• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Europe fails yet another idealogical test.

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Deals from the Dark Ages

The day before Mr. Bae's body was found, France's equivalent of Air Force One landed in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, delivering five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor held by Libya since 1999. Accused of deliberately infecting children with HIV in the port city of Benghazi, tortured into confessing, convicted and sentenced to die, the foreign medical workers were eventually released this week because the European Union paid the Libyans US$460-million, in addition to other valuable considerations, such as an undertaking to "normalize" relationships between Europe and Libya.

The French President helped to negotiate the deal but shrugged it off as being all in a day's business. He called it "a new pragmatism in foreign affairs."

New? Personally, I'd call it a very old pragmatism. Old enough to have not only gone out of fashion, but then turn around and come back.

Taking hostages and ransoming them used to be practised by the best circles in the Dark Ages, until people no longer regarded it as comme il faut. Now it's with us again. Blame the Taliban?

Yes, by all means, or blame Colonel Muammar Gaddafiof Libya, but remember, they couldn't resurrect the charming medieval custom without the "new pragmatism" of the European Union or leaders like France's President.

The first condition is fully controlled by the putative ransom-payer -- as long as he refuses to pay. Needless to say, the refusal has to be genuine. Cheap ruses, like calling the EU's $460-million ransom payment to Colonel Gaddafi's thugdom a "settlement" between the captive medical workers and the families of the HIV-infected children, won't do. Surrender may save lives, at least in the short run, but it's no victory. Victory comes from liberating hostages, as Israeli commandos did at Entebbe or Peruvian commandos at Lima. Ransoming hostages spells defeat.

Attempting to spin surrender into a photo opportunity isn't enough to disguise defeat -- which didn't prevent the EU from trying this week. The gnomes of Brussels (or of the Palais de l'Elysee) sent France's presidential plane to pick up the Bulgarian nurses from Libya, with France's first lady, the photogenic Cecilia Sarkozy, flanked by Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU's attractive commissioner for foreign affairs, at hand to personally deliver them to a joyous crowd waiting in Sofia.

"The liberation of the medics is an example of the power of the EU," commented a Bulgarian journalist, Velislava Dureva. Well, no. Rescuing the medics and guillotining Gaddafiwould have demonstrated the EU's power, but paying off a bandit regime has only demonstrated Europe's moral confusion. I'd even say it has contributed, indirectly, to Mr. Bae, a deputy pastor of his Presbyterian Church, being gunned down by his Taliban captors the next day. It happened to be his birthday, according to church officials.
When exactly did people throw away the position of never negotiating with terrorist, kidnappers and their ilk? I suppose the fact that all nations give in to hostage takers at the national level (North Korea threatening its neighbours) means that we might as well do the same at the individual level. It is however funny that this could be spun as a victory to anyone but perhaps the Taliban and Mr. Gaddafi.

Update: Not content to merely supply hard cash, it now seems that France will also be supply Libya with those always-useful anti-tank missiles (Link). Heck of a liberation you had going on here, guys.
 

Gneisenau

Senior member
May 30, 2007
264
0
0
Next they will wonder why there seems to be a huge rash of kidnapping of EU citizens. As sad as it is, it was probably a huge mistake doing this.
 

imported_Tango

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,623
0
0
Originally posted by: yllus
Deals from the Dark Ages

The day before Mr. Bae's body was found, France's equivalent of Air Force One landed in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, delivering five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor held by Libya since 1999. Accused of deliberately infecting children with HIV in the port city of Benghazi, tortured into confessing, convicted and sentenced to die, the foreign medical workers were eventually released this week because the European Union paid the Libyans US$460-million, in addition to other valuable considerations, such as an undertaking to "normalize" relationships between Europe and Libya.

The French President helped to negotiate the deal but shrugged it off as being all in a day's business. He called it "a new pragmatism in foreign affairs."

New? Personally, I'd call it a very old pragmatism. Old enough to have not only gone out of fashion, but then turn around and come back.

Taking hostages and ransoming them used to be practised by the best circles in the Dark Ages, until people no longer regarded it as comme il faut. Now it's with us again. Blame the Taliban?

Yes, by all means, or blame Colonel Muammar Gaddafiof Libya, but remember, they couldn't resurrect the charming medieval custom without the "new pragmatism" of the European Union or leaders like France's President.

The first condition is fully controlled by the putative ransom-payer -- as long as he refuses to pay. Needless to say, the refusal has to be genuine. Cheap ruses, like calling the EU's $460-million ransom payment to Colonel Gaddafi's thugdom a "settlement" between the captive medical workers and the families of the HIV-infected children, won't do. Surrender may save lives, at least in the short run, but it's no victory. Victory comes from liberating hostages, as Israeli commandos did at Entebbe or Peruvian commandos at Lima. Ransoming hostages spells defeat.

Attempting to spin surrender into a photo opportunity isn't enough to disguise defeat -- which didn't prevent the EU from trying this week. The gnomes of Brussels (or of the Palais de l'Elysee) sent France's presidential plane to pick up the Bulgarian nurses from Libya, with France's first lady, the photogenic Cecilia Sarkozy, flanked by Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU's attractive commissioner for foreign affairs, at hand to personally deliver them to a joyous crowd waiting in Sofia.

"The liberation of the medics is an example of the power of the EU," commented a Bulgarian journalist, Velislava Dureva. Well, no. Rescuing the medics and guillotining Gaddafiwould have demonstrated the EU's power, but paying off a bandit regime has only demonstrated Europe's moral confusion. I'd even say it has contributed, indirectly, to Mr. Bae, a deputy pastor of his Presbyterian Church, being gunned down by his Taliban captors the next day. It happened to be his birthday, according to church officials.
When exactly did people throw away the position of never negotiating with terrorist, kidnappers and their ilk? I suppose the fact that all nations give in to hostage takers at the national level (North Korea threatening its neighbours) means that we might as well do the same at the individual level. It is however funny that this could be spun as a victory to anyone but perhaps the Taliban and Mr. Gaddafi.
Libya is a sovereign country with the right to exercise its justice inside its borders, not a terrorist organization.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Gneisenau
Next they will wonder why there seems to be a huge rash of kidnapping of EU citizens. As sad as it is, it was probably a huge mistake doing this.
A new member! welcome to the forums Gneisenau :)

Fern
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: yllus
Deals from the Dark Ages

The day before Mr. Bae's body was found, France's equivalent of Air Force One landed in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, delivering five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor held by Libya since 1999. Accused of deliberately infecting children with HIV in the port city of Benghazi, tortured into confessing, convicted and sentenced to die, the foreign medical workers were eventually released this week because the European Union paid the Libyans US$460-million, in addition to other valuable considerations, such as an undertaking to "normalize" relationships between Europe and Libya.

The French President helped to negotiate the deal but shrugged it off as being all in a day's business. He called it "a new pragmatism in foreign affairs."

New? Personally, I'd call it a very old pragmatism. Old enough to have not only gone out of fashion, but then turn around and come back.

Taking hostages and ransoming them used to be practised by the best circles in the Dark Ages, until people no longer regarded it as comme il faut. Now it's with us again. Blame the Taliban?

Yes, by all means, or blame Colonel Muammar Gaddafiof Libya, but remember, they couldn't resurrect the charming medieval custom without the "new pragmatism" of the European Union or leaders like France's President.

The first condition is fully controlled by the putative ransom-payer -- as long as he refuses to pay. Needless to say, the refusal has to be genuine. Cheap ruses, like calling the EU's $460-million ransom payment to Colonel Gaddafi's thugdom a "settlement" between the captive medical workers and the families of the HIV-infected children, won't do. Surrender may save lives, at least in the short run, but it's no victory. Victory comes from liberating hostages, as Israeli commandos did at Entebbe or Peruvian commandos at Lima. Ransoming hostages spells defeat.

Attempting to spin surrender into a photo opportunity isn't enough to disguise defeat -- which didn't prevent the EU from trying this week. The gnomes of Brussels (or of the Palais de l'Elysee) sent France's presidential plane to pick up the Bulgarian nurses from Libya, with France's first lady, the photogenic Cecilia Sarkozy, flanked by Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU's attractive commissioner for foreign affairs, at hand to personally deliver them to a joyous crowd waiting in Sofia.

"The liberation of the medics is an example of the power of the EU," commented a Bulgarian journalist, Velislava Dureva. Well, no. Rescuing the medics and guillotining Gaddafiwould have demonstrated the EU's power, but paying off a bandit regime has only demonstrated Europe's moral confusion. I'd even say it has contributed, indirectly, to Mr. Bae, a deputy pastor of his Presbyterian Church, being gunned down by his Taliban captors the next day. It happened to be his birthday, according to church officials.
When exactly did people throw away the position of never negotiating with terrorist, kidnappers and their ilk? I suppose the fact that all nations give in to hostage takers at the national level (North Korea threatening its neighbours) means that we might as well do the same at the individual level. It is however funny that this could be spun as a victory to anyone but perhaps the Taliban and Mr. Gaddafi.
Libya is a sovereign country with the right to exercise its justice inside its borders, not a terrorist organization.
Funny, apparently libyan justice is up for sale, at least for EU citizens who have countries willing to pony up.

What justice!
 

Kwaipie

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2005
1,326
0
0
It's nice to see that things are going so well in our government that we can now start addressing OpEd pieces from Canada.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
It's nice to see that things are going so well in our government that we can now start addressing OpEd pieces from Canada.
Who asked you to address it?
 

Kwaipie

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2005
1,326
0
0
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
It's nice to see that things are going so well in our government that we can now start addressing OpEd pieces from Canada.
Who asked you to address it?
I asked me to address it. Until this becomes "Yllus' Politics and News Forum" I'll continue to post at will.

Back to the "news" you posted, Jonas is the Canadian version of Anne Coulter looking for a reason to bash all things European, his head is so far up Harper's ass (which in turn is squeezing into the Bush Administration's collective anus that he can't actually write something newsworthy. The fun part is he's trying to slam Sarkozy who is probably going to be the NeoCon Frenchman.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
It's nice to see that things are going so well in our government that we can now start addressing OpEd pieces from Canada.
Who asked you to address it?
I asked me to address it. Until this becomes "Yllus' Politics and News Forum" I'll continue to post at will.

Back to the "news" you posted, Jonas is the Canadian version of Anne Coulter looking for a reason to bash all things European, his head is so far up Harper's ass (which in turn is squeezing into the Bush Administration's collective anus that he can't actually write something newsworthy. The fun part is he's trying to slam Sarkozy who is probably going to be the NeoCon Frenchman.
lol, someone's got a bit of schizophrenia happening. First you insinuate that there are more important topics to discuss and thus this one isn't worth your time, then you turn around and act like I demanded that you not talk about it?

I merely asked a simple question in response to your post: Who said that you need to address the topic? The people who find it interesting or important enough to comment upon (obviously) can. On the other hand, if things are going to badly with the government of whatever nation you live in, go discuss them. But instead you waste your time on a topic that you don't find important by... commenting on it anyways. Smart. :confused:
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: yllus

-snip-

When exactly did people throw away the position of never negotiating with terrorist, kidnappers and their ilk?

-snip-.
I don't know that the Euros every really followed that position (other than maybe the Brits).

So, I don't see much new.

Fern
 

imported_Tango

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,623
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: yllus
Deals from the Dark Ages

The day before Mr. Bae's body was found, France's equivalent of Air Force One landed in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, delivering five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor held by Libya since 1999. Accused of deliberately infecting children with HIV in the port city of Benghazi, tortured into confessing, convicted and sentenced to die, the foreign medical workers were eventually released this week because the European Union paid the Libyans US$460-million, in addition to other valuable considerations, such as an undertaking to "normalize" relationships between Europe and Libya.

The French President helped to negotiate the deal but shrugged it off as being all in a day's business. He called it "a new pragmatism in foreign affairs."

New? Personally, I'd call it a very old pragmatism. Old enough to have not only gone out of fashion, but then turn around and come back.

Taking hostages and ransoming them used to be practised by the best circles in the Dark Ages, until people no longer regarded it as comme il faut. Now it's with us again. Blame the Taliban?

Yes, by all means, or blame Colonel Muammar Gaddafiof Libya, but remember, they couldn't resurrect the charming medieval custom without the "new pragmatism" of the European Union or leaders like France's President.

The first condition is fully controlled by the putative ransom-payer -- as long as he refuses to pay. Needless to say, the refusal has to be genuine. Cheap ruses, like calling the EU's $460-million ransom payment to Colonel Gaddafi's thugdom a "settlement" between the captive medical workers and the families of the HIV-infected children, won't do. Surrender may save lives, at least in the short run, but it's no victory. Victory comes from liberating hostages, as Israeli commandos did at Entebbe or Peruvian commandos at Lima. Ransoming hostages spells defeat.

Attempting to spin surrender into a photo opportunity isn't enough to disguise defeat -- which didn't prevent the EU from trying this week. The gnomes of Brussels (or of the Palais de l'Elysee) sent France's presidential plane to pick up the Bulgarian nurses from Libya, with France's first lady, the photogenic Cecilia Sarkozy, flanked by Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU's attractive commissioner for foreign affairs, at hand to personally deliver them to a joyous crowd waiting in Sofia.

"The liberation of the medics is an example of the power of the EU," commented a Bulgarian journalist, Velislava Dureva. Well, no. Rescuing the medics and guillotining Gaddafiwould have demonstrated the EU's power, but paying off a bandit regime has only demonstrated Europe's moral confusion. I'd even say it has contributed, indirectly, to Mr. Bae, a deputy pastor of his Presbyterian Church, being gunned down by his Taliban captors the next day. It happened to be his birthday, according to church officials.
When exactly did people throw away the position of never negotiating with terrorist, kidnappers and their ilk? I suppose the fact that all nations give in to hostage takers at the national level (North Korea threatening its neighbours) means that we might as well do the same at the individual level. It is however funny that this could be spun as a victory to anyone but perhaps the Taliban and Mr. Gaddafi.
Libya is a sovereign country with the right to exercise its justice inside its borders, not a terrorist organization.
Funny, apparently libyan justice is up for sale, at least for EU citizens who have countries willing to pony up.

What justice!
This is not the point. The way Libyans deal with their judicial system is not the topic of the thread, nor is the delirious accusations they charged the Bulgarian nurses with. We all agree that the nurses were not infecting people with HIV on purpose. And we all agree that the Libyan judicial system is corrupt.

But, it's still the judicial system of a sovereign country, and when you enter a sovereign country you agree to submit yourself to its law corpus. This was the point of my post. No matter how you dislike Libya as a country, it's still a sovereign country, not a terror organization.

Hence the need to use diplomacy to solve this crisis. Diplomacy is the way sovereign countries settle their tensions.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
Originally posted by: yllus
Deals from the Dark Ages

The day before Mr. Bae's body was found, France's equivalent of Air Force One landed in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, delivering five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor held by Libya since 1999. Accused of deliberately infecting children with HIV in the port city of Benghazi, tortured into confessing, convicted and sentenced to die, the foreign medical workers were eventually released this week because the European Union paid the Libyans US$460-million, in addition to other valuable considerations, such as an undertaking to "normalize" relationships between Europe and Libya.

The French President helped to negotiate the deal but shrugged it off as being all in a day's business. He called it "a new pragmatism in foreign affairs."

New? Personally, I'd call it a very old pragmatism. Old enough to have not only gone out of fashion, but then turn around and come back.

Taking hostages and ransoming them used to be practised by the best circles in the Dark Ages, until people no longer regarded it as comme il faut. Now it's with us again. Blame the Taliban?

Yes, by all means, or blame Colonel Muammar Gaddafiof Libya, but remember, they couldn't resurrect the charming medieval custom without the "new pragmatism" of the European Union or leaders like France's President.

The first condition is fully controlled by the putative ransom-payer -- as long as he refuses to pay. Needless to say, the refusal has to be genuine. Cheap ruses, like calling the EU's $460-million ransom payment to Colonel Gaddafi's thugdom a "settlement" between the captive medical workers and the families of the HIV-infected children, won't do. Surrender may save lives, at least in the short run, but it's no victory. Victory comes from liberating hostages, as Israeli commandos did at Entebbe or Peruvian commandos at Lima. Ransoming hostages spells defeat.

Attempting to spin surrender into a photo opportunity isn't enough to disguise defeat -- which didn't prevent the EU from trying this week. The gnomes of Brussels (or of the Palais de l'Elysee) sent France's presidential plane to pick up the Bulgarian nurses from Libya, with France's first lady, the photogenic Cecilia Sarkozy, flanked by Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU's attractive commissioner for foreign affairs, at hand to personally deliver them to a joyous crowd waiting in Sofia.

"The liberation of the medics is an example of the power of the EU," commented a Bulgarian journalist, Velislava Dureva. Well, no. Rescuing the medics and guillotining Gaddafiwould have demonstrated the EU's power, but paying off a bandit regime has only demonstrated Europe's moral confusion. I'd even say it has contributed, indirectly, to Mr. Bae, a deputy pastor of his Presbyterian Church, being gunned down by his Taliban captors the next day. It happened to be his birthday, according to church officials.
When exactly did people throw away the position of never negotiating with terrorist, kidnappers and their ilk? I suppose the fact that all nations give in to hostage takers at the national level (North Korea threatening its neighbours) means that we might as well do the same at the individual level. It is however funny that this could be spun as a victory to anyone but perhaps the Taliban and Mr. Gaddafi.

The money was never going to reach the hands of France and other countries anyways. It was just a gesture. Lybia wants in on the EU.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: yllus
Deals from the Dark Ages

The day before Mr. Bae's body was found, France's equivalent of Air Force One landed in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, delivering five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor held by Libya since 1999. Accused of deliberately infecting children with HIV in the port city of Benghazi, tortured into confessing, convicted and sentenced to die, the foreign medical workers were eventually released this week because the European Union paid the Libyans US$460-million, in addition to other valuable considerations, such as an undertaking to "normalize" relationships between Europe and Libya.

The French President helped to negotiate the deal but shrugged it off as being all in a day's business. He called it "a new pragmatism in foreign affairs."

New? Personally, I'd call it a very old pragmatism. Old enough to have not only gone out of fashion, but then turn around and come back.

Taking hostages and ransoming them used to be practised by the best circles in the Dark Ages, until people no longer regarded it as comme il faut. Now it's with us again. Blame the Taliban?

Yes, by all means, or blame Colonel Muammar Gaddafiof Libya, but remember, they couldn't resurrect the charming medieval custom without the "new pragmatism" of the European Union or leaders like France's President.

The first condition is fully controlled by the putative ransom-payer -- as long as he refuses to pay. Needless to say, the refusal has to be genuine. Cheap ruses, like calling the EU's $460-million ransom payment to Colonel Gaddafi's thugdom a "settlement" between the captive medical workers and the families of the HIV-infected children, won't do. Surrender may save lives, at least in the short run, but it's no victory. Victory comes from liberating hostages, as Israeli commandos did at Entebbe or Peruvian commandos at Lima. Ransoming hostages spells defeat.

Attempting to spin surrender into a photo opportunity isn't enough to disguise defeat -- which didn't prevent the EU from trying this week. The gnomes of Brussels (or of the Palais de l'Elysee) sent France's presidential plane to pick up the Bulgarian nurses from Libya, with France's first lady, the photogenic Cecilia Sarkozy, flanked by Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU's attractive commissioner for foreign affairs, at hand to personally deliver them to a joyous crowd waiting in Sofia.

"The liberation of the medics is an example of the power of the EU," commented a Bulgarian journalist, Velislava Dureva. Well, no. Rescuing the medics and guillotining Gaddafiwould have demonstrated the EU's power, but paying off a bandit regime has only demonstrated Europe's moral confusion. I'd even say it has contributed, indirectly, to Mr. Bae, a deputy pastor of his Presbyterian Church, being gunned down by his Taliban captors the next day. It happened to be his birthday, according to church officials.
When exactly did people throw away the position of never negotiating with terrorist, kidnappers and their ilk? I suppose the fact that all nations give in to hostage takers at the national level (North Korea threatening its neighbours) means that we might as well do the same at the individual level. It is however funny that this could be spun as a victory to anyone but perhaps the Taliban and Mr. Gaddafi.
Libya is a sovereign country with the right to exercise its justice inside its borders, not a terrorist organization.
Funny, apparently libyan justice is up for sale, at least for EU citizens who have countries willing to pony up.

What justice!
This is not the point. The way Libyans deal with their judicial system is not the topic of the thread, nor is the delirious accusations they charged the Bulgarian nurses with. We all agree that the nurses were not infecting people with HIV on purpose. And we all agree that the Libyan judicial system is corrupt.

But, it's still the judicial system of a sovereign country, and when you enter a sovereign country you agree to submit yourself to its law corpus. This was the point of my post. No matter how you dislike Libya as a country, it's still a sovereign country, not a terror organization.

Hence the need to use diplomacy to solve this crisis. Diplomacy is the way sovereign countries settle their tensions.
Libya has been a terrorist state for 30 years. The only diplomacy they deserve is a hail storm of cruise missiles.
 

imported_Tango

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,623
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: yllus
Deals from the Dark Ages

The day before Mr. Bae's body was found, France's equivalent of Air Force One landed in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, delivering five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor held by Libya since 1999. Accused of deliberately infecting children with HIV in the port city of Benghazi, tortured into confessing, convicted and sentenced to die, the foreign medical workers were eventually released this week because the European Union paid the Libyans US$460-million, in addition to other valuable considerations, such as an undertaking to "normalize" relationships between Europe and Libya.

The French President helped to negotiate the deal but shrugged it off as being all in a day's business. He called it "a new pragmatism in foreign affairs."

New? Personally, I'd call it a very old pragmatism. Old enough to have not only gone out of fashion, but then turn around and come back.

Taking hostages and ransoming them used to be practised by the best circles in the Dark Ages, until people no longer regarded it as comme il faut. Now it's with us again. Blame the Taliban?

Yes, by all means, or blame Colonel Muammar Gaddafiof Libya, but remember, they couldn't resurrect the charming medieval custom without the "new pragmatism" of the European Union or leaders like France's President.

The first condition is fully controlled by the putative ransom-payer -- as long as he refuses to pay. Needless to say, the refusal has to be genuine. Cheap ruses, like calling the EU's $460-million ransom payment to Colonel Gaddafi's thugdom a "settlement" between the captive medical workers and the families of the HIV-infected children, won't do. Surrender may save lives, at least in the short run, but it's no victory. Victory comes from liberating hostages, as Israeli commandos did at Entebbe or Peruvian commandos at Lima. Ransoming hostages spells defeat.

Attempting to spin surrender into a photo opportunity isn't enough to disguise defeat -- which didn't prevent the EU from trying this week. The gnomes of Brussels (or of the Palais de l'Elysee) sent France's presidential plane to pick up the Bulgarian nurses from Libya, with France's first lady, the photogenic Cecilia Sarkozy, flanked by Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU's attractive commissioner for foreign affairs, at hand to personally deliver them to a joyous crowd waiting in Sofia.

"The liberation of the medics is an example of the power of the EU," commented a Bulgarian journalist, Velislava Dureva. Well, no. Rescuing the medics and guillotining Gaddafiwould have demonstrated the EU's power, but paying off a bandit regime has only demonstrated Europe's moral confusion. I'd even say it has contributed, indirectly, to Mr. Bae, a deputy pastor of his Presbyterian Church, being gunned down by his Taliban captors the next day. It happened to be his birthday, according to church officials.
When exactly did people throw away the position of never negotiating with terrorist, kidnappers and their ilk? I suppose the fact that all nations give in to hostage takers at the national level (North Korea threatening its neighbours) means that we might as well do the same at the individual level. It is however funny that this could be spun as a victory to anyone but perhaps the Taliban and Mr. Gaddafi.
Libya is a sovereign country with the right to exercise its justice inside its borders, not a terrorist organization.
Funny, apparently libyan justice is up for sale, at least for EU citizens who have countries willing to pony up.

What justice!
This is not the point. The way Libyans deal with their judicial system is not the topic of the thread, nor is the delirious accusations they charged the Bulgarian nurses with. We all agree that the nurses were not infecting people with HIV on purpose. And we all agree that the Libyan judicial system is corrupt.

But, it's still the judicial system of a sovereign country, and when you enter a sovereign country you agree to submit yourself to its law corpus. This was the point of my post. No matter how you dislike Libya as a country, it's still a sovereign country, not a terror organization.

Hence the need to use diplomacy to solve this crisis. Diplomacy is the way sovereign countries settle their tensions.
Libya has been a terrorist state for 30 years. The only diplomacy they deserve is a hail storm of cruise missiles.
The very definition of Terrorism makes the expression Terrorist State meaningless. Although in fact the word terrorism has its origin as a definition of state violence on its own people (from the French period following the Revolution Le Terreur) it now indicates non-state use of violence against non-civilians for political reasons, whose main targets are not the direct targets of violence but instead audiences to be hit through the media.

Among the rights of sovereign states there's the right to administer justice inside its borders, including the monopoly of the use of violence.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Tango
Among the rights of sovereign states there's the right to administer justice inside its borders, including the monopoly of the use of violence.
The government doesn't have any right to a monopoly on violence.
 

imported_Tango

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,623
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Tango
Among the rights of sovereign states there's the right to administer justice inside its borders, including the monopoly of the use of violence.
The government doesn't have any right to a monopoly on violence.
It does. That's why a policeman can arrest you in name of these country's laws, while you cannot arrest him but instead must call another policeman to arrest him.

The fact that sovereign countries hold the monopoly of violence inside their borders is one of the very basic concepts of international relations since The Leviathan.
 

DarkThinker

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2007
2,822
0
0
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: yllus
Deals from the Dark Ages

The day before Mr. Bae's body was found, France's equivalent of Air Force One landed in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, delivering five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor held by Libya since 1999. Accused of deliberately infecting children with HIV in the port city of Benghazi, tortured into confessing, convicted and sentenced to die, the foreign medical workers were eventually released this week because the European Union paid the Libyans US$460-million, in addition to other valuable considerations, such as an undertaking to "normalize" relationships between Europe and Libya.

The French President helped to negotiate the deal but shrugged it off as being all in a day's business. He called it "a new pragmatism in foreign affairs."

New? Personally, I'd call it a very old pragmatism. Old enough to have not only gone out of fashion, but then turn around and come back.

Taking hostages and ransoming them used to be practised by the best circles in the Dark Ages, until people no longer regarded it as comme il faut. Now it's with us again. Blame the Taliban?

Yes, by all means, or blame Colonel Muammar Gaddafiof Libya, but remember, they couldn't resurrect the charming medieval custom without the "new pragmatism" of the European Union or leaders like France's President.

The first condition is fully controlled by the putative ransom-payer -- as long as he refuses to pay. Needless to say, the refusal has to be genuine. Cheap ruses, like calling the EU's $460-million ransom payment to Colonel Gaddafi's thugdom a "settlement" between the captive medical workers and the families of the HIV-infected children, won't do. Surrender may save lives, at least in the short run, but it's no victory. Victory comes from liberating hostages, as Israeli commandos did at Entebbe or Peruvian commandos at Lima. Ransoming hostages spells defeat.

Attempting to spin surrender into a photo opportunity isn't enough to disguise defeat -- which didn't prevent the EU from trying this week. The gnomes of Brussels (or of the Palais de l'Elysee) sent France's presidential plane to pick up the Bulgarian nurses from Libya, with France's first lady, the photogenic Cecilia Sarkozy, flanked by Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU's attractive commissioner for foreign affairs, at hand to personally deliver them to a joyous crowd waiting in Sofia.

"The liberation of the medics is an example of the power of the EU," commented a Bulgarian journalist, Velislava Dureva. Well, no. Rescuing the medics and guillotining Gaddafiwould have demonstrated the EU's power, but paying off a bandit regime has only demonstrated Europe's moral confusion. I'd even say it has contributed, indirectly, to Mr. Bae, a deputy pastor of his Presbyterian Church, being gunned down by his Taliban captors the next day. It happened to be his birthday, according to church officials.
When exactly did people throw away the position of never negotiating with terrorist, kidnappers and their ilk? I suppose the fact that all nations give in to hostage takers at the national level (North Korea threatening its neighbours) means that we might as well do the same at the individual level. It is however funny that this could be spun as a victory to anyone but perhaps the Taliban and Mr. Gaddafi.
Libya is a sovereign country with the right to exercise its justice inside its borders, not a terrorist organization.
Funny, apparently libyan justice is up for sale, at least for EU citizens who have countries willing to pony up.

What justice!
This is not the point. The way Libyans deal with their judicial system is not the topic of the thread, nor is the delirious accusations they charged the Bulgarian nurses with. We all agree that the nurses were not infecting people with HIV on purpose. And we all agree that the Libyan judicial system is corrupt.

But, it's still the judicial system of a sovereign country, and when you enter a sovereign country you agree to submit yourself to its law corpus. This was the point of my post. No matter how you dislike Libya as a country, it's still a sovereign country, not a terror organization.

Hence the need to use diplomacy to solve this crisis. Diplomacy is the way sovereign countries settle their tensions.
Aah, a post of reason...how rare these days in P&N.

We need to keep in mind, we are the country holding people on an Island in the middle of no where, without right to fair trial or worse sometimes, not even knowing the charge they are being held for! The way I see it, at least Libya came up with a charge, it's better than nothing if you ask me.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
What does this have to do with Europe, specifically? Your title singles out Europe but you recognize the North Korean example. Just look at Iran-Contra for another American example.

 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: yllus
Deals from the Dark Ages

The day before Mr. Bae's body was found, France's equivalent of Air Force One landed in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, delivering five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor held by Libya since 1999. Accused of deliberately infecting children with HIV in the port city of Benghazi, tortured into confessing, convicted and sentenced to die, the foreign medical workers were eventually released this week because the European Union paid the Libyans US$460-million, in addition to other valuable considerations, such as an undertaking to "normalize" relationships between Europe and Libya.

The French President helped to negotiate the deal but shrugged it off as being all in a day's business. He called it "a new pragmatism in foreign affairs."

New? Personally, I'd call it a very old pragmatism. Old enough to have not only gone out of fashion, but then turn around and come back.

Taking hostages and ransoming them used to be practised by the best circles in the Dark Ages, until people no longer regarded it as comme il faut. Now it's with us again. Blame the Taliban?

Yes, by all means, or blame Colonel Muammar Gaddafiof Libya, but remember, they couldn't resurrect the charming medieval custom without the "new pragmatism" of the European Union or leaders like France's President.

The first condition is fully controlled by the putative ransom-payer -- as long as he refuses to pay. Needless to say, the refusal has to be genuine. Cheap ruses, like calling the EU's $460-million ransom payment to Colonel Gaddafi's thugdom a "settlement" between the captive medical workers and the families of the HIV-infected children, won't do. Surrender may save lives, at least in the short run, but it's no victory. Victory comes from liberating hostages, as Israeli commandos did at Entebbe or Peruvian commandos at Lima. Ransoming hostages spells defeat.

Attempting to spin surrender into a photo opportunity isn't enough to disguise defeat -- which didn't prevent the EU from trying this week. The gnomes of Brussels (or of the Palais de l'Elysee) sent France's presidential plane to pick up the Bulgarian nurses from Libya, with France's first lady, the photogenic Cecilia Sarkozy, flanked by Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU's attractive commissioner for foreign affairs, at hand to personally deliver them to a joyous crowd waiting in Sofia.

"The liberation of the medics is an example of the power of the EU," commented a Bulgarian journalist, Velislava Dureva. Well, no. Rescuing the medics and guillotining Gaddafiwould have demonstrated the EU's power, but paying off a bandit regime has only demonstrated Europe's moral confusion. I'd even say it has contributed, indirectly, to Mr. Bae, a deputy pastor of his Presbyterian Church, being gunned down by his Taliban captors the next day. It happened to be his birthday, according to church officials.
When exactly did people throw away the position of never negotiating with terrorist, kidnappers and their ilk? I suppose the fact that all nations give in to hostage takers at the national level (North Korea threatening its neighbours) means that we might as well do the same at the individual level. It is however funny that this could be spun as a victory to anyone but perhaps the Taliban and Mr. Gaddafi.
Are you daft? They wilfully and knowingly infected children and people with the HIV virus and got sentenced for it in Libya. The families got a huge settlement so they got extradited and there is nothing strange about that at all.

The author tries to make a hen out of a feather, naturally some people eat it up like chocolate cake, but what you are really eating is sheit.

If i'd ever get caught here i'm glad that i'm a member of the EU community and GB because then i won't be used in the stupid game of "we do not negotiate with terrorists".

And that is just daft too, "we don't negotiate with terrorists, they have to pay full price for our weapons" is how it should fucking read after the fiasco the US has set up in the ME with your idiotic foreign policy.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Gneisenau
Next they will wonder why there seems to be a huge rash of kidnapping of EU citizens. As sad as it is, it was probably a huge mistake doing this.
Yeah, it's not like they grab everyone, US, South Korean and EU citizen, they really do wait around and check their ID's "American, you can go, EU, well they negotiate, you can not go".

You people actually believe that is going to happen?

Negotiating with Libya has not been the case in this case, the only country that has done such a thing directly with the Libyan government is the US.

But let's ignore facts and read opinion pieces because it feels better to be the hero than to see the truth.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Tango
Among the rights of sovereign states there's the right to administer justice inside its borders, including the monopoly of the use of violence.
The government doesn't have any right to a monopoly on violence.
It does. That's why a policeman can arrest you in name of these country's laws, while you cannot arrest him but instead must call another policeman to arrest him.

The fact that sovereign countries hold the monopoly of violence inside their borders is one of the very basic concepts of international relations since The Leviathan.
Really? Here in Texas if a lawman uses unlawful force, we're allowed by law to resist with whatever force is necessary to subdue him, up to and including deadly force.

The government does not have a monopoly on violence, and I'll put a bullet in a wrong doing lawman as sure as I'll put one in anyone else doing wrong.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Are you daft? They wilfully and knowingly infected children and people with the HIV virus and got sentenced for it in Libya. The families got a huge settlement so they got extradited and there is nothing strange about that at all.

The author tries to make a hen out of a feather, naturally some people eat it up like chocolate cake, but what you are really eating is sheit.

If i'd ever get caught here i'm glad that i'm a member of the EU community and GB because then i won't be used in the stupid game of "we do not negotiate with terrorists".

And that is just daft too, "we don't negotiate with terrorists, they have to pay full price for our weapons" is how it should fucking read after the fiasco the US has set up in the ME with your idiotic foreign policy.
I'm going to chalk up your reply to (willful) ignorance, because otherwise you might need to explain why the nurses received a presidential pardon the moment they set foot on home soil, or why France's president congratulated these horrible criminals on their release. Or why 114 Nobel Laureates wrote Gaddafi to urge a fair trial and independent evidence analysis. Or why the Journal of Infectious Diseases found that "the most common recent ancestor for each cluster predated March 1998, sometimes by many years."

Would you rather hold firm to Mr. Gaddafi's view that the nurses infected the children at the behest of the CIA and Mossad? Or were they just crazy and getting their kicks out of infecting children with a deadly disease?

Take a close look at what you've been eating lately?
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,849
11,048
136
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Are you daft? They wilfully and knowingly infected children and people with the HIV virus and got sentenced for it in Libya. The families got a huge settlement so they got extradited and there is nothing strange about that at all.

The author tries to make a hen out of a feather, naturally some people eat it up like chocolate cake, but what you are really eating is sheit.

If i'd ever get caught here i'm glad that i'm a member of the EU community and GB because then i won't be used in the stupid game of "we do not negotiate with terrorists".

And that is just daft too, "we don't negotiate with terrorists, they have to pay full price for our weapons" is how it should fucking read after the fiasco the US has set up in the ME with your idiotic foreign policy.
I'm going to chalk up your reply to (willful) ignorance, because otherwise you might need to explain why the nurses received a presidential pardon the moment they set foot on home soil, or why France's president congratulated these horrible criminals on their release. Or why 114 Nobel Laureates wrote Gaddafi to urge a fair trial and independent evidence analysis. Or why the Journal of Infectious Diseases found that "the most common recent ancestor for each cluster predated March 1998, sometimes by many years."

Would you rather hold firm to Mr. Gaddafi's view that the nurses infected the children at the behest of the CIA and Mossad? Or were they just crazy and getting their kicks out of infecting children with a deadly disease?

Take a close look at what you've been eating lately?
Wow....now that's a quality rebuttal. :thumbsup:


 

imported_Tango

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,623
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Tango
Among the rights of sovereign states there's the right to administer justice inside its borders, including the monopoly of the use of violence.
The government doesn't have any right to a monopoly on violence.
It does. That's why a policeman can arrest you in name of these country's laws, while you cannot arrest him but instead must call another policeman to arrest him.

The fact that sovereign countries hold the monopoly of violence inside their borders is one of the very basic concepts of international relations since The Leviathan.
Really? Here in Texas if a lawman uses unlawful force, we're allowed by law to resist with whatever force is necessary to subdue him, up to and including deadly force.

The government does not have a monopoly on violence, and I'll put a bullet in a wrong doing lawman as sure as I'll put one in anyone else doing wrong.
Again, the state has right to organize its police force to enforce its laws. You cannot make laws nor organize your private militia to administer the use of force to enforce your private laws.

As you wrote, you would react to a policeman unlawful use of force. Unlawful according to whom? According the the laws of the state, not to your own laws. In fact, the only case in which you can defend yourself against a policeman is if he is threatening your life or property outside of his legal duties. In any other case, the only thing you can do is use the legal system against him, but you have no right to defend yourself directly.

What a private citizen can and cannot do to defend his own life and property has nothing ado with the use of violence. The state has the monopoly of violence to keep order and enforce laws within its borders. You can shoot somebody who's stealing your car from your house, but you cannot shoot somebody who's driving a stolen car on main street. The police has the monopoly of that.

And even the self-defense case has many exceptions. When the government decided during WWII to put Americans of Japanese heritage in camps they could not resist and shoot the cops who went in their homes to force them into detention for no reason but the origins of their fathers and mothers.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY