GameBanshee Forums

This article was writed by Leonardo Boff(Teo- Philosopher), say about the last steps of the World. More especifically about USA and the War against Terror. The autor is one of my favorite. I think the article is a little exagerated, but it is an important question, in the excercise of the cidadany and civil rights in USA. For this purpose, I'm putting the link and the article with some reserches related.

Sorry, the article and the link(because they have the same contents) are in Portuguese(Brazilian). But please, don't loose the oportunity to read it. If someone can use a translator in the full article for the other members be able to read it, I thanks a lot.

Link : [url="http://www.uol.com.br/fsp/opiniao/fz2611200110.htm"]FolhadeSaopaulo-LeonardoBoff[/url]
(Any problem related to the link, or if passwords, please tell me; But it is not that important anyway, because the article is here too.)

Reserches:

1)People from other country suspect of Terrorism should be judged by a special army-tribunal?
58%-yes
38%-No
4%- no opinion

2)You think is correct to put Americans lifes in risk to take Bin Laden?
60%-yes
34%-No
6%-no opinion

3)Should be legal to put listener( I don't know the real name of this little machine in english, it is a mechanism used by the cops to secreately listen to suspects phone calls without their knowlodge) in suspects of Terrorism and their respective Laywers?
73%-yes
24%-no
3%-no opinion

4)Do you a agree with the USA plan to interview 5.000 young man from Mid - east,
living today in the USA, as a part of the investigation against the Terrorism?
79%-yes
19%-no
2%no opinion

5) If Osama Bin Laden is captured by the USA, what you think is the best to do?
63%- Take him to a Tribunal civil or militar.
35%- Execute him, imediatly
3%-No opinion

From: "The Washington Post"/ABC de 27/11.
( Of course, I make a lot of mistakes in the translation process since the font was not in English, sorry)


Article:
A globalização do inimigo
LEONARDO BOFF

As declarações do presidente George W. Bush são inequívocas: o terrorismo será enfrentado em qualquer parte do mundo; serão atacados também aqueles países que dão guarida às redes do terror. Quem não aceita essa luta é contra os EUA e a favor do terrorismo. Aqui há uma manifesta globalização do inimigo e uma globalização da guerra com características singulares, combinando a brutalidade da guerra tecnológica moderna com a guerra suja da inteligência, que implica atos de terror e o assassinato planejado de lideranças tidas por terroristas.
Essa estratégia nos projeta cenários sombrios e altamente perigosos para a convivência da humanidade no processo inexorável da globalização, fase nova da história da Terra (Gaia) e da nossa espécie. O primeiro efeito ocorreu nos EUA: a criação de um novo secretariado, o "Homeland Defense" (Defesa da Pátria), dotado de estratégias, verbas e sua correspondente ideologia justificadora. Nós conhecemos o que significa o "Estado de Segurança Nacional", cujo ideólogo-mor, Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), ideólogo da guerra de guerrilha ("a guerra é a continuação da política com outros meios"), inspirou os processos de seu funcionamento.
Em nome da segurança, inverte-se o sentido básico do direito: todos são supostamente terroristas até prova em contrário. Em consequência disso, surgem as espionagens, os grampos, as prisões para interrogatórios, as violências por parte dos corpos de segurança e as torturas. Cria-se o império da suspeita e do medo e a quebra da confiança societária, base de qualquer pacto social. Há o risco do terror de Estado.
Dois temores bem fundados acolitam semelhante universalização do inimigo: a delimitação do que seja terrorismo e a identificação dos nichos alimentadores de terrorismo.
A formulação de bem/mal e amigo/inimigo do presidente Bush nos remete a um dos grandes teóricos modernos da filosofia política de transfundo fascista, Carl Schmitt (1888-1985). Em seu "O Conceito do Político", de 1932 (Vozes, 1992), diz: "A essência da existência política de um povo é sua capacidade de definir o amigo e o inimigo".
Quem é inimigo? "É aquele existencialmente algo outro e estrangeiro, de modo que, no caso extremo, há possibilidade de conflitos com ele. Se a alteridade do estrangeiro representa a negação da própria forma de existência do povo, deve ser repelido e combatido para a preservação da própria forma de vida. Ao nível da realidade psicológica, o inimigo facilmente vem a ser tratado como mau e feio."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Os ninhos de serpentes foram criados; e elas crescem, se multiplicam e podem morder agora em nível global
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush interpretou a barbárie de 11 de setembro como guerra contra a humanidade, contra o bem e o mal, contra a democracia e a economia globalizada de mercado -que tantos benefícios (na pressuposição dele) trouxe para a humanidade. Quem for contra tal leitura, é inimigo, o outro e o estrangeiro que cabe combater e eliminar.
Tal estratégia pode levar a violência para dentro dos EUA e para todos os quadrantes do mundo. É a violência total do sistema contra todos os seus críticos e opositores.
O segundo problema aventado é a identificação dos nichos fomentadores de inimigos. Na atual estratégia são países tidos por párias ou bandidos. Dentro de pouco, perceberemos que mais importantes são ideologias libertárias e religiões de resistência e libertação como ocorreu em todo o Terceiro Mundo e na oposição ao regime soviético. Elas criam verdadeiras místicas de engajamento e fazem surgir militantes altamente comprometidos com a superação da presente ordem social mundial, devido às altas taxas de iniquidade social que produzem.
Entre eles se contam as históricas esquerdas anticapitalistas, os movimentos transnacionais contra o tipo hegemônico de globalização econômico-financeira e os setores religiosos ligados a mudanças sociais como o cristianismo de libertação nascido na América Latina e ativo na África, na Ásia e em setores importantes da sociedade civil norte-americana e européia, grupos fortes do islamismo popular, de cunho fundamentalista e setores teológicos islâmicos que resgatam as origens libertárias da gesta de Mohammad e o sentido original do Alcorão. Todos esses serão considerados inimigos eventuais. Conhecemos as consequências de tais identificações: a vigilância, a tentativa de desqualificação pública, os sequestros, as torturas, os assassinatos. Será que os EUA não acolheram uma lógica que os condenará a repetir com mais furor o que ocorreu na América Latina nos anos 60 sob os regimes de segurança nacional (bem entendido, segurança do capital)?
Tais espectros não são fantasias sinistras. Os ninhos de serpentes foram criados. E elas crescem, se multiplicam e podem morder mortalmente agora em nível global.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonardo Boff, teólogo e escritor, autor de "O Despertar da Águia", "O Dia-Bólico e o Sim-Bólico na Construção da Realidade" (Vozes).

-------------------""""-------------------
@Fable, MrSleep, T'lainya- I know is not correct write and put text here in other language, but I think it will be easy for use any translator this way. If you have any restriction I can edit the post and leave only the link.
-------------------""""--------------------

My opinions:

1.No, IMO normal courts suffice. However, the penalties ( for being a member of a terrorist organisation ) are too low here in Holland

2.Yes

3.If you have strong suspicions, then yes

4.If you have strong suspicions that these 5000 men are linked to terrorism, then yes

5.Execute immediately

1. No

2. No

3. With strong reason or suspician to

4. no. Not at all.

5. yes.

1. No. While it is true that there is legal precedent in the US for admiralty courts in times of war, trying Osama bin Laden et al in a military tribunal would by hypocritical on the part of the US (there's also a legal precendent for slavery and white, men-only sufferage). We claim that he and the Taliban are barbarians, yet our Justice Department will deny him the due process and co-called human rights we claim that all people are entitled to. If we can't convict him by the same legal standard we hold other ciminals to, he deserves to walk free. Pesonally, I believe he should be tried by an international court, either at the Hague or in Geneva by a panel of jurists without the pejorative bias that exists in the United States (or maybe an arrangement similar to the Scottish court set up in the Netherlands for the Lockerbie bombing). Only by having an independent court try and convict bin Laden et al can the world have a satisfactory claim that justice was served, not vengeance.

2. Yes. All of the free people around the world should unite to stop not only Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, but it is our duty to stamp out despotism and give people the basic human freedoms and rights we all should have. Our military is an all-volunteer force and they knew of the possibility of being sent into combat before they enlisted or received a commission.

3. Yes. The word you're looking for is "wire tap" and yes, we should be able to evesdrop on suspected terrorists, but not indiscriminately. In order to wire tap a phone in the United States, the investigating authority (ie-local sherriff, FBI, etc.) must go to court, show probable cause, and get a court order before tapping any communication line. The standard for fighting terrorists should be no different.

4. Yes, but. Anyone who has connections with suspected terrorists should be interviewed as part of the investigation, regardless of their ethnic, religious or other ties. However, to detain people in violation of their civil rights or round up arabs and place them in concentration camps (like in the very good Denzel Washington movie The Siege), is not only unconstitutional, but immoral. Lacking probably cause, we should not engage in any sort of racial profiling in our zeal to hunt down terrorists.

5. Personally, I'd like nothing more than seeing him strung up or dragged to an unpleasant death. In a summary execution, we run the risk of turning him into a fighting martyr, but with a tribunal we will give him a chance to make his case before a world-wide audience with the chance of converting others to his particular brand of extremism. I think that the trial is the way to go. Show the world that he is not above earthly justice, then let him rot in a prison somewhere. To simply try bin Laden and his cronies in a dog-and-pony show then execute him makes us just as evil as he is. We must confer upon him the same civil rights we would expect for ourselves or we are nothing more than barbarians ourselves.

What we (the United States) must do if we want to eliminate terrorism is find out why people hate us so much. When the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989, we won. We armed, trained and funded the Mujihadeen and taught them everything they needed to know about warfare. After they did our dirty work, we turned our backs on them and left them to rot. Their country descended into civil war, a drought decimated their population, and what the Soviets had not destroyed, they blew up themselves. For $50 million a year in foreign aid, we may have prevented the Taliban from rising to power by taking an interest in a foreign country and not making them so desperate for a government, any government, that they would accept the Taliban.

There are some folks in America who believe we should not be the "global policeman" and intervene in things that aren't our business. On one level they are right. We have no reason to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations. However, the United States, as the world's only superpower, must be the global leader. That means doing things at the invitation of other nations to make the world a better and safer place. Sometimes we must do things that are unpopular, such as promote population controls in third world nations. However, we must also continue to lead the world in disaster relief, international mission work, and promoting human rights.

The United States doesn't like to pay for prevention. We'd rather pay for cure. However, the isolationists among us must realise that $300 million a year in global humanitarian assistance to starving, desperate people is worth saving billions of dollars in supressing those same people when they decide to shoot back at us when they have no where else to go.

1.I think either way He will get the maximum penalty(presumably Death) so I guess, no opinion.

2.speaking as an Israeli,I have no right to say this, but (being American born) I think in small numbers, it is the price of a war.

3.I think the lawyers is taking it a bit toofar, But if that what it takes, then thats what it takes.

4.Without a doubt, yes.I think it's a small price to pay for getting those SOB's.

5.taking him to some sort of court, which will without a doubt execute him.I think that is a greater display of balance between power,justice and revenge.

The result of the reserches in USA I already know.
I wish to know of you, how you all see the restrictions of the civil rights in USA because of the War against Terror.
Put listeners, interview people from mid-east, fear, suspect. Who are the suspect? What is strong suspection? It is too relative.


I don't know of you, but for me sounds a little like wicth-hunting (In portuguese this expression means the time in USA when the civil rights were pushed and the fear from the Comunist create a terror hunting, and suspect even inocents fall in death. A lastimable period of acusation and fear.)

I really think Bush is generalizating and extremating. The popularization of the fear, xenofoby, will bring the terror to the inside of USA people, this will be the last victory of the Laden's project.

I hope the USA leave the anger to the real terrorists.

[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Ivan Cavallazzi ]

Whoa! the mulitary tribunal is NOT removing any of Osama's so called rights. He would still get a trial that is subject to the laws of our country. The military trial is nesseccary IMO because it will prevent classified information from being made public and it will prevent some blood sucking lawyer defense lawyer to defend Osama and making the trial last the next 10 years. There is classified information about all this and I as a US citizen to not want the government to fork over all this information that could compromose the US in ANY way (and you can bet that it wwould). The military trial does not prevent Osama from a defense lawyer, in the public courts the trial would last FOREVER. There would be appeals to no end, and the media coverage would just give the terrorists more of what they want. Bottom line: the terrorist attacks on the WTC were not felonies committed by US citizens. It was an attack on the US by an organization that wanted to harm the US, thus an act of war. Military courts are meant to handle such issues, not the kangaroo public justice system.

@HighLordDave
There is a BIG difference between a man who coordinates and act of war and mass destruction and a common criminal. I do not consider some psyco on a killing spree to be an act of war. If it were, I would want that psyco to get a military trial too.

Well, I doubt that Bin Laden will, if taken prisoner, ever live to face a trial...
If he does however, it would be virtually impossible to convict of more than convinance of the attack on the WTC. For example, it would have been extremly difficult to convict Hitler for the Holocaust. He never concretly ordered mass killings (if in written or oral form), nor did he participate in the conferences which decided over the genocide. You just can't handle some people like "ordinary" civilian criminals. That's why I agree with the plans for a military tribinal.

Osama bin Laden is incapable of committing an act of war, although Dubya and the media would like you to believe otherwise. By definition, acts of war can only occur between states. Neither Osama bin laden, Al-Qaeda, nor the Taliban are states. The first is an individual, the second is an organisation, and the third is a militia. As such, they must be tried in a civilian court for any alleged offenses.

If we try bin Laden or any of his cronies in military courts, would you then try all terrorists in admiralty courts? Does Ted Kaczynski get a new military trial? How about this yochol sending out hoax anthrax letters to Planned Parenthood offices and abortion clinics? What about environmentalists who chain themselves to trees? Will you use a military tribunal to try students who stage a sit-in at their college president's house? Those are all acts of sedition and terrorism. At what point do you draw the line?

For the United States to expect other nations around the world to behave as we want them to, we must take the lead and give bin Laden et al all of the rights and due process under the law to which he is entitled. No, it may not be pleasant or expeditious, but it is the right thing to do.

In all probability, our friend Trym is probably right in that this entire debate will probably be rendered academic because I don't think bin Laden will be taken alive; we'll either kill him or he will commit suicide, I don't think he'll ever surrender (Martyrs must die, not rot in prison).

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
<STRONG>What we (the United States) must do if we want to eliminate terrorism is find out why people hate us so much.

<snip>

There are some folks in America who believe we should not be the "global policeman" and intervene in things that aren't our business. On one level they are right. We have no reason to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations. However, the United States, as the world's only superpower, must be the global leader. That means doing things at the invitation of other nations to make the world a better and safer place. Sometimes we must do things that are unpopular</STRONG>

And...that's why people hate us so much

Al-Quaida has said over and over again that their big beef with the USA is the USA's foreign policy, specifically its lopsided, near-fawning support of Israel. There's no big mystery here.

HighLordDave, et al: The 'rights' accorded by the Constitution are intened for the protection of American citizens.

I believe that Osama bin Laden is Saudi, no?

I think obinladen ceded any human rights he had on sept 11th, if not before then.

Personally I'd like to hear he was raped, repeatedly, and then trampled to death by a selection of wild animals (say boars, moose and a bear).

But what self respecting moose would partake in that?

Constitution? What constitution? 10 imutable articles?
(I love to joke with USA constitution)

Anatres:
HighLordDave, et al: The 'rights' accorded by the Constitution are intened for the protection of American citizens.
I believe that Osama bin Laden is Saudi, no?

This expression: "the Constitution are intened for the protection of American citizens." Is figurative. And the USA constitution don't mean too much else than priciples, ideologic bases. The laws in fact are in juriprudence.

The Law:
It is to protect USA people, so it have legitimity and jurisdiction to comndem crime ocurred in USA territory against USA people.

The crime can also be jurisdicted by an international court, but I don't think USA will like this way.

Ivan; What are you talking about? (I can understand the essence of your thoughts regardless of your English).

Your concepts of the Constitution of the United States is warped by the same neo-socialist liberal view that has caused 'political correctness' to be so pervasive and used to undermine the very essence of American Liberty for the past ten years!!!!

This document was written for Americans by Americans to protect the liberties and guarantee the freedoms of being an American! To think that you can apply its jurisprudence accross the board to anyone you 'desire'is ludicrous!

These thoughts and postings are one of the reasons I have been absent from this forum. Not reading most of the pap posted here by foreign nationals (and European intellegensia) is the only way I can keep from becomming outraged and posting comments that will inevitably get me banned.

Originally posted by Anatres:
<STRONG>HighLordDave, et al: The 'rights' accorded by the Constitution are intened for the protection of American citizens.

I believe that Osama bin Laden is Saudi, no?</STRONG>

Osama bin Laden's nationality is irrelevent. If we are going to hold up our standard of justice as the benchmark for the world (and we do), then we must afford him equal protection under the law. That is one of the most basic principles of democracy: no one is above the law, nor is anyone less equal before the law.

We try foreign nationals for a variety of crimes under our laws all the time, just as other countries prosecute American citizens under their laws. Should Michael Fay have been spared a caning in Singapore for violating their laws? No, and I am disappointed that the president intervened and asked that his punishment be commuted because he's an American citizen.

It's the "when in Rome" principle. If bin Laden breaks the law in the United States, he should be prosecuted according to our laws but he is also entitled to all of our protections and rights. We cannot demand "justice" for bin Laden without providing a fair and impartial legal framework for his defense. For us to be so ready to forfeit the legal standards we set for ourselves in bin Laden's case shows that we are more interested in vengeance than setting things right.

Originally posted by Anatres:
<STRONG>Ivan; What are you talking about? (I can understand the essence of your thoughts regardless of your English).

Your concepts of the Constitution of the United States is warped by the same neo-socialist liberal view that has caused 'political correctness' to be so pervasive and used to undermine the very essence of American Liberty for the past ten years!!!!

This document was written for Americans by Americans to protect the liberties and guarantee the freedoms of being an American! To think that you can apply its jurisprudence accross the board to anyone you 'desire'is ludicrous!

These thoughts and postings are one of the reasons I have been absent from this forum. Not reading most of the pap posted here by foreign nationals (and European intellegensia) is the only way I can keep from becomming outraged and posting comments that will inevitably get me banned.</STRONG>

No Anatres.
I was not clear, or you misunderstand.
I have nothing against USA constitution.
The thing is that there is no efective law there. The USA Constitution is Larger document, ideological document, diferent from the majority of the constitutions.
USA constitution only have bases, principles, directrizes in a legal purpose.
The main purpose of the contitution is what you say:
"This document was written for Americans by Americans to protect the liberties and guarantee the freedoms of being an American! "
See, it is primaly an ideological document.

You cannot see how long you will stay in jail by kill somebody.
Or, if you will be caugh because you burn your house.
Or, if you can use drugs or not.
This laws are not in the constitution. The law are in the juriprudence. The past dicisions. The roots.

The majority of the constitutions in the world are diferent. See Brazil, French, Germany... Constitution, Civil code.
You will found in the Constitution of these country the laws.

I am not being ofensive in anyway, Anatres. Do you understand what am I saying?
I USA the past decisions are the law, not the constitution. Diferent from the majority of the constitution. Because it have diferent purpose and propositions.

HLD; I see the difference in our views lay in the definition of the acts perported to bin Laden that were perpetrated against the United States. You see them as 'crimes' and I see them as acts of war. And if you wish to hold to the misguided concept that wars are only defined as the conflicts between nation states so be it. Also used as a definition of war - "2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end". So if it's necessary to quibble, then let's quibble.....

My views as to 'equal treatment under the law' also differ from yours by basic definition of the intent and function of the Constitution.

Perhaps we should really become Imperialistic and enfore our world view down the throats of all nations of the world at the end of a GBU385. Get real. We hold out the values and ideals of our form of democracy as a template. Only in the most idealistic liberal view is the concept of our democracy 'expected' to be applied to everyone regardless of nationality or consequences from their actions.

The Saudis did not want bin Laden when he was originally expelled from Sudan for fear he would incite rebellion against the Royal House. Under their system of justice/law he would be publicly beheaded in the city square of Ryhad for even being suspected of the acts that have been attributed (even circumspectly) to him.

Idealism is all well and good in an ideal world and as an exercise in intellectual pursuit. But I can still bring up images of the WTC crumbling as can, I supect, many hundreds of NYFD families.

IC; You are correct. To a degree. All that precedence and all those jurisprudentiary exercises were carried out in American courts overseen by the interpretation of various Supreme Court Justices of the United States. Never was any of that intended to be applied to anyone outside the citizenry of the United States. Used as a model, perhaps.

Originally posted by loner72:
<STRONG>And...that's why people hate us so much

Al-Quaida has said over and over again that their big beef with the USA is the USA's foreign policy, specifically its lopsided, near-fawning support of Israel. There's no big mystery here.</STRONG>

So the US going to change its FP or not?
That is the major question for all people in the muslim world.

Fas; What do you believe the 'FP' of the USA should be?