SV: Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
Hey Jeroen Thanks for the trust on the link-finding. However, politics isn't really my force, especially messy EU-policy. I think I can deduct from your request that someone actually reads those behemoth-mails of mine :) - Which means that I don't completely waste my time gathering those facts. M [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
I don't want to get involved in the "which is better" debate, but I'd like to insert some replies here... From: Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> At Stardate 20030625.2102, Jan Coffey wrote: I trust an average person taken from the street far more than I would trust someone who does it for a living. So, when you feel ill, you ask a not-medically-trained average person from the street for a diagnosis, rather than go see a physician (a trained professional who does this for a living)? When someone allegedly broke a law, do you really believe that uneducated Joe Average is more qualified to determine whether a law really was broken than someone who has actually *studied* the laws? I think that a large part of the judgement of a case is not in how to interpret the laws themselves, but in how to judge the facts and evidence of the case: Things like "is that witness credible?", "was that testimony truthful?", "is the evidence presented convincing enough?", "does the degree of the crime match the charges?", "were the defendant's actions reasonable?", etc. Certainly, expert knowledge of the law can be helpful in regards to these questions, but it isn't really necessary. Where more technical points of law are involved, the judge is involved, and he/she can dismiss the case, declare a mistrial, exclude evidence, instruct the jury on the points of law, order the jury not to consider certain information while making its decision, and even at times override/reverse the jury's decision completely. (This last notably happened in the british nanny baby-abuse trial here in Boston). All this gives the judge a HUGE amount of power even though they do not make the verdict. The benefits I see of trial by jury are: - There are 13 people who must be convinced of your guilt. Even one dissent vote will void the trial. Having a larger voting group helps eliminate some hidden biases that might otherwise influence the decision unfairly. I'm curious, is there more than one judge deciding the guilty/innocent verdict in non-jury systems? - I'm guessing most judges belong to the upper class or close to it. (Law school isn't cheap, and judges get paid fairly well.) A poor defendant might have a better chance of understanding from a mixed jury of common people than from a weathy judge. And a rich defendant might have less chance of "getting away with it" for the same reason. - There is less chance that a jury would become jaded (and hence biased) because, unlike a judge, they haven't "seen/heard it all before". Jurors won't have the extensive previous experience of other cases that might color their perception of the current one. (This can be a mixed blessing, I think). The downsides I see of a jury trial are: - It's possible to get some very _un_intelligent people on the jury. (See the OJ trial) There is not much protection against juror incompetency. - The jurors have very little, if any, accountability. One moron or bad egg can ruin things (though usually in the direction of innocence, so these failures don't tend to put innocent people in jail). - You get lawyers specializing in jury psychology and assorted other games like that. _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At Stardate 20030625.2102, Jan Coffey wrote: > > >I trust an average person taken from the street far more than I would > >trust someone who does it for a living. > > So, when you feel ill, you ask a not-medically-trained average person from > the street for a diagnosis, rather than go see a physician (a trained > professional who does this for a living)? That is a big differnce! I trust 12 of my peers to say whether or not I am guilty than 1 man or woman who has all of that power. How is this not obvious to you? > > When someone allegedly broke a law, do you really believe that uneducated > Joe Average is more qualified to determine whether a law really was broken > than someone who has actually *studied* the laws? Yes absolutly! and not just one someone, 12 someones who have to agree! > >That is too much power, and IMO Judges already have too much power. > > The only real power they have is to declare someone guilty and determine > appropriate punishment -- but then, that's what they are trained for and > get paid for! And if they screw up, their decision can be overturned by a > higher court. When religion and polotics come into play, that can become very shady buisness. I prefer 12 other reasonable people just like me, than one guy who might think that I need to be locked up becouse of my religions of political beliefs. (Remember that's what happened to a lot of our ancestors) = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At Stardate 20030625.2101, Jan Coffey wrote: > > > > >This is exactly why the US is staying out of the ICC. The regulations > are > > > >not sufficient to guarentee that they will not be abused. > > > > > > Can you guarantee that someone who is given a trial by jury in the US > will > > > be given a *fair* trial? Can you guarantee that when, say, a child > molester > > > is on trial, the jury will base its decision solely on facts and > completely > > > ignore their own emotions? When a soldier is given a trial by jury, can > you > > > guarantee that certain people in the military and/or government will > *not* > > > be pressuring some people into voting "not guilty"? > > > >The idea is that it is better for to criminals to go free than one inocent > > >man be convicted. > > That has nothing to do with the concept of trial by jury. The jury system > doesn't have any more safeguards against an innocent man being convicted > than our system has. Your system has profesional judges who make decisions that is to much power, we in the US do not trust our governemnt that much. And we wouldn't trust any governement that much. > >While this may not allways work in the US, it is still IMNSHAO :) much > >less likely than in ~many~ other countries, > > Can you provide evidence for this? How is, say, a Dutch court more likely > to convict an innocent man than a US trial-by-jury court? Come on. it's obvious. -A- judge can be in on it, paid off, lean one way or another due to political perswation, religion, personal beliefs. A Jury picked and agreed to by the prosicution and defence as much less likelyhood of being swayed do to anythign but the evidence, and -proof- of guilt beond a reasonable doubt. Further more they have to all agree. Besides, how would you support this with a study? What would you base the inocence on? The point is not to have to proove inocence, but to proove guilt. Any reasonable stuy which narrowed this to cause would have to proove inocence. > >and much better than that of the ICC. > > Hard to tell, given the very few cases it has had to handle so far. Can you > > point at ICC cases where innocent men have been convicted for war crimes? The point is the way the system is set up, not the actual experience which once again can not be reasonable tested without requiring proof of inocence. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At Stardate 20030625.2043, Jorpho wrote: > > >It has been said that there is a certain dramatic allure to the whole > >secret process of sending the jury off to deliberate before unveiling with > > >a flourish what they agreed on, without any consderation given to how they > > >arrived at this conclusion. > > That's one of the things I don't like about the jury system: the lack of > transparency. Over here a judge not only decides on whether someone is > guilty or innocent, s/he also has to explain how that conclusion was > reached. > > > >But it might also be said that it would be too costly to train large > >numbers of people in the minutae of the law. > > All the more reason not to have a jury system; better spend that money on > properly training a limited number of people than leaving guilty/not-guilty > > decisions to the uneducated masses. > > BTW, I don't know how this is handled elsewhere, but in The Netherlands > going to Law School is just like going to any other school: the government > doesn't pay for it, you'll have to pay for it yourself (despite the > existence of student loans from the government). > To an american this si scarry! How do you make sure that the judge does not abuse that very extream power. We all know how something can be twisted by one person to fit. Our Judges can only find a lack of evidence, they can not find someone guilty unless they person waves the right to a jury trial. You will NEVER get americans to go for any system that does not use a trial by peers, and does not have an appeal process. The addition of a required explination on the other hand sounds like a good idea. "Explain the proof" that is an improvement that I will be mailing to my senator and congraswoman as soon as I can get it reviewed for spelling etc.. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:ICC was Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At Stardate 20030624.2056, Jan Coffey wrote: > > >Personaly I see the ICC as a step twards European federalization. I think > >that is a good thing for Europe, but not for the States. It's too much too > > >fast. Let Europe federalize first and learn what the difficulties of such > >a system are. > > IIRC, that's not going to happen: the EU recently decided NOT to > federalise. Yes and the lack of the other two branches is troubeling. > > Only problem is that I can't find a link to a news article about it. > Martin, could you throw in your excellent talents at URL-finding for this? > > > >What you will learn is that federal chriminal law is a very fragile > >creature. The only reason that our system works is becouse we have > >seperate bodies of governemnt. Legislative making the laws, Executive > >inforcing the laws, and Judicial judging the law in practice. > > That cannot be the reason. The Netherlands is not a federal country, but we > do have those exact same three separate branches: Legislative, Executive > and Judicial. Works just fine. The point is you are one state, one people with more or less simmilare concerns. The US is a diverse people. The local culture in florids is very different from that in California, Texas is differnt than New Youk etc. The concerns and style of governement in these areas are very very differnt. Our fenderal (over reaching) law only works becouse of the 3 branches. Any one branch alone would have too much power. The Netherlands has a very effective governemnt and one they should be very proud of. But they have not delt with the issues of governing geographicaly disperate, culturaly differnt, peoples with often differng values of areas of intrest. The US would not trust a "Judicial branch only" ICC and it would not trust a world federation with most of the world not as experianced at democratic feralization. I guess that sounds arogant, but, look at it from our perspective. I am not a netherlander and can not provide an apropriate analog, but I am sure you can find an analog. You can at least try before off handedly deciding that we are arogant becouse of this viewpoint and focusing on our supposed "attitude" and not put yourself in our position, and ask what you would do. > >For the general average American to be satisfied with the ICC we would > >have to have a simmilar system with 3 equaly powerful branches. > > Impossible: those three branches apply to a *country*, but the ICC is not a > > country but a Court of Justice. The ICC cannot have those three branches, > as it would be *part* of one of those branches (Judicial). Exactly! > >Further we would have to have equal (by population not by state) > >democratic control over who manned the positions of such a governement. > > Why would you want to have that particular form of control over the ICC, > when you don't even have that same particular form of control over your own > > government? > We do. The number of congraspersons is determined by the population of the state. So is the number of electorats. Senators are the only per state component and it is done that way so that the "little" states do not get trampled on by the more populated ones. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
At Stardate 20030625.2102, Jan Coffey wrote: I trust an average person taken from the street far more than I would trust someone who does it for a living. So, when you feel ill, you ask a not-medically-trained average person from the street for a diagnosis, rather than go see a physician (a trained professional who does this for a living)? When someone allegedly broke a law, do you really believe that uneducated Joe Average is more qualified to determine whether a law really was broken than someone who has actually *studied* the laws? That is too much power, and IMO Judges already have too much power. The only real power they have is to declare someone guilty and determine appropriate punishment -- but then, that's what they are trained for and get paid for! And if they screw up, their decision can be overturned by a higher court. Jeroen van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
At Stardate 20030625.2101, Jan Coffey wrote: > >This is exactly why the US is staying out of the ICC. The regulations are > >not sufficient to guarentee that they will not be abused. > > Can you guarantee that someone who is given a trial by jury in the US will > be given a *fair* trial? Can you guarantee that when, say, a child molester > is on trial, the jury will base its decision solely on facts and completely > ignore their own emotions? When a soldier is given a trial by jury, can you > guarantee that certain people in the military and/or government will *not* > be pressuring some people into voting "not guilty"? The idea is that it is better for to criminals to go free than one inocent man be convicted. That has nothing to do with the concept of trial by jury. The jury system doesn't have any more safeguards against an innocent man being convicted than our system has. While this may not allways work in the US, it is still IMNSHAO :) much less likely than in ~many~ other countries, Can you provide evidence for this? How is, say, a Dutch court more likely to convict an innocent man than a US trial-by-jury court? and much better than that of the ICC. Hard to tell, given the very few cases it has had to handle so far. Can you point at ICC cases where innocent men have been convicted for war crimes? Jeroen van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
At Stardate 20030625.2043, Jorpho wrote: It has been said that there is a certain dramatic allure to the whole secret process of sending the jury off to deliberate before unveiling with a flourish what they agreed on, without any consderation given to how they arrived at this conclusion. That's one of the things I don't like about the jury system: the lack of transparency. Over here a judge not only decides on whether someone is guilty or innocent, s/he also has to explain how that conclusion was reached. But it might also be said that it would be too costly to train large numbers of people in the minutae of the law. All the more reason not to have a jury system; better spend that money on properly training a limited number of people than leaving guilty/not-guilty decisions to the uneducated masses. BTW, I don't know how this is handled elsewhere, but in The Netherlands going to Law School is just like going to any other school: the government doesn't pay for it, you'll have to pay for it yourself (despite the existence of student loans from the government). Jeroen van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:ICC was Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
At Stardate 20030624.2056, Jan Coffey wrote: Personaly I see the ICC as a step twards European federalization. I think that is a good thing for Europe, but not for the States. It's too much too fast. Let Europe federalize first and learn what the difficulties of such a system are. IIRC, that's not going to happen: the EU recently decided NOT to federalise. Only problem is that I can't find a link to a news article about it. Martin, could you throw in your excellent talents at URL-finding for this? What you will learn is that federal chriminal law is a very fragile creature. The only reason that our system works is becouse we have seperate bodies of governemnt. Legislative making the laws, Executive inforcing the laws, and Judicial judging the law in practice. That cannot be the reason. The Netherlands is not a federal country, but we do have those exact same three separate branches: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Works just fine. For the general average American to be satisfied with the ICC we would have to have a simmilar system with 3 equaly powerful branches. Impossible: those three branches apply to a *country*, but the ICC is not a country but a Court of Justice. The ICC cannot have those three branches, as it would be *part* of one of those branches (Judicial). Further we would have to have equal (by population not by state) democratic control over who manned the positions of such a governement. Why would you want to have that particular form of control over the ICC, when you don't even have that same particular form of control over your own government? Jeroen van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Brin-L Chat Reminder
This is just a quick reminder that the Wednesday Brin-L chat is scheduled for 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time, so it started about 2 hours ago. There will probably be somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. See my instruction page for help getting there: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Jorpho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >But the way the ICC is set up, they would not recieve a trial by their > > >peers. Without that we do not beleive that IUPG works. > > > > Then you really need to study how things are done in other countries. > I'll > > use The Netherlands as an example: we don't have trial by jury here, but > > people are still considered innocent until proven guilty. In every > > civilised country in the world, people are considered innocent until > proven > > guilty -- and I bet that most of those countries don't have trial by > jury. > > > > The difference is that over here we leave decisions about > guilty/not-guilty > > to people who have actually been trained to do this (the judges), not to > a > > small group of people who usually have never even seen the inside of a > Law > > School, let alone graduated from one. > > > > Really, I don't understand why anyone would want to leave such decisions > to > > a bunch of untrained amateurs. After all, when you're feeling sick, who > > would you turn to for the diagnosis: a trained professional (a physician) > > or a small group of "peers" who haven't had extensive medical training? > > Indeed. I have read some criticism that trial by jury is not that it's all > cracked up to be. For instance, there was once court case where the baliff > happened to cough before delivering a guilty verdict to the judge, who > interpreted his statement as "not guilty". There was a lengthy, costly > tangle in the legal system before the mistake could be righted. > > It has been said that there is a certain dramatic allure to the whole > secret > process of sending the jury off to deliberate before unveiling with a > flourish what they agreed on, without any consderation given to how they > arrived at this conclusion. But it might also be said that it would be too > costly to train large numbers of people in the minutae of the law. > > -J > I trust an average person taken from the street far more than I would trust someone who does it for a living. That is too much power, and IMO Judges already have too much power. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At Stardate 20030624.1927, Jan Coffey wrote: > > >There was a time that the tobaco industry did not know what harm cigarets > >cause. We now know that someone sitting next to you smoking a cigaret is > >poinsining you. > > > >Should we arest every smoker for a War Crime? > > Smoking is not a war crime, so we shouldn't arrest any smoker on those > charges. However, given that smokers *do* endanger other people's lives, > maybe we should arrest any smoker who refuses to *not* smoke when asked, > and charge him/her with attempted homicide... > > > >This is exactly why the US is staying out of the ICC. The regulations are > >not sufficient to guarentee that they will not be abused. > > Can you guarantee that someone who is given a trial by jury in the US will > be given a *fair* trial? Can you guarantee that when, say, a child molester > > is on trial, the jury will base its decision solely on facts and completely > > ignore their own emotions? When a soldier is given a trial by jury, can you > > guarantee that certain people in the military and/or government will *not* > be pressuring some people into voting "not guilty"? > > The idea is that it is better for to criminals to go free than one inocent man be convicted. While this may not allways work in the US, it is still IMNSHAO :) much less likely than in ~many~ other countries, and much better than that of the ICC. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
> >But the way the ICC is set up, they would not recieve a trial by their > >peers. Without that we do not beleive that IUPG works. > > Then you really need to study how things are done in other countries. I'll > use The Netherlands as an example: we don't have trial by jury here, but > people are still considered innocent until proven guilty. In every > civilised country in the world, people are considered innocent until proven > guilty -- and I bet that most of those countries don't have trial by jury. > > The difference is that over here we leave decisions about guilty/not-guilty > to people who have actually been trained to do this (the judges), not to a > small group of people who usually have never even seen the inside of a Law > School, let alone graduated from one. > > Really, I don't understand why anyone would want to leave such decisions to > a bunch of untrained amateurs. After all, when you're feeling sick, who > would you turn to for the diagnosis: a trained professional (a physician) > or a small group of "peers" who haven't had extensive medical training? Indeed. I have read some criticism that trial by jury is not that it's all cracked up to be. For instance, there was once court case where the baliff happened to cough before delivering a guilty verdict to the judge, who interpreted his statement as "not guilty". There was a lengthy, costly tangle in the legal system before the mistake could be righted. It has been said that there is a certain dramatic allure to the whole secret process of sending the jury off to deliberate before unveiling with a flourish what they agreed on, without any consderation given to how they arrived at this conclusion. But it might also be said that it would be too costly to train large numbers of people in the minutae of the law. -J [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
At Stardate 20030624.1927, Jan Coffey wrote: There was a time that the tobaco industry did not know what harm cigarets cause. We now know that someone sitting next to you smoking a cigaret is poinsining you. Should we arest every smoker for a War Crime? Smoking is not a war crime, so we shouldn't arrest any smoker on those charges. However, given that smokers *do* endanger other people's lives, maybe we should arrest any smoker who refuses to *not* smoke when asked, and charge him/her with attempted homicide... This is exactly why the US is staying out of the ICC. The regulations are not sufficient to guarentee that they will not be abused. Can you guarantee that someone who is given a trial by jury in the US will be given a *fair* trial? Can you guarantee that when, say, a child molester is on trial, the jury will base its decision solely on facts and completely ignore their own emotions? When a soldier is given a trial by jury, can you guarantee that certain people in the military and/or government will *not* be pressuring some people into voting "not guilty"? Jeroen van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
At Stardate 20030622.2116, Jan Coffey wrote: > >No, it is those who are recognising the ICC who are saying that that > >particular flavor of international law should apply to them. Just becouse > >the US doesn't go along with something doesn't seggest that they believe > >that they should be exempt. > > Actually, they did say that. The US was willing to accept the ICC, but only > if no US serviceman would ever have to stand trial there. And they made a > very clear threat about what they would do if an American *would* be put on > trial there. Strange offers are made when the other side of the table will not listen to reason. Excuse me? What the US said was: "if you put an American on trial at the ICC, we will invade The Netherlands to free him". That's not an *offer*, that's a *threat*. And a threat against one of America's own *allies*, even. How can we trust someone who threatens his own friends? > I wouldn't have to prove that US troops did *not* stick those civilians > under the bridge. Thanks to the principle of "innocent until proven > guilty", the burden would be on me to prove that those troops *did* round > up and kill those civilians. No proof, no conviction. But the way the ICC is set up, they would not recieve a trial by their peers. Without that we do not beleive that IUPG works. Then you really need to study how things are done in other countries. I'll use The Netherlands as an example: we don't have trial by jury here, but people are still considered innocent until proven guilty. In every civilised country in the world, people are considered innocent until proven guilty -- and I bet that most of those countries don't have trial by jury. The difference is that over here we leave decisions about guilty/not-guilty to people who have actually been trained to do this (the judges), not to a small group of people who usually have never even seen the inside of a Law School, let alone graduated from one. Really, I don't understand why anyone would want to leave such decisions to a bunch of untrained amateurs. After all, when you're feeling sick, who would you turn to for the diagnosis: a trained professional (a physician) or a small group of "peers" who haven't had extensive medical training? > Maybe arrogance is considered a good thing in the US, but if you come over > here I recommend you leave the arrogance at home. It is not appreciated on > this side of the Atlantic. You see, it would be unethical for an american to do something so unamerican. What's unethical about showing respect for the customs and traditions of people in other countries when you visit that country? To go back to my Thailand example: why would it be unethical for an American couple to refrain from walking hand in hand there, when they know that such behaviour is frowned upon there? When a Muslem friend invites you to a mosque, do you leave your shoes at the door (as you're supposed to), or do you walk into the mosque with your shoes on, stating that "I'm no Muslem, so I don't have to respect and follow this custom"? Jeroen van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
At Stardate 20030623.2058, Jan Coffey wrote: > If that is true, then why is the crime rate in the US so high? If your > statement is correct, the crime rate in the US should be significantly > lower than it is now, given the number of fire arms in private hands. What is your basis for comparison? Where do you get the information that crime in the US is higher than elsewhere? It isn't ans in fact where we have conceled carry laws it is even lower. Besides, being so restricted that you have no freedom is just as much a crime. How are strict gun laws "so restrictive that you have no freedom"? The Netherlands has very strict gun laws, but I have plenty of freedoms. > >If Universal medical care is so greate, then why do tens of thousands of > >people from all over the world (including Europe) come to the US to get > >medical care? > > First, not all countries have universal medical care. Second, getting > medical care abroad is sometimes necessary because of waiting lists for > medical procedures. So if we had UMC we would have waiting lists? No thanks. The waiting lists are not caused by us having universal health care, the waiting lists are caused by the fact that we don't have enough hospital beds, equipment and staff to help everyone immediately. > And fourth, some treatments are still so new (or even still experimental) > that you can only get that treatment in only one place. And they are being discovered becouse we don't have socialized medicin. Take that away and it would all slow down like it has in the European nations with socialized medicin. This is nonsense. Our "socialised medicine" means that (through taxes and insurance premiums) everyone contributes in the cost of medical *care*. The medical *research* however is not paid for by the people but by commercial companies. > >BTW if anyone, no matter how unable to pay, walks into a "general" > >hospital for medial service they will not be turned down. have you seen > >statistics on what country has the longest lives and the best health? > > Longer lives and best health depend on the *quality* of the health care, > not on whether or not you have universal health care. And *quality* is exactly why we do not. Our "walk in" health care is done by the same doctors as the paying customer. Same thing over here: doctors treat patients regardless of who pays the bill. > Why on earth would the rest of the world want to launch an economic war > against the US? Pretty much every country in the world imports goods from, > and exports goods to, the US. They wouldn't have anything to gain from this > alleged "economic war". BS. Of course they would. That is how we beat the Soviets. It certainly was adventagous for us. That still doesn't answer the question of why other countries would want to launch an economic war against the US. The US waged economic war against the Soviet Union because they were waging a military war against each other (a Cold War, but a war nonetheless). AFAIK, no country is currently at war with the US, and even if a country were, it would never be able to win an economic war against the US. That could perhaps happen if a large number of countries would all be at war with the US and then work together to ruin the US economy, but there is no substantial group of countries engaged in such a military conflict with the US. So, what would all those other countries have to gain from an economic war against the US? And how could they possibly *win* such a war? While Europe may take a "big governemnt" stance, in the US we prefer to make changes based on education. Why make a bunch of laws and red tape when you could simply teach people what the right thing is? Because people don't always listen. Jeroen van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
SV: ICC was Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
I have followed some of the argumentation on the list in the We're-better-than-you-discussion. I decided to get some real numbers and sources into the conversation instead of some of the mumbo-jumbo, I've seen earlier. --- Crime Rates: The statement that US-crime rates are lower than those in Europe isn't quite true. Apparently there are more burglaries and auto thefts in, say, England than in the US. However the murder rates of the US is six times that of other industrialized nations (Source: http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/WSJ.html ). Although other crimes such as rapes, assaults, robberies, etc. are comparable to those of Europe (in fact in many cases lower), this might have something to do with the low percentage of the crimes in America which is actually brought to the attention of the police: "... The real crime victimization rates in the US may be much different. Certainly, the rate at which crimes are reported to law enforcement is much lower than that shown in the ICVS. The US Justice Department conducts its own annual Crime Victimization Survey (for which "In 2001, 43,680 households and 79,950 people age 12 or older were interviewed. For the 2000 NCVS data presented here, the response rate was 93.0% of eligible households and 89.3% of eligible individuals." Criminal Victimization 2001, p. 13) According to it: "Forty-nine percent of all violent victimizations and 37% of all property crimes were reported to the police during 2001. Of the violent crimes in 2001, 39% of rape/sexual assault, 61% of robbery, 59% of aggravated assault and 45% of simple assault were brought to the attention of the police. Motor vehicle theft continued to be the property crime reported to the police at the highest percentage (82%). Fifty-four percent of burglaries and 30% of theft were reported to the police, 2001." Source: Rennison, Callie, PhD, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization 2001: Changes 2000-01 with Trends 1993-2001" (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Sept. 2002), p. 10. ... " (Source : http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion13.htm ). In short: Many crimes are not recorded by the police, and this may have a significant influence on crime rates. About the issue about packing citizens, there is no conclusive evidence for or against. The recent years' drops in crime rates in the US may very well be a result of more arrests, more prosecutions, more convictions and more years spent in prison by criminals. A pattern I would very much like my own country to follow. - Talking about crime. ICC-issue: Toxins in Vietnam: At this time I've not yet set about digging into this issue in detail, however I don't believe that ignorance is an excuse to be a criminal. The sort irresponsible decision-making which brought Agent Orange and similar substances into use in Vietnam might arise from the same mentality which makes American commanders decide to test nuclear and chemical weapons on its own soldiers. As for who is guilty, I don't know any names, but somewhere out there somebody made that decision. That someone ought to face the ICC in my opinion. I'm sure the jury will cut him some slack for not knowing that the herbicides were dangerous. In the best Colombo-style I do, however have one last consideration: This website ( http://www.lewispublishing.com/orange.htm ) states that herbicides were brought into use in the early 60's and topped 67-68 to finally be discontinued in 1971. At the same time the US-government states that some diseases (Chlorache for example) should be diagnosed no later than one month after exposure. Weird. So: While the US-government might not know of the risks of putting the herbicides into use. On the other hand, it obviously didn't care to do follow-up research on possible side-effects (or it *did* but chose to ignore the results). My Lai: As stated in an earlier mail, a prime example that even US soldiers occasionally get out of control is the My Lai incedent in which a US-force massacred 504 citizens of a Vietnamese village. Apparently this operation was part of an even greater scheme, namely CIA's Phoenix Program. (Source: http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/vietnamgenocide/Mylai.html ). As a note to that blessed law-system you have, I should like to point out that the captain of charlie company and his second-in-command were aquitted of all charges (The captain of killing more than one hundred civilians). Great system. The man later admitted to have withheld evidence and neglected to inform about key witnesses. Use of illegal weaponry: Also during the Vietnam conflict as well as various other conflicts, the US has made use of napalm as an anti-personnel weapon. This was at that time (I don't know about today) expressly forbidden by international law, ratified by the US. The USAF claimed that th
