[Trinidad]

kenberg, on Jan 23 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Jan 23 2009, 06:11 AM, said:

Someone once wrote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal []."

I think he was American. 

And I don't think he meant that only Americans are created equal.

Rik

I am sure no one construes that as meaing that the legal system if a country should make o distinctions between citiens and non-citizens of tghat country so I won't pursue that line of thought.

[]

I seriously am interested in how Europeans deal with this, partly because I think they have had more experience and partly because I am just interested. To start with, I would like to know what sort of distinctions they make in their legal systems between their own citizens and others. We need ot copy their ideas, but we might well be able to learn something.

Ken,

I am very serious here: European countries do not distinguish between different nationalities. The only relevant thing is the place where the crime took place. The Netherlands doesn't have jurisdiction in Belgium and the other way around. To Europeans, this is absolutely obvious. The idea that it could be different would be horrifying for many of us.

This practice is internationally accepted and it is also accepted within the USA. (The state of New York doesn't have jurisdiction on crimes committed in New Jersey.) But the USA itself wants to extend its jurisdiction to crimes committed against US citizens. Does New York go after criminals who committed their crimes in New Jersey with New York victims?

Rik

[Gerben42]

Quote

(1) Were captured in foreign countries, having never been on US soil.
(2) Are not American citizens, or citizens of any US ally.
(3) Were captured by the US military, their "crime" being fighting against the US military.
(4) May or may not be members of groups like Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

The problem is that there's no real way to try these people. Their "crime" is self-defense. They may be members of some terrorist group, but in many cases it's hard to prove that they actually did anything terrorist (and group affiliations are hard to prove, and not necessarily a crime under US law). There is no country we really want to deport them to.

Yet letting them go is not a great solution either. They are likely to go right back to the middle east and start trying to shoot American soldiers. At least one guy we released is apparently now a major leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen.

But you can't be sure that when you release them, that they will do anything bad. And if they are prisoners of war, perhaps they can be traded against Osama bin Laden? That would make everyone feel better. The USA got rid of the prisoners they were stuck with AND can show the world that they got Osama bin Laden, and Al Qaeda can go on with life also, as capturing the leader won't make one heck of a difference. Then someone else will be the leader.

[jdonn]

awm, on Jan 23 2009, 04:55 PM, said:

The problem is that there's no real way to try these people. Their "crime" is self-defense. They may be members of some terrorist group, but in many cases it's hard to prove that they actually did anything terrorist (and group affiliations are hard to prove, and not necessarily a crime under US law). There is no country we really want to deport them to.

Yet letting them go is not a great solution either. They are likely to go right back to the middle east and start trying to shoot American soldiers. At least one guy we released is apparently now a major leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen.

You are really overcomplicating things.

If the US believes a person has committed a crime, give them a trial.

If the US does not believe a person has committed a crime, let them go.

Sorry, but the fact that potentially dangerous people may be let go is not relevant. Holding someone who is not to be charged with any crime is both against our laws and our values. Would the police ever pick up someone off the street who has committed no crime because they think he might be dangerous, and then hold him in jail indefinitely? Of course not, so what is the difference?

[Al_U_Card]

jdonn, on Jan 24 2009, 04:47 AM, said:

Sorry, but the fact that potentially dangerous people may be let go is not relevant. Holding someone who is not to be charged with any crime is both against our laws and our values. Would the police ever pick up someone off the street who has committed no crime because they think he might be dangerous, and then hold him in jail indefinitely? Of course not, so what is the difference?

The difference is that they "needed" a reason to strip away constitutional rights and established legal precedent, to have more control over.....the people of the US. I wonder how many they have "prosecuted" under the "impeding the Iraqi war effort"?

If many, who and why and if none, why the law?

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Jan 24 2009, 04:47 AM, said:

Would the police ever pick up someone off the street who has committed no crime because they think he might be dangerous, and then hold him in jail indefinitely? Of course not, so what is the difference?

maybe not the local police, but federal authorities can do that (and do), and have the legal authority to do so... it's called the patriot act...

[kenberg]

Trinidad, on Jan 24 2009, 03:26 AM, said:

I am very serious here: European countries do not distinguish between different nationalities. The only relevant thing is the place where the crime took place. The Netherlands doesn't have jurisdiction in Belgium and the other way around. To Europeans, this is absolutely obvious. The idea that it could be different would be horrifying for many of us.

This practice is internationally accepted and it is also accepted within the USA. (The state of New York doesn't have jurisdiction on crimes committed in New Jersey.) But the USA itself wants to extend its jurisdiction to crimes committed against US citizens. Does New York go after criminals who committed their crimes in New Jersey with New York victims?

Rik

Crimes are of various categories. There are various jurisdictional complications and disputes on such things as murder and drug trafficking, and I am totally unqualified to talk about how these things are resolved. But citizenship issues are taken seriously.

Suppose I get caught robbing a store. I go to jail. If you get caught doing the same ting here, you (I am assuming NL citizenship for you) get sent back home.

If I get caught stealing anthrax so tht I can kill people, I go to jail. It would get a little far out to imagine you stealing anthrax on behalf of the Dutch government so let's suppose Dmitri, a Russian national who is in this country illegally, gets caught stealing military information on behalf of the Russian government. We can, I assume (my knowledge is limited) try him just as I would Dmitri.

We are not all that gentle with American citizens who commit acts of terror. McVeigh was executed. But I think he had legal defenses that would be unavailable to, say, a person from the Middle East who entered the country by swimming ashore from off the Atlantic coast.


There are people out there who know the American legal system far better than I do. I am a bit out of my depth. But I think I have it sort of right.

So this is an Inaugural speech thread, let me relate it to that. Obama, I forget the exact words, rejects the false choice of security versus liberty, or versus values, or something. OK, I agree, We must do both. Winston often speaks of the importance of the rule of law. yep, I'm on board. But now, rejecting false dichotomies and advocating the rule of law, we had better get the laws right. That's gong to be the hard part.

I have traveled some in Europe. Not a lot, I'm not the jet set type, but some and I enjoy it. I have thought the border crossings were treated fairly seriously. This cavalier attitude towards nationality that you describe does not match with my (limited) experience. I imagine there is a distinction between EU and other passports. I have never been treated badly, but I'm not exactly a threatening looking fellow.


Anyway, the world is quite a different place than it was at the time the Geneva conventions were written. However we decide to write our laws I am sure we will respect that fact.


On more note about the changing world. Winston has also written that Congress has abdicated its authority as to declarations of war. True enough. But consider Afghanistan. I think that getting our asses out of there should be seriously considered but apparently that is not going to happen. If we were to consider a declaration of war in accordance with the Constitution, against whom would we declare this war?

It would be great if these issues didn't exist, but they do. I applaud many aspects of Obama's speech, one of them being the talk about how we will need new approaches but the fundamentals will be traditional values. I very much agree with both prongs of this. The need for military force against hostile entities will be with us for a while more at least, and probably forever. How to manage this in a responsible manner is the challenge.

[Winstonm]

Quote

But consider Afghanistan. I think that getting our asses out of there should be seriously considered but apparently that is not going to happen. If we were to consider a declaration of war in accordance with the Constitution, against whom would we declare this war?

Ken,

You are exactly right, and this has been my point about our so-called "wars". They are not really wars for just the reason you point out - against whom do we declare? So if they are not wars, what are they and what is the purpose of using our military?

The problem as I see it is we are asking our military to solve problems they are unequiped to handle and should not be attempting. There is a limit on what the military can accomplish. Yet we keep acting as if unleashing the military (the tactic) alone will solve the problem when a strategy has to incorporate political and diplomatic means to reach an end.

Seems to me we have it backwards. We need a new strategy with emphasis on diplomacy and politics, and at the same time we need to reduce our expectations from and our use of military action.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Jan 24 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

Seems to me we have it backwards. We need a new strategy with emphasis on diplomacy and politics, and at the same time we need to reduce our expectations from and our use of military action.

I strongly believe that the US military should be used for defense, not for starting wars in the Middle East or anywhere else. However, when the US is attacked, as happened on 9/11/2001, I consider it appropriate to use military force to demolish those who participated in and supported the attack.

To me, it's disgusting that Bush dropped the ball on bin Laden and al Qaeda to start an unnecessary war in Iraq. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy (as are many other dictators), but he came from within Iraq and was their responsibility. [I do realize that Saddam was propped up by the US under Reagan -- I hate that also.]

During the campaign for US president, Obama emphasized the need to place more reliance on diplomacy and international cooperation, and I fully expect that to happen. But what about the truly vicious, genocidal regimes that do exist in parts of the world?

In my opinion, we need a stronger role for the UN to deal with such regimes. We need a world-wide consensus on what governmental actions are not allowed, and an international system to enforce that consensus. The US should be a part of that system, but should not act unilaterally outside of it.

[Al_U_Card]

Military-Industrial complex.

Obama is no fool (unlike JFK) to think that he can remove the source of revenue from those and not pay the price.

Afghanistan will persist, likely for most of his mandate. He will expedite Iraq to make the people happy. He will extract a price in oil to make that lobby happy.

Politics, the game of strife.

[Winstonm]

Quote

However, when the US is attacked, as happened on 9/11/2001, I consider it appropriate to use military force to demolish those who participated in and supported the attack.

While I don't disagree if the enemy is a nation-state, when it is an organization the response simply has to be different. We all wanted to demolish and punish those responsible for the attacks of 9-11. We never stopped long enough to determine how that should be done - we shot from the hip, followed flawed policies, and now are paying the price.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on Jan 24 2009, 03:45 PM, said:

I have traveled some in Europe. Not a lot, I'm not the jet set type, but some and I enjoy it. I have thought the border crossings were treated fairly seriously. This cavalier attitude towards nationality that you describe does not match with my (limited) experience. I imagine there is a distinction between EU and other passports

Of course European countries discriminate against non-citizens in many ways. Depending of which country you are citizen of, you may need visum and/or work permit. As a Dane in the UK I have most of the same rights as the UK citizens but I cannot represent UK as a diplomat or as a member of their olympic team, and I cannot vote for house of commons.

But if you commit a crime in a European country, your citizenship is largely irrelevant to the prosecution and punishment. I say largely because as a foreigner you could get deported or you could be allowed to serve part of the sentence in your home country.

Is this really different in the US? I find it hard to believe that I, if I committed a crime in the US, would have different rights or that I would face different charges than a US citizen who committed the same crime.

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on Jan 24 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

Crimes are of various categories. There are various jurisdictional complications and disputes on such things as murder and drug trafficking, and I am totally unqualified to talk about how these things are resolved. But citizenship issues are taken seriously.

Suppose I get caught robbing a store. I go to jail. If you get caught doing the same ting here, you (I am assuming NL citizenship for you) get sent back home.

I don't think that is true. From the time that I lived in the USA (mid 1990's) I know of a foreign grad student who was accused of a felony. If he would have been convicted (he wasn't) he would have gone to jail for 90 days first and then he would have been sent back home. Apart from the deportation, this is exactly what would have happened if he would have been a US citizen.

The USA doesn't let foreign criminals off the hook, just because they are foreigners. There are actually quite a few Dutch citizens in US prisons. Not entirely surprisingly, most of them are serving time for narcotics related offenses.

I did a very quick Yahoo search ("Nationalities Department of corrections"): The top of my list is a job ad for an Ohio corrections officer http://www.drc.state...us/web/ocac.htm. The first line of the job description reads: "Supervise inmates of all nationalities and cultures". How do you think those inmates from other nationalities got into an Ohio prison? Because they committed a crime in Ohio.

Rik

[Aberlour10]

The Party is over. In view of enormous amounts of money needed everywhere, billions and billions, I am afraid, it won't take much longer to face the true: No, we can't.... pay it all anymore.

Robert

[Winstonm]

Quote

On Jan. 31, 2008, Barack Obama said:

“I don't want to just end the [Iraq] war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place. That's the kind of leadership that I think we need from the next president of the United States. That's what I intend to provide.”

How quicky one forgets. It was the War on Terror that got us into this mess.

Quote

President-Elect Obama , Vice President-Elect Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, our new Secretary of State, already seem to have adopted George Bush’s rhetoric, referring to Afghanistan as "The Central Front in the War on Terror.”

Quote

The simple phrase War on Terror cleverly masked an ideology that allowed the Bush administration to alter the very definition of war. As a fight against a tactic, rather than a defined enemy, a War on Terror could continue endlessly, be waged anywhere, and need not articulate specific goals, strategies, limits, parameters or even enemies.

A perfect storm of unrestrained power and hubris.

Quote

The vital question is: Will The War on Terror framework become the permanent defensive footing for our nation going forward?

[Al_U_Card]

For the Romans it was "pax Romana".

For the British it was "the sun never sets on the British empire".

For the Americans it is "the "war on terror".

Same old tactics, same old results.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 24 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

For the Romans it was "pax Romana".

For the British it was "the sun never sets on the British empire".

For the Americans it is "the "war on terror".

Same old tactics, same old results.

You really need to work on your analogies...

I suspect that most folks would argue that "Pax Britannica" is a much better match to Pax Romana than "The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire".

Also, you might want to consider that the Pax Romana lasted for over 200 years. Pax Britannica for close to a century.

I don't think of either of these examples as failures...

[Trinidad]

Winstonm, on Jan 24 2009, 01:03 PM, said:

Quote

On Jan. 31, 2008, Barack Obama said:

“I don't want to just end the [Iraq] war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place. That's the kind of leadership that I think we need from the next president of the United States. That's what I intend to provide.”

How quicky one forgets. It was the War on Terror that got us into this mess.

Quote

President-Elect Obama , Vice President-Elect Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, our new Secretary of State, already seem to have adopted George Bush’s rhetoric, referring to Afghanistan as "The Central Front in the War on Terror.”

The point is that Afghanistan is actually linked to terror. Afghanistan was harboring Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The 9/11 attacks were plotted in Afghanistan.

Iraq was not linked to Al Qaeda or terror. The attack on Iraq had nothing what so ever to do with the war on terror. (Al Qaeda had probably more links with Germany, the UK and the USA itself, just to name a few countries, than with Iraq.) The reason why the USA got into the Iraq war was that the CIA thought it was a good idea and the Bush administration decided to go for it. Powell was opposed to it but he was overruled and the most embarrassing moment of his life must have been when he had to show 'evidence' of the presence of WMD's in the UN.

So, if Obama says that he wants to get out of Iraq and wants to do something about the mindset that got the USA into the war in Iraq, while at the same time increasing US presence in Afghanistan and increasing the focus on the war on terror, that is entirely consistent.

I personally am not a fan of the phrase 'war on terror', but it is consistent to use it when referring to Afghanistan. To use it for the war in Iraq would be a gross distortion of the truth. Maybe that war should be called the "war against Hans Blix' better judgement".

Rik

[Al_U_Card]

hrothgar, on Jan 24 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jan 24 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

For the Romans it was "pax Romana".

For the British it was "the sun never sets on the British empire".

For the Americans it is "the "war on terror".

Same old tactics, same old results.

You really need to work on your analogies...

I suspect that most folks would argue that "Pax Britannica" is a much better match to Pax Romana than "The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire".

Also, you might want to consider that the Pax Romana lasted for over 200 years. Pax Britannica for close to a century.

I don't think of either of these examples as failures...

The examples represent how we are sold on an idea that justifies an action.

The war on drugs? The war on crime? More money, more resources and more drugs and crime!

Getting lost on the details when it is the underlying principle that counts only clouds the issue. Either they are or they are not screwing around...No child left behind, anyone?

[Al_U_Card]

In Iraq, the war on terrible might have been more appropriate.

Afghanistan, another fundamentalist regime (Taliban)....shades of the domino theory....Iran, then Afghanistan, soon Pakistan....the CIA can't get a foothold in with these regimes so they want them removed (Josef Arbenz in Guatemala or Salvador Allende in Chile ring any bells?)

[kenberg]

Trinidad, on Jan 24 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

kenberg, on Jan 24 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

Crimes are of various categories. There are various jurisdictional complications and disputes on such things as murder and drug trafficking, and I am totally unqualified to talk about how these things are resolved. But citizenship issues are taken seriously.

Suppose I get caught robbing a store. I go to jail. If you get caught doing the same ting here, you (I am assuming NL citizenship for you) get sent back home.

I don't think that is true. From the time that I lived in the USA (mid 1990's) I know of a foreign grad student who was accused of a felony. If he would have been convicted (he wasn't) he would have gone to jail for 90 days first and then he would have been sent back home. Apart from the deportation, this is exactly what would have happened if he would have been a US citizen.

The USA doesn't let foreign criminals off the hook, just because they are foreigners. There are actually quite a few Dutch citizens in US prisons. Not entirely surprisingly, most of them are serving time for narcotics related offenses.

I did a very quick Yahoo search ("Nationalities Department of corrections"): The top of my list is a job ad for an Ohio corrections officer http://www.drc.state...us/web/ocac.htm. The first line of the job description reads: "Supervise inmates of all nationalities and cultures". How do you think those inmates from other nationalities got into an Ohio prison? Because they committed a crime in Ohio.

Rik

Quite possibly I am wrong. I guess a test case would be the guys who made the first try at the WTC, assuming someone was caught. I have to run but I will try to follow up later. It was my understanding that agents of another governmant caught in acts of sabotage had limited rights but I might well be wrong. With drug crimes you are probably right about how it goes.