Could Bush fairly be called a dictator?
David Buttery
been arrested and detained without charge because he is deemed an
"enemy combatant". This appears to fly in the face of earlier
assurances given by US govt officials that "Camp X-ray"-type powers
would not be applied to US citizens.
In other words, it would seem that anyone can be deemed an "enemy
combatant" because the US president thinks they ought to be, with no
comeback from Congress. I'd call that rule by decree.
--
Hey, why be defeatist...? There are other sports :-)
England 2 Sri Lanka 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D
The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard
gandalf
"David Buttery" <gplscrapya...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9236A934F8B3B...@130.133.1.4...
[..]
-------------
A good question. And not one with any easy or glib answer.
My own view is that George W Bush, the human individual, has as much say in
what is happening as you or I. So in that sense he isn't a dictator and may
in some ways be worse off than the rest of us (currently). He already lives
in the regime we all fear. The administration and the forces and powers that
got it into power is another question altogether.
As I assume you use 'Bush' (as we all do) as a general identifier for the
whole US administration I'll answer also using 'Bush' as the identifier.
Yes Bush is a dictator. To make things more complex I don't think he/they
are alone. It is not just the US that is looking to reduce us to observed
and subservient subjects. Blair, and whatever drives him, are also keen on
the idea of reducing us to mere objects with zippo rights.
Using the classic 'external threat' they will attempt to get away with
whittling away our rights in order to 'protect' us. After all, if you're not
a bad guy you have nothing to fear.......
Richard White
> been arrested and detained without charge because he is deemed an
> "enemy combatant". This appears to fly in the face of earlier
> assurances given by US govt officials that "Camp X-ray"-type powers
> would not be applied to US citizens.
I did point this out in an earlier reply. He was originally arrested by the
FBI on returning to the USA from Pakistan. It seems that in the USA, the
police (ie. FBI as federal "police") can detain a suspect without charge for
a whole MONTH (!) before they have to release him.
What's worse, there was no report of his arrest/detention, implying that he
was denied legal representation during this period. (After all, we all
know how "loud mouthed" American lawyers are in speaking to the media about
their clients.) I was under the impression that any person arrested in the
USA had a right to legal representation during interview by the police/FBI
or whatever.
It seems that as this one month period came to an end, the FBI realised that
they had no or little evidence with which to convict this suspect of
involvement in planning to carry out a terrorist attack on the USA. So they
got "dubya" to sign an order declaring him an "enemy combatant" and thus
"allowing" to be detained by the Armed Forces as something akin to a PoW.
The points I made previously were:-
"I see, that for all the protection of the Constitution, which prohibits the
Congress from passing a Bill of Attainder (ie. a law to cause someone to be
arrested without trial), they forgot to prevent the President from doing the
same thing."
"This man is a US citizen. As such he should not really be considered an
'enemy combatant' but instead a alleged/suspected traitor. If he is
believed to be acting for the enemies of the USA, then as a citizen he
should be charged with Treason."
"Alternatively, if you really do want to consider him an 'enemy combatant',
then seeing as he was not in uniform and was arrested entering the country,
he should be charged with Espionage as an alleged enemy spy (by definition,
an enemy combatant operating behind your own lines or in your own country
while out of uniform is automatically a spy)."
"In times of war spies (and traitors) are shot! (Or otherwise executed)."
> In other words, it would seem that anyone can be deemed an "enemy
> combatant" because the US president thinks they ought to be, with no
> comeback from Congress. I'd call that rule by decree.
"Dubya" needs a fast lesson on the laws concerning slander and defamation.
If I remember correctly he has stated the allegations against this suspect
as if they are fact - and not just as yet unproven allegations.
In the UK, if this sort of thing happened, the suspect would probably have
to be released without trial, on the grounds that his rights to a fair trial
have been infringed. He would in any case certainly be able to sue for
compensation for slander.
Getting back to the original question, yes - I do find it very disturbing
that a person in the USA (citizen or not!) can be detained indefinitely on
the say so of a politician, without any prospect of judicial intervention.
arache
> been arrested and detained without charge because he is deemed an
> "enemy combatant". This appears to fly in the face of earlier
> assurances given by US govt officials that "Camp X-ray"-type powers
> would not be applied to US citizens.
Hmmm, but it could be said that the individual involved has been arrested
under international law rather than local? Then citizenship becomes
irrelevant, doesn't it?
> In other words, it would seem that anyone can be deemed an "enemy
> combatant" because the US president thinks they ought to be, with no
> comeback from Congress. I'd call that rule by decree.
Very few folk have been though haven't they? I think that a dictator would
simply shoot them in the back of the head and put them in a little hole
somewhere. The amazing thing I find about the States is that if this was
happening it'd be on CNN.
cheers,
gandalf
"Richard White" <whi...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:af564h$f4r$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
>
<snipped, but generally agreed with)>
> Getting back to the original question, yes - I do find it very disturbing
> that a person in the USA (citizen or not!) can be detained indefinitely on
> the say so of a politician, without any prospect of judicial intervention.
>
It will happen here as well if we are not on our toes. Some grand plan is
being played out. It will fail, but only because it started too soon. It
will lurk away in the background awaiting the next chance to hijack or
create some or other fear.
gandalf
"arache" <arac...@zoom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:af5fot$bbblg$1...@ID-122120.news.dfncis.de..
{..]
> Very few folk have been though haven't they? I think that a dictator would
> simply shoot them in the back of the head and put them in a little hole
> somewhere. The amazing thing I find about the States is that if this was
> happening it'd be on CNN.
> cheers,
>
---------------
CNN is not the CNN you became aware of during the Gulf War. Expect nothing
other than sanitised news from the CNN 'sleuths'.
TWP
before the WTC attack... of course back then in those innocent days the
reason was to protect us from Paedophiles and drug dealers.
Now its to protect us from terrorists. I seriously doubt anything but
people running anti US / UK websites (and anyone who reads them!) will be
caught this way. It's all a smokescreen. Its a puppet show, "he's behind
you" act, scaring and distracting us while the world is shuffled round into
a more comfortable shape to rule into the next century.
We need to be very careful about what happens next if we ever want to live
as free people again.
TWP
"gandalf" <gan...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:af5g4t$bo9il$1...@ID-139810.news.dfncis.de...
>
<CUT>
gandalf
Stay alert my friend, it's really down to us that care to think for those
that won't. (Sounds patronising but it's true)
TWP
Bummer! :-)
TWP
"gandalf" <gan...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:af5hu8$bmj67$1...@ID-139810.news.dfncis.de...
arache
I know I've had it as a news channel for about five years now, but I'd still
expect to see a piece on Congress approving the budget for bullets to the
backs of heads. You're right about their sanitised taste, I prefer the low
budget style of Asian stations to high budget blandness.
cheers,
gandalf
>
> "gandalf" <gan...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> news:af5gec$a5gt3$1...@ID-139810.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > CNN is not the CNN you became aware of during the Gulf War. Expect
nothing
> > other than sanitised news from the CNN 'sleuths'.
>
> I know I've had it as a news channel for about five years now, but I'd
still
> expect to see a piece on Congress approving the budget for bullets to the
> backs of heads. You're right about their sanitised taste, I prefer the low
> budget style of Asian stations to high budget blandness.
> cheers,
Short of actually being there I don't know if any of us can ever really know
the 'truth'. Even if we were there, would anyone believe what we had to say
if it ran counter to the official line. I know that the press/media and
truth are not always in sync. I have seen hundreds of armour vehicles and
tank transports heading into Angola only to hear vehement denials that any
incursions are taking place. It's all a big game. People like us who
populate the group stop it from being fait accompli.
David Buttery
> Hmmm, but it could be said that the individual involved has been
> arrested under international law rather than local? Then
> citizenship becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?
In that case, the focus shifts to what the US administration
understands by "international law". They don't seem to keen on the
aspects of it that would mean them having to account for themselves.
(Not that they're alone in that, of course.)
>> In other words, it would seem that anyone can be deemed an "enemy
>> combatant" because the US president thinks they ought to be, with
>> no comeback from Congress. I'd call that rule by decree.
>
> Very few folk have been though haven't they?
<snip>
That's somewhat beside the point - it's the principle of the thing
that matters. Consider: when Britain finally abolished the death
penalty for all crimes (when we passed the Human Rights Act) no-one
had been executed since the 1960s, and there was no chance of it ever
happening again (in peacetime, anyway). Yet many people, myself
included, still considered it a great moment, as it removed even the
*possibility* of Britain executing someone.
--
Cricket: England 2 Sri Lanka 0
Athletics: Gt Britain & NI European Cup winners
Keep those flags up!
Damage Inc.
As citizens of a pissant country, all of you Brits are not qualified to comment
on the politics of a SuperPower and hence your inane ramblings are not
welcomed. Now move along.
"Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself"
Doris Lessing
gandalf
"Damage Inc." <marke...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020623203924...@mb-ma.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Could Bush fairly be called a dictator?
>
> As citizens of a pissant country, all of you Brits are not qualified to
comment
> on the politics of a SuperPower and hence your inane ramblings are not
> welcomed. Now move along.
>
If you are capable of arguing your point I suggest you start a new thread
with an appropriate subject header.
If you do I for one will gladly take you on. If you can't, then please
push-off and leave those of that can discuss things sensibly alone.
David Buttery
> As citizens of a pissant country
<snip>
Ah, I *see*! You just can't spell "puissant".
> your inane ramblings are not welcomed. Now move along.
See that "uk." at the start of the NG name...?
TWP
>
> As citizens of a pissant country, all of you Brits are not qualified to
comment
> on the politics of a SuperPower and hence your inane ramblings are not
> welcomed. Now move along.
"Pride cometh ... before a fall"
(PROVERBS 16)
TWP
Jeffrey Goldberg
in <Xns9236A934F8B3B...@130.133.1.4>:
> Subject: Could Bush fairly be called a dictator?
>
> Maybe slightly over the top,
Maybe a bit more than slightly.
> In other words, it would seem that anyone can be deemed an "enemy
> combatant" because the US president thinks they ought to be, with no
> comeback from Congress. I'd call that rule by decree.
I certainly agree that this case is terrible. And that is is a dangerous
example of rule by decree, and should never be allowed. But that doesn't
make Bush a dictator or the US a dictatorship.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
Jeffrey Goldberg
in <af5fot$bbblg$1...@ID-122120.news.dfncis.de>:
> Hmmm, but it could be said that the individual involved has been arrested
> under international law rather than local? Then citizenship becomes
> irrelevant, doesn't it?
A simple fact that people seem to forget is that there is actually no such
thing as "international law". There are treaties between states which may
or may not have enforcement mechanisms built in, but there simply is no
such thing as international law. It's a myth.
What matters here is that the US (and most countries) distinguish among
several types of prisoner
(1) Citizen (suspected) civilian criminals (eg, the vast number of
people incarcerated in the US)
(2) Citizen (suspected) military criminals (eg, members of the US armed
forces who are subject to military instead of civilian courts)
(3) Non-citizen (suspected) civil criminals (eg, immigrants, legal and
illegal convicted of ordinary crimes or awaiting trial; but may
also include people held for immigration violations pending the
outcome of immigration hearings.)
(4) Foreign regular combatents from a State we are at war with (these
would be covered under the Geneva conventions. In particular,
the individuals are not held responsible for their actions, but
their States are. Prisoners are not to be held after a peace
agreement is settled. Currently I don't think that the US holds
any of those.)
(5) Foreign illegal combatents, not under the military control of some
State. Typically these people should be treated similar
conditions as the Geneva Conventions (Red Cross/Cresent access,
phyisical treatment, no torture, medical access etc), but can be
held individually responsible since there is not State to take
it, so technically the Geneva Conventions don't apply. (eg, the
G't'mo prisoners fall under this category).
The US constitution provides extensive rights to those in (1) and to a
lesser extent those in (3). Treaties and conventions on the treatment of
prisoners of war provide some protection to people under (4). People in
(2) have extreemly limited constitutional protections. Those under (5),
particularly if they are out of the range of any court (as in Guantanemo),
and not coverred by the Geneva Conventions, have no legal protection
whatsoever. However, their captors may (for political or diplomatic
reasons, or even humanitarian reasons) grant them the same treatement as
under the GCs where applicable (medical/physical treatment, etc).
Now the special case of a citizen who takes up arms against the US is
defined in the constitution. Someone accused of treason has,
constituionally, the same rights as anyone else in (1).
So, either the dirty bomber should be treated as (1), or maybe some stunt
will be pulled to strip him of his citizenship and send him to Guantanemo,
but what is happening now is deeply and fully and dangerously
unconstitutional.
> Very few folk have been though haven't they? I think that a dictator
> would simply shoot them in the back of the head and put them in a little
> hole somewhere. The amazing thing I find about the States is that if
> this was happening it'd be on CNN. cheers,
I agree with you. I am not ready to call Bush or Ashcroft dictators. But I
do believe that John ("if you whine about civil liberties you're
supporting them") Ashcroft would be a dictator if he could be.
Jeffrey Goldberg
in <20020623203924...@mb-ma.aol.com>:
[trollary snipped]
Time to killfile this troll. He was a bit amusing for a while. No
longer.
TWP
All he's trying to do is create animosity between US and UK posters.... He
attempts to insult Britain by saying how much better the US is, then the
British posters are supposed to respond by insulting the US, and all the US
posters are then supposed to join in like some big USENET barroom brawl.
It won't work on me matey.
TWP
Jeffrey Goldberg" <{$news}$@goldmark.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.02062...@lehel.goldmark.private...
Richard White
> "David Buttery" <gplscrapya...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xns9236A934F8B3B...@130.133.1.4...
> > Maybe slightly over the top, but consider: an American citizen has
> > been arrested and detained without charge because he is deemed an
> > "enemy combatant". This appears to fly in the face of earlier
> > assurances given by US govt officials that "Camp X-ray"-type powers
> > would not be applied to US citizens.
>
> Hmmm, but it could be said that the individual involved has been arrested
> under international law rather than local? Then citizenship becomes
> irrelevant, doesn't it?
But that has *not* been said. In fact, technically he isn't under "arrest"
at all. He has been detained by the Armed Forces in the belief that he is
an "enemy combatant". That he very clearly is *not* a lawful combatant
within the meaning of the Hague Convention seems to be totally beside the
point.
> > In other words, it would seem that anyone can be deemed an "enemy
> > combatant" because the US president thinks they ought to be, with no
> > comeback from Congress. I'd call that rule by decree.
>
> Very few folk have been though haven't they? I think that a dictator would
> simply shoot them in the back of the head and put them in a little hole
> somewhere. The amazing thing I find about the States is that if this was
> happening it'd be on CNN.
Which is why more recent dictatorial regimes have often opted for the
subtler "legal" approach of arresting people and the having them
"convicted".
The fact is that CNN didn't catch this episode. He was arrested on 8th May
and held for an entire month without being charged with any offence by the
FBI, and without the slightest murmur from the media!
Richard White
> >> In other words, it would seem that anyone can be deemed an "enemy
> >> combatant" because the US president thinks they ought to be, with
> >> no comeback from Congress. I'd call that rule by decree.
> >
> > Very few folk have been though haven't they?
> <snip>
>
> That's somewhat beside the point - it's the principle of the thing
> that matters. Consider: when Britain finally abolished the death
> penalty for all crimes (when we passed the Human Rights Act) no-one
> had been executed since the 1960s, and there was no chance of it ever
> happening again (in peacetime, anyway). Yet many people, myself
> included, still considered it a great moment, as it removed even the
> *possibility* of Britain executing someone.
You may consider it a "great moment". I think most people in the UK
consider it political correctness finally achieving total victory.
Let's just think for a moment if we in the UK had tackled IRA terrorism in
the same way as the USA has treated Al-Quaeda terrorism:-
1. The RAF would have bombed the "no-go" areas in Northern Ireland to
destroy "known terrorist hide-outs" etc.
2. The RAF would have bombed half of Ireland flat, killing thousands of
Irish civilians (equivalent of Afghan civilians) as the IRA was hunted down
in the Irish Republic (after all - remember how we could never extradite
anyone in the past?)
3. Of course, the Protestant terrorists, armed with Russian tanks and other
weapons, would be our "Northern Alliance" - not withstanding the many
atrocities they have committed in the past. Backed by RAF air power, these
forces would have advanced on Dublin, and occupied the city - after
previously assuring the UK and everyone else that they wouldn't.
3. The British Army would finally "invade", when it was safe for them to do
so without suffering any casualties, after the Protestants had completed
their conquest of Ireland. The Army would then have searched the mountains
... errr... low lying terrain .... for the remnants of the IRA.
4. Dublin would now be policed by a multi-national military force under
United Nations command
5. Martin McGuiness and Jerry Adams would be in hiding, whereabouts unknown,
but thought to be a cave somewhere in Ireland or possibly northern France or
the USA.
6. The UK would have set up "Camp X-Ray" on Ascencion Island in the middle
of the Atlantic.
7. Thousands of captured Irish citizens (ostensibly "illegal belligerents")
would have been flown out there (bound, gagged and blindfolded) and have
been detained for the last 30 years without trial. Among them would be a
few American citizens, rounded up with them. The US authorities would
whinge a bit, but bow to British superiority and abandon them there to their
fate <lol>
8. Moving on to phase two: the RAF would bomb known hiding places of IRA
fugitives being harboured by a regime sympathetic to them in Iraq ... errr
.... the USA (remember how the US courts allowed IRA scum to live in the
US??)
9. President Bush would be playing lapdog poodle to Tony Blair in the
ongoing war against the evils of terrorism, and would agree to lend the
assistance of the USAF, US Army and Marines in hunting down those evil IRA
terrorists in those parts of the USA where IRA fugitives are hiding. The
USAF bombs the Irish bars and other "hide-outs" in several US cities
including Boston and San Francisco.
10. The RAF keeps accidentally bombing and killing allied American, Canadian
and Australian troops in the ongoing operations in the Irish Republic
.... well, maybe not <lol>
arache
>
> "arache" <arac...@zoom.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:af5jur$bfkku$1...@ID-122120.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "gandalf" <gan...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> > news:af5gec$a5gt3$1...@ID-139810.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > ---------------
> > > CNN is not the CNN you became aware of during the Gulf War. Expect
> nothing
> > > other than sanitised news from the CNN 'sleuths'.
> >
> > I know I've had it as a news channel for about five years now, but I'd
> still
> > expect to see a piece on Congress approving the budget for bullets to
the
> > backs of heads. You're right about their sanitised taste, I prefer the
low
> > budget style of Asian stations to high budget blandness.
> > cheers,
> -------------------
> Short of actually being there I don't know if any of us can ever really
know
> the 'truth'. Even if we were there, would anyone believe what we had to
say
> if it ran counter to the official line. I know that the press/media and
> truth are not always in sync.
That's true enough, but I do have a feeling that a free press does a
generally good job at least in more established and stable countries.
You're spot on about the lack of synch (at least in some areas), I was
reading the other day a piece from the Nation (ZIM) about how food aid from
Britain was a deliberate attempt to force GM foods on starving Africans and
was in effect an act of suppression. Along with previous claims that AIDs is
a white man's invention to stop Africans breeding it becomes obvious to us
that it's total nonsense, but to uneducated locals or supporters of Uncle
Bob this might not be apparent. I do think we have to concede when the media
gets it right and when it's wrong, without tarring all media with the same
brush.
> I have seen hundreds of armour vehicles and
> tank transports heading into Angola only to hear vehement denials that any
> incursions are taking place. It's all a big game.
Interesting to see that RSA continues to deny any activity, reminds me of
the old style government. ;-}
I can see why military actions are denied though, it keeps everything secret
and prevents any domestic opposition.
> People like us who
> populate the group stop it from being fait accompli.
That's very generous of you, ;-}
cheers,
arache
"Jeffrey Goldberg" <{$news}$@goldmark.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.02062...@lehel.goldmark.private...
> in <20020623203924...@mb-ma.aol.com>:
>
> [trollary snipped]
>
> Time to killfile this troll. He was a bit amusing for a while. No
> longer.
Damage Wanc still here? Looks like market making isn't full time
employment...
cheers,
arache
> "arache" <arac...@zoom.co.uk> wrote on 23 Jun 2002:
>
> > Hmmm, but it could be said that the individual involved has been
> > arrested under international law rather than local? Then
> > citizenship becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?
>
> In that case, the focus shifts to what the US administration
> understands by "international law". They don't seem to keen on the
> aspects of it that would mean them having to account for themselves.
> (Not that they're alone in that, of course.)
I think the US admin has been pretty open about what they're doing.
Personally I'm not too sure about the wisdom of being so open, I think the
UK would have kept locations and prisoner details very hush-hush if they
were in that position.
> >> In other words, it would seem that anyone can be deemed an "enemy
> >> combatant" because the US president thinks they ought to be, with
> >> no comeback from Congress. I'd call that rule by decree.
> >
> > Very few folk have been though haven't they?
> <snip>
>
> That's somewhat beside the point - it's the principle of the thing
> that matters.
Maybe, but when it's almost a unique occurance I think the principle becomes
a little strained. I think there's probably more important wide ranging
criticisms, which for me makes them more valid. As always there's a great
danger whenever politicians and principals meet, even just in the same
sentence.
> Consider: when Britain finally abolished the death
> penalty for all crimes (when we passed the Human Rights Act) no-one
> had been executed since the 1960s, and there was no chance of it ever
> happening again (in peacetime, anyway). Yet many people, myself
> included, still considered it a great moment, as it removed even the
> *possibility* of Britain executing someone.
I had great hopes for the HRA, but the reality of it was my last positive
interest in the EU. I couldn't imagine US citizens putting up with having
rights in two contradictory paragraphs like the HRA, (e.g.: a) You have the
right to free speech, b) Except when... ). This of course means that there
is still a possibility of the UK admin executing someone, not forgetting the
Head Dean of Oxford would has the right to have any student beheaded from an
old royal charter. I do wonder why we need to pay for effectively pointless
legislation, as we have hundreds of years worth of our own. It's like
fishing regs for Luxembourg, oil drilling rules for Germany very fine in
principle, but not of any true use.
cheers,
arache
"Jeffrey Goldberg" <{$news}$@goldmark.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.02062...@lehel.goldmark.private...
> in <af5fot$bbblg$1...@ID-122120.news.dfncis.de>:
>
> > Hmmm, but it could be said that the individual involved has been
arrested
> > under international law rather than local? Then citizenship becomes
> > irrelevant, doesn't it?
>
> A simple fact that people seem to forget is that there is actually no such
> thing as "international law". There are treaties between states which may
> or may not have enforcement mechanisms built in, but there simply is no
> such thing as international law. It's a myth.
Fair enough.
SNiP informative bit.
> So, either the dirty bomber should be treated as (1), or maybe some stunt
> will be pulled to strip him of his citizenship and send him to Guantanemo,
> but what is happening now is deeply and fully and dangerously
> unconstitutional.
Isn't there a constitutional device that strips mercenaries of their US
citizenship?
I don't support ignoring folk's rights but think that as the US is a state
with no real anti-terrorism experience which generates mistakes. The
differance between this chap and the hundreds and thousands of similar
prisoners around the globe is that it's the state's media that are reporting
it. To me that sounds like a fair and free society, and that law will
prevail.
> > Very few folk have been though haven't they? I think that a dictator
> > would simply shoot them in the back of the head and put them in a little
> > hole somewhere. The amazing thing I find about the States is that if
> > this was happening it'd be on CNN. cheers,
>
> I agree with you. I am not ready to call Bush or Ashcroft dictators. But I
> do believe that John ("if you whine about civil liberties you're
> supporting them") Ashcroft would be a dictator if he could be.
I have found the idea that any dissenting voice is that of a traitor the
most worrying side-effect from that Tuesday. For me this isn't a sign of
dictatorial conspiracy but one of immaturity.
cheers
arache
arrested
> > under international law rather than local? Then citizenship becomes
> > irrelevant, doesn't it?
>
> But that has *not* been said. In fact, technically he isn't under
"arrest"
> at all. He has been detained by the Armed Forces in the belief that he is
> an "enemy combatant". That he very clearly is *not* a lawful combatant
> within the meaning of the Hague Convention seems to be totally beside the
> point.
Thanks for the clarification.
> > > In other words, it would seem that anyone can be deemed an "enemy
> > > combatant" because the US president thinks they ought to be, with no
> > > comeback from Congress. I'd call that rule by decree.
> >
> > Very few folk have been though haven't they? I think that a dictator
would
> > simply shoot them in the back of the head and put them in a little hole
> > somewhere. The amazing thing I find about the States is that if this was
> > happening it'd be on CNN.
>
> Which is why more recent dictatorial regimes have often opted for the
> subtler "legal" approach of arresting people and the having them
> "convicted".
That's very true.
> The fact is that CNN didn't catch this episode.
Fair enough, but I didn't suggest it did. I was saying that if the USA was a
dictatorship they'd televise the executions.
> He was arrested on 8th May
> and held for an entire month without being charged with any offence by the
> FBI, and without the slightest murmur from the media!
No dissent at all?
cheers
gandalf
>
> "David Buttery" <gplscrapya...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xns92378EDE2F6Eg...@130.133.1.4...
> > "arache" <arac...@zoom.co.uk> wrote on 23 Jun 2002:
> I think the US admin has been pretty open about what they're doing.
Really?
> Personally I'm not too sure about the wisdom of being so open, I think the
> UK would have kept locations and prisoner details very hush-hush if they
> were in that position.
---------------
Perhaps they do.
> > That's somewhat beside the point - it's the principle of the thing
> > that matters.
>
> Maybe, but when it's almost a unique occurance I think the principle
becomes
> a little strained.
-----------------
It's only unique the first time. Once you break with accepted principles and
rule of law you're stuffed. Principles are vital. Not just for a single
individual in a 'unique' predicament, but for all of us. We are all unique
individuals. Which makes us all equally vulnerable to 'the powers that be'.
Unless we collectively stick to our principles.
arache
> news:af7u2b$cbm75$1...@ID-122120.news.dfncis.de...
> -------------
> Really?
Yes, considering their opponent operates in near secrecy and to combat them
they too need a degree of secrecy, just as if their foe were naval they'd
need a navy.
> > Personally I'm not too sure about the wisdom of being so open, I think
the
> > UK would have kept locations and prisoner details very hush-hush if they
> > were in that position.
> ---------------
> Perhaps they do.
Probably, it seems to have been practiced in NI along with similar abuses. I
think strategically it's probably essential. I don't agree with either side
btw.
> > > That's somewhat beside the point - it's the principle of the thing
> > > that matters.
> >
> > Maybe, but when it's almost a unique occurance I think the principle
> becomes
> > a little strained.
> -----------------
> It's only unique the first time. Once you break with accepted principles
and
> rule of law you're stuffed. Principles are vital. Not just for a single
> individual in a 'unique' predicament, but for all of us. We are all unique
> individuals. Which makes us all equally vulnerable to 'the powers that
be'.
> Unless we collectively stick to our principles.
I have no problem with these very honourable ideals, but I do think that
when a "war footing" or "siege mentality" takes a hold principles tend to
suffer in the effort to secure a victory. This may be right or wrong but I'm
not sure I would want to attempt to make this choice if I believed that my
survival depended on it, and I think it's true for both sides in all these
conflicts.
cheers,
gandalf
> > "arache" <arac...@zoom.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:af7u2b$cbm75$1...@ID-122120.news.dfncis.de...
> > > I think the US admin has been pretty open about what they're doing.
> > -------------
> > Really?
>
> Yes, considering their opponent operates in near secrecy and to combat
them
> they too need a degree of secrecy, just as if their foe were naval they'd
> need a navy.
>
I don't buy this 'War on Terror' crap. And I am certain that the ulterior
motives of the US administration are being kept well under wraps. So no, I
don't think they are 'open' at all. Just very devious.
>>[..]Which makes us all equally vulnerable to 'the powers that
> be'.
> > Unless we collectively stick to our principles.
>
> I have no problem with these very honourable ideals, but I do think that
> when a "war footing" or "siege mentality" takes a hold principles tend to
> suffer in the effort to secure a victory. This may be right or wrong but
I'm
> not sure I would want to attempt to make this choice if I believed that my
> survival depended on it, and I think it's true for both sides in all these
> conflicts.
------------------
A 'War Footing' or 'Siege Mentality' is so easy for a manipulative
government to create. Once they've convinced enough people they will set
about the real objectives. Don't be so trusting......
David Buttery
[abolition of the death penalty]
> You may consider it a "great moment". I think most people in the
> UK consider it political correctness finally achieving total
> victory.
<snip>
I object to the judicial killing of anyone, on moral grounds. Full
stop. The idea that it's "political correctness", "gone mad" or
otherwise (I know you didn't say that, but many others have) is one
step away from the "bring back the birch/national
service/stocks/thumbscrews/clip round the ear from PC 49" brigade we
get in the Express & Star.
David Buttery
> [Reply to the post below]
>
> All he's trying to do is create animosity between US and UK
> posters.... He attempts to insult Britain by saying how much
> better the US is, then the British posters are supposed to respond
> by insulting the US, and all the US posters are then supposed to
> join in like some big USENET barroom brawl.
>
> It won't work on me matey.
No - and it doesn't appear to be working on the rest of us, either.
Yet another heartening sign of how this NG can sustain both all-out
ideological warfare and civil conversation between the same people at
the same time. (Voting closes 12/7, by the way <g>)
David Buttery
> On Jun 23, 2002 David Buttery <gplscrapya...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote
> in <Xns9236A934F8B3B...@130.133.1.4>:
>
>> Subject: Could Bush fairly be called a dictator?
>>
>> Maybe slightly over the top,
>
> Maybe a bit more than slightly.
Yes, I accept that. As you've probably guessed, it was a deliberately
provocative subject line, and you'll have noticed that nowhere in my
post did I actually say straight out: "Bush is a dictator".
>> In other words, it would seem that anyone can be deemed an "enemy
>> combatant" because the US president thinks they ought to be, with
>> no comeback from Congress. I'd call that rule by decree.
>
> I certainly agree that this case is terrible. And that is is a
> dangerous example of rule by decree, and should never be allowed.
> But that doesn't make Bush a dictator or the US a dictatorship.
No indeed. But how long should we wait? Surely it's better to blow
whistles now than to wait too long - "then they came for me, and
there was no-one left to speak out for me" and suchlike.
Richard White
> "Richard White" <whi...@gmx.co.uk> wrote on 24 Jun 2002:
>
> [abolition of the death penalty]
> > You may consider it a "great moment". I think most people in the
> > UK consider it political correctness finally achieving total
> > victory.
> <snip>
>
> I object to the judicial killing of anyone, on moral grounds.
alternative. But we need to make far more use of full natural life (until
until actual death) sentences - especially for the hardened habitual
criminals.
Risks of life imprisonment are: (a) likely to result in Euro-judges
overruling our quite competant imprisonment policies and "force" them to be
relased early (as my yet happen to Myra Hindley), and (b) just not imposed
enough anyway.
There are many serious criminals in our prisons, not just murderers, who are
just hardened habitual criminals. We follow this pathetic system that once
they are released, all is well again until they reoffend. One really good
thing about the US sentencing policy, is that more often than not, when they
say life - they mean life: full natural life.
None of this softy release them a month before they die (to wit one of the
Cray twins).
> Full
> stop. The idea that it's "political correctness", "gone mad" or
> otherwise (I know you didn't say that, but many others have) is one
> step away from the "bring back the birch/national
> service/stocks/thumbscrews/clip round the ear from PC 49" brigade we
> get in the Express & Star.
The birch was an *excellent* deterrent. Ask any Manx islander old enough to
have lived from the birching era to the present. Almost overnight, when the
Euro-judges interfered again in what (in this case) the IoM people wanted,
crimes of vandalism and violence dramatically increased. Just as murders
did once the death penalty was abolished.
(No - I'm not saying it should be re-introduced - but that it was a better
deterrent than fines/imprisonment)
People may not like these penalties, because they aren't "civilised". But
they forget that many of the criminals aren't "civilised" either: and more
to the point they can't respond to reason and civility - only "might is
right" and outright fear of the consequences (deterrent) will prevent them
from reoffending.
gandalf
"Richard White" <whi...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:af8h49$lg3$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
>
> "David Buttery" <gplscrapya...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xns9238C1F9CC87g...@130.133.1.4...
> > "Richard White" <whi...@gmx.co.uk> wrote on 24 Jun 2002:
> >
> > [abolition of the death penalty]
-------------------
This is a really difficult subject.
Death is absolute. 'Justice' is fallible. I could argue this one from either
stand-point in a debate. But in the real world, the one we inhabit, we must
be careful. I hate to see some of the scum that prey upon society released
back into their very hunting grounds. But I also know that the cops and the
lawyers don't always give a damn about getting the right person.
Let me put it this way: If I see someone trying to strangle my daughter then
that someone will die - there and then. If I get punished well so be it. If
on the otherhand my daughter was found strangled after several days of being
missing and after much 'investigation' the cops actually managed to get
someone to court I would not accept that the state should kill that person.
The state makes cock-ups. My judgement would have been summary and beyond
doubt (to me anyway).
Life imprisonment for serious crimes should be just that. Some of these
vermin have decided that they are outside society, so they should stay
outside society - under lock and key. But they should have full access to
all legal procedures to ensure that their conviction was valid. Posthumous
pardons are a bummer.
David Buttery
<snip>
> People may not like these penalties, because they aren't
> "civilised". But they forget that many of the criminals aren't
> "civilised" either: and more to the point they can't respond to
> reason and civility - only "might is right" and outright fear of
> the consequences (deterrent) will prevent them from reoffending.
I would have thought that what makes a difference is knowing they
haev a very good chance of being caught, whatever the punishment.
It's no good threatening criminals with severe punishments if they
don't get arrested in the first place. A 95% chance of seven years in
prison would deter a lot more armed robbers than a 20% chance of
life.
David Buttery
<snip>
> Let me put it this way: If I see someone trying to strangle my
> daughter then that someone will die - there and then. If I get
> punished well so be it. If on the otherhand my daughter was found
> strangled after several days of being missing and after much
> 'investigation' the cops actually managed to get someone to court
> I would not accept that the state should kill that person. The
> state makes cock-ups. My judgement would have been summary and
> beyond doubt (to me anyway).
<snip>
In other words, you're making the distinction (as some jurisdictions
do) between a killing in cold blood and a "crime passionelle"?
gandalf
> do) between a killing in cold blood and a "crime passionelle"?
That wasn't my intent but you make a valid point. What I meant was that if I
saw it with my own eyes in a real-time setting I would protect my daughter.
No matter what the consequences for me. If the state kills it is never, and
cannot, be sure that it does the right thing.
Richard White
gandalf et al.
It should have occurred to you and everyone else that Damage Inc. is just a
pathetic little troll. Probably some teen kid with nothing better to do.
He started off almost funny - but seems now to be just trolling.
Do what I have done, and block out his posts so they no longer trouble me.
Only problem is that while I no longer see *his* idiotic posts - I do still
see replies to them! (Even my own <lol>)
Jeffrey Goldberg
> > I certainly agree that this case is terrible. And that is is a
> > dangerous example of rule by decree, and should never be allowed.
> > But that doesn't make Bush a dictator or the US a dictatorship.
>
> No indeed. But how long should we wait? Surely it's better to blow
> whistles now than to wait too long
Who's waiting? To the (remarkably limited) extent that I publically
protest anything, I am voicing my opposition to this.
I have two other concerns. One is I think that this individual isn't
getting due process exactly because the evidence against him is weak.
After all Lindh, "The 20th hijacker" and the "shoe bomber" are getting
reasonable trials withing the confines of sealed evidence. What makes this
guy different? I believe that, as the reports say, the dirty bomb scheme
was "in the early planning phases". That means that all they have is the
word of some informant and a few travel coincidences. That is, he is being
held without access to a lawyer, in clear violation of habeas corpus, and
probably half a dozen other legal protections because there is little
usable evidence for a trial.
I find this particularly worrying. Exactly where evidence is week is
where people aren't given proper protections.
The other concern is that this man was incarcerated for about a month
before the information was made public. Are there any others?
But I would like to say that the constitution is functioning. Just as
Blunkett has withdrawn the extensions to the RIP Act, the various security
proposals in the US are not nearly as bad as they could have been.
Chris Thompson
arache <arac...@zoom.co.uk> wrote:
[...snip...]
>
>I had great hopes for the HRA, but the reality of it was my last positive
>interest in the EU. I couldn't imagine US citizens putting up with having
>rights in two contradictory paragraphs like the HRA, (e.g.: a) You have the
>right to free speech, b) Except when... ). This of course means that there
>is still a possibility of the UK admin executing someone, not forgetting the
>Head Dean of Oxford would has the right to have any student beheaded from an
>old royal charter.
Goodness only knows who you mean by "the Head Dean of Oxford" ! However,
the statutes of bodies incorporated under royal charter do not normally
override *subsequent* parliamentary legislation.
And of course, no royal charter has ever given such a body the right
to inflict capital punishment! That has always been a right rigorously
reserved by the state, and I think you will find that has been so since
the origins of modern English law in the 12th century.
When a certain student caused an explosion in a room in Trinity College,
Cambridge in the early 1970s, and was prosecuted for it, there was some
speculation that he could still have been subject to capital punishment
for "setting fire to Her Majesty's dockyards or shipyards", which remained
on the statute book at that point. But this was, I think, intended as
a joke ...
Chris Thompson
Email: cet1 [at] cam.ac.uk
gandalf
>
> It should have occurred to you and everyone else that Damage Inc. is just
a
> pathetic little troll. Probably some teen kid with nothing better to do.
> He started off almost funny - but seems now to be just trolling.
>
> Do what I have done, and block out his posts so they no longer trouble me.
>
I have thought of that but the problem is the trolls might start to
proliferate. I would prefer to take them on, not enter into a pointless
trading of insults, but show their loony ideas for what they are. But I am
new to this NG scene so maybe I'm still a little green
spurious
>
> "Richard White" <whi...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:af8pka$3a$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> >
> I have thought of that but the problem is the trolls might start to
> proliferate. I would prefer to take them on, not enter into a pointless
> trading of insults, but show their loony ideas for what they are. But I am
> new to this NG scene so maybe I'm still a little green
>
have been posting since Christmas. I can understand when you say "take on
the trolls" as in damage, and i admire you for that. I truly wish i had the
constrictive use of words as you do.
But it is now at a stage were I know what your posting are all
about. Anti Israel, Anti American no matter the subject line.
You criticise OT posting because it makes it harder for you to
have a go at Is/Am or there governments.
thou a can see you have a good go.
I enjoy your posts and read them all, as i do all posters in
here, but you are getting so bloody predictable, it's like a scratched
record.
I think you might benefit by joining in OT posts, or even ,dare
i say start one
respectfully
spurious
gandalf
"spurious" <spur...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:102502549...@doris.uk.clara.net...
>
> "gandalf" <gan...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> news:afa1s0$as3p2$1...@ID-139810.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Richard White" <whi...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:af8pka$3a$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> > >
> have been posting since Christmas. I can understand when you say "take on
> the trolls" as in damage, and i admire you for that. I truly wish i had
the
> constrictive use of words as you do.
>
Many here have being using NG's for years. I am still new by comparison.
Others have far more first-hand experience of the 'Troll' phenomenon.
> But it is now at a stage were I know what your posting are all
> about. Anti Israel, Anti American no matter the subject line.
>
---------------
I don't agree with current Israeli policy nor that of the Bush
administration. That doesn't make me anti either state. Just their current
policies. I don't like Blair's policies. It doesn't make me anti-English or
even anti-'New Labour'
> You criticise OT posting because it makes it harder for you to
> have a go at Is/Am or there governments.
> thou a can see you have a good go.
>
----------------
It's difficult to 'have a good go' at Is/Am (not that I wish to) in a thread
about football. So I fail to see where you have observed me having a 'good
go'. I tend to stay out.
> I enjoy your posts and read them all, as i do all posters in
> here, but you are getting so bloody predictable, it's like a scratched
> record.
>
----------------
I suppose we all are becoming 'almost' predictable. But I am a little
dismayed that you assume I am anti this or that nation just because I
disagree with the policies of their leaders. I could happily watch Arafat
boil in bat's-piss, but I still would believe that the solution to the
problem is the ending of injustice and domination. So I am not
pro-Palestinian any more than I am anti-Israeli. I am pro seeing an end to
this whole affair.
If you are getting a little bored then please find someone else to insult.
spurious
>
> "spurious" <spur...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:102502549...@doris.uk.clara.net...
> >
> > "gandalf" <gan...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> > news:afa1s0$as3p2$1...@ID-139810.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > "Richard White" <whi...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:af8pka$3a$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> > > >
<snip>
> If you are getting a little bored then please find someone else to insult.
>
I am not insulting you at all, I stated that i admired you, to take on
anybody head to head must be admired, especially if you don't know the
individuall.
What i'm trying to say is, If I wanted an opposite point of view, then
gandalf will give it. NO MATTER WHAT.
Do you really believe in the arguements, sorry (points of view) or do you
simply go opposite, to provoke a reply?
spurious
>
>
>
arache
"Chris Thompson" <cet1-...@cam.ac.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:af9nou$2jj$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <af7u2b$cbm75$1...@ID-122120.news.dfncis.de>,
> arache <arac...@zoom.co.uk> wrote:
> [...snip...]
> >
> >I had great hopes for the HRA, but the reality of it was my last positive
> >interest in the EU. I couldn't imagine US citizens putting up with having
> >rights in two contradictory paragraphs like the HRA, (e.g.: a) You have
the
> >right to free speech, b) Except when... ). This of course means that
there
> >is still a possibility of the UK admin executing someone, not forgetting
the
> >Head Dean of Oxford would has the right to have any student beheaded from
an
> >old royal charter.
>
> Goodness only knows who you mean by "the Head Dean of Oxford" ! However,
> the statutes of bodies incorporated under royal charter do not normally
> override *subsequent* parliamentary legislation.
The bloke in charge is who I mean... but I still enjoy having folk better
educated than me patronise me.
cheers,
arache
> ideological warfare and civil conversation between the same people at
> the same time.
No, oh it isn't.
cheers,
gandalf
If I simply want an argument I'll turn the computer off and go and see the
mother-in-law.
There is a common thread to all my comments. It is not what you appear to
think it is.
I do not simply gainsay the utterances of others to provoke pointless
argument.
So yes I do believe in argument/discussion as a means of expressing views.
The world is in a troubled phase, perhaps always has been, but now we do
have the means to trade opinions and observations and facts. I do not simply
use this mechanism to provide the opposite view on everything. Believe it or
not I take it seriously. So should you. It may not last.
If I do get around to playing 'Devil's Advocate' on a topic I will make sure
all concerned are aware. Until then you can be sure that I am not simply
being 'anti' for the hell of it.
I am concerned that much that we all take for granted will be taken away.
Getting it back would be more difficult than hanging on to it in the first
place. Looking at the US, Israel or anywhere else in isolation is to miss
the true scope of the problem.
gandalf
>
--------------
By the way, I do accept that you weren't having a go me. ;-)
Richard White
> "spurious" <spur...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:102502549...@doris.uk.clara.net...
> >
> > "gandalf" <gan...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> > news:afa1s0$as3p2$1...@ID-139810.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > "Richard White" <whi...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:af8pka$3a$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> > > >
> > > How long do you plan to be "new" gandalf ? if my memory serves me, you
> > have been posting since Christmas. I can understand when you say "take
on
> > the trolls" as in damage, and i admire you for that. I truly wish i had
> the
> > constrictive use of words as you do.
"spurious" - Please take greater care how you snip / cut & paste.
I did NOT write the above comments - which your post makes look like I
wrote.
spurious
>
> > "spurious" <spur...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> > news:102502549...@doris.uk.clara.net...
> > >
> > > "gandalf" <gan...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> > > news:afa1s0$as3p2$1...@ID-139810.news.dfncis.de...
> > > >
> > > > "Richard White" <whi...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:af8pka$3a$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> "spurious" - Please take greater care how you snip / cut & paste.
>
> I did NOT write the above comments - which your post makes look like I
> wrote.
>
>
I generally only clear the text in the bodies of my replys and leave the
"history" of the contributers to the thread.
The top one being the lateist, I would only clear the history if it were to
take up more space then my reply. I presume this is what you meant?.
I disagree that my reply looked as if it came from you, but i see
your point,
If i wanted to assume someone's name( which i don't ) i would at
least do a little work to the settings in my News Reader, but people in this
group are too clever to be fooled,
As my way of posting has provoked you into responding, i will in
future try and take some, if not all, posters out of the history.
respectfully
spurious
>
Richard White
>
[...snipped...]
> If i wanted to assume someone's name( which i don't ) i would at
> least do a little work to the settings in my News Reader, but people in
this
> group are too clever to be fooled,
It's not a matter of assuming someone's name ... I know you don't do that
:-)
> As my way of posting has provoked you into responding, i will
in
> future try and take some, if not all, posters out of the history.
Or really that of taking out the history.
The way you snipped, left someone else's comments immediately after my name
(RW<...>wrote...etc.). You needed to indicate who in the above list
actually wrote the passage you left in and which you then replied to.
Coming immediately after my name, and with a matching level of indentation,
it certainly looked (to me) as if I had "written" it.
spurious
>
> "spurious" <spur...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:102534977...@iapetus.uk.clara.net...
> >
> [...snipped...]
> > If i wanted to assume someone's name( which i don't ) i would
at
> > least do a little work to the settings in my News Reader, but people in
> this
> > group are too clever to be fooled,
>
> It's not a matter of assuming someone's name ... I know you don't do that
> :-)
>
> > As my way of posting has provoked you into responding, i will
> in
> > future try and take some, if not all, posters out of the history.
>
> Or really that of taking out the history.
>
> The way you snipped, left someone else's comments immediately after my
name
I diden't accally do that, OE did all on it's own.:o)
> (RW<...>wrote...etc.). You needed to indicate who in the above list
> actually wrote the passage you left in and which you then replied to.
> Coming immediately after my name, and with a matching level of
indentation,
> it certainly looked (to me) as if I had "written" it.
>
>
> A Thousand apologies, i will try to be more formal in future, and i
appreciate your comments,
NB i believe i didn't have to cut any of the posters in our conversation,
as there is only you and I. Please state if this is unsatisfactory. The
biggest problem i have is to remeber to cut, before hitting the send.
respectfully
spurious
>
>
>
gandalf
>
(snip)
> > A Thousand apologies, i will try to be more formal in future, and i
> appreciate your comments,
Example above.
>
> NB i believe i didn't have to cut any of the posters in our
conversation,
> as there is only you and I. Please state if this is unsatisfactory. The
> biggest problem i have is to remeber to cut, before hitting the send.
>
No it isn't. All your posts start off with the first para (yours) having the
>, doohickey chevron or whatever in the first line. By the time it gets to
the rest of us it looks as though the previous poster had made that
statement because our system adds an extra doohickey or whatever. I'm sure
it's a setting OE that you can change.
Constructive criticism.