[CP5670]

But you see, the fact is that people do exactly all those things, and just saying to them that they "should not" isn't going to do anything.

Also, true freedom would involve a complete lack of "shoulds," so that people should do anything they want. When you add in shoulds, you start restricting freedom (assuming there is any in the first place), since they are certain things that "should not" be done.

[Nico]

Originally posted by CP5670
As for the laws, that's exactly the case; the laws of a nation only apply to its own citizens.

No. Or then, you're allowed to kill the next foreign tourist that you see. The laws of a country applies for anybody would has to face them.
Do you have any others like that? coz it's hella funny

[Sandwich]

I was going to post something in reply to the Israeli-Palestinian situation brought up on the first page, but I think I've said enough about that for a while.

As for this whole "freedom" thing... don't go making idols out of "peace" and "freedom", please. If anything, make an idol out of "justice" - at least that has a chance of being fair.

[CP5670]

No. Or then, you're allowed to kill the next foreign tourist that you see. The laws of a country applies for anybody would has to face them.
Do you have any others like that? coz it's hella funny

Haven't you heard about all this ruckus on restricting the rights of federal prisoners that are US citizens? They never say anything about people who aren't so; as far as legal purposes go, national citizens and non-citizens are treated a bit differently. But this is all beside the point; the laws within nations exist because there are parties to enforce them, but when you move to the international scale, there is no such enforcement force, and consequently there are no laws applying to the "citizens," which are in this the nations.

[Woolie Wool]

Sandwich is right--justice is more important than ultimate freedom.  Besides, ultimate freedom would be short-lived because there would be no laws and no way to keep the powerful in check and thus might would make right. Anarchy leads to despotism if no one intervenes. And Bush detractors thought the president was talking out of his ass when he said there should be limits to freedom.

And Kasperl, your moral relativism disgusts me. I was appalled when you compared American capital punishment with Iraqi capital punisment by saying "both are killing people who commit crimes, the only difference is their definition of a crime". Painlessly executing someone with the most humane methods possible for first-degree murder or serial murder is different from beating someone, gouging his eyes out and chopping his head off for speaking out a monstrous dictator who gases and tortures his citizens en masse.

[Rictor]

Damnit, I demand you stop posting new messages while I'm away.

Anyways, I'll read and give my comments. But seriously people, give a guy a break...

[kasperl]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Sandwich is right--justice is more important than ultimate freedom.  Besides, ultimate freedom would be short-lived because there would be no laws and no way to keep the powerful in check and thus might would make right. Anarchy leads to despotism if no one intervenes.

define justice

And Kasperl, your moral relativism disgusts me. I was appalled when you compared American capital punishment with Iraqi capital punisment by saying "both are killing people who commit crimes, the only difference is their definition of a crime". Painlessly executing someone with the most humane methods possible

is it humane to kill a person? even if the personhas eneded someone elses life, is it really that humane to commit the same crime to him?  
and also, how do you know that it is painless to die? no-one can really answer that one question.

for first-degree murder or serial murder is different from beating someone, gouging his eyes out and chopping his head off for speaking out a monstrous dictator who gases and tortures his citizens en masse.

aside from the method of excucution, there is no real difference. in US prisons, according to scientific surveys which i take for real, there is a large chance of being raped or beaten, which is, in essence torture. the only difference is the crime what the person is excecuted for.

i think one smiley, or perhaps just reasoning, would do.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by Venom


No. Or then, you're allowed to kill the next foreign tourist that you see. The laws of a country applies for anybody would has to face them.
Do you have any others like that? coz it's hella funny

Actually in the strictist sense CP is right, though it works the other way around.  The laws involving visas, extridition, etc are rather complex, and it depends on which two countries are involved.  However, in essence one who visits another country under visa is agreeing implicitly to obey the laws in the country being visited and to accept the punishment resulting from failing to obey those laws.  And technically, you can't enter a country of which you are not a citizen without a visa (though the basic tourist visas are only denied in the rarest of circumstances here).  It's a mater of international relations between the two involved countries.  (Here in the US we actually have a similar system for non-federal crimes among the states, one can face extradition from one state if he is charged with a crime in another.)  That is not international law though, as it still applies to citizens of one country or another rather than to the countries themselves.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by kasperl

define justice

is it humane to kill a person? even if the personhas eneded someone elses life, is it really that humane to commit the same crime to him?  
and also, how do you know that it is painless to die? no-one can really answer that one question.
 aside from the method of excucution, there is no real difference. in US prisons, according to scientific surveys which i take for real, there is a large chance of being raped or beaten, which is, in essence torture. the only difference is the crime what the person is excecuted for.

Raped by whom? Being tortured by your cellmates is a different thing than being tortured by the prison staff. The guards are not omniscient. Otherwise there would be no breakout attempts and no prison gangs.

And is it humane to kill a person? Not really, but you can try to come as close to being humane as possible. Some deaths are worse than others. That's why drawing and quartering is not an acceptable method of execution in this country. There may not be very much variation in method of execution in this country, but many countries do it in much more brutal ways. I think there are some people that deserve to die, like that bastard Charles Manson (I think that's his name) who's sitting in a relatively nice US prison (a US prison is better than a lot of Third World slums).

[Solatar]

*must....not....flame.....*

I think it was good that we invaded Iraq, I think it is bad that we haven't left yet...

I haven't been keeping up with politics lately, but wasn't the guy that supplied the US with false intelligence British (since he commited suicide before he could get a trial, that pretty much ascertains his guilt). Therefore I think the US may have acted a LITTLE too harshly, but then again, we got bad intel from the UK.

For some reason these threads make me sick...so do with this post as you will, I'm not retaliating with another.

EDIT: Well, not the thread, but the de-railment:D

[kasperl]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool


Raped by whom? Being tortured by your cellmates is a different thing than being tortured by the prison staff.

really? what's the difference from having one dick up yourarse from another?

 The guards are not omniscient. Otherwise there would be no breakout attempts and no prison gangs.

suprisingly enough, i never read about rape in Dutch prisons, and you don't hear all that much about crime inside Ducth prisons. i am not saying the Dutch system is better, i am only comparing.

And is it humane to kill a person? Not really, but you can try to come as close to being humane as possible. Some deaths are worse than others.

perhaps in level of pain, yes, but dieing isn't really enjoyable overall, is it?

That's why drawing and quartering is not an acceptable method of execution in this country. There may not be very much variation in method of execution in this country, but many countries do it in much more brutal ways. I think there are some people that deserve to die, like that bastard Charles Manson

what did he do?and who are you to decide about someone elses live? what's the difference between a murderer acting out of revenge for something, and an executioner?

who's sitting in a relatively nice US prison (a US prison is better than a lot of Third World slums).

[kasperl]

Originally posted by Solatar
*must....not....flame.....*

I think it was good that we invaded Iraq, I think it is bad that we haven't left yet...

I haven't been keeping up with politics lately, but wasn't the guy that supplied the US with false intelligence British

you mean Kelly? AFAIK he never supplied anyone with false intell, he only said he doubted some reports from MI6

(since he commited suicide before he could get a trial, that pretty much ascertains his guilt).

well, the whole "suicide" is rather a debateable subject right now

Therefore I think the US may have acted a LITTLE too harshly, but then again, we got bad intel from the UK.

ok, IIRC, Bush convinced Blair, not the other way around.

For some reason these threads make me sick...so do with this post as you will, I'm not retaliating with another.

EDIT: Well, not the thread, but the de-railment:D

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by kasperl

so if i follow that philosophy, an dictator who is leading the most powerfull country in the world is right and has the roight to kill, rape, torture, extort or just do antyhing he wants to the entire world population.

mmm, right, what did the Iraq populace do to deserve a US military dictatorship instead of Saddam?

i never saids that those were good things, i only asked whgat right you had to act for others, while those others never asked you anything.
 

Well from his perspective he is right and there is bog all anybody can do about it.

Also, there is no military dictatorship in Iraq, its a Transitional government picked to draft up dates and a consitution for democractic elections, the people were picked because they all represent a segment of Iraqi society. They are Transitional, not a permenant replacement.

[kasperl]

Originally posted by Zeronet


Well from his perspective he is right and there is bog all anybody can do about it.

Also, there is no military dictatorship in Iraq, its a Transitional government picked to draft up dates and a consitution for democractic elections, the people were picked because they all represent a segment of Iraqi society. They are Transitional, not a permenant replacement.

ok, right, if there just temporary, then why are they setting up all the rules about the police, the military, the government, and why are they holding razzia's looking for "terrorists"?

[StratComm]

Originally posted by kasperl
is it humane to kill a person? even if the personhas eneded someone elses life, is it really that humane to commit the same crime to him?  
and also, how do you know that it is painless to die? no-one can really answer that one question.
 aside from the method of excucution, there is no real difference. in US prisons, according to scientific surveys which i take for real, there is a large chance of being raped or beaten, which is, in essence torture. the only difference is the crime what the person is excecuted for.

i think one smiley, or perhaps just reasoning, would do.

Ok, so you are essentially saying that government-sponsored mass murder is on par with capital punishment?  Whether you agree with the death penalty, this equation is just unacceptable.  How many times have you worried that your countries leaders would wage literal war on you?  The death penalty is in place as an ultimate means of punishment, and can be issued for no crime less than premeditated murder.  What was done under Saddam, (and still is done under other dictators) was not a deterrent from taking a basic human right, life, but rather to impose enough fear into surviving subjects to prevent them from speaking out against or rising up against said dictator.  There is an inherent difference.

As for the whole rape/beating versus torture argument, erm, no.  True, the fundamental physical abuses are similar, but the difference comes in who is performing those actions.  In prisons, it is inmates, other criminals (yes, despite what some might argue, anyone serving time in prison is by definition a criminal) that are inflicting physical harm on other inmates.  If they are caught, then they face consequences just as serious as those of a normal citizen.  And I don't think you completely understand the organization of American prisons; they range from maximum-security lockdowns for violent offenders, to minimal security facilities for people locked up for tax fraud or something.  The situation you are describing generally happens in the higher-security prisons (more aggressive and violent inmates, more concentration on keeping them in than watching them at all hours of the day) and even there is not nearly as commonplace as you seem to think.  I've (sadly) known a couple of people to land jail time, and nothing remotely like what you are describing happened to them.  Government-sponsored torture, like government-sponsored murder, is something else entirely that needs no explanation.

[Woolie Wool]

About the raping part. The difference is OUR PRISONS DO NOT CONDONE TORTURE. The reason people get dicks jammed up their asses is because the guards can't be everywhere at every time. They can only do so much to prevent it. The Iraqi "justice system" (note the quotation marks) condones torture on every level.

You're thinking in black and white terms. Death is not fun, but that's why it's used as punishment for the worst of the worst crimes. Charles Manson killed an entire family, including a young woman who was eight months pregnant. Clck me. Don't you think he deserves to suffer for such a horrible deed?

[Charlotte]

Originally posted by Solatar

I think it was good that we invaded Iraq, I think it is bad that we haven't left yet...

- Invading Iraq > Good
- Timing > Bad
- International Coop > Aweful to the extreme

And if they'd leave now nothing in Iraq will change. A new terrorist lead country will rise and will mostlikely be even more anti-US.

[Grey Wolf]

The intelligence was actually from Italy, and it was debunked by EVERY SINGLE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. The US, the UK, even Italy debunked it, well before the claims made it into the State of the Union speech.

And about it being "right" for the US to invade other countries? Sounds awfully like imperialism. Which is precisely against what the Monroe Doctrine that guided us through most of the 19th Century was supposed to prevent: Imperialism.

[diamondgeezer]

Nothing wrong with Imperialism. We've been doing it on and off for thousands of years, and look where we are today, with MTV and digital pornography. I say imperialism rules

[Kosh]

I think going in unilaterally was a bad idea. Saddam had nothing to do with Sept 11, the CIA proved it. That portrait was probably more government propaganda. Thanks to the US, Iraq WILL become a terrorist state (it wasn't before though).