British Secretary of Defense wants guarantee that Osama will not face death penalty
O Deus
his troops would not hand bin Laden over to America for trial - unless
Washington first promises that this unrepentant mass murderer not face
the death penalty.
Charming. One recalls that the British government wasn't so nearly
anti-death penalty at the Nuremberg trials. It's one thing to oppose
the idea of the death penalty in your own country, and another to
demand to potentially refuse to extradite a foreign mass murderer,
unless his punishment is to their moral liking. Despite or rather
because of American interventions on behalf of Europeans in WW1 and
WW2, interventions for which we earned nothing but two generations of
young men dead, a massive debt and the burden of defending Europe for
the next half century, Europeans seem to have developed the need to
find some way of expressing their superiority and independence in
increasingly ridiculous ways.
Or perhaps it's actually a sincere expression of Secretary Hoon's view
of the world, in which allowing the country where Osama murdered
thousands to apply the death penalty to him, would be a grave moral
trangression. But I guess their country has gone quite a bit downhill
since then, in terms of basic sanity.
We have Robert Fisk, a respected British reporter for The Independent,
who gives an extensive account of being assaulted and beaten bloody
and explains that it was really the fault of the American bombardment
and that had he been in the place of his attackers, he would have done
the same thing to himself. The climax to this involves Fisk feeling
guilty about fighting free of the men who were attacking him. After
all despite the fact that they were attacking him, being a member of a
Western society he was by definition in the wrong.
When these people begin applying this kind of suicidal logic to
international affairs, their opposition to the war isn't too
surprising. It's increasingly a logic we're seeing among a certain
portion of Americans in which it's more important to hold on to some
bizarre moral ground and the resulting self-destructive positions,
than it is to actually protect your own people.
Tony Keen
> British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon declared over the weekend that
> his troops would not hand bin Laden over to America for trial - unless
> Washington first promises that this unrepentant mass murderer not face
> the death penalty.
>
> Charming. One recalls that the British government wasn't so nearly
> anti-death penalty at the Nuremberg trials. It's one thing to oppose
> the idea of the death penalty in your own country, and another to
> demand to potentially refuse to extradite a foreign mass murderer,
> unless his punishment is to their moral liking.
A minor factual point. Britain is a signatory to the European
Convention of Human Rights. One of the terms of this is that people
will not be extradited to countries that use the death penalty unless
the extraditing country receives assurances that the death penalty
will not be applied in this case. So this is not Britain arbitrarily
deciding she doesn't want Bin Laden to be executed -- this is Britain
abiding by her international agreements.
> Despite or rather
> because of American interventions on behalf of Europeans in WW1 and
> WW2, interventions for which we earned nothing but two generations of
> young men dead, a massive debt and the burden of defending Europe for
> the next half century, Europeans seem to have developed the need to
> find some way of expressing their superiority and independence in
> increasingly ridiculous ways.
I'm sorry, but I find this condescending, patronizing, and frankly
offensive, in the implication that only America's sacrifice in WWI and
WWII is worth taking note of. Is it ridiculous to point out that more
Britons than Americans died in WWI, or that Britain, not America, was
bankrupted by WWII?
> Or perhaps it's actually a sincere expression of Secretary Hoon's view
> of the world, in which allowing the country where Osama murdered
> thousands to apply the death penalty to him, would be a grave moral
> trangression.
No, it's international law to which Britain has signed up.
> But I guess their country has gone quite a bit downhill
> since then, in terms of basic sanity.
Again, this is just insulting.
> We have Robert Fisk, a respected British reporter for The Independent,
> who gives an extensive account of being assaulted and beaten bloody
> and explains that it was really the fault of the American bombardment
> and that had he been in the place of his attackers, he would have done
> the same thing to himself. The climax to this involves Fisk feeling
> guilty about fighting free of the men who were attacking him. After
> all despite the fact that they were attacking him, being a member of a
> Western society he was by definition in the wrong.
So Fisk is in the wrong for attempting to understand why what happened
to him happened? So we shouldn't try to see the other side's point of
view? We may reject it, but how can we fight something we don't
understand?
> When these people begin applying this kind of suicidal logic to
> international affairs, their opposition to the war isn't too
> surprising. It's increasingly a logic we're seeing among a certain
> portion of Americans in which it's more important to hold on to some
> bizarre moral ground and the resulting self-destructive positions,
> than it is to actually protect your own people.
The accusations of "suicidal logic" are a bit vague here, but I
presume the position attacked is that one should be have in a
civilized way towards others, regardless of how they behave towards
you (a position espoused by, among others, Jesus). I fail to see how
this is more illogical that the idea that one should "protect" one's
own people through shows of violence and revenge, in the face of all
evidence that this simply leads to a ever-escalating cycle of
violence.
O Deus
> > We have Robert Fisk, a respected British reporter for The Independent,
> > who gives an extensive account of being assaulted and beaten bloody
> > and explains that it was really the fault of the American bombardment
> > and that had he been in the place of his attackers, he would have done
> > the same thing to himself. The climax to this involves Fisk feeling
> > guilty about fighting free of the men who were attacking him. After
> > all despite the fact that they were attacking him, being a member of a
> > Western society he was by definition in the wrong.
>
> So Fisk is in the wrong for attempting to understand why what happened
> to him happened? So we shouldn't try to see the other side's point of
> view? We may reject it, but how can we fight something we don't
> understand?
Nothing wrong in understanding another's point of view. Police do it
all the time. Adopting that point of view is another matter. Adopting
the point of view of your attacker while you're being attacked sets
new standards for suicidal behavior.
> > When these people begin applying this kind of suicidal logic to
> > international affairs, their opposition to the war isn't too
> > surprising. It's increasingly a logic we're seeing among a certain
> > portion of Americans in which it's more important to hold on to some
> > bizarre moral ground and the resulting self-destructive positions,
> > than it is to actually protect your own people.
>
> The accusations of "suicidal logic" are a bit vague here, but I
> presume the position attacked is that one should be have in a
> civilized way towards others, regardless of how they behave towards
> you (a position espoused by, among others, Jesus). I fail to see how
> this is more illogical that the idea that one should "protect" one's
> own people through shows of violence and revenge, in the face of all
> evidence that this simply leads to a ever-escalating cycle of
> violence.
What evidence is that exactly? Are we going to once again deal with
the claim that violence never solves anything? If violence never
solved anything, America would exist as just another British colony,
this continent would belong to the Indians, the Austria-Hungarian
Empire would be a vital force in modern day politics and Nazi Germany
would be celebrating another anniversarry of ruling Europe. Applying
civilized behavior to non-civilized attackers is futile and only
serves as an invitiation to more attacks. Failure to defend oneself
from an attack not only invites more attacks, but brings on conquest,
death and destruction. After all the worst cycles of violence are
ultimately visited on those peoples which failed to adequately defend
themselves against attack.
As to the efficacy of Jesus's tactics. He got himself crucified,
didn't he? On the other hand the Catholic Church applying Deus Volt,
managed to spread over half the world. Islam applying Jihad by sword
managed to do even better. On the other hand take a look at Judaism.
Violence even helps promote religion.
> > British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon declared over the weekend that
> > his troops would not hand bin Laden over to America for trial - unless
> > Washington first promises that this unrepentant mass murderer not face
> > the death penalty.
> >
> > Charming. One recalls that the British government wasn't so nearly
> > anti-death penalty at the Nuremberg trials. It's one thing to oppose
> > the idea of the death penalty in your own country, and another to
> > demand to potentially refuse to extradite a foreign mass murderer,
> > unless his punishment is to their moral liking.
>
> A minor factual point. Britain is a signatory to the European
> Convention of Human Rights. One of the terms of this is that people
> will not be extradited to countries that use the death penalty unless
> the extraditing country receives assurances that the death penalty
> will not be applied in this case. So this is not Britain arbitrarily
> deciding she doesn't want Bin Laden to be executed -- this is Britain
> abiding by her international agreements.
An international agreement she chose to sign and played a major role
in forming. It's hardly something England had no control over. Hoon is
being rather assertive here with his statement and making a definitive
statement about a prisoner he does not yet have. Furthermore it's
questionable whether the extradition agreement would apply to a
Prisoner seized outside of British jurisidiction as part of an
international force.
> > Despite or rather
> > because of American interventions on behalf of Europeans in WW1 and
> > WW2, interventions for which we earned nothing but two generations of
> > young men dead, a massive debt and the burden of defending Europe for
> > the next half century, Europeans seem to have developed the need to
> > find some way of expressing their superiority and independence in
> > increasingly ridiculous ways.
>
> I'm sorry, but I find this condescending, patronizing, and frankly
> offensive, in the implication that only America's sacrifice in WWI and
> WWII is worth taking note of. Is it ridiculous to point out that more
> Britons than Americans died in WWI, or that Britain, not America, was
> bankrupted by WWII?
All true but it was a British war, produced by a purely European
conflict. It was not our war and this is an important point. If you
are attacked in your home by a criminal, the sacrifice of the neighbor
who comes over to help you out is noteworthy precisely because it is
not his fight.
> > Or perhaps it's actually a sincere expression of Secretary Hoon's view
> > of the world, in which allowing the country where Osama murdered
> > thousands to apply the death penalty to him, would be a grave moral
> > trangression.
>
> No, it's international law to which Britain has signed up.
A law Britain helped create.
> > But I guess their country has gone quite a bit downhill
> > since then, in terms of basic sanity.
>
> Again, this is just insulting.
So is being condescendingly lectured to for nth time by Europeans on
the ABM treaty, the Kyoto treaty, the death penalty and electing a
Republican...which some euros seem to view as nothing short than
electing a fascist. (some people on this froup appear to share that
point of view)
Charlie Stross
as <od...@bigfoot.com> declared:
>> No, it's international law to which Britain has signed up.
>
> A law Britain helped create.
Yup. What part of "the law applies equally to everyone" don't you
understand?
Do you think it's worth throwing the concepts of equality before the law
and the inviolability of international treaties out the window, just to
ensure that in the hypothetical event of bin Laden being captured alive
(as if!) he gets a death sentence as opposed to being banged up for the
rest of his natural life?
I think you place a wee bit too much importance on one scumbag's head.[*]
-- Charlie
[*] Or maybe you're just trolling.[**]
[**] Make that "probably".
O Deus
> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
> as <od...@bigfoot.com> declared:
>
> >> No, it's international law to which Britain has signed up.
> >
> > A law Britain helped create.
>
> Yup. What part of "the law applies equally to everyone" don't you
> understand?
The law applies to its signatories which does not include the United
States. It very questionably applies to prisoners captured outside
Britain as part of an international coalition. Using that law to try
and thwart the American capture and legal trial and punishment of a
mass murderer who has killed thousands on American soil in order to
make some petty point, is rather disgusting.
> Do you think it's worth throwing the concepts of equality before the law
> and the inviolability of international treaties out the window, just to
> ensure that in the hypothetical event of bin Laden being captured alive
> (as if!) he gets a death sentence as opposed to being banged up for the
> rest of his natural life?
The only international treaty being compromised here is Britain's
extradition treaty with the United States.
> I think you place a wee bit too much importance on one scumbag's head.[*]
As long as Bin Ladin is alive, he continues to function as the head of
an international terrorist organization and his followers can hope
that if they take enough Americans and Westerners hostage, than they
can get him released...and they may even be right.
Mike Rennie
O Deus wrote:
> Blah blah
I'm sorry to say this but you really are talking out of your arse!
Maybe you should go to college and learn about politics and international law (also History may be a good idea as well!). Maybe
there you'll learn a bit of understanding that the rest of the world is not the US. We have our own laws and treaties seperate
to those with your Government AND as part of the European Community the agreements we have in Europe take presidence (under
international Law, as it has been explained to me)
Your revenge driven niavity amazes me.
On a personal note congratulations! you nearly made it all the way through the thread without referring to the UK as
England....but as most of you Mexicans do you failed at the final post.
ENGLAND IS NOT THE UK!!!
I nearly feel better now
Sparks
Andrew Plotkin
> O Deus wrote:
>> Blah blah
> I'm sorry to say this but you really are talking out of your arse!
Odeus does this deliberately, to annoy you.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Dave Weingart
>Odeus does this deliberately, to annoy you.
Odeus has been in my global killfile for ages upon ages.
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK "They reached for tomorrow, but tomorrow's
mailto:phyd...@liii.com more of the same. They reached for
http://www.liii.com/~phydeaux tomorrow, but tomorrow never came."
ICQ 57055207 -- Berlin, "Masquerade"
O Deus
> O Deus wrote:
>
> > Blah blah
>
> I'm sorry to say this but you really are talking out of your arse!
> Maybe you should go to college and learn about politics and international law (also History may be a good idea as well!). Maybe
> there you'll learn a bit of understanding that the rest of the world is not the US. We have our own laws and treaties seperate
> to those with your Government AND as part of the European Community the agreements we have in Europe take presidence (under
> international Law, as it has been explained to me)
Your rebuttal to my post only lacks one thing, a rebuttal to my post.
Maybe you should go to one of those colleges you spoke in favor of and
study up on elementary debate and a small pinch of spelling and essay
writing wouldn't do you or your posts any harm either.
As I had allready pointed out, if British troops were to catch Bin
Ladin in Afghanistan and hold him there, he would not necesarilly fall
under extradition treaty laws. Furthermore Bin Ladin is not some
parolee who fled to the UK but a war criminal and a mass murderer.
This is a special circumstances and special circumstances apply. If
you really can't comprehend that the murder of thousands might
supersede EU nonesense about ensuring that murderers caught on its
territory not be subject to the death penalty, perhaps you need to
reevaulate your priorities.
> Your revenge driven niavity amazes me.
As before, you not only cannot spell that word but you still do not
know what it even means.
> On a personal note congratulations! you nearly made it all the way through the thread without referring to the UK as
> England....but as most of you Mexicans do you failed at the final post.
> ENGLAND IS NOT THE UK!!!
A valid point which interests few people who do not live in the UK or
England. On another occasion I would be more than happy to explain to
you the difference between Washington and Washington D.C. and why the
latter had no congressional representation for most of this existance;
but like your UK\England matters, it interests few people who don't
actually live there.
> I nearly feel better now
> Sparks
It's okay. Give it another hour for the meds to fully kick in.
Charlie Stross
as <od...@bigfoot.com> declared:
> As I had allready pointed out, if British troops were to catch Bin
> Ladin in Afghanistan and hold him there, he would not necesarilly fall
> under extradition treaty laws.
Irrelevant. If he was in UK custody, the UK forces would still
be bound by treaties to which the UK government was signatory, no?
And such treaties include the EU conventions.
> This is a special circumstances and special circumstances apply.
Special circumstances in the sense you intend can *never* be allowed to
apply. Ever. Because it's the thin end of the wedge, the camel's nose
under the corner of the tent, and once we start making exceptions to the
rule of law for alleged mass murderers, we risk subverting the core
principle of law -- namely the principle of equality before the law.
That principle, in case you hadn't noticed, is one that protects *you*
from being singled out for special treatment, should circumstances
arise that bring you to the attention of people who you'd rather didn't
take an interest in you.
> If you really can't comprehend that the murder of thousands might
> supersede EU nonesense about ensuring that murderers caught on its
> territory not be subject to the death penalty, perhaps you need to
> reevaulate your priorities.
It's not "EU nonsense" -- it's an internationally held standard of
civilized behaviour that is adhered to by every developed nation on the
planet with two exceptions (the USA and Japan, whose constitution and
current legal system was established by the USA during the 1950's).
You (as an individual) are the dissenting barbarian, not us.
(Welcome to my killfile, by the way.)
-- Charlie
Mark Atwood
>
> It's not "EU nonsense" -- it's an internationally held standard of
> civilized behaviour that is adhered to by every developed nation on the
> planet with two exceptions (the USA and Japan, whose constitution and
> current legal system was established by the USA during the 1950's).
>
> You (as an individual) are the dissenting barbarian, not us.
>
> (Welcome to my killfile, by the way.)
And welcome back to mine.
--
Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
djolds
> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
> as <od...@bigfoot.com> declared:
>
> > As I had allready pointed out, if British troops were to catch Bin
> > Ladin in Afghanistan and hold him there, he would not necesarilly fall
> > under extradition treaty laws.
>
> Irrelevant. If he was in UK custody, the UK forces would still
> be bound by treaties to which the UK government was signatory, no?
> And such treaties include the EU conventions.
>
> > This is a special circumstances and special circumstances apply.
>
> Special circumstances in the sense you intend can *never* be allowed to
> apply. Ever. Because it's the thin end of the wedge, the camel's nose
> under the corner of the tent, and once we start making exceptions to the
> rule of law for alleged mass murderers, we risk subverting the core
> principle of law -- namely the principle of equality before the law.
That's the idealistic way things should be. Reality rarely adheres to
the ideal. The surrender or non-surrender of ObL would be a political
question with remifications on so many levels it makes my head hurt to
think about it. Those political considerations would totally bypass the
formalities of law.
The surrender of the White Russians to Stalin's Soviet Union at the
end of WWII was a legal travisty. The UK's government at the time felt
good relations with Uncle Joe were more important. Those White Russians
are still as dead as they were when Beria executed them.
Politics trumps law in international affairs; especially when the relative
value of the issue under consideration goes up.
The largest slaughter of Amercans since Pearl Harbor (and all civilians)
makes the relative value of ObL's extradition so high that to refuse it
would have consequences the leaderships of the EU member states don't want
to think about in their nightmares.
ObL is not Ira Einhorn.
> That principle, in case you hadn't noticed, is one that protects *you*
> from being singled out for special treatment, should circumstances
> arise that bring you to the attention of people who you'd rather didn't
> take an interest in you.
>
> > If you really can't comprehend that the murder of thousands might
> > supersede EU nonesense about ensuring that murderers caught on its
> > territory not be subject to the death penalty, perhaps you need to
> > reevaulate your priorities.
>
> It's not "EU nonsense" -- it's an internationally held standard of
> civilized behaviour that is adhered to by every developed nation on the
> planet with two exceptions (the USA and Japan, whose constitution and
> current legal system was established by the USA during the 1950's).
No arguement.
But the politics of the situation will likely make holding to legal and
moral principle difficult to impossible. ObL _will_ be extradited to the
US from the EU if he's caught there. And thereafter, he _will_ be executed.
Duane
O Deus
> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
> as <od...@bigfoot.com> declared:
>
> > As I had allready pointed out, if British troops were to catch Bin
> > Ladin in Afghanistan and hold him there, he would not necesarilly fall
> > under extradition treaty laws.
>
> Irrelevant. If he was in UK custody, the UK forces would still
> be bound by treaties to which the UK government was signatory, no?
> And such treaties include the EU conventions.
Please provide supporting evidence for that contention.
> > This is a special circumstances and special circumstances apply. Should British law then supersede the claims of the Afghan government on their own territory and the United States government where he is both wanted and which is leading the coalition.
> Special circumstances in the sense you intend can *never* be allowed to
> apply. Ever. Because it's the thin end of the wedge, the camel's nose
> under the corner of the tent, and once we start making exceptions to the
> rule of law for alleged mass murderers, we risk subverting the core
> principle of law -- namely the principle of equality before the law.
Applying the principle of equality under the law to Osama Bin Ladin is
ridiculous, it is also ridiculous to claim that UK troops turning over
a war criminal captured in a foreign country, would create any kind of
precedent. It is clearly such an extraordinary situation that no
precedent would apply.
> That principle, in case you hadn't noticed, is one that protects *you*
> from being singled out for special treatment, should circumstances
> arise that bring you to the attention of people who you'd rather didn't
> take an interest in you.
Since I'm not a British citizen, it doesn't protect me from anything.
More to the point, a legal system that can't adapt to changing
circumstances and uses the slippery slope argument to avoid any
flexibility is itself doomed. I believe Dickens gave a rather good
summary of that.
> > If you really can't comprehend that the murder of thousands might
> > supersede EU nonesense about ensuring that murderers caught on its
> > territory not be subject to the death penalty, perhaps you need to
> > reevaulate your priorities.
>
> It's not "EU nonsense" -- it's an internationally held standard of
> civilized behaviour that is adhered to by every developed nation on the
> planet with two exceptions (the USA and Japan, whose constitution and
> current legal system was established by the USA during the 1950's).
It's a standard held by several nations at one single point in time.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, it is not the word of god.
Neither is it some apex of civilization. You may think that your
customs and laws are superior to all others and other nations are
generally willing to let you entertain that belief...up until the
point you start shoving their belief down their throats. And if you
seriously think that this hypothetical scenario would result in the US
backing down on the death penalty, you are deeply mistaken.
> You (as an individual) are the dissenting barbarian, not us.
I think you mean, me as a member of a democratic nation, one of the
few democracies still left in the post-EU period.
> (Welcome to my killfile, by the way.)
Glad to be there.
Robert Sneddon
(in message <a91dfcc8.01122...@posting.google.com>):
> That's the idealistic way things should be. Reality rarely adheres to
> the ideal. The surrender or non-surrender of ObL would be a political
> question with remifications on so many levels it makes my head hurt to
> think about it. Those political considerations would totally bypass the
> formalities of law.
Political considerations overriding international law was the reason
the Taliban did not hand over Osama bin Laden when requested to by the
American government. That was the justification for international
military action in Afghanistan; international law was being flouted.
The Taliban itself had committed no overt act of violence against the
United States; it had only sheltered the leaders and members of an
organisation that did so.
If America's demand that international law be adhered to in the case
for extradition of Osama bin Laden is to count for anything, then it
should also adhere to the facet of international law that states that
British forces would not be allowed to hand over a captive to a country
which still implements (with apparent relish) the death penalty (i.e.
the United States).
>
> But the politics of the situation will likely make holding to legal and
> moral principle difficult to impossible.
If legal principles are to be abandoned, then under what laws is Osama
even considered to be liable for the actions of 9/11?
> ObL _will_ be extradited to the
> US from the EU if he's caught there. And thereafter, he _will_ be executed.
I do hope he will, like any other person, get a fair trial before
sentence is executed? It would be a nice gesture towards the founding
principles of the United States.
--
Robert Sneddon
==============================================================
Posted with Hogwasher. Mac first, Mac only:
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.html
==============================================================
Charlie Stross
>> You (as an individual) are the dissenting barbarian, not us.
>>
>> (Welcome to my killfile, by the way.)
>
> And welcome back to mine.
What, for rejecting the argument of a troll who's thirst for
revenge is strong enough that he's willing to throw away the
most fundamental principle of law?
I'd thought somewhat better of you, Mark. Clue: I'm not arguing
that bin Laden didn't do it, isn't guilty, and doesn't deserve
anything he gets once he's captured. I'm arguing that we are
better than he is, and we damn well ought to stick to our fundamental
principals of law and ethics when it becomes time to deal with
him. Because if we let a provocation such as the events of 11/9 override
our norms of behaviour, he's won a significant victory by proving
that the western system is fragile and can't deal with attacks without
breaking down.
(Remember: whenever a terrorist organisation forces the state it's
attacking to declare a state of emergency, it was won a significant
victory. The goal of terrorism is not to win by frontal assault, but to
win by making the enemy change their minds and behaviour. If Osama bin
Laden gets the west to throw its judicial procedures out of the
window, he'll have succeeded in invalidating the claims to legitimacy
of international law and any hope of applying judifical procedures in
future.)
-- Charlie
gfa...@savvy.com
> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
> as <m...@pobox.com> declared:
>>> You (as an individual) are the dissenting barbarian, not us.
>>>
>>> (Welcome to my killfile, by the way.)
>>
>> And welcome back to mine.
>
> What, for rejecting the argument of a troll who's thirst for
> revenge is strong enough that he's willing to throw away the
> most fundamental principle of law?
I may be wrong, but I read Mark Atwood as slightly carelessly referring to
Odeus with that remark, not you.
(I regard Odeus as unworthy of response on this debate, as in almost all
debates, save when impulse suggests it might have some amusement value;
perhaps he'll grow up more at some point in the future, and become a more
worthwhile poster; I always try to live in hope.)
--
Gary Farber Boulder, Colorado
gfa...@savvy.com
Charlie Stross
>>>> (Welcome to my killfile, by the way.)
>>>
>>> And welcome back to mine.
>>
>> What, for rejecting the argument of a troll who's thirst for
>> revenge is strong enough that he's willing to throw away the
>> most fundamental principle of law?
>
> I may be wrong, but I read Mark Atwood as slightly carelessly referring to
> Odeus with that remark, not you.
If that's the case, I owe Mark an apology.
-- Charlie
Tony Keen
> customs and laws are superior to all others and other nations are
> generally willing to let you entertain that belief...up until the
> point you start shoving their belief down their throats.
But obviously it's okay for your political values to be imposed upon
us when it suits you ...
> I think you mean, me as a member of a democratic nation, one of the
> few democracies still left in the post-EU period.
... and for you to be self-righteous about a "democratic" process that
has resulted in the candidate fewer people voted for getting to the
White House.
You are a silly silly man, and I shall waste no more of my precious
time on you.
Rob Hansen
FWIW, I read it the same way you did.
--
Rob Hansen
=============================================
Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
RE-ELECT GORE IN 2004.
Mark Atwood
I was indeed a little careless in citation there.
*This* time, OD is in the permanent killfile, and will not "age out" again.
Mitch Wagner
> Applying the principle of equality under the law to Osama Bin Ladin is
> ridiculous,
So everyone is equal under the law except for those accused of doing
something really, really bad, where almost all Americans believe the
accusations and hate the person so accused?
--
Mitch Wagner | 24-hour drive-thru weblog: http://www.drive-thru.org
O Deus
> od...@bigfoot.com (O Deus) wrote in
> news:c6784f8f.01122...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Applying the principle of equality under the law to Osama Bin Ladin is
> > ridiculous,
>
> So everyone is equal under the law except for those accused of doing
> something really, really bad, where almost all Americans believe the
> accusations and hate the person so accused?
Yes. Trying Hitler or Stalin in an ordinary criminal court would be
ridiculous. We are dealing with extraordinary acts and extraordinary
events.
And the same sort of snickering attitude you're applying to the
atrocities of 9-11, could well be applied to the Nuremberg trial. That
however says far more about your charachter, than it does about those
events.
O Deus
> > Neither is it some apex of civilization. You may think that your
> > customs and laws are superior to all others and other nations are
> > generally willing to let you entertain that belief...up until the
> > point you start shoving their belief down their throats.
>
> But obviously it's okay for your political values to be imposed upon
> us when it suits you ...
Not when it suits us, but when the situation is sufficently dire by a
standard that most sane and reasonable persons could agree on.
> > I think you mean, me as a member of a democratic nation, one of the
> > few democracies still left in the post-EU period.
>
> ... and for you to be self-righteous about a "democratic" process that
> has resulted in the candidate fewer people voted for getting to the
> White House.
It's a democratic process that balances out regional influences, thus
producing the electoral college whose majority of regions did indeed
vote for Bush. Otherwise Presidential candidates would only campaign
in major states and overlook smaller ones. That is the American system
and the majority of Americans support the current President. They also
support going after those responsible for 9-11. Aint' Democracy
wonderfull.
O Deus
> Political considerations overriding international law was the reason
> the Taliban did not hand over Osama bin Laden when requested to by the
> American government.
That and the fact that the Taliban were allied and partly funded by
Bin Ladin and were outgrowths of the same Jihad network.
> That was the justification for international
> military action in Afghanistan; international law was being flouted.
> The Taliban itself had committed no overt act of violence against the
> United States; it had only sheltered the leaders and members of an
> organisation that did so.
Hosting bases of operations for an enemy at war with another country,
is itself an act of agression against that country. Excuses can be
made when the host country is trying to appease a greater power, but
when we are dealing with two sides of the same coin, that shared the
same essential goals and who were intertwined with each other...the
left's claims that the Taliban had no connection to Bin Ladin beyond
being neighbors is ridiculous.
> If America's demand that international law be adhered to in the case
> for extradition of Osama bin Laden is to count for anything, then it
> should also adhere to the facet of international law that states that
> British forces would not be allowed to hand over a captive to a country
> which still implements (with apparent relish) the death penalty (i.e.
> the United States).
Your views on America's justice system are irrelevant. The fact
remains that Bin Ladin committed war crimes against the United States
and therefore it falls to an American court to try him and sentence
him. British positions on what that verdict should or shouldn't be are
irrelevant and using questionable legal mechanisms to try and dictate
a lesser verdict for him is frankly despicable.
> > But the politics of the situation will likely make holding to legal and
> > moral principle difficult to impossible.
>
> If legal principles are to be abandoned, then under what laws is Osama
> even considered to be liable for the actions of 9/11?
Same as any murderer. The fact that he planned, ordered and that his
operatives carried out the acts.
> > ObL _will_ be extradited to the
> > US from the EU if he's caught there. And thereafter, he _will_ be executed.
>
> I do hope he will, like any other person, get a fair trial before
> sentence is executed? It would be a nice gesture towards the founding
> principles of the United States.
He'll get a much fairer and lenghtier trial than any of his victims
got. As to America's Founding Principles, they deal with the compact
between Americans and their government. When non-Americans massacred
American citizens, trials were rarely bothered with for obvious
reasons.
Ed Dravecky III
> So everyone is equal under the law except for those accused of
> doing something really, really bad, where almost all Americans
> believe the accusations and hate the person so accused?
Or if the person is a member of the Dallas Cowboys, yes.
--
Ed Dravecky III
ed3 at panix.com
Bernard Peek
<djol...@hotmail.com> writes
>That's the idealistic way things should be. Reality rarely adheres to
>the ideal. The surrender or non-surrender of ObL would be a political
>question with remifications on so many levels it makes my head hurt to
>think about it. Those political considerations would totally bypass the
>formalities of law.
But the formalities will be observed. The UK government will have made a
decision and the forces in the field will already know what it is. If a
UK force captures bin Laden he will either be brought to trial in an
international court or he will accidentally escape and be recaptured by
US forces. Or some similar event will be engineered.
It's also possible that in the event of him being captured by US troops
he will be very quietly handed over to an International court.
>
>The surrender of the White Russians to Stalin's Soviet Union at the
>end of WWII was a legal travisty. The UK's government at the time felt
>good relations with Uncle Joe were more important. Those White Russians
>are still as dead as they were when Beria executed them.
>
>Politics trumps law in international affairs; especially when the relative
>value of the issue under consideration goes up.
That's true but it's not clear which way is less politically
troublesome. The US is the largest single economic power in the world
but Europe as a whole is larger. The situation isn't as clear cut as you
seem to think.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
In search of cognoscenti
Vicki Rosenzweig
GMT:
>od...@bigfoot.com (O Deus) wrote in
>news:c6784f8f.01122...@posting.google.com:
>
>
>> Applying the principle of equality under the law to Osama Bin Ladin is
>> ridiculous,
>
>So everyone is equal under the law except for those accused of doing
>something really, really bad, where almost all Americans believe the
>accusations and hate the person so accused?
Please, folks. The TeDeus one is trolling. Please don't feed it.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Mitch Wagner
> Mitch Wagner <mwa...@world.std.com> wrote in message
> news:<Y%9V7.97507$Sx.26...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com>...
>> od...@bigfoot.com (O Deus) wrote in
>> news:c6784f8f.01122...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > Applying the principle of equality under the law to Osama Bin Ladin
>> > is ridiculous,
>>
>> So everyone is equal under the law except for those accused of doing
>> something really, really bad, where almost all Americans believe the
>> accusations and hate the person so accused?
>
> Yes. Trying Hitler or Stalin in an ordinary criminal court would be
> ridiculous. We are dealing with extraordinary acts and extraordinary
> events.
>
> And the same sort of snickering attitude you're applying to the
> atrocities of 9-11, could well be applied to the Nuremberg trial. That
> however says far more about your charachter, than it does about those
> events.
And what does it say about me, pray tell? And what do you assume that I am
arguing for with regards to Osama bin Laden?
I will admit that I assumed you were simply arguing that we know Osama is
guilty and should just shoot him on sight.
--
Mitch Wagner
Joel Rosenberg
I certainly would.
--
-------------------------------------
There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun,
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.
-------------------------------------
Mitch Wagner
>> I do hope he will, like any other person, get a fair trial before
>> sentence is executed? It would be a nice gesture towards the founding
>> principles of the United States.
>
> He'll get a much fairer and lenghtier trial than any of his victims
> got. As to America's Founding Principles, they deal with the compact
> between Americans and their government. When non-Americans massacred
> American citizens, trials were rarely bothered with for obvious
> reasons.
I've seen this cited many times in defense of the PATRIOT Act, but never
with any evidence. I'd like to see some informed explanation of the rights
of non-citizens under U.S. criminal law.
Let's take an ordinary, everyday crime for an example: If a non-citizen
knocks over a gas station, what happens to him?
--
Mitch Wagner
gfa...@savvy.com
of "The Evil One":
> It's also possible that in the event of him being captured by US troops
> he will be very quietly handed over to an International court.
There's no such court with jurisdiction. The ICC doesn't yet exist; for
this to happen, another ad hoc tribunal would have to be created. This is
not impossible, but seems unlikely.
[. . . .]
djolds
> (in message <a91dfcc8.01122...@posting.google.com>):
>
> > That's the idealistic way things should be. Reality rarely adheres to
> > the ideal. The surrender or non-surrender of ObL would be a political
> > question with remifications on so many levels it makes my head hurt to
> > think about it. Those political considerations would totally bypass the
> > formalities of law.
>
> Political considerations overriding international law was the reason
> the Taliban did not hand over Osama bin Laden when requested to by the
> American government. That was the justification for international
> military action in Afghanistan; international law was being flouted.
> The Taliban itself had committed no overt act of violence against the
> United States; it had only sheltered the leaders and members of an
> organisation that did so.
>
> If America's demand that international law be adhered to in the case
> for extradition of Osama bin Laden is to count for anything, then it
> should also adhere to the facet of international law that states that
> British forces would not be allowed to hand over a captive to a country
> which still implements (with apparent relish) the death penalty (i.e.
> the United States).
There is no such thing as "international law." Law in the sense of civil
or common law requires central enforcement and promulgation mechanisms.
The internaltional arena is Hobbsean except insofar as the players (the
nation-states) have agreed on common niceities to make international
relations work. Diplomatic immunity is one such niceity; Extradition
treaties and agreements to (sometimes, when its convenient or local
courts say so) respect the legal judgements of the courts of other nations
are other niceities. Any of these niceities can be thrown out when they
no do not serve the interests of the nation state or states involved.
The consequences of throwing these niceities out the window vary as per
the power of the nation-state that does so. International relations is
an arena of all against all, a Mexican Standoff where only social
convention in support of mutual survival keeps the players from pulling
the triggers. There is no enforcement mechanism for "international law."
There is no promulgation mechanism with the power of compulsion in
"international law."
"International law" exists only insofar as it serves the interests of
the nation-states. When parts of "international law" no longer serve
those interests, they cease to exist unless other nation-states can
force the rogue nation-state to comply through threat or use of raw
power- economic, military, or population-based.
> > But the politics of the situation will likely make holding to legal and
> > moral principle difficult to impossible.
>
> If legal principles are to be abandoned, then under what laws is Osama
> even considered to be liable for the actions of 9/11?
There are no legal principles of international law. There are no courts
withn the power to compel. There are no police with the power to arrest.
All actions of "international law" occur only with the agreement of the
nation-state(s) involved, unless one or more nation-states compel a
rogue nation-state to obey.
The United States has compelled the Taliban Regime in Afghanistan to
obedience. Neither the Taliban nor Al-Quaeda had the power to compel
the United States to obedience. In the eternal mexican standoff of
international relations, the US could take wounds that have brought
down the Taliban.
International relations is about power, not law. There is no such thing
as "international law." There are only treaties that the nation-states
agree to abide by so as to make international relations function relatively
peacefully.
The norms of those treaties are imposed by the powerful.
> > ObL _will_ be extradited to the
> > US from the EU if he's caught there. And thereafter, he _will_ be executed.
>
> I do hope he will, like any other person, get a fair trial before
> sentence is executed? It would be a nice gesture towards the founding
> principles of the United States.
If he is taken alive (highly doubtful), he would get a trial. His final
fate in such a circumstance is not in doubt. Neither would have been
Benedict Arnold's fate, had he been captured by US forces in 1790-
regardless of the trial.
If the Brits are overly woried about extraditing ObL to the USA because of
death-penalty concerns, but the SAS captured ObL, the solution is simple.
The SAS will not have captured ObL. SAS will (quietly) turn ObL over to
US special forces, who will then be the units that captured him. Even if
the UK SAS captures ObL, they will not have done so. Officially. Thus the
UK will not have violated their death-penalty treaties, because ObL was
never in their custody.
Duane
djolds
> In message <a91dfcc8.01122...@posting.google.com>, djolds
> <djol...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>
> >That's the idealistic way things should be. Reality rarely adheres to
> >the ideal. The surrender or non-surrender of ObL would be a political
> >question with remifications on so many levels it makes my head hurt to
> >think about it. Those political considerations would totally bypass the
> >formalities of law.
>
> But the formalities will be observed. The UK government will have made a
> decision and the forces in the field will already know what it is. If a
> UK force captures bin Laden he will either be brought to trial in an
> international court or he will accidentally escape and be recaptured by
> US forces. Or some similar event will be engineered.
Such an "accidental escape" is the most probable outcome IMO.
> It's also possible that in the event of him being captured by US troops
> he will be very quietly handed over to an International court.
Possible, but I think improbable. Not with a US President famous for
executing mentally marginal convicts as Governor of Texas.
> >The surrender of the White Russians to Stalin's Soviet Union at the
> >end of WWII was a legal travisty. The UK's government at the time felt
> >good relations with Uncle Joe were more important. Those White Russians
> >are still as dead as they were when Beria executed them.
> >
> >Politics trumps law in international affairs; especially when the relative
> >value of the issue under consideration goes up.
>
> That's true but it's not clear which way is less politically
> troublesome. The US is the largest single economic power in the world
> but Europe as a whole is larger. The situation isn't as clear cut as you
> seem to think.
Granted. Though my money's on ultimate US custody, regardless of the
route.
Duane
Mitch Wagner
news:rv0c2uoijcv3gjsck...@4ax.com:
> Quoth Mitch Wagner <mwa...@world.std.com> on Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:59:36
> GMT:
>
>>od...@bigfoot.com (O Deus) wrote in
>>news:c6784f8f.01122...@posting.google.com:
>>
>>
>>> Applying the principle of equality under the law to Osama Bin Ladin is
>>> ridiculous,
>>
>>So everyone is equal under the law except for those accused of doing
>>something really, really bad, where almost all Americans believe the
>>accusations and hate the person so accused?
>
> Please, folks. The TeDeus one is trolling. Please don't feed it.
I don't think O Deus is a troll by strict definition. I think he does
sincerely hold the beliefs he does, and is trying to engage in debate, but
the problem is he doesn't know how to do it.
In particular, he reads a sarcastic response like mine, and rather than
respond with a reasoned response, or another sarcastic response, he comes
back with a personal attack.
Of course, I've been away from rec.arts.sf.fandom for a few months, so
maybe my memory of O Deus is flawed.
(And what kind of "Welcome back!" did I get? A flame from O Deus, and an
e-mailed slap on the wrist from Gary Farber for a violation of netiquette.
Hmph.)
--
Mitch Wagner
Mitch Wagner
news:m2pu55h...@msp-65-25-234-54.mn.rr.com:
> Mitch Wagner <mwa...@world.std.com> writes:
>
>> od...@bigfoot.com (O Deus) wrote in
>> news:c6784f8f.01122...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > Mitch Wagner <mwa...@world.std.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<Y%9V7.97507$Sx.26...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com>...
>> >> od...@bigfoot.com (O Deus) wrote in
>> >> news:c6784f8f.01122...@posting.google.com:
>> >>
>> >> > Applying the principle of equality under the law to Osama Bin
>> >> > Ladin is ridiculous,
>> >>
>> >> So everyone is equal under the law except for those accused of
>> >> doing something really, really bad, where almost all Americans
>> >> believe the accusations and hate the person so accused?
>> >
>> > Yes. Trying Hitler or Stalin in an ordinary criminal court would be
>> > ridiculous. We are dealing with extraordinary acts and extraordinary
>> > events.
>> >
>> > And the same sort of snickering attitude you're applying to the
>> > atrocities of 9-11, could well be applied to the Nuremberg trial.
>> > That however says far more about your charachter, than it does about
>> > those events.
>>
>> And what does it say about me, pray tell? And what do you assume that
>> I am arguing for with regards to Osama bin Laden?
>>
>> I will admit that I assumed you were simply arguing that we know Osama
>> is guilty and should just shoot him on sight.
> I certainly would.
Understandable, but do you think that this should be national policy?
Should President Bush issue kill-on-sight orders for Osama bin Laden?
Should we capture him, bring him to the U.S., and THEN kill him, without a
trial?
--
Mitch Wagner
Charlie Stross
> *This* time, OD is in the permanent killfile, and will not "age out" again.
As a point of note, I've just followed your example. I can feel my
blood pressure dropping already ...
-- Charlie
Joel Rosenberg
As Donald Rumsfeld would say, "Why, yes." That's what I thought I was
arguing, unambiguously.
> Should President Bush issue kill-on-sight orders for Osama bin
> Laden?
Of course. In effect, he already has. When he says that dead or
alive makes no difference to him, it's a pretty unambiguous message to
anybody smart enough to work it out.
That said, if he tries to surrender, I think we have to accept it, but
there's no advantage I can see, on balance, to not killing him before
he has the opportunity to try to surrender, and quite a bit of benefit
to be had by doing otherwise.
If we need to have trials to show that we can both afford accused
terrorists all the benefits of due process and still stick a needle in
their arm after they've been given the benefits of due process, we
can surely come up with other candidates, in addition to the two
obvious ones.
> Should we capture him, bring him to the U.S., and THEN kill him, without a
> trial?
Oh, absolutely not. Once captured, he really ought to get a trial
with all the legal protections that are required. (I'm not sure just
how many protections are required, mind, and I'd rather we not
have to explore that in bin Laden's case. A bit of proper targetting
should assure that the issue doesn't come up.)
Short form: permitting last-minute surrender is, in practice, a
matter of discretion, not a matter of the target's right.
gfa...@savvy.com
[. . .]
> (And what kind of "Welcome back!" did I get? A flame from O Deus, and an
> e-mailed slap on the wrist from Gary Farber for a violation of netiquette.
> Hmph.)
Welcome back!
Hugs, kisses, adoration!
You wouldn't want anyone to go out of character, though, now, would you?
:-)
(Besides, I just suggested that maybe you might not want to cross-post to
five newsgroups, even as a follow-up.)
gfa...@savvy.com
> Should President Bush issue kill-on-sight orders for Osama bin Laden?
Not only did he do that long before September 11, but that just repeats the
NSSD that Clinton signed. Various attempts were made, as has been eminently
documented and reported by all the major media. Much of this came out back
in September.
> Should we capture him, bring him to the U.S., and THEN kill him, without a
> trial?
I should think definitely not; very bad form. Killing him as an act of war
is fine; killing a prisoner without due process is not.
Alison Hopkins
djolds wrote in message ...
>Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote in message
news:<6uvvgKFi$eJ8...@shrdlu.com>...
>> In message <a91dfcc8.01122...@posting.google.com>, djolds
>> <djol...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>
>> >That's the idealistic way things should be. Reality rarely adheres to
>> >the ideal. The surrender or non-surrender of ObL would be a political
>> >question with remifications on so many levels it makes my head hurt to
>> >think about it. Those political considerations would totally bypass the
>> >formalities of law.
>>
>> But the formalities will be observed. The UK government will have made a
>> decision and the forces in the field will already know what it is. If a
>> UK force captures bin Laden he will either be brought to trial in an
>> international court or he will accidentally escape and be recaptured by
>> US forces. Or some similar event will be engineered.
>
>Such an "accidental escape" is the most probable outcome IMO.
If the SAS get him, he'll be shot. Period.
Ali
Alison Hopkins
Mitch Wagner wrote in message ...
>Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> wrote in
>news:rv0c2uoijcv3gjsck...@4ax.com:
>
>> Quoth Mitch Wagner <mwa...@world.std.com> on Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:59:36
>> GMT:
>>
>>>od...@bigfoot.com (O Deus) wrote in
>>>news:c6784f8f.01122...@posting.google.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Applying the principle of equality under the law to Osama Bin Ladin is
>>>> ridiculous,
>>>
>>>So everyone is equal under the law except for those accused of doing
>>>something really, really bad, where almost all Americans believe the
>>>accusations and hate the person so accused?
>>
>> Please, folks. The TeDeus one is trolling. Please don't feed it.
>
>I don't think O Deus is a troll by strict definition. I think he does
>sincerely hold the beliefs he does, and is trying to engage in debate, but
>the problem is he doesn't know how to do it.
>
>In particular, he reads a sarcastic response like mine, and rather than
>respond with a reasoned response, or another sarcastic response, he comes
>back with a personal attack.
>
>Of course, I've been away from rec.arts.sf.fandom for a few months, so
>maybe my memory of O Deus is flawed.
Oh, having seen the thing on many other froups, trust me, it's a troll.
Ali
Kip Williams
> Understandable, but do you think that this should be national policy?
> Should President Bush issue kill-on-sight orders for Osama bin Laden?
> Should we capture him, bring him to the U.S., and THEN kill him, without a
> trial?
This would be tantamount to a death sentence for the crime of
looking just like Osama. And maybe a stern crippling for just
resembling him.
...Hey, welcome back!
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at http://members.home.net/kipw/
"I'm not sure everybody in America is laughing at that."
--Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) responding to Jolly John Ashcroft
Joel Rosenberg
> Mitch Wagner wrote:
>
> > Understandable, but do you think that this should be national policy?
> > Should President Bush issue kill-on-sight orders for Osama bin Laden?
> > Should we capture him, bring him to the U.S., and THEN kill him, without a
> > trial?
>
> This would be tantamount to a death sentence for the crime of
> looking just like Osama.
Nah. Ctein will still be able to walk down the streets in LA in
safety, although I wouldn't suggest that he don a turban and try and
sneak around valleys near the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.
Kip Williams
>
> Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> writes:
>
> > Mitch Wagner wrote:
> >
> > > Understandable, but do you think that this should be national policy?
> > > Should President Bush issue kill-on-sight orders for Osama bin Laden?
> > > Should we capture him, bring him to the U.S., and THEN kill him, without a
> > > trial?
> >
> > This would be tantamount to a death sentence for the crime of
> > looking just like Osama.
>
> Nah. Ctein will still be able to walk down the streets in LA in
> safety, although I wouldn't suggest that he don a turban and try and
> sneak around valleys near the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.
Every time I see a shot of ObL, I think of this guy I knew.
His nose and upper lip have always reminded me strongly of a kid who
was my next-door neighbor for years. I think he lives in the same
neighborhood as my sister now, but he's too old to be Osama anyway
(and he's likely younger than Ctein, come to think).
gfa...@savvy.com
> Mitch Wagner wrote:
>> Understandable, but do you think that this should be national policy?
>> Should President Bush issue kill-on-sight orders for Osama bin Laden?
>> Should we capture him, bring him to the U.S., and THEN kill him, without a
>> trial?
> This would be tantamount to a death sentence for the crime of
> looking just like Osama. And maybe a stern crippling for just
> resembling him.
No, it doesn't. Curiously enough, the military and intelligence agencies
have things called "rules of engagement," and they don't say "start firing
wildly when you see a guy who looks like OBL." They require multiple
confirmation of identity, and a considerable number of other forms of checks
and restraints. Which is the primary reason they didn't succeed in killing
him in the past. (Here's one minor piece of the story, in today's
_Washington Post_:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17770-2001Dec22.html>.)
I'm surprise to see you criticize President Clinton's policy this way,
incidentally. :-)
(Tangentially, on the topic of allegedly unrestrained warfare and civilian
casualties, which has come up in this newsgroup at times, this:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44546-2001Dec14.html>.)
[. . . .]
Bernard Peek
>> That's true but it's not clear which way is less politically
>> troublesome. The US is the largest single economic power in the world
>> but Europe as a whole is larger. The situation isn't as clear cut as you
>> seem to think.
>
>Granted. Though my money's on ultimate US custody, regardless of the
>route.
Quite possible. I've been considering what offensive moves bin Laden
could take right now. Probably the most effective one would be to make
sure that nobody ever finds his body. That would leave the US in a very
difficult situation. They couldn't just declare him missing presumed
dead. They would have to continue devoting a lot of resources to the
search. If his body has already been cremated the search will go on
indefinitely.
Bernard Peek
<fn...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>
>If the SAS get him, he'll be shot. Period.
>
Quite possibly, although handing him over to an international court
would win the UK a lot of brownie points in some parts of Europe.
Joel Rosenberg
Which, of course, would permit the US administration to continue
wartime antiterrorism measures indefinitely.
Kip Williams
>
> In article <3C26526C...@home.com>
> Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
> > Mitch Wagner wrote:
>
> >> Understandable, but do you think that this should be national policy?
> >> Should President Bush issue kill-on-sight orders for Osama bin Laden?
> >> Should we capture him, bring him to the U.S., and THEN kill him, without a
> >> trial?
>
> > This would be tantamount to a death sentence for the crime of
> > looking just like Osama. And maybe a stern crippling for just
> > resembling him.
>
> No, it doesn't. Curiously enough, the military and intelligence agencies
> have things called "rules of engagement," and they don't say "start firing
> wildly when you see a guy who looks like OBL." They require multiple
> confirmation of identity, and a considerable number of other forms of checks
> and restraints. Which is the primary reason they didn't succeed in killing
> him in the past. (Here's one minor piece of the story, in today's
> _Washington Post_:
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17770-2001Dec22.html>.)
>
> I'm surprise to see you criticize President Clinton's policy this way,
> incidentally. :-)
I wuz just saying.
Mitch Wagner
> In article <Xns918083AC51AB4m...@24.4.64.20> Mitch Wagner
> <mwa...@world.std.com> wrote: [. . .]
>> (And what kind of "Welcome back!" did I get? A flame from O Deus, and
>> an e-mailed slap on the wrist from Gary Farber for a violation of
>> netiquette. Hmph.)
>
> Welcome back!
>
> Hugs, kisses, adoration!
>
That's better.
> You wouldn't want anyone to go out of character, though, now, would
> you?
>:-)
>
You didn't tell me to go look something up on Google. I still feel
slighted. :)
> (Besides, I just suggested that maybe you might not want to cross-post
> to five newsgroups, even as a follow-up.)
Which I don't quite understand. Almost all newsreaders ignore crossposts
the second time they see them, don't they?
As a rule, I wouldn't create a post with crossposts to five or more
newsgroups, but as a follow-up I don't see a problem with it. Although the
truth is, I simply don't, as a rule, look at the Newsgroups line before
sending a post--if I had, I might have also added a FollowUp-To line. But
I didn't.
--
Mitch Wagner
Mitch Wagner
> Mitch Wagner wrote:
>
>> Understandable, but do you think that this should be national policy?
>> Should President Bush issue kill-on-sight orders for Osama bin Laden?
>> Should we capture him, bring him to the U.S., and THEN kill him,
>> without a trial?
>
> This would be tantamount to a death sentence for the crime of
> looking just like Osama. And maybe a stern crippling for just
> resembling him.
>
> ...Hey, welcome back!
Thank you! Somebody noticed!
<off into the garden to eat worms>
--
Mitch Wagner
gfa...@savvy.com
> slighted. :)
That's the Old Me. I'm Better, now. Reformed. A New Man. I've Learned My
Lesson.
>> (Besides, I just suggested that maybe you might not want to cross-post
>> to five newsgroups, even as a follow-up.)
> Which I don't quite understand. Almost all newsreaders ignore crossposts
> the second time they see them, don't they?
No. Most newsreaders, so far as I've observed, default to following up to
the same newsgroups as whatever is being followed up to. It's common, but
unfortunate, that many people don't look at their headers, and followup to a
spam with another spam. <waves finger of disapprobation>
> As a rule, I wouldn't create a post with crossposts to five or more
> newsgroups, but as a follow-up I don't see a problem with it.
Spam is spam is spam. It's liable to start cross-newsgroup confusion, and
often flamewars, as people with different assumptions, who don't know each
other, start debating, too. But most of all spam is spam is spam is spam.
There's no magic out in saying "she did it first! Now my spam magically
isn't spam!"
> Although the
> truth is, I simply don't, as a rule, look at the Newsgroups line before
> sending a post--if I had, I might have also added a FollowUp-To line. But
> I didn't.
--
O Deus
> In particular, he reads a sarcastic response like mine, and rather than
> respond with a reasoned response, or another sarcastic response, he comes
> back with a personal attack.
As a NYCer I don't have much of a sense of humor about 9-11.
O Deus
> > He'll get a much fairer and lenghtier trial than any of his victims
> > got. As to America's Founding Principles, they deal with the compact
> > between Americans and their government. When non-Americans massacred
> > American citizens, trials were rarely bothered with for obvious
> > reasons.
>
> I've seen this cited many times in defense of the PATRIOT Act, but never
> with any evidence. I'd like to see some informed explanation of the rights
> of non-citizens under U.S. criminal law.
> Let's take an ordinary, everyday crime for an example: If a non-citizen
> knocks over a gas station, what happens to him?
About the same thing that happens to a US citizen, with the addition
of a deportation hearing once he gets out of jail. But that's not the
issue. An American has certain rights within the legal process as part
of the compact between the government and the citizen. As a practical
and moral matter, those same laws are also extended to foreigners
within the United States. However these are not rights that the
government is obligated to respect, but courtesies.
O Deus
> I will admit that I assumed you were simply arguing that we know Osama is
> guilty and should just shoot him on sight.
It would be impractical to shoot Bin Ladin before interrogating him.
But we unquestionably could if we wished to. Aside from 9-11, Bin
Ladin has taken credit for acts of terrorist against the United
States. He follows no rules of war and therefore his life is forfeit.
Whatever the US chooses to do him, will depend on what it thinks is
best...not on any rights that he has.
That is my point.
Charlie Stross
> Quite possible. I've been considering what offensive moves bin Laden
> could take right now. Probably the most effective one would be to make
> sure that nobody ever finds his body. That would leave the US in a very
> difficult situation. They couldn't just declare him missing presumed
> dead. They would have to continue devoting a lot of resources to the
> search. If his body has already been cremated the search will go on
> indefinitely.
There are worse possible side-effects of such a move. If you think
Wahabbi Islam is a pain in the neck now, imagine what it's going to be
like if it acquires a hidden Imam, a la twelver Shi'ism.
(It was Khomenei's failure to deny that he was the returned Hidden Imam
that caused such fanatical loyalty to him and the frenzy when he died
in 1991 -- a good western metaphor would be Jesus returns, leads the
Southern Baptists in a charge to power, establishes the kingdom of God
on earth, smites the wrong-doers ... then has the bad manners to die on
them instead of bringing them all to heaven.)
Anyone know if any mullahs have proclaimed bin Laden to be an Imam?
-- Charlie (exercising his flaky and very incomplete
knowledge of islamic theology to breaking point) Stross
Charlie Stross
> The internaltional arena is Hobbsean except insofar as the players (the
> nation-states) have agreed on common niceities to make international
> relations work.
:
> The consequences of throwing these niceities out the window vary as per
> the power of the nation-state that does so.
Correct so far, subject to one caveat: the power of a nation-state may
go down as well as up. (Look at the UK in 2001 and compare to the UK
in 1901. Now look at the relative power of the US in 2001. I get an
eerie sense of deja vu -- how about you?)
> International relations is
> an arena of all against all, a Mexican Standoff where only social
> convention in support of mutual survival keeps the players from pulling
> the triggers.
Not true: there are huge exceptions. Look at Europe, for example. Back
in 1939, yes, this description was applicable. Arguably it was still
partially applicable as late as 1989. Today it looks increasingly
obsolescent, and to say "yes, but the EU is just another nation so EU
member relations don't count any more than US inter-state relations do"
is to beg the question.
> There is no enforcement mechanism for "international law."
> There is no promulgation mechanism with the power of compulsion in
> "international law."
The International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague seems to be doing pretty
well.
The enforcement and promulgation mechanisms for international war seem
to be working about the way you'd expect law to work in a very primitive
direct democracy with roughly 200 participants, living in the middle of
an uninhabited wilderness, some of whom are stronger or richer than the
others. Just about everybody agrees that some crimes demand punishment,
so they cooperate with the court, but the system is primitive and has no
way of controlling the border -- a bad guy can in principle walk away
from the community and, unless he attacks them or a whole posse agree
to go after him, nothing will happen.
> International relations is about power, not law.
But intra-national law is about power, too. It's rooted in the concept of
sovreignty, whether derived from the people or implicit in the existence
of the state, but we tend to forget that these are modern replacements
for the divinely-authorised placeholder of power, the King. Whose
ancestors originally got the job by bopping people over the head with
a club until they obeyed them. Today, if you break the law within your
own country you can expect to be bopped over the head and dragged off to
court by the n-th generation descendant of that original arrogation of
state power by force. The law is just the set of conventions we use to
govern the use of force and control our social interactions. Sound
familiar?
-- Charlie
Mitch Wagner
> Mitch Wagner <mwa...@world.std.com> wrote in message
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,
among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
That's from memory. I'm sure I messed up a couple of words, but I'm sure
that those messed-up words do NOT include "except for those pesky
foreigners."
--
Mitch Wagner
Mitch Wagner
> Mitch Wagner <mwa...@world.std.com> wrote in message
Shame on you for using Sept. 11 as an excuse for your own failings. You
behaved exactly the same way before Sept. 11. And I wasn't being funny.
By the way, I spent 28 of the first 30 years of my life within 100 miles
of the World Trade Center, and I spent Sept. 11 through, oh, the 13th or
so, the way all expatriate New Yorkers spent those days: on the phone, IM
and e-mail, seeing if I knew anyone who was dead. The first call was to my
brother. So you have no monopoly on personal connection to the attacks.
--
Mitch Wagner
Mitch Wagner
> In article <Xns9180A68FBB16Em...@24.4.64.20>
> Mitch Wagner <mwa...@world.std.com> wrote:
> [. . .]
>> You didn't tell me to go look something up on Google. I still feel
>> slighted. :)
>
> That's the Old Me. I'm Better, now. Reformed. A New Man. I've
> Learned My Lesson.
>
>>> (Besides, I just suggested that maybe you might not want to
>>> cross-post to five newsgroups, even as a follow-up.)
>
>> Which I don't quite understand. Almost all newsreaders ignore
>> crossposts the second time they see them, don't they?
>
> No. Most newsreaders, so far as I've observed, default to following up
> to the same newsgroups as whatever is being followed up to. ....
What I meant to say is that after you've seen a message once, your
newsreader will mark it as read in all the newsgroups it's posted to, so
massive cross-posting isn't an inconvenience.
You do raise some good points about the cross-cultural flamewars, though.
--
Mitch Wagner
Robert Sneddon
(in message <slrna2e3s2....@raq981.uk2net.com.antipope.org>):
> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
> as <b...@shrdlu.com> declared:
>
>> Quite possible. I've been considering what offensive moves bin Laden
>> could take right now. Probably the most effective one would be to make
>> sure that nobody ever finds his body. That would leave the US in a very
>> difficult situation.
>
> There are worse possible side-effects of such a move. If you think
> Wahabbi Islam is a pain in the neck now, imagine what it's going to be
> like if it acquires a hidden Imam, a la twelver Shi'ism.
My worst-case scenario is for him to be captured alive, handed over to
American forces for trial and then to die mysteriously in captivity
before coming to trial.
--
Robert Sneddon
================================================================
Hogwasher: You don't have to sacrifice friendliness for power
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.html
================================================================
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 6:20:34 -0500, Charlie Stross wrote
> (in message <slrna2e3s2....@raq981.uk2net.com.antipope.org>):
>
> > Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
> > as <b...@shrdlu.com> declared:
> >
> >> Quite possible. I've been considering what offensive moves bin Laden
> >> could take right now. Probably the most effective one would be to make
> >> sure that nobody ever finds his body. That would leave the US in a very
> >> difficult situation.
> >
> > There are worse possible side-effects of such a move. If you think
> > Wahabbi Islam is a pain in the neck now, imagine what it's going to be
> > like if it acquires a hidden Imam, a la twelver Shi'ism.
>
> My worst-case scenario is for him to be captured alive, handed over to
> American forces for trial and then to die mysteriously in captivity
> before coming to trial.
>
The problem, in my mind, with the OBL as Elvis idea, is that gives the
US government carte blanche to continue with their current xenophobic
and freedom-destroying policies, both domestic and foreign.
73, doug
Martin Wisse
>In article <6uvvgKFi$eJ8...@shrdlu.com> Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote
>of "The Evil One":
>
>> It's also possible that in the event of him being captured by US troops
>> he will be very quietly handed over to an International court.
>
>There's no such court with jurisdiction. The ICC doesn't yet exist; for
>this to happen, another ad hoc tribunal would have to be created. This is
>not impossible, but seems unlikely.
The International Court in Den Haag?
Or indeed, another tribunal like the Yugoslavia tribunal or Ruanda
tribunal.
Martin Wisse
--
For lusers, understanding error messages is NP-hard.
-Paul Guertin, SDM.
Joel Rosenberg
> On 23 Dec 2001 19:50:10 GMT, gfa...@savvy.com wrote:
>
> >In article <6uvvgKFi$eJ8...@shrdlu.com> Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote
> >of "The Evil One":
> >
> >> It's also possible that in the event of him being captured by US troops
> >> he will be very quietly handed over to an International court.
> >
> >There's no such court with jurisdiction. The ICC doesn't yet exist; for
> >this to happen, another ad hoc tribunal would have to be created. This is
> >not impossible, but seems unlikely.
>
> The International Court in Den Haag?
>
> Or indeed, another tribunal like the Yugoslavia tribunal or Ruanda
> tribunal.
>
> Martin Wisse
> --
This presumes that the offense that bin Laden has committed is against
the "world" or the "international community", rather than the people
of the United States, who have, among other things, collectively
decided that there is a combination of certainty and aggregiousness
for which the death penalty is appropriate.
Me, I doubt that he'll be captured at all. I do hope that the body is,
eventually, found, although there's no rush.
djolds
According to Australian zoo keepers, eucalyptus juice is not a mind-
altering chemical...
> > The internaltional arena is Hobbsean except insofar as the players (the
> > nation-states) have agreed on common niceities to make international
> > relations work.
> :
> > The consequences of throwing these niceities out the window vary as per
> > the power of the nation-state that does so.
>
> Correct so far, subject to one caveat: the power of a nation-state may
> go down as well as up. (Look at the UK in 2001 and compare to the UK
> in 1901. Now look at the relative power of the US in 2001. I get an
> eerie sense of deja vu -- how about you?)
Agreed. Historically, all Great Powers in tha age of european nation-states
have enjoyed about a century or so of ascendant power before their collapse.
Imperial Overreach inevitably hits hard.
> > International relations is an arena of all against all, a Mexican
> > Standoff where only social convention in support of mutual survival
> > keeps the players from pulling the triggers.
>
> Not true: there are huge exceptions. Look at Europe, for example. Back
> in 1939, yes, this description was applicable. Arguably it was still
> partially applicable as late as 1989. Today it looks increasingly
> obsolescent, and to say "yes, but the EU is just another nation so EU
> member relations don't count any more than US inter-state relations do"
> is to beg the question.
The EU increasingly looks like a confederation/weak state; not a decentralized
federal state on the US model. Assuming it survives the challenges of the EMU
over the next ten years, further evolution toward centralized authority
structures is probably inevitable.
(Problem with the EMU is that it strips the member-states of their ability
to use seperate monetary policies to maximize returns for their individual
states in tough economic times. Under the aegis of the ECB, some member
states will win the monetary policy game, while others will lose. If the
EMU hangs togeather in spite of that, the European Confederation is
probably inevitable; if not, we probably see the slow disintegration of
the EU. Free trade does not require the degree of integration seen in the
current EU).
> > There is no enforcement mechanism for "international law."
> > There is no promulgation mechanism with the power of compulsion in
> > "international law."
>
> The International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague seems to be doing
> pretty well.
>
> The enforcement and promulgation mechanisms for international war seem
> to be working about the way you'd expect law to work in a very primitive
> direct democracy with roughly 200 participants, living in the middle of
> an uninhabited wilderness, some of whom are stronger or richer than the
> others. Just about everybody agrees that some crimes demand punishment,
> so they cooperate with the court, but the system is primitive and has no
> way of controlling the border -- a bad guy can in principle walk away
> from the community and, unless he attacks them or a whole posse agree
> to go after him, nothing will happen.
Exactly. "International law" is not about "courts," but about community
agreement (each and every individual time) to form a posse. And of course,
the physically stronger and richer community members retain the option to
tell the community to go jump off a cliff, as they vent on the problem.
Though eventually, at some point down the line, those big and rich members
will neither be so big nor so rich.
> > International relations is about power, not law.
>
> But intra-national law is about power, too. It's rooted in the concept of
> sovreignty, whether derived from the people or implicit in the existence
> of the state, but we tend to forget that these are modern replacements
> for the divinely-authorised placeholder of power, the King. Whose
> ancestors originally got the job by bopping people over the head with
> a club until they obeyed them. Today, if you break the law within your
> own country you can expect to be bopped over the head and dragged off to
> court by the n-th generation descendant of that original arrogation of
> state power by force. The law is just the set of conventions we use to
> govern the use of force and control our social interactions. Sound
> familiar?
Yes. In the final analysis, all government is force.
Intra-national law is about power, yes. A centralized authority structure
that all subsidiary bodies (provinces, localities, individual citizens/
subjects) submit to. That centralized authority structure does not exist
in international relations. "International law" is essentially a series
of social conventions used to keep players relatively amicable and
cooperative, just like an in-group of friends.
Break the social conventions and a centralized authority doesn't bop you
on the head, the unrestrained rage of some or all of the other players/
your "friends" does so.
Duane
djolds
> djolds wrote in message ...
> >Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote in message
> news:<6uvvgKFi$eJ8...@shrdlu.com>...
> >> In message <a91dfcc8.01122...@posting.google.com>, djolds
> >> <djol...@hotmail.com> writes
> >>
> >>
> >> >the ideal. The surrender or non-surrender of ObL would be a political
> >> >question with remifications on so many levels it makes my head hurt to
> >> >think about it. Those political considerations would totally bypass the
> >> >formalities of law.
> >>
> >> But the formalities will be observed. The UK government will have made a
> >> decision and the forces in the field will already know what it is. If a
> >> UK force captures bin Laden he will either be brought to trial in an
> >> international court or he will accidentally escape and be recaptured by
> >> US forces. Or some similar event will be engineered.
> >
> >Such an "accidental escape" is the most probable outcome IMO.
>
> If the SAS get him, he'll be shot. Period.
Fine by me. My supposition is based on the assumption he survives long enough
to make an outright "take him down the road" just slightly problematic.
And I would prefer to see ObL reduced to a pathetic prisoner in a courtroom
somewhere; though I doubt I'll get it.
Duane
Harry Payne
<jo...@ellegon.com> writes
>mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl (Martin Wisse) writes:
>
>> On 23 Dec 2001 19:50:10 GMT, gfa...@savvy.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <6uvvgKFi$eJ8...@shrdlu.com> Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote
>> >of "The Evil One":
>> >
>> >> It's also possible that in the event of him being captured by US troops
>> >> he will be very quietly handed over to an International court.
>> >
>> >There's no such court with jurisdiction. The ICC doesn't yet exist; for
>> >this to happen, another ad hoc tribunal would have to be created. This is
>> >not impossible, but seems unlikely.
>>
>> The International Court in Den Haag?
>>
>> Or indeed, another tribunal like the Yugoslavia tribunal or Ruanda
>> tribunal.
>>
>> Martin Wisse
>> --
>
>This presumes that the offense that bin Laden has committed is against
>the "world" or the "international community", rather than the people
>of the United States, who have, among other things, collectively
>decided that there is a combination of certainty and aggregiousness
>for which the death penalty is appropriate.
Which offence? The bombing of the Cole was purely an act against the US.
As far as the WTC atrocity, consider how many nations lost citizens
there. Consider how may Muslims working in the buildings died.
There have been calls for bin Laden, if caught, to be tried according to
Islamic law. It's unlikely to happen, but if he was he would be facing
the death penalty. Mass murder, disregard for fellow believers both at
the target and whom he set up to carry the act out...
>
>Me, I doubt that he'll be captured at all. I do hope that the body is,
>eventually, found, although there's no rush.
>
They can do wonders with DNA identification, but most of the world would
need more concrete proof than that.
--
Harry
Kris Hasson-Jones
splashed into the river and bubbled:
>decided that there is a combination of certainty and aggregiousness
This is *not* a spelling flame but a genuine inquiry--Joel, does that
word at the end of the line above represent egregious or aggressive?
(Or maybe both?)
--
Kris Hasson Jones sni...@pacifier.com
O Deus
> By the way, I spent 28 of the first 30 years of my life within 100 miles
> of the World Trade Center, and I spent Sept. 11 through, oh, the 13th or
> so, the way all expatriate New Yorkers spent those days: on the phone, IM
> and e-mail, seeing if I knew anyone who was dead. The first call was to my
> brother. So you have no monopoly on personal connection to the attacks.
I don't claim a monopoly on anything but if you're going to make
offensive comments, I'm going to respond appropriately regardless of
any defenses about a personal connection that you may try to use.
O Deus
It's also out of context. The above words were a statement of
philosophical ideals that justified the principle of the expendability
of specific governments based on the function of governments arising
from individual inalienable rights therefore allowing the 13 colonies
to secede from England.
In context these phrases read as being the mission statement of a
government to its citizens.
Marilee J. Layman
<sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 20:24:43 GMT, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com>
>splashed into the river and bubbled:
>
>>decided that there is a combination of certainty and aggregiousness
>
>This is *not* a spelling flame but a genuine inquiry--Joel, does that
>word at the end of the line above represent egregious or aggressive?
>(Or maybe both?)
I thought it was meant to be gregariousness.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
gfa...@savvy.com
[. . .]
> Anyone know if any mullahs have proclaimed bin Laden to be an Imam?
This fellow doesn't seem to call himself a mullah, but he more or less
proclaims bin Laden not just an Imam, but the heir to the Mahdi:
<http://www.greaterthings.com/News/911/OsamabinLaden/Imam_Mahdi/>.
Nancy Lebovitz
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 <fau...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>The problem, in my mind, with the OBL as Elvis idea, is that gives the
>US government carte blanche to continue with their current xenophobic
>and freedom-destroying policies, both domestic and foreign.
>
on Terrorism not being ended by a victory in Afghanistan.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Mitch Wagner
Doesn't say anything about "citizens." Says "men."
By your arguments, that document has no relevance today except for
historical interest, because that specific government and relationship--
18th Century England and its American colonies--no longer exists today.
--
Mitch Wagner
Mitch Wagner
> Mitch Wagner <mwa...@world.std.com> wrote in message
The offensive comment that I made, advanced in sarcastic terms, was that
even the worst villain in the world deserves the right to a fair trial.
You find this idea offensive?
--
Mitch Wagner
P Nielsen Hayden
Marilee J Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 14:48:42 -0800, Kris Hasson-Jones
> <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 20:24:43 GMT, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com>
>>splashed into the river and bubbled:
>>
>>>decided that there is a combination of certainty and aggregiousness
>>
>>This is *not* a spelling flame but a genuine inquiry--Joel, does that
>>word at the end of the line above represent egregious or aggressive?
>>(Or maybe both?)
>
> I thought it was meant to be gregariousness.
Certainly bin Laden (known to his friends as "Wacky Sam") is
gregarious. Look at his extensive video correspondence!
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Electrolite: http://www.panix.com/~pnh/electrolite.html
Joel Rosenberg
The former. My spelling is for shit, even when I don't have a cold.
O Deus
In your attempt to defend Osama's rights, you mocked the atrocity of
9-11 and that is indeed offensive.
O Deus
Those men exist within the context of their government. The entire
thrust of the document is an argument that the men of the American
colonies can create a new government to represent them. This whole
thing is about a clash of sovreignities, not some sort of cosmopolitan
doctrine.
> By your arguments, that document has no relevance today except for
> historical interest, because that specific government and relationship--
> 18th Century England and its American colonies--no longer exists today.
Its relevance is an historic one as a statement of principles which
governed the founding of this country. It is not relevant in a
political sense anymore than many historical documents are because
they deal with affairs that no longer exist. Furthermore the Civil War
was essentially a rejection of its premise anyway.
Johan Anglemark
<mwa...@world.std.com> wrote:
> (And what kind of "Welcome back!" did I get? A flame from O Deus, and an
> e-mailed slap on the wrist from Gary Farber for a violation of netiquette.
> Hmph.)
Oh, I thought that was the traditional rasff "welcome back" greeting.
-j
--
Johan Anglemark - http://anglemark.pp.se
Lejd av Upsala SF-sällskap - http://sfweb.dang.se
Bernard Peek
<jo...@ellegon.com> writes
>This presumes that the offense that bin Laden has committed is against
>the "world" or the "international community", rather than the people
>of the United States, who have, among other things, collectively
>decided that there is a combination of certainty and aggregiousness
>for which the death penalty is appropriate.
The fact that there are British troops in Afghanistan is evidence that
an offence against the international community has been committed. If he
is captured by British troops that is what he would be tried for, and
that crime doesn't carry a death penalty.
If, as you suggest, the crime is a local American issue then British
troops couldn't arrest him at all.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
In search of cognoscenti
gfa...@savvy.com
> In message <m2ellkc...@msp-65-25-234-54.mn.rr.com>, Joel Rosenberg
> <jo...@ellegon.com> writes
>>This presumes that the offense that bin Laden has committed is against
>>the "world" or the "international community", rather than the people
>>of the United States, who have, among other things, collectively
>>decided that there is a combination of certainty and aggregiousness
>>for which the death penalty is appropriate.
This presumes that this is an "either/or" condition, rather than, possibly,
an "and."
> The fact that there are British troops in Afghanistan is evidence that
> an offence against the international community has been committed.
Really? What offense against the international community had, say, Oman
committed in or before Ausgust and September?
(I'm not disagreeing with your larger point; it's the above assertion that
struck me as insufficient.)
> If he
> is captured by British troops that is what he would be tried for, and
> that crime doesn't carry a death penalty.
> If, as you suggest, the crime is a local American issue then British
> troops couldn't arrest him at all.
Not even if the US asked nicely? Not even given our extradition treaty?
Joel Rosenberg
> In message <m2ellkc...@msp-65-25-234-54.mn.rr.com>, Joel Rosenberg
> <jo...@ellegon.com> writes
>
> >This presumes that the offense that bin Laden has committed is against
> >the "world" or the "international community", rather than the people
> >of the United States, who have, among other things, collectively
> >decided that there is a combination of certainty and aggregiousness
> >for which the death penalty is appropriate.
>
> The fact that there are British troops in Afghanistan is evidence that
> an offence against the international community has been committed.
Oh? How so?
Mitch Wagner
I never did any such thing, O Deus.
What I said was, "So everyone is equal under the law except for those
accused of doing something really, really bad, where almost all Americans
believe the accusations and hate the person so accused?"
I don't know where you get mocking the atrocity of Sept. 11 from that.
Elsewhere on rasff I said that the 9/11 terrorists were evil.
--
Mitch Wagner
Mitch Wagner
news:johan-ya02408000...@news1.telia.com:
> In article <Xns918083AC51AB4m...@24.4.64.20>, Mitch
> Wagner <mwa...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>> (And what kind of "Welcome back!" did I get? A flame from O Deus, and
>> an e-mailed slap on the wrist from Gary Farber for a violation of
>> netiquette. Hmph.)
>
> Oh, I thought that was the traditional rasff "welcome back" greeting.
I think I prefer a surprise party with a big cake.
--
Mitch Wagner
Vicki Rosenzweig
GMT:
We could do that.
Let's see, I get back from Wales on 4 January--how does Twelfth Night
work for you?
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Seth Breidbart
Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> My worst-case scenario is for him to be captured alive, handed over to
>American forces for trial and then to die mysteriously in captivity
>before coming to trial.
If that happens, they should wrap his carcass in a pigskin before
cremating it.
Seth
Robert Sneddon
(in message <Xns918383F9EBEF5m...@24.4.64.20>):
> jo...@anglemark.pp.se (Johan Anglemark) wrote in
> news:johan-ya02408000...@news1.telia.com:
>
>> Oh, I thought that was the traditional rasff "welcome back" greeting.
>
> I think I prefer a surprise party with a big cake.
ObNotSF: "Some Like It Hot" -- you mean, like that kind of surprise
party and big cake?
--
Robert Sneddon
==============================================================
Posted with Hogwasher. Mac first, Mac only:
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.html
==============================================================
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> [a loathsome troll] wrote:
> > He'll get a much fairer and lenghtier trial than any of his victims
> > got. As to America's Founding Principles, they deal with the compact
> > between Americans and their government. When non-Americans massacred
> > American citizens, trials were rarely bothered with for obvious
> > reasons.
>
> I've seen this cited many times in defense of the PATRIOT Act, but never
> with any evidence. I'd like to see some informed explanation of the rights
> of non-citizens under U.S. criminal law.
Under the Constitution and the criminal laws of this
country, there are virtually no distinctions made between
citizens and non-citizens. The idiot you quoted has
apparently subscribed to some sort of mutant "social
contract" theory that doesn't allow for new persons to
participate in said social contract by being a lawful
resident or visitor.
"Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is
surely a 'person'.... Aliens, even aliens whose presence in
this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as
'persons' guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments."
-- U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Plyler v.
Doe (1982)
> Let's take an ordinary, everyday crime for an example: If a non-citizen
> knocks over a gas station, what happens to him?
Same as if a U.S. citizen did. There might, however, be a
subsequent deportation hearing, or other such consequences.
--
Michael J. Lowrey
citizen
Harry Payne
<se...@panix.com> writes
That would serve nicely in annoying the rest of the Muslim world that
isn't already cheesed off with us.
May I reiterate that Osama bin Laden has as much relevance to Islam as
Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and their ilk have to Christianity: i.e.
out on a limb, and to most adherents of the faith, barking mad.
--
Harry
gfa...@savvy.com
Harry Payne <Ha...@menageri.org.uk> wrote:
[. . .]
> May I reiterate that Osama bin Laden has as much relevance to Islam as
> Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and their ilk have to Christianity: i.e.
> out on a limb, and to most adherents of the faith, barking mad.
So you're saying that he's watched on tv by millions of admiring people who
regard him as a great, or perhaps primary, political, cultural, and
religious leader, who eagerly donate money, time, and effort, to his cause,
and have made him a hugely significant political force, then, is that it?
Sounds right.
I might suggest that bin Laden has considerably greater popularity amongst
Muslims in, say, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, than in Britain, but
reading what Abdul Haqq Baker, the chairman of Brixton Mosque, has to say,
isn't entirely comforting. (See, say,
<http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=111761> and
<http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=111753> and
<http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=111751>.)
Charlie Stross
as <Ha...@menageri.org.uk> declared:
> May I reiterate that Osama bin Laden has as much relevance to Islam as
> Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and their ilk have to Christianity: i.e.
> out on a limb, and to most adherents of the faith, barking mad.
ObAOL: agreed.
I will assert that what ObL planned and ordered was vile and evil --
but I'd much rather see him alive and discredited throughout the Islamic
world than dead and a martyr.
Discredited means there's less probability of a repetition: but Islam
has a long tradition of martyrdom, and killing him is likely to fuel up
the righteous rage of any number of moral imbeciles until they do something
they think he'd have approved of.
And, speaking personally, I think prevention of future attacks has got
to be a higher priority than revenge -- otherwise we just get stuck in a
vicious circle of terrorism and retalliation.
-- Charlie
Mitch Wagner
news:1nik2uk4p2hok7niq...@4ax.com:
> Quoth Mitch Wagner <mwa...@world.std.com> on Wed, 26 Dec 2001 20:58:25
> GMT:
>
>>jo...@anglemark.pp.se (Johan Anglemark) wrote in
>>news:johan-ya02408000...@news1.telia.com:
>>
>>> In article <Xns918083AC51AB4m...@24.4.64.20>, Mitch
>>> Wagner <mwa...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> (And what kind of "Welcome back!" did I get? A flame from O Deus, and
>>>> an e-mailed slap on the wrist from Gary Farber for a violation of
>>>> netiquette. Hmph.)
>>>
>>> Oh, I thought that was the traditional rasff "welcome back" greeting.
>>
>>I think I prefer a surprise party with a big cake.
>
> We could do that.
>
> Let's see, I get back from Wales on 4 January--how does Twelfth Night
> work for you?
Jan. 4 works for me, although I think you're in New York, aren't you? I'm
in San Diego.
That would certainly make it a surprise for me; a party for me which I
would be unable to attend.
--
Mitch Wagner
Joel Rosenberg
Well, you certainly may reiterate it, yet again, but I'm not sure
that you're right, and there's certainly evidence to suggest that the
sort of Wahabbiism that bin Laden advocates is hardly very distant at
all from the mainstream.
Mitch Wagner
news:01HW.B84FBB070...@news.cis.dfn.de:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 15:58:25 -0500, Mitch Wagner wrote
> (in message <Xns918383F9EBEF5m...@24.4.64.20>):
>
>> jo...@anglemark.pp.se (Johan Anglemark) wrote in
>> news:johan-ya02408000...@news1.telia.com:
>>
>>> Oh, I thought that was the traditional rasff "welcome back" greeting.
>>
>> I think I prefer a surprise party with a big cake.
>
> ObNotSF: "Some Like It Hot" -- you mean, like that kind of surprise
> party and big cake?
I don't rememeber that bit from "Some Like It Hot."
ObRealLife: We spent a couple of hours yesterday at the bar at the Hotel
Del DCoronado, here in San Diego, which is where the Miami, Fla., scenes
in "Some Like It Hot" were filmed.
--
Mitch Wagner
Mitch Wagner
So the Declaration of Independence is not relevant to political
discussions today?
You fail to demonstrate the existence of any legal or moral principle
which holds that the right to a fair trial should be denied to Osama
bin Laden, or to any other non-citizen accused of terrorism.
Elsewhere on rasff, in message 3C2A5964...@uwm.edu, another
poster quotes a legal citation supporting the rights of citizens to
fair trials:
"Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is
surely a 'person'.... Aliens, even aliens whose presence in
this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as
'persons' guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments."
-- U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Plyler v.
Doe (1982)
--
Mitch Wagner
Robert Sneddon
(in message <Xns9183AAD8AB275m...@24.4.64.20>):
> Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:01HW.B84FBB070...@news.cis.dfn.de:
>> ObNotSF: "Some Like It Hot" -- you mean, like that kind of surprise
>> party and big cake?
>
> I don't rememeber that bit from "Some Like It Hot."
Ah. Mobster banquet, giant cake is brought in, and a hitman jumps out
and machine-guns the Guest of Honour.
Welcome back to rasseff.
gfa...@savvy.com
Mitch Wagner <mwa...@world.std.com> quoted:
[. . .]
> "Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is
> surely a 'person'.... Aliens, even aliens whose presence in
> this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as
> 'persons' guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and
> Fourteenth Amendments."
> -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Plyler v.
> Doe (1982)
It's helpful when giving a quote from a legal cite to note whether it was
for the majority or the minority, or concurring. In this case, it's helpful
to note that Brennan was writing for the Court, in the majority.
See
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&friend=nytimes&vol=457&invol=202>
for the full opinion, if so interested.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ.,
joined. MARSHALL, J., post, p. 230, BLACKMUN, J., post,
p. 231, and POWELL, J., post, p. 236, filed concurring
opinions. BURGER, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which
WHITE, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p.
242.
Anyway, it's good to know that Osama bin Laden, if young enough, is entitled
to a free elementary school education in the US, should he be resident in
the US, and not otherwise encumbered.
:-)
More seriously, while this case does restate that
". . . protection of the
Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone,
citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and
reaches into every corner of a State's territory. . ."
and that
"illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in
these cases may claim the benefit of the Fourteenth
Amendment's guarantee of equal protection"
it goes on to make clear that this case only applies to people within the
borders of the US, and that the US utterly has the right to expel any
non-citizen.
So what this has to do with Osama bin Laden is quite beyond me. Of course,
IANAL. But so far as I know, Afghanistan is not a State of the US, and OBA
is not presently resident in the territory of any US State.
It's often helpful, though, to read a legal opinion before quoting it.
Mitch Wagner
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 19:47:36 -0500, Mitch Wagner wrote
> (in message <Xns9183AAD8AB275m...@24.4.64.20>):
>
>> Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:01HW.B84FBB070...@news.cis.dfn.de:
>
>>> ObNotSF: "Some Like It Hot" -- you mean, like that kind of surprise
>>> party and big cake?
>>
>> I don't rememeber that bit from "Some Like It Hot."
>
> Ah. Mobster banquet, giant cake is brought in, and a hitman jumps out
> and machine-guns the Guest of Honour.
>
> Welcome back to rasseff.
Okay, well, given the choice between that kind of surprise party, and
being rebuked by Gary Farber and flamed by O Deus, I will choose the
latter.
--
Mitch Wagner
gfa...@savvy.com
Mitch Wagner <mwa...@world.std.com> wrote:
[. . .]
> Okay, well, given the choice between that kind of surprise party, and
> being rebuked by Gary Farber and flamed by O Deus, I will choose the
> latter.
I won't even give you cause to want to dress up in drag to try to escape.
Promise.
(I dunno how long you've been away from Usenet, by the way, but I just came
back last week after being away for about a year or more.)