Marx would actually be the first person to be spreading pamplets and printing newspapers opposing the USSR. If you've ever read Marx, he has written much about people that claim to hold his ideology.
With due respect, I have read Marx, just as I have read critiques of Marx and his followers from his own period (even on the left, critics of Marx such as Bakunin predicted quite well what many of the results of Marx's program would be).
The fact remains: in the years since Marx, we have seen dozens of movements which assured us, just as you are assuring us, that `what was tried so far was not the real Marxism, if you only give us a chance, we'll be different, no really, we promise'. And you know what? Every single one of these movements which got its hands on power turned out to be brutal and murderous.
You may argue that this is coincidence, but with with the millions who have died in the name of `no really, we mean it this time', I'd say the onus is on you to clear your name, not on us to give you another chance...
Re:OT so mod me down, but I don't care
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 1
Right now, a federal court in Manhattan is hearing a petition challenging the designation of Mr. al-Muhajir as an illegal combatant. Findlaw should be able to get you the briefs, if you want.
With due respect, are you denying that Mr. al-Muhajir is currently appealing his transfer to military juridiction? Are you denying that the case has been accepted and is being heard?
Since there has been a lot of misinformation floating around about the detention of Abdullah al-Muhajir (the dirty bomber), here's a link to the supreme court precedent governing detention of enemy combatants:
Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not
relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful
because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate
themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its
aid, [317 U.S. 1, 38] guidance and direction enter this country bent
on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague
Convention and the law of war. Cf. Gates v. Goodloe, 101 U.S. 612, 615,
617 S., 618. It is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt is
charged with entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is
the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused.
and
Petitioners, and especially petitioner Haupt, stress the pronouncement
of this Court in the Milligan case, 4 Wall. page 121, that the law of
war 'can never be applied to citizens in states which have upheld the
authority of the government, and where the courts are open and their
process unobstructed'. Elsewhere in its opinion, 4 Wall. at pages 118,
121, 122, and 131, the Court was at pains to point out that Milligan,
a citizen twenty years resident in Indiana, who had never been a
resident of any of the states in rebellion, was not an enemy
belligerent either entitled to the status of a prisoner of war or
subject to the penalties imposed upon unlawful belligerents. We
construe the Court's statement as to the inapplicability of the law of
war to Milligan's case as having particular reference to the facts
before it. From them the Court concluded that Milligan, not being a
part of or associated with the armed forces of the enemy, was a
non-belligerent, not subject to the law of war save as-in
circumstances found not there to be present and not involved
here-martial law might be constitutionally established.
The Court's opinion is inapplicable to the case presented by the
present record. We have no occasion now to define [317 U.S. 1, 46]
with meticulous care the ultimate boundaries of the jurisdiction of
military tribunals to try persons according to the law of war. It is
enough that petitioners here, upon the conceded facts, were plainly
within those boundaries, and were held in good faith for trial by
military commission, charged with being enemies who, with the purpose
of destroying war materials and utilities, entered or after entry
remained in our territory without uniform-an offense against the law
of war. We hold only that those particular acts constitute an offense
against the law of war which the Constitution authorizes to be tried
by military commission.
Since the first specification of Charge I set forth a violation of the
law of war, we have no occasion to pass on the adequacy of the second
specification of Charge I, or to construe the 81st and 82nd Articles
of War for the purpose of ascertaining whether the specifications
under Charges II and III allege violations of those Articles or
whether if so construed they are constitutional. McNally v. Hill, 293
U.S. 131 , 55 S.Ct. 24.
and
By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction
between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent
nations7 and also between [317 U.S. 1, 31] those who are lawful and
unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and
detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful
combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in
addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military
tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.
and
By a long course of practical administrative construction by its
military authorities, our Government has likewise recognized that
those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory
into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission
of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the
status of unlawful combatants punishable as such by military
commission. This precept of the law of war has been so recognized in
practice both here and abroad, and has so generally been accepted as
valid by authorities on international law12 that we think it must be
regarded as [317 U.S. 1, 36] a rule or principle of the law of war
recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth
Article of War.
and
Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806, 2 Stat. 371,
derived from the Resolution of the Continental Congress of August 21,
1776, 13 imposed the death penalty on alien spies 'according to the
law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general court martial'.
This enactment must be regarded as a contemporary construction of both
Article III, 2, and the Amendments as not foreclosing trial by
military tribunals, without a jury, of offenses against the law of war
committed by enemies not in or associated with our Armed Forces. It is
a construction of the Constitution which has been followed since the
founding of our government, and is now continued in the 82nd Article
of War.
Re:Don't misrepresent what happened
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 1
Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not
relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful
because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate
themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its
aid, [317 U.S. 1, 38] guidance and direction enter this country bent
on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague
Convention and the law of war. Cf. Gates v. Goodloe, 101 U.S. 612, 615,
617 S., 618. It is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt is
charged with entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is
the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused.
and
Petitioners, and especially petitioner Haupt, stress the pronouncement
of this Court in the Milligan case, 4 Wall. page 121, that the law of
war 'can never be applied to citizens in states which have upheld the
authority of the government, and where the courts are open and their
process unobstructed'. Elsewhere in its opinion, 4 Wall. at pages 118,
121, 122, and 131, the Court was at pains to point out that Milligan,
a citizen twenty years resident in Indiana, who had never been a
resident of any of the states in rebellion, was not an enemy
belligerent either entitled to the status of a prisoner of war or
subject to the penalties imposed upon unlawful belligerents. We
construe the Court's statement as to the inapplicability of the law of
war to Milligan's case as having particular reference to the facts
before it. From them the Court concluded that Milligan, not being a
part of or associated with the armed forces of the enemy, was a
non-belligerent, not subject to the law of war save as-in
circumstances found not there to be present and not involved
here-martial law might be constitutionally established.
The Court's opinion is inapplicable to the case presented by the
present record. We have no occasion now to define [317 U.S. 1, 46]
with meticulous care the ultimate boundaries of the jurisdiction of
military tribunals to try persons according to the law of war. It is
enough that petitioners here, upon the conceded facts, were plainly
within those boundaries, and were held in good faith for trial by
military commission, charged with being enemies who, with the purpose
of destroying war materials and utilities, entered or after entry
remained in our territory without uniform-an offense against the law
of war. We hold only that those particular acts constitute an offense
against the law of war which the Constitution authorizes to be tried
by military commission.
Since the first specification of Charge I set forth a violation of the
law of war, we have no occasion to pass on the adequacy of the second
specification of Charge I, or to construe the 81st and 82nd Articles
of War for the purpose of ascertaining whether the specifications
under Charges II and III allege violations of those Articles or
whether if so construed they are constitutional. McNally v. Hill, 293
U.S. 131 , 55 S.Ct. 24.
and
By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction
between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent
nations7 and also between [317 U.S. 1, 31] those who are lawful and
unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and
detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful
combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in
addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military
tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.
and
By a long course of practical administrative construction by its
military authorities, our Government has likewise recognized that
those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory
into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission
of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the
status of unlawful combatants punishable as such by military
commission. This precept of the law of war has been so recognized in
practice both here and abroad, and has so generally been accepted as
valid by authorities on international law12 that we think it must be
regarded as [317 U.S. 1, 36] a rule or principle of the law of war
recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth
Article of War.
and
Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806, 2 Stat. 371,
derived from the Resolution of the Continental Congress of August 21,
1776, 13 imposed the death penalty on alien spies 'according to the
law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general court martial'.
This enactment must be regarded as a contemporary construction of both
Article III, 2, and the Amendments as not foreclosing trial by
military tribunals, without a jury, of offenses against the law of war
committed by enemies not in or associated with our Armed Forces. It is
a construction of the Constitution which has been followed since the
founding of our government, and is now continued in the 82nd Article
of War.
Re:OT so mod me down, but I don't care
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 1
What deanj said, plus the obvious question: if there is no judicial review, pray tell what the hearing currently going on in Manhattan is?
This is simply incorrect -- Ex Parte Quirin, defines US citizen enemy combatants very clearly as:
Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, [317 U.S. 1, 38] guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts
Any ruling that there is not court jurisdiction in this case would be an expansion of the existing precedent, and would, of course be appealed. In either case, I expect this one to end up with the supremes.
Re:OT so mod me down, but I don't care
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 1
It is you who misunderstand. Under the law of war and US war, a combatant may be held without trial until the end of hostilities in any case -- do you think we gave trials to all the Germans we caught in the second world war? Mr. al-Muhajir is entitled to a judicial review of the claim that he is a combatant, and he is getting that review in a Manhattan courtroom as we speak.
Re:Don't misrepresent what happened
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 1
The case you are looking for is called Ex Parte Quirin, and was ruled on by the Supreme Court in 1943. Your description of it is quite correct.
Nonsense. Mr. al-Muhajir is entitled to judicial review of the ruling that he is a combatant, and is getting that review right now in a New York courtroom.
Mr. al-Muhajir is the subject of a hearing right now in a New York court, as to whether there is ample evidence to hold him as a combatant. Consider me to be letting you know.
Mr. al-Muhajir is being held as an enemy combatant, under a precedent dating back to the earliest days of our nation, and upheld as recently as the supreme court decision in Ex Parte Quirin, in 1943. He has full access to civilian courts to contest the ruling that he is a combatant, and is doing so in a Manhattan courtroom right now.
So it is your opinion that something which we cannot currently measure is necessarily subjective? We currently have no way to describe the events of an inifitessimal time period after the big bang. Does this mean nothing happened then? We have no way to count the number of earth-like planets out there. Does that mean that there is no correct answer as to how many of them there are? Really?
As to your last part, your argument rests on the claim that because our ideas of morality have changed, there is no external, objective moral standard. Does this mean that because our ideas of the Earth's shape have changed, the Earth has no actual shape?
Do I get a prize? Five interconnected godwinations by the same poster? No? damn.
Oh, gee, did this thread move to USENET while I wasn't looking?
One of the fundamental principles behind fora of
discussion (whether informed discussion or uninformed: I'll leave it up to the observers to decide which of these/. qualifies as) is that views, and the rationales for those views, may be exchanged for the mutual education and enlightenmant of the disputants.
Right, but this can't be considered an end if we accept the subjectivist line, i.e., if we believe that no one view is more correct than another. What possible reason could we have to `enlighten' (even your language gives away a belief in an objective truth) someone if all views have the same merit?
Now you make a lot of noise about the reference to Nazis in this post, but the reference is on topic -- if you do not believe that any one system of morality is better than any other, how do you argue that the Nazi system of morality is worse than ours? You can't have your cake and eat it to. You can't claim that all systems of morality are equal except for the Nazi one...
Clearly, history is not your strong suite. Let's go over those claims, shall we?
The US proposed the UN security council motion which led to the war in Korea -- yes, but this resolution was a response to the North Korean invasion of South Korea. Is it really your position that the war began not when the North invaded the South, but when the US got involved?
The US started the war in Vietnam -- again, where do you get the idea that the war hadn't `started' at the point when North Vietnam sent troops into South Vietnam?
The US definitely started the Afghanistan war -- nonsense. The US trained and funded forces which were already active.
Public Enemy No. 1 was trained and equipped by the CIA -- this is similarly incorrect. For a good dissection of this myth, see
this piece, from The New Republic (hardly a conservative or pro-Bush publication).
So basically, what you're saying here just doesn't hold up...
The main problem with this claim is that in fact, the poor have gotten richer in an absolute sense in almost every decade that the US has existed. In other words, it is simply false that `the rich get richer and the poor get poorer'. In point of fact, the rich get richer and the poor get richer. That's what's so great about our system.
Or, put differently, `Anonymous Coward can't actually find anything there to disagree with, so is resorting to insults'. Thanks for playing, sorry you lost, try again some time.
With due respect, the government of Nicaragua has published plenty of information on the crimes of the previous regime. Do you know something that they don't?
Back to my previous statement: you are trying to equate physical world and abstract notions that can be only operated upon in our minds.
Much of mathematics is highly abstract, and is acted upon within our minds. This claim alone is not enough to take mathematics (or morality) out of the realm of objective truth.
I agree. I can only try to think outside of the box but I am constrained by the limitation the box put upon me, like most of us.
Whether your observation of reality is constrained does not change the nature of the reality being observed. If you were blind, it would not make light nonexistant.
I expect noone who lives in a society to be able to come up with unconstrained definitions for *bad* and *good* that can be accepted by all cultures at all time as the ultimate definitions.
Completely true, and also completely irrelevant -- you could not come up with even a simple description of how the world works (or even what shape it is) which would be accepted by all cultures in all times. This does not make the world non-existant, as you yourself have pointed out.
Much of the problem with the Institute's case (I had already read this piece, being a supporter of the Rutherford Institute, who have done great work in other areas), is that it relies on asserting that certain actions are unconstitutional when said actions have already been ruled constitutional in other contexts. By extending to organized terror procedures which have been used against organized crime since the sixties, the bill makes a tempting target for those who do not believe that terror is a real threat, but there is very little new ground here.
Perhaps this is why the Institute's document cites so few constitutional law cases, and ignores vast bodies of precedent in a number of areas.
You've just repeated your last post, making a range of wild claims without pointing to any language in the current act which does what you say the act does.
Repetition is not demonstration. Neither is assertion. Please provide cites, or don't expect people to give your position much credence.
I ask again: what language in this act or any other affects any of the rights you claim are challenged?
Of course you can dislike being ground underfoot, just as you may dislike cutting your fingernails. You have no grounds for saying either of these things is more wrong then the other, however, or for objecting to either. So again, I do not expect to hear any more objection to action by government or individuals from you -- you may say you do not like an action, but you have given up your grounds for saying it shouldn't be done.
Nor is your position particularly new or misunderstood -- Plato knocked down your position in his dialogue with Protagoras, and since then many, many thinkers, from Aristotle to Locke, from Descartes to Kierkegaard have considered a stand such as yours and rejected it.
It's good to see that you are at least honest (and foolish) enough to carry your position through to its conclusion. Can I then assume that I will never again see you object to any actions of the government, industry, or individuals, now that you have thrown away any justification for your complaints?
Slashdot Mirror
Marx would actually be the first person to be spreading pamplets and printing newspapers opposing the USSR. If you've ever read Marx, he has written much about people that claim to hold his ideology.
With due respect, I have read Marx, just as I have read critiques of Marx and his followers from his own period (even on the left, critics of Marx such as Bakunin predicted quite well what many of the results of Marx's program would be).
The fact remains: in the years since Marx, we have seen dozens of movements which assured us, just as you are assuring us, that `what was tried so far was not the real Marxism, if you only give us a chance, we'll be different, no really, we promise'. And you know what? Every single one of these movements which got its hands on power turned out to be brutal and murderous.
You may argue that this is coincidence, but with with the millions who have died in the name of `no really, we mean it this time', I'd say the onus is on you to clear your name, not on us to give you another chance...
Right now, a federal court in Manhattan is hearing a petition challenging the designation of Mr. al-Muhajir as an illegal combatant. Findlaw should be able to get you the briefs, if you want.
What world are you living in?
What deanj said, plus the obvious question: if there is no judicial review, pray tell what the hearing currently going on in Manhattan is?
It is you who misunderstand. Under the law of war and US war, a combatant may be held without trial until the end of hostilities in any case -- do you think we gave trials to all the Germans we caught in the second world war? Mr. al-Muhajir is entitled to a judicial review of the claim that he is a combatant, and he is getting that review in a Manhattan courtroom as we speak.
The case you are looking for is called Ex Parte Quirin, and was ruled on by the Supreme Court in 1943. Your description of it is quite correct.
Nonsense. Mr. al-Muhajir is entitled to judicial review of the ruling that he is a combatant, and is getting that review right now in a New York courtroom.
Mr. al-Muhajir is the subject of a hearing right now in a New York court, as to whether there is ample evidence to hold him as a combatant. Consider me to be letting you know.
Mr. al-Muhajir is being held as an enemy combatant, under a precedent dating back to the earliest days of our nation, and upheld as recently as the supreme court decision in Ex Parte Quirin, in 1943. He has full access to civilian courts to contest the ruling that he is a combatant, and is doing so in a Manhattan courtroom right now.
As to your last part, your argument rests on the claim that because our ideas of morality have changed, there is no external, objective moral standard. Does this mean that because our ideas of the Earth's shape have changed, the Earth has no actual shape?
Do I get a prize? Five interconnected godwinations by the same poster? No? damn.
Oh, gee, did this thread move to USENET while I wasn't looking?
One of the fundamental principles behind fora of discussion (whether informed discussion or uninformed: I'll leave it up to the observers to decide which of these /. qualifies as) is that views, and the rationales for those views, may be exchanged for the mutual education and enlightenmant of the disputants.
Right, but this can't be considered an end if we accept the subjectivist line, i.e., if we believe that no one view is more correct than another. What possible reason could we have to `enlighten' (even your language gives away a belief in an objective truth) someone if all views have the same merit?
Now you make a lot of noise about the reference to Nazis in this post, but the reference is on topic -- if you do not believe that any one system of morality is better than any other, how do you argue that the Nazi system of morality is worse than ours? You can't have your cake and eat it to. You can't claim that all systems of morality are equal except for the Nazi one...
- The US proposed the UN security council motion which led to the war in Korea -- yes, but this resolution was a response to the North Korean invasion of South Korea. Is it really your position that the war began not when the North invaded the South, but when the US got involved?
- The US started the war in Vietnam -- again, where do you get the idea that the war hadn't `started' at the point when North Vietnam sent troops into South Vietnam?
- The US definitely started the Afghanistan war -- nonsense. The US trained and funded forces which were already active.
- Public Enemy No. 1 was trained and equipped by the CIA -- this is similarly incorrect. For a good dissection of this myth, see
this piece, from The New Republic (hardly a conservative or pro-Bush publication).
So basically, what you're saying here just doesn't hold up...The main problem with this claim is that in fact, the poor have gotten richer in an absolute sense in almost every decade that the US has existed. In other words, it is simply false that `the rich get richer and the poor get poorer'. In point of fact, the rich get richer and the poor get richer. That's what's so great about our system.
Or, put differently, `Anonymous Coward can't actually find anything there to disagree with, so is resorting to insults'. Thanks for playing, sorry you lost, try again some time.
Funny how the US didn't start any of the wars you name here.
Read some Orwell. He had no stomach for people who would play word games to avoid admitting that some things are morally wrong.
With due respect, the government of Nicaragua has published plenty of information on the crimes of the previous regime. Do you know something that they don't?
Back to my previous statement: you are trying to equate physical world and abstract notions that can be only operated upon in our minds.
Much of mathematics is highly abstract, and is acted upon within our minds. This claim alone is not enough to take mathematics (or morality) out of the realm of objective truth.
I agree. I can only try to think outside of the box but I am constrained by the limitation the box put upon me, like most of us.
Whether your observation of reality is constrained does not change the nature of the reality being observed. If you were blind, it would not make light nonexistant.
I expect noone who lives in a society to be able to come up with unconstrained definitions for *bad* and *good* that can be accepted by all cultures at all time as the ultimate definitions.
Completely true, and also completely irrelevant -- you could not come up with even a simple description of how the world works (or even what shape it is) which would be accepted by all cultures in all times. This does not make the world non-existant, as you yourself have pointed out.
Perhaps this is why the Institute's document cites so few constitutional law cases, and ignores vast bodies of precedent in a number of areas.
Repetition is not demonstration. Neither is assertion. Please provide cites, or don't expect people to give your position much credence.
I ask again: what language in this act or any other affects any of the rights you claim are challenged?
Nor is your position particularly new or misunderstood -- Plato knocked down your position in his dialogue with Protagoras, and since then many, many thinkers, from Aristotle to Locke, from Descartes to Kierkegaard have considered a stand such as yours and rejected it.
It's good to see that you are at least honest (and foolish) enough to carry your position through to its conclusion. Can I then assume that I will never again see you object to any actions of the government, industry, or individuals, now that you have thrown away any justification for your complaints?