Fair Tribunals at Guantanamo? (Was: YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ???)

"Jim Watt" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:20:28 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:

internet nonsense omitted
television rant snipped

I said it was
entertainment and it is, even the news and proported documentaries. FWIW,
I'm not a hermit living in a cave. I had TV till 10 years ago and decided
it
was entertainment, poor entertainment at that. I'm also aware those who
choose to do so may obtain inexpensive satellite service providing 500+
channels of programming, including numerous Canadian, Mexican and other
Latin American stations.

As I keep telling you that is American television.

The point being; your little corner of the world is not the only place with
variety and international options. And here we don't even need an array.
You're right, it is American Television, and Asian television and Uropeean
television. Television... yours, mine, everybody's is entertainment. It's
not haute culture nor is it authoratative, objective reporting.



Thats not what I am talking about.

It certainly is. You implied U.S. television was inferior as compared to
Uropeean TV as you had "an array" and international programming. That's not
surprising, as my uncle's farm is larger then some Uropeean nations. Hell,
California has a larger economy than France.



I've seen whats on US cable. You have not seen whats available
here. spot the difference.

Yes, I did spot the difference. Uropeen snobbery. In past years I've had
opportunity to observe TV around the globe. The one common denominator was
TV. No matter where I was I could always turn on the TV and be inundated
with the same inane palaver. I have no reason to believe TV in Gibraltar is
any different. Perhaps you should check in on some of the other threads for
comments by other posters on what passes for popular viewing in Urope these
days.



I don't find it surprising you might receive Iraqi
programming as it is no farther from Seville-Baghdad than it is
Miami-Seattle and I can drive there without being subject to the whims of
half dozen or so tinpot dictators who's ideas of justice include the
traumatic removal of body parts for minor indiscretions and the stoning
of
women for adultry.

Have you any evidence that that was happening in Iraq?

I didn't mention Iraq or any specific country but since you asked... It
seems secular Iraq is a bit more violent than the typical enlightened
Sha'ria justice system practiced in the mid east and North Africa. In Iraq
they just murder them quickly behind closed doors and dump them in mass
graves. There's sufficient evidence of that since the families of the
victims have been digging up the graves after the liberation from Saddam.
There's plenty of evidence of Sha'ria justice around when you get your head
out of the telly for a while. I doubt Nigeria will be televising the stoning
of that woman for giving birth out of wedlock. They bury you up to the neck
in dirt. Then the good villagers pummel your exposed head with fist sized
rocks til it's mush. The Saudi's didn't televise the stoning of one of their
princesses either. That's Sha'ria, the enlightened Islamic system of
justice. The Taliban used a soccer stadium built with U.N. funds to conduct
the beheaddings and appendage removals.

Strangely, I don't hear a complaint from Urope's enlightened justice system
over these outrageous acts. Don't seem to have heard the enlightened ones
complaining of Nazi Germany placing the Jews in concentration camps either.
Perhaps the sophisticated Uropeean community hasn't learned anything from
their experience in WWII. The common thread seems to be stick your head in
the sand and ignore it when it happens in your back yard. Better yet, spend
your time pointing out the shortcomings of others; it'll make yours seem
smaller.

Ya want to know about tinpot dictators? Try Lybia for size. Your 3rd world
buddies in the U.N. just finished electing Lybia to chair the UNHRC. Here's
a list of Libya's "arbitrarily" detained and missing:
http://members.tripod.com/sijill/prison/

And you wonder why the U.N. has no creditability and needs to be replaced?
Tell me about the good they


And you say you're offended we execute murderers.

How many wrongs make something right?

You tell me. Lets see... You don't seem to have a problem with stonings and
the French would prefer to live with a gruesome murderer (Ira Einhorn) among
them. How enlightened.


Uropeeans appear quite happy to do business with these folks without a
wimper

And the US is very happy to take oil from Saudi and sell them all
sorts of hardware. Indeed Saddam was good business at one time
and who was shipping arms to Iraq?


At the time we believed he was useful as a balance of power in the mid-east
but, we eventually figured out he was just another tinpot dictator. Unlike
France, Germany and Russia we stopped doing business with him. Uropeen
nations continued selling weapons till the last. Nuther piece of the common
thread.

and yet question U.S. justice and motivation. How cheesy.

We cannot even question things then?

Sure you can question it. You'll just have to appear to be cheesy when you
don't question the motives of the third world dictatorships as well. Makes
others think you have your own intrests at heart.


No wonder Congress rejected the IKK.

Yes, because it would act as a control on your excesses.

Excess is in the eye of the beholder. The IKK's sole purpose is a bully
pulpit for third world despots to bring trumped up charges against U.S.
citizens. Seems to me Belgium is rethinking their universal jurisdiction
statutes since the phony charges against Gen. Franks where dropped on their
doorstep. And you wonder why the U.S. won't ratify the IKK. Sheesh!


But the bottom line is that British citizens expect their
government to attempt to ensure that when accused of a
crime by a foreign government that they either receive a
fair trial abroad, or they are repatriated to face the British
Justice system.

What trial? They are combatants being held for the duration. They are
entitled to be restrained and treated IAW the laws and customs of war and
the GC. Had you caght them, they would be entitled to the same treatment and
within the protections offered British citizens. Unfortunately, they are not
in British custody.

There is not the slightest evidence that people kidnapped
and taken to an offshore US base in Cuba, held in dubious
conditions etc are going to see justice.

And there is no evidence they will not. It is purely supposition and
conjecture on your part. Capturing folks on the battlefield or accepting
prisoners taken by third parties having escaped from the battlefield but
still under arms is not kidnapping. Sounds like sour grapes to me. There is
nothing dubious about the conditions they are being held under. They receive
regular visits by the ICRC as required under the GC. That you don't get to
know what the conditions are is just too bad. You have no standing.

Justice? Justice is for criminals and others accused of crime. These folks
are combatants and are being held for the duration of hostilities, however
long that might take. Some may eventually be charged with war crimes after
which they will be tried by a military tribunal and receive justice. The
remainder will have been repatriated.


There is no point in a 'war on terrosm' when your leaders act
in exactly the same way as terrorists themselves.

One occasionally gets dirty cleaning up the filth. Seems we had to do this a
couple hundred years ago when the enlightened Uropeean powers of the time
failed to act in curtailing the proclivity of the Barbary Pirates in taking
hostages for ransom and extracting tribute from merchant shipping. Hmmm,
Yup. Stick your head in the sand again. Nuther piece of the common thread.
The U.S. does not shirk its duty simply because it is unpleasant.

In 1816 President James Madison informed the Dey of Algiers, "the United
States, whilst they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none."
He concluded that it was the "settled policy" of the United States "that as
peace is better than war, war is better than tribute."

"Jim Watt" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:07:29 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:

snip

Don't seem to have heard the enlightened ones
complaining of Nazi Germany placing the Jews in concentration camps
either.
Perhaps the sophisticated Uropeean community hasn't learned anything from
their experience in WWII. The common thread seems to be stick your head
in
the sand

I believe that invokes Godwins law.

Just because some Americans speak a dialect English one assumes they
are civilised. In practice this seems unjustified.

Godwin's law is only invoked when the anology is not true. In this case, the
NAZI card is a well documented fact and invocation of Godwin is admission of
an inadequate arguement.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:05:40 -0700, TinCanMan wrote:

I believe that invokes Godwins law.

Just because some Americans speak a dialect English one assumes they
are civilised. In practice this seems unjustified.

Godwin's law is only invoked when the anology is not true. In this case, the
NAZI card is a well documented fact and invocation of Godwin is admission of
an inadequate arguement.

Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer,
the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is
over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the
existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there
is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of
Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be
unsuccessful.

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms...win_s_Law.html

Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

"Jim Watt" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:36:05 GMT, David Casey
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:05:40 -0700, TinCanMan wrote:

I believe that invokes Godwins law.

Just because some Americans speak a dialect English one assumes they
are civilised. In practice this seems unjustified.

Godwin's law is only invoked when the anology is not true. In this
case, the
NAZI card is a well documented fact and invocation of Godwin is
admission of
an inadequate arguement.

Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer,
the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches
one."
There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread
is
over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the
existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However
there
is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of
Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be
unsuccessful.

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms...win_s_Law.html

Dave

On that basis further argument with morally bankrupt septics
is pointless.

Resistance is fertile - Dyslexic of Borg.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

In other words, neither you or any organization with standing can prove your
assertations the U.S. is somehow committing human rights violations by
detaining combatants in Gitmo till the hostilities are over. Perhaps the
Libyan Chair of the UNCHR will champion your cause and bring charges against
the U.S. in the IKK.

"vince" wrote in message
m...
David Casey wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:05:40 -0700, TinCanMan wrote:

I believe that invokes Godwins law.

Just because some Americans speak a dialect English one assumes they
are civilised. In practice this seems unjustified.

Godwin's law is only invoked when the anology is not true. In this
case, the
NAZI card is a well documented fact and invocation of Godwin is
admission of
an inadequate arguement.

Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows
longer,
the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches
one."
There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread
is
over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the
existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However
there
is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of
Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be
unsuccessful.

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms...win_s_Law.html

Dave

Must be awfully hard to discuss WWII with such nitwits.

the nazis are a historical fact, adn nazi like behaviro is also a
historical fact. But I suppose neo-nazis dont like the comparison so
they invoke such a law to prevent it. that was the nazi way

Vince

Typical "stick your head in the sand" mentality.

On 30 Jul 2003 16:49:02 -0700, vince wrote:

Must be awfully hard to discuss WWII with such nitwits.

I think you're missing the humor here, but I suppose so long as you keep
the number of comparisons involving Hitler or the Nazi's to zero you'll do
fine. ;-)

the nazis are a historical fact, adn nazi like behaviro is also a
historical fact. But I suppose neo-nazis dont like the comparison so
they invoke such a law to prevent it. that was the nazi way

You are missing the humor.

Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:25:25 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:

In other words, neither you or any organization with standing can prove your
assertations the U.S. is somehow committing human rights violations by
detaining combatants in Gitmo till the hostilities are over. Perhaps the
Libyan Chair of the UNCHR will champion your cause and bring charges against
the U.S. in the IKK.

The fact that America retains a base on Cuba given your Governments
unreasonable persecution of that country is in itself an crime.

But lets get one thing straight, its your Government who are currently
kissing Gadaffi's arse, presumably because they want his oil too.

I see he has converted his house that was badly bombed by the
American air force into a museum.

However, that distracts from the argument that kidnapping people
misstreating them and holding them in death camp is at the best
illegal and is not the way a civilised country should behave.

"for the duration" indicates that there will be some end to some
process. There is no war, apart from some mythical 'war on
terrorism' which like the 'war on drugs' will be ongoing and
forever.

BUT if the Prime Minister of the only country foolish enough
to help you in your imperalist aggression in the middle east
asks you for his nationals back, its very insulting to ignore him.

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

In article , "Jim Watt"
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:25:25 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:

In other words, neither you or any organization with standing can prove
your assertations the U.S. is somehow committing human rights violations
by detaining combatants in Gitmo till the hostilities are over. Perhaps
the Libyan Chair of the UNCHR will champion your cause and bring charges
against the U.S. in the IKK.

The fact that America retains a base on Cuba given your Governments
unreasonable persecution of that country is in itself an crime.

When Cuba decides to become a democracy we'll talk about that. Until
then Gitmo remains a US base and with any luck a thorn in Fidels' body
politic.

IBM

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:37:00 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:

Its pointless arguing with someone who bleats on about
'socialism' as if its some kind of child molestation, and
uses it as a label to discredit any argument that makes
you uncomfortable.

But just carry on supporting an evil regime that infringes
human rights, and is morally and financially bankrupt.

I'm not convinced.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

David Casey wrote in message ...
On 30 Jul 2003 16:49:02 -0700, vince wrote:

Must be awfully hard to discuss WWII with such nitwits.

I think you're missing the humor here, but I suppose so long as you keep
the number of comparisons involving Hitler or the Nazi's to zero you'll do
fine. ;-)

this was an attmept at humor, oh well


the nazis are a historical fact, and nazi like behavior is also a
historical fact. But I suppose neo-nazis dont like the comparison so
they invoke such a law to prevent it. that was the nazi way

You are missing the humor.

Godwin's law is about as humorous as Bush using the term "class
warfare" for any suggestion that the rich are rich because of the
society we have built and they ought to pay a fair share.

Vince