Slashdot Mirror

Not all felons lose their constitutional right to vote.
http://www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o.htm
It appears to vary from state to state.

If this was true then corps would be obliged to boil babies if they could get away with it and that was the best use of their funds.

They basically do.

someone mod parent troll. :)

However, i must still say the parent is obviously highly ignorant and likely republican. The kind of people who does rip your privacy away.

U.S. Govt watches your income just as well, they do collect tax, don't they? ;) Last time i checked, they collected legal and ILLEGAL taxes :D Atleast, we have only LEGAL taxes.

Self-righteous republican bastards like bastard always says Europe is corrupt and socialist. However, your mails don't get read here, hell, you won't even get sued for millions for piracy around here, especially if you are 12yr old kid downloading 2 songs of your favourite artist (however, those higher up in distribution hierarchy of pirated content does get punished, and in some countries, they tend to be catched.)

Plus, you got to admit the perks of having * FREE * education and health-care, albeit some of it isn't the best, but it's still free, and good schools and healthcare for * FREE * does exist in large degree, you just got to pick where you go :) Nevermind the fact that they infact ** PAY YOU ** to goto school here and get educated, and govt ** PAYS ** for innovation, and sometimes for employing people too. Nevermind that no one even cares if you have a passport if you travel within EU in practice (tho, take it with you, rarely they do ask questions), snoops through all your stuff, collects passenger information, past associations, criminal records, professional records etc.

Never mind the fact that we DO NOT wiretap masses at will, we DO NOT track where you are by your cell phone at will if you do not approve. We do not kill prisoners neither at a whim, but actually punish them by having them to live for their actions. Neither do we torture ( http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/torture.htm, http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usai_torture, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/dec/10/usa.comment, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/apr/30/television.internationalnews) people at will, nor arrest without any due reason, or sentence without having proven quilty first. Nor do we stop you leaving the country DeCSS tattooed on your back

Nevermind the tiny fact that here our presidents are chosen by the people, not by the chosen few.

someone mod parent troll. :)

However, i must still say the parent is obviously highly ignorant and likely republican. The kind of people who does rip your privacy away.

U.S. Govt watches your income just as well, they do collect tax, don't they? ;) Last time i checked, they collected legal and ILLEGAL taxes :D Atleast, we have only LEGAL taxes.

Self-righteous republican bastards like bastard always says Europe is corrupt and socialist. However, your mails don't get read here, hell, you won't even get sued for millions for piracy around here, especially if you are 12yr old kid downloading 2 songs of your favourite artist (however, those higher up in distribution hierarchy of pirated content does get punished, and in some countries, they tend to be catched.)

Plus, you got to admit the perks of having * FREE * education and health-care, albeit some of it isn't the best, but it's still free, and good schools and healthcare for * FREE * does exist in large degree, you just got to pick where you go :) Nevermind the fact that they infact ** PAY YOU ** to goto school here and get educated, and govt ** PAYS ** for innovation, and sometimes for employing people too. Nevermind that no one even cares if you have a passport if you travel within EU in practice (tho, take it with you, rarely they do ask questions), snoops through all your stuff, collects passenger information, past associations, criminal records, professional records etc.

Never mind the fact that we DO NOT wiretap masses at will, we DO NOT track where you are by your cell phone at will if you do not approve. We do not kill prisoners neither at a whim, but actually punish them by having them to live for their actions. Neither do we torture ( http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/torture.htm, http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usai_torture, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/dec/10/usa.comment, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/apr/30/television.internationalnews) people at will, nor arrest without any due reason, or sentence without having proven quilty first. Nor do we stop you leaving the country DeCSS tattooed on your back

Nevermind the tiny fact that here our presidents are chosen by the people, not by the chosen few.

Also, you understand that the "Northern Alliance" is not really any better when it comes to gunning down people and abusing women, except that they do it more often for the sake of fun and profit, while Taliban usually did so for religious reasons?

One guy, an Afghani refuge living in NZ, told me once: "The Taliban were loonies, but at least they had law, cruel as it was, and they made it known, and you knew that you'd normally be okay as long as you stick to it. You could live your lives. But now, the country is run by bandits, and there's no law at all - you'd get robbed, tortured, or killed (and women, raped) just because you might have money or something valuable, because you look wrong (i.e. Pashtuni), because they've had a bad day, or because they were bored and wanted to have some fun."

I'm not saying the West shouldn't get involved and try to fix this mess. I'm rather glad we did, originally. But the wrong way to do that was to pick one side from several and help them - because there weren't any "good guys" on either side. Now, it was an easy choice to make, since that meant that NATO didn't have to put troops on the ground when it was really hot - the Afghanis themselves did the dirty job, and took the toll. But easy choices are often wrong. And handing sovereignity over to that mob, now what a joke! And with predictable outcome, too, now that Shari'a courts are doing well again, this time on a fully consitutional basis:

• Chapter I, Article 3: "In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.";
• Chapter II, Article 54: "The state adopts necessary measures to ensure physical and psychological well being of family, especially of child and mother, upbringing of children and the elimination of traditions contrary to the principles of sacred religion of Islam."
• Chapter VII, Article 130: "When there is no provision in the Constitution or other laws regarding ruling on an issue, the courts' decisions shall be within the limits of this Constitution in accord with the Hanafi jurisprudence and in a way to serve justice in the best possible manner."
• Chapter X, Article 1: "The provisions of adherence to the fundamentals of the sacred religion of Islam and the regime of the Islamic Republic cannot be amended."

"So why again does Bush and Cheney want the price of oil to rise?"

See these stories, for example:

Cheney's Halliburton Options Up 3,281% Last Year

Cheney: "I cut all ties to Halliburton years ago." Congressional Research Service: "Cheney made $8,000,000 from Haliburton while in office."

Quote from one of the comments in that story: "The Congressional Research Service has concluded that holding stock options while in elective office DOES constitute a "financial interest" whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities, and deferred compensation is also a financial interest." [My emphasis]

Also, in general Cheney and Bush have shown that they don't believe any rules apply to them. So, there may be hidden bank accounts in Dubai, for example, which is where the head office of Halliburton is located now.

Crimes Against Public Authorities and Institutions

Justice Minister Roberto Díaz Sotolongo acknowledged to Human Rights Watch Cuba's interest in protecting its "king" from insults. Cuba's criminalization of insults of public officials, public monuments, mass organizations, and thecountry's dead heroes represents an extraordinary government effort to deny freedom of speech.

Contempt for the Authority of a Public Official

Cuba's provision regarding contempt for authority (desacato) penalizes anyone who "threatens, libels or slanders, defames, affronts (injuria) or in any other way insults (ultraje) or offends, with the spoken word or in writing, the dignity or decorum of an authority, public functionary, or his agents or auxiliaries." Such actions are punishable by three months to one year in prison, plus a fine. If the person demonstrates contempt for "the President of the Council of the State, the President of the National Assembly of Popular Power, the members of the Council of the State or the Council of Ministers, or the Deputies of the National Assembly of the Popular Power, the sanction is deprivation of liberty for one to three years."82 While the crime of contempt for authority (desacato) existed in Cuba prior to the 1959 revolution, the Castro government expanded the definition to cover a broader possible range of speech and to apply explicitly to the government's highest authorities. More troubling still, the Castro government also eliminated a pre-revolutionary provision that allowed those charged with contempt to invoke the truthfulness of their statements as a defense.83

Cuba has prosecuted scores of Cubans for contempt, including several prisoners who were tried on the basis of having criticized prison conditions and abuses.84 In January 1997, Cuban police arrested one of Cuba's prominent dissident leaders, Héctor Palacios Ruíz, the president of the Democratic Solidarity Party (Partido Solidaridad Democratica, PSD). In September 1997, a Havana court convicted him of contempt for the authority of Fidel Castro and sentenced him to eighteen months, which he served. Ironically, he had challenged the likelihood of President Castro complying with the Viña del Mar Declaration, a document endorsing human rights and democracy that Cuba's leader had signed at the Sixth Ibero-American Summit in Chile in November 1996.85

Defamation of Institutions, Mass Organizations, Heroes, and Martyrs The Criminal Code mandates a three-month to one-year sentence for anyone who "pub

No evidence of limb chopping to a casual search.
Lots of executions but mainly during the first 15 years of his rule. Since then it seems to mostly be arbitrary prison terms and allowing the prisoners to be abused (physically and sexually). However, this also happens in American Prisons and America incarcerates its own citizens at a higher rate- we just make everything illegal so we do not have to use bogus crimes like "insulting the president" to put someone away for seven years. OTH, you better not say anything mildly threatening or your fate will be similar. Of course, America has become a lot more of a fascist dictatorship than it was in 1960. And, of course, any good discussion needs to point out that Cuba was a dictatorship and 3/4 of it's property was not owned by its own citizens (conditions ripe for revolution by *someone* and a lot of revolutions were occuring- castro was just the successful one).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro#Human_rights_record

Human rights record

        Main article: Human rights in Cuba

Thousands of political opponents to the Castro regime have been killed, primarily during the first decade of his leadership.[135][136] Some Cubans labeled "counterrevolutionaries", "fascists", or "CIA operatives" were also imprisoned in poor conditions without trial.[137][138] Military Units to Aid Production, or UMAPs, were labor camps established in 1965 to confine "social deviants" including homosexuals, Jehovah Witnesses to work "counter-revolutionary" influences out of certain segments of the population.[139] The camps were closed in 1967 in response to international outcries.[140] Professor Marifeli Pérez Stable, a Cuban immigrant and former Castro supporter has said that "There were thousands of executions, forty, fifty thousand political prisoners. The treatment of political prisoners, with what we today know about human rights and the international norms governing human rights ... it is legitimate to raise questions about possible crimes against humanity in Cuba."[141]

Castro acknowledges that Cuba holds political prisoners, but argues that Cuba is justified because these prisoners are not jailed because of their political beliefs, but have been convicted of "counter-revolutionary" crimes, including bombings. Castro portrays opposition to the Cuban government as illegitimate, and the result of an ongoing conspiracy fostered by Cuban exiles with ties to the United States or the CIA. .[142]

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k2/americas5.html

Cuba remains a Latin American anomaly: an undemocratic government that represses nearly all forms of political dissent. President Fidel Castro, now in his forty-seventh year in power, shows no willingness to consider even minor reforms. Instead, his government continues to enforce political conformity using criminal prosecutions, long- and short-term detentions, mob harassment, police warnings, surveillance, house arrests, travel restrictions, and politically-motivated dismissals from employment. The end result is that Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law.

What the ??!!

That convention isn't worth the paper it's printed on if it has Turkey as a signatory.

Although their approach to civil rights is a bit backwards from the Western perspective

All the executed homosexuals and women beaten for not maintaining the appropriate veil angle on the street say "hi."

Oh, so do the journalists killed in detention by the regime.

So do the children being kids being executed by the regime.

So does Amnesty International , while we're at it...

Oh, and so do the local Christians, Zoroastrians, Bahai, and Jews, who are routinely persecuted by the regime (you can do the search yourself, I'm getting nauseated looking at these links).

Look, I understand people don't like GWB, but to insinuate that the US is somehow responsible for human rights violations in Iran, or has a somehow comprable record on human rights is insane.

Although their approach to civil rights is a bit backwards from the Western perspective

All the executed homosexuals and women beaten for not maintaining the appropriate veil angle on the street say "hi."

Oh, so do the journalists killed in detention by the regime.

So do the children being kids being executed by the regime.

So does Amnesty International , while we're at it...

Oh, and so do the local Christians, Zoroastrians, Bahai, and Jews, who are routinely persecuted by the regime (you can do the search yourself, I'm getting nauseated looking at these links).

Look, I understand people don't like GWB, but to insinuate that the US is somehow responsible for human rights violations in Iran, or has a somehow comprable record on human rights is insane.

I agree with hherb on this issue. We are way to harsh on sex offenders. It seems that we can keep on passing new laws that find new ways to punish sex offenders. Are the current laws not strict enough? Other than murder, sexual assault convictions carried the longest median prison sentence in New Jersey. I think if someone suggested we add an extra 2 years onto minimum sentences for all sex offenders it would pass in any state. We have since 1980 consistently upped the penalties for sex crimes since the 1980s. There is no evidence that it has helped. Now states are considering the death penalty for worst case sex crimes. There is a guy in Louisiana who is on death row for a sex crime without murdering anyone.

But no matter how harsh the punishment, we can always make it a little worse. We could insist that sex criminals serve a minimum of 25 years. Then we could restrict their privileges in prison even if they were well behaved. We could ban them from having a television. We could ban them from lifting weights. We could stop them from wearing civilian clothes. We could lock them up for 23 hours a day like those on death row. But no matter how much we punish them the public desire for revenge is never satiated. We always want more. When do we finally say that some punishment is enough?

About 400 municipalities in New Jersey have enacted local zoning ordinances restricting where sex offenders can live within their boundaries. This vengeful justice is getting so out of hand that an ex sex offender cannot function in society. They can't get a job because firstly they have a criminal record and secondly they are a sex offender and have to register as such. They can't live in many places. We are forcing them into a life of crime to survive. Many towns like to ban sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any place where there might be children. This list gets very long. It starts with schools and parks. Then it moves on into movie theaters and churches. Now the vogue is to also ban them from 2500 feet of libraries and bus stops as well. There are increasingly states and counties where there is no place a sex offender can live legally.

As to the specifics of the internet ban for sex offenders. Firstly if they have already served their sentence haven't they already paid back their 'debt to society'. Or is this to keep society safe and not as a punishment. Well what if their original crime had nothing to do with the internet. What if they raped an adult and have no desire to do anything to kids? Is there any evidence that this would make kids safer? There is no evidence that residency restriction laws do in fact diminish crimes against children. And remember banning people from a using the internet is removing a distant threat from a kid. They can't physically do anything. And all this assumes that they will choose to use the internet to contact kids to begin with. What if they do not? What about other categories? If someone had underage sex, the law is the problem there as opposed to the law breaker.

So what type of person is this law about? Is it about a sex crazed pedophile who cannot help stop themselves. Well in my mind they don't have what we would call free will. the urge is so great. States are starting to use civil commitment with such offenders so they never get out. So what sort of sex offenders are we talking about?

I think banning people from using the internet is also itself ludicrous. In the 1990s the net was nice to have but

I agree with hherb on this issue. We are way to harsh on sex offenders. It seems that we can keep on passing new laws that find new ways to punish sex offenders. Are the current laws not strict enough? Other than murder, sexual assault convictions carried the longest median prison sentence in New Jersey. I think if someone suggested we add an extra 2 years onto minimum sentences for all sex offenders it would pass in any state. We have since 1980 consistently upped the penalties for sex crimes since the 1980s. There is no evidence that it has helped. Now states are considering the death penalty for worst case sex crimes. There is a guy in Louisiana who is on death row for a sex crime without murdering anyone.

But no matter how harsh the punishment, we can always make it a little worse. We could insist that sex criminals serve a minimum of 25 years. Then we could restrict their privileges in prison even if they were well behaved. We could ban them from having a television. We could ban them from lifting weights. We could stop them from wearing civilian clothes. We could lock them up for 23 hours a day like those on death row. But no matter how much we punish them the public desire for revenge is never satiated. We always want more. When do we finally say that some punishment is enough?

About 400 municipalities in New Jersey have enacted local zoning ordinances restricting where sex offenders can live within their boundaries. This vengeful justice is getting so out of hand that an ex sex offender cannot function in society. They can't get a job because firstly they have a criminal record and secondly they are a sex offender and have to register as such. They can't live in many places. We are forcing them into a life of crime to survive. Many towns like to ban sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any place where there might be children. This list gets very long. It starts with schools and parks. Then it moves on into movie theaters and churches. Now the vogue is to also ban them from 2500 feet of libraries and bus stops as well. There are increasingly states and counties where there is no place a sex offender can live legally.

As to the specifics of the internet ban for sex offenders. Firstly if they have already served their sentence haven't they already paid back their 'debt to society'. Or is this to keep society safe and not as a punishment. Well what if their original crime had nothing to do with the internet. What if they raped an adult and have no desire to do anything to kids? Is there any evidence that this would make kids safer? There is no evidence that residency restriction laws do in fact diminish crimes against children. And remember banning people from a using the internet is removing a distant threat from a kid. They can't physically do anything. And all this assumes that they will choose to use the internet to contact kids to begin with. What if they do not? What about other categories? If someone had underage sex, the law is the problem there as opposed to the law breaker.

So what type of person is this law about? Is it about a sex crazed pedophile who cannot help stop themselves. Well in my mind they don't have what we would call free will. the urge is so great. States are starting to use civil commitment with such offenders so they never get out. So what sort of sex offenders are we talking about?

I think banning people from using the internet is also itself ludicrous. In the 1990s the net was nice to have but

This sounds a touch facetious, but you do know that prisons are essentially training grounds to make better criminals, right? And that the U.S. has a greater percentage of the population training to be criminals than anywhere else in the world?

Incarcerated America.

So shutting most of the prisons is a good option (there are, of course, a few violent inmates who are not releasable), as long as you provide ways to help 'reprogram' (via self-hypnosis training or Energy Psychology) the newly freed inmates so that they can lead productive lives.

"Why shouldn't you be allowed to vote? Because youve proven to society that you make bad descisions."

I believe all Americans should be allowed to vote at all times. No taxation without representation. The major reason I'm against not allowing felons to vote is because the government could simply make more crimes felonies, and thus remove more people from the voting process. Don't like it? Too bad you can't vote. In addition, by taking people out of the process you create a second society that does not feel like it is a part of the process and I believe this is destructive.

What about the black guy who got the book thrown at him and has a felony on his record vs the white guy who was caught with the same amount of cocaine and received a much lighter sentence? Check out this statistic, "1.4 million African American men, or 13 percent of the black adult male population, are disenfranchised, reflecting a rate of disenfranchisement that is seven times the national average. More than one-third (36 percent) of the total disenfranchised population are black men." Human Rights Watch. Do you think this 13% is going to try and make their neighborhood a better neighborhood. Do you think they care about their community? Why would they? They don't have a political voice. They don't have a voice in their home town. They are disenfranchised. We don't need that kind of America. We need an America that comes together and recognizes that when you are out of prison you have paid your debt to society.

In addition, I know *plenty* of people who vote who make poor decisions, or that make their decision on their candidate based on poor criteria. What about those who voted for JFK because he was handsome? Or Bill Clinton because he wore boxers and could play the sax? What about the people that do zero research and vote straight Republican or straight Democrat every election because they are programmed to do so? Because their husband / wife told them to? Because they "don't have the time to do a few hours of research", but do have the time to know everything about Britney Spears. Do have the time to keep up with untold amounts of hours watching sports on all days of the week in HD. How does this contribute to a better democracy?

Democracies are founded on giving their people the right to vote. It is our responsibility as citizens to take that right very seriously and to use that right to make our country the best that it can be. That right should never ever be taken away.

JOhn

With repeat offenses so high among sex offenders

Except, they're not. Sex offenders are actually less likely to re-offend than other criminals.

The only way we can protect ourselves and our families is if we have the information at our disposal to do so.

Then why single out sex offenders? Isn't it important to be able to know if our neighbors have committed assault or robbery to "protect ourselves and our families"? It's much more important to me to know if a neighbor ever took a tire-iron to someone's head, then that they once copped a feel on a crowded subway car. (Or had sex as a teen, which can land you on the registry in some states).

There might be legitimate arguments in favor of a registry of parolees and probationers who have committed serious crimes. But the "sex offender" registry isn't such a list. It's simply another symptom of American fear and ignorance about sex. Shame on us.

On US Interrogation (sadly I cannot find the SF field manual): http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18779prs20041207.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/10/torture_as_an_interrogation_te.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1212197,00.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/washington/16cnd-formica.html http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080305I.shtml http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1227&id=893492006 On the US School of Americas: http://www.soaw.org/ On Secret US Prisons: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1237589,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4461470.stm http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/19/afghan12319.htm http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/19/afghan12319.htm http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22567 Now why is this important? Since the US keeps these prisons in secret locations which are never disclosed, the international red cross is never permitted to inspect them. Therefore, any sort of interrogation and torture technique used is carte blanche.

On US Interrogation (sadly I cannot find the SF field manual): http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18779prs20041207.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/10/torture_as_an_interrogation_te.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1212197,00.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/washington/16cnd-formica.html http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080305I.shtml http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1227&id=893492006 On the US School of Americas: http://www.soaw.org/ On Secret US Prisons: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1237589,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4461470.stm http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/19/afghan12319.htm http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/19/afghan12319.htm http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22567 Now why is this important? Since the US keeps these prisons in secret locations which are never disclosed, the international red cross is never permitted to inspect them. Therefore, any sort of interrogation and torture technique used is carte blanche.

Torture is still used because it works, and it works because it's still used? That's some nice circular logic there, Lou.

The only reason it's still used because some people are sociopaths who enjoy hurting others (or they are in search of "revenge"). This is why it's generally associated with Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and North Korea. It's a verifiable fact
that
torture
does
not
work
for
the
reasons
I
explained
previously.

There Are Four Lights!

"Illegal combatants have no rights. And yes, that is spelled out in the Geneva Convention. Look it up."

Not so fast. Article 5 of the third Geneva Convention is quite clear: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Furthermore, where they have no rights under the Geneva Conventions, they do have rights under municipal and international law. The relevant quote:

"Once a combatant is found by a competent tribunal to be an unlawful combatant, he or she no longer has the rights and privileges accorded to a prisoner of war (POW), but he retains all the rights any other civilian would have under municipal and international law in the same situation." from here

Here in the Netherlands being "deported" in practice means being in detention centers indefinitely for many people since the countries of origin either refuse to accept them or give no diplomatic assurances they won't torture or kill them. The government is not being squeamish or anything: it for instance deported to Syria knowing that people may disappear there, because Syria did give assurances. Deporting them to Germany or Belgium because they passed through them doesn't really help since they can just take the train back. It's a fake solution unless the country of origin cooperates very well and the borders are really closed. Being on an island really helps.

you can't by definition break US law.

Sure you can and you can be sued in a US court as well for acts in other nations. There's a little known law in the US that allows people in other countries to sue those in the US for different things, the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789. For instance in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co Shell Oil is being sued in a US court for supporting the Nigerian government while the government executed Ken Saro Wiwa and killed some people in Nigeria. However the Bush admin is trying to gut the law so his buddies like Shell and Exxon Mobil Corporation can get away with supporting murderers and human right violators.

How bad can a country be that still uses stoning as a principle form of punishment? http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=iran

Human Rights Watch

Yeah, that would be total biopolitics they would sell your body to Body Worlds and sell you the permission to reincarnate.

I always thought we need a IOsM (international Organisation for spiritual Migration) all these souls crossing borders to reincarnate. We have to regulate that it's a wide open door for terrorists.

does that same episode refute the arguments made by human rights watch?

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/05/19/usdom13418. htm

Reality is not what Bush preaches from his pulpit.

I assume that now you or someone else will post a large list of countries that have worse records?

Fine. But none of those are taking a holier-than-thou approach for excuses of invading other countries, are they?

Eh, I don't like the idea of "basic laws" like for murder never changing. Most states have mandatory immediate life-without-parole-in-adult-prison sentences for homicide even if you're as young as 13.. which seriously needs to change, and is not common sense "basic law" at all. Read the terrifying testimony here

Not sure about the 'no more torture' bit.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/21/usint9925.h tm
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17606prs20050 307.html

The latest round of investigative files released to the American Civil Liberties Union document an ongoing pattern of widespread abuses of detainees by military forces in Iraq, and describe shootings of unarmed civilians at checkpoints, the ACLU said today.

Actuallly this is quite insightful except for one thing:

She doesn't actually cop to the fact that the "alpha of state", for which she works, is a wimp who is so chickenshit that "he" has to resort to black and Hispanic prison gangs to meet out "his" worst punishments on spouse-abusing white guys, and that "he" can't actually mate with the women who look to "him" for protection.

From Human Rights Watch's "No Escape: Male Rape in Prison":

Past studies have documented the prevalence of black on white sexual aggression in prison.(213) These findings are further confirmed by Human Rights Watch's own research. Overall, our correspondence and interviews with white, black, and Hispanic inmates convince us that white inmates are disproportionately targeted for abuse. Although many whites reported being raped by white inmates, black on white abuse appears to be more common. To a much lesser extent, non-Hispanic whites also reported being victimized by Hispanic inmates.

Other than sexual abuse of white inmates by African Americans, and, less frequently, Hispanics, interracial and interethnic sexual abuse appears to be much less common than sexual abuse committed by persons of one race or ethnicity against members of that same group. In other words, African Americans typically face sexual abuse at the hands of other African Americans, and Hispanics at the hands of other Hispanics. Some inmates told Human Rights Watch that this pattern reflected an inmate rule, one that was strictly enforced: "only a black can turn out [rape] a black, and only a chicano can turn out a chicano."(215) Breaking this rule by sexually abusing someone of another race or ethnicity, with the exception of a white inmate, could lead to racial or ethnic unrest, as other members of the victim's group would retaliate against the perpetrator's group. A Texas inmate explained, for example: "The Mexicans--indeed all latinos, nobody outside their race can 'check' one without permission from the town that, that person is from. If a black dude were to check a mexican w/out such permission & the mexican stays down & fights back, a riot will take place."(216)

The causes of black on white sexual abuse in prison have been much analyzed. Some commentators have attributed it to the norms of a violent black subculture, the result of social conditioning that encourages aggressiveness and the use of force.(217) Others have viewed it as a form of revenge for white dominance of blacks in outside society.(218) Viewing rape as a hate crime rather than one primarily motivated by sexual urges, they believe that sexually abused white inmates are essentially convenient surrogates for whites generally. Elaborating on this theory, one commentator surmised that "[i]n raping a white inmate, the black aggressor may in some measure be assaulting the white guard on the catwalk."(219)

Some inmates, both black and white, told Human Rights Watch that whites were generally perceived as weaker and thus more vulnerable to sexual abuse. An African American prisoner, describing the situation of incarcerated whites, said:

• When individuals come to prison, they know that the first thing that they will have to do is fight. Now there are individuals that are from a certain race that the majority of them are not physically equip to fight. So they are the majority that are force to engage in sexual acts.(220)

Another African American inmate, while generally agreeing with the idea of whites as easy victims, gave a more politically-oriented explanation for the problem of black on white sexual abuse:

• Before I continue, let me explain that I consider myself to be speaking from mainly a black perspective. The reason I say that is not to be racist, but to emphasize that on the ma

...c-e-n-s-o-r-i-n-g...
First comes blocking words like democracy from searches, then comes deleting dissident blogs,
Then comes any Chinese/Tibetan activist unfortunate enough to use Vista getting carted off to the gulags.

Hardly an adversarial relationship. Google, Yahoo and MS all roll over to the demands of the regime. It's the new 21st century open door policy, only the doors are kicked in by the PLA after receiving updates from American corporations.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/5.htm#_T oc142395826

...I fail to see how it's the employer's fault for not treating them like regular employees.

Oh, sure, blame the victim. If you marry a girl who's used to being beaten by her father, is it NOT your fault if you beat her, too?

If someone does something WRONG, he could have two excuses: a) He couldn't help it (i.e. addiction, psychological problems), or b) he didn't know he was doing something WRONG.

If he KNOWS, and does WILLINGLY, then *IT IS* his fault. The problem is that the US treats immigrants, legal or not, like criminals (only in America you're required to carry an id with you if you look like a mexican - but if you're blonde and have snowwhite skin you certainly aren't asked for one), while the people that "hire" them are allowed to go on with their business.

The "threatened" with "la migra" sounds like bullshit to me.
Fine! Go make a census to all the illegal immigrants near the US border, and ask them whether they're scared of Immigration or not. Then we'll talk, because it seems to me that your only sources of information are FOX news and CNN.

Well, welcome to the real world, which is a lot bigger than your hobbit hole.

...I fail to see how it's the employer's fault for not treating them like regular employees.

Oh, sure, blame the victim. If you marry a girl who's used to being beaten by her father, is it NOT your fault if you beat her, too?

If someone does something WRONG, he could have two excuses: a) He couldn't help it (i.e. addiction, psychological problems), or b) he didn't know he was doing something WRONG.

If he KNOWS, and does WILLINGLY, then *IT IS* his fault. The problem is that the US treats immigrants, legal or not, like criminals (only in America you're required to carry an id with you if you look like a mexican - but if you're blonde and have snowwhite skin you certainly aren't asked for one), while the people that "hire" them are allowed to go on with their business.

The "threatened" with "la migra" sounds like bullshit to me.
Fine! Go make a census to all the illegal immigrants near the US border, and ask them whether they're scared of Immigration or not. Then we'll talk, because it seems to me that your only sources of information are FOX news and CNN.

Well, welcome to the real world, which is a lot bigger than your hobbit hole.

Yes, Chavez likely will build jails. Check this page out for links to stories that have made it out of Venezuela: http://hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu Or this one: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR5301319 97?open&of=ENG-VEN Or how about here for some more on the gloriously free democracy that Chavez has crafted: http://www.humanrightsfoundation.org/ Oh, wait for it...more: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2004/6/17/1 5422/6410 Anyone who cannot see that Chavez is setting up a dictatorship, and that he will not tolerate dissent is either stupid, or willfully blind.

Here is some proof of the rampant racism against Arabs from reputable sources:

Human Rights Watch: Discrimination Against Palestinian Arab Children in Israel's Schools
Haaretz: JNF cannot discriminate against Arabs in allocating land rights
Al-Ahram: 'Democratic' racism 1
Al-Ahram: 'Democratic' racism 2

Of course you can argue whether this qualifies as apartheid, but it is hard to deny the inequality between Jews and Arabs in Israel.

It has no more to do with apartheid than the boundary fences on the borders of most countries

This argument would only be valid if:
1. Israel recognized the right of Palestinians to have a state and would allow 'nation-building'.
2. The wall would have been build on the Green line, instead of cutting through Palestinian land.

Besides, the barrier/wall/fence is only part of the great open air prison that the Palestinian territories have become. Palestinians cannot even travel freely within their own 'country'.

only it is more justified since Israel is under constant terrorist attack

Please look up the number of Israeli citizens killed versus the number of Palestinians citizens killed. Then tell me who is being terrorized.

If Israel were interested in apartheid, it would not have allowed hundreds of thousands of Arabs to become citizens and to live all over the country

And yet there are millions of refugees who have not been allowed back by Israel and whose property has been confiscated. In contrast, Jews with no claim other than their bloodline are allowed to immigrate into Israel.

I'm pretty sure it's unfair to both, and worse for blacks. That is: black and poor is worse than black is worse than white and poor is worse than white in terms of how likely you are to be pursued, caught, tried, and convicted for a given crime.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/index.htm#TopO fPage
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/bias-m16 .shtml
http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/race/crimina ljust/
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/toc_5.html

This is probably not an issue they thought of when they opened offices in China.

they'll still keep murdering anyone who makes a stand for human rights

I wouldn't source People's Daily Online, which is known for having just a little bias, especially when China hasn't been doing very well in the area of abductions or human rights itself.

The 'illegal justice system' in the US is among the best legal systems in the world, its the people running the show AND the front liners that are not educated properly in the laws of the land

You contradict yourself; if the people running the show are not educated properly in the laws, that's a pretty lousy system.

The fact that we have the world's highest prison population, both per-captia and in terms of absolute numbers; that in some cities thousands of arrests without merit are made per year; and that the system is known to have a strong racial bias, all show that the system needs sustantial improvement.

4. America incarcerates 2m people, of which the vast majority are male, and the largest single slice of the pie, by far, is black males, heavily bulked out by a war on drugs the administration is quite content to continue losing.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/

I agree with you. The men do spend more time.

Then be enlightened:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/02/darfur10228 _txt.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/19/darfur9096. htm

By the way, most Africans who were sold as slaves to Europeans in the Americas were captured by other Africans from neighboring tribes. Their treatment by Europeans was wrong, but according to your faulty logic, their African captors did nothing wrong.

Then be enlightened:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/02/darfur10228 _txt.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/19/darfur9096. htm

By the way, most Africans who were sold as slaves to Europeans in the Americas were captured by other Africans from neighboring tribes. Their treatment by Europeans was wrong, but according to your faulty logic, their African captors did nothing wrong.

I'm simply amazed and appalled, with exception to the parent post, all the posts so far about China have to do with respect to censorship. Talk about a bunch of babble from lemmings.

Doing a quick google search uncovers Sudan is in China's pocket: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/26.htm

China has much bigger issues than being a "nanny state".

If he gets shipped over to the States, he will have his human rights violated.

Somehow, I believe something *more* than his human rights will be violated.

What I dont understand is why the UK does not understand that he commited whatever crimes he commited in the UK. As you said, there is surely some kind of political agenda before this... poor sucker. Of course I do not condone what he did, he indeed commited a crime but he should be judged and charged *where* he commited it, in the UK and not in whatever country wants who wants to charge it.