US Bashing

[gblaze42]

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."

...or listening to country music!

[ravingdave]

Turning back to the starting point of the thread: when you are questioning yourself, it is comforting to see that everything is not green in your neighbor's yard. That works in both ways. My main subjects of US criticism are:
(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.
(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 can address the Gun culture fairly well. I was the chairman of a "Pro-Gun" organization some years ago, and i've seen a lot of opinions expressed by gun owners and gun advocates.

To put it simply it's about freedom. The people in my group believed that Guns were the means of keeping the government honest and was the last safeguard against tyranny. That of course is probably a futile dream nowadays because the "Government" now has the technology to put up a much harder fight against dissidents. Still, the vietnam war demonstrated resistance against a superior technologically armed and equiped force is possible if you can make it economically unviable for the superior force.

There is also the desire to be able to kill criminals that break into your home, or in the case nowadays, wherever you happened to be threatened by a criminal if you have a concealed carry license. (A law which I and My group helped to get enacted here in our state with massive Bi-Partisan support. )

David

[ravingdave]

Raving Dave,

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.

I think many people closely followed the case, but I followed it closer than anyone I knew personally. (I used to be a news junky)

In order to cast suspicion on police behavior you have to first have an example of it that leaves no other explanation. I thought you were going to mention the fact that the blood sample from the gate contained a preservative, (DHC or some such) At the time it was mentioned, it did look very suspicious, but subsequent facts demonstrated that there was an alternative reasonable explanation for it. Apparently DHC (or whatever it's called) is used in a lot of stuff including paint, like the stuff covering the gate.


A point i've made to others..... Never in the history of a criminal investigation have you ever seen a case with more evidence pointing to guilt, nor will you likely ever see one.

If a jury can't convict a man on the evidence of THAT trial, then it ought not be possible to convict anyone of anything.

Subsequent interviews with Black residents in L.A. indicate that many of them thought he was guilty, they just said the L.A. police had the bad judgement to try and frame a guilty man.
I've seen no convincing evidence of a police frame up. Incompetence ? Yes. Frame up ? No.


David

[MSimon]

In order to cast suspicion on police behavior you have to first have an example of it that leaves no other explanation.

Well that my be the standard for a jury that had no reason to doubt the police. However, the jury was hearing from friends and family about cases similar to those that later turned up in the Rampart Scandal.

So the jury knows the police plant evidence, they lie, and some times they kill.

If the police dept has that reputation don't you go the other way?

Now I knew the rep of the LAPD and I would have voted the same way the jury did at the time. And I still would. The police had to prove their innocence to me before I would even consider OJ guilty.

There is a reason the defense wanted the venue they got.

I said at the time of the trial - the LAPD needed to clean up its act. That a clean up rqmt. was the real message of the trial. Two years later I was vindicated with the Rampart Scandal.

When people don't trust the police justice breaks down. But no one wants to hear that.

[ravingdave]

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?.

I do not believe there were twelve reasonable people on that jury. I believe that jury was eager to aquit O.J. from the begining and seized on any excuse they could use to do it.

In most Murder trials, there is a deliberation phase in which people consider the evidence they have seen. In far less complicated trials this process lasts for days. What was the O.J's jury's deliberation time, like 30 minutes ? The vast majority of the country followed this trial closely and fully expected a guilty verdict. The 30 minute aquittal was a shock !

Had the jury taken a week to deliberate, it would be reasonable to assume the jury was reasonable.

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.

Plenty of people serving life in prison kill people in prison.

The rate of recidivism for a dead murderer is 0% . The rate of recidivism for a non dead murderer is some positive number. I would like to see the study that proves this is not true.


Apart from that, why should the TAX payer be sentenced to life in prison?

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). .

I used the analogy of the rabid dog because they are so obviously shot when discovered. The broader point is that when there is a CREATURE that kills people, the first consideration should be to render it harmless as quickly as possible.

Protect the Public.

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..

I'm not passing judgement on why people want revenge, I just accept that it is human nature for people to want revenge. If the government refuses to punish a person who has committed the ultimate crime against a family, then it is reasonable to expect that family and others to lose respect for the rule of law and turn vigilante.

It is in the interest of Good Government to prevent this.

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. .

Equal means the scale is balanced. The blood debt is satisfied. I prefaced this with a "for those that believe in this sort of thing" clause.

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.

I'm 40 miles from the Border, and I've thought of moving there often. My favorite bumpersticker says " I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as fast as I could ! "



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.

Many believe Guns are the lynchpin of those rights you credit. It is the Second Amendment that secures all the others.


David

[ravingdave]

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).

The only weapons legally available to the public are Semi-Automatic rifles, Handguns and shotguns. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal for the public since the gang wars of the prohibition era. That's not to say that americans can't own them and fire them.

It is possible to obtain a class III firearms dealership license which allows you to buy and sell fully automatic machine guns. I've had the good fortune to know several people who were class III dealers, and i've had the pleasure of fireing several types of machine guns, including a WWII .45 calibre paratrooper mini machine gun with matching silencer.
The loudest noise was the clacking of the bolt.

Apart from that, the average deer rifle is equivilant to what was a "War Weapon" back in WWII and WWI .

Firing a machine gun is FUN ! (and expensive.)

I believe one of the requirements for a class III license is that weapons must always be kept in a locked vault, and said vault and premises must always be available for inspection by the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

David

[MSimon]

I do not believe there were twelve reasonable people on that jury. I believe that jury was eager to aquit O.J. from the begining and seized on any excuse they could use to do it.

I watched the whole trial and closely watched the aftermath. The jury had the same doubts about the evidence I did if the after trial interviews can be trusted.

Once you have a corrupted police force justice goes out the window.

If you don't trust the evidence it doesn't take three days to deliberate over it.

===

But you wait - narco gangs are corrupting America's police forces just the way they are doing in Mexico. We are in for some fun in the coming years probably to include a war with Mexico and a break down of justice in America.

Oh yeah - what was the breakdown in the Rampart Scandal? The anti-drug unit. Heh.

It can't happen here. It can't happen here. Because America is different, it can't happen here.

"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government."
- William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995

[JohnSmith]

Possibly not the right place for this, but I thought of it and wanted to share.
People get far to wound up over politics and such. Here's a little somthing:
Rick Mercer
The canadian perspective, so maybe you won't see the humor in everything. Still, this is how politics should be treated.

[tombo]

Rick Mercer
The canadian perspective,

I tried but it is censored south of the border in this here land of free speech.
Seems like China is not the only country with a Great Firewall.

[JohnSmith]

That's a new one. Normally It's the other way around, and I've got to use a proxy to get US content. Oh well.

To get that video in the US (if you actually care to do it)
Use a Codeen planetlab proxy.
142.150.3.78 port 3128 for a proxy out of the University of Toronto.

To set up a proxy in Firefox, go to Tools->Options->Advanced->Network->Settings,
Select the 'Manual proxy settings' radio button, and put the IP and port numbers in the HTTP boxes.

[MSimon]

Possibly not the right place for this, but I thought of it and wanted to share.
People get far to wound up over politics and such. Here's a little somthing:
Rick Mercer
The canadian perspective, so maybe you won't see the humor in everything. Still, this is how politics should be treated.

I got a "This content is currently unavailable" voice when I tried to play it.

[ravingdave]

I do not believe there were twelve reasonable people on that jury. I believe that jury was eager to aquit O.J. from the begining and seized on any excuse they could use to do it.

I watched the whole trial and closely watched the aftermath. The jury had the same doubts about the evidence I did if the after trial interviews can be trusted.

Once you have a corrupted police force justice goes out the window.

If you don't trust the evidence it doesn't take three days to deliberate over it.

===

But you wait - narco gangs are corrupting America's police forces just the way they are doing in Mexico. We are in for some fun in the coming years probably to include a war with Mexico and a break down of justice in America.

Oh yeah - what was the breakdown in the Rampart Scandal? The anti-drug unit. Heh.

It can't happen here. It can't happen here. Because America is different, it can't happen here.

"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government."
- William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995

It is my opinion that the judge is a lot more intelligent than the jury, and the fact that he didn't see any proof of evidence tampering indicates there wasn't any. Obviously if the judge agreed the evidence was tampered with he would have declared a mistrial.

I think both you and the jury already had a bias against the police, and in that regard I believe it's just as dangerous to justice as a bias against a particular race.

People with an inherent distrust of the police shouldn't have been allowed on the Jury.


David

[JohnSmith]

But the police (even the judges) aren't always worthy of trust.

Anyway, Simon, were you using the proxy when you got the no content voice?

Sorry about that, people. I just didn't realize that the crazy geographic restrictions worked in the Canada -> US direction too. I've always understood them to be implemented by the CRTC, in an effort to make sure that we're stuck with lots of 'canadian' television.

Actually, here's another one from last year.

[MSimon]

I think both you and the jury already had a bias against the police, and in that regard I believe it's just as dangerous to justice as a bias against a particular race.

Police misconduct earned them the mistrust. I don't consider that bias.

The police knew about the miscreants in their ranks. In fact their lack of veracity is known nationwide. So much so that there is a word for it: testilying. And you know except in the most extreme cases I have never heard of a judge calling them out on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testilying

Testilying is U. S. police slang for the practice of giving false testimony against a defendant in a criminal trial, typically for the purpose of "making a stronger case" against someone they believe to be guilty, although it may also be for the purpose of framing an innocent defendant.

The word and its meaning have been publicized by defense attorney Alan Dershowitz, notably in a 1994 New York Times article, "Accomplices to Perjury," in which he said:

As I read about the disbelief expressed by some prosecutors... I thought of Claude Rains's classic response, in Casablanca on being told there was gambling in Rick's place: "I'm shocked—shocked." For anyone who has practiced criminal law in the state or Federal courts, the disclosures about rampant police perjury cannot possibly come as a surprise. "Testilying"—as the police call it—has long been an open secret among prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges.[1]

There seems to be little doubt that the practice occurs, is not limited to any region of the country, and that "testilying" is a common name for it. A 2003 Boston Globe editorial noted:

In the early 1990s, the Mollen Commission peeled away layers of falsehood in the New York City Police Department, including false statements on warrant applications, creation of confidential informants out of whole cloth, and lies told to establish probable cause for stopping and searching vehicles. So-called "testilying," however, is not limited to any one area or police department. The problem has become so acute that juries nationwide routinely express skepticism about law enforcement testimony, such as drugs found "in plain view."

The LAPD is said to call the practice "joining the liars' club."

Now maybe the jury was "tainted" by familiarity with testilying.

Once the justice system is corrupted destruction of the nation is at hand.

And one might note that Dershowitz was on the defense team. He knew how to play that angle to a receptive jury.

So how do you fix it? Police must be scrupulously honest. Above reproach. We are a long way from that. Worse. Judges and prosecutors cover for them.

[MSimon]

When citizens close their eyes to what is happening in plain view - the end is nigh.