Marijuana.com

dedbr

The Afghan government was asked repeatedly to turn over bin laden to us.They refused and said they would if we showed them the proof we had that he was responsible.Put that in a real world perspective..What if a criminal was in another country,having fled the U.S. for bank robbery,and the government of that country said they wanted to see the proof before they allowed him to be extradited back for trial?We would laugh at the stupidity of that request,wouldn't we?Hells fire son,thats the reason we are wanting him,to put him on trial ,for the whole world to see if need be,the evidence that we have.If he's not guilty,and we can't prove his guilt,we will let him go.Thats what happens in the real world,if you are not guilty,you are set free.
The Taliban refused to do what any other nation in the world would of done,turn him over!And as far as the innocent people of the country who are being hurt or killed in the war,who cares?I didn't see them crying over our loses,so screw them!
It was asked in this thread what the motives were.Lets first see what that word means;it means something that causes a person to act.I can tell you short and simply what they were,how about fear and protection?Fear that these fools were going to do it again and hurt more more innocent people,so we did it to protect ourselves.Now for you low I.Q. members of the audience,lets put that in simple terms too.Suppose someone came into my house and hurt my family,or even simpler,kicked my dog?Should I just let him go so he can come back later to do it again?Hell no,and none of us would let him either,so don't dispute that.I am going to do everything in my power to stop him when he tries it,and definately going to make sure he doesn't do it again.If he has some friends with him when I catch up to him,they can either get out of the way or suffer the consequences,screw em!I am going to do what ever is neccesary to make sure he stops!You would too!


It is true to say that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter,but to call us or our side terrorists is simply childish and immature.We didn't start this!Osama and Al Queida did.And Bush did the right thing by trying to protect his house and his dog,and it is what any normal person would do!None of us are going to allow someone to repeatedly hurt us or our families without trying to do something about it,or stop it all together!
Someone else said that it all boiled down to power and oil.Where in the hell is all this oil we are getting for stopping this madman and his henchman?Where is the power?All you hear from the man in charge of the country now is won't we please maintain a military presence and could we help him rebuild his country.We sure are getting a lot of oil and power from them,huh?
Here's my personal opinion;we should of went over there and kicked their butts when they started destroying the buddhist temples.Any religious group who is so insecure that they have to destroy inanimate objects to maintain their ideal of what religion is all about is surely on the path not to enlightenment,but merely a bunch of loonies with weapons.

__________________
Sometimes you can cut your own throat with your tongue.....
So remember to check out our most wonderful Posting Guidelines!

 

Niteshift

Skot,

Your long, reasonably well written reply, it based on an incorrect theory: "Under the Constitution, treaties are regarded as the "supreme law of the land."

WRONG! The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Treaties can be and are broken. Even if the President and the Congress ratify a treaty, the Supreme Court can over-ride it. NEVER, EVER will an agreement with a foreign government take precedence over our own Constitution (at least it shouldn't under the current system).

Also, UN membership is VOLUNTARY. We can withdraw at any time. We can be kicked out (as they threatened to do if we didn't pay our dues). Personally, I'd like to see us pull out of the UN, but that's a seperate issue.

So, despite your arguement, I stand by my contention and see no reason to change it.

"So as you can see, the US had a legal as well as moral obligation to pursue those responsible through international means, like the UN and World Court."

See above.

"The idea that the US has "kissed the ass" of the UN under Clinton(or any other president for that matter) is absolutely ridiculous."

Bull! Clinton kissed their collective butts royally (probably hoping to be Secretary General in the future), including doing what was once considered unthinkable, putting US troops under UN command. This move led to the deaths of troops in Somolia.

I'll have to finish my reply to your post later. Duty calls.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

Skot Head

The reference to stupidity in asking for proof before extradition is crazy. Do you expect other nations, who see and feel the effects of the way power manipulates humanity, to just trust the Bush Administration and turn over whoever it deems guilty? The US wouldn't do that if some other country were asking for proof before extradition. Providing proof is a cornerstone of justice and is very necessary. It helps to protect the innocent from unnecessary punishment. The idea that bin Laden and company will recieve a fair trial and be set free if not guilty is wrong. Bush and his henchmen have already made it clear that civil liberties and due process will be waived in the military tribunals that they have in mind. Just think about it. Why not give those being tried a fair trial? If there is sufficient evidence that they are guilty then they will be found guilty and recieve punishment; if not then they should be set free. Anything else is not justice, but rather a total disregard for human rights.

As a matter of fact, Cuba(I believe it was Cuba) called on the US to extradite terrorists who murdered and terrorized in that region, and the US rejected and never even considered complying with the extradition requests. That was WITH evidence of guilt provided to the US. The reason that the US would not comply is because the parties that were being called out were allies of the US. Individuals who terrorized, but were supported by the US because they "toed the line" so to speak. People who helped the powerful achieve their goals, and therefore earned special priviledge. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours...especially if you don't step on my toes...even if I am strangling you (although the people being stangled are the general population, not the elites)...you still do not step on my toes. I think that basically captures the scope of the way the privileged minority controling this country view the world.

The innocent people who died in Afghanistan were just that...inocent people. Just like the people who were killed in the World Trade Center. The people in Afghanistan had nothing to do with the extremists who commited the atrocities of sept. 11th. We are talking about underpriviledged and oppressed people whose only crime was occupying the area that the United States decided to drop bombs on. Causing their deaths is wrong, and instead of bringing justice(as the Bush Admin. would have you believe) it is binging about injustice. Immoral injustice. There is just no excuse for that.

When the man who kicked in the hypothetical door that you mentioned escapes, do you set a whole neighborhood on fire, ignoring innocent civilians, and feel justified because you are confident that you will get him? Especially when other actions can be taken to ensure that it doesn't happen again (strengthening your door, etc...). Or do you pursue the matter through the police? I think that the answer is clear.

Now on to Al Qaeda. Yes bin Laden and Al Qaeda were probably responsible for the attacks on 9/11; but we did start this. We supported, armed and trained the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets (another example of US backed terrorism, since the area was destroyed and the people were manipulated to achive the goals of the US imperialists). Our CIA helped to spread the fundamentalist, mind-controling disease that now devistates that area. The Mujahideen regime lead to the Taliban, so US foreign policy does bear some responsibility for what happened. Am I making excuses for the highjackers of sept.11 and their associates? No. Those people need to be punished. But law should not be ignored, innocent people should not be murdered, civil liberties should not be attacked, the Constitution should not be undermined, and responsibility should not be ignored. People should take a look at the roots of problems instead of pursuing reactionary agendas which in the end create more problems, such as in the "war on terrorism." Do you really think that terrorism can be eliminated with more terrorism? Can we bomb predjudice and hate out of people or will we only worsen the situation? Again, I think that the answer is obvious.

Childish to not question the people who make decisions for you? I think that it is foolish not to. To turn a blind eye to what your country is doing because you have been propagandized throughout your whole life to believe that everything that the US does is moral and right, is very dangerous. It is the type of mindset that has fueled countless humanitarian disasters in this world, such as the crimes of the Nazis in Germany.

Loonies with guns? We sold the guns to them and taught them how to kill and propagandize more efficiently to help us combat the Soviet empire.

The war is wrong.

Skot Head

Hey Niteshift,

I appreciate your dialouge because i believe that contrary viewpoints help us see past prejudices and learn and evlolve as moral beings.......however, I must disagree with you.

Yes the Constitution is the supreme law of the land....and the constitution states(in its own words) that treaties are the supreme law of the land. If the supreme law of the land states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, then by elementary logic they must be.

Yes UN membership is voluntary and basically open to all nations. The US is a member and therefore falls under the jurasdiction of the UN. I already quoted the UN policy in dealing with non-members. So my assesment stands firm. The US had a moral as well as a legal obligation to adhere to the UN, and to attempt to resolve matters through a way that protects innocent people from enduring unjust punishment.

Again, the US only observes the UN when it serves the interests of the parties in power. The Clinton Administration(as I stated earlier) actually undermined the court by ignoring it and choosing to act unilateraly. By no means was their any but kissing. PR tricks maybe, but nothing more.

Niteshift

"Yes the Constitution is the supreme law of the land....and the constitution states(in its own words) that treaties are the supreme law of the land. If the supreme law of the land states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, then by elementary logic they must be."

You're relying on simply reading Article VI (2). You're not taking the rest of the Constitution into account. Have you read this before: Article III, Section 2: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;-- between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Note that it says the SUPREME COURT, not the world court. Couple that the fact that the Constitution is the actual supreme law of the land.

"Yes UN membership is voluntary and basically open to all nations. The US is a member and therefore falls under the jurasdiction of the UN."

We do NOT fall under the JURISDICTION of the UN. The UN operates without actual jurisdiction, but by consent.

If I ask you to search your house and you say ok, my search has legal standing because you gave consent. If I come with a warrant and you say no, I still search and the search is valid because of jurisdiction. See the difference?

"The US had a moral as well as a legal obligation to adhere to the UN"

Moral is arguable, but legal is not. The UN has no legal authority to force any nation to do anything. They can sanction, embargo, or use military force, but they can't do it through the court because they have no actual jurisdiction. If they could, why wouldn't we have simply had the "world court" order North Korea and North Vietnam out of the territories they invaded? Why didn't they "convict" China of entering the Korean war etc.?

"The Clinton Administration(as I stated earlier) actually undermined the court by ignoring it and choosing to act unilateraly. By no means was their any but kissing. PR tricks maybe, but nothing more."

Allowing US troops to be under a foreign command was the biggest butt smooching act around.

"As for the sanctions on Iraq, the US and ally Britain were the main instigators for those sanctions. The Security Council was pressured into passing them, but before they could do any good the US sent troops to the Gulf and shot down any chances of the sanctions working, and of settling the fiasco through diplomacy. "

Pressured into passing them? Regardless, they did and the sanctions are still in effect with no effect on Saddam.

"That is NOT diplomacy, merely a smokescreen sent up to disguise the real motives of those in power in this country; and, like I said before, it is terrorism."

In your opinion, it's terrorism. In mine, which is based on the legal definition of terrorism as defined by the US Code, it's not.

"In reality he is a tyrant who should have been impeached."

Tyrant? Oh brother......

"He was directly involved in the whole Iran-Contra weapons scandal. He launched a devistating terrorist war in Nicaragua."

I guess you're sitting on evidence that congress didn't see.

"Hell, there were even more criminal indictments against memebers of the Reagan Administration(138) than any other administration, etc..."

Just off the cuff, I'd say Clinton rivalled that number, particularly distressing coming from a man that promised the most honest and ethical administration in recent times.

BTW, indictments are not convictions. Ever heard the expression that you could get a ham sandwich indicted? It's not far from the truth.

"Also, I think that rum was completely justified in listing capitalism as a form of terrorism"

That's because you use a cheapened, bastardized definition of the word. A definition that lessens the true meaning.

"El Salvador, Nicaragua, Palestine, Columbia, Sudan, Chile, Haiti, Guatemala, Iraq, Indonesia, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, the list goes on and on."

Just listing countries doesn't make your point.

"Providing proof is a cornerstone of justice and is very necessary."

Proof is a trial issue, not an extradition issue. The majority of extraditions are PRE-trial.

"The idea that bin Laden and company will recieve a fair trial and be set free if not guilty is wrong."

Tough to argue against their being set free when the ARE guilty.

"As a matter of fact, Cuba(I believe it was Cuba) called on the US to extradite terrorists who murdered and terrorized in that region, and the US rejected and never even considered complying with the extradition requests."

Actually, the US shouldn't have complied with the request. Extraditions are matters of treaty agreements and the US and Cuba have no extradition treaty between them. This is exactly why Cuba has refused over and over to allow extradition of suspects, persons under indictment and even convicted persons.

Treaties and their terms vary with each country.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want to follow international law or you don't. In this case, in the absence of an extradition treaty, the US had no legal obligation whatsoever.

"The people in Afghanistan had nothing to do with the extremists who commited the atrocities of sept. 11th."

That is an overly broad statement. You can't possibly know that to be true.

"When the man who kicked in the hypothetical door that you mentioned escapes, do you set a whole neighborhood on fire, ignoring innocent civilians, and feel justified because you are confident that you will get him?"

Um, the guy who kicked the door in was the police. They don't need to escape.

In any case, collateral damage is a fact of war. It is not an accepted fact of police work, so you are comparing apples and oranges. I compared the concept, you're trying to compare the mechanics.

The public, particularly those who watched the Gulf War, have a misconception that we can bomb with pinpoint accuracy 100% of the time. For "dumb bombs" (not guided), when as little as 60% of the bombs are dropped into a 40 ft. target, the mission is considered a success. That means 40% are allowed outside of that area. It sounds trite, but sh*t happens. With "smart weapons" 90% accuracy is still considered successful. That leave 10% of them that can go errant. Wars and military actions are not nice, pretty, clean little operations that are the surgical acts that most people seem to think.

"We supported, armed and trained the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets (another example of US backed terrorism, since the area was destroyed and the people were manipulated to achive the goals of the US imperialists)."

I reject the idea that it was terrorism. We were helping an invaded country reple invaders. There is a difference.

"Do you really think that terrorism can be eliminated with more terrorism?"

No, that's why we're not using terrorism.

"Can we bomb predjudice and hate out of people or will we only worsen the situation? Again, I think that the answer is obvious."

No, but I can take your ability to do it again.

A man can hate me all he wants, but if I cut off his arms and legs, how much of a threat is he? So what if he still hates me, all he can do is sit and thing about it. Gruesome, but simple analogy.

"Childish to not question the people who make decisions for you?"

Who said the idea of questioning the government was childish? I didn't. I question them all the time.

"To turn a blind eye to what your country is doing because you have been propagandized throughout your whole life to believe that everything that the US does is moral and right, is very dangerous."

IMO, it's pretty arrogant to presume that someone who disagrees with you is a victim of propaganda.

"The war is wrong."

Nothing personal, but I'm glad you're not in the White House.

 

Skot Head

Niteshift, many of the quotes you took from my post were not directed in response to your replies, but to dedbr. This explains the hypothetical door, questioning of govt., etc...

And I was not meaning to imply that someone who disagreed with me was a victim of propaganda; I was only stating the obvious truth that propaganda causes people to become blind to the true workings of power.

As for the whole UN World Court debate,

Ch.2, Art.36, states that "The jurasdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided forin the Charter of the UN or in treaties and conventions of force."

Ch.9, Art.55: "The UN shall promote higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and develpoement."

Ch.9, Art.56: "All members pledge themselves to take joint action and seperate action in cooperation with the Organization for the achievements of the Purposes set forth in Art.55."

Ch.7, Art.49: "The members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistancein carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council."

So, by my interpetation, I do have an argument for not only legality, but also jurasdiction.

As to the refernce to cutting of the man's arms who hates you---If you go in swinging your sword and in the process of chopping his arms off you hurt or even kill a lot of innocent people, then you will only make new enemies and cause more hatred towards yourself, thereby continuing the cycle.

Also, I feel completely justified in making the "overly broad" statement that the people of Afghanistan(the mass of the population) had nothing to do with the crimes of Sept. 11.

I have to go now, but as soon as I get a chance I will post more.

Scott

HappyMan

So, people can kill Innocent Americans and get away with it because America's superior morality prohibits even the accidental killing of civilians?

__________________
Bla.

and

Marijuana.Com Community Posting Guidelines

Niteshift

"Ch.2, Art.36, states that "The jurasdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided forin the Charter of the UN or in treaties and conventions of force"

Did you read that? "The jurasdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it" That means the parties have to bring it to the court and ask for them to decide it. BOTH parties. Otherwise, the other one isn't bound by the ruling.

"all matters specially provided forin the Charter of the UN"

Again, membership to the UN is VOLUNTARY, so compliance is a matter of VOLUNTARINESS, not legal jurisdiction.

"all matters specially provided forin the Charter of the UN or in treaties and conventions of force"

Again, all matters of VOLUNTARY treaty compliance and not of LEGAL JURISDICTION.

You really have to get a handle on this jurisdiction issue. Treaties are broken all the time by one side or another. They are voluntary. There is not an inherent jurisdiction for the world court. It's all volunteer.

"So, by my interpetation, I do have an argument for not only legality, but also jurasdiction."

I disagree. You have an arguement for voluntary compliance.


"If you go in swinging your sword and in the process of chopping his arms off you hurt or even kill a lot of innocent people, then you will only make new enemies and cause more hatred towards yourself, thereby continuing the cycle."

You missed the example and added more "what if's" to it. If, if, if........if a frog had a glass ass, would it break when he jumped? You can what f something to death.

Skot Head

Niteshift, Of course I read the material before I posted it. Article 36 of ch.2 does not state that their need be two parties. "Parties" could include one, two or more nations.

The US should have taken its case to the Security Council, and Ch. 7, Art.49 shows that under international law, the US is bound to comply with the UN in giving assistance to carrying out measures decided by the Security Council.

This does not mean that the UN only has jurasdiction over the Sept. 11 crimes and the actions taken in response to those crimes if Afghanistan is a member of the UN. Since the US is a memeber, the UN is supposed to have jurasdiction. If neither the US or Afghanistan was a member, then maybe the UN wouldn't have jurasdiction.

When you bring up the phrase "refer to it"(as the US should have done) you ignore the second half of that article which says not only "all cases which the parties REFER TO IT", but also all matters SPECIALLY PROVIDED FOR IN THE CHARTER OF THE UN, etc..." The Charter addresses some of those matters in this article, which I have already posted: "The Security Council shall determine the existance of any threat to peace, breach of peace, act of agression(9/11), and shall make recommendations or decide what measures should be taken(the legal thing to do in this case), etc....

I layed out this evidence from the Charter in earlier posts as well. "The Organization shall ensure that states which are not members of the UN act in accordance with those principals so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security."

Also, "A state which is not a member of the UN may become party to the statute of the International Court of Justice on conditions to be determined in each case by the General Assembly upon recommendation of the Security Council."

The US opened itself up to UN jurasdiction when it signed the UN treaty.

Art.55 of Ch.9, says that "The UN shall promote higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and developement. (notice that the war in Afghanistan violates this, since MILLIONS of innocent civilians have had their standards of living lowered, and their economic and social progress sent in reverse)

Continuing on, Art. 56 of Ch.9 states "All members(the US included) pledge themselves to take joint and seperate action in COOPERATION with the Organization for the achievement of the Purposes set forth in Art.55(listed directly above).

As for your hypothetical question, not only did I get the example, but I added only one "what if" to it, and it happens to be an extremely important one. Go ahead, re-read it. If you think that the "if" that I added to your scenario is irrelevant, then I don't know how to respond. I mean, if you think that getting the "bad guys" at whatever cost takes precident over innocent human life(like the 9/11 assholes did, since they considered the US as the bad guy), then I don't know what to say in response.


Happyman...when the US knowingly sends MILLIONS of civillians fleeing for the borders to escape the war, then orders Pakistan to seal the borders and halt truck convoys that carry crucial aid(Pakistan complied), then it is not "accidentally killing civilians"........it is a crime against humanity just like the atrocitites of September 11.

HappyMan

Enemies of the U.S. gamble that the U.S.'s morality will prohibit decisive action. We as a country are concerned with innocent civilians while the 'enemy' is willing to use them a pawns. That is both are weakness and a blessing.