The US-still the land of dreams or not?

Yes, but there's simple solution: Just agree to check the suspicion at the nearest police station and simultaneously threaten with complaint in the case the suspicion is unjustified. The complaint automatically results into accusation of policeman who has burden of proof.

 

Then I got it wrongly.

I call this unpunishable:
During his term
(1) No prosecution for man who is president ...
(2) ... with exception of high treason, with only available punishment - losing presidency for forewer
After his term
(3) No prosecution for everything he did during his presidency

I undestand it in this way:
Minister give commands to all armymens so that the army can do "for what we have it" which is regulated under Par. 13-24.
"Minister commands" is explicitely mentioned on the contrary power of president is regulated under Art 5.: medals, flags ...

Nice discussion but I worry we are already out of topic.

 

OK, the problem is possibly in our English. For me, the English equivalent of "trestní" is not punishable, but criminal:
no prosecution -> unpunishable
no criminal prosecution -> unpunishable (only!) for criminal delicts

I hope we can stop it with this compromise:

Only the cooperating tandem of president and PM can control the executive power.

The supreme battle-commander is chief of Army HQ proposed by minister of defence and established by president.

 

It is ok with me.

 

I work with a lot of international students coming to America and many of them end up wanting to stay here. It has to do with jobs and money. "America is the land of dreams" because there is always a job to get and it only takes a little bit of money to get more education. In Europe, often enough, if one was not lucky/smart enough to be a gymnasium student while young, then that person will never go to college. There are exceptions, but not too often. Here in America, some 33% of high school graduates are now going to colleges. Something around 50% of those will actually graduate, but the fact is that they had a chance. If they get more money, then they can try try try again. I think that is the beauty of the American upper education system.

I work for the newspaper on campus, and I recieve $1350 in financial aid each month to go to school. I am not required to pay any of it back either as it is grant money. My whole education is free because I had the will power and intelligence to make it free. For me, "America is the land of dreams" because I can make my own way. I can change my major many times and switch colleges easily. (I've been to 3 universities and 3 community colleges so far and I'm only 20! I just kept trying to find the balance of cheap education and quality) I can support myself without my parents and make enough money even without college to buy my own house and whatever else.

I'm going to get my degree and probably move to Europe to explore again. I just love the Europeans too much to live without them! America enables me to get the education to make enough money to go to Europe and live comfortably though. And for that, "America is the land of dreams!"

Whenever I lived in Europe, I felt just as free as I do here in America. There aren't as many jobs, not as much oppurtunity for education, and not as much land to buy, but, overall, I was content. I just like the people more. What can I say? I feel a kinship.

 

Do you mean that the common citizen can't criticize the military? Or do you mean that the military can't criticize the government?

The military has a strong set of rules that has nothing to do with common citizens. The military can't say a lot of things. Nor are they free to go where ever they want etc. That has nothing to do with American freedoms because when you join the military, you freely give up those rights for the time you are in the military.

 

I think Eso meant just that the military members are not allowed to express a political opinion. To say that everyone has voice in America regardless of any circumstance is false, as the military members, though volunteers, are not allowed to speak freely.

He wasn't questioning necessity I believe.

 

Exactly as BMoody says.

 

BTW:
Press freedom index 2006:

5. Czech republic
.
.
53. USA

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01148.html

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639

 

I am an American and proud of it, we do not have some of the socialized services you have there, but USA is still a place where any one can be any thing they choose if they set there mind to it and work for it. I built a construction company from nothing. I know of many people who through education or hard work or both improved there lives and there families lives. True most Europeans would not wish to come here but for people in developing countries all over the world we are still the destination of choice, send us your poor, your hungry, your huddled Masses.....
People from India, Asia, south and central America, Africa, etc. still immigrate here to have a chance at a better future we still have undeveloped land, jobs, and opportunity. the US is not perfect but neither is the EU. God bless America.

 

In this report you cite, eso, they mention the decline in the USA's press freedom index as being largely due to war. I wonder how much of this decline in press freedom is due specifically to classified military-related information (e.g. troop placement/movement), and how much would be considered as censorship. Too bad, this question wasn't addressed in that summary.

Another comment: freedom of press doesn't necessarily equate with accurate, unbiased reporting, as this issue addresses the integrity of individual reporters, rather than open access to information.

 

Sova:

Well, for example this case is little alarming:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6046950.stm

 

I think it is biased:

Czech Republic:

Code:

Year  Pos   Points
-----------------------
2002:  41.   11.25
2003:  12.    2.50
2004:  19.    3.50
2005:   9.    1.00
2006:   5.    0.75

I think there is no change in press freedom here since 2002 but points vary (11.25-0.75)?!

Slovak Republic

Code:

Year  Pos   Points
-----------------------
2002:   not listed
2003:  12.    2.50
2004:   1.    0.50
2005:   8.    0.75
2006:   8.    2.50

Do you see any real difference between press freedom in CZ and SK?

or this year:

Code:

Pos   Country        Points
--------------------------------
 1.   Finland        0.50  
      Iceland           
      Ireland    
      Netherlands 
 5.   Czech Republic 0.75
 6.   Estonia        2.00
      Norway
 

How is possible that big gap between CZ and Estonia (and also rest of the world)?

 

I believe, that attempt to murder well-know journalist Slonkova by state administration high official Srba might have affect score.

Well I am reading Slovak press very occasionally, so I'dont know. At Meciar times it was bad, I believe, some journalists were murdered. Quite a few Slovak journalists etc left Slovakia and went to CR. But it was before year 2000. So I don't know.

Again i don't know - maybe is on the site description of methodology?

 

I know it now: They ask journalists - therefore biased.

I did quick research:
That 11.25 in 2002 is because of Srba's case. Weird! Police had jailed man who wanted to kill journalist and as a result CZ got eleven points. :shock: That 2.50 and 3.50 are because of Zeman ( his hatred for journalists). :?

 

That index isn't only about state.

And Zeman - Yeah, he called jurnalists with names like: hnůj, póvl, novinářské kurvičky, idioti (manure, shoddy, little whores, idiots)... Charming

And more: http://milos.chytrak.cz/vyroky/novinari.html

He said too, that half (or third?) of Czech citizens ae idiots, but I don't remember this exactly.

 

I agree, eso, that the case of the killed journalists is disturbing. I seriously doubt, however, that this could be classified as state censorship, although of course you indicated that the index isn't only concerned with the state. At worst, this was probably a veangeful attack by one soldier or an isolated group of soldiers; at best, a severe lapse in judgment by the same.

A corollary to this story is the question of whether or not such incidents are relevant to the question of journalistic freedom. After all, these journalists voluntarily entered a war zone where such unfortunate events are much more likely to occur. Not trying to belittle this event by any means, but rather this event would seem to fall into the category of journalistic safety, rather than freedom, since this event likely did not correspond to any organized repression of free speech.

 

I think it is about war criminals.

If it is true. Would we ever come to know about this murder if it happened to someone else than reporter?

 

It is very sad that the journalist died. However, we have only heard one side of the story as to how he died, deliberate murder, cross fire, etc.

Just by reading that article, I don't know the truth. The article said

"A spokesman for the US Department of Defense said an investigation in May 2003 had found that US forces followed the rules of engagement."

Perhaps the spokesman is wrong and they are covering up a true war crime or perhaps the spokesman is correct and it really wasn't a war crime. By that article, we really don't know.

When the article spoke about:

We must remember that although we need freedom of press, it is very important to protect our soldiers. When covering a war, journalist need to be subject to limited military censorship to protect those in armed forces and to keep the enemy from knowing too much.

This article appeared bias.

 

Well, article only quote coroner report. Maybe coroner report is biased.

Of course, in this case is probably hard to find not biased opibnion, because it's depend on personal point of view on Iraq war.

One quote:

Bohyně spravedlnosti má v případě armády jednu misku vah zatíženou zásobníkem samopalu.