From: garrett@Ingres.COM (MMMMM...ESSENCE OF GELFLING)
Subject: American Colonialism (Re: What is United States of America like?
Summary: Point/Counterpoint  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:54:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.040257.18716@mtek.com>, bud@mtek.com                                 writes...
>garrett@Ingres.COM (MMMMM...ESSENCE OF GELFLING) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec22.163530.15699@mtek.com>, bud@mtek.com                                 writes...
>>He was tried under OUR laws. Don't you think it's a little bit wrong
>>to kidnap someone to OUR country and try them under OUR laws when they 
>>aern't a citizen of OUR country and don't want to be in OUR country?
>>Check the 11th Amendment.
> 
>"Wrong"? That is a moral -- not a legal -- judgement. Either argue one

Point taken.

>And it is *not* a requirement the law of *any* country extend only
>to the limit of its geographical borders, unless it chooses to do so
>in the legislation provided. Or that the law of a sovereign nation
>be sanctioned by international law (except to the extent that inter-
>national law is moot on most topics covered by national laws).

On what grounds!? Explain this to the Iraqis. Or to the victims or
defendents of war crime trials. We supposedly invaded Iraq because it
was "the right thing to do", and we asked for the world community to
make it legal (which they did). Why was the Geneva convention necessary
then?
	As for a morality. The whole idea of law is based in right and
wrong (it usually ends up having nothing to do with it, but it starts
with right and wrong). If you start making laws without any consideration
for morality then what justification for your government can you make?
> 
>If you are asking me if I believe there is a moral defense for having
>put the cuffs on this villain -- yes.

You just made the "mistake" that you accused me of making. You made
a moral judgement in calling him a villain.

>Nor the threat to lives of citizens
>of Iran who might be taken in Carter's attempt to rescue American
>citizens who were kidnapped in contravention of every law on the
>books in this country and international agreements of long standing
>(and signed by Iran) regarding the sanctity of embassies. Nor when
>the Israelis busted Idi Amin's little paradise.

Are you trying to say that it's morally right to kill thousands of
innocent civilians to catch one drug smuggler, while it's morally wrong
to kill a few dozen soldiers and kidnappers to free innocent civilians?
I question that.
> 
>Did you find equally objectionable the abduction under Israeli law of
>dear old Eichmann?

Eichmann was a criminal under international law.

>And are you under the delusion that the protections
>of our Constitution extend to everyone in the world -- even those who
>have abrogated the laws of their own countries(in the case of Noriega)

No I am not. But I am not under the delusion that we right to enforce
our laws and standards on other sovereign nations. It's call Colonialism.
Co*lo*ni*al*ism: a government policy of acquiring OR CONTROLLING FOREIGN
TERRITORY. [from American Heritage dictionary]
	So I ask you, are you advocating colonialism?

>If you wish to be concerned about the erosion of rights in this country,
>that is a laudable pursuit. But tuck away any notions that running a
>government is pretty -- *especially* a democracy.

We're not talking about running THIS country. We're talking about OUR
country running ANOTHER country. But even if it isn't pretty, that 
doesn't justify breaking laws in our country, or in the international 
community.

>>The press was so strongly controlled that we may never know the
> 
>Many of us would agree that the press in the country is strongly
>controlled. We might disagree about the source of that control under
>ordinary circumstances.

I'm talking about the Panama invasion (maybe the Iraq war too, if you 
want). The topic of media control in general is just a bit too broad
without creating another topic.

>And we would *certainly* disagree about
>whether persons unable to tell the difference between a howitzer
>and a latrine should be allowed to race about at will in the middle
>of the action.....

Perhaps you never heard of "war coorespondents". I assume you also 
never heard of Ernie Pyle. I also assume that you can't name a single
instance of where the press "got in the way" during Vietnam.

>..as in the recent example of lighting up the
>beach during the dawn landing in Somalia, about which even the
>press itself has expressed moderate (of course) exclamations of
>concern. With any luck, the military will never again allow the
>unleashed yuppies to come within eyesight of anything of critical
>importance until its all over.

So you are advocating censorship. (Also, your Somalia example was 
not a war time exercise.)

>At the close of the Gulf War, the
>press went whining around about the fact they couldn't get access
>to whatever it was they thought everyone (including the other side)
>wanted to know.

You mean like how the military learned that a Saudi village near the
border had been taken over by the Iraqis becuase they heard it on CNN.
	Or how about how the military was re-writing stories of how
the pilots were "giddy", and cahnging them to "proud." 
	That's not news, that's propoganda. So you don't believe in 
the First Amendment either. (BTW, have you checked the 11th Amendment
like I suggested.)

>Then spent at least a month after that in round-
>table discussions (journalists only, of course) trying to figure
>out how the vast majority of the public thought that barring them
>was just dandy, thank you.

If someone tells you what you want to hear, and there is no one to
tell you the truth. Then chances are that you will buy the lie as well.
(Did you?)

>>whole story. For instance, did you know that in the early hours of
>>the invasion we surrounded a poor neighborhood of Panama City and
>>leveled it without ever alerting the inhabitants beforehand?
> 
>Shit happens. Regrettable, but true. The neighborhood you are
>referring to was, if I recall, the one that contained the main
>headquarters of the Panamanian National Guard Headquarters, and
>giving notice might have been considered a bit indescrete when
>wishing to preserve the element of surprise.

And that justifies leveling 20 BLOCKS of RESIDENTIAL area?

>You may wish to 
>recall that, at the time, the press expressed sour amazement
>that citizens even of that neighborhood were of the majority
>opinion that the short-term risk of death from inadvertent fire
>by U.S. troops was a lesser evil than was the certainty of death
>under the continuing rule of Noriega's local (in that neighbor-
>hood) street thugs armed to the teeth. But then, the press is
>controlled, so whatever was reported about this was probably a
>military coverup, etc. etc. etc.

Where did you hear this trash? Most of the people in that 
neighborhood DIED! Are you making up news? We used MORTARS on 
that neighborhood! As for pblic opinion, the current panamanian
government (that we installed, and that still hasn't restored civil
rights) is less liked then the Noriega government that we threw 
out.
	If you don't believe me about that neighborhood
in Panama City (I wish I could remember that name of it. I do 
remember that it was the poor section of the city), then check out
aerial pictures of Panama City after the invasion. We LEVELED that
part of town.

>bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu

-Garrett@Ingres.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush