Humans, before we had modern technology that allowed us to travel great distances in short periods of time, had very little contact outside of our own tribes. To put, humans lived within their own tribes for hundreds of thousands of years.
I've just completed a bachelor's degree in Biology and a graduate level course in evolutionary genetics and I have never heard of these kinds of statements from any scientific source. In fact, the only place I have heard them from were from people who stress racial purity and--more specifically--white supremacy.
Regardless, what you're saying is ridiculous. Humans are the most prolific mammal on the face of the earth; we're everywhere. We are this way because it is our nature to be both curious and aggressive. You're not giving our ancestors or the human drive for exploration enough credit. Besides, even under your theory, how did the individual ethnic groups arrive in their respective regions were it not for this migration, mmm? (Hint for the uninitiated: the typical answer to this is "God put them there.")
For any human population a certain number of migrants is a given. This inevitably creates geneflow between populations which are otherwise isolated. The result is that human populations are generally homogenous, despite the great geographic distances separating the groups themselves. A very extreme example of this effect is demonstrated with ring species, whose sub-populations are actually infertile with one another (clearly not the case with people) but still maintain a common character (ie. they do not diverge) because of geneflow.
To be certain, there are differences between racial and ethnic groups, but these differences are superficial and do not reflect the genome as a whole. Scientific studies of DNA microsattelites have confirmed this time and time again. In fact, the study in the article is just one of many.
. Why do you think the traits of various ethnic groups were selected? Do you think they are randomly arranged? No, they were selected based on adaptations to the environment of that group of people. Mixing in differnet traits that do not fit well into that environment will result in those traits being removed.
Yes and no. What you're talking about is a homozygous advantage. For many populations this is true--but not for people. Why? Because we aren't necessarily beholden to our environments anymore. If you're less tolerant of the sun, you can wear sunscreen. If you're less tolerant to the heat, you can get air conditioning. Even in the most extreme cases, homozygous advantage doesn't apply. For instance, populations that have lived in the Andes mountains have developed genetic adaptations that allow them to breathe in much lower concentrations of oxygen than normally allowed. And yet, still, most tourists to these mountains are still able to survive (and even enjoy themselves) by supplementing their oxygen.
But if no the environment, what are humans subject to? Their own genes. To some extent this can be compensated for. (I know I for one would probably have died in ages past because of my nearsightedness.) But even with today's technology, genetic defects are often untreatable and sometimes fatal. This is particularly relevant in the case of recessive genetic disorders, where the extreme effects of a homozygous recessive trait can be masked. This creates a situation where heterozygotes are superior, because of a reduced likelihood of genetic disorders. I'm pretty sure this is the scientific basis of the OP's more-simplified statements.
In practice, however, this is often difficult to take advantage of because our assignment of race is completely arbitrary and based upon the phenotype of an individual and not his or her genotype. So, for instance, a black and white couple in Claxton, Georgia (a historic site of genetic samplin
What is this international law that you speak of? Exactly what body is going to prosecute, convict, and punish a superpower like the United States of America?
The entire phrase of "international law" is a trite thing. Let's not kid ourselves, international norms and laws only apply to weak countries. For everyone else, justice is administered from the muzzle of a rifle.
When one party controls all branches of government, the Constitutional checks and balances are ineffective because everyone with the power to stop a branch of government is part of the same organization.
The flaw is even worse than you think, because it can't be remedied through "proper" voting. No matter what your political affiliation, you have no choice but re-electing a caste of professional politicians, which differ only on superficial and relatively inconsequential issues like a constitutional amendment explicitly banning gay flag-burning.
Vote for minor party? Only if you want to throw away your vote, for the complete lack of enforcement of gerrymandering laws means even the most incompetent of incumbents win over 90% of the time. Even the recent supreme court ruling tacitly condoned it by only complaining about instances of potential racial gerrymandering. Apparently, cheating is fine, as long as you aren't a bigot when you do it.
Spread the word? Anything you say can be countered by a bombardment of disinformation and distractions that prevent effective dissent. One would think that the alternative media/internet get around this, and it can--but they're going to change that. Plans for complete regulation of the internet are already in the works under the guise of "tiered-service". As John Devorak says, we're in the golden age of the internet--enjoy it while it lasts, because it's soon to end.
1.) Even if it's lower priority, it's still in memory, and while it of course takes up little space, I'm on an older machine and a bunch of low memory applications can really slow me down.
2.) I'm unsure of the interaction of multiple low-priority applications. For instance, what happens when I have Shareaza, Folding@home, and Norton Anti-virus all running in the background at lower priorities? If one is slightly lower than the others will it get muscled out completely? This is admittedly a position of ignorance, but instead of worrying about it, I just run it as a screen saver and don't even worry about it.
Amazing... the submitter laments the pie-in-the-sky goals of SETI@home and never even mentions the most obvious alternative Folding@Home. Folding@home is a distributed computing project attempting to model how proteins interact and ultimately form their tertiary and quaternary, 3-dimensional structures. Understanding this process holds the key to very tangible benefits for biology, medicine, and the broader science of nanotechnology. The project is managed through Standford university and has already yielded some very good results.
Personally, I've been submitting my space cycles to Folding@home for about five years now. Since I'm a gamer and don't want to risk my cycles being used during gameplay, I use the screen saver version, which comes with the added advantage of having pretty cool visuals of the folding process that always prompt questions from my friends.
Curious that instead of trying to argue, the individual in question chooses to slap a veto tag in anonymity and continue as if nothing happened.
First of all, the lack of response to your post probably has less to do with the your superior intellect and more to do with the hopelessly hateful and jaded views you profess. Secondly, the moderation system here on slashdot is NOT anonymous (barring the "overrated" and "underrated" tags). If the moderation was indeed as egregious as you say, it will--at least in theory--will be caught during meta-moderation.
Regardless, before you continue patting yourself on your back, I'll bite and respond to your post.
You imply that Israel has some right to exist. It doesn't.
I'm not going to respond to this part of your post, for what I hope are obvious reasons.
That's a pretty flimsy argument, considering the US has far more nuclear weapons, and also a FAR worse track record of 'coercion'. It should also be noted that the previous war between Iraq and Iran was very much provoked by the US.
Nice try, but the rationale behind preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons has nothing to do with states that possess nuclear technology. This isn't about what the United States has done--there's nothing we can do about that. It is about what Iran could do with nuclear technology--which is something we are in a position to prevent.
Iran's oil is Iran's oil. It does not belong to any other country. It is their right to sell oil, as it is their right to stop selling oil. Now if Iran fear military repurcussions resulting from them removing one of their assets from the international markets, then I salute them for trying to protect themselves from such aggressors.
Fair enough. Then why should Isreal be obliged to sell basic services (power, water, etc.) to the Palestinians? It's theirs, so why can't they not sell it if they desired?
The fact is, oil is more than just a commmodity or widget without consequence. During WWII, Japan largely declared war upon the United States because of an embargo on oil, and this was no surprise to anyone. Cutting off a vital supply is, in effect, an act of war. As it stands, the world community not only uses oil, but needs oil to exist. Quickly cutting off the supply would be no less of an act of war than cutting of a nation's water supply or any other vital supply.
If you'd like for me to engage you in the other parts of your argument, I will, but only on one condition: that you restate yourself in a civil manner.
...the only reason [Iran] would actually want nuclear weapons is as a deterrant against the US and Israel.
The only reason?
You mean to say that they wouldn't want nuclear weapons to:
Further terrorist actions against Israel.
As a means of coercion to their neighbors, such as Iraq, whom have tradtionally been antagonistic.
To bring about the coming of the 12th Imam (the muslim version of the Apocalypse)--a time that the President of Iran has publically said is upon us.
As a means of detering any military repurcusions from economic harassment (i.e. drastically cutting their oil production)
Any or all of the above.
There are lots of reasons Iran could want nuclear weapons that don't involve evil acts from either Israel or the United States. Bear in mind that many of them don't even have to be rational. We are dealing with a extremist theocracy. Do you really want to bet the stability of the world on Iran's tolerace of us infidels in the West?
The technology to make weapons that are much more dangerous than gun-nukes are already available to pretty much anyone.
Don't trivialize the process of weaponization. Lots of things kill people. It's difficult to make the transition into a useful weapon. If what you're saying is true, why doesn't every country in the world have and deploy chemical/biological weapons?
Anthrax practically breeds itself. And by "practically" I mean "literally".
Yes, the B. anthraces does replicate (obviously), but that doesn't mean it is easy to weaponize. To kill people, it needs to be in the air. This requires that it be aerosolized. To do that without killing it, you need to have it in endospore form. After that, you've got to have some way to effectively disperse the batch without destroying them. And even then, not just any B. anthraces will do; you'll probably have to select for more virulent forms. You'd have to ensure that the most virulent strain of bacteria is what makes it to the weapon too, which is problematic in itself.
Besides, why worry about nukes when the common automobile kills more people per year than all nuclear weapons combined ever have? I'd worry more about the proliferation of the horseless carriage than about the proliferation of uranium.
First of all, there is a big difference between dying by nuclear weapon and from a car accident; one is an act of killing, the other is an accident. Secondly, only two nuclear devices have ever been used and they pale in comparison to the destructive power of modern nuclear weapons. To compare bodycounts between hundreds of thousands of car accidents and two nuclear weapons is obviously ridiculous. Lastly, it's a matter of scale. If every automobile exploded out of the blue, tomorrow--yes, lots of people would needlessly die--but life would go on. If every nuclear weapon exploded, it probably wouldn't. Think about that before you trivialize the danger posed by nuclear weapons.
Unless you're Iran, in which case only 50 centrifuges is enough to put you "a few months away" from a nuclear weapon, according to Olmert. Or, y'know, 10 years at best, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate.
You know, I've heard this argument a lot lately, and it makes me wonder: when is the ideal time to respond wtih regard to Iran's nuclear aspirations?
Do we wait until they have 90% (or X%) of what's necessary to build a nuke, so they can point to the years of complacency and call us hipocrites and warmongers? Or do we wait until they actually have a weapon, allowing them to gain a dangerous amount of coercive power (even if they don't use it)? Or would it be better to react once their missiles are in the air?
Actually, it is quite a myth that vaccines work as well as they do, although I won't say they don't work at all.
Clearly, more is at work in the timeframe in medical history than just the development of vaccinations alone. However, it seems like the general tone of your post suggests that vaccinations (at least en masse) are a bad thing. As I understand it, this is an unconventional point of view.
"A high proportion of such individuals were found in adult life to have developed immuno-reactive diseases such as sebacious skin disease, tumours and degenerative disease of the bone and cartridge. These included cervical cancer, skin cancers and cases of multiple sclerosis."
While the Chaitow research you reference is very interesting (this is actually the first time I've encountered that idea, myself), couldn't there be confounding variables here? The most notable of which is average lifespan? Which is to say that, those who received vaccinations would indeed have more incidents of immuno-reactive diseases and incidences of cancer because such diseases are, in some respects, a function of age?
Well... for that matter, what about the Third Amendment?
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Bear in mind that quartering was not a military necessity but a way of finding and uprooting dissent at it's roots--the common household. They didn't just quarter at random. Suspected sympathizers were often specifically targeted for the simple reason that having a few brutish and nosey soldiers from the government in your house either makes you clean up your affairs or start explaining yourself in front of a judge.
The third amendment was a response to a specific type of attack on privacy by a people which had been traumatized by it. You can bet your powdered wig that if England had tried to read the correspondence of every suspected revolutionary (wire-tapping) or recorded data about every conversation that ever occurred in a public square and the parties involved (phone database), that those too would have been specifically mentioned as well.
Kept in its historical context, the third amendment represents a limit to the imposition of households and the government's ability to intrude upon the private lives of ordinary citizens.
But you know what? What about the Ninth Amendment?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Any reasonable person can conclude that a right to privacy exists on some level. We shouldn't need a document of finite length, written over 200 years ago to tell us exactly what rights we, by virtue of our humanity, possess. In fact, this ridiculous argument we're having over whether a right to privacy exists or doesn't is the entire reason that the ninth Amendment was devised.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84, said it best (emphasis mine):
"[I] affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not content that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it [an enumerated Bill of Rights] would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power."
As much as I dislike replying twice, I wanted to make it clear that you're completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting why the Amish live the way they do. They don't reject technology because they think it's evil. They are not trying to preserve life as it was in the 16th century.
The Amish reject many technologies because they feel it negatively impacts the human experience. They believe that these technologies disrupt the family unit and unnecessarily distract people from living good lives. This is an entirely reasonable viewpoint; technological progress is not always a good thing. Look at the implantable RFID debate that regularly occurs on slashdot if you disagree.
But the Amish don't reject technology outright. For instance, they use telephones--just not inside the house. They also use LED lights on their wagons and bicycles. For every piece of technology, they hold meetings which attempt to evaluate what impact it will have upon their lifestyle and community. The only problem with this is that these decisions are often viewed as too conservative. But, there is an entire sect of the Amish called Mennonites which are much more moderate. Some even drive cars and use computers.
But going back to your larger point, religion in and of itself doesn't cause violence. Atheists can be just as savage and misuse technology just as badly. Just look at all the atrocities that occurred under Marxist revolutions.
The problem isn't religion. The problem is that humankind is savage and violent by nature. Religion simply becomes a focal point for violent expression. Without religion, people would still find reasons (and ever-inventive ways) to kill each other.
What makes you think that atheism is a new worldview? I suggest you live in a technological state of the 6th century BCE. Fair is fair.
Moreover, what about the state of technology is due to atheism or "your culture"? The removal of religion from science doesn't automatically lend itself to the arguments you're creating. The separation of the two unrelated disciplines bears isn't so much a reflection on the validity of either but rather a better way to preserve the purity of both. If you doubt this, then perhaps you should research the vast number of scientists who, in their personal lives, practiced religion.
There is simply no reason why a scientist can't also be a religious person.
It's interesting that you bring that up, because William Ockham, infact, believed in God and was a Christian.
Regardless, Occam's razor is an argument based upon an assumption of simplicity. And while that is typically a good assumption, we have no way of knowing whether or not it applies to realms (or beings) outside of our universe if they even exist because such places are beyond our scope of reference. It's like giving directions in north, south, east, and west while in space. For all we know, the universe could have been created by a Rube Goldberg contraption. From our frame of reference, there's simply no way to know (scientifically) one way or the other.
Which brings me to another point: what evidence are you using in your application of Occam's razor? Occam's razor only applies if the clause of "if all things are equal." Here's a quote from wikipedia on it:
"As interpreted in contemporary scientific practice, it advises opting for the simplest theory among a set of competing theories that have a comparable explanatory power, discarding assumptions that do not improve the explanation. The "other things being equal" clause is a critical qualification, which rather severely limits the utility of Ockham's razor in real practice, as theorists rarely if ever find themselves presented with competent theories of exactly equal explanatory adequacy."
The most egregious misuses of Occam's Razor always forget this section.
Anyhow, you believe in god. I believe that pigs have the ability to fly but they don't do it when people are looking. It's exactly the same thing.
Where did I say that I believed in God? Disagreeing with your distasteful arrogance and science-as-the-new-religion sentiment does not, by default, make me a fundamentalist Christian.
Regardless, your example is ridiculous and not the same thing. The ability of pigs to fly is a falsifiable fact. The existence of God is not. I can devise any number of experiments to disprove your claim that pigs have the ability to fly. Can you devise even one that disproves the existence of God?
Smart, peace-loving people can believe in God too. If you think that there's any scientific evidence that can disprove the existence of a meta-physical concept like God, then maybe you should remove your head from your own pretentious ass for a moment and look up what Science is--or, more importantly, what it isn't.
I'm sorry but a private medical care system will never be effective. Why? Because sick people don't really have choices.
Even more fundamentally than that: Medicine is a coerceive industry. Normal economics requires that services and goods can be assigned a value, but when it comes to your health or very existence, can you really rationally do this? Even if we had a completely open system where one could visit any doctor or choose any drug that they wanted, we would still have abuse.
Let's say I write THE song of the century and go on tour as "The Opportunist". Now, Phony Records puts up some studio gang and has them go on tour as "The REAL Opportunists", puts a load of hype behind it, slanders me and makes sure that everyone believes that I'm the imposter. The only thing I could do is write statements myself, trying to tell the truth (Prior art? Original artist? Doesn't matter without copyrights).
You're making a common (perhaps intentional?) mistake among copyright advocates in that you are conflating copyright and plagiarism protections, which are two completely different things. The elimination of one would not have to affect the other. The elimination of copyright laws does not mean the elimination of plagiarism laws. It's the difference between owning distribution rights and claiming that you've written (or drawn, coded, performed, etc.) something first. Copyright laws require that we define and protect ideas which are diffuse and intangible, while plagiarism laws merely require the debunking of a lie--something the law is already well equipped to do.
Going back to your example, the phony band could not "slander" you because, unless those laws were changed too, slander would still be illegal. Similarly, the phony band, while being able to perform the song you wrote, they would not be able to claim that they originally wrote it. Without that claim, the phonies would not be able to compete for the hearts and minds of most fans and, consequently, their business.
Does this approach to artist protections capture the entire market? Certainly there would be copies of your band's performances that were not paid for. And while that may seem unfair, ask yourself: can you claim that copyright protections, being as unbalanced as you admit they currently are, do that either? Even if copyright enforcement achieves better results in this regard, is this gain by a few individuals worth the confusing and often ridiculous consequences of current intellectual property laws which affect all of us?
So you admit that "sending the right message" to Islamists doesn't do a damn thing to help.
No, not at all. There's a difference between embracing peace and not fighting. One needn't subscribe to a doctrine of non-violence to think twice before throwing the first punch. It's an issue of respect versus good feelings. Islamic fascists probably wouldn't have good feelings about the United States even if we conceded to all of their outlandish demands. However, they will respect us (or at least respect the consequences of their acts against us), provided we send them the right message.
Needless to say, I'm not convinced. Neither this country nor its allies are in any appreciable danger of being invaded or taken over. The ongoing occupation of Iraq doesn't come close to justifying wartime restrictions.
And I'm glad you brought that up. I'm not convinced either. My point (at the detriment to my karma) is that the government can legitimately infringe upon individual rights, not necessarily that it currently should.
It almost seems like the Bush administration has stumbled upon a huge loophole in our system. The executive branch is traditionally given (and should be given) near-absolute power in times of dire need, but who decides when that is? By selectively picking the right reports to declassify, pressuring intelligence analysts to toe-the-line, and baiting people like Osama Bin Laden or Iran's Amenjad to, themselves, make outlandish claims, one can create an atmosphere of dire need that, in reality, is either non-existent or less of a threat than is perceived.
Notice how the Bush administration utilizes its wartime powers or, rather, doesn't use its powers. You won't ever see a call for conscription ("The draft"). You won't ever see a call for rationing or a comprehensive alternative energy plan. Similarly, you won't see a call for nationalization of ANY private assets (like Defense contractors or... ahem... Oil companies). Wouldn't all of these things conceivably help further the War on Terrorism? The administration's big advice to Americans after the September 11th attacks was "Keep on consuming."--or, in essence, nothing at all. I believe this trick only works because complacency of both the media and the average public, which, unfortunately, are at a seemingly all time high.
That being said, I do believe that there is truth to the claims that there is a threat. The September 11th attacks were real and were perpetrated by a new type of menace (a nation-less army of saboteurs seeking rewards in the afterlife) to America's position in the world, though not our very existence. We need to fight this enemy in the manner that it requires, which means foregoing political correctness and playing nice.
A nation that trumps individual rights has no right to survive.
I know we all enjoy such platitudes, but what does that mean? Must we really be held to all of our strictest standards, at risk of our own demise?
Below is an act passed by a Western democracy (I'll leave it to you to figure out which one) in dire times. By the standard implied by your statement, this nation lacked a "right to survive." Is that correct?
"[The government]has power during the continuance of the present war to issue regulations for securing the public safety and the defence of the realm, and as to the powers and duties for that purpose of the Admiralty and Army Council and of the members of [The government]'s forces and other persons acting in his behalf; and may by such regulations authorise the trial by courts-martial, or in the case of minor offences by courts of summary jurisdiction, and punishment of persons committing offences against the regulations and in particular against any of the provisions of such regulations designed:
* (a) to prevent persons communicating with the enemy or obtaining information for that purpose or any purpose calculated to jeopardise the success of the operations of any of [The government]'s forces or the forces of [its] allies or to assist the enemy; or
* (b) to secure the safety of [The government]'s forces and ships and the safety of any means of communication and of railways, ports, and harbours; or
* (c) to prevent the spread of false reports or reports likely to cause disaffection to [The government] or to interfere with the success of [The government]'s forces by land or sea or to prejudice [The government]'s relations with foreign powers; or
* (d) to secure the navigation of vessels in accordance with directions given by or under the authority of the Admiralty; or
* (e) otherwise to prevent assistance being given to the enemy or the successful prosecution of the war being endangered.
(3) It shall be lawful for the Admiralty or Army Council:
* (a) to require that there shall be placed at their disposal the whole or any part of the output of any factory or workshop in which arms, ammunition, or warlike stores and equipment, or any articles required for the production thereof, are manufactured;
* (b) to take possession of, and use for the purpose of, [The government]'s naval or military service any such factory or workshop or any plant thereof;" Source: Wikipedia
Simply because warcrimes have happened in the past doesn't make it acceptable to commit them now... We should be trying to learn from our mistakes, not using our mistakes as justification for further errors of judgement.
That's not entirely what's being argued here. It's a matter of legitimacy, structure, and precedent. The argument isn't that everything that was done in the past is fair-game today. You are spot-on to say that would be wrong. However, the government is unequivocally empowered both historically and according to Supreme Court precedent to temporarily suspend the right to due process in times of national crisies.
If this is something that upsets you, then there's always the possibility of amending the constitution to abolish the English Common Law system (which works on precedent--including "past mistakes").
The Japanese detainment was an embarassment to us, and we as a nation have tried to compensate for what we did to them, and formal apologies have been issued.
The Japanese detainment wasn't exactly the same thing as Guantanamo. Those in Guantanamo were typically caught in and around battlezones with an enemy which chooses not openly identify themselves. The people in detainment camps were only tangentially related (solely by ethnicity) to a nation which declared war upon us. You can bet that if there were guerilla warfare taking place on the California coast by Japanese separatists (which is more akin to the situation in Afghanistan/Iraq), history would not have been so harsh on the Japanese detainment camps.
What makes you think that brutal prisoner treatment is going to help convince Islamists to embrace peace?
What makes you think their embracing of peace is dependent upon our actions?
So the modern peacetime is as restrictive as wartimes of the past. That doesn't help your argument.
The argument (and it's not realy my argument, for the record), is that this isn't peacetime.
Why stop there? What about the threat of nuclear war? What about the threat of alien invasion? What about the threat of Republicans losing their grip on power? Under the current system, who gets to decide what constitutes a real threat? Answer that question and you'll begin to discover why liberals think that Guantanamo is a very bad idea.
I'll grant you that the invocation of war powers with regard to the "War on Terrorism" is a subjective decision and a slippery slope, but that doesn't make it illegitimate. If nuclear war were a realistic possibility, then yes, the state would be completely legitimate in infringing upon individual rights. Similarly, if the threat of extraterrestrial invasion (I assume that's what you mean: "take me to your leader"-aliens) were realistic, the same would apply. Obviously, the third was just thrown in to be ridiculous, so no, because republicans losing power does not constitute a threat to national survival like the first two examples.
The whole point is that people in Guantanamo have never been convicted of any crime, let alone terrorism or "terrorism supporting" whatever that means. How are you going to tell which ones don't deserve due process?
I'll refer you to my original post. What about suspected Nazi sympathizers? They were detained and deported without trial. Was that fair? No. But such acts of survival, while failing our strictest Western ideals, are just as legitimate as, for example, killing in personal self-defense.
ush has declared that everyone who disagrees with his policies is an enemy of the state. Is this really the kind of nation you want to live in?
Now you're just being ridiculous. There are PLENTY of people who disagree with President Bush's policies. The last poll I saw was a 60% disapproval rating. If what you're saying is true, why aren't all these people in Guantanamo? Why are all these people able to so publicly... um.. . express themselves?
Except that the Civil War and WWII were very much existential wars that were largely unavoidable and pushed the U.S. to extremes. The current wars are very much wars of choice...
In what way did we choose to be attacked during September 11th? I argue that the Afghan and Iraqi invasions were indeed choices, but strategic choices in a larger conflict with Islamic extremists which engaged us first, without our consent.
So in essence you're saying a war of choice necessitates torture and abandonment of the rule of law -- that what we choose automatically becomes a necissity. Nice logic.
Reading comprehension is a valuable ability that comes with practice. I suggest you begin brushing up on this skill by re-reading what I said before making any more claims about my logic.
In case that fails, lest more words get forcefully placed in my mouth, I'll restate my argument: National survival trumps individual rights. In times of dire need, the state may choose to curtail rights that would, under other circumstances, be guaranteed. This has been upheld in the Supreme court numerous times. Now, reasonable people can disagree on whether the current "War on Terrorism" constitutes such a threat, but the current administration (with the backing, or non-opposition, of Congress) is arguing that it does; hence, Guantanamo, NSA wiretapping, and so on.
Guantanamo is a fucking embarassment to the USA, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to defend it.
Maybe among liberal societies, yes. But, to the contrary, I believe that Guantanamo is used as a symbol to Islamists that the United States is ready and willing to do everything that is necessary to win, even if that means bending (or reinterpreting) some of our more cherished values. In short, we're showing that, we'll take the gloves off and get nasty if it comes to that.
As extreme as that may sound to the modern reader, note that it's really not that much of a departure from wartimes of the past. Lincoln suspended both the right to free press and habeas corpus during the Civil War. During WWII, many suspected sympathizers of both Nazi Germany and Japan were put under surveillance (without warrant) and summarily deported (without trial).
Now the real question is (and this is one where I feel that reasonable people can disagree): Does the threat of terrorism constitute a danger to our survival as a nation to the point where such sacrifices in personal liberties are necessary?
If it is, (and back to the article) I think that Guantanamo should be reserved for terrorists and terrorist supporters only. Sending other criminals there diffuses the message to Islamists. Read the article though, the basis of this guy's claim that he's subject to Guantanamo is on an "unsigned and anonymous" note... Yeah, right... I think that it's likely that this is all just legal shenanigans on the part of the defense to capitalize off of outrage over Guantanomo bay, nothing more.
Email, where you surf, and im messages are not considered protected private communications. It is in the same category as a post card. Unlike a letter or phone call there isn't any expectation of privacy on network communications.
Oh but there is by the general populace. How else can you account for the success of online pornography? How many people do you know send pornographic postcards in the mail?
I would argue that meta-data about one's online activities is public information but the actual data itself is private. This is very easy to conceptualize. The address on your letter, for instance, is not subject to privacy, but the content of the letter is. Similarly, descriptions of the type of packaging are not private as well. In networking terms, where you surfed and how you communicated (i.e. what protocol) would be public information. But what you communicated would be private.
Fortunately, the TCP/IP protocol is already structured in such a way that making this distinction between data and meta-data is easy and has been in use for years in network content-shaping applications.
Slashdot Mirror
I've just completed a bachelor's degree in Biology and a graduate level course in evolutionary genetics and I have never heard of these kinds of statements from any scientific source. In fact, the only place I have heard them from were from people who stress racial purity and--more specifically--white supremacy.
Regardless, what you're saying is ridiculous. Humans are the most prolific mammal on the face of the earth; we're everywhere. We are this way because it is our nature to be both curious and aggressive. You're not giving our ancestors or the human drive for exploration enough credit. Besides, even under your theory, how did the individual ethnic groups arrive in their respective regions were it not for this migration, mmm? (Hint for the uninitiated: the typical answer to this is "God put them there.")
For any human population a certain number of migrants is a given. This inevitably creates geneflow between populations which are otherwise isolated. The result is that human populations are generally homogenous, despite the great geographic distances separating the groups themselves. A very extreme example of this effect is demonstrated with ring species, whose sub-populations are actually infertile with one another (clearly not the case with people) but still maintain a common character (ie. they do not diverge) because of geneflow.
To be certain, there are differences between racial and ethnic groups, but these differences are superficial and do not reflect the genome as a whole. Scientific studies of DNA microsattelites have confirmed this time and time again. In fact, the study in the article is just one of many.
Yes and no. What you're talking about is a homozygous advantage. For many populations this is true--but not for people. Why? Because we aren't necessarily beholden to our environments anymore. If you're less tolerant of the sun, you can wear sunscreen. If you're less tolerant to the heat, you can get air conditioning. Even in the most extreme cases, homozygous advantage doesn't apply. For instance, populations that have lived in the Andes mountains have developed genetic adaptations that allow them to breathe in much lower concentrations of oxygen than normally allowed. And yet, still, most tourists to these mountains are still able to survive (and even enjoy themselves) by supplementing their oxygen.
But if no the environment, what are humans subject to? Their own genes. To some extent this can be compensated for. (I know I for one would probably have died in ages past because of my nearsightedness.) But even with today's technology, genetic defects are often untreatable and sometimes fatal. This is particularly relevant in the case of recessive genetic disorders, where the extreme effects of a homozygous recessive trait can be masked. This creates a situation where heterozygotes are superior, because of a reduced likelihood of genetic disorders. I'm pretty sure this is the scientific basis of the OP's more-simplified statements.
In practice, however, this is often difficult to take advantage of because our assignment of race is completely arbitrary and based upon the phenotype of an individual and not his or her genotype. So, for instance, a black and white couple in Claxton, Georgia (a historic site of genetic samplin
What is this international law that you speak of? Exactly what body is going to prosecute, convict, and punish a superpower like the United States of America?
The entire phrase of "international law" is a trite thing. Let's not kid ourselves, international norms and laws only apply to weak countries. For everyone else, justice is administered from the muzzle of a rifle.
-Grym
The flaw is even worse than you think, because it can't be remedied through "proper" voting. No matter what your political affiliation, you have no choice but re-electing a caste of professional politicians, which differ only on superficial and relatively inconsequential issues like a constitutional amendment explicitly banning gay flag-burning.
Vote for minor party? Only if you want to throw away your vote, for the complete lack of enforcement of gerrymandering laws means even the most incompetent of incumbents win over 90% of the time. Even the recent supreme court ruling tacitly condoned it by only complaining about instances of potential racial gerrymandering. Apparently, cheating is fine, as long as you aren't a bigot when you do it.
Spread the word? Anything you say can be countered by a bombardment of disinformation and distractions that prevent effective dissent. One would think that the alternative media/internet get around this, and it can--but they're going to change that. Plans for complete regulation of the internet are already in the works under the guise of "tiered-service". As John Devorak says, we're in the golden age of the internet--enjoy it while it lasts, because it's soon to end.
-Grym
1.) Even if it's lower priority, it's still in memory, and while it of course takes up little space, I'm on an older machine and a bunch of low memory applications can really slow me down.
2.) I'm unsure of the interaction of multiple low-priority applications. For instance, what happens when I have Shareaza, Folding@home, and Norton Anti-virus all running in the background at lower priorities? If one is slightly lower than the others will it get muscled out completely? This is admittedly a position of ignorance, but instead of worrying about it, I just run it as a screen saver and don't even worry about it.
-Grym
Personally, I've been submitting my space cycles to Folding@home for about five years now. Since I'm a gamer and don't want to risk my cycles being used during gameplay, I use the screen saver version, which comes with the added advantage of having pretty cool visuals of the folding process that always prompt questions from my friends.
-Grym
But here in the United States, anachronism and derisive terms are what we're best at!
Curious that instead of trying to argue, the individual in question chooses to slap a veto tag in anonymity and continue as if nothing happened.
First of all, the lack of response to your post probably has less to do with the your superior intellect and more to do with the hopelessly hateful and jaded views you profess. Secondly, the moderation system here on slashdot is NOT anonymous (barring the "overrated" and "underrated" tags). If the moderation was indeed as egregious as you say, it will--at least in theory--will be caught during meta-moderation.
Regardless, before you continue patting yourself on your back, I'll bite and respond to your post.
You imply that Israel has some right to exist. It doesn't.
I'm not going to respond to this part of your post, for what I hope are obvious reasons.
That's a pretty flimsy argument, considering the US has far more nuclear weapons, and also a FAR worse track record of 'coercion'. It should also be noted that the previous war between Iraq and Iran was very much provoked by the US.
Nice try, but the rationale behind preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons has nothing to do with states that possess nuclear technology. This isn't about what the United States has done--there's nothing we can do about that. It is about what Iran could do with nuclear technology--which is something we are in a position to prevent.
Iran's oil is Iran's oil. It does not belong to any other country. It is their right to sell oil, as it is their right to stop selling oil. Now if Iran fear military repurcussions resulting from them removing one of their assets from the international markets, then I salute them for trying to protect themselves from such aggressors.
Fair enough. Then why should Isreal be obliged to sell basic services (power, water, etc.) to the Palestinians? It's theirs, so why can't they not sell it if they desired?
The fact is, oil is more than just a commmodity or widget without consequence. During WWII, Japan largely declared war upon the United States because of an embargo on oil, and this was no surprise to anyone. Cutting off a vital supply is, in effect, an act of war. As it stands, the world community not only uses oil, but needs oil to exist. Quickly cutting off the supply would be no less of an act of war than cutting of a nation's water supply or any other vital supply.
If you'd like for me to engage you in the other parts of your argument, I will, but only on one condition: that you restate yourself in a civil manner.
-Grym
The only reason?
You mean to say that they wouldn't want nuclear weapons to:
There are lots of reasons Iran could want nuclear weapons that don't involve evil acts from either Israel or the United States. Bear in mind that many of them don't even have to be rational. We are dealing with a extremist theocracy. Do you really want to bet the stability of the world on Iran's tolerace of us infidels in the West?
-Grym
The technology to make weapons that are much more dangerous than gun-nukes are already available to pretty much anyone.
Don't trivialize the process of weaponization. Lots of things kill people. It's difficult to make the transition into a useful weapon. If what you're saying is true, why doesn't every country in the world have and deploy chemical/biological weapons?
Anthrax practically breeds itself. And by "practically" I mean "literally".
Yes, the B. anthraces does replicate (obviously), but that doesn't mean it is easy to weaponize. To kill people, it needs to be in the air. This requires that it be aerosolized. To do that without killing it, you need to have it in endospore form. After that, you've got to have some way to effectively disperse the batch without destroying them. And even then, not just any B. anthraces will do; you'll probably have to select for more virulent forms. You'd have to ensure that the most virulent strain of bacteria is what makes it to the weapon too, which is problematic in itself.
Besides, why worry about nukes when the common automobile kills more people per year than all nuclear weapons combined ever have? I'd worry more about the proliferation of the horseless carriage than about the proliferation of uranium.
First of all, there is a big difference between dying by nuclear weapon and from a car accident; one is an act of killing, the other is an accident. Secondly, only two nuclear devices have ever been used and they pale in comparison to the destructive power of modern nuclear weapons. To compare bodycounts between hundreds of thousands of car accidents and two nuclear weapons is obviously ridiculous. Lastly, it's a matter of scale. If every automobile exploded out of the blue, tomorrow--yes, lots of people would needlessly die--but life would go on. If every nuclear weapon exploded, it probably wouldn't. Think about that before you trivialize the danger posed by nuclear weapons.
-Grym
Unless you're Iran, in which case only 50 centrifuges is enough to put you "a few months away" from a nuclear weapon, according to Olmert. Or, y'know, 10 years at best, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate.
You know, I've heard this argument a lot lately, and it makes me wonder: when is the ideal time to respond wtih regard to Iran's nuclear aspirations?
Do we wait until they have 90% (or X%) of what's necessary to build a nuke, so they can point to the years of complacency and call us hipocrites and warmongers? Or do we wait until they actually have a weapon, allowing them to gain a dangerous amount of coercive power (even if they don't use it)? Or would it be better to react once their missiles are in the air?
-Grym
Actually, it is quite a myth that vaccines work as well as they do, although I won't say they don't work at all.
Clearly, more is at work in the timeframe in medical history than just the development of vaccinations alone. However, it seems like the general tone of your post suggests that vaccinations (at least en masse) are a bad thing. As I understand it, this is an unconventional point of view.
"A high proportion of such individuals were found in adult life to have developed immuno-reactive diseases such as sebacious skin disease, tumours and degenerative disease of the bone and cartridge. These included cervical cancer, skin cancers and cases of multiple sclerosis."
While the Chaitow research you reference is very interesting (this is actually the first time I've encountered that idea, myself), couldn't there be confounding variables here? The most notable of which is average lifespan? Which is to say that, those who received vaccinations would indeed have more incidents of immuno-reactive diseases and incidences of cancer because such diseases are, in some respects, a function of age?
-Grym
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Bear in mind that quartering was not a military necessity but a way of finding and uprooting dissent at it's roots--the common household. They didn't just quarter at random. Suspected sympathizers were often specifically targeted for the simple reason that having a few brutish and nosey soldiers from the government in your house either makes you clean up your affairs or start explaining yourself in front of a judge.
The third amendment was a response to a specific type of attack on privacy by a people which had been traumatized by it. You can bet your powdered wig that if England had tried to read the correspondence of every suspected revolutionary (wire-tapping) or recorded data about every conversation that ever occurred in a public square and the parties involved (phone database), that those too would have been specifically mentioned as well.
Kept in its historical context, the third amendment represents a limit to the imposition of households and the government's ability to intrude upon the private lives of ordinary citizens.
But you know what? What about the Ninth Amendment?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Any reasonable person can conclude that a right to privacy exists on some level. We shouldn't need a document of finite length, written over 200 years ago to tell us exactly what rights we, by virtue of our humanity, possess. In fact, this ridiculous argument we're having over whether a right to privacy exists or doesn't is the entire reason that the ninth Amendment was devised.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84, said it best (emphasis mine):
"[I] affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not content that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it [an enumerated Bill of Rights] would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power."
-Grym
The Amish reject many technologies because they feel it negatively impacts the human experience. They believe that these technologies disrupt the family unit and unnecessarily distract people from living good lives. This is an entirely reasonable viewpoint; technological progress is not always a good thing. Look at the implantable RFID debate that regularly occurs on slashdot if you disagree.
But the Amish don't reject technology outright. For instance, they use telephones--just not inside the house. They also use LED lights on their wagons and bicycles. For every piece of technology, they hold meetings which attempt to evaluate what impact it will have upon their lifestyle and community. The only problem with this is that these decisions are often viewed as too conservative. But, there is an entire sect of the Amish called Mennonites which are much more moderate. Some even drive cars and use computers.
But going back to your larger point, religion in and of itself doesn't cause violence. Atheists can be just as savage and misuse technology just as badly. Just look at all the atrocities that occurred under Marxist revolutions.
The problem isn't religion. The problem is that humankind is savage and violent by nature. Religion simply becomes a focal point for violent expression. Without religion, people would still find reasons (and ever-inventive ways) to kill each other.
-Grym
What makes you think that atheism is a new worldview? I suggest you live in a technological state of the 6th century BCE. Fair is fair.
Moreover, what about the state of technology is due to atheism or "your culture"? The removal of religion from science doesn't automatically lend itself to the arguments you're creating. The separation of the two unrelated disciplines bears isn't so much a reflection on the validity of either but rather a better way to preserve the purity of both. If you doubt this, then perhaps you should research the vast number of scientists who, in their personal lives, practiced religion.
There is simply no reason why a scientist can't also be a religious person.
-Grym
Occam's razor?
It's interesting that you bring that up, because William Ockham, infact, believed in God and was a Christian.
Regardless, Occam's razor is an argument based upon an assumption of simplicity. And while that is typically a good assumption, we have no way of knowing whether or not it applies to realms (or beings) outside of our universe if they even exist because such places are beyond our scope of reference. It's like giving directions in north, south, east, and west while in space. For all we know, the universe could have been created by a Rube Goldberg contraption. From our frame of reference, there's simply no way to know (scientifically) one way or the other.
Which brings me to another point: what evidence are you using in your application of Occam's razor? Occam's razor only applies if the clause of "if all things are equal." Here's a quote from wikipedia on it:
"As interpreted in contemporary scientific practice, it advises opting for the simplest theory among a set of competing theories that have a comparable explanatory power, discarding assumptions that do not improve the explanation. The "other things being equal" clause is a critical qualification, which rather severely limits the utility of Ockham's razor in real practice, as theorists rarely if ever find themselves presented with competent theories of exactly equal explanatory adequacy."
The most egregious misuses of Occam's Razor always forget this section.
Anyhow, you believe in god. I believe that pigs have the ability to fly but they don't do it when people are looking. It's exactly the same thing.
Where did I say that I believed in God? Disagreeing with your distasteful arrogance and science-as-the-new-religion sentiment does not, by default, make me a fundamentalist Christian.
Regardless, your example is ridiculous and not the same thing. The ability of pigs to fly is a falsifiable fact. The existence of God is not. I can devise any number of experiments to disprove your claim that pigs have the ability to fly. Can you devise even one that disproves the existence of God?
-Grym
-Grym
I'm sorry but a private medical care system will never be effective. Why? Because sick people don't really have choices.
Even more fundamentally than that: Medicine is a coerceive industry. Normal economics requires that services and goods can be assigned a value, but when it comes to your health or very existence, can you really rationally do this? Even if we had a completely open system where one could visit any doctor or choose any drug that they wanted, we would still have abuse.
-Grym
Let's say I write THE song of the century and go on tour as "The Opportunist". Now, Phony Records puts up some studio gang and has them go on tour as "The REAL Opportunists", puts a load of hype behind it, slanders me and makes sure that everyone believes that I'm the imposter. The only thing I could do is write statements myself, trying to tell the truth (Prior art? Original artist? Doesn't matter without copyrights).
You're making a common (perhaps intentional?) mistake among copyright advocates in that you are conflating copyright and plagiarism protections, which are two completely different things. The elimination of one would not have to affect the other. The elimination of copyright laws does not mean the elimination of plagiarism laws. It's the difference between owning distribution rights and claiming that you've written (or drawn, coded, performed, etc.) something first. Copyright laws require that we define and protect ideas which are diffuse and intangible, while plagiarism laws merely require the debunking of a lie--something the law is already well equipped to do.
Going back to your example, the phony band could not "slander" you because, unless those laws were changed too, slander would still be illegal. Similarly, the phony band, while being able to perform the song you wrote, they would not be able to claim that they originally wrote it. Without that claim, the phonies would not be able to compete for the hearts and minds of most fans and, consequently, their business.
Does this approach to artist protections capture the entire market? Certainly there would be copies of your band's performances that were not paid for. And while that may seem unfair, ask yourself: can you claim that copyright protections, being as unbalanced as you admit they currently are, do that either? Even if copyright enforcement achieves better results in this regard, is this gain by a few individuals worth the confusing and often ridiculous consequences of current intellectual property laws which affect all of us?
-Grym
So you admit that "sending the right message" to Islamists doesn't do a damn thing to help.
No, not at all. There's a difference between embracing peace and not fighting. One needn't subscribe to a doctrine of non-violence to think twice before throwing the first punch. It's an issue of respect versus good feelings. Islamic fascists probably wouldn't have good feelings about the United States even if we conceded to all of their outlandish demands. However, they will respect us (or at least respect the consequences of their acts against us), provided we send them the right message.
Needless to say, I'm not convinced. Neither this country nor its allies are in any appreciable danger of being invaded or taken over. The ongoing occupation of Iraq doesn't come close to justifying wartime restrictions.
And I'm glad you brought that up. I'm not convinced either. My point (at the detriment to my karma) is that the government can legitimately infringe upon individual rights, not necessarily that it currently should.
It almost seems like the Bush administration has stumbled upon a huge loophole in our system. The executive branch is traditionally given (and should be given) near-absolute power in times of dire need, but who decides when that is? By selectively picking the right reports to declassify, pressuring intelligence analysts to toe-the-line, and baiting people like Osama Bin Laden or Iran's Amenjad to, themselves, make outlandish claims, one can create an atmosphere of dire need that, in reality, is either non-existent or less of a threat than is perceived.
Notice how the Bush administration utilizes its wartime powers or, rather, doesn't use its powers. You won't ever see a call for conscription ("The draft"). You won't ever see a call for rationing or a comprehensive alternative energy plan. Similarly, you won't see a call for nationalization of ANY private assets (like Defense contractors or... ahem... Oil companies). Wouldn't all of these things conceivably help further the War on Terrorism? The administration's big advice to Americans after the September 11th attacks was "Keep on consuming."--or, in essence, nothing at all. I believe this trick only works because complacency of both the media and the average public, which, unfortunately, are at a seemingly all time high.
That being said, I do believe that there is truth to the claims that there is a threat. The September 11th attacks were real and were perpetrated by a new type of menace (a nation-less army of saboteurs seeking rewards in the afterlife) to America's position in the world, though not our very existence. We need to fight this enemy in the manner that it requires, which means foregoing political correctness and playing nice.
-Grym
A nation that trumps individual rights has no right to survive.
I know we all enjoy such platitudes, but what does that mean? Must we really be held to all of our strictest standards, at risk of our own demise?
Below is an act passed by a Western democracy (I'll leave it to you to figure out which one) in dire times. By the standard implied by your statement, this nation lacked a "right to survive." Is that correct?
"[The government]has power during the continuance of the present war to issue regulations for securing the public safety and the defence of the realm, and as to the powers and duties for that purpose of the Admiralty and Army Council and of the members of [The government]'s forces and other persons acting in his behalf; and may by such regulations authorise the trial by courts-martial, or in the case of minor offences by courts of summary jurisdiction, and punishment of persons committing offences against the regulations and in particular against any of the provisions of such regulations designed:
* (a) to prevent persons communicating with the enemy or obtaining information for that purpose or any purpose calculated to jeopardise the success of the operations of any of [The government]'s forces or the forces of [its] allies or to assist the enemy; or
* (b) to secure the safety of [The government]'s forces and ships and the safety of any means of communication and of railways, ports, and harbours; or
* (c) to prevent the spread of false reports or reports likely to cause disaffection to [The government] or to interfere with the success of [The government]'s forces by land or sea or to prejudice [The government]'s relations with foreign powers; or
* (d) to secure the navigation of vessels in accordance with directions given by or under the authority of the Admiralty; or
* (e) otherwise to prevent assistance being given to the enemy or the successful prosecution of the war being endangered.
(3) It shall be lawful for the Admiralty or Army Council:
* (a) to require that there shall be placed at their disposal the whole or any part of the output of any factory or workshop in which arms, ammunition, or warlike stores and equipment, or any articles required for the production thereof, are manufactured;
* (b) to take possession of, and use for the purpose of, [The government]'s naval or military service any such factory or workshop or any plant thereof;"
Source: Wikipedia
-Grym
Simply because warcrimes have happened in the past doesn't make it acceptable to commit them now... We should be trying to learn from our mistakes, not using our mistakes as justification for further errors of judgement.
That's not entirely what's being argued here. It's a matter of legitimacy, structure, and precedent. The argument isn't that everything that was done in the past is fair-game today. You are spot-on to say that would be wrong. However, the government is unequivocally empowered both historically and according to Supreme Court precedent to temporarily suspend the right to due process in times of national crisies.
If this is something that upsets you, then there's always the possibility of amending the constitution to abolish the English Common Law system (which works on precedent--including "past mistakes").
The Japanese detainment was an embarassment to us, and we as a nation have tried to compensate for what we did to them, and formal apologies have been issued.
The Japanese detainment wasn't exactly the same thing as Guantanamo. Those in Guantanamo were typically caught in and around battlezones with an enemy which chooses not openly identify themselves. The people in detainment camps were only tangentially related (solely by ethnicity) to a nation which declared war upon us. You can bet that if there were guerilla warfare taking place on the California coast by Japanese separatists (which is more akin to the situation in Afghanistan/Iraq), history would not have been so harsh on the Japanese detainment camps.
-Grym
What makes you think that brutal prisoner treatment is going to help convince Islamists to embrace peace?
What makes you think their embracing of peace is dependent upon our actions?
So the modern peacetime is as restrictive as wartimes of the past. That doesn't help your argument.
The argument (and it's not realy my argument, for the record), is that this isn't peacetime.
Why stop there? What about the threat of nuclear war? What about the threat of alien invasion? What about the threat of Republicans losing their grip on power? Under the current system, who gets to decide what constitutes a real threat? Answer that question and you'll begin to discover why liberals think that Guantanamo is a very bad idea.
I'll grant you that the invocation of war powers with regard to the "War on Terrorism" is a subjective decision and a slippery slope, but that doesn't make it illegitimate. If nuclear war were a realistic possibility, then yes, the state would be completely legitimate in infringing upon individual rights. Similarly, if the threat of extraterrestrial invasion (I assume that's what you mean: "take me to your leader"-aliens) were realistic, the same would apply. Obviously, the third was just thrown in to be ridiculous, so no, because republicans losing power does not constitute a threat to national survival like the first two examples.
The whole point is that people in Guantanamo have never been convicted of any crime, let alone terrorism or "terrorism supporting" whatever that means. How are you going to tell which ones don't deserve due process?
I'll refer you to my original post. What about suspected Nazi sympathizers? They were detained and deported without trial. Was that fair? No. But such acts of survival, while failing our strictest Western ideals, are just as legitimate as, for example, killing in personal self-defense.
ush has declared that everyone who disagrees with his policies is an enemy of the state. Is this really the kind of nation you want to live in?
Now you're just being ridiculous. There are PLENTY of people who disagree with President Bush's policies. The last poll I saw was a 60% disapproval rating. If what you're saying is true, why aren't all these people in Guantanamo? Why are all these people able to so publicly... um.. . express themselves?
-Grym
Except that the Civil War and WWII were very much existential wars that were largely unavoidable and pushed the U.S. to extremes. The current wars are very much wars of choice...
In what way did we choose to be attacked during September 11th? I argue that the Afghan and Iraqi invasions were indeed choices, but strategic choices in a larger conflict with Islamic extremists which engaged us first, without our consent.
So in essence you're saying a war of choice necessitates torture and abandonment of the rule of law -- that what we choose automatically becomes a necissity. Nice logic.
Reading comprehension is a valuable ability that comes with practice. I suggest you begin brushing up on this skill by re-reading what I said before making any more claims about my logic.
In case that fails, lest more words get forcefully placed in my mouth, I'll restate my argument: National survival trumps individual rights. In times of dire need, the state may choose to curtail rights that would, under other circumstances, be guaranteed. This has been upheld in the Supreme court numerous times. Now, reasonable people can disagree on whether the current "War on Terrorism" constitutes such a threat, but the current administration (with the backing, or non-opposition, of Congress) is arguing that it does; hence, Guantanamo, NSA wiretapping, and so on.
-Grym
Guantanamo is a fucking embarassment to the USA, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to defend it.
Maybe among liberal societies, yes. But, to the contrary, I believe that Guantanamo is used as a symbol to Islamists that the United States is ready and willing to do everything that is necessary to win, even if that means bending (or reinterpreting) some of our more cherished values. In short, we're showing that, we'll take the gloves off and get nasty if it comes to that.
As extreme as that may sound to the modern reader, note that it's really not that much of a departure from wartimes of the past. Lincoln suspended both the right to free press and habeas corpus during the Civil War. During WWII, many suspected sympathizers of both Nazi Germany and Japan were put under surveillance (without warrant) and summarily deported (without trial).
Now the real question is (and this is one where I feel that reasonable people can disagree): Does the threat of terrorism constitute a danger to our survival as a nation to the point where such sacrifices in personal liberties are necessary?
If it is, (and back to the article) I think that Guantanamo should be reserved for terrorists and terrorist supporters only. Sending other criminals there diffuses the message to Islamists. Read the article though, the basis of this guy's claim that he's subject to Guantanamo is on an "unsigned and anonymous" note... Yeah, right... I think that it's likely that this is all just legal shenanigans on the part of the defense to capitalize off of outrage over Guantanomo bay, nothing more.
-Grym
Email, where you surf, and im messages are not considered protected private communications. It is in the same category as a post card. Unlike a letter or phone call there isn't any expectation of privacy on network communications.
Oh but there is by the general populace. How else can you account for the success of online pornography? How many people do you know send pornographic postcards in the mail?
I would argue that meta-data about one's online activities is public information but the actual data itself is private. This is very easy to conceptualize. The address on your letter, for instance, is not subject to privacy, but the content of the letter is. Similarly, descriptions of the type of packaging are not private as well. In networking terms, where you surfed and how you communicated (i.e. what protocol) would be public information. But what you communicated would be private.
Fortunately, the TCP/IP protocol is already structured in such a way that making this distinction between data and meta-data is easy and has been in use for years in network content-shaping applications.
-Grym