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 (132551)	5/10/2004 11:12:36 PM
From: h0db	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

45 posts today. A real armchair warrior.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (132551)	5/11/2004 12:39:37 AM
From: Sam	Respond to of 281500

I would also like to know how the Red Cross was able to determine their innocence merely by looking at their ID tags. Well, I read that they compared how many people were charged with how many were arrested.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (132551)	5/11/2004 10:23:19 PM
From: John Soileau	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<<I would also like to know how the Red Cross was able to determine their innocence merely by looking at their ID tags.>> Hawk, One of our Western values, and in my opinion one of our proudest Western values, that needs to take hold in the Middle East is the concept that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Only Israel has made any real progress there with this concept, albeit imperfectly. So to answer your question the Red Cross doesn't actually have to "determine" innocence; it's presumed, isn't it? Remember that even our own vile, loathsome, unrepentant mass murderer Timothy McVeigh was not intentionally abused in prison, was given the presumption of innocence, and was allowed counsel and afforded a proper trial before being sent to his totally appropriate end. If these basic rights were provided to THAT stinking accused (and summoning all of my will I can only barely agree in that particular case), the motley accused in Iraqi prisons certainly should be provided them. If we are in fact there to teach, to bring the country forward and establish Western ideals, I have a novel idea: we need to apply those ideals in our actions there! If we are NOT going to do that, fine, but in that case cut out the annoying bull$&%t about our democratizing mission to reform Iraq. Aside from the argument based on our core values, there is a purely Machiavellian argument, and it leads to the same conclusion. Abuse of the kind we are seeing is a potent tool in the hands of those who oppose the occupation, and empowers our enemies in that part of the world. That alone is reason for it to be rigorously prevented. Failure of the command line to prevent this abuse simultaneously makes a mockery of Western values (yes, those values dutifully preserved for our own mass murderers), and violates a cardinal rule of combat: do not provide useful weapons to your opponent. Immoral, or merely incompetent? Take your pick. I say both. John