What to do.... what to do...

What should I be voting for?

What to do.... what to do...

Postby Zokrah on Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:03 am

Ok,

Seeing as we've got a lot of opinions flying around these forums, I'm just curious for a general consensus of how we feel we should proceed with the following topics. I'm hearing a lot of people claim to know a lot about certain topics they can't possibly have knowledge on, (IE catch phrases of trust me I know, when speaking in context to torture and interrogation) and nothing but bitching and griping. So, I propose that since there's so many discontented people out there, I'd like to hear the SOLUTIONS to these gripes and see how people believe we should be fixing the problems of the world today. Largely, these problems are of an American nature and usually these resolutions pretains to Americans, but I can see how they might affect some other nations, so I'll invite ideas from others of different nationalites to weigh in. Below are a list of topics that seem pretty current on people's minds and a few off the radar for some. Lets see how people feel about them and what their solutions are. I'm not expecting everyone to weigh in on ALL the topics but I'd like to see what people think about the ones they can respond to.

Yun, don't disappoint me by being behind the curve on responding to this. I'd expect you to get a response first, if only second behind Madcat.

* The War in Iraq
* The War in Afganistan
* The Global War on Terror
* North Korea and it's nukes
* Pakistan's Taliban problem
* The Economy
* The treatment of terrorists/terrorism suspects
* Racism in America (both anti-white/anti-all others)
* Gay Rights and marriage
* Russia and the new USSR

Image
Confucius say: Man with hand in pocket feel cocky all day.
User avatar
Zokrah
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:27 pm
Location: Mildenhall United Kingdom

Re: What to do.... what to do...

Postby MadCat on Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:50 am

lol. Well, gay marriage (or gay rights in general) has already been talked about a little on these forums, and I'd actually rather not debate it again, since we've already agreed to disagree on the issue.

As for the other issues, I don't really feel I know enough to discuss them in any depth, so I'd rather leave it to the experts and chime in occasionally for the purpose of learning more.
I want my job description to be: "gets paid to draw sexy ladies." :D
User avatar
MadCat
=^-^=
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:13 am
Location: Bew Bogling Street, Everwas

Re: What to do.... what to do...

Postby David Yun on Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:18 pm

Respond to all that? Let's handle one at a time :)
"I want me some glory hole." --Jerry Jones
User avatar
David Yun
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3915
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Diremanistan

Re: What to do.... what to do...

Postby Zokrah on Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:16 pm

David Yun wrote:Respond to all that? Let's handle one at a time :)


*Sigh*

I said respond to what you feel you can answer! Damn you Yun; I'm upset that you didn't post more, but I only said I expected you to post second only to Madcat. Perhaps that was too much to ask.

@ Madcat: That's surprising actually. That's an unusually open stance you're taking on these issues right now. I'm sure you have an opinion about the other topics for sure. I'd love to hear them. I'm not out to disprove anyone's beliefs here. I'm just curious what people think should be done. I'm opening this up for more of a "how would you run the country" type of format, but asking for people to back up their ideas so we can see what, hmmmmm, options there are?
Confucius say: Man with hand in pocket feel cocky all day.
User avatar
Zokrah
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:27 pm
Location: Mildenhall United Kingdom

Re: What to do.... what to do...

Postby Yino on Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:09 pm

Those are a lot of topics, I plead ignorance in most of them. Since I'm the foreign guy in here, I only have basic knowledge on most of those topics as to being able to offer a solution, and I apologize if I crossed the line at some point. If I'm going to be knowledgeable about something that would be about the ethic treatment of terrorist/terrorism suspects.
First, a little local history background. From 1973 to 1980 Chile was run by a military dictatorship, in that period is estimated that near 5000 Chileans were executed (although the exact number is still not known) and a bigger number was tortured. Their crime was: being suspect of supporting the communist party. So, my whole generation has grown up hearing stories of torture and silent murders. I'm not proud to say that my generation is quite knowledgeable in the topic of torture and that it is quite a delicate subject in here, as there's still tortured people who survived that period. That's why I'm also quite biased in this topic.
Military is not quite good in defining the line of human treatment, is quite common for them to commit excesses in dealing with prisoners. And since there's also lots of feelings involved (ie. My friend died in the attack) is not a good idea to let them do the trials. Paranoia is quite common in these cases, some members of the military here were seeing communist everywhere and executed a good bunch of innocent people, the same applies for the terrorist there: members of the military seeing terrorist everywhere. The solution is simply, don't let them do the trials nor manage the prisons, those should be managed by different entities independent of the military. The military should do the attacks and the defense, not the managing not the justice military was not made for that.
<insert signature>
User avatar
Yino
 
Posts: 1133
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:08 pm
Location: Somewhere in Chile

Re: What to do.... what to do...

Postby MadCat on Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:07 pm

Hmm, well if you're looking for what people think, to get conversation rolling, then I'd say I tend to agree with Yino, that the military should do attacks and defense, but an independent judicial entity should do the trials and justice part of the equation. The military is focused on finding the Enemy and fighting them, I think that would tend to make them inclined to see things as threatening, even more than they might actually be. I'd like to have someone more impartial making the sentencing decisions. (This is totally just my opinion, but it sounds like Yino's seen more proof of it.)

Also, North Korea's nukes scare me, because Kim Jong-il seems unbalanced enough to cause some problems. I don't like that he keeps doing more nuclear tests, and the international community keeps saying "oh no, we don't like that" but not really imposing any major sanctions. (Or have they and I just haven't seen it yet?) But like I said, he seems crazy enough that he wouldn't even care if there were sanctions, I think it would just make him worse.

Re: the economy, saw an interesting article today. Pay-as-you-go government?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/09/ ... index.html
I want my job description to be: "gets paid to draw sexy ladies." :D
User avatar
MadCat
=^-^=
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:13 am
Location: Bew Bogling Street, Everwas

Re: What to do.... what to do...

Postby David Yun on Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:34 am

So this is why I wanted us to pick a single topic to address at one time.

On military detainees: any military is well within their rights to hold prisoners of war, and to interrogate them vigorously. POWs can be held for years without such liberties as legal representation under long established international law. The problem is that in our modern era, enemy combatants do not necessarily adhere to these same principles nor do they wear the uniform of a recognized nation, and "wars on terror" are not declared or rescinded in the traditional manner. Nevertheless, individuals apprehended on the field of battle, particularly if overseas, simply do not have the same legal protection afforded to civilians. Even if on American soil, a perp in the process of plotting the murder of thousands cannot be treated the same as say, a double homicide suspect. I cannot see how a domestic judicial body would be applicable OR effective in this case.

That said, we need some way to evolve. The military is not currently properly equipped to handle these situations in a morally unimpeachable manner. As much as it would be a pain in the ass to work out the multilateral politics, we'd need to lead a new "Geneva Convention" on the topic. As much as it pains me, I do have to agree with former President Bush that the rules of engagement are now outdated to address modern conflicts. However, I staunchly disagree that the answer is to simply do whatever we feel like. The rules of war need to be updated with the international community. The U.S. isn't the only nation to be attacked by Al Queda; England, Spain, etc. would be just as eager to prosecute their respective wars on terror. America needs to lead with courage and vision once again, not just lashing out at the most expedient targets.

As for North Korea, I believe I made my views abundantly clear in a previous post. Unlike Hussein, Jong really is crazy and a genuine threat. I wish we had the resources to devote to this issue swiftly and decisively, but we're stretched too thinly. However, since Jong's health is ailing, and his appointed successor seems to have a greater cultural understanding of the West, maybe we'll see less madness in the future.
"I want me some glory hole." --Jerry Jones
User avatar
David Yun
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3915
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Diremanistan

Re: What to do.... what to do...

Postby MadCat on Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:16 am

I think Yino's point, and part of what I was agreeing with, was that the military was becoming overzealous, and not just apprehending perps 'in the process of plotting' or 'on the field of battle' -- they were seeing threats where none existed, or making up flimsy excuses to grab people they didn't like - people who were innocent of any actual wrongdoing - and imprisoning them indefinitely or executing them with no evidence, no oversight, no anything. That's why I want an impartial judicial body in this case. So that if the military wants to grab someone, they have to prove there's an actual reason for it, not just do whatever they want to whoever they want, in secret.
I want my job description to be: "gets paid to draw sexy ladies." :D
User avatar
MadCat
=^-^=
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:13 am
Location: Bew Bogling Street, Everwas

Re: What to do.... what to do...

Postby David Yun on Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:36 pm

MadCat wrote:I think Yino's point, and part of what I was agreeing with, was that the military was becoming overzealous, and not just apprehending perps 'in the process of plotting' or 'on the field of battle' -- they were seeing threats where none existed, or making up flimsy excuses to grab people they didn't like - people who were innocent of any actual wrongdoing - and imprisoning them indefinitely or executing them with no evidence, no oversight, no anything.


That's one long sentence ;)

But how do you know that? I sure don't. Can you demonstrate a single case in which the military knowingly imprisoned an individual that they knew was innocent?

Put yourself in their shoes. With the stakes so high, do you dare NOT pursue potential threats with ZEAL? Given the choice between potentially incarcerating an innocent man, or say possibly allowing terrorists to detonate a dirty bomb on U.S. soil, which do you go with? We're talking thousands of casualties in a highly populated area, plus generations worth of radiation-related deaths and illnesses. That's an EASY choice in my mind. Running the risk of the lesser injustice is COMPLETELY warranted within the framework of ALL but the most idealistic of ivory tower ethical systems.

And where do you think we grabbed these people, and what kind of people do you imagine these prisoners to be? It's not like we black bagged soccer moms at the local mall. And I personally don't know of any prisoners who were executed, much less without a trial. Whenever the military seeks the death penalty, that does in fact, activate the civilian system of due process.

MadCat wrote:That's why I want an impartial judicial body in this case. So that if the military wants to grab someone, they have to prove there's an actual reason for it, not just do whatever they want to whoever they want, in secret.


The "impartial" judicial body is exactly what I was advocating, when I said the military was not properly equipped to prosecute a modern POW system of detaining "illegal enemy combatants". Even that very phrase is a relic of an outmoded system. But mind you, I'm not talking about a traditional civilian court. How could we possibly assemble a jury of the defendant's peers? How could we risk allowing months to drag on in a traditional legal proceeding in the face of massive and imminent threat? Oversight is one thing, to ensure that powers are not abused, but it cannot be as public as it seems you're asking for, lest sensitive security materials be compromised.

I'm not entirely sure what you're advocating here. I'm talking about an internationally accepted system of proceedings governing the treatment of enemy combatants -once they are detained-. It sounds like you're asking for a federal warrant system - I'm imagining a team of Delta waiting to assault some cave in Afghanistan, but they have to wait for a judge in Dallas or wherever to wake up, look over the evidence, and then give them the go ahead for the intrusion while the terrorists' mission is already well underway.

I empathize with your sentiments, and I too am an idealist (which is where Zokrah and I generally have our disconnects). But idealism is useless without pragmatic means of applying them into reality. Consider how many terrorist plots the United States and British military/intelligence services have already thwarted - that we know of. Toss in more that we the public don't even have a clue about. Now consider the ethics of our foes, and their treatment of civilians. The amount of hand wringing over government faults in this instance, while not entirely unjustified, is completely disproportionate with the simple need to protect ourselves. Many of the same people that are decrying the government for injustices would be calling for blood if we had to deal with the same terrorist bloodshed that say, Israel is constantly bombarded with. Literally.

In terms of a practical solution, we need a major overhaul of our grand strategy. We need to take our nation (and the international community) into a direction that will eliminate the very DESIRE of these groups to inflict harm on us. That will take no small amount of will over a very long period of time, including reforms to the way we handle detainees. In the meantime, we are absolutely within our rights to defend ourselves with necessary means.
"I want me some glory hole." --Jerry Jones
User avatar
David Yun
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3915
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Diremanistan

Re: What to do.... what to do...

Postby MadCat on Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:22 pm

I don't feel like you're getting what I'm saying, but I'm not sure how to describe it better. I think a word I chose in my last post is what led to misunderstanding. I'm referring to the kinds of abuses of power talked about in Yino's post.

Yino wrote:Military is not quite good in defining the line of human treatment, is quite common for them to commit excesses in dealing with prisoners.And since there's also lots of feelings involved (ie. My friend died in the attack) is not a good idea to let them do the trials. Paranoia is quite common in these cases, some members of the military here were seeing communist everywhere and executed a good bunch of innocent people, the same applies for the terrorist there: members of the military seeing terrorist everywhere. The solution is simply, don't let them do the trials nor manage the prisons, those should be managed by different entities independent of the military. The military should do the attacks and the defense, not the managing not the justice military was not made for that.


MadCat wrote:the military should do attacks and defense, but an independent judicial entity should do the trials and justice part of the equation. The military is focused on finding the Enemy and fighting them, I think that would tend to make them inclined to see things as threatening, even more than they might actually be. I'd like to have someone more impartial making the sentencing decisions.


Yes, I was referring to a system of proceedings once someone has been caught, to be sure that they're actually guilty of something. Obviously if they already know someone is engaged in terrorist activities, that's in their jurisdiction to apprehend and detain them. In cases where it's not so clear, if the military apprehends a suspect, it then has to show that they actually did something or were going to do something. It doesn't need to be completely public, I never said that, (in fact, I think our public judicial system needs an overhaul too), it just has to have oversight from an impartial judicial body, preferably one created for that reason, instead of being completely internal and no-one ever hearing about it.
I want my job description to be: "gets paid to draw sexy ladies." :D
User avatar
MadCat
=^-^=
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:13 am
Location: Bew Bogling Street, Everwas

Next

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Learn about Advertising | Learn about Contributing | Learn about Us

Website is © 2005-2008 Direman Press. All content is © their respective creators. All rights reserved.
cron