There's a pretty clear difference between arguing with your claim that any limitation which ourgovernment might place on itself is a good idea because our government is a democratic one, and saying that if this is wrong, then no restriction is okay.
What I am arguing is that each restriction must be considered on its own merits, and this one, frankly, is a really lousy idea.
With due respect, your accusations here are as absurd as the previous ones. Each inmate in Camp X-Ray has their own cell, with plenty of space, and more cells have been constructed as more inmates arrive. Inmates have room in their cells to walk around, read, pray, or do as they like (most reports suggest they spend most of their time praying and jerking off, but that's their business).
In short, despite the fact that these folks are illegal combatants who could be summarily executed according to the Geneva Convention, we're treating them quite well, and being careful to offer them food and amenities which match their customs. So what, exactly, is your complaint?
Anyhow, I'm going to have to side with Jimmy Fallon of Saturday Night Live who pointed out: ``what's all this talk about their `living conditions' anyway? These guys are suicide bombers. They hate living conditions.''
I certainly wouldn't take the stance that if a democratic government agrees to do something, then that thing is, de facto, not morally wrong.
Judging by the outcry here over such things as the DMCA, I suspect most/.ers would agree with me on this.
But let's move on, as you suggest, to a more useful question: is this law actually a good idea? I would argue that because forcing technical decisions to be made in support of an ideology (free software), instead of on technical grounds (what tool is better for the job), it is a bad idea.
This is, by the way, quite different from arguing whether, in fact, picking the best tool for the job will result in picking open source solutions for many problems. I feel it will.
Oh yes, the EFF does say this, but if you look closer at this article, they don't back up their claims very well.
In particlar, they don't explain how expanding practices which were already ruled constitutional 40 years ago when JFK approved their use against the mafia to terrorist organizations (which is all that USA PATRIOT does) constitutes a taking away of rights...
So again, perhaps you can explain what specific rights you feel you had before the passage of USA PATRIOT but do not have now?
Needless to say, you have no evidence of your accusations.
And while we're on the subject, wouldn't you think the fact that no one has died at `Club Fed' (Camp X-Ray) a pretty good sign that your line about `sticking people out in the sun and waiting for them to die' is hogwash? How 'bout the fact that Camp X-Ray currently has one physician for every two inmates, carefully prepared afghan-style food to make people feel at home, and free prayer-books and signs in each cell pointing the exact direction to Mecca for those who want to pray?
OK, let's see if you can understand this distinction:
if you set out to kill civilians, because that is your goal, that is terrorism.
If you go out of your way to avoid hitting civilians, including putting your own men on the ground in danger to more accurately designate targets, that's not terrorism.
Um no, no it didn't. The percentage of people in the US or the West in general who owned slaves was never very large (and included blacks as well as whites, by the way).
Now, if you want to talk about a country like Saudi Arabia, which only outlawed black slavery in this century, or the Sudan, where it is still practiced, yes, the percentages are a little higher.
With due respect, India has a large and growing middle class, a democratic form of government, and a growing economy which is begining to bring improvements at all levels of society.
Why don't you check your facts next time before posting?
Oh yes, clearly you're right. Why should we seek to (shudder) accomplish anything at all, when we could show what DeskPoet calls `maturity' and `responsibility' by accomplishing nothing at all.
Now why didn't I think of that? Or is this just yet another case of DeskPoet trying to fit what he really wants to talk about into the mold of a barely-related/. story?
A certain government has been using fear of what the Al Quada might do to induce terror to take away the constitutional rights and freedoms of its citizens since 9/11.
Nothing but FUD. Can you point me to a single Constitutional right you've lost since September 11? One?
More generally, your `definition' of terrorism is so vague as to mean nothing at all.
Funny how the WP article neglects to mention that the order in question had been suspended by the higher court which is hearing the appeal of the decision in question.
But I'm sure that was just an accidental oversight...
I for one am proud that compared to a world where so many nations are oppressing their citizens, causing mass starvation with backwards collectivist economic strategies, or moving away from democratically-structured governments and toward massive, unaccountable bureaucracies (hi, EU!), the only thing about the US you can find to knock is a two-bit piece of IP legislation which will be struck down by the courts within a few years.
Are you arguing that the violent offshoot of Islam which calls for murder-suicide bombings such as the one Bush was decrying is real Islam? If not, why do you object to Bush saying (as some, but not enough Muslim leaders have said) that this is not the true religion that they claim to be acting in the name of?
This bothers you? Or (as with the author of the article) you are worried that this will bother Europeans?
Given the current rash of synagogue-burnings in Europe, isn't it more likely the opposition to murder-suicide bombers which might bother Europeans? And if this is the case, should we really be letting European-ness envy be the deciding matter in our foreign policy?
There *is* no "battlefield", other than perhaps the human consciousness.
Funny, I was in downtown Manhattan on September 11, about a block and a half from 1 WTC, and it sure looked like a battlefield to me...
But as you see no purpose in our nation seeking to defend itself except (in your phrase) to `spend excess ordinance', perhaps you'd care to explain how we should deal with those who are planning further such attacks?
Gas wasn't used in World War II because of the deterrent effect of nations which might used gas not wanting to be gassed themselves. Remember that gas was already against international law when it was used in the First World War, and when it was used by the Italians in Ethiopia.
At least here in the US, no one `does the time' without being tried in a court of law which observes very specific laws designed to protect the rights of the accused.
Where do you get off telling us that we should give up these protections?
What makes you think the ICC has anything to do with the Geneva Convention? The ICC is governed by a seperate treaty, which the US never ratified, and which the US has now (quite correctly) withdrawn its signature from.
I certainly did not say the UN system was toothless and vague -- it is vague, but it has very sharp teeth, which is quite a dangerous combination.
Here in the US, our forefathers fought and died to place specific limits on the power of government to abuse the court to go after perceived enemies -- indeed one of the charges against King George in the Declaration of Independence is of `` transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences''. I am not willing to see these gains in human liberty thrown away in the interest of prosecuting offenses which you quite rightly point out can already be prosecuted under US law if they occur in US jurisdiction.
And no, no one is being held in the US without due process, something which will never be the case with prisoners of the ICC.
As far as I remember the idea was to charge people that wouldn't be charged in their own country. A US citizen would only stand trial if the US justice system wouldnt or was unable to judge the matter themself.
Think about that for a second -- so if, for example, I commit an act in the US, as a US citizen, which is not a crime in the US, the US government is not going to try me for it. And thus, if the ICC feels my action violates UN principles (remember, the ICC is not bound to enforce only specific laws, but is empowered to enforce vague principles), away I go. it doesn't stop there, of course, because the ICC is also empowered to act if those being tried are found innocent, or if the ICC disagrees with the sentence meted out.
If two countries are at war then ofcourse there would be better to have an international way of cleaning up afterwards or should the winner (if there is one in a war) do that?
With due respect, we've had a mechanism for trying war criminals in international tribunals, such as those at Nuremberg, or those currently trying Milosevic, for decades. This has nothing to do with the ICC.
The "our system is better than their system" is a narrow way of seeing things and many, many people have a different oppinion of how a society should be run and justice achieved.
Oh yes, the Taliban system of justice, for example, where women could be beaten if their shoes made noise, or stoned to death if they showed their faces in public sure was `different' from ours. That it was. But `different' does not mean `as good'.
Try convincing a palestinian about why the western way is the "light of the world".
Funny you should say that -- a heck of a lot more Palestinians come to the US to live than Americans go to Arab countries each year.
The US government is very keen on charging people in other countries for crimes but refuse to take their own medecine... What "higher" kind of morale and justice is that?
Are we? Doesn't seem that way to me... Who are we trying for crimes which don't involve us? Anyone?
Ah yes, the old `if you've got nothing to hide, why are you so worried about giving us unregulated power over you' ploy. Here on/., that doesn't even pass the laugh test...
Slashdot Mirror
What I am arguing is that each restriction must be considered on its own merits, and this one, frankly, is a really lousy idea.
In short, despite the fact that these folks are illegal combatants who could be summarily executed according to the Geneva Convention, we're treating them quite well, and being careful to offer them food and amenities which match their customs. So what, exactly, is your complaint?
Anyhow, I'm going to have to side with Jimmy Fallon of Saturday Night Live who pointed out: ``what's all this talk about their `living conditions' anyway? These guys are suicide bombers. They hate living conditions.''
Judging by the outcry here over such things as the DMCA, I suspect most /.ers would agree with me on this.
But let's move on, as you suggest, to a more useful question: is this law actually a good idea? I would argue that because forcing technical decisions to be made in support of an ideology (free software), instead of on technical grounds (what tool is better for the job), it is a bad idea.
This is, by the way, quite different from arguing whether, in fact, picking the best tool for the job will result in picking open source solutions for many problems. I feel it will.
It is a democracy (or rather, a democratic republic). But surely you wouldn't argue that that makes any law which passes a good idea, would you?
In particlar, they don't explain how expanding practices which were already ruled constitutional 40 years ago when JFK approved their use against the mafia to terrorist organizations (which is all that USA PATRIOT does) constitutes a taking away of rights...
So again, perhaps you can explain what specific rights you feel you had before the passage of USA PATRIOT but do not have now?
And while we're on the subject, wouldn't you think the fact that no one has died at `Club Fed' (Camp X-Ray) a pretty good sign that your line about `sticking people out in the sun and waiting for them to die' is hogwash? How 'bout the fact that Camp X-Ray currently has one physician for every two inmates, carefully prepared afghan-style food to make people feel at home, and free prayer-books and signs in each cell pointing the exact direction to Mecca for those who want to pray?
if you set out to kill civilians, because that is your goal, that is terrorism.
If you go out of your way to avoid hitting civilians, including putting your own men on the ground in danger to more accurately designate targets, that's not terrorism.
Any questions?
Can you point to any rights you claim you have lost in the name of fighting terrorism?
Now, if you want to talk about a country like Saudi Arabia, which only outlawed black slavery in this century, or the Sudan, where it is still practiced, yes, the percentages are a little higher.
Why don't you check your facts next time before posting?
Now why didn't I think of that? Or is this just yet another case of DeskPoet trying to fit what he really wants to talk about into the mold of a barely-related /. story?
A certain government has been using fear of what the Al Quada might do to induce terror to take away the constitutional rights and freedoms of its citizens since 9/11.
Nothing but FUD. Can you point me to a single Constitutional right you've lost since September 11? One?
More generally, your `definition' of terrorism is so vague as to mean nothing at all.
But I'm sure that was just an accidental oversight...
Sounds pretty good to me...
Interesting...
And yes, I have heard President Bush speak, quite clearly, about the coming war with Iraq and other matters. Have you?
Mmm, yes. I didn't know they had internet access in Bizarro World.
Are you arguing that the violent offshoot of Islam which calls for murder-suicide bombings such as the one Bush was decrying is real Islam? If not, why do you object to Bush saying (as some, but not enough Muslim leaders have said) that this is not the true religion that they claim to be acting in the name of?
This bothers you? Or (as with the author of the article) you are worried that this will bother Europeans?
Given the current rash of synagogue-burnings in Europe, isn't it more likely the opposition to murder-suicide bombers which might bother Europeans? And if this is the case, should we really be letting European-ness envy be the deciding matter in our foreign policy?
There *is* no "battlefield", other than perhaps the human consciousness.
Funny, I was in downtown Manhattan on September 11, about a block and a half from 1 WTC, and it sure looked like a battlefield to me...
But as you see no purpose in our nation seeking to defend itself except (in your phrase) to `spend excess ordinance', perhaps you'd care to explain how we should deal with those who are planning further such attacks?
Gas wasn't used in World War II because of the deterrent effect of nations which might used gas not wanting to be gassed themselves. Remember that gas was already against international law when it was used in the First World War, and when it was used by the Italians in Ethiopia.
Where do you get off telling us that we should give up these protections?
What makes you think the ICC has anything to do with the Geneva Convention? The ICC is governed by a seperate treaty, which the US never ratified, and which the US has now (quite correctly) withdrawn its signature from.
Here in the US, our forefathers fought and died to place specific limits on the power of government to abuse the court to go after perceived enemies -- indeed one of the charges against King George in the Declaration of Independence is of `` transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences''. I am not willing to see these gains in human liberty thrown away in the interest of prosecuting offenses which you quite rightly point out can already be prosecuted under US law if they occur in US jurisdiction.
And no, no one is being held in the US without due process, something which will never be the case with prisoners of the ICC.
Seconded.
As far as I remember the idea was to charge people that wouldn't be charged in their own country. A US citizen would only stand trial if the US justice system wouldnt or was unable to judge the matter themself.
Think about that for a second -- so if, for example, I commit an act in the US, as a US citizen, which is not a crime in the US, the US government is not going to try me for it. And thus, if the ICC feels my action violates UN principles (remember, the ICC is not bound to enforce only specific laws, but is empowered to enforce vague principles), away I go. it doesn't stop there, of course, because the ICC is also empowered to act if those being tried are found innocent, or if the ICC disagrees with the sentence meted out.
If two countries are at war then ofcourse there would be better to have an international way of cleaning up afterwards or should the winner (if there is one in a war) do that?
With due respect, we've had a mechanism for trying war criminals in international tribunals, such as those at Nuremberg, or those currently trying Milosevic, for decades. This has nothing to do with the ICC.
The "our system is better than their system" is a narrow way of seeing things and many, many people have a different oppinion of how a society should be run and justice achieved.
Oh yes, the Taliban system of justice, for example, where women could be beaten if their shoes made noise, or stoned to death if they showed their faces in public sure was `different' from ours. That it was. But `different' does not mean `as good'.
Try convincing a palestinian about why the western way is the "light of the world".
Funny you should say that -- a heck of a lot more Palestinians come to the US to live than Americans go to Arab countries each year.
The US government is very keen on charging people in other countries for crimes but refuse to take their own medecine... What "higher" kind of morale and justice is that?
Are we? Doesn't seem that way to me... Who are we trying for crimes which don't involve us? Anyone?
Ah yes, the old `if you've got nothing to hide, why are you so worried about giving us unregulated power over you' ploy. Here on /., that doesn't even pass the laugh test...