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

In addition to outright coercion, there's the matter of indoctrination.

'There'll be a place for you in paradise, just carry this bomb over there and detonate it. Of course, I'd *love* to join you in your martyrdom, but I'm a little busy organising other martyrs at the moment'.

<>

Absolutely. And a large proportion of the dead in WWII were civilians too. I don't remember the figures, but Poland lost something like 30% of it's population.

And one of the few things i would thank Stalin for was wanting to oppose Hitler. It's just a shame we refused to have him as an ally for the start (thanks to the US / GB block over Spain).

Effectively a book mark.

Interesting thought though, TR-how effective are those 'Michigan Militia's' going to be against the US military if the Government actually did decide to unleash it against it's own people?

As effective as Koresh's mob were against the ATF? And please note, I make NO judgement whatever on that action, just use it as an example.

And wasn't it Honest Abe who said 'Government OF the people, by the people, for the people."? Methinks he had more than garbage collection in mind...

>If this is correct then the bulk of what i've said has no ground. My understanding (drawn from about a dozen different newspaper and television articles in the first 24 hours of the story breaking) was that in the event of disagreement between detainer and detainee, as to the staus by which the prisoner should be held was decided by some third body, either independent or multipartisan.

The Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War states that when there is doubt as to a captured person statues, their status will be determined by competent tribunal. Until that time, their status is determined, they are entitled to treatment as if they are prisoners of war.

By regulation, a competent tribunal is a board of not less than three officers. It's my understanding that this has been traditionally a function of the capturing power. It's the only practical way to handle it.

I should point out, that the tribunal does not find people guilty of crimes or impose punishment. They just determine status. Any prosecution must take place in further judicial proceedings.

We have a long history of treating POW's very well. It is my impression that we are complying with the Law of War. I'm not to sure about the conditions the detainees are being held in Cuba. There was a news article on it last night on TV. I missed most of it. The reporter seemed to think everything was okay, but I didn't see anything myself.

I do trust our legal system. I don't always agree with their decisions, but I trust it.

As to the right to bear arms, it is meant to act as a check on the government. If the time comes to have an insurrection, that doesn't mean we can't conduct ourselves in compliance with the law of war. When we revolted, we generally used militias that had a chain of command and, when possible, a uniform.

I do think there is a conflict between having a right to bear arms and having a statute against treason. I think the treason statute should only apply to those who have sworn allegiance to the United States.

I'm not getting into the WWII discussion.

I think the treason statute should only apply to those who have sworn allegiance to the United States

Isn't that a little one sided, as citizens of a Western Democracy, we all have certain rights - the right to be protected by our own government - shouldn't those rights require a level of commitment to our nation. Of course if one wished to waive those rights...


As far as I know Britain is one of the only countries in the world where it is not considered illegal for one of her citizens to join the army of a foreign power.

I think people should enter into binding relationships knowingly. If you're just born here, I don't think you should be legally required to show allegiance to the United States unless you specifically swear allegiance. I think there may be a moral obligation, but I don't think it should required.

I didn't know it was illegal for us to join a foreign army.

Two Bit, your last posting confirms what I just heard Mary Robinson (UN Big noise whose title I forget) say on the radio - that according to the Geneva Convention the status of these prisoners has to be decided by an independent tribunal, and until that happens they are to be regarded as POWs. She also clearly stated that the tribunal does not have to be international, it can quite legaly be a US tribunal.

But what seems to be happening, unless I have misunderstood, is that the US has simply declared these prisoners to be unlawful combatants, on the grounds that it says so. It is very difficult to ascribe motives to that which are not at best dubious. It should not be beyond the wit of the US government to appoint a US tribunal in accordance with the Geneva Convention to decide the status of the prisoners properly, so why have they not done so?

The suspicion is of an administration which wishes to reserve to itself the right to try, sentence and presumably carry out sentence on these prisoners in camera, beyond the gaze not just of the international community whose sensibilities are apparently so irksome to you, but also of the citizens of the USA who as far as the European observer can determine, are thus far very supportive of the administration's stance.

I seem to recall a lot of talk at the outset of all this that the attack of September 11 was an attack not just on the US, but on freedom and on democracy. Well of course it was, but if the US is claiming to defend that freedom and democracy then it behoves it to demonstrate that it subscribes to those values which it claims as its own.

The alternative is that the US decides which rules to apply, and when, because it has the economic clout and military muscle to do so. That they can do this is not in doubt, but it is surely not the way to win friends and influence people. I remember the shock expressed by Americans that anybody should hate them so much.

It should be borne in mind that there was, and is considerable ground roots support in many countries of the Middle East for the fundamentalist and undemocratic views and methods of the Al Quaeda terrorists, including in Pakistan - an unstable military dictatorship with nuclear capability that has just pulled back from the brink of war with India. Doesn't anybody else find this whole situation just a little bit scary?

You're a cop, Two Bit - I'm sure you are familiar with the idea that you should walk softly and carry a big stick. You've used your big stick in Afghanistan. You had to, and with the support of most of the international community (remember the Alliance that Dubya attached so much impotance to?) and to a large extent you were successful. It's time now to walk softly, and demonstrate to all those who do not believe in human rights that YOU do, and that they apply to everyone. They all know you still have your stick.

Make that last but one posting, Two Bit - you responded more quickly than me.

The 'militias' are full of paranoid people who like to play soldier.
Many of them are ex-military and in many cases, the military was glad to be shut of them. If Uncle Sammy chooses to play hardball on a full-out military basis within the country, he will be outnumbered. Including the reserves and the state national guards, the armed military presence in the US is quite small compared to the population. If you add every law enforcement body in the country, it will still be very uneven and policeman have a little thing about having the feebies order them around in their respective jurisdictions. Forget the loonies. The number of 'respectable' law-abiding citizens in the US who have access to weapons, equipment, vehicles, aircraft, explosives, training, and land is simply mind-blowing. I know a respectable business man that I used to work for that could outfit a company-level force in 24 hours. With what he has on hand.
There has been a strong survivalist (and later, Y2K) movement in the US for over thirty years.
Originally, the fear was of invasion. It later mutated into one of another economic depression and now it is in fear of the 'new world order'.
As I have said before, the US is a country of immigrants who have always feared interference from the countries that they moved from, in some cases because they would have died if they stayed.

And as for our friendly neighborhood ex-priest Stalin, he would have had a much smaller country if Hitler had not been defeated by the same enemy that Napoleon was, the Russian Winter.

I know a respectable business man that I used to work for that could outfit a company-level force in 24 hours. With what he has on hand.


This is one point about the US that has always escaped me...

Why does a "Respectable Businessman" need all that hardware?

Apart from the obvious reason - the same reason short, balding middle-aged men feel the need to drive fast sports cars.

"As to the right to bear arms, it is meant to act as a check on the government"

In a modern context, this seems a bit out of date. I can see it making sense in 1776, when the state was armed with muskets, cannons and little else. But in 2002, when the state can deploy tanks, gunship helicopters, heavy artillery, paratroopers, bombers, not to mention a massive professional army and paramilitaries such as the Police, the idea that they can be kept in check by some guys with rifles seems a little optimistic.

Zagreb

continuation of my previous posting.

I don't see why any one man in a western democracy should need that sort of hardware.

IMO -

Anyone feeling the need for that sort of equipment whilst living in a "civilised" western democracy is more than a little paranoid.

Paranoia is a mental illness

Should anyone in need of psychiatric counselling be in possesion of firearms.

I really would like to understand why a supposedly civilised country insists on what seems to me to be a bizarre remnant of much earlier years.

Ok, doing away with the second amendment may not be immediately possible, or desirable at this moment in time. But there are limits, who really needs a 50 calibre machine gun? Is it really for self defence?

Also, doesn't anyone in the US ever ask themselves why there are far higher rates of shooting in the US, than in countries with much stricter gun control laws.

I agree with this, the US has to *prove* moral superiority in this instance, not just preach it.

As I've said before, no one is in any position to force the US to obey the Geneva convention or anything else. The thing is, if it flaunts these, as it is now, it will lose much of the support it has gained. Behind closed doors, even the government of the US's "staunch ally" Britain, has disagreed with much US conduct and is probably unsure of what it's eventual aims are. You won't hear any of that officially, of course, because the UK government seems to be unable to publicly disagree with the US government. The point is, the Coalition is fragile and should be treated as such.

Whisky,

Sorry, but I think your logic is skewed here. The US may be civilised but it is also a dangerous country, partly due to the lax gun laws (although lets not kid ourselves that they would solve everything. There are plenty of gun crimes in the UK and we have *very* strict gun laws), partly due to the massive crime rate. Whatever, if I lived in the US, I would probably want to own a gun for self protection.

Whiskey, check your figures. Media has a little joke they like to play on us, it's called 'If it Bleeds, it leads'. I spent most of yesterday reading the BBC news for Scotland, Wales and Britain. Lot of dead people on those pages. None of them shot.

I have tried to explain the mindset, the fears, the history of firearms culture in the US. It is all in the thread above. Paranoia is not a mental illness when you are being told that the entire world hates you, including your government, and neither are doing very much to dispel those fears.
Go look up 'Shays Rebellion' or 'John Brown' or the 'Berkeley' or 'Watts' or 'L.A.' riots.
It is a completely different culture. I believe in Viva La Difference. It is absurd to expect the entire globe to have the same culture. And it is absurd for the entire globe to expect to have a say in what the US does within it's own borders while most of the planet is busy rerunning old tribal jealousies.

<>

Equally i'd hate to think of the status of British troops such as the Ghurka Regiment should the US come across them in the field.

Just to drift the topic further, does anyone know what the status of mercinaries is in these circumstances? Are they just soldiers?

<>

There must be a BIll Hicks fan out there who can furnish us with the relative figures for gun crime in the US and UK - it's much ,more startling than even the most optimistic anti-gun lobbyist might hope for.

Yeah, I know that the US has more gun deaths by a huge margin and that this is directly linked to the lax US gun laws.

My point was - strict gun laws do *not* prevent dangerous criminals getting guns. This, in my opinion, is the main purpose of gun control, stopping people who want to kill other people from getting guns.

Also, the US is a highly competitive society, and this creates a lot of alientated and frustrated people. Therefore, it is inevitably a violent society where people are set to "go off" at some small irritation. This is the root of the problem, guns are just a way of adding to it.

<>

No they do.