Now that the British sailors are free...response?

[Skybird]

Note that it says: "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

"The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus )

what it effectively all means is that the US can take prsioner anyboy they want by simply labelling him as "unlawful". Neither the subject, nor lawyers or person related to the subject are allowed to give evidence that he is not what he is accused of, for the subject is stripped of all according rights. His case even must not be heared. He can be held captured for unlimited times and, as we have seen, even years. there is no counter-checking of the system by democratically legitimated institutions of the satte, and thuzs the people. It is arbitrary "justice" and the public is simply allowed to believe that it all is working good, or not. It is not allowed to check it. checks and balances are a basic principle of democarcies, and their accordign legal systems as well.
This is the reason why the world and in fact a good ammount of the Ameivan people as well is mocking at Bush for these laws and demand them to be taken back. they are worth a tyrannay, not the hostrical standards of America, or the West.

Since amongst other ethnicities, your Jewish ancestors suffered so dearly from such understandings of arbitrary justice in Germany, I am wondering why an Israeli is so readily defending such standards, AL. As just said some days ago in another debate: this practicing is not a bit different to GeStapo practcing. It is simply out of control and no longer counterchecked from outside the system.

Concerning "illegal" fighters", I cannot say if the meaning in English is exactly the same as "unlawful", but in German (illegal versus ungesetzlich/gesetzlos) it is a difference, and a huge one. By terms of logic, something like "illegal combatants" cannot even be imagined to exist. That's why years ago when Bush first came out with that phrase, lawyers and audience from around the world were laughing about him. It is debated until today if the Amerian argumentation concerning the status of illegal fighters and the GC is valid, or not. I tend to disagree.

"In the United States, the Military Commissions Act codified the legal definition of this term, and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. However the assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists contradicts the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention, that every person in enemy hands must either be a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, and that "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law" "

Recall the past before hailing such eliminations of basic rights. Especially you, AL, your people and we over here should know better than anyone else.

Bush once said that there is nothing wrong with dicatatorship - as long as he would be the dictator. I am not so sure anymore that he really meant it just as a joke. the number of attempts by him to avoi9d the democratic principle of checks and baalnces, and to shift powers to him that cannot be interferred with by other institutions of the state is tell-taling. That man is drunken of himself.

I wish it would have been a second brain cell that he drank.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Recall the past before hailing such eliminations of basic rights. Especially you, AL, your people and we over here should know better than anyone else.

I believe the law has been similar in the US for decades and is not a fabrication of Bush, nor Hitler for that matter.

Bush once said that there is nothing wrong with dicatatorship - as long as he would be the dictator.

Et tu, Skybird? Twisting words to suit your agenda? False but accurate?



What George Bush said in 1998 as governor of Texas and regarding the difficulties of governing Texas, was:

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier... So long as I'm the dictator.

That man is drunken of himself.

I would say this is more true of the delirious anti-Bush crowd - and I don't care much for the guy myself. Welcome to the club!

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I believe the law has been similar in the US for decades and is not a fabrication of Bush, nor Hitler for that matter.

Though mention of Hitler is relevant to this matter: Ex parte Quirin.

Roosevelt the dictator!

Roosevelt=Hilter!

Yeh.

Sure.

Back on topic....................

Remember when Britain was Great?

[micky1up]

typical anti jewish and american bull from a nation who violated an entire generation not once but twice back into your hole where you belong i would rather you thanked the US/UK not only for getting rid of hitler but for the years of stedfast defence against the USSR these obviously so quickly forgotton

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

That young officers career is ruined and I doubt the enlisted are going to go much higher. The reporter sounded kind of dorky and behind the times about the female though.

you clearly cant comprehend the difference between combatants and not combatants and that young officer will go far you dont know how the royal navy works at all they all will just for the PR


with reguards to the comment about surrendering and WE are not at war with iran those sailors had a strict ROE rule of engagment if they had beached those rules bye bye career and the reason why the US forces make so many mistakes is because they feel in every situation they have to respond with force those sailors did exaclty the right thing when faced with overwhelming odds and lived to tell the tail ,how many US personnel over the years have died needlessly because of false inbred patriotism ,the royal navy is repected around the world for not being trigger happy for not over reacting the wrong decission in that situation would have played directly into the hands of iran

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by micky1up

you clearly cant comprehend the difference between combatants and not combatants and that young officer will go far you dont know how the royal navy works at all they all will just for the PR

No, I don't think you comprehend. The workings of military are the same the world over, doesn't matter which flag flies. Time will tell who's right. I believe the powers that be will not/do not think highly of every one going on tv nor acting like they are at a party nor of allowing themselves to be stripped of their uniforms. Bright orange jump suits or nice suits there is no difference. It's sending a message.
I think placing the ship between the frieghter and Iranians would have stopped anything before it even started. I would assume the ship would have had radar and could see a cluster of Iranian boats.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I believe the law has been similar in the US for decades and is not a fabrication of Bush, nor Hitler for that matter.

Date of origin of the relevant ammandement: 17th octobre 2006.

Et tu, Skybird? Twisting words to suit your agenda? False but accurate?

What George Bush said in 1998 as governor of Texas and regarding the difficulties of governing Texas, was:

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier... So long as I'm the dictator.

I remember something from later times, when he was already president. I never took note of Bush when he still was in Texas.

-----

Oh, and look, after a longer time there is mickey again, throwing stones from inside the glass-house...

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Date of origin of the relevant ammandement: 17th octobre 2006.

So? The essential laws were already in place. They got toughened? I would think you're the last one here not to comprehend that there's a difference between the means and methods of said Nazi saboteurs versus today's Islamic ones.

I remember something from later times, when he was already president. I never took note of Bush when he still was in Texas.

Well, then, by all means document it, please.

Oh, and look, after a longer time there is mickey again, throwing stones from inside the glass-house...

Mickey's remarks are disgusting and have no place here.

But what "glass house" are you referring to? :hmm:

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

So? The essential laws were already in place. They got toughened? I would think you're the last one here not to comprehend that there's a difference between the means and methods of said Nazi saboteurs versus today's Islamic ones.

Et tu, AvonLady? Twisting words to suit your agenda? False but accurate?

I did not talk about Nazi saboteurs and islamists, I talked about the Gestapo being allowed to arbitrarily arrest whomever they wanted and being convered by valid laws concrning that.

I remember something from later times, when he was already president. I never took note of Bush when he still was in Texas.

Well, then, by all means document it, please. [/quote]

Yes, i may have seen a report or a news or a program or red this or that and here and there - and will remember every detail or sources and origins even years and decades later and for the rest of my life. ASWnuts tried the same on me some days ago. The fact that I cannot remeber if it was on ARD or ZDF, daily news or magazine, and what year, does not mean that I never have seen it. There is a world beyond the internet, you know. and as a matter fo fact we all, you included, spend most of our life with using and referring to knowledge that we gained - although we may no more remember when and how we gained it. That is absolutely the norm. In this reagrd, internet has severley limited what we perceive as reality, like TV before. It only is true if it is linked on the web. Well, if bush can claim the bright to arbitrarily arrest people and hold them unlimited times withoiut ever jusrtifiying by deeds and evidence that this is reasonable, then i can claim the right to refer to memories - even if I cannot refer to an internet source.

For example I also remember quite some stuff about stellar constelaltions and basic astronomy. But don't ask me how I gained that knowledge, and by what books.

Mickey's remarks are disgusting and have no place here.

But what "glass house" are you referring to? :hmm:

The history of postWWII interventions of his own country. Needless to say that I do not see that history as glamourous and sacred as he does.

For an end, I really can only wonder why it is so acceptable for many people if basic laws that are essential to prevent a justice system becoming arbitrarily are cut back more and more, and how it could be considered as an acceptable method if neither the legislative body of a nation nor the people, it's representatives and institutions are allowed to countercheck sentences and procedures that lead to these without ever showing evidence and proof. It also is unacceptable that it makes no more differences is a confession is being gained by the use or force and torture, or not. In the medieval, women confessed they were witches and practices black magic, only to escape further torture. what worth can have a confession have if it is being gained under thread of torture or unlimited imprisonment? It has zero value, none.

That part of the justice system that has been designed and tailored by Bush & Gang and led to the erection of Guantanamo camp, is completely beyond control. And that is extremely dangerous, and has striking similiarities wioth the rules by which the GeStapo or the StaSi were allowed to operate.

Not to accept this taking place is what separates "us" from "them". Giving in to the persuasion to allow it happening that we mimic the standards of "them" (because it appears to make our job of needing to prove accusations instead of taking an accusation as proof for a guilt) is what makes the differences between "us" and "them" disappearing. If we act by the rules "they" are living by - then we are not any better than they are. Instead we are becoming what they are. That is not only a shame, but also a rape of the ideals on which the US once has been founded, and by which they claimed for the better part of their young history that they set new standards of justice, freedom and democracy in the world: but since sometime after WWII, these claims are no longer justified. But nobody, including Nixon, helped to speed this detoriation so massively like Bush did.

Of course, medias and economical oligarchies need to be mentioned too. But that is a different thread.

[August]

Well if you think about it it's a lot easier to get things done in a dictatorship than a republic or democracy. In a democracy everything must be debated and argued over ad infinitum, often argued so much that nothing gets accomplished. Various factions support or oppose every action often for reasons that have little to do with it's true merit.

Not so in a dictatorship. Once he is convinced of the merit of a particular action the dictator just says "do it" and it is done, end of story. A far more efficient system.

The big problem however is getting a dictator who makes decisions in the interest of his entire people and that is what GB was talking about.

[The Avon Lady]

I had a huge reply to your last post, Skybird, but it went the way of my stalled browser session a few hours ago. I cannot be bothered to rewrite everything.

The bottom line is that I ask why is Bush like the Gestapo but not Roosevelt - or is he?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Getting back on topic

I think Britain should by all means re-open diplomacy with Iran, yet it should also keep its guard up and revise its Rules of Engagement system. I'm more than a little bit irritated that the UN and the EU were silent during this whole affair. I was under the impression that this was the main thing both of those organisations were combating, yet when the poopie hits the proverbial fan, they're nowhere to be found.

I've about had it with other countries crapping all over us Brits.

[Skybird]

AL,

since I did not compare Bush to the Gestapo, but compared certain new legal (or should I say: non-legal? ) procedures to the Gestapo, your question is pointless anyway and just destracts attention by trying to change interpretation of what I said.



August,

the problem is the same in monarchy as well as in democracy: how to prevent corruption of those in power. If you have a good, fair, reasonable, educated king/queen, it could be a blessing for the country, eventually. If he is a selfish egoist, or incompetent, he is a tyrant. Candidates to become kings usually receove special training and education far above the average in today's representative monarchies. Whereas in a democracy, comoetence is no criterion. If some fool has just the ability to moilze the masses in a speech, or is backed up by financial support so that he can "overkill" his rivals for an election by "out-shine him in the medias, eventually (and today: very often) the populistic opportunist with bad character and zero competence will win.

"Star Wars i-iii" showed the kingdom of naboo - where kings/queens get elected for some time by the people.

"Dune" by Frank Herbert describes all known univese ruled via feudal structures.

"Hellstrom's Hive" by Frank Herbert describe a total collective like in an insect state, where the interests of the the many totally dominate the fate of the one, and consumes any individuality. Which could be understood as the most absolute consequence of "democracy". It is surprising how democracy and totalitarianism can give an impression of beeing so very close in nature.

I believe that democarcy works best in smaller communities. For greater communities (don't aks me for the deciding criterion), I tend to believe that a democarcy will work so bad and tend so strictly to become a victim of oligarchies abusing it, that I slightly prefer to put my money on feudal structures. But whatever you prefer, the basic problem remains: the unreasonable and seflish basic attitude of man. Democracy functions by the basic assumption of man being reasonable, altruistic, and concerned about the well-being of the community, not just his own. Communism bases on much the same assumption. All three are highly vulnerable for failing for the very same reasons.

Makes you wonder if we really have changed at all over the last centuries and millenia. "There is nothing new under the sun - except what just has been forgotten." (some Spanish wise man, Santayana, maybe).

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

AL,

since I did not compare Bush to the Gestapo, but compared certain new legal (or should I say: non-legal? ) procedures to the Gestapo, your question is pointless anyway and just destracts attention by trying to change interpretation of what I said.

Want to play games? Here's the rephrased question, hopefully revised to your satisfaction:

Why are Bush's legal procedures like the Gestapo's but Roosevelt's weren't - or were they?

Lights out here. G'nite.

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

No, I don't think you comprehend. The workings of military are the same the world over, doesn't matter which flag flies. Time will tell who's right. I believe the powers that be will not/do not think highly of every one going on tv nor acting like they are at a party nor of allowing themselves to be stripped of their uniforms. Bright orange jump suits or nice suits there is no difference. It's sending a message.
I think placing the ship between the frieghter and Iranians would have stopped anything before it even started. I would assume the ship would have had radar and could see a cluster of Iranian boats.

really ive severd nearly 20 years in the royal navy they were paraded by the MOD in front of the cameras in the PR battle with iran and their small craft were armed only with machine guns the iranian had heavey caliber weapons the fight would have lasted 30 seconds with the royal navy crew dead WE are not at war with iran so fighting would have created a massive incident if not a war the crew's rules of engagemnet wouldnt allow for this incident because it was totally unexpected so the OIC (officer in charge) did exactly the right thing he prevented a major incident which may have led to war . you clearly have no concept of rules of engagement and the mandate that the royal navy is thier under , so in the end war was avoided the peraonnel are back unharmed , your way would have culminated in the deaths of many people


and PS the navies of the world are not the same at all we all have different policys strategys and backgrounds ive no doubt the US navy would have went in gung ho and lost its men as it has on so many occasions