has everyone signed this? [modified]
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are creating an enviroment which will make it impossible for the man to have a fair trial. You show no respect for the law at all. You are participating in a public lynching of the man before he has his day in court.
Utter drivel. There is no better than an even money chance that any official responsible for the torture policy will even be charged. Those officials have the vocal support of almost the entire mainstream media. About the only place you find support for prosecutions is on left-wing blogs. The overall environment is strongly hostile to prosecution, let alone conviction.
John Carson
John Carson wrote: There is no better than an even money chance that any official responsible for the torture policy will even be charged. I wouldn't give you better than 2:5 - at worst/best we'll have a show trial or two of a couple of low-level contractors who hooked on with the CIA when they started hiring in 2001, and now wish they hadn't. John Carson wrote: The overall environment is strongly hostile to prosecution, let alone conviction. I think it depends on what media you are exposed to. Watch MSNBC for awhile, and you'll see supposedly rational humans having trouble differentiating between the murder of 13 million non-combatants and the excesses okayed by the Bush administration. Of course, I suppose they could be dismissed as a kind of left-wing blog. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are creating an enviroment which will make it impossible for the man to have a fair trial. You show no respect for the law at all. You are participating in a public lynching of the man before he has his day in court.
Utter drivel. There is no better than an even money chance that any official responsible for the torture policy will even be charged. Those officials have the vocal support of almost the entire mainstream media. About the only place you find support for prosecutions is on left-wing blogs. The overall environment is strongly hostile to prosecution, let alone conviction.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
There is no better than an even money chance that any official responsible for the torture policy will even be charged. Those officials have the vocal support of almost the entire mainstream media. About the only place you find support for prosecutions is on left-wing blogs. The overall environment is strongly hostile to prosecution, let alone conviction.
Not if I can help it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But which is more morally unacceptable, hanging the Japanese for waterboarding or waterboarding? Its a simple question.
I don't think it is simple at all. In determining the extent of culpability, one must consider context, state of mind, motivation... That is why people like me are opposed to mandatory sentences, unlike many conservatives. The detail of each case is important to forming a fair judgement.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I don't think it is simple at all. In determining the extent of culpability, one must consider context, state of mind, motivation...
So, precisely what state of mind and motivation on Bush's part do you think would be sufficeint to exonerate him?
John Carson wrote:
The detail of each case is important to forming a fair judgement.
Except, apparetnly, when trying to expunge your society of politics you disagree with.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: 1) The more distracted we keep the democrats, the better. As long as you don't give a shit about America. Stan Shannon wrote: More chilling than what? Suddenly finding yourself defending a fascist nation? Only if they are foolish enough to take your word for it - and we've already seen that you have trouble differentiating between iconoclasts and old-style republicans so why would anyone take your word on anything?. Stan Shannon wrote: There is absolutely nothing that will change that. That was kinda my point, Stan. Glad to see you working your way towards the light.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
As long as you don't give a sh*t about America.
There is no America left to give a shit about.
Oakman wrote:
Only if they are foolish enough to take your word for it - and we've already seen that you have trouble differentiating between iconoclasts and old-style republicans so why would anyone take your word on anything?.
We are currently a full blown fascist society which will degenerate into socialism and finally communism and then it will die unless something happens to short circuit the entire process.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
As long as you don't give a sh*t about America.
There is no America left to give a shit about.
Oakman wrote:
Only if they are foolish enough to take your word for it - and we've already seen that you have trouble differentiating between iconoclasts and old-style republicans so why would anyone take your word on anything?.
We are currently a full blown fascist society which will degenerate into socialism and finally communism and then it will die unless something happens to short circuit the entire process.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote: There is no America left to give a sh*t about. I believe that's the point of view of an ostrich. Stan Shannon wrote: We are currently a full blown fascist society which will degenerate into socialism and finally communism and then it will die unless something happens to short circuit the entire process. Apparently, you have no idea what a full-blown fascist society would be like.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
There is no better than an even money chance that any official responsible for the torture policy will even be charged. Those officials have the vocal support of almost the entire mainstream media. About the only place you find support for prosecutions is on left-wing blogs. The overall environment is strongly hostile to prosecution, let alone conviction.
Not if I can help it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote: Not if I can help it. You are powerless, Stan. Just concentrate on keeping your job or you'll end up like Troy, on the dole and posting links.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote: There is no America left to give a sh*t about. I believe that's the point of view of an ostrich. Stan Shannon wrote: We are currently a full blown fascist society which will degenerate into socialism and finally communism and then it will die unless something happens to short circuit the entire process. Apparently, you have no idea what a full-blown fascist society would be like.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Apparently, you have no idea what a full-blown fascist society would be like.
He knows exactly what it's like. He just doesn't want to call Stanutopia what it really is.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Oakman wrote:
Apparently, you have no idea what a full-blown fascist society would be like.
He knows exactly what it's like. He just doesn't want to call Stanutopia what it really is.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
what it really is
from Webster: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition Stan may be wrong, but only by a degree or so. then again, he may hit the nail on the head[^].
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But which is more morally unacceptable, hanging the Japanese for waterboarding or waterboarding? Its a simple question.
I don't think it is simple at all. In determining the extent of culpability, one must consider context, state of mind, motivation... That is why people like me are opposed to mandatory sentences, unlike many conservatives. The detail of each case is important to forming a fair judgement.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The detail of each case is important to forming a fair judgement.
so, what happened to your, "rule of law" argument? to be valid in this context a law would have to incorporate every possible ramification / nuance of circumstance in order to meld the two concepts.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
John Carson wrote: There is no better than an even money chance that any official responsible for the torture policy will even be charged. I wouldn't give you better than 2:5 - at worst/best we'll have a show trial or two of a couple of low-level contractors who hooked on with the CIA when they started hiring in 2001, and now wish they hadn't. John Carson wrote: The overall environment is strongly hostile to prosecution, let alone conviction. I think it depends on what media you are exposed to. Watch MSNBC for awhile, and you'll see supposedly rational humans having trouble differentiating between the murder of 13 million non-combatants and the excesses okayed by the Bush administration. Of course, I suppose they could be dismissed as a kind of left-wing blog. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I wouldn't give you better than 2:5 - at worst/best we'll have a show trial or two of a couple of low-level contractors who hooked on with the CIA when they started hiring in 2001, and now wish they hadn't.
Someone has already got 10 years over Abu Graib. So I agree that some low level people may very well get charged. I was referring to those responsible for formulating the policy.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
I don't think it is simple at all. In determining the extent of culpability, one must consider context, state of mind, motivation...
So, precisely what state of mind and motivation on Bush's part do you think would be sufficeint to exonerate him?
John Carson wrote:
The detail of each case is important to forming a fair judgement.
Except, apparetnly, when trying to expunge your society of politics you disagree with.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, precisely what state of mind and motivation on Bush's part do you think would be sufficeint to exonerate him?
Well, insanity is a standard defence. In any event, the issue isn't necessarily about exoneration. You were asking for a comparison of the extent of wrongdoing involved in two things: waterboarding or hanging for waterboarding. That would normally go to the issue of relative sentences rather than of exoneration.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Except, apparetnly, when trying to expunge your society of politics you disagree with.
Please cite an instance in which I advocated a specific criminal penalty independently of the merits of the particular case.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
The detail of each case is important to forming a fair judgement.
so, what happened to your, "rule of law" argument? to be valid in this context a law would have to incorporate every possible ramification / nuance of circumstance in order to meld the two concepts.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
so, what happened to your, "rule of law" argument? to be valid in this context a law would have to incorporate every possible ramification / nuance of circumstance in order to meld the two concepts.
The rule of law as understood by me (and almost everyone else) includes both prosecutorial discretion (regarding whether and with what a person is to be charged) and judicial discretion (regarding sentencing). Of course, both must be impartially exercised, based soley on legally relevant facts and having regard to precedent. The law normally provides for a range of sentences for any given crime, it being precisely the intent of the law that the exact sentence will reflect the detailed circumstances of the case.
John Carson
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
so, what happened to your, "rule of law" argument? to be valid in this context a law would have to incorporate every possible ramification / nuance of circumstance in order to meld the two concepts.
The rule of law as understood by me (and almost everyone else) includes both prosecutorial discretion (regarding whether and with what a person is to be charged) and judicial discretion (regarding sentencing). Of course, both must be impartially exercised, based soley on legally relevant facts and having regard to precedent. The law normally provides for a range of sentences for any given crime, it being precisely the intent of the law that the exact sentence will reflect the detailed circumstances of the case.
John Carson
from earlier: I don't think it is simple at all. In determining the extent of culpability, one must consider context, state of mind, motivation... plus:
John Carson wrote:
The rule of law as understood ...
is a whimiscal application of law. money, color and background can impact a sentence and should not. a law broken is a law broken, pretty black and white approach.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
from earlier: I don't think it is simple at all. In determining the extent of culpability, one must consider context, state of mind, motivation... plus:
John Carson wrote:
The rule of law as understood ...
is a whimiscal application of law. money, color and background can impact a sentence and should not. a law broken is a law broken, pretty black and white approach.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
is a whimiscal application of law. money, color and background can impact a sentence and should not. a law broken is a law broken, pretty black and white approach
Case A. Man is embezzling funds. A colleague discovers what he is up to. The embezzler buys a gun and lies in wait for the colleague, killing him in order to prevent discovery. Case B. A man's daughter is abducted, raped, tortured and killed. Trying to find his daughter, the father acts on a hunch and comes across the killer, standing over the mutilated body of his daughter. In a blind rage, the father kills him. Pretty black and white. A murder has been committed by the embezzler and by the father. The same sentence is applicable in both cases wouldn't you say?
John Carson
-
Tim Craig wrote:
what it really is
from Webster: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition Stan may be wrong, but only by a degree or so. then again, he may hit the nail on the head[^].
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
is a whimiscal application of law. money, color and background can impact a sentence and should not. a law broken is a law broken, pretty black and white approach
Case A. Man is embezzling funds. A colleague discovers what he is up to. The embezzler buys a gun and lies in wait for the colleague, killing him in order to prevent discovery. Case B. A man's daughter is abducted, raped, tortured and killed. Trying to find his daughter, the father acts on a hunch and comes across the killer, standing over the mutilated body of his daughter. In a blind rage, the father kills him. Pretty black and white. A murder has been committed by the embezzler and by the father. The same sentence is applicable in both cases wouldn't you say?
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The same sentence is applicable in both cases wouldn't you say?
if it worked that way I would agree it is the correct way but I seriously doubt it works that way in practice - it'll come much closer to the way I described it. I have a specific example where two 21 year old kids stuck up (mugged, at gun point) a woman. both were equally guilty, one white and one black. the white kid turned on the black kid and the white kid's father came up with $50,000 for a lawyer and forensic phycologist to make a case for leniency by the court. the black kid had a public defender. The white kid got a year and a half of house arrest, the black kid got 7 years in the state pen. that is not an unusual outcome. I happen to be aware of the circumstance because the white kid is a distant family member.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Does that mean you want to live in Stanutopia?
if you're asking whether or not I think the country is headed in the wrong direction, I most certainly do - we have a government that is entirely out of control.
Tim Craig wrote:
Aren't you catholic?
yes and it causes me a high degree of internal conflict. I agree with the theological teachings, but not the social application; I believe it to be socialism.
Tim Craig wrote:
Better watch out.
I duck from time to time.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
what it really is
from Webster: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition Stan may be wrong, but only by a degree or so. then again, he may hit the nail on the head[^].
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Stan may be wrong, but only by a degree or so. then again, he may hit the nail on the head[^].
Actually, I'm not wrong at all. Fascism is simply a form of socialism that rejects the class struggle and internationalism of pure Marxism, and instead leaves the institutions of a society intact but coopts them by one means or another into working toward common state defined goals. Most of our institutions have voluntarily become coopted - Hollywood, the press, educational instituions, etc. The health industry is about to fall. Banking and industry are crippled and hardly able to resist. Most churches are also lining up in obedience. That does not leave much that is not fundamentally a working member agency of the central, collectivist state.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
The same sentence is applicable in both cases wouldn't you say?
if it worked that way I would agree it is the correct way but I seriously doubt it works that way in practice - it'll come much closer to the way I described it. I have a specific example where two 21 year old kids stuck up (mugged, at gun point) a woman. both were equally guilty, one white and one black. the white kid turned on the black kid and the white kid's father came up with $50,000 for a lawyer and forensic phycologist to make a case for leniency by the court. the black kid had a public defender. The white kid got a year and a half of house arrest, the black kid got 7 years in the state pen. that is not an unusual outcome. I happen to be aware of the circumstance because the white kid is a distant family member.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
if it worked that way I would agree it is the correct way but I seriously doubt it works that way in practice - it'll come much closer to the way I described it. I have a specific example where two 21 year old kids stuck up (mugged, at gun point) a woman. both were equally guilty, one white and one black. the white kid turned on the black kid and the white kid's father came up with $50,000 for a lawyer and forensic phycologist to make a case for leniency by the court. the black kid had a public defender. The white kid got a year and a half of house arrest, the black kid got 7 years in the state pen. that is not an unusual outcome. I happen to be aware of the circumstance because the white kid is a distant family member.
I don't doubt that discretion often leads to inequities, but 1. Much of that is unavoidable; you can't remove discretion from the police decision on who to arrest, nor from the decision of the district attorney's office on what charges, if any, to bring. Nor can you prevent juries from exercising whatever biases they may possess. 2. Mandatory minimum sentences don't eliminate racial and other biases. They load all the available discretion onto the police and the prosecuting attorneys, whose decisions are less tranparent and open to review than those of the judges. Mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences have led to extraordinarily high incarceration rates for blacks. 3. I think that the best way to combat these inequities is by combating them in the broader society, as well as holding up legal inequities to public exposure, not by eliminating judicial discretion. For what it is worth, my impression from a distance is that the system would be fairer if there was less plea bargaining with prosecuting attorneys and more judicial determination of sentences.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, precisely what state of mind and motivation on Bush's part do you think would be sufficeint to exonerate him?
Well, insanity is a standard defence. In any event, the issue isn't necessarily about exoneration. You were asking for a comparison of the extent of wrongdoing involved in two things: waterboarding or hanging for waterboarding. That would normally go to the issue of relative sentences rather than of exoneration.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Except, apparetnly, when trying to expunge your society of politics you disagree with.
Please cite an instance in which I advocated a specific criminal penalty independently of the merits of the particular case.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Well, insanity is a standard defence.
What about a reasonable belief that it was necessary for the protection of the lives of the nation's citizens?
John Carson wrote:
Please cite an instance in which I advocated a specific criminal penalty independently of the merits of the particular case.
That was not my point. My point is that I don't believe a word you are saying. What President Bush did, even if all your claims are true, is orders of magnitude more morally defensible than either what the Japanese did to their prisoners or what we did to them for doing it. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise, and the more this is pushed, the more ludicrous it will be seen to be. Your side is not defending the rule of law, it is defending a philosophy that so narrowly restricts the options a leader has to defend a nation that the need for any such leadership is essentially negated altogether. The most fundamentally sacred law the democratically elected leadership of any society has is to protect the lives of the citizens that put them into power. Any law that is broken in regard to that far more basic one is entirely reasonable and justified. Any one who argues otherwise is either a lunatic or someone attempting to destroy a political opposition with which they disagree regardless of the harm that it might cause.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.