Topic: How long? (Read 8262 times)

Demosthenes · « **on:** December 02, 2002, 12:16:18 PM »

How long will it be before we start noticing people suddenly missing, never to be seen again?

"They came and took him," you'll hear someone say of his neighbor. "He was a nice enough guy. He had some unusual political opinions that he was never shy about voicing, and he was against the war, but he never did anything besides talk and write about them. Now he's gone, and nobody knows where he has been taken, nobody has ever given a reason."

How long will it be before we become too frightened to even talk about it?

How long will it be before someone you know is branded an "enemy of the state" and taken to an undisclosed location, with no warrant, no evidence, no hearing, no trial, no legal counsel?

How long will it be before they decide to come for me?

How long will it be before they decide to come for you?

Link

This article scares the bejesus out of me, kiddies. There are no checks and balances in a system like this, no rights, no appeals, no due process. This is a system in direct violation of the Consitution.

Or would be, if they cared to follow it anymore. Someone call me paranoid and tell me there's nothing to worry about.

Seriously.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #1 on:** December 02, 2002, 01:09:19 PM »

I am very afraid. History does tend to repeat itself. Asian-Americans being 'interned' during WWII wasn't even questioned. This time around could it be anyone who disagrees with the presidiment?

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #2 on:** December 02, 2002, 01:51:33 PM »

That's completely and absolutely insane. Where do they think terrorism originates, anyway? It doesn't only have its home in the hearts and minds of religious fanatics. People who feel oppressed or cheated by their government often go the way of the bomb.

By "fighting terrorism" in that manner, they're just encouraging it.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #3 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:24:20 PM »

Quote from: Lacerda

That's completely and absolutely insane. Where do they think terrorism originates, anyway? It doesn't only have its home in the hearts and minds of religious fanatics. People who feel oppressed or cheated by their government often go the way of the bomb.

By "fighting terrorism" in that manner, they're just encouraging it.

[/i]I used almost those exact words while discussing this with my wife last night.

You know, Jefferson said in no uncertain terms that it is every citizen's right -- nay, obligation -- to overthrow an oppressive government ruled by tyrants.

And he should know... he was party to just such an overthrowing.

It's frightening to think that I live under a government that is now more oppressive, tyrannical, and unjust than the one that was overthrown by Jefferson and his friends.

Anonymous · « **Reply #4 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:46:16 PM »

Seems as thought they're trying to make us all slaves and work for them.

It scares me as well that they'll then have the right to throw you away for good if they suspect that you're a combatant with little evidence at all.

It's only a matter of time until people draw a fine line of what they will and will not tolerate from the government. Sure, they can search you when entering a plane, statistically speaking, that is what they are trying to protect, however, going into someone's house isn't going to help safe-guard those planes.

Banshee · « **Reply #5 on:** December 02, 2002, 03:32:56 PM »

I really think that a whole lot of problems could be solved by removing foreign trade restrictions, removing US military forces from foreign soil (withdrawing to international waters), and by putting the difference between military spending now and military spending after the withdrawl (a difference of about $100 billion) into programs, overseen by an independent commission, that work towards increasing, if not achieving, the US's economic independence, mainly that of heavy industry. There you have it-- a country that is economically prosperous, low unemployment, low national debt, good credit, defensively powerful, and less hated by terrorists and the French alike.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #6 on:** December 02, 2002, 03:59:35 PM »

Sheesh.. you're starting to sound like me now....

Banshee · « **Reply #7 on:** December 02, 2002, 05:10:47 PM »

Hey, great minds think alike!

Daria · « **Reply #8 on:** December 02, 2002, 06:22:20 PM »

I just finished Kafka's The Trial.
What perfect timing!

Anonymous · « **Reply #9 on:** December 03, 2002, 08:01:33 AM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

How long will it be before we start noticing people suddenly missing, never to be seen again?

"They came and took him,"

Yeah it's about time we do something about those aliens...

ho0ber · « **Reply #10 on:** December 03, 2002, 10:36:54 AM »

Hey! Some of us like the aliens....

<ahem> not that I'm saying anything.

Min · « **Reply #11 on:** December 03, 2002, 11:16:18 AM »

Ummm...sorry to get back on topic but...

My mom has been feeding me stuff like what Demo is saying for years...."they're gonna start throwing us all in concentration camps...aghhhh!"

But since she's been doing it from a religious fanatic standpoint, I started ignoring her. Geez, I'd hate for her to be right...about anything, let alone this!

Anonymous · « **Reply #12 on:** December 03, 2002, 11:49:55 AM »

Bush has exceded my expectations in the way he handle the whole terrorism crisis thus far, and it's not necesarly that he did great. What I'm saying is that he just didn't fuck up anything too bad as I though he would. But this proposal... This is just too much centralized power for anyone. He may have good intentions and the thing may work out great for a little while, but as soon as somebody steps in and abuses the power, then they become the terrorist and we become like afganistan to some level.

I would not worry about the implementation of such a system. I don't think it will ever really happen. People are smart enough to know this can lead to no good. Except G dub'ya, of course. But also, I doubt that the UN members would just let this happen. They would put the presure on Bush. Problem is, he doesn't give a damn about them. He'll do what HE feels is right, regardless of others tell him. That is why he can be very very dangerous.

I don't see the need for such a system anyway. Why make a distinction between Terrorist and criminal? They're all criminals! And every criminal, regardless of what crime he is guilty of, must have some basic human rights. The right to a fair trial, amongst other things, is the most important one for the accused and for the court. It's a matter of intergity for the courts, and a matter of fair defense for the accused.

However, once the trial is complete and it is time to face the punishement, once it has been clearly established that one is guilty of the crime and that an appropriate sentence has been given, then I support execution, when applicable. Actually, I encourage public executions, as you are already aware, because it gives a clear message to everyone. And the message is : Fuck with us and we will decapitate you. The person doesn't need to suffer. They die a quick and painless death, but they die... Some will argue it's not really a punishement for the person, that they get offf easier than spending a lifetime in jail. Perhaps... I don't really care. My concern is to rid society of these animals by disposing of them. And the economic benefits of not having to support tousands of prisoners each year is attractive as well.

The people see the execution happen so "the message" is not just words thrown in the air. The action is made public. Everyone knows that there is no bullsit. You do this, you get that. End of story. There is no need for the proposed "bush taliban" system, regardless of capital punishment.

Anonymous · « **Reply #13 on:** December 03, 2002, 02:58:43 PM »

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I'm with Judge on this one.

I'm all for public executions. The thought of death is greater than death itself. Therefore if someone sees that if you do something bad enough to warrent execution, they might think twice about it. It isn't unusual, it isn't "cruel", it's simply letting other people know what can and will happen to them if they "fuck with the wrong people".

You know, kinda like Braveheart when they send Wallace's legs, arms and head to different parts of the region to warn others that if you do what he did, you will be killed. But uh... it didn't really work too well.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #14 on:** December 03, 2002, 03:28:20 PM »

The death penalty doesn't serve as much of a deterrant. Most violent crime is committed by those in the lower SES. Often their current situation is as bad as or worse than death and having an execution be it public or private will have no impact on these people. Sure it might make you think twice before you do something criminal, but with your upbringing there is little likelihood that you would do something criminal anyway.

Anonymous · « **Reply #15 on:** December 03, 2002, 03:34:43 PM »

What about eye for an eye? You rape someone, you get raped (and not by your gender of preference). You strangle someone, you get strangled. What ever force and method used on your victims should be done on you to the smae degree. Did I mention this should be done publicly?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #16 on:** December 03, 2002, 03:54:27 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

What about eye for an eye? You rape someone, you get raped (and not by your gender of preference). You strangle someone, you get strangled. What ever force and method used on your victims should be done on you to the smae degree. Did I mention this should be done publicly?

[/i]One little thing getting in your way on that (in the US anyway... I'm sure Canadia has its equivalent):

Amendment VIII.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

12AX7 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 03, 2002, 07:12:48 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

Quote from: TheJudge
What about eye for an eye? You rape someone, you get raped (and not by your gender of preference). You strangle someone, you get strangled. What ever force and method used on your victims should be done on you to the smae degree. Did I mention this should be done publicly?
[/i]One little thing getting in your way on that (in the US anyway... I'm sure Canadia has its equivalent):

Amendment VIII.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

SShhooot, we can just do away with that, can't we? Isn't it ok nowadays to just change it as needed?/>

Banshee · « **Reply #18 on:** December 03, 2002, 09:00:22 PM »

I have some things that I feel I need to contribute here...

Quote from: TheJudge

Bush has exceded my expectations in the way he handle the whole terrorism crisis thus far, and it's not necesarly that he did great. What I'm saying is that he just didn't fuck up anything too bad as I though he would. But this proposal... This is just too much centralized power for anyone. He may have good intentions and the thing may work out great for a little while, but as soon as somebody steps in and abuses the power, then they become the terrorist and we become like afganistan to some level.

I would agree with you, up until he let obviously partisan non-cabinet members speak publicly. Everyone was more or less happy when Powell, Rice, or even Rumsfeld talked, especially while the "war in Afghanistan" still progressed. After the "war in Afghanistan" ended, we get Senate speakers, House speakers, and pretty much everyone else who had less than a pinky's finger in hand running the "war" on the news just about every night, telling everyone that "this Republican effort to blah blah blah," or "partisan movements by the Democratic leadership aimed at blah blah blah." Any message that the people in charge have to say is lost in the jumble. When you lose the public's interest/attention, you lose their support, which is, more or less, what happened.

FEh on partisan politics. Feh on politics in general.

Quote

I would not worry about the implementation of such a system [to imprison people unjustly]. I don't think it will ever really happen. People are smart enough to know this can lead to no good. Except G dub'ya, of course. But also, I doubt that the UN members would just let this happen. They would put the presure on Bush. Problem is, he doesn't give a damn about them. He'll do what HE feels is right, regardless of others tell him. That is why he can be very very dangerous.

The UN holds little to NO sway in here. For some reason, the Eurocrats dominate the politics of the UN while the US dominates the military arm. I don't profess to understand how the UN is expected to get anything done, and neither does anyone else in the United States. Ever get the feeling that the US only pays lip service to UN "authority"? (and I use the term loosely)

About Dubya, he does seem to have the best intentions. But you know what the road to hell is paved with, and no small number of people seem to believe that's where we're headed.

You know the checks and balances system is still there when you turn on the news, and the hard line policy (so called) from yesterday just got reversed... Still, nothing gets done. I'm ready for a change.

Quote

I don't see the need for such a system anyway. Why make a distinction between Terrorist and criminal? They're all criminals! And every criminal, regardless of what crime he is guilty of, must have some basic human rights. The right to a fair trial, amongst other things, is the most important one for the accused and for the court. It's a matter of intergity for the courts, and a matter of fair defense for the accused.

Correct.

Quote

However, once the trial is complete and it is time to face the punishement, once it has been clearly established that one is guilty of the crime and that an appropriate sentence has been given, then I support execution, when applicable. Actually, I encourage public executions, as you are already aware, because it gives a clear message to everyone. And the message is : Fuck with us and we will decapitate you. The person doesn't need to suffer. They die a quick and painless death, but they die... Some will argue it's not really a punishement for the person, that they get offf easier than spending a lifetime in jail. Perhaps... I don't really care. My concern is to rid society of these animals by disposing of them. And the economic benefits of not having to support tousands of prisoners each year is attractive as well.

How, if you consider them animals, do they still deserve basic human rights, as your last paragraph asserts? Where is the line drawn? And how, if a "fair" trial is given, will an "eye for an eye" sentence solve problems? The Israelis have tried that for decades. 'Nuff said.

You do see the advantage to capital punishment, however. I think that, if given a good Libertarian choice, most people who were not in favour of capital punishment would also leave the box marked "Prisoner Food and Shelter Tax" unchecked on their tax forms. Gives you a good glimpse of their moral character, it does. Don't kill them, just let em live in mud huts somewhere in Death Valley with no food or water. [/whine]

Quote

The people see the execution happen so "the message" is not just words thrown in the air. The action is made public. Everyone knows that there is no bullsit. You do this, you get that. End of story. There is no need for the proposed "bush taliban" system, regardless of capital punishment.

The "bush taliban" system is, or WAS originally, more or less what you are talking about. It was designed and implemented as a hard line, "zero tolerance" policy. Unfortunately, Mr. John Q. Senator and Mr. John Q. ACLU decided it need some partisan review, and there, not the Oval Office, is where it went wrong.

I also don't want to give the impression that I support Bush unconditionally, which I definitely do not. Personally, his domestic policy making puts the Constitution in the garbage disposal, like Demo says. But his foreign policy is, if nothing else, consistent to my knowledge, and that is what US foreign policy has sorely needed. 'We mean what we say, and what we say comes in plain English' is what needs to happen. It's gotten pretty muddled after the fact, unfortunately...

Anonymous · « **Reply #19 on:** December 04, 2002, 08:33:11 AM »

The thing with bush is that he was never interested in external policies until 9-11. Befaore that, he didn't want to waist time with the international community. He just wanted to stick with internal policies and pretend the world does not exist. You just can't function like that anymore. The world is a small space now. And the actions of every member of this world has impacts on the others. Unfortunalty for Bush, it was necessary to have 5000+ Americans die until he finaly clued in that "we are not alone". It's only from that point that he started to invest time in external affairs. That just shows how poor his judgement really is. Perhaps this whole thing could have been prevented if he had paid more attention in the first place. I have no praises for Bush.

As far as handeling the war up to now, well he's not really responsible for anything. He's like a CEO. He's a public figure but doesn't have the real power. The bottom line is that others make the decision for him, then they presure him to implement them. It would have been the same scenario if Gore had been elected back then. He would have handle the whole thing pretty much the same way. Presidents don't deserve too much praise or credits. They come and go. The people that deserve merits are in the background, in the shadows. But they've been there a lot longer than any president.

Banshee · « **Reply #20 on:** December 04, 2002, 09:54:59 AM »

Quote from: TheJudge

The thing with bush is that he was never interested in external policies until 9-11. Befaore that, he didn't want to waist time with the international community. He just wanted to stick with internal policies and pretend the world does not exist. You just can't function like that anymore. The world is a small space now. And the actions of every member of this world has impacts on the others.

Not quite. There just wasn't much to do. And what you need to realize is that the international community will never be satisfied with our actions in the global community. To this, I say, then fuck you. We will do exactly what they ask from now on, and stay out of issues that do not directly impact our self-interest. Political isolation. It's impossible to cut off economic outflow, but it needs to be minimized. America can become an island. It's just that too many foreign interests own assets here in the country, more so than Americans own foreign assets, which results in a negative net cash flow, negative dividends, etc.

It can happen. But major economic policy changes must begin, and soon.

I realize that NATO and the UN will still require the US' participation, but we can participate without taking center stage. Let France do the peacekeeping for once.

Quote

Unfortunalty for Bush, it was necessary to have 5000+ Americans die until he finaly clued in that "we are not alone". It's only from that point that he started to invest time in external affairs. That just shows how poor his judgement really is. Perhaps this whole thing could have been prevented if he had paid more attention in the first place. I have no praises for Bush.

Nothing to say here. This is pure opinion.

Quote

As far as handeling the war up to now, well he's not really responsible for anything. He's like a CEO. He's a public figure but doesn't have the real power. The bottom line is that others make the decision for him, then they presure him to implement them. It would have been the same scenario if Gore had been elected back then. He would have handle the whole thing pretty much the same way.

What did you mean by this, then:

Quote from: TheJudge

This is just too much centralized power for anyone [Bush].

Quote from: TheJudge

But also, I doubt that the UN members would just let this happen. They would put the presure on Bush. Problem is, he doesn't give a damn about them. He'll do what HE feels is right, regardless of others tell him. That is why he can be very very dangerous.

Here, you state that Bush has too much centralized power and that he doesn't listen to those who would put pressure on him. Which is it?

Quote

Presidents don't deserve too much praise or credits. They come and go. The people that deserve merits are in the background, in the shadows. But they've been there a lot longer than any president.

Mostly true. Don't get too caught up in conspiracy theories, they distract you from what's actually going on.

It used to be that Presidents pushed legislation that was for the good of the country through Congress with nothing more than a good speaking voice. Sadly, that's not so common anymore; things happen more or less the way you describe it.

Anonymous · « **Reply #21 on:** December 04, 2002, 10:17:08 AM »

Quote from: Banshee

what did you mean by this, then:
Quote from: TheJudge

This is just too much centralized power for anyone [Bush].

Quote from: TheJudge

But also, I doubt that the UN members would just let this happen. They would put the presure on Bush. Problem is, he doesn't give a damn about them. He'll do what HE feels is right, regardless of others tell him. That is why he can be very very dangerous.

Here, you state that Bush has too much centralized power and that he doesn't listen to those who would put pressure on him. Which is it?

I'm using the name bush to reffer to the government. When bush is gone, someone else will be there and the system can still be abused. I didn't mean Bush as the individual, but Bush as the Bush government.

If the proposed system is imlplemented, then the government would have too much power. The people must be in control of the power in a Democracy. Although the role of the president is similar to the one of a CEO, the "CEO" still has some sort of indirect influence on the direction of things. The way I see it is that the president acts as the mediator between members of the government. He doesn't come up with ideas. Ideas are submitted to him for approval. He only supports or rejects them. And he makes that decision based on recomendation from his staff. So he's a bit like a puppet. But he does influence the general direction of the operations, after being influenced himself by others. That's why I say he doesn't really have true power. It's not like if he walks in a room and says "Alright, today were are doing this and here's how it's done". That's how people like Sadam operate.

"This is just too much centralized power for anyone [Bush]" - I never mentionned Bush here. You did. I was simply making a general statement.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: How long? (Read 8262 times)

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

12AX7

Anonymous

Anonymous