![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
 Posted - October 01 2003 : 1:28:02 PM
|
Moussaoui case tests US justice
By Kathryn Westcott
BBC News Online
The case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person in the US to have been charged in connection with the 9/11 attacks on the US, has escalated into a landmark battle over a defendant's rights.
No doubt, when the 35-year-old French citizen of Moroccan origin was indicted 21 months ago, many people thought the case would be over by now.
But it has hardly started.
The case has become bogged down in a legal debate over whether the defendant can get a fair trial while the US Government refuses to allow him access to particular witnesses for national security reasons.
The US Constitution has emerged as an obstacle to the Justice Department's efforts to prosecute Mr Moussaoui.
Prosecutors say Moussaoui was to have been the 20th hijacker
He is accused of conspiring with 19 other men who carried out the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001.
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees access to witnesses and other evidence to ensure a fair trial.
However, the witnesses Mr Moussaoui wants to hear evidence from are being held at undisclosed locations by the US military and are undergoing sensitive interrogation.
The three detainees are suspected al-Qaeda operatives:
*Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, alleged to be the 9/11 mastermind;
*Ramzi Binalshibh, believed to be a key planner of the attacks;
*Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, believed to be an al-Qaeda financier.
The BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner says the whole interrogation process is highly classified.
Ramzi Binalshibh is being held at a secret location
"The military don't want to blow ongoing operations in the drive to wrap up the leadership of al-Qaeda," our correspondent says.
"They don't want information spilling out in a court in Virginia, in fact, they want to keep lawyers as far away as possible."
According to some experts, interrogators need to sustain a psychological advantage over the detainees by depriving them of all contact with the outside world.
But the judge presiding over the Moussaoui case in Virginia, Leonie M Brinkema, has already ruled that the Justice Department should allow the defendant to hear the detainees' evidence through a satellite hook-up.
In particular, Mr Moussaoui wants to hear evidence from Ramzi Binalshibh.
Defence court documents argue that statements made by Mr Binalshibh to his interrogators would help show that Moussaoui was "a problematic and unstable hanger-on who could never be trusted to be a participant in any significant undertaking by al-Qaeda and was not a participant in the plan for the 11 September attacks".
Human rights fears
The government's continued refusal to allow evidence from the detainees could now lead to the charges against Mr Moussaoui being dismissed.
We are also becoming alarmed at the growing trend to have people classified as enemy combatants and moving such cases into the sphere of military justice
Neil Durkin, Amnesty International
In that case, Mr Moussaoui could find himself being designated an "enemy of the state" and appearing before a military commission.
The government has said that if it is unable to get a court to recognise the need to protect national security in this case, it will have no choice but to put Mr Moussaoui before such a commission.
A US legal expert, Professor Scott Silliman, says the government is trying to negotiate a legal maze in an environment that has changed massively in the past two years.
The law in question is the Classified Information Procedures Act, under which classified information in federal courts is normally handled.
Legal moves
The Act allows the Justice Department to appeal against Judge Brinkema's decision to allow Mr Moussaoui access to the witnesses.
But once the appeal is lodged, the judge can take sanctions against the Justice Departme
|
|
report to moderator
|
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 01 2003 : 1:59:00 PM
|
I will, with respect to this particular case, when YOU explain to US how you tolerate the Sedition Act and National Security Acts in your own country? Not sure of the correct names for those things, but they do exist by some name. Your government can declare something covered under those laws, and all rights to certain things cease.
Heck, your government can prosecute your news media for divulging classified material. They can demand the source be given up. They can suspend a number of rights for defendents charged with acts of sedition, espionage, etc. Can they not? You are tougher on those things than we are, so please explain your country's logic before I address whether or not a foreign national who engaged in terror against my country should be protected by MY Constitution which he would be happy to destroy. |
report to moderator  |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 02 2003 : 02:22:18 AM
|
Whoa Bill! I haven't expressed an opinion one way or another...I just thought this might be an interesting topic for discussion, and following on from the 2nd Amendment topic. Why does it have to turn into a YOU and US issue?
HM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - October 02 2003 : 05:44:00 AM
|
I was going to point out that this was merely an article that Huggy tossed out there for discussion ...
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 02 2003 : 11:50:55 AM
|
Sorry. Wasnt trying to make it a you vs us. Was drained from going over the 2nd Ammendment issues, and my post was meant to be a strategy to get you to discuss the reasons for the laws in your country about such things. They make more sense and are better able to deal with such people who would betray their country, divulge damaging classified information while hiding behind "1st Ammendment", deal with terrorists, and those who would destroy the very institutions and fabric of a society. I was hoping to get YOU to tell us about those laws.
Question remains though. Why should a foreign national, devoted to destroying an entire lifestyle and culture including the 6th Ammendment, who was involved in acts of war against a sovereign nation, be allowed to call upon the Constitutional protections of that country? He is either a warrior (in his view) and outside criminal law falling under the laws pertaining to captured prisoners of war, or he is a mass murderer of the war crimes nature (he's at war and purposely targeted civilians en masse for destruction). Either way, he is outside the box for normal criminal treatment. AND, he is not a citizen. Why should he be given OUR protections?
His society (the society HE fights for) would have a quick trial composed of mullahs, a quick ride the very next Friday to the marketplace or public grounds, and then behead him. This IS the society that beats women for having their veil slip, and shoots them in the back of the head on execution Fridays for not wearing a veil at all in protest, or for being "disloyal" to the husband. That's the society he fights for. So, why does he now whine for OUR societal and legal protections? And why should he have them?
When interrogating prisoners of war, especially war criminals, there are different standards. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 02 2003 : 12:20:08 PM
|
Mainly I was hoping Adele would make my argument for me by telling us about the rationale for the Sedition act and National security acts of her own country. By whatever name they are called, they exist to deal with stuff like this Mousaoui character.
I don't have a problem with denying foreign nationals of his ilk our legal protections. I do have a problem entirely with Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, the whole homeland security concept, the chipping away at BOR in return for "security" etc going on in THIS country affecting citizens of THIS country. I don't have a problem denying a forign national terrorist of his ilk 6th Ammendment protections.
I DO have a problem with giving over extreme powers to a homeland security (and Ridge and Ashcroft in particular) which can lead to loose interpretations of "terrorism" being charged against citizens of THIS country thereby removing OUR protections from OUR citizens.
We have gone from building a central database and ensuring cross talk between intelligence agencies to establishing a Reich Security Office and giving it extraordinary, anti-Consitutional powers.
That worries me. Moussaoi' plight does NOT. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 02 2003 : 1:13:59 PM
|
I'll put it this way, by asking questions. When an Irish terrorist in England bombs a department store and kills many civilians, is he arrested as a common criminal? Or is he, as I think he is, arrested, charged, interrogated, and tried under a separate Act involving terrorism or sedition or some such?
I am darn sure in Israel terrorists are not charged and treated like common criminals, but are treated under special law for such people.
And, I believe that is because both England and Israel have had to deal with such acts on their own soil for years. We have not had acts of foreign sponsored terrorism occur on OUR soil but two times.
Both times involving the Trade Towers. You guys have learned the hard way that dealing with these people require different sets of rules than the way you deal with a common murderer.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - October 02 2003 : 1:15:57 PM
|
This is where liberalism - USA version - really hurts. It's the same as the airport security issue. They cry & yell & make a stink ... "Can't single out particular groups". So, to gain the desired effect, all have to suffer. This is wrong, but it is not the fault, I do not believe, of the Bush Administration. From my way of looking at things, it is clear where the problem is. Another example: Clinton's mishandling of Al Qaida. The liberal philosphy always backfires in matters such as these ...
Anyway, I agree, it is ludicrous to give Constitutional rights to those who would destroy it. FOREIGNERS who would destroy it. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 02 2003 : 3:44:25 PM
|
Yeah, isn't that a kick in the gonads, and total lunacy? 99% of the terrorists attacking this country are Arabic peoples, but you can't scrutinize those people boarding a plane more closely, because then you are "profiling". What crap. Sometimes you gotta wonder about the liberal element's penchant for working FOR thos who are AGAINST the security of this country at every turn, while degrading, denigrating and crying out in protest against any common sense strategy for dealing with those who are predators upon that society, culture, and system of laws. Well, you do, until you put it in context of politics.....Republicans are sitting in the executive right now. Anything they can do to point fingers at the sitting government they believe will win them power next go around.
Where was the hue and cry from them about the 1st Ammendment gag order? Where was the hue and cry from them about Patriot Act and establishing a Reich Security Office with SS Reichsfuhrer Ridge in charge. Where was the hue and cry about giving extraordinary powers to nutball SicherheitsDienst Fuhrer Ashcroft? Where was the hue and cry from them about the snipes at 2nd Ammendment, or Hillary's statements about the whole thing being outmoded...one of their Presidential hopefuls, I might add?
But they sure got up in arms about "profiling" in the security lines boarding airplanes.....checking the Arabic passengers more closely, didn't they?
Whose side are they on? What system of government do they wish for us? What kind of security? |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 02 2003 : 5:54:05 PM
|
Bill, I think what you are referring to is what used to be called the Prevention of Terrorism Act? This law, originally passed with the Northern Ireland situation in mind, was updated in 2000 to ensure that it covered ALL acts of terrorism, and is now just referred to as the Terrorism Act.
This is a very detailed and complex law, but basically gives the police special powers to stop, search, question, seize, detain and arrest provided they have reasonable cause to suspect the person concerned has a terrorist connection. Warrants are not required, and the amount of time a suspected terrorist can be held without charge is longer, and can be extended after review.
I believe that a terrorist is defined as someone who uses a threat of violence, or actual violence, property damage, endangerment or disruption to a computer system for the purpose of furthering a political, religious or ideological cause, or trying to influence or intimidate the government or the public.
Anything from detonating a bomb, to hacking a computer system, to fundraising for a known terrorist cause, to wearing the insignia or uniform of a terrorist organisation can result in prosecution and punishment can be severe. Basically, you so much as talk to a terrorist, and you could get yourself in BIG trouble. I think just being a member of a terrorist organisation could get you a maximum sentence of ten years.
As far as I know, a suspected terrorist still has exactly the same rights in terms of their trial, right to a fair trial, legal aid, etc. Am not sure on that though.
You are correct Bill that the reason we have such a law, is because we have faced terrorism on home soil for decades, which necessitated the need for it. The USA has only encountered the occasional domestic incident which it would classify as terrorism, 9/11, I have no doubt will bring about a change in the US laws before long.
I agree with your sentiment that it is extremely difficult to bear the idea that your own Constitution or laws protect the very people who oppose such freedom. We have some infamous Muslim fundamentalists living in London who basically think the people of this country are the spawn of the devil, they applaud and support acts of terrorism, and yet for some reason, even with our laws, they have yet to be either deported or imprisoned. Having said all of that, I still strongly believe that one's country MUST continue to offer freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty etc etc simply because it is a VERY slippery slope to go down if you start tampering with those rights. It's a toughie!
HM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
susquesus
Mad Hermit of the North Woods
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 03 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 02 2003 : 6:02:55 PM
|
| Is this "Terrorism Act" anything like the special law enforcement powers granted by the "Patriot Act"? |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 02 2003 : 6:27:39 PM
|
I would agree that the Constitution and BOR should apply to all citizens. That's why I am upset with what is going on in the name of striking back against terrorism through some of those new agencies and laws I talked about. Too easy to be used against citizens by merely making the accusation against them that they might be involved in some sort of terrorism. On the other hand, I disagree that foreign nationals who come to a country with the specific goal to kill masses of civilians and one day destroy that very system of government and laws should be given it's protections.
Period. How about we compromise? How about we give him the identical same trial, defense, rights and punishment he would be given by HIS culture....the one he is fighting for, and the one he is fighting to install world-wide? Fair enough? |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 03 2003 : 02:42:38 AM
|
quote:
Is this "Terrorism Act" anything like the special law enforcement powers granted by the "Patriot Act"?
It's similar, but by no means the same. I had to read up on the Patriot Act, because I didn't know a great deal about it, but it seems to focus a lot on 'spying' e.g. extended freedom to wiretap, and follow internet usage. To be quite honest, to me it appeared a real mish-mash of things, hastily put together, and as an emotional reaction to 9/11, instead of a really thought out, long term measure against terrorism. I have a problem with the name 'Patriot Act' too - am not sure exactly why - but it bothers me!
quote:
Originally posted by Bill R
I would agree that the Constitution and BOR should apply to all citizens. That's why I am upset with what is going on in the name of striking back against terrorism through some of those new agencies and laws I talked about. Too easy to be used against citizens by merely making the accusation against them that they might be involved in some sort of terrorism. On the other hand, I disagree that foreign nationals who come to a country with the specific goal to kill masses of civilians and one day destroy that very system of government and laws should be given it's protections.
Period. How about we compromise? How about we give him the identical same trial, defense, rights and punishment he would be given by HIS culture....the one he is fighting for, and the one he is fighting to install world-wide? Fair enough?
Bill, I had EXACTLY the same thought as I was writing my response post! However, firstly, I think it would be impossible to carry out in practice, and secondly, what if your criminal was a citizen of a country ruled by say, the Taliban? Supposing a member of the Taliban gets on a plane, flies into the USA and goes on a maiming and killing spree of all the women in the vicinity? His defense could be, that in his country, a woman who wears lipsticks can have her lips cut off in the street, or a woman who displays any flesh or hair is subject to have her hands and feet cut off, prostitutes can be shot etc etc. Under his laws, he would be protected.
The fact is, we have an idea of what justice is and we have our laws on crime and punishment. If we are willing to abandon those laws because the criminal is foreign, it suggests we have more approval for the laws of the foreigner than we have for our own laws. We make their case.
It reminds me of the incident where the US soldiers who crashed their helicopter in Somalia. Their bodies were dragged through the streets of Somalia to the horror of the US public. This event was denounced as barbaric and appalling. Yet, I wonder what would happen if a 9/11 terrorist was put on display in the same way in New York? Now, don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that the roles of the people involved in those two events are remotely similar, but the point is, it is all about perspective. To some countries, the people of the US are the devil incarnate, as Osama bin Laden might be considered by US citizens. Our perceptions and emotions can not be allowed to overrule the law, justice and rights that our countries are founded upon, or we lose our very identity.
Sorry for the sidetrack - got carried away there!
HM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 03 2003 : 10:47:16 AM
|
Well, I wasnt talking about adopting the laws, merely the punishments of his country for HIM, and wasnt serious.
HOwever, I dont give a crap about his US Constitutional rights. He has none. And as I said, he should be tried as a war criminal. He helped in an act of war against this country, and he targeted masses of civilians purposely. Different rules for such folks.
I do care about knee jerk reacting to the horror of the attack and giving over extraordinary powers to Gov that can be used against us some day. Gov doesnt need those kinds of powers for the war against terrorism. Better communication and cooperation between intelligence agencies, a central database, better intelligence gathering techniques and better cooperation with foreign agencies, less politics and no turf battles would go a long way. Also, how about tighter immigration? Why let the sob's into the country in the FIRST place? How about allowing "profiling" instead of playing politics with that subject? Keep them out in the first place though, would be a good start.
I remember when I was going to Penn State we lived in an apartment in the middle of a motel-like building and four Iranians lived in the end apartment. Screwing every white babe they could, drunken parties every weekend, slamming America every step of the way, and telling American guys American girls are all whores. Bragging that they couldn't wait to get back home and work for Khomeini. One of the sob's was a nuclear physics major. How friggin stupid can we be?
Everybody in the complex, once they'd talked to them, thought they were Aholes and were glad to see them go. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 03 2003 : 2:13:46 PM
|
Zacarias Moussaoui is an 'Illegal Combatant', as set forth by the Hague Accords, the Geneva Convention as well as the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice). What he and his ilk did was part of an orchastrated sneak attack on our country. There is only one solution, and the President dropped the ball on this, that is a military tribunal followed by excecution by hanging or firing squad. "Oh no Sarge, you mean he is not innocent until proven guilty!" Yep, that about sizes it, time to apply rule 5.56 or 7.62! Then we can put that little spoiled SOB they found fighting for the Taliban in Afganistan against the wall next. Followed by that treacherous Islamic Cleric and Interpreter, both pretending to be loyal and patriotic members of our nation's warrior caste.
Trust me folks, those animals will run out of 'martyrs' before we run out of bullets. Time to put a third shift on a Winchester-Olin...
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 03 2003 : 2:48:07 PM
|
There was some talk of military tribunal, while others wanted to put him on trial. Forget who was for what, whether Bush wanted Tribunal and Powell wanted trial.....or other way around. I'd agree though, with military tribunal. Precedence is there for that for war criminals.
Speaking of jerks who betray their country, anybody heard anything more on status of that slime who fragged the officers of 101st before the war kicked off? Did he even make it home? I'da had him make his last jump on the way home. "Gee, don't know what happened, the door just popped open and he fell out. Like a good trooper though, he yelled Geronimo and God bless Bush and the USA and God damn the Taliban and Osama Bin Ladin, and more faintly as he fell through 18,000 (6,000 below flight level of aircraft) he yelled I'm sorry and I'm a worthless raghead sympathizer and member of Nation of Islam forgive meeeeeeeeeeeeeee......... Honest sir, that's exactly the way it happened!"
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 03 2003 : 7:40:28 PM
|
Can we get the male testosterone thing a bit decreased here? Speaking as moderator, not as participant. This does not seem to go anywhere, right now. This has nothing to do with the topic anymore. I'm tempted to lock this thread.
Ilse |
OH HAI!
Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 03 2003 : 9:30:59 PM
|
Not surprised. Ah, the power of a moderator. Lock that which you personally don't agree with, or have any interest in.
And I thought we were coming along so nicely, you and I.
Maybe it's toning down of estrogen that's needed..............
Betcha if we were ranting about how the US is oppressive, overbearing, ripping away the rights of the world, performing assassinations everywhere, how capitalism isnt working and we should go communist.........we'd be fine, eh? Or saying how we deserved the attack of 9-11 for all the evil in the world we do, and for being such arrogant, testosterone laden peoples, that would be fine.
I figured there was only SO much pro-US statements you could tolerate before kicking in............
Why I left in the last place.
Guess it's the year to return and leave. Just as pissed off as the last time I tried to be part of this place.
If you ever decide to move to the US do consider a condo in Kalifornia. You'd fit right in.
Bye all.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 03 2003 : 10:31:41 PM
|
| You're misreading it, Ilse. |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - October 04 2003 : 07:11:03 AM
|
Oh, c'mon, Billy ...
Why does a difference of opinion need to result in "leaving"? Calm it down ...
I think Ilse was suggesting locking the topic because she felt it was straying too far from the original premise. She was simply trying to keep it on track. No biggie ...
All that would be needed would be to start a "Bashing Moussaoui" thread - and Lord knows, he needs a good bashing - problem solved.
Moderators were chosen to help me. They are people I trust, people I know, people who - to me, at least - have demonstrated a dedication to this place over a long period of time. I don't care what their political, religious, or social stance is on anything, as a look over who moderates here plainly demonstrates. [Others fit the bill as well; I selected based on who was here - and active - at the time, among other things.]
Ilse, one of those people, fits that description. I think you misread her intentions - there are very clear differences in how many Europeans view the world in comparison to many Americans. It's a cultural thing - we all see things partially based on our own life experiences - nothing can be done about that ... Celebrate the differences! And, the commonalties that hold it all together! No doubt Ilse And I are on opposite sides of many issues, this one included, I think. Who cares? She's slept at my house, mingled with my children ... I take her as is!  And, she me.
Bill, you are as big a part of the fabric of this place as anyone has ever been over time ... I love you as you are. 
Please, relax ... and try to have fun ... FUN is what it's supposed to be all about here. Remember, William, our private discussions not too long ago ... |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Theresa
Bumppo's Tavern Proprietress
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 04 2003 : 10:14:39 AM
|
| Agree, Rich. Bill, you are such an asset to this place. You have such knowledge about so many things that I've actually learned from YOU! I think if you look around you'll find there are many here that agree with you on many issues, me for one....I just don't feel articulate enough to express opinion sometimes (I usually come across as sounding like I don't know what I'm talking about...duh) So, don't leave us. We need you here. |
Theresa |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Wilderness Woman
Watcher of the Wood
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 27 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 04 2003 : 10:48:43 AM
|
Agreed!
Bill, though we've never met in person, I really like you. I enjoy your passion and your tell-it-like-it-is-ness. I tend to be that way too when I really let my hair down (even though it gets me into trouble too!).
Please, please take the things Rich said above very much to heart. And then change your mind... and stay.
 |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 04 2003 : 12:39:53 PM
|
Bill, don't go amigo!!!! As an old PJ (and a fellow graduate of Ft. Bennings's 'School for Boys'), I'd jump with you anytime/anyplace/anywhere, you are good people.
Your Fellow 'T-10 Rider',
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 04 2003 : 1:33:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill R
Not surprised. Ah, the power of a moderator. Lock that which you personally don't agree with, or have any interest in.
And I thought we were coming along so nicely, you and I.
Maybe it's toning down of estrogen that's needed..............
Betcha if we were ranting about how the US is oppressive, overbearing, ripping away the rights of the world, performing assassinations everywhere, how capitalism isnt working and we should go communist.........we'd be fine, eh? Or saying how we deserved the attack of 9-11 for all the evil in the world we do, and for being such arrogant, testosterone laden peoples, that would be fine.
I figured there was only SO much pro-US statements you could tolerate before kicking in............
Why I left in the last place.
Guess it's the year to return and leave. Just as pissed off as the last time I tried to be part of this place.
If you ever decide to move to the US do consider a condo in Kalifornia. You'd fit right in.
Bye all.
Bill, I have to say it...I think this response is incredibly unfair, and I have a feeling (I hope!) that when you have calmed down a little and thought it over, you might see that this response was completely unwarranted.
I introduced this post as a basis for discussion of 6th Amendment rights because I thought it moved along nicely from our discussion on 2nd Amendment rights, and it HAS gone astray somewhat. There is really no grounds to make a personal attack on someon; if you disagree with Ilse, a comment such as Scott's would have sufficed.
'Nuff said on that! As with the others, I would be sorry to lose your input on this board, you are extremely knowledgeable about a lot of topics, and I for one have learned a lot, and been encouraged to find out more because of an interest YOU have sparked.
So...take a deep breath...count to ten (or a hundred if you feel the need!  )
HM
PS Am not gonna forget the estrogen comment for a while!!  |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 05 2003 : 5:10:22 PM
|
I didn't even have Bill in mind when I posted my comment..... ?
Maybe to clarify a bit: these are my totally personal and subjective feelings on this particular forum. I feel an increasing aggressiveness here, and, connected to that, decreasing willingness to open up oneself to different opinions and different arguments, to listen and respond to them. I tried to address that in a bit of an ironic way (I thought), but apparently failed miserably. I'm sorry for that.
It seems I'm the only one feeling like this, so that's the point for me to say: soit! Continue as you see fit. Never did much moderating in the first place, and I'm quite done with it now. I'm on a break. |
OH HAI!
Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 05 2003 : 7:06:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ilse
I didn't even have Bill in mind when I posted my comment..... ?
Maybe to clarify a bit: these are my totally personal and subjective feelings on this particular forum. I feel an increasing aggressiveness here, and, connected to that, decreasing willingness to open up oneself to different opinions and different arguments, to listen and respond to them. I tried to address that in a bit of an ironic way (I thought), but apparently failed miserably. I'm sorry for that.
It seems I'm the only one feeling like this, so that's the point for me to say: soit! Continue as you see fit. Never did much moderating in the first place, and I'm quite done with it now. I'm on a break.
Ilse, I started a post on this prior to this posting, but had to wander off and work on dinner, etc.
Here it is, but I'd like to add that well, to put it bluntly, you're overreacting as much as Bill did. You do a fine job. No one's perfect.
quote:
Originally posted by Ilse
Can we get the male testosterone thing a bit decreased here? Speaking as moderator, not as participant. This does not seem to go anywhere, right now. This has nothing to do with the topic anymore. I'm tempted to lock this thread.
Ilse
Well, now that Adele has praised me for the brevity of my response, I have to confess that I was in a bit of a rush at the time, and further that I felt I might unwisely choose words were I to elaborate.
I do however have more to say--albeit with some trepidation.
Firstly, Ilse, you maintain that Sgt. Munro and Bill's responses have "nothing to do with the topic anymore".
They are in fact replying directly to the topic. Constitutional rights do not necessarily extend to foreign nationals, and in fact there are circumstances in which they do not apply even to U.S. citizens. Their contention that this would be best handled by military tribunal is quite appropriate and on-topic.
OK, that was the easy part.
Before I go further, Ilse, I'd like to say a couple of things. I have the utmost respect and admiration for your wit and wisdom, and ability to see things objectively. Secondly, I doubt my own ability to express this precisely and would have to ask you to bear with me.
The injury and trauma (psychological more than physical) visited on this nation on 9/11/01 were unparalled in my 51 years. In the aftermath, the support of the British government was greatly appreciated. However, the overwhelming response we got from continental Europe was that we somehow deserved it--along with snide comments about our supposed naivety, expressed fears that we might somehow run amok, admonitions to reconsider our foreign policy, etc.
The idea that we somehow "deserved" this is directly analagous to telling a woman who's been raped that she "deserved" it for wearing a mini-skirt. If anything, this was even more painful than the initial trauma. Granted, it wasn't limited to Europeans--not a few Americans came out with the same nonsense, but the response from the continent was overwhelming and shocking.
These feelings are still very much with many of us, Ilse, they haven't necessarily faded with time, though sometimes they lay below the surface and pop up at inopportune moments.
This is what is going to seem (and in fact with regard to you as an individual is) unfair and unreasonable:
What Sgt Munro and Bill are saying here, if a bit over the top, is nothing many of us don't think or speak among ourselves. For a European to threaten to censor it is, well, a bit beyond the pale.
If you |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.6 seconds |
 |
|
Anyone want to talk about 6th Amendment rights?!!
