Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Wow, just wow... lets not worry about the breadwinners, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children that were killed on 9/11 as a result of these terrorist asshats. Lets not worry about the Afghani civilians killed under the Taliban regime or in car bombings by insurgents in Iraq.

But yes, lets shed a tear for the breadwinner/companion terrorist asshole who chooses to go off to war and kill Americans or other people's family members instead of providing for his or her own family. Obviously THEY are the victims here... :roll:

Same goes for you. I like how you ignored the crowd of people earlier in this thread tearing you apart on this just to spout out some more worthless crap like this. Stop trying to argue that all the people in Guantanamo are terrorists. It's a lie and you know it. You are honestly trying to argue against the government having to show a cause for why they are imprisoning people for the rest of their lives. That's what you're arguing against. Do you see how absolutely insane that is?

People like you disgust me.

Interesting, 2 responses - neither of which made any substantive argument against my points = "a crowd tearing you apart"? I know you guys need to bunch up in little packs to work up the cajones to confront your betters but I don't count those two weak responses as being ripped apart. Whatever it takes to make you feel like a man I suppose little lemming, here's a pat on the head and a cookie. :)

It's pretty clear from your posts that you foolishly assume that all humans are a giant congo line of good but misunderstood souls, even those that would kill you and everyone around you without a moment of remorse or guilt. Honestly, I'd encourage you to put a few shivs in the hands of these poor misunderstood souls in Guantanamo and then give them a big old "love you man" hug. Let me know how that goes.

The prisoners in Guantanamo are being detained, questioned and judged by a military tribunal. They are not being beheaded, no bones are being broken, they are being fed and sheltered better than some American citizens. They are not, however, Americans - they are enemy combatants that have either attacked or supported attacks on Americans and our interests and are being held either to prevent them from causing further damage or because they are a source of information that can save American lives.

I suppose if a man breaks into your house, kills your dog and rapes your wife and daughter you'll be right there make sure he's got plenty of lube and serving cookies and milk since he's obviously a misunderstood victim of circumstance. Fortunately for all of us the security of this country isn't up to spineless pacifists like you. REAL men are out there right now doing a thankless job rounding up these terrorist assholes because they understand the lengths to which these animals will go to to kill Americans. They've only blow up buildings, boats, planes, cars, children, etc. and you people still welcome them to enjoy our protections and laws? Let's pay for a hot shot lawyer and pretend they are Americans, why not, you people don't seem to give a shit who immigrates here these days so why not let in a few terrorists. Maybe once they start blowing up Whole Foods and coffee shops you people will wake up. Then again, maybe if I run into this brick wall enough times it will eventually fall over. :)

<group hug!>

Wow....it's truly disturbing how you can think like this. It just shows how far we have fallen since the hysteria following 9/11. And people wonder why the rest of the world doesn't like us know.

So because what? .0001% of muslims become terrorists, you feel it's perfectly acceptable to lump them all together in the "automatically guilty" category, without evidence or proof?

It's just OK to lock them up, torture them, for as long as we want, with no oversight? Or for that matter, any evidence.

This country was is run on the premise that we follow our laws and they apply to everyone. Do you have a problem with this?

How would you feel if someone called the FBI about you, saying they had "evidence" that you were helping terrorists. Say goodbye to your life, because according to what you think, you would get to spend the rest of your life at Gitmo, or some other pleasant location, getting tortured and interrogated for as long as the government wants. Your friends/wife/family/girlfriend would not see you, and you would have no recourse to get out.

So unless you are totally OK with that, I suggest you rethink your position.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
This is one of those issues that spotlight the willingness of the Republicans to use "fear and loathing" to muster a cadre of support and how easily some buy into it. They make some people so afraid and full of hate that they are willing to suspend elements of modern civilization for revenge and a false sense of security.

For those of you that don't understand what you are allowing to happen, let's take a look at what has happened before when people allowed those in authority to condemn and punish by mere accusation.

The great with hunts of the middle ages were conducted by the largest single power structure of the time, The Church. Probably hundreds of thousands of people were accused of being witches and were killed based on no evidence, but mostly "confessions" gained from torture. The accusations included such "terrorists" acts as floods, plagues, crop failure, bad weather, deaths of livestock and children, and on and on. The Church made an art out of using "fear and loathing" to get the people to fall in line. Besides the obvious damage you might suffer from these terrorist acts, even your mortal soul was in jeopardy if you didn't support the efforts to get rid of these bad people. And since they were in league with the Devil, they were despicable.

Eventually, as the state began to replace The Church as the greater power structure, such abuses slowly began to fade; accelerated only as the will of the people replaced absolute monarchies. finally, civilization had advanced to the point that mere accusations could not condemn, confessions obtained by torture could not be used as evidence, and legal structures were devised that allowed a person to defend himself against false charges.

Today, we scoff at the idea that some old woman threw some eye-of-newt in a pot and caused a plague. But it was no laughing matter to the accused in times past.

It seems to me that many Republicans today would have us revert to those times where the mere accusation is a condemnation. Where torture is acceptable again. Where you can create a label and create a class of people under that label that you should automatically fear and loathe.

The current power structure that supports reversing these advances in civilization depends on those that they can make afraid and hate. It's sad enough when there are those that are just too lazy to support the human and legal rights that have for so long have defined us as morally just. But those who would discard the core values of our society out of fear or hatred for "the others" are morally bankrupt.


Great post!
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Socio

If life was fair and just, then for everyone of those detainees that gets released because of their ruling and kills a US soldier or civilian in an act of terrorism every member of the court that voted in favor of ruling would be in fact accomplices to murder and should face criminal charges.

That is the most asinine comment I can imagine. How can you possibly twist your brain to come up with this crap?

As asinine as it sounds it does not change the fact that it is true and the zero accountability is our justice system is its biggest weakness, it is what lets offenders become repeat offenders.

So do you support doing the same thing to judges and juries that let drunk drivers out of jail and end up killing someone?

Or how about a rapist? Or a murder? Are you saying that once convicted of a crime, you have to stay locked up forever? Because thats the only way to make sure you don't have a repeat offender.

What about punishment for those judges that wrongfully convict people? if someone is later found innocent, can we lcokup that judge too?

Seriously, how do you think up stuff like this?
 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
This just reinforces how important the SCotUS is as an issue in the upcoming elections. Tilt the court a little further to the right and every branch of our government will be willingly ignoring basic human rights (as opposed to 2/3 at the moment).

Or we could happily follow Scalia's arguments to their logical conclusion: let's lock up every angry white Southern male without trial (torture optional) to protect our country from Timothy McVeigh variety terrorists. After all, if all Muslims in the vicinity of known terrorists are terrorists and enemy combatants in the "war on terror", then all whites in the vicinity of known terrorists are terrorists and enemy combatants in the "war on terror". Grab a few innocent Colombian immigrants and peace-club college students as part of the "war on drugs" while we're at it.

The citizen/non-citizen distinction here is specious - we're talking about some pretty basic (as mentioned elsewhere, pre-Columbus) human rights here.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Socio

As asinine as it sounds it does not change the fact that it is true and the zero accountability is our justice system is its biggest weakness, it is what lets offenders become repeat offenders.

Fact?

I contend that your statement is absurd. You have presented no facts at all. You have uttered statements in a vacuum, with no supporting evidence. Unless you are prepared to offer proof that your statement is based in reality, I will assume you are just engaging in baseless fear-mongering.
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
So do you support doing the same thing to judges and juries that let drunk drivers out of jail and end up killing someone?

Or how about a rapist? Or a murder? Are you saying that once convicted of a crime, you have to stay locked up forever? Because thats the only way to make sure you don't have a repeat offender.

What about punishment for those judges that wrongfully convict people? if someone is later found innocent, can we lcokup that judge too?

Seriously, how do you think up stuff like this?

Who said anything about convictions? He's saying that once you are accused of a crime, you have to stay locked up forever.

Clearly, this is the only way to add "accountability" to the justice system.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Venix
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
So do you support doing the same thing to judges and juries that let drunk drivers out of jail and end up killing someone?

Or how about a rapist? Or a murder? Are you saying that once convicted of a crime, you have to stay locked up forever? Because thats the only way to make sure you don't have a repeat offender.

What about punishment for those judges that wrongfully convict people? if someone is later found innocent, can we lcokup that judge too?

Seriously, how do you think up stuff like this?

Who said anything about convictions? He's saying that once you are accused of a crime, you have to stay locked up forever.

Clearly, this is the only way to add "accountability" to the justice system.

Especially because if it turns out that you are innocent, you're going to be so mad that we locked you up... that we have to keep you locked up.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
GEEEEZZZZ! Put your hand over your heart and repeat "with liberty and justice for all". Just what could that phrase mean? Has familiarity bred contempt? Just say no to Guantanamo kangaroo Bushite courts.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Socio

If life was fair and just, then for everyone of those detainees that gets released because of their ruling and kills a US soldier or civilian in an act of terrorism every member of the court that voted in favor of ruling would be in fact accomplices to murder and should face criminal charges.

That is the most asinine comment I can imagine. How can you possibly twist your brain to come up with this crap?

Under you twisted logic, any juror that ever voted not to convict someone bears the responsibility for all future actions of that person, even if they were actually innocent of the original charge.

Sorry, but you have to be one sick puppy or just plain stupid to advocate such crap.

You know those 'alternative gemotries' where when you change one axiom, weird things can be seen?

That's what Socio is like. The axiom he changes is that the Muslim detainees' lives are not valuable. He dehumanizes them.

And that's why his logic would say that putting one American life at risk is more important than killing 10,000 detainees to precent it. It's why his logic would say that the chance for one bit of information that might save any American troops is worth the suffering of torturing 10,000 detianees. It all makes since when you adopt his evil view.

And that's really the heart of so much bigotry and wrongdoing.

He doesn't realize that his dehumanizing them makes *him* the monster, and sets up where the only two choices are that either he's powerful enough to defeat them on an ongoing basis, or he's defeated in some way by those who oppose him and are trying to stop his wrongdoing. By HIS doing such wrongs, he removes the option for peaceful co-existence. He's the cause of the conflict, and he doesn't know it. Of course there are some problem people on 'the other side', but his overreaction to wrong innocents escalates it.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,606
4,699
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Socio

If life was fair and just, then for everyone of those detainees that gets released because of their ruling and kills a US soldier or civilian in an act of terrorism every member of the court that voted in favor of ruling would be in fact accomplices to murder and should face criminal charges.

That is the most asinine comment I can imagine. How can you possibly twist your brain to come up with this crap?

Under you twisted logic, any juror that ever voted not to convict someone bears the responsibility for all future actions of that person, even if they were actually innocent of the original charge.

Sorry, but you have to be one sick puppy or just plain stupid to advocate such crap.

You know those 'alternative gemotries' where when you change one axiom, weird things can be seen?

That's what Socio is like. The axiom he changes is that the Muslim detainees' lives are not valuable. He dehumanizes them.

And that's why his logic would say that putting one American life at risk is more important than killing 10,000 detainees to precent it. It's why his logic would say that the chance for one bit of information that might save any American troops is worth the suffering of torturing 10,000 detianees. It all makes since when you adopt his evil view.

And that's really the heart of so much bigotry and wrongdoing.

He doesn't realize that his dehumanizing them makes *him* the monster, and sets up where the only two choices are that either he's powerful enough to defeat them on an ongoing basis, or he's defeated in some way by those who oppose him and are trying to stop his wrongdoing. By HIS doing such wrongs, he removes the option for peaceful co-existence. He's the cause of the conflict, and he doesn't know it. Of course there are some problem people on 'the other side', but his overreaction to wrong innocents escalates it.


Socio pathic.

# Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

# Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

# Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

# Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

# Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

# Incapacity for Love

# Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

# Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Socio

If life was fair and just, then for everyone of those detainees that gets released because of their ruling and kills a US soldier or civilian in an act of terrorism every member of the court that voted in favor of ruling would be in fact accomplices to murder and should face criminal charges.

That is the most asinine comment I can imagine. How can you possibly twist your brain to come up with this crap?

As asinine as it sounds it does not change the fact that it is true and the zero accountability is our justice system is its biggest weakness, it is what lets offenders become repeat offenders.

So do you support doing the same thing to judges and juries that let drunk drivers out of jail and end up killing someone?

Or how about a rapist? Or a murder? Are you saying that once convicted of a crime, you have to stay locked up forever? Because thats the only way to make sure you don't have a repeat offender.

What about punishment for those judges that wrongfully convict people? if someone is later found innocent, can we lcokup that judge too?

Seriously, how do you think up stuff like this?

No, but again is does not change the fact that there is zero accountability in our judicial system.

Yes Judges would have to give everyone who commits a crime life without parole to make sure they themselves never got in trouble if there was.

The simple undeniable fact that our judicial system never ever has to pay for a single mistake they make. Which in turn leads to idiotic rulings like the one in the subject of this thread because no matter how deadly the outcome maybe as a result of their ruling you can?t blame the judicial system.

Unfortunately it is the way it has to be but that does not make it right not by a long shot!
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Socio

If life was fair and just, then for everyone of those detainees that gets released because of their ruling and kills a US soldier or civilian in an act of terrorism every member of the court that voted in favor of ruling would be in fact accomplices to murder and should face criminal charges.

That is the most asinine comment I can imagine. How can you possibly twist your brain to come up with this crap?

Under you twisted logic, any juror that ever voted not to convict someone bears the responsibility for all future actions of that person, even if they were actually innocent of the original charge.

Sorry, but you have to be one sick puppy or just plain stupid to advocate such crap.
That's what Socio is like. The axiom he changes is that the Muslim detainees' lives are not valuable. He dehumanizes them.

And that's why his logic would say that putting one American life at risk is more important than killing 10,000 detainees to precent it. It's why his logic would say that the chance for one bit of information that might save any American troops is worth the suffering of torturing 10,000 detianees. It all makes since when you adopt his evil view.

And that's really the heart of so much bigotry and wrongdoing.

I place as much value on their lives as they would on mine, to place anymore would make me a fool and I may be many things but a fool is not one of them.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Socio

If life was fair and just, then for everyone of those detainees that gets released because of their ruling and kills a US soldier or civilian in an act of terrorism every member of the court that voted in favor of ruling would be in fact accomplices to murder and should face criminal charges.

That is the most asinine comment I can imagine. How can you possibly twist your brain to come up with this crap?

Under you twisted logic, any juror that ever voted not to convict someone bears the responsibility for all future actions of that person, even if they were actually innocent of the original charge.

Sorry, but you have to be one sick puppy or just plain stupid to advocate such crap.

You know those 'alternative gemotries' where when you change one axiom, weird things can be seen?

That's what Socio is like. The axiom he changes is that the Muslim detainees' lives are not valuable. He dehumanizes them.

And that's why his logic would say that putting one American life at risk is more important than killing 10,000 detainees to precent it. It's why his logic would say that the chance for one bit of information that might save any American troops is worth the suffering of torturing 10,000 detianees. It all makes since when you adopt his evil view.

And that's really the heart of so much bigotry and wrongdoing.

He doesn't realize that his dehumanizing them makes *him* the monster, and sets up where the only two choices are that either he's powerful enough to defeat them on an ongoing basis, or he's defeated in some way by those who oppose him and are trying to stop his wrongdoing. By HIS doing such wrongs, he removes the option for peaceful co-existence. He's the cause of the conflict, and he doesn't know it. Of course there are some problem people on 'the other side', but his overreaction to wrong innocents escalates it.


Socio pathic.

# Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

# Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

# Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

# Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

# Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

# Incapacity for Love

# Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

# Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

You can attack the validity of my posts all you want I welcome it but lay the god damn hell off the personal attacks already!

Nothing worse than having a good debate thread jacked up by morons whose intellectual capacity can only afford them the ability to name call, besmirch and or otherwise infer other slanderous innuendos.

 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Socio

I place as much value on their lives as they would on mine, to place anymore would make me a fool and I may be many things but a fool is not one of them.

Sorry pal, but your assumption of guilt for all of them and assumption that none would value your life makes you.....hmmmmm....let me find a word here....oh yeah, a FOOL!

edit:

BTW, I don't consider calling you a fool in this case to be a personal attack. Just my personal assessment.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,606
4,699
136
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Socio

If life was fair and just, then for everyone of those detainees that gets released because of their ruling and kills a US soldier or civilian in an act of terrorism every member of the court that voted in favor of ruling would be in fact accomplices to murder and should face criminal charges.

That is the most asinine comment I can imagine. How can you possibly twist your brain to come up with this crap?

Under you twisted logic, any juror that ever voted not to convict someone bears the responsibility for all future actions of that person, even if they were actually innocent of the original charge.

Sorry, but you have to be one sick puppy or just plain stupid to advocate such crap.

You know those 'alternative gemotries' where when you change one axiom, weird things can be seen?

That's what Socio is like. The axiom he changes is that the Muslim detainees' lives are not valuable. He dehumanizes them.

And that's why his logic would say that putting one American life at risk is more important than killing 10,000 detainees to precent it. It's why his logic would say that the chance for one bit of information that might save any American troops is worth the suffering of torturing 10,000 detianees. It all makes since when you adopt his evil view.

And that's really the heart of so much bigotry and wrongdoing.

He doesn't realize that his dehumanizing them makes *him* the monster, and sets up where the only two choices are that either he's powerful enough to defeat them on an ongoing basis, or he's defeated in some way by those who oppose him and are trying to stop his wrongdoing. By HIS doing such wrongs, he removes the option for peaceful co-existence. He's the cause of the conflict, and he doesn't know it. Of course there are some problem people on 'the other side', but his overreaction to wrong innocents escalates it.


Socio pathic.

# Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

# Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

# Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

# Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

# Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

# Incapacity for Love

# Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

# Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

You can attack the validity of my posts all you want I welcome it but lay the god damn hell off the personal attacks already!

Nothing worse than having a good debate thread jacked up by morons whose intellectual capacity can only afford them the ability to name call, besmirch and or otherwise infer other slanderous innuendos.



This is NOT a personal attack, any more than saying "That's some nasty cough; have you seen a doctor?"



 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Socio
I place as much value on their lives as they would on mine, to place anymore would make me a fool and I may be many things but a fool is not one of them.

That's exactly the point you reinforce again. You have dehumanized them such that you are projecting your own low value on life onto them.

Have you ever heard of Immanual Kant and his principle of universalization, that a good test for whether a view is moral or not is, what if everyone had it?

If we actually had others adopt your view, than they would all say YOU are the one who they have to protect themselves against and any means to harm you is justified.

The funny thing is, they're more right than you are about who the ones who are dangerous are, you are the one who will advocate broad wrongdoing to others.

You block any road to peace with your defining up fron that they're inhuman monsters who cannot be reasoned with to find any common ground, they're just evil and must be destroyed. You don't realize that not only is that the view that the worst wrongdoers have had in history, remember Hitler was 'protecting' his nation from the 'dangerous jew', but that it's exactly the view you are unhappy the worst terrorists have about you. You're their mirror image - but most of 'them' are not like that, yet you lump them together.

You are against the basic processes of justice which protect the innocent, and you do not value the lives of the 'other side' in the 'us and them' demhumanizing you have set up.

It's really sad, and dangerous because you can vote. You know, in the 60's, TV shows like The Twilight Zone and even Star Trek had plots to try to show you the futility of your fear-based dehumanizing (Ever see 'Nightmare on Elm Street'? It was about the same sort of paranoia you exhibit when it was turned on our own closer neighbors in the US, rather than our further neighbors in the Middle East).

You offer no plans which do not lead to killing and wrongdoing. None. It takes someone who does not have your limited view to prevent wrongdoing and find peace.

The thing is, the fallacies in your thinking are never satisfied. In the most homogenous of societies, you still find some way to divid 'us and them' as an enemy and to have to 'protect' 'us' from 'them' by dehumanizing 'them'. If everyone were a devout follower of whatever creed you want, there would still be some difference allowing you to find fault in some group of them. And on a larger scale it used to be communists, now it's muslim terrorists.

You really should develop the skill to see things from someone else's point of view if you want to be more than a monster and force for evil.

Why don't you start with the Vietnamese who wanted to be free of oppressive colonization from any nation - China, France, Japan, or us - and see how they view Vietnam?
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Socio
I place as much value on their lives as they would on mine, to place anymore would make me a fool and I may be many things but a fool is not one of them.

That's exactly the point you reinforce again. You have dehumanized them such that you are projecting your own low value on life onto them.

Again, no, I am erring on the side of caution by playing the safest odds and the odds are overwhelmingly high that they would do harm against us than not. That is not dehumanizing them it is simply comprehending the math.

You and others on the other hand are dehumanizing Americans by equating American lives to ?enemy combatant?s ? freedom and are more than willing to trade as many American lives as it takes to ensure as many ?enemy combatant?s ? as possible can go free.

Whereas I think if Americans are going to sacrifice their lives for freedom then it should be our freedom not our enemies. So if valuing the life of an American more than the freedom of our enemy makes me a monster then so be it!

I read this once "Those who cannot comprehend the math are convinced they can defeat it."

Your problem is you cannot comprehend the math.

 

UnknownAngst

Banned
Jun 15, 2008
6
0
0
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
What did Scalia say?

Its not that Scalia's legal decisions are dubious, it's that he doesn't seem to understand his job description.

From the AP Story:

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Frankly, whether or not that's true or scary, it's not his job to even think about that. His job is to make legal rulings with regards to the U.S. Constitution, the laws passed by Congress and how the legal facts of a case deal with the first two. It's not his job to worry about the consequences of the rulings. If they are a problem the solution is not to alter his ruling, its to amend the Constitution or change the laws.

Isn't a judge superimposing personal opinions on his legal rulings what the "conservatives" mean when the cry activist?

is that true? it's not a judg's job to worry about consequences of a rule?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Socio
I place as much value on their lives as they would on mine, to place anymore would make me a fool and I may be many things but a fool is not one of them.

That's exactly the point you reinforce again. You have dehumanized them such that you are projecting your own low value on life onto them.

Again, no, I am erring on the side of caution by playing the safest odds and the odds are overwhelmingly high that they would do harm against us than not. That is not dehumanizing them it is simply comprehending the math.

You and others on the other hand are dehumanizing Americans by equating American lives to ?enemy combatant?s ? freedom and are more than willing to trade as many American lives as it takes to ensure as many ?enemy combatant?s ? as possible can go free.

Whereas I think if Americans are going to sacrifice their lives for freedom then it should be our freedom not our enemies. So if valuing the life of an American more than the freedom of our enemy makes me a monster then so be it!

I read this once "Those who cannot comprehend the math are convinced they can defeat it."

Your problem is you cannot comprehend the math.

You claim we are dehumanizing Americans by equating them to the 'enemy combatants'. That means you view the people in Guantanamo as less then human. Not only that, but the rest of that paragraph is simply a lie... and you know it. Stop it.

You are continuing to assume the guilt of the people in Guantanamo based upon nothing more then the government's say so when the government obviously has an interest in convincing you that they are bad people. (how else could they justify holding them for so long?) This is exceptionally naive and foolish.

No one here is advocating for a single one of the people in Guantanamo to go free, what we are advocating for is that people should have a chance to go before a court before they are locked away for the rest of their lives. To condemn hundreds of people to lifetime imprisonment and to not even be willing to give them a venue to challenge it before we lock them up and throw away the key DOES make you a monster.

It both angers and saddens me that you could push for such an inhuman policy that is so contemptuous of basic human rights and the rights that our Constitution stands for, and do so while wrapping yourself in the flag talking about how patriotic you are for doing it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: UnknownAngst
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
What did Scalia say?

Its not that Scalia's legal decisions are dubious, it's that he doesn't seem to understand his job description.

From the AP Story:

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Frankly, whether or not that's true or scary, it's not his job to even think about that. His job is to make legal rulings with regards to the U.S. Constitution, the laws passed by Congress and how the legal facts of a case deal with the first two. It's not his job to worry about the consequences of the rulings. If they are a problem the solution is not to alter his ruling, its to amend the Constitution or change the laws.

Isn't a judge superimposing personal opinions on his legal rulings what the "conservatives" mean when the cry activist?

is that true? it's not a judg's job to worry about consequences of a rule?

No, it's not a judge's job to worry about the consequences. It is either constitutional or it is not, if he finds that it is not he is in fact REQUIRED to rule that way even if he thinks it is a bad idea. He's not allowed to do anything else.
 

UnknownAngst

Banned
Jun 15, 2008
6
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: UnknownAngst
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
What did Scalia say?

Its not that Scalia's legal decisions are dubious, it's that he doesn't seem to understand his job description.

From the AP Story:

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Frankly, whether or not that's true or scary, it's not his job to even think about that. His job is to make legal rulings with regards to the U.S. Constitution, the laws passed by Congress and how the legal facts of a case deal with the first two. It's not his job to worry about the consequences of the rulings. If they are a problem the solution is not to alter his ruling, its to amend the Constitution or change the laws.

Isn't a judge superimposing personal opinions on his legal rulings what the "conservatives" mean when the cry activist?

is that true? it's not a judg's job to worry about consequences of a rule?

No, it's not a judge's job to worry about the consequences. It is either constitutional or it is not, if he finds that it is not he is in fact REQUIRED to rule that way even if he thinks it is a bad idea. He's not allowed to do anything else.

seems to me that judges consider the consequences of a new rule all the time. incluidng SCOTUS. all the time. if something's clearly against the constitution, they just don't have to engage in this. not everything is black and white with constituional stuff, either-- look at the history of rights which are read in by the court
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: UnknownAngst

seems to me that judges consider the consequences of a new rule all the time. incluidng SCOTUS. all the time. if something's clearly against the constitution, they just don't have to engage in this. not everything is black and white with constituional stuff, either-- look at the history of rights which are read in by the court

Can you give an example? I think you are mistaking a substantive violation for 'consequences of a law'. For example Brown v. Board of Education found that the way the law was being implemented made for a substantive violation of the 14th amendment even though if you just read the law it could have been seen as ok.

If that's what you mean by consequences then yes they do, but the consequences being mentioned by Scalia are pretty much negative effects he believes will be visited upon society due to the ruling, but not consequences in the way I mentioned above.
 

UnknownAngst

Banned
Jun 15, 2008
6
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: UnknownAngst

seems to me that judges consider the consequences of a new rule all the time. incluidng SCOTUS. all the time. if something's clearly against the constitution, they just don't have to engage in this. not everything is black and white with constituional stuff, either-- look at the history of rights which are read in by the court

Can you give an example? I think you are mistaking a substantive violation for 'consequences of a law'. For example Brown v. Board of Education found that the way the law was being implemented made for a substantive violation of the 14th amendment even though if you just read the law it could have been seen as ok.

If that's what you mean by consequences then yes they do, but the consequences being mentioned by Scalia are pretty much negative effects he believes will be visited upon society due to the ruling, but not consequences in the way I mentioned above.

example from a Scalia opinion

The majority opinion goes on to note that the costs of exclusion for knock and announce violations outweigh the benefits of admitting the evidence. Scalia states that the costs are small, but that "suppression of all evidence[] amount in many cases is a get-out-of-jail-free card." The Court states that exclusion of evidence has little or no deterrence effect, especially considering that deterrents (a civil action against the police department and internal discipline for officers) already exist. Scalia ends the portion of his opinion which constitutes the majority opinion with praise for the "increasing professionalism" of the police force over the last half-century, which he says makes some concerns expressed in past cases by the Court obsolete.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: UnknownAngst
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: UnknownAngst

seems to me that judges consider the consequences of a new rule all the time. incluidng SCOTUS. all the time. if something's clearly against the constitution, they just don't have to engage in this. not everything is black and white with constituional stuff, either-- look at the history of rights which are read in by the court

Can you give an example? I think you are mistaking a substantive violation for 'consequences of a law'. For example Brown v. Board of Education found that the way the law was being implemented made for a substantive violation of the 14th amendment even though if you just read the law it could have been seen as ok.

If that's what you mean by consequences then yes they do, but the consequences being mentioned by Scalia are pretty much negative effects he believes will be visited upon society due to the ruling, but not consequences in the way I mentioned above.

example from a Scalia opinion

The majority opinion goes on to note that the costs of exclusion for knock and announce violations outweigh the benefits of admitting the evidence. Scalia states that the costs are small, but that "suppression of all evidence[] amount in many cases is a get-out-of-jail-free card." The Court states that exclusion of evidence has little or no deterrence effect, especially considering that deterrents (a civil action against the police department and internal discipline for officers) already exist. Scalia ends the portion of his opinion which constitutes the majority opinion with praise for the "increasing professionalism" of the police force over the last half-century, which he says makes some concerns expressed in past cases by the Court obsolete.


I think we are talking about two different types of consequences, but I get what you mean. I think applying that sort of idea to a habeas corpus petition would be very difficult indeed however.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Socio
I place as much value on their lives as they would on mine, to place anymore would make me a fool and I may be many things but a fool is not one of them.

That's exactly the point you reinforce again. You have dehumanized them such that you are projecting your own low value on life onto them.

Again, no, I am erring on the side of caution by playing the safest odds and the odds are overwhelmingly high that they would do harm against us than not. That is not dehumanizing them it is simply comprehending the math.

You and others on the other hand are dehumanizing Americans by equating American lives to ?enemy combatant?s ? freedom and are more than willing to trade as many American lives as it takes to ensure as many ?enemy combatant?s ? as possible can go free.

Whereas I think if Americans are going to sacrifice their lives for freedom then it should be our freedom not our enemies. So if valuing the life of an American more than the freedom of our enemy makes me a monster then so be it!

I read this once "Those who cannot comprehend the math are convinced they can defeat it."

Your problem is you cannot comprehend the math.

You claim we are dehumanizing Americans by equating them to the 'enemy combatants'. That means you view the people in Guantanamo as less then human. Not only that, but the rest of that paragraph is simply a lie... and you know it. Stop it.

Aren?t you the spin king!

I said "dehumanizing Americans by equating American lives to ?enemy combatant?s ? freedom" and the rest of the paragraph Is not a lie! The odds of American causalities by any number of these detainees upon their release are so high it is a virtual given. You would have to be completely irrational with hate of the war, hate of the Bush administration, hate of America itself not to see this.