![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 - May 16 2003 : 04:33:33 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lainey
I leave you with this humorous email which you may already have seen. Too good to not post ...
The USA Patriot Act
Attorney General John Ashcroft is visiting an
elementary school. After the typical civics
presentation, he announces, "All right, boys and
girls, you can all ask me questions now."
A young boy named Bobby raises his hand and says, "I
have 3 questions:
1. How did Bush win the election with fewer votes than
Gore?
2. Why are you using the USA Patriot Act to limit
Americans' civil liberties?
3. Why hasn't the US caught Osama Bin Laden yet?"
Just then the bell sounds and all the kids run out to
the playground. Fifteen minutes later, the kids come
back into class and again Ashcroft says, "I'm sorry
we were interrupted by the bell. Now, you can all ask
me questions."
A young girl raises her hand and says, "I have 5
questions:
1. How did Bush win the election with fewer votes than
Gore?
2. Why are you using the USA Patriot Act to limit
Americans' civil liberties?
3. Why hasn't the US caught Osama Bin Laden yet?
4. Why did the bell go off 20 minutes early?
5. Where's Bobby?"
ROFL!!! I hadn't seen that before...excellent!
Scott, thanks for elaborating....I guess Lainey captured in a nutshell what I was thinking, which was...
quote:
Two things; International Jurisdiction, widely recognized by now, is the basis of that prerogative, & how is the Iraqi situation not its business? If that were true it would also be true that human rights abuses in Iraq, by Iraqis, are even less the business of the US & the UK, & the dubious claim of enforcing international UN Resolutions against Iraq really should not have been the business of the US/UK at all.
And now, I just want to sit back, and enjoy the debate!! 
HM |
report to moderator  |
|
|
Seamus
Guardian of Heaven's Gate
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 19 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 16 2003 : 06:34:11 AM
|
That one's been floating around for quite awhile. Here is an earlier version....same story, different cast:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hillary's School Visit
Hillary Clinton goes to a primary school to talk about the world.
After her talk she offers question time. One little boy puts up his
hand, and the Senator asks him what his name is.
"Billy"
"And what is your question, Billy?"
"I have three questions. First - Whatever happened to your medical health
care plan; Second - Why would you run for President after your husband
shamed the office; and third - Whatever happened to all those things you
took when you left the White House?"
Just then the bell rings for recess. Hillary Clinton informs the
kiddies that they will continue after recess.
When they resume, Hillary says, "Okay where were we? Oh, that's
right, question time. Who has a question?"
A different little boy puts his hand up; Hillary points him out and
asks him what his name is.
"Larry"
"And what is your question, Larry?"
"I have five questions. First - Whatever happened to your medical health
care plan; Second - Why would you run for President after your husband
shamed the office; and third - Whatever happened to all those things you
took when you left the White House?"; Fourth - Why did the recess bell go
off 20 minutes early; and Fifth - What happened to Billy?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just substitute the politician/situation du jour and giggle away! |
Life's journey is not to
arrive at the grave safely
in a well preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways,
totally worn out, shouting
'...holy sh*t ...what a ride!'
~~Mavis Leyrer, Seattle
Seamus
~~Aim small, hit the b*****d right between the eyes!~~ |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 16 2003 : 7:35:46 PM
|
Well, that was a real long post, Lainey.
I almost missed this little bit:
quote:
Originally posted by Lainey
... You can reject the authority or validity of the Belgian court if you like ...
I believe that is the topic currently under discussion. I guess I can't count that as agreement, but it's nice to know I have your permission.
 |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bea
Keeper of the Western Door
Canada
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 16 2003 : 8:39:56 PM
|
| Lainey, you always find the most interesting articles that are so pertinent to the discussed topics! You rock !!!! |
Carpe Diem |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - May 17 2003 : 01:47:21 AM
|
quote:
Well, that was a real long post, Lainey.
I almost missed this little bit:
quote:Originally posted by Lainey
... You can reject the authority or validity of the Belgian court if you like ...
I believe that is the topic currently under discussion. I guess I can't count that as agreement, but it's nice to know I have your permission.
I'm a bit surprised by your take on this, Scott. Perhaps I should have said, "One can reject .... if one likes," as I didn't mean you personally, nor did I intend it as a condescending concession or dismissal. Voiding the Belgian Court will not erase the questions regarding international courts. What I said was;
quote:
You can reject the authority or validity of the Belgian court if you like, but the larger questions regarding international courts & prosecution of war criminals still remain. I do have problems with aspects of these international bodies, but I have bigger problems with uncontested superpowers threatening or invading countries at will & with the increasing levels of barbarity displayed by far too many 'leaders.' And I don't appreciate the 'big lie' that drives the current war planners.
We might have greater agreement regarding the Belgian court (specifically) than you think - but it's not because the Belgians OR their laws are insignificant, nor should it be presumed the courts are political outlets for anti-US/UK sentiments, nor should the courts be dismissed as irrelevant nuisances. (After all, it isn't the Belgian Justices who seek or present the indictments it hears.) It's about the larger question of international venues for particular crimes as a necessary, perhaps obligatory, human response to atrocity vs sovereign nations pursuing their national interests free from external harassment, interference, or vendetta. That is the conflict we're talking about - the same we've previously discussed regarding the ICC. And I did say I do have problems resolving certain principles inherent in such international judiciaries.
It's a crucial question that does need to be debated & defined. It'd be unfortunate to pass up such a clear & present development in the evolution of democratic republics without really dissecting the strengths & weaknesses of such modern political concepts. Especially since such questions might give insight into where the ever changing democracies of the 21st century might be heading.
Perhaps I should divert the topic of Mesopotamia's stolen treasures to a separate thread? We'll eventually get back to this question of international jurisdiction, though.
Bea - thanks! |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 17 2003 : 09:49:11 AM
|
I didn't mean to imply you were being condescending, Lainey, though I can see how it would come across that way. Sorry, poor choice of words.
I was actually responding to, yes, a sense that there may be some common ground with regard to this test of what I believe is more a matter of the concept of universal jurisdiction than international jurisdiction.
(Not particularly to Lainey) I've been trying to sort through some of what makes me uneasy with the discussion of these issues, and I don't have a handle on it yet, but I think part of it is that there seems to be an expectation that things should be "fair". But I need to think about it some.
|
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 17 2003 : 3:24:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Bubar
(Not particularly to Lainey) I've been trying to sort through some of what makes me uneasy with the discussion of these issues, and I don't have a handle on it yet, but I think part of it is that there seems to be an expectation that things should be "fair". But I need to think about it some.
Sighss...sorry to have to clarify again...but it is the issues that make you uneasy...not the discussion right?! If so, then I empathise somewhat...because there is something about it that bothers me, and I can't put my finger on it!! That is why I am enjoying this debate...it is helping sort things out a little!
HM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - May 17 2003 : 5:14:09 PM
|
An update on the specific issue: the case Franks. Belgium refuses to handle this but will refer it to an American court. Quoting my newspaper here:
"Until recently, these complaints automatically led to a judicial inquiry. But because Belgian diplomay experienced serious trouble by former complaints against Ariel Sharon and Colin Powell (*missed this one, I think*) the law was amended. Belgium now has two ways to get rid of unwanted complaints. First the federal judge decides to refer it to a court in another country (if it is a justice state and if the complaint has nothing to do with Belgium). Second, the court of appeal can, if told by the government to throw the case away. The case Franks is the first scenario."
Oh, and, it is being said in several news media that the US threatened to take NATO headquarters out of Brussels/Belgium if they wouldn't get rid of this. |
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 - May 17 2003 : 6:14:24 PM
|
To Bea: I can only clarify to a degree, Huggy, since clarification is what I'm having difficulty with. It's not the issues that make me uneasy. I am uneasy with the discussion (and I don't really mean just here), but the question is why?
To all: I don't mean to be cryptic, but I'm sure some of you have noticed that people who normally get along very well and have large areas of commonality are recently at each others' throats.
The impact of 9/11 and the aftermath appear to me to be the catalyst and touchstone for this.
Frankly, my visceral response on learning of the lawsuit was precisely in accord with what Sgt. Munro verbalized. It may have been impolitic of him to put it out in mixed company, but then, that's never stopped him before. ;)
I believe Rich shares similar feelings, though couching them more gently.
Perhaps it's not entirely coincidental that the three of us are white (I think) American males who have been around for a few years.
Ilse: Thanks for the update. Perhaps the court will limit it's attention to [Scott bites tongue]. You see, the U.S. can take a minimalist approach to such things.
|
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bea
Keeper of the Western Door
Canada
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 17 2003 : 7:07:52 PM
|
Due to a sports injury I am a bit laid up and can't respond as swiftly as needed..
In general I avoid confrontations and only say/post something if I really can't avoid it anymore..:)A proper discussion shouldn't include low blows to a certain individual/nation because it really takes away from the initial issue and consequently weakens it. To my knowledge this is a board frequented by people from all walks of life and different nationalities . Some may post and some may lurk. I enjoy it tremendously when people from Europe give their input and report things from a different angle as the news sources we are exposed to in North America are a bit onesided ( Lainey gave us excellent proof of that). Put it this way : I'd hate to see any of these posters ( or potential ones) go away because of careless, derogatory remarks. And- I don't recall any of our European posters ever stepping on any "North American " toes. Surely we can return the courtesy? Plus, it makes life more peaceful and stressless. And yes, I have bitten my tongue many times ( umm.. has the bleeding stopped yet?)as well.As a matter of fact I am even doing it now...:)
|
Carpe Diem |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - May 18 2003 : 02:56:23 AM
|
Now I've got an awful lot of thoughts on *things*- some, raised here, reach too far beyond the topic to continue within this thread so I'll put them neatly in their own corner.
Ilse, thanks for the update. The decision by the Belgian Court to decline the Franks Case & instead refer it to an American court bears out what we were saying regarding the nature & amendments of the court. An interesting aspect to this has been somewhat overlooked, however, & that is the Court's previous indictment of former general- now Prime Minister - Ariel Sharon as a war criminal for his part in the '82 massacres of Palestinians in Lebanon & the citing of that indictment as an example of "political" abuse that led to the most recent amendments. On the contrary, the Sharon case, which did cause "diplomatic tensions" - another way of saying it brought threats & intimidation, much like the US threat to take away NATO's base from Brussels - offers a strong argument IN FAVOR of international jurisdiction regarding war crimes as the state of Israel's own courts also found Ariel Sharon guilty but have refused to punish or admonish the man whose nickname is not "the Butcher" for nothing. Instead of penalty, Ariel Sharon received the blessings of Israel, theoretically a "justice state," by election as Prime Minister. With refusal of countries to hold accountable a person they have, by their own courts & laws, found guilty of war crimes, in the interest of human rights & protection of vulnerable peoples an international court might be said to be more necessary today than ever before.
quote:
I didn't mean to imply you were being condescending, Lainey, though I can see how it would come across that way. Sorry, poor choice of words.
I was actually responding to, yes, a sense that there may be some common ground with regard to this test of what I believe is more a matter of the concept of universal jurisdiction than international jurisdiction.
(Not particularly to Lainey) I've been trying to sort through some of what makes me uneasy with the discussion of these issues, and I don't have a handle on it yet, but I think part of it is that there seems to be an expectation that things should be "fair". But I need to think about it some.
In that case ... permission granted.
I have my own observations regarding why there is a general uneasiness with these discussions but will put them in a separate post. However, one issue you've touched upon - fairness, or an expectation of it - is interesting. I, for one, don't expect fairness & I don't know if my opinions seem to suggest that. What I do expect is justice, honesty, & consistency, especially by those who claim to be champions of freedom. If a nation, for example, repeatedly cites international "rule of law" as causus belli then it damn well better expect to be held accountable to that same international rule of law itself. In the current theatres around the world that is not the case. Instead, we're seeing phoney indignation & an ever growing list of 'terrorists, enemies, harborers, rogue nations, invisible weapons, accusations, threats, & plan B, C, & D causus belli' as transparent justification for global aggression. Fairness? No. Accountabilty? Yes - most definitely.
quote:
To all: I don't mean to be cryptic, but I'm sure some of you have noticed that people who normally get along very well and have large areas of commonality are recently at each others' throats.
The impact of 9/11 and the aftermath appear to me to be the catalyst and touchstone for this.
Yes it does. Could it be that 9/11, while ini |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 18 2003 : 07:26:21 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lainey
quote:
And now, I just want to sit back, and enjoy the debate!!
No way ... that's not fair, Huggy. You think this is a spectator sport now, even after you've thrown down your two shillings? Uh uh. Once a gladiator, always a gladiator.
Gladiator, huh?! Ahhhhh the images that conjures up....
Seriously though, you know me...and you KNOW I would never sit back and stay quiet if I had something to say! I just think that you, Scott and Ilse were doing a far better job of debating this issue than I. As far as uneasiness goes, I think mine stems more from getting the distinct feeling that there are things going on of which I am unaware, and am not sure whether I am putting myself in the crossfire position. I don't see how this particular topic is any more emotive than any other we have discussed here.
Just as an aside...I love this forum..I feel like I have learned so much here, and I have enjoyed a lot of the topics and posts very much. But the previous post from Scott reminded me that it is all about not WHAT you say, but HOW you say it. There are ways of putting your point across with dignity and consideration which will inspire respect from others, regardless of their own personal opinion. That is the most important thing...otherwise there is no debate, nothing to be gained other than bruises from the butting of heads! 
HM  |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 18 2003 : 09:59:37 AM
|
How can you say that, Lainey?
I like waffles.
I even like Freedom Fries. |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - May 18 2003 : 2:11:40 PM
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To all: I don't mean to be cryptic, but I'm sure some of you have noticed that people who normally get along very well and have large areas of commonality are recently at each others' throats.
The impact of 9/11 and the aftermath appear to me to be the catalyst and touchstone for this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it does. Could it be that 9/11, while initially bringing about a healthy camaraderie & brief 'good will to men' reaction, was, once the dust had settled, also the beginning of a huge polarization precisely because of the way the aftermath unfolded? More on that ...
Not denying that at all, but.... Could it be we also mimic the state of international diplomacy and relations in the world? It's never been as polarized as it is now.
The "take Nato headquarters away" threat is so illustrative. Really, having followed the developments around this law (which has been around for about 10 years), I had no doubt that at the minute these charges were brought the Belgium government started looking for a way out and get rid of it. They didn't need this kind of "encouragement" at all. |
OH HAI!
Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - May 18 2003 : 5:39:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Bubar
How can you say that, Lainey?
I like waffles.
I even like Freedom Fries.
Hey, me, too!!!! And, I can still jump ... just can't bend over all that well anymore. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - May 19 2003 : 12:42:44 AM
|
quote:
How can you say that, Lainey?
I like waffles.
I even like Freedom Fries.
Hey, me, too!!!! And, I can still jump ... just can't bend over all that well anymore.
I don't know what to say, Duncans, but you're waffling so much ... tea?
quote:
Not denying that at all, but.... Could it be we also mimic the state of international diplomacy and relations in the world? It's never been as polarized as it is now.
Isn't this a 'which came first - the chicken or the egg' question? If we are mimicking then my sense of why that is would be there is a very disturbing trend towards hyper-nationalism that has supplanted what was once thought to be patriotism - & not many seem able (or willing?) to discern the difference.
quote:
Seriously though, you know me...and you KNOW I would never sit back and stay quiet if I had something to say! I just think that you, Scott and Ilse were doing a far better job of debating this issue than I. As far as uneasiness goes, I think mine stems more from getting the distinct feeling that there are things going on of which I am unaware, and am not sure whether I am putting myself in the crossfire position. I don't see how this particular topic is any more emotive than any other we have discussed here.
Just as an aside...I love this forum..I feel like I have learned so much here, and I have enjoyed a lot of the topics and posts very much. But the previous post from Scott reminded me that it is all about not WHAT you say, but HOW you say it. There are ways of putting your point across with dignity and consideration which will inspire respect from others, regardless of their own personal opinion. That is the most important thing...otherwise there is no debate, nothing to be gained other than bruises from the butting of heads!
This forum ... uneasiness ... post 9/11 fall-out ... imaginary problems ... fear of debate ... disdain for opposition ... drive-by posting ... politicizing the exchange rather than the issues ... personalizing the issues rather than the exchange ... wag the dog controversies ... all are things on my mind, Adele, & I want to talk about them in a post regarding the Lion's Den & why it attracts so much attention it's become chic to declare one's disinterest & dislike of THIS forum in just about every OTHER forum. Think "the lady doth protest too much"? Sic semper tyranus!
I'm still trying to collect my thoughts on this. Bear with me ... |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Gadget Girl
Gatherer of Gathering Gadgets
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - May 19 2003 : 09:38:09 AM
|
Disinterest???
Dislike????
NEVER!!!!!
Fear????
You betcha!!!
I just never seem to know enough about the issues (can't read ALL the medical journals AND ALL the political articles around ya know!  ) to add anything to the discussion. Soooo, I enjoy reading the sapient offerings of the rest of yous! I apologize for being a noncontributor here, but I do learn a great deal from these discussions! Thanks for all the thought-rich postings!
GG 
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - May 19 2003 : 4:14:14 PM
|
GG,
I hate being so verbose - it makes me feel soooooo Cooperish (and wasn't he a great American social critic who often evoked hostility of his fellow Americans because he warned, criticized, & questioned the cultural-political climate of his day???).
Just want to clarify BEFORE Huggy (who's been a total clarification freak lately, isn't that right, Huggy?) comes along & makes me do it anyway.
I don't mean to imply there's something wrong or negative about non-participation. Surely, surely not! Or fear of debate? Not for everyone, these sometimes ruthless face-offs on philosophical, political, theological, social *issues* & the opportunity for hanging one's self is SO ... totally ... real.
It's more about expectations & compromises that can never materialize - it's that *fellowship* thing ... or a desire for unity that doesn't/shouldn't exist. I think part of what I'm referring to (complex, complex, complex ... I don't know how I'm gonna write a separate coherent post about all these matters - but I'll try) is the idea that thought or perceptions must be homogenized in the interest of fellowship. The problem with this sort of *fellowship* is that it exacts too high a price ...
So - what did I just say? I dunno ..... something about human interaction & ain't life grand?
An aside; Diana aka Gadget Girl is a newly graduated graduate - again!!!! Three cheers for GG - who I wish would share her smarts a tad more often. |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 20 2003 : 02:07:55 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lainey
GG,
I hate being so verbose - it makes me feel soooooo Cooperish (and wasn't he a great American social critic who often evoked hostility of his fellow Americans because he warned, criticized, & questioned the cultural-political climate of his day???).
We wouldn't have you any other way, Lainey!  Besides, verbose doesn't mean you waste your words!!
quote:
Just want to clarify BEFORE Huggy (who's been a total clarification freak lately, isn't that right, Huggy?) comes along & makes me do it anyway.
Sighsssss....clarification freak, huh? I think it just sounds better than "I don't understanddddddddd  " LOL!!!
quote:
I don't mean to imply there's something wrong or negative about non-participation. Surely, surely not! Or fear of debate? Not for everyone, these sometimes ruthless face-offs on philosophical, political, theological, social *issues* & the opportunity for hanging one's self is SO ... totally ... real.
It's more about expectations & compromises that can never materialize - it's that *fellowship* thing ... or a desire for unity that doesn't/shouldn't exist. I think part of what I'm referring to (complex, complex, complex ... I don't know how I'm gonna write a separate coherent post about all these matters - but I'll try) is the idea that thought or perceptions must be homogenized in the interest of fellowship. The problem with this sort of *fellowship* is that it exacts too high a price ...
So - what did I just say? I dunno ..... something about human interaction & ain't life grand?
Hmmm..a new 'philosophy' forum in the making, perhaps?!!
quote:
An aside; Diana aka Gadget Girl is a newly graduated graduate - again!!!! Three cheers for GG - who I wish would share her smarts a tad more often.
WTG GG!!! You kept that pretty quiet!! Congratulations
Lainey, I am having a pretty good Evolution vs Religion discussion off the board - gee, I am just such a glutton for punishment, aren't I?!! I was hoping to find a site which gave arguments for both sides - do you happen to know of any? (Before I spend hours searching...)
HM
PS Am still laughing at the term 'drive-by postings' - am getting the greatest visuals on that one!!  |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bea
Keeper of the Western Door
Canada
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 22 2003 : 10:51:51 AM
|
<<<I don't mean to imply there's something wrong or negative about non-participation. Surely, surely not! Or fear of debate? Not for everyone, these sometimes ruthless face-offs on philosophical, political, theological, social *issues* & the opportunity for hanging one's self is SO ... totally ... real.
It's more about expectations & compromises that can never materialize - it's that *fellowship* thing ... or a desire for unity that doesn't/shouldn't exist. I think part of what I'm referring to (complex, complex, complex ... I don't know how I'm gonna write a separate coherent post about all these matters - but I'll try) is the idea that thought or perceptions must be homogenized in the interest of fellowship. The problem with this sort of *fellowship* is that it exacts too high a price ...
>>>
Isn't that the truth..
Lainey, as you are well aware I enjoy your posts tremendously. The wealth of information and your wit. But I also like them for another reason: you can post things us Non-Americans wouldn't be able to post as we know what the consequences would be..
Having said that, Belgian chocolates anyone????
Huggy I also got a kick out of drive-by-postings.. |
Carpe Diem |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - May 22 2003 : 4:26:12 PM
|
quote:
Lainey, I am having a pretty good Evolution vs Religion discussion off the board - gee, I am just such a glutton for punishment, aren't I?!! I was hoping to find a site which gave arguments for both sides - do you happen to know of any? (Before I spend hours searching...)
*GASP!!!!!!* ... are you sure you're allowed to have good discussion off board? It sounds downright dangerous. Selfish, too.
But - a little late to prevent your browser burnout syndrome - have you found any that are satisfactory? There are several excellent sites that present & argue both positions. I know I've got some bookmarked ... somewhere ... let me know if you still need 'em!
quote:
Lainey, as you are well aware I enjoy your posts tremendously. The wealth of information and your wit. But I also like them for another reason: you can post things us Non-Americans wouldn't be able to post as we know what the consequences would be..
Oh yeah ... YOU guys get told to butt out, or else - I merely hang for treason. Oh joy. |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bea
Keeper of the Western Door
Canada
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 22 2003 : 4:40:15 PM
|
| Lainey, the "or else " may be close to the gallows...:)Or tarred and feathered??? |
Carpe Diem |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - May 22 2003 : 5:32:20 PM
|
quote:
Bosnia Pledges Not to Surrender Americans to New International Criminal Court
17 May 2003
Bosnia-Herzegovina and the United States have signed an agreement under which Bosnia pledged not to surrender Americans to the new International Criminal Court in The Hague.
U.S. Ambassador to Sarajevo Clifford Bond and Bosnian Justice Minister Slobodan Kovac signed the treaty Friday. American Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was on hand in Sarajevo for the signing during a visit to the Bosnian capital.
Sarajevo was the first stop of the U.S. official's European trip that will also take him to Kosovo, Macedonia, France and Romania.
The signing came despite urging from human rights organization Amnesty International not to endorse the agreement. In a statement, the organization said no one - regardless of nationality - should enjoy impunity for the worst crimes known to humanity.
The U.S. government said on Tuesday it will cut off military funding to countries that fail to sign such an agreement.
State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said Tuesday legislation passed last year, the American Service Members Protection Act, prohibits military assistance after July 1 to any country that has not signed the agreement.
The Bush administration has renounced the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, fearing Americans overseas could be targeted for politically motivated prosecutions by hostile nations.
The United States has negotiated separate agreements with a number of countries, including Albania and Romania.
The International Criminal Court, inaugurated in March at The Hague, has the power to prosecute war crimes and violations of human rights.
Source: VOA News
Now, I wonder where we are regarding the Hague Invasion Act? Given the past year's upping the ante mood, & the Fed's announcement it will begin fingerprinting & charting MOST visitors to the US, what should we be expecting next? |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - May 22 2003 : 6:20:10 PM
|
Well, when I started this thread I found it somewhat bewildering and amusing, but I'm not laughing anymore.
On the screening of visitors this from Network World Fusion, May 6th
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0506grouppasse.html
Groups: Passenger data is flying to U.S. against EU laws
By Scarlet Pruitt
IDG News Service, 05/06/03
A coalition of European privacy groups kicked off a campaign this week to ground the transfer of airline passenger data to U.S. authorities, claiming that the information exchange flies in the face of European Union privacy laws.
"There are no safeguards or restrictions on these data transfers," said Maurice Wessling, president of the European Digital Rights (EDRI) privacy coalition which represents 10 privacy and civil rights groups from seven EU countries.
The hubbub sprouts from an agreement that the European Commission (EC) reached with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency last March, in which it agreed to hand over online access to data from all Europe-based carriers that fly to, from or through the U.S.
The agreement was made as a result of the U.S.' efforts to tighten security following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and in the wake of the passing of the U.S. Aviation and Transport Security Act.
The problem, according to the privacy groups, is that the data transfer agreement goes against privacy laws requiring that transfer of data outside of the EU only take place when there is a similar level of privacy protection put in place, according to Wessling. The civil rights advocates claim that there are no limits on the sharing or retention of the data among U.S. agencies and therefore passengers' rights are affected.
"This information could go far beyond antiterrorism measures ... it could be used for anything," Wessling said.
Representatives for the EC were not immediately available to comment on the matter.
With its campaign, EDRI is hoping to make airline passengers aware of the data transfer and encourage them to write the EC with complaints. The EC could then investigate the complaints and rule that there is no legal basis for the transfers, according to Wessling.
According to the U.S.-based privacy group the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the EC is currently negotiating with the U.S. to restrict some access to passenger data in an effort to protect citizens' privacy. It remains to be seen, however, which compromises are agreed upon.
Representatives for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection declined to immediately comment Tuesday.
The European privacy groups' campaign represents one in a series of backlashes against the U.S.' new antiterrorism laws, which have received flak from civil rights groups that say that they do more to curtail privacy than tighten security.
U.S. authorities argue, however, that they have worked to both tighten security and safeguard privacy.
|
OH HAI!
Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.54 seconds |
 |
|
Operation Low Lands?
