|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 28, 2014 13:18:50 GMT
There is an old saying: That which proves too much proves nothing at all. I thought of this when I read your words about how all of humankind originated in Africa, as if that were (somehow) comparable to both the ethnicity and the religious heritage of those whose ancestors lived in ancient Israel. Your allusion to President Wilson's creation--the League of Nations--is most disappointing. (This was, of course, the forerunner to the current United Nations--for which I have the lowest possible regard.) As Wikipedia notes, Israel's assault in the 1967 Six-Day War was "in response to PLO sabatoge acts against Israeli targets." Finally, I believe you have answered your own question: The "ethnic cleansing" of Hitler was not even remotely comparable to what happened in Palestine (Israel) in 1948, as the latter did not involve mass murder. Also, there was no desire to exterminate an entire ethnicity of people, as Hitler wished to exterminate the Jews. And there was certainly no desire to achieve ethnic purity, as though any interaction with those of another ethnicity would necessarily have a corrupting influence.
Let us be more specific. Should the Native-American tribes that once lived in Manhattan be allowed to relocate back to Manhattan and through acts of terrorism and coercion force the existing residents from their homes and business to re-establish Manhattan as their hereditary homeland? Should the Cherokee Nation have their native homeland restored to them? We can cite case after case where Native-Americans were forced from their homelands but we would never even consider supporting a policy of returning them to their homeland and forcing out the "Americans" that replaced them. We're not taking about a 2,000 year old claim to a "homeland" but instead a 200 year old claim in most cases and the more current claim is certainly more compelling.
At sametime we're ignoring the less than 70 year old claim of the non-Jewish people that were forced from their homeland by acts of murder, terrorism, and coercion during the founding of Israel. What about them? If the "Jews" were entitled to their homeland from 2,000 years ago what about the Rights of the Non-Jewish "Palestinians" to their homeland prior to 1948? Why don't they have the "same rights" as the European Jews that immigrated to Palestine?
I fail to see how referring to the Covenant of the League of Nations is in anyway negative. Article 22 dealt with the Mandatory control of the former Turkish Empire and it was explicit in what the Mandatory was responsible for.
avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22
The role and responsibility of the British goverment as the "mandatory" of Palestine was clear. It's sole role and responsibility was to teach the existing "Palestinians" (Arabs, Jews, Christians, and any existing residents of "Palestince") how to govern themselves. It had no authority to grant or encourage the immigration of foreigners (i.e. European Jews) to take over in part or in whole the territory of Palestine to created a European Jewish nation in the Middle East. The only problem that really existed was that the League of Nations approved the British Mandate for Palestine that violated Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
The problem was not the League of Nations but instead it was the British government and the (Zionist) Mandate for Palestine that violated the sovereignty of the "Palestinian" people that lived in the territory designated as Palestine (i.e. separate from Trans-Jordan) at the end of WW I.
You refer to the Israeli invasion of Jordan in 1966 in response to PLO attacks against the IDF from the West Bank but that has absolutely nothing to do with the 1967 invasion of Egypt. Egypt had no intention of invading Israel and Israel had "moles" in the Egyptian military that were very much aware of this fact. Every piece of historical evidence reflects that Egypt and absolutely no intention of every attacking Israel in 1967 and Israel was very much aware of this fact. The claim that it was a "pre-emptive attack" by Israel was never true and many high in the Israeli government in the 1970's later admitted as much.
When I compare the Israeli State to the Nazis I obviously refer to the early years of Nazi control of German and not later developments such as the Holocaust that was decided upon and implemented in 1942 and not in the early 1930's when the Nazis assumed control of Germany. We can and should condemn the murder of over 11 million innocent people by the Nazis but does that imply we should ignore the murder of thousands of innocent Palestinians by Israel? The IDF has attacked innocent Palestinians in refugee camps (including one attack on a UN refugee camp) as well as murdering children including the case of a young teenager collecting wild bird eggs for food. Israeli bulldozers have run over and killed innocent people trying to protect Palestinian homes from destruction.
From my perspective murder is murder and Israel has resorted to murdering innocent people to advance it's expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and businesses as a policy of ethnic cleansing. It is obviously not on the scale of the Nazis but the practice of murder for the purpose of enthnic cleansing is identical.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 28, 2014 19:41:12 GMT
There is an old saying: That which proves too much proves nothing at all. I thought of this when I read your words about how all of humankind originated in Africa, as if that were (somehow) comparable to both the ethnicity and the religious heritage of those whose ancestors lived in ancient Israel. Your allusion to President Wilson's creation--the League of Nations--is most disappointing. (This was, of course, the forerunner to the current United Nations--for which I have the lowest possible regard.) As Wikipedia notes, Israel's assault in the 1967 Six-Day War was "in response to PLO sabatoge acts against Israeli targets." Finally, I believe you have answered your own question: The "ethnic cleansing" of Hitler was not even remotely comparable to what happened in Palestine (Israel) in 1948, as the latter did not involve mass murder. Also, there was no desire to exterminate an entire ethnicity of people, as Hitler wished to exterminate the Jews. And there was certainly no desire to achieve ethnic purity, as though any interaction with those of another ethnicity would necessarily have a corrupting influence.
Let us be more specific. Should the Native-American tribes that once lived in Manhattan be allowed to relocate back to Manhattan and through acts of terrorism and coercion force the existing residents from their homes and business to re-establish Manhattan as their hereditary homeland? Should the Cherokee Nation have their native homeland restored to them? We can cite case after case where Native-Americans were forced from their homelands but we would never even consider supporting a policy of returning them to their homeland and forcing out the "Americans" that replaced them. We're not taking about a 2,000 year old claim to a "homeland" but instead a 200 year old claim in most cases and the more current claim is certainly more compelling.
At sametime we're ignoring the less than 70 year old claim of the non-Jewish people that were forced from their homeland by acts of murder, terrorism, and coercion during the founding of Israel. What about them? If the "Jews" were entitled to their homeland from 2,000 years ago what about the Rights of the Non-Jewish "Palestinians" to their homeland prior to 1948? Why don't they have the "same rights" as the European Jews that immigrated to Palestine?
I fail to see how referring to the Covenant of the League of Nations is in anyway negative. Article 22 dealt with the Mandatory control of the former Turkish Empire and it was explicit in what the Mandatory was responsible for.
avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22
The role and responsibility of the British goverment as the "mandatory" of Palestine was clear. It's sole role and responsibility was to teach the existing "Palestinians" (Arabs, Jews, Christians, and any existing residents of "Palestince") how to govern themselves. It had no authority to grant or encourage the immigration of foreigners (i.e. European Jews) to take over in part or in whole the territory of Palestine to created a European Jewish nation in the Middle East. The only problem that really existed was that the League of Nations approved the British Mandate for Palestine that violated Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
The problem was not the League of Nations but instead it was the British government and the (Zionist) Mandate for Palestine that violated the sovereignty of the "Palestinian" people that lived in the territory designated as Palestine (i.e. separate from Trans-Jordan) at the end of WW I.
You refer to the Israeli invasion of Jordan in 1966 in response to PLO attacks against the IDF from the West Bank but that has absolutely nothing to do with the 1967 invasion of Egypt. Egypt had no intention of invading Israel and Israel had "moles" in the Egyptian military that were very much aware of this fact. Every piece of historical evidence reflects that Egypt and absolutely no intention of every attacking Israel in 1967 and Israel was very much aware of this fact. The claim that it was a "pre-emptive attack" by Israel was never true and many high in the Israeli government in the 1970's later admitted as much.
When I compare the Israeli State to the Nazis I obviously refer to the early years of Nazi control of German and not later developments such as the Holocaust that was decided upon and implemented in 1942 and not in the early 1930's when the Nazis assumed control of Germany. We can and should condemn the murder of over 11 million innocent people by the Nazis but does that imply we should ignore the murder of thousands of innocent Palestinians by Israel? The IDF has attacked innocent Palestinians in refugee camps (including one attack on a UN refugee camp) as well as murdering children including the case of a young teenager collecting wild bird eggs for food. Israeli bulldozers have run over and killed innocent people trying to protect Palestinian homes from destruction.
From my perspective murder is murder and Israel has resorted to murdering innocent people to advance it's expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and businesses as a policy of ethnic cleansing. It is obviously not on the scale of the Nazis but the practice of murder for the purpose of enthnic cleansing is identical.
How can you describe anything Israel has done as an attempt at "ethnic cleansing"? Do you really believe that it is the ethnicity of the Arabs in question that is central to the matter at hand, rather than Hamas' obstinate refusal to alter its charter calling for the ultimate destruction of Israel? Your quotation from Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, urging the "mandatory" to instruct the Palestinians from the former Ottoman Empire as to "how to govern themselves," is quite reminiscent of the (highly condescending) theory of "the white man's burden." No, I have no use whatsoever for President Woodrow Wilson's creation; or for its successor, the United Nations. I would no more quote its documents as authoritative than I would quote Marx's Das Kapital, or Hitler's Mein Kampf, as sources that we should allow to provide us with instruction. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 29, 2014 9:37:49 GMT
How can you describe anything Israel has done as an attempt at "ethnic cleansing"? Do you really believe that it is the ethnicity of the Arabs in question that is central to the matter at hand, rather than Hamas' obstinate refusal to alter its charter calling for the ultimate destruction of Israel? Your quotation from Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, urging the "mandatory" to instruct the Palestinians from the former Ottoman Empire as to "how to govern themselves," is quite reminiscent of the (highly condescending) theory of "the white man's burden." No, I have no use whatsoever for President Woodrow Wilson's creation; or for its successor, the United Nations. I would no more quote its documents as authoritative than I would quote Marx's Das Kapital, or Hitler's Mein Kampf, as sources that we should allow to provide us with instruction.
Hamas dropped it's call for the ultimate destruction of Israel years ago. Isreal, not the Palestinians, are responsible for the continued Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it is Israel that refuses to sign a final peace treaty based upon UN Security Council Resolution 242 that secures peace for Israel from any Palestinian threat. The Palestinians have even endorsed an international military force, preferably NATO forces, to occupy a buffer zone in Palestinian territory that would prevent any violence between Israel and the Palestinians.
In 1948 between 400,000 and 700,000 Non-Jewish individuals were forced out of "Israel" and that was ethnic cleansing. Over 11,000 Palestinians have been forced out of Jerusalem and many tens of thousands more have been forced from their homes since 1967 by the illegal Israeli immigration to the occupied territories and that is ethnic cleansing.
How strange that you'd oppose international treaty organizations dedicated to peace through diplomacy. Are you really an advocate of nations settling their disputes by war instead of through diplomacy?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 29, 2014 20:41:56 GMT
How can you describe anything Israel has done as an attempt at "ethnic cleansing"? Do you really believe that it is the ethnicity of the Arabs in question that is central to the matter at hand, rather than Hamas' obstinate refusal to alter its charter calling for the ultimate destruction of Israel? Your quotation from Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, urging the "mandatory" to instruct the Palestinians from the former Ottoman Empire as to "how to govern themselves," is quite reminiscent of the (highly condescending) theory of "the white man's burden." No, I have no use whatsoever for President Woodrow Wilson's creation; or for its successor, the United Nations. I would no more quote its documents as authoritative than I would quote Marx's Das Kapital, or Hitler's Mein Kampf, as sources that we should allow to provide us with instruction.
Hamas dropped it's call for the ultimate destruction of Israel years ago. Isreal, not the Palestinians, are responsible for the continued Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it is Israel that refuses to sign a final peace treaty based upon UN Security Council Resolution 242 that secures peace for Israel from any Palestinian threat. The Palestinians have even endorsed an international military force, preferably NATO forces, to occupy a buffer zone in Palestinian territory that would prevent any violence between Israel and the Palestinians.
In 1948 between 400,000 and 700,000 Non-Jewish individuals were forced out of "Israel" and that was ethnic cleansing. Over 11,000 Palestinians have been forced out of Jerusalem and many tens of thousands more have been forced from their homes since 1967 by the illegal Israeli immigration to the occupied territories and that is ethnic cleansing.
How strange that you'd oppose international treaty organizations dedicated to peace through diplomacy. Are you really an advocate of nations settling their disputes by war instead of through diplomacy?
I am certainly not an advocate of our merely pretending to do something useful, while really doing nothing of substance at all, just to mollify the folks who are not paying close attention to the matter. (Even settling matters through war--or, preferably, through really serious sanctions--is far better than not settling those matters, but simply engaging in endless "negotiations" for their own sake. At least, that is certainly how I see it.) Hamas' charter contains the following language: "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors." And this, "In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate." Please tell me when this language was rescinded from Hamas' charter; and show proof of its being eliminated from it. (Preferably, from a neutral source.) Note: Some people prefer to simply ignore this plain language, and accept the pontifications of others in its stead. For instance, Khaled Meshal (the leader of Hamas' political bureau) once noted that the charter “should not be regarded as the fundamental ideological frame of reference from which the movement takes its positions.” But I would much prefer to see the language of the charter itself changed, if Hamas really no longer wishes to destroy Israel. "Ethnic cleansing" is, just by definition, the targeting of one ethnic group because another ethnic group considers itself to be inherently superior to it; and it does not wish to be "contaminated" by this (supposedly lesser) group. (Hitler's targeting of the Jews between roughly 1939-1945 is a very good example of this.) But it has nothing whatsoever to do with what is going on now--and has been going on for about two-thirds of a century--in Israel. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 30, 2014 9:05:09 GMT
I am certainly not an advocate of our merely pretending to do something useful, while really doing nothing of substance at all, just to mollify the folks who are not paying close attention to the matter. (Even settling matters through war--or, preferably, through really serious sanctions--is far better than not settling those matters, but simply engaging in endless "negotiations" for their own sake. At least, that is certainly how I see it.) Hamas' charter contains the following language: "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors." And this, "In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate." Please tell me when this language was rescinded from Hamas' charter; and show proof of its being eliminated from it. (Preferably, from a neutral source.) Note: Some people prefer to simply ignore this plain language, and accept the pontifications of others in its stead. For instance, Khaled Meshal (the leader of Hamas' political bureau) once noted that the charter “should not be regarded as the fundamental ideological frame of reference from which the movement takes its positions.” But I would much prefer to see the language of the charter itself changed, if Hamas really no longer wishes to destroy Israel. "Ethnic cleansing" is, just by definition, the targeting of one ethnic group because another ethnic group considers itself to be inherently superior to it; and it does not wish to be "contaminated" by this (supposedly lesser) group. (Hitler's targeting of the Jews between roughly 1939-1945 is a very good example of this.) But it has nothing whatsoever to do with what is going on now--and has been going on for about two-thirds of a century--in Israel.
The effectiveness of the United Nations has often been compromised by the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council and that has often been the case with Israel. Numerous UNSC resolutions have been passed addressing Israel's violations of the UN Charter including Resolution 242 but no enforcement measures have been implemented because of the US veto power. That doesn't imply a fault with the purpose or intent of the United Nations but merely reflects a flaw in it's organizational structure that prevents it from doing that which it's intended to do.
In 2010 a senior spokesman for Hamas publically announced that Hamas was willing to accept Israel's right to exist and rescind the original Hamas Charter.
israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/hamas-accepts-israels-right-to-exist.html
This story was also reported by other sources such as:
signsofthelastdays.com/archives/hamas-recognizes-israels-right-to-exist-and-the-vatican-blames-the-occupying-of-lands-for-most-of-the-problems-in-the-middle-east
As for the issue of ethnic cleansing by Israel while you might choose to not see it that way most of the world does. It has even been openly cited by the UN human rights investigator for Palestine.
news.yahoo.com/u-n-rights-investigator-accuses-israel-ethnic-cleansing-172223577.html;_ylt=A0SO8y5sJrFTKBoAtNpXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzNGdqZDJqBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ3NF8x
Falk only addresses the recent events in the occupied territories and doesn't even touch the surface of the long-standing policies of evictions of Palestinians from their homes, land, and businesses that have been occurring for roughly 70 years.
So you can personally disgree with the assessment but at least 2 billion people worldwide believe that the Zionist's agenda is based upon a policy of ethnic cleansing of the non-Jewish population from their (the Palestinian) homeland. All of Palestine belonged predominately to the non-Jewish Arabs for hundreds of years, it was their homeland, and literally hundreds of thousands have been systematically expelled from their homes and lands based upon the Zionist agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 30, 2014 23:58:35 GMT
I am certainly not an advocate of our merely pretending to do something useful, while really doing nothing of substance at all, just to mollify the folks who are not paying close attention to the matter. (Even settling matters through war--or, preferably, through really serious sanctions--is far better than not settling those matters, but simply engaging in endless "negotiations" for their own sake. At least, that is certainly how I see it.) Hamas' charter contains the following language: "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors." And this, "In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate." Please tell me when this language was rescinded from Hamas' charter; and show proof of its being eliminated from it. (Preferably, from a neutral source.) Note: Some people prefer to simply ignore this plain language, and accept the pontifications of others in its stead. For instance, Khaled Meshal (the leader of Hamas' political bureau) once noted that the charter “should not be regarded as the fundamental ideological frame of reference from which the movement takes its positions.” But I would much prefer to see the language of the charter itself changed, if Hamas really no longer wishes to destroy Israel. "Ethnic cleansing" is, just by definition, the targeting of one ethnic group because another ethnic group considers itself to be inherently superior to it; and it does not wish to be "contaminated" by this (supposedly lesser) group. (Hitler's targeting of the Jews between roughly 1939-1945 is a very good example of this.) But it has nothing whatsoever to do with what is going on now--and has been going on for about two-thirds of a century--in Israel.
The effectiveness of the United Nations has often been compromised by the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council and that has often been the case with Israel. Numerous UNSC resolutions have been passed addressing Israel's violations of the UN Charter including Resolution 242 but no enforcement measures have been implemented because of the US veto power. That doesn't imply a fault with the purpose or intent of the United Nations but merely reflects a flaw in it's organizational structure that prevents it from doing that which it's intended to do.
In 2010 a senior spokesman for Hamas publically announced that Hamas was willing to accept Israel's right to exist and rescind the original Hamas Charter.
israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/hamas-accepts-israels-right-to-exist.html
This story was also reported by other sources such as:
signsofthelastdays.com/archives/hamas-recognizes-israels-right-to-exist-and-the-vatican-blames-the-occupying-of-lands-for-most-of-the-problems-in-the-middle-east
As for the issue of ethnic cleansing by Israel while you might choose to not see it that way most of the world does. It has even been openly cited by the UN human rights investigator for Palestine.
news.yahoo.com/u-n-rights-investigator-accuses-israel-ethnic-cleansing-172223577.html;_ylt=A0SO8y5sJrFTKBoAtNpXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzNGdqZDJqBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ3NF8x
Falk only addresses the recent events in the occupied territories and doesn't even touch the surface of the long-standing policies of evictions of Palestinians from their homes, land, and businesses that have been occurring for roughly 70 years.
So you can personally disgree with the assessment but at least 2 billion people worldwide believe that the Zionist's agenda is based upon a policy of ethnic cleansing of the non-Jewish population from their (the Palestinian) homeland. All of Palestine belonged predominately to the non-Jewish Arabs for hundreds of years, it was their homeland, and literally hundreds of thousands have been systematically expelled from their homes and lands based upon the Zionist agenda.
Frankly, I would not give even a nickel for "world opinion" or the views of the (mythical) "international community." In fact, whenever "world opinion" is aligned squarely against America's words or actions, that simply reinforces my belief that America probably has it right. (My respect for "world opinion" is just slightly lower than, say, my respect for the late John Wayne Gacy.) You have cited a story by Khaled Abu Toameh (that is not an Irish name, is it?), which is carried by a publication that openly declares its disdain for "ideologues" of the political right. (What the left sees as right-wing "ideologues," some others might see as men and women of principle.) And nowhere does the article even state that Hamas' charter has actually ever been changed in regard to its desire to destroy Israel; but merely that Hamas' "most senior representative in the West Bank" has claimed that he might be "prepared" to move in that direction. By the way, anyone who sincerely believes that Hamas is not a terrorist organization should probably note that the bodies of three (entirely innocent) Israeli teenagers, who were kidnapped by Hamas on June 12, have just now been discovered: www.foxnews.com/world/2014/06/30/bodies-israeli-kidnapped-teens-found-government-confirms/ |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 1, 2014 10:02:10 GMT
Frankly, I would not give even a nickel for "world opinion" or the views of the (mythical) "international community." In fact, whenever "world opinion" is aligned squarely against America's words or actions, that simply reinforces my belief that America probably has it right. (My respect for "world opinion" is just slightly lower than, say, my respect for the late John Wayne Gacy.) You have cited a story by Khaled Abu Toameh (that is not an Irish name, is it?), which is carried by a publication that openly declares its disdain for "ideologues" of the political right. (What the left sees as right-wing "ideologues," some others might see as men and women of principle.) And nowhere does the article even state that Hamas' charter has actually ever been changed in regard to its desire to destroy Israel; but merely that Hamas' "most senior representative in the West Bank" has claimed that he might be "prepared" to move in that direction. By the way, anyone who sincerely believes that Hamas is not a terrorist organization should probably note that the bodies of three (entirely innocent) Israeli teenagers, who were kidnapped by Hamas on June 12, have just now been discovered: www.foxnews.com/world/2014/06/30/bodies-israeli-kidnapped-teens-found-government-confirms/
If the United States is going to be involved in world affairs then the opinions of the world do matter. No nation can stand alone against the rest of the world and it is delusional to believe that can happen.
I cited two different sources for the same story on Hamas where it has fundamentally abandoned it's original charter. There were numerous other stories at the time but we should note that Israel rejected these overtures from Hamas. After decades of conflict both Hamas and the PLO have openly embraced a final peace agreement based upon UNSC Resolution 242 that ensures peace between Israel and Palestine and it is Israel that rejects that peace today.
The story of the three teens was very sad but there is no actual evidence that this was sanctioned by Hamas or even that those committing the acts were members of Hamas. Just because "Israel says so" has zero meaning. The murders occurred in the West Bank, not Gaza, and Hamas is located in Gaza. We can also note that Israel has been in an undeclared state of war against Gaza for at least a decade. We can also note that Israel has started a bombing campaign agianst Gaza that will unquestionably result in the deaths of innocent Palestinians. Those responsible for the murder of these teenagers are almost certainly somewhere in the West Bank and not in Gaza so why is Israel bombing innocent civilians in Gaza? Israel doesn't seek justice but instead seeks revenge and is willing to murder innocent people in it's acts of revenge.
It is also sad that these Israeli teenagers were even in the West Bank because they were there in violation of International Law (Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions) and Israel, not the teenagers, is responsible for this violation of International Law. Article 49 prohibits the immigration of the civilian population from a nation in military occupation of a territory to that occupied territory. The Israeli immigration to E Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Golan Heights has been universally condemned as a violation of International Law.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 2, 2014 0:24:56 GMT
Frankly, I would not give even a nickel for "world opinion" or the views of the (mythical) "international community." In fact, whenever "world opinion" is aligned squarely against America's words or actions, that simply reinforces my belief that America probably has it right. (My respect for "world opinion" is just slightly lower than, say, my respect for the late John Wayne Gacy.) You have cited a story by Khaled Abu Toameh (that is not an Irish name, is it?), which is carried by a publication that openly declares its disdain for "ideologues" of the political right. (What the left sees as right-wing "ideologues," some others might see as men and women of principle.) And nowhere does the article even state that Hamas' charter has actually ever been changed in regard to its desire to destroy Israel; but merely that Hamas' "most senior representative in the West Bank" has claimed that he might be "prepared" to move in that direction. By the way, anyone who sincerely believes that Hamas is not a terrorist organization should probably note that the bodies of three (entirely innocent) Israeli teenagers, who were kidnapped by Hamas on June 12, have just now been discovered: www.foxnews.com/world/2014/06/30/bodies-israeli-kidnapped-teens-found-government-confirms/
If the United States is going to be involved in world affairs then the opinions of the world do matter. No nation can stand alone against the rest of the world and it is delusional to believe that can happen.
I cited two different sources for the same story on Hamas where it has fundamentally abandoned it's original charter. There were numerous other stories at the time but we should note that Israel rejected these overtures from Hamas. After decades of conflict both Hamas and the PLO have openly embraced a final peace agreement based upon UNSC Resolution 242 that ensures peace between Israel and Palestine and it is Israel that rejects that peace today.
The story of the three teens was very sad but there is no actual evidence that this was sanctioned by Hamas or even that those committing the acts were members of Hamas. Just because "Israel says so" has zero meaning. The murders occurred in the West Bank, not Gaza, and Hamas is located in Gaza. We can also note that Israel has been in an undeclared state of war against Gaza for at least a decade. We can also note that Israel has started a bombing campaign agianst Gaza that will unquestionably result in the deaths of innocent Palestinians. Those responsible for the murder of these teenagers are almost certainly somewhere in the West Bank and not in Gaza so why is Israel bombing innocent civilians in Gaza? Israel doesn't seek justice but instead seeks revenge and is willing to murder innocent people in it's acts of revenge.
It is also sad that these Israeli teenagers were even in the West Bank because they were there in violation of International Law (Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions) and Israel, not the teenagers, is responsible for this violation of International Law. Article 49 prohibits the immigration of the civilian population from a nation in military occupation of a territory to that occupied territory. The Israeli immigration to E Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Golan Heights has been universally condemned as a violation of International Law.
I find it most regrettable that you have adopted a blame-the-victims mindset with regard to these three (murdered) Israeli teenagers. (It is a bit like one's claiming that a victim of rape merely brought it upon herself, by dressing too provocatively.) Israel's bombing of Gaza is not exclusively in response to this horrid act (apparently) by Hamas. Rather, it is largely in response to a bombing campaign by Hamas against (totally innocent) Israeli citizens. But the left would really perfer to overlook this little matter. The stories you "cited" did not indicate that Hamas' actual charter has ever been changed; but merely that some functionary claimed that he would, perhaps, be "prepared" to make some changes. As for your assertion that "[n]o nation can stand alone against the rest of the world," I have stated previously--and I will reiterate the point here--that I believe that the US, just by itself, should be militarily superior to the combined militaries of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and any other countries that might oppose us. No, not superior with the aid of America's allies; but superior just by ourselves. And it ought not even be close--more like a matter of military supremacy, rather than just military superiority. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 2, 2014 11:39:13 GMT
I find it most regrettable that you have adopted a blame-the-victims mindset with regard to these three (murdered) Israeli teenagers. (It is a bit like one's claiming that a victim of rape merely brought it upon herself, by dressing too provocatively.) Israel's bombing of Gaza is not exclusively in response to this horrid act (apparently) by Hamas. Rather, it is largely in response to a bombing campaign by Hamas against (totally innocent) Israeli citizens. But the left would really perfer to overlook this little matter. The stories you "cited" did not indicate that Hamas' actual charter has ever been changed; but merely that some functionary claimed that he would, perhaps, be "prepared" to make some changes. As for your assertion that "[n]o nation can stand alone against the rest of the world," I have stated previously--and I will reiterate the point here--that I believe that the US, just by itself, should be militarily superior to the combined militaries of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and any other countries that might oppose us. No, not superior with the aid of America's allies; but superior just by ourselves. And it ought not even be close--more like a matter of military supremacy, rather than just military superiority.
I DO NOT blame the teenagers. That is pure BS.
For it's part I do blame the Zionist government of Israel though. The Israeli immigration to the occupied territories is a direct violation of International Law as established by the Geneva Conventions (that Israel and the US are both a party to). It is the Israeli government that is to blame because it authorizes the immigration and not the teenagers that happen to do what their government authorizes. If there were no Israeli immigrants to the West Bank then there would have been no crime committed.
That is not to excuse the actions of those that committed the murders because their acts are unquestionably reprehensible but it points out that two crimes have been committed and not just one.
I know your opinion on International Law but you must realize that countries voluntarily agree to comply with these laws. No one forced Israel or the US to become treaty members of the Geneva Conventions and that treaty establishes international law. The "Rule of Law" is just as valid based upon international treaties that nations agree to as it is for our national laws that Americans agree to abide by. The failure to comply with International Law is not just a problem for Israel but the US often fails to follow international law as well. As a Libertarian I believe in the Rule of Law but obviously others don't.
As for national defense you are aware of the fact that China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela combined are incapable of invading the United States. Yes, Russia could attack us with nuclear weapons but won't and North Korea may be able to but has stated it would only do so if attacked by the United States. The United States has the two largest oceans of the world protecting us from invasion and no nation or alliance of nations has the naval forces necessary to invade the United States.
If you will check the US Constitution it establishes that the enumerated role of the US military (militia) is to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." For the "Constitutional Conservative" that believes the Constitution limits the actions of government based upon enumeration the use of the US military for any purpose other than to "executre the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal invasions" is Unconstitutional. You're going to have to start wearing the "hat" of the "Constitutional Progressive" if you advocate using the US military for other purposes.
constitution.findlaw.com/article1/article.html
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 2, 2014 23:57:26 GMT
I find it most regrettable that you have adopted a blame-the-victims mindset with regard to these three (murdered) Israeli teenagers. (It is a bit like one's claiming that a victim of rape merely brought it upon herself, by dressing too provocatively.) Israel's bombing of Gaza is not exclusively in response to this horrid act (apparently) by Hamas. Rather, it is largely in response to a bombing campaign by Hamas against (totally innocent) Israeli citizens. But the left would really perfer to overlook this little matter. The stories you "cited" did not indicate that Hamas' actual charter has ever been changed; but merely that some functionary claimed that he would, perhaps, be "prepared" to make some changes. As for your assertion that "[n]o nation can stand alone against the rest of the world," I have stated previously--and I will reiterate the point here--that I believe that the US, just by itself, should be militarily superior to the combined militaries of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and any other countries that might oppose us. No, not superior with the aid of America's allies; but superior just by ourselves. And it ought not even be close--more like a matter of military supremacy, rather than just military superiority.
I DO NOT blame the teenagers. That is pure BS.
For it's part I do blame the Zionist government of Israel though. The Israeli immigration to the occupied territories is a direct violation of International Law as established by the Geneva Conventions (that Israel and the US are both a party to). It is the Israeli government that is to blame because it authorizes the immigration and not the teenagers that happen to do what their government authorizes. If there were no Israeli immigrants to the West Bank then there would have been no crime committed.
That is not to excuse the actions of those that committed the murders because their acts are unquestionably reprehensible but it points out that two crimes have been committed and not just one.
I know your opinion on International Law but you must realize that countries voluntarily agree to comply with these laws. No one forced Israel or the US to become treaty members of the Geneva Conventions and that treaty establishes international law. The "Rule of Law" is just as valid based upon international treaties that nations agree to as it is for our national laws that Americans agree to abide by. The failure to comply with International Law is not just a problem for Israel but the US often fails to follow international law as well. As a Libertarian I believe in the Rule of Law but obviously others don't.
As for national defense you are aware of the fact that China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela combined are incapable of invading the United States. Yes, Russia could attack us with nuclear weapons but won't and North Korea may be able to but has stated it would only do so if attacked by the United States. The United States has the two largest oceans of the world protecting us from invasion and no nation or alliance of nations has the naval forces necessary to invade the United States.
If you will check the US Constitution it establishes that the enumerated role of the US military (militia) is to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." For the "Constitutional Conservative" that believes the Constitution limits the actions of government based upon enumeration the use of the US military for any purpose other than to "executre the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal invasions" is Unconstitutional. You're going to have to start wearing the "hat" of the "Constitutional Progressive" if you advocate using the US military for other purposes.
constitution.findlaw.com/article1/article.html
I am sorry if you regard it as unconstitutional for the US to have a military force that is for purposes other than purely domestic ones (or even "repel[ling]" an invader of the homeland). If that is your position, you must believe that Anerica's opposition to Nazi Germany in WWII was unconstitutional, since Germany did not invade the US. Whereas it was once widely believed that the Atlantic and Pacific oceans provided a very large measure of protection for the US--and it was as a result of this belief that isolationism became such a strong doctrine in America in the 1930s--the horrid events of 9/11 (well, the first 9/11--the one in 2001) have shown that this view was extremely naive. To claim that it is "pure BS" to note that you appear to be blaming the victims--to some extent, at least--surely ignores the fact that you cited Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions, in support of your view that these Israeli teenagers were where they simply should not have been; thereby attenuating the guilt of the murderers. Note: A Palestinian teenager was found murdered today. It is still unclear, as I write this, whether this was in response to the murder of these three Israeli teenagers. But if it was, it was an entirely indefensible act of revenge. This young man, also, was entirely innocent of any wrongdoing; and murder is murder, irrespective of whether the victim is Palestinian or Israeli. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 3, 2014 9:44:09 GMT
I am sorry if you regard it as unconstitutional for the US to have a military force that is for purposes other than purely domestic ones (or even "repel[ling]" an invader of the homeland). If that is your position, you must believe that Anerica's opposition to Nazi Germany in WWII was unconstitutional, since Germany did not invade the US. Whereas it was once widely believed that the Atlantic and Pacific oceans provided a very large measure of protection for the US--and it was as a result of this belief that isolationism became such a strong doctrine in America in the 1930s--the horrid events of 9/11 (well, the first 9/11--the one in 2001) have shown that this view was extremely naive. To claim that it is "pure BS" to note that you appear to be blaming the victims--to some extent, at least--surely ignores the fact that you cited Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions, in support of your view that these Israeli teenagers were where they simply should not have been; thereby attenuating the guilt of the murderers. Note: A Palestinian teenager was found murdered today. It is still unclear, as I write this, whether this was in response to the murder of these three Israeli teenagers. But if it was, it was an entirely indefensible act of revenge. This young man, also, was entirely innocent of any wrongdoing; and murder is murder, irrespective of whether the victim is Palestinian or Israeli.
Germany declared war on the United States and immediately began sinking of US ships off of our Atlantic coast often within sight of the US mainland before the US declared war on Germany. The attacks against US flagged merchant shipping in our territorial waters or on the high seas constituted an "invasion" of the United States. Flagged vessels of a nation on the high seas are considered to be "sovereign territory" of the nation under international maritime law. This is a primary reason why the Article I Section 8 also delegates a responsibility of the Congress to address piracy as it is a criminal act taking place on US "territory" (i.e. the decks of a US flagged vessel).
The attacks of 9/11/2001 were in response to the US military being in Saudi Arabia to carry out US Air Force "invasions and attacks" against Iraq during the 1990's following the Gulf War as well as our support for Israel.
You're attempting to rationalize a progressive interpretation of the US Constitution because the Constitution does not enumerate any responsibility for the US government to use the military for the purpose of foreign interventionism. Of note you're also rationalizing a progressive interpretation of the Constitution when you support our immigration laws because the US Constitution doesn't enumerate any role or responsibility for our government to regulate immigration. The word "immigration" is not found in the US Constitution and "naturalization =/= immigration" which is the "progressive" argument for our immigration restrictions. There is no obligation whatsoever that an immigrant must become a naturalized citizen of the United States.
I do not blame the teenage boys at all and I completely agree that their murder, as well as the possible murder of a Palestinian boy, are heinous criminal acts. The fact that Israel is committing a greater offense by violations of the Rights of the Palestinian People in allowing civilian immigration (in violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions) does not diminish the seriousness of the offense of the murderers. The boys, both Israeli and Palestinian, have become pawns related to a much greater offense being committed by Israel but that doesn't lessen the offenses committed agains them at all. The boys on both sides are victims not only of those that murdered them but are also victims of Israel's violations of the Rights of the Palenstinian People. That makes them the victims of far greater crimes than just murder.
It should be noted that in US courts the violation of the Rights of the Person by government has always been considered worse than any crime a person could have committed. If you've ever seen the movie "The Hurricane" about Rubin Carter in it Rod Steiger, in playing the role of Federal Judge Sarokin, quotes the federal judges statements where he established that Carter's conviction was "predicated upon an appeal to racism rather than reason, and concealment rather than disclosure" that violated Carter's Constitutional Rights and that this violation by the prosecution was more serious than the murders that Carter had been convicted of. Hurricane Carter was never cleared of the conviction for murder but was released because of the violation of his Constitutional Rights that was a far greater offense than murder under the law. To this day we don't know if Carter committed the murders (although it is doubtful he did based upon actual evidence).
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 3, 2014 18:26:43 GMT
I am sorry if you regard it as unconstitutional for the US to have a military force that is for purposes other than purely domestic ones (or even "repel[ling]" an invader of the homeland). If that is your position, you must believe that Anerica's opposition to Nazi Germany in WWII was unconstitutional, since Germany did not invade the US. Whereas it was once widely believed that the Atlantic and Pacific oceans provided a very large measure of protection for the US--and it was as a result of this belief that isolationism became such a strong doctrine in America in the 1930s--the horrid events of 9/11 (well, the first 9/11--the one in 2001) have shown that this view was extremely naive. To claim that it is "pure BS" to note that you appear to be blaming the victims--to some extent, at least--surely ignores the fact that you cited Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions, in support of your view that these Israeli teenagers were where they simply should not have been; thereby attenuating the guilt of the murderers. Note: A Palestinian teenager was found murdered today. It is still unclear, as I write this, whether this was in response to the murder of these three Israeli teenagers. But if it was, it was an entirely indefensible act of revenge. This young man, also, was entirely innocent of any wrongdoing; and murder is murder, irrespective of whether the victim is Palestinian or Israeli.
Germany declared war on the United States and immediately began sinking of US ships off of our Atlantic coast often within sight of the US mainland before the US declared war on Germany. The attacks against US flagged merchant shipping in our territorial waters or on the high seas constituted an "invasion" of the United States. Flagged vessels of a nation on the high seas are considered to be "sovereign territory" of the nation under international maritime law. This is a primary reason why the Article I Section 8 also delegates a responsibility of the Congress to address piracy as it is a criminal act taking place on US "territory" (i.e. the decks of a US flagged vessel).
The attacks of 9/11/2001 were in response to the US military being in Saudi Arabia to carry out US Air Force "invasions and attacks" against Iraq during the 1990's following the Gulf War as well as our support for Israel.
You're attempting to rationalize a progressive interpretation of the US Constitution because the Constitution does not enumerate any responsibility for the US government to use the military for the purpose of foreign interventionism. Of note you're also rationalizing a progressive interpretation of the Constitution when you support our immigration laws because the US Constitution doesn't enumerate any role or responsibility for our government to regulate immigration. The word "immigration" is not found in the US Constitution and "naturalization =/= immigration" which is the "progressive" argument for our immigration restrictions. There is no obligation whatsoever that an immigrant must become a naturalized citizen of the United States.
I do not blame the teenage boys at all and I completely agree that their murder, as well as the possible murder of a Palestinian boy, are heinous criminal acts. The fact that Israel is committing a greater offense by violations of the Rights of the Palestinian People in allowing civilian immigration (in violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions) does not diminish the seriousness of the offense of the murderers. The boys, both Israeli and Palestinian, have become pawns related to a much greater offense being committed by Israel but that doesn't lessen the offenses committed agains them at all. The boys on both sides are victims not only of those that murdered them but are also victims of Israel's violations of the Rights of the Palenstinian People. That makes them the victims of far greater crimes than just murder.
It should be noted that in US courts the violation of the Rights of the Person by government has always been considered worse than any crime a person could have committed. If you've ever seen the movie "The Hurricane" about Rubin Carter in it Rod Steiger, in playing the role of Federal Judge Sarokin, quotes the federal judges statements where he established that Carter's conviction was "predicated upon an appeal to racism rather than reason, and concealment rather than disclosure" that violated Carter's Constitutional Rights and that this violation by the prosecution was more serious than the murders that Carter had been convicted of. Hurricane Carter was never cleared of the conviction for murder but was released because of the violation of his Constitutional Rights that was a far greater offense than murder under the law. To this day we don't know if Carter committed the murders (although it is doubtful he did based upon actual evidence).
I am not sufficiently familiar with the case of Hurricane Carter to be able to comment intelligently upon the question of his (ostensible) guilt. Yes, we are agreed that the murder of anyone--whether Israeil or Palestinian--is horrendous, and utterly indefensible. Where we disagree is over your belief that Israel is a violator of "the Rights of the Palestinian People." Your view that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were merely a predictable "response" to America's presence in Saudi Arabia and its 1990 war against Saddam Hussein, in addition to its "support for Israel," almost perfectly mirrors the explanation offered by the late Osama bin Laden. And I really do not believe that is a reliable explanation. (It is--to use a word that you have employed elsewhere in the above post--a mere "rationaliz[ation].") If you truly believe that you can advance your case through cheap name-calling--more specifically, by labeling me a "progressive"--then please feel free to do so. (Actually, it seems a bit ironic, since you have used that same word to describe yourself--as an adjective, appearing before "libertarian.") |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 6, 2014 13:53:19 GMT
I am not sufficiently familiar with the case of Hurricane Carter to be able to comment intelligently upon the question of his (ostensible) guilt. Yes, we are agreed that the murder of anyone--whether Israeil or Palestinian--is horrendous, and utterly indefensible. Where we disagree is over your belief that Israel is a violator of "the Rights of the Palestinian People." Your view that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were merely a predictable "response" to America's presence in Saudi Arabia and its 1990 war against Saddam Hussein, in addition to its "support for Israel," almost perfectly mirrors the explanation offered by the late Osama bin Laden. And I really do not believe that is a reliable explanation. (It is--to use a word that you have employed elsewhere in the above post--a mere "rationaliz[ation].") If you truly believe that you can advance your case through cheap name-calling--more specifically, by labeling me a "progressive"--then please feel free to do so. (Actually, it seems a bit ironic, since you have used that same word to describe yourself--as an adjective, appearing before "libertarian.")
The point I made was that the federal court correctly stated that the violations of Carter's Constitutional Rights were more serious than murder itself. That is actually well established by Constitutional precedent were evidence collected in violation of the "Rights of the Accused" is excluded from presentation in a court of law against them. The police could, for example, have a sworn confession for "murder" from the accused but if the accused was denied legal representation prior to the confession it's excluded from being used as evidence at the trial.
Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions expressly prohibits an occupying military power from allowing it's civilian population to immigrate to the territory occupied. This prohibition is imposed because that immigration violates the Right of Sovereignty of the residents or the territory under military occupation. Israel is a signatory of Geneva Conventions treaty agreement and is wilfully violating Article 49 of this treaty and that is a violation of the Right of Soverignty of the Palenstinian People at the very least. The evictions of Palestinians from their homes and land to allow this unlawful immigration is a further violation of the Rights of the Palestinian People by Israel.
The Israeli immigration to the territories occupied in 1967 that includes the Golan Heights, West Bank, and East Jerusalem has been universally condemned as a violation of International Law that protects the Rights of the Persons under a military occupation by every signatory nation of the Geneva Conventions including the United States. United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 clearly established that the acquisition of territory by military force was unacceptable and that resolution was unanimously adopted by the UNSC. Israel is also a treaty member of the United Nations and has agreed by treaty to comply with the dictates of the Security Council. Israel is a rouge nation violating International Laws, it's Treaty Agreements, and the Rights of the Palestinian People by allowing civilian immigration into the occupied territories.
All acts of terrorism are based upon a rationalization related to a real or perceived act of tyranny. What can't be denied is that the United States was violating the territorial sovereignty of Iraq throughout the 1990's and the UN Charter expressly protects the territorial sovereignty of all nations. The "peace accord" at the end of the Gulf War that was used to rationalize these military incursions into Iraqi airspace but it was in direct violation of the provisions of the UN Charter. You see we rationalize tyranny while terrorist rationalize acts of terrorism. Not much difference really.
I don't believe I was resorting to cheap name-calling at all. I was merely pointing out that there are cases where you embrace a "progressive" interpretation of the US Constitution. As I noted if you didn't then you couldn't support immigration quotas because there is no enumerated authority in the US Constitution for the federal government to regulate immigration. You would also oppose presidetial candidates like John McCain and Ted Cruz that are naturalized, not natural born, citizens based upon the statutory provisions of laws passed by Congress. Natural Born Citizenship has alway referred to the Inalienable Right of Citizenship that is inherent in the person and not dependent upon any other person. It was always based upon Jus Soli (i.e. the Right of Soil) which is exactly what the 14th Amendment clarified. John McCain and Ted Cruz were not born in the United States and don't have an Inalienable Right of Citizenship to the United States. John McCain is a natural born citizen of Panama and Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen of Canada under the US Constitution (Ref. Supreme Court decision United States v Kim Wong Ark). Of course you might just agree with me on this Constitutional issue.
Yes, I'm a "progressive-libertarian" (as opposed to a progressive-liberal) because I don't want to "go back to the past or allow things to remain as they are." I want us to "progress" to improve the protections of our Inalienable Rights as well as to improve the economic and political landscape of the United States. I just can't understand the "conservative" position because "conservative" relates to that which was the past. Try naming a single year that you believe is better than today? Some like to think of the 1950's but what did we really have then? It was illegal for a black person to marry a white in many states. Voting was rigged with Jim Crow voting laws. Segregation was institutionalized under the laws of many states. Why would we want to go back to the 1950's?
We have this problem of two steps forward and one step back but we're still being "progressive" in making America a better place. The steps backwards are generally coming from the "conservatives" that want to go back to the way it was in the past. If we have a serious problem with the "progressive-liberals" it's because they go to far without thinking. They're headed in the right direction but simply don't know how to get there from here.
Take Obamacare. It addresses a serious problem but did a very crappy job of addressing it. Democrats (progressive-liberals) had it right that something needed to be done, we've known that since the late 1940's, but the Democrats basically screwed it up by what they did to address the problem. That is still better than not wanting to do anything to address an identified problem. It's better to try and fix something and screw up that to just ignore it and leave it broken. The "Progressive-Liberals" tried to fix it and screwed up while the "Social-Conservatives" just wanted to ignore it and leave it broken.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 8, 2014 0:20:08 GMT
I am not sufficiently familiar with the case of Hurricane Carter to be able to comment intelligently upon the question of his (ostensible) guilt. Yes, we are agreed that the murder of anyone--whether Israeil or Palestinian--is horrendous, and utterly indefensible. Where we disagree is over your belief that Israel is a violator of "the Rights of the Palestinian People." Your view that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were merely a predictable "response" to America's presence in Saudi Arabia and its 1990 war against Saddam Hussein, in addition to its "support for Israel," almost perfectly mirrors the explanation offered by the late Osama bin Laden. And I really do not believe that is a reliable explanation. (It is--to use a word that you have employed elsewhere in the above post--a mere "rationaliz[ation].") If you truly believe that you can advance your case through cheap name-calling--more specifically, by labeling me a "progressive"--then please feel free to do so. (Actually, it seems a bit ironic, since you have used that same word to describe yourself--as an adjective, appearing before "libertarian.")
The point I made was that the federal court correctly stated that the violations of Carter's Constitutional Rights were more serious than murder itself. That is actually well established by Constitutional precedent were evidence collected in violation of the "Rights of the Accused" is excluded from presentation in a court of law against them. The police could, for example, have a sworn confession for "murder" from the accused but if the accused was denied legal representation prior to the confession it's excluded from being used as evidence at the trial.
Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions expressly prohibits an occupying military power from allowing it's civilian population to immigrate to the territory occupied. This prohibition is imposed because that immigration violates the Right of Sovereignty of the residents or the territory under military occupation. Israel is a signatory of Geneva Conventions treaty agreement and is wilfully violating Article 49 of this treaty and that is a violation of the Right of Soverignty of the Palenstinian People at the very least. The evictions of Palestinians from their homes and land to allow this unlawful immigration is a further violation of the Rights of the Palestinian People by Israel.
The Israeli immigration to the territories occupied in 1967 that includes the Golan Heights, West Bank, and East Jerusalem has been universally condemned as a violation of International Law that protects the Rights of the Persons under a military occupation by every signatory nation of the Geneva Conventions including the United States. United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 clearly established that the acquisition of territory by military force was unacceptable and that resolution was unanimously adopted by the UNSC. Israel is also a treaty member of the United Nations and has agreed by treaty to comply with the dictates of the Security Council. Israel is a rouge nation violating International Laws, it's Treaty Agreements, and the Rights of the Palestinian People by allowing civilian immigration into the occupied territories.
All acts of terrorism are based upon a rationalization related to a real or perceived act of tyranny. What can't be denied is that the United States was violating the territorial sovereignty of Iraq throughout the 1990's and the UN Charter expressly protects the territorial sovereignty of all nations. The "peace accord" at the end of the Gulf War that was used to rationalize these military incursions into Iraqi airspace but it was in direct violation of the provisions of the UN Charter. You see we rationalize tyranny while terrorist rationalize acts of terrorism. Not much difference really.
I don't believe I was resorting to cheap name-calling at all. I was merely pointing out that there are cases where you embrace a "progressive" interpretation of the US Constitution. As I noted if you didn't then you couldn't support immigration quotas because there is no enumerated authority in the US Constitution for the federal government to regulate immigration. You would also oppose presidetial candidates like John McCain and Ted Cruz that are naturalized, not natural born, citizens based upon the statutory provisions of laws passed by Congress. Natural Born Citizenship has alway referred to the Inalienable Right of Citizenship that is inherent in the person and not dependent upon any other person. It was always based upon Jus Soli (i.e. the Right of Soil) which is exactly what the 14th Amendment clarified. John McCain and Ted Cruz were not born in the United States and don't have an Inalienable Right of Citizenship to the United States. John McCain is a natural born citizen of Panama and Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen of Canada under the US Constitution (Ref. Supreme Court decision United States v Kim Wong Ark). Of course you might just agree with me on this Constitutional issue.
Yes, I'm a "progressive-libertarian" (as opposed to a progressive-liberal) because I don't want to "go back to the past or allow things to remain as they are." I want us to "progress" to improve the protections of our Inalienable Rights as well as to improve the economic and political landscape of the United States. I just can't understand the "conservative" position because "conservative" relates to that which was the past. Try naming a single year that you believe is better than today? Some like to think of the 1950's but what did we really have then? It was illegal for a black person to marry a white in many states. Voting was rigged with Jim Crow voting laws. Segregation was institutionalized under the laws of many states. Why would we want to go back to the 1950's?
We have this problem of two steps forward and one step back but we're still being "progressive" in making America a better place. The steps backwards are generally coming from the "conservatives" that want to go back to the way it was in the past. If we have a serious problem with the "progressive-liberals" it's because they go to far without thinking. They're headed in the right direction but simply don't know how to get there from here.
Take Obamacare. It addresses a serious problem but did a very crappy job of addressing it. Democrats (progressive-liberals) had it right that something needed to be done, we've known that since the late 1940's, but the Democrats basically screwed it up by what they did to address the problem. That is still better than not wanting to do anything to address an identified problem. It's better to try and fix something and screw up that to just ignore it and leave it broken. The "Progressive-Liberals" tried to fix it and screwed up while the "Social-Conservatives" just wanted to ignore it and leave it broken.
I have long had a problem with the so-ccalled "Exclusionary Rule," as it allows criminals to go scot-free. I would much prefer that evidence that has been obtained illegally should be admitted for trial purposes; but that those who obtained this evidence in an illegal manner should be made subject to prosecution. That should satisfy the (quite understandable--even laudable) desire to discourage bad behavior on the part of law-enforcement officials, while not making it easier for the guilty to go free. I simply do not agree that Israel is an "occupying" power in its own country. And if the UN Security Council declares otherwise, well, then that is just another reason why Israel would be well advised to withdraw from the UN, in my opinion; as would the US be, also. Like you, I really would not wish to return to the 1950s, as both racism and sexism were utterly rampant at that time. (In all fairness to those who held racist and/or sexist views at the time, I suppose it is only right to judge them according to the standards of their own time; and according to those standards--sadly--black people and women were generally viewed as inferior beings. But I would definitely not wish to return to that way of thinking. Ever.) By the way, it was only in 1967 that the so-called "anti-misegenation" laws that existed in 16 states were overturned by the SCOTUS. This, of course, was in the famous case known as Loving v. Virginia. And although I am usually not a fan of judicial activism, I will have to say that I feel--at a purely visceral level, even if not so much at an intellectual level--that the Supreme Court accomplished a very good end here. For two individuals to be instructed, by the state, that they simply cannot love each other--or, even if they do, that they cannot get married--and merely because their skin is of a different color, is a gross abuse of state power, in my opinion. And it makes just about as much sense as it would to declare that people with a different color hair, or people with a different color eyes, cannot marry each other. As for ObamaCare (which, I realize, you do not really support; but still prefer to the status quo ante), the polls that I have seen indicate that a majority of Americans--not just a plurality, but a majority--actually believe that the healthcare system that existed prior to ObamaCare was preferable to ObamaCare itself. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 8, 2014 10:12:45 GMT
I have long had a problem with the so-ccalled "Exclusionary Rule," as it allows criminals to go scot-free. I would much prefer that evidence that has been obtained illegally should be admitted for trial purposes; but that those who obtained this evidence in an illegal manner should be made subject to prosecution. That should satisfy the (quite understandable--even laudable) desire to discourage bad behavior on the part of law-enforcement officials, while not making it easier for the guilty to go free. I simply do not agree that Israel is an "occupying" power in its own country. And if the UN Security Council declares otherwise, well, then that is just another reason why Israel would be well advised to withdraw from the UN, in my opinion; as would the US be, also. Like you, I really would not wish to return to the 1950s, as both racism and sexism were utterly rampant at that time. (In all fairness to those who held racist and/or sexist views at the time, I suppose it is only right to judge them according to the standards of their own time; and according to those standards--sadly--black people and women were generally viewed as inferior beings. But I would definitely not wish to return to that way of thinking. Ever.) By the way, it was only in 1967 that the so-called "anti-misegenation" laws that existed in 16 states were overturned by the SCOTUS. This, of course, was in the famous case known as Loving v. Virginia. And although I am usually not a fan of judicial activism, I will have to say that I feel--at a purely visceral level, even if not so much at an intellectual level--that the Supreme Court accomplished a very good end here. For two individuals to be instructed, by the state, that they simply cannot love each other--or, even if they do, that they cannot get married--and merely because their skin is of a different color, is a gross abuse of state power, in my opinion. And it makes just about as much sense as it would to declare that people with a different color hair, or people with a different color eyes, cannot marry each other. As for ObamaCare (which, I realize, you do not really support; but still prefer to the status quo ante), the polls that I have seen indicate that a majority of Americans--not just a plurality, but a majority--actually believe that the healthcare system that existed prior to ObamaCare was preferable to ObamaCare itself.
If we start sending law enforcement officers, prosecutors to prison for violations of the Rights of the Accused we won't have anyone willing to become a law enforcement officer or prosecutor. We could even take your proposition one step further. What about the innocent person that is convicted of a capital offense, sentenced to death and executed. If evidence later exhonorates the person should those responsible including the law enforcement officers, prosecutor, jury, judge, state executioners, and even the governor be prosecuted for pre-meditated murder and/or conspiracy to commit murder? I've often wondered how many members f a jury would vote for the death penality is they knew they would face prosecution for murder or conspiracy to commit murder if they were later proven to be wrong. I don't believe many would. It's also weird that we rig the juries in capital punishment cases by excluding any jury member that might oppose capital punishment. We basically start out with a biased jury in all capital murder cases because they want to sentence a person to death if convicted.
I would simply remind you that "criminal justice" has never been about "convicting the guilty" but instead is exclusively about "protecting the innocent from conviction" in the United States. The principle has always been that it is better to allow 10 guilty people to go free than to convict one innocent person.
The Golan Heights, West Bank, and E Jerusalem are not within the territory of Israel. They are areas of military occupation that Israel has controlled since 1967. Since WW II it was universally agreed between all nations that it was inadmissable for any nation to acquire territory by acts of war. All nations that join the United Nations agreed to that because it's expressly established in the UN Charter.
Welcome to the ranks of the "progressive" (not a progressive-liberal LOL) because you want our nation to "progress" just like I do. Can I call you a "progressive-conservative" without being insulting as no insult is intended?
While the majority of Americans express an opinion against "Obamacare" in general they also express the opinion that they support many of it's benefits. For example the extending of coverage to age 26 and the coverage of those with pre-existing conditions are both highly supported based upon polls. In short the people like the "good things" but don't like the things necessary to make the good things happen. I also believe I've read that the majority also support the expansion of Medicaid as well. I guess they think that these benefits could have been accomplished without any "costs" to anyone but you and I both know better. Nothing is free. We have a serious problem with people thinking that thing they like don't cost anything. There is no such thing as a "free lunch" so why do so many Americans believe medical services can be provided for "for free" for anyone?
|
|
