[John B. Smith]

Somebody please explain this to me. Why is it that liberals expend more energy whining about John Ashcroft and President Bush than Al-Queda?

[maxelson]

Ugly and useless generalization which is flawed and untrue. Nothing but flame bait.
This public service announcement brought to you by your friendly neighborhood independent voter. Here's a rash generalization for you: Party voters contribute to the general malaise of the country. Just like rash generalizations based on party lines.
Have a nice day.

[juanvaldes]

politicians who needs them.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by juanvaldes:
<STRONG>politicians who needs them.</STRONG>

Good Afternoon, Juan! All well on the "left" coast?

[Father OCN]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
<STRONG>Somebody please explain this to me. Why is it that liberals expend more energy whining about John Ashcroft and President Bush than Al-Queda?</STRONG>

Well, I don't think you'd find a cigar in the oval office now. Might be one reason they dig deep trying to find something flawed with John and George.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
<STRONG>Somebody please explain this to me. Why is it that liberals expend more energy whining about John Ashcroft and President Bush than Al-Queda?</STRONG>

What exactly would be the purpose of further "whining" about Al-Queda? Aren't we pretty much agreed they're the bad guys?

[cpt kangarooski]

Because the worst thing that terrorists appear to be able to do to us is blow up buildings or airplanes. That's pretty showy, but it passes in time.

The worst thing that people such as Ashcroft, or Bush, who appear to have little respect for the American tradition of democracy, free speech, just trials, the authority of Congress, and the Constitution and its limitations on governmental authority (heh -- where's a strict constructionist when you need one!) can have dramatic, long-lasting effects on the entire country.

Nixon got caught using dirty tricks, making tapes, and trying to evade authority and hide behind his office. The tarnish he left on the Presidency has persisted to this day. Reagan and Clinton were bad as well, in that respect. (though having happened once, it no longer surprised people)

The government's -- particularly the military and the executive branch -- willingness to pursue the Vietnamese War, and throw countless lives away trying to prop up a doomed tolitarian dictatorship tarnished them.

The revelations of the near-total disregard for law by the various US intelligence agencies (CIA with MKULTRA, NSA with Echelon, FBI under Hoover, etc.) has made them untrustworthy to very many Americans.

Do we respect the people who perpatrated the infamous Communist witch hunts? Hell, no. Does anyone appreciate the self-proclaimed protectors of public morality that passed Prohibition and basically empowered organized crime? No! Does anyone think that the invasion of Granada, or the constant interference by coup and assassination with local politics worldwide was respectable or proper? No!

In all of these cases, we granted authority and it was abused. Frankly, the American people have _rarely_ ever trusted the government. This is a tradition that dates back to before the Revolutionary War. We KNOW that power corrupts, and we have spent a long time trying to devise systems that make it difficult to abuse. This typically comes at a great cost in efficiency. But it's worth it. Most people would rather have the trains be late, than put up with a Mussolini who can make them run on time. (actually he didn't, that was propaganda, but you get the point)

Frankly, I have a FAR better chance of some monkey boy operating under some level of governmental authority, be he a National Guardsman toting an M16 around in an airport, or a jerk who lost to a DEAD MAN in an election in the midwest, infringing on my liberties, and stomping all over the Constitution, and establishing a precedent that such a thing is alright, and normal, and to be expected, or put up with, than I do of getting exploded. Hell, Israel is a police state already, and it's WORSE in that respect. This type of behavior makes enemies, it doesn't eliminate them!

Although I hate, as one of the first respondants to this thread, to ram straight into Godwin's Law, I'll make the comparison: When the Reichstaag burned in the 30's, the Nazis blamed it on the Communists. They used it as an excuse to solidify their power, and curtail liberties. Hitler assured the German people that it was only until the emergency passed.

As it happens, the emergency didn't pass until Allied troops took Berlin and Nuremberg.

I would _far_ rather take my chances with terrorists. They're safer. They're predictable. They don't have the most powerful country on Earth's military strength, police forces, intelligence forces, cowardly press, or spineless legislature backing them up.

America can do FAR worse than blow up buildings if you hand the keys over to even the most well-meaning of people. I wouldn't trust Mr. Rogers to be in Ashcroft's or Bush's position, and I _love_ Fred Rogers. These people want the keys to the country on a silver platter. We long ago took the keys, smashed them with a rock, melted them into slag, and have relied on trying to get a mob of hundreds of people to agree to all plug in the distributor and the spark plugs, put the tires back on, and jimmy the doors, all while backseat driving. It has given us one of the most stable countries around. Why **** with a winning formula? Are the miniscule short term gains possibly worth it? Good God, they're not.

Particularly if they're wrong to begin with. (Boy wouldn't we have egg on our faces if, say, the Northern Alliance had been responsible. Or a different terrorist organization. Or Israel. Or any of the countries in the area that wants some stability, or a chance of conquest. Or Americans. You haven't seen the proof that our government should have FALLEN over itself to provide -- you don't know.)

Note, by the way, that I'm not a Democrat. I don't think political parties are a good idea, and I can't stand the way that they charge taxpayers to run the primaries. I vote for individual candidates based on how much I trust them, and what their platforms are. I appreciate information (e.g. from the Center for Public Integrity) but I don't want anyone else trying to make choices for me. I'm an independent.

[John B. Smith]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>Because the worst thing that terrorists appear to be able to do to us is blow up buildings or airplanes. That's pretty showy, but it passes in time.

[blah blah blah]

I'm an independent.</STRONG>

You totally killed this post.. I wasn't asking about Vietnam or World War I or the Mr. Rogers Show.. now nobody else is going to opine because of you

[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: John B. Smith ]

[grok420]

hey kangarooski,

whew!! that had to have been building up for a while, eh?

feel better? i know i do. i enjoyed it thoroughly

very nicely done, even if you DID kill the thread.

[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: grok420 ]

[cpt kangarooski]

Aside from the Godwin's Law thing (which I think is justified here) what the hell did I do that's going to stop people from posting here? My unwillingness to join a political party, or vote along party lines surely can't have anything to do with it, can it?

What's your beef with me, Smith?

[keekeeree]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
<STRONG>

You totally killed this post.. I wasn't asking about Vietnam or World War I or the Mr. Rogers Show.. now nobody else is going to opine because of you

[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: John B. Smith ]</STRONG>

You ask for an explanation, and you got one. Or were you only looking for knee-jerk flame-bait oversimplifications?

Nice response cpt kangarooski.

[daimoni]

.

[John B. Smith]

Originally posted by daimoni:
<STRONG>:: daimoni high fives maxelson and cpt kangarooski ::

The thread hasn't been killed... it was dead on arrival.

Lose a turn. Try again.</STRONG>

Ok.

So is anybody going to answer the question at hand?

[cpt kangarooski]

Hadn't I? It's because both sides are dangerous to the people, their country and their government. Our government is structured so that everyone is accountable, so that any branch has some influence over any other branch (e.g. the courts can find some action of the Executive to be unlawful, and order them to stop; the Congress can prohibit it from being taken lawfully in the first place) and so that the other branches can exercise oversight upon the others.

What's really galling, what's really an example of chutzpah, is that Ashcroft is demanding unwaivering trust and loyalty, when the very foundation of our government is distrust of anyone in power.

(This isn't even a partisan thing. I think that it's merely the ability to exercise that amount of power. It screws up anyone who has it. It's like the real-world equivalent of the One Ring.)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: cpt kangarooski ]

[grok420]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
<STRONG>

Ok.

So is anybody going to answer the question at hand?</STRONG>

read Kangarooski's post again. Then read it again.

[zigzag]

Here's another interesting question: in light of recent events, why would John Ashcroft and George Bush waste federal resources interfering with a right-to-die statute in Oregon?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
<STRONG>Democrats: Who needs them?</STRONG>

Everyone. How would you know good without an evil to compare it to?

[Father OCN]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
<STRONG>

Everyone. How would you know good without an evil to compare it to?</STRONG>

Good, there still is hope!

[Father OCN]

How could we forget already.....

[Lerkfish]

why did the term "compassionate conservative" need to be created?

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:

<STRONG>What's really galling, what's really an example of chutzpah, is that Ashcroft is demanding unwaivering trust and loyalty, when the very foundation of our government is distrust of anyone in power.</STRONG>

Actually, what's really galling is the way military trubunals have suddenly become a threat to our fundamental liberties. Our military personel were already subject to trial before a military courts-martial long before the administration's critics saw an opportunity to turn this into a wedge issue. Now that Bush has given a green light to the prospect of using miltary tribunals to try foreign nationals, it's now a threat to our way of life.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<STRONG>

Actually, what's really galling is the way military trubunals have suddenly become a threat to our fundamental liberties. Our military personel were already subject to trial before a military courts-martial long before the administration's critics saw an opportunity to turn this into a wedge issue. Now that Bush has given a green light to the prospect of using miltary tribunals to try foreign nationals, it's now a threat to our way of life. </STRONG>

The Bush administration, which I know you adore beyond all reason, has clouded the debate by implying that "it's no different than the courts martial that we already have." Not true. If it were true, we wouldn't have to design and establish rules for a new military tribunal in the first place - we would just use the courts martial that we already have. The courts martial provide for a number of legal protections that are not being contemplated for the military tribunals.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the plan - I'm waiting for more details. But it's misleading for the administration to suggest that it's just a courts martial under a different name.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by zigzag:
<STRONG>
The Bush administration, which I know you adore beyond all reason, has clouded the debate by implying that "it's no different than the courts martial that we already have." Not true. If it were true, we wouldn't have to design and establish rules for a new military tribunal in the first place - we would just use the courts martial that we already have. The courts martial provide for a number of legal protections that are not being contemplated for the military tribunals.</STRONG>

Such as?

<STRONG>I'm not necessarily opposed to the plan - I'm waiting for more details. But it's misleading for the administration to suggest that it's just a courts martial under a different name.</STRONG>

You say you're waiting for more details and yet you are able to assert that it isn't a courts-martial. How do you do that? Clairvoyance? Courts-martial are military tribunals. Why wouldn't the same JAGs who run our courts-martial be also the ones to set up these new tribunals?

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
<STRONG>Somebody please explain this to me. Why is it that liberals expend more energy whining about John Ashcroft and President Bush than Al-Queda?</STRONG>

People like me need the Democrats to protect us from highly religious, right wing people like you, the Vatican, Opus Dei, the Moonies, the Scientologists, etc...

[zigzag]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<STRONG>Such as?</STRONG>

How's this:

On Dec. 4, retired Maj. Gen. Michael J. Nardotti Jr., former judge advocate general of the U.S. Army, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the differences between courts-martial and military tribunals.
The general believes the president has the authority to create military tribunals under the current situation. He testified, however, that to make the trials held by military tribunals fair, the tribunals should be modeled on the "principles and rules of procedures prescribed for courts-martial."
Here are some of the basic differences between the military tribunals as described by the president's order and courts-martial as governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice:
1. General courts-martial must have at least five members who act as a jury. They may be challenged by the defendant for cause or because they seem inclined to favor the prosecution. Military tribunals have only three members, none can be challenged.
2. The rules of evidence in courts-martial are the same as they are for federal courts. The president's order, however, states that in military tribunals, "it is not practicable to apply ... the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts."
3. In a courts-martial, the burden of proof for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt," the same as it would be in a federal or state criminal court. Not so in a military tribunal.
4. Under the UCMJ, an accused member of the armed forces has the right to examine the government's evidence and to cross-examine witnesses. The president's order for military tribunals states that evidence, which is classified information, will not be disclosed to the defendant.
5. All general courts-martial are public trials. The president's order allows some trials to be held in secret.
6. In capital crimes cases before courts-martial, a unanimous verdict is required for conviction and the jury panel must agree unanimously on the sentence of death. Military tribunals only require two-thirds of the jury panel to vote to convict and two-thirds vote for a death sentence.
7. In all convictions for serious crimes under courts-martial, appeal is automatic. There are three levels of appeal: the Courts of Criminal Appeals of the military services, the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces and the U.S. Supreme Court. Under the president's order, appeals are prohibited.

<STRONG>You say you're waiting for more details and yet you are able to assert that it isn't a courts-martial. How do you do that? Clairvoyance? Courts-martial are military tribunals. Why wouldn't the same JAGs who run our courts-martial be also the ones to set up these new tribunals?</STRONG>

By "waiting for more details", I meant that I'm waiting to see how the tribunal concept is actually implemented. The final rules have not yet been written. There are many people, including military, who are urging the administration to conduct the tribunals more like courts-martial. It's possible that the administration will act accordingly.

Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to the tribunals. But the debate should be forthright. Therefore, you may want to reconsider your original post: "Actually, what's really galling is the way military trubunals have suddenly become a threat to our fundamental liberties. Our military personel were already subject to trial before a military courts-martial long before the administration's critics saw an opportunity to turn this into a wedge issue. Now that Bush has given a green light to the prospect of using miltary tribunals to try foreign nationals, it's now a threat to our way of life. "

[cpt kangarooski]

Thanks, Zig.
So now it appears that the President can, if the proposal isn't modified:
*Order people to be tried in secret
*With judges that they cannot object to, even if grossly biased
*Without the ability to see evidence presented against you or which may be necessary to form an effective defense
*Where hearsay is acceptable evidence
*Where you cannot appeal
*Where you may be subject to execution

Wow. This is about on par with every petty dictatorship we've ever been opposed to. It isn't even SHAM justice. Frankly, I'd rather be on trial at Nurenberg than put up with this. But of course, merely speaking out against it may soon result in being subjected to this. Really, this is the sort of thing that was despised as far back as when this country was founded, and which led to no small number of safeguards against it in the Constitution, and in the state constitutions.

What's next? A Star Chamber? The People's Courts? The Stasi? Camps?

If in fact, the people who our home grown dictator wants to subject to this travesty are really guilty of what they're accused of... a proper, just court would yield the same result. No one can pretend to be interested in justice with this crap. It's revenge. It's a stacked deck which no one, even if they were Mother Theresa could win against. And like all other revenge, it won't actually make anything better.

[Father OCN]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>
So now it appears that the President can, if the proposal isn't modified:
*Order people to be tried in secret
*With judges that they cannot object to, even if grossly biased
*Without the ability to see evidence presented against you or which may be necessary to form an effective defense
*Where hearsay is acceptable evidence
*Where you cannot appeal
*Where you may be subject to execution
</STRONG>

WOW!!! You better make sure you pay your child support and alamony!

Here again, ppl are bringing out the exception and not the rule. These tribunals are a way to ensure that ppl do get a FAIR trial. Honestly, do you think UBL would get a fair trial here in the USA? Plus the means by which the govt can prove his guilt will still remain a secret, so they use those means to catch other terrorist. I wouldn't want to give our methods away, so future terrorist know how to cover up there tracks.

[Father OCN]

....oh btw, tribunals are NOT allowed on cititzens of the USA. So don't worry, you'll get sent to jail fair and square.

[dillerX]

This is a question that no one has ever been able to explain to me about politics.

How exactly can one who is for civil liberties also be for big government and loads of government regulation?

Those who try to hang on the fence, always get there shorts taken off by the barbed wire.

[Father OCN]

Originally posted by dillerX:
<STRONG>How exactly can one who is for civil liberties also be for big government and loads of government regulation?
</STRONG>

That is one hell of a question.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by dillerX:
<STRONG>This is a question that no one has ever been able to explain to me about politics.

How exactly can one who is for civil liberties also be for big government and loads of government regulation?

Those who try to hang on the fence, always get there shorts taken off by the barbed wire. </STRONG>

Well you see, by closely regulating every aspect of you life the government is actually protecting your civil liberties from being taken away by those who would seek to do so. Terrorists can't possibly take away our freedom's if the government had already done that. Obviously the best thing we could do is hand over our free will to the government for "safe keeping".

[Father OCN]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
<STRONG>

Well you see, by closely regulating every aspect of you life the government is actually protecting your civil liberties from being taken away by those who would seek to do so. Terrorists can't possibly take away our freedom's if the government had already done that. Obviously the best thing we could do is hand over our free will to the government for "safe keeping".</STRONG>

To use Cpt. Kangarooski's line:

Wow. This is about on par with every petty dictatorship we've ever been opposed to.

[anarkisst]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>People like me need the Democrats to protect us from highly religious, right wing people like you, the Vatican, Opus Dei, the Moonies, the Scientologists, etc...</STRONG>

People like me need the Republicans to protect us from highly religious, left wing people like you, or the Taliban, PLO/Hamas, the JDL, the Enviro-Terrorists, Drug Addicts and Pushers, Left Wing Idiots (Berkely), etc...

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by anarkisst:
<STRONG>

People like me need the Republicans to protect us from highly religious, left wing people like you, or the Taliban, PLO/Hamas, the JDL, the Enviro-Terrorists, Drug Addicts and Pushers, Left Wing Idiots (Berkely), etc... </STRONG>

So go and kiss Dubya's backside and let me smoke my weed in peace.

[cpt kangarooski]

OCN--
Excuse me, I'm not sure if I heard you quite right: you're saying that by giving people trials that are inherently biased, which don't even make an attempt at being just, which fully contravert every principle of law and justice we hold dear... that we are providing fair trials?

Oh, no. In fact, not just no, but HELL NO.

McVeigh got a fair trial here. Murderers with less humanity to them than Bin Laden (very possible -- he doesn't seem to be a sadist) get fair trials. There are hundreds and hundreds of federal judges who make it their business DAILY to set aside their personal opinions and act impartially. There are thousands and thousands of judges at all levels who do so. They have to, it's their job. (and when they can't or might even be seen as being unable to do so, they recuse themselves)

That line of argument is nothing but unadulterated bullshit.

Furthermore, EVEN IF evidence used by the government cannot be revealed to the general public for security reasons, which I STRONGLY DOUBT, given the track record of the government in constantly classifying anything that's embarrassing to them, e.g. the Pentagon Papers, that has NOTHING to do with not making it available to the defendant!

If he did it -- having acess to the evidence won't let him off the hook! If he didn't -- do you really think he's going to help others? Do you think that we can't safeguard our security even a little better than that? Do you think that when people are tried for espionage that the secrets cannot still be kept?

If the police barged in to your house, arrested you, and put you on trial, would you think it fair that they can say "He's a murderer" and never even tell you who you are accused of murdering, when you did, by what means, etc.? It is a total mockery of justice. Ordinary criminals are MORE JUST than the criminals who would create such trials, because at least when you get robbed on the street the robber doesn't call it justice!

As for this only being used on foreigners, that's irrelevant. Firstly, because where it is ever implemented at all, it does not take long to convince people to further dismantle our government and apply it domestically. It's a frog in a frying pan sort of thing, and it works. It's been done before. But secondly, justice is not a concept limited to our own citizenry. It must be applied indiscriminately. We have nothing to fear from acting in a proper, just, fashion. NOTHING.

Those who would claim otherwise are not interested in justice for anyone.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
[QB]OCN--

McVeigh got a fair trial here. Murderers with less humanity to them than Bin Laden (very possible -- he doesn't seem to be a sadist) get fair trials. QB]

McVeigh and Jeffrey Dalmer were WHITE! Don't you get it? A terrorist from another country with brown skin is not seen in the same eyes by American leaders and policy makers. Just because the cowboys eventually put suits on doesn't mean they suddenly lost their racism.

[nana2]

Just put all those brown boys to sleep and get it over with

[usedmac]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

People like me need the Democrats to protect us from highly religious, right wing people like you, the Vatican, Opus Dei, the Moonies, the Scientologists, etc...</STRONG>

I find this post extremely offensive. I am a Republican and yet I don't go to church. Are all Republicans to you deeply religious people that want to turn the US into a Christian state? It seems as though you are another one of the thousands of poorly informed Democrats that like to blame us for every thing that's wrong in the world.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by usedmac:
<STRONG>

I find this post extremely offensive. I am a Republican and yet I don't go to church. Are all Republicans to you deeply religious people that want to turn the US into a Christian state? It seems as though you are another one of the thousands of poorly informed Democrats that like to blame us for every thing that's wrong in the world.</STRONG>

Hey dude, everytime the Rape-ublicans are in power the world gets seriously screwed up and the puppets you create and do business with suddenly, and conveniently, start behaving badly. Funny. Suharto, Pinochet, Hussein, Bin Ladin and many others are all products of the Republican administration working with the military and secret services.

Let's make some bets. In which nations will the next round of dictators be installed in? Somalia? Afghanistan? Iraq? Pakistan? All of them?

[cpt kangarooski]

Of course, (and remember, I loathe political parties on general principles -- I'm not on either side) Wilson, FDR and Truman rebuffed Ho Chi Mien when we had the opportunity to help guide what's now Viet Nam into being a much more stable, free society along the lines of Japan by supporting their independence movement. (not to say MacArthur was pure gold for Japan, but he did an acceptable job in the end. Just not great, e.g. the criminal justice system)

Kennedy's CIA was a bunch of loonies, largely with Castro on the brain. Not to mention those recently unearthed plans approved by the JCS to spark a war there by having the US military engage in terrorist acts against US civilians. (including, eerily, crashing planes into US cities)

Truman didn't do all that well with Russia, North Korea, or China, and we're paying for a lot of that now. LBJ got us more embroiled in Viet Nam than Kennedy had, and it finally fell to Nixon to withdraw. Carter's foreign policy wasn't very strong, IIRC. I'll decline to comment on Clinton -- he was too recent, and we can't see all the repercussions of his policies yet.

Generally though, I think that being in a Cold War mentality is what produced the US's reprehensible support of dictators over the last many years, regardless of party. Of course, before that, it was big business, with our creation of Banana Republics, the forcible and illegal annexation of Hawaii, our involvement with Panama....

Generally, even since its inception, the US has been supremely crappy at promoting democracy, freedom, justice and liberty abroad, save by example. Virtually any time we interfere, we screw it up if we were trying to do good, or we do evil and try to justify it to ourselves.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by zigzag:
<STRONG>

The Bush administration, which I know you adore beyond all reason, has clouded the debate by implying that "it's no different than the courts martial that we already have." Not true. If it were true, we wouldn't have to design and establish rules for a new military tribunal in the first place - we would just use the courts martial that we already have. The courts martial provide for a number of legal protections that are not being contemplated for the military tribunals.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the plan - I'm waiting for more details. But it's misleading for the administration to suggest that it's just a courts martial under a different name.</STRONG>

Coming in late, but I'd like to just put a personal spin on that one.
I work on a military base. I KNOW that while I am on the base, I have no rights. They want to search, they can. They want to detain me? They can. They want to monitor the fact that I am posting here now? Hell, they probably are. I voluntarily signed up for this. I made the decision to work here. I did not have to. Second I am off base, I am a private citizen again. I may not be ureasonably searched, etc, etc.
But, as I said, this was my choice. I KNEW the restrictions and risks going in.
My problem with using tribunals and the like is where does it stop? Am i to trust that these will be used strictly in the way thaey say they will be? How would I know? THEY'RE SECRET. When you listen to Ashcroft, he makes it sound as if it is criminal to critisize the very idea. That offended the shite out of me. IT IS MY JOB as an AMERICAN to QUESTION EVERYTHING these people do. They EARNED the distrust of the general populace (of course, we also generally accept and brush off the fact that we will be lied to and spun out of sight). Did they do and do they continue to do nothing to deserve it?
My problem with this is this: they say is is a necessary step. The next step will also be "necessary". So. What next? Another attack and martial law is declared? This kind of unilateralism makes me very uncomfortable. What makes me truly squeemish is the fact that the administration continually says "this is not as big a deal as folks make it out to be". I am sorry. I listened for hours to Ashcroft describe what will happen. Yes, it IS that big a deal.

[Millennium]

The problem I have with the military tribunals can be summed up in one quote from Dick Cheney: "Terrorists don't deserve a fair trial."

How do you know they're terrorists until you've tried them? Simple: these tribunals will work under presumption of guilt, not presumption of innocence. You cannot have a fair trial under such conditions.

I don't care at all about bin Laden's rights, except in the idea that no one deserves more rights than those which the least among us has. What they do to him, they can justify doing to anyone else. And if that means bin Laden doesn't get what he deserves, then so be it, if it keeps others from getting what they don't deserve.

Though frankly, it being a war and all, I say we dispense with the trials completely (seeing as we already have a confession from him; there is no longer any doubt at all concerning his guilt) and just off the bastard. Yeah, it'd probably be quicker and easier than he ought to get, but it keeps these problems out of the way. Besides, do you really think bin Laden would get one of these military-tribunal trials anyway? Heck no. They're not for him. He'll get something worse, no matter what, if he's captured alive. So spare us all the trouble.

[shmerek]

George Bush and John Ashcroft are a greater threat to your civil liberties than OBL. A couple of budding facists.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by shmerek:
<STRONG>George Bush and John Ashcroft are a greater threat to your civil liberties than OBL. A couple of budding facists.</STRONG>

I'd say Ashcroft is the real threat. Bush, I honestly beliefe, doesn't understand what he is doing; it wouldn't be the first time. Ashcroft is another matter entirely.

However, I find myself glad that they're the ones in power. Namely, because both Gore and Nader would have been even worse in a situation like this, if their own platforms are any indication.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>The problem I have with the military tribunals can be summed up in one quote from Dick Cheney: "Terrorists don't deserve a fair trial."
</STRONG>

They should just drop the pretense of a trial and do what Israel does with its assassinations at least it would be a more honest approach to what they would be doing.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: shmerek ]

[Myrkridia]

Politics is too much of a head ache. Just have total anarchy and be happy.