FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE - DPChallenge Forums

05/28/2004 02:27:13 PM · #76

Originally posted by RonB:

I don't see it that way at all. The keyword in the ammendment as far as I am concerned - that is, the REASON why citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms - is "SECURITY". The right is granted because the framers of the Constitution deemed that the right was "necessary to the security of a free State". I don't see how "security" implies overthrow, or coup. Rather, I see it as providing for resistance to attempts to impose conditions that would make the State less "free".

Ron

I don't quite get how 'providing resistance to attempts to impose conditions' excludes for example wanting to overthrow a government that is going to far (e.g., the British at the time). Much of the context provided by the people who wrote that document seems to make it clear they feel that one of the main reasons for many of the provisions such as gun ownership was to defend against a government taking things too far and to provide checks and balances against such an eventuality.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

05/28/2004 02:38:50 PM · #77

Originally posted by micknewton:

I think you�re just being silly, or perhaps delusional, or both. :) But, just in case you�re not, please tell us where one would go to buy American citizenship? Do they sell it at K-Mart, or maybe Sears? And, for those that don�t have enough money, exactly how much time must they spend before the government automatically makes them a citizen? Do they have to register to get a start time? If so, with whom do they register?

If you are right Gordon, why do the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] deport hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year? I guess all those deportees must not have known that they could just stroll into a store somewhere and buy citizenship.

--Mick

It costs betwee $500,000 and $1 million to buy permanent residency. It is typically called an 'investor visa' About 10,000 people buy permanent residency and hence citizenship by easy extension through this process each year. After purchasing permanent residency, citizenship application is essentially a formality. The American government sell it. Part of the conditions are that you employ 10 US citizens for 2 years, as some form of job creation, but you are still essentially buying your way in. For those without enough money, the process is typically slower and yes you 'register' for a start time when you first arrive. The clock is then ticking for you to gain residency. Once this is achieved, citizenship can be applied for relatively easily if it is desired.

Also, most of the other visa categories have particular 'express processing' mechanisms where you can spend an additional amount of money to bypass certain typical processing times. I am intimiately familiar with how these work and am at the end of completing an Exceptional / Extraordinary and National Interest residency process and have seen how easy it is to buy your way beyond the various restrictions put in place.
These can typically convert a 3-5 year process in to one that would last 6 months with sufficient funds.

You can think I'm silly or delusional if you like, but that doesn't change the existance of the E-2 treaty investor categories, or the fifth
preference method of gaining US citizenship.

The immigrants that get deported either run foul of the bizzare and byzantine legal mess that is the INS, or don't have enough money to pay their way through the process.

//uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-907.htm to accelerate the process. $1000 per form you wish to move more quickly. Typically about 5 of these required to get through the whole process.

Message edited by author 2004-05-28 14:49:47.

ChrisW123

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

05/28/2004 04:41:24 PM · #78

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

What kind of situation could, in this day and age, provide a threat to the security of the free state of the US, that a militia would be needed and that our paid professional regular military services not be able to handle???

One purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the people against the government (and military) if that is ever needed. What is the first law a new dictatorship puts into law when it comes into power? To remove guns from it's citizens. However with our 2nd Amendment, this can't happen here, therefore it will be very difficult for government/military forces to ever control the people in a "non democratic" way. You need to start worrying when your government begins to try to take your guns away.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

The professional military services of the US would far out number any citizen militia and they would far out-gun them as well. So why do we need a militia? As far as I know of these militias, they are usually fringe groups, with extreme idealogies who are white supremicists. Am I wrong?

The military certainly does NOT out number the number of citizens in the US who own firearms. They may have bigger "guns", but not more guns. They are far less likely to try anything against an armed society then they would be against and unarmed society.... just ask the Jews that used to live in Germany, or countless other similar situations. When it gets to a point where only the government/military can legally own fireamrs, you are in trouble. Our 2nd Ammendment right to own and bear arms is EXTREMELY important and a critical piece to our freedoms.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Also, as far as you know, does the president believe in biblical prophecies such as Armageddon? Does he believe it's inevitable?

I don't think so... you see, liberal newspapers and European reporters, etc., all love to paint Bush as some religous zeolot, when in fact he isn't. He's religous, but not a zeolot. Don't believe this BS you hear.

Message edited by author 2004-05-28 16:43:57.

05/28/2004 05:20:57 PM · #79

A couple of responses:

Olyuzi,

The U.S. Constitution, Section 8, clauses 12-16 outline the use of armed forces - I will highlight what I consider to be pertinent portions of the text:

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use

shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,

suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for

governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United

States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and

the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Now here are what I see as the pertinent points: 1) Monies cannot be appropriated for the army ( not THE Army - rather, this term includes the Marine Corp and the Air Force ), for a period exceeding two years. So, if Army ( Marine, Air Force ) personnel are required to remain in Iraq or any other country, the monies for those actions cannot be budgeted for a timeframe exceeding 2 years - that's why Bush has to keep going back to Congress for more money. ( Interestingly, it appears that no such restriction exists for the Navy )

2) The militia ( regualar army, marines, air-force, national guard, and their respective reserves ) can be called forth to a) enforce ( execute ) the laws of the union, b) suppress insurrections ( overthrow attempts ), and c) repel invasions. It appears that the Congress is in agreement that this last function sometimes requires preemptive actions. 3) Both federal and individual State militias can, and do, co-exist.

You ask whether, as far as I ( or anyone ) knows, does the president believe in biblical prophesies such as Armegeddon, and does he think that it is inevitable. I don't KNOW with certainty, but, unlike ChrisW123, I would venture to guess that he does - but I don't think he has any desire to see it happening during his lifetime. And, FWIW, you don't have to be a zealot ( fanatically committed ) to believe what the bible says. Bush can believe it without being a zealot.

You also said "But your statement about believing in biblical prophecies and being helpless to prevent it is a very scary notion that has me worried. Does it have anything to do with the "rapture?"". Not directly. The rapture is related to the tribulation, which precedes Armegeddon. The tribulation is a seven-year period during which the Anti-Christ comes to power. Halfway thru the tribulation, the Anti-Christ is killed, but is then indwelt by Satan and is resurrected. As for the rapture ( the instantaneous joining of believers with Christ ), there are three different schools of interpretation: 1) that it will occur before the tribulation ( pre-trib ), 2) that it will occur in the middle of the tribulation ( mid-trib ), and 3) that it will occur after the tribulation ( post-trib ). Since I will probably be long gone by then, I don't worry about which it will be. Even if I'm NOT long gone by then, it's not worth worrying about, because I can't do anything about it.

Gordon:

The colonial militias did not overthrow the British nor did we have the intent to do so - we did not and did not try to kick out the King and take over the government of Britain - We merely repelled them. They could have gone home to their families to live out their lives in safety, if that had been their desire. This war of independence was an action that is consistent with our Constitution.

And, you are quite correct about the ways that citizenship can be "bought". And it's not just the U.S. that "sells" citizenship in this way. Many countries subscribe to the "investor" fast track to citizenship. Two examples:

Panama -
"As an investor, permanent residence status may be obtained through a very efficient, straight-forward programme on the basis of a US$ 40,000 investment in one of the government-approved reforestation projects. This immigrant investor status qualifies for Panamanian citizenship and a citizen's passport after five years of residence"

Canada -
"The Canadian Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration has designed the Immigrant Investor Program to give experienced business people and senior managers a unique opportunity to immigrate to Canada. By satisfying certain requirements and investing a pre-determined amount of capital in a qualifying Canadian business project, potential candidates can obtain Canadian permanent residency and benefit from dual citizenship."

Ron

05/28/2004 05:29:07 PM · #80

Originally posted by RonB:

The colonial militias did not overthrow the British nor did we have the intent to do so - we did not and did not try to kick out the King and take over the government of Britain - We merely repelled them. They could have gone home to their families to live out their lives in safety, if that had been their desire. This war of independence was an action that is consistent with our Constitution.

I certainly never meant to imply that the war of independence was in conflict with the Constitution. I also see the distinction you are drawing between overthrow and repelling. However, as I understand it, initially the colonies were just that - subject to the British government and the local militas did institute a change of government. I'm certainly no scholar of US history so am no doubt wildly off the mark, but the intent of the 2nd amendment always seemed quite directly to be a means to stop similar governmental excess. Other posters seem to concur with this view (ChrisW for example)

Originally posted by RonB:

And, you are quite correct about the ways that citizenship can be "bought". And it's not just the U.S. that "sells" citizenship in this way. Many countries subscribe to the "investor" fast track to citizenship.

Absolutely, there are certain privileges that governments are quite happy to sell, including citizenship. As you point out it is common not just in the US but other countries too.

Message edited by author 2004-05-28 17:29:42.

Mick

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

05/28/2004 06:31:10 PM · #81

Message edited by author 2004-10-20 02:09:46.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/28/2004 06:33:31 PM · #82

I just heard that a 12-gauge shotgun was stolen in San Jose today ... from a police car.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/28/2004 06:37:29 PM · #83

Originally posted by RonB:

2) The militia ( regualar army, marines, air-force, national guard, and their respective reserves ) can be called forth to a) enforce ( execute ) the laws of the union, b) suppress insurrections ( overthrow attempts ), and c) repel invasions. It appears that the Congress is in agreement that this last function sometimes requires preemptive actions.

(emphasis added)
I think the term "repel" quite clearly indicates a response to the action of another (the invasion), and is therefore in contradiction to "preemptive" action which, by definition, is an action taken prior to the (anticipated) action of another.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/28/2004 06:41:32 PM · #84

Originally posted by micknewton:

Yes, you can spend big bucks and get the processing of applications for such visas speeded up, but the government does not sell such visas.

Many people confuse receiving something of high value (which you get to keep) in exchange for large amounts of cash with "selling." That it's called a "processing fee" in no way changes the fundamental relationship of the parties in the transaction, nor the ultimate effect of its completion.

Message edited by author 2004-05-28 18:42:01.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/28/2004 08:31:54 PM · #85

Originally posted by micknewton:

All law abiding American citizens have the right to bear arms, and that right cannot be taken away. The second amendment states, ��the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.� That means that no federal government, no state government, no city government, no slimy politician or judge can take that right away.

Tell that to the 80,000 US citizens who lost their property and were put in concentration camps during WW II. And by one of our "best" Democrats too, the one the Republicans keep quoting to show how "mainstream" they are ... :(

Message edited by author 2004-05-28 20:33:01.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

05/28/2004 09:04:19 PM · #86

The Democrats of old are nothing like todays Democrat. A gradual change started in the late 70's or so and in the last few years their politicians are very close to being socalists at best and some appear to be communists in their beliefs.
Why do you think there are more Democrats than Republicans in favor of taking the guns from the citizens?

Actually the Republican Party today acts more like the Democrats of yesterday.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by micknewton:
All law abiding American citizens have the right to bear arms, and that right cannot be taken away. The second amendment states, ��the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.� That means that no federal government, no state government, no city government, no slimy politician or judge can take that right away.

Tell that to the 80,000 US citizens who lost their property and were put in concentration camps during WW II. And by one of our "best" Democrats too, the one the Republicans keep quoting to show how "mainstream" they are ... :(

Mick

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

05/28/2004 09:15:46 PM · #87

Originally posted by Gordon:

You can think I'm silly or delusional if you like,

Gordon, I apologize for saying that in my post. It was uncalled for, and I am sorry.

--Mick

05/28/2004 10:25:33 PM · #88

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
2) The militia ( regualar army, marines, air-force, national guard, and their respective reserves ) can be called forth to a) enforce ( execute ) the laws of the union, b) suppress insurrections ( overthrow attempts ), and c) repel invasions. It appears that the Congress is in agreement that this last function sometimes requires preemptive actions.
(emphasis added)
I think the term "repel" quite clearly indicates a response to the action of another (the invasion), and is therefore in contradiction to "preemptive" action which, by definition, is an action taken prior to the (anticipated) action of another.

Yes, I agree. the term "repel" indicates a response to the actions of another - but that action/those actions are not limited to invasions. Do you think that the U.S. should have stayed out of the European theatre during WWII because Germany never invaded the U.S.? When the U.S. enters into treaties like NATO, SEATO, etc. we essentially "extend" our lines of defense to include the borders of our treaty partners. So in our/their defense, preemptive actions may be authorized against governments that present a threat of invasion to those nations as well as to ourselves. It should be noted that an Embassy compound is considered an extension of the sovereign state of the country it represents, so the invasion ( or bombing ) of an Embassy is essentially an invasion of the Embassy's homeland, by extension.

Ron

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

05/29/2004 12:18:18 AM · #89

Originally posted by micknewton:

You can live here on a visa until hell freezes over, and give the government millions of dollars, but you will still not be an American citizen.

--Mick

Yup, then all you do after that is spend a bit more cash and you become a citizen after learning a bit of history and reciting a pledge. et voila - you are allowed to vote and buy a gun.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

05/29/2004 01:20:00 AM · #90

And that reciting the pledge and taking the test can take up to two years after initial application (at least for normal people).

Oh yea, when I contacted them about one of my student's trying to get citizenship, I was told it wasn't INS, but HS (Homeland Security).

And to bring it back on topic, sort of. I was reading an article about an armed robbery at an conv. store. The last line of the article, and I tell no lie, was, "The gunman used a knife in the robbery." Ha. I wish I could find a reprint, but as it has been several years, and I don't remember the exact paper now, I would be looking in a proverbial haystack.

tolovemoon

Canon EOS Rebel SL1

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

05/29/2004 04:19:12 AM · #91

You know what I think is stupid.....Not that I have wrote any but the law about buying a gun and it has to clear your record first....well if you have simply wrote 1 bad check and theres a warrant, you get no gun....
If you have a warrant for only failing to appear in court for a traffic violation you dont get to buy a gun...

This part is just plain facts!!
If you are a parent you should have total control or knoweledge of everything your child does from birth to legal age....
There are some kids that get to much free time and a lot of unsupervised attention....Not to forget tv, games, media will teach them about guns....as a parent you are responsible for teaching and making sure the lessons have been followed!

There is a locked gun cabinetin my room and whats in is locked and put on safety and bullets stored somewhere in another location!! if my teen daughter is home alone she knows how to get in it but for only all the right reasons!!

Message edited by author 2004-05-29 04:29:29.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

05/29/2004 05:20:44 AM · #92

Originally posted by RonB:

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

05/29/2004 10:39:32 AM · #93

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

�Pre-emptive self-defense, cases in which one kills another because they suspect the victim might eventually become dangerous, is considered criminal, no matter how likely it is that they were right. Justifiable homicides are always initially assumed to be criminal until the evidence warrants a change, as justifiable homicide is one of the most common defenses for homicides both justified and criminal�The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the victim was clearly likely to kill an innocent if the defendant did not kill them. � from: this web site.[quote]
A great many suspects are shot ( and some killed ) by police officers because they make threatening movements when an attempt is being made to execute an warrant, take them into custody, or even question them. In most cases, even those where the suspect was found to have no weapon, the police are cleared, because of the "circumstantial" evidence - that is, the suspects were "on notice" that a police action was being conducted, yet they resisted, and/or took actions that could be perceived in that context as being non-compliant with the peaceful completion of that action.
If a man has just shot his wife, and the police respond, and the man yells out the window to "trust him" that he has thrown the gun into the trash can, and is not a danger, but refuses to come out of the house - what are the police to do? Usually, they try to talk him out peacefully. But after a few hours, if there is no resolution, they take action - usually tear gas or such.
Saddam Hussein was "on notice", and had been for many years, yet he resisted and took actions that could easily be perceived in that context as being non-compliant. Hence, I believe that the world community was justified in taking more forceful actions.

[quote=Olyuzi]To open up an old can of worms�
It appears to me from this definition of justifiable homicide that this was the very legal argument that Bush was relying on for justification to invade Iraq. In this case, that the US felt it was at risk of being attacked by Sadaam Hussein with WMD�s. It states clearly that pre-emptive action is considered criminal �until the evidence warrants a change.� Since the US gov�t has not come up with any evidence as yet to demonstrate that their actions were warranted, should the Bush administration be called to task for their actions? It seems to me that this is the very reason why the Bush administration has refused to become part of the International Criminal Court. When one invades another country for the purposes of pre-emption one has to be sure of the circumstances. There were many other avenues of peaceful action that could have been taken, but were not. Now, we have even more Muslim people who hate America, and we are no more safer today than we were before 9/11.

In the case of WWII Japan attacked us, but in this case it doesn�t seem like we were attacked or threatened by any sovereign nation. We may have been attacked by terrorists, but they hardly constitute a warring hostile sovereign country. In addition, the US gov�t is not investigating the criminal activity of those connected with 9/11 and the further we get from that fateful day the harder it will be to follow leads. There are many unanswered questions regarding 9/11 that the 9/11 commission is not looking into.

The military action against Iraq was not on parallel with justifiable homicide - it was more on parallel with justifiable firing of tear gas grenades into the building where a known murderer was holed up and engaged in a stand-off with the police. If our intent was homicide, then explain why Saddam is still alive.

One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason, that the Bush administration has refused to become part of the International Criminal Court is because to do so negates our sovereignty to another entity and makes our citizens subject to laws that are not of our own making. For example: The ICC claims the right to try an individual for "genocide", which they ( the ICC ) defines as the "infliction of mental harm to any individual of a recognized racial, ethnic, or religious minority". That means that the ICC could legally bring a U.S. citizen to trial for offending an orthodox Jew by wearing a crucifix lapel pin ( if the U.S. were to become part of that court ). Would YOU support that kind of proceeding? I certainly wouldn't.

What other "peaceful" avenues could have been taken? And for how many YEARS, since it appears that 12 were not enough. Uh, actually we ARE safer today than we were before 9/11.
It seems that your desire is that our government spend all of its time, energy, money, and resources finding out who might have played a part in allowing the 19 suicide terrorists to do what they did on 9/11 - instead of spending that time, energy, money, and resources on preventing another attack. As for me, I think that it is worthwhile spending some time to find out how such a plot succeeded, but I wouldn't waste a minute searching through the minutiae trying to root out every individual who made it possible. All that effort would add very little if anything to preventing another attack.
It's interesting that a huge fundraiser/advertiser for the Democratic Party is called MoveOn.org, but that, contrary to their name, spend an inordinate amount of time arguing for dwelling in the past and not moving on.

Ron

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

05/29/2004 11:21:06 AM · #94

Tear gas grenades don't have the aim of killing. War, on the other hand, one has to assume will involve killing, regardless of the possibly justifiable causes. Sadaam is still alive so we can put him, and this country and the world, through a long and drawn out prosecution for the purposes of PR and diversion from other things yet to happen in the world the US govt will be perpetrating.

"The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent court that will investigate and bring to justice individuals who commit the most serious violations of international humanitarian law, namely war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, when countries cannot or will not prosecute the crimes themselves. The crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC are large scale, affecting hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people. Crimes such as mass executions, murder, rape, gender apartheid, forcefully removing people from their homes based on ethnicity, mass torture and mutilation, and the systematic destruction of property of a certain group of people, are punishable by the ICC." from [url=this web site.]this web site.[/url] It will not be used for petty crimes that you have identified down below. I don't see anything wrong with the US being part of an organization such as this as it promote human rights, which seems to be what the US govt wants, at least in rhetoric, and be a deterrent for future war crimes. As they have decided not to be part of the ICC, I view their declarations of these goals to be insincere.

I think it's very important to find out who helped support the perpetration of the crimes of 9/11. It's not until we do that that we can be truly free of terrorism, at least from the al Qaeda kind. I find it very ironic that the people that have been identified as being behind 9/11, such as Osama Bin Laden, have had previous ties with people in the current US regime from the days of the Mujahaddin and Afghan rebels that helped to defeat the Soviets there. I also find it ironic that we have friendly ties with the Saudis who also are human rights violators and have been mentioned as being funders of terrorism. These things need to be investigated, lest we have more terrorist attacks.

It does not seem we are any safer today in the US than we were before 9/11 especially with the most recent announcements by the US govt that we are at great risk in these summer months for yet another major attack here on our soil. The govt is already spending all of its time, money, energy and resources on preventing another terrorist attack, so why not extend it to finding out about the root causes. I find it ironic that you would not agree with this.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
�Pre-emptive self-defense, cases in which one kills another because they suspect the victim might eventually become dangerous, is considered criminal, no matter how likely it is that they were right. Justifiable homicides are always initially assumed to be criminal until the evidence warrants a change, as justifiable homicide is one of the most common defenses for homicides both justified and criminal�The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the victim was clearly likely to kill an innocent if the defendant did not kill them. � from: this web site.[quote]
A great many suspects are shot ( and some killed ) by police officers because they make threatening movements when an attempt is being made to execute an warrant, take them into custody, or even question them. In most cases, even those where the suspect was found to have no weapon, the police are cleared, because of the "circumstantial" evidence - that is, the suspects were "on notice" that a police action was being conducted, yet they resisted, and/or took actions that could be perceived in that context as being non-compliant with the peaceful completion of that action.
If a man has just shot his wife, and the police respond, and the man yells out the window to "trust him" that he has thrown the gun into the trash can, and is not a danger, but refuses to come out of the house - what are the police to do? Usually, they try to talk him out peacefully. But after a few hours, if there is no resolution, they take action - usually tear gas or such.
Saddam Hussein was "on notice", and had been for many years, yet he resisted and took actions that could easily be perceived in that context as being non-compliant. Hence, I believe that the world community was justified in taking more forceful actions.

[quote=Olyuzi]To open up an old can of worms�
It appears to me from this definition of justifiable homicide that this was the very legal argument that Bush was relying on for justification to invade Iraq. In this case, that the US felt it was at risk of being attacked by Sadaam Hussein with WMD�s. It states clearly that pre-emptive action is considered criminal �until the evidence warrants a change.� Since the US gov�t has not come up with any evidence as yet to demonstrate that their actions were warranted, should the Bush administration be called to task for their actions? It seems to me that this is the very reason why the Bush administration has refused to become part of the International Criminal Court. When one invades another country for the purposes of pre-emption one has to be sure of the circumstances. There were many other avenues of peaceful action that could have been taken, but were not. Now, we have even more Muslim people who hate America, and we are no more safer today than we were before 9/11.

In the case of WWII Japan attacked us, but in this case it doesn�t seem like we were attacked or threatened by any sovereign nation. We may have been attacked by terrorists, but they hardly constitute a warring hostile sovereign country. In addition, the US gov�t is not investigating the criminal activity of those connected with 9/11 and the further we get from that fateful day the harder it will be to follow leads. There are many unanswered questions regarding 9/11 that the 9/11 commission is not looking into.

The military action against Iraq was not on parallel with justifiable homicide - it was more on parallel with justifiable firing of tear gas grenades into the building where a known murderer was holed up and engaged in a stand-off with the police. If our intent was homicide, then explain why Saddam is still alive.

One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason, that the Bush administration has refused to become part of the International Criminal Court is because to do so negates our sovereignty to another entity and makes our citizens subject to laws that are not of our own making. For example: The ICC claims the right to try an individual for "genocide", which they ( the ICC ) defines as the "infliction of mental harm to any individual of a recognized racial, ethnic, or religious minority". That means that the ICC could legally bring a U.S. citizen to trial for offending an orthodox Jew by wearing a crucifix lapel pin ( if the U.S. were to become part of that court ). Would YOU support that kind of proceeding? I certainly wouldn't.

What other "peaceful" avenues could have been taken? And for how many YEARS, since it appears that 12 were not enough. Uh, actually we ARE safer today than we were before 9/11.
It seems that your desire is that our government spend all of its time, energy, money, and resources finding out who might have played a part in allowing the 19 suicide terrorists to do what they did on 9/11 - instead of spending that time, energy, money, and resources on preventing another attack. As for me, I think that it is worthwhile spending some time to find out how such a plot succeeded, but I wouldn't waste a minute searching through the minutiae trying to root out every individual who made it possible. All that effort would add very little if anything to preventing another attack.
It's interesting that a huge fundraiser/advertiser for the Democratic Party is called MoveOn.org, but that, contrary to their name, spend an inordinate amount of time arguing for dwelling in the past and not moving on.

Ron

Mick

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

05/29/2004 01:31:58 PM · #95

Message edited by author 2004-10-20 02:11:19.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/29/2004 01:36:58 PM · #96

Originally posted by RonB:

It's interesting that a huge fundraiser/advertiser for the Democratic Party is called MoveOn.org, but that, contrary to their name, spend an inordinate amount of time arguing for dwelling in the past and not moving on.

Ron

I'm pretty sure that MoveOn.org was originally founded for the purpose of encouraging the Congress to quit spending all of its time (and our money) looking into a former President's private sexual (and financial) escapades and get back to governing the country. As I recall they spent some $50 million dollars to prove that Presidents get horny -- heck, I could have told you that for the price of a brief phone call .... :)

05/29/2004 02:09:46 PM · #97

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
It's interesting that a huge fundraiser/advertiser for the Democratic Party is called MoveOn.org, but that, contrary to their name, spend an inordinate amount of time arguing for dwelling in the past and not moving on.

Ron

I'm pretty sure that MoveOn.org was originally founded for the purpose of encouraging the Congress to quit spending all of its time (and our money) looking into a former President's private sexual (and financial) escapades and get back to governing the country. As I recall they spent some $50 million dollars to prove that Presidents get horny -- heck, I could have told you that for the price of a brief phone call .... :)

My point exactly. They didn't want us to spend time, effort, energy, and resources examing that past in excruciating detail. But that was when the president was a Democrat. Now that a Republican sits in the White House, their tune has changed - let's not drop our attention from the 9/11 investigation, let's not drop our focus on Abu Ghraib abuses, let's NOT move on ( except, we need to stop examining Kerry's voting record - let's move on from that and focus on the issues )?

Ron

05/29/2004 02:09:59 PM · #98

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Why is it that you seem to be OPPOSED to "the long drawn out prosecution" of Sadaam Hussein citing that it is only "for the purposes of PR and diversion from other things", but, at the same time, "think it's very important to find out who helped support the perpetration of the crimes of 9/11"? Presumably you believe that a 9/11 prosecution would be a) not long and drawn out, and b) not for the purposes of PR and diversion from other things. I may be wrong, but, to me, the contradiction in those two opinions sounds somewhat hypocritical.

As for the ICC, they have already begun criminal proceedings against Great Britain ( who DID sign on ) for "war crimes" because they dropped cluster bombs in Iraq. The charges are that British military used weapons ( cluster bombs ) that were unauthorized because they "can't distinguish between civilian or military" targets. How ridiculous can you get. The ICC prohibits the use of weaponry that is unable to distinguish between civilian and military targets? What weapons are left?

Again, I feel compelled to point out the hypocrisy of your general pacifist attitude toward those who want to KILL every American they can, and your OPPOSITION to being friendly toward those who do not. We should have been nicer, longer to the Iraqi leadership ( Sadaam & Sons ), who MAIMED, RAPED, and MURDERED their own people, but we should NOT be friendly to the Saudi leadership, who do not. Please make up your mind which way you think we should act.

We have not suffered another major terrorist attack since 9/11. I think that that says something about how effective the government has been in keeping the U.S. safe. I do not agree with spending any more time & effort looking for the needles in the haystack because doing so counterproductive. It diverts resources and does nothing to enhance my safety, liberty, or freedom.

Ron

gingerbaker

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

05/29/2004 02:44:24 PM · #99

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
It's interesting that a huge fundraiser/advertiser for the Democratic Party is called MoveOn.org, but that, contrary to their name, spend an inordinate amount of time arguing for dwelling in the past and not moving on.

Ron

I'm pretty sure that MoveOn.org was originally founded for the purpose of encouraging the Congress to quit spending all of its time (and our money) looking into a former President's private sexual (and financial) escapades and get back to governing the country. As I recall they spent some $50 million dollars to prove that Presidents get horny -- heck, I could have told you that for the price of a brief phone call .... :)

My point exactly. They didn't want us to spend time, effort, energy, and resources examing that past in excruciating detail. But that was when the president was a Democrat. Now that a Republican sits in the White House, their tune has changed - let's not drop our attention from the 9/11 investigation, let's not drop our focus on Abu Ghraib abuses, let's NOT move on ( except, we need to stop examining Kerry's voting record - let's move on from that and focus on the issues )?

Ron

Interesting. Are you saying that the U.S. should not have an investigation into 9/11, or prisoner abuse, or the Plame affair, or the lies told to the U.S. during the State of the Union speech to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Or are you just saying that there is a moral equivalency between a president having a sexual affair and not being forthcoming about it, and a president who deliberately lies to justify an invasion where thousands of woman and children arer slaughtered?

I'm confused. Because to me, the Monica thing was a political witch hunt over nothing important, while the other issues I just listed have to do with life and death, social justice, and treason.