Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Osama's Guilt
Warning. Explicit grammatical abuse and literary license with imagery taken.
Mohamad Omram. He jumps up and declares that the bombings on September eleven weren't the work of Osama. Not exactly the safest thing to say, in a world where Osama is the enemy, The evil, eater of babies, with liberty crushed under one boot heal and freedom under the other. Laughing as he smokes a cigar filled with oil from the millions of oil wells he controls, and bathing in the blood of the righteous.
That's what they need us to believe. Whatever else he is, Osama is a human being. Perhaps a particularly warped one. Its only when we can convince ourselves that were on some kind of crusade against some intrinsically evil force that we can justify the kinds of things Americans have been doing tot their prisoners recently. That many soldiers can even bring themselves to kill.
Whatever else he is, he's a man. And he's entitled to the same things every other man is. By that I mean, the assumption of innocence. Osama has never been convicted of this crime, and even convicted criminals are allowed to appeal. Are allowed the assumption that there is a chance they might not be guilty. And yet, when such a theory is even hinted at Mr. Howard feels free to say, such comments are "“extraordinary and irresponsible"”
I cant help but feel John's real issue is with the fact that the sheik suggested an alternative culprit, his bestest buddy in the whole wide world, and that's what this is really about.
As far as I'm concerned Osama did it, but until, and even after he's been convicted in a court of law, we must continue to give him the same freedoms we give any suspected/convicted criminal. And that includes the right to defensece.
Otherwise, were the ones with freedom, with liberty being crushed under OUR boot heels.
Mohamad Omram. He jumps up and declares that the bombings on September eleven weren't the work of Osama. Not exactly the safest thing to say, in a world where Osama is the enemy, The evil, eater of babies, with liberty crushed under one boot heal and freedom under the other. Laughing as he smokes a cigar filled with oil from the millions of oil wells he controls, and bathing in the blood of the righteous.
That's what they need us to believe. Whatever else he is, Osama is a human being. Perhaps a particularly warped one. Its only when we can convince ourselves that were on some kind of crusade against some intrinsically evil force that we can justify the kinds of things Americans have been doing tot their prisoners recently. That many soldiers can even bring themselves to kill.
Whatever else he is, he's a man. And he's entitled to the same things every other man is. By that I mean, the assumption of innocence. Osama has never been convicted of this crime, and even convicted criminals are allowed to appeal. Are allowed the assumption that there is a chance they might not be guilty. And yet, when such a theory is even hinted at Mr. Howard feels free to say, such comments are "“extraordinary and irresponsible"”
I cant help but feel John's real issue is with the fact that the sheik suggested an alternative culprit, his bestest buddy in the whole wide world, and that's what this is really about.
As far as I'm concerned Osama did it, but until, and even after he's been convicted in a court of law, we must continue to give him the same freedoms we give any suspected/convicted criminal. And that includes the right to defensece.
Otherwise, were the ones with freedom, with liberty being crushed under OUR boot heels.
# posted by ChinDoGu @ 18:31 
Comments:
<< Home
I believe He may have been tried in Absentia. Though 1, it was probably an American court, & 2, it was also probably for past crimes (such as the missile attacks on an American embasy during the 90s).
(BTW this post is actually from Stephen, now know as 'The Grumbler')
(BTW this post is actually from Stephen, now know as 'The Grumbler')
Fair enough. But if so, does that remove his right of appeal. Even someone convicted by the highest level court has the right to say I didnt do it. And I have the right to say I dont think they did it.
I know, it's shocking that there are events in the world that can drive soldiers to kill. Disgusting, absolutely disgusting. Back in my day, we used to run up to our opponents and ask them nicely to stand down.
You didn't actually mean that, did you?
You didn't actually mean that, did you?
# posted by 
: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 11:09:00 pm
: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 11:09:00 pm
Yes, I was serious in what I said, although I dont think you quite have my point right.
I wasnt saying they shouldent be fighting. I wasnt commenting either way on that. I was simply talking about the dehumanisation of the enemy. In order for them to fight, they have to dehumanise him. And once they do so its easy to say, well hes not human, therefore he has no rights. Thats what im protesting against.
I wasnt saying they shouldent be fighting. I wasnt commenting either way on that. I was simply talking about the dehumanisation of the enemy. In order for them to fight, they have to dehumanise him. And once they do so its easy to say, well hes not human, therefore he has no rights. Thats what im protesting against.
Amen, brother. Testify!
Seriosly, though. I think Matt has a big point here. Has anyone here seen any real evidence that Osama is responsible? All I've seen is media coverage which, in the end, is simply propoganda, irrespective of which side it comes down on. I've seen lots of people jumping up and down and waving opinions around but nothing that absolute.
Plus, tried in absentia? This deprives the man of doing anything in his own defence. And if he did show up it wouldn't make any difference because of all the press coverage and America needing to blame someone, anyone, as long as it doesn't come back to them. In the end, it isn't about whether or not he actually did it. It's about how many people can gain more power or consolidate the power they have by blaming him.
Seriosly, though. I think Matt has a big point here. Has anyone here seen any real evidence that Osama is responsible? All I've seen is media coverage which, in the end, is simply propoganda, irrespective of which side it comes down on. I've seen lots of people jumping up and down and waving opinions around but nothing that absolute.
Plus, tried in absentia? This deprives the man of doing anything in his own defence. And if he did show up it wouldn't make any difference because of all the press coverage and America needing to blame someone, anyone, as long as it doesn't come back to them. In the end, it isn't about whether or not he actually did it. It's about how many people can gain more power or consolidate the power they have by blaming him.
Ermmm...
Wait, am I honestly about to argue that it's necessary for soldiers to fight?
Wait, am I honestly about to argue that it's necessary for soldiers to fight?
# posted by : Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:02:00 am
: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:02:00 am
You can argue it if you want. Ill just look at you in a funny way since its not a point im trying to argue with here.
In fact im talking about the implcations of the fact that they do have to fight.
In fact im talking about the implcations of the fact that they do have to fight.
At least in the case of the 90's emabasy attacks Osama DID come forward and claim responsibility in the the name of his group Al-keda.
From then on it has been the case that he has been tarred with "guilt by association" becuase he claimed leadership of this orginisation before and is therefore responsible what people do in Al-keda's name.
Now I understand that anyone can claim to be a member of Al-keda, but historicaly even groups like them have denied responsibity when they have seen fit to, the total lack of denials added to the inflamatry statements made by Osama him self and his associates is what has branded him as he currently branded.
A criminal nothing more nothing less.
From then on it has been the case that he has been tarred with "guilt by association" becuase he claimed leadership of this orginisation before and is therefore responsible what people do in Al-keda's name.
Now I understand that anyone can claim to be a member of Al-keda, but historicaly even groups like them have denied responsibity when they have seen fit to, the total lack of denials added to the inflamatry statements made by Osama him self and his associates is what has branded him as he currently branded.
A criminal nothing more nothing less.
# posted by : Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:04:00 pm
: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:04:00 pm
I think you're missing the point, Talen. In what way is it not horrible that one person is driven to the point where they want to kill another? Sure, soldiers are soldiers and their job is to fight, but do you not feel that there's something inherently terrible about humans having the desire to kill each other? I know I do.
I'm not saying I wouldn't do it myself, in the right situation - and sure, I think you can kill a person for the right reasons. But that doesn't change the fact that the circumstances leading to one person deliberately killing another are invariably fucking horrible - whether it's that they did something horrific enough to deserve it, like Osama did (and on the subject of guilt, didn't he publicly claim responsibility for 9/11?), or somebody being screwed up enough that they want another person dead, or just a tragic misunderstanding. It's still a tremendously awful thing, and I think Matt's right to treat it as such.
I'm not saying I wouldn't do it myself, in the right situation - and sure, I think you can kill a person for the right reasons. But that doesn't change the fact that the circumstances leading to one person deliberately killing another are invariably fucking horrible - whether it's that they did something horrific enough to deserve it, like Osama did (and on the subject of guilt, didn't he publicly claim responsibility for 9/11?), or somebody being screwed up enough that they want another person dead, or just a tragic misunderstanding. It's still a tremendously awful thing, and I think Matt's right to treat it as such.
# posted by : Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:49:00 pm
: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:49:00 pm
I dont think im actualy making my point very well.
My point has nothing to do with soldiers killing people or the like. Its about freedom. Our freedom, freedom to say the gouvernment is wrong, even after they convict us of a crime. A freedom that osama shares.
If we reach a point where a convicted (or not) criminal loses the right to say they were unfairly convicted, then we have reached a point where the gouvernment has total power. Its a small step from there to I dont like you, therefore your guilty, therefore you have no right to appeal or even complain.
What I fear is that we are going this way. We cant silence someone just cause we think there wrong.
My point has nothing to do with soldiers killing people or the like. Its about freedom. Our freedom, freedom to say the gouvernment is wrong, even after they convict us of a crime. A freedom that osama shares.
If we reach a point where a convicted (or not) criminal loses the right to say they were unfairly convicted, then we have reached a point where the gouvernment has total power. Its a small step from there to I dont like you, therefore your guilty, therefore you have no right to appeal or even complain.
What I fear is that we are going this way. We cant silence someone just cause we think there wrong.
Naranater: Talking of bare faced and poorly planned lies told by US Government how about "our excuse for invading Iraq again". My point is that they have done it the past I don't see what stops them from doing it again.
Hook: Okay, Al-keda (in the form of Osama) claimed responsibility. And hasn't actifve;y denied anything since. I'd still like some actual evidence considering how often people claim responsibility for things without actually being responsible. And tarred with a brush of guilt does not excuse the assumption of guilt. Not that I have anything for Al-keda or any terrorist organisation. I can just see the next step being individuals in the west being sent to prison without a trial... oh, wait, America already does that. How about fear that Australia will be next in doing so? Or maybe Howard will say something that George W. doesn't like and we become the next target for "the war on terrorism".
Talen: I was going to say more or less what Fox did. War is bad, mkay? There are many reasons why people shouldn't fight and soldiers are people. Violence solves nothing. Look at Israel. Or WWI for tha matter - the barricading of Germany away from the world caused WWII. Violence breeds only violence. I'm all for peace-keeping forces because I am pro peace. In short, soldiers shouldn't fight. There should be no need for them. I know it's naive to expect such a peace to occur (because people suck arse) but it's still what I want to see happen. Too much of this fighting is instigiated when no fighting is necessary and ends up dragging uninvolved people in because of treaties like the ANZUS treaty. (Again, Iraq.) But either way, the more important thing to note here is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Matt's point as has been pointed out by Matt at least twice.
*Reads Matt's last comment, blushes*. Um... make that thrice.
Hook: Okay, Al-keda (in the form of Osama) claimed responsibility. And hasn't actifve;y denied anything since. I'd still like some actual evidence considering how often people claim responsibility for things without actually being responsible. And tarred with a brush of guilt does not excuse the assumption of guilt. Not that I have anything for Al-keda or any terrorist organisation. I can just see the next step being individuals in the west being sent to prison without a trial... oh, wait, America already does that. How about fear that Australia will be next in doing so? Or maybe Howard will say something that George W. doesn't like and we become the next target for "the war on terrorism".
Talen: I was going to say more or less what Fox did. War is bad, mkay? There are many reasons why people shouldn't fight and soldiers are people. Violence solves nothing. Look at Israel. Or WWI for tha matter - the barricading of Germany away from the world caused WWII. Violence breeds only violence. I'm all for peace-keeping forces because I am pro peace. In short, soldiers shouldn't fight. There should be no need for them. I know it's naive to expect such a peace to occur (because people suck arse) but it's still what I want to see happen. Too much of this fighting is instigiated when no fighting is necessary and ends up dragging uninvolved people in because of treaties like the ANZUS treaty. (Again, Iraq.) But either way, the more important thing to note here is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Matt's point as has been pointed out by Matt at least twice.
*Reads Matt's last comment, blushes*. Um... make that thrice.
Oh certainly, Matt's point was well made. I was merely extending it because I feel that we have already become the monsters. Especially America.
Did you see (or perhaps even write, under a pseudonym?) this:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/good-bad-or-ugly-a-fair-trial-is-a-right/2005/08/05/1123125902970.html?from=moreStories
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/good-bad-or-ugly-a-fair-trial-is-a-right/2005/08/05/1123125902970.html?from=moreStories
# posted by : Sunday, August 07, 2005 1:09:00 am
: Sunday, August 07, 2005 1:09:00 am
Donavan had a really interesting song called "The Unknown Soldier" talking about how if no one/ soldiers refuse to fight then there is noone to do the dirty work for the government/ power. I know this is slightly impractical and unlikely but I still quite like the concept.
You need some soft of email link here..ChinDoGu. It was only because Talen is prominent amongst your comments that I put two and two together and realised ChinDoGu is The Artist Previously Known as Bolarn.
Having said that, I am pointing and laughing. You got sucked into blogs, you got sucked into blogs!
Having said that, I am pointing and laughing. You got sucked into blogs, you got sucked into blogs!
# posted by : Tuesday, August 23, 2005 9:42:00 am
: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 9:42:00 am
You probably did. And I probably saw it. I probably even came over to have a look. But in April, I was in the preliminary stages of being skullfucked by my job; anything I was told between April 15th and July 31st was lost in a massive mnemonic segfault.
Post a Comment
# posted by : Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:45:00 am
: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:45:00 am << Home
