NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4996140.stm

I'm not surprised, but I suppose there will be plenty of people here who think it's completely outrageous.

Oh, and by the way, when dealing with America, watch your step.

"While dismissal of the complaint deprives el-Masri of an American judicial forum for vindicating his claims... el-Masri's private interests must give way to the national interest in preserving state secrets," judge TS Ellis wrote.

So much for lawsuits over rendition.

It's nice to see that we can have our way with those nasty foreigners.

Oh, and by the way, when dealing with America, watch your step.

Whether you be friend or foe.

Whether you be friend or foe.

If this keeps up, America won't have any friends anymore.

I'm not surprised, but I suppose there will be plenty of people here who think it's completely outrageous.

"Outrageous"?

It's fucking stupid if you ask me.

"Outrageous"?

It's fucking stupid if you ask me.

This is Kimchi, he doesn't think people outside the borders are human.

This is Kimchi, he doesn't think people outside the borders are human.

Correct! On to the bonus round, where your score can really go up. Would you like to try for what's behind Door Number Three?

Actually, I believe that any people or nation that thinks they can attack the US with impunity, or plot violent acts against its citizens, forfeit their rights the moment they start conspiring.

DK, this is so typical of you, pouncing on any little failure of the justice system to claim victory for your beloved US "right" to torture people, trash civil rights, and violate both US and international law. :rolleyes:

The article is not very detailed but it implies that the Virginia judge acknowledged that the man was held without charges ever being filed against him but decided to just ignore that in favor of some unspecified national security worries. If that is accurate, then I am confident this decision will be appealed and is very likely to be overturned.

Meanwhile, the way you crow about rights being trumped is just pathetic. Are you really so eager to subject yourself to a dictatorial police state? You must be, because it's all you seem to want.

Feh.

It's unlikely to be overturned. Care to bet on it?

Correct! On to the bonus round, where your score can really go up. Would you like to try for what's behind Door Number Three?

Actually, I believe that any people or nation that thinks they can attack the US with impunity, or plot violent acts against its citizens, forfeit their rights the moment they start conspiring.
I suppose you missed the part where el Masri was never charged with anything? Or are you just satisifed that he is guilty of being swarthy and having a funny-sounding name?

Correct! On to the bonus round, where your score can really go up. Would you like to try for what's behind Door Number Three?

Actually, I believe that any people or nation that thinks they can attack the US with impunity, or plot violent acts against its citizens, forfeit their rights the moment they start conspiring.
So, in the case of this guy-who wasn't charged with anything and had not attacked the US with impunity nor ploted anything against its citizens-why exactly did he forfeit his rights? Will you be so willing to give up that forfiet if you are shuttled away in the middle of the night and tortured because your name came up on a list? I mean, it's for national security, so it's all okay-right?

So, in the case of this guy-who wasn't charged with anything and had not attacked the US with impunity nor ploted anything against its citizens-why exactly did he forfeit his rights? Will you be so willing to give up that forfiet if you are shuttled away in the middle of the night and tortured because your name came up on a list? I mean, it's for national security, so it's all okay-right?

Sure it is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4996140.stm

I'm not surprised, but I suppose there will be plenty of people here who think it's completely outrageous.

Oh, and by the way, when dealing with America, watch your step.



So much for lawsuits over rendition.

BWAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHA!


Sorry, I'm out of sympathy for ya buddy. Really.

I might add that just because no one charged him with anything doesn't mean he didn't do something to attract undue attention.

It's a very bright line drawn where you fall off the cliff into being screwed by America. It's not like they're accidentally going to arrest an 86-year old great grandmother of German extraction in Wisconsin.

BWAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHA!


Sorry, I'm out of sympathy for ya buddy. Really.
I think you miss the point - I think it's great that he can't sue.

I think you miss the point - I think it's great that he can't sue.


Your right.

Edit:

What's up with the title? "Secrecy trumps right"? This dude had no standing nor did he have a right to read USG documents or anything.

It's unlikely to be overturned. Care to bet on it?
You'd welch.

And look at you, being all confident and cocky. Care to explain why it's unlikely to be overturned? Is it because you're so certain that every American is as bigoted and fear-ridden a lackey as you?

Actually, don't bother explaining. Unless the universe has turned inside out recently, there is no more foundation for your predictions than there ever has been -- nothing but your wish to have an official OK for your desire to torture people you're afraid of. It's spring, DK, and a week's worth of rainstorms just ended, so frankly, I'm really not in the mood to argue with your twisted fantasies.

If you have more facts than what's in the article, then please post them. Otherwise, don't bother yourself trying to tell me you're right.

Sure it is.
So you would be willing to undergo torture without being charged with anything, just so long as someone in a uniform said it was for national security.

I'm sorry, DK, truly sorry to say this, but I have no respect for you at all. If you are not lying about this, then you are the most spineless, squirming, cowardly little worm that ever learned how to type.

I'm done with you. 'Bye.

I might add that just because no one charged him with anything doesn't mean he didn't do something to attract undue attention.

It's a very bright line drawn where you fall off the cliff into being screwed by America. It's not like they're accidentally going to arrest an 86-year old great grandmother of German extraction in Wisconsin.
And a racist too? 'Cause we all know there's no such thing as a white/euro terrorist.

(last word. leaving now.)

I might add that just because no one charged him with anything doesn't mean he didn't do something to attract undue attention.
Yup - he had the wrong name. Guess that's enough to refuse him any rights. :rolleyes:

The article is not very detailed but it implies that the Virginia judge acknowledged that the man was held without charges ever being filed against him but decided to just ignore that in favor of some unspecified national security worries. If that is accurate, then I am confident this decision will be appealed and is very likely to be overturned.



Hmm, I don't read the implication that the judge acknowledged the man was held without charges. I read that the judge absolutely was not making any comment regarding the validity or non-validity of the man's case, thus the judge's reiteration. His effort to make it clear that his ruling implied nothing with regards to the charges but only that it was not in the best interest of national security to hear this case.

This dude had no standing nor did he have a right to read USG documents or anything.
What has that got to do with the story? :confused:

I might add that just because no one charged him with anything doesn't mean he didn't do something to attract undue attention.

It's a very bright line drawn where you fall off the cliff into being screwed by America. It's not like they're accidentally going to arrest an 86-year old great grandmother of German extraction in Wisconsin.

Wait a minute. You object when I suspect the Bush administration because person after person closely tied to the Bush administration is either being investigated or has already been found/pleaded guilty, and they (the Bush administration,) have indulged in practices that at the veryleast are debateable it their legality, and yet this guy, who was detained and tortured for NO GIVEN REASON had it coming to him?

There is no free pass given just because one is American or Rebublican or Demorcrat or whatever. I really hope not you, but someone you love, is unjustly treated.

What has that got to do with the story? :confused:


If he's gonna sue, he's got to have documents and evidence supporting him. His lawyer would subpoena CIA documents, and US secrets would be aired. Very bad.

Of course, if the judge was really angry he could have let the guy come all the way over here to sue then shut him down in court in person :D

If he's gonna sue, he's got to have documents and evidence supporting him. His lawyer would subpoena CIA documents, and US secrets would be aired. Very bad.

Yeah, accountability is terrible alright.


Of course, if the judge was really angry he could have let the guy come all the way over here to sue then shut him down in court in person :D
Why would the judge be 'really angry'?
The judge wasn't angry anyway.

He said
"[The result reached here] is in no way an adjudication of, or comment on, the merit or lack of merit of Mr el-Masri's complaint,"

And a racist too? 'Cause we all know there's no such thing as a white/euro terrorist.

No, no, they're 'Freedom Fighters' and Americans like to give them money.

Wait a minute. You object when I suspect the Bush administration because person after person closely tied to the Bush administration is either being investigated or has already been found/pleaded guilty, and they (the Bush administration,) have indulged in practices that at the veryleast are debateable it their legality, and yet this guy, who was detained and tortured for NO GIVEN REASON had it coming to him?

There is no free pass given just because one is American or Rebublican or Demorcrat or whatever. I really hope not you, but someone you love, is unjustly treated.

Hey, if you're in the Gestapo, you're pretty much assured of that not happenning.

Yet another example of covering up U.S. lawbreaking in the name of "security." Hardly want a public trial where evidence of torture is brought out when our government constantly states that torture is not done. Would be very embarassing if this went to trial. So it had to be dismissed. Human rights be damned. Is anyone really surprised about this kind of thing happening?

Hey, if you're in the Gestapo, you're pretty much assured of that not happenning.

So, basically, you don't care what happens in the world as long as Americans are doing it, preferrably American Republicans.

You, sir, are a complete and utter piece of excrement. I have nothing but contempt for you and your cowardly, cringing ways.

Is anyone really surprised about this kind of thing happening?
Prior to the Bush admin, I didnt realise the degree political dysfunction in the US political complex.
Honestly that was surprising.
However given the existence of the degree and kind of dysfunction the happening of 'this kind of thing' is more predictable than it is surprising.

What is going on here? Is the government now completely immune to its own justice system?

"Hey, Mr. CIA man, you're being tried for murdering a political rival in cold blood, and we have video evidence."

"Well, this quite obviously a matter of national security."

"But the victim wasn't a suspected terrorist. Nor was he charged with anything."

"Sorry, but I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation. Now, we'll have to confiscate that video. And the body."

This is such bullshit.

I might add that just because no one charged him with anything doesn't mean he didn't do something to attract undue attention.

It's a very bright line drawn where you fall off the cliff into being screwed by America. It's not like they're accidentally going to arrest an 86-year old great grandmother of German extraction in Wisconsin.
Man, you better hope that sort of shit never happens to you, because if there's anyone around here deserving a karmic kick in the sack, it's you. Fuck that, man--you're a disgusting human being.

Yeah, accountability is terrible alright.


Why would the judge be 'really angry'?
The judge wasn't angry anyway.

He said
"[The result reached here] is in no way an adjudication of, or comment on, the merit or lack of merit of Mr el-Masri's complaint,"

Judges are citizens too.

Hey, if you're in the Gestapo, you're pretty much assured of that not happenning.
So are you saying that you're an American version of a Gestapo thug? Not that I'd be surprised, mind you.

Man, you better hope that sort of shit never happens to you, because if there's anyone around here deserving a karmic kick in the sack, it's you. Fuck that, man--you're a disgusting human being.careful Nazz karma works both ways and what you think is good may not be. Karma won't care about the reason whys, nor about the intent. only the action.

Not supporting either argument, but just saying.

careful Nazz karma works both ways and what you think is good may not be. Karma won't care about the reason whys, nor about the intent. only the action.

Not supporting either argument, but just saying.
Trust me--I'll gladly take whatever karmic backlash comes my way for wishing retribution on DK after the callous and inhuman attitude he's displayed in this thread. It'll be well worth it.

Trust me--I'll gladly take whatever karmic backlash comes my way for wishing retribution on DK after the callous and inhuman attitude he's displayed in this thread. It'll be well worth it.
just letting you know. cuz I'm seeing alot of these kinds of things all over the place. :p

Peace to all.

just letting you know. cuz I'm seeing alot of these kinds of things all over the place. :p

Peace to all.
Sometimes, JuNii, you've just got to take one for the team.

Sometimes, JuNii, you've just got to take one for the team.
and I will and do when the time comes.

but I just cannot bring myself to ill wish someone who is only expressing their beilifs/ideals/Ideas/point of views.

especially when I said that to someone in IR and that was the absolute last time I saw him.

Is anyone surprised and still bothering to display outrage? The OP does admit to having a fetish for Islamicide after all. This is just more cream in his pants for him.

I might add that just because no one charged him with anything doesn't mean he didn't do something to attract undue attention.

It's a very bright line drawn where you fall off the cliff into being screwed by America. It's not like they're accidentally going to arrest an 86-year old great grandmother of German extraction in Wisconsin.

Glad to see you're in favor of racial profiling and tossing out Due Process.

and I will and do when the time comes.

but I just cannot bring myself to ill wish someone who is only expressing their beilifs/ideals/Ideas/point of views.
Sorry, but when those beliefs are as odious as the ones espoused in this thread, then I feel there is no other recourse.

Sorry, but when those beliefs are as odious as the ones espoused in this thread, then I feel there is no other recourse.
peace then.

you do and say what you must. I have and always will respect that.

Edit: egads! I sound like a monk :D

It's nice to see that we can have our way with those nasty foreigners.
Only in times of war like we are in now.

As the judge said,

"In times of war, our country, chiefly through the executive branch, must often take exceptional steps to thwart the enemy."

There is much truth to that. Those who have never fought a war can't understand that. That is why they whine over every little thing a war President does.

Bush is just doing what all other American Presidents would be doing if they were in his shoes. Remember Lincoln? Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc?

Let's not forget that what Bush is doing today is nothing compared to what the European leaders did and do when their countries go to war.

And the third world is a hell of lot worse when they are at war.

Bush is a very nice guy compared to all them.

What is going on here? Is the government now completely immune to its own justice system?

"Hey, Mr. CIA man, you're being tried for murdering a political rival in cold blood, and we have video evidence."

"Well, this quite obviously a matter of national security."

"But the victim wasn't a suspected terrorist. Nor was he charged with anything."

"Sorry, but I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation. Now, we'll have to confiscate that video. And the body."

This is such bullshit.

"Terrorism" and "National Security" has replaced "Executive Privilige" as the official term for secrecy and unaccountability.

Only in times of war like we are in now.

As the judge said,

"In times of war, our country, chiefly through the executive branch, must often take exceptional steps to thwart the enemy."

There is much truth to that. Those who have never fought a war can't understand that. That is why they whine over every little thing a war President does.

Bush is just doing what all other American Presidents would be doing if they were in his shoes. Remember Lincoln? Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc?

Let's not forget that what Bush is doing today is nothing compared to what the European leaders did and do when their countries go to war.

And the third world is a hell of lot worse when they are at war.

Bush is a very nice guy compared to all them.

"They are much worse in the past and elsewhere in the world." Funny, you won't give that slack to the Muslims. Why give it to Shrub then?

Only in times of war like we are in now.

As the judge said,

"In times of war, our country, chiefly through the executive branch, must often take exceptional steps to thwart the enemy."

There is much truth to that. Those who have never fought a war can't understand that. That is why they whine over every little thing a war President does.

Bush is just doing what all other American Presidents would be doing if they were in his shoes. Remember Lincoln? Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc?

Let's not forget that what Bush is doing today is nothing compared to what the European leaders did and do when their countries go to war.

And the third world is a hell of lot worse when they are at war.

Bush is a very nice guy compared to all them.

Well said Whittier!

What I find more outrageous than this is the fact that the UK allows suspects to be extradited to the US without any proof of evidence. The US justice systems just seems like one huge sham... mind you, I might not have a great picture of it seeing as I don't live in the country.

A hacker was cleared for extradition the other week. The US claimed that he'd hacked into their military system and caused several hundred millions pounds worth of damage. Did the US have to show any evidence of such incredulous claims. Of course not.

"Outrageous"?

It's fucking stupid if you ask me.


Why? In any society that is organised long enough, the individual's prime reason for existence is the State.
Fact of life.

As JFK said: don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Inasmuch as the State grants individual rights, such rights are subordinate to the State.

Why? In any society that is organised long enough, the individual's prime reason for existence is the State.
Fact of life.

As JFK said: don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Inasmuch as the State grants individual rights, such rights are subordinate to the State.

Fascist alert! At least you're not hiding it anymore.

Only in times of war like we are in now.

'cept, you're not really in a war. We all know its a bullshit label. Like the War on Drugs. That one over yet?

Bush is just doing what all other American Presidents would be doing if they were in his shoes. Remember Lincoln? Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc?

I love the way all the Presidents he named died in office. Anyone else notice that? :D

And comparing them to Bush....

OMG! Whittier is gonna kill Bush!! :eek:

CIA?! CIA?! Hope you're watching this!

Fascist alert! At least you're not hiding it anymore.



'cept, you're not really in a war. We all know its a bullshit label. Like the War on Drugs. That one over yet?



I love the way all the Presidents he named died in office. Anyone else notice that? :D

And comparing them to Bush....

OMG! Whittier is gonna kill Bush!! :eek:

CIA?! CIA?! Hope you're watching this!

Hiding what?
Fact of life.
The only realistic defense is overturning the Government every 4 years or so.
*shrugs*
Which leaves me systematically voting for the Opposition in most cases.

.....
especially when I said that to someone in IR and that was the absolute last time I saw him.
Been there, more than once. I agree. One watches ones' mouth afterwards.

Hiding what?
Fact of life.
It is no 'fact of life'. It is not pre determined. I make my own mind up with my own choices.


The only realistic defense is overturning the Government every 4 years or so.
*shrugs*
Which leaves me systematically voting for the Opposition in most cases.

Sucks to be you. Change your system then.

And the current Admiistration leave one more shit stain on the American Flag.

*sigh*

It is no 'fact of life'. It is not pre determined. I make my own mind up with my own choices.



Sucks to be you. Change your system then.

Go forth and be fruitful.
Representative democracy is the best system known to Man, unless your society is small enough to allow Direct Democracy.

Go forth and be fruitful.
Representative democracy is the best system known to Man, unless your society is small enough to allow Direct Democracy.

Having a two party system will fuck up your choices alright. If you're unhappy with it, establish more parties that aren't 'catch all'.

Having a two party system will fuck up your choices alright. If you're unhappy with it, establish more parties that aren't 'catch all'.

Indeed. Go LDP.

Hey, if you're in the Gestapo, you're pretty much assured of that not happenning.
No, you're not. Someone with a grudge has a friend in a high place.

I have actually changed my mind on 'guns for all'. I think you lot are going to need them, and not just for hunting.

Why? In any society that is organised long enough, the individual's prime reason for existence is the State.
Fact of life.

As JFK said: don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Inasmuch as the State grants individual rights, such rights are subordinate to the State.
Not all rights are given by the State, and not all rights given by the State are simultaneously given, regulated or repealable by Government.

The associated populace itself must have authority above and beyond that of its elected figures. Otherwise, the distinction between the Citizen and the Prisoner becomes severely blurred.

Not all rights are given by the State, and not all rights given by the State are simultaneously given, regulated or repealable by Government.

The associated populace itself must have authority above and beyond that of its elected figures. Otherwise, the distinction between the Citizen and the Prisoner becomes severely blurred.

*sigh*
Why on earth do you think I'm totally fanatic about Democracy?

BECAUSE it is the one system that scores rather good when it comes to distinguishing between Citizen and Prisoner.

It works b/c Democracy has negative feedback.
Other systems - especially the idealistic ones - have this unfortunate tendency to outlaw or stop negative feedback.

*sigh*
Why on earth do you think I'm totally fanatic about Democracy?

BECAUSE it is the one system that scores rather good when it comes to distinguishing between Citizen and Prisoner.

It works b/c Democracy has negative feedback.
Other systems - especially the idealistic ones - have this unfortunate tendency to outlaw or stop negative feedback.

Except in this case.... when it's most important...

BECAUSE it is the one system that scores rather good when it comes to distinguishing between Citizen and Prisoner.
Negative feedback is applied once every few years, and then only by choosing the candidates who put on the face they're looking for. If, as you say, the people are entirely subordinate to the Government they elect once elected, then they are merely choosing their prison warden. This is not democracy; it is dictatorship by the popular.

Except in this case.... when it's most important...

Tough.

What the system does is giving you the chance to toss out the administration on the macro-level.
What it does not do is giving you the chance to second guess seperate decisions.

You can toss the Administration out, and start over, but you cannot overturn an individual decision ( except in cases where there is a statutory means to do so ).

Negative feedback is applied once every few years, and then only by choosing the candidates who put on the face they're looking for. If, as you say, the people are entirely subordinate to the Government they elect once elected, then they are merely choosing their prison warden. This is not democracy; it is dictatorship by the popular.


See ^.

Why don't you tell me how Democracy is supposed to work, and how you would plan to make it work up to your specifications?

I might add that just because no one charged him with anything doesn't mean he didn't do something to attract undue attention.Like, he must have done something, otherwise he hadn't been arrested? So being arrested makes one guilty....of what?




It's a very bright line drawn where you fall off the cliff into being screwed by America. Explain, please.



It's not like they're accidentally going to arrest an 86-year old great grandmother of German extraction in Wisconsin.
How would you know? Especally when due process and a fair trial without undue delay, once believed to be cornerstones of democracy, have been abolished in the name of secrecy?

If they accidentally arrested said grandmother, what rights does she have? What if they decided to keep her?

Tough.

What the system does is giving you the chance to toss out the administration on the macro-level.
What it does not do is giving you the chance to second guess seperate decisions.

You can toss the Administration out, and start over, but you cannot overturn an individual decision ( except in cases where there is a statutory means to do so ).
Some countries have administrative law, and judicial review, and a system of checks and balances. Those are meant to prevent tyranny during the period between elections.

Some countries have administrative law, and judicial review, and a system of checks and balances. Those are meant to prevent tyranny during the period between elections.

And all of them cease to function if you got the wrong people in the wrong places. But I assume you already know that, right?

And all of them cease to function if you got the wrong people in the wrong places. But I assume you already know that, right?
Very case-dependant, of course. Some more than others. That is however for a court to decide. But legal systems differ. Most hold the right to freedom quite dear.

Is the U.S. a signee of this?

universal declaration of human rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm)

Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Very case-dependant, of course. Some more than others. That is however for a court to decide. But legal systems differ. Most hold the right to freedom quite dear.

Is the U.S. a signee of this?

universal declaration of human rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm)

You will, I hope, excuse me for being a wee bit sceptical about the US and treaties signed by it.
You will have to excuse me on another level for being more of a follower of Hume than Stuart Mills.

Whose Court? Within the EU, a very clear matter. But not so in the context of the United States. As you will concede, SCOTUS ( by its very nature ) ends up being chockful of folks in favour of broad pro-Goverment interpretations.

You will, I hope, excuse me for being a wee bit sceptical about the US and treaties signed by it.
You will have to excuse me on another level for being more of a follower of Hume than Stuart Mills.

Whose Court? Within the EU, a very clear matter. But not so in the context of the United States. As you will concede, SCOTUS ( by its very nature ) ends up being chockful of folks in favour of broad pro-Goverment interpretations.

I believe that similar rights are granted by the u.s. constitution, anyway. Which is part of the reason for the epidemic courtroom-aversion; and why due process is not being followed.

Even if the US does not have a good record of abiding their treaties, they do actually every now and then. Being member of an international treaty also means being subject to the dispute settling mechanisms agreed to.
Whose court? Presumeably u.s. courts. Unless there is an administrative court or somesuch. Even if those are "chockful of folks in favour of broad pro-Goverment interpretations". The contents of a ruling are not the only thing that matters, more important is the ruling for the sake of due process.

See ^.

Why don't you tell me how Democracy is supposed to work, and how you would plan to make it work up to your specifications?
Democracy is the system of government whereby the will of the majority is specifically represented on issues and fields of operation. Ideally, if it weren't for the complacency of the public, all major decisions would be made through a quick tally of opinion among the citizenry after some time in debate; a system becoming increasingly possible as the way we communicate shifts net-wards. But, of course, people are lazy and the operation is still time-consuming, so we need to find some way of representing their views appropriately.

The system we have at the minute demands that a very small number of people elect individual MPs based on their local needs who then go on to be placed into very high-order cabinet posts without any sort of public input. The home secretary did not win his position on the virtue of his stance on law and policing or on immigration policy in the eyes of the public; he won his position following enough support in his home constituency to represent them in general and then being placed into the role by someone else who in turn won his position in much the same way. And this system is even worse in America, where the bearers of such offices don't even need to be elected members of Congress in order to hold them.

My proposal is a change in how Government is formed. Scrap the political framework for this sort of party totalitarianism. The Prime Minister's governatorial cabinet would be elected not on the basis of how many people voted for his party but by how many people voted for them, regardless of their party affiliations. This way, we might have policy makers whose stance on the particular position they have been picked for are specifically reflective of those of the majority on those sorts of issues.

How does that sound?

I believe that similar rights are granted by the u.s. constitution, anyway. Which is part of the reason for the epidemic courtroom-aversion; and why due process is not being followed.

Even if the US does not have a good record of abiding their treaties, they do actually every now and then. Being member of an international treaty also means being subject to the dispute settling mechanisms agreed to.
Whose court? Presumeably u.s. courts. Unless there is an administrative court or somesuch. Even if those are "chockful of folks in favour of broad pro-Goverment interpretations". The contents of a ruling are not the only thing that matters, more important is the ruling for the sake of due process.

*shrug*
Due Process has lately been interpreted as whatever POTUS says it is.

Democracy is the system of government whereby the will of the majority is specifically represented on issues and fields of operation. Ideally, if it weren't for the complacency of the public, all major decisions would be made through a quick tally of opinion among the citizenry after some time in debate; a system becoming increasingly possible as the way we communicate shifts net-wards. But, of course, people are lazy and the operation is still time-consuming, so we need to find some way of representing their views appropriately.

The system we have at the minute demands that a very small number of people elect individual MPs based on their local needs who then go on to be placed into very high-order cabinet posts without any sort of public input. The home secretary did not win his position on the virtue of his stance on law and policing or on immigration policy in the eyes of the public; he won his position following enough support in his home constituency to represent them in general and then being placed into the role by someone else who in turn won his position in much the same way. And this system is even worse in America, where the bearers of such offices don't even need to be elected members of Congress in order to hold them.

My proposal is a change in how Government is formed. Scrap the political framework for this sort of party totalitarianism. The Prime Minister's governatorial cabinet would be elected not on the basis of how many people voted for his party but by how many people voted for them, regardless of their party affiliations. This way, we might have policy makers whose stance on the particular position they have been picked for are specifically reflective of those of the majority on those sorts of issues.

How does that sound?

En bref: not all that good.
There is no guarantee that any party-government will get 51% behind it. I don't think your system would get a majority for anything - apart from the occasional issue that make minds ( dull or not ) spark.
One ends up with a system that almost never makes a decision one way or the other.

I'd rather go with the tried and true method of proportional representation.

En bref: not all that good.
There is no guarantee that any party-government will get 51% behind it. I don't think your system would get a majority for anything - apart from the occasional issue that make minds ( dull or not ) spark.
One ends up with a system that almost never makes a decision one way or the other.
An any-party government will not get party support or a majority from parliament because no single individual will ever find every aspect of what they have been voted in to assert reflected in their leaders. The only ones who represent the house directly are the Prime Minister and his deputy, and their roles are largely of management, leadership, media representation and the like. It's not supposed to get the approval of the MPs; it's supposed to submit laws that represent the people to the MPs who also represent the people. This drive for personality-based authority rather than actual skillful representation is what is chafing politics and what has been doing so for decades.

The idea is to force the cabinet to deal with the opinion of the general public on each aspect of governance. If the MPs are themselves selected by proportional representation and there are a sufficiently large number of them, the bills submitted by the cabinet should statistically be generally supported by the house regardless of their perception of the government in general.

Am I surprised? No.

Am I a little sadder than I was before? Yes.

If Washington and Franklin would be alive to see this, they'd shoot themselves.

As for various people's glee at the idea that this man (who really was confused with someone else, as was admitted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120600083.html)) was mistreated and will just have to take it, suit yourselves. I'm not going to get into flamewars.

Am I surprised? No.

Am I a little sadder than I was before? Yes.

If Washington and Franklin would be alive to see this, they'd shoot themselves.

As for various people's glee at the idea that this man (who really was confused with someone else, as was admitted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120600083.html)) was mistreated and will just have to take it, suit yourselves. I'm not going to get into flamewars.

On top of that, Washington and Franklin alive today would be denounced as Spineless Liberals Who Support Islamic Terrorism.

It's a very bright line drawn where you fall off the cliff into being screwed by America.

You mean like the baby who had his name on the no-fly list of suspected terrorists?

Face it, the administration screws up on a regular basis, and the knockon effect is that it screws the people under it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4996140.stm

I'm not surprised, but I suppose there will be plenty of people here who think it's completely outrageous.

Oh, and by the way, when dealing with America, watch your step.

So much for lawsuits over rendition.
Do you really believe this line from the government? I think it's just an excuse to dismiss a legitimate case and avoid embrassment.

Actually, I believe that any people or nation that thinks they can attack the US with impunity, or plot violent acts against its citizens, forfeit their rights the moment they start conspiring.
ThoughtCrime? I'm not surprised. You've previously advocated executing people for things they say, and starting WW3 in response to 9/11.

I suppose you missed the part where el Masri was never charged with anything? Or are you just satisifed that he is guilty of being swarthy and having a funny-sounding name?
I think that DK is wrong on this one but why do some people always assume racism when people like him go overboard in their beliefs about national defense? Maybe DK is not a racist?

I might add that just because no one charged him with anything doesn't mean he didn't do something to attract undue attention.

If you're not charged, then you didn't commit a crime. That's the way the law works.

If you're not charged, then you didn't commit a crime. That's the way the law works.

Not a racist. I am more concerned about the "attitude" and the "intent".

Also, the law also says that I can continually investigate any particular person, including surveillance, following them, and questioning them repeatedly, ad infinitum.

All without charging you. And quite a bit can be done before having "probably cause".

In the US today, it's rather easy to come up with "probable cause" if you think someone's a terrorist threat - one typewritten page to the court seems to have worked in the past, alluding to vague and secret evidence.

Abso-fucking-lutely crazy. The various secret services of the world are having their way a bit too much, in my opinion. And it doesn't endanger anyone who didn't bring it upon themselves if the case went through.

Actually, I believe that any people or nation that thinks they can attack the US with impunity, or plot violent acts against its citizens, forfeit their rights the moment they start conspiring.
And where exactly in that article does it state that he attacked or plotted to attack the US?
Oh, that's right.
It DOESN'T.
He wasn't charged with anything. If you're not charged, that means you DIDN'T do anything. understand?
So you're happy for a man to be abducted in one country, flown to another, held for several months, tortured then released without being charged. And all the while feel all safe and snug wrapped up in your flag and freedoms.

Even more disturbing is that the judge has pretty much accepted that the CIA has carte blanche over what it does to the people it abducts, for reasons of not 'endangering national security'.
Did you hear that noise? It was another one of your freedoms being taken away from you. But you're happy because at the moment it's only been taken away from foreigners with funny sounding names.

Even more disturbing is that the judge has pretty much accepted that the CIA has carte blanche over what it does to the people it abducts, for reasons of not 'endangering national security'.
Did you hear that noise? It was another one of your freedoms being taken away from you. But you're happy because at the moment it's only been taken away from foreigners with funny sounding names.

The same's happened in the UK. Apparentely people don't need to have trials, because "the public doesn't need to know what evidence we have, it might scare them".

Fascist police states ftw!

You mean like the baby who had his name on the no-fly list of suspected terrorists?
Or Teddy Kennedy for that matter.
All because a "T.Kennedy" had been an alias used once by a suspected terrorist. And he had to call the dept of Homeland Security THREE times himself to have his name removed. If one of us nobodies ever get on there, we've got no hope.

Did you hear that noise? It was another one of your freedoms being taken away from you. But you're happy because at the moment it's only been taken away from foreigners with funny sounding names.

And there's a disturbing amount of people who get tagged by the No Fly List who don't fit at all into Kimchi's vision of "The Obvious Ay-Rab Terrorist" at all. Ted Kennedy, lots of white people, even a baby who wasn't named Stewie Griffin.

If the real terrorists were clever enough, it'll be funny when they start using vanilla Anglo-Saxon names by the droves- hell, it's not like they don't have the means to find and pick them- and increase the amount of people who get grounded by the No Fly List and other more severe measures. If an "Ay-Rab Terrorist" ends up using DK's real name as an alias and it gets added to the NFL it'll be the most hilarious irony to date.

And there's a disturbing amount of people who get tagged by the No Fly List who don't fit at all into Kimchi's vision of "The Obvious Ay-Rab Terrorist" at all. Ted Kennedy, lots of white people, even a baby who wasn't named Stewie Griffin.

If the real terrorists were clever enough, it'll be funny when they start using vanilla Anglo-Saxon names by the droves- hell, it's not like they don't have the means to find and pick them- and increase the amount of people who get grounded by the No Fly List and other more severe measures. If an "Ay-Rab Terrorist" ends up using DK's real name as an alias and it gets added to the NFL it'll be the most hilarious irony to date.

*changes name to Dick Cheney and cackles maniacally*

*changes name to Dick Cheney and cackles maniacally*
:eek:

*flees*

ThoughtCrime? I'm not surprised. You've previously advocated executing people for things they say, and starting WW3 in response to 9/11.


I think that DK is wrong on this one but why do some people always assume racism when people like him go overboard in their beliefs about national defense? Maybe DK is not a racist?


If you're not charged, then you didn't commit a crime. That's the way the law works.
I only questioned DK about possible racist tendencies because of his grandmother of German descent remark. But no, he's not a racist. He's a xenophobic, war-loving, piddling, licking dog of anyone in authority who says they'll keep him safe and maybe even feed him once in a while as long he's obedient enough, which abject obedience he is all too happy to prove on a daily basis -- but no, I don't think he is really a racist.

Except to the extent that making racist remarks might please the un-specified masters he thinks he has to please.

Not a racist. I am more concerned about the "attitude" and the "intent".
Which, according to you, can be surmised from the fact that he's an Arab.

Also, the law also says that I can continually investigate any particular person, including surveillance, following them, and questioning them repeatedly, ad infinitum.

All without charging you. And quite a bit can be done before having "probably cause".
No, it doesn't. You wish it did, but it doesn't.

In the US today, it's rather easy to come up with "probable cause" if you think someone's a terrorist threat - one typewritten page to the court seems to have worked in the past, alluding to vague and secret evidence.
And that is a violation of the US's own laws as well as our Constitution. People don't know how to handle this because it has been more than a century since we had an administration that so flagrant violated the law and its own duty to the country, and we have never had a government so bad that we had to use force to oust it. And if we did, what would we replace them with? There is no precedent for such a thing and no laws to cover it. And since our system doesn't allow for voting out an administration in mid-term, we have no choice but to wait for 2008. But just because we're stuck with these criminals, it doesn't make their actions any the less illegal -- your master-fantasies notwithstanding.

Also, the law also says that I can continually investigate any particular person, including surveillance, following them, and questioning them repeatedly, ad infinitum.
Are stalking and invasion of privacy not crimes in America?

All without charging you. And quite a bit can be done before having "probably cause".
What can be done?

In the US today, it's rather easy to come up with "probable cause" if you think someone's a terrorist threat - one typewritten page to the court seems to have worked in the past, alluding to vague and secret evidence.
Then what happens?

I only questioned DK about possible racist tendencies because of his grandmother of German descent remark. But no, he's not a racist. He's a xenophobic, war-loving, piddling, licking dog of anyone in authority who says they'll keep him safe and maybe even feed him once in a while as long he's obedient enough, which abject obedience he is all too happy to prove on a daily basis -- but no, I don't think he is really a racist.

Yes, he has definitely become a complete lunatic in the past few weeks. Maybe his weed dealer got busted and he can't get any more.

I only questioned DK about possible racist tendencies because of his grandmother of German descent remark. But no, he's not a racist. He's a xenophobic, war-loving, piddling, licking dog of anyone in authority who says they'll keep him safe and maybe even feed him once in a while as long he's obedient enough, which abject obedience he is all too happy to prove on a daily basis -- but no, I don't think he is really a racist.

Except to the extent that making racist remarks might please the un-specified masters he thinks he has to please.
i suspect he's just a troll who gets off on winding people up by making outrageous remarks.

why would anyone support the idea that its OK to grab men off the streets of macedonia, torture them for a couple months, realize they have the wrong guy and then let them go without so much as a "oops sorry about that"?

why would anyone support the idea that its OK to grab men, torture them for a couple months, realize they have the wrong guy and then let them go without so much as a "oops sorry about that"?
edited a bit and you'll have a service that some men pay money to have done to them. :D

i suspect he's just a troll who gets off on winding people up by making outrageous remarks.

why would anyone support the idea that its OK to grab men off the streets of macedonia, torture them for a couple months, realize they have the wrong guy and then let them go without so much as a "oops sorry about that"?

In the case of Kimchi, it's because the men are Dirty Brown-Skinned Muslims Who Are Going to be Terrorists if They Aren't All Ready.

Yes, he has definitely become a complete lunatic in the past few weeks. Maybe his weed dealer got busted and he can't get any more.
i suspect he's just a troll who gets off on winding people up by making outrageous remarks.

why would anyone support the idea that its OK to grab men off the streets of macedonia, torture them for a couple months, realize they have the wrong guy and then let them go without so much as a "oops sorry about that"?
edited a bit and you'll have a service that some men pay money to have done to them.
In the case of Kimchi, it's because the men are Dirty Brown-Skinned Muslims Who Are Going to be Terrorists if They Aren't All Ready.
Stoner going through withdrawal. Troll. Love-struck freak. Bigot. It's starting to sound like a profile. I wonder if DK realizes this is how his remarks make him look?

Personally, I have a theory about people who say things like this. It has to do with scared inner children looking for a daddy, not finding one and deciding to hide behind a bully, hoping it'll be the next best thing. And since the person/government/institution/what-have-you that they think is their protector is a bully, they'll always have to debase themselves to keep the protection (racket) going. Act authoritative enough and push them around enough (and keep reminding them of their fears), and they'll do anything for their daddy -- whore themselves, kill their own grandmothers, anything. On one hand, I feel sorry for such people. On the other, I want to scrape them off my shoe -- especially when I see what they do to the world I have to live in.

If DK is just trolling, he needs to cut it out. He's destroying his own reputation with this shit.

Well, lesse...

So the US Administration manages the following:

1. Waste of Resources

Flying an (Innocent) person out of an (Allied) country, spending not quite inconsiderable money on fuel, accommodation (Of the interrogators, not the captive, of course), not to mention a considerable amount of time that could've been spent on real enemies.

Without getting anything out of all this work. Well, anything except...

2. Public Relations

Rather than - once the mistake was realised after about six months of pointless interrogations - flying the captive back to Germany, and providing him with sufficient compensation to keep him quiet in order to avoid bad press (And annoyed allies), they fly him back into the Mazedonian woods, leaving him there (Note: Killing him wasn't quite possible - IIRC, the BND knew of the case) to rot.

There isn't even an attempt at an apology, nor is some meaningless operative sacrificed to appease both, internal opposition, and external friends (Lets not forget that Germany provides plenty of intelligence, and a good part of the peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan).

And on top of all that, it gives the lie to its own claims regarding 'Fighting for Freedom' by way of denying exactly that - freedom, or more specifically assorted liberties and a working legal system - and instead pulling off what would be the pride of Iran's judicial system.

Which kind of, ah - defeats the point of the whole 'War on Terror', doesn't it? If one is no better than the terrorist, one is a terrorist.

And lets not even consider the fact that the people responsible for this fairly considerable error (And the subsequent errors in dealing with the error that stared it all) are, apparently, still doing exactly the same work, and presumably still managing horrendous fuckups. You know, in the industry, if an engineer fails, he gets FIRED because he WEAKENS the corporation he works for. Why does the (US- though this seems to be a universal trait of governments all over the world) government promote failure? To ensure even more bad press? An even greater waste of resources? Even more dead GIs because the actual enemy is missed due to issues with name recognition?

Oh, and lets not forget that among the friends and relatives of Al Masri, support for the (Militant) muslim cause will most likely, and I dare say certainly, have risen, this increasing the number of enemies the US will have to deal with, increasing the resources the US will have to spend to defeat them (If this is at all possible - I've my doubts), increasing the number of dead US-citizens over the course of this 'War on Terror'...

Smart idea.

So, lesse... In the end the people responsible manage to piss off assorted allies (And their own, internal opposition), which, oddly enough, isn't a good idea. They manage to (Once more) stir up the opposition in their home country (Which isn't a good idea, either), they manage to waste resources (Remember, it's YOUR taxes used to pull it off in the first place, and similarly used to cover up the people responsible for confusing the target person - which is a really, really amateurish error) while true threats continue to shoot GIs in Iraq, they manage to increase the numbers and resources and strength of their enemies, and...

... and there are, indeed, 'Patriots' who applaud this in an utterly mislead case of 'Patriotism', which is supposedly involving the process of shutting down one's brain, in order to be supportive, regardless of the government's decisions and errors? Applauding this quite monumental and, dare I say, universal (As just about everything that could've been done wrong was done wrong) fuckup because hey, 'America, Fuck Yeah!'?

Hate to bring it to you, dear supporters of this particular decision made by US courts (As well as those who supported this whole action in the first place), but... You're supporting failure, and by doing so, you are (Ironically) weakening your country.

Well done.

Are stalking and invasion of privacy not crimes in America?

They certainly are, but that seemingly doesn't make a bit of difference, as the CIA can seemingly fuck around and not be punished for anything it does. It's all a bit Artichoke, to be honest.

What can be done?

Until the UN closes down gitmo, just about anything that the US wants. And when it does close, they'll just torture you in another country.

Then what happens?

Then they lock you up for thoughtcrimes and horribly torture you, with no real evidence. And you can't appeal because they you're obviously a terrorist or something, and they were right all along.

You are a tool, DP.

And the current Admiistration leave one more shit stain on the American Flag.

*sigh*

Is it really so fucked up a situation that a clown is just about the only decent comment on this?

Am I surprised? No.

Am I a little sadder than I was before? Yes.

If Washington and Franklin would be alive to see this, they'd shoot themselves.

As for various people's glee at the idea that this man (who really was confused with someone else, as was admitted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120600083.html)) was mistreated and will just have to take it, suit yourselves. I'm not going to get into flamewars.

If Jefferson and Franklin were alive to see this, they'd shoot somebody, that's for damned sure. I doubt it would be themselves, though.... (Washington is a bit of a questioin mark IMHO.)


Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin

Correct! On to the bonus round, where your score can really go up. Would you like to try for what's behind Door Number Three?

Actually, I believe that any people or nation that thinks they can attack the US with impunity, or plot violent acts against its citizens, forfeit their rights the moment they start conspiring.

1. They're still people.

2. We have no idea of people's reasons for attacking a country. When the US invaded Iraq, many Iraquis thought it was to take over. The people in the US army no doubt genuinely believed they were helping democracy. So should the US soldiers now forfeit all their rights to humane treatment if they are captured, because they are believed to be terrorists by many Iraquis?

3. Two wrongs don't make a right. Liberty and Justice for ALL.

4. In times of war, there is International Law governing the treatment of those captured. If one country (eg. the US) starts ignoring that law, it gives a green light to the other countries (such as Iraq) to start ignoring that law too, and just causes inhumane treatment on American captives for every instance of inhumane treatment of Iraqui captives. This is just an example - I know we're technically not in a war with Iraq. If we ignore the basic human rights of prisoners of the US, other countries might start doing the same to their prisoners, and we end up in some Palestine versus Israel style conflict that never seems to end.

Stoner going through withdrawal. Troll. Love-struck freak. Bigot. It's starting to sound like a profile. I wonder if DK realizes this is how his remarks make him look?

Personally, I have a theory about people who say things like this. It has to do with scared inner children looking for a daddy, not finding one and deciding to hide behind a bully, hoping it'll be the next best thing. And since the person/government/institution/what-have-you that they think is their protector is a bully, they'll always have to debase themselves to keep the protection (racket) going. Act authoritative enough and push them around enough (and keep reminding them of their fears), and they'll do anything for their daddy -- whore themselves, kill their own grandmothers, anything. On one hand, I feel sorry for such people. On the other, I want to scrape them off my shoe -- especially when I see what they do to the world I have to live in.

If DK is just trolling, he needs to cut it out. He's destroying his own reputation with this shit.
i like your theory and i wonder, if dk is anything of what he claims to be, if you arent right on the money. that is the persona he displays

but as to your last remark, he has posted things that put him in a much worse light so i dont think that this latest round of crap can ruin any reputation he has here.

Deep Kimchi has shown in the past that he likes to switch between periods of trolling (My Gun Not Yours) and serious, intelligent posting (Whispering Legs, Sierra BHTP). I suspect that this is another trolling phase, possibly influenced by lack of drugs. I mean, nobody can seriously say that they would have nuked 100 million people in response to 9/11. And actually believe that this would result in an improvement in the world situtation.