Do you really feel that the US way is right?

[allan]

"allan - may I remind you that action was taken in Kosovo on 'humanitarian' issues (and I did in part agree with that, though it could of been conducted alot better etc etc)."

But our government had no obligation to do so. At least not the same obligation that it has to protect its own citizens.

SHOULD the US "police" the world? That is something that makes for very heated debate quite often, and quite ironically (considering your arguments) I often find that many of your fellow lefties will tend to be on the "no" side more often than not.

I too fall predominantly on the "no" side of this question--and think that when we DO try to police the world, in many cases it backfires or at least causes great resentment.

Indeed, much of the reason why the Kosovo campaign wasn't fought very well was that it WASN'T our "turf", we didn't understand the root causes of the crap going on over there very well, and of course this war wasn't really that close to OUR OWN PEOPLE so it didn't trigger the kind of passion and determination that this present war (in Afghanistan) is being fought with, the kind of things that can make a LOT of difference in how well a war is fought. All because the Kosovo conflict wasn't really in our "jurisdiction" so to speak....

Or more accurately, it wasn't our business. No Kosovars or Serbs ever threatened American civilians, at least not in our own borders, like the Al Qaeda have.... Nor did they even threaten our NATO allies.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I to am on the no side, I was trying to get at what I see to be the double standards system that the western world has. america should have to 'police' the world just as much as eceryone else shouldn't, in fact no-one should have to police the world but in situations such as Afghanistan and kososvo there is need for some kind of action, hence althoigh I am a pacifist force might regratably be required.

Just to clarify, I may be against US action in afghanistan but I am happy now it looks like the Taliban are done for, it's just that I have concerns about how the Northern Alliance will conduct itself in power, the last time the various groups in the alliance didn't fare to well.

andycapp - thanks

rmsharpe - i'm not entirely sure whether you were refering to ETA when speaking of Spain, but it is a good example of a country taking action against terrorists in a more 'tactfull' way, meaning that they haven't dropped cluster bombs on the Basque region!! Other countries to take action against 'terrorists' (using that word very losely) it's just it isn't displayed as much on the world stage as the case is with the US.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
rmsharpe - i'm not entirely sure whether you were refering to ETA when speaking of Spain,

I believe he was refering to the fact that Spain said it may not extradite suspects if the US would try them in secret military tribunals.

 

[joespaniel]

I believe Europe should put pressure on the US to NOT have secret trials, and bring these terrorists to a closed session of an international court. With the lingering sympathy over the September 11th massacre, Im sure it could be arranged to have "neutral" judges to preside.

This would lend the air of credibility to any future moves against terror groups and solidify international support.

The United States is always one or two steps behind Europe in progressive thinking. We look at our past for answers sometimes while Europe tends to look ahead.

Not to say Europeans are always right, but this time I think they are. WWII era secret military tribunals were rail-roads to execute Nazi saboteurs and the like, and not something we should do in this day and age.

As an American, I think the US needs to get on the band wagon of the 21st century about certain things.

 

[amadeus]

There should be the tribunals, because these are war criminals, not domestic violators of the law. They have declared a war on us, and it is our responsibility to stand up and to NEVER tolerate this kind of action against our strong nation.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I am a "lefty" who believes the US could police the world, but not the way we are currently doing so. Since we seem determined to use our tax dollars to build a huge army as opposed to subsidizing education or health care, it would be nice if that army "went around" enforcing logical humanitarian ends EVERYWHERE: we couldnt turn a blind eye to bad regimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, or India just because they are business partners. However, most people would quickly tire of having our guys getting killed far away if we were going to act like that. Next best option; withdraw our cash funding of the UN (leaving that to Japan and Germany) and instead register a quarter of our armed forces as the army of the UN. Then go in and take down all those dictators we set up in the 50s-80s.

 

[knowltok]

>>instead register a quarter of our armed forces as the army of the UN. Then go in and take down all those dictators we set up in the 50s-80s.<<

So that our guys can get killed in far away places and have less arial, material, and logistical support. No thanks. I'm not for propping up oppresive regimes, but the world isn't going to tolerate us unilaterally going in and removing governments unprovoked. The UN would never get around to it even if it did have the military to do it. I don't like the Saudi government but it sounds like the choices are the current regime, or a bunch of guys who think Bin ladin's a swell character. We don't get much by helping them get in control.

I personally think the UN is fundamentally flawed, and the world isn't ready for a fixed version. My reasoning:

1. We all espouse the theory of one person, one vote. This is not represented in the UN. India has the same vote that Luxumberg does.

2. The permanent members of the security council represent an unfair advantage of some nations over others. From an altruistic sense, why should France be able to veto something that 4+ billion of the world's people agree to?

3. We could fix all of that and it still wouldn't work. Right or wrong, the US (And many other countries) is not going to submit itself to that kind of outside authority. Now before we get all indignant about how they should, keep in mind that China and India could dictate world policy together. Not something I am prepared to accept.

Thus my reasoning about why the UN is flawed and really can't be fixed at this time. Have at me.

 

[allan]

When things are decided locally, those decisions are made with more knowledge of the nature of the local people, culture, etc. And those decisions are made by people CLOSER to the people involved--emotionally, understandingly, and even (in VERY local decision-making) familially.

Decisions made from far away are inherently colder, more detatched and distant from the people, with less understanding, and as a result can be repressive or even cruel.

(Not saying that local rule can't be oppressive--there are many examples of this--but it is up to the locals to decide whether they value freedom enough to fight for it--for in some cultures, what we call "freedom" isn't valued as highly as some other things. Slaves must free themselves to be truly free, outside intervention will not help them and in many cases can make things worse if it is not asked for.)

Thus rule from afar is inherently inferior to rule from near, local sources--and this inferiority quite often shows clearly too.

The UN may be good for arbiting BETWEEN groups ruled "locally" (nations) when they dispute with each other--although even in this function they can break down or be corrupted--but it certainly is no good for dictating INTERNAL affairs of various diverse groups of people (nations), because it is "rule from afar" in the most ultimate sense....

Plus, if we value freedom and democracy, should such nations that DO practice these things well on their own (the US, much of Europe, Japan, etc.) be dictated to by a body of nations that include many that not only do not, but don't value, culturally, these same things? THAT is the fear of some people in the US, and perhaps in some other free nations, and if UN power expands in that way then that fear will be very legitimate....

Think "lowest common denominator"....

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by joespaniel
I believe Europe should put pressure on the US to NOT have secret trials, and bring these terrorists to a closed session of an international court. With the lingering sympathy over the September 11th massacre, Im sure it could be arranged to have "neutral" judges to preside.

This would lend the air of credibility to any future moves against terror groups and solidify international support.

The United States is always one or two steps behind Europe in progressive thinking. We look at our past for answers sometimes while Europe tends to look ahead.

Not to say Europeans are always right, but this time I think they are. WWII era secret military tribunals were rail-roads to execute Nazi saboteurs and the like, and not something we should do in this day and age.

As an American, I think the US needs to get on the band wagon of the 21st century about certain things.

I salute you.

 

[amadeus]

International court...what a joke.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Internation courts have at least one huge advantage. Countires other than the USA will get to pay for large share of the multi million dollars prosecutions and court costs.

 

[allan]

And there is such a thing as "international law" as well, although it mainly concerns things like territorial issues (what waters are "international" waters), and laws against piracy on the high seas.... Plus laws agreed upon by groups of states (but not every one) like the Geneva convention.

There shouldn't be an international court to try criminals (including terrorists) who commit crimes on a given country's actual territory though--like any criminal, the laws of the country they committed the crime in would apply. Just as American (and other foreign) tourists can land in a jail or even suffer the death penalty in some countries they visit, for doing things that would be punished less harshly (if at all) in their home countries--so also would citizens of other countries who commit crimes in the US. Their foreignness is NO consideration in the legal system....

(Actually this cuts both ways--I don't want a WORSE legal standard for foreigners--tribunals--applied on our soil. In the field of war in Afghanistan, I don't object to these tribunals however. But on our soil, I see no good reason to abandon our legal principles, for better or for worse.)

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Internation courts have at least one huge advantage. Countires other than the USA will get to pay for large share of the multi million dollars prosecutions and court costs.

There shouldn't be any court costs - just bullets.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


There shouldn't be any court costs - just bullets.

Ah, you just can't beat a bit of Minnesota justice!

On the serious note, I actually semi-agree with rmsharpe...

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by joespaniel

The United States is always one or two steps behind Europe in progressive thinking. We look at our past for answers sometimes while Europe tends to look ahead.

Not to say Europeans are always right, but this time I think they are. WWII era secret military tribunals were rail-roads to execute Nazi saboteurs and the like, and not something we should do in this day and age.

As an American, I think the US needs to get on the band wagon of the 21st century about certain things.

Joe, as always,
a good and well-informed post!

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
International court...what a joke.

Right now it IS a joke... but it should not be... Bullets?
Maybe you change your mind when bullet hits YOU.

 

[sonorakitch]

But Juize, I'll betcha rmsharpe isn't an accomplice to 9/11, and I even will bet you that he isn't plotting anything else, either.

~Chris

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by sonorakitch
But Juize, I'll betcha rmsharpe isn't an accomplice to 9/11, and I even will bet you that he isn't plotting anything else, either.

~Chris

Which, of course would be the fair and just outcome, should he be brought before a military tribunal.

Just a thought.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Juize


Right now it IS a joke... but it should not be... Bullets?
Maybe you change your mind when bullet hits YOU.

The difference is...

I'M NOT A TERRORIST

I'm NOT going to be charged in any crimes internationally. Sorry, Juize, but the terrorists attacked America, not Finland.

(I don't mean that to insult Finland, by the way.)

 

[allan]

Another problem with these military tribunals against terrorists in the US is that they set precedent--a "slippery slope" if you will.

Right now, most of us caucasian, black, or other non-mideastern-descended Americans--actually all American CITIZENS for the moment--can sit complacently never worrying about being falsely accused or framed, and brought before a military tribunal where you wouldn't have a chance in hell under such circumstances. But we all know (or, we SHOULD all know) that incursions on liberty are more likely to EXPAND than to go away--especially in this case, since the "war on terrorism" is of indefinite length and indefinite scope....

For example, they may in the future be set for DOMESTIC terrorist suspects--the McVeighs and such. Now McVeigh deserved to be executed for what he did, and what he was convicted of under a standard, fair trial.

But the McVeighs blend in very easily with most Americans, and indeed before McVeigh's act a number of his friends and associates very likely had no clue as to what he was about to do. This set of people included many dissidents who protested Waco and very actively questioned the US government in many ways, yet weren't necessarily aggressive, violent people. Yet many in the government are no doubt very wary of this set of dissidents, and I don't think would mind a convenient opportunity to shut many of them up.

When you bring stuff like "military tribunals" into the picture, you invariably invite "wholesale" as versus case-specific justice, and at that point you can put the word "justice" in quotes--for quantity becomes more important than quality. Military tribunals more often than not become assembly lines churning output for the executioner. Facts take a back seat to expedience, by the very nature of the proceedings.

Right now, military tribunals are only reserved for non-citizen suspects--and that's bad enough. But don't be so sure that in a few years, they may not be extended to citizens accused (truly or falsely) of certain crimes that can fall under a blanket definition of "terrorism". Not saying they WILL, but the possibility exists. Especially now that we've given some legitimacy of precedence to it.

So be ever vigilant. Never take your apparent safety for granted....

It is not HOW MANY we convict, but that we convict the RIGHT ones....