26 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirNot only is your example fatuous, it simply doesn't stand up to a moment's real thought.
Uh... The higgins particle?
If you don't believe me on an internet forum... WHO THE HELL CARES???
See. And if I don't have time to go meandering around for you, WHO THE HELL CARES???
Look at it simply, for example.
Most people's passports expire within a 5 year time-frame. Some a 10 year time frame.
If you imprison me in country X for 15 years and sport, no matter how hard the tories or Dutch right-wing parties scream and ball about it).
That aside, you've yet to provide a shred of evidence to support your claim, and don't seem to feel the need to do so - it comes across most poorly. Am I really to understand that you are just going to keep shouting 'yes it is , yes it is, yes it is'? Is that what passes for debate for you? Would you accept that from another poster?
The passport problem is also not a problem, unless you completely lack understanding of what citizenship entails. Having an expired passport does not at all mean that I am no longer a citizen of the country for which I hold the expired passport (as your reasoning seems to suggest) and does not release my home country from its (real) legal obligations. I may encounter more problems re-entering my home country on an expired passport under any circumstances, but re-enter it I will be able to do.
As I said before, people are imprisoned in foreign countries right now, and often face deportation to their home country upon completion of their sentence. I think you probably know that, or can find it out readily enough. I'm prepared to make a wager that there are foreign nationals imprisoned in the Netherlands right now who will be deported to their countries of origin upon completion of their sentences. This is repeated around the world: as an example, consider the foreign nationals imprisoned in Thailand for child molestation. A recent famous example is the disgraced glam-rock star Gary Glitter. He was expelled from thailand upon completion of his sentence, not (perversely) made a Thai citizen.
Are you saying that all imprisoned child-molesting sex-tourists, upon completion of their sentences, have become Thai citizens?
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by no1marauderZ beat me to it, but Serbia basically offered to capitulate to Austria-Hungary's demands regarding the assassins. Austria wasn't interested in avoiding the war and so declared war anyway. According to Martin Gilbert, Austria simply never told Germany about Serbia's offer.
I missed the declaration of war against Afghanistan.
In any event, whether the US would have been legally justified to declare war against Afghanistan because of the Taliban's alleged "harboring and protecting" of AQ (a dubious proposition under present IL regarding use of force which is largely governed by the UN Charter), is quite irreleva ...[text shortened]... e treatment of the precedent you obliquely cited refutes rather than supports your claim.
If Serbia had harbored Pricip and his organization and had protected him after the assassination, then you bet Austria would have been justified in going to war with Serbia. What is an act of war if not harboring and protecting someone who commits an act of war against your country?
Just to be clear, are you saying that the US attacking AQ in Afghanistan was illegal and/or unjustified?
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by DrKFso you're saying there isn't a war?
But remember, this was under an administration that created its own reality and whose apologists follow suit, where 'torture' became 'enhanced interrogation' and an ill-defined 'movement' became much the same as a country. Law schmaw...
you do understand that enhanced interrogation has been useful in preventing terrorist attacks, right?
and you do understand that this "ill-defined movement" has many followers, some of which have killed innocent people in the US and in europe, right?
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by generalissimoThe point being made was that, legally speaking, the 'war on terror' is worse than meaningless.
so you're saying there isn't a war?
you do understand that enhanced interrogation has been useful in preventing terrorist attacks, right?
and you do understand that this "ill-defined movement" has many followers, some of which have killed innocent people in the US and in europe, right?
As to whether or not torture has prevented terrorist attacks: (i) that's speculation, so far as I am aware and (ii) even if it were not, torture's torture.
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by DrKFIts name may be somewhat nonsensical, but the war itself is in no way meaningless, I really don't see the point in debating its name.
The point being made was that, legally speaking, the 'war on terror' is worse than meaningless.
As to whether or not torture has prevented terrorist attacks: (i) that's speculation, so far as I am aware and (ii) even if it were not, torture's torture.
I don't know why you insist on calling it torture, when you look at the methods they used you'll see they aren't anything like torture, and even if it was, you have to understand that it is necessary for the prevention of terrorism. No, there is no speculation, it is well-known that KSM provided important information regarding other terrorists after he was interrogated.
26 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Your argument is circular. You declare a criminal act an "act of war" and proceed from there. Murder, even mass murder, isn't an "act of war"; did Timothy McVay commit an "act of war" in Oklahoma City? Quite simply, acts of war are undertaken by agents of nations against other nations - war is a status between nations. Austria-Hungary did not treat the Sarajevo assassins as soldiers of Serbia; they treated them as common criminals. Your continued citing of a case which utterly refutes the claim being made here i.e. that KSM shouldn't be tried in a civilian court is quite strange.
Z beat me to it, but Serbia basically offered to capitulate to Austria-Hungary's demands regarding the assassins. Austria wasn't interested in avoiding the war and so declared war anyway. According to Martin Gilbert, Austria simply never told Germany about Serbia's offer.
If Serbia had harbored Pricip and his organization and had protected him after the assa ...[text shortened]... clear, are you saying that the US attacking AQ in Afghanistan was illegal and/or unjustified?
The procedures for justifiable use of force are found in the UN Charter and require Security Council authorization absent special circumstances not present here. Regardless of the emotionalism surrounding 9/11, the US invasion of Afghanistan was clearly illegal. "Unjustified" is a matter of opinion; mine would be bringing death and destruction on an entire nation just to satisfy a collective rage is unjustified and immoral.
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're moving the goal posts.
Your argument is circular. You declare a criminal act an "act of war" and proceed from there. Murder, even mass murder, isn't an "act of war"; did Timothy McVay commit an "act of war" in Oklahoma City? Quite simply, acts of war are undertaken by agents of nations against other nations - war is a status between nations. Austria-Hungary did not treat the S ...[text shortened]... being made here i.e. that KSM shouldn't be tried in a civilian court is quite strange.
I was not saying that KSM should not be tried in civilian court. On the contrary, if you'll read the thread, I have been supportive of that move.
I am arguing that Afghanistan's harboring of AQ before and after AQ attacked the United States was an act of war against the United States.
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76Was France "harboring and protecting" Roman Polanski an "act of war", too?
You're moving the goal posts.
I was not saying that KSM should not be tried in civilian court. On the contrary, if you'll read the thread, I have been supportive of that move.
I am arguing that Afghanistan's harboring of AQ before and after AQ attacked the United States was an act of war against the United States.
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76If this is so, where is the declaration of war against Afghanistan as required by the US Constitution?
You're moving the goal posts.
I was not saying that KSM should not be tried in civilian court. On the contrary, if you'll read the thread, I have been supportive of that move.
I am arguing that Afghanistan's harboring of AQ before and after AQ attacked the United States was an act of war against the United States.