John Ashcroft - Anyone who criticises the U.S government is a terrorist - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-12-2001, 10:54 PM   #16
The Fly
 
Hans Moleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Springfield, VD
Posts: 94
Local Time: 05:03 AM
If the obvious intent here is conviction, which seems to be the sentiment, why do we even go through with the trials? Why not just lock them up and/or kill them, rather than go through the motions of a trial, when it is clearly obvious that no one wants to chance a "not guilty" verdict in any capacity?

That seems to be the sentiment here. What are your thoughts?

~melon

------------------
"Oh no...my brains."
__________________

__________________
Hans Moleman is offline  
Old 12-12-2001, 11:01 PM   #17
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 09:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hans Moleman:
If the obvious intent here is conviction, which seems to be the sentiment, why do we even go through with the trials? Why not just lock them up and/or kill them, rather than go through the motions of a trial, when it is clearly obvious that no one wants to chance a "not guilty" verdict in any capacity.
For the exact same reason why we still have the Geneva Convention, the European Court of Human Rights and so on and so forth, when all the time powers such as the US and the Uk ignore them whenever it suits them; its a political farce. EVERYTHING in modern society, when it comes to justice, is about politics, and everything in politics inevitably ends up being a farce.

This feeling of 'going through the motions' is the essence of politics. These individuals are put on so-called trial so that political do-gooders and people with a conscience can rest peacefully at night knowing that everybody acted in a civilised and moral manner, despite the fact that the trial was over before it even started. The verdict was decided before the case was even presented.

Politics, everything serves the apetites of politics.

Ant.
__________________

__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 12-12-2001, 11:28 PM   #18
The Fly
 
Hans Moleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Springfield, VD
Posts: 94
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony:
EVERYTHING in modern society, when it comes to justice, is about politics, and everything in politics inevitably ends up being a farce.

Politics, everything serves the apetites of politics.
How's it going, Anthony? You seem especially embittered tonight. I hope everything is well out in the real world. Isn't it like 4:00 am in London??

Reality-wise, you are correct, and, perhaps, I was waiting for someone to finally admit to this before I would relent on my arguments. Hypocrisy is perhaps my greatest grievance with this world.

I cannot help but realize that I am, deep down, an incredible idealist. I'd like to think that everything could be solved in this world if we ever so tried, but the problem comes in that there are too many people with too many ideas of what is wrong and too many solutions--self-serving or ineffectual--that cloud it.

Despite progress, society is no different than it was thousands of years ago. We are a world constantly at war with each other, with the only interesting aberration on that record being the post-WWII fear of nuclear weaponry.

I am silly to believe that we can all get along, because we can't. We still, in too many ways, categorize people forever setting us apart: black or white, gay or straight, man or woman, liberal or conservative, married or single, Christian or non-Christian, saved or unsaved, etc. And somehow, in the greater scheme of things, we somehow believe that these divisions and subsequent wars, discrimination, and social supremacy please whatever Higher Being we all believe in, whether it be God or Allah or that internal force inside ourselves.

Put that in context with Middle Ages Christian tradition severely suspicious of anything pleasureful, which has, subconciously, set the pace for Western Christian religion, and we'll never see peace. We thrive on chaos. We thrive on others' misery, whether we like to believe it or not. How many people have looked at Sept. 11th as the "nation's return to God"? Of course, yet again, it is human nature to try to find purpose in anything, but should we? Is it ever enough to say that something should never have happened in the first place?

I really could go on, and I've studied the interworkings of religion and politics enough to know that nothing will ever change--and that includes my idealistic self. As soon as Bush became president and with recent so-called "pro-family" legislation that is fairly silently being planned in the midst of the media's obsession with "the war on terrorism," I have come to realize that I was a fool to think I could change anything. But, like the fool I am, I will continue to try, unhappy sitting at the sidelines, while the public is busy being placated with misinformation, the politicians taking advantage of unfortunate situations to further their own radical/reactionary agendas, and an organized Christian religion that is both implicitly contented and supportive of such tyranny.

Everything is a farce, we are powerless to change it, and we are all a part of it in one way or another, much to my own resignation against it.

~melon

------------------
"Oh no...my brains."
__________________
Hans Moleman is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 01:31 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 04:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hans Moleman:
If the obvious intent here is conviction, which seems to be the sentiment, why do we even go through with the trials? Why not just lock them up and/or kill them, rather than go through the motions of a trial, when it is clearly obvious that no one wants to chance a "not guilty" verdict in any capacity?

That seems to be the sentiment here. What are your thoughts?

~melon

Melon, if I may be crass for a moment...

We've already decided that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are guilty; that's why we're bombing them.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 03:15 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 04:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hans Moleman:
You have completely deflected my point. No, Dubya did not stage this war, but he is exploiting it to further his own agenda he would not likely get through otherwise.

~melon

I'm sure Bill Clinton would never dream of doing such a thing, if given the chance. Nor would any other red-blooded politician.
__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 03:28 AM   #21
The Fly
 
Hans Moleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Springfield, VD
Posts: 94
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
I'm sure Bill Clinton would never dream of doing such a thing, if given the chance. Nor would any other red-blooded politician.
Does this even matter??? In case you didn't notice, Bush is president now. We had a Supreme Court case to decide this, remember?

If FDR or JFK or Nixon or Clinton or Bush I/II or anyone else were doing this, I'd be opposed to it. But it is funny how Republicans do this quite often, and try to dismiss opponents as unpatriotic.

If you'd like, let me post the ideological differences:

1) liberal - opposed to social control, supports business control.
2) conservative - supports social control, opposes business control
3) libertarian - opposes social control, opposes business control
4) authoritarian - supports social control, supports business control

Bush is a conservative through and through, and so are all of his appointees. The FCC has decided to neglect all business regulations, while heightened content regulations, most recently with radio content. Ashcroft is content on letting Microsoft get off easy on the antitrust suit (he'd have dismissed it, if it weren't for the conviction that happened before he came to power), but has a record of social control measures--that's 1 reason why Ashcroft's appointment was attempted to be blocked by the Democratic Congress.

Clinton, on the other hand, was more libertarian in scope. How else could, under him, there have been so many gigantic mega-mergers? I was opposed to this part of Clinton, but he was better than Bush I or Bob Dole, whose 1996 tax plan was, after being analyzed with actual data figures, would have given the U.S. a $200 billion deficit, rather than the Clinton-era surpluses. And, somehow, Republicans are better presidents? I'm still waiting for one who isn't a total control freak on our personal lives, while also not neglecting our business laws so much, as virtually ensure that we have more virtual monopolies.

With all due respect, the "well, Clinton would have done it" argument is hollow in this circumstance. Quite honestly, I don't think he would have done this, but we don't know. And it doesn't matter. It is in the past.

~melon

------------------
"Oh no...my brains."

[This message has been edited by Hans Moleman (edited 12-12-2001).]
__________________
Hans Moleman is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 03:42 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 04:03 AM
ohhh melon, melon, melon. Your reaction was exactly as I expected. Save your breath. I'm not about to jump into this no-win debate, I just wanted to make a side point. My point being...all politicians are fickle and not opposed to using whatever circumstances come across their paths to reach political goals. Be they Republican or Democrat. End of point. You may now return to your regularly scheduled vitriol.
__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 05:40 AM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Hello,

There is still some great discussing about all this: is it a war (against a country) or not? Somehow, the question become less silly every day.
The first few days after the attack everyones feeling was of disbelief, sadness and revenge, of totally destroying everything even remotely related to the terrorists. Fortunately, the US government took its time to answer in a considerate way.
Now, other issues come into play.
- Insurance: who's going to repay for the damages of the attacks? If it truly is a war (as the US government says) then the insurance companies probably do not have to pay for it. Most insurances have a clause that the insurance is void in an act of war. So a war = no money. Is it a terrorist attack (my opinion) than that clause is not applicable and do the insurance companies have to pay.
- Trials: If it truly is an international conflict/war then maybe the UN should step in when trialing the enemy. They're already doing this for Ruanda and Yugoslavia, so why not add a court for Afghanistan. This will ensure an honest and open process where sentiments will not prevail (as it will when trialed for a military court: the military judges will have to judge persons who have attacked their country). Added bonus will be that the court will most likely be based in the Netherlands, relaying possible enemy attacks to that country instead of the USA.
If it is a terrorist attack, then the USA may handle it domestically when they have captured Bin Laden (there will be problems however when another country captures him. For instance, should the Brits capture Bin Laden than they do not want to extradite him to the USA unless they get the assurance that he will not get the death penalty). Even then, an open process may be the best option, as evidence will be clear to everyone. Also the root of hatred may get known, improving the chance of actually tackling that problem and truly make the world a safer place. This was done in Israel with the trial of Adolf Eichmann (on which there was an article this week in a paper here), where they put him publicly on trial to let the world known what had happened and that it should never happen again.

Hmm, war is dirty, war is ugly, war is not the answer and it is mighty difficult. Again, it is a nice subject where the opinions are so divided. However, I think that in the end the question of how to trial Bin Laden is not necessary as I don't think anyone will get him alive.

C ya!

Marty


------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 06:08 AM   #24
Refugee
 
Klodomir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,198
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn:
However, I think that in the end the question of how to trial Bin Laden is not necessary as I don't think anyone will get him alive.
I agree, but the tribunals are of course not only meant for Bin Laden, but also for killing off anyone else suspected of being involved in the terrorist attacks.

[This message has been edited by Klodomir (edited 12-13-2001).]
__________________
Klodomir is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 08:30 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 04:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klodomir:
I agree, but the tribunals are of course not only meant for Bin Laden, but also for killing off anyone else suspected of being involved in the terrorist attacks.
I'm a bit confused here. Are they meant for *all* suspects, or just those captured on the battlefield?
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 09:05 AM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer:
I'm a bit confused here. Are they meant for *all* suspects, or just those captured on the battlefield?
If I understand it correctly, all non US-citizens that are suspected regarding the terrorist attacks will be brought to the military court. So it is not just those captured on the battlefield (Afghanistan), but everybody linked to the attack and not being a US citizen.

Marty


------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 09:47 AM   #27
Refugee
 
Klodomir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,198
Local Time: 10:03 AM
It would work if the war was "backdated" to September 11, wouldn't it? If you view the attacks as the start of the war - and I'm sure the US government does, because otherwise it would mean that the US started the war - then the people responsible for those could be tried in the same way, no?
__________________
Klodomir is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 07:21 PM   #28
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 09:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hans Moleman:
You have completely deflected my point. No, Dubya did not stage this war, but he is exploiting it to further his own agenda he would not likely get through otherwise.

~melon

Holy shit.. how can you say that.?.. I think I just booted onto my computer keyboard, That's about as sick as teh Doonsbury Comic that Said the exact same thing.. Apparently you didn't come up with this sort of statement yourself... thousands of americans died at the hands of a merciless extremist.. Bush isn't exploiting anything for a little 'personal' gain.. That would be something clinton or gore would have done.. Bush just wants justice, he wants an end to this.. and it's just sick of you to make such a statement.
__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 07:40 PM   #29
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 560
Local Time: 04:03 AM
Quote:
Bush isn't exploiting anything for a little 'personal' gain.. That would be something clinton or gore would have done.. Bush just wants justice, he wants an end to this.. and it's just sick of you to make such a statement.
Trashing the Constitution at every possible oppertunity is not seeking "justice". And it is not "sick" to make vailid criticsm about the sorry performance of the U.S government in response to this tragedy.

[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 12-13-2001).]

[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 12-13-2001).]
__________________
DoctorGonzo is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 07:45 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 04:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
And it is not anything remotely "sick" to make vailid criticsm about the sorry performance of the U.S government in response to this tragedy.
Kind of a side topic perhaps, but I'm curious, so what the hell. I hear you complain quite a bit about the handling of the situation. In a best-case scenario, given the circumstances, what would YOU do if you were the President in this time? Curious to hear your ideas.
__________________

__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com