The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Neil
Harrington writes

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Graham
writes

"J. Clarke" wrote in message news:h9tef91qgs@n
ews6.newsguy.com...
tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:44:17 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Be sure to write the first time you encounter a CHP officer with
your
idea that you have an inherent right to carry a concealed weapon
without a permit. I'd be interested to see how that plays out.

I have spent many happy hours arguing exactly that with California
Police officers......My wife's grandson-in-law happens to be one. In
many cases they agree with my position on the matter.

This is the ChrisH School of Reasoning. If you know one person who
shares your opinion, that means "everyone" agrees with you.

I had a police officer explain matters to me this way:

"If you shoot me when I come to enforce a gun ban, I won't hold it
against
you."

Many police disagree with some of the laws that they are required to
enforce, but they do their jobs anyway.

They shouldn't. "It is the responsibility, not the right, of good men
to disobey bad laws." - Spencer Tracy, in "Judgment at Nuremberg."

So how come the US military is still using torture and the excuse is
they were just following orders?

No discussion of U.S. military "torture" can be complete without a reading
of Ann Coulter's column on the subject, which puts it somewhat in
perspective:

________________________________

WATCHING MSNBC IS TORTURE
May 6, 2009

The media wail about "torture," but are noticeably short on facts.

Liberals try to disguise the utter wussification of our interrogation
techniques by constantly prattling on about "the banality of evil."

What a load of CRAP to excuse torture by the US.
All you need is the Geneva convention.

The Geneva Convention does not, as far as I know, offer any protection
whatever to combatants who are not part of any recognized military force. If
you think it does, show me where.

Combatants captured not in proper uniform are not POWs and have no rights at
all -- they can be and have been just executed on the spot. That's been the
rule for at least a few hundred years.

Now I think any reasonable person would admit that a little waterboarding is
kinder and more generous treatment than being summarily executed.

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message


[...]

The Geneva Convention does not, as far as I know, offer any protection
whatever to combatants who are not part of any recognized military
force. If you think it does, show me where.

Combatants captured not in proper uniform are not POWs and have no
rights at all -- they can be and have been just executed on the spot.
That's been the rule for at least a few hundred years.

Every person has rights. Many of the detainees at Guananemo have been shown
to have not been involved in terrorist activities and were captured by
mistake. That is why civilised countries insist on the rule of law, where
no person may be detained without due process, something the Bush
administration fought every step of the way. It is not acceptable to merely
deem someone a terrorist or a criminal by fiat. It must be established by
evidence.

Now I think any reasonable person would admit that a little
waterboarding is kinder and more generous treatment than being
summarily executed.

There is no such thing as "a little waterboarding". It is torture and under
the terms of the international agreement signed by Ronald Reagan and
ratified by the US Senate America has no lawful option but to prosecute
those who engaged in it.

In message , DRS
writes
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message


[...]

The Geneva Convention does not, as far as I know, offer any protection
whatever to combatants who are not part of any recognized military
force. If you think it does, show me where.

Combatants captured not in proper uniform are not POWs and have no
rights at all -- they can be and have been just executed on the spot.
That's been the rule for at least a few hundred years.

Every person has rights. Many of the detainees at Guananemo have been shown
to have not been involved in terrorist activities and were captured by
mistake.

However the experience of several years illegal detention and torture
turned most of them and their families into at least sympathisers of Al-
Qeada.

That is why civilised countries insist on the rule of law, where
no person may be detained without due process, something the Bush
administration fought every step of the way.

And why the US is seen as a rouge stage by most of the world.

It is not acceptable to merely
deem someone a terrorist or a criminal by fiat. It must be established by
evidence.

Afghanistan offered to give OBL to the US is the USA had any credible
evidence.... the USA could not produce any evidence and the Afghans did
not turn him over. SO the USA illegally invaded.

Now I think any reasonable person would admit that a little
waterboarding is kinder and more generous treatment than being
summarily executed.

There is no such thing as "a little waterboarding". It is torture and under
the terms of the international agreement signed by Ronald Reagan and
ratified by the US Senate America has no lawful option but to prosecute
those who engaged in it.

Agreed. The right wing in the USA sound just like the N.Koreans, Chinese
and the Israelis.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris H" wrote in message

In message , DRS
writes

[...]

And why the US is seen as a rouge stage by most of the world.

A rouge state? Only by the wingnuts in here.

It is not acceptable to merely
deem someone a terrorist or a criminal by fiat. It must be
established by evidence.

Afghanistan offered to give OBL to the US is the USA had any credible
evidence.... the USA could not produce any evidence and the Afghans
did not turn him over. SO the USA illegally invaded.

There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the legitimacy of
the Taliban government given the state of armed resistance to it. The
invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal but the invasion of Afghanistan
is legally ambiguous.

"DRS" wrote in message
. au...
There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the legitimacy
of the Taliban government given the state of armed resistance to it. The
invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal but the invasion of
Afghanistan is legally ambiguous.

The invasion of Iraq was not, "unquestionably illegal". I question the
illegality of it. Saddam Hussein killed over two million Iraqi's during his
30 year reign as Iraq's president. To me, this justifies eliminating him.
Certainly, it at least raises the "question" of legality/illegality. Maybe
he only killed one million. Maybe he killed four million. At what point
would you consider it mandatory that the other heads of state in this world
become justified in killing him? Were we justified in killing Adolf Hitler?
Should we have killed Josef Stalin? Should we just turn out backs on
anything, and not ever kill anybody, no matter what they do? And, in any
case, how can you dismiss the whole argument with a half dozen words?

"Bill Graham" wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
. au...
There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the
legitimacy of the Taliban government given the state of armed
resistance to it. The invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal
but the invasion of Afghanistan is legally ambiguous.

The invasion of Iraq was not, "unquestionably illegal". I question the
illegality of it.

Yes, but you make definitions up as you go along. That doesn't count.

Bill Graham wrote:

Saddam Hussein killed over two million Iraqi's during his
30 year reign as Iraq's president. To me, this justifies eliminating him.
Certainly, it at least raises the "question" of legality/illegality. Maybe
he only killed one million. Maybe he killed four million. At what point
would you consider it mandatory that the other heads of state in this world
become justified in killing him? Were we justified in killing Adolf Hitler?
Should we have killed Josef Stalin?

This is a slippery slope, what separates a leader who killed a million
from one who killed 900,000. Is 100,000 enough? What about
3,000?

Using this measure to justify invading and deposing a leader can
have un-intended consequenses.

w..

On 2009-10-01 11:34:10 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"DRS" wrote in message
. au...
There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the
legitimacy of the Taliban government given the state of armed
resistance to it. The invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal but
the invasion of Afghanistan is legally ambiguous.

The invasion of Iraq was not, "unquestionably illegal". I question the
illegality of it. Saddam Hussein killed over two million Iraqi's during
his 30 year reign as Iraq's president. To me, this justifies
eliminating him. Certainly, it at least raises the "question" of
legality/illegality. Maybe he only killed one million. Maybe he killed
four million. At what point would you consider it mandatory that the
other heads of state in this world become justified in killing him?
Were we justified in killing Adolf Hitler? Should we have killed Josef
Stalin? Should we just turn out backs on anything, and not ever kill
anybody, no matter what they do? And, in any case, how can you dismiss
the whole argument with a half dozen words?

IIRC we did not kill Hitler (unless you know something we haven't been told.)
Tojo, we dropped through a floor with a safety rope around his neck,
but Hirohito got a pass, you might say Tojo took the fall for him.

....and Stalin was on our side. We accepted him as an ally with full
knowledge of his butchery.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"DRS" wrote in message news:UNidnVWBibNWcl
...
There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the
legitimacy of the Taliban government given the state of armed
resistance to it. The invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal
but the invasion of Afghanistan is legally ambiguous.

The invasion of Iraq was not, "unquestionably illegal". I question the
illegality of it. Saddam Hussein killed over two million Iraqi's during
his 30 year reign as Iraq's president.

The first 20 years he was aided and supported by the USA.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , DRS
writes
"Chris H" wrote in message

In message , DRS
writes

[...]

And why the US is seen as a rouge stage by most of the world.

A rouge state? Only by the wingnuts in here.

It is not acceptable to merely
deem someone a terrorist or a criminal by fiat. It must be
established by evidence.

Afghanistan offered to give OBL to the US is the USA had any credible
evidence.... the USA could not produce any evidence and the Afghans
did not turn him over. SO the USA illegally invaded.

There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the legitimacy of
the Taliban government given the state of armed resistance to it.

Several countries recognised it. Also just because there is a civil war
it does not give anyone external the right to invade.

BTW the Russians in Afghanistan were invited in be the legitimate
government yet the USA armed and trained the terrorists including Al-
Qeada and those who became the Taliban.

However that is separate to the illegality of the invasion.

Also the only way an irregular army can survive is if the people support
them and after 8 years I think the answer is obvious.

The
invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal

I think you are right but in the UK at least there is no definitive
answer and there wont be for about 18 months

but the invasion of Afghanistan
is legally ambiguous.

I agree but I think 8 years on it is a bit irrelevant now. The
question is how many decades will it take to get out without loosing too
badly.

The US may wind up having to do it alone.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/