On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:54:57 +0100, Casper Gielen wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1
> Op woensdag 26 februari 2003 06:41, schreef Samuel W. Heywood: <snip> >> > SH> What gives Noriega the right to narco-terrorize the whole world? >> > SH> Aren't you glad he got busted? >> > yes. >> > But the way it has been done was wrong. >> How could it have been done any better? > With the support of the UN. Why should the US appeal for the support of the UN? It was a small problem and the US easily could deal with it on their own and without the need for support from the UN or anybody else. >> However we do it the US will defend it as being legal. > Ofcourse, but that doesn't make it right. >> >>> What if panama captured the US president and punished him according >> >>> to panamese law ?? >> > >> > SH> The Panamanians responsible for such an outrageous abduction would >> > get SH> hunted down and busted. >> > Why ?? >> > If america has the right to do so, than panama has as well. >> How many times do I have to tell you that it is OK for good guys >> to take down the bad guys, but not the other way around. >> > SH> The good guys have the right to hunt down the bad guys and bring them >> > SH> to justice. >> > depends on who decides what is good. >> > a single country can't do that. >> > >> > country a says b is bad. >> > country b says a is bad. >> > >> > what do we do ?? >> > ask the rest of the countries, and let them decide. >> The opinion of the majority doesn't count. What is right and what >> is wrong is not decided by popular opinion. Popular opinion is >> useful as a basis for making other kinds of decisions. > Currently most people think it's wrong to use humans for slaves, the ancient > Romans thought very different about that. In many countries prostitution is > considered illegal, in even more, smoking marihuana is considered a > punishable offence. What does this issue have to do with slavery and prostitution and smoking marijuana? >> > SH> The bad guys don't have the right to mess with the good guys. >> > Who is bad ???? >> > who decides who is good and who is bad ? >> > >> > SH> If they do they will face additional criminal charges. >> > who will charge them ? >> Whoever gets them. > So if I come to your home, and arrest you, even though my authority to do so > has not been recognized by the US, I'm free to judge and punish you, for > whatever crimes I can come up with. In the case of your tracking down a person wanted for war crimes you can go anywhere and abduct the suspect and transport him to any country you want to stand trial. Some Israeli agents did this in Argentina in the case of the Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann. The Israeli agents got away with it, despite a few insignificant complaints alleging that their actions were uphanded and against international law. Most people applauded the success of the Israeli snatch operation and they were delighted that Eichmann got busted. >> > SH> Why haven't you learned about good guys and bad guys? >> > because world is not black and white. >> > is usually dark grey vs. light gray. >> Often it is in black and white, like in the old classic good guys >> vs. bad guys western movies. Shades of gray are seen only in the >> so called "adult" westerns. Real life plays both kinds of dramas. > I'm stunned by this statement. IMHO no situation ever is only black and white. > Any conflict will consist of various shades of gray. >> > But in a civilized manner the fact that Richard Menedetter thinks that >> > Saddam Huessein has commited crimes does mean nothing. >> > I have to proove that, and another instance has to decide. >> > This instance has to be "above" me and the bad guy. >> > If it is not it does not have the right to judge. >> I think what you are trying to say here is that one should be judged >> by an impartial party. In your case that can happen. If you were >> accused of having committed a non-sensational and not very highly >> publicised crime, it would be easy to assemble a jury of your peers, >> and consisting of people who don't know you and who don't know about >> you, and who would be able to impartially weigh and consider the >> evidence against you. In the case of Saddam that can't happen because >> everybody knows of him and everybody already has an opinion of him and >> nobody would be capable of judging him in an impartial manner. > We could try to get as close as possible. But before arresting & judging, > shouldn't there be some sort of proof? People get arrested all the time without any proof. They only pretext needed to legally make an arrest is probable cause. A person can get arrested just because he looks like the guy they are looking for. It happened to me once. >> Why do you ask? I am certain that you already know that the US >> government and its allies have decided this. >> > SH> It doesn't matter what Saddam says because he has no credibility. >> > who decides who has credibility ? >> > >> > for me only the UN can. >> The UN is generally held in low regard by the average US citizen. >> Americans love their freedom and independence and they resent >> being told what to do by some kind of wannabee world government >> organization. Advocates of world government are seen as a threat >> to the national sovereignty of all nations. The UN should not try >> to be aspiring to serve for anything more than as an international >> debating society and as a place for making friends and interchanging >> ideas. The UN should not be trying to impose its consensus on the >> individual member nations to enforce conformity with the opinions of >> the majority. > Yet the US are acting like they are the world governement. To the rest of the > world, this is even more repulsive than a real world wide governement. > Allthough you consider freedom and independence very important, you do listen > to your local governement. Why? Because the local government is elected by a free people and its powers are derived from the consent of the governed. The people have not given the UN any consent to be governed by that organization. The US is not acting like a world government. The US doesn't care if some other countries require people to drive on the left side of the road instead of on the right side of the road as required of motorists in this country. The US is not trying to make everybody else do it our way. >> Here is an analogy for you: In the cowboy movies, and according to >> the Code of the West, you have to wait for the other guy to draw >> first, but you don't have to wait for him to shoot first. After he >> goes for his, you are supposed to go for yours and whip it out and >> shoot him before he shoots you. It is much better to be quick than >> dead. > And you wonder how it comes the world calls Bush a cowboy. I don't wonder at all. Bush has a ranch in Texas and he lives by the traditional Code of the West just like all the other good cowboys. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
