The thing I like most about this conversation Grinch is that I'm not spending all my time attempting to clarify facts.
The trick Ron is not to make enemies in the first place.
There is a fact that I would remind you of -- with which you would certainly agree. The mess the U.S. and the U.K. are in right now is a direct result of the British Empire's decay and the wake of badly managed foreign policy in setting up and dealing with it's remnants around the globe. (and there was a specific and significant event in 1776 I can think of that had a great shaping on the U.S. and it's attitude toward open courts and civil liberties)
It really isn't even a process that's yet done:
The recent revelations coming out of the Mabey and Johnson corruption proceeding in the UK has reaffirmed my long held convictions, that the British people are nothing but hypocrites. A brief examination of British relations with their colonies, especially those in Africa, will back my assertions.
As a people, the British love to reap where they have not sown. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. They love to preach virtue while practicing vice. They run with the hounds while chasing the hares. The British came to Africa with Bibles in one hand, alcohol in the other hand, and guns hidden under their tunics. While the natives welcomed them with open arms, the British were plotting to steal and enslave them. In short they came to deceive, pillage, kill, and loot to enrich their motherland. In Ghana (Gold Coast) they built rail links directly to the main sources of raw materials (cocoa, gold, bauxite, timber, etc) and neglected the rest of the country. I am sure the early and latter day explorers convinced themselves that they were in Africa to bring light to a dark continent.
The British championed and actively supported the slave trade. When it became politically incorrect to support the slave trade, the British changed their tune and fought against the very system they had propagated. PM Callaghan, Thatcher, and others before them were the number one defenders of the racist South African regime known as Apartheid. This was a system that treated black South Africans as second class citizens in their own land. I remember Thatcher in particular vehemently and dogmatically opposing imposition of sanctions on the racist South African regime. Her hollow argument being that it will bring untold hardship on the black majority. Her real motive however, was to protect British investments in South Africa. When the tide turned and Mandela was freed, Britain was the first country to extend an invitation for him to visit their shores.
One will ask; all this is in the past, the British of today are very different from their ancestors? Nope. They are the same two-faced goody-goody phonies. The hypocritical British lead by PM Blair was the only other major power to support G. W. Bush in his murderous rampage across Iraq. Now that the Brits have lost their influential role among the world’s elite, they love to hang on to the coattails of the Americans to feel relevant. When British defense firm BAE was accused of bribery and corruption in the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia, the SFO of UK was ordered to stop its’ investigation. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith declared that the decision to drop the probe was made in the wider public interest, which had to be balanced against the rule of law. When is corruption in public interest and when is it against public interest. Corruption is corruption. Whether it is by Africans, Jamaicans, or Americans; whether it is by Anglicans, Episcopals, Catholics, or Protestants, it is still corruptions. Only the hypocritical British can qualify corruption in the name of public interest. http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=172143
The world is still only receiving trickled news of the British take-over of Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean, though it commenced on August 14, 2009. The British take-over was executed under the authority of Great Britain's Commission of Enquiry report, concluding that the earlier government of Michael Misick bred a climate of fear among its citizens.
Many countries around the world have condemned Britain's actions citing their discontent with colonialism. Prior to August 14, 2009, Turks and Caicos Islands had its own constitution and government which is now "suspended," for what Great Britain says will be a period of at least two years.
What makes this a sensitive subject is not necessarily that Great Britain seized the government of Turks and Caicos, alleging corruption by then Premiere Misick, but that a newly elected government had been installed since March, following Misick's resignation. Galmo Williams had been the newly elected Premiere for five months prior to Britain's take-over. By all accounts, world governments found Great Britain's move to be excessive and improper.
The United Nations' Special Committee for Decolonisation has released its report dated September 23, 2009, entitled: Report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for 2009. In the report, section X (4), the United Nations addresses Turks and Caicos Islands' direct rule by Great Britain and specifically calls for, "restoration of constitutional arrangements providing for representative democracy through elected territorial Government as soon as possible."
On October 6, 2009, The United Nations published its declaration with respect to eradicating colonialism, "Eradication Colonialism Requires Fresh, Concrete, Creative Impetus." This document affirms the United Nations "Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010)."
Generally, The United Nations condemns colonialism by Great Britain and it has made several resolutions and declarations to that end. But it has also specifically addressed the British take over of the Turks and Caicos Islands of August 14, 2009, as improper.
Furthermore, a team of international attorneys working on behalf of Turks and Caicos argued to The United Nations that the suspension of Turks and Caicos' constitution, "contravenes European Union law."
Among the most outspoken of Great Britain's critics in this regard is CARICOM, a multi-nation Caribbean governmental body whose mission is to "provide dynamic leadership and service, in partnership with Community institutions and Groups, toward the attainment of a viable, internationally competitive and sustainable Community..." CARICOM is said to be a type of United Nations of the Caribbean. http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/world-nations-condemn-great-britains-direct/
You seemed to be finding it difficult to understand that asking an English atheist which legal system she trusted was a pointless question – I already explained that people naturally place the most trust in their own systems and that Muslims were no different in that regard,
I'd say that you need to talk to the Muslims then in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia who are very dissatisfied with the unfairness of their own governments. While I would agree most people would say there is no place like home -- we seem to have a problem with people who say with their feet that they don't want to be at home at all.
You still seem to be missing the point Reb. You can be as fair as fair can be, you can follow as close to the letter of the law as you like, you could get the Pope and his brother to swear on a stack of bibles that everything was above board but most Muslims simply won’t believe you. There’s nothing you can do or say to change the fact that some people don’t trust anything that Americans say or do any more, the sad thing is that that way of thinking isn’t restricted to Muslims. I’m not sure if you actually realise how much the actions of your country over the past few years has damaged your image outside America.
You'll get no argument from me that damage has been done -- but I will in no way agree that damage is permanent -- any more than the permanence of enemies.
The way back from that damage is to do the right thing and keep doing the right thing until our reputation is what it should be, and should have been.
I know what your point is -- but it isn't a viable point. Therefore -- it is pointless.
The consensus of opinion from the people I’ve asked, both Muslim and non-Muslim, is that KSM will be found guilty whether he’s guilty or not and there’s no way you can change that perception over the short term.
And what would that perception be if we tried KSM in the military tribunal in which he was already prepared to enter a guilty plea?
What would be the perception if we just kept Gitmo open and never tried the 'detainees' at all -- and just let them languish there forever?
I'm pretty sure Muslims are good at geography. They know that America isn't at Gitmo -- but they also know that the American's were holding the detainees at Gitmo -- and blowing up Gitmo wouldn't get them anything -- they'd have to come here to make mayhem -- right?
Trying KSM in New York is no more and quite probably less dangerous than trying him at Gitmo.
The more I think about it -- I rather do hope that KSM's testimony will be televised. The Muslim world will then be able to see what they can't see in their own system -- freedom of speech.... No matter what KSM says -- the medium will be the message.