These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Doubleplusgood |
|
|
Mulch Ennui
15 Minutes are Over
Join date: 22 May 2005
Posts: 2,607
|
11-15-2005 22:30
I'll take it then that you didn't bother to listen to them, or at least certainly not in their entirety. If you are not going to listen to source material for some of my arguements, I can be somewhat certain you are largely ignoring and utterly dismissing my overall arguements. To that end, since you are not open to constructive discussion, I guess we're done here. he has no interest in facts notice the startling lack of cited sources in his posts hence, your conclusion is accurate _____________________
I have of late--but wherefore I know not--lost all my mirth, that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.
http://forums.secondcitizen.com/ |
|
Roland Hauptmann
Registered User
Join date: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 323
|
11-16-2005 07:35
he has no interest in facts notice the startling lack of cited sources in his posts hence, your conclusion is accurate I understand that among people who have largely gathered their education through the internet, that the mighty hyper-link is the opitomy of proven knowledge, but in more professional and academic settings, we understand that many things can be (and should be) argued based on logical merit. You see, when dealing with things like the logical implications of negotiating with terrorists, you don't really need some guy on the internet to tell you such things, Mulch. You can actually apply your own brain, and draw logical conclusions. A link can provide you with trivia, and data points... but they can't provide you with anything of substance, that your own mind can't come up with. Simply finding an opinion piece written by someone doesn't really serve any purpose, because you can always find the oposite opinion being voiced by someone ELSE. This is why philosophy papers aren't just a bunch of references. They don't consist of solely "Well, this guy said this!" I realize that it may be hard for you Mulch, but you need to actually try thinking about this stuff on your own. When you can't come up with logical backing for your ideas, it indicates that your ideas are probably screwed up. Having some other guy on the web write something that agrees with you doesn't take the place of logic, as much as some people would like it to. Now, for you Siro, I'm listening to your audio clips... I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to get out of it. I actually have heard part of this before... I beleive I heard it on NPR some time last year? Is the purpose of the audio to indicate that things aren't nice in Afghanistan? |
|
Siro Mfume
XD
Join date: 5 Aug 2004
Posts: 747
|
11-16-2005 08:09
Now, for you Siro, I'm listening to your audio clips... I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to get out of it. I actually have heard part of this before... I beleive I heard it on NPR some time last year? Is the purpose of the audio to indicate that things aren't nice in Afghanistan? Part 1 is old, part 2 is more recent. What you are supposed to get out of it is substance and relevance to the discussion that you do not have when removed from the locality. And even if it doesn't give you that, it is relevant speech from the son of a governer in Afghanistan. I think his words have a place in this discussion. |
|
Dark Korvin
Player in the RL game
Join date: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 769
|
11-16-2005 08:31
I understand that among people who have largely gathered their education through the internet, that the mighty hyper-link is the opitomy of proven knowledge, but in more professional and academic settings, we understand that many things can be (and should be) argued based on logical merit. You see, when dealing with things like the logical implications of negotiating with terrorists, you don't really need some guy on the internet to tell you such things, Mulch. You can actually apply your own brain, and draw logical conclusions. A link can provide you with trivia, and data points... but they can't provide you with anything of substance, that your own mind can't come up with. Simply finding an opinion piece written by someone doesn't really serve any purpose, because you can always find the oposite opinion being voiced by someone ELSE. This is why philosophy papers aren't just a bunch of references. They don't consist of solely "Well, this guy said this!" I realize that it may be hard for you Mulch, but you need to actually try thinking about this stuff on your own. When you can't come up with logical backing for your ideas, it indicates that your ideas are probably screwed up. Having some other guy on the web write something that agrees with you doesn't take the place of logic, as much as some people would like it to. Now, for you Siro, I'm listening to your audio clips... I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to get out of it. I actually have heard part of this before... I beleive I heard it on NPR some time last year? Is the purpose of the audio to indicate that things aren't nice in Afghanistan? Look, we all know that that the patriot act has given the U.S. more power to do search and seizure than ever before. We all know that torture has been conducted on prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq. We all know prisoners were held well over 30 days without even military trials in both places. If you aren't willing to look through sources people provide, I believe these are at least points everyone agrees on no matter what manner they educated themselves. These three things, in my mind, are making America look bad, I guess in your mind they don't. Extremist terrorist are beheading innocent people, they are portraying America as evil, they want innocent people in the U.S. dead, and they don't care if they die as well in the process. I consider these to be bad things that threaten my safety, however I don't want the bad things these people do to encourage my country to do bad things as well. I would prefer my country responded to these things in a manner the whole world could agree without dispute was a just response. Now the question is whether America should do bad things to stop the bad things done by terrorist. Our war is not against a country, it is not against Muslims, and it is not against the middle east. Our war is against terrorist. Actual terrorist need to be stopped, arrested, and dealt with. Terrorist are spread all over the world, and some of them are U.S. citizens that have never been out of the U.S.. You don't fix the problem by occupying countries, conducting search and seizure without a strict code of process, and detaining and torturing people without trail or declared charges. You fix the problem by setting a strict code of conduct for yourself, arresting suspects, giving them a fair impartial trial, and then punish them if found guilty through an impartial and fair process. In the meantime you realize that there are reasons these people hate you, and you work to find some compromised position that will take away the excuses these people have for hating you. People all over the middle east are dead because of both direct and indirect actions done by the U.S. People are going to be angry at us for this reason alone, whether the killing of people is considered just or not. Our goal should be doing things that diffuse the hate, not doing things that make more people hate us. |
|
Roland Hauptmann
Registered User
Join date: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 323
|
11-16-2005 08:54
Look, we all know that that the patriot act has given the U.S. more power to do search and seizure than ever before. We all know that torture has been conducted on prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq. We all know prisoners were held well over 30 days without even military trials in both places. If you aren't willing to look through sources people provide, I believe these are at least points everyone agrees on no matter what manner they educated themselves. These three things, in my mind, are making America look bad, I guess in your mind they don't. In Iraq, the torture that took place at Abu Gharib was not sanctioned, and those responsible were punished. As far as torture going on in Guantanamo... I'm not aware of any actual proof of torture being carried out there. For the most part, it seems like the complaints consist of, "They won't let us into the camp, so they must be torturing people!" or "I know this guy who knows a guy, who said that they were torturing some guy he knew!" Extremist terrorist are beheading innocent people, they are portraying America as evil, they want innocent people in the U.S. dead, and they don't care if they die as well in the process. I consider these to be bad things that threaten my safety, however I don't want the bad things these people do to encourage my country to do bad things as well. I would prefer my country responded to these things in a manner the whole world could agree without dispute was a just response. This is fine. But do you actually HAVE any such response planned out? This was my original point in this thread... We all agree that it'd be nice to just be able to ask terrorists what their plans are, and have them tell us, so we can stop them. But it doesn't work like that. So, if we decide to tie our own hands, and suggest that we're willing to play by certain rules (even though out opponents do not), then we must know that we can achieve the same ends while playing within those rules. And, again, it's worth noting that your country has ALREADY done such bad things... And your country hasn't become some kind of evil souless monster. In the meantime you realize that there are reasons these people hate you, and you work to find some compromised position that will take away the excuses these people have for hating you. People all over the middle east are dead because of both direct and indirect actions done by the U.S. People are going to be angry at us for this reason alone, whether the killing of people is considered just or not. Our goal should be doing things that diffuse the hate, not doing things that make more people hate us. First of all.. do you honestly think that Al Zarquai needs any legitimate reason to hate you? You realize that some people hate for the sake of hate, right? It's a strong emotion, and is used as a tool... In the absence of legitimate reasons for hating you, they'll just make up new reasons. Secondly, in terms of people being killed as a result of US actions.... What about the people who have been killed as a direct result of insurgent and terrorist actions in Iraq? Shouldn't the Iraqi people hate THOSE guys more? I really have to laugh when people suggest that it's actually our fault that those guys are intentionally bombing civilian targets in Iraq. |
|
Roland Hauptmann
Registered User
Join date: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 323
|
11-16-2005 08:56
Part 1 is old, part 2 is more recent. What you are supposed to get out of it is substance and relevance to the discussion that you do not have when removed from the locality. And even if it doesn't give you that, it is relevant speech from the son of a governer in Afghanistan. I think his words have a place in this discussion. Certainly, it provides interesting context... But it doesn't really support the argument that the US should pull out of the region. I mean, hell... a huge chunk of it involves talking about the suffering there before the US was even there. |
|
Michal Milosz
Amateur Piercer
Join date: 22 Oct 2005
Posts: 73
|
11-16-2005 11:11
I'm having a hard time figuring out the following from this post: 1) Who's "they" that you're referring to? 2) Who's defined as "Western People" in your fantastically simple worldview? 3) What happened in France? 4) Who's powerbase, and what is it specifically? 5) Did "We" not attack anybody, are you claiming that? 6) What's your point? 1. "They" - Terrorists, islamic extremists and other fanatics. 2. "Western people" - Europeans, Americans and other people living in "democratic countries". 3. Watch the freakin' news, bud. Immigrants from Africa and Middle East, mostly Muslims, are rioting, tearing cities apart. Why? Because two young criminals were killed by electric shock while hiding from the police in a transformer station. 4. Take a look at Iran or other countries that adopted Koranic law. Ideas of our "free democratic world" are loathed there and set as example of "corruption" of the Western world. Take Afghanistan under the Taliban regime for example: they were sticking to the Koran so much they decided ancient statues of Buddha in Bamiyan were a "blasphemy" and blew them to bits. Not mentioning a whole bunch of other regulations, about music, beards, schools, women and generally all aspects of life. And such countries as Iran or Saudi Arabia aren't much better. They support fanaticism, ideas of "holy war" and reign of islam over the whole world. To them, you're a Muslim and one of them, or an infidel and you should be killed. In the immortal words of Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin: "Who's not with us, is against us". Getting the picture now? 5. We attacked countries we considered a threat to democracy and training grounds of terrorists who started the war by attacking World Trade Center. As I have no decisive power nor fortune-telling abilities, I can't tell if it would be better to take on the nuclear-crazy North Korea and its lunatic communist tyrant Kim Jong Il. And if it would cause an equal uproar. _____________________
Michal Milosz
The New Guy. *whip crack* |
|
Taco Rubio
also quite creepy
Join date: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 3,349
|
11-16-2005 11:18
well, I guess I'm going to just be happy that we agree there was no point.
|
|
Roland Hauptmann
Registered User
Join date: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 323
|
11-16-2005 11:23
well, I guess I'm going to just be happy that we agree there was no point. LOL... I totally saw that one coming. |
|
Taco Rubio
also quite creepy
Join date: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 3,349
|
11-16-2005 11:26
LOL... I totally saw that one coming. path of least resistance. |
|
Mulch Ennui
15 Minutes are Over
Join date: 22 May 2005
Posts: 2,607
|
"His agony was gorgeous. I need to be slapped."
11-17-2005 01:43
I understand that among people who have largely gathered their education through the internet, that the mighty hyper-link is the opitomy of proven knowledge, but in more professional and academic settings, we understand that many things can be (and should be) argued based on logical merit. You see, when dealing with things like the logical implications of negotiating with terrorists, you don't really need some guy on the internet to tell you such things, Mulch. You can actually apply your own brain, and draw logical conclusions. "Your setup has become tiresome." Ok, so your idea of logic is that a few fanatics can take over the world and convert me and the US to radical Islam or kill us all? right... BTW, Dr. Evil Was a fictional character.  This arguement is as useful as repeatedly slamming the door on my own fingers. The brown spot of fear in your skivvies is all the justification you seem to need to fully endorse torture, mass killing of civilians, and invasions of countries made up of brown people. Such is the cost of clean underwear, eh Roland? "Now is the time on Sprockets when we dance." When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful, a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical. And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily, joyfully, playfully watching me. But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible, logical, responsible, practical. And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable, clinical, intellectual, cynical. There are times when all the world's asleep, the questions run too deep for such a simple man. Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned I know it sounds absurd but please tell me who I am. Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal. Won't you sign up your name, we'd like to feel you're acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable! At night, when all the world's asleep, the questions run so deep for such a simple man. Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned I know it sounds absurd but please tell me who I am. "Would you like to touch my monkey? Touch him! Love him!"  Oh Yeah, since you brought it up, Roland (and you oh so hate hyper links), here it is: Law Professors who have signed the Statement Condemning Iraq War Plans 315 Law Teachers From 87 Law Schools Updated Oct. 22, 2002 Mark N. Aaronson University of California, Hastings Richard L. Abel UCLA Sally M. Abel University of California, Berkeley David Abraham University of Miami Patricia N. Acton University of Iowa Jane H. Aiken Washington University Dapo Akande University of Miami Lee Albert State University of New York at Buffalo Barbara Bader Aldave University of Oregon Ted Alevizos Suffolk University Layman E. Allen University of Michigan Anthony G. Amsterdam New York University William D. Araiza Loyola Law School Barbara Babcock Stanford University C. Edwin Baker University of Pennsylvania Susan Smith Bakhshian Loyola Law School Milner S. Ball University of Georgia Beverly Balos University of Minnesota Robert Batey Stetson University Linda M. Beale University of Illinois Theresa Beiner University of Arkansas at Little Rock Derrick Bell New York University George Bell University of Illinois Leslie Bender Syracuse University Steven Bender University of Oregon G. Andrew H. Benjamin University of Washington Susan D. Bennett American University Sarah Bensinger Loyola Law School Robert Benson Loyola Law School Arthur L. Berney Boston College of Law George E. Bisharat University of California, Hastings Susan Bitensky Michigan State University-Detroit Brenda Bratton Blom University of Maryland Michael C. Blumm Lewis and Clark Charles S. Bobis St. John's University Cynthia Grant Bowman Northwestern University Barry Boyer State University of New York at Buffalo Francis A. Boyle University of Illinois Melinda Branscomb Seattle University Mark S. Brodin Boston College of Law Teresa Kissane Brostoff University of Pittsburgh Elizabeth Bruch American University Susan Bryant City University of New York Tom Buchele University of Pittsburgh Thomas Buckley Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Sande Buhai Loyola Law School Sherri Burr University of New Mexico Camilo Bustillo City University of New York Donna M. Byrne William Mitchell College of Law Emily Calhoun University of Colorado Janet M. Calvo City University of New York Sylvia E. Cancio InterAmerican University of Puerto Rico Susan Carle American University Kathleen Carrick Case Western Reserve University David Chambers University of Michigan Robert Chang Loyola Law School Kenneth Chestek University of Michigan Carol Chomsky University of Minnesota Law School Margaret Chon Seattle University Craig W. Christensen Southwestern University Karin Ciano New York University Brietta Clark Loyola Law School Marjorie Cohn Thomas Jefferson School of Law Robin Morris Collin University of Oregon Frank Rudy Cooper Villanova University Rhonda Copelon City University of New York Jan C. Costello Loyola Law School Russell Covey Whittier Law School Colin Crawford Thomas Jefferson School of Law Phyllis L. Crocker Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Cathy Crosson Indiana University David B. Cruz University of Southern California Mary B. Culbert Loyola Law School John G. Culhane Widener University Julie Davies University of the Pacific Dena S. Davis Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Michael H. Davis Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Frank E. Deale City University of New York Richard Delgado University of Colorado Dan Derby Touro Law Center Cristine Desan Harvard Law School Jeffrey D. Dillman Case Western Reserve University Anthony M. Dillof Wayne State University Sharon Dolovich UCLA Dolores A. Donovan University of San Francisco Jay Dougherty Loyola Law School Myrl L. Duncan Washburn University Melvyn R. Durchslag Case Western Reserve University Pamela Edwards City University of New York Kathleen C. Engel Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Russell Engler New England School of Law Peter Erlinder William Mitchell College of Law Brian K. Fair University of Alabama Marvin Fein University of Pittsburgh Mary Louise Fellows University of Minnesota Law School Barbara Glesner Fines University of Missouri - Kansas City George Fisher Stanford University Stanley Z. Fisher Boston University Catherine Fisk Duke University James L. Flannery University of Pittsburgh Alyson Flournoy University of Florida Brian J. Foley Widener University Judy Fonda Loyola Law School Caroline Forell University of Oregon Gary Forrester University of Illinois Lynn Foster University of Arkansas at Little Rock Sally Frank Drake University Ann Freedman Rutgers University Eric M. Freedman Hofstra University Jane Friedman Wayne State University Gerald Frug Harvard Law School Craig B. Futterman University of Chicago Mary Ellen Gale Whittier Law School Susan N. Gary University of Oregon David H. Getches University of Colorado Tom Ginsberg University of Illinois Kristin Booth Glen City University of New York Pamela Goldberg City University of New York Phyllis Goldfarb Boston College of Law Toby Golick Cardozo Law School Laura E. Gomez UCLA Carmen G. Gonzalez Seattle University Victor Goode City University of New York Stephen Gottlieb Albany Law School Ken Gould University of Arkansas at Little Rock Jennifer Granick Stanford Law School Ariela J. Gross University of Southern California Isabelle R. Gunning Southwestern University Elwood Hain Whittier Law School Peter Halewood Albany Law School Ardath A. Hamann John Marshall Law School Sid Harring City University of New York Cheryl I. Harris UCLA Philip Harvey Rutgers University James C. Hathaway University of Michigan Laurence R. Helfer Loyola Law School Tanya Hernandez Rutgers University Kathy Hessler Case Western Reserve University S. Candice Hoke Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Wythe Holt Jr. University of Alabama Allan Ides Loyola Law School Becky L. Jacobs University of Tennessee M.H. Sam Jacobson Willamette University Paula C. Johnson Syracuse University Faye Jones University of the Pacific David Kairys Temple University Joseph J. Kalo University of North Carolina Ratna Kapur City University of New York Eileen Kaufman Touro Law School Anders Kaye Thomas Jefferson School of Law J. Patrick Kelly Widener University Kevin B. Kelly Seton Hall University Michael J. Kelly Creighton University Walter J. Kendall lll John Marshall Law School Duncan Kennedy Harvard Law School Jeff Kirchmeier City University of New York Alan Kirtley University of Washington Mary Kay Kisthardt University of Missouri - Kansas City Catherine Klein Catholic University of America Juliet P. Kostritsky Case Western Reserve University Stefan H. Krieger Hofstra University Paul M. Kurtz University of Georgia James A. Kushner Southwestern University Karen A. Lash University of Southern California Sylvia Law New York University Larry Lawrence Loyola Law School Robert P. Lawry Case Western Reserve University Thomas J. Leach University of the Pacific Wilbur C. Leatherman Case Western Reserve University David Leonard Loyola Law School Lisa Lerman Catholic University Leon Letwin UCLA School of Law Degna P. Levister City University of New York Nancy Levit University of Missouri-Kansas City Judy P. Lipton Case Western Reserve University Joseph W. Little University of Florida Jules Lobel University of Pittsburgh Stephen Loffredo City University of New York William V. Luneburg University of Pittsburgh Shirley Lung City University of New York Michael Madow Brooklyn Law School Holly Maguigan New York University Karl Manheim Loyola Law School Stephen Marks Boston University Shauna I Marshall UC Hastings College of the Law Susan Jane Martin Southwestern University Christopher N. May Loyola Law School Claire C. Robinson May Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Andrea McArdle City University of New York Martha McCluskey State University of New York at Buffalo Bridget McCormack University of Michigan Louise McKinney Case Western Reserve University Barry T. McNamara Northwestern University Robert F. Meagher Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy Garth Meintjes Notre Dame Law School Kathryn L. Mercer Case Western Reserve University Carlin Meyer New York Law School Lee Meyrowitz Michigan State University Binny Miller American University David W. Miller University of the Pacific Alicia Mitchell University of Arkansas at Little Rock John Mitchell Seattle University Marla L. Mitchell-Cichon Thomas M. Cooley Law School Margaret E. Montoya University of New Mexico Martha Morgan University of Alabama Daniel G. Moriarty Albany Law School Mary-Beth Moylan University of the Pacific Frank Munger State University of New York at Buffalo Karen Musalo University of California, Hastings Athena Mutua State University of New York at Buffalo Spencer Neth Case Western Reserve University Alizabeth Newman City University of New York Reta Noblett-Feld University of Iowa John Nockleby Loyola Law School Kenneth B. Nunn University of Florida Michael O'Connor University of St. Thomas Kim O'Leary Thomas M. Cooley Law School Sandra S. O'Loughlin State University of New York at Buffalo Paul O'Neil City University of New York and Pace University Nancy K. Ota Albany Law School Daniel G. Partan Boston University School of Law Calvin D. Peeler Whittier Law School Ascanio Piomelli University of California, Hastings Peter Pitegoff State University of New York at Buffalo Zygmunt Plater Boston College James G. Pope Rutgers University Robert Popper University of Missouri-Kansas City John Pray University of Wisconsin Robert Pugsley Southwestern University Bill Quigley Loyola University Margaret Jane Radin Stanford Law School John Ragsdale University of Missouri - Kansas City Mary Kreiner Ramirez Washburn University Gerard Rault Loyola University Martha Rayner Fordham University Bridget Regan Brooklyn Law School Laura Reilly State Univeristy of New York at Buffalo Tim Reilly Stetson University College of Law James R. Repetti Boston College Judith Resnik Yale Law School Patricia Youngblood Reyhan Albany Law School Sheila Reynolds Washburn Law School William J. Rich Washburn University Kathleen Ridolfi Santa Clara University Annelise Riles Cornell Law School Nick Rine University of Michigan Jenny Rivera City University of New York Naomi Roht-Arriaza University of California, Hastings College of Law Florence Wagman Roisman Indiana University Stephen Rosenbaum University of California at Berkeley Joseph Rosenberg City University of New York Constance Ross University of Memphis Rick Rossein City University of New York Irma Russell University of Missouri - Kansas City George Schatzki Arizona State University Elizabeth M Schneider Brooklyn Law School Hilary Schor University of Southern California Bob Seibel City University of New York Ann Seidman Boston University Robert Seidman Boston University Michael P. Seng John Marshall Law School Theodore Seto Loyola Law School Thomas Shaffer University of Notre Dame Ann C. Shalleck American University Peter Shane Carnegie Mellon University Margaret Shannon State University of New York at Buffalo Carole Shapiro Touro Law School Julie Shapiro Seattle University Steven F. Shatz University of San Francisco Katherine C. Sheehan Southwestern University Marjorie M. Shultz University of California at Berkeley Belinda Sifford Vermont Law School Marjorie A. Silver Touro Law Center William H. Simon Stanford Law School Joseph Singer Harvard Law School Norman J. Singer University of Alabama Judy Beckner Sloan Southwestern University Aviam Soifer Boston College of Law Clyde Spillenger UCLA Joan Steinman Chicago-Kent College of Law Margaret G. Stewart Chicago-Kent College of Law Robert Strassfeld Case Western Reserve University Brian Tamanaha St. John's University Kellye Testy Seattle University Joseph R. Thome University of Wisconsin Peter M. Tiersma Loyola Law School Suzanne E. Tomkins State University of New York at Buffalo Paul Treusch Southwestern University Georgene Vairo Loyola Law School Dominick Vetri University of Oregon Robert Vischer St. John's University Leti Volpp American University Gregory Weber University of the Pacific Philip Weinberg St John's University Deborah M. Weissman University of North Carolina Catherine Wells Boston College Stephen J. Werber Cleveland-Marshall School of Law Robin West Georgetown University James Boyd White University of Michigan William C. Whitford University of Wisconsin Virgil Wiebe University of St. Thomas Stephanie Wildman Santa Clara University Philip H. Wile University of the Pacific Gary Williams Loyola Law School Darryl C. Wilson Stetson University Bruce J. Winick University of Miami Mark Wojcik John Marshall Law School Jeanne Woods Loyola University Ellen Yaroshefsky Cardozo Law School Donna Young Albany Law School Deborah Zalesne City University of New York Maryann Zavez Vermont Law School Steven Zeidman City University of New York Cliff Zimmerman Northwestern University Diane Zimmerman City University of New York all signed: A US War Against Iraq Will Violate US and International Law and Set a Dangerous Precedent For Violence That Will Endanger the American People President Bush maintains that Iraq's "decade of defiance" of United Nations resolutions justifies a war against Iraq. But the President ignores the fact that a US war, unleashed without the approval of the UN Security Council, against a country that has not attacked the United States, would itself be an unlawful act, in defiance of America's treaty obligations, and a violation of US and international law. Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the "supreme Law of the Land." The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that -- except in response to an armed attack -- nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations. The dangerous path America is treading will only lead to more suffering by Americans, as well as by others. The international rule of law is not a soft luxury to be discarded whenever leaders find it convenient or popular to resort to savage violence. The international rule of law is a bulwark against the horrors of warfare that we Americans have so recently felt first-hand. * Every nation that has ever committed aggression against another claimed to be "defending" itself. The United States helped establish the United Nations precisely in order to impose the rule of law on such claims, to make it unlawful for nations to strike against others unless they were themselves under armed attack. The United States is not under armed attack by Iraq. * Lawless international violence only breeds more killing of innocent people. The massive civilian deaths, the scarred and maimed children, the ruined and starving peoples, whose suffering is inseparable from warfare, can only spawn new generations of embittered peoples, new hate-filled leaders, new enraged individuals, determined to answer violence with violence. * American people are not made safer by the unilateral use of force, in violation of the "supreme Law of the Land" and the United Nations Charter. We are further endangered. Lawless violence generates recruits for terrorism. We, teachers of law at American law schools, protest the Bush administration's illegal plan to conduct a war against Iraq. We call upon our government to step back from the brink of war and allow the United Nations to resolve the crisis peacefully, patiently, and lawfully. How is that for logical professional and academic settings, Roland? "That has disturbed me to the point of insanity. There. I am insane now." _____________________
I have of late--but wherefore I know not--lost all my mirth, that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.
http://forums.secondcitizen.com/ |
|
Roland Hauptmann
Registered User
Join date: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 323
|
11-17-2005 06:57
I'm suprised that you managed to miss the point so completely, chief.
Oh WOW! A few hundred LAWYERS signed something! That must mean it's TRUE! We have no actual argument on their behalf.. no discourse... But we got a piece of paper that some people (who you don't actually KNOW)signed! That's totally freaking awesome, kid. Ok, quoting poetry and putting up pictures of Dr. Evil totally demonstrates your grasp of the situation too. I really had no idea I was arguing against such a master. |
|
Mulch Ennui
15 Minutes are Over
Join date: 22 May 2005
Posts: 2,607
|
chuckles the clown
11-17-2005 15:47
I'm suprised that you managed to miss the point so completely, chief. How could I miss it, it is right on top of your head, sport? Oh WOW! A few hundred LAWYERS signed something! That must mean it's TRUE! Well, we are talking about laws (and the violation of), so sure, I guess lawyers would have no place in that discussion. Law Professors who teach and study law are Totally off-topic when discussing violation of law in "logical professional and academic settings" (such as off topic in SL forums with Rolland "Who needs facts when I have logical opinions" Hauptmann) We have no actual argument on their behalf.. no discourse... But we got a piece of paper that some people (who you don't actually KNOW)signed! Ok, how many sources of your arguement do you "actually KNOW"? Oh thats right, no facts from Roland, just op ed peices advocating violence and torture to keep Roland warm, fuzzy, and, erm, secure. Way to keep your tighty whiteys clean! That's totally freaking awesome, kid. Rock on, gramps! Ok, quoting poetry and putting up pictures of Dr. Evil totally demonstrates your grasp of the situation too. I really had no idea I was arguing against such a master. Well now you know better, did you like my "poetry"? here is another poetry: Generals gathered in their masses, just like witches at black masses. Evil minds that plot destruction, sorcerers of death's construction. In the fields the bodies burning, as the war machine keeps turning. Death and hatred to mankind, poisoning their brainwashed minds. Oh lord, yeah! Politicians hide themselves away. They only started the war. Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role to the poor, yeah. Time will tell on their power minds, making war just for fun. Treating people just like pawns in chess, wait till their judgement day comes, yeah. Now in darkness world stops turning, ashes where the bodies burning. No more War Pigs have the power, Hand of God has struck the hour. Day of judgement, God is calling, on their knees the war pigs crawling. Begging mercies for their sins, Satan, laughing, spreads his wings. Oh lord, yeah! oh yeah, almost forgot your favorite part:  Please don't let them use the "Alan Parsons Project" to kill me, because if I am dead, it won't matter (right champ?) Don't think sorry's easily said Don't try turning tables instead You've taken lots of Chances before But I'm not gonna give anymore Don't ask me That's how it goes Cause part of me knows what you're thinkin' Don't say words you're gonna regret Don't let the fire rush to your head I've heard the accusation before And I ain't gonna take any more Believe me The sun in your Eyes Made some of the lies worth believing I am the eye in the sky Looking at you I can read your mind I am the maker of rules Dealing with fools I can cheat you blind And I don't need to see any more To know that I can read your mind, I can read your mind Don't leave false illusions behind Don't Cry cause I ain't chnaging my mind So find another fool like before Cause I ain't gonna live anymore believing Some of the lies while all of the Signs are deceiving I am the eye in the sky Looking at you I can read your mind I am the maker of rules Dealing with fools I can cheat you blind And I don't need to see any more To know that I can read your mind, I can read your mind We wouldn't want to forget the mighty hyperlink, would we skipper? Just like Orwell wrote about happening way back in totalitarian state that was the Soviet Union, huh? _____________________
I have of late--but wherefore I know not--lost all my mirth, that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.
http://forums.secondcitizen.com/ |
|
Siro Mfume
XD
Join date: 5 Aug 2004
Posts: 747
|
11-17-2005 23:16
Certainly, it provides interesting context... But it doesn't really support the argument that the US should pull out of the region. I mean, hell... a huge chunk of it involves talking about the suffering there before the US was even there. I'd hate to see this thread bumped to page 2, so here we are again. No, I don't expect a couple hours of audio to support pulling out of the region. I expect critical thinking to support that. Certainly I'm sure you heard in hour 2 how we literally beat a man to death? How many innocent civilians are acceptable to torture to death? Was it okay that we set up our 'detention centers'/torture rooms in the infamous torture/rape centers that were pre-exisiting? Given the context you now enjoy, what kind of message did that send? I personally imagine it would be something like taking over nazi germany, liberating the concentration camps, then sending the jews BACK to the camps to finish the job. Of course, I'm not certain, but I don't think we supplied Hitler with weapons, we certainly gave Saddam weapons. Certainly the message we sent by USING those centers for generally the same purposes they were put to under Saddam, is not the same message America wants to send of "Hey man, we're trying to rebuild your country, stop blowing us up". Now I'm sure you've recently heard yet another senate democrat (there's certainly been others) call for the pullout in iraq. What John Murtha said that really seemed to strike home was that we have achieved our mission objectives. We got Saddam, we got his top guys, and now our troops are just sitting ducks. He further pointed out that our military stores are strained if not empty in places. We don't have defensive capability as those stores can take over a decade to replenish. And known terrorists were indeed caught crossing our borders. Shouldn't we be focusing more at home? Fighting the terrorists 'there' is obviously not preventing them from coming here. And spending all our stuff 'there' is causing us to run out of stuff here. |
|
Dark Korvin
Player in the RL game
Join date: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 769
|
11-18-2005 00:18
This is fine. But do you actually HAVE any such response planned out? Plan: 1. Stop arming anyone in the middle east including Israel. I don't think the solution to order is to continue arming people that turn out to be our enemies in a matter of years. 2. Come up with a processing plan. Have different forms of prisons that seperate those determined to be enemy combatants from those who have not been positively identified as enemy combatants. Those being brought under suspicion should be allowed to know what offense they are charged with. Their family should be informed of the same information when asked. Suspicion should be based off of more than another person in the city thinks this person might be a terrrorist. Time limits should be placed on how long people can be held depending on what type of circumstances led to their arrest. The Patriot Act should be made null and void to protect U.S. citizens from unconstitutional search and seizure. The United States citizens detained should immediately begin recieving non-military trials to determine if they are in fact guilty, and those who have been kept for longer than 3 months without a trial should be released. 3. Pull out all offensive operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and concentrate a defensive force on cities and strategic areas of importance. 4. Stop handing out food, instead invest the money to put the most experienced agricultural experts in charge of enriching previously unfarmable land. Give ownership of the land to the city it is in closest proximity to allowing it to reap the benefits of the profits, and educate the workers on methods of keeping the land arrable. 5. Pull Haliburton out and instead create a program similar to the New Deal to give Iraqi's jobs. A few ideas. |
|
Dark Korvin
Player in the RL game
Join date: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 769
|
11-18-2005 01:03
I'm just saying one last thing, and then I'm done with this thread. There are Americans being blown up all the time in Afghanistan. I've come to the point where I except the fact that there is always going to be some crazy psychotic out there that wants to blow me up. I would much rather have people who are already crazy psychotics who are going to build a bomb and try to blow me up slip through military fingers because we hold ourselves to a code of conduct, than having an uncountable number of people who used to not care one way of the other now being pissed off at the way they and their relatives were treated building bombs and trying to blow me up. I hate to tell you this, but you will never be safe. There is most likely a Nazi terrorist within U.S. borders who is just as crazy as any Islamic extremist plotting the destruction of the U.S. government as we speak. The last thing we need is an entire wave of new terrorist that we have to watch on top of the old ones to the point where an attack truly does become impossible to avoid.
|
|
Roland Hauptmann
Registered User
Join date: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 323
|
11-18-2005 07:24
Ok, I commend you on coming up with a plan. I don't think it's quite "all there" yet, but I respect people who at least try to make a plan, rather than just having knee jerk reactions like, "Run away!"
I realize you said you're done with this thread, so if you don't respond any more, I won't take it as a lack of anything else to say... I myself am kind of bored with this too. Plan: 1. Stop arming anyone in the middle east including Israel. I don't think the solution to order is to continue arming people that turn out to be our enemies in a matter of years. Sounds fine.... of course, we don't really arm anyone in the middle east any more. Israel makes their own arms now. 2. Come up with a processing plan. Have different forms of prisons that seperate those determined to be enemy combatants from those who have not been positively identified as enemy combatants. Those being brought under suspicion should be allowed to know what offense they are charged with. Their family should be informed of the same information when asked. Suspicion should be based off of more than another person in the city thinks this person might be a terrrorist. Time limits should be placed on how long people can be held depending on what type of circumstances led to their arrest. The Patriot Act should be made null and void to protect U.S. citizens from unconstitutional search and seizure. The United States citizens detained should immediately begin recieving non-military trials to determine if they are in fact guilty, and those who have been kept for longer than 3 months without a trial should be released. This sounds ok in theory. I actually think you'd be suprised at the actual process that is being currently implemented at places like Guantanamo. I think lots of people have this impression that people are just sitting in the camp forever.. while in reality, people are being released from the camp on a constant basis. But, for the most part, most of this stuff seems reasonable. The details may become problematic, but on the surface it looks ok. 3. Pull out all offensive operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and concentrate a defensive force on cities and strategic areas of importance. This is not really realistic from a military point of view.. For instance, in Iraq, the best defensive placements are not the cities, but out in the desert. In the open desert of Iraq, our guys are pretty much invincible. Virtually all casualties we take are in the cities, where the fighting gets a lot more hairy. Also, running a purely defensive military campaign doesn't really work, as you are then allowing the enemy to dictate the terms of engagement. This is not something you want to have happen. 4. Stop handing out food, instead invest the money to put the most experienced agricultural experts in charge of enriching previously unfarmable land. Give ownership of the land to the city it is in closest proximity to allowing it to reap the benefits of the profits, and educate the workers on methods of keeping the land arrable. In Iraq, they have no shortage of farmable land... It's the fertile crecent. Indeed, in terms of natural resources, Iraq is in REAL good shape.. This is probably what will allow them to succeed as a free country. Prosperity helps bring peace and freedom. You gotta be careful though, as far as stopping handing out food. You can't let people starve while you're rebuilding their farming infrastructure. 5. Pull Haliburton out and instead create a program similar to the New Deal to give Iraqi's jobs. A few ideas. Eh.. Haliburton actually employs Iraqis when working in Iraq. It's one of the reasons why they're chosen for such jobs. They have a hefty presence in the middle east already, and they have access to workers and equipment in the region. Government contracts in such situations are tricky... Having dealt with them myself in the past, I know that the bidding process can be quite drawn out. So, you're stuck making this trade between getting the job done fast, and getting the job done cheap. All in all though, good start on a plan. |
|
Taco Rubio
also quite creepy
Join date: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 3,349
|
11-18-2005 07:28
Mornin' Roland.
 |
|
Roland Hauptmann
Registered User
Join date: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 323
|
11-18-2005 08:07
I love Wile E. Coyote.
|
|
Sansarya Caligari
BLEH!
Join date: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 1,206
|
11-18-2005 09:32
Mornin' Roland. *worships Taco, chanting, "We're not worthy! We're not worthy!"* _____________________
|
|
Michal Milosz
Amateur Piercer
Join date: 22 Oct 2005
Posts: 73
|
11-20-2005 11:27
well, I guess I'm going to just be happy that we agree there was no point. _____________________
Michal Milosz
The New Guy. *whip crack* |
|
Mulch Ennui
15 Minutes are Over
Join date: 22 May 2005
Posts: 2,607
|
11-20-2005 20:02
Don't be mad if some raghead psycho geez, way to go for racial (and religious) sensitivity!! you are a racist!! You should have just called him a "dumb polak" like the rest of America does when they think someone is an idiot. that would have been a real insult for those aspiring for US ideals... _____________________
I have of late--but wherefore I know not--lost all my mirth, that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.
http://forums.secondcitizen.com/ |
|
Kurgan Asturias
Apologist
Join date: 9 Oct 2005
Posts: 347
|
11-20-2005 20:22
You should have just called him a "dumb polak" like the rest of America does when they think someone is an idiot. |
|
Mulch Ennui
15 Minutes are Over
Join date: 22 May 2005
Posts: 2,607
|
11-20-2005 20:33
Quite a large grouping for such a sweeping statement don't you think Mulch? yeah my bad oops, i slipped _____________________
I have of late--but wherefore I know not--lost all my mirth, that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.
http://forums.secondcitizen.com/ |