111 replies to this topic

[Haflinger]

So... Imagine this for a moment.

 

A group of Afghan troops, operating on U.S. soil with the permission of the U.S. government, comes under attack by a U.S. citizen.
 
Said U.S. citizen loses the fight, and then gets arrested by the Afghan troops and hauled away to Kabul, where he is tried for criminal acts against the Afghan troops and sentenced to life imprisonment in an Afghan jail.

Sounds crazy, right? There'd be a hue and cry in D.C., that U.S. citizen would never leave the country. He'd get tried in American courts instead.

But - reverse the countries involved, and this is exactly what happened just this week. Read the story.

The U.S. is going to eventually regret claiming colonial jurisdiction. It remains to be seen how long it is before 1776 gets applied in reverse.

[Manoka]

Wut

 

I imagine that if Afghan troops were placed here in the U.S. and they captured an attacker in the U.S., they'd be free to extradite him to their own country.

 

In fact, high profile cases against British citizens or other individuals, such as members of the royal family, have resulted in extradition outside of the country despite the crime even occurring in America so, being tried in multiple courts is not that big of a deal.

 

 

Also, it's nothing like colonialism. 

 

That's just silly.

 

 

Extradition and being tried in multiple courts is a thing because everyone wants their piece of the pie. 

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

This is where things get messy, that's for sure. It seems strange to me that US troops engaged in operations overseas would ship foreign fighters back to the US for trial. We didn't arrest members of the Viet Cong and put them on trial. The military is not a police force, nor should they be expected to operate like one. If someone attacks a military force, it seems to me that the proper response from that force is a military one — in other words, kill them. But we go through this ridiculous dog and pony show to make it look like we're bringing "justice." But there is no "justice" in this situation. Only money and power and "national interests."

[Lord Draculea]

That case seems a bit strange to me too. And not because of the "moral" side of the story (i.e. "what if it were us instead of them"), but because I think it's a mistake for the US to claim jurisdiction overseas, unless in a territory placed directly under the US law and Gov. rule (which was not the case there).

[Manoka]

This is where things get messy, that's for sure. It seems strange to me that US troops engaged in operations overseas would ship foreign fighters back to the US for trial. We didn't arrest members of the Viet Cong and put them on trial. The military is not a police force, nor should they be expected to operate like one. If someone attacks a military force, it seems to me that the proper response from that force is a military one — in other words, kill them. But we go through this ridiculous dog and pony show to make it look like we're bringing "justice." But there is no "justice" in this situation. Only money and power and "national interests."

Based on what, exactly? xP

[Haflinger]

That case seems a bit strange to me too. And not because of the "moral" side of the story (i.e. "what if it were us instead of them"), but because I think it's a mistake for the US to claim jurisdiction overseas, unless in a territory placed directly under the US law and Gov. rule (which was not the case there).

That's right. This is the traditional American position, as proclaimed by people like Monroe. I happen to agree with it.

 

When you start imposing your own laws on other people's countries, you're engaging in imperialism. The whole point of 1776 (and 1787, but people have forgotten the significance of that year) was that Americans wanted the right to set their own laws, and not have them imposed by the imperial Parliament at Westminster.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Well... You're subscribing to the American History 101 version of events a little, Haf. But just a little. Yes, the colonists resented being governed from afar, but at the end of the day the American Revolution was really about rich guys who didn't want to pay their taxes. It's not a coincidence that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were, by and large, the wealthiest people in America at the time. George Washington was the richest man in the New World during his lifetime. Then as now, they controlled the means of information dissemination, i.e. the printing presses, so naturally their point of view came to dominate. But there is another reality that most Americans don't realize, such as the fact that the vast majority of colonists considered themselves to be Englishmen right up into the Revolution. In fact, it was the abrogation of their rights as Englishmen that was at the very heart of their grievance. But the bottom line was that the rich, white guys living here didn't want to pay taxes to the rich, white guys living over there; they wanted to be free to run the colonies for their own benefit. In some ways they were the corporate oligarchs of their day.

 

The bigger question has been asked by progressive thinkers in empires and great powers since time immemorial, and that is: Do we, as a mighty nation, have the right to impose our will upon smaller, weaker nations? And the answer is: No, of course not; but it doesn't matter. Rights don't enter into it. The fact of the matter is that this is how great powers have always behaved. The strong dominate the weak. It is primal. It is fundamental. It is deeply encoded in our DNA. It is pure lizard brain stuff, and is not easily governed by higher reason. I like to think of human civilization as the quest to overcome this primitive nature. Sometimes I get depressed at how slowly progress is made.

 

[Manoka]

That case seems a bit strange to me too. And not because of the "moral" side of the story (i.e. "what if it were us instead of them"), but because I think it's a mistake for the US to claim jurisdiction overseas, unless in a territory placed directly under the US law and Gov. rule (which was not the case there).

That's right. This is the traditional American position, as proclaimed by people like Monroe. I happen to agree with it.

 

When you start imposing your own laws on other people's countries, you're engaging in imperialism. The whole point of 1776 (and 1787, but people have forgotten the significance of that year) was that Americans wanted the right to set their own laws, and not have them imposed by the imperial Parliament at Westminster.

That's not imperialism at all; imperialism is going in to a country and stealing their resources. 

 

Unless Afghanistan is opposing this, it wouldn't really be forced, either. Like I said, criminals in other countries get tried in different courts all the time. 

 

It's called Extradition, the Chinese do it, the British do it, everyone does it in America when there are British, Chinese criminals etc., so why not America do it in other countries? If it isn't Imperialism in all these other countries, I don't know why it's Imperialism in Afghanistan. Furthermore, this is literally 1 time, so I don't think this would be Imperialism even if we could consider something like this, that.

[Manoka]

Well... You're subscribing to the American History 101 version of events a little, Haf. But just a little. Yes, the colonists resented being governed from afar, but at the end of the day the American Revolution was really about rich guys who didn't want to pay their taxes. It's not a coincidence that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were, by and large, the wealthiest people in America at the time. George Washington was the richest man in the New World during his lifetime. Then as now, they controlled the means of information dissemination, i.e. the printing presses, so naturally their point of view came to dominate. But there is another reality that most Americans don't realize, such as the fact that the vast majority of colonists considered themselves to be Englishmen right up into the Revolution. In fact, it was the abrogation of their rights as Englishmen that was at the very heart of their grievance. But the bottom line was that the rich, white guys living here didn't want to pay taxes to the rich, white guys living over there; they wanted to be free to run the colonies for their own benefit. In some ways they were the corporate oligarchs of their day.

 

The bigger question has been asked by progressive thinkers in empires and great powers since time immemorial, and that is: Do we, as a mighty nation, have the right to impose our will upon smaller, weaker nations? And the answer is: No, of course not; but it doesn't matter. Rights don't enter into it. The fact of the matter is that this is how great powers have always behaved. The strong dominate the weak. It is primal. It is fundamental. It is deeply encoded in our DNA. It is pure lizard brain stuff, and is not easily governed by higher reason. I like to think of human civilization as the quest to overcome this primitive nature. Sometimes I get depressed at how slowly progress is made.

 

I don't think you know that much about history, biology, or human behavior. xP

[Lord Draculea]

It's called Extradition, the Chinese do it, the British do it, everyone does it in America when there are British, Chinese criminals etc., so why not America do it in other countries? If it isn't Imperialism in all these other countries, I don't know why it's Imperialism in Afghanistan. Furthermore, this is literally 1 time, so I don't think this would be Imperialism even if we could consider something like this, that.

 

Then the real question is: did they have the consent of the Afgan Gov. to do it? Though even then, it still seems odd. Why that particular prisoner and not all/any other prisoners of war? Could it be that the guy (a former Soviet officer turned into a Taliban) was particularly important from an intelligence perspective? That would explain the whole thing.

[Manoka]

It's called Extradition, the Chinese do it, the British do it, everyone does it in America when there are British, Chinese criminals etc., so why not America do it in other countries? If it isn't Imperialism in all these other countries, I don't know why it's Imperialism in Afghanistan. Furthermore, this is literally 1 time, so I don't think this would be Imperialism even if we could consider something like this, that.

 

Then the real question is: did they have the consent of the Afgan Gov. to do it? Though even then, it still seems odd. Why that particular prisoner and not all/any other prisoners of war? Could it be that the guy (a former Soviet officer turned into a Taliban) was particularly important from an intelligence perspective? That would explain the whole thing.

I think that's kind of the issue, he's being tried for independent crimes committed in other places, rather than his crimes in Afghanistan, alone, I imagine. 

[Haflinger]

It's called Extradition, the Chinese do it, the British do it, everyone does it in America when there are British, Chinese criminals etc., so why not America do it in other countries? If it isn't Imperialism in all these other countries, I don't know why it's Imperialism in Afghanistan. Furthermore, this is literally 1 time, so I don't think this would be Imperialism even if we could consider something like this, that.

Then the real question is: did they have the consent of the Afgan Gov. to do it? Though even then, it still seems odd. Why that particular prisoner and not all/any other prisoners of war? Could it be that the guy (a former Soviet officer turned into a Taliban) was particularly important from an intelligence perspective? That would explain the whole thing.

The afghans have been complaining about the U.S. taking prisoners out of their country, so no, I don't think they had permission.

 

I'm not buying the whole intelligence thing either. If they had wanted him for intelligence purposes, he'd have been taken to Guantanamo you'd think. Instead he's put on trial, which is not a good place to extract information.

 

My suspicion is that this is a classic of imperialist practice: the show trial. They wanted this guy because he was a Really Bad Guy, i.e. he was both a Commie and a Terrorist!

 

Either that, or he's actually an American spy who they're trying to give a good background for so that when he "escapes" from prison he can rejoin the terrorists and send back reports.

 

Heh. That last idea would probably make a fun movie.

[Lord Draculea]

The bigger question has been asked by progressive thinkers in empires and great powers since time immemorial, and that is: Do we, as a mighty nation, have the right to impose our will upon smaller, weaker nations? And the answer is: No, of course not; but it doesn't matter. Rights don't enter into it. The fact of the matter is that this is how great powers have always behaved. The strong dominate the weak. It is primal. It is fundamental. It is deeply encoded in our DNA. It is pure lizard brain stuff, and is not easily governed by higher reason. I like to think of human civilization as the quest to overcome this primitive nature. Sometimes I get depressed at how slowly progress is made.

 

If the mighty would have never impose their will upon the smaller/weaker, there would be no civilisation whatsoever, nor the chance for you to now wonder, using the tools offered by your own civilisation, about their right to do so. 

 

You can call the humans "lizards" as much as you like, but may I remind you that every animal that's higher than a lizard in the evolution tree has the same kind of primitive brain deeply embedded at the root of a bigger, more evolved brain. We humans are the only known species who can put their own behavior in terms of "right and wrong", from a moral perspective. A lion doesn't care (and would never dream) if it's right or wrong to kill the "poor antelope" when he's hungry, and he's just as innocent as his prey when doing it. But we humans are not (because of our moral sense). Of course, we can choose to become vegetarians (although even then one could accuse us of killing the innocent wheat, or corn), but that would be just a poor, childish answer to a much more complicated problem, in my view.

 

For me, our intrinsic moral sense (whatever we mean by it, and however it was reinterpreted through the history of civilisations) is about the only feature that can justify us as beings of this earth having been given the power of life and death upon other beings. That is, if we take it seriously.

 

So yeah, it is encoded in our genes. But I'd rather deal with it as it is, not as I'd like it to be, and start my inquiry about the meaning of life from the fact that we're a bit more than just lizards (or lions).

[Manoka]

 

It's called Extradition, the Chinese do it, the British do it, everyone does it in America when there are British, Chinese criminals etc., so why not America do it in other countries? If it isn't Imperialism in all these other countries, I don't know why it's Imperialism in Afghanistan. Furthermore, this is literally 1 time, so I don't think this would be Imperialism even if we could consider something like this, that.

Then the real question is: did they have the consent of the Afgan Gov. to do it? Though even then, it still seems odd. Why that particular prisoner and not all/any other prisoners of war? Could it be that the guy (a former Soviet officer turned into a Taliban) was particularly important from an intelligence perspective? That would explain the whole thing.

The afghans have been complaining about the U.S. taking prisoners out of their country, so no, I don't think they had permission.

 

I'm not buying the whole intelligence thing either. If they had wanted him for intelligence purposes, he'd have been taken to Guantanamo you'd think. Instead he's put on trial, which is not a good place to extract information.

 

My suspicion is that this is a classic of imperialist practice: the show trial. They wanted this guy because he was a Really Bad Guy, i.e. he was both a Commie and a Terrorist!

 

Either that, or he's actually an American spy who they're trying to give a good background for so that when he "escapes" from prison he can rejoin the terrorists and send back reports.

 

Heh. That last idea would probably make a fun movie.

Well, do you have proof that they're complaining about this?

 

And even so, how does that make it imperialist? O.o

[Haflinger]

It's imperialist by definition: imposing one's one laws inside the territory of another sovereign state. That is what empires do.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

"Lizard brain" doesn't mean I'm calling people lizards, Draculea. Heh. Meaning of the term "lizard brain."

[Manoka]

It's imperialist by definition: imposing one's one laws inside the territory of another sovereign state. That is what empires do.

Well, actually, that's not the definition by any major accepted dictionary I know of.

 

Also, if extraditing a person can be considered "imperialist", than literally everything country in the world is imperialist, since every country extradites. In fact, embassies of all nature would be imperialism, as would ambassadors. I don't think enforcing your rule in a foreign land automatically makes you imperialist, you have to be in control of the country, and be a part of an empire. 

 

 

Imperialism

noun

1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation overforeign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies anddependencies.

2. advocacy of imperial or sovereign interests over the interests of thedependent states.

3. imperial government; rule by an emperor or empress.

4. an imperial system of government.

5. British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire withseparate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

 

 

Empire

1.a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, orother powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greaterextent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire,Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

2. a government under an emperor or empress.

3. (often initial capital letter) the historical period during which a nation isunder such a government:

a history of the second French empire.

4. supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty: Austria's failure of empire in central Europe.

5. supreme control; absolute sway:

passion's empire over the mind.

6. a powerful and important enterprise or holding of large scope that iscontrolled by a single person, family, or group of associates:

The family's shipping empire was founded 50 years ago.

7. (initial capital letter) a variety of apple somewhat resembling theMcIntosh.

 

 

 

 

Empires are governments, lead by an emperor, with absolute control, over a large expanse of territory. The U.S. doesn't have absolute control over Afghanistan so, it's not really imperialism, as in, we don't control them. Nor are we ruled by a Dictator. 

 

Now, that may be your own personal definition of an "empire", but it's too vague to really be of any practical use or reference actual Empires, like the Roman or Chinese empires.

[Lord Draculea]

It's imperialist by definition: imposing one's one laws inside the territory of another sovereign state. That is what empires do.

 

Can someone explain why is imperialism bad by definition?

 

"Lizard brain" doesn't mean I'm calling people lizards, Draculea. Heh. Meaning of the term "lizard brain."

 

I know what the limbic system is, I've even mentioned it in my post (if you look at the part about "the primitive brain inside the more evolved one"). It's you who referred to it in a negative key, with the implicit meaning that people tend to act like lizards. I know you didn't literally meant that people are lizards lol.   

[Lord Draculea]

http://www.newyorker...tcid=mod-latest

A great read about solidarity and the conflict of good and evil, about the "need of metaphysics" and overcoming the preoccupations with identity in favor of thinking about values, about finding the balance between condemning communist crimes and believing in some of the ideals of "socialism".

[Haflinger]

You're misusing the term extradition.

 

Extradition is when someone allegedly commits a crime in your borders and then runs to another state. You ask that other state to arrest the accused and send him or her back for trial.

 

This is not extradition. The U.S. arrested this individual in Afghanistan themselves.