Topic: Ignoring the rights of the accused does not make us safer (Read 8771 times)

Demosthenes · « **Reply #25 on:** June 30, 2004, 09:00:59 AM »

So Gitmo falls outside of that category?

Well either way, I still think it bullshit. If you are in US custody, your rights should be recognized. Period.

And actually, I think the Supreme Court's ruling of thoes "enemy combattants" being allowed to use US courts to contest their detention backs that up, or at least gives them some kind of legal recourse that implies it anyway. Don't you agree?

reimero · « **Reply #26 on:** June 30, 2004, 09:07:40 AM »

I definitely agree! Rights should not be applied selectively and should not be denied without due process. Otherwise, how are we better than they are, really?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #27 on:** June 30, 2004, 09:12:03 AM »

Well, our government isn't.

I like to think sometimes that WE, collectively, as a people are.

I think the government thinks that sometimes too... which is part of why they do so much to keep so much of this kind of shit out of public view. Because if people really knew what was being done in their name, they'd be sickened and appalled by it.

One expects this kind of callous disregard for individual rights from an openly fascist state like China or DPRK. But of a government of a country that calls itself the "Land Of The Free", it's pretty disgusting.

Law · « **Reply #28 on:** June 30, 2004, 09:14:36 AM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

So Gitmo falls outside of that category?

Yup, that's why they were sent there. Its the only US base that has a no-sovereignty clause.

Quote

Well either way, I still think it bullshit. If you are in US custody, your rights should be recognized. Period.

Yup.

Quote

And actually, I think the Supreme Court's ruling of thoes "enemy combattants" being allowed to use US courts to contest their detention backs that up, or at least gives them some kind of legal recourse that implies it anyway. Don't you agree?

It would seem to. The case to beat is Johnson v. Eisentrager a 1950 case that ruled that Nazi officers held by the US outside of US terrirory had no access to the US court system. The SC has been chipping away at Eisentrager in the last few years approaching this recent ruling in trials over Moussaoui and a challenge in California to the use of Guantanamo. This recent ruling comes close to saying that Eisentrager is dead, but hasn't quite done it yet. It make take one more round of challenges going up the federal circuit to have done with for good.

This would be why all of a sudden the Pentagon is going full steam ahead with empaneling a military tribunal for Gitmo. They've held off as long as they had Eisentrager protecting their position, but now see the writing on the wall, as it were.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #29 on:** June 30, 2004, 09:29:36 AM »

Well, if nothing else, then they have NO excuse for holding Padilla for two years without counsel, charges, a trial, anything. He has been held on US soil, in North Carolina ferfucksake.

The_FOO · « **Reply #30 on:** June 30, 2004, 12:31:56 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

Incorrect. Take away government and protection of those rights disappears.

Actually, I'd agree with that.

Quote from: Demosthenes

Rights themselves cannot be taken away. They are either acknowledged, and protected, or they are not.

This is the bit I disagree with.

Quote from: Demosthenes

Rights are not just a "legal construct"... they are moral truisms arrived at by reason just as surely as mathematics and physical laws.

Moral truism? What's that? Morals are NOT universal. A new born baby has no inbred moral sense. All morals are learned from society.

Take for example killing. We think it's wrong simply because our society is essentially based on those ten rules on those stone tablets. If you look at another culture, China or India for example it's not uncommon to kill a dughter in favour of having a son. (Granted, less so now than in the past, but that's due to globalization, or the spread of Western culture). In other words it's morally acceptable there, but not here.

Not because of some universal "right" or moral. But because that's how the people there were raised.

I can prove 2+2=4 (for sufficiently large values of 2

. But so far as I know we have no mathematical representation of "You have the right to remain silent."

What about fetal "rights"? If what you're saying is true, everyone would instinctively agree that feti (fetuses?) are people and it's wrong to kill then no matter what stage of development they're at.

The arguments for and against that position are numerious and I'm not going get into that here. But since there are differing opinions I think it's safe to say that we're not hardwired to think one way or the other.

Quote from: Demosthenes

The government can no more take away someone's rights than it can take away the law of gravity.

*blinks* Perhaps you should read this thread over because that's exactly what the US government (or parts of it) did.

Quote from: Demosthenes

The Constitution is the guarantee, a guarantee that the government of the United States acknowledges individual rights and its role to protect them.

The rights are there whether or not the guarantee is.

The fact that a large number of foreign nationals are being held at Gitmo kinda blows that argument out of the water don't you think?

The universe doesn't guarantee us anything after we're born into it. It doesn't even guarantee that. Hell, we could lose this whole planet in the next 10 minutes.

I think that you're confusing learned behaviour with inate behaviour. So called rights and morals are convenient fictions that we as people have made up to make our lives easier.

reimero · « **Reply #31 on:** June 30, 2004, 01:49:05 PM »

If I understand you correctly, then left to our own devices, we shouldn't think there's anything inherently wrong with murder, theft, rape, mistreating members of the opposite sex or racism, and that it's all an artificial social construct?

The_FOO · « **Reply #32 on:** June 30, 2004, 01:51:16 PM »

Quote from: reimero

If I understand you correctly, then left to our own devices, we shouldn't think there's anything inherently wrong with murder, theft, rape, mistreating members of the opposite sex or racism, and that it's all an artificial social construct?

Correct. It's called "civilization".

Demosthenes · « **Reply #33 on:** June 30, 2004, 01:58:15 PM »

*head explodes*

reimero · « **Reply #34 on:** June 30, 2004, 02:09:23 PM »

pbsaurus · « **Reply #35 on:** June 30, 2004, 02:29:40 PM »

I'm a moral relativist too. As I believe all are. People will create morals to further their own desires. If killing people is wrong, they will not consider those they kill people. People are a massive bundle of defense mechanisms and will use various cognitive constructs (cognitive dissonance anyone?) to justify anything that they do or believe is right.

You bring up murder, rape, etc. These are quite common in war, and are committed by these same "god fearing" christians who will make arguments based on morals.

What we do have are societal norms. These norms are extremely powerful and act to perpetuate said society. There is very little empirical evidence that there are innate morals, and those studies which suggest this have competing studies which suggest their absence.

It's nurture, not nature.

reimero · « **Reply #36 on:** June 30, 2004, 02:42:08 PM »

I don't believe that nurture trumps nature. Regardless of how gender-neutral parents try to be, research has consistently found that, to put it simply, boys will be boys. It's part of our genetic code.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #37 on:** June 30, 2004, 05:30:07 PM »

There are genetic traits, and although some behaviors have genetic components, most behavior is in response to environmental conditions. To say that genetics predetermines everything is absurd and counter to our concept of free will.

The_FOO · « **Reply #38 on:** June 30, 2004, 05:49:58 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

There are genetic traits, and although some behaviors have genetic components, most behavior is in response to environmental conditions. To say that genetics predetermines everything is absurd and counter to our concept of free will.

Exactly.

reimero · « **Reply #39 on:** July 01, 2004, 08:39:08 AM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

There are genetic traits, and although some behaviors have genetic components, most behavior is in response to environmental conditions. To say that genetics predetermines everything is absurd and counter to our concept of free will.

I'm not saying genetics trumps free will, but it certainly contributes. How else do you explain the fact that boys will tie blankets around their necks, climb on the roof and jump off pretending to be Superman even though they know intellectually that that is a particularly stupid thing to do? And, equally importantly, why don't girls?

Why is it that, even if it's not allowed in the home, boys will turn ANYTHING into a weapon? And why won't girls?

My personal theory is that there's either some genetic coding or that girls have cooties. Not sure which, though.

hackess · « **Reply #40 on:** July 01, 2004, 05:17:42 PM »

Quote from: reimero

I'm not saying genetics trumps free will, but it certainly contributes. How else do you explain the fact that boys will tie blankets around their necks, climb on the roof and jump off pretending to be Superman even though they know intellectually that that is a particularly stupid thing to do? And, equally importantly, why don't girls?

Why is it that, even if it's not allowed in the home, boys will turn ANYTHING into a weapon? And why won't girls?

My personal theory is that there's either some genetic coding or that girls have cooties. Not sure which, though.

I sure did all those things you mention above. Climbed trees and jumped off swings and beat up the younger kids and turned anything into a weapon. I was just as stupid as the boys.

Maybe I'm just an anomaly. Also, boys have bigger cooties than girls.

I can't say that nurture trumps nature or vice versa. I think they're equally important.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #41 on:** July 01, 2004, 05:45:49 PM »

Quote from: catwritr

Quote from: reimero

I'm not saying genetics trumps free will, but it certainly contributes. How else do you explain the fact that boys will tie blankets around their necks, climb on the roof and jump off pretending to be Superman even though they know intellectually that that is a particularly stupid thing to do? And, equally importantly, why don't girls?

Why is it that, even if it's not allowed in the home, boys will turn ANYTHING into a weapon? And why won't girls?

My personal theory is that there's either some genetic coding or that girls have cooties. Not sure which, though.

I sure did all those things you mention above. Climbed trees and jumped off swings and beat up the younger kids and turned anything into a weapon. I was just as stupid as the boys. Maybe I'm just an anomaly. Also, boys have bigger cooties than girls.

I can't say that nurture trumps nature or vice versa. I think they're equally important.

Yup, pretty sexist generalization there. Curiously hormones will have more of an affect on behavior (testosterone and estrogens being major shapers of behavior) than genetic code. And hormone production is modulated by changes in environment. Many of these effects are quite profound with those going through with hormone therapy for gender reassignment.

reimero · « **Reply #42 on:** July 02, 2004, 09:54:51 AM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

Yup, pretty sexist generalization there. Curiously hormones will have more of an affect on behavior (testosterone and estrogens being major shapers of behavior) than genetic code. And hormone production is modulated by changes in environment. Many of these effects are quite profound with those going through with hormone therapy for gender reassignment.

Perhaps, except that male-oriented "gender" (meaning "sex") studies are just now beginning to emerge, and this particular pattern is very much being noticed among those researchers who are actually studying it. And I'm not at all dismissing hormones; if anything, I'd argue that they contain some of this hard-wired disposition toward behavior I mentioned.

Like I said, this is an emerging field that a lot of people still consider taboo because it's falsely perceived as a threat or counter to women's studies programs.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Ignoring the rights of the accused does not make us safer (Read 8771 times)