Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 11, 2003, 10:39 PM

Not really political. I just find this bizarre comment amusing.

[General Clark on th Chris Matthews show]

MATTHEWS: General, do you think Osama bin Laden, if we catch him, when we catch him, should be tried here at the U.S. or in the Hague, the international court?
_ _ _ _CLARK: I would like to see him tried in the Hague, and I tell you why. I think it�s very important for U.S. legitimacy and for building other support in the war on terror for trying them in the Hague,e under international law with an international group of justices, bringing witnesses from other nations. Remember, 80 other nations lost citizens in that strike on the World Trade Center. It was a crime against humanity, and he needs to be tried in international court.
_ _ _ _MATTHEWS: Well, 3,000 Americans were killed here. Do you believe he should be held exempt from capital punishment, because if you send him to Hague he will be. They don�t have capital punishment at the Hague.
_ _ _ _CLARK: I think that�s a separate issue. I think that�s a separate issues.
_ _ _ _MATTHEWS: No, it�s a key issue, because the sentencing limitation, they do not execute people at the Hague.
_ _ _ _CLARK: I think that you can adequately punish Osama bin Laden, and you�ve got to look beyond simple retribution against an individual. You have to look at what�s in the long-term security interest in the security in America and you have to look at how we handle the war on terror from here on out.
_ _ _ _MATTHEWS: But doesn�t life in Holland beat life in a cave?
_ _ _ _CLARK: Not in a Dutch prison. Chris, they�re under water, they�re damp, they�re cold, they�re really miserable.

Link

Under water?

P.S. Somebody should explain to both matthews and Clark that no court in "the Hague" would have jurisdiction. The closest is the ICC, but that was not in force on 9/11 and does not have retroactive jurisdiction.

BRussell · Dec 11, 2003, 11:09 PM

I heard that too. I kinda went "huh?" But I find myself saying that quite a bit when I listen to Clark.

ThinkInsane · Dec 12, 2003, 01:41 AM

That's what I like about Clark. He's quite insane. Kinda like Ross Perot without the jug-handles.

theolein · Dec 12, 2003, 03:45 AM

FWIW, both Matthews and Clark were kind of lax on details. Matthews referred to 3000 Americans dying straight after Clark talked about 80 nations losing people in the attack. The latest statistics talk of around 2800 deaths and with around 80 nations losing people in that attack (Britain 67, Germany 11 ...) and if one assumes around an average of 5 people dead from each of those 80 countries that would still make 400 people. This means that about 2400 Americans dies there, if one wants to be pedantic about it.

And Clark was both right and wrong. Dutch prisons (and a lot of other buildings as well for that matter) are in fact "under water" in that they are below sea level (dikes anyone?), but I seriously doubt that Dutch prisons are damp and squallid.

voodoo · Dec 12, 2003, 04:15 AM

Seeing as the Netherlands are under sea level... (Holland being above) I'd say there is a great chance that a Dutch prison is "underwater".

I like this Clark guy.

Powerbook · 07:20 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

P.S. Somebody should explain to both matthews and Clark that no court in "the Hague" would have jurisdiction. The closest is the ICC, but that was not in force on 9/11 and does not have retroactive jurisdiction.

It is indeed the ICC that's in Den Haag, Netherlands. When talking about the Hague, people are usually having the ICC in mind.

PB.

Added the link http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/show.php?id=history

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 12, 2003, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by theolein:
FWIW, both Matthews and Clark were kind of lax on details. Matthews referred to 3000 Americans dying straight after Clark talked about 80 nations losing people in the attack. The latest statistics talk of around 2800 deaths and with around 80 nations losing people in that attack (Britain 67, Germany 11 ...) and if one assumes around an average of 5 people dead from each of those 80 countries that would still make 400 people. This means that about 2400 Americans dies there, if one wants to be pedantic about it.

If you want to be pedantic about it, you have to include Washington, DC, and the plane crash in Pennsylvania. Your numbers are only for New York.

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 12, 2003, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Powerbook:
It is indeed the ICC that's in Den Haag, Netherlands. When talking about the Hague, people are usually having the ICC in mind.

PB.

Right, but the Rome Statute has no retroactive jurisdiction. So it could never try anyone for 9/11.

voodoo · Dec 12, 2003, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Right, but the Rome Statute has no retroactive jurisdiction. So it could never try anyone for 9/11.

Sure it could. If amendments for special circumstances would have to be made then they'd have to be made.

Welcome to politics wannabelawyer.

theolein · Dec 12, 2003, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If you want to be pedantic about it, you have to include Washington, DC, and the plane crash in Pennsylvania. Your numbers are only for New York.

Mmmm. I have the feeling this could be the pedantic-post-that-touches-of-the-flamewar type of thing. Does it matter? Even with DC and PA it wouldn't have been 3000. The point is that they were arguing very much along the lines of what everyone here on MacNN argues along: Pedantic nonsense backed up by incorrect facts twisted in order to suit their own prejudices. You do it, I do it, everyone does it here. It's why MacNN always revolves around the same old questions and never actually gets anywhere apart from onto others' ignore lists from time to time.

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 12, 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by theolein:
Mmmm. I have the feeling this could be the pedantic-post-that-touches-of-the-flamewar type of thing. Does it matter? Even with DC and PA it wouldn't have been 3000. The point is that they were arguing very much along the lines of what everyone here on MacNN argues along: Pedantic nonsense backed up by incorrect facts twisted in order to suit their own prejudices. You do it, I do it, everyone does it here. It's why MacNN always revolves around the same old questions and never actually gets anywhere apart from onto others' ignore lists from time to time.

I don't have the figures on me but it is around 3000 if you include the 180 or so killed in the Pentagon and the plane that crashed into it, and the people killed in the Pennsylvania crash. Bu it is common for people to forget that and just use the New York numbers. Even here in Washington, people tend to do that because of the enormity of the New York losses.

You are correct that the New York numbers were adjusted downward by a handful recently. There was never firm proof of who exactly was in the buildings at the time (unlike the Pentagon, where each employee is tracked in). In a couple of cases, the numbers were simply off because people who were thought to be in there weren't. In a couple of cases, sadly, it was because of fraudulent claims for compensation. It unbelievable that some people would claim to have lost family members just to get money. But it happened.

Anyway, although I don't have the exact total handy, the number is just a hair under 3000. Certainly close enough for the commonly-rounded figure to be perfectly appropriate. It's not something that anyone needs to get pedantic over. When someone says "3000" we all know that the number wasn't exactly 3000.

As for Clark's "under water" comment. Yes, I know what he meant. But it is still a strange thing to say. Has the Netherlands' ambassador complained yet about him maligning Dutch prisons?

theolein · Dec 12, 2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't have the figures on me but it is around 3000 if you include the 180 or so killed in the Pentagon and the plane that crashed into it, and the people killed in the Pennsylvania crash. Bu it is common for people to forget that and just use the New York numbers. Even here in Washington, people tend to do that because of the enormity of the New York losses.

You are correct that the New York numbers were adjusted downward by a handful recently. There was never firm proof of who exactly was in the buildings at the time (unlike the Pentagon, where each employee is tracked in). In a couple of cases, the numbers were simply off because people who were thought to be in there weren't. In a couple of cases, sadly, it was because of fraudulent claims for compensation. It unbelievable that some people would claim to have lost family members just to get money. But it happened.

Anyway, although I don't have the exact total handy, the number is just a hair under 3000. Certainly close enough for the commonly-rounded figure to be perfectly appropriate. It's not something that anyone needs to get pedantic over. When someone says "3000" we all know that the number wasn't exactly 3000.

As for Clark's "under water" comment. Yes, I know what he meant. But it is still a strange thing to say. Has the Netherlands' ambassador complained yet about him maligning Dutch prisons?

Simey,I don't think you need to fall into the same trap as the rest of the gang here in taking some statement and turning it into a burning bush (pun intended) do you?

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 12, 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by theolein:
Simey,I don't think you need to fall into the same trap as the rest of the gang here in taking some statement and turning it into a burning bush (pun intended) do you?

You mean Clark's statement? I just thought it was amusing. Maybe also a little hot-headed. But mainly amusing.

BRussell · Dec 12, 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
That's what I like about Clark. He's quite insane. Kinda like Ross Perot without the jug-handles.

Ugh. Those jug-handles were probably the most endearing thing about him.

Now that Lieberman has almost fully imploded, Clark is probably the last best hope of us "anyone but Dean" Democrats.

yakkiebah · Dec 12, 2003, 03:09 PM

"huh?" was went through my head when i saw this thread.

Common, isn't it clear they were joking? A funny question followed by a funny answer, nothing's really bizarre about it.

Clark for president

thunderous_funker · Dec 12, 2003, 03:31 PM

I find it telling that Clark felt bullied into a position where he had to try and justify an international trial against OBL by suggesting that OBL would suffer cruel and inhumane conditions in jail.

I think Mathew's line of questioning is clearly aimed at putting him in that spot and Clark fell for it. Not a good moment for the general.

So, do Americans really feel that the only justice for OBL is death or some kind of cruel dungeon?

ThinkInsane · Dec 12, 2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
Ugh. Those jug-handles were probably the most endearing thing about him.

Now that Lieberman has almost fully imploded, Clark is probably the last best hope of us "anyone but Dean" Democrats.

Not just for you "anyone but Dean" Dems, but for us Republicans that want an alternative to GWB.

kvm_mkdb · Dec 12, 2003, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I find it telling that Clark felt bullied into a position where he had to try and justify an international trial against OBL by suggesting that OBL would suffer cruel and inhumane conditions in jail.

Exactly.

Dutch prisons have the highest comfort standards, but let's not forget that people in jail are deprived of freedom - by itself the greatest possible punishment for a human being.

theolein · Dec 13, 2003, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Not just for you "anyone but Dean" Dems, but for us Republicans that want an alternative to GWB.

I have known it for quite a while, what with your occasional comments about how you would love to post your real thoughts and feelings but were constrained as a mod, and I knew that you are at least fairly conservative, but I have a problem with that statement.

It's not just you alone but anyone who deosn't see any problem in using words like "you" for the so called one party and "us" for the other.

What happens when you have your own ideas that fit neither into one party or the other? What happened to being an individual capable of independant thought? Doesn't that worry you?

Spheric Harlot · Dec 13, 2003, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by theolein:
I have known it for quite a while, what with your occasional comments about how you would love to post your real thoughts and feelings but were constrained as a mod, and I knew that you are at least fairly conservative, but I have a problem with that statement.

It's not just you alone but anyone who deosn't see any problem in using words like "you" for the so called one party and "us" for the other.

What happens when you have your own ideas that fit neither into one party or the other? What happened to being an individual capable of independant thought? Doesn't that worry you?

To be fair, he was responding to BRussell, who described himself as one of "us 'anyone but Dean' Democrats".

-s*

ThinkInsane · Dec 13, 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by theolein:
I have known it for quite a while, what with your occasional comments about how you would love to post your real thoughts and feelings but were constrained as a mod, and I knew that you are at least fairly conservative, but I have a problem with that statement.

It's not just you alone but anyone who deosn't see any problem in using words like "you" for the so called one party and "us" for the other.

What happens when you have your own ideas that fit neither into one party or the other? What happened to being an individual capable of independant thought? Doesn't that worry you?

Like SH stated, I was referring to the comment about 'anyone but dean dems', and added that for people like myself, who are registered republican, Clark offers an appealing alternative to the sitting President. I don't think GWB is as bad as many like to portray him, but there are something�s I don't care for in the current administration, first and foremost, AG Ashcroft.

Even if all the ulterior motives assigned to Bush by critics at home and abroad are pure fallacy, just that perception is enough to limit his effectiveness, cause more derision at domestically, and more conflict and damage to relations internationally. Given that, I feel that it is probably in the best interest of this country to get someone else in office. I don't subscribe to the 'anyone but Bush' logic, but I would cast my vote for Gen. Clark if he makes it onto the ballot.

I have stated before that there are something�s I am rather conservative on, such as economics and the military, and there are others that I am rather liberal on, such as health care and education. Although I am registered Republican, I don't toe the party line. I vote my conscience, I think moderation is key to bringing some semblance of normalcy and prosperity to this country.

theolein · Dec 13, 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Like SH stated, I was referring to the comment about 'anyone but dean dems', and added that for people like myself, who are registered republican, Clark offers an appealing alternative to the sitting President. I don't think GWB is as bad as many like to portray him, but there are something�s I don't care for in the current administration, first and foremost, AG Ashcroft.

Even if all the ulterior motives assigned to Bush by critics at home and abroad are pure fallacy, just that perception is enough to limit his effectiveness, cause more derision at domestically, and more conflict and damage to relations internationally. Given that, I feel that it is probably in the best interest of this country to get someone else in office. I don't subscribe to the 'anyone but Bush' logic, but I would cast my vote for Gen. Clark if he makes it onto the ballot.

I have stated before that there are something�s I am rather conservative on, such as economics and the military, and there are others that I am rather liberal on, such as health care and education. Although I am registered Republican, I don't toe the party line. I vote my conscience, I think moderation is key to bringing some semblance of normalcy and prosperity to this country.

Hope I didn't give you the impression that I was attacking you. I was mererly curious as to your opinions that you had been hinting at recently.

Ayelbourne · Dec 13, 2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Even if all the ulterior motives assigned to Bush by critics at home and abroad are pure fallacy, just that perception is enough to limit his effectiveness, cause more derision at domestically, and more conflict and damage to relations internationally. Given that, I feel that it is probably in the best interest of this country to get someone else in office.

How nicely put. That is exactly how I feel at this point in the story. What a pity you feel "constrained" from posting more often... it is we who are missing out.

ThinkInsane · Dec 13, 2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by theolein:
Hope I didn't give you the impression that I was attacking you. I was mererly curious as to your opinions that you had been hinting at recently.

Those opinions are mostly just the inability to call people being pretentious a-holes, well, pretentious a-holes. That sometimes takes a lot of tongue biting, as in real life I am pretty out spoken and quick to point out such pretensions.

And too be fair, I have no complaints when people point out my own pretensions, as I do have a few. I'm only human, and Irish to boot. You know how it goes...