what you did in Somalia, or Veitnam, or hell, even
to the Kurds: don't leave us when we think we can count on you, don't just
say "this is hard" and hang it up to go home to your decadnet lifestyles,
show us a bit of the moral courage you had back in the 40's, just a bit
longer while we get our shit together."
> Why can't the USA do this?
No reason: we could do that if we were sufficiently stupid and short
sighted. So far, we've been smart enough not to, but the possibility that
we might is what's been keeping these guys fighting.
Now, what we ought to do is craft a treaty spelling out what the mutual
expectations are between our nations. But right now, we've got the
fledgling Iraqi democracy over a barrel and any treaty would hardly be
"fair", but soon, I'd think it would be a good time to spell this out:
Some sort of a Middle-Eastern Treaty Organiziation should be established,
mutual defence that sort of thing. That alone should cut way back on the
violence as we'd have ratcheted up the consequences of Iran's meddling.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Mean People Suck - It takes two deviations to get cool.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Jerry Bauer
(in article <4521285c$0$25793$6c5e...@news.westnet.com>):
> it would be a disaster if we were to just cut and run
"cut and run" is a loaded phrase. Its use is pejorative.