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: Ilaine who wrote (15862)	1/8/2002 7:12:23 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

>>American Bar Association Panel Supports Limited Military Trials By Anne Gearan Associated Press Tuesday, January 8, 2002; Page A02 A panel of the American Bar Association found the magnitude of the crime committed on Sept. 11 justifies limited use of military tribunals to try suspected terrorists, the lawyers' group said yesterday. "The unprecedented and horrible attacks of Sept. 11 demonstrated that the United States faces an organized enemy with the resources and the will to cause mass death and destruction in the United States and elsewhere," the study panel wrote in a report sent to the Pentagon. "It is the duty of our government to bring those responsible to justice and to take all legal measures to minimize the possibility of future terrorist attacks, consistent with its duty to preserve fundamental rights and liberties," the report said. The Pentagon is putting final touches on rules for military tribunals and has formed an office to deal with details such as where the tribunals might operate. Under an executive order issued by President Bush, military tribunals to try non-American suspects are an option for the president and prosecutors. They also could decide to try in civilian courts all those facing terrorism charges. The report submitted to the Pentagon does not represent a policy statement from the full ABA, the nation's largest lawyers' group with more than 400,000 members. Such a statement could come next month, when the ABA's policymaking body meets in Philadelphia. Many civil liberties groups have criticized Bush's preliminary plans to use special military tribunals to try foreigners suspected of involvement in the September hijackings and attacks. The ABA's president has urged the White House to move with caution but has taken no formal position. The ABA has opposed government monitoring of suspects' conversations with their lawyers. The association created the panel on terrorism and the law to look at legal and civil liberties questions arising from the attacks and the United States' war on terrorism. Military tribunals like those outlined by Bush on Nov. 13 should be used only in "narrow circumstances in which compelling security interests justify their use," the panel's report said. For example, military tribunals should not be used to try anyone legally in the United States nor anyone in the United States accused of crimes unrelated to the Sept. 11 attacks, the panel said. The panel recommended that the tribunals follow rules for regular military courts-martial, which differ from civilian rules but nevertheless accord recognized legal rights for defendants. Use of tribunals instead of regular civilian courts, which have broader protections for the accused, "would be a controversial step," the ABA panel wrote. "If conducted under reasonable procedures, . . . they can deliver justice with due process." © 2002 The Washington Post Company << washingtonpost.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (15862)	1/9/2002 5:31:16 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

CB <"Don't waste money on those people, they're untrainable."> That's been USA policy for decades. The Scholastic Aptitude Test is used to filter out people on whom it would be a waste of money to try to teach certain things. The idea that intelligence can be 'educated' into people is false. It is cruel to pretend to people without the ability that if they struggle hard, forego more enjoyable experiences and training which they could cope with, they'll be able to do the high IQ things. They can't and will feel bad as though they have failed when it is the people leading them to the slaughter who have failed. What's funny is that people think it reasonable to try to get low IQ people to do high IQ things, but they think that people in Afghanistan are too primitive to pick up democracy any time soon. They are wrong on both things. They treat the dull as though they are bright and normal people as though they are dull. Afghanistan could and should be leaned on by the revamped UN and formed into a democracy [perhaps even partitioned if Pashtuns and others are frictional]. Mqurice

To: Ilaine who wrote (15862)	1/9/2002 12:44:04 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

"Don't let those people immigrate, it's the Death of the West." Actually, while I overall agree that Buchanan is, at times, isolationist and protectionist to the extreme, there are several areas in which I'm in total agreement. We're a nation of immigrants.. no doubt. And that has enriched our culture and made the US a model for what some holp the rest of the world will one be, a bunch of different people all living together under a shared sense of values. But I was listening to Buchanan and O'Reiley dicussing the bood the other night and Buchanan's made some fair points. The main one is based upon sheer demographic statistics. The birth rate in underveloped nations is FAR HIGHER than in industrialized nations. Almost every advanced economy has seen birthrates fall to under 1%, while nations like Mexico and those in the Mid-East and Asia, often have 3% birth rates (Of course, longevity is another variable). So the sheer statistics tell us that folks who want what we have are growing and will soon outnumber us on this planet. And most of these people are under 18. I was astounded to read a statistic the other day in National Geographic that 40% of the Muslim world is under the age of 15. That 40% of the muslim world entering into young adulthood, who I would have working in jobs, instead of looking for a fight with the West. So that's one approach Buchanan focuses on. But in reality, most would prefer jobs. And Buchanan seems to see more of a cultural threat given his claim that many immigrants to the US are often here solely for the economic benefit, and have little desire to integrate into the larger society. They want the benefits of the society, while transporting the culture, intact, across the border. I spent some time on S. Arizona and there were entire parts of Tucson where it was difficult to speak english and have anyone understand you (or at least deal with you). And it was evident that many of these folks were not interested in "marginalizing" their Mexican culture and loyalties. I recall at the time discussing the matter at poolside with a retired couple (snowbirds) from NYC. They were originally from Hungary and they came over in the '30's, and none spoke a lick of english at the time. And they said the first thing they were told by their parents was that they would learn english, and speak english in the home. They essentially repressed their old language and forced themselves to learn english so that could blend in as established Americans. These two people were just appalled when they heard of some Mexican-Americans who had lived in the US for 20 years+ and they still couldn't (wouldn't) speak the language. So Buchanan's main point (at least from the discussion I heard) is very rational, to avoid the balkanization of the US into cultural enclaves that have nothing in common with one another except borders. Maybe his fear is overblown, but there is no doubt that uncontrolled immigration has placed a MAJOR burden on governmental services. My belief if that if you come here, you should have a work visa. And those who choose to actually immigrate here, obtain a green card and be expected to pass basic english literacy before obtaining citizenship (if they want to speak their mother tongue in the home, I have no problem with that). We simply need to get a handle on this undocumented immigration. The Mexican border is a sieve, through which not just Latinos pour, but also Arabs, Orientals, and other folks, some of whom are here to conduct criminal enterprises or are involved in terrorism. Just some simple common sense immigration laws, THAT ARE ENFORCED. I think most people can agree with that. And it should be depoliticized so we don't see certain "unnamed" administrations waiving criminal background checks in order to expedite granting citizenship, merely in order to garner political votes. Set the standard, enforce it, and don't permit the politicians to screw with it. Hawk