Future of Politics

[mindido]

endymion,

Couldn't have said it any better myself. Basically, the US wants its cake and to be able to eat it too! Any country holds a US citizen and theres hell to pay (unless they're a leftie) but we can hold anyone for anything forever. Civil liberties in this country are close to being at a knife edge. Anyone else notice that they finally got around to charging Jose Padilla (a US citizen) after 3+ years! Things keep going this way and it will be just like 1930's Germany shortly.

 

[Texan]

The US has not refused the UN access to the "pig eating swine", we have just refused free unsupervised access to the inmates. If you ask me, we are doing the inmates a favor.

 

[mindido]

Tex,

I think the problem here is the term "unsupervised". From what I understand, the UN wants to be able to talk to the inmates without a guard being able to monitor the conversation. I don't have a problem with that but our administration apparently does.

It seems like the same hypocritical argument the administration and Porter Goss are using in the torture debate. Bush and Goss saying, "We don't torture", BUT we reserve the right... (and will fight the McCain bill). Its hypocritic and another reason those outside (and inside) the US have even less reason to trust the US.

 

[Texan]

The UN has no business talking to those scum in private.

As far as torture goes, I dont have a problem with it. If the little bastard has information and wont disclose it, torture his sorry little ass. We train our Military Pilots and special forces for enemy capture by torturing them so why cant we torture the enemy.

 

[mindido]

Tex,

Then what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. Just talk to John McCain about that. And it also appears that our "morals" are no different than theirs. No wonder our standing with the rest of the world is so low.

 

[endymion]

So Tex, you have no problem with US citizens or troops being tortured if captured by foreign forces because they might have information? You have no problem with that at all?
Or is it only the US that gets to do this?

 

[Iceberg]

The UN has no business talking to those scum in private.

Unfortunately, they do. The UN is required to ensure that all people's rights as citizens on this planet are assured, no matter the offence.

I would like to see these scumbags (i.e. those who have, in fact, committed an offence) all put on trial for the appropriate charges deserved. However, until they are proven guilty, they are classified as innocent. (It's the whole "innocent until proven guilty" mantra.) There may also be those who haven't done anything wrong, so these people should have the basic rights as we all have, and if innocent people's rights are taken away, it poses even more questions into the legitimacy of the Guantanamo Bay prison.

 

[cableguy]

endy, it would be nice if EVERYONE was held accountable for the handling of their prisoners, but who is holding the terrorist types responsible for their treatment of prisoners??? beheaded, dismembered, burned... and yet the US is the big bad wolf when a few prisoners end up embarrassed... please explain this disparity...

berg, what has the un done about the aforementioned dismemberings, beheadings, and burning of prisoners taken by the terrorists in iraq, pakistan, and other locales?? why do i not recall a single peep about the un wanting to visit daniel pearl unsupervised?? it seems there is a double standard here beyond the one you believe you see...

how do you put a foreigner on trial in the US for things done in another country, and at a time of war?? what limits would you puton subpoenas?? could soldiers in combat be called to testify?? what about classified information?? bottom line, these folks are NOT US citizens, they were captured in a time of war, and have no legal standing whatsoever, much less in a US court... oh, and the geneva convention does NOT apply to them... there is no innocent until proven guilty UNLESS you are referring to a case in US court... this does not meet that criteria, and as such, is an invalid argument...

also, these shitheads are eating better than they ever have, and have their precious prayer rags and an arrow toward mecca... what "rights" do these animals have??? what "rights" does someone wishing to kill innocents deserve??

 

[mindido]

More evidence of the extent of corruption in American politics:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5794109.html

Or this one:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051221...iwArg.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

I swear, none of these guys can be trusted.

 

[cableguy]

and this is surprising exactly how??? im quite sure you have your own political skeletons as well that sometimes are brought out for all to see... actually, if memory serves, there was something a few months back up there that made quite a splash... no government is corruption-free... not now, and probably not ever...

 

[Iceberg]

I found an excellent argument by Mark Twain against capital punishment:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/twain/notkill.htm

 

[Preferred User]

Like all Twain, it's well written. But I'm not positive he's taking a stance against cap punishment. He's doing a great job of pointing out that cap punishment isn't going to change behavior. It's not a deterrent, and most modern studies would back him up on that.

But he was smart enough to know that if you take his argument all the way out, then we shouldn't have punishments for any crime. I'm guessing that's why he doesn't come out and call for an end to cap punishment.

 

[Iceberg]

Preferred User, Twain is saying that any punishment meted out by the justice system is supposed to be for the protection of the general public.

If this is true, then capital punishment can and should be rejected in favour of life imprisonment, since Twain cites the "Thou shall not kill" commandment. This is because any human has no basis for killing another human. If the justice system's responsibility is to protect society from murderers and the like, a life imprisonment (without parole) is sufficient, since the convict will not be let out at any point during the rest of their natural life.

 

[Texan]

I would rather the bastard die than waste taxpayers money keeping him fed, clothed, providing shelter, and cable TV.

 

[moxdevil]

I would rather the bastard die than waste taxpayers money keeping him fed, clothed, providing shelter, and cable TV.

You know Tex, i can't help but agree with you. Though for certain prisoners- rapists and murderers.

Misguided ethics and morality lead to the conclusion that society should keep alive and provide for those that care nothing for social rules. Some by their actions forfeit any right to life as far as i am concerned.

 

[Preferred User]

Preferred User, Twain is saying that any punishment meted out by the justice system is supposed to be for the protection of the general public.

Yea that is what he's saying Ice. And for his argument to work he needs us to accept that punishment is about protection. If that's all it was about his argument works.

But so many people talk about justice. Everyone has their own definition of that. Even among family members of murder victims there is disagreement on that point. But there is some sort of judeo/Christian "eye for an eye" sort of concept to it.

 

[mindido]

Well, it looks like the lid may finally be blown off at least some of the corruption in D.C. Jack Abramoff (a major Republican lobbyist) has plead guilty to several felonies (conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion) and agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors in return for reduced charges and jail time. Many Republicans (and a few Democrats) are now heading for the hills and trying to distance themselves from him. Just a few articles I found:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/politics/04assess.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060104...ASGbToC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...4jan04,1,1523732.story?coll=la-news-a_section

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010301609.html

And the cast of characters the feds are after is quite impressive:

Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio.
Representative Tom Delay, Republican of Texas.
Representative Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois.
Grover G. Norquist, a leading conservative strategist and president of Americans for Tax Reform
Ralph Reed, the former director of the Christian Coalition

These are only a few of the politicians possibly caught up in this (some are saying that there may be 30 politicians and an innumerable number of Hill and White House staff which may be implicated).

This will definitely be fun to watch. Oh, and if you're interested, C-Span is running a two night series on the issue. Last night was the first portion but the second airs tonight at 7:00 p.m. CST. The first night lasted 3 hours but was very informative.

 

[Preferred User]

And the cast of characters the feds are after is quite impressive:


Ralph Reed, the former director of the Christian Coalition

I'd hate to be Jesus and have to put up with some of these people on my side....

 

[mindido]

Preferred,

"I'd hate to be Jesus and have to put up with some of these people on my side...."

I've been following this story for a while and we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. The feds have a ton of e-mails (apparently from most, if not all, of the primary suspects) which pretty clearly indicate the extent of the corruption. Reeds involvement is pretty clear and some of the things he said in those e-mails is pretty enlightening. All of those e-mails are supposed to be released fairly shortly. Will see if I can find them.

 

[Preferred User]

Yea even David Brooks, conservative columnist in the NY Times had this to say about his favorite political party this morning:

"...all that leading Republicans can do is promise to return his money and remind everyone that some Democrats are involved in the scandal, too. That's a great G.O.P. talking point: some Democrats are so sleazy, they get involved with the likes of us."