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 (124325)	2/3/2004 8:23:21 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Until there is a world government that abolishes war, relations between nations (and therefore between the inhabitants of those nations) will be based on force. If there is no consensus for a world government it can only be established by force. For that matter government directives are always imposed by force. The force may be more hidden and often less destructive then open warfare but its still force. Take the excuses made for slavery in 1750, and simply substitute the word "war" for "slavery", and "conquered people" for "slaves" and you have all the excuses for war commonly used today. For example:..." Argument A for cause X can follow the same pattern as argument B for cause Y, and even if Y is unjustified it doesn't man X is. Also there are other arguments that don't follow the pattern of your slavery arguments. Your presentation of these arguments might make for interest rhetoric but it is not logically convincing. I am fairly sure I could make arguments that followed the same pattern for something you support, even specifically for world government. If this type of argument was meaningful then you would have just "proved" that world government was a good thing while I would have just "proved" that it is a bad thing. Lots more examples in... A million examples of faulty logic aren't any more convincing then one. Tim

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (124325)	2/3/2004 8:36:22 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Jacob, But this rationilzation for a world government does nothing to define or state what that government will be. What if its Maoist or Stalinist - or worse? Many UN members still practice slavery, many are totalitarian. John

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (124325)	2/3/2004 8:58:36 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 281500

Nice link. Good list. Thanks.<eom>

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (124325)	2/3/2004 11:43:53 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Until there is a world government that abolishes war, They can't abolish stupidity (and stupid, whiny, opinions from people like you), so what makes you think they'll ever be able to abolish war? Why not abolish stealing, lying, and murder? Just get everyone in the world to "just say no" to crime.. This is why few people can grant credibility to your opinions. You're such a utopian bleeding heart liberal, you have to look right to look left. You simply think you can rewrite the rules of human interplay and conflict... Hawk

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (124325)	2/20/2004 11:32:49 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Supreme Court to Hear "Dirty Bomber" Case Associated Press February 20, 2004 WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether the Constitution forbids the Bush administration from holding U.S. citizens indefinitely and without access to lawyers or courts when they are suspected of being "enemy combatants." The justices will consider the case of Jose Padilla, an American citizen, former gang member and convert to Islam who was arrested in Chicago after a trip to Pakistan. The government alleges he was part of a plot to detonate a radiological "dirty bomb" in the U.S. The Padilla case is a companion to another terrorism case the court already planned to hear this spring. Together, the Yaser Esam Hamdi and Padilla cases will allow the high court to take its most comprehensive look so far at the constitutional and legal rights of Americans caught up in the global war on terror. At issue is the president's claim of authority to protect the nation and pursue terrorists unfettered by many traditional legal obligations -- and outside previous precedents for government conduct in wartime. Lawyers for both men claim their treatment is unconstitutional. Hearing the cases together will simultaneously address the rights of U.S. citizens captured abroad and at home. The Supreme Court is expected to hear both cases in late April, with a ruling due by summer. Separately, the court will hear a challenge this spring from foreign-born terror suspects held in open-ended custody at the military's prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. That case asks whether those more than 650 prisoners may challenge their detention and treatment in U.S. courts. Critics in the U.S. and abroad have grumbled that the prolonged detentions violate basic human rights and international agreements. A ruling in that case also is expected by summer. The Padilla and Hamdi cases hit closer to home for most Americans. Mr. Padilla was arrested on U.S. soil, and the initial allegations against him were aired in the civilian criminal court system. Later he was whisked off to a military prison in South Carolina, where he was off-limits to his lawyer or other outsiders for nearly two years. "I think the stakes are very high," Andrew Patel, one of Mr. Padilla's attorneys, said Friday. "Because the president said 'I think you're a bad man,' he's been in jail for two years. He hasn't had a chance to defend himself. That's not the way we do things in this country, when we're at war or when we're at peace." Earlier this month, the Bush administration said Mr. Padilla could now see his lawyers, although the government still contends it has no legal obligation to allow such a meeting. The government listened in on a recent, similar meeting between Mr. Hamdi and a defense lawyer. Mr. Hamdi is a suspected Taliban foot soldier captured overseas shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. He was placed alongside Mr. Padilla in the same South Carolina brig after U.S. authorities verified his claim that he had been born in Louisiana of Saudi parents. The administration claims that Messrs. Padilla and Hamdi and the Guantanamo prisoners are all "enemy combatants," members of a group of potential al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban protectors captured since the jetliner attacks that killed thousands in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon. Mr. Padilla is closely associated with the al Qaeda terrorist network and "represents a continuing, present and grave danger to the national security of the United States," while Mr. Hamdi is a "classic battlefield detainee," Solicitor General Theodore Olson has argued to the high court in legal papers. A federal appeals court ruled in December that President Bush doesn't have the authority to declare Mr. Padilla an enemy combatant and hold him in open-ended military custody. The ruling by the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals "undermines the president's vital authority as commander in chief to protect the United States against attacks launched within the nation's borders," Mr. Olson argued in asking the high court to take the case. Unlike the Padilla case, the government has won its argument in lower courts that Mr. Hamdi may be held indefinitely without access to a lawyer or the U.S. court system. (Rumsfeld v. Padilla)