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 (126310)	3/16/2004 7:54:40 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I am not conversant with the proposals about the trials of illegal combatants. The last I recall, their ultimate disposition was not clear. I certainly do not recall the invocation of the death penalty for lesser offenses. And, as far as I know, Abbu Abbas died of natural causes. I have no evidence otherwise. Indeed, it was an argument about that between Nadine and Carl that caused me to make my observations about conspiracy theories. So I have nothing useful to say at this point about any of the hypotheticals that you raise. I do not think that military tribunals are necessarily unfair; I do would have to look at the rules of evidence actually in use; and I would have to look at the situation of appeal.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (126310)	3/16/2004 8:37:41 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

Let me make something even clearer. I think that nations may evoke exigent circumstances, and expect to be given at least the benefit of the doubt, except in cases where the regime is of a character where suspicion is inevitable, and therefore scrutiny is likely to be stricter. Even in a non- democratic regime, if it is known for its moderation otherwise, I would give it the benefit of the doubt. Even in a democratic regime, if it is known for its demogogic slighting of civil liberties, I might subject it to greater scrutiny.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (126310)	3/16/2004 10:15:26 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Things are so slow, I thought that I would clarify my position even more for Jacob: I have a lot of respect for the Constitution, but I have some beefs. First, the failure to deal with the issue of slavery, which is manifestly wrong within a context where independence was predicated on inalienable rights. I understand that it was a matter of compromise, to ensure support of the Constitution, but it was a big hypocrisy and stain on the Founding. Second, the way in which sovereignty was divided. Although I believe in the principle of subsidiarity, where it is best to treat issues as locally as possible, it should have been made clear that the federal government derived its authority from the sovereign people, not the several states, and that there was no dual sovereignty, but a sharing of authority with the states. These were issues that dogged the new nation, and lead to the supposition that it was possible to secede unilaterally from the Union. Therefore, in spite of my respect for the positive achievements of the Founding Fathers, I have some problems with them. I deplore segregation, even while understanding how easily it could come about, and I support the federal civil rights laws of the '50s and '60s. I deplore the treatment of indigenous peoples, even while thinking that some on the Left exaggerate what is a bad enough record. I am glad that the United States made early strides in empowering women as responsible citizens. I think that the United States has made considerable progress since its founding, and that it has largely been a force for good in the world. I am glad that we opposed the twin totalitarianisms of the last century, and that we won the Cold War. I am happy to see that most regimes in the world have become more moderate, and focused on economic development and an improvement of the quality of life of their people. This includes China and Vietnam. I do not think that we do good in the world by wringing our hands over the sins of our ancestors, or even sins closer to home. I think we do good in the world by encouraging other nations to act moderately, to provide for citizen participation in government and civil liberties, and to modernize. I do not think that most problems are soluble militarily, if only because costs outweigh benefits. But I do think that some situations, sometimes, warrant the use of force. I think that we should operate through multi- lateral institutions most of the time, but that we reserve the right to act outside established frameworks. This should do for now..........