Private for Eric re: Term Limits
Kevin Gowen
vote for: George W. Bush or Bill Clinton?", the results released today put
Bush ahead 53-32. 15% of those polled answered, "Got any gum?"
--
Kevin Gowen
Eric Takabayashi
> In a poll asking, "If a presidential election were held today, who would you
> vote for: George W. Bush or Bill Clinton?", the results released today put
> Bush ahead 53-32.
So what? The Bush Administration has them well brainwashed. And if the US or
the world ever become satisfyingly safe, then people will remember the economy
and deficit, or foreign relations again.
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> In a poll asking, "If a presidential election were held today, who
>> would you vote for: George W. Bush or Bill Clinton?", the results
>> released today put Bush ahead 53-32.
>
> So what?
ISTR you speculating about how Bush II would do against Clinton. Perhaps I
am remembering incorrectly.
> The Bush Administration has them well brainwashed.
Of course it does. Bill Clinton looks cute in a suit. I have to go drive my
kids to soccer practice now.
> And if
> the US or the world ever become satisfyingly safe,
Is such a thing possible?
> then people will
> remember the economy and deficit, or foreign relations again.
That's all that gets talked about now.
--
Kevin Gowen
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >> In a poll asking, "If a presidential election were held today, who
> >> would you vote for: George W. Bush or Bill Clinton?", the results
> >> released today put Bush ahead 53-32.
> >
> > So what?
>
> ISTR you speculating about how Bush II would do against Clinton.
In 2000, like how even the also ran, second best, unproved Al Gore got more
votes.
> Perhaps I am remembering incorrectly.
>
> > The Bush Administration has them well brainwashed.
>
> Of course it does. Bill Clinton looks cute in a suit. I have to go drive my
> kids to soccer practice now.
>
> > And if
> > the US or the world ever become satisfyingly safe,
>
> Is such a thing possible?
It's what Bush is spending future generations' money for, as well as attacking
other nations for. Or was that a lie, too? It could be that Bush will spend
just enough money on security, or stir up just enough trouble around the
world, as before the UN in Iraq, or in sound bites on the news, for the US
always to be viewed with distrust and suspicion by even traditional post WWII
allies.
> > then people will
> > remember the economy and deficit, or foreign relations again.
>
> That's all that gets talked about now.
No, they are brainwashed into thinking that incarcerating people for being
Middle Eastern or Muslim for no good reason, or attacking other nations before
they supposedly attack the US, are more important. After Iraq, Americans
responded to survey saying they did not want further military action. But if
it is in the Administration's agenda to fight a war against Iran, Syria, or
North Korea, then they will find a way to do it, and justify it as surely as
the war against Iraq was justified.
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>
>>> And if
>>> the US or the world ever become satisfyingly safe,
>>
>> Is such a thing possible?
>
> It's what Bush is spending future generations' money for,
Really?
> as well as
> attacking other nations for.
Really?
> Or was that a lie, too?
What was the first lie?
> It could be that
> Bush will spend just enough money on security, or stir up just enough
> trouble around the world, as before the UN in Iraq, or in sound bites
> on the news, for the US always to be viewed with distrust and
> suspicion by even traditional post WWII allies.
Yes, like the UK.
>>> then people will
>>> remember the economy and deficit, or foreign relations again.
>>
>> That's all that gets talked about now.
>
> No, they are brainwashed into thinking that incarcerating people for
> being Middle Eastern or Muslim for no good reason,
Give me the name of one person who has been incarcerated for no good reason
but simply because they were Middle Eastern/Muslim.
> or attacking other
> nations before they supposedly attack the US, are more important.
Yes. How dare he imitate JFK.
> After Iraq, Americans responded to survey saying they did not want
> further military action.
For the rest of time?
> But if it is in the Administration's agenda
> to fight a war against Iran, Syria, or North Korea, then they will
> find a way to do it,
Yes, administrations generally seek to further their agendas. It's a quirk.
> and justify it as surely as the war against Iraq
> was justified.
At least you concede that the war in Iraq was justified.
--
Kevin Gowen
mtfe...@netscape.net
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>
>>> In a poll asking, "If a presidential election were held today, who
>>> would you vote for: George W. Bush or Bill Clinton?", the results
>>> released today put Bush ahead 53-32.
>>
>> So what?
> ISTR you speculating about how Bush II would do against Clinton. Perhaps I
> am remembering incorrectly.
Probably; what were Bush I's ratings a year-and-a-half before the election?
Mike
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> >
> >>> And if
> >>> the US or the world ever become satisfyingly safe,
> >>
> >> Is such a thing possible?
> >
> > It's what Bush is spending future generations' money for,
>
> Really?
You do not see the price on homeland security, the military or war? Is all
that spending to continue living in fear?
> > as well as attacking other nations for.
>
> Really?
War with other nations and the tough talk against such as Iran are not about
US security?
> > Or was that a lie, too?
>
> What was the first lie?
Who can remember? I'm just asking if it is another lie that Bush is trying to
make the US safe.
> > It could be that
> > Bush will spend just enough money on security, or stir up just enough
> > trouble around the world, as before the UN in Iraq, or in sound bites
> > on the news, for the US always to be viewed with distrust and
> > suspicion by even traditional post WWII allies.
>
> Yes, like the UK.
You will note that Blair's enthusiasm and support are not representative, nor
are the UK or Japan tagging along with the US enough to maintain the US' role
or image in the rest of the world.
> >>> then people will
> >>> remember the economy and deficit, or foreign relations again.
> >>
> >> That's all that gets talked about now.
> >
> > No, they are brainwashed into thinking that incarcerating people for
> > being Middle Eastern or Muslim for no good reason,
>
> Give me the name of one person who has been incarcerated for no good reason
> but simply because they were Middle Eastern/Muslim.
I didn't say it was simply because they were so.
All the ones who have been freed after being imprisoned, perhaps even brought
over from halfway around the world blindfolded and bound, and not subject to
due process or the Geneva Convention, and who have not been prosecuted and
convicted. We're still waiting to see for what purpose the military and US
government are holding other foreigners and citizens of Middle Eastern
descent.
As an aspiring attorney, who appears to put the law over personal feelings, I
believed you might take an interest in such as that. Or are the government's
claims good enough for you?
> > or attacking other
> > nations before they supposedly attack the US, are more important.
>
> Yes. How dare he imitate JFK.
I didn't say it's never been contemplated or done. Even Japan is considering
what can be done about North Korea without giving them a chance to attack
Japan with missiles or nuclear weapons.
> > After Iraq, Americans responded to survey saying they did not want
> > further military action.
>
> For the rest of time?
Not at that time. But the Adminstration will come up with reasons and evidence
for further actions, which people will be dumb enough to accept. Perhaps we
will see another Colin Powell show at the UNSC before the US goes to try to
kick another developing nation's ass, and makes more enemies around the world.
> > But if it is in the Administration's agenda
> > to fight a war against Iran, Syria, or North Korea, then they will
> > find a way to do it,
>
> Yes, administrations generally seek to further their agendas. It's a quirk.
That does not make it acceptable.
> > and justify it as surely as the war against Iraq
> > was justified.
>
> At least you concede that the war in Iraq was justified.
I did not say the allegations were true or the war acceptable. I said the
Administration came up with their alleged reasons for it. But even commanders
in Iraq can recognize the claims about Iraqi WMD or its ability to be readily
used, was bad intelligence at best.
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And if
>>>>> the US or the world ever become satisfyingly safe,
>>>>
>>>> Is such a thing possible?
>>>
>>> It's what Bush is spending future generations' money for,
>>
>> Really?
>
> You do not see the price on homeland security, the military or war?
Yes, I do.
> Is all that spending to continue living in fear?
No, but it is not to make any place "satisfyingly safe". There is no such
thing.
>>> as well as attacking other nations for.
>>
>> Really?
>
> War with other nations and the tough talk against such as Iran are
> not about US security?
Yes, they are, but they are not to make any place "satisfyingly safe". There
is no such thing.
>>> Or was that a lie, too?
>>
>> What was the first lie?
>
> Who can remember?
Not you, apparently.
> I'm just asking if it is another lie that Bush is
> trying to make the US safe.
I guess it all depends on what the definition of "is" is. What was one of
the previous lies?
>>> It could be that
>>> Bush will spend just enough money on security, or stir up just
>>> enough trouble around the world, as before the UN in Iraq, or in
>>> sound bites
>>> on the news, for the US always to be viewed with distrust and
>>> suspicion by even traditional post WWII allies.
>>
>> Yes, like the UK.
>
> You will note that Blair's enthusiasm and support are not
> representative, nor are the UK or Japan tagging along with the US
> enough to maintain the US' role or image in the rest of the world.
I see. States that side with us are tagging along while states that oppose
us are taking some noble stand. Gotcha.
>>>>> then people will
>>>>> remember the economy and deficit, or foreign relations again.
>>>>
>>>> That's all that gets talked about now.
>>>
>>> No, they are brainwashed into thinking that incarcerating people for
>>> being Middle Eastern or Muslim for no good reason,
>>
>> Give me the name of one person who has been incarcerated for no good
>> reason but simply because they were Middle Eastern/Muslim.
>
> I didn't say it was simply because they were so.
Then you wish to retract? I accept.
> All the ones who have been freed after being imprisoned, perhaps even
> brought over from halfway around the world blindfolded and bound, and
> not subject to due process or the Geneva Convention, and who have not
> been prosecuted and convicted.
That isn't a sentence. It conveys no thought.
> We're still waiting to see for what
> purpose the military and US government are holding other foreigners
> and citizens of Middle Eastern descent.
Name one of them.
> As an aspiring attorney, who appears to put the law over personal
> feelings, I believed you might take an interest in such as that. Or
> are the government's claims good enough for you?
What law has been violated?
> I didn't say it's never been contemplated or done. Even Japan is
> considering what can be done about North Korea without giving them a
> chance to attack Japan with missiles or nuclear weapons.
That's a good start.
>>> After Iraq, Americans responded to survey saying they did not want
>>> further military action.
>>
>> For the rest of time?
>
> Not at that time.
What time is "that time"?
> But the Adminstration will come up with reasons and
> evidence for further actions, which people will be dumb enough to
> accept.
Yes. People like the UN Security Council. For being such a dumb guy, Bush
sure has duped a lot of people.
> Perhaps we will see another Colin Powell show at the UNSC
> before the US goes to try to kick another developing nation's ass,
> and makes more enemies around the world.
We do not try to kick another developing nation's ass. We do kick the ass.
There is no try.
>>> But if it is in the Administration's agenda
>>> to fight a war against Iran, Syria, or North Korea, then they will
>>> find a way to do it,
>>
>> Yes, administrations generally seek to further their agendas. It's a
>> quirk.
>
> That does not make it acceptable.
*yawn*
>>> and justify it as surely as the war against Iraq
>>> was justified.
>>
>> At least you concede that the war in Iraq was justified.
>
> I did not say the allegations were true or the war acceptable.
"the war against Iraq was justified."
- Eric Takabayashi
> I said
> the Administration came up with their alleged reasons for it.
Where did you say that?
> But
> even commanders in Iraq can recognize the claims about Iraqi WMD or
> its ability to be readily used, was bad intelligence at best.
Which claims were the bad ones? If it was bad intelligence, it was bad
intelligence on the part of the US, UK, UN, Germany, Russia, etc. You might
be interested in the following:
http://kevingowen.webhop.org/letter.jpg
"What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some
ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop
this program of weapons of mass destruction? ... Well, he will conclude that
the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he
can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating
destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the
rsenal." - Bill Clinton, 1998
History has shown who failed to act and who did not.
--
Kevin Gowen
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> > We're still waiting to see for what
> > purpose the military and US government are holding other foreigners
> > and citizens of Middle Eastern descent.
Kevin Gowan quipped:
> Name one of them.
Perhaps that's more a comment on the scant attention this has received in
the US press and other media than on the realities of the situation.
Here's a name for you: Salaiman (or Sulaiman) Shah, one of a group of 18
Afghans released from the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay "after being
kept in tiny cages and subjected to interrogations for more than a year to
prove their innocence". He denies all involvement with the Taliban. Fellow
prisoner Murtaza admitted he was with the Taliban at the time, but claimed
he had been forced to join them. A third prisoner, Bismillah, claimed he had
been arrested because of a misunderstanding arising from the fact that he is
deaf (http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=6619&TagID=2, and
if you don't like that source, try
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2886245.stm or http://tinyurl.com/do3h
= the Daily Telegraph, a right-wing British newspaper).
But the US press did not entirely overlook the incident. The Washington Post
carries a different version of the story, with one of the released
prisoners (named Sarajudim) saying the US military paid cash to a warlord to
hand him over as a so-called terrorist, and another (Ehsannullah) tells of
his treatment by US soldiers on his arrest in Afghanistan - they beat him
and other prisoners up and taunted them by throwing the Koran down a
lavatory (http://tinyurl.com/do3y). The charge that the US military were
offering money for "terrorists" is repeated from other sources. $5,000 for a
Taliban fighter and $20,000 for an Al Qaeda operative appears to have been
the going rate, and it's highly unlikely Bismillah was the only one grabbed
off the streets and handed over by warlords eager for easy cash
The 18 released Afghans are only one of several similar incidents where
prisoners have been released after months (sometimes a year or more) of
intensive interrogation and being cooped up in cages. Pakistani officials,
after visiting Guantanamo, estimated that perhaps 8 out of 58 Pakistani
detainees were in any way guilty. Kuwait claims that 12 Kuwaiti detainees
were relief workers in Afghanistan. These claims were made months ago. Some
of the detainees have since been freed. There have been no formal charges,
no trials, no explanations.
Here's a report (October 2002, modified December 2002) from the Centre for
International Human Rights that summarises the situation fairly well:
http://tinyurl.com/do4q.
Nor is Guantanamo the only cause for concern. Sheik Mohamed Abdirahman
Kariye is one of scores of Muslims arrested by the Joint Terrorism Task
Force on charges unrelated to terrorism. In his case, tests showing there
was explosive residue in his bags were citied as cause to keep him in
detention pending trial, but the tests were later shown to be false. Last
week he was found guilty of trying to obtain health insurance on false
pretences and put on probation. He doesn't appear to be guilty of anything
the Joint Terrorism Task Force have any legitimate interest in.
Then there's the case of Rabbih Haddad. He has been imprisoned since
December 14 on charges of overstaying his visa, although he had entered the
US legally and was apparently in the process of applying for permanent
residency at the time of his arrest. The underlying reason appears to be
that Haddad's charity, Global Relief, had links with Makhtab-al-Khidamat.
His lawyers have pointed out that the US government was also supporting the
same organisation Makhtab-al-Khidamat at the time and his community is
adamant that he is not sympathetic towards terrorism.
The case continues.
In cases like this the authorities have to be just a little bit more careful
than with the prisoners of war (oh, sorry, they're *not* prisoners of war -
that's why they don't have to be careful with them!), but a close look at
what's going on seems to be worrying quite a few people who know far more
about US law than I do. I guess if, ultimately, these people turn out to be
guilty of involvement in terrorism it will be judged that the ends justify
the means, but that goes against Kevin's arguments about a universal
morality, in which the ends can never justify the means (long thread on
philosophy about a year ago), so it would mean that, if the actions of the
authorities are not illegal, then the law is immoral.
> > As an aspiring attorney, who appears to put the law over personal
> > feelings, I believed you might take an interest in such as that. Or
> > are the government's claims good enough for you?
>
> What law has been violated?
You tell us. You're the lawyer.
Kevin Gowen
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>
>>> We're still waiting to see for what
>>> purpose the military and US government are holding other foreigners
>>> and citizens of Middle Eastern descent.
>
> Kevin Gowan quipped:
Who the hell is Kevin Gowan?
>> Name one of them.
>
> Perhaps that's more a comment on the scant attention this has
> received in the US press and other media than on the realities of the
> situation.
>
> Here's a name for you: Salaiman (or Sulaiman) Shah, one of a group of
> 18 Afghans released from the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay
> "after being kept in tiny cages and subjected to interrogations for
> more than a year to prove their innocence". He denies all involvement
> with the Taliban.
[snip lots of stories]
Which one was the one who was being held for being Middle Eastern/Muslim?
> In cases like this the authorities have to be just a little bit more
> careful than with the prisoners of war (oh, sorry, they're *not*
> prisoners of war - that's why they don't have to be careful with
> them!), but a close look at what's going on seems to be worrying
> quite a few people who know far more about US law than I do. I guess
> if, ultimately, these people turn out to be guilty of involvement in
> terrorism it will be judged that the ends justify the means, but that
> goes against Kevin's arguments about a universal morality, in which
> the ends can never justify the means (long thread on philosophy about
> a year ago), so it would mean that, if the actions of the authorities
> are not illegal, then the law is immoral.
Which law?
>>> As an aspiring attorney, who appears to put the law over personal
>>> feelings, I believed you might take an interest in such as that. Or
>>> are the government's claims good enough for you?
>>
>> What law has been violated?
>
> You tell us. You're the lawyer.
None.
--
Kevin Gowen
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> Who the hell is Kevin Gowan?
Tee hee! (Though it was, as usual, a genuine slip...)
> Which one was the one who was being held for being Middle Eastern/Muslim?
Playing with words. Whatever the pretext on which they were held, these
people would not have been treated as they were if they had not been Middle
Eastern/Muslim.
> [snip lots of stories]
Stories of abuse of authority, alleged or real. The US's refusal to ratify
the International Criminal Court doesn't inspire me with any confidence
here. If they had nothing to fear from such a court, why not support it?
> > the law is immoral.
>
> Which law?
The law of your country.
> >> What law has been violated?
> >
> > You tell us. You're the lawyer.
>
> None.
That remains to be seen, though I very much doubt that the US authorities
will bring charges against any of those who have been, shall we say,
*overzealous* in their pursuit of their "duty".
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> Which one was the one who was being held for being Middle
>> Eastern/Muslim?
>
> Playing with words.
What words have I played with?
> Whatever the pretext on which they were held,
> these people would not have been treated as they were if they had not
> been Middle Eastern/Muslim.
You know nothing of the kind. Even if they were, I have to give you a big
"so what?". 83-year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8-year-old Chinese kids are
not the ones trying to blow us up.
BTW, a recent report about our concentration camp down at GTMO shows that
the average detainee has gained 13 pounds. Gee, those guys have it rough.
>> [snip lots of stories]
>
> Stories of abuse of authority, alleged or real. The US's refusal to
> ratify the International Criminal Court doesn't inspire me with any
> confidence here.
Wow. What a weird non sequitur.
> If they had nothing to fear from such a court, why
> not support it?
There are very good reasons for states not to submit to the jurisdiction of
this court. A perfect example is the war crimes suit that has been filed
against Gen. Franks under Belgium's law of universal competence. Frivolous
lawsuits against the US and Israel would abound. At any rate, the ICC is a
complementary court. If a member state is seriously proceeding with a case
that falls under ICC jurisdiction, the ICC cannot act. When the US stops
investigating and prosecuting its own military personnel for war crimes,
then come back and talk to me about the ICC.
BTW, I don't seem to recall you mentioning any allegations that would have
been under the subject matter jurisdiction of the ICC.
>>> the law is immoral.
>>
>> Which law?
>
> The law of your country.
We have more than one law. Which law(s) are immoral? Please name the law(s)
and then tell me what makes them immoral. I may agree with you, but first I
have to know what law is being discussed. There are certainly immoral
American laws. I just need to know which one is the topic of discussion.
>>>> What law has been violated?
>>>
>>> You tell us. You're the lawyer.
>>
>> None.
>
> That remains to be seen,
What law do you think the detentions may have violated?
> though I very much doubt that the US
> authorities will bring charges against any of those who have been,
> shall we say,
> *overzealous* in their pursuit of their "duty".
If you have information about actions of other US military personnel that
may constitute war crimes, I am sure that the appropriate Judge Advocate
General's Corps would love to hear about it. I want to hear about it, too.
--
Kevin Gowen
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> >> Which one was the one who was being held for being Middle
> >> Eastern/Muslim?
> >
> > Playing with words.
>
> What words have I played with?
The ones in the dictionary.
Seriously, though....
> > Whatever the pretext on which they were held,
> > these people would not have been treated as they were if they had not
> > been Middle Eastern/Muslim.
>
> You know nothing of the kind.
Well, I wouldn't want to suggest that others have never come in for the same
kind of treatment. What I do know is that in the last couple of years such
people are under suspicion in a way they were not previously and that a
number of them have been arrested in FBI-led operations that would hardly
have taken place a couple of years ago, and in many cases not a shred of
evidence has been put forward explaining why they have been detained.
> Even if they were, I have to give you a big
> "so what?"
Why don't you just come right out and say you couldn't care less about them?
Then your opinions could safely be ignored (as in the case of the world's
poor).
> 83-year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8-year-old Chinese kids are
> not the ones trying to blow us up.
That kind of thinking worries me. By all means, the authorities should be
targetting very specifically the people behind the attacks. But they have to
be *very* careful not to attack whole communities or ethnic groups. That
path leads to large scale alienation and escalation of the problem.
> BTW, a recent report about our concentration camp down at GTMO shows that
> the average detainee has gained 13 pounds. Gee, those guys have it rough.
Well, and caged rabbits tend to be fatter than wild ones. So what? The
question is not whether keeping people in cages for a year adds to their
body weight, the question is whether paying $5000-$2000 to a warlord to turn
over a so-called "terrorist", keeping that person in a cage for a year
without charges, while the victim himself, all his friends and family and th
e government of his country insist that he is innocent, and finally freeing
him without explanation or apology constitute a due and acceptable process
of law. And, if it *is* legal, who the heck is making these laws and how
does one ensure that one remains outside their jurisdiction? ;-(
> BTW, I don't seem to recall you mentioning any allegations that would have
> been under the subject matter jurisdiction of the ICC.
These things take time to surface, given the rights governments have to keep
many of the relevant documents under wraps and the time it takes to put
together the necessary research to establish a case. As you probably know,
there is already a disturbing amount of evidence that the US acted in
contravention of international law in the Gulf War. Start here and follow
the links:
http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm
The Gulf War took place in the context of a far greater international
consensus that such action was necessary. It may yet turn out that the whole
basis for the Iraq War was in contravention of international law (it's
likely to hinge on whether those alleged WMDs ever turn up) - something Bush
can pooh-pooh, but Blair is still sweating over.
> >>> the law is immoral.
> >>
> >> Which law?
> >
> > The law of your country.
>
> We have more than one law. Which law(s) are immoral? Please name the
law(s)
> and then tell me what makes them immoral. I may agree with you...
That'll be the day!
> ...but first I
> have to know what law is being discussed. There are certainly immoral
> American laws. I just need to know which one is the topic of discussion.
Kevin, you are a US citizen and a lawyer. I am neither. You are on far
stronger ground than I am here. All I can do is look at particular
situations and say, "Is that legal? And, if it is legal, is it morally
right?"
You tell me all the things I am concerned about are legal. If you are
right - and I'm still not fully convinced of that, but *if* you are right -
then it seems to me that the law is open to the charge of letting the ends
justify the means, something which, according to you, is immoral.
> >>>> What law has been violated?
> >>>
> >>> You tell us. You're the lawyer.
> >>
> >> None.
> >
> > That remains to be seen,
>
> What law do you think the detentions may have violated?
I know what laws have been *avoided*. I know that the US government is
denying the Guantanamo detainees prisoner of war status, which would give
them rights under the Geneva Convention, and denying their constitutional
rights by saying they are not Americans and not on on American soil. But I
repeat, you are a US citizen and a lawyer. I am neither. All I can do is try
to follow the debate. The case against Guantanamo is widely discussed, and
you can see the general concerns by following such links as:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020307_chander.html
http://www.hrw.org/us/usdom.php?theme=Guantanamo%20Detainees
One specific issue, which has come up in the last couple of weeks or so, is
that several children are also being detained at Guantanamo:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,942310,00.html
The fact that the US and Somalia are the only countries which have not
ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child may mean
that the US is not actually breaking the law here, but again, I'd say it's a
moral issue, even if it's not a legal one.
Finally, it may well turn out that the laws which were broken are laws which
the US does not recognise, but which the international community does. This
is all very well for the US given its present hegemony in world affairs, but
will doubtless become an issue if it ever loses that position.
> > I very much doubt that the US
> > authorities will bring charges against any of those who have been,
> > shall we say,
> > *overzealous* in their pursuit of their "duty".
>
> http://tinyurl.com/domr
Well, if soldiers are going to go boasting to the press about their
overzealousness it leaves the authorities with little choice, doesn't it?
> If you have information about actions of other US military personnel that
> may constitute war crimes, I am sure that the appropriate Judge Advocate
> General's Corps would love to hear about it. I want to hear about it, too.
Perhaps you and the Judge should keep an eye on such proceedings as the
following:
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1433_A_867763_1_A,00.html
This may be the kind of thing you meant when you spoke of "frivolous" legal
action, and you may be right. As far as I'm concerned, it remains to be seen
(which is what I said before).
Just a final note. It may be that the US is perfectly justified (both
legally and morally) in all its actions and that its detractors simply
misunderstand it. However, it is pretty much impossible to verify that
without (1) accountability and (2) transparency. The US is currently holding
itself accountable to no one, and so much of what goes on is kept under a
shroud (keeping minors at Guantanamo and not actually telling anyone until
it leaked is just one example among many). If the US was dealing plainly
then the suspicions would not arise, but in the present climate there are
bound to be suspicions.
Kevin Gowen
> Thus far Kevin & I have bantered thus:
>
>>> these people would not have been treated as they were if they had
>>> not been Middle Eastern/Muslim.
>>
>> You know nothing of the kind.
>
> Well, I wouldn't want to suggest that others have never come in for
> the same kind of treatment. What I do know is that in the last couple
> of years such people are under suspicion in a way they were not
> previously and that a number of them have been arrested in FBI-led
> operations that would hardly have taken place a couple of years ago,
So what?
> and in many cases not a shred of evidence has been put forward
> explaining why they have been detained.
What are some of the cases in which there has been not a shred of evidence?
>> Even if they were, I have to give you a big
>> "so what?"
>
> Why don't you just come right out and say you couldn't care less
> about them? Then your opinions could safely be ignored (as in the
> case of the world's poor).
And spoil all the fun?
>> 83-year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8-year-old Chinese kids are
>> not the ones trying to blow us up.
>
> That kind of thinking worries me.
Why?
> By all means, the authorities
> should be targetting very specifically the people behind the attacks.
And the demographic groups of said people. That's simply smart law
enforcement.
> But they have to be *very* careful not to attack whole communities or
> ethnic groups. That path leads to large scale alienation and
> escalation of the problem.
Whole communities/ethic groups have not been attacked. No one has been
attacked.
>> BTW, a recent report about our concentration camp down at GTMO shows
>> that the average detainee has gained 13 pounds. Gee, those guys have
>> it rough.
>
> Well, and caged rabbits tend to be fatter than wild ones. So what?
Camp X-Ray has been blasted for harsh living conditions. I am waiting to see
proof of such a thing.
> The
> question is not whether keeping people in cages for a year adds to
> their body weight, the question is whether paying $5000-$2000 to a
> warlord to turn over a so-called "terrorist", keeping that person in
> a cage for a year without charges, while the victim himself, all his
> friends and family and th e government of his country insist that he
> is innocent, and finally freeing him without explanation or apology
> constitute a due and acceptable process of law. And, if it *is*
> legal, who the heck is making these laws and how does one ensure that
> one remains outside their jurisdiction? ;-(
Since these are matters of international law, they are written in various
conventions signed by a number of the planet's states. People who do not
want to remain outside the jurisdiction of these conventions should leave
Earth. Custom is another source of international law but the issues you are
talking about are generally covered by written agreements between states.
>> BTW, I don't seem to recall you mentioning any allegations that
>> would have been under the subject matter jurisdiction of the ICC.
>
> These things take time to surface, given the rights governments have
> to keep many of the relevant documents under wraps and the time it
> takes to put together the necessary research to establish a case.
I see. Then I can safely assume that you will keep quiet until such evidence
does arise. When this evidence does arise, I will condemn those horrible
acts.
> As
> you probably know, there is already a disturbing amount of evidence
> that the US acted in contravention of international law in the Gulf
> War. Start here and follow the links:
>
> http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm
This page isn't particularly convincing, although I agree that the
"indescriminate [sic] and excessive use of force" is something to be
avoided.
> The Gulf War took place in the context of a far greater international
> consensus that such action was necessary.
How do you measure the international consensus? The coalition that fought in
the Iraq War contained more member states than the Gulf War.
> It may yet turn out that
> the whole basis for the Iraq War was in contravention of
> international law
How so? Did you read UNSCR 1441?
> (it's likely to hinge on whether those alleged WMDs
> ever turn up) -
That answers my question about whether or not you read UNSCR 1441.
> something Bush can pooh-pooh, but Blair is still
> sweating over.
He shouldn't.
>> We have more than one law. Which law(s) are immoral? Please name the
>> law(s) and then tell me what makes them immoral. I may agree with
>> you...
>
> That'll be the day!
>
>> ...but first I
>> have to know what law is being discussed. There are certainly immoral
>> American laws. I just need to know which one is the topic of
>> discussion.
>
> Kevin, you are a US citizen and a lawyer.
I am not a lawyer until next year.
> I am neither. You are on far
> stronger ground than I am here.
But you are the one making an affirmative claim. Please support it.
> All I can do is look at particular
> situations and say, "Is that legal? And, if it is legal, is it morally
> right?"
>
> You tell me all the things I am concerned about are legal. If you are
> right - and I'm still not fully convinced of that, but *if* you are
> right - then it seems to me that the law is open to the charge of
> letting the ends justify the means,
Again I ask, which law?
> something which, according to
> you, is immoral.
When did I say that? I see you are still a bit confused about ends/means.
>> What law do you think the detentions may have violated?
>
> I know what laws have been *avoided*.
Which one? Not the Geneva Convention [sic].
> I know that the US government is
> denying the Guantanamo detainees prisoner of war status, which would
> give them rights under the Geneva Convention,
Actually, it would simply give them more rights. Unlawful combatants still
have rights under the GCs. The GCs enumerate four conditions that must be
met for a person to be considered a POW. The folks at GTMO do not meet them.
> and denying their
> constitutional rights by saying they are not Americans and not on on
> American soil.
They cannot be denied constitutional rights if they never had them. The
protection of rights under the US Constitution does not extent to non-US
citizens who are not in the US. This is why a Vietnamese citizen in Hanoi
cannot exercise his 1st Amendment right to free speech and why an
Argentinean in a Buenos Aires courtroom cannot assert his 5th Amendment
right of silence.
> But I repeat, you are a US citizen and a lawyer.
I'll be a lawyer next year.
> I am
> neither. All I can do is try to follow the debate.
Then keep up.
> The case against
> Guantanamo is widely discussed, and you can see the general concerns
> by following such links as:
>
> http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020307_chander.html
Actually, a number of federal cases have handed down opinions on the issue.
They all say the same thing. Gee, Chander says one thing, but every court
who has heard the issue says the opposite. I wonder who is right.
> http://www.hrw.org/us/usdom.php?theme=Guantanamo%20Detainees
Don't waste my time.
> One specific issue, which has come up in the last couple of weeks or
> so, is that several children are also being detained at Guantanamo:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,942310,00.html
Yes, and did you know that they play touch football with their guards and
have VCRs/DVD players in their rooms? Apparently their favorite film to
watch is Tom Hanks's "Castaway".
> The fact that the US and Somalia are the only countries which have not
> ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child may
> mean that the US is not actually breaking the law here, but again,
> I'd say it's a moral issue, even if it's not a legal one.
Aren't you a moral relativist? Sorry, but I never entertain morally based
arguments from relativists.
> Finally, it may well turn out that the laws which were broken are
> laws which the US does not recognise, but which the international
> community does.
There is no "international community". Which law(s) are you talking about?
> This is all very well for the US given its present
> hegemony in world affairs, but will doubtless become an issue if it
> ever loses that position.
See above.
>> http://tinyurl.com/domr
>
> Well, if soldiers are going to go boasting to the press about their
> overzealousness it leaves the authorities with little choice, doesn't
> it?
They could have turned their heads the other way. It also may interest you
to know that the Iraq War had the largest ever deployment of judge advocates
to the field to advise on RoE etc.
>> If you have information about actions of other US military personnel
>> that may constitute war crimes, I am sure that the appropriate Judge
>> Advocate General's Corps would love to hear about it. I want to hear
>> about it, too.
>
> Perhaps you and the Judge should keep an eye on such proceedings as
> the following:
>
> http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1433_A_867763_1_A,00.html
I mentioned that case.
> This may be the kind of thing you meant when you spoke of "frivolous"
> legal action, and you may be right. As far as I'm concerned, it
> remains to be seen (which is what I said before).
>
> Just a final note. It may be that the US is perfectly justified (both
> legally and morally) in all its actions and that its detractors simply
> misunderstand it. However, it is pretty much impossible to verify that
> without (1) accountability and (2) transparency. The US is currently
> holding itself accountable to no one,
And this makes the US different from what state? To whom do Cameroon and
Sweden hold themselves accountable? Please don't make me laugh by saying
"The UN". There is no world government, John. There is no world court with
compulsory jurisdiction.
> and so much of what goes on is
> kept under a shroud (keeping minors at Guantanamo and not actually
> telling anyone until it leaked is just one example among many). If
> the US was dealing plainly then the suspicions would not arise,
I had no idea that you were a comedian. What state on this planet completely
divulges its acts to the world?
> but
> in the present climate there are bound to be suspicions.
There are always suspicions.
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Wayne Williams
> KGII:
>>83-year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8-year-old Chinese kids are
>>not the ones trying to blow us up.
>
>
> That kind of thinking worries me. By all means, the authorities should be
> targetting very specifically the people behind the attacks. But they have to
> be *very* careful not to attack whole communities or ethnic groups. That
> path leads to large scale alienation and escalation of the problem.
It should worry you for the opposite reason. The logical reaction of
terrorists is to brainwash 83 year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8
year-old Chinese kids into carrying bombs. The logical reaction of
Ashcroft's henchmen is to step up the security another notch, and gain
the power to throw anyone into jail at anytime for any reason without
scrutiny.
Or wait ... didn't they already do that?
Ashcroft was one of my inspirations to enter law school. Antonin Scalia
was another. How does that old quote go? "All that is necessary for evil
to prevail is for good men to do nothing" or something like that? The
only way to undo the perversions that are being committed in the name of
security is to fight them in court. It'll take a while, but sooner or
later, Ashcroft will go down in history with McCarthy and similar
pinheads, and genuine law and order will be restored in the USA.
KWW
Brett Robson
>
>Ashcroft was one of my inspirations to enter law school. Antonin Scalia
>was another. How does that old quote go? "All that is necessary for evil
>to prevail is for good men to do nothing" or something like that?
That's commendable; shame more law students (or any students for that matter)
didn't have similar motivation.
My reason for getting into www web thingy was to help spread free pornography
and erectile dysfunction solutions. Not quite as lofty an ideal but it helps me
get out of bed each day.
---
"2 out of 3 ain't bad" - Meat Loaf
"1 out 2^64 is a real bitch" - Original
Kevin Gowen
> John Yamamoto-Wilson wrote:
>
>> KGII:
>>> 83-year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8-year-old Chinese kids are
>>> not the ones trying to blow us up.
>>
>>
>> That kind of thinking worries me. By all means, the authorities
>> should be targetting very specifically the people behind the
>> attacks. But they have to be *very* careful not to attack whole
>> communities or ethnic groups. That path leads to large scale
>> alienation and escalation of the problem.
>
> It should worry you for the opposite reason. The logical reaction of
> terrorists is to brainwash 83 year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8
> year-old Chinese kids into carrying bombs.
Huh?
> The logical reaction of
> Ashcroft's henchmen
Ooh, henchman! Who are is henchman? I mean, it's not like upon his
appointment he fired all the U.S. Attorneys in the country and brought in
his own people, unlike a recent Attorney General with a predilection for
armed sieges.
> is to step up the security another notch, and gain
> the power to throw anyone into jail at anytime for any reason without
> scrutiny.
>
> Or wait ... didn't they already do that?
No, they didn't.
> Ashcroft was one of my inspirations to enter law school.
A man worthy of emulation.
> Antonin
> Scalia
> was another.
A man even more worthy of emulation. Wow, I am really impressed! If you are
1/10 the jurist of Ashcroft or Scalia, you will be a star. I wish you the
best of luck.
> How does that old quote go? "All that is necessary for
> evil
> to prevail is for good men to do nothing" or something like that?
I never heard that one, although I believe we must fear the indifference of
good men more than we fear evil.
> The
> only way to undo the perversions that are being committed in the name
> of security is to fight them in court.
What perversions are those?
> It'll take a while, but sooner
> or
> later, Ashcroft will go down in history with McCarthy and similar
> pinheads,
If you think McCarthy was a pinhead, your understanding of history is
severely impaired. Besides, you should be happy. He gave liberals his name
so they could use it to shout down debate.
I read this column by a young man less than half your age, and I don't know
if he is exceptionally brilliant or if you are exceptionally dull. Maybe
both.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20030227.shtml
> and genuine law and order will be restored in the USA.
Ooh! *Genuine* law and order! Is that anything like how the Supreme Court
isn't doing its job unless you agree with the opinion? I just *love* ad hoc
definitions.
--
Kevin Gowen
John R. Yamamoto- Wilson
> > By all means, the authorities should be
> > targetting very specifically the people behind the attacks. But they
have to
> > be *very* careful not to attack whole communities or ethnic groups. That
> > path leads to large scale alienation and escalation of the problem.
Kevin Wayne Williams commented:
> It should worry you for the opposite reason. The logical reaction of
> terrorists is to brainwash 83 year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8
> year-old Chinese kids into carrying bombs. The logical reaction of
> Ashcroft's henchmen is to step up the security another notch, and gain
> the power to throw anyone into jail at anytime for any reason without
> scrutiny.
Yes, of course. Once rights start to get eroded at one end of the spectrum
the same thing is likely to happen at the other end. Legislation created
ostensibly to protect society from terrorism may at first impinge on people
perceived to be of the same "type" (racial, cultural, whatever) as the
terrorists, but will ultimately affect *everyone*.
> Or wait ... didn't they already do that?
;-)
> Ashcroft was one of my inspirations to enter law school. Antonin Scalia
> was another. How does that old quote go? "All that is necessary for evil
> to prevail is for good men to do nothing" or something like that? The
> only way to undo the perversions that are being committed in the name of
> security is to fight them in court. It'll take a while, but sooner or
> later, Ashcroft will go down in history with McCarthy and similar
> pinheads, and genuine law and order will be restored in the USA.
Nice to know that not everyone specialising in US law takes the same view as
Kevin! The UK has already been down the road of counterterrorist measures,
vide the movie In the Name of the Father (a bit embellished, but
substantially accurate) for the results. Alternatively, read Gerry Conlon's
book about how his life was ripped to shreds by measures designed more to
make it look as if the authorities were doing something than to ensure that
the people imprisoned were actually guilty.
Slowly, though, it began to filter through to people that measures taken
ostensibly to counteract terrorism could be - and were being - applied in
contexts that had nothing to do with terrorism, and that hard-won freedoms
were being lost to Big Brother.
Brett Robson
>
>I read this column by a young man less than half your age, and I don't know
>if he is exceptionally brilliant or if you are exceptionally dull. Maybe
>both.
>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20030227.shtml
"he deliberately left Jesus out of office prayers to avoid offending
non-Christians."
You owe me a new keyboard and monitor, I've just spat coffee and saliva all over
it. The Onion can't write stuff that good.
Kevin Wayne Williams
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 00:06:56 -0400, "Kevin ...
>
>>I read this column by a young man less than half your age, and I don't know
>>if he is exceptionally brilliant or if you are exceptionally dull. Maybe
>>both.
>>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20030227.shtml
>
>
> "he deliberately left Jesus out of office prayers to avoid offending
> non-Christians."
>
> You owe me a new keyboard and monitor, I've just spat coffee and saliva all over
> it. The Onion can't write stuff that good.
The sad thing is that KGII seems to actually believe that the whole
concept of "office prayer" is acceptable behaviour for government officials.
KWW
Declan Murphy
> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>
>>John Yamamoto-Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>KGII:
>>>
>>>>83-year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8-year-old Chinese kids are
>>>>not the ones trying to blow us up.
>>>
>>>That kind of thinking worries me. By all means, the authorities
>>>should be targetting very specifically the people behind the
>>>attacks. But they have to be *very* careful not to attack whole
>>>communities or ethnic groups. That path leads to large scale
>>>alienation and escalation of the problem.
>>
>>It should worry you for the opposite reason. The logical reaction of
>>terrorists is to brainwash 83 year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8
>>year-old Chinese kids into carrying bombs.
>
> Huh?
No need to brainwash, fear has traditionally been more than sufficient.
The closest car bomb explosion I've been to was transported to the site
by a man who personally knew some of its victims (he also became one of
them). Not an isolated case by any means - a credible threat to kill
members of your family held as hostages its always a powerful incentive
to what you are told.
--
"All FDR undid was the value of the dollar"
Kevin Gowen (really)
Kevin Wayne Williams
> How does that old quote go? "All that is necessary for evil
> to prevail is for good men to do nothing" or something like that?
Ah, found it: one of those cases of a persistent misquote.
http://www.tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote2.html
KWW
Declan Murphy
WTF is office prayer in the public sector? That funding allocations be
increased.
Brett Robson
That was the first thing that bothered me with that sentence. The other thing
was the reference to 'non-Christians'. Our Republician child prodigy's view of
the world seems quite limited, he seems to think 'non-Christians' only includes
Jews. Maybe in the US federal government that is true.
---
"he [John Ashcroft] deliberately left Jesus out of office prayers to avoid
offending non-Christians." - Ben Shapiro 27/2/2003
Eric Takabayashi
> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
> > John Yamamoto-Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> KGII:
> >>> 83-year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8-year-old Chinese kids are
> >>> not the ones trying to blow us up.
> >>
> >>
> >> That kind of thinking worries me. By all means, the authorities
> >> should be targetting very specifically the people behind the
> >> attacks. But they have to be *very* careful not to attack whole
> >> communities or ethnic groups. That path leads to large scale
> >> alienation and escalation of the problem.
> >
> > It should worry you for the opposite reason. The logical reaction of
> > terrorists is to brainwash 83 year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8
> > year-old Chinese kids into carrying bombs.
>
> Huh?
More accurate than saying terrorism is the act of Muslims, is to say that such
acts including those which have occurred in the US, is to say they are mainly
the acts of men. It could be caucasian members or former members of militias
or those sometimes referred to as gun nuts. It could be intellectual loners or
serial killers also of the caucasian male persuasion. It is not 83 year old or
eight year old Muslims planning or carrying out such crimes either.
Eric Takabayashi
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 00:06:56 -0400, "Kevin ...
> >
> >I read this column by a young man less than half your age, and I don't know
> >if he is exceptionally brilliant or if you are exceptionally dull. Maybe
> >both.
> >http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20030227.shtml
>
> "he deliberately left Jesus out of office prayers to avoid offending
> non-Christians."
>
> You owe me a new keyboard and monitor, I've just spat coffee and saliva all over
> it. The Onion can't write stuff that good.
You should have been to ebaumsworld.com before Colin Powell's appearance at the
UNSC to enjoy these in context.
Eric Takabayashi
> I wrote:
>
> > > By all means, the authorities should be
> > > targetting very specifically the people behind the attacks. But they
> have to
> > > be *very* careful not to attack whole communities or ethnic groups. That
> > > path leads to large scale alienation and escalation of the problem.
>
> Kevin Wayne Williams commented:
>
> > It should worry you for the opposite reason. The logical reaction of
> > terrorists is to brainwash 83 year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8
> > year-old Chinese kids into carrying bombs. The logical reaction of
> > Ashcroft's henchmen is to step up the security another notch, and gain
> > the power to throw anyone into jail at anytime for any reason without
> > scrutiny.
>
> Yes, of course. Once rights start to get eroded at one end of the spectrum
> the same thing is likely to happen at the other end. Legislation created
> ostensibly to protect society from terrorism may at first impinge on people
> perceived to be of the same "type" (racial, cultural, whatever) as the
> terrorists, but will ultimately affect *everyone*.
It was pointed out quite early that the country with the highest population of
Muslims was not in the Middle East. And the world has already seen how rebels,
militants and radicals can come from all regions of the world. The US has their
own home grown terror organizations which have nothing to do with the Middle
East. As a matter of fact, more government regulation and stricter security in
the US will probably create greater distrust among white militias. If there is
another act of terror in the US, even killing hundreds of people or more, it
could as likely be the act of a militia or former members, as the act of some
radical Muslims or foreigners.
Kevin Gowen
> view as Kevin!
I'm not specializing in US law. What view have I taken?
> The UK has already been down the road of
> counterterrorist measures, vide the movie In the Name of the Father
> (a bit embellished, but substantially accurate) for the results.
Something tells me that in dealing with terrorism from the IRA e al., the UK
didn't give much effort to detaining Belgians.
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>>> John Yamamoto-Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> KGII:
>>>>> 83-year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8-year-old Chinese kids are
>>>>> not the ones trying to blow us up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That kind of thinking worries me. By all means, the authorities
>>>> should be targetting very specifically the people behind the
>>>> attacks. But they have to be *very* careful not to attack whole
>>>> communities or ethnic groups. That path leads to large scale
>>>> alienation and escalation of the problem.
>>>
>>> It should worry you for the opposite reason. The logical reaction of
>>> terrorists is to brainwash 83 year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8
>>> year-old Chinese kids into carrying bombs.
>>
>> Huh?
>
> More accurate than saying terrorism is the act of Muslims,
Whoever has said "terrorism is the act of Muslims"?
> is to say
> that such acts including those which have occurred in the US, is to
> say they are mainly the acts of men.
That's not more accurate because it casts far too wide a net. For example,
you could say that serial killers are mainly men. That is true, but it is
more accurate to say that serial killers are mainly white men in their late
20s to early 40s with a high degree of intelligence and some degree of
sexual dysfunction. This means that the folks in Brett's neighborhood better
lock their doors.
> It could be caucasian members or
> former members of militias or those sometimes referred to as gun
> nuts.
Yes. For example those who bombs facilities where abortions are performed
such as Eric Rudolph.
> It could be intellectual loners or serial killers also of the
> caucasian male persuasion.
Yes, like the Unabomber.
> It is not 83 year old or eight year old
> Muslims planning or carrying out such crimes either.
I would agree with that. That is why the profile is not simply "Middle
Eastern/Muslim". Age, gender, and other factors are also considered. Do a
bit of reading on El Al's security policies.
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Gowen
> The sad thing is that KGII seems to actually believe that the whole
> concept of "office prayer" is acceptable behaviour for government
> officials.
That's because every court in the land has said so. Oh wait, I guess that
means that every court in the land wasn't doing their job.
--
Kevin Gowen
Eric Takabayashi
So why would you damn well support a much harder time on your wife trying to
enter the country or get a visa if she had been Muslim or Middle Eastern?
Eric Takabayashi
> John R. Yamamoto- Wilson wrote:
> > Nice to know that not everyone specialising in US law takes the same
> > view as Kevin!
>
> I'm not specializing in US law.
What is it then? You are specializing in international law, but simply prefer
not to comment on things outside the US or your home state?
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>>> It is not 83 year old or eight year old
>>> Muslims planning or carrying out such crimes either.
>>
>> I would agree with that. That is why the profile is not simply
>> "Middle Eastern/Muslim". Age, gender, and other factors are also
>> considered. Do a bit of reading on El Al's security policies.
>
> So why would you damn well support a much harder time on your wife
> trying to enter the country or get a visa if she had been Muslim or
> Middle Eastern?
The profile.
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> John R. Yamamoto- Wilson wrote:
>>> Nice to know that not everyone specialising in US law takes the same
>>> view as Kevin!
>>
>> I'm not specializing in US law.
>
> What is it then?
Law students are generalists in US law. Some schools, like mine, offer
specialization programs that are much like an undergraduate major. My school
offers specialization programs in environmental/land use law and
international law. I am enrolled in the international law program.
> You are specializing in international law,
Yes.
> but
> simply prefer not to comment on things outside the US or your home
> state?
How do you mean?
--
Kevin Gowen
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
> >>> John Yamamoto-Wilson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> KGII:
> >>>>> 83-year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8-year-old Chinese kids are
> >>>>> not the ones trying to blow us up.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That kind of thinking worries me. By all means, the authorities
> >>>> should be targetting very specifically the people behind the
> >>>> attacks. But they have to be *very* careful not to attack whole
> >>>> communities or ethnic groups. That path leads to large scale
> >>>> alienation and escalation of the problem.
> >>>
> >>> It should worry you for the opposite reason. The logical reaction of
> >>> terrorists is to brainwash 83 year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8
> >>> year-old Chinese kids into carrying bombs.
> >>
> >> Huh?
> >
> > More accurate than saying terrorism is the act of Muslims,
>
> Whoever has said "terrorism is the act of Muslims"?
Whoever blames Muslims when spectacular crimes or acts of terror happen. There
are probably a few million in the US.
> > is to say
> > that such acts including those which have occurred in the US, is to
> > say they are mainly the acts of men.
>
> That's not more accurate because it casts far too wide a net. For example,
> you could say that serial killers are mainly men. That is true, but it is
> more accurate to say that serial killers are mainly white men in their late
> 20s to early 40s with a high degree of intelligence and some degree of
> sexual dysfunction. This means that the folks in Brett's neighborhood better
> lock their doors.
So why is it that the crew refuses to take off with the Muslim looking men on
the plane, not when middle aged white men, probably militia members or NRA
supporters, get on?
> > It could be caucasian members or
> > former members of militias or those sometimes referred to as gun
> > nuts.
>
> Yes. For example those who bombs facilities where abortions are performed
> such as Eric Rudolph.
>
> > It could be intellectual loners or serial killers also of the
> > caucasian male persuasion.
>
> Yes, like the Unabomber.
>
> > It is not 83 year old or eight year old
> > Muslims planning or carrying out such crimes either.
>
> I would agree with that. That is why the profile is not simply "Middle
> Eastern/Muslim".
Then someone better educate the racists, including those in government who
would do such as restrict foreigners from sensitive research.
Eric Takabayashi
If I talk about things foreign, Japanese, or from my home state, you explicitly
refuse to comment.
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>>> but
>>> simply prefer not to comment on things outside the US or your home
>>> state?
>>
>> How do you mean?
>
> If I talk about things foreign, Japanese, or from my home state, you
> explicitly refuse to comment.
That is because it generally has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I
talk about the US tax code and you respond with talk about Japan. It's
weird.
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> More accurate than saying terrorism is the act of Muslims,
>>
>> Whoever has said "terrorism is the act of Muslims"?
>
> Whoever blames Muslims when spectacular crimes or acts of terror
> happen. There are probably a few million in the US.
Well, I don't know any of those people so I can't respond to straw man
arguments involving them.
> So why is it that the crew refuses to take off with the Muslim
> looking men on the plane, not when middle aged white men, probably
> militia members or NRA supporters, get on?
Probably because militia members and NRA supporters have never hijacked a US
plane. Well, maybe Mohammed Atta was an NRA supporter. I'm not sure about
that one.
>> I would agree with that. That is why the profile is not simply
>> "Middle Eastern/Muslim".
>
> Then someone better educate the racists, including those in
> government who would do such as restrict foreigners from sensitive
> research.
Who are the racists folks in government?
--
Kevin Gowen
Ryan Ginstrom
"Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc24uq$eb628$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de...
> That is because it generally has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I
> talk about the US tax code and you respond with talk about Japan. It's
> weird.
Yes, I can see how trying to steer the topic back to Japan would confuse
you.
--
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> > view as Kevin!
>
> I'm not specializing in US law.
My apologies. Not every USian specialising in law. Is that better?
> What view have I taken?
You have so far argued a fairly uncritical and unqualified support for
current US counterterrorist measures. If you are playing devil's advocate or
holding out on another view, do tell!
> > The UK has already been down the road of
> > counterterrorist measures, vide the movie In the Name of the Father
> > (a bit embellished, but substantially accurate) for the results.
>
> Something tells me that in dealing with terrorism from the IRA e al., the
UK
> didn't give much effort to detaining Belgians.
Ah! This is much like your treatment of the issue of who should dominate the
world. You will remember you said, basically, "Who should dominte the world
if not the US?", and I told you to unask the question; it is not a foregone
conclusion that *any* one country should "dominate". Equally, it is not a
foregone conclusion that *any* demographic group has to be targeted
disproportionately by counterterrorist measures. I am not saying that the
British government should have targeted Belgians rather than Irish
Catholics, but that they should not have embarked on a policy of
disproportionate targeting of *anyone*, and the fact that they did so
damaged the cause of peace in Northern Ireland immeasurably.
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> > What I do know is that in the last couple
> > of years such people are under suspicion in a way they were not
> > previously and that a number of them have been arrested in FBI-led
> > operations that would hardly have taken place a couple of years ago,
Kevin Gowen replied:
> So what?
So I lived through a similar period in the UK when overzealous responses by
the government and police did little to curb the real (IRA and UDF)
activists, and served mainly to alienate people who might otherwise have
remained unaligned, as well as eroding rights among UK citizens as a whole.
> > and in many cases not a shred of evidence has been put forward
> > explaining why they have been detained.
>
> What are some of the cases in which there has been not a shred of
evidence?
Well, here's an example:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/122301/Worldandnation/From__Zoomcopters__to.shtm
l, but I'm not going to go to any great lengths filling you in, since I've
already cited numerous examples which you just dismiss as "stories".
> > Why don't you just come right out and say you couldn't care less
> > about them? Then your opinions could safely be ignored (as in the
> > case of the world's poor).
>
> And spoil all the fun?
No, just cut all the cack.
> >> 83-year-old Belgian grandmothers and 8-year-old Chinese kids are
> >> not the ones trying to blow us up.
> >
> > That kind of thinking worries me.
>
> Why?
The answer was in the three sentences which followed. Targeting Catholics in
Ulster is now emerging as one of the main reasons that conflict has dragged
on so long. Just to give you some idea of the kind of tangle the Brits got
involved in, check http://www.sundayherald.com/np/fru.shtml. No doubt you
trust your government to do better, but I don't see any very encouraging
signs of that.
> Whole communities/ethic groups have not been attacked. No one has been
> attacked.
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Try
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2002_12.dir/0105.html. Again, though,
there's no point in giving you lots of examples, since you'll only dismiss
them as more "stories".
> > the question is whether paying $5000-$2000 to a
> > warlord to turn over a so-called "terrorist", keeping that person in
> > a cage for a year without charges, while the victim himself, all his
> > friends and family and th e government of his country insist that he
> > is innocent, and finally freeing him without explanation or apology
> > constitute a due and acceptable process of law. And, if it *is*
> > legal, who the heck is making these laws and how does one ensure that
> > one remains outside their jurisdiction? ;-(
>
> [snip] People who do not
> want to remain outside [=inside?] the jurisdiction of these conventions
> should leave Earth. Custom is another source of international law but
> the issues you are talking about are generally covered by written
agreements
> between states.
That's what I thought. Global control, no escape. Scary.
> > These things take time to surface, given the rights governments have
> > to keep many of the relevant documents under wraps and the time it
> > takes to put together the necessary research to establish a case.
>
> I see. Then I can safely assume that you will keep quiet until such
evidence
> does arise. When this evidence does arise, I will condemn those horrible
> acts.
No, I will not keep quiet. I will voice my concerns. If independent
investigation proves them to be unfounded, all well and good. And if there
is nothing to hide no one need be overly anxious to sweep such concerns
under the carpet and enjoin silence from those who voice them.
Over and above issues arising during the war itself, I continue to be
concerned by the present occupation. In Fallujah 18 civilians have been
killed and over 80 injured in recent clashes with US troops, and a further
15 have been killed in Mosul. The longer the US and Britain stay in Iraq the
more such deaths there are likely to be. It seems the British government can
already see this is not what Iraq and the world understood by "liberation"
and is getting cold feet about the numbers of its troops stationed in Iraq.
I am concerned that the US has already shown it is good at winning the wars
but not very good at winning the peace, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, and
that this may result in a mess that is more than anyone bargained for. I
hope not, but simply keeping quiet and hoping it'll all go away isn't going
to cut it.
> > The Gulf War took place in the context of a far greater international
> > consensus that such action was necessary.
>
> How do you measure the international consensus? The coalition that fought
in
> the Iraq War contained more member states than the Gulf War.
Hmm. OK, the Gulf War did not provoke anti-war demonstrations by the
citizens of coalition member states. It was not, taking the temperature in
the UK at the time, a war that the populace greatly relished, but there was
a kind of grim recognition that it was a job that needed to be done; an
aggressor had invaded and occupied a sovereign state (Kuwait), and the
legitimacy of conflict was not a matter of legal technicalities debated over
by experts, but something that the average Joe could perceive as
self-evident. What we saw in the latest conflict was governements siding
with the US in the face of considerable opposition from their own citizens
and with a very tenuous and ambiguous mandate.
> > It may yet turn out that
> > the whole basis for the Iraq War was in contravention of
> > international law
>
> How so? Did you read UNSCR 1441?
>
> > (it's likely to hinge on whether those alleged WMDs
> > ever turn up) -
>
> That answers my question about whether or not you read UNSCR 1441.
Oh, I've read it. It doesn't read to *me* like a carte blanche to make war
on Iraq, and if it wasn't for US hegemony I doubt anyone would ever had got
away with interpreting it as such. But if it turns out that Saddam Hussein
*had* destroyed any and all WMDs before the war ever started then, my
friend, you have a state which *complied* with UN requirements and *still*
got blasted for it. Lawyers may be able to find a loophole, but if that does
turn out to be the situation it is not going to do the US or Britain any
good in the eyes of their detractors. This will hinge on the gut feelings of
large masses of people, not on the legal niceties of a few men in suits.
> > something Bush can pooh-pooh, but Blair is still
> > sweating over.
>
> He shouldn't.
He should. If it transpires that Iraq *had* complied with the UN then the
legitimacy of the conflict is open to doubt.
> > Kevin, you are a US citizen and a lawyer.
>
> I am not a lawyer until next year.
You hope!
> > I am neither. You are on far
> > stronger ground than I am here.
>
> But you are the one making an affirmative claim. Please support it.
Am doing so. I want the US and Britain to come out of this looking rosy just
as much as you do (perhaps for different reasons, though), so I'm putting
across the hostile perspective as hard as I can to see whether they're going
to look rosy to anyone coming at it from that perspective. So far, you seem
to be telling me they can swing it their way on legal technicalities, but
I'm afraid that isn't going to satisfy a lot of people in the long run, and
I'm equally afraid that it's going to *dis*satisfy some so much that they
turn to radical solutions to their frustration.
> > You tell me all the things I am concerned about are legal. If you are
> > right - and I'm still not fully convinced of that, but *if* you are
> > right - then it seems to me that the law is open to the charge of
> > letting the ends justify the means,
>
> Again I ask, which law?
Stop being silly.
> > something which, according to
> > you, is immoral.
>
> When did I say that?
In the thread "Do gaijins have any rights in this place?" where you went on
about it in great detail.
> I see you are still a bit confused about ends/means.
Do you?
> The
> protection of rights under the US Constitution does not extent to non-US
> citizens who are not in the US. This is why a Vietnamese citizen in Hanoi
> cannot exercise his 1st Amendment right to free speech and why an
> Argentinean in a Buenos Aires courtroom cannot assert his 5th Amendment
> right of silence.
Right. But those are examples of members of sovereign states undergoing the
process of law in their own countries. What we have here is non-US citizens
being held by the US government in a little bit of offshore territory. I
quite agree that they have no rights under the US constitution. Equally,
then, the US has no rights over *them*, other than those it claims through
some spurious loophole that may have a shadow of legal validity but has no
moral validity. Can you imagine a US citizen being held by the Argentinean
government on some little bit of offshore territory that afforded a loophole
whereby they claimed the right to keep that citizen in a cage indefinitely
without charges and without explanation? do you think it would make any
difference to US outrage if that US citizen got fatter in his cage and got
to watch Tom Hanks movies a couple of times a week?
> > But I repeat, you are a US citizen and a lawyer.
> I'll be a lawyer next year.
You hope!
> > I am
> > neither. All I can do is try to follow the debate.
>
> Then keep up.
Doing my best.
> > The case against
> > Guantanamo is widely discussed, and you can see the general concerns
> > by following such links as: [snip]
> Don't waste my time.
Ditto. Just say you couldn't care any less about Muslims than you could
about the world's poor and save me the bother of responding to you point by
point.
> > One specific issue, which has come up in the last couple of weeks or
> > so, is that several children are also being detained at Guantanamo:
[snip]
>
> Yes, and did you know that they play touch football with their guards and
> have VCRs/DVD players in their rooms? Apparently their favorite film to
> watch is Tom Hanks's "Castaway".
Yawn. Address the issue please. Rapists don't get lesser sentences by
saying, "But your honour, I gave her a candy afterwards." If it's wrong to
imprison them then it's wrong to imprison them. Being *nice* to them doesn't
make it right. And if it isn't wrong, please explain why not.
> Aren't you a moral relativist?
No, not necessarily. *You* were the one making the positive claim in that
case (the claim being that there is an objective morality). I never gainsaid
you or claimed to take a contrary position, I simply advanced the objections
to your stance and asked for further details and proof of your position.
> Sorry, but I never entertain morally based
> arguments from relativists.
The disclaimer does not apply.
> There is no "international community".
I wish Bush would say something as dumb as that. It'd spell political
suicide for him as surely as Margaret Thantcher saying there's no such thing
as society. And, er, if there's no international community, can you explain
the following exchange:
Me:
> >who the heck is making these laws and how does one ensure that
> > one remains outside their jurisdiction? ;-(
You:
> Since these are matters of international law, they are written in various
> conventions signed by a number of the planet's states.
Does that mean there *is* an international community with laws and whatnot
when the US chooses to recognise such an entity to further its own goals,
but there isn't an international community when acknowledgement of such
might go against US interests?
> It also may interest you
> to know that the Iraq War had the largest ever deployment of judge
advocates
> to the field to advise on RoE etc.
Somehow, that doesn't reassure me as much as you might think.
> > Just a final note. It may be that the US is perfectly justified (both
> > legally and morally) in all its actions and that its detractors simply
> > misunderstand it. However, it is pretty much impossible to verify that
> > without (1) accountability and (2) transparency. The US is currently
> > holding itself accountable to no one,
>
> And this makes the US different from what state? To whom do Cameroon and
> Sweden hold themselves accountable? Please don't make me laugh by saying
> "The UN". There is no world government, John. There is no world court with
> compulsory jurisdiction.
But there are, as you point out, "matters of international law". Actually,
Cameroon and Sweden aren't actually treading on too many people's toes right
now, but those who have offended the international community you deny
exists - in places like Rwanda and Kosovo and, yes, in Afghanistan and Iraq,
and potentially in Burma and Zimbabwe, etc. (though they may have less to
fear from Bush since they aren't rolling in oil) - have found or may
henceforth find that they are not immune to being held to account. History
will play itself out.
> > and so much of what goes on is
> > kept under a shroud (keeping minors at Guantanamo and not actually
> > telling anyone until it leaked is just one example among many). If
> > the US was dealing plainly then the suspicions would not arise,
>
> I had no idea that you were a comedian. What state on this planet
completely
> divulges its acts to the world?
No, *I*'m not the one who's playing jokes here. But on the eve of the war
with Iraq Tony Blair and his government were telling the British people that
there was much, much more they could tell us about the threat Saddam Hussein
posed to the world, but they couldn't divulge it for reasons of national
security, and the US public, from what I picked up, were getting a similar
message. So, now that Hussein is no longer a "threat" - and especially since
a lot of what we *were* told has proved to be without foundation - may we
ask what was it that we couldn't be told back then that made war such an
imperative?
Kevin Gowen
>> What view have I taken?
>
> You have so far argued a fairly uncritical and unqualified support for
> current US counterterrorist measures.
I have done nothing of the kind. I have simply refuted cornball criticisms
of them.
>>> The UK has already been down the road of
>>> counterterrorist measures, vide the movie In the Name of the Father
>>> (a bit embellished, but substantially accurate) for the results.
>>
>> Something tells me that in dealing with terrorism from the IRA e
>> al., the UK didn't give much effort to detaining Belgians.
>
> Ah! This is much like your treatment of the issue of who should
> dominate the world. You will remember you said, basically, "Who
> should dominte the world if not the US?", and I told you to unask the
> question; it is not a foregone conclusion that *any* one country
> should "dominate".
Yes, it is, but you will never understand this fact so there is no point in
discussing it with you.
> Equally, it is not a foregone conclusion that
> *any* demographic group has to be targeted disproportionately by
> counterterrorist measures.
No one is being disproportionately targeted.
> I am not saying that the British
> government should have targeted Belgians rather than Irish Catholics,
> but that they should not have embarked on a policy of
> disproportionate targeting of *anyone*, and the fact that they did so
> damaged the cause of peace in Northern Ireland immeasurably.
Again, no one was disproportionately targeted.
--
Kevin Gowen
Eric Takabayashi
> See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
Coverage on the war in Iraq and its effect on ordinary Iraqis are an
interesting and disturbing exception to the usual bland and uninformed Japanese
news coverage. Unpleasant footage contrary to the American image of a fast and
clean war, such as bodies of Iraqi civilians in residential areas or bleeding
and crippled children in hospitals were ignored or dismissed as anti American
or anti war propaganda could be seen by others in the rest of the world.
Meanwhile foreign observers could watch how American news coverage,
particularly with the embedded reporters became a competition to be patriotic
and toe the government line on the war. It would seem FOX won.
Kevin Gowen
> I wrote:
>
>>> What I do know is that in the last couple
>>> of years such people are under suspicion in a way they were not
>>> previously and that a number of them have been arrested in FBI-led
>>> operations that would hardly have taken place a couple of years ago,
>
> Kevin Gowen replied:
>
>> So what?
>
> So I lived through a similar period in the UK when overzealous
> responses by the government and police did little to curb the real
> (IRA and UDF) activists, and served mainly to alienate people who
> might otherwise have remained unaligned, as well as eroding rights
> among UK citizens as a whole.
What rights of UK citizens were eroded?
>>> and in many cases not a shred of evidence has been put forward
>>> explaining why they have been detained.
>>
>> What are some of the cases in which there has been not a shred of
>> evidence?
>
> Well, here's an example:
>
http://www.sptimes.com/News/122301/Worldandnation/From__Zoomcopters__to.shtm
> l, but I'm not going to go to any great lengths filling you in, since
> I've already cited numerous examples which you just dismiss as
> "stories".
No need to fill me in. The story seems to be about the inability to find a
piece of paper. The headline is "The page cannot be found".
> The answer was in the three sentences which followed. Targeting
> Catholics in Ulster is now emerging as one of the main reasons that
> conflict has dragged on so long.
Whom should they have targeted?
> Just to give you some idea of the
> kind of tangle the Brits got involved in, check
> http://www.sundayherald.com/np/fru.shtml. No doubt you trust your
> government to do better, but I don't see any very encouraging signs
> of that.
Which stories are relevant to your point about US policy?
>> Whole communities/ethic groups have not been attacked. No one has
>> been attacked.
>
> See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Try
> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2002_12.dir/0105.html. Again,
> though, there's no point in giving you lots of examples, since you'll
> only dismiss them as more "stories".
I stand by my original statement. It seems that you have a curious idea of
what "attack" means. BTW, the exact number of detainees was 705.
>> [snip] People who do not
>> want to remain outside [=inside?] the jurisdiction of these
>> conventions should leave Earth. Custom is another source of
>> international law but
>> the issues you are talking about are generally covered by written
>> agreements between states.
>
> That's what I thought.
Would you rather that there be no GCs?
> Global control, no escape. Scary.
How curious that "global control" scares you while you make appeals to the
so-called "international community" and suggest that states should be
accountable to someone/something.
>>> These things take time to surface, given the rights governments have
>>> to keep many of the relevant documents under wraps and the time it
>>> takes to put together the necessary research to establish a case.
>>
>> I see. Then I can safely assume that you will keep quiet until such
>> evidence does arise. When this evidence does arise, I will condemn
>> those horrible acts.
>
> No, I will not keep quiet. I will voice my concerns.
Concerns about speculations?
> If independent
> investigation proves them to be unfounded, all well and good.
I won't expect a retraction.
> And if
> there is nothing to hide no one need be overly anxious to sweep such
> concerns under the carpet and enjoin silence from those who voice
> them.
I don't know anyone like that so I can't respond to straw man arguments
involving them.
> Over and above issues arising during the war itself, I continue to be
> concerned by the present occupation. In Fallujah 18 civilians have
> been killed and over 80 injured in recent clashes with US troops, and
> a further 15 have been killed in Mosul. The longer the US and Britain
> stay in Iraq the more such deaths there are likely to be. It seems
> the British government can already see this is not what Iraq and the
> world understood by "liberation" and is getting cold feet about the
> numbers of its troops stationed in Iraq. I am concerned that the US
> has already shown it is good at winning the wars but not very good at
> winning the peace, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that this may
> result in a mess that is more than anyone bargained for. I hope not,
> but simply keeping quiet and hoping it'll all go away isn't going to
> cut it.
*yawn* I love all the rhetoric about winning the peace.
>>> The Gulf War took place in the context of a far greater
>>> international consensus that such action was necessary.
>>
>> How do you measure the international consensus? The coalition that
>> fought in the Iraq War contained more member states than the Gulf
>> War.
>
> Hmm. OK, the Gulf War did not provoke anti-war demonstrations by the
> citizens of coalition member states.
What? It sure as hell did in the US. I remember because I took part in them.
> It was not, taking the
> temperature in the UK at the time, a war that the populace greatly
> relished, but there was a kind of grim recognition that it was a job
> that needed to be done; an aggressor had invaded and occupied a
> sovereign state (Kuwait), and the legitimacy of conflict was not a
> matter of legal technicalities debated over by experts, but something
> that the average Joe could perceive as self-evident.
Self-evidence is something that people talk about when they don't feel like
supporting their position.
> What we saw in
> the latest conflict was governements siding with the US in the face
> of considerable opposition from their own citizens and with a very
> tenuous and ambiguous mandate.
Nothing ambiguous about the mandate at all. If you had read the relevant
UNSC resolutions you would know that.
>>> (it's likely to hinge on whether those alleged WMDs
>>> ever turn up) -
>>
>> That answers my question about whether or not you read UNSCR 1441.
>
> Oh, I've read it.
Not very well.
> It doesn't read to *me* like a carte blanche to
> make war on Iraq,
Really? You must have missed the parts that talk about *any* member states
taking action to uphold the relevant UNSC resolutions. Cameroon could have
gone in all by itself had it wanted and it would have been authorized.
> and if it wasn't for US hegemony I doubt anyone
> would ever had got away with interpreting it as such.
What does hegemony have to do with anything?
> But if it turns
> out that Saddam Hussein
> *had* destroyed any and all WMDs before the war ever started then, my
> friend, you have a state which *complied* with UN requirements and
> *still* got blasted for it.
I see. You didn't read the resolution. UNSCR 1441 was not about destroying
WMDs.
> Lawyers may be able to find a loophole,
> but if that does turn out to be the situation it is not going to do
> the US or Britain any good in the eyes of their detractors.
I see. All that matters is the uninformed dissent of detractors. Got it.
> This will
> hinge on the gut feelings of large masses of people, not on the legal
> niceties of a few men in suits.
Wow. Gut feelings. That's a great way for a state to make foreign policy
decisions: the gut feelings of ignoramuses in foreign states.
> He should. If it transpires that Iraq *had* complied with the UN then
> the legitimacy of the conflict is open to doubt.
Again, read UNSCR 1441 for the first time. The destruction of WMDs is not
compliance under UNSCR 1441.
>>> Kevin, you are a US citizen and a lawyer.
>>
>> I am not a lawyer until next year.
>
> You hope!
No, I know.
> Am doing so.
You are doing nothing of the kind.
> I want the US and Britain to come out of this looking
> rosy just as much as you do
I don't give a damn how the US or UK look, rosy or otherwise.
> (perhaps for different reasons, though),
> so I'm putting across the hostile perspective as hard as I can to see
> whether they're going to look rosy to anyone coming at it from that
> perspective.
Tomorrow the headlines could say "World peace declared! US and UK gives
delicious candy and hugs to all!", and those assholes in Crapistan and other
shitholes would still being thinking of ways to blow us up.
> So far, you seem to be telling me they can swing it
> their way on legal technicalities,
"Legal technicalities" is what people call "the law" when the law doesn't
swing their way.
> but I'm afraid that isn't going to
> satisfy a lot of people in the long run,
What does satisfying people have to do with anything?
> and I'm equally afraid that
> it's going to *dis*satisfy some so much that they turn to radical
> solutions to their frustration.
If that's what they choose, so be it.
>>> You tell me all the things I am concerned about are legal. If you
>>> are right - and I'm still not fully convinced of that, but *if* you
>>> are right - then it seems to me that the law is open to the charge
>>> of letting the ends justify the means,
>>
>> Again I ask, which law?
>
> Stop being silly.
Nothing silly at all. Which law?
>>> something which, according to
>>> you, is immoral.
>>
>> When did I say that?
>
> In the thread "Do gaijins have any rights in this place?" where you
> went on about it in great detail.
Read it again.
>> I see you are still a bit confused about ends/means.
>
> Do you?
Do I what?
>> The
>> protection of rights under the US Constitution does not extent to
>> non-US citizens who are not in the US. This is why a Vietnamese
>> citizen in Hanoi cannot exercise his 1st Amendment right to free
>> speech and why an Argentinean in a Buenos Aires courtroom cannot
>> assert his 5th Amendment right of silence.
>
> Right. But those are examples of members of sovereign states
> undergoing the process of law in their own countries. What we have
> here is non-US citizens being held by the US government in a little
> bit of offshore territory.
Yes. That offshore territory is called "Cuba". The last time I checked, Cuba
was a sovereign state i.e. not US territory.
> I quite agree that they have no rights
> under the US constitution.
Then why are you so confused?
> Equally, then, the US has no rights over
> *them*,
Incorrect.
> other than those it claims through some spurious loophole
"spurious loophole" = "John doesn't understand"
> that may have a shadow of legal validity but has no moral validity.
For reasons I have already mentioned, I cannot respond to your appeal to
morals.
> Can you imagine a US citizen being held by the Argentinean government
> on some little bit of offshore territory that afforded a loophole
> whereby they claimed the right to keep that citizen in a cage
> indefinitely without charges and without explanation?
I can imagine it very easily. This offshore territory, what sovereign state
would it be in? Certainly not Argentina.
> do you think it
> would make any difference to US outrage if that US citizen got fatter
> in his cage and got to watch Tom Hanks movies a couple of times a
> week?
What does outrage have to do with anything? The people in Afghanistan are
not outraged, BTW. The folks released from GTMO have generally been told "We
don't want you back".
>>> But I repeat, you are a US citizen and a lawyer.
>
>> I'll be a lawyer next year.
>
> You hope!
No, I know.
>>> I am
>>> neither. All I can do is try to follow the debate.
>>
>> Then keep up.
>
> Doing my best.
Your best is not good enough.
>>> The case against
>>> Guantanamo is widely discussed, and you can see the general concerns
>>> by following such links as: [snip]
>
>> Don't waste my time.
>
> Ditto. Just say you couldn't care any less about Muslims than you
> could about the world's poor and save me the bother of responding to
> you point by point.
I'll say nothing of the kind.
>>> One specific issue, which has come up in the last couple of weeks or
>>> so, is that several children are also being detained at Guantanamo:
>>> [snip]
>>
>> Yes, and did you know that they play touch football with their
>> guards and have VCRs/DVD players in their rooms? Apparently their
>> favorite film to watch is Tom Hanks's "Castaway".
>
> Yawn. Address the issue please.
What was the issue? That they are children? Big deal! When a kid is being
raised in a terrorist training camp, I don't think that he is going to grow
up to be a volunteer worker for the Red Cross.
> Rapists don't get lesser sentences by
> saying, "But your honour, I gave her a candy afterwards."
??? Are you drawing an equivalence between the US's legal actions and a
rape? How daft.
> If it's
> wrong to imprison them then it's wrong to imprison them.
That is not an argument; it is a conditional statement and a tautology.
> Being *nice*
> to them doesn't make it right. And if it isn't wrong, please explain
> why not.
Your argument contains a fallacy. You have falsely shifted the burden of
proof. Please explain why it is wrong.
>> Sorry, but I never entertain morally based
>> arguments from relativists.
>
> The disclaimer does not apply.
Then you are an absolutist?
>> There is no "international community".
>
> I wish Bush would say something as dumb as that.
It's not stupid. It's accurate.
> It'd spell political
> suicide for him as surely as Margaret Thantcher saying there's no
> such thing as society. And, er, if there's no international
> community, can you explain the following exchange:
>
> Me:
>
>>> who the heck is making these laws and how does one ensure that
>>> one remains outside their jurisdiction? ;-(
>
> You:
>
>> Since these are matters of international law, they are written in
>> various conventions signed by a number of the planet's states.
>
> Does that mean there *is* an international community with laws and
> whatnot when the US chooses to recognise such an entity to further
> its own goals, but there isn't an international community when
> acknowledgement of such might go against US interests?
No. There is no international community. I think the problem that you are
having is that you do not know what "community" means. It's a group of
people having common interests or identity. You can speak of the Jewish
community, Tokyo community, and Mexican community, but there is simply no
such thing as the international community. There are no common interests or
identity at that level.
>> It also may interest you
>> to know that the Iraq War had the largest ever deployment of judge
>> advocates to the field to advise on RoE etc.
>
> Somehow, that doesn't reassure me as much as you might think.
I never said anything about reassurance.
>>> Just a final note. It may be that the US is perfectly justified
>>> (both legally and morally) in all its actions and that its
>>> detractors simply misunderstand it. However, it is pretty much
>>> impossible to verify that without (1) accountability and (2)
>>> transparency. The US is currently holding itself accountable to no
>>> one,
>>
>> And this makes the US different from what state? To whom do Cameroon
>> and Sweden hold themselves accountable? Please don't make me laugh
>> by saying "The UN". There is no world government, John. There is no
>> world court with compulsory jurisdiction.
>
> But there are, as you point out, "matters of international law".
Yes. My questions remain unanswered.
> Actually, Cameroon and Sweden aren't actually treading on too many
> people's toes right now, but those who have offended the
> international community you deny exists - in places like Rwanda and
> Kosovo and, yes, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and potentially in Burma
> and Zimbabwe, etc. (though they may have less to fear from Bush since
> they aren't rolling in oil) - have found or may henceforth find that
> they are not immune to being held to account. History will play
> itself out.
Accountable to whom?
>>> and so much of what goes on is
>>> kept under a shroud (keeping minors at Guantanamo and not actually
>>> telling anyone until it leaked is just one example among many). If
>>> the US was dealing plainly then the suspicions would not arise,
>>
>> I had no idea that you were a comedian. What state on this planet
>> completely divulges its acts to the world?
>
> No, *I*'m not the one who's playing jokes here. But on the eve of the
> war with Iraq Tony Blair and his government were telling the British
> people that there was much, much more they could tell us about the
> threat Saddam Hussein posed to the world, but they couldn't divulge
> it for reasons of national security, and the US public, from what I
> picked up, were getting a similar message. So, now that Hussein is no
> longer a "threat" - and especially since a lot of what we *were* told
> has proved to be without foundation - may we ask what was it that we
> couldn't be told back then that made war such an imperative?
Answer my question.
BTW, why are you still talking? You said "just a final note". Well, is it
final or not?
--
Kevin Gowen
Brett Robson
Therefore you must accept abortion as acceptable behaviour.
---
"he [John Ashcroft] deliberately left Jesus out of office prayers to avoid
offending non-Christians." - Ben Shapiro 27/2/2003
Kevin Wayne Williams
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 05:03:02 GMT, Kevin ...
>
>>Brett Robson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 00:06:56 -0400, "Kevin ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I read this column by a young man less than half your age, and I don't know
>>>>if he is exceptionally brilliant or if you are exceptionally dull. Maybe
>>>>both.
>>>>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20030227.shtml
>>>
>>>
>>>"he deliberately left Jesus out of office prayers to avoid offending
>>>non-Christians."
>>>
>>>You owe me a new keyboard and monitor, I've just spat coffee and saliva all over
>>>it. The Onion can't write stuff that good.
>>
>>The sad thing is that KGII seems to actually believe that the whole
>>concept of "office prayer" is acceptable behaviour for government officials.
>>
>
>
> That was the first thing that bothered me with that sentence. The other thing
> was the reference to 'non-Christians'. Our Republician child prodigy's view of
> the world seems quite limited, he seems to think 'non-Christians' only includes
> Jews. Maybe in the US federal government that is true.
You have to go back to that tricky "establishment" word. See, if
multiple groups believe in something, that means it isn't an
establishment, unless those multiple groups don't include the group he
is in, at which time they constitute an establishment, because those
differences no longer are sufficiently important to be a real
distinction. Or something like that.
KWW
Brett Robson
>
>I read this column by a young man less than half your age, and I don't know
>if he is exceptionally brilliant or if you are exceptionally dull. Maybe
>both.
>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20030227.shtml
>
Here's a better one.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20030521.shtml
An interesting excerpt
"The basis of the Jewish claim to the land of Israel stems from God. For
millennia, Jews have prayed for the ingathering of exiles, for a return to the
Holy Land. Now, God has granted them their homeland and the weapons to defend
it. God's road map requires the Jews to kill those who seek to kill them (Talmud
Sanhedrin 72A). Israel has the God-given obligation to defend itself against
those who wish to destroy it."
"But ever since that creation, the appeasement-oriented tenets of secular
Zionism have meant unending conflict. Only if Israel elects to follow God's road
map will true peace ever be achieved."
I think Ben should go and live in Israel.
---
"he [John Ashcroft] deliberately left Jesus out of office prayers to avoid
offending non-Christians." - Ben Shapiro 27/2/2003
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> BTW, why are you still talking? You said "just a final note". Well, is it
> final or not?
Um, well I didn't actually think anyone would be dumb enough to assume I was
on my deathbed when I said that! No, that wasn't my farewell to the world,
or to this newsgroup or even to this thread. I was simply indicating that
that was the last point I wanted to make in that particular post.
Sheesh! Why do even simple things get so complicated when you are around?
And, talking about complicated, you obviously have more time on your hands
than I do. We could spend the rest of our lives on these threads, but for
the fact that there is a limit to human endurance.
To shorten things somewhat, let's just say (for the sake of argument) that I
cave in and agree with you on all points. I don't, of course, but I just
want to clarify what exactly it is I'd be agreeing to if I did turn round
and say you are right.
You ask me:
> What rights of UK citizens were eroded?
Can I assume, then, that you believe that no rights of UK citizens were
eroded as a result of counter-terrorism measures?
> Whom should they have targeted?
Can I assume that you believe a particular demographic group must of
necessity be targeted in order to take effective counter-terrorism measures?
Can I also assume that, since you say no such group has been "attacked", can
I assume that you consider that they were "targeted" for some other purpose
than to be "attacked" and if so, what was that purpose?
> Which stories are relevant to your point about US policy?
Can I assume that you consider the US has not made and will not make any of
the mistakes the British government made? Or should I assume, rather, that
you do not consider either the US or the UK to have made any mistakes in
their counterterrorism measures at all?
> BTW, the exact number of detainees was 705.
Can I assume, then, that it was not 762, as alleged by the New York Times in
its coverage of a report that echoes my concerns (http://tinyurl.com/dce6)?
Can I take it that you disagree entirely with that report?
> How curious that "global control" scares you while you make appeals to the
> so-called "international community" and suggest that states should be
> accountable to someone/something.
Can I assume that, in order to satisfy you, I should accept that the United
States has a right to exercise control globally, and reject the idea that
the countries of the world should come to some kind of agreement about what
kinds of actions should and should not be controlled?
> Concerns about speculations?
Must I - in order to be in agreement with you - define any doubts about the
propriety of the governments' (US and UK) actions as speculations, rather
than as allegations?
> I won't expect a retraction.
Expect what you like. I hope the "speculations" can be satisfactorily
answered, and will be glad to acknowledge it when and if they are.
> > And if
> > there is nothing to hide no one need be overly anxious to sweep such
> > concerns under the carpet and enjoin silence from those who voice
> > them.
>
> I don't know anyone like that so I can't respond to straw man arguments
> involving them.
Must I assume that, although you enjoin me to "keep quiet" you don't really
mind whether I keep quiet or not.
> *yawn* I love all the rhetoric about winning the peace.
I guess I'm to assume you are ironic, but should I assume that you think the
US *is* winning the peace, or that you don't care either way, or what?
> > Hmm. OK, the Gulf War did not provoke anti-war demonstrations by the
> > citizens of coalition member states.
>
> What? It sure as hell did in the US. I remember because I took part in
them.
Interesting. Can I assume you were against the Gulf War? If so, why? If not,
what were you doing at the demo? Were you against the last war, too? Why/why
not?
> Self-evidence is something that people talk about when they don't feel
> like supporting their position.
Must I assume that a country invading a sovereign state is not a
self-evident reason for leading a coalition against tht country? Why not?
> Nothing ambiguous about the mandate at all. If you had read the relevant
> UNSC resolutions you would know that.
Now, you see how difficult it is to know how to agree with you. I had
thought one needed to have a very good knowledge of the law to know that,
and that even then there was considerable disagreement among experts. Please
tell me what I have to do to be in agreement with you in this case.
> You must have missed the parts that talk about *any* member states
> taking action to uphold the relevant UNSC resolutions. Cameroon could have
> gone in all by itself had it wanted and it would have been authorized.
Yes, but again it's difficult to know how to agree. Any country, you say,
was entitled to take action to uphold the resolutions. Would this apply
whether or not Saddam Hussein was actually in breach of the resolutions?
> What does hegemony have to do with anything?
> I see. You didn't read the resolution. UNSCR 1441 was not about destroying
> WMDs.
So when it says it "Decides...to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final
opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant
resolutions of the Council" it actually means something different? This is
the kind of thing that gives me so much difficulty. Even if I *want* to
agree with you, I am not sure what I am supposed to think.
> I see. All that matters is the uninformed dissent of detractors. Got it.
Do you mean that the electorates of the countries concerned should just shut
up and leave their leaders to do as they please? If not, what exactly am I
supposed to believe in order to agree with your point of view?
> Wow. Gut feelings. That's a great way for a state to make foreign policy
> decisions: the gut feelings of ignoramuses in foreign states.
Noting the irony, this translates as, "It doesn't matter if a lot of people
feel their noses have been put out of joint". I that what I'd have to
believe to be on your side in the debate?
> I don't give a damn how the US or UK look, rosy or otherwise.
Again, this suggests you feel one shouldn't care what other countries and
their citizens think, but simply push on with one's agenda regardless. Is
that right?
> Tomorrow the headlines could say "World peace declared! US and UK gives
> delicious candy and hugs to all!", and those assholes in Crapistan and
> other shitholes would still being thinking of ways to blow us up.
Do I have to think of the entire populations of Islamic countries as
"assholes in Crapistan" in order to be in agreement with you? Who *do* I
have to think of in this way?
> What does satisfying people have to do with anything?
I thought it had to do with things like getting the electorate to vote for
the politicians in question the next time around, and not leaving people so
p***ed off that they think there's nothing better to do with their life than
sacrifice it taking a few US citizens with them. What is the correct view of
this matter, according to you?
> If that [i.e., terrorism] 's what they choose, so be it.
Does this mean you feel that if a particular course of action actually
*provokes* a terrorist reaction there is no reason to regret or modify the
original course of action?
> Nothing silly at all. Which law?
> "spurious loophole" = "John doesn't understand"
>
> > that may have a shadow of legal validity but has no moral validity.
>
> For reasons I have already mentioned, I cannot respond to your appeal to
> morals.
So to be in agreement with you I have to accept that I should simply shrug
off evidence that people were treated immorally (i.e., that they were
knowingly lied to about Saddam Hussein's WMDs and strike capacity)?
> > Ditto. Just say you couldn't care any less about Muslims than you
> > could about the world's poor and save me the bother of responding to
> > you point by point.
>
> I'll say nothing of the kind.
So, to be in agreement with you should I assume that you care about these
"assholes in Crapistan" or not? Which Muslims *should* I assume you care
about?
> Your argument contains a fallacy. You have falsely shifted the burden of
> proof. Please explain why it is wrong.
So to be in agreement with you I should simply accept that it is right
because you say so, without any understanding of why it is right, and even
though it would not be right in the eyes of any country of the US and
Somalia?
> No. There is no international community. I think the problem that you are
> having is that you do not know what "community" means. It's a group of
> people having common interests or identity. You can speak of the Jewish
> community, Tokyo community, and Mexican community, but there is simply no
> such thing as the international community. There are no common interests
> or identity at that level.
So for us to agree I have to accept that human beings, all living on the
same planet, nevertheless do not have any common interests (such as an
interest in breathing fresh air) and identity (such as sharing such abilites
as those of building bridges and speaking languages)?
> Answer my question. [about accountability]
Please tell me how to answer your question in such a way as to obtain your
agreement.
Kevin Gowen
> You have to go back to that tricky "establishment" word. See, if
> multiple groups believe in something, that means it isn't an
> establishment, unless those multiple groups don't include the group he
> is in, at which time they constitute an establishment, because those
> differences no longer are sufficiently important to be a real
> distinction. Or something like that.
I see that your night school offers Constitutional Law I & II in your third
full year, so you'll learn about all this stuff then. Or not. I'm only
familiar with the curriculum at ABA-accredited law schools.
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> BTW, why are you still talking? You said "just a final note". Well,
>> is it final or not?
>
> Um, well I didn't actually think anyone would be dumb enough to
> assume I was on my deathbed when I said that!
Who said anything about a deathbed?
> No, that wasn't my
> farewell to the world, or to this newsgroup or even to this thread. I
> was simply indicating that that was the last point I wanted to make
> in that particular post.
I see.
> Sheesh! Why do even simple things get so complicated when you are
> around?
I have a truly dizzying intellect.
> And, talking about complicated, you obviously have more time on your
> hands than I do. We could spend the rest of our lives on these
> threads, but for the fact that there is a limit to human endurance.
I load up on protein powder.
> To shorten things somewhat, let's just say (for the sake of argument)
> that I cave in and agree with you on all points. I don't, of course,
> but I just want to clarify what exactly it is I'd be agreeing to if I
> did turn round and say you are right.
Ok.
> You ask me:
>
>> What rights of UK citizens were eroded?
>
> Can I assume, then, that you believe that no rights of UK citizens
> were eroded as a result of counter-terrorism measures?
You can assume nothing of the kind. Unlike the rather odd interests of
furriners in the politics of the United States, I have no such interest in
the policies of the UK. I simply wished for you to tell me what rights of UK
citizens were eroded.
>> Whom should they have targeted?
>
> Can I assume that you believe a particular demographic group must of
> necessity be targeted in order to take effective counter-terrorism
> measures?
I'll go further than that. I'll say that a particular demographic group must
be targeted in order to take measures against any number of
crimes/undesirable acts. It's called profiling.
> Can I also assume that, since you say no such group has
> been "attacked", can I assume that you consider that they were
> "targeted" for some other purpose than to be "attacked" and if so,
> what was that purpose?
First you will have to tell me what rights were eroded.
>> Which stories are relevant to your point about US policy?
>
> Can I assume that you consider the US has not made and will not make
> any of the mistakes the British government made? Or should I assume,
> rather, that you do not consider either the US or the UK to have made
> any mistakes in their counterterrorism measures at all?
First you will have to tell me what mistakes the UK government made.
>> BTW, the exact number of detainees was 705.
>
> Can I assume, then, that it was not 762, as alleged by the New York
> Times in its coverage of a report that echoes my concerns
> (http://tinyurl.com/dce6)? Can I take it that you disagree entirely
> with that report?
Make sure that Jayson Blair didn't write the story.
>> How curious that "global control" scares you while you make appeals
>> to the so-called "international community" and suggest that states
>> should be accountable to someone/something.
>
> Can I assume that, in order to satisfy you, I should accept that the
> United States has a right to exercise control globally, and reject
> the idea that the countries of the world should come to some kind of
> agreement about what kinds of actions should and should not be
> controlled?
You can assume nothing of the kind. The right to exercise global control
goes to the state that can wield the power. Your second clause about the
countries of the world coming together is ambiguous so I don't know how to
respond to it. I would probably reject the idea you suggest. Only the
liberal democracies should have any sort of say. A fundamental flaw of
international law is that is favors oppressive governments.
>> Concerns about speculations?
>
> Must I - in order to be in agreement with you - define any doubts
> about the propriety of the governments' (US and UK) actions as
> speculations, rather than as allegations?
You simply must show your concerns to be reasonable.
>> I won't expect a retraction.
>
> Expect what you like. I hope the "speculations" can be satisfactorily
> answered, and will be glad to acknowledge it when and if they are.
No, I said what I *won't* expect, not what I will expect.
>>> And if
>>> there is nothing to hide no one need be overly anxious to sweep such
>>> concerns under the carpet and enjoin silence from those who voice
>>> them.
>>
>> I don't know anyone like that so I can't respond to straw man
>> arguments involving them.
>
> Must I assume that, although you enjoin me to "keep quiet" you don't
> really mind whether I keep quiet or not.
You can assume what you like.
>> *yawn* I love all the rhetoric about winning the peace.
>
> I guess I'm to assume you are ironic, but should I assume that you
> think the US *is* winning the peace, or that you don't care either
> way, or what?
The peace isn't something to be won.
>>> Hmm. OK, the Gulf War did not provoke anti-war demonstrations by the
>>> citizens of coalition member states.
>>
>> What? It sure as hell did in the US. I remember because I took part
>> in them.
>
> Interesting.
Nothing interesting about the fact that antiwar demonstrations took place.
> Can I assume you were against the Gulf War? If so, why?
Yes. I was 15 years old at the time. My opinions on the Gulf War have since
changed, as you may or may not be able to guess.
> If not, what were you doing at the demo? Were you against the last
> war, too? Why/why not?
>
>> Self-evidence is something that people talk about when they don't
>> feel like supporting their position.
>
> Must I assume that a country invading a sovereign state is not a
> self-evident reason for leading a coalition against tht country? Why
> not?
You can assume what you like. My statement about self-evidence stands.
>> Nothing ambiguous about the mandate at all. If you had read the
>> relevant UNSC resolutions you would know that.
>
> Now, you see how difficult it is to know how to agree with you. I had
> thought one needed to have a very good knowledge of the law to know
> that, and that even then there was considerable disagreement among
> experts. Please tell me what I have to do to be in agreement with you
> in this case.
Rubbing two brain cells together would be a good start.
>> You must have missed the parts that talk about *any* member states
>> taking action to uphold the relevant UNSC resolutions. Cameroon
>> could have gone in all by itself had it wanted and it would have
>> been authorized.
>
> Yes, but again it's difficult to know how to agree. Any country, you
> say, was entitled to take action to uphold the resolutions. Would
> this apply whether or not Saddam Hussein was actually in breach of
> the resolutions?
I don't understand the question. I spoke about upholding. Nothing about
breach. That having been said, UNSCR 1441 states "Iraq has been and remains
in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions"
>> What does hegemony have to do with anything?
>
>> I see. You didn't read the resolution. UNSCR 1441 was not about
>> destroying WMDs.
>
> So when it says it "Decides...to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a
> final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under
> relevant resolutions of the Council" it actually means something
> different?
It means what it says. You are confused about what "disarmament obligations"
entailed.
> This is the kind of thing that gives me so much
> difficulty. Even if I *want* to agree with you, I am not sure what I
> am supposed to think.
You are supposed to know what "disarmament obligations" entailed.
"Disarmament obligations" entailed *disclosure*. Even if Iraq destroyed all
the weapons it should have, which it did not e.g. the Al Samouds it fired,
it would still have been in material breach if it had not provided proof of
said destruction.
>> I see. All that matters is the uninformed dissent of detractors. Got
>> it.
>
> Do you mean that the electorates of the countries concerned should
> just shut up and leave their leaders to do as they please?
Oh, they can shout all they like. But yes, that is what leaders do. Leaders
lead, not follow the masses. I always got a good laugh when the news would
show an anti-US anti-war demonstration of thousands in Syria or Pakistan or
some other such state. Those people should be protesting their own
governments. Let them see what happens when they try.
> If not,
> what exactly am I supposed to believe in order to agree with your
> point of view?
>
>> Wow. Gut feelings. That's a great way for a state to make foreign
>> policy decisions: the gut feelings of ignoramuses in foreign states.
>
> Noting the irony, this translates as, "It doesn't matter if a lot of
> people feel their noses have been put out of joint".
Exactly. International law is about the actions of states, not their
populations.
> I that what I'd
> have to believe to be on your side in the debate?
You simply have to be right to agree with my side.
>> I don't give a damn how the US or UK look, rosy or otherwise.
>
> Again, this suggests you feel one shouldn't care what other countries
> and their citizens think, but simply push on with one's agenda
> regardless. Is that right?
Yes. The opinions of others has nothing to do with the correctness of a
state's domestic or foreign policy. Why should Tony Blair care what Pierre
in gay Paris thinks? Pierre can't vote Labour.
>> Tomorrow the headlines could say "World peace declared! US and UK
>> gives delicious candy and hugs to all!", and those assholes in
>> Crapistan and other shitholes would still being thinking of ways to
>> blow us up.
>
> Do I have to think of the entire populations of Islamic countries as
> "assholes in Crapistan" in order to be in agreement with you? Who
> *do* I have to think of in this way?
Huh?
>> What does satisfying people have to do with anything?
>
> I thought it had to do with things like getting the electorate to
> vote for the politicians in question the next time around,
The people in Crapistan can't vote in the US. Sometimes they can't even vote
in Crapistan.
> and not
> leaving people so p***ed off that they think there's nothing better
> to do with their life than sacrifice it taking a few US citizens with
> them.
Please explain the circumstances that would not lead to some assholes
sacrificing their lives and taking a few US citizens with them.
> What is the correct view of this matter, according to you?
That satisfying people is irrelevant.
>> If that [i.e., terrorism] 's what they choose, so be it.
>
> Does this mean you feel that if a particular course of action actually
> *provokes* a terrorist reaction there is no reason to regret or
> modify the original course of action?
Yes. I see that you didn't pay attention to last year's discussion of
morals.
>> Nothing silly at all. Which law?
>
>> "spurious loophole" = "John doesn't understand"
>>
>>> that may have a shadow of legal validity but has no moral validity.
>>
>> For reasons I have already mentioned, I cannot respond to your
>> appeal to morals.
>
> So to be in agreement with you I have to accept that I should simply
> shrug off evidence that people were treated immorally (i.e., that
> they were knowingly lied to about Saddam Hussein's WMDs and strike
> capacity)?
What evidence is there of lies being told about Iraq's WMDs and strike
capacity? To think this, you have to think that Bush and Blair are not only
insidious but incredibly stupid. Is your theory that Bush and Blair lied
about WMDs to justify an invasion that they knew would show that no such
WMDs existed?
>>> Ditto. Just say you couldn't care any less about Muslims than you
>>> could about the world's poor and save me the bother of responding to
>>> you point by point.
>>
>> I'll say nothing of the kind.
>
> So, to be in agreement with you should I assume that you care about
> these "assholes in Crapistan" or not? Which Muslims *should* I assume
> you care about?
Assume what you like. I don't make statements such as "I care about
Muslims", "I care about Catholics", "I care about seamstresses" etc because
I do not view people in terms of their group identity when deciding whom to
care about.
>> Your argument contains a fallacy. You have falsely shifted the
>> burden of proof. Please explain why it is wrong.
>
> So to be in agreement with you I should simply accept that it is right
> because you say so, without any understanding of why it is right, and
> even though it would not be right in the eyes of any country of the
> US and Somalia?
No. You simply have to support your argument rather than assume it is right
by default.
>> No. There is no international community. I think the problem that
>> you are having is that you do not know what "community" means. It's
>> a group of people having common interests or identity. You can speak
>> of the Jewish community, Tokyo community, and Mexican community, but
>> there is simply no such thing as the international community. There
>> are no common interests or identity at that level.
>
> So for us to agree I have to accept that human beings, all living on
> the same planet, nevertheless do not have any common interests (such
> as an interest in breathing fresh air) and identity (such as sharing
> such abilites as those of building bridges and speaking languages)?
Correct.
>> Answer my question. [about accountability]
>
> Please tell me how to answer your question in such a way as to obtain
> your agreement.
Tell me to whom you think states should hold themselves accountable.
--
Kevin Gowen
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> > it is not a foregone conclusion that *any* one country
> > should "dominate".
Kevin Gowen commented:
> Yes, it is, but you will never understand this fact so there is no point
in
> discussing it with you.
Well, in the spirit of trying to agree with you, let's recap what was said
back in the other thread. You said one country must dominate because in any
human relationship or grouping there is always one individual or party which
dominates. We worked through the example of the school playground, dominated
by a bully. I pointed out that if half a dozen kids grouped together they
would be strong enough to resist the bully. You then responded by saying
that one of the six would then emerge as leader of that group. I disagreed
with you.
Let us say I was wrong to disagree. Let us say you were right, and one of
the six kids would emerge as leader. Wouldn't we then have a bipolar
playground? And given that other groups of kids could do the same thing,
couldn't we have a multipolar playground?
Kevin Gowen
> I wrote:
>
>>> it is not a foregone conclusion that *any* one country
>>> should "dominate".
>
> Kevin Gowen commented:
>
>> Yes, it is, but you will never understand this fact so there is no
>> point in discussing it with you.
>
> Well, in the spirit of trying to agree with you, let's recap what was
> said back in the other thread. You said one country must dominate
> because in any human relationship or grouping there is always one
> individual or party which dominates. We worked through the example of
> the school playground, dominated by a bully. I pointed out that if
> half a dozen kids grouped together they would be strong enough to
> resist the bully. You then responded by saying that one of the six
> would then emerge as leader of that group. I disagreed with you.
>
> Let us say I was wrong to disagree.
Yes, let us say the truth.
> Let us say you were right, and
> one of the six kids would emerge as leader. Wouldn't we then have a
> bipolar playground?
No.
> And given that other groups of kids could do the
> same thing, couldn't we have a multipolar playground?
No.
--
Kevin Gowen
Brett Robson
>
>I'll go further than that. I'll say that a particular demographic group must
>be targeted in order to take measures against any number of
>crimes/undesirable acts. It's called profiling.
>
And it's ok as long as it doesn't include your demographic. I guess you have
never been stopped for "driving while black"
>
>>> You must have missed the parts that talk about *any* member states
>>> taking action to uphold the relevant UNSC resolutions. Cameroon
>>> could have gone in all by itself had it wanted and it would have
>>> been authorized.
Can Cameroon invade the US for it's (US) breaches of UN resolutions?
>Assume what you like. I don't make statements such as "I care about
>Muslims", "I care about Catholics", "I care about seamstresses" etc because
>I do not view people in terms of their group identity when deciding whom to
>care about.
---
John R. Yamamoto- Wilson
> I have a truly dizzying intellect.
Translation: Kevin has an overweening sense of self-esteem.
> I load up on protein powder.
Translation: He's constipated.
> Unlike the rather odd interests of
> furriners in the politics of the United States, I have no such interest in
> the policies of the UK.
Yes indeed, to the extent that the US keeps itself to itself and does not
impinge on the outside world it does seem rather odd that the outside world
would have all that much interest in *it*.
> I'll say that a particular demographic group must
> be targeted in order to take measures against any number of
> crimes/undesirable acts. It's called profiling.
Oh, well, if it's got a *name* it must be OK.
> > since you say no such group has
> > been "attacked", can I assume that you consider that they were
> > "targeted" for some other purpose than to be "attacked" and if so,
> > what was that purpose?
>
> First you will have to tell me what rights were eroded.
Why? The two matters are unrelated. Just tell me why they were, as you put
it, "targeted" if it was not in order that they be attacked.
> you will have to tell me what mistakes the UK government made.
The same ones the US government appears to be making.
> You simply must show your concerns to be reasonable.
I am not in a position to be so well-informed as Hans Blix, but someone so
close to the situation is concerned that there may have been no WMDs in Iraq
before the war (e.g.,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,962405,00.html) then so am I.
The reason I am concerned is because if *in fact* there were no WMDs, then
that leads to a further set of concerns about the claims that there *were*
(see ******* below).
> >> I won't expect a retraction.
> >
> > Expect what you like.
>
> No, I said what I *won't* expect, not what I will expect.
Oh, OK. Well, *don't* expect what you like, then (shrug).
> You can assume what you like.
Very kind of you.
> The peace isn't something to be won.
Try telling that to Japan or Germany!
> Nothing interesting about the fact that antiwar demonstrations took place.
Interesting that you took part in them, though.
> > Can I assume you were against the Gulf War? If so, why?
>
> Yes. I was 15 years old at the time. My opinions on the Gulf War have
since
> changed, as you may or may not be able to guess.
Ah, a convert! Now I understand why you have the uncompromising fervour of
the zealot.
> You can assume what you like.
Very kind of you.
> > Please tell me what I have to do to be in agreement with you
> > in this case.
>
> Rubbing two brain cells together would be a good start.
Since you bring this up, I do quite well on standard intelligence tests.
> You simply have to be right to agree with my side.
Ah! Perhaps there is a new kind of intelligence, the "KQ" ("Kevin Quota")
that, being superior, will ultimately replace the old IQ that fuddy-duddies
like me rely on.
> Huh?
Exactly. Now, on the old IQ rating "Huh?" would rank pretty low, but I'll
bet on the KQ scale that's right up there with...with 0.12 is "almost
double" 0.7 and other gems.
> The people in Crapistan can't vote in the US. Sometimes they can't even
vote
> in Crapistan.
Perhaps their lack of voting rights (frequently attributable, at least in
part, to US support of the dictatorships they live in), coupled with the
fact that people like you despise them, is why a percentage of them turn to
terrorism.
> Please explain the circumstances that would not lead to some assholes
> sacrificing their lives and taking a few US citizens with them.
You should all become hunter-gatherers and live in teepees.
> satisfying people is irrelevant.
Except before an election, of course.
> > Does this mean you feel that if a particular course of action actually
> > *provokes* a terrorist reaction there is no reason to regret or
> > modify the original course of action?
>
> Yes. I see that you didn't pay attention to last year's discussion of
> morals.
I followed it very closely. You argued that if something was right it was
still right, even if the results were bad, and if something was wrong it was
still wrong, even if the results were good, right? So perhaps the greatest
danger in this life is the evil that results from the actions of people who
have a high KQ and are always "right".
> What evidence is there of lies being told about Iraq's WMDs and strike
> capacity?
******* We were told Saddam Hussein had the ability to launch a chemical or
biological strike in 45 minutes, and there is no evidence that he had the
ability to launch one at all. As you enjoy pointing out, the onus of proof
lies on those who make the assertion, and when those who asserted that Iraq
had that kind of strike capability are unable to provide even elementary
corroboration of their claims one is left with a number of options; either
they were mistaken (in which case US intelligence is in a deplorable state)
or they were lying (in which case they acted immorally) or they told the
truth and someone has been tricky enough to make it *look* as though they
were mistaken or lying (in which case the forces of terrorism and evil are a
lot more powerful and resourceful than we imagine, and we had *all* better
be deeply concerned).
> To think this, you have to think that Bush and Blair are not only
> insidious but incredibly stupid.
I can't comment about what constitutes stupid on the KQ scale, but the IQ
approach is to consider the possibilities.
> Is your theory that Bush and Blair lied
> about WMDs to justify an invasion that they knew would show that no such
> WMDs existed?
Not at all. Anyone with a reasonable IQ rating would see that that does not
necessarily follow, but the KQ rating evidently does not allow of the same
range of possible interpretations.
> Assume what you like.
Very kind of you.
> I don't make statements such as "I care about
> Muslims", "I care about Catholics", "I care about seamstresses" etc
because
> I do not view people in terms of their group identity when deciding whom
to
> care about.
Only when deciding whom *not* to care about, eh, like the poorer
three-quarters of the world's population (of whom you said "I could not care
less") and, I take it, the "asshole" inhabitants of a country you call
"Crapistan"?
> > for us to agree I have to accept that human beings, all living on
> > the same planet, nevertheless do not have any common interests (such
> > as an interest in breathing fresh air) and identity (such as sharing
> > such abilites as those of building bridges and speaking languages)?
>
> Correct.
That is so palpably absurd that I'll go back to your original statement:
>>> There is no international community. I think the problem that
>>> you are having is that you do not know what "community" means. It's
>>> a group of people having common interests or identity. You can speak
>>> of the Jewish community, Tokyo community, and Mexican community, but
>>> there is simply no such thing as the international community. There
>>> are no common interests or identity at that level.
I think the problem is that you do not know what "international community"
means. The examples you give are of communities of *individuals*. Even those
"communities" are tenuous enough. What sort of "common interests" does (say)
the average Tokyo businessman have with a Yakuza pimp living in the same
city? Or a Mexican victim of a mugging with the street gang that mugged him?
The members of the communities you mention do not have any kind of
homogeneous identity. They vote for different people, frequent differing
venues, etc., because they have differing interests and a different sense of
what constitutes their identity.
However, tenuous though it is, there is *sufficient* in common for those
individuals to be able to identify themselves and others as part of a
community. Now, when we say "international community" we do not suppose it
to mean a community of six billion individuals (though, if stuck on Alpha
Centauri with no one but Alpha Centaurians for company, I suspect most of
that six billion would welcome any fellow human with open arms as a member
of the community of earthlings) but a community of *countries* - all of
whom, despite their differences, do most definitely have common interests
and a common identity. They all have a national anthem and a flag, they all
have a body of laws, they all print money, they all have an interest in
feeding their populace, in winning a gold medal at the Olympics, etc., etc.
The things which identify an entity as a country are common to all
countries, to a much greater degree, in fact, than the things which identify
a Tokyoite as a Tokyoite are common to all Tokyoites.
> Tell me to whom you think states should hold themselves accountable.
Well, to me, preferably, but failing that to anyone except you.
--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com
John R. Yamamoto- Wilson
> > one of the six kids would emerge as leader. Wouldn't we then have a
> > bipolar playground?
>
> No.
>
> > And given that other groups of kids could do the
> > same thing, couldn't we have a multipolar playground?
>
> No.
I see. Thank you so much.
--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com
Kevin Gowen
>
>> I have a truly dizzying intellect.
>
> Translation: Kevin has an overweening sense of self-esteem.
I don't have self-esteem. Self-esteem is self-indulgent crap for suckers.
>> I load up on protein powder.
>
> Translation: He's constipated.
I'm regular. Just the other day I had a turd the size and shape of a
softball. I have no idea how that happened.
>> Unlike the rather odd interests of
>> furriners in the politics of the United States, I have no such
>> interest in the policies of the UK.
>
> Yes indeed, to the extent that the US keeps itself to itself and does
> not impinge on the outside world it does seem rather odd that the
> outside world would have all that much interest in *it*.
Yes. The obsessive interest that several members of this newsgroup have in
the domestic policies of the US and how they vicariously identify with the
Democratic Party is truly mind boggling.
(Yes, I know. I owe you an internet dollar)
>> I'll say that a particular demographic group must
>> be targeted in order to take measures against any number of
>> crimes/undesirable acts. It's called profiling.
>
> Oh, well, if it's got a *name* it must be OK.
I never said that. I am simply informing you of the existence of a valid and
very useful law enforcement tool.
>>> since you say no such group has
>>> been "attacked", can I assume that you consider that they were
>>> "targeted" for some other purpose than to be "attacked" and if so,
>>> what was that purpose?
>>
>> First you will have to tell me what rights were eroded.
>
> Why?
Because you mentioned these so-called eroded rights as if they mattered.
> The two matters are unrelated.
Then why did you ask me for my opinion on the matter?
> Just tell me why they were, as
> you put it, "targeted" if it was not in order that they be attacked.
I don't understand the question.
>> you will have to tell me what mistakes the UK government made.
>
> The same ones the US government appears to be making.
This is not responsive. Please tell me the specific mistakes that the UK
government made.
>> You simply must show your concerns to be reasonable.
>
> I am not in a position to be so well-informed as Hans Blix,
BWAHAHA!
> but
> someone so close to the situation is concerned that there may have
> been no WMDs in Iraq before the war (e.g.,
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,962405,00.html) then so
> am I.
Was he closer to the situation than the UK, UN, US, France, Germany, and
Russia, all of whom stated that Iraq had them? Was Blix closer than the 15
members of the UNSC who voted unanimously for UNSCR 1441? In case you have
forgotten, all the hubbub in the SC before the war was not over whether or
not Iraq had WMDs. It was about what to do about Iraq's WMDs.
> The reason I am concerned is because if *in fact* there were no
> WMDs, then that leads to a further set of concerns about the claims
> that there *were* (see ******* below).
Yes, the claims of UK, UN, US, France, Germany, and Russia. We all know that
Jacques Chirac is a shill for the Bush administration.
> Oh, OK. Well, *don't* expect what you like, then (shrug).
Why do people put (shrug) after statements? To give it a nice wishy-washy
feeling? If you are not sure of your statement, you have little reason to
think that I will find it convincing.
>> You can assume what you like.
>
> Very kind of you.
Hey, I'm a compassionate guy.
>> The peace isn't something to be won.
>
> Try telling that to Japan or Germany!
Oh, they know that all too well.
>>> Can I assume you were against the Gulf War? If so, why?
>>
>> Yes. I was 15 years old at the time. My opinions on the Gulf War
>> have since changed, as you may or may not be able to guess.
>
> Ah, a convert! Now I understand why you have the uncompromising
> fervour of the zealot.
Indeed. Sort of like how former smokers are the most fervent antismoking
folks. I am zealous because I know how insidious the left is.
>>> Please tell me what I have to do to be in agreement with you
>>> in this case.
>>
>> Rubbing two brain cells together would be a good start.
>
> Since you bring this up, I do quite well on standard intelligence
> tests.
I didn't bring it up, but it's nice to know. If you do well enough, you
could join Mensa. If you do, keep it secret. The mere mention of Mensa is
enough to make some people start fitting like sissies.
>> You simply have to be right to agree with my side.
>
> Ah! Perhaps there is a new kind of intelligence, the "KQ" ("Kevin
> Quota") that, being superior, will ultimately replace the old IQ that
> fuddy-duddies like me rely on.
What do IQ tests measure? Let's not have the tautological retort. What is
intelligence?
>> Huh?
>
> Exactly. Now, on the old IQ rating "Huh?" would rank pretty low, but
> I'll bet on the KQ scale that's right up there with...with 0.12 is
> "almost double" 0.7 and other gems.
I see. You choose not to elaborate on your nonsensical statement.
>> The people in Crapistan can't vote in the US. Sometimes they can't
>> even vote in Crapistan.
>
> Perhaps their lack of voting rights (frequently attributable, at
> least in part, to US support of the dictatorships they live in),
Name some of these countries.
> coupled with the fact that people like you despise them,
What kind of people would you like to despise them? I don't, BTW.
> is why a
> percentage of them turn to terrorism.
I see. I thought a percentage of them turn to terrorism because of their
choice to do so. My bad, as the young people say.
>> Please explain the circumstances that would not lead to some assholes
>> sacrificing their lives and taking a few US citizens with them.
>
> You should all become hunter-gatherers and live in teepees.
Who is "you"?
>> satisfying people is irrelevant.
>
> Except before an election, of course.
Now you are seeing my point.
>>> Does this mean you feel that if a particular course of action
>>> actually
>>> *provokes* a terrorist reaction there is no reason to regret or
>>> modify the original course of action?
>>
>> Yes. I see that you didn't pay attention to last year's discussion of
>> morals.
>
> I followed it very closely. You argued that if something was right it
> was still right, even if the results were bad, and if something was
> wrong it was still wrong, even if the results were good, right?
Right. Acts have inherent rightness or wrongness. Outcomes are irrelevant.
> So
> perhaps the greatest danger in this life is the evil that results
> from the actions of people who have a high KQ and are always "right".
First you'll have to define "evil".
>> What evidence is there of lies being told about Iraq's WMDs and
>> strike capacity?
>
> ******* We were told Saddam Hussein had the ability to launch a
> chemical or biological strike in 45 minutes, and there is no evidence
> that he had the ability to launch one at all. As you enjoy pointing
> out, the onus of proof lies on those who make the assertion, and when
> those who asserted that Iraq had that kind of strike capability are
> unable to provide even elementary corroboration of their claims one
> is left with a number of options; either they were mistaken (in which
> case US intelligence is in a deplorable state)
As well as the intelligence of the UK, UN, Germany, France, and Russia.
> or they were lying (in
> which case they acted immorally)
Very unlikely, for reasons I have already stated.
> or they told the truth and someone
> has been tricky enough to make it *look* as though they were mistaken
> or lying (in which case the forces of terrorism and evil are a lot
> more powerful and resourceful than we imagine, and we had *all*
> better be deeply concerned).
What do terrorists need to do when they have the media to be their shills?
I asked about lies. What evidence is there of lies?
>> To think this, you have to think that Bush and Blair are not only
>> insidious but incredibly stupid.
>
> I can't comment about what constitutes stupid on the KQ scale, but
> the IQ approach is to consider the possibilities.
What's this "IQ approach" nonsense? Could you define it, please?
Please note that my statement implicitly considers the possibilities.
>> Is your theory that Bush and Blair lied
>> about WMDs to justify an invasion that they knew would show that no
>> such WMDs existed?
>
> Not at all. Anyone with a reasonable IQ rating would see that that
> does not necessarily follow,
Sure it does. Curious that you think otherwise.
> but the KQ rating evidently does not
> allow of the same range of possible interpretations.
Let's hear some of yours.
>> I don't make statements such as "I care about
>> Muslims", "I care about Catholics", "I care about seamstresses" etc
>> because I do not view people in terms of their group identity when
>> deciding whom to care about.
>
> Only when deciding whom *not* to care about, eh, like the poorer
> three-quarters of the world's population (of whom you said "I could
> not care less") and, I take it, the "asshole" inhabitants of a
> country you call "Crapistan"?
Correct. It is impossible to care about everyone.
>>> for us to agree I have to accept that human beings, all living on
>>> the same planet, nevertheless do not have any common interests (such
>>> as an interest in breathing fresh air) and identity (such as sharing
>>> such abilites as those of building bridges and speaking languages)?
>>
>> Correct.
>
> That is so palpably absurd that I'll go back to your original
> statement:
Ooh! Argument from Ridicule! I like it!
>>>> There is no international community. I think the problem that
>>>> you are having is that you do not know what "community" means. It's
>>>> a group of people having common interests or identity. You can
>>>> speak
>>>> of the Jewish community, Tokyo community, and Mexican community,
>>>> but there is simply no such thing as the international community.
>>>> There
>>>> are no common interests or identity at that level.
>
> I think the problem is that you do not know what "international
> community" means.
By all means, please enlighten me.
> The examples you give are of communities of
> *individuals*.
An individual cannot be a community. Ok, I'll make an exception for Sybil.
> Even those "communities" are tenuous enough. What sort
> of "common interests" does (say) the average Tokyo businessman have
> with a Yakuza pimp living in the same city? Or a Mexican victim of a
> mugging with the street gang that mugged him? The members of the
> communities you mention do not have any kind of homogeneous identity.
Now you are getting the idea.
> They vote for different people, frequent differing venues, etc.,
> because they have differing interests and a different sense of what
> constitutes their identity.
お利口ですね。
> However, tenuous though it is, there is *sufficient* in common for
> those individuals to be able to identify themselves and others as
> part of a community. Now, when we say "international community" we do
> not suppose it to mean a community of six billion individuals
> (though, if stuck on Alpha Centauri with no one but Alpha Centaurians
> for company, I suspect most of that six billion would welcome any
> fellow human with open arms as a member of the community of
> earthlings)
???
> but a community of *countries* - all of whom, despite
> their differences, do most definitely have common interests and a
> common identity. They all have a national anthem and a flag, they all
> have a body of laws, they all print money, they all have an interest
> in feeding their populace, in winning a gold medal at the Olympics,
> etc., etc. The things which identify an entity as a country are
> common to all countries, to a much greater degree, in fact, than the
> things which identify a Tokyoite as a Tokyoite are common to all
> Tokyoites.
BWAHAHA! I see. Now, how does this create common interests and common
identity. You cite several examples in your rather embarrassing paragraph of
why there is *not* an international community.
>> Tell me to whom you think states should hold themselves accountable.
>
> Well, to me, preferably, but failing that to anyone except you.
I see. You decline to answer.
--
Kevin Gowen
John Yamamoto-Wilson
only thing we can perhaps agree on is to differ), but I'll just round off
the following:
You:
> >> Is your theory that Bush and Blair lied
> >> about WMDs to justify an invasion that they knew would show that no
> >> such WMDs existed?
Me:
> > Not at all. Anyone with a reasonable IQ rating would see that that
> > does not necessarily follow,
You:
> Sure it does. Curious that you think otherwise.
Me:
> > but the KQ rating evidently does not
> > allow of the same range of possible interpretations.
You:
> Let's hear some of yours.
OK.First of all, though, let me stress it is not a *theory*. Nor is it
necessarily what I believe happened. It is just a possible interpretation of
the facts, one of three, as I said (the other two being, 1. that they were
mistaken, and the intelligence machinery is at fault and, 2. that they were
right, and the forces of evil, by so far successfully concealing the
evidence that would *prove* them right, are a lot more powerful and
resourceful than we hitherto thought). This, as I see it, is one way in
which the lying scenario could come about:
Bush, Blair and Saddam Hussein are gamblers, moral relativists, people who
believe that any means - bluff, double bluff, card up the sleeve, whatever -
are legitimate as long as they lead to the desired end. Bush and Blair are -
let's say - 99% certain that Saddam holds the cards they accuse him of
holding (i.e., that he has weapons of mass destruction). However, they can't
lay their hands on absolute, incontrovertible *proof* that it is so. So they
take a risk. They gamble on being right, and present information which they
know does not prove their case, but nevertheless present it *as if* it were
incontrovertible.
Saddam is equally a gambler. Being starved of resources after a disastrous
war and years of sanctions he is in no position to constitute any credible
threat to world security, and he knows it. However, he does do his best both
to develop a programme and to convince the outside world that it is a
large-scale programme. In this second strategy, in particular, he is highly
successful - more, perhaps, than he bargained for. As you say, he convinces,
not only the US and the UK, but the entire UNSC. He is 99% sure that the US
will not want to weaken the UN and that under pressure from France, Germany
and Russia, the US will back down and he can negotiate on his own terms,
with the world treating him with kid gloves because it is still convinced
that he has a powerful strike capability and poses a serious threat. He
continues to bluff, playing each card one at a time, now denying there are
any WMDs, now producing evidence that a certain number have been destroyed,
now actually destroying a few missiles that only slightly exceed the
range-limit. He's down to his last card when he's called out. It's all been
a bluff - he has nothing left except a few die-hards in the military and a
core of political henchmen. He puts up a show of resistance and then gets
the hell out.
Bush and Blair, if they did lie, did not necessarily do so, as you put it,
> >> to justify an invasion that they knew would show that no
> >> such WMDs existed
It's not impossible; they may have known that and calculated that it didn't
matter, that they'd still be able to live it down afterwards. But KQ
brainpower misses the more likely possibility, which is that they were so
sure that the fabricated (or, to be more precise, overstated) evidence would
prove what they strongly suspected that they got it wrong, misread Saddam,
and fell into the trap of thinking he actually possessed things he was only
bluffing about. The bluff backfired on him, but it backfired on Bush and
Blair too.
As I say, just a possibility...
I think that just about wraps it up...Oh, the shrugging business:
Me:
> > Oh, OK. Well, *don't* expect what you like, then (shrug).
You:
> Why do people put (shrug) after statements? To give it a nice wishy-washy
> feeling? If you are not sure of your statement, you have little reason to
> think that I will find it convincing.
No, it isn't to give a nice wishy-washy feeling, nor is it because I'm not
sure of my statement. It's a
"suit-yourself-I-can't-see-why-you're-bothering-to-make-a-fuss-about-such-a-
little-detail" shrug. Don't they have those in Sepponia?
Kevin Gowen
> OK, Kevin. We seem to have reached an impasse on just about every
> front (the only thing we can perhaps agree on is to differ), but I'll
> just round off the following:
>
> You:
>
>>>> Is your theory that Bush and Blair lied
>>>> about WMDs to justify an invasion that they knew would show that no
>>>> such WMDs existed?
>
> Me:
>
>>> Not at all. Anyone with a reasonable IQ rating would see that that
>>> does not necessarily follow,
>
> You:
>
>> Sure it does. Curious that you think otherwise.
>
> Me:
>
>>> but the KQ rating evidently does not
>>> allow of the same range of possible interpretations.
>
> You:
>
>> Let's hear some of yours.
>
> OK.First of all, though, let me stress it is not a *theory*. Nor is it
> necessarily what I believe happened. It is just a possible
> interpretation of the facts,
Explain the difference.
> one of three, as I said (the other two
> being, 1. that they were mistaken, and the intelligence machinery is
> at fault and, 2. that they were right, and the forces of evil, by so
> far successfully concealing the evidence that would *prove* them
> right, are a lot more powerful and resourceful than we hitherto
> thought). This, as I see it, is one way in which the lying scenario
> could come about:
Then why did you talk about people being lied to?
> Bush, Blair and Saddam Hussein are gamblers, moral relativists,
Bush and Blair are moral relativists? That's rich. ISTM that one reason they
make the ridiculous masses so nervous is that they speak in black and white
terms when it comes to good and evil. Every time Blair mentions God, people
in his government start fitting like sissies.
> people who believe that any means - bluff, double bluff, card up the
> sleeve, whatever - are legitimate as long as they lead to the desired
> end.
Your evidence that Bush and Blair believe anything of the kind?
> Bush and Blair are - let's say - 99% certain that Saddam holds
> the cards they accuse him of holding (i.e., that he has weapons of
> mass destruction). However, they can't lay their hands on absolute,
> incontrovertible *proof* that it is so. So they take a risk. They
> gamble on being right, and present information which they know does
> not prove their case, but nevertheless present it *as if* it were
> incontrovertible.
I can't respond to this until you support your premises.
> Saddam is equally a gambler. Being starved of resources after a
> disastrous war and years of sanctions he is in no position to
> constitute any credible threat to world security, and he knows it.
Does he? Do you?
> However, he does do his best both to develop a programme and to
> convince the outside world that it is a large-scale programme.
Why would he convince the world that he has such a program? So he can get
blown up real good?
> In
> this second strategy, in particular, he is highly successful - more,
> perhaps, than he bargained for. As you say, he convinces, not only
> the US and the UK, but the entire UNSC. He is 99% sure that the US
> will not want to weaken the UN
BWAHAHA! He wasn't that stupid.
> and that under pressure from France,
BWAHAHA!
> Germany
BWAHAHA!
> and Russia,
BWAHAHA!
> the US will back down and he can negotiate on his
> own terms, with the world treating him with kid gloves because it is
> still convinced that he has a powerful strike capability and poses a
> serious threat.
Oh man. How are things out there in left field?
> He continues to bluff, playing each card one at a
> time, now denying there are any WMDs, now producing evidence that a
> certain number have been destroyed, now actually destroying a few
> missiles that only slightly exceed the range-limit. He's down to his
> last card when he's called out. It's all been a bluff - he has
> nothing left except a few die-hards in the military and a core of
> political henchmen. He puts up a show of resistance and then gets the
> hell out.
Why would he do such a thing?
> Bush and Blair, if they did lie, did not necessarily do so, as you
> put it,
>
>>>> to justify an invasion that they knew would show that no
>>>> such WMDs existed
>
> It's not impossible; they may have known that and calculated that it
> didn't matter, that they'd still be able to live it down afterwards.
> But KQ brainpower misses the more likely possibility, which is that
> they were so sure that the fabricated (or, to be more precise,
> overstated)
"to be more precise"? There is a HUGE difference between "fabricated"
and"overstated".
> evidence would prove what they strongly suspected that
> they got it wrong, misread Saddam, and fell into the trap of thinking
> he actually possessed things he was only bluffing about. The bluff
> backfired on him, but it backfired on Bush and Blair too.
My statement remains. You have to believe Bush and Blair to be phenomenally
stupid for this to happen. You also failed to refute my original statement.
You responded to one that I did not make.
> As I say, just a possibility...
Perhaps in Fantasyland. Then did everyone else lie, too?
>> Why do people put (shrug) after statements? To give it a nice
>> wishy-washy feeling? If you are not sure of your statement, you have
>> little reason to think that I will find it convincing.
>
> No, it isn't to give a nice wishy-washy feeling, nor is it because
> I'm not sure of my statement. It's a
>
"suit-yourself-I-can't-see-why-you're-bothering-to-make-a-fuss-about-such-a-
> little-detail" shrug. Don't they have those in Sepponia?
Shrugs? Yes. That's how I knew what yours meant.
(what was the little detail? what was the fuss?)
--
Kevin Gowen
John R. Yamamoto- Wilson
> why did you talk about people being lied to?
Because somewhere along the line someone must have been fooling someone, and
one possibility is that it was the politicians who lied to the people.
> > Bush, Blair and Saddam Hussein are gamblers, moral relativists,
> Bush and Blair are moral relativists? That's rich. ISTM that one reason
they
> make the ridiculous masses so nervous is that they speak in black and
white
> terms when it comes to good and evil.
Yes, there's very good political capital to be had out of that. It doesn't
mean they won't adopt whatever expedient means may be at their disposal to
achieve their ends.
> Every time Blair mentions God, people
> in his government start fitting like sissies.
Was it you or some imposter who claimed that one could subscribe to the idea
of an absolute morality without believing in God? And are you now trying to
tell me that everyone who believes in God subscribes to absolute morality?
So every Protestant burned by a Catholic, every witch burned by a
Protestant, every infidel slain by a crusader (not to mention every crusader
slain by a Muslim) died in accordance with absolute morality? BWAHAHAHA, as
you've taken to saying.
> > people who believe that any means - bluff, double bluff, card up the
> > sleeve, whatever - are legitimate as long as they lead to the desired
> > end.
>
> Your evidence that Bush and Blair believe anything of the kind?
Well, they *are* politicians. ;-)
> > Bush and Blair are - let's say - 99% certain that Saddam holds
> > the cards they accuse him of holding (i.e., that he has weapons of
> > mass destruction). However, they can't lay their hands on absolute,
> > incontrovertible *proof* that it is so. So they take a risk. They
> > gamble on being right, and present information which they know does
> > not prove their case, but nevertheless present it *as if* it were
> > incontrovertible.
>
> I can't respond to this until you support your premises.
It would fit with their actions. On present evidence we'd have to say the
information was false. There may never be enough evidence to know exactly
why that happened. This, I repeat, is one possible explanation.
> > Saddam is equally a gambler. Being starved of resources after a
> > disastrous war and years of sanctions he is in no position to
> > constitute any credible threat to world security, and he knows it.
>
> Does he? Do you?
Again, it would fit. Try to see the purpose of the exercise, which is to
examine all the possible scenarios.
> > However, he does do his best both to develop a programme and to
> > convince the outside world that it is a large-scale programme.
>
> Why would he convince the world that he has such a program? So he can get
> blown up real good?
Why is Korea doing it? Partly misguided national pride, partly stubbornness,
partly to be in a position to lay cards on the negotiating table with a
stronger hand.
> > In
> > this second strategy, in particular, he is highly successful - more,
> > perhaps, than he bargained for. As you say, he convinces, not only
> > the US and the UK, but the entire UNSC. He is 99% sure that the US
> > will not want to weaken the UN
>
> BWAHAHA! He wasn't that stupid.
Do you know that? Why would it seem stupid to him? From where he's sitting a
united opposition looks stronger than a divided opposition, and he can't see
why the US would set back its deiplomatic relations with its long-term
allies just for little old him.
> > and that under pressure from France,
>
> BWAHAHA!
>
> > Germany
>
> BWAHAHA!
>
> > and Russia,
>
> BWAHAHA!
>
> > the US will back down and he can negotiate on his
> > own terms, with the world treating him with kid gloves because it is
> > still convinced that he has a powerful strike capability and poses a
> > serious threat.
>
> Oh man. How are things out there in left field?
If it is cloud-cuckoo-land (and it turned out to be) it is not a leftist
cloud-cuckoo-land. It is the possible perception of a one-time leader of an
Islamic country who cannot be questioned and can only be second-guessed.
> > He continues to bluff, playing each card one at a
> > time, now denying there are any WMDs, now producing evidence that a
> > certain number have been destroyed, now actually destroying a few
> > missiles that only slightly exceed the range-limit. He's down to his
> > last card when he's called out. It's all been a bluff - he has
> > nothing left except a few die-hards in the military and a core of
> > political henchmen. He puts up a show of resistance and then gets the
> > hell out.
>
> Why would he do such a thing?
Um, we've just been through all this. National pride, stubbornness, the hope
that he might strike lucky and gain political leverage.
> > It's not impossible; they may have known that and calculated that it
> > didn't matter, that they'd still be able to live it down afterwards.
> > But KQ brainpower misses the more likely possibility, which is that
> > they were so sure that the fabricated (or, to be more precise,
> > overstated)
>
> "to be more precise"? There is a HUGE difference between "fabricated"
> and"overstated".
Well, yes, we're somewhere along a spectrum here. If Colin Powell (a man
whom I've always considered to have a fair amount of integrity) was saying,
"These aerial photographs show trucks transporting WMDs" he may have been
absolutely certain about it but misinformed, he may have been fairly certain
about it but wrong, he may have known there was perhaps a 50% chance but
presented it as clear fact, he may have thought there was a small chance, or
even no chance, but it didn't matter since he also believed that Iraq *did*
possess WMDs *somewhere*, he may have known there was no chance because he
knew there were no WMDs, or he may have been right and the enemy was smart
enough to hide the WMDs. Take your pick. All of these possibilities give me
some cause for concern, some more than others, just as I consider some more
likely than others.
> > As I say, just a possibility...
>
> Perhaps in Fantasyland. Then did everyone else lie, too?
Well, yes, a number of people are coming forward and saying that they were,
as we Brits like to say, "economical with the truth", not to mention liberal
with the unfounded speculations (45 minutes to mount a chemical/biological
strike indeed!).
> (what was the little detail? what was the fuss?)
Oh, just some KQ quibble. Not worth bothering with.
--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com
Kevin Gowen wrote:
Kevin Gowen
I thought that we had reached an impasse and that your last post was a
rounding off?
>> why did you talk about people being lied to?
>
> Because somewhere along the line someone must have been fooling
> someone, and one possibility is that it was the politicians who lied
> to the people.
There's no "must" about it.
>>> Bush, Blair and Saddam Hussein are gamblers, moral relativists,
>
>> Bush and Blair are moral relativists? That's rich. ISTM that one
>> reason they make the ridiculous masses so nervous is that they speak
>> in black and white terms when it comes to good and evil.
>
> Yes, there's very good political capital to be had out of that.
Out of what?
> It
> doesn't mean they won't adopt whatever expedient means may be at
> their disposal to achieve their ends.
This isn't support for your claim that they are moral relativists.
>> Every time Blair mentions God, people
>> in his government start fitting like sissies.
>
> Was it you or some imposter who claimed that one could subscribe to
> the idea of an absolute morality without believing in God?
It was me.
> And are
> you now trying to tell me that everyone who believes in God
> subscribes to absolute morality?
I am saying that believe in God and moral relativism are mutually exclusive.
> So every Protestant burned by a
> Catholic, every witch burned by a Protestant, every infidel slain by
> a crusader (not to mention every crusader slain by a Muslim) died in
> accordance with absolute morality?
Did I say that? Why do you keep responding to statements that I haven't
made?
> BWAHAHAHA, as you've taken to
> saying.
You are a neophyte. You have to know *when* to say it.
>>> people who believe that any means - bluff, double bluff, card up the
>>> sleeve, whatever - are legitimate as long as they lead to the
>>> desired end.
>>
>> Your evidence that Bush and Blair believe anything of the kind?
>
> Well, they *are* politicians. ;-)
*yawn*
>>> Bush and Blair are - let's say - 99% certain that Saddam holds
>>> the cards they accuse him of holding (i.e., that he has weapons of
>>> mass destruction). However, they can't lay their hands on absolute,
>>> incontrovertible *proof* that it is so. So they take a risk. They
>>> gamble on being right, and present information which they know does
>>> not prove their case, but nevertheless present it *as if* it were
>>> incontrovertible.
>>
>> I can't respond to this until you support your premises.
>
> It would fit with their actions. On present evidence we'd have to say
> the information was false. There may never be enough evidence to know
> exactly why that happened. This, I repeat, is one possible
> explanation.
So long as you realize that it is your speculation. Don't expect it to
persuade anyone.
>>> Saddam is equally a gambler. Being starved of resources after a
>>> disastrous war and years of sanctions he is in no position to
>>> constitute any credible threat to world security, and he knows it.
>>
>> Does he? Do you?
>
> Again, it would fit. Try to see the purpose of the exercise, which is
> to examine all the possible scenarios.
You know that you are still speculating, right?
>>> However, he does do his best both to develop a programme and to
>>> convince the outside world that it is a large-scale programme.
>>
>> Why would he convince the world that he has such a program? So he
>> can get blown up real good?
>
> Why is Korea doing it?
No need to convince. They're not playing the shell game that Iraq played.
> Partly misguided national pride, partly
> stubbornness, partly to be in a position to lay cards on the
> negotiating table with a stronger hand.
I was referring to the shell game.
>>> In
>>> this second strategy, in particular, he is highly successful - more,
>>> perhaps, than he bargained for. As you say, he convinces, not only
>>> the US and the UK, but the entire UNSC. He is 99% sure that the US
>>> will not want to weaken the UN
>>
>> BWAHAHA! He wasn't that stupid.
>
> Do you know that? Why would it seem stupid to him?
Because he knew that if he convinced the world that he did not have such
weapons, he would have stayed in power.
> From where he's
> sitting a united opposition looks stronger than a divided opposition,
> and he can't see why the US would set back its deiplomatic relations
> with its long-term allies just for little old him.
United, divided, it doesn't matter. He knew that he was no match for the US.
>>> the US will back down and he can negotiate on his
>>> own terms, with the world treating him with kid gloves because it is
>>> still convinced that he has a powerful strike capability and poses a
>>> serious threat.
>>
>> Oh man. How are things out there in left field?
>
> If it is cloud-cuckoo-land (and it turned out to be) it is not a
> leftist cloud-cuckoo-land. It is the possible perception of a
> one-time leader of an Islamic country who cannot be questioned and
> can only be second-guessed.
What proposition does the mishmash above purport to support?
>> Why would he do such a thing?
>
> Um, we've just been through all this. National pride, stubbornness,
> the hope that he might strike lucky and gain political leverage.
I already refuted all that. Try again.
>>> It's not impossible; they may have known that and calculated that it
>>> didn't matter, that they'd still be able to live it down afterwards.
>>> But KQ brainpower misses the more likely possibility, which is that
>>> they were so sure that the fabricated (or, to be more precise,
>>> overstated)
>>
>> "to be more precise"? There is a HUGE difference between "fabricated"
>> and"overstated".
>
> Well, yes, we're somewhere along a spectrum here.
Your previous statement was grossly inaccurate.
> If Colin Powell (a
> man whom I've always considered to have a fair amount of integrity)
> was saying, "These aerial photographs show trucks transporting WMDs"
> he may have been absolutely certain about it but misinformed, he may
> have been fairly certain about it but wrong, he may have known there
> was perhaps a 50% chance but presented it as clear fact, he may have
> thought there was a small chance, or even no chance, but it didn't
> matter since he also believed that Iraq *did* possess WMDs
> *somewhere*, he may have known there was no chance because he knew
> there were no WMDs, or he may have been right and the enemy was smart
> enough to hide the WMDs. Take your pick. All of these possibilities
> give me some cause for concern, some more than others, just as I
> consider some more likely than others.
And none of them excuses the verbal fart you unleashed in your last post.
>>> As I say, just a possibility...
>>
>> Perhaps in Fantasyland. Then did everyone else lie, too?
>
> Well, yes, a number of people are coming forward and saying that they
> were, as we Brits like to say, "economical with the truth", not to
> mention liberal with the unfounded speculations (45 minutes to mount
> a chemical/biological strike indeed!).
Who? The Germans? Russians? UN? The French? Bill Clinton?
>> (what was the little detail? what was the fuss?)
>
> Oh, just some KQ quibble. Not worth bothering with.
I see. You made it up.
--
Kevin Gowen
Brett Robson
>
>
>Bush and Blair are moral relativists? That's rich. ISTM that one reason they
>make the ridiculous masses so nervous is that they speak in black and white
>terms when it comes to good and evil. Every time Blair mentions God, people
>in his government start fitting like sissies.
At least he (Blair) isn't stupid enough to say "God bless you all" to the UN
General Assembly.
Brett Robson
>
>Yes. The obsessive interest that several members of this newsgroup have in
>the domestic policies of the US
Unfortunately there are very few domestic policies of the US that do not have an
international affect. Domestic policies such as farm subsidies and steel tariffs
while my government is negoitating a free trade treaty; preaching human rights
to the world and denying them to their citizens; trying to stop NBC yet
possesing chemical weapons and thousands of nuclear weapons and introducing a
whole category.
> and how they vicariously identify with the
>Democratic Party is truly mind boggling.
Interesting you think that not Republician = Democratic. Dumb and Dumber.
Ja bless.
Kevin Wayne Williams
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:08:38 -0400, "Kevin ...
>
>>
>>Bush and Blair are moral relativists? That's rich. ISTM that one reason they
>>make the ridiculous masses so nervous is that they speak in black and white
>>terms when it comes to good and evil. Every time Blair mentions God, people
>>in his government start fitting like sissies.
>
>
> At least he (Blair) isn't stupid enough to say "God bless you all" to the UN
> General Assembly.
Bush actually did that? Citations, please.
KWW
John R. Yamamoto- Wilson
> I thought that we had reached an impasse and that your last post was a
> rounding off?
That's right, and you raised further points which I responded to. I think
now, though, you've covered every base admirably and it's crystal clear that
there's nothing to be gained from further discussion with you. Congrats, and
all that!
> >> (what was the little detail? what was the fuss?)
> >
> > Oh, just some KQ quibble. Not worth bothering with.
>
> I see. You made it up.
No.
Brett Robson
You don't remember that? I didn't just dream it but finding a citation would be
pretty hard, I'll get one of my people on to it straight away.
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> Unfortunately there are very few domestic policies of the US that do not
have an
> international affect. Domestic policies such as farm subsidies and steel
tariffs
> while my government is negoitating a free trade treaty; preaching human
rights
> to the world and denying them to their citizens; trying to stop NBC yet
> possesing chemical weapons and thousands of nuclear weapons and
introducing a
> whole category.
Sata! Niyabinghi! Mash down!
> > and how they vicariously identify with the
> >Democratic Party is truly mind boggling.
>
> Interesting you think that not Republician = Democratic. Dumb and Dumber.
Man, di winjy yout a feisty bakra baldhead quashie. Im gwaan fall bamba yay.
> Ja bless.
I-rey!