Neoprog Posner sucks up to Chicoms

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Toontown,

I don't appreciate your posting style one bit. It doesn't fit with this forum's ethos. We like to have fun here and a big part of that is our play nice rule. Please familiarise yourself with it because you are bending it to breaking point.
We also have a rule regarding personal attacks on other members. Basically, we don't care if people call each other names here as long as it is all in fun. Contrariwise, if you say "good morning" in such a way that it is intended to upset, antagonise or deride a fellow member, you could get a suspension for it. It all comes down to how the staff interpret your conduct.

So would you kindly stop with the name calling, however mild and innocuous the actual words, because it is not being seen as innocuous buy the staff. For example, I see nothing derogatory in being called modern and progressive - but when you call someone a neoprog, it is clear that you intend it as an insult, so I am asking you (nicely) to desist.

By all means put forward your ideas and criticise those of others - this is a discussion forum after all - just keep play nice in mind, please.



As for the rest of you, you should know better than to call names back. Apart from Tails, you all left the schoolyard quite a while ago. If you don't like what toontown says, ignore it, add him to your foes list and avoid his threads. If you do come here to challenge his arguments, expect to abide by the same rules that I have just pointed out to him. If you think he has attacked you, report him rather than retaliating.

Thank you.

[Toontown]

XC so thats a personal attack and " pampered juvie emperor has no clothes." along with all the other indirect implications - aren't?

Is there something wrong with being a pampered juvie emperor? Wasn't Alexander a pampered juvie emperor?

Maybe you have a point. Applying your logic, is there anything wrong with being a "bigoted jerk?"

Is there anything wrong with you being a bigoted jerk? You tell me. You're the big accusatory-moralistic-guy in this thread. Hell, what do I know about accusatory pseudo-moralism? I don't even think there is anything wrong with keeping POW's in a POW camp.

[Twiglet]

XC so thats a personal attack and " pampered juvie emperor has no clothes." along with all the other indirect implications - aren't?

Is there something wrong with being a pampered juvie emperor? Wasn't Alexander a pampered juvie emperor?

Maybe you have a point. Applying your logic, is there anything wrong with being a "bigoted jerk?"

Is there anything wrong with you being a bigoted jerk? You tell me. You're the big accusatory-moralistic-guy in this thread. Hell, what do I know about accusatory pseudo-moralism? I don't even think there is anything wrong with keeping POW's in a POW camp.

I made a couple of points about the difference between PoWs, criminals and enemy combatants. I related those to human rights and moral authority. I drew the distinction between criticising policy and nationalism.

[charlou]

Is there anything wrong with you being a bigoted jerk? You tell me. You're the big accusatory-moralistic-guy in this thread. Hell, what do I know about accusatory pseudo-moralism? I don't even think there is anything wrong with keeping POW's in a POW camp.

Toontown, we are discussing the duration of your first suspension for continuing to post in breach of our guidelines. Your account will be suspended soonly.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Toontown's account has been suspended for 24 hours for repeated personal attacks and generally playing nasty.

[Hermit]

They [enemy combatants] are classified for what they are and they are held and treated as prisoners of war. Just as they would be if they were fighting for a country.

Actually, they are not. Prisoners of war are treated according to the relevant Geneva Convention. Prisoners classified under the newly created rubric of 'enemy combatants' are treated with water-boarding and other forms of torture which are illegal treatments under that convention. If you want to yell and scream about in this forum, the least you could do is to get your facts right.

[JimC]

They [enemy combatants] are classified for what they are and they are held and treated as prisoners of war. Just as they would be if they were fighting for a country.

Actually, they are not. Prisoners of war are treated according to the relevant Geneva Convention. Prisoners classified under the newly created rubric of 'enemy combatants' are treated with water-boarding and other forms of torture which are illegal treatments under that convention. If you want to yell and scream about in this forum, the least you could do is to get your facts right.

It is my understanding that the US has now stopped these illegal treatments...

After 2001, the idea of detaining terrorists was reasonable, IMO, but their treatment was not...

[Twiglet]

They [enemy combatants] are classified for what they are and they are held and treated as prisoners of war. Just as they would be if they were fighting for a country.

Actually, they are not. Prisoners of war are treated according to the relevant Geneva Convention. Prisoners classified under the newly created rubric of 'enemy combatants' are treated with water-boarding and other forms of torture which are illegal treatments under that convention. If you want to yell and scream about in this forum, the least you could do is to get your facts right.

It is my understanding that the US has now stopped these illegal treatments...

After 2001, the idea of detaining terrorists was reasonable, IMO, but their treatment was not...

Thats a fiercly debated point. The US still practices extraordinary rendition and exports prisoners to nations which permit torture. The evidence coming out of the uk at the moment suggests that both US and British intelligence services have been party to torture during interrogations, even if they have not been the ones turning the voltage up, they have been asking questions while someone else does it for them.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/1 ... ce-ignored (uk complicity)
http://www.alternet.org/world/41314/ (US outsourcing of torture)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/world ... water.html (outsourcing of security to Blackwater, accused of wide scale rights abuses underwhilst being paid by the federal government)
http://www.amnestyusa.org/ (Amnesty report specifically criticising Arizona laws as per OP)
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20090521.htm (very detailed analysis of torture and law in the US under Bush, and the changes Obama has made)



The laws about what the military can do on US soil have been reclarfied.

None of this diminishes the things China gets up to, just the capacity of the US, as a nation, to lecture on the topic.

[Hermit]

After 2001, the idea of detaining terrorists was reasonable, IMO, but their treatment was not...

Detaining terrorists is reasonable, to say the least, but apart from the treatment that was meted out on them there is another matter: People have been imprisoned on the mere suspicion of terrorism. They have been held for up to six years without being charged because there simply was no evidence, then released when it was realised that they were in fact not terrorists after all. Not only did the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POWs applied to them because they were not classified as prisoners of war, but habeas corpus did not apply to them either because they were not classified as criminals. The invention of the 'enemy combatant' classification was no more than a device for the United States administration to do whatever they liked with whoever they wanted to do it to "in the national interest" (and whatever that means, don't mention the oil). Furthermore, the various 'homeland security' type legislations that have been enacted in many hitherto democratic countries are not all that dissimilar. In that regard the US government is in no position to lecture the Chinese government, and I think Posner said what he did because he realised that. If that is the definition of a 'neoprog', I say we need more of them.

Also, take note of Twiglet's comment.

[AshtonBlack]

Neoprog, good name for a Matrix TV spin off.

[Clinton Huxley]

I guess someone made some quip about Neoprog Rock? Just checking.

[Hermit]

I guess someone made some quip about Neoprog Rock? Just checking.

Yes. Someone has, but Toontown did not like it, so that line of thinking was abandoned.

We are such an obliging lot.

[JimC]

After 2001, the idea of detaining terrorists was reasonable, IMO, but their treatment was not...

Detaining terrorists is reasonable, to say the least, but apart from the treatment that was meted out on them there is another matter: People have been imprisoned on the mere suspicion of terrorism. They have been held for up to six years without being charged because there simply was no evidence, then released when it was realised that they were in fact not terrorists after all. Not only did the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POWs applied to them because they were not classified as prisoners of war, but habeas corpus did not apply to them either because they were not classified as criminals. The invention of the 'enemy combatant' classification was no more than a device for the United States administration to do whatever they liked with whoever they wanted to do it to "in the national interest" (and whatever that means, don't mention the oil). Furthermore, the various 'homeland security' type legislations that have been enacted in many hitherto democratic countries are not all that dissimilar. In that regard the US government is in no position to lecture the Chinese government, and I think Posner said what he did because he realised that. If that is the definition of a 'neoprog', I say we need more of them.

Also, take note of Twiglet's comment.

I think it is reasonable to detain suspected terrorists for some specified length of time, while intelligence is being gathered. There should be some form of judicial review, so it cannot become indefinite detention, possibly by some international body (here my knowledge of legal matters runs out). My main point in all this is that there needs to be a balance between the necessities of firm action against terrorists, and some measure of human rights. Clearly in the past the pendulum swung to the crude and vicious side, which includes rendition. However, public safety demands that the pendulum must not swing back to the point where effective measures against hardened terrorists become impossible.

[Clinton Huxley]

I guess someone made some quip about Neoprog Rock? Just checking.

Yes. Someone has, but Toontown did not like it, so that line of thinking was abandoned.

We are such an obliging lot.

Damn! Tails beat me to it, I'm getting old

[Twiglet]

After 2001, the idea of detaining terrorists was reasonable, IMO, but their treatment was not...

Detaining terrorists is reasonable, to say the least, but apart from the treatment that was meted out on them there is another matter: People have been imprisoned on the mere suspicion of terrorism. They have been held for up to six years without being charged because there simply was no evidence, then released when it was realised that they were in fact not terrorists after all. Not only did the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POWs applied to them because they were not classified as prisoners of war, but habeas corpus did not apply to them either because they were not classified as criminals. The invention of the 'enemy combatant' classification was no more than a device for the United States administration to do whatever they liked with whoever they wanted to do it to "in the national interest" (and whatever that means, don't mention the oil). Furthermore, the various 'homeland security' type legislations that have been enacted in many hitherto democratic countries are not all that dissimilar. In that regard the US government is in no position to lecture the Chinese government, and I think Posner said what he did because he realised that. If that is the definition of a 'neoprog', I say we need more of them.

Also, take note of Twiglet's comment.

I think it is reasonable to detain suspected terrorists for some specified length of time, while intelligence is being gathered. There should be some form of judicial review, so it cannot become indefinite detention, possibly by some international body (here my knowledge of legal matters runs out). My main point in all this is that there needs to be a balance between the necessities of firm action against terrorists, and some measure of human rights. Clearly in the past the pendulum swung to the crude and vicious side, which includes rendition. However, public safety demands that the pendulum must not swing back to the point where effective measures against hardened terrorists become impossible.

The same set of debates happened with the IRA in the uk, the ANC before the end of apartheid and the truth and reconciliation comission after it. Terrorism is a very convenient way to lump together anyone with a grievance without addressing any of the issues which drove people to it, but much more importantly, terrorism is a criminal act.

Remove the word "terrorist" and substitute it for "criminal" and then examine the motivations behind that criminality, whether it's mental health, religion, politics, indoctrination or some combination of all of those things.. and it becomes (for me anyway) conceptually much easier to deal with. Catch criminals, put them to trial and determine their punishment. If the weight of evidence suggests they are dangerous to the community, deny them bail while they await trial. We have ways of dealing with these kinds of people which have been shown to work, and balance societies need for safety with a need for fairness and to protect the innocent.

That is part of the core of human rights legislation. Failure to treat people under those terms breaches basic human rights and asks the question of exactly what freedoms are being safeguarded.

In the UK, we saw the the guildford four just how easily justice can take a back seat compared to the desire of politicians to pin the blame. Then become so attached to the outcome that innocent people languished in jail for 20 odd years before finally being set free.

If the evidence against those held at Guantanamo is so compelling, and was obtained by legitimate means, then let them be bought to stand trial, with the same rights as any other accused.