Mex, I couldn''t agree more. This is not a particularly isolated case either.
Fighting terrorism is one thing, but doing so at the sacrifice of the very liberties we propose to protect is, I think, a treasonous route. The amount of people being held without access to legal recourse at the risk that the ''might possibly'' have something to do with terrorism is unacceptable, but I''m sure many white land owning citizens don''t mind as long as it''s not the white land owning people being imprisoned. It''s amazing what people will tolerate when they are told they''d be in danger if they didn''t. Good thing Bush is around to protect global freedom.
They have human rights. (I''m not arguing that gives them access to our legal system, only that they do have some fundamental rights).
Of course, that goes without saying. I also agree with the Federal Courts ruling on such that they really don''t have rights to our legal system, seeing how their being held in a foriegn land.
Modern-day McCarthyism at its finest!
Uh...... no. Do you know what McCarthyism was? I hear many people running around saying this/that is McCarthyism. McCarthyism was the Congresses investigations into Soviet influence/infiltration into government/education/business/culturural centers of power, not the imprisonment of terrorists, or my personal favorite: if I don''t watch ""The West Wing"" why then its McCarthyism. Oh and the funny thing about McCarthy, that nobody discusses, is that he was right, the Soviets had influnced/infiltrated Congress/Hollywood/Universities/etc. He just went about what he did in a politcally STUPID way.
Being held with out council is a pretty damn scary thought.
I always think back to the movie Midnight Express. He had council I believe, but it might as well have had none. A Turkish prison is not a place where I''d like to spend any time.
Sadly, I also think being held without council happens in every country in the world.
Uh...... no. Do you know what McCarthyism was? I hear many people running around saying this/that is McCarthyism. McCarthyism was the Congresses investigations into Soviet influence/infiltration into government/education/business/culturural centers of power, not the imprisonment of terrorists, or my personal favorite: if I don''t watch ""The West Wing"" why then its McCarthyism. Oh and the funny thing about McCarthy, that nobody discusses, is that he was right, the Soviets had influnced/infiltrated Congress/Hollywood/Universities/etc. He just went about what he did in a politcally STUPID way.
...(the) use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges...
Therefore, regardless of what McCarthy did or didn''t do, the word as its meaning is defined accurately demonstrates my sentiment toward the government''s current philosophy on detaining suspected ""terrorists."" Your groundless flame was not appreciated, but I think my point was one that most everyone can agree upon.
They have human rights. (I''m not arguing that gives them access to our legal system, only that they do have some fundamental rights).
A very stickey wicket here.
On one hand you have the above mentioned ''precautions'' taken against individuals for fear of attack. I admit its very sketchy, much the same way war camps were set up for Jappanese in WWII.
On the other hand, we are currently engaged in a war that will free millions of individuals who have been denied these ''human rights'' for years.
Perhaps my definition for ''human rights'' differs from your own and the Iraqi example is off base.
I think it all comes down to ''human rights'' being used to trophy causes that may have nothing to do with it (ie. security, scarcity of resources ect.) but at the same time, the side effects of our actions do indeed lead to better ''human rights'' then before. This versus other countries who''s actions do nothing to free citizens or offer them the oportunity for a better life.
""Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"" is our creed for basic human rights, correct? So, as I''ve mentioned before, even if this wasn''t/isn''t our main concern in dealing with other countries, isn''t the side effect of our actions worthwhile regardless?
Not at the expense of our humanity. I am not an ''ends justifies the means'' kind of guy. I believe the means are often more important than the ends.
You know there was a hypothetical question asked, and it goes something like this:
You have a choice:
5 of your closest friends/family will perish
or
20 known associates/friends will perish
or
50 stangers in your country that you will meet will perish
or
100 strangers you will never know will perish
Which do you chose?
The idea being the smallest number of deaths are the most closely related yadda yadda yadda....
From what I gathered above, you would decide, based on human kindness and love, to select the least amount of death available? The ''means'' (love of all life) being more important than the ''ends'' (your closest and most personal loss)?
Now extrapolate (sp?) to the largest level of nationhood.
(If you want my responce to the above, I''ll tell.)
It''s a good question, because it forces you to search your life in relation to the world a bit more. It really asks the question, would you sacrifice that which is most precious to you in the defense of your beliefs. There''s a fine line to that, a balancing point (and this is not rationalization as I hope you''ll see in a second). At a personal and more importantly singular level, to sacrifice absolutely everything you hold dear to the end of holding your personaly ideology is, I think, vanity. I would give up almost every long considered tenet I hold dear to save my wife and child. It''s the only logical human answer. On a personal level.
The question, I think, is flawed in one significant way. Public policy, which was the topic at hand, is not and can not be dictated on the personal level. To that end, I would not hold accountable a nation that stood by its founding ideology, an ideology supported by its citizens, if the end of that put a family at risk for the greater good. So, and it may seem paradoxical to some, would I torture another human being to save my family? Yes, I probably would. Would I support a nation and a government that tortures human beings to save families (including mine)? Absolutely not. The differences and potential dangers of a personal ideology and a national political ideology should be obvious.
Ultimately, what I''m saying is that I would sacrifice myself for the things I belive in. Not just physically (though, if my death could save a hundred, I like to think I would), but emotionally, and ideologically. I would sacrifice everything I hold dear to protect my family, and I would be a pretty crappy husband/father not to do so. But the country is not a husband, or a father. The effects of its policies are not so limited as mine. It is bound by its doctrines.
So I answer the question in two respects. Personally, I choose 20, though I admit I might weaken to a 50 if actually put to the test. It''s impossible to know.
I would expect my nation, acting in the behalf of its citizenry, to choose 5, even if it''s my 5.
Maybe that''s a double standard. I don''t know, but I''ll sleep tonight satisfied with that perspective.
About 30 years or so ago, the then British Government decided to stop the trouble in N.Ireland that they would arrest and hold without trial anyone they suspected was involved with terrorism.This turned out to be mostly Catholic males (I''ll not go into anymore detail as I''d be here all night)
It''s fair to say that single decision did more than anything the I.R.A. could to gain support and membership, and led to a huge increase in pace and ferocity of terrorist attacks in comparison to what had gone before.
Suffice to say that arresting people without evidence turned out to be a recruitment poster for terrorism and has been the one decision that every British leader since wishes had been made differently.
The question doesnt have anything to do with ends. Each one of those is a means. Which one Id choose would depend on the ends.
The 20 answer is not an option because it may include my 5 closest family members. Unless one of the qualifications is 20 known friends that arent your closest.
On a general decision I would probably choose 50 strangers whom Ive met. The extra 50 people from the 100 would offset the fact that I''d never known them.
However, I cant really think of a scenario off the top of my head, but there are circumstances where I''d sacrifice myself, 5 family members and 100 strangers Ive never met.
Ah here goes....
If I and my 5 closest family members were in a train wreck. They are on half of the train thats teetering over a cliff. That half of the train will drag the rest of the train into the cliff if its not disconnected. I would disconnect the train to save the rest of the passengers on the safe half.
Mex, I couldn''t agree more. This is not a particularly isolated case either.
Fighting terrorism is one thing, but doing so at the sacrifice of the very liberties we propose to protect is, I think, a treasonous route. The amount of people being held without access to legal recourse at the risk that the ''might possibly'' have something to do with terrorism is unacceptable, but I''m sure many white land owning citizens don''t mind as long as it''s not the white land owning people being imprisoned. It''s amazing what people will tolerate when they are told they''d be in danger if they didn''t. Good thing Bush is around to protect global freedom.
The thing about smart people is they seem like crazy people to dumb people -- Thing I saw on the Internet
Anyone who is arrested should be told why they are being arrested and have access to council. Someone needs to get the SC to rule on this.
3DS Friend Code: 2509-2418-9951
Let me know if you add me and I'll add you back!
This is homeland security at work.
I hope were happy that were safe now.
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
redfang#1780
About a couple thousand in being held Cuba.
I wish you guys would stop encouraging him.
EvilHomer3k wrote:You are an evil, evil person.
Baron Of Hell wrote:YOU VILLAIN!
Modern-day McCarthyism at its finest!
Some say ""Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it""... I say ""The more we study history, the more we realize we repeat it.""
The guys in Cuba are not American Citizens and have no rights. They were fighting for no country.
3DS Friend Code: 2509-2418-9951
Let me know if you add me and I'll add you back!
They have human rights. (I''m not arguing that gives them access to our legal system, only that they do have some fundamental rights).
The thing about smart people is they seem like crazy people to dumb people -- Thing I saw on the Internet
Of course, that goes without saying. I also agree with the Federal Courts ruling on such that they really don''t have rights to our legal system, seeing how their being held in a foriegn land.
Uh...... no. Do you know what McCarthyism was? I hear many people running around saying this/that is McCarthyism. McCarthyism was the Congresses investigations into Soviet influence/infiltration into government/education/business/culturural centers of power, not the imprisonment of terrorists, or my personal favorite: if I don''t watch ""The West Wing"" why then its McCarthyism. Oh and the funny thing about McCarthy, that nobody discusses, is that he was right, the Soviets had influnced/infiltrated Congress/Hollywood/Universities/etc. He just went about what he did in a politcally STUPID way.
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. If
you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the
other.--George Orwell, 1942
Of corse. I thought that was implied.
3DS Friend Code: 2509-2418-9951
Let me know if you add me and I'll add you back!
Being held with out council is a pretty damn scary thought.
I always think back to the movie Midnight Express. He had council I believe, but it might as well have had none. A Turkish prison is not a place where I''d like to spend any time.
Sadly, I also think being held without council happens in every country in the world.
You know how nitpicky I can be.
The thing about smart people is they seem like crazy people to dumb people -- Thing I saw on the Internet
According to Webster''s Dictionary, McCarthyism involves
...(the) use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges...
Therefore, regardless of what McCarthy did or didn''t do, the word as its meaning is defined accurately demonstrates my sentiment toward the government''s current philosophy on detaining suspected ""terrorists."" Your groundless flame was not appreciated, but I think my point was one that most everyone can agree upon.
A very stickey wicket here.
On one hand you have the above mentioned ''precautions'' taken against individuals for fear of attack. I admit its very sketchy, much the same way war camps were set up for Jappanese in WWII.
On the other hand, we are currently engaged in a war that will free millions of individuals who have been denied these ''human rights'' for years.
Perhaps my definition for ''human rights'' differs from your own and the Iraqi example is off base.
I think it all comes down to ''human rights'' being used to trophy causes that may have nothing to do with it (ie. security, scarcity of resources ect.) but at the same time, the side effects of our actions do indeed lead to better ''human rights'' then before. This versus other countries who''s actions do nothing to free citizens or offer them the oportunity for a better life.
""Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"" is our creed for basic human rights, correct? So, as I''ve mentioned before, even if this wasn''t/isn''t our main concern in dealing with other countries, isn''t the side effect of our actions worthwhile regardless?
Not at the expense of our humanity. I am not an ''ends justifies the means'' kind of guy. I believe the means are often more important than the ends.
The thing about smart people is they seem like crazy people to dumb people -- Thing I saw on the Internet
You know there was a hypothetical question asked, and it goes something like this:
You have a choice:
5 of your closest friends/family will perish
or
20 known associates/friends will perish
or
50 stangers in your country that you will meet will perish
or
100 strangers you will never know will perish
Which do you chose?
The idea being the smallest number of deaths are the most closely related yadda yadda yadda....
From what I gathered above, you would decide, based on human kindness and love, to select the least amount of death available? The ''means'' (love of all life) being more important than the ''ends'' (your closest and most personal loss)?
Now extrapolate (sp?) to the largest level of nationhood.
(If you want my responce to the above, I''ll tell.)
It''s a good question, because it forces you to search your life in relation to the world a bit more. It really asks the question, would you sacrifice that which is most precious to you in the defense of your beliefs. There''s a fine line to that, a balancing point (and this is not rationalization as I hope you''ll see in a second). At a personal and more importantly singular level, to sacrifice absolutely everything you hold dear to the end of holding your personaly ideology is, I think, vanity. I would give up almost every long considered tenet I hold dear to save my wife and child. It''s the only logical human answer. On a personal level.
The question, I think, is flawed in one significant way. Public policy, which was the topic at hand, is not and can not be dictated on the personal level. To that end, I would not hold accountable a nation that stood by its founding ideology, an ideology supported by its citizens, if the end of that put a family at risk for the greater good. So, and it may seem paradoxical to some, would I torture another human being to save my family? Yes, I probably would. Would I support a nation and a government that tortures human beings to save families (including mine)? Absolutely not. The differences and potential dangers of a personal ideology and a national political ideology should be obvious.
Ultimately, what I''m saying is that I would sacrifice myself for the things I belive in. Not just physically (though, if my death could save a hundred, I like to think I would), but emotionally, and ideologically. I would sacrifice everything I hold dear to protect my family, and I would be a pretty crappy husband/father not to do so. But the country is not a husband, or a father. The effects of its policies are not so limited as mine. It is bound by its doctrines.
So I answer the question in two respects. Personally, I choose 20, though I admit I might weaken to a 50 if actually put to the test. It''s impossible to know.
I would expect my nation, acting in the behalf of its citizenry, to choose 5, even if it''s my 5.
Maybe that''s a double standard. I don''t know, but I''ll sleep tonight satisfied with that perspective.
The thing about smart people is they seem like crazy people to dumb people -- Thing I saw on the Internet
About 30 years or so ago, the then British Government decided to stop the trouble in N.Ireland that they would arrest and hold without trial anyone they suspected was involved with terrorism.This turned out to be mostly Catholic males (I''ll not go into anymore detail as I''d be here all night)
It''s fair to say that single decision did more than anything the I.R.A. could to gain support and membership, and led to a huge increase in pace and ferocity of terrorist attacks in comparison to what had gone before.
Suffice to say that arresting people without evidence turned out to be a recruitment poster for terrorism and has been the one decision that every British leader since wishes had been made differently.
MUST...STOP ...PLAYING ....SWG! MUST GET REAL LIFE BACK AGAIN!
Elysium, thank you, I lack the lingual and academical skills to express myself that way in english but I believe it hits the nail on the head.
The question doesnt have anything to do with ends. Each one of those is a means. Which one Id choose would depend on the ends.
The 20 answer is not an option because it may include my 5 closest family members. Unless one of the qualifications is 20 known friends that arent your closest.
On a general decision I would probably choose 50 strangers whom Ive met. The extra 50 people from the 100 would offset the fact that I''d never known them.
However, I cant really think of a scenario off the top of my head, but there are circumstances where I''d sacrifice myself, 5 family members and 100 strangers Ive never met.
Ah here goes....
If I and my 5 closest family members were in a train wreck. They are on half of the train thats teetering over a cliff. That half of the train will drag the rest of the train into the cliff if its not disconnected. I would disconnect the train to save the rest of the passengers on the safe half.
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
redfang#1780