US State department admits to lying.

Hobbes

But I love their flippant attitude about it.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20020104/us/attacks_us_leaflets.html

Lemming

The other document is a Defense Department leaflet dropped over
Afghanistan (news - web sites) to win the surrender of Taliban or
al-Qaida militiamen still fighting. It includes a photo purporting to be
Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) in Western clothing and with his
hair cut short and beard shaved off. It says of the terrorist leader: ``The
murderer and coward has abandoned you.''

That particular piece of info is pointless. It was dropped to f*ck up Taliban morale and spread dissention in the ranks. Nothing more. If I recall, stuff like this has been done in most major wars of this century anyway, from radio broadcasts during ww2 to leaflets during the vietnam and Gulf wars

As for the rest of the article, we all know that the US government isn't exactly squeaky clean. Time will tell

paddymee

As for the rest of the article, we all know that the US government isn't exactly squeaky clean. Time will tell

I'd go as far as to say that no government is squeaky clean. Look at Ireland.

The big difference I feel is the US government is a lot more open to scrutiny.

Hobbes

While agree with what is said about the flyer. In regards that if the picture is doctored or not is immaterial as the whole point is to p!ss off the taliban.

The problem I see is the advert they put in the the paper with false information.

Sand

The State Department official who commented Thursday said Atta's picture was used because he was the most well known of the hijackers, but the ad's text included a composite of activities from several hijackers and Moussaoui.

So it might have been implied that Atta said something when he did not. I for one am shocked, this completely ruins Attas otherwise impeachable reputation. If hes so upset about it he can sue the US in federal court as the article itself says.

Hobbes

The point is that if your going to lie once (prehaps twice in this case) and then turn around and say anything else you submit as evidence is true why should anyone believe you? Heck everyones saying the other side is lying all the time.

That comment you refer to relates to flyer not the advertisment.

Sand

I for one will sleep soundly.

Typedef

The fact is, no matter what you're philosophical or socio-political opinions (or lack thereof) on the United States and it's current conservative government may be, is the inescapable fact is that, that same conservative government have siezed on the opportunity to curtail civil liberties and enact a quasi-orwellian and arguably more totalitarian state in the US then was in existance say twelve months ago.

Example the Federal government has endowed itself with sweeping powers of surveillance in the US and outside the US.
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html

Also the so-called military tribunals which were supposed to pertain to so-called enemies of the state, can be extended to cover more than 20 million people in the US, so in effect there is a Presidential order by Bush which could allow up to 20 million people to be tried in a secret military court, without gaurantee of appeal of any imposed scentence.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/liberties/1130threat.htm

I find it difficult to ascertain how one can be "innocent until proven guilty", but at the same time can be branded an "enemy of the state" who is not "worthy of the protection of the US constitution" and therefore may have the right to a civil trial arbitrarily abrogated, by an order stemming from a man who by all accounts rigged the election in the US anyway http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Lukasiak040901/lukasiak040901.html , but apparently even the Miami Herald is covering up the truth of it's own recount in the wave of fanatical nationalism that has gripped the USA, so I guess in "times of crisis" it's ok to give up a few civil liberties and rights to privacy, because we all know who the enemy is right?

paddymee

The fact is, no matter what you're philosophical or socio-political opinions (or lack thereof) on the United States and it's current conservative government may be, is the inescapable fact is that, that same conservative government have siezed on the opportunity to curtail civil liberties and enact a quasi-orwellian and arguably more totalitarian state in the US then was in existance say twelve months ago.

I can argue that as a resident of the US for 7 years that Americans don't lose much sleep about the invasion of rights of non citizens. As far as they are concerned non citizen residents betrayed America's trust by attacking them. Remember that all the attackers were in the US on valid visas at some stage.

Even the ACLU haven't even tried to fight these new laws, and that's saying something.

I personally dont agree with the laws, but I still dont feel that my civil liberties have been curtailed.

As for Quasi-Orwellian, dont make me laugh. When I go home to Ireland I'm amazed by the willingness of people to be dictated to by the Government. There is always a sense of futility. Trust me, one has a better sense of personal freedom in America.

I'm not excusing everything that the US has done and will do. But your ranting is as off the wall as the right wing nutters over here.

Paddy

Hobbes

Well he does list the things that only effect the 20 million people in the US.

There are parts of the laws which directly effect US citizens but they are so worked up at the moment no one is paying attention.

Sneak and Peak warrents has already been covered in numerous threads (they effect US citizens, no sunset laws, dont need to be terrorist related).

That alone would scare the crap out of me as a citizen.

But there are quite a few other things. Like now any transaction that is over $10,000 is automatically reported to the FBI. Buy a car, and your name goes on a list. Nice to know.

Not so nice for the guy who bought over 10k worth of candy at halloween to resell it. He got detained because of it and branded "a terrorist planning to poison our children" when in fact he was innocent.

Sand

Well at least weve got another thread to bash the US with. Seriously why doesnt someone open a "USA is Evil" thread?

Typedef

Originally posted by paddymee

I can argue that as a resident of the US for 7 years that Americans don't lose much sleep about the invasion of rights of non citizens. As far as they are concerned non citizen residents betrayed America's trust by attacking them. Remember that all the attackers were in the US on valid visas at some stage.

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal", hmm show me where in this scentence the words "so long as you are a citizen" are written? So, once you are not citizen ie(20 million people living in the US), you can by order of the President of the United States now be denied the right to a trial by your peers because as a non-citizen you could be a "terrorist", I guess "terrorists" like Timothy McVeigh are entitled to trial by jury, but watch out, if you are not born in the US or naturalised, then you are the sort of non-citizen "terrorist"(as opposed to a domestic "terrorist") who is less equal than everyone else and therefore does not deserve a trial, right.

Just to take the McVeigh analogy further, McVeigh "betrayed America's trust" and killed alot of people too, but McVeigh was given a trial by jury. I'm not going to argue the wrongs and rights of trial by jury it should be obvious to everyone that every single person should have a right to a free and fair trial, every person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and that marking a section of the population as lesser, a lower-caste of person who does not have the same right of due process as everyone else is racist and an affront to any kind of notion of Republicanism and fraternity that most "western states" have espoused their principals and systems of governance to be based on.

Why stop at foreigners? Why not say that anyone who has comitted a crime before does not have the same right of trial as everyone else, or that if you are black that you may not have the same right of trial, no, there can be no conditional ascription of civil liberties in a society based on freedom, fairness and equality, never, who decides who is worthy of in this case trial by jury, but in a wider sense civil liberties? How does the ability to ascribe right of who is worthy of equality with their fellow man not become a mechanism for abuse and a weapon of partisan political rule?
Who makes that decision in an unbiased and fair way? The answer is that no-one is capable of that kind of infallability , the answer is that people make mistakes and people are fallable and that is why everyone must be afforded the same human rights under law, lest the arbitrary ascription of said rights be abused as George Bush is abusing the human rights of non-Us citizens now, plain and simple.

As far as Ireland is concerned, I agree, the government in Ireland is going to make the Irish people vote on the Nice treaty again citing "misinformation" as the reason that people did not ratify the Nice treaty and therefore once people are "informed" the government will get the outcome it wants and obviously this is the kind of anti-democratic practice that "we" in the "west" criticise other countries about, it is the same kind of logic that "undemocratic" regiemes who wish to ensure their own continuity use to "rerun" elections, or declare an election "void".

With this in mind the Irish electorate could be sent back to the polls to "rerun" the upcoming election inumerate times with "more information" each time until the electorate "realised the error of their ways" and returned a result that satisfied the government(presumably continuity of the current regieme). Obviously the government of Ireland is attempting to set aside the referenda result and while this is not exactly "dictatorial" it is totaly undemocratic,repressive,possibly unconstitutional, and shows how the politicians of Ireland believe the people of Ireland to be stupid or "misinformed" and further shows that these politicians do not believe in democracy and sufferage, in fact it would seem the politicians have contempt for it. In many ways it is dictatorial, no the government has not said "you are obliged to vote for Nice", but the reality is that no other result is acceptable.
Much in the same way the Americans were given reasons that the government should be allowed to act in an extraneous way and deny the right of trial by jury to a select portion of "possible terrorists", the government of Ireland gives reasons why the democratic will of the people of Ireland in a Referendum should be set aside because of "misinformation and the importance of the treaty of Nice", two sides of the same repressive big brother government which allows "liberties" until those liberties and entitlements become a hinderance to the will of the government. Funnily enough it was the "western world" that pointed to these rights , like a trial by jury and democracy and truly representative governance that set us(the west) apart from "them"(everyone else), the worm has turned on that one though huh?

JustHalf

What a perfect time to show off my new signature.

Sand

by an order stemming from a man who by all accounts rigged the election in the US anyway

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/12/120247.shtml
Read it and weep.

As regards the burning anxiety over Bushes tactics-

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/12/17/94746

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/11/29/83635

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/11/24/230518

The most important point might be that the US is on a war footing.

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal",

If you take it as literally as you wish to, then youd be advocating that women arent covered under the US constitution.

Domestic terrorism is one thing. Foreign terrorism is another - Its activists are more easily identified by virtue of the fact that theyre mostly foreign. Call it profiling if you want or simply common sense.

And its not the first time rights have been repealed in the interests of the greater good. Free speech is an example in the US given incitement laws. All men are free and equal as you say but there are the racially discriminatory affirmitive action laws - and the fact that all men arent free and equal is given as justification for social transfers.

Funnily enough it was the "western world" that pointed to these rights , like a trial by jury and democracy and truly representative governance that set us(the west) apart from "them"(everyone else), the worm has turned on that one though huh?

I take it your moving to Iran to enjoy the civil rights due to you? If not stop being so melodramatic.

paddymee

"

Originally posted by Typedef

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal", hmm show me where in this scentence the words "so long as you are a citizen" are written?

And what about blacks? They were still slaves for another 80 years and de facto slaves for another 100. I wouldn't get too worked up about the constitution. It’s the high courts interpretation and precedence that gives it meaning.

After the Omagh bombing a similar striping of rights occurred in Ireland. A person could be held as a member of the Real IRA based on the decision of the Gardai. Also such a person right to silence was waived. I don’t remember all the details but I remember that Amnesty international voiced objection. When I talked to my friends and family they didn't seem too concerned.

Do you remember? Were you outraged then? How do you feel about it now?

I feel a country has the right to defend itself in a time of war. I don’t think this is step towards big brother. America has a distrust of government that is incredible. If these laws get out of hand they will be repealed. When the ACLU gets seriously involved I will really take notice.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand
Well at least weve got another thread to bash the US with. Seriously why doesnt someone open a "USA is Evil" thread?

Naa Gandalf would only lock it after 10 posts. You would need a "USA is evil" board.

btw, newsmax as a realiable source? This is the same news site that said the UN is evil because it wants to try bin laden for crimes against humanity.

I notice the first story talks about the votes vs Al Gore. Funny how most news sites talk about the vote mix up but don't talk about the legal issue going on where 18,000 blacks claim they where denied a vote in Florida?

Sand

Opinion pieces can do that Hobbes. Cant argue with the articles I quoted.

It is funny alright about those 18000 blacks. However they were just as likely to vote for Bush given what we know about them as they were to vote for Gore so it all balances out.

Hobbes

Thing is we don't know that.

May as well say "Kill all Afganistans" as they will all probably join Al-Quada anyway being muslims.

Typedef

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...12/120247.shtml
Read it and weep.

Sand that is one opinion, yes I weep that the opinion is so obviously right wing and conservative friendly, in fact the entire newsmax organisation seems prone to articles that are quite defamatory of the American democrats with headlines like
"Clinton Scandals", "Bush really did win", "Enron Pales Next to Daschlegate Death Cover-up" and "Daschle is the Dem's 'Eddie Haskel", so I would have to cast serious aspersions on the objectivity of a stroy eminating from newsmax, let alone four stories from the same media source, ok?

As regards the burning anxiety over Bushes tactics-

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.s...001/12/17/94746

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.s...001/11/29/83635

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.s...01/11/24/230518

The most important point might be that the US is on a war footing.

Proves that newsmax has it's own opinions sure, but realistically speaking the US was on a "war footing" well before the World Trade Centre was bombed, the US had withdrawn or was in the process of withdrawing from a lexicon of international military accords vis-a-vis weapons development and proliferation before the World Trade Centre bombings and President Bush when he was governor of Texas Bush was the Govenor who put more people to death than any other govenor in the history of the United States, so Bush's tatics as regards harsh, quasi-totalitarian, and crass disregard for human life had a precedent well set even before the man was a "war President" http://www.bushkills.com/record.html

I digress.

---

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal",

---

If you take it as literally as you wish to, then youd be advocating that women arent covered under the US constitution.

Yes but one might also say that "man" in this context refers to the race of human beings. Thank you, call again.

Domestic terrorism is one thing. Foreign terrorism is another - Its activists are more easily identified by virtue of the fact that theyre mostly foreign. Call it profiling if you want or simply common sense.

I call it segregation and the wholesale revokation of human rights as a political tactic that can encompass 20 million people, why not say that anyone who fought in the Iraqi war as Timothy McVeigh did has the "potential to be a terrorist" and allow those same people to be arrested, put on trial without jury in secret and deny those same people access to appeal? What a joke, the United States, long time preacher of it's freedoms and equalities enacting a policy that can allow 20 million "non-citizens" to be put on trial without jury, because they "might be terrorists". That means that any person coming from Ireland, nay anyone who is not "naturalised", anyone who goes to or visits the United States can be tried by a non-jury court and thrown in prison without right of appeal in secret. Land of the free? What a crock, it's not racial segregation or "naturalised eliteism" it's "anti-terrorism", so that makes it ok. Right.

And its not the first time rights have been repealed in the interests of the greater good.

Hmm maybe "we" should start to burn "undesireable" books "for the greater good", maybe "we" should start to deport "east europeans" for the "good of the economy" with Mary Harneys vaunted "buffer" huh? Why not it's for the "Greater good". Hey maybe "we" should just say "ok China can invade Tibet, after all with 1.6 billion Chinese more land for China is 'for the greater good'". I am not convinced.

Free speech is an example in the US given incitement laws. All men are free and equal as you say but there are the racially discriminatory affirmitive action laws - and the fact that all men arent free and equal is given as justification for social transfers.

Sand in sections of the USA a little over 38 years ago there was an organised militia of white supremecists called the "Klu Klux Klan", maybe you've heard of them, who used to go around hanging black people on whim and in a wider sense the white sections of American socitey were interfering with the rights of the black people to vote, to have access to state amenities, there was a semi-state racial segregation. These laws used to be in operation in the US. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAjimcrow.htm
So the so-called equality in the USA does not exist and affirmative action seeks to redress this, and frankly I have trouble understanding why people insist on bashing these laws, what is it a fear that the white elite will loose socio-political and economic ascention or just facile contempt for social change and equilibrium? Affirmative action exists to try to reverse hundreds of years of white favoured domination in legislature and deed.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/recruit.htm

women only make up just under 12% of the House and just 9% of the Senate despite being more than 50% of America’s population.

...in Congress as a whole, there are 38 Black, 19 Hispanics and 5 Asian politicians. Black Americans represent 12% of America’s population and their representation in Congress is 9%. All but one of the Black politicians is Democrat. Hispanics make up 10% of America’s population and 4% of Congress.

I hardly think the US needs any lessening of civil liberties do you, especially by the party in the US (the Republicans) that only has one black member of Congress? Yes it's true Ireland is also an unrepresentative place though last time I checked even non-nationals still had a right to trial by jury in Ireland.

I take it your moving to Iran to enjoy the civil rights due to you? If not stop being so melodramatic.

Sand you may find the prospect of secret military trial for non-citizens melodramatic, but I do not. If you went to the US right now you could be branded a "terrorists" and if the authorities so wished you could disappear into the "military court" system and if convicted could even be denied right of appeal,as a non-national, but the second you get a "green card" that all changes, then you are a real-person, then you are entitled to due process.
All this for "anti-terrorism"? So if the person mailing Anthrax around the US gets caught as turns out to be an American citizen will that person be put on trial as a "terrorist" non-national or as a citizen? Hmm, why should the precedent matter more once the person caught turns out to be a citizen, human rights are human rights, it shouldn't matter wether you have a piece of paper making you part of the politically acceptable elite before you get your rights, the rights are yours as a human being, it's not melodramatic to demand those rights. Simple really.
doubleplusgood

feel a country has the right to defend itself in a time of war. I don’t think this is step towards big brother.

How easily the rationalisation of the curtailing of civil liberties is so often espoused, human rights are not liberties, human rights are just those, "rights" you get because you are a human just like me, just like George Bush, just like the Nazis were, just like Pol Pot and the Pope, all human beings and all should be afforded the same right to trial, access to food, clothing, education, voting and democratic representation, life, the "persuit of happiness" and so on. I don't accept that when someone becomes the "enemy of the state" that those rights are any less, the state does not and cannot define those access to rights, the state is "defined" by the access to rights it grants. Simple premis really , if you think about it.

Sand

/me huggles Type. You lovable arts student you:)

"Sand that is one opinion, yes I weep that the opinion is so obviously right wing and conservative friendly"

Hmm but it was an article on findings by a left wing group that Bush would have won anyway- So stop wasting everyones times with rubbish like it was rigged. It wasnt- even the Democratic cheerleaders accept this as youd see by the headlines that were quoted in the article from left win media. Like this...

that "George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward," as the New York Times conceded Monday

"Proves that newsmax has it's own opinions sure,"

Those articles quote a Anti- Terror Crackdown (ATC) critic getting heckled off stage by students of California State University, A poll (Washington Post/ABC news before you try to degrade it) revealing overwhelming support for the ATC and oh yes, a criticism of the double standards shown by the media (One of these three is an opinion, the other two are facts- guesss:) )

You go on the attack on Bush again- showing you personally despise the man and if he walked on water youd say he was too arrogant to walk like the rest of us. The death penalty is supported by a majority of Texans btw- Thats democracy, not the morals of a political elite.

Yes but one might also say that "man" in this context refers to the race of human beings. Thank you, call again.

Yes, if they had said Man, but they said men. So youre not taking what they said literally. Or rather you take from it what you want to take from it. Unless you want to go head to head with some ardent feminists who take umbrage at Man being used to describe the human race- which also includes women last time I checked. Next:)

Hmm maybe "we" should start to burn "undesireable" books "for the greater good", maybe "we" should start to deport "east europeans" for the "good of the economy" with Mary Harneys vaunted "buffer" huh? Why not it's for the "Greater good". Hey maybe "we" should just say "ok China can invade Tibet, after all with 1.6 billion Chinese more land for China is 'for the greater good'". I am not convinced.

File under R for Rant or U for Unrelated. None of those things are for the common good, no matter what theyre telling you in the Judean Peoples Front meetings.

I call it segregation and the wholesale revokation of human rights as a political tactic that can encompass 20 million people

No its common sense. All of the terrorists from 9/11 were Islamic fundamentalist, and originally from the middle east. Thats a pretty good profile to check against. All those things you said about racial segregation and so on- they were all forms of one group believing they were superiour on racial grounds (Youve really got to spell it out for some people). The ATC is not based on notions of racial superiority but on sheer common sense.

Yeah and the KKK believed in racial discrimination. Thus to beat this 38 years later the lefts great idea is MORE racial discrimination. Course this is the good kind. I wonder when well be allowed to just be ourselves and not be segregated by racially based laws like affirmitive action. As you may have noticed people bash them because of the sheer hypocrisy of them.

"I hardly think the US needs any lessening of civil liberties do you"

Yeah theyve already had plenty from the Democrats like I mentioned. Oh and that last article from News max also detailed some "conincidences" regarding Clinton and civil liberties. BTW given the information you quoted on black members in the congress- (I find it interesting you believe that the congress isnt "right" unless is 12% black, 70% white and so- does this mean people should vote to maintain this balance? ) - Would you agree with me that If i was to take any Black member of congress at random- hed have a higher probability of being a Democrat than if I picked a White member of congress?

"If you went to the US right now you could be branded a "terrorists" and if the authorities so wished you could disappear into the "military court" system and if convicted could even be denied right of appeal,as a non-national"

The question is- Why would they want to convict me when i dont meet the profile for terrorism? (Youd better not go across though given your "views" on terrorism:) ) When Im not a terrorist? And when the real terrorists are still at large?

Coyote

I'm sorry but i had to post this just got it

JustHalf

Sand, they should have gotten the vote. And regardless, Gore did win Florida on most counting methods (if we count all sections of Florida, not those he wanted recounted) -- but he's not pushing for it now, so there's not much we can do about it.

Hobbes

Yeah and the KKK believed in racial discrimination.

So believing that anyone who is not American should denied the same rights is not racial discrimination?


The question is- Why would they want to convict me when i dont meet the profile for terrorism?

What is the profile for terrorism?

I have hit it in England, by buying a plane ticket in cash too soon to the flight which landed in an obscure airport (was the only connecting flight I could get because I bought it so late), oh and because I was Irish.

You should try it sometime, it's quite an eyeopener to be automatically assumed a terrorist.

So far in the US it seems to be "Non Americans, muslims, middle eastern people". That's why you get stuff like a muslim getting detained for buying chocolate and a white American gets a slap on the wrist for trying to smuggle a knife onto a plane.

What will that profile be 5-10 years down the line? The next country to disagree with US policy suddenly becomes part of that profile? (what am I saying, they already are).

Sand

Hmmm would be Hobbes but theyre talking about non-national terrorists- i.e crinimals- i.e before these can be aplied to you you need to fufill the criteria of being a terrorist.

Hobbes you and I both know that Irish republicans have never used suicide bombers (they have however held families hostage to force men to drive bombs to british army checkpoints)- thus why would you buying a plane ticket alert anybody?

Lemming

Originally posted by Hobbes
I have hit it in England, by buying a plane ticket in cash too soon to the flight which landed in an obscure airport (was the only connecting flight I could get because I bought it so late), oh and because I was Irish.

You should try it sometime, it's quite an eyeopener to be automatically assumed a terrorist.

Yup .. been there on several occasions. Not a pleasant experience

My family goes over to Scotland every Xmas and New year (mother is scottish y'see) to see relatives, etc. and we used to drive up through N.Ireland to Larne to catch a ferry. On several occasions, we've had guns (and lots of them) pointed at us simply cause we had an Irish reg. plate on the car. Never mind that there are 4 children in the car who are rather un-nerved by the soldier standing outside a rear passenger door pointing an f*cking gun at them just in case the 8 year old pulls out a sawn-off - heaven forbid.

Also had a machine-gun practically pointed in my face at heathrow when I was 14 (school trip). Security guard heard the irish accent and the rest you can imagine.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand
Hobbes you and I both know that Irish republicans have never used suicide bombers

I don't see what that has to do with anything I said.

(they have however held families hostage to force men to drive bombs to british army checkpoints)

As has the British Army/Black and Tans (held catholics as human shields). But again that has absolutly nothing to do with what I posted.

thus why would you buying a plane ticket alert anybody?

It was the conditions of buying the ticket that triggered something.

The Terrorist procedure at airports isn't something new, Irish people have had to put up with it for ages when travelling in England. I easily know a lot of people who have had to fill out the form. I am not a terrorist, I don't support or agree with terrorism and neither does I believe any of the people I know who have had to go through it.

It normally involves a security person (not customs, they are different) grilling you on various things (eg. I was asked where I worked then asked for all the street names around that place as well as loads of other stuff relating to my job, home, reasons for travel), going through your stuff and then finally having to fill out a terrorist form.

Von

Originally posted by Sand
Hmmm would be Hobbes but theyre talking about non-national terrorists- i.e crinimals- i.e before these can be aplied to you you need to fufill the criteria of being a terrorist.

Please tell us what the criteria of being a terrorist are.

From The Guardian

British police have been secretly ordered to treat all Irish-born citizens on their patch as potential terrorist suspects, according to a memo leaked to The Observer .
The investigation, codenamed Operation Pre-Empt, instructs officers to report all dealings with anyone of Irish descent or background - including the most routine checks on drivers and even reports from suspicious landlords - to Special Branch, as a precaution against a feared terrorist bombing offensive.

paddymee

So far in the US it seems to be "Non Americans, muslims, middle eastern people". That's why you get stuff like a muslim getting detained for buying chocolate and a white American gets a slap on the wrist for trying to smuggle a knife onto a plane.

The new laws are US citizens versus non US citizens within America. Muslims can be US citizens too.

Please back up your examples with references because they just sound a bit too convienent for you argument.

As I have said America is trying to protect itself from what it perceives as it's ememy, non Citizens in America. America is pissed off that it has offered millions of foreigners the opertunities available and got slapped in the face.

I dont agree with the new laws, but I think after this initial gut reaction more normal laws will be passed.

Hobbes

The choccy story was discussed in detail on www.snopes.com under the war section.

The other story was about a guy travelling to Boston tried to smuggle a knife in his shoe onto the plane. He was let out on bail and suspended sentance. He wasn't middle eastern decent and claimed he needed it to protect himself in Boston. I think the story was on boston.com or cnn.com (if I can find the link again I'll post it). It's a recent story, less then a week old.

Considering a doctor who was of middle eastern descent was detained trying to fly because his name sounded like one of the hijackers, I think the guy who was trying to smuggle the knife on board should of gotten a more serious punishment.

America is pissed off that it has offered millions of foreigners the opertunities available and got slapped in the face.

Which all may be well and good but it translates to "You are now a second class citizen". Also because of the military tribunals to try non-Americans this "Sub-human" attitude extends outside Americas borders.

A country declaring that the rest of the world has less rights then their own citizens is something you would see of a communist country.

I dont agree with the new laws, but I think after this initial gut reaction more normal laws will be passed.

Too late for that. Some of the laws passed can be repealed but some of them don't have sunset clauses. I'm curious how you go about retracting a law with no time limit?

Sand

Wow you guys got stopped and were checked to see if you were a potential terrorist? By that logic I should have been treated as a terrorist when I visited the UK, I mean Im Irish and thats all they need according to you- But I was only ever treated as a tourist. Funny that.

Paddys right about the laws not being racially based but rather US citizenship vs non US citizenship. Hence they cant be second class citizens given they arent citizens at all? Neither can it be racism or whatever other buzz words have been used.

If the UK police want to check Irish people fine by me. Ive got nothing to hide and a few minutes inconvenience are a small price to pay should someones life be saved on the slight chance theyll identify a terrorist. Amazingly enough youve got a higher probability of being an IRA terrorist if youre from Ireland as oppossed to being from Hong Kong. Hence, if youre looking for IRA terrorists it makes sense to concentrate on people from Ireland as opposed to checking people from Hong Kong and where ever. Again call it profiling or whatever.

Hobbes

Sand maybe you have some kind of blind spot when it comes to reading peoples posts.

Apart from Von's post (Which I wasn't aware of) the reason you get pulled over is because you set up off some conditions.

I have already listed what mine where (and they were based on the discussion I had with the security guy).

But to think that somehow your immune? Hardly.

Anyway Hong Kong aside the point was, try being accused of being a terrorist simply from where you come from then come back and tell us if you like it.

paddymee

Anyway Hong Kong aside the point was, try being accused of being a terrorist simply from where you come from then come back and tell us if you like it.

I think you where treated as a potential terrorist. If you were accused of being a terriorist you probably would have been in a cell at the time.

And I lived in London so dont come back saying that I dont know what its like to be Irish in England ;-)

Typedef

Originally posted by Sand
Wow you guys got stopped and were checked to see if you were a potential terrorist? By that logic I should have been treated as a terrorist when I visited the UK, I mean Im Irish and thats all they need according to you- But I was only ever treated as a tourist. Funny that.

Paddys right about the laws not being racially based but rather US citizenship vs non US citizenship. Hence they cant be second class citizens given they arent citizens at all? Neither can it be racism or whatever other buzz words have been used.

If the UK police want to check Irish people fine by me. Ive got nothing to hide and a few minutes inconvenience are a small price to pay should someones life be saved on the slight chance theyll identify a terrorist. Amazingly enough youve got a higher probability of being an IRA terrorist if youre from Ireland as oppossed to being from Hong Kong. Hence, if youre looking for IRA terrorists it makes sense to concentrate on people from Ireland as opposed to checking people from Hong Kong and where ever. Again call it profiling or whatever.

Jesus Christ Sand, you are condoning the wholesale ascription of human rights based on a caste system of socio-political segregation. You are espousing a quagmire based on politcal eliteism and qualified by the sanitised "citizen" as opposed to the underclass foreigner. It's such a roaring condraction for the "west" or any citizen of a "western country" to turn around and vindicate segregation and cultural eliteism, when that person or regieme is supposed to be coming from a school of political thoughts that is meant to foster equivalence, so roaring a contradiciton as to be laughable. Sand you seem to think that regiemes have the right to ascribe "terrorist" properties to a person and thus dehumanise that person to the point that acts may be perpitrated against said "terrorist" in the name of the "greater good" that would be considered crimes if perpitrated against a member of the same regiemes "middle class", example Israel and asassinations of "terrorist Palestinians", or the USA and secret military trials, I will assume you support internment in the UK as it stands right now and frankly I am aghast that someone who is so obviously intelligent as your self may allow such delibrate or subliminal lapse of logic.

How can "we" ever live in a truly fair, equal and illucidated society if that society may allow the ethos of equality to be compromised so much so as to allow such a dicotomy of the enumeration of entitlements to humans to be ascribed in a partisan and imbalanced fashion? The answer is that your society is no longer a "free" one but a totalitarian and hirerarchical one, admitadely human society is hirearchical by its nature, but the laws that "we" sentient entities make, seek to redress this kind of reptilian and Darwinian hirerarchy, because being sentient "we" are able to look beyond mundane and primitiveness of hirearchy and the domination of the weak by the strong..... lets evolve.

People are born with rights, a citizen is a person who lives in a country but the entitlements that a person has in a country should stem from an ethos within that country of what rights are afforded to people, to humans not "citizens" and "non-citizens".
We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, not some men, but all.

Sand

Nah Type- Im condoning common sense measures that help reduce the risk of another 9/11. Some peoples feelings may be hurt - but i believe saving even one life is worth it. Wouldnt you agree that if similar measures had been in place prior to 9/11 and had even by the flukiest of circumstances prevented the terrorists taking even one of those planes that it would have been worth it?

Its a practical measure and I tend towards the practical, Im a realist while you and a few others on this board are idealists. Nothing wrong with being an idealist, but idealism isnt going to solve questions like "How do we stop terrorist cells that may be already present from carrying out further attacks?"

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand

The death penalty is supported by a majority of Texans btw- Thats democracy, not the morals of a political elite.

And yet while the Texan population has been grossly in favor of seceding from the federation for the best part of a hundred years, I haven't seen many governors (including George Dubyah) put it on their policy agenda. Could this be *shock horror* double standards?
That is precisely what I, and several of my fellow citizens object to, and in no small manner. The guiding principle behind the idea of responsible government (in Europe for example), is that government policy should stay ahead of public opinion, instead of merely keeping pace with it as we do. If public opinion calls for actions that are morally or practically untenable, then a responsible government, in my opinion, has a duty to challenge the views of its citizens. In many European states, the electorate is in favor of the death penalty as a form of punishment. By the same token, I doubt the majority of citizens are aware of its effectiveness as a punishment tool, the benefits of rehabilitation, or even a basic understanding of the criminal jurisprudence concepts of crime and punishment. Which is why we elect officials to responsible positions, they take responsibility for these tasks, and represent our confidence in a government. If a government were nothing more than a reflection of public opinion, a situation of extreme instability can quickly become destructive conflict, as society, filled with righteous fury, tears itself to bits.

To illustrate this, let us take an example from Henry Kissinger's paper submitted to the ISS last year. In it, he paints a hypothetical situation, assuming a fair schedule of elections, and a day-by-day policy poll of the electorate in Germany during the 1930's under the National Socialist Party. The figures, hardly suprisingly, show that the weight of public opinion was not only directly in line with most of the Nazis' policies, but more extreme in areas, such as the treatment of POWs. This only goes to show, that if the huddled masses are screaming for concentration camps and burnings at the stake, a responsible government, far from giving in to ensure its own political survival, has a duty to stand fast against such barbarism. A belligerent society has a far greater potential for irreversible harm than an obstinate government.

While we elect officials based in part on their policies and agendae (which seem to change as rapidly as the NW Pacific's weather), they also need to be mindful of a moral obligation to fair treatment of citizens, and most importantly, a basic understanding of criminal jurisprudence. In the absence of these ideas, the state of Texas is just another state stamping conservative policies on a centrist populace, playing to the crowd as is necessary. Which is probably why the state of Texas offers neither recourse for federal appeal, nor mitigation in sentencing. In other words, it is a policy of convenience and to serve the end of politics, rather than that of justice- that just makes me sick.
And people wonder why the state bar in Texas is not a qualification for transfer practise in all but 3 other state exams...

Occy

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Nah Type- Im condoning common sense measures that help reduce the risk of another 9/11.

Actually, there is little "common sense" in many of the measures you describe, and the reduction in risk for another 9/11 is miniscule, and arguably not worth the loss of rights which accompany these rules.

For example, the argument that the new laws are rightly targetted on "foreigners" and not citizens is ridiculous. What you're saying is that someone who is gaining citizenship is a valid suspect until the day they become American, after which the risk suddenly evaporates? That the only people who would commit these atrocities would be foreigners? I think not.

By passing such bigoted and blinkered laws, you completely open a direct path for any successive attacks to follow. Citizens arent suspects? Fine - use citizens to perform the attacks. Or maybe the US is going to close its doors of citizenship to anyone of Middle Eastern descent to be sure. I mean - gross racial discrimination is fine, as long as it helps prevent another 9/11, right?

The simple point is that these measures are knee-jerk based and ultimately ineffective. If only non-citizens are targetted, then there is a clear way for terrorists to completely avoid the laws.

jc

Sand

We disagree Bonkey- We could keep trading view points but at the end of the day I believe the measures are practical and reduce the risk of terrorism. You dont. Im not particualarly stressed because they *are* carrying out what I believe to be practical. End of the day we disagree on a matter of opinion. We might as well argue which shade of green grass is.

Bob: If seceding from the union was such a vote getter Im surprised it hasnt been used as a ploy, by even some fringe right wing nut. And if it has- why wasnt that manifesto approved by Texans?

I dont believe a Government should ignore the wishes of the people. Perhaps they should temper them, but ignore? The European elitism you mention is a very large part of the resentment many euro-skeptics and others have against the EU - because its undemocratic and is basically somebody deciding they know better than you what you want. As a side note Id imagine the death penalty is pretty effective as a punishment tool , 0% re-offend rate. That english child Sarah was brutalised and murdered by a paedophile re-offender - Death penalty would have prevented her death.

Lemming

Originally posted by Sand
As a side note Id imagine the death penalty is pretty effective as a punishment tool , 0% re-offend rate. That english child Sarah was brutalised and murdered by a paedophile re-offender - Death penalty would have prevented her death.

Sand .. I am absolutely horrified by what you said. That's callous at its worst! Death does not justify death.

The likes of a paedophile murder getting the death sentence is too easy a way out. He suffers (relatively little) about 3 mins. of the procedure .. then its over. People like that should be PUNISHED (ie. lasting) for their crimes.

And if the death penalty is so effective a deterent, why are there so many people on death-row in the states?? It's simply making a quick-fix solution which isn't really a solution, just another problem. What if you excute an innocent person. What about all those seriously retarded people that have tried as adults and been executed for crimes that they didn't really understand?

HELL!! Why don't we just execute EVERYONE who commits a crime. 0% re-offending, right??

Sand

And if life imprisonment is such a detterent why are there so many murderers in Europe? No point rehabilitating a prisoner in for life is there? So detterence is only value and its clearly not effective.

Im sorry if I shocked your idealistic delicacies Lemming, but if you care to examine the views of the average joe on the street youll find plenty of them will agree paedophiles and murders deserve the death penalty- In fact many I know advocate torture in the case of paedophiles (not kidding - it would satisfy your desire for paedophiles to suffer over a long period of time, I just believe its more humane to shoot them and get it over with) . Luckily the lefts elite is in power to tell us what we want.

Not knowing the law isnt much of a defence in many courts that I know of.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
As a side note Id imagine the death penalty is pretty effective as a punishment tool , 0% re-offend rate. That english child Sarah was brutalised and murdered by a paedophile re-offender - Death penalty would have prevented her death.

This is not a valid example, as the murder of Sarah Payne is believed to be at least the third by the same offender. The death penalty, or the possibility thereof, did not and would not protect her. Would it have worked in the West case, no. Or in the case of that doctor believed to have killed up to 400 of his patients, no.

In 1800 in Britain, there was more than 200 crimes carrying the death penalty (including writing graffiti on Westminster Bridge). the Death Penalty was not a deterrent. Nevertheless crime remained at high levels as the death penalty was rarely implemented as the criminal was rarely caught. Reforms by Robert Peel (he of the Peelers fame) to criminal law and in the founding of civil police forces had a real effect on crime levels and peoples feeling of security.

If you want to prevent the Sarah Payne and Deirdre Crowleys of this world, then what you need is a reform of the family, mental health and social services law, not the death penalty.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
And if life imprisonment is such a detterent why are there so many murderers in Europe? No point rehabilitating a prisoner in for life is there? So detterence is only value and its clearly not effective.

Actually the murder rate is quite low in most parts of Europe. Specific exclusions would be parts of Russia (not so sure about other CIS republics) and the Balkans - the reason murder rates are so high there are because people believe (not unreasonably) they can get away with it. That or they are beyond caring. However, these are the countries in Europe with the death penalty.

Sand

Hmm I never argued for the death penalty because it was a deterrent, I argued for it because of the 0% re-offend rate and because its just. If you murder somebody you invalidate youre own right to life imo.

Interestingly enough according to a UK home office survey Amsterdam, Helsinki and Lisbon all have comparable murder rates per 100k to US cities. Granted the other EU cities surveyed had minor rates compared to the US average ( Washington had 69.3 or something but next highest was 27.4 down to 8), but a lot of this can be accounted for in ease of gun laws that turn what wouldve have been a punch up in Dublin into a shooting in New York.

This is not a valid example, as the murder of Sarah Payne is believed to be at least the third by the same offender

Its an even better example. If he had been shot the first time it would have saved two children.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand

Bob: If seceding from the union was such a vote getter Im surprised it hasnt been used as a ploy, by even some fringe right wing nut. And if it has- why wasnt that manifesto approved by Texans?

I dont believe a Government should ignore the wishes of the people. Perhaps they should temper them, but ignore? The European elitism you mention is a very large part of the resentment many euro-skeptics and others have against the EU - because its undemocratic and is basically somebody deciding they know better than you what you want. As a side note Id imagine the death penalty is pretty effective as a punishment tool , 0% re-offend rate. That english child Sarah was brutalised and murdered by a paedophile re-offender - Death penalty would have prevented her death.

The reason secession hasn't been a vote-getter is that there are few state governers of states as large and powerful as Texas, California, New York or Massachussets who haven't thought about 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And having campaigned for the secession of your state from the union doesn't look splendid on a presidential ticket, needless to say :P

To address your next point, I never said that a government should ignore its people's wishes- I said that if a majority of people support blatantly amoral policies, a government has a duty to establish debate and challenge the root causes of these views. Racism is a classic example that sociologists use. As far as someone deciding that they know better- leading politicians are advised on innumerable issues by experts including various prominent academia, scientifica and politica- certainly more than the average schmo on the street can claim. If a politician convincingly argues to me why he/she overrules what he/she sees as an amoral policy, then I for one won't be too concerned.
You yourself Sand have taken this line of thought as regards the recent anti-terrorist measures introduced in the US- you support them because a convincing argument can be made that is only marginally questionable ethically.

The majority of US citizens don't support military tribunals in any shape or form- but no one's going to march on Capitol Hill if the measures are sensibly and selectively applied. And while I consider them xenophobic, even barbarous in the callous and racially discriminatory nature of the rhetoric on the table, I'm willing to concede that some of the measures will at least create the impression of greater security back home. The practical ineffectiveness of the majority of security measures doesn't bother our government- it's the same reasoning behind our using Patriot missiles to "intercept" scuds in the Persian Gulf conflict. Again though- if a reasonably well-supported argument is presented to me, the citizen, I'm not going to be incredibly dissatisfied.

The same is true of the political issues in Europe- well informed politicians explain to their people the reasoning behind national policies, and while they don't have to like it, they'll at least admit the reasoning is sound enough to avert a revolution :P

As far as your argument that the death penalty is an effective punishment for a number of crimes, I don't dispute that. That the death penalty is effective is unquestioned...what I object to are the justness and reliability of irreversible punishment. Do our justice systems make mistakes? All the time- the facts of a case are frequently incomplete, state-biased, or subject to judicial review later on. Hence the reasoning behind a system of appeals, and custodial sentences. Wrongful imprisonment is certainly disturbing- yet nothing I believe, is worse than depriving an innocent individual of their life. Imagine how the death penalty must work in China, where there is a 90% conviction rate in state-prosecuted cases. Worrying, isn't it? The day that I can be assured that a justice system is 100% effective in fact-finding related to guilt-determination, that is the day I will support the death penalty as a means of punishment for serious crime. Until then, I'm quite happy with a system of custodial sentencing.

Occy

PS- The point of life imprisonment without parole is not rehabilitation, but sustained punishment. Where parole is concerned, a 'life sentence' is usually 20 years and subject to prison board review.

paddymee

The majority of US citizens don't support military tribunals in any shape or form- but no one's going to march on Capitol Hill if the measures are sensibly and selectively applied. And while I consider them xenophobic, even barbarous in the callous and racially discriminatory nature of the rhetoric on the table, I'm willing to concede that some of the measures will at least create the impression of greater security back home.

That is a very good interpration of the situation in the US at the moment. That was what I was trying to say, but Bob is a bit more elequent than me.

Paddy

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
I argued for it because of the 0% re-offend rate and because its just.

Unfortunately, its not just for those sentenced incorrectly. Your 0% no re-offend also includes the state-sanctioned murder of innocents who happen to have fallen foul of the judicial system.

Miscarriages of justice can and do happen. You are advocating that it is acceptable for the state to accidentally kill innocents now and again, because it stops the occasional death-sentencer from re-offending.

If you murder somebody you invalidate youre own right to life imo.

So - if the state murders an innocent man through the death sentence and a miscarriage of justice, who loses their right to live in retribution? The judge? The jury?

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Hmm I never argued for the death penalty because it was a deterrent, I argued for it because of the 0% re-offend rate and because its just.

But if you execute an innocent person, you are re-offending.

Originally posted by Sand
If you murder somebody you invalidate youre own right to life imo.

I disagree that it is just, there is no chance of rehabilitation of the offender or offer apology or recompence to society. The death penalty is an easy way out for the offender also. It also creates martyrs.

Originally posted by Sand
Interestingly enough according to a UK home office survey Amsterdam, Helsinki and Lisbon all have comparable murder rates per 100k to US cities. Granted the other EU cities surveyed had minor rates compared to the US average ( Washington had 69.3 or something but next highest was 27.4 down to 8), but a lot of this can be accounted for in ease of gun laws that turn what wouldve have been a punch up in Dublin into a shooting in New York.

But Dublin's rate is probably as low as 2 per 100,000 (assuming half the murders in Ireland are in Dublin, with about 40 murders a year in the country), that would mean 0.67 per 100,000 in the rest of Ireland, creating a national average of 1 per 100,000. I suspect a large proportion of (non-criminally organised) murders in the USA are not street murders, but domestic incidents where a gun or other weapon was readily available and the scene was not in public view, but I understand your reasoning on the punch up.

Originally posted by Sand
Its an even better example. If he had been shot the first time it would have saved two children.

A very big IF. It didn't happen. Think of Myra Hinkley (sp) - shes been in jail for more than 35 years. I personally find that a great incentive to not murder the people I would like to murder (there are a few). The death penalty is not.

Sand

I feel the death penalty is just. You disagree. Another area where we might as well argue over the colour of grass.

Miscarriages of justice can and do happen. You are advocating that it is acceptable for the state to accidentally kill innocents now and again, because it stops the occasional death-sentencer from re-offending.

Taking the US as an example it often takes many years between sentencing and execution - plenty of time for exonerating evidence to come to light should there be any.

So - if the state murders an innocent man through the death sentence and a miscarriage of justice, who loses their right to live in retribution? The judge? The jury?

And if a man is wrongfully committed of murder and gets life and is cleared 30 years later what happens to the judge and jury then by your logic? they spend 30 years in jail? What if theyre wrongfully committed of robbery and get 9 months, should they be cleared does the judge and the jury have to serve 9 months?

As far as someone deciding that they know better- leading politicians are advised on innumerable issues by experts including various prominent academia, scientifica and politica- certainly more than the average schmo on the street can claim.

Autocratic rule in other words, approved every few years by the public by means of an election which determines which politicians are in power and by exstension which acadademic elite decides what the people want. I for one am glad not having to worry about what I want as a voter. Thank god those left wing academics are there to tell me what I want and all I have to do is give them the money (taxes) so they can carry out what I want. They must be very smart to know what I want better than I do.


As far as the example you mentioned about americans support of Anti terror laws i used information regarding the unpopularity of critics of the Anti Terro laws, and a poll taken by ABC and some other hicks (cant remember of the top of my head- scroll up to article) which showed 60% support for the most contreversial element of the bush plan (milatary tribunals). That wasnt a political elite but a measure of public support.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand

Autocratic rule in other words, approved every few years by the public by means of an election which determines which politicians are in power and by exstension which acadademic elite decides what the people want. I for one am glad not having to worry about what I want as a voter. Thank god those left wing academics are there to tell me what I want and all I have to do is give them the money (taxes) so they can carry out what I want. They must be very smart to know what I want better than I do.

You seem to have this disturbing habit of putting words in my mouth and taking my arguments in directions irrelevant to my original point. I will reiterate again what I am trying to get across. When an obviously amoral and ineffective policy is the popular choice, a government is duty-bound to challenge it. That does not amount to autocratic rule, but responsible and ethical governance.

Furthermore, a government is far better equipped than the people to stipulate basic policy considerations and administrative issues. You seem hell-bent on putting every policy decision to a poll every time the question arises. With all due respect, that is not only a facetious suggestion, but completely unnecessary. Do individual citizens possess the staff and infrastructure to study a policy decision from all angles? Or conduct strategic evaluations of such decisions? Let's look at focus groups- the government is able to decide far better than I how to handle policy regarding disabled persons. Not being disabled myself, would a popular vote be fair, considering the disabled are a minority? By electing a government, we give them a respectable degree of latitude in reacting to issues in a responsible manner. If we need to put them to a public vote of confidence on every damn issue, then why did we elect them in the first place? If you're that suspicious about a government's motives, you'd be better off living in anarchy.

As far as the example you mentioned about americans support of Anti terror laws i used information regarding the unpopularity of critics of the Anti Terro laws, and a poll taken by ABC and some other hicks (cant remember of the top of my head- scroll up to article) which showed 60% support for the most contreversial element of the bush plan (milatary tribunals). That wasnt a political elite but a measure of public support.

If I put my stock in the polls, I'd have predicted us to win the Vietnam war, for Israel to nuke Syria 11 years ago, for India to have kept Karachi in 1971 and for Gore to have won the presidential election. Needless to say, opinion polls are a less than reliable instrument of querying an electorate about policy- these poll trends are frequently bucked spectacularly at elections, simply because pollsters can at best, sample a cross-section of the population to suit the political line taken by the newspaper. Suffice to say, the majority of private citizens assessed by registration polls on their shiny tax return forms have expressed dismay at the idea of military tribunals. So it would seem ABC have polled non-residents, PR's, welfare-users, the homeless and tax-evaders. A fine pool of opinion on judicial policy if ever I saw one- that, or they polled Jesse Helm's neighborhood in NC. Needless to say, I wouldn't put much stock in those opinions- when Rhenquist, Somers or Gratchow all present critical opinions of military tribunal, that's worth listening to- these are some of the brightest and most brilliant legal minds in recent history. While it's nice to be listened to by your government, I'm more than happy to have the likes of those three judges speaking on how jurisprudence is to be observed rather than listen to Joe Shmo from Cocomo.

Occy

Sand

Youre basically saying the people should keep their noses out of decision making and let the academics deal with it. It might be impractical to ask the peoples opinion on every little detail, but when their opinion is exspressed it should not be ignored because academics feel their opinion is amoral or ineffective- by whose standards? The academics?

The role of the government is not to decide policy, but rather form the peoples exspressed wish as policy- The people say what they want and the government makes it happen. The public you dismiss as "Joe Shmo from Cocomo" mightnt be legal einsteins but they pay the bills and they are entitled to have their opinion listened to as long they continue to do so.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The role of the government is not to decide policy, but rather form the peoples exspressed wish as policy- The people say what they want and the government makes it happen.

So, what you're saying is that if the vast majority of the people said in a poll that they would like to never pay taxes again, that the government should implement this into law? I dont think so.

The idea behind (most) democracies is that the people choose their representatives, and those representatives then make the decisions. They should take public wishes into account, but should not be ruled by them as you are implying.

The only country which I am aware of which caters far more to its public than the norm typified by the above is Switzerland. Over here, when a major change is needed, the public vote on it via a referendum. Unlike Ireland, this is not just constitutional change, but any major state-law change.

Should the public wish for a legal change, there are ways where they can force a referendum to be held. Similarly, however, the government cannot make changes without consulting the public. OK - this is hardly different to (say) Ireland, until you consider the types of issues addressed.

Recent votes included whether or not Switzerland could participate in international peace-keeping missions, and whether or not armed soldiers could be included in these missions. Whether or not certain restrictions should be put in place on road-usage and traffic. Whether Capital gains tax should apply to public investments as well as corporate ones...and so on.

A gopvernment cannot take straw polls into account. Either it should allow the people to vote, or it should decree policy according to its own educated principles. If the public disagree strongly enough, they can always put another party into power in a few years. Basing policy on uneducated opinions, expressed in a poll would be a road to disaster.

jc

Sand

Em no Bonkey....should the people want to never pay taxes again the policy should be okay-no taxes, but no social welfare payments, police force, etc, etc by exstension. Wouldnt take too long for the people to come round in that case. Assuming the people were as stupuid in the first place as you consider them to be to consider such public services could be provided without any taxation.

There seems to be an awful distrust of the public will, with the people often being passed off as too stupid to understand the issues. I assume thats just a characteristic of the left which goes from the socialists thinking they know better how to spend your money to the communists who dont want to confuse you by having more than one party to vote for.