Terrorist rights???

[KillarneyRose]

Killarny Rose wrote:"I like the way my life is, want it to continue the way it is and I make no apologies for it. " and
"We are the strongest nation on earth and therefore we can do whatever the hell we please. That's it in a nutshell and I don't give a rat's behind who agrees with me and who doesn't."

1) My main point was and still is, that I think that arrogance such as "I am powerful so I can do as I please" and the politics resulting from such arrogance increases terrorism!

Allow me to clarify...when I say that we can do whatever the hell we please, I am speaking from a defensive posture. We as a nation have the right to defend ourself. Sometimes defense can take a proactive posture such as placing troops in the country harboring the group that swears to destroy us so that we can destroy them first. Perhaps it takes the form of interrogating detainees.

When I say that I like the way my life is, perhaps I should say that I liked my life the way it was before September 11th, when I didn't worry about American planes being hijacked and flown into occupied buildings. There is nothing wrong with a desire for security. And I feel lucky to be citizen of a country where we are not held hostage to the whims of the world's megalomaniac of the week. We can and should defend ourselves by whatever means necessary.

5)with "you" I specifically addressed KillarneyRose - and I interpreted her statement in a way that reads: "because we are a strong nation you (the rest of the world) better do as we please" - maybe that is a bit harsh but that's how I understood it.

NO -- Because we are a strong nation, you (the rest of the world) had better realize that if you bite us, we can bite back 100 times as hard.


6) double standards - and that not only applies to America but the whole western world including the Europeans:
just one example: the Taliban, bad guys, violating human rights - we strike them down. The Chinese - they are violating basic human rights - we trade with them and accept every shit they do because they are powerful.

Whether I agree with our trade policies involving China is irrelevant to this post. As far as the Taliban, however, it was not destroyed because it violated human rights per se. It was destroyed because it was harboring the terrorist we believe to be responsible for the events of September 11. If they had turned the individual in question over to the United States, the government would still be intact, human rights violations or no.


Sorry if I wasn't clear enough on my last post!

[damasa]

Originally posted by matthewg



Dear damasa,
ok, ok, please let me clarify - my post was referring to the following, Killarney Rose wrote:

Killarny Rose wrote:"I like the way my life is, want it to continue the way it is and I make no apologies for it. " and
"We are the strongest nation on earth and therefore we can do whatever the hell we please. That's it in a nutshell and I don't give a rat's behind who agrees with me and who doesn't."

1) My main point was and still is, that I think that arrogance such as "I am powerful so I can do as I please" and the politics resulting from such arrogance increases terrorism!

2) There is no question that what has happend in Afganistan lately isn't for the benefit of the Afghan people.

3) However, that is beside my point!

4) I correct for the politically correct: everyone should be granted to live the life ONE wants. - thank you!

5)with "you" I specifically addressed KillarneyRose - and I interpreted her statement in a way that reads: "because we are a strong nation you (the rest of the world) better do as we please" - maybe that is a bit harsh but that's how I understood it.

6) double standards - and that not only applies to America but the whole western world including the Europeans:
just one example: the Taliban, bad guys, violating human rights - we strike them down. The Chinese - they are violating basic human rights - we trade with them and accept every shit they do because they are powerful.

7) of course that last sentence in my last post ("We cannot lower ourselves down to the level of these disgusting terrorists by applying double standards!") was meant to address the general topic of this thread, namely the conditions in camp x-ray and whether the inmates there are POW's or not. It had no connection to KillarneyRose's post.


In this matter I would like to add that the Geneva Convention states that "when in doubt about the status of POW or not, an international tribunal shopuld decide in that matter". There is nothing to agree or disagree about that - the USA signed the document, period!
Of course the reason why this is not happening is that the authorities want to question the el Quaida fighters which they were not allowed to do if they had POW status. However, and here we come back to the double standard: I cannot violate a convention (by not allowing an international tribune to decide whether the guys are POW's or not) just because it is against my interest.
That is a matter of principle and not of wanting and wishing.

And it has nothing to do with my personal opinion that it would of course be desirable to learn as much as we can from those prisoners and that, indeed, they don't deserve better conditions.

All that matters is if we stick to rules that we set up ourselves and if we apply them to everybody regardless of personal distress or emotions.

I hope that was clarifying enough

Oh, it was very clarifying.

BUT, we have to look at the general public and the opinions and interests that many of the people of this country are having/sharing/expressing. People want answers, people want resluts, and of course people want revenge/blood or whatever.

When people are at a point like that, they can tend to forget about treaties, conventions, documents, agreements and anything else surriounding the rights' or prisoners, possible prisoners, war criminals, etc.

BUT, I will say, I'm damn glad that Bush is in office now. I didn't vote for the feller, but I think he's doing on hell of a job.

d

[matthewg]

Kilarny I agree with all of your points - I think it should be obvious that I am not against self-defense and so on. I was just trying to play the advocatus diaboli, the lawyer of the devil and make people think of the other side.

Thanks for the clarification

Language can be a problem if one doesn't talk but just writes.
It is also kind of hard to address two people in one post....

I think, we both have made our points and all in all, I think we pretty much agree on things.

Peace!

[matthewg]

Originally posted by damasa


Oh, it was very clarifying.

BUT, we have to look at the general public and the opinions and interests that many of the people of this country are having/sharing/expressing. People want answers, people want resluts, and of course people want revenge/blood or whatever.

When people are at a point like that, they can tend to forget about treaties, conventions, documents, agreements and anything else surriounding the rights' or prisoners, possible prisoners, war criminals, etc.

BUT, I will say, I'm damn glad that Bush is in office now. I didn't vote for the feller, but I think he's doing on hell of a job.

d

Of course emotions are very well understandable - I mean, it was an unprecedented attack of unprecedented cruelty.

I just hope that people don't get carried away to the point that they forget their civilization.

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by lovelyivy84


You have a point. But the financial aspect is not the only thing to be considered is what I am saying. Wars, whether ours or other people's, in the past have generally been good for business (sharp deviation from that trend with Vietnam) but that is just one aspect of the affect of getting involved in a foreign military action on this country.

One HUGE aspect of it is loss of life. I have family in different branches of the armed forces and am TERRIFIED for their safety should they be sent to train these groups and "accidents" happen.

Then of course there is the aspect of the way it would affect our role in international politics. The USA is a big convenient target. Other countries hate us, and some of them with damn good reason, for our past policies. Going into any other country as big brother just gives further justification for those anti-American sentiments and goads individuals and organizations to perpetrate more terrorist acts. I am not saying there is not reason to be big brother- America can be of great aid to any number of small countries, but it is a precarious and slippery slope.

Where do we stop? First we train them. Then when there might be a military action, we lend "minimal" support. Then when there are casualties we lend medical aid. Then when the country needs to be rebuilt we send advisors. It goes on and on, we spend billions and who knows what the repercussions will be? History tells us they won't be pretty.

I doubt we will ever get involved with the Indonesian problems because their military are very capable. They are among the best in jungle and urban warfare. What we need to do is what we've been doing, selling arms and training the officers to be more profesionals. I'm not asking US troops to be sent to the jungle of JAva. Leahey amendment is very specific, it forbid our arms industry from selling weapons to the Indonesians troops until those that are involved in the East Timor massacre are brought to justice. Fat chance that will ever happen, so by exposing their military to profesionalism in our armed forces, their armed forces might be able to profesionalized themselve from within. It started back in 1997 or 1998, but quickly died out because they stopped being trained by US military (which, by the way, they pay for themselves. the training is funded by them) So we loose our influence, and they are reverting back to their old self.