Where Kurdistan Meets the Red Zone Part II

[Plane]

The death penalty isn't violence? Prison rape isn't violence? Fear of both keep people people in line.

Yeah, but our legal system doesn't tell Joe that we'll lock up or kill his mother if he kills someone else. We only hold the person committing the crime responsible, not their family.

This is not a caicteristic of ours , but in Imperial Rome and in anchient China policies of this sort kept the peace for centuries.

One of Machivellis complaints against Christianity was that it rejected proven success , he also thoght it diminished personal honor.

Can a nation of Christians apply such an unscriptural policy , even if it worked well and was proven by pagans?

[BT]

Yeah, but our legal system doesn't tell Joe that we'll lock up or kill his mother if he kills someone else. We only hold the person committing the crime responsible, not their family.

Which puts our legal system on a higher plane than terrorists who don't discriminate between the innocent and potentially guilty when they go on their murderous rampages.

I'm simply asking why we should hold to a higher standard than them. Especially when it takes the focus away from preventative measures that supposedly erode our rights and encroach on our liberties.Seems to me the rule of ten would be more controlled than the amount of collateral damage that would come from airstrikes.

[Plane]

Yeah, but our legal system doesn't tell Joe that we'll lock up or kill his mother if he kills someone else. We only hold the person committing the crime responsible, not their family.

Which puts our legal system on a higher plane than terrorists who don't discriminate between the innocent and potentially guilty when they go on their murderous rampages.

I'm simply asking why we should hold to a higher standard than them. Especially when it takes the focus away from preventative measures that supposedly erode our rights and encroach on our liberties.Seems to me the rule of ten would be more controlled than the amount of collateral damage that would come from airstrikes.

Acts of war are a diffrent standard than acts of justice.

Britians "Bomber "Harris was never locked up .

[Universe Prince]

The death penalty isn't violence? Prison rape isn't violence? Fear of both keep people people in line.

Doesn't seem to keep everyone in line. In fact, I'm wondering upon what you're basing your conclusion. Or are you just assuming that there are a lot of people who might otherwise engage in criminal activity if not for fear of prison rape and/or capital punishment? And last I checked, rape was not one the penalties to which someone could be sentenced. Some people would like to try to punish inmates for prison rape. Do you find that unreasonable?

You might argue proportionality, but the fact remains that if our emphasis was on punishment, fair or otherwise, instead of prevention, a lot of the blame for encroachment of rights wouldn't rest upon post 9-11 actions.

I would argue that we don't have a justice system that includes representatives of government extracting revenge upon you and your family if you commit a crime. Or at least I hope we don't.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not opposed to hunting down and capturing or killing terrorists and those who knowingly help them. I think we should be doing that rather than fighting an open-ended conflict in Iraq that, near as I can tell, is having next to no effect on stopping the terrorists. But it seems odd to me that you first say you think terrorism should not be tolerated at all, and then you recommend a course of action that essentially amounts to terrorism. So which is it? Do you want a zero-tolerance policy for terrorism, or do you want to use terrorism? You can, I suppose, shoot for both, but that would be hypocritical (making it not that different from much of American foreign policy).

You seem to keep complaining about people complaining about measures to prevent terrorism. You seem to scoff at the notion that these measures infringe on people's rights. Do you like the "Patriot Act"? Does it go too far? Not far enough? Is the government right to do anything it might deem necessary to stop the terrorists? Is a police state justifiable if it keeps the terrorists away? Is a police state impossible here because we just wouldn't let it go that far? What is your position?

[BT]

Doesn't seem to keep everyone in line

Doesn't have to. Just has to keep some in line. Do you pay your taxes because you want to, or because not paying your taxes and the ensuing penalties is more painful than simply paying them and being done with it?

And prison rape seems to be low on the totem pole of things the correction industry worries about. Seems to be part of our culture judging by the jokes about ending up in a cell with your new boyfriend bubba. I know people who have done time, some hard some short term at the county jail. It's not a cakewalk and violence is a very real palpable way of life, even if it wasn't explicitly included in the sentence. Perhaps you have anecdotal information that contradicts what i have been told. Perhaps different states have different realities. What i know is that in Georgia, violence including rape, and perpetual fear is very real.


As far as the Patriot Act it hasn't affected me in the least or changed the way i live my life. 

I think people who point to the Patriot Act as a turning point are historically ignorant and lazy in their arguments. A lot of what was controversial  in the Patriot Act were proposed originally in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and recycled when the timing was "better". You can see infringements going back to FDR's time and even more accurately with the passage of the 14th Amendment which transferred a boatload of powers from the states to the fed.

Now you seem to think a military response to a terrorist act is terrorism itself. I disagree. I think it is simply a military response. And what i am advocating is getting rid of all this nonsense talk about proportionality to the act. Hit them hard, harder than they hit us  and hit them fast. The rule of ten is shorthand for that. They bring a knife you bring a gun.

Simple as that.

And if we have that as a national policy it would be much harder for DC to pass the type of legislation that leads to a police state. No need for no knocks or follow through wire taps, financial transaction monitoring and the rest. We aren't interested in preventing terrorist acts by being over vigilant. We are simply very interested i extracting a gallon of blood for every ounce of American blood spilled by terrorist acts.

And if you don't like the way an administration persues that policy vote them out of office next go round.

And though i don't think the Iraq war is all about terror i do think the road to middle east peace did go through Baghdad. or at least it did before we lost our national will.











 

[Universe Prince]

And prison rape seems to be low on the totem pole of things the correction industry worries about. Seems to be part of our culture judging by the jokes about ending up in a cell with your new boyfriend bubba. I know people who have done time, some hard some short term at the county jail. It's not a cakewalk and violence is a very real palpable way of life, even if it wasn't explicitly included in the sentence.

I'm sure that is true, but that doesn't answer the question. Some people would like to try to punish inmates for prison rape. Do you find that unreasonable? Some people want to try to take that level of violence you're talking about out of the prison system. Do you support that or not?

As far as the Patriot Act it hasn't affected me in the least or changed the way i live my life.

Again, I'm sure that is true, but that doesn't answer the questions. Do you like the "Patriot Act"? Does it go too far? Not far enough?

I think people who point to the Patriot Act as a turning point are historically ignorant and lazy in their arguments. A lot of what was controversial  in the Patriot Act were proposed originally in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and recycled when the timing was "better". You can see infringements going back to FDR's time and even more accurately with the passage of the 14th Amendment which transferred a boatload of powers from the states to the fed.

Yep. None of that lessens my objections (and I suspect the objections of many others) to the "Patriot Act". And while I could complain about the 14th Amendment, or the things F.D.R. did (and I have actually), I can't influence the government or the society over which F.D.R. presided. That was 60something years ago. The "Patriot Act", however, is something that has passed recently and something that if enough people complain about can be altered or even repealed before it becomes completely entrenched. You try talking about repealing the 14th Amendment. Write your congressman. See how far you get. Eventually we might get there, but that day is not close at hand. So if I worry a little more right now about what I think we have a better chance of changing, I think that is reasonable.

Now you seem to think a military response to a terrorist act is terrorism itself. I disagree. I think it is simply a military response. And what i am advocating is getting rid of all this nonsense talk about proportionality to the act. Hit them hard, harder than they hit us  and hit them fast. The rule of ten is shorthand for that. They bring a knife you bring a gun.

No, I think use of violence and threats of violence with the intent to intimidate and/or coerce by fear is terrorism. I see no reason why that would not hold true for your "rule of ten".

And if we have that as a national policy it would be much harder for DC to pass the type of legislation that leads to a police state. No need for no knocks or follow through wire taps, financial transaction monitoring and the rest. We aren't interested in preventing terrorist acts by being over vigilant. We are simply very interested i extracting a gallon of blood for every ounce of American blood spilled by terrorist acts.

I have no idea why you think that would be the case. I see nothing about our current situation that supports your assertion.

And if you don't like the way an administration persues that policy vote them out of office next go round.

What a ridiculous thing to say. I don't live in Chicago, so I only get one vote. And since votes are not weighted in any fashion, i.e. my vote is not more important than anyone else's, my one vote isn't enough to vote anyone out of office.

And though i don't think the Iraq war is all about terror i do think the road to middle east peace did go through Baghdad. or at least it did before we lost our national will.

I don't think it got lost. I think its focus moved.

But anyway, getting back to what I was talking about... You say the "Patriot Act" hasn't affected you. Is that your standard? So long as it doesn't affect you, the government can do what it wants? You speak with disdain for those who have objected to the "Patriot Act" and complain that the objection to the war in Iraq has cost us our national will. So do you think the people should support anything the government does in the name of fighting terrorism? Are there, in your opinion, any limits to what the government should be able to do? Or is it just too late to care?

[BT]

But anyway, getting back to what I was talking about... You say the "Patriot Act" hasn't affected you. Is that your standard?

That is one of them.

So long as it doesn't affect you, the government can do what it wants ?

The government can do what it wants whether it affects me or not. Whether I obey the law is another thing.

 

You speak with disdain for those who have objected to the "Patriot Act"

I don't believe the Patriot Act as written is unconstitutional, nor do i recall any Supreme Court rulings saying it was, so for people to claim it is an assault on the bill of rights seems to be more a political catchphrase than a legitimate complaint.
But if they want to be Knutian in their political discourse so be it.

and complain that the objection to the war in Iraq has cost us our national will.

I don't believe our national will was lost because of the Iraqi War. I don't think the American People has the stomach for long engagements and haven't since WWII.

So do you think the people should support anything the government does in the name of fighting terrorism?

No. And if you think about it my rule of ten specifically limits their response.

Are there, in your opinion, any limits to what the government should be able to do?

Yeah. The constitution spells them out.

Or is it just too late to care?

It is never too late too care.

And back to prison rape.

Some people would like to try to punish inmates for prison rape. Do you find that unreasonable? Some people want to try to take that level of violence you're talking about out of the prison system. Do you support that or not?

The fact that the government is accepting responsibility for what happens inside the controlled environment of correctional facilities is a good thing. I applaud their good intentions. Hopefully their effoirts will bear fruit.