mr2mk1g

Just to put things in perspective for you guys... I just flicked through the last 4 pages (since those were the new posts). A sum total of ONE person in Europe posted. They posted twice - three half-lines in total. Those were jokey comments. The rest of this thread about European perceptions of the US... is just American's arguing with each other. Calm down guys. It's the holidays and stuff.

There’s something of a distinction between Spain (a single cohesive country for centuries) and the US (a collection of formerly more or less autonomous states). Whether or not the last two could secede I don't know - that would surely depend on the US constitution and how the agreement between the individual states was created? I suspect though seeing as the US was created by the mutual consent of each individual state Hawaii and Alaska would probably be on much better ground in trying to get out of it than an ill-defined portion of Spain. Israel... again a different question... one I'd rather not get too bothered with right now because "houy" is it a complicated little bugger. Northern Ireland would be a good comparator. Part of the UK since the 1600's, it's population mixed... some want to stay, some don't. They get a middle ground - devolved power... just like Scotland and Wales have. That is of course, if the politicians over there can stop arguing long enough over what counts as "proof" of IRA disarmament. edit - actually Alaska was bought wasn't it? In which case I guess legally it's not quite on the same terms as the rest of the US... maybe its residents could buy it back on terms negotiated with the rest of the states? Probably be quite a high asking price.

Are you sure you want to be comparing one country being asked to relinquish control over land it’s always held and has governed for centuries, with another which is asked to relinquish control over land which only a couple of decades ago belonged to its neighbour and it only holds because it invaded?

true - you can't please everyone apparently.

Nothing to do with the argument here but... What struck me last night was how poorly laid out the letter was. It looked like something someone from junior school might come out with. But again that’s not exactly an indictment on anyone; it sure as hell wasn’t designed by anyone important. As you were.

Wouldn't that be bowing to terrorism? Would the US do what terrorists asked when faced with a bombing and shooting campaign? Besides - they have good as have - the Basque region is semi-autonomous. It's not a bad compromise.

Good catch... although I don't remember airing my sentiments about which pres you guys should have gone for. I wouldn't exactly have put myself "pro" either guy.

Who makes the rules? Military types? The troops on the ground? Generals? Or perhaps it's the democratic institutions of your nation? Wonder what the those who actually make the rules think? Go check your statute books. That's where you find the "rules". They're not some etherial made up set of ideas came upon by some private in a bunker some where - the nation for whom that private enlisted came up with the rules. The nation its self is the boss of the private - not the other way round. The private, along with every other rank in the armed forces, does what the nation tells him to do. If there's anything there which specifically says that the state is allowed to torture individuals then that private can have fun all day cutting off people's fingers. But there's not is there. Until there is a law which says the state is allowed to do torture people, without charge or trial, it remains against the "rules" to torture people.

Their laws say they don't agree with you. If people are doing things against the law they should be held accountable by their national law enforcement agencies. The fact that the US is using the technicality of things happening in Gitmo instead of on US soil is hardly an endorsement on the character of the decision.

I'm glad the rest of the civilised world disagrees with you. My only other point would be that once you have proved them to be terrorists by at least some means beyond "they are because I say they are, no I'm not going to tell you how I know" THEN you will find fewer people worrying about what you do with them.

post receipts

Cool - you've hit upon a new training method - instead of telling them "big banana" or "imagine you're shagging a leper" say "imagine you have a rocket lodged in your arse". His biggest mistake besides the initial positioning of the stave, was clenching... If he'd just relaxed everything would have gone fine

hehe, I know - that's why I posted it. I'm sat here wearing exactly the same watch as the one shown in the picture - hence saying it's been "doctored". I just meant I don't know who doctored the image to start with and by "died" I meant crashed through some kind of softwear glitch - albeit not one manifesting itself as a blue screen of death.

...or to look over and see "12 degC, 29.65 inHg" cos you've hit "mode" half way down and you're now looking at a barometer. hehe - from my helmet camera footage you can tell I do a double take. I've no idea about the origins of the pic I attached - I wasn't aware suuntos ever died like that... Mine certainly hasn't shown any signs of instability - I'd be surprised if any had… but the picture is definitely a "doctored" Suunto Observer.

It's also a song - finding it and playing them it may have the effect you want. I've often heard it played on Jackass.

Hehe - just found this and thought I'd post it... I guess this would be one reason to stick to the old analogue.

Comes down to the same point you make as the US being interested in what affects the US. People arround the globe are interested in who the next POTUS is because affects them. It would be true to say that THE person with the biggest effect on world economies and world terrorism is the POTUS... thus they are interested in who you guys vote for. I'd add quickly mind you that 99% of people, while "interested" really couldn't give enough of a damn to do anything at all about it. When asked for their view they'll give it... but I certainly couldn't see anyone going out of their way to do so - people just don't care that much.

Under our constitution Parliament is supreme and cannot be overruled by any other body. When the House of Lords ruled that the 2001 law was incompatible with human rights this has no direct effect on the law... but it is supposed to prompt Parliament to remedy the situation without delay. While the 1998 Human Rights act was being debated it was envisaged that Parliament would rush through an amendment to correct the offending act or even use delegated legislation to solve the conflict where appropriate. Whilst Parliament would be constitutionally within their rights to do nothing... that is far from what is expected of them. Kinda like the queen having to give consent to Bills before they are passed but never ever saying “no” (although that convention’s been around a good deal longer and as such has a lot more weight).

I must say that it's something of a dissapointment to me to see that my thread about the rights and wrongs of imprisoning people without trial or charge has degenerated into a pissing match over who's been the worst hit by terrorism. Arguing over who's had the most kinsmen murdered seems a little odd... to me at least.

The crucial difference today though is that we have the Human Rights Act 1998. That is one of the key points on which this law failed - the 2001 law has been judged to be incompatible with our nation's stated benchmark on Human Rights. The Human Rights Act is the closest thing you’ll find to a written constitution here, and enjoys as much special protection from repeal as our constitution offers. Never before has Parliament been put in this position - whilst constitutionally they are perfectly at liberty to do nothing following this judgment... they are, to all intents and purposes, now compelled to change the law.

Yesterday the House of Lords (Britain’s highest court) handed down a judgement against the British Government’s powers to detain terrorist suspects without trial. They stated that there were no grounds to suspend their human rights in this way and that such action was a “real threat to the life of the nation". For background: Three years ago the British Government created new powers to indefinitely detain foreign nationals without trial, on suspicion of links to terrorism. The individual would be arrested on the basis of intelligence inadmissible in UK courts (such as evidence gained by wire taps or through torture by other nations) and either deported or interred in one of Britain’s highest security prisons. To the system’s credit they have a right of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Court where a High Court Judge would consider the case against them. It should be noted however, that they are not permitted to know what evidence is held against them or to challenge that evidence in open court. It should also be noted that they may ask to be deported back to their home country (although it is often the case that they would face torture on their return_. At present we have 12 such individuals in British custody. They are detained in the same manner as ordinary prisoners, that is to say there is no torture, interrogations depravation or anything of that manner; these people simply become part of the overall prison population. This is a UK case. It has direct implications for the UK only. But other democratic nations who value the rule of law would do well to head the comments of the highly esteemed judges who handed down this judgement. [I]"In my opinion, there are no adequate grounds for abolishing or suspending the right not to be imprisoned without trial, which all inhabitants of this country have enjoyed for more than three centuries,"[/I]: Lord Hoffmann [I]"The real threat to the life of the nation ... comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these."[/I]: Lord Hoffmann [I]"[Such detentions] call into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention."[/I]: Lord Hoffmann "This ruling should send a message to the legislators that 'national security' can never take precedence over human rights."[/I]: Baroness Hale [I]"[This] is the stuff of nightmares, associated with France before and during the revolution, with Soviet Russia in the Stalinist era, and now associated, as a result of section 23 of the 2001 Act, with the United Kingdom".[/I]: Lord Scott

See above - I only made the comment as the whole thread seemed to have deteriorated into a EU (as a whole) vs. the US thread. If people were insisting on comparing the two I simply threw in the relevant figures to the "whining pot". I agree though, personally I don't think it's that relevant a comparison.... just pandering to the ridicules route this thread has taken. At the end of the day the only concrete point I wished to contribute to the thread was that the US isn't the "most generous country". I think that point is easily made when you look at the actual figures. It's the Japs first on $ alone... the other two ways of measuring it the US ends up 20th and 21st... out of a list of I think 24 aid giving countries. Kinda puts things in perspective... liberal hand-out whining or not.

hehe, I love remembering this story. Last season we had this one guy turn up to our club wanting us to take him for his first S/L jump. He told us how he'd been practising for his parachute jump by jumping off his bed. But not straight off his bed first attempt mind... no that would have been too dangerous. He started off jumping from off the top of a single brick, working his way up to the sofa, then a chair. Only then did he feel ready to practise from his bed. He really was an odd fellow. He once asked why there were so many foreigners in the club. Then declared that my girlfriend was Russian, despite her being as English as they come, complaining that he didn't trust her because he was convinced she was a spy. I mean this guy was seriously weird! Always in a parker, even in a hot pub… slurred speech… just didn’t, y’know – look “right”. I know there are more gems about this guy that I can’t recall right now. Definitely several tools short of a set. I never did think he was going to have a hope in hell of completing an S/L jump... but then we're not there to make that kind of call and duly packed him off to his instructors. He failed his written test by a looong way. I mean... this test is damned idiot proof. That and his general poor performance throughout the course the DZ grounded him. I can’t envisage a training method that could have got this guy safely into the air. We even highlighted our concerns with the (incredibly experienced (D68)) instructor before the start of the course so he could give him extra help… still no good. To their immense credit though the DZ offered to give him a tandem out of what he'd paid for his S/L jump. Mucho thanks to the DZ for that given they'd put all that wasted effort into him before giving him essentially a significantly discounted tandem when they could have simply sent him packing. My point is… no training method could have made this guy safe. He simply didn’t belong in the sport. I wonder how many more such weirdo’s I’ll see.

No, I don't contend it's fair... just that it was in keeping with the rest of the thread. As I said I think this thread is far more a testament to herd stupidity than anything else. It's degenerated (as many other threads do) into a childish pissing contest between the US, the EU, the rest of the world, Muslims and any other number of countries or entities people saw fit to throw into the melting pot. It really is a shame the SC is continually witness to such silly arguments. I call shenanigans.

hehe - learn more about the second world war and you might realise why that comment makes me laugh. Operation Sea Lion was trash canned in August of 1940 - well over a year before the US got involved. Hitler had never had much hope of invading the UK once Goering had failed to win air superiority... especially not with what we had lurking in Scarpa Flow.