US politics in 2008... - Page 7
Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Results 181 to 198 of 198

Thread: US politics in 2008...

  1. #181
    TASmith's Avatar
    TASmith is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    4,169
    Thanks
    5,094
    Thanked 2,049 Times in 1,108 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    just on one note, I think our US trial system is pretty fair, and we can and do prosecute soldiers who commit war crimes. I suppose the major problem is choosing who to prosecute, and letting certain big wigs slip by. But, once someone's on trial, if they're guilty, they'll most likely be found guilty.

    The major drawback to our legal system is that you have to have money for a good lawyer, so the rich get a better go than poor people. But, I think, and correct me people if I'm wrong, that military courts provide higher caliber lawyers for free?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. #182
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    193
    Thanked 324 Times in 155 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jasonwclark View Post
    Turkey is a key Nato ally. Italy, Greece, and Turkey comprise the 'Sourthern European' theater of opperations throughout most of the Cold War. We still have several hundred Nuclear weapons positioned there, even though we secrectly agreed to remove them durring the Cuban missile crisis.

    As for the ICC, I don't think America will ever recognize it. According to the precidents laid down at Nuremburg, we are pretty well in violation of international law. Points A and B got tossed out the window following Vietnam, hopefully point C will hold up for longer.
    Well since the ICC is not that old, I dont think they will deal with cases from before their time. Most cases so far are only from the last few years.

    Still, there is supposedly a large case file about UK soldiers in Iraq who where in violation. But they couldnt be tried, because they did so by aiding the US. And the US is not part of the ICC, so the UK soldiers went free. If the US would become part of the ICC, there would be alot of consequences for high ranking officers.

    "Master storytellers never explain. They do the hard, painfully creative thing-- they dramatize"

    Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  3. #183
    Ilaekae's Avatar
    Ilaekae is offline P.O.W.! Leader, Complete Idiot, Super Moderator Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southwestern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,134
    Thanks
    8,227
    Thanked 5,579 Times in 1,786 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    "On another, completely different side-note, I've always wandered why the presidential candidate selection system is such an overblown and damaging affair? For the past few months the news here in Britain has been following the whole Hilary Vs Obama affair, and the amount of internal damage it causes to the democratic party must be huge. Many downright nasty accusations and attacks have been made, and I don't believe the scars will heal simply because clinton has voiced her support for obama, after she lost the candidacy. The fact the whole ordeal goes on for so long can't help either. It's really quite bizzare, the amount of infighting and squabbling the whole thing causes, when you consider that their both meant to be working towards the same goal."

    It keeps our minds off the Bushies looting what's left of the country before they all leave for the Caymans...

    Last edited by Ilaekae; June 8th, 2008 at 07:47 PM.
    No position or belief, whether religious, political or social, is valid if one has to lie to support it.--Alj Mary

    Ironically, the concept of SIMPLICITY is most often misunderstood by simple-minded people. --Alj Mary
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Ilaekae For This Useful Post:


  5. #184
    TASmith's Avatar
    TASmith is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    4,169
    Thanks
    5,094
    Thanked 2,049 Times in 1,108 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    If the US joined the ICC, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld would be the first three on trial. On that note, I say we join the ICC.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #185
    Ilaekae's Avatar
    Ilaekae is offline P.O.W.! Leader, Complete Idiot, Super Moderator Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southwestern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,134
    Thanks
    8,227
    Thanked 5,579 Times in 1,786 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I say we just hang 'em and give the rest of the world at least one peaceful night's sleep.

    No position or belief, whether religious, political or social, is valid if one has to lie to support it.--Alj Mary

    Ironically, the concept of SIMPLICITY is most often misunderstood by simple-minded people. --Alj Mary
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #186
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    193
    Thanked 324 Times in 155 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by TASmith View Post
    just on one note, I think our US trial system is pretty fair, and we can and do prosecute soldiers who commit war crimes. I suppose the major problem is choosing who to prosecute, and letting certain big wigs slip by. But, once someone's on trial, if they're guilty, they'll most likely be found guilty.
    Non of the high ranking officers, Iraqi or US, that where part of the siege of Fallujah where ever prosecuted.
    One of the marines that was caught on video shooting an unarmed man from close distance, was prosecuted and declared innocent by an american court.
    This is exactly why there needs to be an ICC. An US court simply cant deal with the rights of the victim.

    But yeah, back to topic. If anyone has any statements from the candidates about the ICC, and other international organisations that the US are crossing right now. Please link or quote. Its not an issue that is mentioned alot.

    I think the best way to describe the US relation with Europe: The US is like the big brother that is dating the wrong girl, and we all want him to dump her before its to late.

    Last edited by Duq; June 8th, 2008 at 06:46 PM.
    "Master storytellers never explain. They do the hard, painfully creative thing-- they dramatize"

    Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #187
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Just a quick quote from a candidate questionnaire (here ) - Clinton was the interviewee

    Given the International Criminal Court’s recent activities in pursuing war crimes and crimes against humanity, what would be your administration’s policy regarding U.S. cooperation with ongoing investigations?:

    ANSWER:Candidate did not respond.
    She fully answers all 23 of the other questions.

    Obama's response to the same question (here).

    My administration would continue to cooperate with ongoing ICC investigations in Sudan.
    This seems just as guarded as Clinton's response - he answered nearly all the other questions in quite some detail.

    Seems like a question they want to avoid.

    Edit: Don't know how I missed that! (post below).

    Last edited by Ed Savage; June 8th, 2008 at 07:23 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Ed Savage For This Useful Post:

    Duq

  10. #188
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    193
    Thanked 324 Times in 155 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Well they both answer the following question about the court:

    Beyond cooperation with current investigations, what should the United States’ relationship be with the Court?

    Obama:
    Now that it is operational, we are learning more and more about how the ICC functions. The Court has pursued charges only in cases of the most serious and systemic crimes and it is in America’s interests that these most heinous of criminals, like the perpetrators of the genocide in Darfur, are held accountable. These actions are a credit to the cause of justice and deserve full American support and cooperation. Yet the Court is still young, many questions remain unanswered about the ultimate scope of its activities, and it is premature to commit the U.S. to any course of action at this time.


    The United States has more troops deployed overseas than any other nation and those forces are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden in the protecting Americans and preserving international security. Maximum protection for our servicemen and women should come with that increased exposure. Therefore, I will consult thoroughly with our military commanders and also examine the track record of the Court before reaching a decision on whether the U.S. should become a State Party to the ICC.
    Clinton
    There is broad support in this country across political and ideological divides that perpetrators of genocide, mass atrocities, and war crimes must be held accountable.
    When President Clinton signed the Rome Treaty, he noted our serious concerns about the treaty. But he signed, nonetheless, to underline this basic principle, and to signal that the United States would seek to address the concerns we had about the treaty, as well as to ensure that the institution operated as effectively as possible. The Bush administration’s “unsigning” of the ICC not only damaged our international standing, it also separated us from our allies, with whom we have a shared interest in promoting accountability for war crimes and atrocities.

    Fortunately, some of the worst fears about the ICC have not been borne out. The institution was created to prompt the development of justice institutions in countries that lacked them, and to assure accountability for the worst human rights crimes in countries where those institutions do not exist. It has over the past eight years operated on that basis. The ICC has also avoided politicized prosecutions.

    The Bush administration has begun to cooperate with the ICC in allowing referral of indicted war criminals in Darfur to the Court, and signaling a willingness to share information with the Court pertaining to those prosecutions.

    Consistent with my overall policy of reintroducing the United States to the world, I will as President evaluate the record of Court, and reassess how we can best engage with this institution and hold the worst abusers of human rights to account.
    edit: Peter I see you! If you are writing a long reply, I'm heading for bed. So it will be atleast 10 hours before I can respond :p

    Last edited by Duq; June 8th, 2008 at 07:22 PM.
    "Master storytellers never explain. They do the hard, painfully creative thing-- they dramatize"

    Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Duq For This Useful Post:


  12. #189
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, CO (near Denver and Boulder)
    Posts
    1,716
    Thanks
    560
    Thanked 646 Times in 333 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    edit: I'm sorry

    Last edited by Peter Coene; June 9th, 2008 at 01:08 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. #190
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,256
    Thanks
    304
    Thanked 524 Times in 365 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Coene View Post
    you don't invade them in a way that we have to bail you out.
    touché

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #191
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,623
    Thanks
    650
    Thanked 818 Times in 305 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Coene View Post
    Also, if a person does something without knowing that it is punishable in another country then it is nice to know they have a safe way back home; nobody wants to rot in a forreign prison. A good example of where this is a factor is that punk a while back who got caned for grafitti in Singapore.
    I wasn't going to reply to anything even remotely about politics, racism or any other subjects that touched it or could be turned into it since this stuff has been on a spinning wheel in the lounge repeating itself for a while now... But that statement there is just making me balk. Are you really serious about this, or is just another topic that you throw wild statements around about just to get a reaction or just because no one else takes that stand?

    Of course you are responsible for yourself, as a tourist or immigrant, to make sure you obey the laws of which ever country you are in.

    A 16 year old here would not be allowed to drive (like in US, even if it's just a permit), a 16 year old here would not be allowed to buy beer (like in Sloavkia last time I was there). And a 18 year old from here would not be allowed to buy beer in US, like it would here. And whoever tried, would be in trouble. Not to mention things like the alcohol level you're allowed to drive with, here it's very low, you can't even have a beer, and of course, whoever did drive with an alcohol level over that would be punished, be it fine or jail, depending on how high it would and the outcome (if an accident happen, it's worse), no matter where they were from, Norway, US or Gambia. You, as the person that would be charged for whatever, is in charge for making sure whatever laws applies where you're currently at.

    Just like when driving a car, if it's your dad car, and it turns out it's a rusty piece of crap with bad brakes not up to par, you will be hold responsible, not your dad, because it's you - as the driver - that's responsible of making sure whatever vehicle you drive is in a drivable condition if an accident happens.

    Some places different drugs are allowed, others aren't. Here, nothing but tobacco of different varieties and alcohol is legal. Anyone coming from a country where something else is legal would not be given any leniency trying to get it through the customs, or getting caught selling or using it. It would be that persons responsibility to make sure it was legal.

    And I'm afraid this'll open up a can of worms, but think about homicides to "protect a familys honor". Which is not openly legal anywhere, but in certain places in the world the local court and law enforcers looks through their fingers with it, you cannot mean that someone should be let easier on that because they didn't know the current nation laws about it? Or even to think of female genitalia mutilation (I do not know the correct word for that in English), which is actually legal in several countries? We have a case going on about this here right now, and no way there would be any leniency about that.

    You don't go smuggling cocaine thinking that "my country will get me out of it", even if it's illegal even where you come from. Also, you should not do anything against any countrys laws thinking your country will get you out of it, it's your bloody responsibility. Yes, the nations even tends to give more severe punishment for breaking laws when it's foreigners. But I can understand that, as setting an example, especially if it's problem that a particular country has been having trouble with its tourists with for a while.

    And before the "some people gets framed in other countries" answers even shows up, this is NOT what I am talking about. There's tons of framing going on. And I'd support any incident where it's clear that the case is just for getting at someone in the frameds defense. But that's not what we're talking about.

    And ICC is for WAR CRIMES. Not tourists going astray. To prevent stuff like happend in WWI, WWII, or Vietnam, for that matter.

    "The fact that no one understands you doesn't make you an artist"

    Sork's SB - Crits appreciated - not getting updated atm
    C G H U B SB Thread
    Blog
    Facebook, please send me a message about your username
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #192
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Coene View Post
    The 1st duty of the candidates is to their own country. Whats the worst that will come out of this sort of "strained relationship?" You guys aren't going to stop trading with us, as regardless of Europe's recent growth the continent's economy still would not be able to recover if America were to collapse, and you guys definately aren't stupid enough to let a "strained relationship" be enough to send you to war with us. Heck, if anything you need us and as such you'll put up with us even if we don't sign a treaty that we don't want to sign.

    Anyways, as long as we are still on talking terms with you guys then we are happy. We really don't care if a few of the things we do piss you off, so long as those things are in our best interests. Heck, we really don't care too much if your countries do the same stuff to other countries, so long as the guys you invade aren't on good terms with us and you don't invade them in a way that we have to bail you out.
    So the American point of view is, essentially, fuck Europe? but what about China? The entirety of western civilisation's economy heavily relies on china's economy. So if China wanted America to join the ICC, would it? Probably so. But what if China wanted America to endorse their activities in Tibet, and to politically attack anyone who voiced concern about their human rights record? Would America do this, simply to keep on good terms with China?

    So whatever happened to promoting and protecting human rights, something that's meant to be at the very cornerstone of American Government and politics? That's essentially what the ICC is about, protecting basic human rights and punishing those who flaunt them. One would think that America would be pushing it, if not even being behind its actual creation.

    Yet your saying that America won't to join because Europe isn't important enough to warrant it. So if America's policy is down to keeping important countries happy and not so important ones (Europe) merely on talking terms, what's to stop it supporting China's abysmal human rights records and supporting it's Tibetan occupation just to keep it happy. I mean, is China's economy more important to America than it's own ideology?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. #193
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, CO (near Denver and Boulder)
    Posts
    1,716
    Thanks
    560
    Thanked 646 Times in 333 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I'm sorry

    Last edited by Peter Coene; June 9th, 2008 at 01:07 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #194
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, CO (near Denver and Boulder)
    Posts
    1,716
    Thanks
    560
    Thanked 646 Times in 333 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    edit: I'm sorry

    Last edited by Peter Coene; June 9th, 2008 at 01:59 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. #195
    sve's Avatar
    sve is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,913
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 200 Times in 123 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Oh come on, Peter, stop it and post, I read all of your posts. I do not always agree but you always make me think about the topic from a new angle. I'm grateful that you post.

    Last edited by sve; June 9th, 2008 at 01:36 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. #196
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, CO (near Denver and Boulder)
    Posts
    1,716
    Thanks
    560
    Thanked 646 Times in 333 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sve View Post
    Oh come on, Peter, stop it and post, I read all of your posts. I do not always agree but you always make me think about the topic from a new angle. I'm grateful that you post.
    Thank you, but so far I think I've done more harm than good, and looking back I don't even egree with a lot of the stuff I said. But this isn't about agreeing or disagreeing, its bout how I treated others in here out of wanting to be right and not caring how stupid the thing was that I was trying to be right about.

    I don't want to be banned from the lounge as it has been my main source for social contact with other artists since moving home, but seeing how I've conducted myself I can understand why it would be suggested. Either way, I want to try and remove the posts that I'm regretting, not because I can take beack what I've said but because I don't want those statements to be the cause of any more of this bickering.

    Please, somebody post kitties or say "kawai" or bump the happy thread 200 times. I'm sick of being an ass.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter Coene For This Useful Post:


  21. #197
    sve's Avatar
    sve is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,913
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 200 Times in 123 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    The only requirement is for your post to be your honest opinion and for you to be polite.
    Remove whatever you want and keep posting interesting thoughts.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #198
    TASmith's Avatar
    TASmith is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    4,169
    Thanks
    5,094
    Thanked 2,049 Times in 1,108 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    It makes me sad to respond to this:

    "So the American point of view is, essentially, fuck Europe?"

    For many people in the US, and as a general consensus, I would say the answer is yes. It's not my feeling, but I think America has felt this way strongly since WWI, and it only got worse after WWII.

    "if China wanted America to join the ICC"

    This is irrelevant considering China would never want it, but I see what you're saying.

    "what if China wanted America to endorse their activities in Tibet"

    For all practical purposes, we are.

    "So whatever happened to promoting and protecting human rights, something that's meant to be at the very cornerstone of American Government and politics?"

    The cornerstone of American government and politics has always been money. - source, Howard Zinn, People's History of the US.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TASmith For This Useful Post:


Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •