Originally posted by Victor Hess Victor Hess:
Some stuff
Originally posted by Victor Hess Victor Hess:
I am calling the situation as I see it. if we are going to have rules, then we have to make sure that those rules apply to everyone who posts on this board; Mr menard included. This is not about one person, the bigger issue is the sanctity of human life and Mr menard post was very callous and insensitive. (perhaps the other bartenders in this forum may want to review it as to its intent and meaning).
Originally posted by Victor Hess Victor Hess:
To do otherwise is have this forum degrade to an animal farm (i.e all animals are equal but some are more equal than others) thosw who have read the novel "Animal Farm" will understand what i mean. That's all for now
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
There is no rule against being callous and insensitive. There is a rule against being insulting to another member. That will get you banned.Originally posted by Victor Hess Victor Hess:
This is not about one person, the bigger issue is the sanctity of human life and Mr menard post was very callous and insensitive. (perhaps the other bartenders in this forum may want to review it as to its intent and meaning)
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Just to be clear, do you see the little word under your name that says "greenhorn"? Do you see the word under Jason's name that says, "bartender"? That means that Jason is a moderator of JavaRanch and as such he has earned the respect and trust of the owner of this forum. You are a new person here so that means that we recommend that you before you start attacking people here you learn more about the culture. JavaRanch Saloon is not a typical forum that permits anything to go.
Now that I have your attention, when you registered here you agreed to abide by the rules of JavaRanch and one that we take very seriously is our naming policy. Please use your real name and not the name of a famous person or celebrity or a repeated name.
For a person with only four posts you certainly have quite a few opinions about how we should run JavaRanch. And considering you have no idea of the other things that Jason does behind the scenes to make JavaRanch the great site it is I find your opinion truly... uninformed.Originally posted by Victor Hess Victor Hess:
I think your respect and trust is misplaced.I think moderators on this forum should be held to a higher standard.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
...with a demand for his surrendered to the World Court.
[ flickr ]
Originally posted by Max Habibi:
Logically speaking, what's the basis for this assertion? I'm not aware of the world court being noted for it's softness on defendants. Or is the argument that all courts are thus inclined? Would a United States court of law be satisfactory? It was, I think, sufficient to convict and execute the world's last major terrorist.
Originally posted by Max Habibi:
Let's focus on this bit, as it's a interesting perspective. How are US courts not suited to try people like Bin Laden? That is,
1. justification for this statement: have other people like OBL failed to be effectively prosecuted in US courts?
2. Why would a US military tribunal be better then, say, any other sort of judicial process? What supporting evidence is that for the qualifier 'best'?
M
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
To put it into historical perspective, it's worth mentioning a little known but relevant fact, -- The USA was found guilty of state-sponsored terrorism by the World Court. Thus, the relationship between the USA and the World Court is that of a convicted felon and the justice system.[/QB]
Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Jason: The "world court" or International Court of Justice (ICJ) is an arm of the UN. I have little faith in most international bodies, chief among them the UN. <...> But, the US does not recognize the ICC, and rightfully so, so it is doubtful that would be the venue used.
To put it into historical perspective, it's worth mentioning a little known but relevant fact, -- The USA was found guilty of state-sponsored terrorism by the World Court. Thus, the relationship between the USA and the World Court is that of a convicted felon and the justice system.
Originally posted by Joe King:
On a slightly different issue, I'd personally not give bin Laden the death sentence. Firstly it would make him a martyr, and secondly (far more an important reason), death is too good for him - where is the suffering in that? I'd like to see him suffering in the worst possible prison we can find for a long long time.
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I don't understand this myth of creating martyrs. Dead people make lousy leaders. A living OBL in a US prison would stir every Arab terrorist to kidnap and kill US citizens to get him released.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
There is no requirement that one must be actively representing a government in order to be considered a war criminal.
As I understand it, there is. the supposition is that there must be a war before one can commit a crime in that war. No war -> no war crime. Thus, no war + crime -> crime.
And which law is this?
As interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, part of the answer is the Constitution. The full answer to your question may be found on p19 of this document (pdf).
The following quote from the document, page 20, seems to contradict the assertion that Constitution, As interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, supports tribunals.
There is no express language in the Constitution and very little mention in the legislative authorities that clearly authorized tribunals. However, there is historical precedent that may form the basis for an interpretation of the authorities to support the order.
Is your statement, than, supported by the supposition that if OBL had been captured and in custody before 9/11, we would have failed to prosecute him?
No, my statement is merely highlighting the fact that we treated bin Laden as a law enforcement issue instead of a military threat.
So if your statement in not supported by the supposition, than what is it's basis?
Thank you, it was a interesting read.
M
[ April 16, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]