[Lobowolf]

mike777, on Jan 21 2009, 08:10 PM, said:

kenberg, on Jan 21 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Jan 21 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

keylime, on Jan 21 2009, 02:45 PM, said:

there were sections that were quite definitive in its bluntness and veiled criticism of Bush, which I strongly feel is not the appropriate tone for a transfer of power

Obama was elected to reverse those very failings he listed so bluntly. I think he was right not to pussy-foot around the truth.

It was an announcement that things were now going to be different and there really is no way to say that without implying that there was something wrong with the way things had been done. Further, he was not just talking about Georege Bush or Republicans or conservatives.

Possibly we all read into the speech something of what we want to see in it. But the repeated calls to responsibility were, I think, a very big deal. Of course no none is advocating irresponsibility but again there is a matter of what he chose to emphasize.

Of course anyone can find there tut tut examples, but here is one. A couple of weeks ago the Washington Post did another of the stories on foreclosures. Maybe it was a slow news day. But this guy bought a house for around 220K, borrowed another 180K against its inflated value (numbers approximate but pretty much right), spent it all, and now is in trouble. Well, no *****! I am sort of hoping the call to responsibility means something like this:
To the bank/mortgage brokers/derivative investor: The money is gone, you dumb fools. You won't be getting it back
To the owner: Your house is gone, you idiot. From here on in no one will be lending you the price of a beer.
To the community: We will see to it that with all possible speed this house is taken from the idiots and sold to some family that grasps the concept of paying off, not enlarging, a mortgage.

Yes, like everything else (Middle East, the auto industry, etc) I know it isn't that simple. But I wanted to get this off my chest.

I am not quite sure what you are advocating. This guy and his children should be thrown out into the street and starve? The government pay for his house, food, health care etc?..... other? Clearly this guy is poor, very poor in fact broke.

Maybe he should rent, rather than people who DIDN'T over-borrow, and are paying rent/mortgages of their own (i.e. "the government") buying his house for him.

[mike777]

Lobowolf, on Jan 21 2009, 08:15 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 21 2009, 08:10 PM, said:

kenberg, on Jan 21 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Jan 21 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

keylime, on Jan 21 2009, 02:45 PM, said:

there were sections that were quite definitive in its bluntness and veiled criticism of Bush, which I strongly feel is not the appropriate tone for a transfer of power

Obama was elected to reverse those very failings he listed so bluntly. I think he was right not to pussy-foot around the truth.

It was an announcement that things were now going to be different and there really is no way to say that without implying that there was something wrong with the way things had been done. Further, he was not just talking about Georege Bush or Republicans or conservatives.

Possibly we all read into the speech something of what we want to see in it. But the repeated calls to responsibility were, I think, a very big deal. Of course no none is advocating irresponsibility but again there is a matter of what he chose to emphasize.

Of course anyone can find there tut tut examples, but here is one. A couple of weeks ago the Washington Post did another of the stories on foreclosures. Maybe it was a slow news day. But this guy bought a house for around 220K, borrowed another 180K against its inflated value (numbers approximate but pretty much right), spent it all, and now is in trouble. Well, no *****! I am sort of hoping the call to responsibility means something like this:
To the bank/mortgage brokers/derivative investor: The money is gone, you dumb fools. You won't be getting it back
To the owner: Your house is gone, you idiot. From here on in no one will be lending you the price of a beer.
To the community: We will see to it that with all possible speed this house is taken from the idiots and sold to some family that grasps the concept of paying off, not enlarging, a mortgage.

Yes, like everything else (Middle East, the auto industry, etc) I know it isn't that simple. But I wanted to get this off my chest.

I am not quite sure what you are advocating. This guy and his children should be thrown out into the street and starve? The government pay for his house, food, health care etc?..... other? Clearly this guy is poor, very poor in fact broke.

Maybe he should rent, rather than people who DIDN'T over-borrow, and are paying rent/mortgages of their own (i.e. "the government") buying his house for him.

I assume if you are poor, you do not have money for rent...you are poor or to use the word I did,,,broke...

Denmark is the happiest country in the world, at least we have a model to be happy.

"Denmark 'happiest' country in the world"

http://www.cnn.com/2...ness/index.html

[keylime]

Winstonm, on Jan 21 2009, 09:07 PM, said:

I certainly understand Dwayne's concerns about criticizing the outgoing administration and whether or not this was correct timing, but I also believe the Vice-President did not help matters when in his last week in office he said that Guantanemo should stay open and Obama should keep the Bush Administration security apparatus intact, and that authorizing torture had been the right thing to do and should be continued.

Winston,

I have very mixed feelings about Gitmo for years. There is the part of me that feels that we should hold any combatant that whose sole purpose is to inflict harm on my country. There is the other part of me that believes in the right of due process and discovery of the truth.

I can see Mr. Cheney arguing vociferously for the maintaining of the status quo. I can also see why the President moved very quickly on this topic.

[Lobowolf]

mike777, on Jan 21 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

Denmark is the happiest country in the world, at least we have a model to be happy.

Sorta makes you wonder why we have fewer suicides.

[kenberg]

mike777, on Jan 21 2009, 08:10 PM, said:

kenberg, on Jan 21 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Jan 21 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

keylime, on Jan 21 2009, 02:45 PM, said:

there were sections that were quite definitive in its bluntness and veiled criticism of Bush, which I strongly feel is not the appropriate tone for a transfer of power

Obama was elected to reverse those very failings he listed so bluntly. I think he was right not to pussy-foot around the truth.

It was an announcement that things were now going to be different and there really is no way to say that without implying that there was something wrong with the way things had been done. Further, he was not just talking about Georege Bush or Republicans or conservatives.

Possibly we all read into the speech something of what we want to see in it. But the repeated calls to responsibility were, I think, a very big deal. Of course no none is advocating irresponsibility but again there is a matter of what he chose to emphasize.

Of course anyone can find there tut tut examples, but here is one. A couple of weeks ago the Washington Post did another of the stories on foreclosures. Maybe it was a slow news day. But this guy bought a house for around 220K, borrowed another 180K against its inflated value (numbers approximate but pretty much right), spent it all, and now is in trouble. Well, no *****! I am sort of hoping the call to responsibility means something like this:
To the bank/mortgage brokers/derivative investor: The money is gone, you dumb fools. You won't be getting it back
To the owner: Your house is gone, you idiot. From here on in no one will be lending you the price of a beer.
To the community: We will see to it that with all possible speed this house is taken from the idiots and sold to some family that grasps the concept of paying off, not enlarging, a mortgage.

Yes, like everything else (Middle East, the auto industry, etc) I know it isn't that simple. But I wanted to get this off my chest.

I am not quite sure what you are advocating. This guy and his children should be thrown out into the street and starve? The government pay for his house, food, health care etc?..... other? Clearly this guy is poor, very poor in fact broke.

I would hope the new President would change America so the poor can have a decent house, food, health care, education...etc....

Denmark is the happiest country in the world, at least we have a model to be happy.

"Denmark 'happiest' country in the world"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/07/02/natio...ness/index.html

Well, to some extent I was just emoting. And I definitely do not want to derail the rather fine purpose of this thread for discussing the inauguration. But one of the items the president addressed was responsibility and the lack of it, and I think that at least some of the foreclosure crisis has been caused by people making almost unbelievable stupid choices. And I say this as someone who has made some pretty stupid choices. I realize that there are a variety of causes, not everything is simple, and so on. But in this case it seems that the community will suffer from the foreclosure. I would like to put some of our effort, and money, into helping them. The guy that squandered 180K because he could can fend for himself (there are no kids in this particular case, and no longer a wife either, she at least has some sense).

[Phil]

So today he suspends actions at Gitmo, institutes some pretty amazing lobbying reforms and freezes pay hikes at the White House.

Not bad for a 1st day. I'm really starting to like this guy.

[mike777]

Keep in mind
1) actions in gitmo not suspended
2) Lobbying not suspended
3) pay hikes not suspended

[Gerben42]

Quote

I have very mixed feelings about Gitmo for years. There is the part of me that feels that we should hold any combatant that whose sole purpose is to inflict harm on my country.

Sure, of course these people are dangerous and "planning to do harm to the USA" should be a crime. But this does not in any way justify having a prison camp outside of US borders to get around the Geneva convention. Nothing does.

[mike777]

Gerben42, on Jan 22 2009, 03:22 AM, said:

Quote

I have very mixed feelings about Gitmo for years. There is the part of me that feels that we should hold any combatant that whose sole purpose is to inflict harm on my country.

Sure, of course these people are dangerous and "planning to do harm to the USA" should be a crime. But this does not in any way justify having a prison camp outside of US borders to get around the Geneva convention. Nothing does.

Fair enough so what does your country do?.
1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Jan 22 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Jan 22 2009, 03:22 AM, said:

Quote

I have very mixed feelings about Gitmo for years. There is the part of me that feels that we should hold any combatant that whose sole purpose is to inflict harm on my country.

Sure, of course these people are dangerous and "planning to do harm to the USA" should be a crime. But this does not in any way justify having a prison camp outside of US borders to get around the Geneva convention. Nothing does.

Fair enough so what does your country do?.
1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

Shame on you, Mike.

Neocon tactic.

Disgusting.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Jan 22 2009, 09:25 AM, said:

Fair enough so what does your country do?.
1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

Not sure which country I should call "mine", but if your question should be read as "what should have been done with captured terrorist suspects" I would say: treat them as you treat all other suspects. Give them a normal trial. wtp?

[Gerben42]

Quote

mike777, on Jan 22 2009, 09:25 AM, said:

Fair enough so what does your country do?.
1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

Not sure which country I should call "mine", but if your question should be read as "what should have been done with captured terrorist suspects" I would say: treat them as you treat all other suspects. Give them a normal trial. wtp?

Germany: The RAF terrorists like Klar & Mohnhaupt were tried in a normal trial.

Alternatively, one can put people on trial at the international court in The Hague.

[kenberg]

The inaugural speech was good, everyone cheered, now t gets down to choices. Whatever choices are made, some will cheer and some will not.

I predict that whatever decision is made regarding the treatment of foreign based terrorists operating in the US, it will not be that we treat them just as if they were ordinary crooks.

We of course do put people such as Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City) and Eric Rudolph (abortion clinic bombings) on trial. McVeigh was executed, Rudolph is in prison for life. We have put Americans on trial who were agents of foreign governments, from the Rosenbergs to Robert Hanson. Non-citizens working stealthily on sabotage on behalf of hostile foreign governments have, I think, always been treated differently. By our government, by I think most governments, and I believe by the Geneva agreements. One could say that Al Qaeda is not exactly a foreign government and, while maybe a bit of a hair spitting argument, this is technically true. It is a situation to be dealt with. I hope we take some careful thought as to how we go about this. I seriously doubt that the final decision will be to just treat it as if the person is an ordinary criminal. Often what we do with criminals from other countries is just deport them. Lucky Luciano comes to mind, although there were complicating issues there. We may want to do more than deport in the terrorist cases that will arise in the future, although in some cases threatening deportation to his native land might be a pretty effective interrogation tactic.

[Winstonm]

The problem at Guantanemo in not what to do with the terrorists - it is what to do with all the others there who have been held.

[jdonn]

Phil, on Jan 22 2009, 12:23 AM, said:

So today he suspends actions at Gitmo, institutes some pretty amazing lobbying reforms and freezes pay hikes at the White House.

Not bad for a 1st day. I'm really starting to like this guy.

I knew he would turn some people.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Jan 22 2009, 11:01 AM, said:

The problem at Guantanemo in not what to do with the terrorists - it is what to do with all the others there who have been held.

Yes. Many detainees were sold to Americans for cash on the barrelhead. Much of the goverment secrecy was designed to conceal that fact.

Obama's emphasis on transparency is one reason all real Americans feel better today. Most government secrecy aims to conceal incompetence and/or corruption. Clearly that's why secrecy was so important to Bush and his administration.

Obama has repeatedly emphasized that he will not be a perfect president and that his administration will make mistakes along the way. To some extent, those statements innoculate him from the side-effects of government transparency.

I expect that Obama will face embarrassments during his term, and that he'll need to own up to his own mistakes. Though his popularity will go down as a result, he'll keep the respect of most of us.

[Al_U_Card]

His greatest advantage will be choosing competency over loyalty. Less liklihood of a need for damage control or faulty memory/reporting skills...

[Winstonm]

Quote

"The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals," the president said.

I guess this means Jack Bauer is out of a job.

[Trinidad]

mike777, on Jan 22 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

Fair enough so what does your country do?.
1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

The Netherlands is a small country where only small things happen.

In the late 1970's there were a couple of hostage takings by militants from the ethnic minority originating from the South Moluk Islands. I don't know the definition of terrorism, but to me these were obviously terrorist acts (even though I had and have sympathy for the South Moluk point of view since I grew up in a South Moluk neighborhood). The motives were entirely political.

I recall that twice a train was hijacked and the passengers taken hostage, once an elementary school was occupied and children and teachers were taken hostage, once the provincial administration building was occupied and there was a hostage taking in the Indonesian consulate. There was also an attempt to kidnap the Queen (but this was prevented).

The point for this thread (and the answer to your question):
All trials took place in the regular criminal courts. All sentences were served in regular prisons.

Since you asked to be specific, and for those who are interested, here are some details that I found on the Dutch Wikipedia. I left out the names of the people involved since I don't consider it important, but if you really want to know you can find some references at the end:

Train 1 (at Wijster): 7 hijackers held a train hostage for 12 days. During this, the train engineer and two passengers were killed. The hijackers surrendered and got prison sentences up to 14 years.

Train 2 (at De Punt): 9 hijackers held the train hostage for 20 days. There were a little less than 100 passengers. The hijacking was ended by military force. Six out of nine hijackers lost there lives as well as two passengers. The remaining 3 hijackers were sentenced to 6 to 9 years inprisonment.

Elementary school: 4 hostage takers, a 3 week hostage situation, no loss of life. The hostage takers surrendered after an armored car attack. I don't know the sentences.

Province administration building: 3 hostage takers held 16 women and 55 men. 1 killed and 1 injured who died a few weeks later from his injuries. The military intervened when the hostage takers were litterally standing ready to execute more hostages (the man who died from his injuries was the first to be executed). Sentences: 15 years inprisonment.

Plan to kidnap the queen, but they were caught while preparing for the kidnapping: 39 people involved. Seventeen stood trial and were convicted to different sentences. The longest sentence was 5 years in prison.

I hope that this is specific enough. I would say the Dutch prosecuted "in a manner that was consistent with their values and ideals" (to quote some important guy on the West side of the Atlantic).

Rik

1. Wijster
2. De Punt
3. Elementary school
4. Province administrative building
5. Kidnap attempt Dutch Queen

[Lobowolf]

Trinidad, on Jan 22 2009, 02:42 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 22 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

Fair enough so what does your country do?.
1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

The Netherlands is a small country where only small things happen.

In the late 1970's there were a couple of hostage takings by militants from the ethnic minority originating from the South Moluk Islands. I don't know the definition of terrorism, but to me these were obviously terrorist acts (even though I had and have sympathy for the South Moluk point of view since I grew up in a South Moluk neighborhood). The motives were entirely political.

I recall that twice a train was hijacked and the passengers taken hostage, once an elementary school was occupied and children and teachers were taken hostage, once the provincial administration building was occupied and there was a hostage taking in the Indonesian consulate. There was also an attempt to kidnap the Queen (but this was prevented).

The point for this thread (and the answer to your question):
All trials took place in the regular criminal courts. All sentences were served in regular prisons.

Since you asked to be specific, and for those who are interested, here are some details that I found on the Dutch Wikipedia. I left out the names of the people involved since I don't consider it important, but if you really want to know you can find some references at the end:

Train 1 (at Wijster): 7 hijackers held a train hostage for 12 days. During this, the train engineer and two passengers were killed. The hijackers surrendered and got prison sentences up to 14 years.

Train 2 (at De Punt): 9 hijackers held the train hostage for 20 days. There were a little less than 100 passengers. The hijacking was ended by military force. Six out of nine hijackers lost there lives as well as two passengers. The remaining 3 hijackers were sentenced to 6 to 9 years inprisonment.

Elementary school: 4 hostage takers, a 3 week hostage situation, no loss of life. The hostage takers surrendered after an armored car attack. I don't know the sentences.

Province administration building: 3 hostage takers held 16 women and 55 men. 1 killed and 1 injured who died a few weeks later from his injuries. The military intervened when the hostage takers were litterally standing ready to execute more hostages (the man who died from his injuries was the first to be executed). Sentences: 15 years inprisonment.

Plan to kidnap the queen, but they were caught while preparing for the kidnapping: 39 people involved. Seventeen stood trial and were convicted to different sentences. The longest sentence was 5 years in prison.

I hope that this is specific enough. I would say the Dutch prosecuted "in a manner that was consistent with their values and ideals" (to quote some important guy on the West side of the Atlantic).

Rik

1. Wijster
2. De Punt
3. Elementary school
4. Province administrative building
5. Kidnap attempt Dutch Queen

With respect to actual crimes taking place within a country, it's easy to use the criminal courts; more problematic areas pertain to people who train or associate with terrorist groups, participate in training activities outside the country then return (or come) to the USA in a "sleeper cell" type of situation, plan to participate in terrorist acts (but towards which acts to steps have yet been taking, and thus no criminal conspiracy has yet taken place), etc. You describe incidents of murder, conspiracy, kidnapping, etc. taking place within the geographical confines of your country. Those are the situations in which it's easy enough to use the criminal court system.

Secondly, on its face, the Geneva convention (and its protections) do not apply to everyone; additionally, American jurisprudence for more than 50 years (at least since World War 2) has been that there is a distinction between lawful enemy combatants and unlawful ones.