The "War" model

[Yorick]

by Dio: There is no NEED to rush off to war, here. That is the point. We should at least TRY to use our existing laws first. I think they probably could work in this situation.

Missed this, sorry.

This is part of what I was talking about re. "arrogant" (Ducks for cover) Your laws mean nothing in Afganistan, just as Wahabi Sunni Law means nothing here. You cannot go around imposing your laws on sovereign states. That is imperialism, and is the source of much anger in other nations - even your allies. Respect is what's important.

In this case, be honest. War disregards a sovereign states rights. Call the spade a spade.



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Yorick: I repeat. Did you hear Bush's speech to Congress? Your posts strongly suggest you did not.

Um . . . no, I did not. *ashamed*

Like I said, I will take your word for it that he said reasonable things in his public speech, and I hope he will be restrained. However, look at the signs -- look at the picture in Ziroc's thread "We are coming". Our military is being deployed in readiness for action.

I am sure Bush means what he says about new methods of warfare against terrorism. However, he is not about to ignore the old one either, I doubt he will hesitate much to use the military when he can.

However, there is little point in debating about what Bush might or might not do in the near future with the military. We shall see soon enough.

[Moridin]

Originally posted by Yorick: Missed this, sorry. This is part of what I was talking about re. "arrogant" (Ducks for cover) Your laws mean nothing in Afganistan, just as Wahabi Sunni Law means nothing here. You cannot go around imposing your laws on sovereign states. That is imperialism, and is the source of much anger in other nations - even your allies. Respect is what's important. In this case, be honest. War disregards a sovereign states rights. Call the spade a spade.

I was going to state the same thing (but in a less coherent way ).

Our laws do not apply. We cannot hope that the Taliban will hand over bin Laden, just b/c we tell them he has been indicted for crimes in the US. Even if we show them the facts and all the evidence, they will not hand him over...they will not give a muslim to a non-muslim for justice (I think that has been said here already)...and that is assuming that bin Laden allows himself to be taken alive...I think dying and becoming a martyr is more in his cards!



------------------


Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: Um . . . no, I did not. *ashamed* Like I said, I will take your word for it that he said reasonable things in his public speech, and I hope he will be restrained. However, look at the signs -- look at the picture in Ziroc's thread "We are coming". Our military is being deployed in readiness for action. I am sure Bush means what he says about new methods of warfare against terrorism. However, he is not about to ignore the old one either, I doubt he will hesitate much to use the military when he can. However, there is little point in debating about what Bush might or might not do in the near future with the military. We shall see soon enough.

Hmmm yes.... well I did, in entirety and with close attention to detail. *Waves finger at Dio*

Bear in mind that hostilitys may break out if Afgahnistan invades Pakistan. Both nations have troops near the border. Thousands of troops. Mobilisation is prudent given that the Taliban are warmongers. "War is a habit here" I heard one Afgahni say.
It is also prudent given the aforementioned nuclear stockpile in Pakistan....

Also mobilisation and deployment are two different things. (Bay of Pigs anyone?) Malaysia mobilised troops next to Singapore recently when the Singaporean leader made a gaff that slurred Malays.

See if you can find a transcript of it. It may ease your mind.



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Yorick: Missed this, sorry. This is part of what I was talking about re. "arrogant" (Ducks for cover) Your laws mean nothing in Afganistan, just as Wahabi Sunni Law means nothing here. You cannot go around imposing your laws on sovereign states. That is imperialism, and is the source of much anger in other nations - even your allies. Respect is what's important. In this case, be honest. War disregards a sovereign states rights. Call the spade a spade.

This is not a case of one country going around imposing its laws on another.

What we have here instead is individuals going to a country and committs a crime while in the country under the laws of that country. Clearly, the perpetrators of those actions were in violation of US law -- no possible objection to this could be made under principles of international law.

The fact that some of them were outside of the country does not change the fact that they helped arrange a scheme took place within the US. Establishing US jurisdiction and the right to try them in the US for violation of US law is easy in this case, by recognized standards of international law.

The question becomes one of extradition -- i.e., arranging that such persons be brought back to the US for such trial. That becomes a mattter of negotiating with foreign gov'ts in some cases, or perhaps more unconventional (and legally questionable but still practical ) means.

So, no, legally, there is no problem with the US trying bin Laden and co. for Murder and other crimes which took place INSIDE the US. This is not the same as trying to prosecute him under US law for things he did in Afghanistan, for instance, which would indeed be a case of international arrogance.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: This is not a case of one country going around imposing its laws on another. What we have here instead is individuals going to a country and committs a crime while in the country under the laws of that country. Clearly, the perpetrators of those actions were in violation of US law -- no possible objection to this could be made under principles of international law. The fact that some of them were outside of the country does not change the fact that they helped arrange a scheme took place within the US. Establishing US jurisdiction and the right to try them in the US for violation of US law is easy in this case, by recognized standards of international law. The question becomes one of extradition -- i.e., arranging that such persons be brought back to the US for such trial. That becomes a mattter of negotiating with foreign gov'ts in some cases, or perhaps more unconventional (and legally questionable but still practical ) means. So, no, legally, there is no problem with the US trying bin Laden and co. for Murder and other crimes which took place INSIDE the US. This is not the same as trying to prosecute him under US law for things he did in Afghanistan, for instance, which would indeed be a case of international arrogance.

Dio, you're missing the reality that Bin Ladens actions are justified under the Talibans interpretation of their laws.

Would the USA extradite two Americans who had sex without being married in Kabul? The punishment is 100 lashes. Would the US hand them over for breaking Islamic law if they were already back safe in America?




------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Yorick]

I could further it. Spreading Christianity is a crime. America is demanding release of it's nationals, even though they knowingly broke Islamic law by spreading Christianity in Afgahnistan. Under your logic, the Taliban should be able to demand and obtain any American nationals who say, spread Christianity or spoke to a woman because they broke Afgahni law on Afgahni soil.

See the double standard? It doesn't work with legalism. The laws of each nation are radically different. There is no respect of each others laws. The US views the Taliban as repressive, and the Taliban views the US as morally corrupt.


(Of course I bloody hope the Christians get released get released......blood is thicker than water)

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!


[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 09-23-2001).]

[The_ Fur_Cough]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: This is not a case of one country going around imposing its laws on another. What we have here instead is individuals going to a country and committs a crime while in the country under the laws of that country. Clearly, the perpetrators of those actions were in violation of US law -- no possible objection to this could be made under principles of international law. The fact that some of them were outside of the country does not change the fact that they helped arrange a scheme took place within the US. Establishing US jurisdiction and the right to try them in the US for violation of US law is easy in this case, by recognized standards of international law. The question becomes one of extradition -- i.e., arranging that such persons be brought back to the US for such trial. That becomes a mattter of negotiating with foreign gov'ts in some cases, or perhaps more unconventional (and legally questionable but still practical ) means. So, no, legally, there is no problem with the US trying bin Laden and co. for Murder and other crimes which took place INSIDE the US. This is not the same as trying to prosecute him under US law for things he did in Afghanistan, for instance, which would indeed be a case of international arrogance.

This will never happen. The term terrorist attack is purely that. This was in effect a military strike upon America. Had the perpetrators had access to guided missiles then its odds on they would have sent them instead. The organisation responsible isn't just a few individuals. If reports are to be believed and Bin laden is responsible then he has his own small army in tow. My personal opinion regarding this issue is that judicial law is insufficient to deal with this.



------------------
Aaahh.... Fur Cough.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: Gotcha. Sounded a bit weird out of context!

What ho! I can't believe I missed this. I was drawing an analogy between the bravery and self sacrifice of those on the doomed flight, and those in WWII. I also drew an analogy between not forgetting them just as we don't forget the soldiers.

I felt by lumping the fourth plane in with the three that attacked, that a bit of a disservice was done those who gave their lives in preventing the plane being used as a weapon of mass destruction. Entirely in context IMHO which was why I used it.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 09-23-2001).]

[The_ Fur_Cough]

The Presidents speech:- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010920-8.html

------------------
Aaahh.... Fur Cough.