Neoprog Posner sucks up to Chicoms

[JimC]

Twiglet wrote:

...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...

I agree generally with that sentiment, with the proviso that terrorist organisatioins have many of the features of spy networks, with structures and international dimensions which make standard policing techniques inadequate at times. Sometimes, situations will occur which demand specialist intelligence and possibly covert action teams. However, effective judicial oversight is a vital necessity, to avoid these occasional requirements developing an ominous life of their own...

[Clinton Huxley]

I think some terrorist organisations have more in common with franchises. Al-Qaeda, for example, is a very loose amalgamation of different groups.

As a wishy-washy, Guardian reading, fully-paid up member of the NeoProg Order, I want my "terrorists" dealt with by the full majesty of the law, the same as all other naughty people. Shady detention camps and electrodes to the nethers demean us all.

[charlou]

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

Check it out.

[Trolldor]

Toontown is, from what I recall, a card from a show called Yu-gi-oh that was on in my mid-teens.
Everything combined with it turned in to a caricature of itself.


That is all.

[JimC]

Toontown is, from what I recall, a card from a show called Yu-gi-oh that was on in my mid-teens.
Everything combined with it turned in to a caricature of itself.


That is all.

And of course, its ultimate derivation comes from an animation called "Who framed Roger Rabbit?"

The only show where a cartoon version of a rabbit called Jessica could provoke an erection...

Or even more...

(no, of course I'm not turning into a fucking furry! )

[Gawdzilla Sama]

(no, of course I'm not turning into a fucking furry! )

Keep telling yourself that.

[JimC]

(no, of course I'm not turning into a fucking furry! )

Keep telling yourself that.

Don't tell me you don't remember Jessica with lustful thoughts aplenty!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

(no, of course I'm not turning into a fucking furry! )

Keep telling yourself that.

Don't tell me you don't remember Jessica with lustful thoughts aplenty!

Actually, I thought she was extremely funny. I kept looking for the little air valve.

[Tails Turrosaki]

Can somebody provide me the tl;dr version?

If you don't agree with him, you're evil.

You can't possibly not know you've got that backwards. You are therefore identified. I predict our heretofore friendly relationship will come to a bad end.

"Friendly relationship"? This current you is friendly!? Oh, god, we might as well just ban him now.

We're evil, thus we don't agree with you. Hm. I'm sure that you'd say "He got it backwards," if he said "We're evil, so you don't agree with him." You just don't want us to assume correctly. Frankly, if you want respect here at all, you better earn it.

[Tails Turrosaki]

A bunch of shit I'm not even going to bother reading

Fuckshit I'm not reading any of that.

1. Tl;dr
2. It's bound to piss me off (I don't like getting angry)

Come back when you can control your anger. You're like, what, 60? I thought you oldies were supposed to be mature.

Can somebody provide me the tl;dr version?

I think he said you were wrong. Now go and hang your head and cry.

Oh...
...
...
Toontown is a bigoted jerk. I don't like him at all.

And that is a personal attack on another member - which I do not like at all. If you don't like him/her - use the foe button in your UCP and you won't have to see any of his/her posts.

But Xamy, he started it!!

[Tails Turrosaki]

Toontown is, from what I recall, a card from a show called Yu-gi-oh that was on in my mid-teens.
Everything combined with it turned in to a caricature of itself.


That is all.

http://www.toontown.com/

It's not a card, it's a video game.

[Coito ergo sum]

Doesn't the US these days effectively maintain a gulag in which citizens of any nationality can be detained indefinitely without the right to a trial? Not to mention the patriot act, which enables the US to lock up pretty much anyone they like, for however long, on whatever terms.

Um.... no, the US doesn't maintain a gulag, effectively or ineffectively. Citizens of any nationality may not be detained indefinitely without the right of trial.

The US is in a very poor position to lecture other nations about human rights abuses right now. I don't even know about Arizona laws. What I do know about it quite draconian enough.

Let's compare. Which country is less draconian relative to criminal defendants? Which country has looser immigration policies?

[Coito ergo sum]

Doesn't the US these days effectively maintain a gulag in which citizens of any nationality can be detained indefinitely without the right to a trial? Not to mention the patriot act, which enables the US to lock up pretty much anyone they like, for however long, on whatever terms.

The US is in a very poor position to lecture other nations about human rights abuses right now. I don't even know about Arizona laws. What I do know about it quite draconian enough.

Another subject change? Imagine that. Damn, you people are good at staying on topic. It's amazing how good you are at it. I mean, if the neverending "topic" of neoprog discourse is the evil US of A.

But in reality, it's a subject change every stinking post. Because every thread, no matter what the subject, must, in the neoprog way of things, be brought back to the "real" topic of neverending Amerikka-bashing.

Ever heard of a POW camp? Countries can keep POW's until the end of hostilities. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. has been trying to get rid of them since the Bush administration. Their countries of origin refuse to take them back. Because they're dangerous psychopathic terrorists, you see.

The Arizona law is no different from the federal law, and no more "draconian" than almost all countries' immigration laws. Oddly enough, nearly all countries insist on trying to maintain their sovereign rights.

Anyhow, thanks for your service as poster-boy.

Stating facts about Guantanamo and the Patriot Act isn't "Amerikka bashing",

It is when the statements you make are not true, and yours weren't. And, if Guantanomo is a human rights violation and a Gulag, and the Patriot Act violates human rights, what charges should be brought against the people maintaining, managing, administering, funding and enforcing them?

although it is absolutely typical of certain Americans to deliberately conflate remarks about US policy with anti-American sentiment. US law pertaining to detention and trial is not like the majority of nations,

Actually, it's quite similar. But, we can compare if you like. Pick a nation or two.

and in recent years US attitudes towards human rights have become far closer to those of China.

That's not bashing? Let's talk specifics. What "attitudes"? Whose attitudes?

The evidence for that rests in the failure to recognise the International Criminal Court,

Do you know why the US hasn't recognized the international criminal court?

and the non-compliance with the Geneva convention for PoWs.

The Geneva Convention on POWs was complied with at all times. If you believe there was a provision violated, please, by all means cite the provision. It's freely available on the web. Either quote the article you claim is violated, or let me know which article you're talking about. I'd be quite happy to debate it with you.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why do you Irish keep asking pointless, annoying questions?

Why do you generalise a whole nation based on one person?

Didn't you do that above? "Why do you Americans....?"

[Coito ergo sum]

Stating facts about Guantanamo and the Patriot Act isn't "Amerikka bashing", although it is absolutely typical of certain Americans to deliberately conflate remarks about US policy with anti-American sentiment. US law pertaining to detention and trial is not like the majority of nations, and in recent years US attitudes towards human rights have become far closer to those of China. The evidence for that rests in the failure to recognise the International Criminal Court, and the non-compliance with the Geneva convention for PoWs.

Still determined to make the thread be about Guantanamo, aren't you. Don't want it to be about Posner's hypocritical and false suck-up statement about the completely reasonable Arizona law, as per the OP.

The OP is a whine about how you feel your Senator is letting the US down. On the contrary. By acknowledging faults within the US system, the Senator is seeking to make it clear that he opposes the abuse of rights in his home country as well as elsewhere. A perfectly valid and diplomatic position

Yes, for sure, in principle. However, one would think he'd pick an actual human rights violation. The Arizona law doesn't violate human rights. It is not a violation of human rights for police officers to check someone's citizenship status. In the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Holland, etc. etc. etc. - every country in the world - their police can check someone's ID and legal status as a matter of course, and not requiring "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful status.

The thing that is laughable about Posner's apology for the Arizona law is that in China, their police can check your passport and visa status anytime they want, for any reason and for no reason at all. If a foreigner in China is out and about without their documents, the police are within their rights to hold the person and put them in a detention cell where they will remain unless and until the proper documentation is located and recovered. They can be convicted of a crime for being in the country illegally, and they can be deported from China without any due process.

So, to sit there and say, 'see, we acknowledge our human rights problems' when all we're talking about is checking someone's flippin' visa to see if they are in the country legally is total crock of shit.

First of all, the US does not consider Guantanamo inmates to be PoWs, whose treatment is governed by the Geneva convention. They are classed as enemy combatants, a linguistic turn of phrase coined by the Bush administration in an attempt to avoid that convention, to which the US is a signatory.

The detainees in Guantanamo are not, by the terms of the Geneva Convention, POWs. One, the convention only applies to nation states that are parties to the convention (al qaeta is not a nation state); Two, the convention does not apply to non-uniformed combatants - that's in the actual Convention - literally written into the Convention - spies - groups of fighters that are not dressed in uniforms or carrying a Geneva Convention ID card. That's why Gary Powers of U-2 fame was not covered by the Geneva Convention. That's why groups of Germans captured in the US on missions for the Reich were not covered by the Geneva Conventions. That's why if a company of Chinese infiltrated the United States and blew something up, they would NOT be covered by the Geneva Convention on POWs.

Not everyone that is captured is a POW.

Further, more POWs don't get trials. They aren't presumed to have committed a crime, because being a soldier in a war is not a crime. They are held INDEFINITELY until hostilities are over and then released after that back to their home country.

Under Federal US law, the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty and have a right to a fair trial, if they are criminals. But that isn't applied to Guantanamo inmates either.

If they are POW's, as you say they are, they are covered by the Geneva Convention and would not be put on trial. They would be held until hostilities are over. Read the convention.

If they are spies or other noncombatants not covered by the Geneva Convention then they can be tried under the military procedures of the detaining country. That's the international law on the issue.

In fact, under the Patriot act, they are not treated as criminals or PoWs. Their guilt has never been established, although substantial evidence has come to light in many cases proving innocence.

If they are POW's there is no issue of guilt or innocence. When the US captured Germans in WW2, they did not go on trial. They went to POW camps and were held there indefinitely. You say they are POWs and the Bush administration, after much hubbub about the subject, agreed to treat them as such.

I'm sure you know all this, but your dogmatic ideology drives you to stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it.

Dogmatic ideology? I mean - you say the Geneva Convention on POWs applies and then you say that they have to be put on trial. You obviously haven't read the Convention. If they are POWs then they are held indefinitely until the hostilities are over.