PDA

View Full Version : Ugh...




Sal
07-30-2006, 08:35 AM
.... Why does this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701908_pf.html) not surprise me?

-Sal

P.S. Just an FYI (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html)




pam
07-30-2006, 11:34 AM
This morning on The Chris Matthew Show, Andrew Sullivan said that the new legislation being proposed by the Bush Administration would effectively take us out of the Geneva Conventions. I'm guessing it's because of this. And because of new things coming out, like the soldier who recently said that his colonel told him to basically kill all the men in the area of operation who might be of military age.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/world/middleeast/28abuse.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin)

I agree. Ugh.

Pam

GyroGo
07-30-2006, 11:48 AM
Was the honor and chivalry that we know in the American History books a myth, "history written by the victors", or has our culture lost these values?

pam
07-30-2006, 01:51 PM
I don't know, Gary. I'm guessing lost. There have always been exceptions in war, but by and large, I think we've been honorable - I think it comes with an overall "the ends justify the means" kind of morality I've seen creeping up...
Pam

citivolus
07-30-2006, 04:04 PM
Was the honor and chivalry that we know in the American History books a myth, "history written by the victors", or has our culture lost these values?
I'm certain that about half of my ancestors would say it was definitely the former.

The way I see it, it depends on personal opinion... was Columbus a discoverer of conqueror, was Woodrow Wilson a trust-busting civil champion or a racist and segregationist, George Washington - revolutionary or traitor, etc. It comes down the fact that History books try to relate "truth." Since truth is subjective, the books never stood a chance and now play the political game of getting approved by the state/local school board. In short, education has lost to indoctrination.

RC Mike
07-30-2006, 04:35 PM
Far be it from me to point out some relevant facts, but...

Who is a soldier and who is a civilian. When does a meeting of soldiers become a wedding party? maybe when the soldiers who survive move the weapons and then invite the press in to witness the "innocent civilians?" But this ignores an important point. People who have never been in uniform might not know this, but those of us who have sat through those hours long Geneva Conventions lectures by the JAG know that the conventions only apply to people who are, get this, "UNIFORMED SOLDIERS IN A SIGNATORY COUNTRY'S ARMED FORCES."

Now, these people do not wear uniforms(strike one), do not fight for a signatory country(strike 2), and do not abide by the conventions themselves(strike 3).

So frankly, these people are not entitled to protection under the Geneva or Hague or any other conventions because they have not signed them, they do not fight for a country who has signed them, they do not abide by them, and they are not in uniform.

We still give them most of the benefits, but some of AI and HRW complaints would put every US prison in violation. Like keeping lights on at night. First we don't give them privacy, so we give them privacy, then we are bad cause we did not see them hang themself.

I would like to keep the "moral high ground." But if the cost for that is to be told day after day that we have a video which is so grusome we can't show it to you, but trust us, the knife was big and the head came off, I am willing to go a little farther than I used to be comfortable with to deal with these people.

Mike

Sal
07-30-2006, 04:46 PM
I find any justification for the way the "enemy combatants" were treated to be morally repugnant.

With the line of thinking and logic that defends the conduct of the soldiers at Gitmo as being just... I guess the administration has nothing to worry about, but it's very proactive of Mr. Gonzalez and Co. to make sure that they're immune.

Way to go.

-Sal

RC Mike
07-30-2006, 05:11 PM
So I am morally repugnant? Because I do see justification?

Thanks Sal...

Mike

Sal
07-30-2006, 05:24 PM
Not quite, Mike. I wouldn't have taken the logical leap you took.

I was commenting on the justification of torture, violating of basic human rights, etc. as being morally repugnant. I was not commenting on the people who think it's okay.

I'm sure you're a nice guy, there are plenty of absolutely upstanding folks who have told me I'm a pinko liberal, and have quite a few opinions which I find distasteful, that does not make them bad people, and I would like to state for the record: I was not making any comment as to your visceral personality.

I would encourage you to edit your prior post as it was not my intent.

-Sal

citivolus
07-30-2006, 06:14 PM
The main problem is what is the legal standing of these "detainees." The unfortunate choice of words "war on terror" is meaningless because terror is a non-entity. It isn't even a war on terrorists because we aren't about to jump into Sri Lanka against the Tamil Tigers, or Chechnya, or pick any one of a dozen other places, (well, not overtly anyway and not necessarily against the "terrorists.") Clearly it may best be described as a war on anti-American terrorists but even then war is a poor choice of words because it may best be conducted through police investigation and prosecution in a manner similar to fighting organized crime.

The problem arises due to the lack of precedent, definition and jurisdiction. I'll start by saying IANAL but we have individuals from and in other countries who have been taken into U.S. custody. We are not currently at war with these countries nor has any war ever been declared other than in an unfortunate misnomer. Do we even have the authority to take people into custody in a place where we have no legal jurisdiction without a war declaration? In that situation, wouldn't the "detainees" be subject to the law of the country that person was taken into custody? Would that law be better or worse than their current situation?

In the end, someone will always disagree with the course of action taken and on the merits of the person or people who pursue that action.
http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

RC Mike
07-30-2006, 10:31 PM
Not quite, Mike. I wouldn't have taken the logical leap you took.

I was commenting on the justification of torture, violating of basic human rights, etc. as being morally repugnant. I was not commenting on the people who think it's okay.

I'm sure you're a nice guy, there are plenty of absolutely upstanding folks who have told me I'm a pinko liberal, and have quite a few opinions which I find distasteful, that does not make them bad people, and I would like to state for the record: I was not making any comment as to your visceral personality.

I would encourage you to edit your prior post as it was not my intent.
Sal, you lose here when you tell me I am wrong... Edit me yourself or ban me from your site... Because to say I am a nice guy, then say "I find any justification for the way the "enemy combatants" were treated to be morally repugnant."
is absolute bu!)$#it... you have made that judgement, and are now trying to hide...

mike

Sal
07-31-2006, 05:38 AM
"I'm a loser baby... " (Beck)

Well, I tried to make peace. But you can have it your way.

C'est la vie. We'll have to agree to disagree.

-Sal

P.S. By the way, I don't edit other people's posts because they disagree with me, nor do I "ban" people for the opinions they hold. I DO believe in the freedom to share opinions etc.

pam
07-31-2006, 07:40 AM
There seems to be some confusion about banning and editing of posts on this forum, and I'd like to clear it up now, since it's been mentioned in 2 threads in the OT area.

It takes a lot to get banned - spamming the list with unrelated advertisements will get you banned in a heartbeat. Causing major disruption on the list will get you banned, or moderated - now, how do we define major? Well, that's subjective, and unfortunately the moderators are people, so they, by the very nature of their peopleness, will be subjective. However, a person isn't banned until they've been notfied that their behavior is inappropriate and they have a chance to stop what they're doing. And we really do try to lean over backwards NOT to moderate or ban people.

Editing posts. This is done only rarely. Usually to clean up a URL so that a picture can come through. At one time or another a whole thread has disappeared. This usually happens if the poster or the thread starter has requested for it to happen. We don't arbitrarily go in and make those changes. I will admit that I've edited one person's posts - in an effort to tone down the rhetoric so as to keep the posts from being so inflammatory. I do reserve that right, however, I've only used it once.

We do moderate for civility on the forums. Particulary in the HT related forums. We tend to be a bit more freewheeling in the OT forums, but still don't want list members attacking each other. Having a difference of opinion is not an attack.

If you're in a bad place (we all get there some days) and find that you would like to take everyone's head off that day, I'd suggest that you NOT post to the forums that day :). If you have one subject you just can't discuss without getting "fighting mad", I'd suggest you not read those topics. You're free to do whatever you want, of course, as long as you're willing to take responsibility for your behavior - which I'm assuming all the posters on this forum are.

Pam

RC Mike
07-31-2006, 12:20 PM
We tend to be a bit more freewheeling in the OT forums, but still don't want list members attacking each other. Having a difference of opinion is not an attack.
I would say calling someones opinion "morally repugnant" is an attack, but whatever... I will just leave this discussion, since apparantly my opinion is not desired.

RC Mike
07-31-2006, 12:23 PM
If you're in a bad place (we all get there some days) and find that you would like to take everyone's head off that day, I'd suggest that you NOT post to the forums that day :). If you have one subject you just can't discuss without getting "fighting mad", I'd suggest you not read those topics.
This is why I took 2 days before my reply in Josh's Bushwhacking thread... I wanted to make sure it was clear but not angry. Sal's response strikes me as angry. Whatever.. Sal has the moral high ground.

Mike

pam
07-31-2006, 01:12 PM
Ah, well I make a distinction between a person and their opinion. They are not their opinion. Their opinion is something they have, but it's not them. I would assume that if something came along to make them want to change that opinion, they'd change it. Now, I wouldn't imagine that 'I' could say something to make them change that opinion, but if, for whatever reason, they reexamined that opinion and decided to change it, they could do that. That means to me that they are not their opinion. The opinion doesn't own them.
Pam

I would say calling someones opinion "morally repugnant" is an attack, but whatever... I will just leave this discussion, since apparantly my opinion is not desired.

RC Mike
07-31-2006, 01:51 PM
Ah, well I make a distinction between a person and their opinion. They are not their opinion. Their opinion is something they have, but it's not them. I would assume that if something came along to make them want to change that opinion, they'd change it.
OK, so say I told you and Sal that your opinion made you an idiot. Would that be OK? What is different than Sal calling my opinion morally repugnant. Moderate yourself.

Mike

GyroGo
07-31-2006, 02:17 PM
OK, so say I told you and Sal that your opinion made you an idiot. Would that be OK? What is different than Sal calling my opinion morally repugnant. Moderate yourself.

MikeWhile Pam can speak for herself (and I'm not a fan of heavy moderation), I can explain the dif.

ATTACKS YOUR POINT:
Your idea is idiotic.
Your opinion is morally repugnant.
(although both of these could be restated into less offensive tone, and are not very polite - I would say "that" instead of "your", but it is semantics)

ATTACKS YOU PERSONALLY:
You are an idiot.
You are morally repugnant.

Interesting aside (to me, anyway):
I was listening to Penn Gillette's (the avowed atheist from Penn and Teller) radio show a couple of days ago, and he was talking about a particular popular religion (It happened to be Catholic, but it could have been anything) and was commenting that attacking the ideas OF a group of people (and he wasn't being very kind, either) is very different from attacking the group FOR their ideas.

pam
07-31-2006, 05:03 PM
Ah, but that would be a personal attack, because you're saying I'm an idiot. If you want to say you think my idea is idiotic, you can, (although I find that kind of rhetoric tends to close off conversations, rather than encourage them) and I'm sure some people will agree, and some will disagree.

Gary has actually made my meaning quite clear.

Pam


OK, so say I told you and Sal that your opinion made you an idiot. Would that be OK? What is different than Sal calling my opinion morally repugnant. Moderate yourself.

Mike

RC Mike
07-31-2006, 05:14 PM
I agree completely that the conversation stops and the anger starts, my point is that I feel that calling my beliefs morally repugnant, is actually calling me morally repugnant. And if it had been someone else that did it I would not be nearly as worked up as when a moderator says it.

Just my opinion.

Mike

GyroGo
07-31-2006, 06:31 PM
I feel that calling my beliefs morally repugnant, is actually calling me morally repugnant.I see why you feel that, but it technically is not the same.
rules, rules, rules :D

You can always change your beliefs, or you have the right to disagree, but it is not the same for your IDEAS to be morally repugnant as for one to say YOU are morally repugnant (and I'm NOT judging your ideas, but just for arguments sake - in fact I think I'm leaning in your general direction).

While my wife is quick to point out my mistakes, she rarely says that I am a mistake, for which I am grateful.
And if it had been someone else that did it I would not be nearly as worked up as when a moderator says it.
There is another thread where I raised the quote "History is written by the victors". Moderators have similar power :D , it's just part of life, I've learned to TRY to shut up when appropriate (how am I doing?).

In addition to saying "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it", Winston Churchill also said "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried". I think the same could be said for forum moderation.

Sal
08-01-2006, 06:49 AM
Maybe I should have moderated myself, but I think the term "repugnant" may sound worse than it's bite;

repugnant: offensive to taste and feeling / distasteful.

I could have said "I disagree," but I don't just disagree, I have passion against human rights violations, and it offends me when injustice like that happens.

I should know better than to start and get into a political thread, I have done that before and it merely ends up raising my blood pressure. LOL :eek: :mad:

In any case, I still very much disagree with your stated opinion on a deep and emotional level. But it is thus far on that issue alone which I commented. I don't disagree with your passion for Segways, and the like.

***

As for moderators... Yes, I am a moderator on an online Segway Chat site. Period. I have no real authority, no real power apart from maintaining the integrity of threads, the occasional spell check, the occasional private message to temper emotions (maybe I should have sent one to myself). ;) I am not all powerful / omnipotent. Nor would I, or have I ever abused my "position" here. That's not what being a moderator is about.

Anyway, I understand there is a sense of duty and decorum from which, apparently, I strayed, and I will try not to in the future.

Oh well. I'm only human.:)

-Sal

polo_pro
08-01-2006, 01:21 PM
As penance, I think Sal should be required to summarize the lessons learned during this discussion and put them in a sticky. This way people posting in the Off Topic forum would have an idea of how far they can go before "straying". I find characterizing things like this is best done by example as GyroGo did in #18 of this thread.

ps - I'm glad Sal recognizes his additional responsibilities in staying out of the fray given his role of moderator.

pam
08-01-2006, 04:41 PM
Ah, Plomoh, then you would state that moderators are only allowed to contribute to the list in their moderator function? They aren't allowed to have independent opinions of their own, to be "one of the guys" on the list?

I'm afraid I can't agree with that. I don't think it's good for us to be removed from the active participation in the list except in a deus ex machina fashion.

Admitted, it is best if we set an example of 'how' to disagree, but we're human, too, and sometimes make mistakes.

Pam

sombody
08-01-2006, 10:51 PM
Criticising stupid behavior is not the same as calling someone stupid - This principle is thousands of years old Criticising any kind of dispicable behavior is ok and most difinitly encouraged. But you cant criticise the person -

Take Mel Gibson for example

rick

KSagal
08-02-2006, 01:28 AM
Regarding Mel Gibson...

If a person does something unwize, like drink and drive... maybe a body could debate if that indicates the integrity of the individual...

But when a person is drunk and makes hateful speach, who is responsible? Does the hate that is expressed reside in the person or in the bottle? That is a different debate...

Some say the words of a drunk are the thoughts of a sober person.

Now, let's bring this back to personal values. I believe that what I hold to be true influences what I do and how I choose to live. I also believe that a person is far more than the result of a single thought or a single area of values. But how far am I, as a person, from the sum total of the value of my beliefs?

GyroGo
08-02-2006, 01:52 PM
“Anti-Semitism is not born in one day and cannot be cured in one day and certainly not through the issuing of a press release,” Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said in a statement. Gibson should read about Jewish persecution and the Holocaust, among other things, Hier added by telephone from Israel.
“When Mr. Gibson embarks on a serious long-term effort to address that bigotry and anti-Semitism, he will find the Jewish community more than willing to engage and help him,” he said.

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said the process requires hard work. “You can’t just say I’m no longer a drunk; you can’t just say I’m no longer a bigot. You need to work hard at it, and we’re ready to help him,” Foxman said.

from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14149913/

GyroGo
08-03-2006, 02:17 AM
Actually, I find this sad to happen to someone of Mel Gibson's talent and stature, a lifetime of hard work badly tarnished in 2 stupid drunken sentences that probably took less than half a minute to say. Although I would agree that it just shows thoughts he's harbored inside, I think it is first of all unfortunate that he was influenced by his father and second, he apparently knows what he said was wrong and would not have said it if in full (sober) control of his mouth.

Personally, I think it is almost as if he had a moment of self-destructive behaviour when he realized how bad he screwed up with DUI and said something that he KNEW would only drag him into deeper sh*t that moment.

Now that's a new one to me, that the "Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world". Forget about anyone believing it, but has anyone even HEARD that one before? At least I haven't. (Although I guess it would have been even less credibile a statement if he would have used that old tired one of the Jews controlling Hollywood since it could be argued that until this incident, Mel himself was as powerful in Hollywood as anyone. hehe.)

Desert_Seg
08-03-2006, 05:21 AM
Unfortunately, what somebody says when they are drunk is, as a few have pointed out, often the truth in their minds.

Therefore, that Mel said this only reveals his true inner feelings. Sad, but true.

Yes, I have heard the statement that the Jews have caused all the wars in the world and there is an interesting article written about this "supporting" this argument. I'll try to find it online because the correlations the author makes are just a tad bit out there. He uses the 6 Degrees of Separation to the nth degree!

Early next week I hope to be able to post an article I wrote for Arabian Business Magazine. I'm sure I'm going to get hammered in the local press by some and I'd love to see what I get as a response here :-)

Steven

GyroGo
08-03-2006, 11:05 AM
Unfortunately, what somebody says when they are drunk is, as a few have pointed out, often the truth in their minds.

Maybe if I get you drunk at a Cubs game I can get you to say what you REALLY think :eek: .

Desert_Seg
08-03-2006, 12:52 PM
Maybe if I get you drunk at a Cubs game I can get you to say what you REALLY think :eek: .

Yeah, that even if we wait forever it may never happen (you have to be a Cubs fan to really understand!)

Steven