*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

and the punishment and enforcement of this is?

yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

But will this really amount to anything? I have a hard time imagining it will.

Tags for this video have been changed from '13 may 2012, kuala lampur, obama, guantanamo' to '13 may 2012, kuala lumpur, malayasia, guantanamo bay, gitmo, war crimes, obama' - edited by jonny

Tags for this video have been changed from '13 may 2012, kuala lumpur, malayasia, guantanamo bay, gitmo, war crimes, obama' to '13 may 2012, kuala lumpur, malayasia, guantanamo bay, bagram, war crimes, obama' - edited by jonny

I'm confused, is this the same tribunal ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pZxa0-IXl_U

Its kinda more official now but yea that was the early effort

http://tehrantimes.com/opinion/97842-bush-finally-found-guilty-of-war-crimes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commission

And, I'm guessing if they visited there tomorrow......nothing would happen beyond some protests.

Courts only have power if they can enforce their ruling, dole out punishment, and force repayment.

I'm sure you can look back through history and find lots of decisions where one side found the other side guilty of <whatever> but nothing beyond going to war happened.

Frankly if I were a US news station, I think reporting it would almost be mocking of it anyway you tried to portray it....because there's just no one way in hell they are going to get anything they demand.

I'm kinda with TheFreak on this one. Regardless of how you feel about them and what they did, I fail to see how this is in any way a "big deal."

So who represented the defense?

>> ^Edgeman2112:

So who represented the defense?


A couple of unicorns and a stone.

I'd be a lot more vocal about these camps if they weren't just a manifestation of the problem we're going to have to face sooner or later. And until we face it, the government(s) will stop illegally torturing and detaining people when THEY decide to.

It has become a matter of common knowledge that politicians disobey laws and rules, cheat, steal and bare faced lie their way to power, and to remain in power. We know they're going to lie, we say they're going to do it and ask them to give us assurances that they won't - and then they do anyway.

How can anyone stop them doing what they're doing?

I'm becoming increasingly concerned that i (or we) are run at least in part by psychopaths.

Become common knowledge? ahahahahahaha like that hasn't been known for thousands of years...

And while the terms sociopath and psychopath are "technically" interchangeable, in layman's terms, psychopaths are generally considered more violent, instead of simply oblivious to others' suffering. (i.e., psychopath is probably best reserved for the true tyrants like Pol Pot, Cheney, and Aidid).

Guess what... you can't stop them - unless you yourself are a sociopath with an equivalent or greater will to power. Suck it up or stick em up.
>> ^dannym3141:

It has become a matter of common knowledge that politicians disobey laws and rules, cheat, steal and bare faced lie their way to power, and to remain in power. We know they're going to lie, we say they're going to do it and ask them to give us assurances that they won't - and then they do anyway.
How can anyone stop them doing what they're doing?
I'm becoming increasingly concerned that i (or we) are run at least in part by psychopaths.

@jonny i think your definition of psychopath is a bit off and i think the correct definition really does apply better, especially with my intent in mind. They are indeed interchangeable depending on the desired effect of the word.

Also, we haven't had democracy for thousands of years so i'm not sure what you mean there. I would estimate that it is only within the lifespan of the oldest person on earth (less than, but whatever) that politics has become a dirty job, and so i think that it is reasonable to say "it has become common knowledge", as it would be their children and grand children who would learn it.

The question was meant to be hypothetical. The point is that you must deal with them before you deal with this, because they won't stop.

@dannym3141 my apologies brother. That comment was far more confrontational (and cynical) than I intended. I do stand by the final statement, but yes psycho- or sociopath doesn't really matter - semantic games around the idea of a person capable of unwarranted atrocity. (Not sure why I've always associated psychopaths with more direct engagement in violence than sociopaths - wishful thinking, perhaps?)

As for democracy, well, the ancient Greeks had a form of democracy (from which our own is derived), but my point was more broadly focused. People that aspire to or seize power have been of the same ilk forever. What I'm saying is that our elected officials are no different than ancient warlords or modern tyrants in their desire for power and their drive to attain it. This is the cynicism I can't escape - those who would rule are by their very nature rulers, incapable of abrogating their own authority. If you want to depose them, you must have the same desire to rule. That trait has been known to all since before we even were humans. And of course, any deposer soon becomes the tyrant.

Don't mistake my cynicism for fatalism though. I don't think there is any political system that can get around that aspect of human nature, but it doesn't mean I think we should put up with anything unless we're willing to do the same (anything). It is possible to muddle through life essentially ignoring the assholes until they get right up in your face. That's when action on the part of courageous individuals and groups makes a difference. Questioning authority, civil disobedience, or just defiance of the local cultural dogma - all of these are theoretically capable of establishing collective authority (at least temporarily) over individual authority. But it's hard. Generally, we suck it up until we're ready to stick 'em up.

>> ^dannym3141:

...I would estimate that it is only within the lifespan of the oldest person on earth (less than, but whatever) that politics has become a dirty job...


Yes, because the senators of Rome were all squeaky clean.

And if you pull a "but that wasn't a democracy" shit on me, then I'll...I'll...I'll give you such a pinch!

Ignoring whether or not I agree with the charges, this is just drum beating theatrics. If you can't prove it within the confines of the US judicial system, then I'm sorry, when you sieze them, you've just declared war.

>> ^shuac:

>> ^dannym3141:
...I would estimate that it is only within the lifespan of the oldest person on earth (less than, but whatever) that politics has become a dirty job...

Yes, because the senators of Rome were all squeaky clean.
And if you pull a "but that wasn't a democracy" shit on me, then I'll...I'll...I'll give you such a pinch!


For a given definition of dirty job. I think there's something particularly sinister about modern government as you might have gleaned

There's plenty of tyrants to speak of, but the modern way.. it's like being a tyrant without anyone knowing. They've managed to work their way up the system within the law and steal more money than they ever could outside of it. In the past, tyrants etc... it was a different world, harder to control. But i feel like they have a firm choke hold on everything now. Legally.

if the goal was

- to make money, that can be done.
- own land, that can be done
- industrially innovate and produce, that can be done


What is it that someone wants, that results in this insanity of a world?
An insane persons insane desires?


To what? Control other people? or something equally as insane as tormenting people for their own good?

It must be something insane, or one could see the logic to it. Nothing about humans is this complicated.