Ender Sai posted:

---

Well, if you could give me a clear and concrete example of the curtailing of any US citizen's rights following Sept 11 - and I mean examples rather than vague anecdotes - I might consider your point as valid and factual. Otherwise, no.

---

M44 posted:

---

4)Nothing in the Patriot Act even applied to Padilla's situation.

---

M44 posted:

---

It's nothing shocking, and as I pointed out, it's a policy that exists in every other European country. The Patriot version even has a clause that protects citizens based on the 1st Amendment.

---

LordT posted:

---

but you make an amazing collection of statements that are absolutely untrue.

---

Sirak posted:

---

Which is, to my knowledge, the farest reaching instrument of human rights protection in human history.

---

Sirak posted:

---

I can only say, you should take the advice of LordTroepfchen. Your statements about Europe are terribly uninformed. His sources, as you will find out when you care to read them, are all of american origin.

---

LordTropfchen posted:

---

Immigration-Issue, not legislative changes, but legaslative tolerance for new interpretation (see reports below)

---

Ender Sai posted:

---

and dictate to him on American law.

---

Ender Sai posted:

---

Why then do you take one viewpoint as accurate without independent research?

---

E-S posted:

---

[ have read the Patriot Act, I had to and when I read it I was profoundly disappointed. Where's the juicy Orwellian oppression? Where's the Machiavellian manuevering to make Bush an emperor? It's just not there - I was lied to! /quote]

I have written more than once, that the reaction was not very extreme. I have no true problem with PATRIOT, nevertheless it touches and limits certain rights. And the ieda of limitation of rights WITHOUT having an accused person is problematic. See your own Congress-Report. Link above.

E-S posted:

---

Let me ask you something; the 9/11 attackers, the Madrid Bombers, the spate of bombers in London who succeeded and failed, the Bali Bombers - what did they all have in common?

---

9/11, Madrid and London were all no immigrants and surely not illegal. If you mean that. 9/11 were german students who entered the US as tourists. Madrid were local citizens, even if they were integrated from another ethnic group and London (which one do you mean? The busses?) were brits of pakistani origin. Don´t know about Bali. But I thought they were natives . . .

E-S posted:

---

I take it neither of you have had any security-related positions, right?

---

LordT had a very security-related position. But ask him. I don´t think he is to eager to give away his identity, or he could have silenced doubts about him earlier.

related to that:

Ender-Sai posted:

---

LordT, the reason you'll find no strategy paper on the war on terrorism is because most of that stuff is cleared to TS at the lowest level, code-word above that.

So if you haven't seen a strategy paper, it's because you're not considered as being relevant to it. I can tell you there were strategic outcomes to a trilateral CT discussion in Sydney last week, but the extent of them is outside my clearance.

---

Ahem . . . a strategy paper is the stuff you hand out to your agencies, agents, read in the press, hand in to your allies and so on . . . they are quite political in nature, as far as I have experienced. These code-worded, secret tactical analysis are usually called "internal guidelines". I have to deal with both of them a lot. Especially with strategy papers. They exist for all kind of topic. Terror, Immigration, Public Relation, Elections, Negotiations, Pornography, Media . . .

I guess these were the ones LordT referred to . . .

_______________________________

Concerning myself, is human rights security related? I had a lot of courses on it in university for sure.

Finally:

Ender Sai posted:

---

You cannot accuse Mr44 of not knowing European law because he's not European

---

I guess Lord has said and I am sure I have said THAT WE DO NOT THINK IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH NATIONALITY.

Stating things that one imagines but probably has never read or researched is quite unpolite. And Europe . . . as a matter of fact has a 1st Amendment. Calling it completely different.
Gitmo and Sudan are extraterritorial institutions and the European counter-parts are not.

How would you react if I had stated you have no civil-rights? Or no supreme court? Or Bush is a fascist? Untrue statements, I wouldn´t think you let me go through with.

So, I feel it hard to participate in a forum, where I cannot say that another statement is wrong. Because people feel insulted if the US is not supreme in anything. You have the largest economy, the greatest army, the best sportsmen, the coolest movies, the best known people, the best scientists and so on . . .

But you do not have the BEST protection of civil rights in the world. No independent source has ever said so and I believe (I really do) your gouvernment does not even try to. Never did. Because they know that their power brings problems.

How far they can go with their solutions was something I tried to discuss here. But it seems such incredible news that I am called a hypocrat.



So, before I leave this discussions to the more like-minded I want to say:

The idea I am a hypocrit because I have talked about american law as if I know it is the problem your system has. International Law. I talked about ICCPR, HRC, AHRC and so on . . .
But your country doesn´t feel part of it . . . only look at the discussion.
I am not a hypocrat, probably arrogant enough to say I know International Law well, but I am an idiot - for thinking you, the great USA, would be part of that. Probably even follow it´s rules. How could you? Why should you? What a stupid idea!

These are the days I miss Bill Clinton.


[quote=Ender Sai]Teutonic friends

---