Yeah, I still have an issue with the ability of drug enforcement to seize property without a conviction. It can easily make a source of revenue become a source of plunder.
We had a big building blow up and that compares to a civil war?
We are a bunch of wimps.
I don't mind the tapping of cell phones if there is a warrant to tap a land line. The problem with the USAPatriot Act is the secrecy and the lack of accountability of those who use it.
It seems there has been such a strong push towards secrecy and no accountability. Plus, the administration is full of crooks. So I don't trust anything they do.
Yes, after a lot of fervent slash-dotting, Al Capone turned himself in. Once he realised he was doing bad things and not just being biased and inefficient, that is.
No. Just being able to talk about something does not solve the problem.
Most of the major judge positions are being given to Bush loyalists currently. The "GAO" (not sure on the initials) just ordered that the government stop creating false news reports with state money to push messages to the public. The memo to stop the propaganda was sent out. Today, another memo from the department of ethics said to ignore this order.
So what is the point of us talking about wrong-doing on a web site? Would anything actually be done? Would the press cover this issue before jumping on the crazy hat Michael Jackson was wearing that clashed with his orange jump suit? This is all well and good to vent, but I'm not going to fool myself that any of us realizing that our government is corrupt would change an actual corrupt government. There isn't any legal system left that would challenge Him.
You know, how could someone as dumb as 'Dubya' and as ethically challenged beat an intelligent war hero?
Gee. Maybe the illection was rigged.
That answered all your questions, right? Of course, maybe, everyone likes a bad economy, diminishing allies, and making an ass of themselves. Perhaps we could let even more nuke proliferate or get involved in a never-ending occupation? That must be what makes people feel secure.
Boy, that was far-fetched. Seeing as how he didn't win the first time, and somehow the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and stopped the re-count. And somehow 85,000 votes were thrown out because they could have possibly been felons. Lot's of felons must be voting Democratic? What was I thinking?
I guess you're right. People like George, because we all got teleported to bizarroworld.
Look, I told every Liberal I knew that GWB was going to win re-election. Every place he picked up votes had instituted electronic voting. Some Republicans are still financial conservatives so they would have noticed that the "offend and spend" policies were not a good idea.
Don't blame the election results on Americans. Our press is corporate, we have the government giving us phony news reports daily, and the results are rigged. Exit polls showed that Kerry won. Then the press quit covering the exit polls. All the abuses went unreported and anyone bringing it up was labeled a "conspiracy theorist." I've had Liberals say as much to me.
So it is a lot worse here than you might think. The big push is to get people to believe what they are told, even when it conflicts. You might have heard; "you can't trust government" when it concerns doing anything at all for the poor, or support systems, or anything for the infrastructure. But you will hear; "support America, Patriots" or admonitions to trust or not support the enemy when the government is spending oodles of money to blow someone up. A total disconnect. Trust the government to arrest anyone, at any time. Don't trust the government when asked to help you. Government waist is emergency care for a sick infant. Good use of taxpayer funds is paying 10 times what we used to to have Haliburton do KP duty. I am shocked and amazed at how there can be such a disconnect between the logic on one issue to the next.
I don't know if it is something in the water or that I never really understood people at all. Maybe human and rational is much more rare a thing. Maybe we assume it is there but most of us don't attain it. Like marital bliss.
I don't know what happened to America. But I know how bad it is. This country is capable of anything right now.
By the way, I knew it was the USAPATRIOT Act. But the same people who hate know-it-all intellectual elite Liberals are also saying how we need to improve our schools, but Professors are Liberals so we need to send everyone to Religious schools. Somehow there is more science there. Or charter/private schools are better because, well because they get to choose kids with better test scores, and nobody asks; "why wouldn't having kids with better scores mean that a school would score better." So we move more funds from underfunded Public schools that are scoring poorly based on the ideas of a President who is an idiot but "real". A Real Idiot, I guess. But we then don't fund education so that every kid is sent through every neighborhood in America to beg for money to have uniforms for their sports teams. But we don't have P.E. (or music) anymore (except in the more expensive private schools) because its over budget and not educational (I guess), but then we buy Ritalin to drug our kids (which is a Liberal move somehow and has nothing to do with sugar-crazed kids and pharmaceutical companies). We also want to take one of the few successful programs in America, namely, Social Security, and copy countries who have made their systems fail; like Chile, England and Sweden. Yes, America is full of Dichotomy's.
I could go on. I don't remember who said it but; "The sane man in the insane society must appear insane." That's the America I live in. But if you are in England, just remember that you're next. This is a multinational corporate enterprise with televangelist ground troops that recognizes no borders. The concept of Patriotism is usually used to defraud the country you are waving the flag for.
You can mod this as flamebate but it doesn't mean I am not telling you something that is 100% true.
In other news, the Department of Justice is having trouble finding $9 Billion lost in Iraq, Bin Laden, the cause of 9/11, the person who leaked, or anything of any value other than supporting the criminals occupying the White House.
Gee, and they tried Real Hard. If they catch themselves, do they slap themselves on the wrist and promise not to do it again?
Why are we putting up with the organisations investigating themselves when it would result in their own loss of power? Concepts like "conflict of interest" have been lost.
I think the dictionary shrank last year. I can't find "Greed" anywhere.
Gee, look at all the reporters furthering their careers criticizing the administration.
It is not the job of the press to cheer on any administration. Anyway, none of the questions have been answered. Nobody besides whistle-blowers and privates have to answer for anything. So what do you care if people raise objections. It's not like we can do anything about it.
So this isn't the topic of the Patriout Act. It was a dumb topic anyway since nobody is allowed to say that they are the subject of the patriot act. So how much "abuse of the Patriot Act" could we actually hear about with a cowardly and corporate press and a blanke of secrecy? Well about as much as we've heard. Nothing.
All the dead people please stand up! Nobody? Hmm. Dying must be a myth as well.
The people supporting U.S. sanctioned torture are trying to find any excuse to allow it. If they don't see the ethical dilemma, then what is the point of the "legality".
Just being sarcastic, thanks for bringing up the real facts. Good points. I just know that none of these nuckle-draggers is going to say; "gee, you make a sound argument, I've changed my mind, maybe these people should get a trial or be released." Admonitions of wrongness are for people with an intellectual and moral compass.
I have changed my position on a lot of things when I've heard a better arguement. I've been a Republican, a Libertarian, a Perot supporter, and now, with no better path, a Progressive Democrat. However, I doubt seriously I would change my mind about torture. About America standing for freedom and honor and setting an example.
Ethics, by the way, are usually more cost effective in the long run.
Yes, Guantanomo is U.S. soil. If Castro invaded, he would have a contingent of U.S. marines hot on his ass. Consulates are also U.S. soil in legal terms. The arguement you made was one just thrown out of the courts. So I'm sure a lot of these people will be transported to foreign Gulags.
We're not at war. Only Congress can declare war, and they have not. How far up your own Ass do you have to be? Fox News headlines; "War on Terror" flash all fricken' day for you. This comment is so arbitrary--how often have you argued "we're at war, normal rules don't apply". Where do they train people to flip flop on logic like this?
The prisoners held in Guantanamo are mostly "enemy combantants", and no "prisoners of war." I've pointed this out before. What does it matter what we call people? If they had actually pointed a gun at us and had a uniform, does that mean we would have released them by now? You're just making arguements to support whatever the gov shills come up with. The "Enemy Combatants" arguement does not exempt anyone from the Geneva Convention. There is no exemption from humane treatment for any "class" of person. Quit repeating unethical, nonsense.
Also, we by-passed the normal Congressional approval, congress stupidly gave Bush the green light for "whatever", so he did just that. Bush went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Have you been asleep or just really awake in another dimension these past 4 years. What are those loud sticks that go boom doing in our soldiers hands? What have we been spending $90+ Billion a year on. Social programs for the poor? Hardly.
Note that in Vietnam, we did not officially declare war until well into it. What the f-ing difference does that technicality make? But yes, we are technically, legally, actually at war right now. Not that it matters.
You're saying; "You have to break a few eggs to make a cake." So we have to torture a few innocents, because, well in the REAL WORLD these things happen.
The truth is: most prisoners at Gitmo would delight in seeing your head separated from your body, or "freedom, liberty, and rights" ripped from you.Yes, even the bleeding heart liberals. They tend to be sexually amoral and humanistic, and this is not allowed. Understand?,
Compassion is not for the deserving. And you have no idea what is in the hearts and minds of people at Guantonimo and neither do I.
We can't trust government with Social Security but we can with unlisted anonymous detainees?
There is a lot of that "why aren't you so open-minded" talk going around these days in the NeoCon circles. It's like we are close-minded about tolerance and we need to open up to the joys of intolerance. But really, it is; "we don't like to hear criticism of the U.S. because other people are worse." First, I'd like to go on the record and say that Americans who critcise the actions of the U.S. are usually wanting to make the U.S. a better place. And second, there is a lot of crap going on that NeoCons don't know, or don't want to know about.
I'm just guessing that it is the statement "The fact that you don't care about those human beings" by the previous post is what you are up in arms about. Again, I have to say that we don't protect just the people we like.
I will weep for the prisoners at Gitmo and I will weep for cold hearted people like "Kenrod". I hope that you will understand what it is like to be on the short end of the stick like these "detainees" but also hope that you will always receive compassion. Whether or not you deserve it.
Totally agree with "rossifer". I am so much more afraid of the NeoCons than I am of any Bin Laden. They prove that people can be convinced to perpetrate any sort of inhumanity. I am not being an absolutest and saying; "I will never do wrong." Good people can do bad things. The problem at Guantonomo and Abu Grhraib is that there is no recognition of wrong. There is rationalization; "I can do this because he did that," or "he was worse than me." Arguements of a six year old being accepted from government shills. The same people who talk about having more Christianity seem to know nothing about the value of setting an example, or doing unto others as you would have done unto you. Moral values my ass. The only things that make such violent people Christians is the Fish on the bumper and the ornaments on their tree.
I feel so strongly about this and so urgent that I have trouble keeping civil discource. I am frustrated by how things have degenerated in conversation, but then I wonder how I can get through to some of you people at all. You can't argue with astrologers, flat earth people, creationists and definitely NeoCons. You argue faith to logic, morals to ethics, and patriotism to people of faith. Anything to avoid the real subject. The real subject is; do whatever it takes to keep my life the way it is, as long as you don't do it to me. The other is; everyone not like me is wrong. Go back and look at all the explainations of NeoCons as to why something isn't working, or someobody's life isn't going well, or why they are poor or disenfranchised. It is always; "because they aren't like me." Anyone who says there is not one path is the enemy.
I can't believe that this "they are terrorists because we say so" actually worked. That some people we so quick to give away our rights even before they knew anything.
Had I known that you can actually fool a significant portion of the people a significant amount of the time, I might actually put "emperor/dictator" as a career choice.
I don't think it is flamebait, because it is what a certain segment believes to be true. You may be losing mod points because of the statement; "And a pretty good argument can be made that the terrorists we have down there are outside of the Geneva convention as they aren't members of any regular army backed by a real country. They are terrorists." Is incorrect: a) Because the Geneva Convention does not allow for exemptions. b) There is no process to decide who is or isn't a terrorist, so anyone could be labeled a terrorist. c) You then again, back up your point by saying; "they are terrorists". Which is like saying; "double plus bad". You just say so with supporting evidence. d) People still don't like evil, though it seems to have become more legal these days, and people on slashdot Really, Really don't like evil. You are officially evil, so normal moderation doesn't apply to you. No court will hear your case.
I would love a dictatorship, just as long as I'm the dictator.
What does it matter if a country backs a cause or not? There are so many corrupt governments around the world that I don't see any legitimacy to government backing. What you describe seems to be anyone not in a military fighting for any cause. Could that be called a "criminal" or "freedom fighter" just as well? How does that exempt our government from humane treatment guidelines?
By simply spouting the Article and Section, you prove that you think that pieces of paper make things right and wrong.
It is so hard to not make connections with this sort of thinking and certain people during WWII. Note, that they weren't doing anything "illegal" either. The Geneva conventions--which we signed, means that NOBODY is exempt. You cannot change someone's status and then torture them. You cannot torture ANYONE. Nobody is outside of the Geneva Convention, this Art4,Sect2 crap is written by the depraved for the deplorable.
And (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Who the Hell decides the . Who the Hell besides you and everybody else safely esconced inside the U.S. of A. gives a rats ass about these "customs of war"? When you are blown up, it doesn't really matter if it was an "approved munition". If we back government sponsored death squads to ensure that a pipeline gets built, then you are saying someone fighting back would be an "enemy non-combatant" and technically outside of the "treat people nice" criteria and would therefore be suitable for a hot poker up the...
There are reports that kids as young as 11 are at Gitmo, possibly being tortured.
This is not what I want to solute when I look at my flag. This is not my kind of America. We have already won the battle but lost the war. We have 0 convictions so far. What useful intelligence have we received? This barbarism is more the shame because it is so pointless. Stupid acts by leaders with no vision. People who see winning as everything and honor as just a buzz word. How the Hell can you tell any difference between us and the terrorists -- besides our side having a tax base?
We could have simply followed the money and received international support if we had treated this as a police action. We wouldn't have had to offend halt the world, spent our childrens money, and tarnished the reputation of the United States for anyone but the most incredulous zealots within our borders.
Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are a worse tragedy than 9/11 to me.
Declaring people enemy combatants is absolute crap. It is a loophole. When we can abuse people based on some legal mumbo jumbo label we have allowed anyone to be abused.
If the various administrations involved had merely been doing their jobs, 9/11 would not have happened. We have done nothing to address the incompetence. If this had been a bank robbery, it's as though we found the sleeping security guard and gave him a machine gun. Then said; "back to bed everyone, we've solved the security problem!"
We should never trust the government to do anything without oversight. Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, or NeoCon -- we should trust anyone. If someone is detained or arrested, they need to see their day in court and it if the government can't produce evidence against them then they should be free to go.
I would rather be afraid of enemy combatants than I would want to be afraid of my own government.
A few years ago, if you had asked me if I would die for my country, I would have said, yes, as long as it was for a nobel cause. Now, I would have to say; "Hell no!" Because I now realize, I don't even know what the issues are. I wouldn't have a clue whether my government was doing the right thing or not.
We have to undo all the secrecy and shine a light on everything yesterday. I can't tell you whether it is incompetence or criminal activity that this secrecy protects. I do know that keeping secret our weaknesses only protects our government and those who wish to do us harm.
Who cares if we've made it illegal or legal to torture? It is wrong--damn wrong when we or anyone tortures.
We should not even allow prisoners to be moved to countries where torture is practiced, which is the purpose of "Rendition".
Of course, this is a little off topic from the "Patriot Act".
Of course, since the Patriot Act allows for criminal time for revealing that you are the target of the Patriot Act -- this could be a reason why we don't hear about abuses.
And if the Patriot Act is; "no big deal". Then you won't mind if I tear it up and flush it, will you? I mean, if it's no big deal, why was it written? Why is it like; 1800 pages?
I'm often communicating between geeks and non-geeks and I try to stay away from acronyms. There is usually a better way to say things in simple english. However, the techies who don't want anyone to really know what they are doing (or don't actually know what they are doing) will pepper everything with as many un-intelligble tech speak phrases as possible.
Great point "drooling-dog"! I would just like to ad that there were a lot of bad assumptions about the online ad revenue model made from the get-go during the dot.com boom. News outlets cannot put a lot of money into web development and servers and expect to get paid for that. They need to spend less on the electronics than the print (which, by now, most I'm sure are). But the next step in cost cutting should be architecture-sharing. I hate to mention this, since I'm in web development, but a lot of newspapers do a lot of similiar things. You could set up the infrastructure for dozens of papers on a template run with a few web masters rather than each newspaper needing to have an in-house web development team.
What newspapers need to do is spend their money on reporters who provide unique content. Period. They can't pull the same article that 80 others are off the AP newswire and add any value in the e-era.
What newspapers need is to lower their expectations and provide better journalism.
But there is one other issue that should be addressed; namely re-linking. A lot of articles are do not provide revenue for a website because someone has made a synopsis elsewhere that is more or less the article. There ought to be a standard of no more than a certain number of words being allowed in a synopsis. I think it is a terrible burden on journalists who provide unique content to have another web site merely report; "Jornalist X at The YZ Times reported..."
But I think that news cartels will probably follow the model of Clear Channel on the radio. More's the shame. Also, I think that media companies are going to go after Blog sites in the courtroom if they get too successful. Possibly trying to make them liable for what gets posted (just use your imagination). This, of course will backfire, but not at first.
I think there will always be some free news. There are many messages that advertisers, or organizations want people to receive where those people would be unwilling to pay for them. In fact, you rarely see any coverage of products that are not already advertised in some magazines (even the bicycle magazines).
But where we actually purchase entertainment or news, shouldn't there be some provision for a standard of accuracy? No?
Likewise, at a recent movie, I paid for a ticket $7.00. I counted 5 commercials that were not movie previews. I think I should have gotten $2.50 back on my ticket. It's just not fair [stamps foot]. Paying for the movie, did not increase its quality. I think "Finding Nemo" with commercials was better than "Robots" in a movie theater. It was just, OK. Perhaps, with a message about private accounts being a good idea, the movie could have actually been free. No? I'm just screwed, is that what you're saying? And I can get the private account, but I have to pay it all back.
OK, maybe we'll have to pay for all sources of crappy news, and pay lots of money for accurate news, but that will be insider trading.
So, maybe we should just post links to decent Blog sites and forget what this guy at "The New York Times" is saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I still have an issue with the ability of drug enforcement to seize property without a conviction. It can easily make a source of revenue become a source of plunder.
We had a big building blow up and that compares to a civil war?
We are a bunch of wimps.
I don't mind the tapping of cell phones if there is a warrant to tap a land line. The problem with the USAPatriot Act is the secrecy and the lack of accountability of those who use it.
It seems there has been such a strong push towards secrecy and no accountability. Plus, the administration is full of crooks. So I don't trust anything they do.
Air is good for you. Marshmallows are 90% air so they must be good for you.
Yes, after a lot of fervent slash-dotting, Al Capone turned himself in. Once he realised he was doing bad things and not just being biased and inefficient, that is.
No. Just being able to talk about something does not solve the problem.
Most of the major judge positions are being given to Bush loyalists currently. The "GAO" (not sure on the initials) just ordered that the government stop creating false news reports with state money to push messages to the public. The memo to stop the propaganda was sent out. Today, another memo from the department of ethics said to ignore this order.
So what is the point of us talking about wrong-doing on a web site? Would anything actually be done? Would the press cover this issue before jumping on the crazy hat Michael Jackson was wearing that clashed with his orange jump suit? This is all well and good to vent, but I'm not going to fool myself that any of us realizing that our government is corrupt would change an actual corrupt government. There isn't any legal system left that would challenge Him.
You know, how could someone as dumb as 'Dubya' and as ethically challenged beat an intelligent war hero?
Gee. Maybe the illection was rigged.
That answered all your questions, right? Of course, maybe, everyone likes a bad economy, diminishing allies, and making an ass of themselves. Perhaps we could let even more nuke proliferate or get involved in a never-ending occupation? That must be what makes people feel secure.
Boy, that was far-fetched. Seeing as how he didn't win the first time, and somehow the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and stopped the re-count. And somehow 85,000 votes were thrown out because they could have possibly been felons. Lot's of felons must be voting Democratic? What was I thinking?
I guess you're right. People like George, because we all got teleported to bizarroworld.
Look, I told every Liberal I knew that GWB was going to win re-election. Every place he picked up votes had instituted electronic voting. Some Republicans are still financial conservatives so they would have noticed that the "offend and spend" policies were not a good idea.
Don't blame the election results on Americans. Our press is corporate, we have the government giving us phony news reports daily, and the results are rigged. Exit polls showed that Kerry won. Then the press quit covering the exit polls. All the abuses went unreported and anyone bringing it up was labeled a "conspiracy theorist." I've had Liberals say as much to me.
So it is a lot worse here than you might think. The big push is to get people to believe what they are told, even when it conflicts. You might have heard; "you can't trust government" when it concerns doing anything at all for the poor, or support systems, or anything for the infrastructure. But you will hear; "support America, Patriots" or admonitions to trust or not support the enemy when the government is spending oodles of money to blow someone up. A total disconnect. Trust the government to arrest anyone, at any time. Don't trust the government when asked to help you. Government waist is emergency care for a sick infant. Good use of taxpayer funds is paying 10 times what we used to to have Haliburton do KP duty. I am shocked and amazed at how there can be such a disconnect between the logic on one issue to the next.
I don't know if it is something in the water or that I never really understood people at all. Maybe human and rational is much more rare a thing. Maybe we assume it is there but most of us don't attain it. Like marital bliss.
I don't know what happened to America. But I know how bad it is. This country is capable of anything right now.
By the way, I knew it was the USAPATRIOT Act. But the same people who hate know-it-all intellectual elite Liberals are also saying how we need to improve our schools, but Professors are Liberals so we need to send everyone to Religious schools. Somehow there is more science there. Or charter/private schools are better because, well because they get to choose kids with better test scores, and nobody asks; "why wouldn't having kids with better scores mean that a school would score better." So we move more funds from underfunded Public schools that are scoring poorly based on the ideas of a President who is an idiot but "real". A Real Idiot, I guess. But we then don't fund education so that every kid is sent through every neighborhood in America to beg for money to have uniforms for their sports teams. But we don't have P.E. (or music) anymore (except in the more expensive private schools) because its over budget and not educational (I guess), but then we buy Ritalin to drug our kids (which is a Liberal move somehow and has nothing to do with sugar-crazed kids and pharmaceutical companies). We also want to take one of the few successful programs in America, namely, Social Security, and copy countries who have made their systems fail; like Chile, England and Sweden. Yes, America is full of Dichotomy's.
I could go on. I don't remember who said it but; "The sane man in the insane society must appear insane." That's the America I live in. But if you are in England, just remember that you're next. This is a multinational corporate enterprise with televangelist ground troops that recognizes no borders. The concept of Patriotism is usually used to defraud the country you are waving the flag for.
You can mod this as flamebate but it doesn't mean I am not telling you something that is 100% true.
In other news, the Department of Justice is having trouble finding $9 Billion lost in Iraq, Bin Laden, the cause of 9/11, the person who leaked, or anything of any value other than supporting the criminals occupying the White House.
Gee, and they tried Real Hard. If they catch themselves, do they slap themselves on the wrist and promise not to do it again?
Why are we putting up with the organisations investigating themselves when it would result in their own loss of power? Concepts like "conflict of interest" have been lost.
I think the dictionary shrank last year. I can't find "Greed" anywhere.
Absolutely. It is bad precedent to rely on abuses. We must control "what the government can do."
Gee, look at all the reporters furthering their careers criticizing the administration.
It is not the job of the press to cheer on any administration. Anyway, none of the questions have been answered. Nobody besides whistle-blowers and privates have to answer for anything. So what do you care if people raise objections. It's not like we can do anything about it.
So this isn't the topic of the Patriout Act. It was a dumb topic anyway since nobody is allowed to say that they are the subject of the patriot act. So how much "abuse of the Patriot Act" could we actually hear about with a cowardly and corporate press and a blanke of secrecy? Well about as much as we've heard. Nothing.
All the dead people please stand up! Nobody? Hmm. Dying must be a myth as well.
It probably sounded good when Limbaugh said it.
Next week will be a new truth. PsyOps will see if that sticks. Perhaps a biblical passage will justify the torture?
TGK, why are you bringing facts into this?
The people supporting U.S. sanctioned torture are trying to find any excuse to allow it. If they don't see the ethical dilemma, then what is the point of the "legality".
Just being sarcastic, thanks for bringing up the real facts. Good points. I just know that none of these nuckle-draggers is going to say; "gee, you make a sound argument, I've changed my mind, maybe these people should get a trial or be released." Admonitions of wrongness are for people with an intellectual and moral compass.
I have changed my position on a lot of things when I've heard a better arguement. I've been a Republican, a Libertarian, a Perot supporter, and now, with no better path, a Progressive Democrat. However, I doubt seriously I would change my mind about torture. About America standing for freedom and honor and setting an example.
Ethics, by the way, are usually more cost effective in the long run.
You didn't correct anything.
Yes, Guantanomo is U.S. soil. If Castro invaded, he would have a contingent of U.S. marines hot on his ass. Consulates are also U.S. soil in legal terms. The arguement you made was one just thrown out of the courts. So I'm sure a lot of these people will be transported to foreign Gulags.
We're not at war. Only Congress can declare war, and they have not.
How far up your own Ass do you have to be? Fox News headlines; "War on Terror" flash all fricken' day for you. This comment is so arbitrary--how often have you argued "we're at war, normal rules don't apply". Where do they train people to flip flop on logic like this?
The prisoners held in Guantanamo are mostly "enemy combantants", and no "prisoners of war."
I've pointed this out before. What does it matter what we call people? If they had actually pointed a gun at us and had a uniform, does that mean we would have released them by now? You're just making arguements to support whatever the gov shills come up with. The "Enemy Combatants" arguement does not exempt anyone from the Geneva Convention. There is no exemption from humane treatment for any "class" of person. Quit repeating unethical, nonsense.
Also, we by-passed the normal Congressional approval, congress stupidly gave Bush the green light for "whatever", so he did just that. Bush went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Have you been asleep or just really awake in another dimension these past 4 years. What are those loud sticks that go boom doing in our soldiers hands? What have we been spending $90+ Billion a year on. Social programs for the poor? Hardly.
Note that in Vietnam, we did not officially declare war until well into it. What the f-ing difference does that technicality make? But yes, we are technically, legally, actually at war right now. Not that it matters.
Reality?
You're saying; "You have to break a few eggs to make a cake." So we have to torture a few innocents, because, well in the REAL WORLD these things happen.
The truth is: most prisoners at Gitmo would delight in seeing your head separated from your body, or "freedom, liberty, and rights" ripped from you.Yes, even the bleeding heart liberals. They tend to be sexually amoral and humanistic, and this is not allowed. Understand?,
Compassion is not for the deserving. And you have no idea what is in the hearts and minds of people at Guantonimo and neither do I.
We can't trust government with Social Security but we can with unlisted anonymous detainees?
There is a lot of that "why aren't you so open-minded" talk going around these days in the NeoCon circles. It's like we are close-minded about tolerance and we need to open up to the joys of intolerance. But really, it is; "we don't like to hear criticism of the U.S. because other people are worse." First, I'd like to go on the record and say that Americans who critcise the actions of the U.S. are usually wanting to make the U.S. a better place. And second, there is a lot of crap going on that NeoCons don't know, or don't want to know about.
I'm just guessing that it is the statement "The fact that you don't care about those human beings" by the previous post is what you are up in arms about. Again, I have to say that we don't protect just the people we like.
I will weep for the prisoners at Gitmo and I will weep for cold hearted people like "Kenrod". I hope that you will understand what it is like to be on the short end of the stick like these "detainees" but also hope that you will always receive compassion. Whether or not you deserve it.
Totally agree with "rossifer". I am so much more afraid of the NeoCons than I am of any Bin Laden. They prove that people can be convinced to perpetrate any sort of inhumanity. I am not being an absolutest and saying; "I will never do wrong." Good people can do bad things. The problem at Guantonomo and Abu Grhraib is that there is no recognition of wrong. There is rationalization; "I can do this because he did that," or "he was worse than me." Arguements of a six year old being accepted from government shills. The same people who talk about having more Christianity seem to know nothing about the value of setting an example, or doing unto others as you would have done unto you. Moral values my ass. The only things that make such violent people Christians is the Fish on the bumper and the ornaments on their tree.
I feel so strongly about this and so urgent that I have trouble keeping civil discource. I am frustrated by how things have degenerated in conversation, but then I wonder how I can get through to some of you people at all. You can't argue with astrologers, flat earth people, creationists and definitely NeoCons. You argue faith to logic, morals to ethics, and patriotism to people of faith. Anything to avoid the real subject. The real subject is; do whatever it takes to keep my life the way it is, as long as you don't do it to me. The other is; everyone not like me is wrong. Go back and look at all the explainations of NeoCons as to why something isn't working, or someobody's life isn't going well, or why they are poor or disenfranchised. It is always; "because they aren't like me." Anyone who says there is not one path is the enemy.
Ross, I feel your pain.
I can't believe that this "they are terrorists because we say so" actually worked. That some people we so quick to give away our rights even before they knew anything.
Had I known that you can actually fool a significant portion of the people a significant amount of the time, I might actually put "emperor/dictator" as a career choice.
The secrecy is to cover the asses of some very incompetent people. Is this too obvious?
I don't think it is flamebait, because it is what a certain segment believes to be true. You may be losing mod points because of the statement; "And a pretty good argument can be made that the terrorists we have down there are outside of the Geneva convention as they aren't members of any regular army backed by a real country. They are terrorists."
Is incorrect:
a) Because the Geneva Convention does not allow for exemptions.
b) There is no process to decide who is or isn't a terrorist, so anyone could be labeled a terrorist.
c) You then again, back up your point by saying; "they are terrorists". Which is like saying; "double plus bad". You just say so with supporting evidence.
d) People still don't like evil, though it seems to have become more legal these days, and people on slashdot Really, Really don't like evil. You are officially evil, so normal moderation doesn't apply to you. No court will hear your case.
I would love a dictatorship, just as long as I'm the dictator.
What does it matter if a country backs a cause or not? There are so many corrupt governments around the world that I don't see any legitimacy to government backing. What you describe seems to be anyone not in a military fighting for any cause. Could that be called a "criminal" or "freedom fighter" just as well? How does that exempt our government from humane treatment guidelines?
By simply spouting the Article and Section, you prove that you think that pieces of paper make things right and wrong.
It is so hard to not make connections with this sort of thinking and certain people during WWII. Note, that they weren't doing anything "illegal" either. The Geneva conventions--which we signed, means that NOBODY is exempt. You cannot change someone's status and then torture them. You cannot torture ANYONE. Nobody is outside of the Geneva Convention, this Art4,Sect2 crap is written by the depraved for the deplorable.
And (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Who the Hell decides the . Who the Hell besides you and everybody else safely esconced inside the U.S. of A. gives a rats ass about these "customs of war"? When you are blown up, it doesn't really matter if it was an "approved munition". If we back government sponsored death squads to ensure that a pipeline gets built, then you are saying someone fighting back would be an "enemy non-combatant" and technically outside of the "treat people nice" criteria and would therefore be suitable for a hot poker up the...
There are reports that kids as young as 11 are at Gitmo, possibly being tortured.
This is not what I want to solute when I look at my flag. This is not my kind of America. We have already won the battle but lost the war. We have 0 convictions so far. What useful intelligence have we received? This barbarism is more the shame because it is so pointless. Stupid acts by leaders with no vision. People who see winning as everything and honor as just a buzz word. How the Hell can you tell any difference between us and the terrorists -- besides our side having a tax base?
We could have simply followed the money and received international support if we had treated this as a police action. We wouldn't have had to offend halt the world, spent our childrens money, and tarnished the reputation of the United States for anyone but the most incredulous zealots within our borders.
Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are a worse tragedy than 9/11 to me.
Declaring people enemy combatants is absolute crap. It is a loophole. When we can abuse people based on some legal mumbo jumbo label we have allowed anyone to be abused.
If the various administrations involved had merely been doing their jobs, 9/11 would not have happened. We have done nothing to address the incompetence. If this had been a bank robbery, it's as though we found the sleeping security guard and gave him a machine gun. Then said; "back to bed everyone, we've solved the security problem!"
We should never trust the government to do anything without oversight. Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, or NeoCon -- we should trust anyone. If someone is detained or arrested, they need to see their day in court and it if the government can't produce evidence against them then they should be free to go.
I would rather be afraid of enemy combatants than I would want to be afraid of my own government.
A few years ago, if you had asked me if I would die for my country, I would have said, yes, as long as it was for a nobel cause. Now, I would have to say; "Hell no!" Because I now realize, I don't even know what the issues are. I wouldn't have a clue whether my government was doing the right thing or not.
We have to undo all the secrecy and shine a light on everything yesterday. I can't tell you whether it is incompetence or criminal activity that this secrecy protects. I do know that keeping secret our weaknesses only protects our government and those who wish to do us harm.
Not illegal?
Who cares if we've made it illegal or legal to torture? It is wrong--damn wrong when we or anyone tortures.
We should not even allow prisoners to be moved to countries where torture is practiced, which is the purpose of "Rendition".
Of course, this is a little off topic from the "Patriot Act".
Of course, since the Patriot Act allows for criminal time for revealing that you are the target of the Patriot Act -- this could be a reason why we don't hear about abuses.
And if the Patriot Act is; "no big deal". Then you won't mind if I tear it up and flush it, will you? I mean, if it's no big deal, why was it written? Why is it like; 1800 pages?
Amen to that!
;-)
I'm often communicating between geeks and non-geeks and I try to stay away from acronyms. There is usually a better way to say things in simple english. However, the techies who don't want anyone to really know what they are doing (or don't actually know what they are doing) will pepper everything with as many un-intelligble tech speak phrases as possible.
At least that is IMHO.
Great point "drooling-dog"! I would just like to ad that there were a lot of bad assumptions about the online ad revenue model made from the get-go during the dot.com boom. News outlets cannot put a lot of money into web development and servers and expect to get paid for that. They need to spend less on the electronics than the print (which, by now, most I'm sure are). But the next step in cost cutting should be architecture-sharing. I hate to mention this, since I'm in web development, but a lot of newspapers do a lot of similiar things. You could set up the infrastructure for dozens of papers on a template run with a few web masters rather than each newspaper needing to have an in-house web development team.
What newspapers need to do is spend their money on reporters who provide unique content. Period. They can't pull the same article that 80 others are off the AP newswire and add any value in the e-era.
What newspapers need is to lower their expectations and provide better journalism.
But there is one other issue that should be addressed; namely re-linking. A lot of articles are do not provide revenue for a website because someone has made a synopsis elsewhere that is more or less the article. There ought to be a standard of no more than a certain number of words being allowed in a synopsis. I think it is a terrible burden on journalists who provide unique content to have another web site merely report; "Jornalist X at The YZ Times reported..."
But I think that news cartels will probably follow the model of Clear Channel on the radio. More's the shame. Also, I think that media companies are going to go after Blog sites in the courtroom if they get too successful. Possibly trying to make them liable for what gets posted (just use your imagination). This, of course will backfire, but not at first.
I think there will always be some free news. There are many messages that advertisers, or organizations want people to receive where those people would be unwilling to pay for them. In fact, you rarely see any coverage of products that are not already advertised in some magazines (even the bicycle magazines).
But where we actually purchase entertainment or news, shouldn't there be some provision for a standard of accuracy? No?
Likewise, at a recent movie, I paid for a ticket $7.00. I counted 5 commercials that were not movie previews. I think I should have gotten $2.50 back on my ticket. It's just not fair [stamps foot]. Paying for the movie, did not increase its quality. I think "Finding Nemo" with commercials was better than "Robots" in a movie theater. It was just, OK. Perhaps, with a message about private accounts being a good idea, the movie could have actually been free. No? I'm just screwed, is that what you're saying? And I can get the private account, but I have to pay it all back.
OK, maybe we'll have to pay for all sources of crappy news, and pay lots of money for accurate news, but that will be insider trading.
So, maybe we should just post links to decent Blog sites and forget what this guy at "The New York Times" is saying.