freecounterpoint: hang'em!

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

hang'em!

19 comments:

Tecumseh said...: Evidently, Prodi knows who the "good guys" are. It ain't us.; 7/05/2006 6:14 PM
The Darkroom said...: yeh, what doers he think he is running - a sovereign nation ?; 7/05/2006 7:23 PM
The Darkroom said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 7/05/2006 7:23 PM
The Darkroom said...: It is also interesting that berlu denied involvement. 2 italian special sce agents were arrested. I wonder how high this story will go. berlu to the gallows ? that'd be something to celebrate.; 7/05/2006 7:37 PM
Tecumseh said...: Yeah--celebrating shooting ourselves in the foot, but lamenting the departure of sweet Zarky? Lovely.; 7/05/2006 8:08 PM
The Darkroom said...: putting away someone as contemptuous of democracy & the rule of law would be shooting oneself in the foot? pls explain.
who is lamenting zarky's departure ? I simply stated that it wasn't going to change anything. The US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad agrees with me apparently, reversing his initial position.; 7/05/2006 8:39 PM
The Darkroom said...: i'd be really curious to see what the reaction would be here if the italians were to kidnap a US resident if they suspected him of some form of wrongdoing.; 7/05/2006 9:31 PM
Tecumseh said...: If that was a bad guy, and they had good enough a reason, I personally wouldn't object. But I doubt the Italians ever had the coglione to mount such an operation.

On the other hand, the French thought seriously about pulling such a trick a few years ago, in Londonistan -- for good reason, I must say. Of course, they chickened out in the end, what do you expect?; 7/05/2006 9:59 PM
The Darkroom said...: i think this issue deserves more than an attempt at deflection - it is really about sovereignty. it also creates a dangerous precedent: is it ok for anyone to commit such kidnappings on foreign soils ?; 7/05/2006 10:10 PM
Tecumseh said...: Kidnapping is a loaded word. Let's just say, extra-territorial rendering to justice of a bad guy. There, does it sound better? And, why is pointing out that, say, Chevenement (a Socialist die-hard, non?) seriously considered doing just that, and was not deterred by any legalities, but rather, by the fear of bungling it by his Ispectors Clouzots -- why is that an "attempt at deflection"? I say it provides proper context, avoiding the trap of anti-american fixation.; 7/05/2006 10:29 PM
The Darkroom said...: ok if you want. but what about creating a precedent that would encourage anyone to do the same thing ?
You say you're all for it as long as they're "bad guys" - who decides what consitutes bad-guyness >?; 7/06/2006 8:43 AM
Tecumseh said...: When I give my moral imprimatur to such an action (and I agree, it has to be carefully planned and justified, I would not do so lightly), it's me that decides, of course! Well, not that anyone cares.; 7/06/2006 9:20 AM
The Darkroom said...: right - there is no one to decide so the US is actually really giving license to the spread of a very questionable practice.; 7/06/2006 9:44 AM
The Darkroom said...: Do you remember the days, when the US would call on nations "disappear" people they considered undesirable for violating their rights ? Can you imagine the global laughter if they did the same today ?

Likewise with this story - the US is really losing the moral upperhand, for the purpose of arresting a single criminal.

Policy doesn't get much more myopic than that.; 7/06/2006 9:56 AM
Tecumseh said...: Moral upper hand doesn't get you very far in a jungle -- you get eaten alive. I'm sure Blum, Daladier & Co were using similar high-fallutin words as a reason for not doing anything to stop Hitler way back.

At any rate, in case at hand (in Italy), I'm not quite sure what happened, but clearly it does not involve the kidnapping of an Italian citizen. What exactly were the legal protections afforded to that bad guy who just happened to be in Italy, preaching jihad? How come these sort of guys (and the ones in Gitmo) are always the darlings of the Left? Must give them a frisson kissing their butts: épater le bourgeois, as they say.; 7/06/2006 10:29 AM
The Darkroom said...: >>it does not involve the kidnapping of an Italian citizen.
is that really relevant if he is legally in Italy?

>>How come these sort of guys (and the ones in Gitmo) are always the darlings of the Left?
I think you are missing the point. This is not about loving these guys, it's about hating that the US fails to comply with basic HR standards - regardless of who the victims of the abuse are.; 7/06/2006 2:03 PM
Tecumseh said...: >>it does not involve the kidnapping of an Italian
>>citizen.
>is that really relevant if he is legally in Italy?

I'm not a legal eagle, but I think it's relevant. Just being in a country does not afford one the full protection (or the full duties) that a citizen of said country enjoys. It's International Law 101, yes? From what I recall, the guy we nabbed was a citizen of another country, where he was wanted -- we simply returned him to his own country, to face the music. Nuance.

And second, we're not talking about random tourists stranded on the Spanish Steps. We're talking about an enemy combattant, dedicated to fight and kill without mercy any number of us, with the expressed goal of destroying Western Civilization. This is war, and the rules of the Marquess of Queensberry do not apply to enemy combattants.; 7/06/2006 2:36 PM
The Darkroom said...: >>I'm not a legal eagle, but I think it's relevant. Just being in a country does not afford one the full protection (or the full duties) that a citizen of said country enjoys. It's International Law 101, yes?

no - this is hair splitting. The issue is whether or not the US should have jurisdiction over foreign territory to arrest whomever they deem dangerous. If so, should any other country be afforded the same privileges.

>>And second, we're not talking about random tourists stranded on the Spanish Steps. We're talking about an enemy combattant, dedicated to fight and kill without mercy any number of us, with the expressed goal of destroying Western Civilization.

Again, intent is meaningless. For all their talk, these people are harmless on the scale of the damages of actual wars and not worth revamping int'l law over.; 7/06/2006 10:15 PM
Tecumseh said...: Well, then, if my example with the French government contemplating the abduction of Hamza in London did not register, how about the abduction of Eichmann in Buenos Aires, in 1960? Did that conform to international law, or not?

And, by the way, one of the standard-bearers of the Left considers all of us to be little Eichmanns, thereby justifying the murder of some 3000 Americans that occured on 9/11. So I guess, in this twisted logic, we all are subject to be not only abducted, but killed in mass, for the "crime" of being "capitalists". The exact same logic of the Communist Manifesto of 1848, which is the foundation of all Lefty thought. And not just abstract thought -- an ideology that has been implemented in practice by the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, who did not give a rat's ass about niceties of international law, or any thought whatsoever to human rights. So, puhleeease!; 7/07/2006 6:54 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)