h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hey Coop, the last perfect man died two thousand years ago. . give it up.

If you are not willing to fight for that which we have, you are a liability.

Shut up and get out of sight, for when war comes lookin' its gonna find you and your family. And when your family screams for help from you. . .be sure to stick to your convictions as they die by anothers hand.

cooper, first you say: "If it reqiured my death to defend my nation and family i would gladly give it"

Then you say: " But I will not kill to defend them"

I do not understand coop how are you going to defend against mad men who want to kill you and your family. Throw kisses at them?

You go on to say : "is it cowardly to stick to my beliefs" "is it a lack of fortitude" No it is not in fact it is comendable as long as your beliefs and morals are good. but if those beliefs are to let mad men kill your family rather than defend them then those beliefs and morals are warped. Any man that would stand by idlely and watch his family be slaughtered has no morals.

next cooper you say: "you say that they consider it thier duty to kill. yet you claim the same duty to cut out the cancer"

Yes I consider it my duty to protect my family. I could not look in my young daughters eyes and tell her if someone were to try to kill you daddy would have to let them because I have the moral fortitude to stick to my pacifist beliefs.

If every one had your high morals this world would be populated by murderers only.

I am a father of 3 and I hate the thought of war. But i will do anything to protect those children. when a group of men tell me that they will do all in there power to kill my children, family and friends then kills over 5,000 of my nieghbors I believe him and i have 2 I can defend myself, family, and friends or i can wait for him to kill me my family and nieghbors.

Your family must be proud of you.

cooper, first you say: "If it reqiured my death to defend my nation and family i would gladly give it"

Then you say: " But I will not kill to defend them"

I do not understand coop how are you going to defend against mad men who want to kill you and your family. Throw kisses at them?

You go on to say : "is it cowardly to stick to my beliefs" "is it a lack of fortitude" No it is not in fact it is comendable as long as your beliefs and morals are good. but if those beliefs are to let mad men kill your family rather than defend them then those beliefs and morals are warped. Any man that would stand by idlely and watch his family be slaughtered has no morals.

next cooper you say: "you say that they consider it thier duty to kill. yet you claim the same duty to cut out the cancer"

Yes I consider it my duty to protect my family. I could not look in my young daughters eyes and tell her if someone were to try to kill you daddy would have to let them because I have the moral fortitude to stick to my pacifist beliefs.

If every one had your high morals this world would be populated by murderers only.

I am a father of 3 and I hate the thought of war. But i will do anything to protect those children. when a group of men tell me that they will do all in there power to kill my children, family and friends then kills over 5,000 of my nieghbors I believe him and i have 2 I can defend myself, family, and friends or i can wait for him to kill me my family and nieghbors.

Your family must be proud of you.

Hmmm.

Ok, so some of ya'll are saying that pacifism is cowardice, as it means that one would not be possible to protect your family with those ideals. I'd be the first to negate that, my friends. Pacifism is an ideal way of life in which a person believes that they and their country should be non-aggressive. No one would ever say that they wouldn't protect their own family or life if it was forced upon them. The point to Pacifism is that one should not fight unless it *is* under such extenuating circumstances.

In this case, I feel (along with a large number of people world-wide) that the US and UK's attacks on Afghanistan are unwarranted. There is still no *proof* given to the people of the US or of the rest of the world to Bin Laden's supposed guilt. If we're going after him (again) for his previous atrocities, then say so. I'm not saying he didn't do it, but what of the 5th and 3rd Amendments?? Are we to take away due process and the belief that people are "innocent until proven guilty"? So he's not a citizen of the US: are we to be hypocrits and not extend him his rights, under the Declaration of Human Rights from 1948??? As a member of the UN, we *must* uphold the ideals we helped draft!!!!

Also, just because he is the perpetrator, why must the Afghan people suffer? And no matter how anyone would deny it, they are suffering. I have many friends in the Mid-east and Pakistan, all of whom are questioning the US's actions, though they may love the US. I hear every day about our foreign policy and our pugnaciousness. We *must* not allow emotion to over-ride reason. We *cannot*.

I'd say more and finish my point, but I'm late for work... I'll type up the rest later.

Shanana

The question really centres on what "protect" means. It is possible to protect one's family without killing those who attack them.

In this case, killing them won't have an effect anyway.

Does "protect" mean "protect at all costs"? Would you nuke the rest of the world if it saved your family? Would you kill an innocent bystander?

Can the US decide that it's okeh to take OTHER families' lives away who had nothing to do with the 11 Sept. attacks? Doesn't that make people in Afghanistan justified in killing US troops, indeed destroying the US, to make sure that their loved ones aren't further imperiled? It's all a cycle. Retaliation will never solve the problem; if it did, there would world peace already.

--Cooper
(fearing Carnivore)

The prosecution of war is a little different than a prosecution in court. We have told the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants. They have refused. If he had surrendered, then he would be tried, and all of his rights would apply. Since he hasn't surrendered, and it appears that war will be required to bring him to justice, we're outside the realm of normal criminal law.

The United States has made its decision to seek out Osama bin Laden based on classified information. It would be foolish for us to give up those sources of information at the outset of a war. Furthermore, intelligence information is a little different than information gleaned from a criminal investigation. We often make decisions based on information that wouldn't convict.

I am satisfied that the president isn't making rash decisions and just picking a convenient target. It would be easy for him to blame the anthrax attacks on bin Laden, but he hasn't. They're still gathering information. If he was just picking people at random to attack, he'd be telling everyone that bin Laden is the one responsible for the biological attacks.

As for his rights, the 5th Amendment apply. He has been indicted for past terrorist actions as required by the 5th Amendment. If he were to be captured and returned here for trial, he would receive due process. As far as the presumption of innocence, that's only something that really applies in court. It means that the government must prove its case when it is brought to trial. It's irrelevant when applied to a fugitive.

The 3rd Amendment refers to the quartering of troops, and I don't really see how it applies.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is pretty hypocritical. It states that all those rights only exist if they don't come into conflict with the goals of the United Nations.

hey shanana,

why dont you go to afghanistan and find out if our actions are warranted? and if youre a woman, i recommend you go covered head to toe...if youre a man, you better hate the US, or they are going to kill you...

...but then i could be wrong...youre going to find out and report back of course. looking forward to it...

No need to be snippy, 42.

its my nature, cooper...you of all people should know that

and by the way, cooper, arent YOU looking forward to shananas report also?

Ok, you'll please pardon my insane and utterly stupid mistake in saying the 3rd Amendment. I aways do that - switch the 3rd and 6th Amendments (multiples of three do that to me). But my point remains. In the 6th Amendment, one is guaranteed a speedy public trial *and* to be presented with the witnesses and evidence against oneself.

Also, whenever a case is to come up, evidence must be presented (the fact that there is evidence and examples thereof)for the case to ever go to court. A suspect also cannot be accused of the crimes and held without evidence.

The public and the world doesn't necessarily want to know the sources of the evidence, nor the way it was obtained; rather, we want some of the pieces of evidence to be given themselves(ie, if there are cell phone records, tell us, if there is satellite footage, tell us, if there is a recorded conversation, tell us - not necessarily the specifics, but at least tell us what we're dealing with). In this case, evidence gathering is still occurring, and I will not say it *wasn't* Bin Laden, but I won't say it was. Innocent until presumed guilty stands in our courts of law, and it should stand with our public.

Also, the 6th Amendment also guarantees a right to an "impartial jury of the state", which we all know is entirely idealistic, but at least our statute. There is *no way in hell* Bin Laden could receive one of those in the States, which is why I feel he should be brought to the ICJ (if Interpol was doing it's job ::anxiously taps fingers on desk:. At least he's more likely to get a *somewhat* impartial jury (either way)on the international scene.

Ok, this has all been about Bin Laden, and you wanted me to answer for my comment that the attacks on Afghanistan are unwarranted. So I shall. Bin Laden is in Afghanistan, true. But Canada harbours more terrorists than Afghanistan. Why don't we go to war with them? If you say it's because they have an internal structure and a means of arresting/deporting suspects, then what's your problem with Afghanistan? The Taliban, though a horrible and entirely disgusting (to my sensibilities)power in that state, has the means to try, convict, and deport people who do wrong within their borders. And they - as we all know and have heard about - exercise that power mercilessly (to my sensibilities).

The have offered to give Bin Laden to a third power, but the US decided that it's position was non-negotiable. All of Bush's demands must be met for us to stop attacking the country. Well, I don't know if you heard the speech I did, but no country in the *world* would give in to those demands, as they *completely* deny the state's sovreignty. And he has stated that he does *not* want to go in and work on nation-building. Of course, my answer to that is "how the hell do you think terrorism within Afghanistan can be prevented without a strong centralised [and preferably American-sympathetic]government?" Bush's actions have been measured, I grant him that. But he is still a Texan and *still* deploying our men and women to the region.

In this, I am being entirely selfish, but I live on base, in Alaska, where many of my neighbors have suddenly "disappeared" and their families are not allowed to say where they've been deployed to. I have friends and families that I know who don't know if they'll see their husband/wife or father/mother before Christmas. If this becomes protracted (and we all know it will) how many of the children who live on my street who are under 5 may never see their father again? How many nurses will the hospital have to lose? Will Anchorage lose one of its two emergency rooms due to staffing shortages??

selfish and stupid...what a combo

I have read a little of these comments. . .and as war has developed me into a far differenet man than I was before sept 11th, I ask for clarification on all points before I start berating pansy worthless people who would let thier own wives or children die before lifting their fingers.


Aaron (ACE)

How did I miss this?

The Sixth Amendment deals with the trial. Prosecutors don't have to give any information to the public before trial. They are obligated to provide discovery if the defense makes a motion for it. Osama bin Laden isn't being detained with or without evidence. Since there is already an indictment against him and a warrant for his arrest, that evidence does exist.

All this assumes that there is an actual trial. Since Osama bin Laden isn't turning himself in for a trial its totally irrelevant.

Lovely of some of you to make this a forum for personal attacks rather than an exchange of ideas. I'll have each and every one of you know that pacifists are every bit as American and patriotic as anyone else. And, if needed, I will serve, but never in a manner that would intentionally destroy another person. I'd go medical or Red Cross. But I would without a doubt help my country. Just because I won't go out and mow down Bin Laden or want him to get the death penalty (too easy for him - let him suffer the rest of his life) doesn't mean I don't want to protect my country, my family, or my life. And at least I admit that I am selfish.

You know, I have read these threads with waining interest. Everybody has an opinion. .. a staqte of mind. . for some its the fact that they chose the side that makes it easiest to justify their lack of action. . others genuinely believe their state of mind. . .I do know htat. . being one of those guys that allows you to have an opinion in the USA. . .I just politely say Your welcome. . .I know that no matter what happens in forein lands. . no matter whather or not I lived or died over there. . your opinion would stay no matter what. . and I haven't the patience to try change it. . .but pacifist bore me. . .and I don't respect them. . .the Red Cross is an organization built on the best of intentions, but costs more lives than it saves. .I witnessresd that. . .so all ya'll pacifists and pro peace people. . .god love you. . .all ya'll antiwar people. .god save you for I won't. . opinions are opinions. . .and that is what these forums are good for. . .anonymous blasting by people too scared to give their real names. . .so carry on. . I will sit here in my chair and laugh so you all can't hear.


Aaron (ACE)

Cobra 2-6 out

Patriotic?

From the American Heritage® Dictionary:
pa·tri·ot Pronunciation Key (ptr-t, -t) n. One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.

I don't see it. A patriot should be willing to defend their nation.

I'll bet you didn't know that thousands of concientious objectors during WWII did their duty in a way as to protect their country. Going to war is not the only way. Many of those men were sent to the Wetern US to replace the many firefighters who had been drafted or enlisted and battled the forest fires, doubtless saving hundreds of homes and lives by their efforts. I would wager that their offerings were as important to those people who lived in the West as those who ewre overseas, saving the world. Those objectors loved their country and were not afraid to show their patriotism. They did not fight, but many were willing to die. I see that as an incredibly heroic act on their part, and I hope you do too.

Anyhow, not everyone can go over to fight. If they did, there'd be no country left to defend, in all honesty.

Pacisfists should be considered cowards until they prove otherwise.

I can acknowelge the firefighters bravery to an extent. It's not nearly the same thing as a willingness to face a conscious enemy who is trying to kill you and being willing to kill them.

Concientious objectors have been used as medics before. No one would doubt a medic's bravery.

My grandfather was a firefighter during the Blitz in London. Very brave. I can see why you say pacifists are cowards, but conversely bravery can also be stupidity. The use of force has to be legally and democraticly controlled otherwise the world descends to thuggery and barbarity, poverty and injustice and more violence.

Surely you want world peace?

Of course, not at any cost. But the price paid in lives lost must be minimised, and continued US and Israeli military action will probably inflame the situation and lead to further deaths.

Its obvious that the war is about economic control of resources as much as countering 'terror.' We need to negotiate secure and stable agreements on borders, trade and communication not just bomb the f**k out of places and people. Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein will just hide in bunkers...so will Bush and Blair while the brave men go on killing each other and whoever else is nearby.