OP
Karazenpo
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #121
Sorry, Robert, my last post was mean't for OULobo.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
What follows in not an official transcript, but if I find one, I will post it here. I just can't wait for all of our civil servants to start acting like this. It is a sad day for our country.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
So, once again, the law does not apply to everyone. So much for 'Liberty and Justice for All'.
OP
Karazenpo
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #124
Liberty & Justice for "All"? That's an American slogan, isn't it? What liberty and justice did the Iraqi people get under Sadam Hussein? The mass graves? We all know life is about choices and the choices we make have consquences. Old Hamudi made his choice, nobody was putting a gun to his head then, were they? He's lucky he's alive-Live by the sword, die by the sword!' Sorry, Mike, but I'm all broken up about Hamudi's rights. I wonder, nationally, how many people really care? When these animals declared war on innocent men, women and children they lost their liberty and only face justice in which ever form it comes, I won't lose any sleep over it, as long as it comes. These subhumans slaughter thousands and thousands of innocents and are totally INTOLLERABLE to the American way of life but when the 'sh-t hits the fan' then its okay to hide behind 'Old Glory". Sigung John Bishop said it in another forum: COMMON SENSE! I don't know if I'll be posting more on this only because I've stated about everything I have to say but if there is a change of events, I'll jump in. Great debate, great discussion. Thanks for all the responses. Sincerely, Joe
OP
Karazenpo
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #125
Forgot this, just one more comment:
Mike wrote:
What follows in not an official transcript, but if I find one, I will post it here. I just can't wait for all of our civil servants to start acting like this. It is a sad day for our country.
I say: This has nothing to do with civil servants, this is our military not domestic policing. Two very seprate entities with two very different objectives. Please do not confuse the two. It will only be a sad day for this country if we let international terrorism dictate our way of life! Respectfully, Joe
Mike wrote:
What follows in not an official transcript, but if I find one, I will post it here. I just can't wait for all of our civil servants to start acting like this. It is a sad day for our country.
I say: This has nothing to do with civil servants, this is our military not domestic policing. Two very seprate entities with two very different objectives. Please do not confuse the two. It will only be a sad day for this country if we let international terrorism dictate our way of life! Respectfully, Joe
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
I am talking about Lt. West. Lt. West is an American, isn't he? Why is he not subject to 'Justice'? He broke the rules. He gets a walk. That's justice?
According to Merriam Webster online dictionary ... Justice is "The maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments"
Lt. West is escaping Justice. We are not administering the law impartially.
I understand, Joe, that you think he should get a walk on this, but it is not fair; it is not just; regardless of the ruling.
Mike
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #127
So the Colonel got a slap on the wrist after the investigation; the system worked. Ooooh, those unreasonable lawyers.
On the notion that our Constitution doesn't apply to everyone---lovely. Can we bring back slavery now? After all, we mustn't judge other cultures by our own standards...funny how those ideas I keep hearing so much about moral absolutes go right out the window when expediency dictates...and here I thought one HAD moral principles, and laws to articulate them, so that in emergencies one was PROTECTED from bad decisions.
I might also note that the framers of the Constitution and a BUNCH of our other major figures (something about, "the last best hope of mankind," I seem to recollect) thought that America was supposed to be an example for the world, that the whole point of our Revolution (and that of France) was to articulate principles of justice, equality, democracy, that were inherent in the nature of Man and in the proper order of the the world.
I guess Twain's, "To the People Sitting in Darkness," was right after all.
It will indeed be a sad day for this country when we wholeheartedly change everything, and completely embrace the methods of murderers, torturers and terrorists to get what we want.
Oh, and one last point: has it ever occcured that one of the primary reasons for little rules like those of the Geneva Convention lies in the brutalizing effect that torture has on the torturers?
On the notion that our Constitution doesn't apply to everyone---lovely. Can we bring back slavery now? After all, we mustn't judge other cultures by our own standards...funny how those ideas I keep hearing so much about moral absolutes go right out the window when expediency dictates...and here I thought one HAD moral principles, and laws to articulate them, so that in emergencies one was PROTECTED from bad decisions.
I might also note that the framers of the Constitution and a BUNCH of our other major figures (something about, "the last best hope of mankind," I seem to recollect) thought that America was supposed to be an example for the world, that the whole point of our Revolution (and that of France) was to articulate principles of justice, equality, democracy, that were inherent in the nature of Man and in the proper order of the the world.
I guess Twain's, "To the People Sitting in Darkness," was right after all.
It will indeed be a sad day for this country when we wholeheartedly change everything, and completely embrace the methods of murderers, torturers and terrorists to get what we want.
Oh, and one last point: has it ever occcured that one of the primary reasons for little rules like those of the Geneva Convention lies in the brutalizing effect that torture has on the torturers?
How can you say that justice, equality and democracy are inherent in the nature of Man, but not greed and jealousy as you disagreed with me on a separate thread?
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #129
Please re-read. I did not say that I thought these qualities and aspirations were inherent in the nature of Man--I don't use terms like, "Man," for one thing--but that the often-mentioned Founding Fathers thought that the desire for liberty, justice, etc. were inherent in the nature of man. After all, if there's going to be a lot of talk-talk about protecting America, then let's look at what we're supposed to be protecting.
And even if these qualities--or any qualities--aren't inbuilt, I must say that I prefer this fantasy to the, "greed and jealousy," fantasy, don't you?
These notions of inborn qualities never appear alone. They always get used to justify/prop up some other idea--in the case of, "greed and jealousy," the ideas of a) capitalism is necessary, b) we will always have crime.
I guess I prefer to believe in free will and in history, contradictory as that is. Capitalism is a choice we have collectively made; crime is a mix of bad moral decisions, social resentments, going along with the crowd, the stupidity and repetitiveness born out of poverty&racism&ignorance&the arrogance of the upper/middle classes, and lousy families. With a little of some magic ingredient that, in a few monstrous examples, that makes one wonder if there's something to the whole Satan nonsense.
(Before the knee-jerk responses, dear readers: the list I just gave does not say that society causes crime and that criminals are innocent little bunnies, OK?)
Regrettably, these days, more and more folks seem to be getting impatient with the very ideals that they claim are central to their religious beliefs and their view of this country. I guess it's easier to believe in, say, compassion when nothing bad has happened. I guess it's easier to believe in democracy when things are going your way.
Anyway, thanks for the response. Interesting questions.
And even if these qualities--or any qualities--aren't inbuilt, I must say that I prefer this fantasy to the, "greed and jealousy," fantasy, don't you?
These notions of inborn qualities never appear alone. They always get used to justify/prop up some other idea--in the case of, "greed and jealousy," the ideas of a) capitalism is necessary, b) we will always have crime.
I guess I prefer to believe in free will and in history, contradictory as that is. Capitalism is a choice we have collectively made; crime is a mix of bad moral decisions, social resentments, going along with the crowd, the stupidity and repetitiveness born out of poverty&racism&ignorance&the arrogance of the upper/middle classes, and lousy families. With a little of some magic ingredient that, in a few monstrous examples, that makes one wonder if there's something to the whole Satan nonsense.
(Before the knee-jerk responses, dear readers: the list I just gave does not say that society causes crime and that criminals are innocent little bunnies, OK?)
Regrettably, these days, more and more folks seem to be getting impatient with the very ideals that they claim are central to their religious beliefs and their view of this country. I guess it's easier to believe in, say, compassion when nothing bad has happened. I guess it's easier to believe in democracy when things are going your way.
Anyway, thanks for the response. Interesting questions.
Not to be nitpicky, but a few quotation marks for the quote or paraphrase would've cleared this up.
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #131
Wasn't a problem with quotation marks, but with locating the subject and verb...as in, "the framers....thought."
I do get a bit parenthetical, but I doubt that's the problem either.
Thanks.
I do get a bit parenthetical, but I doubt that's the problem either.
Thanks.
OP
Karazenpo
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #132
Hi Guys, I'm back 'cause it's happened again. Our 'liberal' criminal justice system has taken three more 'innocent' lives. Indiana-David Maoust was arrested after three teenage boys were found buried under newly poured cement in his basement. He has already CONFESSED to one of the murders. Problem is he was released after serving time for drowning a 15 year old boy! but, God forbid, this is America, we wouldn't want to interfere with his 'RIGHTS' to parole, would we? Guys, com' on now, give me a break, don't you see where I'm coming from? How many more victims before we all admit these laws and rights have to be revised? The system as it stands right now is not working and it's costing innocent lives, when something is broke, you fix it. Do you honestly think I'm off base on this? You know what? I guarrantee, shortly and tragically, I'll be coming back with another example! WE ARE TOO SOFT ON CRIME AND THE CRIMINALS HAVE TOO MANY RIGHTS! As always, looking forward to your responses even if you disagree. Respectfully, "Joe"
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #133
Absolutely right. Why even HAVE trials, if the judges are just going to follow the stupid laws and the bleeding-heart juries are just going to let people that we KNOW are guilty off because there's no evidence?
Hey, we need to execute the wrong people MORE OFTEN. That'll show 'em we're not kiddding! We have more of our citizens in jail, as a percentage of our population, than any other country on the planet (passed Russia and China a few years back, and I for one COULDN"T BE PROUDER), and it isn't NEARLY ENOUGH.
So what if the crime stats, particularly violent crime stats, have been dropping for the last ten years? So what if we've flooded the streets with guns? So what if there's no evidence that execution and harsh punishment deters crime in the least? So what if the overwhelming number of folks in jail are from ethnic minorites, even though research suggests that these groups commit about the same numbers of crimes as other groups? So what if you are 10 times more likely to be executed if you're black and you kill someone white than the other way around, even if the circumstances are virtually identical? So what if the evidence suggests that somewhere between at least 10% of the people we execute shouldn't have been executed (their lawyer slept through the trial, they were completely insane and had an IQ around 60, or THEY WERE COMPLETELY INNOCENT)? So what if we're building jails we can't afford like crazy? Who cares?
When we have half the pop in jail and the other half employed watching them, THEN we will have justice in the country. What ho for Foucault's carceral society.
Oh, and just incidentally---there's good reason to think that white collar criminals steal more, and indirectly kill more, than all the blue-collar criminals stuck together. Apparently Ken Lay, head of Enron, is gonna walk with the 200 mil he stole. The guys who gassed Bhopal (hydrogen cyanide, very sad) never went to trial for...what's the petty crime...oh yes, "criminally negligent homicide." Nixon never got arrested. OJ walked because of the utter incompetence of the LAPD and the prosecutors.
But the big outrage is...huh.
Hey, we need to execute the wrong people MORE OFTEN. That'll show 'em we're not kiddding! We have more of our citizens in jail, as a percentage of our population, than any other country on the planet (passed Russia and China a few years back, and I for one COULDN"T BE PROUDER), and it isn't NEARLY ENOUGH.
So what if the crime stats, particularly violent crime stats, have been dropping for the last ten years? So what if we've flooded the streets with guns? So what if there's no evidence that execution and harsh punishment deters crime in the least? So what if the overwhelming number of folks in jail are from ethnic minorites, even though research suggests that these groups commit about the same numbers of crimes as other groups? So what if you are 10 times more likely to be executed if you're black and you kill someone white than the other way around, even if the circumstances are virtually identical? So what if the evidence suggests that somewhere between at least 10% of the people we execute shouldn't have been executed (their lawyer slept through the trial, they were completely insane and had an IQ around 60, or THEY WERE COMPLETELY INNOCENT)? So what if we're building jails we can't afford like crazy? Who cares?
When we have half the pop in jail and the other half employed watching them, THEN we will have justice in the country. What ho for Foucault's carceral society.
Oh, and just incidentally---there's good reason to think that white collar criminals steal more, and indirectly kill more, than all the blue-collar criminals stuck together. Apparently Ken Lay, head of Enron, is gonna walk with the 200 mil he stole. The guys who gassed Bhopal (hydrogen cyanide, very sad) never went to trial for...what's the petty crime...oh yes, "criminally negligent homicide." Nixon never got arrested. OJ walked because of the utter incompetence of the LAPD and the prosecutors.
But the big outrage is...huh.
OP
Karazenpo
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #134
Robert wrote:
Hey, we need to execute the wrong people MORE OFTEN. That'll show 'em we're not kiddding! We have more of our citizens in jail, as a percentage of our population, than any other country on the planet (passed Russia and China a few years back, and I for one COULDN"T BE PROUDER), and it isn't NEARLY ENOUGH.
Mistakes are made, Robert, and mistakes will always be made because of the human condition. We are not perfect, so anything we do will not be perfect. For the most part, the greater most part, the right people are in jail. It's just that they are let out because of their so-called rights, murders and rapists are allowed to get out and do it all over again. You seem to have skated over that issue. What about the latest three murders of teenage boys from a man that was let out of jail after a 1983 conviction of drowning a 15 year old boy?????????????? Why do liberals REFUSE to address this? and continue to dance around the issue. Do you not have any compassion for these innocent victims? Why are you so concerned over the 'rights' of murders, rapists and child molesters? I don't understand. Last night, at the '99' in my town , a nice neighborhood restuarant and bar, a couple of us took a little informal survey of civillians, no police, on these situations just to see if we were off base in our thinking. Robert, I don't know, maybe it's the area, although Massachuseets is a liberal state and the home of Mr. Liberal Himself, Teddy, 'don't drive over bridges with girlfriends in the back seat' Kennedy, but everyone we talked to, guys and girls, did not agree with your perspective. What can I tell you? Address the fact, how many more innocent victims, like the latest 3 teenage boys, have to die before you take a harder stand? How many? Please, give me a head count. Sincerely, Joe
Hey, we need to execute the wrong people MORE OFTEN. That'll show 'em we're not kiddding! We have more of our citizens in jail, as a percentage of our population, than any other country on the planet (passed Russia and China a few years back, and I for one COULDN"T BE PROUDER), and it isn't NEARLY ENOUGH.
Mistakes are made, Robert, and mistakes will always be made because of the human condition. We are not perfect, so anything we do will not be perfect. For the most part, the greater most part, the right people are in jail. It's just that they are let out because of their so-called rights, murders and rapists are allowed to get out and do it all over again. You seem to have skated over that issue. What about the latest three murders of teenage boys from a man that was let out of jail after a 1983 conviction of drowning a 15 year old boy?????????????? Why do liberals REFUSE to address this? and continue to dance around the issue. Do you not have any compassion for these innocent victims? Why are you so concerned over the 'rights' of murders, rapists and child molesters? I don't understand. Last night, at the '99' in my town , a nice neighborhood restuarant and bar, a couple of us took a little informal survey of civillians, no police, on these situations just to see if we were off base in our thinking. Robert, I don't know, maybe it's the area, although Massachuseets is a liberal state and the home of Mr. Liberal Himself, Teddy, 'don't drive over bridges with girlfriends in the back seat' Kennedy, but everyone we talked to, guys and girls, did not agree with your perspective. What can I tell you? Address the fact, how many more innocent victims, like the latest 3 teenage boys, have to die before you take a harder stand? How many? Please, give me a head count. Sincerely, Joe
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
OK ... we have about 2,000,000 fellow americans in prison right now. You have cited as example of our laws not being tough enough, two cases. That means, 999,999 prisoners should never be let out of jail becuase of the possibility that he (or she) may be the 1 that repeats in such a violent manner.
Meanwhile ... 57 % of those in the federal prison system are non-violent drug offenders.
I am proud to live in a country that lets you have the views you espouse. What terrifies me is that you are working in Law Enforcement. What is there to prevent you from taking the next step in your logic?
Meanwhile ... 57 % of those in the federal prison system are non-violent drug offenders.
I am proud to live in a country that lets you have the views you espouse. What terrifies me is that you are working in Law Enforcement. What is there to prevent you from taking the next step in your logic?
Again you make the assumption that a "harder stand" will solve the problem. That is a hard point to prove, even harder is how to deal with the massive amounts of people that would be imprisoned for life and therefore dependants on tax money.
OP
Karazenpo
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #137
My friend OULobo wrote:
Again you make the assumption that a "harder stand" will solve the problem. That is a hard point to prove, even harder is how to deal with the massive amounts of people that would be imprisoned for life and therefore dependants on tax money.
I say: OULobo, tell me, where is the assumption? There is absolutely no assumption on my part. If it were a hard harder stand, Alfonso Rodriguez and David Mause would not have gotten a get out of jail card free for their original crimes. One with murder, the other kidnapping & rape, total, so far, 4 victims and climbing (with Mause). What's wrong with that? That is no assumption, that is fact! but please, tax payers' money for life imprisonment? When have we decided to put a price on innocent lives? How much is your life and that of your family's worth? OULobo, I have come to respect you and your opinions and I would have never said to you that your opinion is wrong but please reconsider your response, tax dollars for lives? I say, no contest! Respectfully, Joe
Again you make the assumption that a "harder stand" will solve the problem. That is a hard point to prove, even harder is how to deal with the massive amounts of people that would be imprisoned for life and therefore dependants on tax money.
I say: OULobo, tell me, where is the assumption? There is absolutely no assumption on my part. If it were a hard harder stand, Alfonso Rodriguez and David Mause would not have gotten a get out of jail card free for their original crimes. One with murder, the other kidnapping & rape, total, so far, 4 victims and climbing (with Mause). What's wrong with that? That is no assumption, that is fact! but please, tax payers' money for life imprisonment? When have we decided to put a price on innocent lives? How much is your life and that of your family's worth? OULobo, I have come to respect you and your opinions and I would have never said to you that your opinion is wrong but please reconsider your response, tax dollars for lives? I say, no contest! Respectfully, Joe
OP
Karazenpo
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #138
By the way, it's officially in: Lt. Colonel Alan West was docked two months pay for the incident and will still serve in the military. Okay, go for it, I've put on my 'flack jacket', lol, but you know what, even that was too severe!
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
It has something to do with Tax Dollars, but really, not that much. If it was about tax dollars, those who support the death penalty would reverse their stance. It costs far more to execute a criminal, than to lock him/her up and throw away the key.
It more has to do with living in a free society. We could certianly move toward a more totalitarian society. Where those with power decide who is guilty and the price they need to pay. There would be no appeals, no second chances.
I am willing to walk out my front door, even though it is a dangerous world out there, because that is the cost of freedom. And Joe ... I think you are part of the problem ... You fans these flames of fear, at every opportunity, we should all be terrified of being out in public ... there are so many nasty evil people out there. Of course, we can't blame you, all the television stations do all they can to instill this level of fear in the society, so that the 'Military, Industrial, Security, Police Complex' can keep the citizens all terrified.
In a free land, you get stuck with some dirtbags .... but, as you have indicated .... you can be sure nobody was committing these horrible crimes in Iraq over the past 25 years ... Where would you rather live?
First off, are you talking about parolees or people who beat the case? I would hardly call years in prison a "get out of jail free card". Secondly, are you saying that keeping them locked up would've solved the problem, mabey the problem of the same attacks reoccuring from these same guys, but it won't stop more of them from appearing. If what they went through in prison wasn't enough to dissuade them from re-offending, then it is a problem that stiffer penalties will solve by setting an example. There is a deeper root that requires other methods.
This isn't about taxes for lives. It is about the fact that the prisons are already filled to capacity, so full that some prisons are releasing prisoners because they need to make room. No one wants to build prisons, no one wants to be near a prison, no one wants to see a prison and no one wants to work in a prison. The budgets for keeping prisoners locked up will swell immensly if you lock everyone of the serious offenders up life and keep maintaining their lives in the prisons. It's not something this country or any other can afford.
The numbers for the costs of executing a prisoner are artificially inflated by the judicial system. Hell, if you pay me enough, I'll take care of them with a shovel and that's it. I'll use the same one to bury'em as the one I use to execute'em with. Trimming the cost of executions is not a hard thing to do, especially if you change the appeals system. You can't tell me that it costs more to take a shovel to a man and bury him paperwork and all, than it does to indefinitly feed, clothe, provide health care to, monitor, secure and keep locked-up a man. It might sound harsh, but if we are going to lock people up for good, then we are assuming there is no hope for these people; that they can never be a productive or acceptable part of our society. If this is the case then why not execute them to relieve the burdon on the system.
Similar threads
