Due to the prolific nature of these forums, poster aggression is advised.
The real reason was cronyism, for the most part. Not a legitimate cause for an invasion.
Not without a formal declaration, it isn't. Read the Constitution.
Ah, I see. So we should just dispense with any kind of consistent processes and just have one guy with a gun say "well, I'm convinced. Guilty."*BANG*Bullet in the back of the head?
That's easy enough to say when you're not the innocent being tortured.
And "wrongly tortured"? That implies that there is such a thing as "rightly tortured". Which there is not. That is not a matter of subjective opinion. That is fact.
Sorry bub, but welcome to the real world. Things aren't as black and white as you seem to think they are. There are thousands of shades of grey. It isn't as simple as "OMG USA RULEZ!" and "YUO SUCK!". I am nitpicking because you are overgeneralizing and oversimplifying something that is hellaciously complex and devilishly tangled.
I agree that saving thousands of lives is benevolent. But not if the means one resorts to involve torture and the infringing of the rights of other individuals. The ends do not justify the means.
Any government that must resort to such means to ensure its survival does not deserve to survive.
That is your opinion. Committing an evil act to save others is still an evil act. That is fact.[/qupte]Evil is a point of view. I don't consider torture evil if it saves innocent people's lives. QuoteAgain, that is your opinion. It's wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion. Thankfully that's not how things work in reality. The 8th Amendment is not subjective at all. It is very clear. 1) An opinion can't be wrong. It is a subjective decision on a topic based on ones experiences. It can't be true of false right or wrong.2) The 8th amendement is very subjective. The punishments in the 1800's are not the same as todays, because the older punishments were consider cruel. Hence I say the 8th amendment is subjective.QuoteAnd again, that's easy enough for you to say when you're not the innocent being tortured or being deprived of your rights without due process.I'm not worth 100 people. I'm not worth 2 people. If I have to die so that others may be saved it's worthwhile. QuoteIt wasn't inevitable unless Iraq somehow miraculously developed the ability to become an imminent threat to US soil. Which was pretty doubtful given their condition prior to being invaded.It's inevitable because Iraq was endangering our interests in the middle east. The country is run by bussinessmen.QuoteSo again, dispense with due process, and just have someone put a bullet in their heads? Some justice system. Ever heard of "fascism"?I'm actually a big fan of argentinian and brazilian fascism. I don't think democracy is a perfect system. Capitalism was made better by merging it with aspects of socialism and communism. I think democracy can be made better by merging parts of it with anarchism and other parts with toltalitarianism. I know that sounds contradictory, but it isn't. Some part should be less contolled, and others should be more controlled. In my opinion.QuoteWell again, good thing you're not in charge. Because you obviously don't understand how it works.I understand how it works, I don't agree with how it works.QuoteSo the "war" on terror that we're fighting is leading to the capture of lots of enemy individuals that are civilian criminals, but no "prisoners of war"?If I had a candy bar I'd give it to you right now.
Again, that is your opinion. It's wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion. Thankfully that's not how things work in reality. The 8th Amendment is not subjective at all. It is very clear.
And again, that's easy enough for you to say when you're not the innocent being tortured or being deprived of your rights without due process.
It wasn't inevitable unless Iraq somehow miraculously developed the ability to become an imminent threat to US soil. Which was pretty doubtful given their condition prior to being invaded.
So again, dispense with due process, and just have someone put a bullet in their heads? Some justice system. Ever heard of "fascism"?
Well again, good thing you're not in charge. Because you obviously don't understand how it works.
So the "war" on terror that we're fighting is leading to the capture of lots of enemy individuals that are civilian criminals, but no "prisoners of war"?
And you intend to prove this with a "justice" system that allows torture, spurns any kind of due process and just skips straight to sentencing?
Think about that for just a minute, will you? See if you can find the massive, glaring flaw in that argument you have presented.
Which can be changed at will by those in power if they didn't have something that -- oh, I don't know, LIMITED their power to infringe on certain rights?
And that is why this discussion is quickly becoming pointless. There is a serious flaw in your position and despite numerous attempts to explain to you what that is, you are still lacking too much in foundation to even start. As a result of that, we're just going to keep going in circles.
Incorrect. Rights are inherent and objective and that can be proved rationally. Controlling systems either acknowledge their existence, or they do not.
Your saying that tells me that you don't understand the system. Start over.
Again, easy enough to say coming from someone who isn't one of the eggs being broken.
It isn't perfect. But it's the system we have, and it is the best system yet designed.
Ironically, the elements of this system that MAKE it so happen to be the ones that you are referring to as "it's shortcommings"[sic].
Do you know how many times in U.S. history the constitution hasn't been followed.
drastic times call for drastic measures. Seeing how if we let them all go they'll be doing that to a lot more than one person.
I will readily acknowledge that me and a few of my buddies not worth 100 people. Not to mention it's also easy for you to say when you are not a family member of one of the terrorist's victims. The coin has two sides.
Those who torture should be tortured. If you infringe on someone elses rights you should lose your own in return. That is my opinion, and there is no fact left in this discussion we are having.
The war on terror is not a formal war. End of story on this part of the discussion.
The ends do indeed justify the means. If one person has to be sacrificed to save two it is worhwhile. Then you doom the human race.
1) An opinion can't be wrong. It is a subjective decision on a topic based on ones experiences. It can't be true or false right or wrong.
2) The 8th amendement is very subjective. The punishments in the 1800's are not the same as todays, because the older punishments were consider cruel. Hence I say the 8th amendment is subjective.
I'm actually a big fan of argentinian and brazilian fascism. I don't think democracy is a perfect system. Capitalism was made better by merging it with aspects of socialism and communism. I think democracy can be made better by merging parts of it with anarchism and other parts with toltalitarianism. I know that sounds contradictory, but it isn't. Some part should be less contolled, and others should be more controlled. In my opinion.
The deterrent argument is completely unfounded. Have crimes ceased because of deterrents? Is war a deterrent? Then why are there still wars?Anyone who has taken an intro to psychology class knows that punishment doesn't work. All it teaches the punished is to avoid getting caught. It doesn't extinct the behavior, it only makes it more covert.
Actually, reimero, that isn't even $right_wing_propaganda he's flinging around... it's pretty much Machiavellian "Might Makes Right" fascism he's promoting. The "ends justify the means as long as I am not harmed in the process" argument.History has shown us how well societies are treated by rulers who use that as their policy.
Good is subjective. I think that as long as you are saving potential victims it is a good deed.
The Constitution is NOT optional
Then under what legal authority are our troops engaged in hostilities in a foreign country? The Constitution is NOT optional.
As long as you don't confuse opinion with fact. Which you have.
And I say it's been VERY clearly defined by a long, long series of decisions made in federal court and before the Supreme Court. SCOTUS declared torture Unconstitutional.
You're an authoritarian. You know what's best for everyone and seek to impose your world view on all of us, because, in your infinite wisdom, you know the unique challenges facing each of us and the unique situations each of us is placed in. You have more faith in the government to manage my affairs than you have in me to manage my own.
I don't know you that well, so I'm guessing you're a high school or college-age kid with no real-world experience. So I'm witholding the harder arguments because I don't think you're capable of grokking them yet.
I'm amazed by your views Evonus; however, I only feel compelled to reply to one thing you've said because clearly Demo has done a fantastic job of pointing out the flaws in your arguments.Here's the satement I'd like to point out and comment upon:By your definition Osama was (attempting) doing good when he attacked the WTC. You may as well call Osama a "Freedom Figther" and lump him in with our founding fathers in history.
I don't see why not. It's been the cause of 100 wars before.
I will readily acknowledge that me and a few of my buddies not worth 100 people.Not to mention it's also easy for you to say when you are not a family member of one of the terrorist's victims. The coin has two sides.
Those who torture should be tortured.
If you infringe on someone elses rights you should lose your own in return.
That is my opinion, and there is no fact left in this discussion we are having.
The ends do indeed justify the means.
If one person has to be sacrificed to save two it is worhwhile.
Then you doom the human race.
1) An opinion can't be wrong. It is a subjective decision on a topic based on ones experiences. It can't be true of false right or wrong.
I'm not worth 100 people. I'm not worth 2 people. If I have to die so that others may be saved it's worthwhile.
It's inevitable because Iraq was endangering our interests in the middle east. The country is run by bussinessmen.
I'm actually a big fan of argentinian and brazilian fascism. I don't think democracy is a perfect system.
Capitalism was made better by merging it with aspects of socialism and communism. I think democracy can be made better by merging parts of it with anarchism and other parts with toltalitarianism. I know that sounds contradictory, but it isn't. Some part should be less contolled, and others should be more controlled. In my opinion.
Some do consider Osama to be a freedom fighter. I happen to think he's a religious fanatic, and since I hate religion, I dislike him as well. Also, our founding father's didn't mass murder civilians. They killed occupying british troops.
Name them. All 100. I'm curious.
And that justifies not following it how, exactly?
"Drastic times call for drastic measures." Ah yes. The mating call of the dictator. How much blood has been spilled with that as the justifier for "drastic measures"? And how much humanity has learned from it.
And let them go? I don't think we should just "let them go". I think they should be charged, provided with counsel, and tried in a court of law.Unfortunately, that will probably result in most of them being let go. That sucks, but that's the Bush Administration's fault and their policies that will ultimately lead to that result.
That is how scumbags go free. The worse the scumbags the more important it is to ensure that due process is followed to the letter and that their rights are observed.
How do you know that I'm not?
I have had those close to me harmed by the criminal and violent acts of others. That does not mean I advocate the dismissal of individual rights. If anything, it has made me a firmer advocate of them.Why is that, you might ask?Because the unilateral observation of and acknowledgement of individual rights means that ultimately the innocent have the best possible protection from those that might initiate force on them.
Not by a civilized society, no. They should not. And not by the United States. Again, the 8th Amendment is quite clear on that.
I agree. And Due Process should be followed as the means by which the criminal has those rights curtailed.
Then our military should not be involved. Period. End of story on this part of the discussion.
No, they do not. We have rules that must be followed. Even if our enemies do not. That is the only thing separating us from them. If we engage in the same heinous acts of savagery as they do we are no better than they, and are just as deserving of such treatment as they are.
I'm fine with that if I get to chose the person to be sacrificed. What if I chose your mother? Your father? Your sister? Your wife? Your child?If you don't like that, then perhaps AGAIN you should consider the massive, glaring hole in your logic.
No, I just ensure that the cruel and the tyrants do not survive to prey on the innocent and oppress others. Committing cruelty does not prevent or stop further cruelty. It only leads to more cruelty.Anyone who thinks it is "okay" to behave like an animal because one's enemies have has lost any claim to any argument other than that of a thug, pure and simple.
If you have the opinion that the sky is green, it can still be wrong. If you have the opinion that pi is equal to exactly "3", you can still be wrong.
If you have the opinion that torturing someone to death is in any way benevolent, that can still be wrong. If you have the opinion that rights don't exist except at the behest of the powerful, then you can still be wrong.
Wrong. Intentionally inflicting pain on someone is cruel. The 8th amendment prohibits that behavior. Sentencing someone to life in prison for shoplifting a candy bar is cruel. THe 8th amendment prohibits that behavior.It might not "in your opinion". But as I demonstrated above, your opinion is frequently wrong as you have expressed it in this discussion.
That's fine. But your life is the only one about which you may make that decision. You can't decide that for others. No one can.
Again, not justification for an invasion using US military forces. If "bussinessmen"[sic] want to invade a country to protect their interests, let them raise their own military.
Democracy isn't a perfect system. It is in fact the worst system. Except for every other one that has been tried.
And when you start saying some people's rights are more valid than other people's rights, a red flag goes off.
What I'm finding incredibly amusing at this point is that Evonus appears to be both a moral absolutist and a moral relativist at the same time! Who knew that you could be both?
Total Members: 4952