News Release

Yes, I think so. But: how would you think about this topic, I'm asking me, if you would face such strange treatment yourself?

Thanx.

But perhaps, there could be something in between and not only black and white for the provisions which are intended for increasing security.

I'm fighting for civil rights here in Germany from time to time, and I'm not happy to see what's going on with the US now. While I see the motivation of trying to implement security, please don't overwind:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." is the motto of a book published by Benjamin Franklin. He also said BTW:

"Without justice, courage is weak."

I mean, war between states, as the term "war" is meant by international law.

I think that it is a bad mistake to treat them as coequal dectractors. They're only winning importance with that.

I hope you're wrong, and this can be avoided. Because of this intelligent and unscrupulous but small group of people there is not such a war yet, fortunately.

Yes, and this is the man who miscalculated completely the efforts to hold the Iraq. Nothing is done yet. Apart from the fact, that this war was an illegal war of aggression based on wrong information, to say the least (sorry, an unconfirmed download on a website with the content, that there was a dialog between Al Kaida and Saddam does not convince me at all of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which was the main reason for invading Iraq officially).

Yes, but he has to. Don't try to tell this to the tax authorities, for example. They only would laugh at you. But: apparently we have a completely different view of political responsability, so maybe we will not come together with our views here.

Yours, VB.

Cliff wrote: [Taliban]

The people who were fighting for the government of Afghanistan are not illegal combatants, but soldiers without any doubt.

We invaded Afghanistan based on international law, and so this was a regular war.

Bush is abusing the term "illegal combatants" by extending it to arbitrary meanings, and so creating a region without right and law where no one should be.

Are the people kidnapped by the CIA "illegal combatants", too, even if they were kidnapped here in Germany?

Sorry, this is not credent at all.

If we want to convince the people in the Arabic states and in Iran, that we're on the side of law and the Islamists are criminal vermin, then we have to act following law _only_, and not bending it and not acting quite contrary to what we're requesting and wanting to teach.

All what Bush is doing only leads them to the conclusion, that we all are as untrustworthy as Bush is, and makes them see Osama bin Laden as a hero instead of the criminal he is.

Just try to talk to Arabic or Persian people, and you will see that I'm right here.

Unfortunately, as a matter of fact Bush is tattering the reputation of the US and of the complete west in the Islamic world. They're defecting in droves to the Islamists because of Bush's policy.

Yours, VB.

This is wrong, at least here in Germany. We call it "prevention", what the police do here, trying to avoid situations which are dangerous.

Of course, prevention does not work 100%, and there is crime in Germany, too. But it is a good idea to start work, before crimes are commited.

Yours, VB.

Sorry, this is nonsense. You cannot compare at all.

Who is responsible for the men if the officers are not?

Yours, VB.

We are the UN, Cliff. The US, the Europeans, the Asian states, the African states, the American states, we all together are the UN. And we can take care of our issues.

Yes. And there is nothing wrong with it first. But if this leads us into supporting criminals, then this is terribly wrong.

No problem. I mean Eastern Germany and Western Germany here.

Unfortunately, this is not true. We supported Saddam, not any opposition. And then, after the first war against Saddam, we missed our chance.

Yes. And sanctions alone will fail anyways.

I'm talking about what the Romans called "divide et impera".

Yes.

And they're the business friends especially of Bush's group. Especially the familiy named "bin Laden" is. Very strange, indeed.

[Saudi Arabia]

Ask Mr. Bush.

I don't understand why they're called "friends". And all what I can see does not lead me to the conclusion, that it is a good idea to see them as friends at all.

I never will support illegal wars of aggression, if they're well meant or not. I never will support a policy building a Konzentrationslager instead of supporting law and justice. I never will support a policy of kidnapping people, not in Pakistan and of course not in Germany.

If you want to achive this goal, then you should know that.

If nearly all of your friends dissent with your opinion and try to convince you that you're not right, perhaps it would be a good idea to think about what you're doing here. Maybe, they could be right?

Business and money are sensible concepts to create a competition of ideas. But they're not the only important aspects one has to recognize, especially if one has to rule a state or even the most powerful force in the world.

Yours, VB.

And for 10+ years your country ignored the rules/sancations and supplied restricted Arms to Iraq, against the UN sanctions - as did France, Russia, China, Syria, etc...

How about some examples of how Police "prevent" crime in Germany?

And how is that any different that what the US and allies are doing in Iraq and other places?

You validate preventative measures to cover your own butt, but don't allow others to cover their own.

Well the one time I went to Kuwait is a prime example. There was reams of paperwork, many many questions, statements to sign agreeing not to do things that I barely understood. I am not a frequent traveler and I am not an expert on travel but from what I have seen that seems like pretty standard fare for visiting a foreign country. Maybe you are just singling out the US?

I am sure that things will improve with time. Remember a lot of this is a knee jerk reactions to the 13 Arabs terrorists on 9-11.

We have really lost no liberties as US citizens. I have failed to see anything except political rhetoric over the issue.

Seeing how international law does not even define terrorists or terrorism......when someone declares war on you I suggest that you listen. Playing semantics with words like war means you will always lose.

There has been plenty done, Iraq has an interim constitution, had several elections wildly supported by the people. Before the war Iraq had 0 independant newspapers now there are over 100 and they are not owned by the Hussein boys. There has been a lot of progress in a lot of areas. Here is some information that may be of interest to you:

interesting are the reports that come out monthly: BTW this is not a government website it is the Brookings institute.

I disagree. May I respectfully suggest you read the UN resolutions concerning Iraq.

then may I respectfully suggest that you read the US Declaration of war agianst Iraq

No according to the Geneva conventions. You can argue the point all you want buit the facts, laws and rules speak for themselves.

Again, read the Geneva conventions, the term "illegal combatants" is expressly outlined. Would you rather have us making up terms without any reference to any existing laws?

I am not defending rendition. I agree the legality of this is very questionable. But the question remains on whether it is necessary.

They had this conclusion before 9-11 and before gitmo...radical Muslim mullahs have been preaching against the US for years in the madrasses. You cannot reconcile religious fanatics with the truth even here in the US. If a Mullah tells people that the Koran says to fight against the infidels it means that religion usurps the laws.

They were defecting before Bush and before 9-11, this is nothing new.

And that is why our forefathers ingrained the right to keep and bears arm in our constitution. Prevention does not work in many many cases otherwise you would see no crime.

Sure you can....I just did. It is very comparable. Many of the same issues are present in both post WW2 and post GW2. The difference is striking. How many years was it before German citizens voted on their new constitution after WW2? How many years was it before the infrastructure in Germany was rebuilt after WW2? How many years was it before the last holdouts of the German army were routed? How many years was it before the war criminals were brought to justice?

nd it interesting that not one single officer has yet to be punished.

In the first place Rumsfeld is not an officer, he is not even in the military. He is the secretary of defence which is a civilian position that has oversight over the military. The field commanders run the war not the Sec Def.

Then what happened with Iraq? What is happening now with Iran? What was the UN's effect on N. Korea? If I may answer for you.....nothing. How about the Sudan crises? Millions killed and still no action from the UN. I am sorry, I have very very little faith in the UN except to know that when a crises arises do not count on the UN. What happened with the UN and Somalia? Somalia still has no government and is run by tribal warlords the UN pulled out and left those poor buggers to fend for themselves. So much for "taking care of issues"....

I agree wholeheartedly.

Ok, again sorry for knowing so little of Germany.

And what of the Kurds? We tried to support them after GW1 with disasterous results. And BTW it was all our fault.

Not really that strange, the bin ladens are many and not all of them feel the same way that osama does. I believe to put blame where it is due. I would not want someone to condemm me for something a relative has done. How would that be fair?

It is better to haver a friend than an enemy. With dialogue maybe we can make a difference in Saudi Arabia Look at the recent vote in SA:

this have ever happened without pressure from the US?

another to allow things to happen. When

And it is all in the terminology of "illegal". I am still not convinced that the Iraq war is illegal. Again read the UN resolutions concerning Iraq and our declration of war.

Unfortunately war is not pretty. I for one am glad we have Guantanamo the other alternatives are not better. Maybe we should do what the Taliban do? Behead prisoners?

Agreed.

I always listen to dissenting opinions, that is why I am typing to you now. I do repect your opinion. I do not here much dissent except for in the press which I usually read with skepticism. All's I ask you is to listen to what I say, follow the links I have provided read the facts and make your own judgements. I will never condemm a person for disagreeing with me as long as they are using their own brain to make their own decisions. If I can help to educate you in how the American people think maybe you can educate me in how the German people think. And after all of that I only ask you the same thing that you have asked of me. Maybe we could be right?

And that is he main reason that the UN is so ineffectual and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up or if that is not possible done away with in it's entirety. I find it funny that some of the same people who ask for Rumsfelds resignation support Kofi Annan who apparently had direct knowledge of the corruption in the oil for food program in Iraq. As long as the UN allows cheating of this magnitude in a situation so dire there is no hope for the UN. The sad thing is we will see the same thing with Iran if sanctions are brought against them for enriching uranium. We will have a few countries that will benefit from the sanctions making the sanctions totally useless. The outcome of this will undoubtedly be war with Iran, the UN involvement will probably make the situation worse instead of better. Not a very hopeful outlook for anyone wishing for peace in the world for our children.....

Very good point. I totally missed that one!

Necessary?

Necessary for a government of a constitutional state like the US to break law? Necessary to act like criminals?

Now we're coming to the core question. Now we're coming to the real reason for the torturing, the camp at Guantanamo Bay and the untrustworthy argumentation for the state of "illegal combatants".

When our enemies are criminal vermin like the Islamists are, can we afford not to act like them? Can we afford to keep acting legally, is this enough to defend our freedom?

I'm feeling this question and the intended answer on this question in every discussion I'm taking part in or just watching, the answer no-one wants to say clearly, because it's ugly and the opposite of politically correct.

And you know the problem with this answer, I bet. You know, that we're losing everything what makes us better than the terrorists when we're acting like this. We're losing our credibility, and we're losing our legitimation to act in the name of freedom and justice at all.

It's exactly the same question I heard from the Bezirksregierung Düsseldorf in our dispute about wether the Internet should be censored or not. Yes, in Germany there is a debate with people having a position like Iran and China or Northern Korea. They're arguing with stopping Nazis from spreading their ideas. Having a good intention, just like stopping Islamistic terrorists.

They were asking me, what should a state do if legal provisions are not enough?

And my answer was, and of course here is exactly the same:

A government of a constitutional state has no choice. They have to consider legal provisions only. There is no choice of illegal or legal provisions at all.

Anybody who does not agree, risks that we're losing this "war" before it started completely.

Do we want to spread freedom and democrathy, or do we just don't care? Please decide this question, before we can discuss what would be best to do at all.

Yours, VB.

Not only the police. For example, there are street workers working with youths. Prevention of the police is described here for example:

To translate a little bit to give an insight:

- they're organizing sport events named "Streetball" (there are similiar ideas in different states of the US, too BTW)

- they're publishing books for and helping educators of kids with topics like for example how to manage to deal with aggression

- they're showing presence and interfere, also in chatrooms where classicaly child pr0n is dealed with, for example

- they're encouraging moral courage

- they have a competition for citizens for preventing crime

Of course, the police cannot fix what society fails to do. But they can help like everybody in our society, and they do.

This does not lead into a situation, that there is no crime any more, of course. But this helps with preventing much crime, especially of the youth.

Yours, VB.

Cliff wrote: [Kuwait compared to the USA]

Compared to EU, Switzerland and other democrathies, please, not compared to dictatorships.

Yes. And if this is a small group of highly intelligent and dangerous maniacs, then I will treat them as the criminals they are.

Cliff,

thanx for this discussion! Even if I'm not agreeing with you in many points, it was good to hear other opinions ;-)

Yours, VB.

Yes necessary. Sometimes laws fall way behind reality.

And just what laws have been broken? You refuse to accept that the Geneva conventions exist and do explicitly outline the conditions under which the detainees are being held. Your government was implicit in the rendition of quite a few people, it was done with their blessings and now you say the US is doing things illegal.....nice try but no cigar for you.

Untrustworthy arguementation? Did you even read the links that I supplied you? Did you find out how these people do fit into the Geneva convention? And that they are considered illegal combatants? These are not my laws, they are our laws and very easily researched...I find it hard to believe that a rational human can read the existing laws, ignore them and then say that the arguement is untrustworthy because they have ignored them. It seems that in this case your being intellectually dishonest.

not to act like them? Can we afford to keep acting legally, is

No what we are losing is the war against propaganda and rhetoric. It is so easy just to ignore the facts, just like you have in regards to unlawful combatants and parrot that which is based on no facts. Let me reiterate:

1- You claim that there is no real war therefore the illegal combatants cannot be illegal combatants. I supplied links to osama's declaration of war against the US for you to read. Apparently you have ignored this, we haven't. 2- You claim that the war in Iraq is a illegal war. I have supplied you with links to the 18+ UN resolutions against Iraq. I have supplied you with the Iraq war resolution that passed with a super majority in both the US house and Senate that reference the inablity of the UN to take action on their own resolutions. Apparently you have ignored this also. 3- You fail to take into account that the UN does not stop countries from acting on their own.

The battle that we fight today is a battle against rhetoric and propaganda. People parrot mistruths without knowing the facts. Sometimes people have the facts but refuse to accept them and parrot rhetoric and propaganda anyway. The only thing that the US does have in our favor is the law, laws that apparently you refuse to recognize.

This is the battle that we fight, the battle for the truth. As long as we have people like yourself that ignore the rule of law and side with the religious mullahs by default we will not be able to stand side by side in the fight against the Muslim fanatics. Lip service does not work, you cannot say that you are with us in one breath and in the same breath claim that we are doing things illegally by ignoring the meanings of the laws and rules that we all follow.