Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (13039)	12/7/2001 12:10:34 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 281500

Well said hawkmoon, and I couldn't agree more. The spectacle of allowing the terrorists an O.J. Simpson type trial, complete with "the government is acting racist that's why we've been arrested" Conchran defense sickens me. During a time of war, this issue points out how important it is to elect high officials with a strong sense of character and allegiance to constitutional principles. We do risk civil liberties, but the risk is necessary to ensure we win the war, and vanquish those who would attempt to destroy our system of government. These are extraordinary times, and we must be willing to understand the rarity and risk to our civilization if we allow jackals to use our legal system against us.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (13039)	12/7/2001 12:11:44 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Good editorial from the Jerusalem Post: Stay the course (December 7) - Yasser Arafat has had any number of "last chances," but even he must be noticing that something new is going on. One of the most emblematic events of this change in the wind is yesterday's visit of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher. The minister's visit, during which he shook hands vigorously with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem and for the cameras, is in sharp contrast with Egypt's withdrawal of its ambassador a year ago. In the past, the pattern has been that the more Arafat attacks Israel, the more the Arab states side with him and condemn Israel's responses. The Maher visit is a clear break with this pattern, and Egypt is not alone. As The Washington Post noted yesterday, the leaders of Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have "avoided any direct criticism" of Israeli actions that in the past would have triggered an emergency Arab summit and other efforts to convey solidarity with Arafat. According to the same report, a Western official said that these leaders are telling Arafat "roughly the same thing [US Secretary of State] Colin Powell is telling him." The diplomat continued, "They are frightened. They hate Sharon, but Arafat is not without culpability, and they know that you can't pull out the old playbook anymore." What has changed? The change cannot be explained by September 11 alone, because initially these same Arab leaders were trying to get the US to pressure Israel and arguing that Palestinian terrorism was "resisting occupation." Four things happened to change the Arab tune. First, US President George W. Bush stood before the United Nations and completely rejected the notion that states may support terrorism against anyone, anywhere - a dramatic shift from his welcoming of a terrible Arab summit declaration a few weeks before. Second, the Taliban collapsed like a house of cards, proving the US meant business. Third, Bush dropped the evenhandedness between Palestinian terror and Israel's right to self-defense that had plagued US policy since the beginning of the Palestinian offensive. Fourth, Israel, instead of once again giving Arafat the benefit of the nonexistent doubt, seemed determined to force him to crack down on terror or step down from power. Arafat may not yet have gotten the message, but the Arab states have: In the face of US and Israeli resolve, Arafat had better stop terrorism now. The lesson here is straightforward. If Israel hesitates to defend itself, and the US hesitates to defend Israel, the Arab street smells blood and the Arab states call for more pressure on Israel. If the US and Israel show resolve, the Arab street falls silent and the Arab governments fall into line. American "evenhandedness" that was designed to placate the Arab world had exactly the opposite effect. American support for Israel, far from weakening the US-led coalition, signaled that it was time to throw out the old playbook and put real pressure on Arafat. The danger now is that the advocates of the old US and Israeli policies will attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Arafat, still using that old playbook, is trying to do just enough to placate the US without burning bridges with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. As of yesterday afternoon, Arafat had made over 100 arrests, but had reportedly arrested only eight of the 33 top terrorists named by Israel. As Foreign Minister Shimon Peres has repeatedly pointed out, democracies have many voices and one army, while the Palestinian Authority still has one voice and many armies. It is not enough for Arafat to put Hamas in a closet, ready to be taken out again whenever he feels like it. Since September 11, that is called "harboring terrorists" and, if the war on terrorism is to mean anything, that crime is punishable by removal from power. jpost.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (13039)	12/7/2001 4:04:36 AM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 281500

Davies properly noted My Lai, where Schwarzkopf could have been executed since he was the Battalion commander of those troops. In addition, there are documented incidents of US massacres of German prisoners during WWII under Bradley's command (as I recall), but he was never brought up on charges, nor were his soldiers who were guilty of committing the atrocity. they may have been held accountable had we lost. post-war trials are usually held for the losers not the winners.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (13039)	12/7/2001 8:17:32 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But I'm, in no way, willing to see those individuals who have been responsible for being at war with us, provided the same legal rights and protections as what we enjoy as US citizens, by trying them in US civilian courts. Nice formulation, Hawk, and, now that I've read your comments on the Japanese case, I'll have to take a closer look myself. As I understand the debate about the military tribunals, however, the question is a different one. It's what is the proper procedure for deciding who belongs in the category you've laid out above and who belongs outside it. The illustrations offered for the use of military tribunals, Osama bin Laden et al, are not in question. It's whether all the folk caught up in the US dragnets should be tried under those same tribunals and, if so, what are the procedures for deciding what rules apply to which detainees. John