Letters to the Editor
Paulus
Published Letters: 106 Editor's Choice: 9
-
One answer
[Read the article: Supreme Court to Bush: You're not above the law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]3. Does this ruling extend the Constitutional rights enjoyed by US citizens to every citizen of the world?
"We hold these truth sto be self evident, that all men are created equal."
You could argue whether the right to Habeas Corpus is an inherent right or one granted by the state. But even if it is the former then the enforcement of that right by the Supreme Court of the USA can only be carried out by judicial authorities under the control of the US government. The question seems to imply that the Constitutional rights enjoyed by US citizens are somehow superior to or not enjoyed by other citizens of the world. Hardly the case. The Canadian lawyer who was one of the defense lawyers in Conrad Black's fraud trial in Chicago was surprised to find that defendant's rights he assumed to be there because of his Canadian experience were nonexistant in the US.
-
@Gene44
[Read the article: Supreme Court to Bush: You're not above the law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You should get your facts straight.
>i>1. Most of the people sitting in Gitmo are people who have been turned over to the U.S. by Intelligence Agencies from other countries.
And some of them were turned over by bounty hunters and they have been declared innocent even by the US. They are still at Gitmo 6 years later.
2. These people are not identified as being with a National Army from any country so the Geneva Conventions Rules do not apply.
Wrong. The Geneva Convention has clear rules about what to do with persons who are captured and whose status as POWs in in doubt. Bush refused to follow those rules and made up something new not recognized by the Geneva Convention. Remember that observation how the Geneva Convention was "quaint?"
3. There are no rules for terrorists treatment from any organized body of law or nations.
Wrong. It is called the criminal justice system.
every Democrat sitting in Congress and the Senate voted for the Iraq war
The resolution that Bush used to invade Iraq was not a specific declaration of war. And it certainly didn't pass unanimously. The UN Charter and international law only allow the invasion of a country if that country poses an immediate threat. It has been proven that there was no evidence for this and Bush's lies to try and make even a weak case for this was fraudulent. No individual country can depose the leader of another country, no matter how bad the leader may be.
-
@Markov
[Read the article: Gambling with science]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is a difference between gambling on sports, playing poker or blackjack and playing the slots. In the former there is at least the possibility that a skilled player can beat the odds. With slots there is no skill involved it is 100% chance with the result that the longer you play the chance of loosing is 100% since the odds are always with the house. And slots are the most addictive form of gambling.
-
Populations
[Read the article: The bogus baby bust nightmare]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You need to distinguish between relative and absolute population numbers.
During Greek classical times a population that numbered only in the hundreds of thousands produced enough great minds tp lay the foundation of western literature, science and philosophy. The small nation of Scotland during the 18th and 19th century produced some of the greatest thinkers and entrepreneurs of their time who changed the modern world. And that includes Adam Smith the father of economic and political theory. So you don't need many people to come with those few who have great ideas.
What is new today compared to the past is the idea of economic progress. Each generation expects to live better and have more material things than the previous generation. In a static economic system you start work at puberty and work until you die. No one is able to be economically unproductive. Today we go to school until we are 25 and hope to retire by 60. More than half of our life we are consumers instead of producers of economic wealth. That is what a declining population won't allow for the future.
So not only will we have a smaller number of people who will be supporting a larger number of non productive seniors, they will be expected to take on the burden of dealing with the debt those seniors incurred.
-
A point and a question
[Read the article: Supreme Court gun ruling could backfire]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Canada has strict gun control laws: no handguns and long guns must be registered. It is also a free society: no wireless snooping without a warrant. The murder rate in Canada is also 1/8 of what it is in the US. In fact the murder rate in the US is many multiples higher than any other industrialized country on the planet.
Since the right to bear arms has now been determined to be an individual right and since this right shall not be infringed, what comes next? Infringe means to control or limit, to trangress upon. So if this right cannot be limited what constitutional justification could there be for banning automatic weapons, machine guns or any other conceivable weapon. How can gun registration be constitutional since the obvious purpose of registration is to limit gun ownership to certain people.
If George Bush comes to town could I walk around with a pair of pistols around your waist as in those western movies. A danger to the President you say, but perhaps I am there to deter any assassins, as is my constitutional right.
Could a survivalist turn his farm house into a fort with any weapon he could afford to buy. Would there be no constitutional restrictions as to the kind of weapons he could have.