Prosperity is the root of Liberalism. Iran will become more liberal if it can become more prosperous.
Hmm, I do not quite think so. There are many very rich countries that are not very liberal. Dubai is among the richest countries in the world. They dont know where to put the money. But they are still moslems and they still have laws there that make some westerners shudder..
Well of course I didn't mean suddenly. It takes time, but it occurs non the less. I just read an article yesterday about a Saudi all girl rock band. Yeah, they're still worried about the religious police, but 20 years ago you would have seen nothing like this.
Likewise, I dare say you can probably find liquor stores in Dubai, and possibly other decadent entertainment.
Skipjack wrote:
On the death penalty:
I am all for keeping peoples "bad" genes out of the gene pool where appropriate. However, as long as there are still humans involved with judgement and the justice system there exists a tolerance of error. That means that it could be (even though rarely) be possible, that an innocent person gets executed..
You've got me on this one. I have very little faith in the Justice system to come to an accurate conclusion when the evidence is not overwhelming. I have seen many examples of where it failed miserably.
I should specify that i'm in favor of the Death Penalty when the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive, but if not, not so much.
Skipjack wrote:[
Since the one of the reasons to have a justice system at all, is to protect the innocent, it is therefore counter productive to have a death penalty.
Trust me, if there was a 100% certain way to make sure that a person is guilty, things would be different.
You can give someone who was in prison but innocent some money for his pain and he will at least have some life for the remainder of his time. You can not bring someone back who is dead. What do you want to do? Bless his grave and hold a nice speech? That wont bring this person back.
That to me is the only reason to be against the death penalty.
There are cases in which overwhelming guilt can be established. For example, in the Case of O.J. Simpson, the evidence was overwhelming, and the defense's arguments were so much crap.
Of course this is a good example to show how screwed up is the Justice System. There ought to be a third catagory for cases in which there is significant evidence, but not enough to come to a firm conclusion. Yes, people detest the lack of resolution, but limbo is preferable to making a wrong decision, especially if the evidence leans towards guilt.
A Note on Sources for American Torture during the Vietnam War
p581 in
Torture and Democracy
Darius M. Rejali
Princeton University Press, 2007
ISBN 0691114226, 9780691114224
We all live in glass houses. Is MI5 outsourcing torture of British citizens to Pakistan? I read it on the internet. Must be true.
Or, since you seem to be going back in time now, should we start talking about unjustified detentions and "interrogation in depth" used in Northern Ireland in the 70's?
Or, go back a little ways and see the torture rooms used to interrogate Nazis in Britain.
Heck, lets go back further, I saw the movie Braveheart and that shit really pissed me off.
Or is it only appropriate to comment on US torture? Is it only appropriate to use the way back machine when talking about the US? Is it only appropriate to dismiss the explanations when talking about the US?
No, if it the US, any action of an individual is used as condemnation of the nation. Crimes committed by a few become an indication of our policy. Forget that we condemn it ourselves or criminally procecute the perpetrators. Forget that when we actually talk about policy, we are talking about waterboarding not about mutilation. Forget that we are having this debate between ourselves, on waterboarding, we are actually debating and there are multiple sides. Forget that both candidates for President were against waterboarding. Nope, it is the US. We TORTURE. We are no better than Saddam.
There is ample proof that the LAPD had a reputation for corrupting evidence. See the Rampart Scandal a couple of years after the OJ case.
I watched OJ from beginning to end and it looked to me like the LAPD planted some evidence - the "suddenly discovered" blood on the gate - after OJ gave his blood sample and the officers involved walked around with it in their pockets for a day. And the missing 1+ cc of the sample.
Now once the PD starts enhancing the evidence which pieces do you trust? If the jury is an honest one: none of it.
There are people I know who were intimately involved with the defense who say he was guilty. Even knowing that today I would still vote to acquit because a corrupt PD is a bigger danger than a man who kills out of rage.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
BSPhysics wrote:I have always been an ardent supporter of the death penalty but I think I'm changing my mind. Two reasons...One, it's too expensive. The legal red tape is too big of a burden on tax payers. Two, there are punishments worse than death. If I had a cell mate named "Bubba Love" I'd be begging for the electric chair, firing squad, and a lethal injection all at the same time.
BS
The cost of red tape ought to be borne only by execution's opponents, rather than everyone else. I betcha if you told them to put up or shut up, they would shut up.
Apart from that, people forget the reasons why executing murderers is the right thing to do.
Deterence.
Deterence works. ALL laws are based on the concept of Deterence.
Public Safety.
You shoot rabid dogs. You don't worry about how they got that way.
Justice.
The victims families should not be obligated to kill someone themselves.
This is a duty Government should perform for them.
And if you're religious
Karma or Punishment.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but it dam*n sure makes it equal !
On the "Bubba" thing, I have long felt that the state should not tolerate nor be instrumental in the commission of a crime. The state has an OBLIGATION to people put in it's custody.
Nanos wrote:> The Germans were a Nation. Terrorists are presumably not
> acting under the direction of a sovereign government.
Hmm.... so... how come we are invading so many countries then in the name of being at war with these terrorists ?.
Well, to be fair you are refering to Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, the then Government was indisputably backing the terrorists. Concerning Iraq, we invaded them in 1991 and it didn't have anything to do with terrorism, and the Reasons given in the Second Invasion of Iraq were only tangentally related to terrorism, but primarily related to Nukes and Poison gas.
It turns out we were giving too much credibility to bad intelligence. I claim the analogy of the police man who sees someone brandishing what looks like a deadly weapon and shoots him only to later determine it to be a pair of sun glasses or a soldering gun.
Nanos wrote:>
I think one of the things which erk those whose countries we have invaded is that we rarely seem to use the term being at war with a particular country, we talk about, going and sorting out terrorists instead.
I'm sure one of the reasons why terrorists keep making a fuss is because they aren't given respect towards the fact that someone has come and dumped on them in their own country!
And then to belittle them with terms to indicate that they aren't really fighting for their country, or a friends/allies country, and to keep going on about how your there to make the peace, well, I can see that would be quite annoying at the very least.
Well I agree. I have heard Americans going on about "They hate our way of life, or They hate freedom.... " or some such, and i've always felt that this is completely off base. They hate us because we are in the region of their home countries sometimes working against what they see as their best intrests and bringing our decadent western morality to corrupt their culture.
We are meddlesome busybodies from their perspective, and in their minds they are just fighting back.
Again, you can say that if it does no permanent physical damage, it's not torture if you like. But that's called a semantic argument.
The difference between dripping water on three senior terrorists to get information about plots to kill innocent people and routinely raping people's kids with a hot poker to get their parents to identify others at a pro-democracy rally is not just semantics.
If you want to play the semantics game, then you could argue being forcibly arrested and locked up in prison is "torture."
Last edited by TallDave on Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A Note on Sources for American Torture during the Vietnam War
p581 in
Torture and Democracy
Darius M. Rejali
Princeton University Press, 2007
ISBN 0691114226, 9780691114224
We all live in glass houses.
If you read the book I referenced, you'd discover that most of the innovation in torture came from Imperial Britain and France. Very ugly. Definitely wrong. The difference is that I'm not in denial about it.
seedload wrote:Is MI5 outsourcing torture of British citizens to Pakistan? I read it on the internet. Must be true.
Probably not. If you had credible evidence I would want it investigated...
seedload wrote:Or, since you seem to be going back in time now, should we start talking about unjustified detentions and "interrogation in depth" used in Northern Ireland in the 70's?
We should. The process of reconciliation requires it.
seedload wrote:Or, go back a little ways and see the torture rooms used to interrogate Nazis in Britain.
seedload wrote:Or is it only appropriate to comment on US torture? Is it only appropriate to use the way back machine when talking about the US? Is it only appropriate to dismiss the explanations when talking about the US?
Torture is wrong. Wherever it occurs. Period.
seedload wrote:No, if it the US, any action of an individual is used as condemnation of the nation. Crimes committed by a few become an indication of our policy. Forget that we condemn it ourselves or criminally procecute the perpetrators. Forget that when we actually talk about policy, we are talking about waterboarding not about mutilation. Forget that we are having this debate between ourselves, on waterboarding, we are actually debating and there are multiple sides. Forget that both candidates for President were against waterboarding. Nope, it is the US. We TORTURE. We are no better than Saddam.
Torture historically has been cultural, practised by small groups, the techniques handed down from teacher to pupil. Lower to middle ranks usually, superiors are either kept unaware or choose to turn a blind eye. Only rarely has it been officially sanctioned, so its dismally low success rate mostly goes unreported.
olivier wrote:(1) Inequities in the health care system. Equality in front of illness and death should be the objective. That is very different from economic equality.
Our nation is not founded on either economic equality or equality of illness or death. Our nation is founded on equality of rights, with Liberty being central. It was not designed to be a charitable government. What we call equality or liberty is very different from how you use equality above. We might use the term entitlement in place of your usage.
As harsh as this sounds, th Federal Government is actually prohibited from enacting health care according to our Constitution. It is actually prohibited from doing a lot of things it does anyway... but that is another issue.
If, as you say, equality in the front of illness and death should be the objective, and this entitlement is a responsibility of government then it is a responsibility that falls on the States. Different states do different things. For example, in my state, every child gets health insurance.
It is my belief that entitlements eventually lead to finding the least common denomonator of service. This is more true the larger the scale. Social Security and Medicare are our examples.
olivier wrote:(2) Gun culture. Even though I know a bit about US history, it is still beyond my understanding. More violence, bigger guns for self-protection... or revenge. It is like buying a bigger car because it is more secure in case of accident. It is true on the first order, but there is no limit to this logic. Should everyone drive a M1 Abrams (weapon + transportation) to protect from fellow creatures.
I think the gun culture aspect of the United States is overblown. I have not personally even seen a gun in 5 years. The last gun I saw was a hunting rifle. Most gun owners are respectful and careful. I am not sure what you are talking about with the bigger and bigger guns thing. We pretty much are using the same guns we used for years.
What I find most interesting about your post is that both of your issues with our country show a fundamental lack of understanding of the founding principles of our country. Or maybe what I am reading as lack of understanding is really just disagreement.
The basic proposition of the founding of our country is that government is bad. It is corrupting. The natural evolution of government is always towards corruption and evil. Thus, our government is not primarily founded on the principle of what it can do for us but rather on what it is not allowed to do TO us.
Your point (1) is backwards . Designing government as a provider is contrary to the notion that government will just mess it up.
As to your point (2) and even though you understand our history, you don't really seem to get that the idea of us bearing arms is to allow us to overthrow our own government when the corruption gets too bad.
Most Americans don't understand this let alone most Europeans. Whether this concept of government is correct or not is another question. I will say that it has served us well in the past. I regret our misguided movement away from it.
(1) Inequities in the health care system. Equality in front of illness and death should be the objective. That is very different from economic equality.
That is exactly economic equality, unless you are proposing we pass a law requiring everyone to always get the same diseases. Medical care is an economic good, and if you are going to provide it to someone you will either need to compel the providers (which would be a violation of their rights) or pay them (which means the state must seize wealth from others, violating their property rights).
You can have rights, or you can have gov't-mandated fairness. The two are always in conflict.
alexjrgreen wrote:If you read the book I referenced, you'd discover that most of the innovation in torture came from Imperial Britain and France. Very ugly. Definitely wrong. The difference is that I'm not in denial about it.
I am not in denial. The unorganized torture of prisoners that initially went on was horrific. I am disgusted by my countries ineffectiveness in stopping this and am further humiliated by our efforts to sweep it under the rug.
I am not a fan of waterboarding. But, as Chris Rock says, "I understand".
I fail to see where you have made an argument that the US has done anything different or worse than EVERY other country mentioned including the UK and France regarding torture. You are basically saying that everyone does it to varying degrees and that it is always bad. If that is true, then I fail to see how torture could be a good reason to hate the US more than any other country. Maybe you should ask yourself, "Am I just playa' hating?"
Not to pick nits, Oliver, but I think the pictures to which you refer are probably those from Abu Ghraib.
Of course, sorry for mistaking. My post is corrected, thank you Mike.
Maybe I am obsessed by Guantanamo since a police officer in Boston threatened to send me there (true!). In fact he was joking, because I showed the wrong boarding pass at first. He was a cool guy with a nice word to all passengers proceeding to the body search. I was quite surprised anyway. I think that was his way of saying "we are not what some people think we are".
Seedload (if that IS your real name!), you keep on arguing over and over that everybody thinks it's OK only to bash the US for torture. That's just not true. Anyone who bashes us for torture also bashes everybody who does it. Why wouldn't they? Just because you feel persecuted somehow, apparently, doesn't change that. Nobody is saying that we're worse than Saddam Hussein. Nobody. Just that we're worse than a theoretical nation that does not use torture.
Yes, they'd be being hypocritical if they ignored their own countries abuses. So, if from England, the Northern Ireland example is really very on point, yes. But I'm also betting that those in the UK who criticize the US for doing it, also criticize their own government for it's excesses. We here, too, have people who condemn our own government for it's excesses.
You have some proof that the people doing the complaining are being hypocritical, and have a blind eye towards their own governments? Come on. Uh... there's Alex...
Dave, I'm not saying there aren't potentially qualitative differences in the sorts of activities we're talking about. But we're talking more bad, and less bad here. Either way, bad. Again, "We're not that bad" isn't going to deflect criticism. If my kids told me, "I'll only do a little of the bad thing" should I say, "Oh, OK, well if it's only a little..."
?
OJ. Not Guilty, doesn't mean, "He didn't do it." It means that the criminal courts presented a case to twelve reasonable people, and they couldn't find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The justice system is imperfect, because we're humans, and imperfect. You want perfect? Well then go to, uh... I don't know, where will you go?
People don't like the injustice caused by the imperfection, but it's a lot better than the alternatives. In any case (for the other Dave)...
Deterence
Nope. Life imprisonment is a deterrent already, for somebody who is planning out a crime. The vast majority of murders are committed as acts of passion (second degree), and therefore the people involved usually do not think at all about the consequences. They might not even be aware of what the penalty in question is in their state. They don't care. No study yet has shown that a worse penalty is any more of a deterrence.
Public Safety
Uh, actually you look for the racoon that bit the dog. And, if you could save it without endangering anyone, why wouldn't you? If you put somebody in prison for life, haven't you protected society? In the case of a rabid dog, that's showing signs of the disease, the dog is already dead. It just doesn't know it yet. Rabies is the only 100% fatal disease in the world after symptoms occur (with now one or two cases of human survivial under extreme conditions - more Mad Science from the University of Wisconsin). Shooting the dog is doing it a favor. The parallel does not hold. Any other animal, we capture and put somewhere safe. Oh yes, and in any case, dogs aren't humans. What are you, in collusion with PETA? (I kid).
Justice
I see, because the Judeo-Christian ethic is "Eye for an eye" is it? Or was that turn the other cheek? Huh. Again, studies show that vengeance resulting in the death of the accused does nothing more to ameliorate the loss of those suffering the loss of somebody to a murderer than putting them in jail. Oh, sure, they all claim at the time to want them dead... Often afterwards they change their minds however, when they realize that it won't bring back their dead loved one. Anger has been known to make people irrational, you know.
Karma/Punishment
I guess we're headed to fundamentalist Islam after all. Karma says that if you order up the death of somebody, that you'll end up dead, too. OK, it doesn't really (Westerners really don't often get karma), but my statement is about as on target as yours. Equal? I have no idea what you mean.
That all said, I'm not really all that against the death penalty. It's just that these old rationales have long been disproven in debate after debate. Do your research again, and come up with a new argument, if you really want things to change to more states with the death penalty. Or just move to Texas.
Dave, you can call that a dichotomy, but as with many such proposals, it's a false dichotomy. The fact is that property rights are not complete and sovergn, and never have been, because it's completely impractical. The debate has always been just how much to give to the welfare and common defense and such. Understanding in an enlightened way that if our neighbor starves, that he'll likely steal from us. We can talk about going toward one end or another, but you don't really want to dismantle the defense department, do ya?
Mike
P.S. The one thing that makes the USA the strongest country in the world is not it's guns, but the fact that we have an inalienable right to create movies like Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay. The fact that we have an open debate and commentary on these things keeps us as honest as humanly possible for an organization this size (meaning we often slip, but then we correct). The Simpsons is our conscience speaking. Cherish criticism.
Other countries are criticizing the US? Well then we must be doing something right to merit the criticism. If they're not criticizing North Korea, it's because they know it's falling on deaf ears.
seedload wrote:the idea of us bearing arms is to allow us to overthrow our own government when the corruption gets too bad.
I knew that and I know that there is exaggeration in the media about American gun owners. Nevertheless, I do not think yo do yourself good by allowing war rifles to be sold to the public. I find it hard to believe that the people who buy those items do it in the perspective of overthrowing the government one day . They do it because they are afraid of something (crime rates) of because guns give them a sense of power (unpleasant fascination IMO).
As far as health care is concerned, my personal opinion is that it is good to mutually assure each other about risks which one cannot do much to prevent, like becoming ill (in most cases at least). Whether solidarity is managed by a central or local government, or by a private organisation I do not care as long as it is done correctly (which is not always the case I confess).
seedload wrote:I am not in denial. The unorganized torture of prisoners that initially went on was horrific. I am disgusted by my countries ineffectiveness in stopping this and am further humiliated by our efforts to sweep it under the rug.
I am not a fan of waterboarding. But, as Chris Rock says, "I understand".
Now you're earning my respect. Recognizing the problem is the first step in fixing it.
seedload wrote:I fail to see where you have made an argument that the US has done anything different or worse than EVERY other country mentioned including the UK and France regarding torture. You are basically saying that everyone does it to varying degrees and that it is always bad. If that is true, then I fail to see how torture could be a good reason to hate the US more than any other country.
Pretending a problem doesn't exist just perpetuates it. You're part of the solution.
seedload wrote:Maybe you should ask yourself, "Am I just playa' hating?"
I don't hate America - I've worked there.
I just hate to see you needlessly repeating the mistakes we made
