While this was happening, there was this, and most amzingly, this

were the people justified?

OK, I'll take a stab.

Were the people justified? Hmm... Define "the people" and "justified". Well, no, not literally.

Bush was expressing gratitude to one of the few countries that gave full support to his war. Seems reasonable to me.

The street protestors were expressing their views. Also reasonable in a free society. Any protest, though, may get ugly as this one did: participation was voluntary, and risks assumed. Protestors tend to be, by their very nature, passionate; collecting in groups tends to amplify that passion. (Our church's assistant pastor, passionate herself on many social causes, once tried to get the church youth group she led - with some kids as young as 7 - to participate in a protest in DC. The pastor nixed that on issues of safety.)

The members of parliament definately were out of order, and rightly asked to leave. There are procedures in parliament that members are sworn to follow, and they weren't following them. Perhaps they could have joined the protestors outside, and helped to keep things under control there.

Just my thoughts.

-jk

It seems to me that the potentially illegal imprisonment of two Australian citizens is more important than the propriety of parliamentary procedure. I would assume that the MPs had been otherwise barred from speaking with Bush and that that was their only opportunity. At the same time, I'm sure they realize that Bush has no real interest in human rights and they specifically planned to raise a stink about it in order to possibly humiliate him into releasing them. I'm still of the opinion that the lives of those two people outweighs any notions of simple propriety.

I'll have to note that I know nothing of the two imprisoned people, and they may well have been legitimate prisoners of war had they been imprisoned in a legal manner. I think that all the talk about ``illegal combatants'' is ridiculous. We should treat them the same whether they were unifomed or not. That's basic human decency, not some piece of law to be twisted for one's own purposes.

It became violent when some of the protesters broke through police lines.

It is not clear if the protesters became violent or if the police became violent or both. Crowds often have lives of their own. Seemingly slight pushes from the back can become surges at the front. The break could have been unintentional. Then again, it may well have been purposeful. I guess I'm saying that, from that article, it's not clear what happened, but basing my assumptions of Australian police on what I feel about American police, I can easily see that they were looking for an excuse to whack a few folks.

I think that all the talk about ``illegal combatants'' is ridiculous. We should treat them the same whether they were unifomed or not.

Not at all. There's two problems here:

1. The people in Guantanamo were illegal combatants. Combatants are required by the Geneva Convention to wear uniform (or something else that identifies them as combatants). This is designed to protect civilians -- after all, if one side can't tell the difference, what's to stop them shooting innocent people? If you don't wear a uniform, you're an illegal combatant.

2. On the other hand, there's no reason to entirely suspend someone's human rights just because you're not bound to the terms of the Geneva Convention in their case.

"I love free speech".

Yeah, why do I not believe it?

It seems that when George speaks, it always ends up costing me something. I'd love a free speech for once.



-Zeke

Your second point is the one I meant. I recognize why they're considered illegal, and agree with the reasoning, but just because that's the case shouldn't mean that we should ignore rights that should be given to everyone.

We should try to be better than they are.

My point is that I think that the ``illegal combatant'' thing is just a shield for doing whatever we feel like.

I'm sure they realize that Bush has no real interest in human rights..

Nice, Bitt. If people have the opinion that Bush is not a human rights advocate, fine. But to claim that someone would "realize" that he has "no real interest in human rights" is stating it as if it were fact. Whatever.

About the "illegal combatants," I think it's similar to the abortion fiasco. Here's how I see that issue and how it applies (in my mind) to the War on Terror.

Basically, I think that people agree on 90% of the issue but neither side is good at explaining the other 10.. Sure, with abortion, you have your NWO fanatics and right-wing cooks who are into the issue for pure power grabs (and the politicians who pander to them), but when you come down to it, the only thing that rational people disagree on is when life begins. Granted, that bullet point is a really hard one to prove one way or another (or is it?) but people tend to agree on just about everything else... (ie, no "Pro Choice" person would walk up to a 1 month old baby girl and stick a shaft of metal in her brain and no "Pro Life" person would seriously think that the government has any right to deem what is legal for a woman to do with her own body.) So, except for the sticky issue of when life begins, there is a lot of common ground...

A similar case with the war on terror... Besides the "Bush haters" who are still upset over the election of 2000 and others who are just hopeless party liners, I think that the "War on Terrorism" has one major point that people are not seeing eye to eye on and that is the concept of "War." Some people look at what is going on in the world and are worried that it might bring about WWIII. But there are others in the intelligence community who think that this is World War 4 and the Western World just realized it. You see, WW3 was the Cold War and Democracy and Capitolism (no need to appologize for being capitolists, none of us would have computers or empegs if we didn't live in a capitolist world) won that war. If you look back at all the weird stuff that went down after WWII, none of it makes sense until you look at the big picture. And when you look at the big picture, horrible acts by the CIA don't seem so bad as a communist state.

For example, many people think Afghanistan was pointless (in the 80's) or Korea or Vietnam. But if you look at the big picture, those things added up to Communism's fall. So did McDonald's in Moscow. Back to WW4 (current day)...

Likewise, some people look at 9/11 as a "day" when in fact, it was an act of war. And that war had been going on since the late 70's but we never knew it. I hate to break it to some of you, but radical Islam, however small a percentage of Islam as a whole, wants us destroyed. They do not want us out of Holy Lands, they do not want a sweet trade agreement - they want us 6 feet under. This isn't like releasing a German Nazi at the end of WWII. A terrorist isn't going to just go home and thank Allah it's over. Rather he is going to plot your destruction.

And I think that's the major issue that people don't see eye to eye on. Some people think that 9/11 was a single event while others know (and I say KNOIW because it's clear as day if you pay attention) that this is an on going War. No, it is not the West vs. Islam, because without our Muslim allies, we wouldn't be doing as good as we are. But it IS democracy and freedom vs. terror.

And to boot, I think that we are winning finally. Have you seen how many Al-Kinda ranking officials we have captured or killed? And best of all, we have a democracy on the way in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Those two countries just so happen to border that largest financer of terrorism: Iran which is also at the point of imploding. I don't think that it will happen as quickly as it did with Eastern Europe, but I see this spreading through the Mid-East. There are enough people in the world that are sick of terrorists hijacking their religion and who also want the simple right to vote. Damn, even Saudi Arabia had its first election within the last week. So if some people out there are all in a hissy fit because the government has the ability to find out that you download porn or shop at Amazon.com then that person is either failing to see the big picture or is simply too wrapped up in their own political mindset to think rationally. (The real test to find out "who" is "what" is to see if they are happy when there is good news about the war on terror or pissed because it's happening during President Bush's stay in office.

Yet, like I said earlier, except for the people who are still mad that Gore didn't win the election or who live for redistribution of wealth (and thank God they are a minority) I think that most people agree on 90% of the issue. This is the first time that I've writen this out (been chewing on it for quite a while) so I'm sorry if I'm a bit scattered in explaining. I never took a debate class.

BTW: I voted for Nader.

EDIT: Re-reading that, I realized that there was no need to bring up the abortion debate as a comparison. And even though I just wrote where I think each side is coming from without taking a stand either way, please don't go OT with it, start a new thread if you're that passionate about it!

Bad choice of words on my part. I meant that I'm sure they feel that Bush has no interest in human rights. I happen to agree, but that's beside the point.

You imply how bad a communist state would be, but then say that the relaxation of our civil liberties is an okay compromise. But that's exactly why you think a communist state would be so bad. (I assume. It's certainly what most people seem to think. The economic communism itself isn't necessarily so bad, except for it doesn't really work at that extreme. Capitalism doesn't work at that extreme, either.)

The problem with the ``illegal combatants'' situation is that people, including US citizens, can be scooped up and imprisoned without any sort of justification. Okay, so I'm lumping in the Patriot Act, but it's all the same thing in my mind. Do we have any proof that that Padillo guy had a dirty bomb? We can only go by what some folks have told us. And what would be wrong with having a public hearing on it?

Oh, and, by the way, the only good news I've heard about the ``war on terror'' is that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were deposed. I can't come up with much else. Nor do I think that their successors will be significantly better.

You may have missed stories like this, this or this. Not to mention this.

Fair enough on me reading too much into the word "realize" or your use of it and if that's your opinion on the matter, I respect that as well. In my defense, I did say that this was my first time writing any of this, so I guess it's understandable if I didn't connect a few things properly.

I don't see how the Patriot Act, if used the way it's writen would infringe on my civil rights. I think some people are just afraid of what it "could be used for" in a big brother view of things. But if you take just a second to see how this is an on going war, and not just a battle that took place in Afghanistan, then releasing captured combatants seems premature. To me, it'd be like the Canadians, American and British releasing any captured German soldiers a day or so after D-Day so that they could be killed by them in later battles. So, in that sense, I agree with you on the "90%" that humans deserve to be treated a certain way and that we could prehaps do more. But my "10%" is that we are still at war and those captured have no intention of calling it a day.

A public hearing would reveal tactics and sources. You knew that!

I certainly hope that most people don't think that economic communism is okay. There are plenty of other nations in the world that view life this way, and I'm confused why someone would continue to live in the US if that's what they'd prefer for an economy.

I don't see how the Patriot Act, if used the way it's writen would infringe on my civil rights.

While I don't know the act myself, there have been current affairs items on it over here. It seems to spell out the right for authorities to detain you for many hours, without arrest, for even a suspicion that you might be doing something illegal.


I, and many others, have issue with the 'illegal combatants' being held in a military area in a part of the world where there are no legal rights nor access. The point that Sen. Bob Brown was making was that if these people have done something wrong, arrest them or at least declare them prisoners of war. At that point, they have the right to be deported back here, and that's what we want.
The arrogance that US forces hide behind the 'letter of the law', especially when it suits them, is not lost in the news over here.

I heard an interview with the Senator this morning, and he did talk with Bush before he left the chamber. But he brought attention to the issue by speaking out of order which took real guts.

A public hearing would reveal tactics and sources.

The call is not for a public hearing, just for legal rights of the prisoners.

It is really scary how little the US public knows about international events (present company excepted).
This cracked my up when it aired last night
http://www.abc.net.au/cnnnn/news/s971880.htm

no need to appologize for being capitolists, none of us would have computers or empegs if we didn't live in a capitolist world

I beg to differ on this point.

Before I continue, keep in mind all my comments beyond this point are more towards science and such, and not political.

Anyhow. Think back to the major scientific discoveries of our time. Major physics laws being written, the discovery of how to fly, and other things like the foundation for modern medicine. These came about in a very comunistic way. Someone discovered something, and shared it with others. This led to more improvements on the base idea, and new discoveries came from these improvements.

Now compare this to today. Major breakthroughs are being patented, thus restricting who can use them. Drug companies are a big problem, with their desire to have a competitive edge keeping research out of the hands of many qualified people. Imagine if every drug researcher in the world was working together instead of against each other. Software companies are also becoming problamatic today as well. Microsoft's capital success has held back the industry. Take for example the effects of them winning the browser war. Their OS still lacks features others have had for ages now, and their inability to secure their products are costing companies millions in lost time and data. I'm sure you can see where I am going with this part, and so I'll end it. Linux is definitly a communistic approach to software development, and outside MS FUD, the industry tends to agree. Why else would companies like IBM and SGI be investing tons of money into it?

The sharing of ideals is not a bad thing. But yet, capitalistic supporters would have you believe otherwise.

Now to get my political views out of the way. I actually like most of the ways things are done in the USA. Lately though, I have had a major dislike for the pure capitalistic laws being passed, such as the DMCA. As others have said, an extreme to either way (capitalism/communism) is a bad situation.

I disagree with this. Drug companies would have no incentive to invest in research if there was no benefit in doing so. Why would they dump millions of dollars into a drug if they had to give their findings away?

And Linux is not a success in the public arena. Sorry. Tech savy people think it's cool, and it is a great product, but it has zero market penetration for public use. Yet I think you confuse Microsoft's "monopolistic" success with capitolistic success. Microsoft is a monopoly, and because of that, it has little incentive to advance itself excpet when it wants to compete against itself. Monopolies are no good. My guess is that IBM and SGI have invested in Linux because of their dislike for Microsoft (because it is a monopoly, not a capitolistic success) and because investing in something like Apple would be helping a competitor.

I personally don't care if one drug company or another has a patent, as long as the product is available to the public. Sure, if companies worked together, they "could" get more done, but none of them would because there would be no competition. Competition breeds innovation. Just ask anybody who has only one local cable TV company or power company. Is there service any good or prices affordable? Now ask someone who lives in a community with competition.

But again, Hugo would not have been able to find any factory to make the empeg if there weren't there to make money. And he would not have found any of his investors. I for one would not have been able to afford one.

Just looking at the technology advancements of the last 100 years, wih the protections of the patent, and you'll be hard pressed to prove that competition doesn't work.

My main beef is that for Americans to be disgusted with capitolism makes no sense because our country IS a capitolistic democracy. There is nothing wrong with that. It is what makes our country what it is today. If someone has some romantic notions of socialism, they can move to France or China, that's fine with me.

Like many people have said, on a small scale this stuff can work. Just look at LogoEdit, HiJack, Jemplode, emphatic, etc etc all being given to us. But believe me, that won't work on a large scale.

"Now ask someone who lives in a community with competition."

...like California.

[evil grin]

-Zeke

ps: just kidding, I mostly agree with you, although some would argue that it's a capitolistic oligarchy - the very wealthy & captains of industry and their lobby groups.

Imagine if every drug researcher in the world was working together instead of against each other.

Yes, this would be great, but not a reasonable expectation given human nature. We are all selfish, and therefore collaboration for the "common good" might happen from time to time, but it'll never be the norm while human nature is what it is. People work fine as long as they can see a direct benefit, and sometimes they’ll even do it for an indirect one, but few people will take an obvious sacrifice so that people they’ve never met will profit. Sure you can argue that life would be better overall in the long run for everyone, but we are a people of immediacy and not many can make those kinds of sacrifices. I believe it will take a complete re-wiring of human nature before anything like communism could ever work.

Take for example the effects of them winning the browser war. Their OS still lacks features others have had for ages now, and their inability to secure their products are costing companies millions in lost time and data.

I don't think anyone argues that capitalism produces the most effective result (ok some do, but not most), only that it produces a better one than anything else can. I’ll have to agree with Brad about Linux. As cool as it is, it’s no good for the public. Just ask my wife. She’s an average user who can generally figure stuff out on computers. Sure she’s had windows for the last ten years, but she’s no slouch at picking stuff up. Still, she gets massively frustrated with my machine whenever she has to use it because some of the stuff doesn’t “just work”. Linux is certainly better at some things than windows, but I’d hardly consider it an example of communism overcoming capitalism.

On top of this, Linux isn’t truly an example of communism anyway. If it were, you’d have someone managing all of the resources being poured into it so that efforts were not duplicated. You can’t tell me that the same problems haven’t been solved multiple ways in Linux and some have been found to be better than others. In pure communism resources are managed perfectly so that everyone produces what is necessary and best for the common good and efforts are not redundant.

The bottom line is that capitalism is inefficient because resources are duplicated and the best solutions aren’t always reached; however, communism doesn’t work because it is against human nature, at least on the large scale, and impossible to implement without perfect knowledge if everyone’s abilities and needs. The best we can do for now is a hybrid of the two (which is what we have in the U.S.) where we try to leverage the strengths of both systems. Better than all of this would be to change human nature, but that takes us into a whole different realm of discussion!

The Bill of Rights was intended for the people of the USA, not for some dirty ragheads trying to blow us up. I say fine, they want out of prison, we should put a bullet between their eyes and dump them in the sea. They're lucky we have the good will to let them live. I sure as hell know those jihad bastards wouldn't be taking any prisoners. It's absurd to be fighting these people to the death one minute, and then the next start worrying about whether or not their "living conditions" are good enough. Why don't we send the fuckers to paradise and be done with it.

These protesters don't really give a rat's ass about the well-being of these prisoners, or else they would have been very glad to see the downfall of Iraq and Afghanistan. How many of those little cowards did you see protesting when the video tapes of captured soldiers in Iraq were released? The truth is that they sympathize with the terrorists and their cause. They hate America and want to see us crash and burn, and they want to see the Arabs completely wipe out the Jews. That is their real motive.
Fuck them, fuck allah, and fuck anybody doesn't like it. We've got more bombs than they've got turbans, so they're fucked.

I may not be politically correct, but you know I'm right.

releasing captured combatants seems premature

But that's the point. There's no reason for us to believe that these people are combatants at all other than by taking the word of our administration, who have demonstrated themselves to be untrustworthy.

Regardless, I'm not suggesting that they all be released. All I'm suggesting is that we truly determine whether they're supposed to be there and then treat the ones that really are in accordance with the Geneva Convention, regardless of whether they were illegal combatants or not. The letter of the law should be a baseline for how well to treat people, not the ceiling.

I may not be politically correct, but you know I'm right.

No, you're wrong because you haven't even begun to touch on the issue. The issue is not what the law says, but how well we should treat people above and beyond that.

I think we're treating them pretty well. Read a book about what french prisons were like a few decades ago. That's harsh punishment.
Guantamano Bay is just another bandwagon for anti-bush people to jump on.

And Linux is not a success in the public arena. Sorry. Tech savy people think it's cool, and it is a great product, but it has zero market penetration for public use.

I strongly disagree with this. On the desktop, you might be right, but that's not where innovation has been for the past five years. Most of the interesting work has been on the server side. How many of the web sites you visit and rely on every day run on linux (or BSD or other "free" operating systems)? Do you rely on NOAA's weather forecasts? Do you shop at Home Depot? Do you ever use google, amazon or orbitz? How would their business models be affected if they had to license (very expensive) Microsoft server OS's to run their sites?

The public uses (and relies on) Linux every day. They just don't happen to realize it.

--dan.

Agreed - Linux currently appears to have the slight edge over Mac OS whichever. Okay this is still way behind Microsoft, but gaining ground.

On the server side, as djc pointed out, more and more companies, organisations and governments are relying on linux. Even power computing and analysis is going the way of the linux cluster.

With countries like Peru and Brazil mandating linux for government bodies (as a way to avoid the Microsoft lock-in), and Gremany on the bandwagon as well, the movememnt is really gaining ground with budget conscious groups.

And now China - well, the single largest country (population wise) is going very linux. This might have an impact. Seems like there are already more Chinese online than Americans, and they have only just begun.

And from personal experience I have seen banks, oil companies and utilities moving off MS, purely because of the worms, viruses and other popular things script kiddies do to MS platforms. Even going so far as building desktops which look and feel like Windows, but are actually XFree86 based.

So Linux - huge success in public arena, and getting much more so.

> The truth is that they sympathize with the terrorists and their cause.

The truth is people like you and Bush want us to become everything you accuse them of being.

> They hate America and want to see us crash and burn

No, I want to see America live up to its ideals, not be dragged down to your level. We have a constitution, and we have laws and treaties and standards of human decency which we supposedly live by, and people like you would throw it all away because of your hate and fear.

> Fuck them, fuck allah, and fuck anybody doesn't like it.

Go to hell.

> I may not be politically correct, but you know I'm right.

No, you are just an ass. I can't believe people have been defending you here recently, you are the worst example of America.

SE, I disagree with pretty much everything you said, but one thing in particular struck me as something I had to comment on:

> A similar case with the war on terror... Besides the "Bush haters" who are still upset over the election of 2000 and others who are just hopeless party liners,

You know, I didn't hate Bush at first. I admit I am a Democrat and I did vote for Gore, though I was not crazy about him either. Frankly, until 9/11 I thought Bush was kind of dumb but basically harmless. I had no real ill feeling towards him. But then he cynically used the tragedy of 9/11 for his own partisan political gain. He used it to damage civil liberties, he used it as a cover to slip anti-consumer laws in while everyone was concentrating on our loss, and he used it as an excuse to start an unjustified war with Iraq that people in his administration had wanted for years before 9/11 ever happened. I do not hate Bush because I am a Democrat or am mad about the election, he has fully earned my hatred purely through his own actions.

d33zY
you arrogant little fuck.

The Bill of Rights was intended for the people of the USA, not for some dirty ragheads trying to blow us up. I say fine, they want out of prison, we should put a bullet between their eyes and dump them in the sea.

how is this different to being a terrorist? What you're really saying is that USA has the right to walk into any country, take people prisoner, keep them in a place that isn't legally touchable and kill them when the interrogation is done. How is that not bully tactics.
And before you roll out the 'but they had WMDs targeted at us' arguement, where are the WMD's this whole war was suposed to be over? THAT'S the key issue that is coming out now, and is why Bush is losing popularity.

They're lucky we have the good will to let them live. I sure as hell know those jihad bastards wouldn't be taking any prisoners. It's absurd to be fighting these people to the death one minute, and then the next start worrying about whether or not their "living conditions" are good enough. Why don't we send the fuckers to paradise and be done with it.

Let's put this in perspective. You're sitting at home, Watching TV. Next thing the 'police' bust in and put you in a cell. You are not allowed a lawyer and don't see or talk to anyone for three years.
Sound familar? This is actually what your 'patriot act' allows.
Where's your proof that the people that have been captured are part of the Taliban or al Quaeda (sp?)? Why do you believe the administration which now has the power to lock you up like the previous scenario.

hey hate America and want to see us crash and burn, and they want to see the Arabs completely wipe out the Jews. That is their real motive.

you damn right there. Coz the US administration keeps thinking might makes right. This is a region who has known war and conlict for centuries. They are so full of hate they are prepared to die for it. And the US admin goes and pokes them with a stick.
Name one time in history where beating the crap out of something made them more endeared to you and actually respect you.

We've got more bombs than they've got turbans, so they're [censored].

tell that to the families of the service men and women who've been killed since the 'war' is over. you think that holding more bombs is going to make this right?

I may not be politically correct, but you know I'm right.

you are neither. It's your line of thought which gives decent, thinking US folk a really, really bad name.

Oh yeah. You still haven't commented on whether the behaviour was correct in Parliament.

how is this different to being a terrorist? What you're really saying is that USA has the right to walk into any country, take people prisoner, keep them in a place that isn't legally touchable and kill them when the interrogation is done. How is that not bully tactics.

Yes we do have that right. If a group of people kills 3000 of our citizens, then we have the right to wipe them from the face of the earth. Bully tactics? I don't think so. Defensive tactics. The weaklings can't pick a fight with the big guy and then claim he's a bully when he defends himself.

You're sitting at home, Watching TV. Next thing the 'police' bust in

then I'd be ready. I'm armed to the teeth and I would kill every fucking one of them.

Where's your proof that the people that have been captured are part of the Taliban or al Quaeda (sp?)?

So now soldiers fighting in a war need proof before they pull the trigger? All this time we've been searching for Bin Laden, and all we needed is an arrest warrant and a set of handcuffs. Maybe you don't trust my government to take care of the foreign terrorists, but I do.

They are so full of hate they are prepared to die for it. And the US admin goes and pokes them with a stick.

No, we dropped some bigass bombs on their heads.

Name one time in history where beating the crap out of something made them more endeared to you and actually respect you.

WWII

tell that to the families of the service men and women who've been killed since the 'war' is over. you think that holding more bombs is going to make this right?

Killing all the terrorists will make it right.

you are neither. It's your line of thought which gives decent, thinking US folk a really, really bad name

Sorry, but from the european/australian perspective, decent US folk are socialist pussies who will do nothing about the terrorists and who will bow down to the UN and take it up the ass. The rest of America wants to see these ragheads fucking die.

Oh yeah. You still haven't commented on whether the behaviour was correct in Parliament.

Correct? I think it showed where their loyalties are. (with the terrorists)

And before you roll out the 'but they had WMDs targeted at us' arguement, where are the WMD's this whole war was suposed to be over? THAT'S the key issue that is coming out now, and is why Bush is losing popularity.

I don't care if Iraq only had a plastic BB gun. I also find it funny that all the UN diehards or getting mad at the US for simply holding up the UN's resolutions.

My main beef is that for Americans to be disgusted with capitolism makes no sense because our country IS a capitolistic democracy. There is nothing wrong with that. It is what makes our country what it is today. If someone has some romantic notions of socialism, they can move to France or China, that's fine with me.

Bollocks to that. The whole point of Freedom and democracy is that people are free to choose. If for some reason the Red Communist party managed to fairly win the next election, then _you_ could go live in France or China or wherever if you didn't like it. You have absolutely _no_ right to force _your_ preferred economic theory on your fellow citizens, regardless of how successful it may have been, or how popular it is at the moment.