EUSSR: Report Card Time

From the desk of Tiberge on Mon, 2008-06-30 21:06

If you are suffering from insomnia and in the mood to read a 128-page English version of a report, in pdf format, from the European Union, click here. This is the first annual report from the European Agency for Fundamental Rights, based in Vienna, and dedicated to the prosecution of the crime of discrimination. These are the fine folks who keep track of the accusations, litigation, trials, judgments and punishments meted out to those wretched souls who can't seem to straighten up and fly right in matters of diversity. Taking each of the 27 countries of the Union, the report admonishes their laxness, or praises their efforts.

 

The hard-working Yves Daoudal offers this synopsis:

In its first annual report, the European Agency for Fundamental Rights, based in Vienna with all its acronyms on display, thunders forth about the racist, anti-Semitic, or extreme-right-wing-generated acts of violence, and acts of discrimination, that are on the rise in the EU and that have not been adequately punished, EXCEPT in the United Kingdom... [my emphasis]
 
The Agency seems to be particularly interested in discriminatory hiring practices based on nationality, in other words, national preference, or what is left of it, a notion condemned above all others and that must be firmly abolished.
 
And so, the Agency is pleased that "the United Kingdom possesses the most efficient system of anti-discrimination legislation in all the EU," and that with "95 punishments in 2006 - 2007, it has meted out more punishments than all the member States put together." (This is not unrelated to the galoping dhimmitude we are witnessing in Britain.)
 
On the other hand, the Agency chokes with fury at what it finds in Ireland and Belgium: "discriminatory job offers declaring that foreigners need not apply."
 
And it is intolerable that in 12 countries of the EU no punishments have been applied, even though law suits have been initiated. These miserable countries are the Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia.
 
France is one of those countries that "has implemented a relatively efficient legislation," but where "convictions are still rare compared to the UK."

Here is an excerpt from the report itself about HALDE, the French government agency created under Jacques Chirac to track and punish discrimination:

In France, in 2006 and 2007, the High Authority against Discrimination and for Equality (HALDE) gained momentum, as can be seen by the number of complaints received. In 2006, the HALDE received 4,058 complaints: employment was the most important field of complaints (42.87%) and origin was the most important reason for being discriminated (35.04%). In 2007, the number of received complaints increased: the HALDE registered 6,222 complaints, i.e. an increase of 53%. [...] The HALDE has received 11,689 complaints since its creation in 2005. Moreover, an opinion poll conducted by CAS Institute shows that the French people are more and more concerned by the question of discrimination: this demonstrates that communication and information campaigns conducted by the HALDE had an impact on the French public. Indeed, the HALDE developed a strong strategy of communication and it is very visible in the public scene [...]

In other words, the more complaints HALDE receives, the happier the Agency is.
 
In another part of the report focusing on France, the case of Fanny Truchelut is cited as a case of discrimination. I reported several times on this case which involved a bed-and-breakfast owner who turned away Muslim women wearing headscarves on grounds of laïcité. She insisted she only forbade the headscarves in the public areas of the inn, not in the private quarters. The court ruled against her. The last I heard she was appealing the ruling.

cold truth # 2

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2008-07-08 14:15.

"Is there any people on this planet which could  be labeled 'non-racist'?"

 

First it was kappert the pacifist turned jihadi sympathizer. Is he now admitting that he is a racist as well?

@atlanticist911

Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2008-07-08 20:27.

You may ask that question for yourself, please. And I do not approve violent action, i.e. 'jihad', nor do I sympathize in any way with warfare or missionaries, cruzadores.

cold truth

Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2008-07-08 10:48.

Very true, indeed. Is there any people on this planet which could be labeled 'non-racist'?

@ kappert

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2008-07-07 21:17.

"Merits of occupation is odd for itself, don't you think".

 

Please, do try to keep up with your own arguments here. Are you or are you not the same kappert who said that he believed the brutal conquest of Spain by the Arabs brought net benefits to the people of the Iberian peninsula?

 

see: node/3344#comment-26295

 

 

Sad times for Arabs

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2008-07-07 20:28.

The Ottoman occupation of Arab lands was, indeed, a sad time for Arabs. And to add insult to injury both the Osman turks and the Arabs were fellow Muslims.

Merits of western vs Ottoman occupation

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-07-07 20:14.

'Merits of occupation' is odd for itself, don't you think. As any imperium, the Ottoman Empire had a centralised oligarchy, slave trade, capital punishment, ... Wars against Russia, Venice, Austria, revolts of Egypt and Mesopotamia made it clear that the 'eternal state' would come to an end. What British and French did was nothing but splitting up the cake, plus a glacé called petroleum. Sad times for Arabs.

let me guess again

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-07-07 19:58.

... I admit, I'm confused. What's the common ground of these persons? Colonialists, missionaries, anthropologists, ... You should add some Italian, Portuguese or Spanish people, too, or is it strictly protestant?

Ottomans

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-07-07 19:59.

Could you specify the time period you want to know more about.

Skull Measurer's Mistake...

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2008-07-07 18:57.

@ kappert

 

Excerpted from a review of the book:

 

Stephen Jay Gould...

 

Friedrich Tiedemann, the ninteenth century German doctor...

 

Granville Sharpe ( London civil servant)

 

Langfield War

 

Mary Kingsley

 

Olive Schreiner...

 

Thomas Winterbottom...

 

George Cable...

 

 

Do you notice something interesting about all those names?

 

Here's a clue: Not a Wing, Wong, Singh, Tsong, Abdullah or Crazy Cloud in among 'em. 

Doesn't THAT tell you SOMETHING?

 

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/used/product.asp?EAN=2692012715478&Itm=9

 

let me guess

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-07-07 19:52.

Here's a clue: Not a Wing, Wong, Singh, Tsong, Abdullah or Crazy Cloud in among 'em. Doesn't THAT tell you SOMETHING?

I can only guess: that Wing, Wong, Singh, Tsong, Abdullah or Crazy Cloud weren't racists.

@ marcfrans

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2008-07-07 17:27.

Aw!!! ...

 

 Let's see how things look after kappert has finally  got(ten) around to responding  to my  question  about the relative merits of western vs Ottoman occupation, domination and exploitation of the Middle East, shall we? Just like me, you know you want to, and it's sure to be entertaining. 

 

;-)) 

Atlanticist # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2008-07-07 16:33.

@ Atlanticist

You are wasting your time.  You are dealing with a 'fundamentalist' in Kappert, i.e. with someone who holds his beliefs with certainty.  That is another way of saying that he is not interested in making empirical observations, or understanding alternative 'explanations'. 

Kappert is the poster boy of western perverse self-hatred.  He does not want to see the reality TODAY of Tibet-in-China, Zimbabwe, Congo, Iran, Uzbekistan, etc... Whatever that is going on in these places, it must be the fault of "European culture" in his brainwashed mind.   As a naive-left teacher, he wouldn't last a week in any of these places.

European culture as "the basis" for nazism? Absurd. Nazism WAS the explicit rejection of "European culture" by certain Europeans.  And various forms of 'nazism' (i.e. totalitarian ideologies) exist TODAY in various non-European or non-Western cultures, and will always exist among mankind.  That is the lesson of history.  And perverse self-hatred, surely, can only lead to self-destruction.   

 

@marcfrans

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-07-07 18:11.

Yet there is a difference between 'nazism' and 'totalitarian ideologies', and I think that nazism is primarily an European heritage. Exactly, "empirical observations" lead Cuvier to his thesis of racism. See: Sven Lindqvist: The Skull Measurer's Mistake: And other Portraits of Men and Women Who Spoke Out Against Racism.

re: Middle East

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-07-06 23:34.

@ kappert

 

Will any of those books you recommend explain to me why and how the West's occupation, domination and exploitation of the Middle East was/is any worse than the Ottoman turks occupation, domination and exploitation of the same region? No, I thought not. In which case, why do you choose to pour scorn on the former while giving a free pass to the latter? In other words, what is your personal agenda here? Explanation, please.

re: petroleum - mobilists

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-07-06 23:05.

Assuming that crackpot website you posted is accurate, where do you expect to be living and teaching in, say, 2011? I'll bet a pound to a penny you'll still be residing in the West.

re: nazi heritage

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-07-06 21:58.

@ kappert

Kindly provide a short synopsis of Creasy's book  explaining why, in his and your opinion, Europeans feel so superior, and what all this has to do with Hitler's Germany. You're a teacher, right? So teach. You have this talib's  undivided attention.

@atlanticist

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-07-07 14:16.

I will try to explain that European culture stands at the basis for what we know as Nazism.
Nazism's uniqueness lay in its combination of various forms of Western violence, or more specifically, its regimes of discipline and punishment; its imperialism; industrialized death and total war; its scientifically grounded racism; and finally its anti-Semitism. The Shoah was a logical outcome of Western pathologies. French and Industrial Revolutions, the guillotine, the prison, and the factory, including the slaughterhouse, the guillotine serialized killing, transformed the executioner into a bureaucratic employee relieved of ethical responsibility. Although factories, unlike prisons, employed free workers, they too adopted disciplinary and hierarchical practices, serializing and segmenting production, while alienating and dehumanizing workers. The slaughterhouse, the methodical, mass-produced death factory for animals, became a cultural reference point for the systematic destruction of human beings. Taken together, key institutions introduced modes of violence that featured moral indifference, bureaucratic efficiency, and the militarized mobilization of labour. Industrialization encouraged the spread of European settlers throughout the globe and especially the conquest of Africa. The extinction of inferior races, as much the result of administrative rationality as spontaneity, received its justification in the view that the natives would soon depart the earth as a matter of course, unable to adapt to a superior civilization and undeserving of normative ethical considerations. The belief that expansion would alleviate overpopulation, a crucial element in empire building, was not at all unique to Nazism. Moreover, imperialism introduced another factor to the Western exercise of power, conquest, ethnic cleansing, and extermination as the route to regeneration. Finally, anonymous death of WWI derived from industrial and disciplinary techniques already in place and from imperialist practices: total war, that is, the elimination of the distinction between combatant and civilian, the racialised demonization of the enemy, concentration camps, and genocide. Using Hannah Arendt's distinction between origins as opposed to causes, as well as Michel Foucault's geneology, the death camps of the Third Reich embraced the worst aspects of factories, slaughterhouses and prisons, combining purposeless and humiliating work, assembly-line murder, and the disappearance of morality. Nazi Lebensraum took inspiration from British imperialism and the brutality of white settlers against Native Americans. Unlike previous colonial racism, the Nazi regime did not see the Jew as too primitive to avoid extinction, but rather as the enemy of civilization that it had to actively eradicate with every available technological, bureaucratic, and military means.
Due to my poor English, I resumed: Enzo Traverso (2003): The Origins of Nazi Violence.

Own goal

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-07-06 00:21.

"Allied presence in post-war Germany failed to analyse the nazi doctrines blah, blah, blah".

 

Without a war in the first place there would have been no "Allied presence in post-war Germany" to complain about.

 

Q: Was the war against nazi Germany justified, or should we have allowed the nazis to remain in power to provide a final solution to the problem of left-wing idiots like you?

 

."

nazi heritage

Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2008-07-06 13:45.

The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, written by Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy (1851) gives you an indication why Europeans are feeling so superior. The nazi madness was the cumulus of a fantasy deeply rooted in Europeans. And it's not over yet.

Sheikhs, rattled and rolled (but by whom?)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2008-07-05 22:18.

"The creation of the modern Middle East was configured by British colonialists, (ab) using Hashemite and Sherif clans. Only Ibn Saud got what he wanted".

 

Aw diddums!

 

(Based upon human rights record of the Saudi royals, all I can say is, Thank Allah it was restricted to Ibn Saud getting "what he wanted". Imagine how much worse the Middle East would be had the rest of those rattle-sheikhs and high roller wannabees got their way).

 

(Perhaps if the Ottomans had been wiser, more liberal and far-sighted, the British colonialists wouldn't have inherited such a sorry mess).

 

Does kappert believe that we British are a better class of colonialist than the Ottoman Turks?

Your answer, please, kappert.

 

 

Middle East

Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2008-07-06 13:39.

Check it out:

Abdullah, Thabit (2003): A Brief History of Iraq. Pearson/Longman. London.
Catherwood, Christopher (2004): Churchill's Folly – How Winston Churchill created Modern Iraq. Constable. London.
Dodge, Tony (2003): Inventing Iraq. Hurst. London.
Fromkin, David (1989): A Peace to End all Peace. Holt. New York, NY.
Karsh, Efraim / Karsh, Inari (1999): Empires of the Sand. Harvard U Press. Cambridge, MA.
Kedourie, Elie (1970): The Chatham House Version and Other Middle-Eastern Studies. Weidenfled. London.
MacMillan, Margaret (2001): Peacemakers (Paris 1919). Murray. London.
Tarbush, Mohammed (1982) The Role of the Military in Politics: A Case Study of Iraq to 1941. KPI. London.

Four goals # 5

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2008-07-05 15:33.

@ Traveller

I was right, the subject has shifted to many others on a 'list'.

-- It seems that Kappert is not aware that it is the voters of Dallas County who put the County Board (makes the 'rules') in place at regular intervals.  Moreover, in Texas most county sheriffs (police Executive) and also most judges are up for election and/or re-election at regular intervals. If ordinary Germans could be only so lucky as to elect judges and sheriffs....(but we already know, over there they do not trust 'common people'), understandably so after reading Kappert.  It is true that the authorities of Dallas County all have to operate within a legal framework that is (in a similar way) determined by all the voters in the State of Texas (not just in Dallas County).  Kappert still thinks that he knows better than those people how to handle crime in their community.   

-- Do you know what the relevance is of 1926 Middle East "designs" by the British for Pvdh's "four goals"?  Is Kappert aware that it was also the British who largely 'designed' Belgium?  Does that mean that Belgians are not responsible for Belgian behavior patterns today?  One wonders... He probably thinks that Germans are not responsible for their behavior either, and that the American presence there since 1945 is all part of a 'design for exploitation'.

--  What a tremendous insight! There are "some" who do not like money spend on "warfare".  Gee, I did not know that.

--  The word "exploitation" still remains undefined.  Do you know, Traveller, why that is?  The reason is that any attempt to define it clearly in this context would expose that there is nothing 'there'.  It would undermine its labelling effect.  In that sense it is useful to the fundamentalist naive-left, just as the 'yellow star' was to the nazis for labelling the jews  as "exploiters".  But Mao had more imagination, he preferred the labels of "running dogs" and "traitors to the people" (or the equvalents in Chinese of course).Plus ca change, plus ca reste la meme chose. Yes, the subject has definitely 'moved'...

-- Kappert claims that I "do not give a damn about a part of Alaska".  How does he know that? It is all part of the same mantra.  He just knows....

-- Biofuels?  I will have to 'read up' a bit on that, otherwise I run the risk of descending into Kappert-like fundamentalism.

I am sorry, Traveller, but I DO worry about Kappert's students, and for good reason.  The evidence is all there on the screen, right in front of all our eyes.   

four goals #6

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-07-05 17:41.

Due to the results of practiced justice, I doubt that direct election of judges/sheriffs is an adequate way to ensure the application of law. It's more a Wild West tradition, tending to be conservative.
The creation of the modern Middle East was configured by British colonialists, (ab)using Hashemite and Sherif clans. Only Ibn Saud got what he wanted.
Allied presence in post-war Germany failed to analyse the nazi doctrines - most low-grade nazis continued unharmed in public offices.
Exploitation is the abuse of people/animals for egoistic purposes.
Yet glad, you somehow care for Alaska ...
Biofuels - please, inform yourself.

@ marcfrans

Submitted by traveller on Sat, 2008-07-05 16:26.

You really don't understand his genius do you: he learns his students how to think!!!
I must admit that after trying to understand the written caprioles of kappert, understanding higher mathematics becomes peanuts.
He just throws in a few chosen clichés and off he goes on another tangent.
I think he has a book of clichés and throws darts at which one he is going to use now.
Enough said he drives me bonkers.

Four goals # 4

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2008-07-05 14:32.

@ Traveller

Pvdh introduced "four goals". I have responded to these specific goals under 6 headings (goals 3 and 4 required 2 separate paragraphs each). One would think that there was enough material there for Kappert to put his 'teeth' (keyboard) in and make a sensible contribution to clarify the "goals". But, apparently that is not the case.

It appears that he has 'moved on' to other subjects.  Such as:

-- Incarceration policies of criminals in Dallas County.  It would apear that Kappert does not believe in 'local control' of such matters, because this is almost entirely a matter of County governments in the State of Texas. Kappert thinks he knows better than the voters of Dallas County about how to handle crime in their coummunity.

-- He seems to think that Middle Eastern "terror" was "triggered by a mad Texan", which is a good example of 'putting the cart before the horse' (in both historical and sociological terms).

--  He seems to think that Germans are better informed about 'wastage' of German taxpayers money than Americans are about their tax payers money.  Do you believe that? 

-- Oh yes, the word "exploited" appeared again, but it is totally unclear what it could possibly mean in this context of "4 goals". It is probably just a slogan on 'automatic pilot'. Like the way the Chinese National Congress 'votes/approves' Politbureau resolutions in unison, or like they used to do in Berlin and Nurenburg.  Did I already mention the word "fundamentalist" in this context of slogan-parroting?

-- Some purported "Carter Doctrine" about energy security.  That one got me really baffled, for I find it hard to say anything positive about Jimmy.

-- Oh yes, he also wants to talk about "drilling in ANWAR" (translation for nonAmericans who do not read the NYT and other 'international media': a small part of Alaska).

-- The issue of "biofuel" at the upcoming G-8 summit.  

 

As you can see, Kappert has a very extensive 'agenda'.  I hope Pvdh has found the answers to his truly intelligent "Four Goals" framework!!

P.S. I wonder how Kappert's students could ever learn anything, considering the 'depths' (Tiefgang?) with which Kappert is able to treat any particular subject.  

 

correction

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-07-05 14:48.

- Dallas County voters do not handle crime in their community, they put innocent people behind bars (texascivilrightsproject.org)
- Today's Middle East was designed in 1921 by the British and French. The mad Texan only continues this policy by triggering new wars.
- You seem to enjoy the billions spend on warfare, maybe there are some who don't.
- From an arrogant point of view, the word 'exploitation' does not even exist.
- a 'small part of Alaska' and you give a damn about it.
- the issue biofuel will be one of the most important themes to debate worldwide.
- don't worry about my students, they learn how to think.

goals2

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-07-05 13:11.

Just take a look on the energy issue. The Carter Doctrine (1980) put the US military in service to assure regular supplies of imported oil. This has near-bankrupted the US and corrupted the military, yet left the US insecure in energy sources. The association between “energy security” and “national security” was established long ago (Roosevelt), but has become a 'mantra' of the mad Texan. Now he wants to drill in Alaska Wildlife Reservations and sponsors biofuel at the G8 summit. What kind of solution is that?

@ traveller

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2008-07-05 10:28.

No problem. Simply do what kappert does when he reads something he either doesn't like, or doesn't understand.In this instance you simply substitute the word "armsdealer" with  the term, ALMS dealer, and politely thank him for the complment.

Four goals # 3

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2008-07-04 21:06.

@ Traveller

 

There is no point in asking questions to Kappert, since he never answers them.  He will respond to them by making new assertions that are part of the same naive-left mantra. But, I can answer your questions.

Yes, Kappert is "for real", and he is very much part of the reality of western "real life" today.  The same head-in-the-sand attitudes are very widespread today in our civilisation, particularly in media and 'education'.  It is I believe a direct (negative) consequence of the post-WW2 'Pax Americana', which is rapidly coming to an end.

 Note his refusal to address any specific points that were made under the pvdh-framework of 4 goals.  All you can expect is a truly 'fundamentalistic' assertion of his wrong (implied) interpretation of "legal", and the refusal to make empirical observations.  An excellent example of the latter is the nonsensical reference to "Lebensraum" (truly devoid of any reality in this context of the 'war on terror').  And of course his list of meaningless ideologically-inspired terms will continue. The latest example is his use of "exploitation".  These guys actually can think that the US (and others) are spending billions of dollars for the fun of "exploiting" others.   You could as well try to 'reason' with Hitler or Ahmadinejad about 'jews'. Kappert is a poster boy for contemporary western (secular) fundamentalism. These guys believe what they believe with absolute certainty, and they won't let empirical observations, nor 'questions', stand in the way.

goals

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-07-05 12:38.

Naive-left mantra vs arrogant-right authority? I wonder how you describe 'real life' in, let's say, Dallas county, where legal issues are trampled under foot. When a country puts more than 2% of its population behind bars, 'real life' becomes an awkward thing. The Pax Americana imposted in the Middle East will not work, American policy intends to defend its way of life, despite of its unsustainability, and therefore the mad Texan triggered his 'War on Terror'. By the way, most Americans do not know how many billions are spend on that adventure. Certain is that we are messing up the planet, that 'law&order' will be more oppressive, that we will exploit people on to the end.

Four goals # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2008-07-04 18:10.

@ pvdh

Your 'four goals' presentation provides a useful framework for discussion (as opposed to Kappert's head-in-the-ground mantra).

1) Obviously we agree on goal-1.  But should we "catch" them only after their dastardly deeds, or also try to pre-empt them?  With the current state of technology, pre-emption must be part of "defense", because the ex post costs can be horrendous, and even much worse than 9-11.  

2) Obviously we agree on goal-2.  But, clearly 'Guantanamo' is part of the process of "neutralising" new (in truth 'old') attackers.

3)  Goal-3.  There is no evidence that anybody is being "falsely accused" by the US government.  You cannot expect American soldiers fighting jihadists in a variety of places (like the Horn of Africa, Afghanistan, Southern Philippines, etc...) while simultaneously "offering them the 'right' of legal assistance".  That is absurd.  You can only suggest such a thing because you personally do not have to actually fight these characters. American soldiers are doing it for you.  The 'habeas corpus' provisons that have organically 'grown' in western democracy apply internally to citizens (and also to legal 'guests' or visitors).  They cannot possibly apply on foreign battlefields, nor have they ever applied during war-time conditions in Western countries themselves. 

I am pretty sure that the western media's irrationality (or kappert-like attitude) about 'Guantanamo' is going to have 2 practical results:  First, it is going to lead to fewer 'captures' and more 'kills' of terrorists.  Second, it is going to lead to fewer (or no longer) terrorists being kept at Guantanamo, and more handed over to 'local' authorities (with accompanying pressures for continued detention).  Both of these outcomes are much worse for the jihadists in question.  So keep it up, naive-left journalists and kappert-like school teachers.  Guantanamo will close eventually (politicians do not want 'bad PR'), but do not believe that you will have done anybody any favor.

4)  You are confusing "civilisation" with "decadence".  A civilised government should take its responsibility seriously of defending its own citizens first.  It should face the real world as it is (not as it would like it to be), and should not flee from its duty (i.e. difficult decisions today) behind sofistry and thus 'compromise' its people's future.  A civilised government would recognise that not everybody in the outside world plays by civilised rules, and should adjust its tactics accordingly.  Just like a self-respecting soccer team would refuse to play another team operating under different (nonsoccer) rules. 

5) There can be no 'justice' without some form of retribution, and a civilised justice system would never confuse the perpetrators of crime with the victims of a crime.  That means that the focus should be on the 'rights' of victims and of potential victims.  That does not preclude some 'rights' of criminals, and it certainly does not require a strict literal interpretation of "an eye for an eye".  But the principle of "an eye for an eye" is fundamentally a sound principle if one wants to preserve a civilisation. It is only the specific form of applying that principle that may change, but not the principle itself. A society cannot preserve justice if it refuses to exact retribution from perpetrators of crimes.    

6) Indeed, governments need to be 'accountable', that is their powers need to be circumscribed and limited.  That is a matter of democratic governance, and has nothing to do with esoteric legal questions about the status of "illegal combatants" and their treatment.  In a genuine democracy these questions are handled through the proper interactions between the 3 branches. As I explained earlier, that process between the Legislative, Executive and Legal branches is underway.   GWBush is a democratic politician, and he will voluntary relinquish his limited powers next January.  The legal matters concerning treatment of foreign "illegal combatants" will continue to be debated and 'evolve' forever, as they should in a democratic political system like the US.  They are not 'settled', and they will never be settled, because people strongly disagree about them , and realities/events will continue to assert themselves.      

what goals

Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-07-04 19:12.

It is remarkable that our trigger-happy-fraction endorses preemptive warfare as something legal, probably to defend their own way of life, e.g. Lebensraum, with all the exploitation of other countries. For them, Guantánamo, as a concentration camp, is part of 'neutralising the enemy', e.g. condemnation without legal process.
Why U.S. soldiers have to fight/die in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. is not explained by our wise guys.
The essay on civilisation/decadence is a poor positivistic attempt in the sense of the 19th century rationalists.
If governments are 'accountable', I hope American citizens will rise a criminal process against the current president. Let's hope that the legal 'branches' do not succumb in their lobbyism.

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Fri, 2008-07-04 20:19.

Are you for real?
Are you sure you are not pretending to be in some farce-like candid camera situation?
There seems to be no way for you to take part in real life.
What schools have brainwashed you?

sonderbehandlung

Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-07-04 14:42.

Let's believe the WashPost saying that there are 265 prisoners in Guantánamo. 65 will be released and send home after years in prison without any accusation. 80 will be shifted to Military/Civilian courts in the U.S. awaiting a long, long process, and 120 will receive a Sonderbehandlung, meaning that despite having no proof, they are considered 'dangerous' and kept in captivity. GWB is still 'analysing' the situation.

Little Brain # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2008-07-03 20:14.

There have been numerous judgments before (various) legal courts about the issue of 'Guantanamo'.  It is not as if Guantanamo is some secret place were "innocents" are being kept secretly at the whim of some unaccountable government.  For God's sake, it is the world's best known prison, thanks to the insatiable appetite for demonizing the Great Satan among leftie Westerners.  It is certainly better known than any of the prisons in which currently prisoners are kept by various European authorities for 'indefinite' periods. 

I am not a constitutional lawyer, nor do I follow this judicial issue from close-up. But, I am aware of at least 3 US Supreme Court interventions or judgments on the matter of Guantanamo.  The second one ,I recall, expressed dissatisfaction with the Administration's approach and 'instructed' the Congress to clarify the law governing such detainees and also the question of whether these detainees satisfy the Geneva Conventions definition regarding war prisoners.  The Congress and Administration had worked out a new law concerning this matter, and the latest Supreme Court decision appears to have disapproved of the particular arangement for 'military tribunals' again.  There have also been lower court decisions, concerning certain individual cases.

These legal battles (or games) will no doubt continue for a while, mainly because there are serious legal issues involved for which there are no simple answers. Like many other contentious legal matters, in the end they will be (temporarily) settled, partly via judicial appointments that slowly occur through the political process.  But legal 'equilibria' are always of a temporary nature in genuine democracies, were in the end the public influences slowly the 'rule of law'. 

Of course, none of this matters directly for the civil rights of US citizens, nor for those of other nations' citizens that are willing to take responsibility for their own citizens.  It should be known, by now, that the single biggest problem with most remaining "inmates" at Guantanamo is that no government wants to take them, even their own citizens.

It is interesting that Kappert gets 'exercised' about legal niceties concerning jihadist terrorists, but never writes about the kind of 'justice' meted out by various German courts on a regular basis.   He should read about the heart-wrenching accounts of dual 'American-German' children, abducted by their German fathers in custody battles and taken to Germany, even after an American court has pronounced on the matter of joint custody.  A number of German courts have not hesitated to ignore prior American court rulings, and to essentially 'approve' of the abductions, and to forbid the mothers access to their abducted children.  In some cases these (German) judgments have been based on the grounds of presumed 'superior' culture in Germany.  Are we culturally really that far removed from the nazi period....? 

Now, that is the sort of judicial issue that Kappert should put his teeth in.  But, the fate of murderous jihadist terrorists seems closer to his heart....Unglaublich! 

how long

Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2008-07-03 21:22.

If Guantanamo is not some secret place, why did we had to wait years before knowing the names of the prisoners? The legal games (legal niceties?) played with the life of the prisoners is a shame and will no doubt continue for a while, as you well say.
On behalf on custody battles, I cannot argue, but I think each and every case brings broken hearts to the involved.
That German courts still smell the old way is no surprise for me.
Are we culturally really that far removed from the nazi period....? Good question.

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Thu, 2008-07-03 21:53.

I have absolutely no problems with Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib.
Those prisons are thousand times better than any prison between Morocco and Indonesia.
The people who are in Guantanamo deserve to be treated without niceties: they don't understand legal niceties and think that only US pussies can be legally so naive. Guantanamo doesn't do 1% of the atrocities committed in islamic jails.
One day I will probably write a couple of pages about the activities in those jails, daily happenings in the islamic countries. I took several people out of these jails and can tell some stories about it where Guantanamo looks like kindergarten.

@ kappert 2

Submitted by traveller on Thu, 2008-07-03 21:57.

Some of the released "innocents" from Guantanamo blew themselves up as suicide-bombers and some were caught again in gun battles in Afghanistan.
They were probably pissed off and became terrorists after being "innocently imprisoned".
Just to be first with those silly arguments.

@traveller

Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-07-04 11:38.

Are we culturally really that far removed from the nazi period....?

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Fri, 2008-07-04 16:22.

I am not going to repeat marcfrans who already answered this question.
Guantanamo has been created because of the legal problems dealing with those gangsters.
Comparing Guantanamo with the nazis is pure BS(bullshit). The nazis would have shot those gangsters, their families and their neighbours on sight and no ifs and buts about it.

secret desire

Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-07-04 16:26.

Do I detect a secret desire of yours? If you don't give a damn about the inmates at Guantánamo, I imagine you would have supported a much quicker 'solution' of the 'they-have-to-be-terrorists' dilemma of the mad Texan.

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Fri, 2008-07-04 17:26.

There is no secret desire at all. Contrary to you I had experience with some of those bastards and my blood boiled. I would shoot them immediately if they just pointed their finger at me. They are lying, cheating gangsters and anybody connected to them is vermin. They have no human feelings and all they want is killing people and go to heaven for it, they believe this like programmed robots.
I have a lot of respect for the patience of the American troops who brought this vermin to Cuba, safely.
I know there is a slight chance there were some innocents among them, but I am sure they are already released.
Any foreigner in the vicinity of an Al Quaeda training camp in the middle of nowhere, desert or mountain, had to be connected to them. Why would Arabs or Europeans be there otherwise?
Stop being so bloody naive please and pray God you never meet one of those murderers.

four goals

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Fri, 2008-07-04 14:08.

There are four intermingled goals here.
First goal: We should defend ourselves and society against those fanatics. No question about that. If we catch them, we have to put them away.
Second goal: Try to gather information to be able to neutralize possible new attackers.

Third goal: We should protect people and citizens from being falsely accused by our governments. To make sure this doesn’t happen democracies developed some mechanisms in case of imprisonment like a formal accusation within a reasonable time, an appearance before a judge or a jury, a possibility to appeal and the right of legal assistance.

A fourth goal is not to fall for the temptation of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. As civilized people we need a government that gives the right example and thus shows some restrains towards the use of violence.

It is undeniable that G.W. Bush focused very sharply on goals one and two. In a short time frame this is also the most effective way. But goals three and four got in the way. That’s why Guantanamo and the especially for the case invented status of “foreign fighters” were chosen. In the long run this is a bad thing to do. Governments are always given a great deal of power. So we should never let them get away with abolishing our possibilities to control them in the use of that power. That has nothing to do with the Guantanamo guys being innocent or not. It’s about the fundaments of our system.

Little brain

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2008-07-03 16:09.

"...innocent Guantanamo inmates...".

Indeed, "there is little brain at all".  Those inmates must have been put there for the fun of it! To give naive-lefty German teachers ammunition to demonise the Great Satan, who apparently has nothing better to do than tormenting "innocents". 

Mein Gott...wie dummerweise haben Sie...allowed the appointment of the current crop of German teachers and journalists?! 

@marcfrans

Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2008-07-03 18:01.

Has there been any judgement before a legal court? If so, please, inform me.

one eye policy

Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2008-07-03 15:43.

It is obvious that Tiberge like to be one eyed (only). When there are complaints about human rights, we should fight for these rights. But since the Weimar Republic, one eyed policies entered into the 'moral' of our decision making elites, defending atrocities. Look at Ingrid Betancourt - six years of captivity in the jungle, and she returns with a healthy smile. I wonder, whether the innocent Guantanamo inmates are able to do that, and I really hope that Ingrid kicks the ass of Uribe in the next elections. I agree with marcfrans about the nouveau gendarme, but again - that's European policy, since Charlemagne to Churchill and Blair, we are way too scary to admit our blindness. In this sense, don't worry about 'brain drain', there is little brain at all.

We scorned it

Submitted by HenrikRClausen on Tue, 2008-07-01 19:43.

The leader of this nice, Orwellian agency is Danish, and widely known as a human rights totalitarian.

 

When the report came, left-wing extremists jumped of joy, while the rest of us heaped scorn upon it. I believe the scorners won, fortunately.

Le Nouveau Gendarme

Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2008-06-30 22:27.

Apparently freedom of (political) speech is no longer a "fundamental right" in a number of EU countries.  But, new 'fundamental' rights have been invented, together with the 'super-cop' overseeing the various national 'policemen' designated to ensure their enforcement.   Among those new "rights" are:

-- making complaints about alleged 'discrimination', selectively of course;

-- public funding for the relevant 'gendarme', i.e. the European Agency for Fundamental Rights.  Does anybody know on which page of the Constitution (sorry the Lisbon Treaty) this particular new "right" is spelled out? 

Interestingly, the website of Mr Daoudal has also a link to "La fuite des cerveaux allemands".  Lest anybody is worried about this alleged "brain drain" of talent from Germany, no Kappert is not part of it.  And neither is Amsterdamsky part of any reverse American "brain drain".  

 

It's the nature of the beast....

Submitted by onecent on Mon, 2008-06-30 22:10.

"In other words, the more complaints HALDE receives, the happier the Agency is."

That's the nature of the socialist multi-culti beast, isn't it. The more violations, the more employed gov't multi-culti lackeys, victim industry employees.

And just where do the native French go to get their grievances heard?  As objects of wholesale discrimination(only whites are evil racists, remember) and population displacement, their culture trashed by the elites with little redress, where do they go to have their rights protected?