They claimed that Guantanamo is the American Gulag. Millions of people died of starvation, cold, and overwork in the Russian Gulags. Zero people have died at Guantanamo. Zero.
The US violating international law in the same way as the Iranian Bajiri is an absolute disgrace.
Well, it might be a disgrace if such a thing had in fact happened.
That's the point, you see. Nothing of the sort has happened at Guantanamo.
There may have been violations at other locations, such as Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, where two prisoners died in custody. But you never hear about that, just Gitmo! Gitmo! Gitmo!
Which is why I say Amnesty is insane; it is seeking publicity at the expense of bringing (possibly) real crimes to light.
No, it doesn't. See that? I just disagreed with you, and didn't lie to do it.
The point is, freedom of the press for those that agree with you includes freedom for everyone.
If they lie, you can prove the lie, and they will lose credibility. Example: Dan Rather.
But there is no law, and there should never be a law, that someone cannot speak because you claim that they are lying. Or even if they are lying. Of course, if they are defaming you, you can take civil action against them. That's a whole 'nother law.
All your cite are belong to MediaMatters.org
Oh gawd.
"O'Reilly wrong again: "Republicans don't have control of the judicial branch" In fact, Republican appointees to the federal judiciary outnumber judges appointed by Democratic presidents"
Tee hee.
That's a lie? You call that a lie?
The other is a case of who-said-what-when, and can possibly be decided as strictly true or false. (Or possibly not, depending on who said what when.)
But statement B, Republican appointees to the federal judiciary outnumber judges appointed by Democratic presidents does not serve to falsify statement A, Republicans don't have control of the judicial branch.
Canada and America go about this different ways, that's part of why we're butting heads right now.
That's complete nonsense. There's only one way to have a free press, and that's to have a free press.
Canada seems to realize that the point of a free press is to keep the people free to criticize people in power which explains shows like Air Farce, 22 Minutes, and the popularity of The Daily Show.
How do any of those shows keep the people free to do that? What they in fact do is engage in criticising people in power.
The point of the free press is the dissemination of information. And that's it.
Americans go more by the letter of the law, even if the spirit is stompped all to hell by people like Bill O'Idiot.
The letter of the law is that the press is free. That's the point. If you don't like what someone says, you can argue the alternative. What you can't do is take away his right to speak.
Yet that is EXACTLY what you are proposing.
In, I will point out yet again, a post about the freedom of the press.
Gay marriage amendment limiting state's rights to define marriage.
What Gay Marriage Amendment?
You do realise this doesn't exist, right?
The DMCA.
Okay. Yes. Point for you on that one. The DMCA isn't the demon that some Slashdotters make it out to be, but it is a lousy law and it is a step backwards for civil liberties.
Excuse me for replying to trolling flamebait, but I'm not a communist, nor a monkey although maybe I do look like one, so I can understand your confusion.
Sure, you're excused.
I'm sorry, but "disagree" does not mean "provide lies".
Actually, it does. But anyway:
Bill O'Idiot provides what he calls facts to an unsuspecting and easily swayed audience, when in fact his facts are complete BS or outright lies.
Cite.
It's not hard to verify this, just do a search through google and you'll find video clips of documented Bill-lies.
Cite.
But perhaps you didn't notice because you didn't KNOW what the real facts were when he's presented his versions.
Cite.
And I'll match you, cite for cite, with lies from the New York Times and the BBC.
I might not agree and think someone else is wrong if they have another opinion they can't support how I'd like, but when they LIE to support their position, they've ruined their journalistic integrity ON AIR, and can't be trusted again.
Like the New York Times did in 1932? Oh, yeah, they WON A PULITZER for that lie.
It's not that Bill doesn't look up the facts, he just doesn't care to! He isn't getting the facts wrong, because he never knows the facts, and if he does, he won't say them if it hurts his twisted ultra-conservative agenda.
Cite.
Me: Truth good even if it hurts Bill: Truth bad especially if it hurts.
The truth? You can't handle the truth!
That's the difference, and you're clearly part of the problem since you think: Canadian = communist monkey who couldn't offer helpful advice on the state of American media from a more dispassionate outside view.
No. I have actual friends in Canada. It's just that you're a dingbat.
Look, I have no brief for Bill O'Reilly. I've never seen his show. From what I've heard, I suspect he really is an idiot.
But if you think that the CBC is a reliable news source, if you think that Jon Stewart isn't spinning stuff at least as hard as O'Reilly, then you are completely and utterly clueless.
And more to the point, you just don't get the fundamental concept. That's what makes you a dingbat. (Or alternately, being a dingbat to begin with, you are unable to get the concept.)
Freedom of the press means freedom of the press. It means that you don't get to choose who goes on the air and who doesn't. Because the press is free.
Got it now?
What the Constitution says is "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."
No ifs, no buts. No "except for Bill O'Reilly". No law. None.
If the people decide they don't like him and ratings drop, off he goes.
If he's actually exposed in fraud like Dan Rather, then the network will likely ditch him to cover their asses.
That's fine. He's still free to get another job with another network, or pay for his own airtime.
But you, my not-communist-but-clearly-desperately-naive-and-ha rbouring-dangerous-totalitarian-instincts friend, don't get to decide.
CBC [when not locked out] actually has the best national news broadcast because they give a broad news picture instead of focussing on something like a bride that runs away in Georgia.
Well, duh.
a) Nothing ever happens in Canada. b) Canadians don't care about runaway brides in Georgia. Instead, you get wall-to-wall coverage about lovelorn mooses in Manitoba.
As for "allowing" O'Idiot on the air, that's the public's fault for continuing to listen to him as if he's entertaining.
It's the public's fault?
Yes.
So? Did you actually have a point?
It's supposed to be the public's fault. That's what freedom means. You just don't get it, do you?
As for "allowing" O'Idiot on the air, that's the public's fault for continuing to listen to him as if he's entertaining. As Jon Stewart said about Crossfire on CNN, Bill too is "Hurrrrting America". He may be entertainment, but he's providing lies and saying they are true and verified and because he's broadcast with the word "NEWS" in the corner, the more gullible of the American nation take him at face value.
I didn't realise the Daily Show ran with the word "NEWS" in the corner these days.
If Bill O' had a blog and no TV show I'm sure crackpots and those who enjoy real-life parody would continue to support him, but for a station to put him on the air is completely irresponsible.
Freedom. Press. Freedom of the press. Freedom. Free. Got it now?
Didn't think so.
If they loved their country
I'm pretty sure they do.
and were actually commited to being fair and balanced
As opposed to being committed to seeming fair and balanced, which is the case with the other networks.
The "Fair and Balanced" thing from Fox is a deliberate poke at the other networks. Fox is biased, but they unlike the other networks they are completely up-front about it.
and informing the public, they'd be ashamed to have someone like him working for them.
Unless, y'know, he got good ratings.
Money talks, but look who has the money in China, Iran, etc.
The rich people? The banks? I dunno, you tell me.
Do you really want the people with the most money doing your talking?
No more than I want the people who do the most talking ending up with my money.
Freedom of the press. Freedom, press. Press, freedom.
Give Jesusland a few years to work on sharpening its blades of repression.
'Cause the 229 so far haven't been enough! A few more years and wham! Repression! Mark my word, a few more years... Few more... Years... Words... Mark them, will ya, I'm out of chalk.
Free speech is not a given in America
YES IT BLOODY WELL IS!!!!!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
I just realised that I wasn't nearly harsh enough in my previous reply.
We have here a post about a very important subject - freedom of the press - and we get this retarded Canadian communist monkey saying "We need to... stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time."
Freedom of the press includes freedom for people who disagree with you. It's not a difficult concept. Freedom means you don't get to say who gets airtime. Freedom means people get to vote for the other guy if they decide you suck.
And *WHAP* with a dead fish to whoever modded this tripe "Insightful".
If I'd grown up with only American media I'd probably think you were kidding, but since I'm from Canada and have seen both Canadian local, national, and American local and national broadcasts, I can pick out the differences.
So you've noticed the CBC's sometimes oblique approach to the truth?
We need to start demanding more from our journalists
No. We need to fire all the journalists and get some reporters.
and stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time.
What's this "allow" nonsense? In America there's this thing called "the Constitution". Everyone is allowed to have air time. They have to convince someone to actually broadcast it, but we have this other thing called "money" that's good for that.
A library has a copy of a book, which they are allowed to let as many people as they want read, without restriction-- but aren't allowed to display a copy of the front page of that book to anyone over telephone lines.
That's the "copy" part of "copyright". A library may lend a book to as many people as they like - one at a time. They may not copy it. The right to produce copies of a book is reserved to the author. Copy. Right.
Got it?
Whether such an act is terrible or not is an unanswered question, but it is a breach of copyright law.
The problem with regulations like that is that headphones vary enormously in their efficiency. I have a little crap portable set and a good set that I keep at home. I have to crank the volume way up for the portables, and every so often I'll plug the good ones in without changing the setting and get blasted.
Dude, wake up. NOTHING these states or 'non-state-entities' could ever do could amount to the amount of terror and devastation _this_ country is causing. Bush is the terrorist, he's just using NLP to try to call the enemies terrorists.
I'm sorry, you appear to be insane.
It could just be ignorance, but the simple fact that you can read and write and have access to the internet rules against this.
One word for you: Cambodia. You want terror and devestation? They murdered two million of their own people. You want more recent terror and devestation? Try Iraq under Saddam Hussein (at least 300,000 Iraqis killed, plus another million in the Iran/Iraq war). Then there's the 100 million people killed by communist regimes during the
When it comes to terror and devestation, actual terror and devestation, America is strictly in the little leagues.
I'll ignore the rest of your deluded gibbering (boy, it's a karma bonfire today!) and focus on this:
That a nation which prides itself in being a beacon of freedom would be torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib and running a gulag in Cuba.
No-one was tortured at Abu Ghraib - not while it was under American control. Hundreds were tortured to death there under Saddam's regime. The worst that happened after he was removed was some naughty pictures.
As for the "gulag" in Cuba: Millions of people, millions, were worked to death, or starved, or froze, in the real gulags in Russia. The Gulag administration was the single largest employer in Europe.
Do you know how many prisoners have died at Guantanamo Bay?
I'll tell you.
None.
The US prides itself on being a beacon of freedom because it bloody well IS.
If that's his conclusion, then let's face it, he's a drooling idiot.
Does he think that if America destroyed its nuclear weapons, China would follow suit?
Hahahahahaha!
Morons.
The debates have been held, you pathetic wankers. We know exactly what the use of nuclear weapons would mean. The difference is that we are grown-ups and you are petulant whining children, and we understand and accept that there really are people who want to kill us.
So you're going to lock people up for the rest of their lives for committing no crime?
Nope. Just until the war's over. Or until their government arranges an exchange of prisoners.
Oops, they don't have a government.
If they have committed crimes, prove it in an open court and convict them properly.
They're prisoners of war. Caught on the battlefield, acting as combatants, and out of uniform. They could, perfectly legally, be shot on sight. The only process due to them is to be locked up until the cessation of hostilities.
If you can't do that, you're no better than the terrorists themselves.
With the risk of sounding too anti-American (even for/.), this sounds truly cold-war-anti-socialist-pseudo-intellectual-econom ic-bullshit to me.
Which means: You are correct.
After WW-II, the whole lot of western democratic Europe profited greatly from several forms of socialistic government.
Until they realised that they would have to pay for this.
The fact that the economy had gone down-hill in the last few years says nothing about that.
It says a whole lot about that.
The European economies have grown fast and heavy in the last 30 years, and are taking a break right now on the heels of the world economy, led by the US economy.
I presume you mean "fat and heavy". Yep. That's socialism.
Unemployment might be a bit of a problem these days
A bit? Try a huge problem.
but in the west of Europe, poverty rates are MUCH lower than in the US.
Because they take money from people with jobs and give it to people without jobs.
Yes.
Socialist regulations did that.
They did indeed.
Look at the charts when you have the chance. We're now back at the same level as we were in 1999.
I've looked at the charts. Europe is not, for the most part, going backwards in absolute terms, just in relative terms.
That's not something to cheer about.
That is not a big downfall. (btw, since 1999, all over Europe governments have reformed the socialistic regulations. Might just have been the wrong decision)
So far, except for Britain, they've mostly been pissing into the wind.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are Amnesty insane on this?
I don't know why, but they are.
They claimed that Guantanamo is the American Gulag. Millions of people died of starvation, cold, and overwork in the Russian Gulags. Zero people have died at Guantanamo. Zero.
The US violating international law in the same way as the Iranian Bajiri is an absolute disgrace.
Well, it might be a disgrace if such a thing had in fact happened.
That's the point, you see. Nothing of the sort has happened at Guantanamo.
There may have been violations at other locations, such as Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, where two prisoners died in custody. But you never hear about that, just Gitmo! Gitmo! Gitmo!
Which is why I say Amnesty is insane; it is seeking publicity at the expense of bringing (possibly) real crimes to light.
You have to keep vigilant and fight if necessary to keep the rights described on that old piece of paper.
Second paragraph.
No, it doesn't. See that? I just disagreed with you, and didn't lie to do it.
The point is, freedom of the press for those that agree with you includes freedom for everyone.
If they lie, you can prove the lie, and they will lose credibility. Example: Dan Rather.
But there is no law, and there should never be a law, that someone cannot speak because you claim that they are lying. Or even if they are lying. Of course, if they are defaming you, you can take civil action against them. That's a whole 'nother law.
All your cite are belong to MediaMatters.org
Oh gawd.
"O'Reilly wrong again: "Republicans don't have control of the judicial branch"
In fact, Republican appointees to the federal judiciary outnumber judges appointed by Democratic presidents"
Tee hee.
That's a lie? You call that a lie?
The other is a case of who-said-what-when, and can possibly be decided as strictly true or false. (Or possibly not, depending on who said what when.)
But statement B, Republican appointees to the federal judiciary outnumber judges appointed by Democratic presidents does not serve to falsify statement A, Republicans don't have control of the judicial branch.
Canada and America go about this different ways, that's part of why we're butting heads right now.
That's complete nonsense. There's only one way to have a free press, and that's to have a free press.
Canada seems to realize that the point of a free press is to keep the people free to criticize people in power which explains shows like Air Farce, 22 Minutes, and the popularity of The Daily Show.
How do any of those shows keep the people free to do that? What they in fact do is engage in criticising people in power.
The point of the free press is the dissemination of information. And that's it.
Americans go more by the letter of the law, even if the spirit is stompped all to hell by people like Bill O'Idiot.
The letter of the law is that the press is free. That's the point. If you don't like what someone says, you can argue the alternative. What you can't do is take away his right to speak.
Yet that is EXACTLY what you are proposing.
In, I will point out yet again, a post about the freedom of the press.
Gay marriage amendment limiting state's rights to define marriage.
What Gay Marriage Amendment?
You do realise this doesn't exist, right?
The DMCA.
Okay. Yes. Point for you on that one. The DMCA isn't the demon that some Slashdotters make it out to be, but it is a lousy law and it is a step backwards for civil liberties.
How about the erosion of the 4th Amendment with the USA Patriot Act?
Cite.
Or perhaps the human rights violations in Guantanamo bay?
Cite. (And since Amnesty International are clearly insane on this subject, I won't take their word for anything anymore.)
Or the government intervention in something as personal as marriage?
Damn straight. The government should get out of the marriage business entirely.
How this is an example of "going backwards" in terms of civil liberties, though, I'm not sure.
Or the War on Privacy, err War on drugs?
Cite.
Maybe the widening gap between the rich and poor?
Completely irrelevant to the subject.
Perhaps the government endorsing religion?
Check your Constitution, dude.
Excuse me for replying to trolling flamebait, but I'm not a communist, nor a monkey although maybe I do look like one, so I can understand your confusion.
... abridging the freedom of speech."
a rbouring-dangerous-totalitarian-instincts friend, don't get to decide.
Sure, you're excused.
I'm sorry, but "disagree" does not mean "provide lies".
Actually, it does. But anyway:
Bill O'Idiot provides what he calls facts to an unsuspecting and easily swayed audience, when in fact his facts are complete BS or outright lies.
Cite.
It's not hard to verify this, just do a search through google and you'll find video clips of documented Bill-lies.
Cite.
But perhaps you didn't notice because you didn't KNOW what the real facts were when he's presented his versions.
Cite.
And I'll match you, cite for cite, with lies from the New York Times and the BBC.
I might not agree and think someone else is wrong if they have another opinion they can't support how I'd like, but when they LIE to support their position, they've ruined their journalistic integrity ON AIR, and can't be trusted again.
Like the New York Times did in 1932? Oh, yeah, they WON A PULITZER for that lie.
It's not that Bill doesn't look up the facts, he just doesn't care to! He isn't getting the facts wrong, because he never knows the facts, and if he does, he won't say them if it hurts his twisted ultra-conservative agenda.
Cite.
Me: Truth good even if it hurts
Bill: Truth bad especially if it hurts.
The truth? You can't handle the truth!
That's the difference, and you're clearly part of the problem since you think:
Canadian = communist monkey who couldn't offer helpful advice on the state of American media from a more dispassionate outside view.
No. I have actual friends in Canada. It's just that you're a dingbat.
Look, I have no brief for Bill O'Reilly. I've never seen his show. From what I've heard, I suspect he really is an idiot.
But if you think that the CBC is a reliable news source, if you think that Jon Stewart isn't spinning stuff at least as hard as O'Reilly, then you are completely and utterly clueless.
And more to the point, you just don't get the fundamental concept. That's what makes you a dingbat. (Or alternately, being a dingbat to begin with, you are unable to get the concept.)
Freedom of the press means freedom of the press. It means that you don't get to choose who goes on the air and who doesn't. Because the press is free.
Got it now?
What the Constitution says is "Congress shall make no law
No ifs, no buts. No "except for Bill O'Reilly". No law. None.
If the people decide they don't like him and ratings drop, off he goes.
If he's actually exposed in fraud like Dan Rather, then the network will likely ditch him to cover their asses.
That's fine. He's still free to get another job with another network, or pay for his own airtime.
But you, my not-communist-but-clearly-desperately-naive-and-h
CBC [when not locked out] actually has the best national news broadcast because they give a broad news picture instead of focussing on something like a bride that runs away in Georgia.
Well, duh.
a) Nothing ever happens in Canada.
b) Canadians don't care about runaway brides in Georgia. Instead, you get wall-to-wall coverage about lovelorn mooses in Manitoba.
As for "allowing" O'Idiot on the air, that's the public's fault for continuing to listen to him as if he's entertaining.
It's the public's fault?
Yes.
So? Did you actually have a point?
It's supposed to be the public's fault. That's what freedom means. You just don't get it, do you?
As for "allowing" O'Idiot on the air, that's the public's fault for continuing to listen to him as if he's entertaining. As Jon Stewart said about Crossfire on CNN, Bill too is "Hurrrrting America". He may be entertainment, but he's providing lies and saying they are true and verified and because he's broadcast with the word "NEWS" in the corner, the more gullible of the American nation take him at face value.
I didn't realise the Daily Show ran with the word "NEWS" in the corner these days.
If Bill O' had a blog and no TV show I'm sure crackpots and those who enjoy real-life parody would continue to support him, but for a station to put him on the air is completely irresponsible.
Freedom. Press. Freedom of the press. Freedom. Free. Got it now?
Didn't think so.
If they loved their country
I'm pretty sure they do.
and were actually commited to being fair and balanced
As opposed to being committed to seeming fair and balanced, which is the case with the other networks.
The "Fair and Balanced" thing from Fox is a deliberate poke at the other networks. Fox is biased, but they unlike the other networks they are completely up-front about it.
and informing the public, they'd be ashamed to have someone like him working for them.
Unless, y'know, he got good ratings.
Money talks, but look who has the money in China, Iran, etc.
The rich people? The banks? I dunno, you tell me.
Do you really want the people with the most money doing your talking?
No more than I want the people who do the most talking ending up with my money.
Freedom of the press. Freedom, press. Press, freedom.
Give Jesusland a few years to work on sharpening its blades of repression.
'Cause the 229 so far haven't been enough! A few more years and wham! Repression! Mark my word, a few more years... Few more... Years... Words... Mark them, will ya, I'm out of chalk.
Free speech is not a given in America
YES IT BLOODY WELL IS!!!!!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
How complicated is that?
Darn. That's much pithier than my rant. And taking the pith is always good.
The issue is that the once-progressive American government is moving backwards in terms of civil liberties
Cite.*
* Short-hand for "give us a specific documented example, or shut up and sit down".
I just realised that I wasn't nearly harsh enough in my previous reply.
... stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time."
We have here a post about a very important subject - freedom of the press - and we get this retarded Canadian communist monkey saying "We need to
Freedom of the press includes freedom for people who disagree with you. It's not a difficult concept. Freedom means you don't get to say who gets airtime. Freedom means people get to vote for the other guy if they decide you suck.
And *WHAP* with a dead fish to whoever modded this tripe "Insightful".
If I'd grown up with only American media I'd probably think you were kidding, but since I'm from Canada and have seen both Canadian local, national, and American local and national broadcasts, I can pick out the differences.
So you've noticed the CBC's sometimes oblique approach to the truth?
We need to start demanding more from our journalists
No. We need to fire all the journalists and get some reporters.
and stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time.
What's this "allow" nonsense? In America there's this thing called "the Constitution". Everyone is allowed to have air time. They have to convince someone to actually broadcast it, but we have this other thing called "money" that's good for that.
Second, the information on wikipedia.org is far from complete - and in some cases, inaccurate.
Hey, you noticed that too?
and no this isn't a troll actually visualize part of a frickin space elevator falling into the ocean, or worse on a nearby town.
Only the cables below the break will fall down. The rest of the elevator will fall up.
Perhaps, then, you could enlighten us as to this difference.
A library has a copy of a book, which they are allowed to let as many people as they want read, without restriction-- but aren't allowed to display a copy of the front page of that book to anyone over telephone lines.
That's the "copy" part of "copyright". A library may lend a book to as many people as they like - one at a time. They may not copy it. The right to produce copies of a book is reserved to the author. Copy. Right.
Got it?
Whether such an act is terrible or not is an unanswered question, but it is a breach of copyright law.
The problem with regulations like that is that headphones vary enormously in their efficiency. I have a little crap portable set and a good set that I keep at home. I have to crank the volume way up for the portables, and every so often I'll plug the good ones in without changing the setting and get blasted.
That should read:
100 million people killed by communist regimes during the 20th century.
Dude, wake up. NOTHING these states or 'non-state-entities' could ever do could amount to the amount of terror and devastation _this_ country is causing. Bush is the terrorist, he's just using NLP to try to call the enemies terrorists.
I'm sorry, you appear to be insane.
It could just be ignorance, but the simple fact that you can read and write and have access to the internet rules against this.
One word for you: Cambodia. You want terror and devestation? They murdered two million of their own people. You want more recent terror and devestation? Try Iraq under Saddam Hussein (at least 300,000 Iraqis killed, plus another million in the Iran/Iraq war). Then there's the 100 million people killed by communist regimes during the
When it comes to terror and devestation, actual terror and devestation, America is strictly in the little leagues.
I'll ignore the rest of your deluded gibbering (boy, it's a karma bonfire today!) and focus on this:
That a nation which prides itself in being a beacon of freedom would be torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib and running a gulag in Cuba.
No-one was tortured at Abu Ghraib - not while it was under American control. Hundreds were tortured to death there under Saddam's regime. The worst that happened after he was removed was some naughty pictures.
As for the "gulag" in Cuba: Millions of people, millions, were worked to death, or starved, or froze, in the real gulags in Russia. The Gulag administration was the single largest employer in Europe.
Do you know how many prisoners have died at Guantanamo Bay?
I'll tell you.
None.
The US prides itself on being a beacon of freedom because it bloody well IS.
If that's his conclusion, then let's face it, he's a drooling idiot.
Does he think that if America destroyed its nuclear weapons, China would follow suit?
Hahahahahaha!
Morons.
The debates have been held, you pathetic wankers. We know exactly what the use of nuclear weapons would mean. The difference is that we are grown-ups and you are petulant whining children, and we understand and accept that there really are people who want to kill us.
So you're going to lock people up for the rest of their lives for committing no crime?
Nope. Just until the war's over. Or until their government arranges an exchange of prisoners.
Oops, they don't have a government.
If they have committed crimes, prove it in an open court and convict them properly.
They're prisoners of war. Caught on the battlefield, acting as combatants, and out of uniform. They could, perfectly legally, be shot on sight. The only process due to them is to be locked up until the cessation of hostilities.
If you can't do that, you're no better than the terrorists themselves.
Well, shucks.
And I expect that the US military will stick to the spirit of the ruling in the same way that GWB stuck to the spirit of the UN ruling on Iraq.
Yep. He stuck to what the resolutions actually said instead of reinterpreting them so that he could continue to receive Oil-for-Food kickbacks.
Shame!
We had that opportunity? November 2004, you say? Oops.
Well, if your party had nominated someone with more brains or charisma than a cabbage, you might have succeeded.
With the risk of sounding too anti-American (even for /.), this sounds truly cold-war-anti-socialist-pseudo-intellectual-econom ic-bullshit to me.
Which means: You are correct.
After WW-II, the whole lot of western democratic Europe profited greatly from several forms of socialistic government.
Until they realised that they would have to pay for this.
The fact that the economy had gone down-hill in the last few years says nothing about that.
It says a whole lot about that.
The European economies have grown fast and heavy in the last 30 years, and are taking a break right now on the heels of the world economy, led by the US economy.
I presume you mean "fat and heavy". Yep. That's socialism.
Unemployment might be a bit of a problem these days
A bit? Try a huge problem.
but in the west of Europe, poverty rates are MUCH lower than in the US.
Because they take money from people with jobs and give it to people without jobs.
Yes.
Socialist regulations did that.
They did indeed.
Look at the charts when you have the chance. We're now back at the same level as we were in 1999.
I've looked at the charts. Europe is not, for the most part, going backwards in absolute terms, just in relative terms.
That's not something to cheer about.
That is not a big downfall. (btw, since 1999, all over Europe governments have reformed the socialistic regulations. Might just have been the wrong decision)
So far, except for Britain, they've mostly been pissing into the wind.