Bush Jr's small, small world

[race aficionado]

Didn't know where to post this.
It was either on the Comedy thread - but I would have highjacked that one . . . .

Also the drinking ones were candidates but I would have been highjacking those also,
so I will start a probable short lived thread if this is not confirmed as news by our European forum members.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/10/bushs_shrinking_world_george_w_bush?gclid=CLCkm4Hc 6rYCFU6f4Aodf3QAFw

[donKey jote]

Wish Eki were still with us :( :)

[race aficionado]

where the heckiseki. !!!!! :(

[odykas]

What would be the subject of his speech... nucular science? :p :

[gloomyDAY]

I hope we find WMDs in Belgium. I'd love to visit Spa!

[TheFamousEccles]

I remember seeing a video on tv taken in the Oval office featuring one G Dubbya, looking for WMD's - to paraphrase "Hmm, none here...(looks behind couch), none here (looks under desk)..." You get the picture.

[odykas]

Sometimes I miss Dubya :crazy: :p :

[schmenke]

Didn't know where to post this.
It was either on the Comedy thread - but I would have highjacked that one . . . .

Also the drinking ones were candidates but I would have been highjacking those also,
so I will start a probable short lived thread if this is not confirmed as news by our European forum members.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/10/bushs_shrinking_world_george_w_bush?gclid=CLCkm4Hc 6rYCFU6f4Aodf3QAFw

I do hope that that story is substantiated because, browsing some of the other articles, that seems like an extremely one-sided, confrontational and subjective website :s

[Spafranco]

I apologize that I am unable to find the link to the article that I read last weekend. In essence, it said the same thing that was mentioned here.

I would like to know if Cheney, Addington, Woo, Libby and Rove are part of this watch and are not going to risk leaving the country.

Now, every conservative republican can feel as though they are being subjected to their leaders who acted out of extreme urgency to prevent another attack here at home. That isn't the point. There was no imminent attack planned. During the 180 plus waterboading of *****, I hate the guy, sorry, what on earth information did they get? None, nada.
It is so horrendous that these people who had never served in the military except Bush and that is in itself is up for serious debate. Tom Rather lost his job at CBS because he had the truth about said duty and his missing year. Don't they call that AWOL?

These men, along with Rice (fried?) are as guilty as sin. So too is Hannity , Limbaugh and O'Reilly who acted as puppets to further this shameful period in our history.

Does anyone recall that GB was convicted at the Hague for torturing prisoners. Yes, it is true. There is one difference. They apologized to the prisoners and the families and said they used tactics that should have been kept where they were. In the middle-ages.

This last administration is where it should be. Imprisoned within it's borders.

[D-Type]

I apologize that I am unable to find the link to the article that I read last weekend. In essence, it said the same thing that was mentioned here.

I would like to know if Cheney, Addington, Woo, Libby and Rove are part of this watch and are not going to risk leaving the country.

Now, every conservative republican can feel as though they are being subjected to their leaders who acted out of extreme urgency to prevent another attack here at home. That isn't the point. There was no imminent attack planned. During the 180 plus waterboading of *****, I hate the guy, sorry, what on earth information did they get? None, nada.
It is so horrendous that these people who had never served in the military except Bush and that is in itself is up for serious debate. Tom Rather lost his job at CBS because he had the truth about said duty and his missing year. Don't they call that AWOL?

These men, along with Rice (fried?) are as guilty as sin. So too is Hannity , Limbaugh and O'Reilly who acted as puppets to further this shameful period in our history.

Does anyone recall that GB was convicted at the Hague for torturing prisoners. Yes, it is true. There is one difference. They apologized to the prisoners and the families and said they used tactics that should have been kept where they were. In the middle-ages.

This last administration is where it should be. Imprisoned within it's borders.
GB = George Bush, or GB = Great Britain?

[donKey jote]

Great Whinging Britain? :erm: :andrea: :p

[ioan]

I apologize that I am unable to find the link to the article that I read last weekend. In essence, it said the same thing that was mentioned here.

I would like to know if Cheney, Addington, Woo, Libby and Rove are part of this watch and are not going to risk leaving the country.

Now, every conservative republican can feel as though they are being subjected to their leaders who acted out of extreme urgency to prevent another attack here at home. That isn't the point. There was no imminent attack planned. During the 180 plus waterboading of *****, I hate the guy, sorry, what on earth information did they get? None, nada.
It is so horrendous that these people who had never served in the military except Bush and that is in itself is up for serious debate. Tom Rather lost his job at CBS because he had the truth about said duty and his missing year. Don't they call that AWOL?

These men, along with Rice (fried?) are as guilty as sin. So too is Hannity , Limbaugh and O'Reilly who acted as puppets to further this shameful period in our history.

Does anyone recall that GB was convicted at the Hague for torturing prisoners. Yes, it is true. There is one difference. They apologized to the prisoners and the families and said they used tactics that should have been kept where they were. In the middle-ages.

This last administration is where it should be. Imprisoned within it's borders.

At least the rest of the world has started to condemn and even sentence the US and it's minions for their acts of torture:

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/21/as_italy_sentences_23_cia_agents

[anthonyvop]

Didn't know where to post this.
It was either on the Comedy thread - but I would have highjacked that one . . . .

Also the drinking ones were candidates but I would have been highjacking those also,
so I will start a probable short lived thread if this is not confirmed as news by our European forum members.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/10/bushs_shrinking_world_george_w_bush?gclid=CLCkm4Hc 6rYCFU6f4Aodf3QAFw

Consider the source.


Actually It would be interesting to see an attempt by some police force in Europe to arrest President Bush.
The Firefight would be short and messy with the local police coming out on the losing end.

Then Obama would be placed in the precarious position of having to extract retribution or face impeachment.

[ioan]

Consider the source.


Actually It would be interesting to see an attempt by some police force in Europe to arrest President Bush.
The Firefight would be short and messy with the local police coming out on the losing end.

Then Obama would be placed in the precarious position of having to extract retribution or face impeachment.

:rotflmao:

[D-Type]

Do I get the impression that you are endorsing US citizens being in possession of illegally held firearms in my country and other European countries?

[Starter]

Do I get the impression that you are endorsing US citizens being in possession of illegally held firearms in my country and other European countries?
Illegal how?

[anthonyvop]

Illegal how?

They are under the impression that a former president traveling wouldn't have a full Secrete Service detail as well as full military back-up.

Silly boys.

[race aficionado]

Tony.
I'm trying to understand your bullet ridden scenario.
If hypothetically former president George Bush Jr. landed in Switzerland and he were given a legal order to appear in court or be arrested because according to that countries' legal system he has broken an international law - that all hell would brake loose and our secret service detail and military back up would respond with fire like in a Rambo movie? I don't think so.
I wish we could confirm the news from Switzerland as factual.
Here is another article that mentions the same story:
Bush Cancels Visit To Switzerland Due To Threat Of Torture Prosecution, Rights Groups Say (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/05/bush-switzerland-torture_n_819175.html)

More:

George Bush calls off trip to Switzerland | Law | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/06/george-bush-trip-to-switzerland)

Since the arrest of the late Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London in 1998, international leaders can no longer be confident of immunity. Israeli politicians have cancelled trips to London and elsewhere for fear of arrest warrants.


And this from Swiss news:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Bush_trip_to_Geneva_cancelled.html?cid=29426380

[anthonyvop]

Tony.
I'm trying to understand your bullet ridden scenario.
If hypothetically former president George Bush Jr. landed in Switzerland and he were given a legal order to appear in court or be arrested because according to that countries' legal system he has broken an international law - that all hell would brake loose and our secret service detail and military back up would respond with fire like in a Rambo movie? I don't think so.



You would be wrong.

[webberf1]

Lol to be honest I don't see why these people are so singularly focussed on George W. Bush. If they want to crack down on crimes against humanity, virtually every U.S. president since the Cold War began is as filthy as Lindsay Lohan after a three-day bender. Decade after decade of U.S. presidents overseeing support for the most brutal dictatorships on the planet (all as long as they happened to be anti-leftist) and covert action to completely undermine many a fledgling democracy... and Georgie boy is the only one that gets all the attention? Shame.

[Starter]

Lol to be honest I don't see why these people are so singularly focussed on George W. Bush. If they want to crack down on crimes against humanity, virtually every U.S. president since the Cold War began is as filthy as Lindsay Lohan after a three-day bender. Decade after decade of U.S. presidents overseeing support for the most brutal dictatorships on the planet (all as long as they happened to be anti-leftist) and covert action to completely undermine many a fledgling democracy... and Georgie boy is the only one that gets all the attention? Shame.
Only since the cold war? You have a short memory. Central America and the Philippines weren't all that long ago historically speaking.

And let's not forget England's fun and games in India, (modern day) Pakistan and Afghanistan and China. Plus much of Africa. A little mirror looking called for here. The truth is that there has been no world power, ever, that I can think of that has not indulged in that sort of thing in order to bring their version of "order" to the world and their vested interests.

[Mintexmemory]

Only since the cold war? You have a short memory. Central America and the Philippines weren't all that long ago historically speaking.

And let's not forget England's fun and games in India, (modern day) Pakistan and Afghanistan and China. Plus much of Africa. A little mirror looking called for here. The truth is that there has been no world power, ever, that I can think of that has not indulged in that sort of thing in order to bring their version of "order" to the world and their vested interests.

Nice to raise the colonial-imperialist thing again. Point is we learned our lessons and abandoned Victorian / Edwardian thinking just about the time the States thought it would be good to adopt. Keep to what is relevant to this day and age. Since the 50s the USA has tried to run the world for its own benefit, the wonder is successive administrations got away with it for so long. Still things are changing, at least Chavez died a natural death ........or did he? :look:
DISCLAIMER: None of the foregoing should be seen as condoning terrorist actions against any innocent civilian target.

[BDunnell]

Nice to raise the colonial-imperialist thing again. Point is we learned our lessons and abandoned Victorian / Edwardian thinking just about the time the States thought it would be good to adopt. Keep to what is relevant to this day and age.

I couldn't agree more. It is rather sad how right-leaning Americans are always forced either to resort to examples from the dim and distant past in discussions such as this, or that they fail to realise that the fact of our nationality does not make us blind to the historical failings of our own countries' policies.

[henners88]

....or that they fail to realise that the fact of our nationality does not make us blind to the historical failings of our own countries' policies.
Indeed. Quite often someone throws in an age old crime my country has committed in a vain attempt to either insult me or prove that 'I' am no better than their 'country'! As if it is my responsibility to feel regret for something that happened 50, 100 plus years before my birth at the hands of countrymen I wouldn't agree with.

[Spafranco]

GB = George Bush, or GB = Great Britain?

D-type, Great Britain. The charges were reduced to another level of jurisprudence. That was in the 70"s. The difference here is that Great Britain acknowledged and apologized in the diplomatic sense.

I admire that even with the torture and inhumane activity that were the impetus to charge them with a crime.

To admit your guilty is a road that is difficult to take and a brave effort to mend their ways.

[anthonyvop]

Nice to raise the colonial-imperialist thing again. Point is we learned our lessons and abandoned Victorian / Edwardian thinking just about the time the States thought it would be good to adopt. Keep to what is relevant to this day and age. Since the 50s the USA has tried to run the world for its own benefit, the wonder is successive administrations got away with it for so long. Still things are changing, at least Chavez died a natural death ........or did he? :look:
DISCLAIMER: None of the foregoing should be seen as condoning terrorist actions against any innocent civilian target.

I find it always amusing when people call the the USA imperialist.

If it was true then where are all our conquered territories? Why isn't Iraq part of the USA? Afghanistan? Grenada? Panama? Western Europe?

Remember "no war for oil"? HaH Most of the Iraqi oil contracts went to non-US companies.

[ioan]

You would be wrong.

You're lost for good.

[ioan]

I find it always amusing when people call the the USA imperialist.

If it was true then where are all our conquered territories? Why isn't Iraq part of the USA? Afghanistan? Grenada? Panama? Western Europe?

Remember "no war for oil"? HaH Most of the Iraqi oil contracts went to non-US companies.


You forgot to mention Israel.

[Starter]

You forgot to mention Israel.
Missed your point here, could you elaborate?

[Starter]

Nice to raise the colonial-imperialist thing again. Point is we learned our lessons and abandoned Victorian / Edwardian thinking just about the time the States thought it would be good to adopt. Keep to what is relevant to this day and age. Since the 50s the USA has tried to run the world for its own benefit, the wonder is successive administrations got away with it for so long. Still things are changing, at least Chavez died a natural death ........or did he? :look:
DISCLAIMER: None of the foregoing should be seen as condoning terrorist actions against any innocent civilian target.
You learned your lesson about the same time you were becoming something less than a real world power. You no longer had the capacity to impose your will. That's not intended as an insult, all "world powers" eventually fade, as will we.

You missed my point, as did those who responded below you. I was showing that all past "world powers" did this while they were reaching and during their ascendency. We're doing it now, and have been for a bit, because that's where we are in the cycle. It's not Victorian / Edwardian thinking, it's power player thinking. China will be doing it shortly, some would say they already are.

As for the comments below yours, there's nothing more holier than thou than a reformed sinner.

[Mintexmemory]

You learned your lesson about the same time you were becoming something less than a real world power. You no longer had the capacity to impose your will. That's not intended as an insult, all "world powers" eventually fade, as will we.

You missed my point, as did those who responded below you. I was showing that all past "world powers" did this while they were reaching and during their ascendency. We're doing it now, and have been for a bit, because that's where we are in the cycle. It's not Victorian / Edwardian thinking, it's power player thinking. China will be doing it shortly, some would say they already are.

As for the comments below yours, there's nothing more holier than thou than a reformed sinner.

No, I really did get your point about ascendancy ;) - the by-product of being the ascendant nation is always that you end up hated by the (self-perceived) 'victims' of your ascendancy, many of whom will continue the hatred long after the time in the sun has passed. The problem is that the myth of 'protecting freedom' has always been used to justify US foreign policy. Bad though 'gunboat diplomacy' etc was it was clear what was being done was solely to further British interests, oppressive we may have been but at least it was honest. As Henners said that was all long ago, it's happened. Contemporary citizens of the US still have an opportunity to make a difference to the way their country will be judged by history.

[BDunnell]

You learned your lesson about the same time you were becoming something less than a real world power. You no longer had the capacity to impose your will. That's not intended as an insult, all "world powers" eventually fade, as will we.

You missed my point, as did those who responded below you. I was showing that all past "world powers" did this while they were reaching and during their ascendency. We're doing it now, and have been for a bit, because that's where we are in the cycle. It's not Victorian / Edwardian thinking, it's power player thinking. China will be doing it shortly, some would say they already are.

All very true.



As for the comments below yours, there's nothing more holier than thou than a reformed sinner.

Would you mind elaborating, preferably with examples of my past comments that prove your point?

[anthonyvop]

You forgot to mention Israel.


Missed your point here, could you elaborate?

Yea....What is your point except to try and change the topic away from what is obviously disturbing for you because once again I have proven my point as valid beyond any doubt?

[BDunnell]

Yea....What is your point except to try and change the topic away from what is obviously disturbing for you because once again I have proven my point as valid beyond any doubt?

You live in a slightly disturbing dreamworld.

[BleAivano]

I find it always amusing when people call the the USA imperialist.

If it was true then where are all our conquered territories? Why isn't Iraq part of the USA? Afghanistan? Grenada? Panama? Western Europe?

Remember "no war for oil"? HaH Most of the Iraqi oil contracts went to non-US companies.

They are, its called puppet state. Puppet state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_state)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

They are, its called puppet state. Puppet state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_state)

Western Europe?

[Mark]

For much of the Cold War yes, the European states were basically propped up by the US.

[donKey jote]

Spain's Franco for example :andrea:

[BDunnell]

For much of the Cold War yes, the European states were basically propped up by the US.

You wouldn't really describe them as 'puppet states' as a result of Marshall Aid, Mutual Defense Assistance and so forth, would you, though?

[Starter]

You wouldn't really describe them as 'puppet states' as a result of Marshall Aid, Mutual Defense Assistance and so forth, would you, though?
If the US had said "OK our job is done" after WWII, packed up and gone home, there is a considerable possibility that most, if not all, of Europe would be sending their tax money to Moscow today. Europe a true puppet state of the US? Hardly, but the current state of political affairs and prosperity there owes a substantial debt to the American taxpayer.

[anthonyvop]

They are, its called puppet state. Puppet state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_state)


So Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Luxemburg and Italy are puppet states?

Could have fooled me......and The the people from those countries.

[anthonyvop]

Spain's Franco for example :andrea:

And when did the USA invade Spain and instal Franco?

If giving aid to a nation makes us Imperialistic and those countries our colonies then explain why North Korea and Iran cause us so much problems. Both Nations have been recipients of Millions of $$$ of US aid recently.

[D-Type]

Illegal how?
Because, unlike the USA, most European countries have laws that forbid the carrying of guns. Foreign nationals, including armed escorts for foreign politicians, can only legally carry guns with the specific permission of the host government.
Much as the USA would like to ride roughshod over other countries the reality is that the other countries might not accept the situation.

[donKey jote]

For much of the Cold War yes, the European states were basically propped up by the US.
-> Spain's Franco for example :andrea:


And when did the USA invade Spain and instal Franco?

Nope, didn't say that. I said that Spain's Franco was basically propped up by the US during much of the Cold War.

[odykas]

->
Nope, didn't say that. I said that Spain's Franco was basically propped up by the US during much of the Cold War.

+ Greek military junta 1967-1974

[anthonyvop]

Because, unlike the USA, most European countries have laws that forbid the carrying of guns. Foreign nationals, including armed escorts for foreign politicians, can only legally carry guns with the specific permission of the host government.
Much as the USA would like to ride roughshod over other countries the reality is that the other countries might not accept the situation.


Ohhhhhh They have laws.......... Ever heard of Diplomatic immunity?
Do you think when the President, Past president, Secretary of State, VP or other high ranking officials travel they don't have heavily armed security?
Do you think that all those military transport aircraft that travel with President Obama is to just carry his Golf Clubs?

Diplomatic protocol allows for visiting heads of state to provide for their own security.
You may not like it but those guys in Dark Suits, Dark Sunglasses and talking into their sleeves are all carrying .357SIG SIG Sauer P229, Remington 870 Shotguns and HK MP5 SMGs with heavier weaponry within arms reach in the multitude of vehicles that forms the entourage.

[BDunnell]

If the US had said "OK our job is done" after WWII, packed up and gone home, there is a considerable possibility that most, if not all, of Europe would be sending their tax money to Moscow today. Europe a true puppet state of the US? Hardly, but the current state of political affairs and prosperity there owes a substantial debt to the American taxpayer.

Those were the days of more benign American influence in the world, thankfully.

You do, however, overestimate the likelihood of Soviet invasions of countries in Western Europe.

[BDunnell]

You may not like it but those guys in Dark Suits, Dark Sunglasses and talking into their sleeves are all carrying .357SIG SIG Sauer P229, Remington 870 Shotguns and HK MP5 SMGs with heavier weaponry within arms reach in the multitude of vehicles that forms the entourage.

It is telling that you are knowledgeable when it comes to guns, but little else.

[keysersoze]

It is telling that you are knowledgeable when it comes to guns, but little else.It is telling that when you don't have anything to add to the debate, you resort to changing the topic. Intellectually, Anthonyvpop is more than a match for anyone on this board.

[airshifter]

It is telling that when you don't have anything to add to the debate, you resort to changing the topic. Intellectually, Anthonyvpop is more than a match for anyone on this board.

Ah but just wait for it now. You see, in recent times on this site, having dozens of people spouting sheer nonsense seems to work. It's what they do now between races, US bashing. I think it's rather comical myself, since most seem to think any of us from the US owns an arsenal of weapons, is walking down the street looking for a reason to use them, and stealing food from the poor or less fortunate. We do this only while getting our plans together to impose ourselves on yet another country.

So I've determined that not thinking for yourself and following a pack seems to work for a lot of the world. They seem to rather enjoy it, and they don't have to bother with any silly trivial things such as facts!

Thankfully there are a few on both sides of the water that still deal with facts at least most of the time, and don't apply some shallow stereotype to most of the world that isn't exactly like them.



Hey I'm due for my break per union contract. Could you watch these puppet strings for the UK and France? Just make them nod when the US wants something... easy job really. :laugh:

[henners88]

There is as much of a misunderstanding for our culture as there is for yours. Thankfully we all live in societies we are happy with, hence why non of us seem to have a 'jealous hated' for one another's country. Certain posters don't do their countries any favours and this feeds stereotypes for some. There is a lot of hatred on here from both sides and its not something I am really interested in reading. This place is supposed to be intelligent and fun.

Intellectually, Anthonyvpop is more than a match for anyone on this board.
If he is willing to prove that then I like the next man will offer the admiration it may deserve. Unfortunately the lack of evidence and your endorsement go little way to convince me otherwise. Sorry.

[Starter]

If he is willing to prove that then I like the next man will offer the admiration it may deserve. Unfortunately the lack of evidence and your endorsement go little way to convince me otherwise. Sorry.
That might work for you, but some on here would jump on him if he posted that the sky was blue and would say that only a stupid American could think that. I understand why many of his responses here are a little hostile.

Culturally, the US and England are about as close as two countries can be, yet there are still major differences in world outlook. Because we have those differences does not automatically make one of them right and the other one wrong, though some would have you believe that. I know it and, maybe, you do. I'll be the first to admit that some of my, ah, testy, replies in a few threads have more to do with the heaps of abuse some throw at us than with my true thoughts on the subject.

[henners88]

That might work for you, but some on here would jump on him if he posted that the sky was blue and would say that only a stupid American could think that. I understand why many of his responses here are a little hostile.
I could understand if they developed into hostile exchanges after abuse had been thrown but I am yet to see a thread where they have not been hostile from the very first post. We all get annoyed to a point but I'm not always annoyed whenever I post. When threads get to the point where its just mud slinging I often just walk away of late. If that is perceived as I have conceded and admitted defeat, then that gives me amusement and satisfaction. If I took things that seriously I wouldn't post here.


Culturally, the US and England are about as close as two countries can be, yet there are still major differences in world outlook. Because we have those differences does not automatically make one of them right and the other one wrong, though some would have you believe that. I know it and, maybe, you do. I'll be the first to admit that some of my, ah, testy, replies in a few threads have more to do with the heaps of abuse some throw at us than with my true thoughts on the subject.
Fair points. I can honestly say that I don't make statements simply out of frustration and all of the criticisms I have made regarding gun culture or statements about your society have been my true feelings to which I stand by. Believe it or not this does not mean I am jealous or lacking in human rights. I live where I have chosen to live much like yourself and wouldn't exchange it for the world. I've visited America and even have relatives over there, and no doubt if I loved it as much as some claim, I would have been living there many years by now. At the end of the day this is just a discussion on the internet. Bad things happen in all countries and unless it is on your doorstep, it has little effect and is just another news story we are likely to get bored of. Thats life.

[BDunnell]

It is telling that when you don't have anything to add to the debate, you resort to changing the topic. Intellectually, Anthonyvpop is more than a match for anyone on this board.

Funniest thing I've read this week.

[BDunnell]

Ah but just wait for it now. You see, in recent times on this site, having dozens of people spouting sheer nonsense seems to work. It's what they do now between races, US bashing.

No, it is criticism of aspects of US policy and certain social mindsets. This does not constitute 'US bashing'.

[BDunnell]

That might work for you, but some on here would jump on him if he posted that the sky was blue and would say that only a stupid American could think that.

Unfortunately, he hasn't recently posted anything that sensible. Thus, that opportunity to concede that he's right has been lacking.

[race aficionado]

But going back to the topic - and to clarify what Tony is suggesting would "bang! bang!" happen if former President George Bush jr. were stopped by the law enforcement of another country because of a legal jurisprudence.

Question here is: Can this really happen?
In a link provided earlier it even mentions that:

George Bush calls off trip to Switzerland | Law | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/06/george-bush-trip-to-switzerland)

Since the arrest of the late Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London in 1998, international leaders can no longer be confident of immunity. Israeli politicians have cancelled trips to London and elsewhere for fear of arrest warrants.




That is the issue here.

[donKey jote]

But going back to the topic - and to clarify what Tony is suggesting would "bang! bang!" happen if former President George Bush jr. were stopped by the law enforcement of another country because of a legal jurisprudence.

Question here is: Can this really happen?
In a link provided earlier it even mentions that:

George Bush calls off trip to Switzerland | Law | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/06/george-bush-trip-to-switzerland)

Since the arrest of the late Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London in 1998, international leaders can no longer be confident of immunity. Israeli politicians have cancelled trips to London and elsewhere for fear of arrest warrants.




That is the issue here.


Ah the Pinochet case...

There was a hard-fought 16-month legal battle in the House of Lords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_functions_of_the_House_of_Lords), the then highest court of the United Kingdom.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet#cite_not e-6) Pinochet claimed immunity from prosecution as a former head of state under the State Immunity Act 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Immunity_Act_1978). This was rejected, as the Lords decreed that some international crimes, such as torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture), could not be protected by former head-of-state immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_from_prosecution_%28international_law%29) .[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet#cite_not e-Pinochetprecedent-7)
In April 1999, former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher) and former US President George H. W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush) called upon the British government to release Pinochet.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet#cite_not e-9)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet#cite_not e-10) They urged that Pinochet be allowed to return to his homeland rather than be forced to go to Spain. On the other hand, United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_High_Commissioner_of_Human_Rights), Mary Robinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Robinson), hailed the Lords' ruling, declaring that it was a clear endorsement that torture is an international crime subject to universal jurisdiction.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet#cite_not e-Lords99-8)
In the end, the puppet Brits ( ;) :p ) let him go.
.. and Judge Garzón (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltasar_Garz%C3%B3n), judged by Spain's PP to have gone too far by investigating their murky finances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_B%C3%A1rcenas), was burned at the stake :dozey:

[BDunnell]

Ah the Pinochet case...

In the end, the puppet Brits ( ;) :p ) let him go.

It was a disgrace. The lauding of Pinochet by certain senior Conservatives like Thatcher and Norman Lamont (much to the embarrassment of some others in the party) was an appalling episode, given that his crimes were, by his arrival in Britain in 1998, widely-known. He should have been shown no favour or clemency.

[henners88]

It was a disgrace. The lauding of Pinochet by certain senior Conservatives like Thatcher and Norman Lamont (much to the embarrassment of some others in the party) was an appalling episode, given that his crimes were, by his arrival in Britain in 1998, widely-known. He should have been shown no favour or clemency.
Off topic but, something equally as disgusting was the new Pope shaking the hand and bowing to Robert Mugabe at the Vatican. Not the brightest idea when trying to reassure the worlds Catholics that you were the best choice for the role of Pope lol.

[airshifter]

No, it is criticism of aspects of US policy and certain social mindsets. This does not constitute 'US bashing'.

People might believe such things if not supported by evidence to the contrary...


I couldn't agree more. It is rather sad how right-leaning Americans are always forced either to resort to examples from the dim and distant past in discussions such as this, or that they fail to realise that the fact of our nationality does not make us blind to the historical failings of our own countries' policies.

When obvious shallow stereotypes are attached to individuals or groups it becomes apprent that some people live without mirrors.

[airshifter]

But going back to the topic - and to clarify what Tony is suggesting would "bang! bang!" happen if former President George Bush jr. were stopped by the law enforcement of another country because of a legal jurisprudence.

Question here is: Can this really happen?
In a link provided earlier it even mentions that:

George Bush calls off trip to Switzerland | Law | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/06/george-bush-trip-to-switzerland)

Since the arrest of the late Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London in 1998, international leaders can no longer be confident of immunity. Israeli politicians have cancelled trips to London and elsewhere for fear of arrest warrants.




That is the issue here.


Could it happen? Sure? Is it highly unlikely? Even more sure.



From the link to follow:

"A Swiss Justice Ministry spokesman told the AP that Bush would have enjoyed immunity from prosecution for any actions taken while in office based on an initial assessment of international law."

George W. Bush Cancels Swiss Trip as Rights Activists Vow War Crimes Charges - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-cancels-swiss-trip-rights-activists-vow/story?id=12857195)


In this day and age any real legal action would take place regardless of travel plans IMO. To me it's simply posturing of groups who have no case to bring. If there were a real driving force behind international laws violations the international community would join and prosecute the case. At such point they could prove such a case, they would likely find themselves held accountable for why none of the parties with such information forced such actions to cease, using international conventions and treaties. At the end of the day, legal or not, the international community as a whole (the governments not the individuals) allowed these actions to take place. And being that Bush Jrs terms say the removal of a large number of terrorists wanted for activities all over the world, no single nation or group of nations was going to work very hard to stop something that was getting results.

IMO there is a point where "laws of war" are somewhat pointless. The modern day world does not often deal with those that abide by such laws.

[Spafranco]

I hope we find WMDs in Belgium. I'd love to visit Spa!

Was lucky to be there twice. Eau Rouge is breathtaking.

[race aficionado]

Could it happen? Sure? Is it highly unlikely? Even more sure. . . . . . . IMO there is a point where "laws of war" are somewhat pointless. The modern day world does not often deal with those that abide by such laws.

Thanks airshifter.
I still clearly remember when Oliver north took the fall for the then President Ronald Reagan's fiasco with the Iran/Contra affair.

Things are different right now in the world with the "occupy" syndrome and the Wikileaks scenario. People are more pissed off right now.
I think former President George Bush Jr.'s foreign traveling plans are going to be tenuous to say the least.

[ioan]

It is telling that when you don't have anything to add to the debate, you resort to changing the topic. Intellectually, Anthonyvpop is more than a match for anyone on this board.

You really like speaking for others don't you? :laugh:

[airshifter]

Thanks airshifter.
I still clearly remember when Oliver north took the fall for the then President Ronald Reagan's fiasco with the Iran/Contra affair.

Things are different right now in the world with the "occupy" syndrome and the Wikileaks scenario. People are more pissed off right now.
I think former President George Bush Jr.'s foreign traveling plans are going to be tenuous to say the least.




I can understand your sentiment Race, but to be honest I don't think any former or current President has travel fears beyond some protesters still stating they don't like them, and still having no legal case against them.

Let's face facts.. a lot of the pissed off people blamed it all on Bush. How many years has he been out of office, and why are they still pissed off? Yet I'm no longer hearing cries about the injustices of the Patriot Act or Guantanamo Bay. Maybe after Presidents from both major parties had part some of the pissed off people figured out that they must have a purpose?

[Rudy Tamasz]

I absolutely think the U.S. must invade Switzerland for a variety of reasons. Securing Bush. Jr. freedom of travel, seizing bank accounts of American citizens, nailing Polanski, restoring human rights of Swiss Muslims etc. Also, this will be a great chance to show the whole world it's not only Muslim countries that the U.S. invades. In fact, some Mideastern countries can be invited to support occupation. There will be sectors controlled by Afghani, Pakistani, Iraqui and other troops.

Just name me one reason why the U.S. needs to leave Switzerland alone. I don't see any.

[Bagwan]

I absolutely think the U.S. must invade Switzerland for a variety of reasons. Securing Bush. Jr. freedom of travel, seizing bank accounts of American citizens, nailing Polanski, restoring human rights of Swiss Muslims etc. Also, this will be a great chance to show the whole world it's not only Muslim countries that the U.S. invades. In fact, some Mideastern countries can be invited to support occupation. There will be sectors controlled by Afghani, Pakistani, Iraqui and other troops.

Just name me one reason why the U.S. needs to leave Switzerland alone. I don't see any.

They'll do anything to protect Polanski , Rudy .
Have you seen how many attachments those knives have ?
I guess you've never had someone come at you with a corkscrew .

Don't mess with'em .

[Rudy Tamasz]

I know, I own one of those pocket killing machines myself. Mind you, you can freely buy that stuff everywhere. This is another reason to take strong measures against Switzerland. In my view this weapon proliferation of the worst kind has to be stopped. Immediately.

[Rudy Tamasz]

BTW, they are not UN members. You don't even have to have international consent to attack them. They have outlawed themselves. How convenient...

[race aficionado]

Don't mess with Swiss chocolate.

[Bagwan]

Yeah , "neutral" Switzerland , struck me a bit weird , with appearances from fighter jets cruising by overhead every few hours .
When I asked once , what that big boom was , in the distance , I was told that now and again , the boys would drop down into a valley and crack it open for a thrill . No big deal .

Probably hopped up on that chocolate , buncha punks .

[Spafranco]

It is telling that when you don't have anything to add to the debate, you resort to changing the topic. Intellectually, Anthonyvpop is more than a match for anyone on this board.

Gulp! :confused:

[TheFamousEccles]

Lol to be honest I don't see why these people are so singularly focussed on George W. Bush. If they want to crack down on crimes against humanity, virtually every U.S. president since the Cold War began is as filthy as Lindsay Lohan after a three-day bender. Decade after decade of U.S. presidents overseeing support for the most brutal dictatorships on the planet (all as long as they happened to be anti-leftist) and covert action to completely undermine many a fledgling democracy... and Georgie boy is the only one that gets all the attention? Shame.

First off - Linday Lohan after a three-day bender? I lol'ed at that - gonna need some therapy to remove that mental image... ;)

I agree with much of what you say, but Dubya was stupid enough to state that he was invading Iraq because of the WMD's that they supposedly possessed - which they just couldn't seem to find any trace of. And then when asked to produce the evidence, effectively shrugged at the world and said "meh.." So as a consequence - allied with being a total git, a puppet to the old-school cold war hawks tied to his administration (Cheyney, Rove, et-al) - he is now seen as a very public exemplar of what is (possibly inaccurately) referred to as US imperialism. Is it okay to invade a country under false pretence, and then behave in a way that would get any other nation in very hot water indeed? Other POTUS' have done this without a doubt, they were just not as stupid as Dubya.

He is not alone in this misadventure, however. The former Prime Minister of my country - John Howard - (the "Little Sheriff") should be nervous about travelling OS as well, IMO. He unquestioningly committed Australia to this bogus war and lied through his teeth in both Parliament and on the public record. However he was playing to the public's braying ignorance and bloodthirstiness, though the voices of dissent were a little louder here than elsewhere, but blithely ignored, none the less. Nothing short of criminal in my opinion.

[ioan]

Yet I'm no longer hearing cries about the injustices of the Patriot Act or Guantanamo Bay. Maybe after Presidents from both major parties had part some of the pissed off people figured out that they must have a purpose?

Sure they have a purpose, and it is to justify a continuous state of alert in the USA, keeping people in a state of paranoia about something that is far less dangerous than what it is made out to be.

[airshifter]

Sure they have a purpose, and it is to justify a continuous state of alert in the USA, keeping people in a state of paranoia about something that is far less dangerous than what it is made out to be.

If you really think that most in the US live in a state of paranoia then you aren't very in touch with people in the US. More than anything these two issues they anger the "big brother is watching" crowd as well as those who oppose them strictly as a Constitutional rights issue.

It's no coincidence that a lot of high level terrorists have been removed from the face of the earth since these policies were put into place. People can ignore that all they want, and I accept that a lot of people will ignore facts on a regular basis. It's more fun for those types to bash someone for getting results.

[ioan]

If you really think that most in the US live in a state of paranoia then you aren't very in touch with people in the US. More than anything these two issues they anger the "big brother is watching" crowd as well as those who oppose them strictly as a Constitutional rights issue.

At least I have an excuse as I am not living in the US, however when I see the majority, and we are not talking about 50%+1 here) of the comments in forums or on news sites I am rather surprised by the content.
What's your excuse for seeing it differently? Maybe working and living in an environment with people with higher education?


It's no coincidence that a lot of high level terrorists have been removed from the face of the earth since these policies were put into place. People can ignore that all they want, and I accept that a lot of people will ignore facts on a regular basis. It's more fun for those types to bash someone for getting results.

None of them being removed due to the existence of Guantanamo or to the Patriot Act. So again what is the use of Guantanamo (where people are kept for 10+ years without being given the chance to stand in front of a court) and of the Patriot Act, which is not about going to war in Irak or Afghanistan.

[airshifter]

At least I have an excuse as I am not living in the US, however when I see the majority, and we are not talking about 50%+1 here) of the comments in forums or on news sites I am rather surprised by the content.
What's your excuse for seeing it differently? Maybe working and living in an environment with people with higher education?

You have to keep in mind that the little you can see online is a very small representation of the US. I've seen people from all over Europe claim many in the US have lived in fear since 9/11. If you asked people from other countries that actually lived in the US what they saw, most of them would say resolve, but not fear. A couple of Canadians on this forum said the same.




None of them being removed due to the existence of Guantanamo or to the Patriot Act. So again what is the use of Guantanamo (where people are kept for 10+ years without being given the chance to stand in front of a court) and of the Patriot Act, which is not about going to war in Irak or Afghanistan.

The leads to Bin Laden came through prisoners at Guantanamo, and techniques many have been critical of. If you would review the FBIs most wanted terrorists lists post 9/11, you will find quite a few others that were found the same way. Facts are facts, and the facts are that Bush and Co. got results.

[henners88]

The leads to Bin Laden came through prisoners at Guantanamo, and techniques many have been critical of. If you would review the FBIs most wanted terrorists lists post 9/11, you will find quite a few others that were found the same way. Facts are facts, and the facts are that Bush and Co. got results.
Anyone can get results using the right methods. Whether the international community approve of the methods used at Guantanamo is another thing altogether. Bush may have got the results many of his supporters wanted but the perception worldwide is that he is anything but a hero I'm afraid.

[markabilly]

What about Obama?? How come you folks are not out to have him arrested too?? :confused:

Of course, with both Bush and Obama, there is the problem of overcoming armed resistance from secret service.....


Anyway, much of the so-called torture went on while Obama has been in office, clear and deliberate killing of certain terrorists ocurred (Bin laden for example),aand even beyond what Bush did, the usa participation in armed strikes against Lybia, killing however many people without obtaining any required legal authroization from congress :rolleyes:

[henners88]

I never said I had any respect for Obama. Its the actions of these men that unfortunately sculpt the opinions of your country across the world. I don't include myself in that claim however.

[Starter]

I never said I had any respect for Obama. Its the actions of these men that unfortunately sculpt the opinions of your country across the world. I don't include myself in that claim however.
Ya, but the majority of the posts from folks here only mention Bush. Wonder why that is? Maybe because Obama is the poster child for the left side of the political spectrum?

I've got no special love for Bush. He allowed his Presidency to be used by some of his underlings with particular political viewpoints. In fairness though, there has never been a US President who was either totally great or totally bad. In my mind he was definitely, ah, less great than many.

[D-Type]

Ya, but the majority of the posts from folks here only mention Bush. Wonder why that is? ~Could it possibly have something to do with the title of the thread?

[Spafranco]

Now how on earth could President Obama be compared to President Bush. Bush sent thousands to their death irrespective of the influence of Darth Vadar, Condi, Turd Blossom and adage.

How do you sleep when you are responsible for the false imprisonment of so many?

Why were we in Iraq?

Now look. It is back to the middle ages.

Any of our visitors from GB ever wonder how many times I have hear of a British soldier being killed on our national news? Once, when the young men taking a nap in a police station (4 I believe) were gunned down when their position was known.

Seems that only our military men are important to the media. As for our military men themselves, they admire the British troops in particular the SAS.

There is a wonderful book (non-fiction) written by an SAS member and his team trying to fend of drug addled Al Sadr Islamists. The book is named Sniper one or One Sniper. It is written by Dan Mills a veteran of Northern Ireland and Iraq. Remarkable story of bravery and comradeship. In the book there is a piece where they are visited by two roaming US special forces fighters. Read this and you know these men are true friends and allies even if they never met before.
There is no hooorah or yippee given when any of these men kill. Instead one finds a lot of reflection.

[airshifter]

Anyone can get results using the right methods. Whether the international community approve of the methods used at Guantanamo is another thing altogether. Bush may have got the results many of his supporters wanted but the perception worldwide is that he is anything but a hero I'm afraid.

Bush is no hero of mine either. But my point is he got results that removed some of the worlds most wanted terrorists from freedom the and the chaos they helped created. TBH I wouldn't much care how any country did such a thing. If country XYZ finds a method of capturing or killing such people I'm fine with it... I'd sleep much better at night knowing cowards that intentionally kill indiscriminately are captured, vs how I'd sleep if we did the PC thing and allowed them to continue with their chaos and hatred.

[henners88]

Bush is no hero of mine either. But my point is he got results that removed some of the worlds most wanted terrorists from freedom the and the chaos they helped created. TBH I wouldn't much care how any country did such a thing. If country XYZ finds a method of capturing or killing such people I'm fine with it... I'd sleep much better at night knowing cowards that intentionally kill indiscriminately are captured, vs how I'd sleep if we did the PC thing and allowed them to continue with their chaos and hatred.
That's fair enough airshifter and some would add Blair to that equation too. America get far too much credit when things go right and far too much criticism when things go wrong. The war on terrorism is a joint effort between many nations. I won't discuss further how governments obtain information because in all reality we don't know the full extent of the methods use and are unlikely to know :)

[Starter]

America get far too much credit when things go right and far too much criticism when things go wrong.
Very true.

[BDunnell]

Bush is no hero of mine either. But my point is he got results that removed some of the worlds most wanted terrorists from freedom the and the chaos they helped created.

In no sense do I feel any safer as a result of the actions that he led and Blair slavishly followed, in one sense because I never tend to feel in danger anyway, and in another because the results have been clear to see in the chaotic devastation of Afghanistan in particular. Foreign policy directed by religious zeal and underpinned by outright lies is never a favourable prospect. This is what we saw in action during the Blair and Bush years.

[ioan]

You have to keep in mind that the little you can see online is a very small representation of the US. I've seen people from all over Europe claim many in the US have lived in fear since 9/11. If you asked people from other countries that actually lived in the US what they saw, most of them would say resolve, but not fear. A couple of Canadians on this forum said the same.

It might be a small representation but it is highly polarized, and it can not be dismissed by claiming that the rest are all different.




The leads to Bin Laden came through prisoners at Guantanamo, and techniques many have been critical of. If you would review the FBIs most wanted terrorists lists post 9/11, you will find quite a few others that were found the same way. Facts are facts, and the facts are that Bush and Co. got results.

Maybe, and I guess we will never have proof for that, the info came from Guantanamo.
Still the question remains why are there people who have not yet been trialed and sentenced (guilty or not) after 10+ years in there?

[Starter]

Maybe, and I guess we will never have proof for that, the info came from Guantanamo.
Still the question remains why are there people who have not yet been trialed and sentenced (guilty or not) after 10+ years in there?
A good question. While I don't have an especial problem with interrogation techniques, short of hacking off limbs and the like, and I do understand the desire to take the time necessary to extract information, sooner or later everyone should have their day in court.

[airshifter]

That's fair enough airshifter and some would add Blair to that equation too. America get far too much credit when things go right and far too much criticism when things go wrong. The war on terrorism is a joint effort between many nations. I won't discuss further how governments obtain information because in all reality we don't know the full extent of the methods use and are unlikely to know :)

I somewhat agree on the US getting more credit or blame, but that being the case, why is it the rest of the world is so quick to point fingers, creating a lot of the blame? If people actually believed it they would either accept that they were part of the problem, or at a minimum not place blame.

I've seen firsthand a great number of methods of how various governments collect intelligence. It's really no big secret, it's just a matter of how well they do it. I've also been sleep deprived, hungry, cold and interrogated during training. I've probably suffered as much "torture" as most Guantanamo detainees, and quite a few are subject to much harder and intense training while in the military.

[airshifter]

It might be a small representation but it is highly polarized, and it can not be dismissed by claiming that the rest are all different.

If you base the opinion of a country on such a small sampling, you may as well draw an opinion from a hat. Just based on things posted in this forum alone, I could conclude that half of Europe has serious issues with just about every government, they all drink heavy, etc, etc. I'd rather deal with facts myself.





Maybe, and I guess we will never have proof for that, the info came from Guantanamo.
Still the question remains why are there people who have not yet been trialed and sentenced (guilty or not) after 10+ years in there?

Actually there are direct links to the intel that nailed Bin Laden coming from detainees at Gitmo. A couple had even been represented by a lawyer claiming they had been abused and held without reason as they had no information pertaining to terrorists activities. Well, except for where Bin Laden might be apparently. One of the primary leads in the courier incident was someone exposed in the Wikileaks stuff... I guess they just forgot that after lengthy and legal interrogations he led people to where Bin Laden was. Minor details of course.

I can't speak for those held long term that claim to be innocent, but IIRC it was a Supreme Court decision that allows all or any of them to appeal their detention. All they have to do is justify their lack of involvement pertaining to their detention. As the fact majority of those held never wore uniforms or represented any elected government, they don't have much in the way of international laws that protects any actions they were involved in.

[henners88]

I somewhat agree on the US getting more credit or blame, but that being the case, why is it the rest of the world is so quick to point fingers, creating a lot of the blame? If people actually believed it they would either accept that they were part of the problem, or at a minimum not place blame.

I've seen firsthand a great number of methods of how various governments collect intelligence. It's really no big secret, it's just a matter of how well they do it. I've also been sleep deprived, hungry, cold and interrogated during training. I've probably suffered as much "torture" as most Guantanamo detainees, and quite a few are subject to much harder and intense training while in the military.
You seem to know more than I will ever know or am interested in knowing. I think I'll leave it there :)

[ioan]

I've seen firsthand a great number of methods of how various governments collect intelligence. It's really no big secret, it's just a matter of how well they do it. I've also been sleep deprived, hungry, cold and interrogated during training. I've probably suffered as much "torture" as most Guantanamo detainees, and quite a few are subject to much harder and intense training while in the military.

I doubt that. It is not in the interest of the army to break the will of their soldiers by using water boarding and other similar techniques on them, no way. What you need is people with a strong will and psychologically highly stable. Torture as employed by the CIA is not a means to that, au contraire.

[ioan]

If you base the opinion of a country on such a small sampling, you may as well draw an opinion from a hat. Just based on things posted in this forum alone, I could conclude that half of Europe has serious issues with just about every government, they all drink heavy, etc, etc. I'd rather deal with facts myself.

You know that most polls are done on samples of only a couple of thousands of people and are considered representative? Many online communities are larger then that so they can be considered representative for the population they are from.




Actually there are direct links to the intel that nailed Bin Laden coming from detainees at Gitmo.

Strange that this info never made it to this part of the world.



I can't speak for those held long term that claim to be innocent, but IIRC it was a Supreme Court decision that allows all or any of them to appeal their detention. All they have to do is justify their lack of involvement pertaining to their detention. As the fact majority of those held never wore uniforms or represented any elected government, they don't have much in the way of international laws that protects any actions they were involved in.

How can they appeal their detention if they are not allowed in front of a court?

[Starter]

You know that most polls are done on samples of only a couple of thousands of people and are considered representative? Many online communities are larger then that so they can be considered representative for the population they are from.
The number of Americans who are members of this board are fairly small. Those who participate in this type of thread are ten or less. Is that your sampling size?

[donKey jote]

All they have to do is justify their lack of involvement pertaining to their detention.

Ah that's all right then, is that all?

[henners88]

It seems the FBI can now legally require access to personal data like Facebook chats and private emails without the need for a warrant. I assumed this was done without anyone knowing anyway? Thought this was loosely relayed to acquiring information in a free manner.

http://m.cnet.com/news/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-mail-facebook-chats/57583395

[airshifter]

I doubt that. It is not in the interest of the army to break the will of their soldiers by using water boarding and other similar techniques on them, no way. What you need is people with a strong will and psychologically highly stable. Torture as employed by the CIA is not a means to that, au contraire.

It appears you doubt quite a bit of what can proven to be true. US forces of several types go through SERE training, part of which simulates interrogation techniques common for the day. It is part of the training to understand the psychological effects of common interrogation methods, and to do so properly one has to experience them.

There are also specialty schools for various types of people who would conduct such interrogations, and they are often the ones doing so in training. They don't just choose some people and throw them at the task, there is formal training in techniques, what is and isn't allowed by law, etc. While at my last command I was subject to a lie detector test performed by the FBI. For the FBI officers it was training, we were selected by random draw and it was used to display the stress involved in such a test even when you have nothing to hide.



People act as if the US just pulled thousands of people at random and took them to Guantanamo and other various areas. Though no doubt people without direct connections were detained it's safe to say it would be far from intentional and a lesser punishment than they could have applied. Quite a few of these guys were detained based on acts that laws of war would have allowed them to be killed at combatants not protected under international laws. That's the price someone pays for waging their own war not recognized by any government.

[airshifter]

It seems the FBI can now legally require access to personal data like Facebook chats and private emails without the need for a warrant. I assumed this was done without anyone knowing anyway? Thought this was loosely relayed to acquiring information in a free manner.

DOJ: We don't need warrants for e-mail, Facebook chats - CNET Mobile (http://m.cnet.com/news/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-mail-facebook-chats/57583395)


I think quite a bit of this stuff is still grey area, and only major court cases will change the stances agencies take. I don't get as concerned about it as many do, though I do still think it's an erosion of civil liberties. Really in the modern day cyber world there is very little that couldn't be obtained by legal means.

[BDunnell]

Really in the modern day cyber world there is very little that couldn't be obtained by legal means.

Only so long as politicians meekly allow this to be the case, rather than resisting attacks on civil liberties in the name of the 'war on terror'.

[airshifter]

Only so long as politicians meekly allow this to be the case, rather than resisting attacks on civil liberties in the name of the 'war on terror'.

I personally don't see a lot of these issues as very invasive. I view them much like the facial recognition cameras and such. If used only to seek those involved in major crimes I really have little issue with it. If they reached a point where you got a speeding ticket based on facial recognition cameras and investigated to the point that you could not have legally traveled between points A and B that might disturb me, as it would be more a revenue incentive rather than a real serious crime deterrent.

In either case justifications must be made to obtain such things in the majority of cases. I really don't care whether a prosecutor or judge does it myself. As for things such as the PATRIOT act, as long as not abused it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Only higher end criminals have anything to fear, and if they want to listen to a call of mine or go through my tax records in the interest of removing the scum of the earth from freedom, I'm all for it.

[henners88]

I think quite a bit of this stuff is still grey area, and only major court cases will change the stances agencies take. I don't get as concerned about it as many do, though I do still think it's an erosion of civil liberties. Really in the modern day cyber world there is very little that couldn't be obtained by legal means.
I think hacking in to somebody's email account without their permission is very wrong. Not sure if it is illegal as such. It seems a bit like going into some ones house with a copy of their key while they are out and having a snoop around to get a little information before leaving. I think its invasion of privacy but perhaps its perfectly legal. The article suggested it hasn't been up until now though.

[BDunnell]

I personally don't see a lot of these issues as very invasive. I view them much like the facial recognition cameras and such. If used only to seek those involved in major crimes I really have little issue with it. If they reached a point where you got a speeding ticket based on facial recognition cameras and investigated to the point that you could not have legally traveled between points A and B that might disturb me, as it would be more a revenue incentive rather than a real serious crime deterrent.

In either case justifications must be made to obtain such things in the majority of cases. I really don't care whether a prosecutor or judge does it myself. As for things such as the PATRIOT act, as long as not abused it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Only higher end criminals have anything to fear, and if they want to listen to a call of mine or go through my tax records in the interest of removing the scum of the earth from freedom, I'm all for it.

This is exactly how the authorities want you to think, in order that ever more invasive measures can be brought in. You, I assume, believe in 'small government'; what you describe is its very antithesis. It's also an extremely slippery slope.

[henners88]

Freedom of speech in private as long as the government can read what you are writing :p

[donKey jote]

Quite a few of these guys were detained based on acts that laws of war would have allowed them to be killed at combatants not protected under international laws. That's the price someone pays for waging their own war not recognized by any government.

I wonder how many were detained after being denounced by feuding neighbours or people simply keen on the cash rewards. That's the price someone pays for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[ioan]

The number of Americans who are members of this board are fairly small. Those who participate in this type of thread are ten or less. Is that your sampling size?

Go have a look on an international board like FB or Yahoo, you will see the sampling size there.

[ioan]

It seems the FBI can now legally require access to personal data like Facebook chats and private emails without the need for a warrant. I assumed this was done without anyone knowing anyway? Thought this was loosely relayed to acquiring information in a free manner.

DOJ: We don't need warrants for e-mail, Facebook chats - CNET Mobile (http://m.cnet.com/news/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-mail-facebook-chats/57583395)


Just another move to legalize their grip on the plebe's 'freedoms'. Something that wouldn't have been accepted some time ago, but now, under the ever increasing psychological pressure and built up fear citizens are accepting whatever, while thinking that the threat can be fought against with guns.

[ioan]

It appears you doubt quite a bit of what can proven to be true. US forces of several types go through SERE training, part of which simulates interrogation techniques common for the day. It is part of the training to understand the psychological effects of common interrogation methods, and to do so properly one has to experience them.

There are also specialty schools for various types of people who would conduct such interrogations, and they are often the ones doing so in training. They don't just choose some people and throw them at the task, there is formal training in techniques, what is and isn't allowed by law, etc. While at my last command I was subject to a lie detector test performed by the FBI. For the FBI officers it was training, we were selected by random draw and it was used to display the stress involved in such a test even when you have nothing to hide.

Well, if that is true, and I saw no proof either way so I take your word for it, then it means that the US army serious issues if all the soldiers have to go through torture simulations. No wonder that many of them just turn their brains off in places like Afghanistan and then horrible things happen.




People act as if the US just pulled thousands of people at random and took them to Guantanamo and other various areas. Though no doubt people without direct connections were detained it's safe to say it would be far from intentional and a lesser punishment than they could have applied. Quite a few of these guys were detained based on acts that laws of war would have allowed them to be killed at combatants not protected under international laws. That's the price someone pays for waging their own war not recognized by any government.

The issue is that in other places around the world when we believe that someone did something wrong they will be brought in front of a court before being tortured, no matter if they were picked random or not.
The US is hiding behind the so called 'war on terror' to justify actions which are not even allowed in times of war, which are also strictly regulated by international law treaties.
Even war criminals get a trial in court, and this has been the rule for many decades now, so what about Gitmo? Why does the US refuse those people their rights?! There is no way you can find a sane explanation to this situation, not in the 21st century.

[ioan]

Oh yeah, the 'war on terror' the best solution to control 300+ million peoples in a country that once was seen as the ultimate democracy where everyone can live life as free as a bid in the sky.
I guess times have changed dramatically over there.

[ioan]

I personally don't see a lot of these issues as very invasive. I view them much like the facial recognition cameras and such. If used only to seek those involved in major crimes I really have little issue with it. If they reached a point where you got a speeding ticket based on facial recognition cameras and investigated to the point that you could not have legally traveled between points A and B that might disturb me, as it would be more a revenue incentive rather than a real serious crime deterrent.

Just wait and see. Control of the masses is everything, it has always been, just the means are changing.



In either case justifications must be made to obtain such things in the majority of cases. I really don't care whether a prosecutor or judge does it myself. As for things such as the PATRIOT act, as long as not abused it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Only higher end criminals have anything to fear, and if they want to listen to a call of mine or go through my tax records in the interest of removing the scum of the earth from freedom, I'm all for it.

many little legal changes here and there and one day justifications will be a thing of the past, but by that time our kids would have grown up in tightly controlled environment and will not see it as an issue. :(

[ioan]

Freedom of speech in private as long as the government can read what you are writing :p

Isn't life wonderful? We now have all we want, smartphones and internet at our fingertips and everything we do is more or less becoming transparent to those in charge.

[Starter]

Isn't life wonderful? We now have all we want, smartphones and internet at our fingertips and everything we do is more or less becoming transparent to those in charge.
Your choice to use smartphones and the internet. I guess you don't mind the government snooping in your business.

[Starter]

Go have a look on an international board like FB or Yahoo, you will see the sampling size there.
I waste all the time I care to waste on this board. I have no interest in doing so everywhere on the web. I guess if you have nothing else in your life, then that works well for you.

[BDunnell]

Your choice to use smartphones and the internet. I guess you don't mind the government snooping in your business.

The above is a fatuous remark. Use of smartphones and the internet does not in any way mean that an individual sanctions government snooping into their private business. Nor does the use of older forms of communication which could also be subject to similar measures, such as landline telephones and postal services.

If you believe what you say as opposed to trolling, do you, as an internet user, mind the government snooping into your business? If so, as a believer in smaller government, I find this somewhat hypocritical.

[Malbec]

The US is hiding behind the so called 'war on terror' to justify actions which are not even allowed in times of war, which are also strictly regulated by international law treaties.
Even war criminals get a trial in court, and this has been the rule for many decades now, so what about Gitmo? Why does the US refuse those people their rights?! There is no way you can find a sane explanation to this situation, not in the 21st century.

Actually those people at G'mo bay are not covered by international treaties.

If you are a civilian in a war then you have full rights. If you represent an internationally recognised government as a soldier you also have (different) rights. If you represent aid/charity/medical groups in the combat theatre you also get rights.

If you are a civilian and pick up a gun to fight an invader you are no longer covered by any treaty. Essentially that is what those people at G'mo bay are, combatants that do not represent any of the legally recognised parties involved in the war in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Guerillas and other irregular forces are not covered under international law.

[Malbec]

many little legal changes here and there and one day justifications will be a thing of the past, but by that time our kids would have grown up in tightly controlled environment and will not see it as an issue. :(

Exactly, the danger here is that what once seemed outrageous (ie the Patriot act and its like) will soon become the norm until the next wave of increasingly intrusive laws.

At the moment of course we can be sure that our governments are generally benign but I don't see why they should be given more powers that could eventually be misused and turned against us.

[Starter]

At the moment of course we can be sure that our governments are generally benign but I don't see why they should be given more powers that could eventually be misused and turned against us.
A point I have made many times here, in different threads, when people suggest there is no longer any need for those rights. A historical perspective goes beyond yesterday, today and the day after. That's why our Bill of Rights is so precious and should never be squandered.

[BDunnell]

A point I have made many times here, in different threads, when people suggest there is no longer any need for those rights. A historical perspective goes beyond yesterday, today and the day after. That's why our Bill of Rights is so precious and should never be squandered.

There is having an historical perspective and there is being obsessed by it to the point of holding oneself back.

[henners88]

I waste all the time I care to waste on this board. I have no interest in doing so everywhere on the web. I guess if you have nothing else in your life, then that works well for you.
I probably waste a little too much time here if I'm honest. I don't consider chatting to friends and family on other social networking sites to be classed as having nothing else in my life. It's hardly a sad existence to have a social life and then to use social networking as an extension.

[D-Type]

In view of the last 20-25 posts, I think it's time we all re-read "1984" so we realise the dangers of allowing too much state control.

[race aficionado]

In view of the last 20-25 posts, I think it's time we all re-read "1984" so we realise the dangers of allowing too much state control.

I read the book in 1974 - where 1984 was 10 years away and the thought of it actually happening in that date was plausible.
1984 came and went and Big Brother had not set his footprint then but the date will go in my personal disaster dates now that it was the date of my first and soon to fail marriage. :( The good news is that I have been happily married for over 25 years - but that is not the point of this thread. :)

Check this Time magazine cover . . . Big brother has been here for a while now and looks like he is here to stay.

TIME Magazine Cover: Homeland Insecurity - May 13, 2013 - Homeland security - terrorism - Freedom - U.S. - Boston (http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20130513,00.html)

[BDunnell]

In view of the last 20-25 posts, I think it's time we all re-read "1984" so we realise the dangers of allowing too much state control.

As I said, without any sense of melodrama, it is a slippery slope.

[ioan]

Your choice to use smartphones and the internet. I guess you don't mind the government snooping in your business.

:rolleyes:

[ioan]

I waste all the time I care to waste on this board. I have no interest in doing so everywhere on the web. I guess if you have nothing else in your life, then that works well for you.


That doesn't change the sampling size that I was commenting about.

[ioan]

Actually those people at G'mo bay are not covered by international treaties.

If you are a civilian in a war then you have full rights. If you represent an internationally recognised government as a soldier you also have (different) rights. If you represent aid/charity/medical groups in the combat theatre you also get rights.

If you are a civilian and pick up a gun to fight an invader you are no longer covered by any treaty. Essentially that is what those people at G'mo bay are, combatants that do not represent any of the legally recognised parties involved in the war in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Guerillas and other irregular forces are not covered under international law.

Thanks for clarifying that.
It is incredible how human beings can be in a position where they have no rights at all.

[airshifter]

Actually those people at G'mo bay are not covered by international treaties.

If you are a civilian in a war then you have full rights. If you represent an internationally recognised government as a soldier you also have (different) rights. If you represent aid/charity/medical groups in the combat theatre you also get rights.

If you are a civilian and pick up a gun to fight an invader you are no longer covered by any treaty. Essentially that is what those people at G'mo bay are, combatants that do not represent any of the legally recognised parties involved in the war in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Guerillas and other irregular forces are not covered under international law.

It's refreshing that someone actually informs themselves to facts, rather than accuse the US of being the big meanies based on something they saw on the internet or something of that nature. I can't count how many times I've asked people the specifics of what they think Bush (or whoever their blind hate is turned towards) should be charged with, and what international conventions support such charges.

It seems the trend will continue though. Based on a lack of information concerning "torture" I offered enough information that anyone wishing to do so could inform themselves to the training some US forces go through that includes such "torture". Rather than use Google as their friend, most will simply ignore it and find another reason to shield their general hate.




Exactly, the danger here is that what once seemed outrageous (ie the Patriot act and its like) will soon become the norm until the next wave of increasingly intrusive laws.

At the moment of course we can be sure that our governments are generally benign but I don't see why they should be given more powers that could eventually be misused and turned against us.

I view this in a different light than most even here in the US. To me it's based on an assumption that the government will abuse authority. Abuse of authority takes place all over the world, but here in the US recent history shows that such abuse takes place regardless of legality of obtaining the information.

In my case the government already knows a great deal about me that I have voluntarily submitted in relation to background requirements for jobs I have held. Why still seems to scare people with nothing to hide really amazes me.

Several years back we had a DIS agent stop at the home doing a security review for a neighbor transferring jobs within the military. After the usual exchange of questions and answers he asked if I knew of any other neighbors that held a high level security clearance and would be familiar with the person in question. The agent knew well who I was before knocking on the door, and it didn't bother me in the slightest that he did.

[BDunnell]

In my case the government already knows a great deal about me that I have voluntarily submitted in relation to background requirements for jobs I have held. Why still seems to scare people with nothing to hide really amazes me.

The 'you've no need to be worried if you've got nothing to hide' argument is always fallacious no matter which situation it's applied to. Ever heard of miscarriages of justice?

[donKey jote]

Ever heard of miscarriages of justice?

I guess one of the advantages of the death penalty is that you don't get to hear of as many of them :andrea: :dozey:

[BDunnell]

I guess one of the advantages of the death penalty is that you don't get to hear of as many of them :andrea: :dozey:

Well, there is that. Still, 'no smoke without fire', eh? That's what the aforementioned view amounts to. Its intellectual and moral bankruptcy is staggering.

[airshifter]

The 'you've no need to be worried if you've got nothing to hide' argument is always fallacious no matter which situation it's applied to. Ever heard of miscarriages of justice?

Have I ever heard of miscarriages of justice? Do you mean other than the abuses of authority I mentioned in the thread you are replying to? You really should read threads before moving on to attack someone for an opinion you differ with them on. If in fact the statement I made was fallacious, then it would be true that all governments always abuse authority as it refers to privacy. Just how easy is it to disprove that as fact?

POLL REQESTED: Mods or whoever can do so... please start a poll asking how many on the forum have been victim to government abuse of personal information through miscarriages of justice in any form. :)



Well, there is that. Still, 'no smoke without fire', eh? That's what the aforementioned view amounts to. Its intellectual and moral bankruptcy is staggering.

This is great for a laugh. You state something easily proven to not be true, yet challenge the intellectual abilities of another. You then peer down from your pedestal to further state that I'm morally bankrupt for NOT being paranoid about a government who has never abused in any way the in depth information they have on me. :laugh:

What makes it even more funny is the fact that in the reference I gave, the background checks in question are for the most part based on moral and ethical values and the trustworthiness of the people being checked into. Apparently I did well enough that I had access to highly classified information from your country, to include nuclear weapons codes. I recall some pesky wall/border area back in those days. And here I thought only people on one side of that wall were subject to paranoia of other beliefs, fear of government, and being quick to judge all others not exactly like them.


Please feel free to continue your shallow attacks on a person you know little if anything about. Rather than reply in kind, I fill find great amusement in it.

[BDunnell]

Have I ever heard of miscarriages of justice? Do you mean other than the abuses of authority I mentioned in the thread you are replying to? You really should read threads before moving on to attack someone for an opinion you differ with them on. If in fact the statement I made was fallacious, then it would be true that all governments always abuse authority as it refers to privacy. Just how easy is it to disprove that as fact?

POLL REQESTED: Mods or whoever can do so... please start a poll asking how many on the forum have been victim to government abuse of personal information through miscarriages of justice in any form. :)




This is great for a laugh. You state something easily proven to not be true, yet challenge the intellectual abilities of another. You then peer down from your pedestal to further state that I'm morally bankrupt for NOT being paranoid about a government who has never abused in any way the in depth information they have on me. :laugh:

What makes it even more funny is the fact that in the reference I gave, the background checks in question are for the most part based on moral and ethical values and the trustworthiness of the people being checked into. Apparently I did well enough that I had access to highly classified information from your country, to include nuclear weapons codes. I recall some pesky wall/border area back in those days. And here I thought only people on one side of that wall were subject to paranoia of other beliefs, fear of government, and being quick to judge all others not exactly like them.


Please feel free to continue your shallow attacks on a person you know little if anything about. Rather than reply in kind, I fill find great amusement in it.

I must confess that I find the above somewhat confusing. What, exactly, are you saying? That a poll on here would somehow prove some point about governments not abusing personal information? That the fact that the in-depth information your government has on you has not been abused means that such abuse never happens? The gist of your argument was that one should have nothing to fear if one has nothing to hide, no? I don't think I've unduly misunderstood that. If that's an accurate summation, I stand entirely by my comments.

Incidentally, Germany is not 'my country'; rather, it's the one whose flag happens to be displayed below my name. I am British, though I have lived in Germany.

[donKey jote]

Incidentally, Germany is not 'my country'; rather, it's the one whose flag happens to be displayed below my name. I am British, though I have lived in Germany.

Ah that explains everything...

I thought he meant Hadrian's wall :andrea: :p

[Malbec]

This is great for a laugh. You state something easily proven to not be true, yet challenge the intellectual abilities of another. You then peer down from your pedestal to further state that I'm morally bankrupt for NOT being paranoid about a government who has never abused in any way the in depth information they have on me. :laugh:

What makes it even more funny is the fact that in the reference I gave, the background checks in question are for the most part based on moral and ethical values and the trustworthiness of the people being checked into. Apparently I did well enough that I had access to highly classified information from your country, to include nuclear weapons codes. I recall some pesky wall/border area back in those days. And here I thought only people on one side of that wall were subject to paranoia of other beliefs, fear of government, and being quick to judge all others not exactly like them.

I haven't read through the entire thread but you seem to have confused two issues here, please correct me if I'm wrong.

The bulk of the thread has been about government invasion of its own citizens' privacy. What you are describing there is clearly the relationship between an employer and an employee applying for a job that requires a security clearance. That the government happens to be the employer in question does not make your point relevant to the discussion. You gave consent to the invasion of privacy by applying for that particular job knowing it required a security clearance. We're talking about the violation of citizens who have made no such choice.

[BDunnell]

I haven't read through the entire thread but you seem to have confused two issues here, please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're not the only one confused by the comments to which you refer.