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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (104615)	7/10/2003 8:41:10 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 281500

Afghanistan and Iraq were not free, before their "liberation" (using the NeoCon Orwellian meaning of liberation, the precise opposite of the dictionary definition). And those "liberated" nations remain unfree. True but they are freer then they where and they have a stronger possibility of real freedom in the future. In any case the original statement was " Quite the opposite; their actions, from Afghanistan to Iraq to America, has consistently been to end freedom where it exists, and replace tyranny with tyranny." That statement implies that they where free before which was why I objected. And in the U.S., we have effectively suspended the Geneva Conventions, due process, the right to a trial, the right to an attorney, the presumption of innocence. There is widespread acceptance of concentration camps, torture, assassinations, preventive detention, collective punishment, by us and our close allies, as tools in the war. We have "cut down the Law, to get at the Devil". Whether anything that we have done has violated the Geneva conventions is very debatable, and in any case they are a not a major part of our freedom. As for trial and the presumption of innocence, we have never gave those fighting for foreign powers during war the presumption of innocence. You'll have to be more specific about what you mean by collective punishment, and as for assassination of foreign enemies I don't see how that makes us less free. Tim

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (104615)	7/11/2003 6:37:32 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

Jacob, <And in the U.S., we have effectively suspended the Geneva Conventions, due process, the right to a trial, the right to an attorney, the presumption of innocence.> Gee, even in little New Zealand, when attacked by the French terrorist state of Mitterand when the Rainbow Warrior was bombed, sunk and a man killed by aliens, the enemy combatants enjoyed human rights, lawyers, a trial and prison rather than a three man military tribunal with no habeas corpus and all that stuff. When deported to be held prisoner by the French, of course they were soon free and awarded medals for bravery or something [it's courageous apparently to kill unarmed civilians at night by stealth]. Sabine Herold and co are a glimmer of hope in France. Times change. Freedom is replaced by something else. Totalitarian poverty by something else [look at China go - wow, their imports and exports are up 40% and 30% with 7% or more growth rate]. I'm slowly learning how much countries can change in single generations. NZ is going down the gurgler. Mqurice