Another demagogue??!?!?!

[Cow Poke]

International law provides some very basic standards. It helps distinguish the most evil from the rest. The US's general lack of interest in following international law, and refusal to be held accountable for its various war-crimes is quite telling.

Sue us.

The 8th amendment is particularly relevant: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Yeah, who's to define "excessive", and "cruel and unusual" can be pretty relative terms. I thought Mrs. Johnson was cruel and unusual because she expected me to do my homework.

Given that both UN and Irish judges have recently ruled

Well, gosh, why didn't you lead with that! Case MADE!

that the US prison system constituted cruel and unusual punishments, it would seem there is a good case to be made that the 8th amendment is being broken.

So, that's it? It's all about your interpretation of the 8th amendment?

And how anyone can even remotely imagine that the deliberate torture of terrorism suspects done under Bush and Cheney didn't break this rule, I can't even begin to imagine.

That's a whole 'nuther thread.

[Jedidiah]

Given that both UN and Irish judges have recently ruled that the US prison system constituted cruel and unusual punishments, it would seem there is a good case to be made that the 8th amendment is being broken.

The UN and Irish judges have no bearing on US prisons. Plus if the UN is against it, that is a point in favor of our system.

I do agree that we have far too many folks in prison. But that is a much more complex question than you are dealing with here.

[lilpixieofterror]

The cruel, inhumane, and evil nature of America's prison system that is in violation of both international law and the US constitution is no laughing matter. Nor are the extreme and overly punitive prison sentences regularly given.

Yeah most of them have free AC, TV, 3 square meals a day. Yeah, such a hell hole. Obviously you didn't get the sarcasm there, did you dimbulb?

And as I have discussed previously, America has the highest number of prisoners of any country in the world. It would need to free 75% of imprisoned people to get down to the rate of imprisoned people of your average unjust evil authoritarian state like China.

China also has a tendency to execute more people too dimbulb or did you miss that little part in your, "I hate America" rants? America has the highest number of prisoners because the US tends to throw people into prison for crimes other countries do not and that would have nothing to do with your claims anyway. Perhaps you should spend more time thinking and less time ranting?

Even if you are a heartless religious conservative who doesn't care in the least about people or the humanitarian cost of such an evil system, like most on this site appear to be and which I'm well aware that you are from previous conversation, the financial cost alone of this inhumanity is staggering.

That's right because if you dare to ask dimbulb for proof of his assertions, you are evil and heartless. What a moron... no wonder nobody takes you seriously. I am personally a fan of US prison reform myself, but I do not call people who disagree with me evil and heartless either because it doesn't solve anything to speculate about people's motives who dare to disagree with you. Perhaps you should try doing that instead of calling those, who are not on their hands and knees bowing before you, a bunch of names? I know, that is too much for your black/white fundy atheist mind to absorb, but you deserve every amount of disrespect you get because of stupid comments like this. If you really want to see inhumanity though, take a trip down to Africa, Asia, or South America and they'll show you how they treat criminals. They don't have large prison populations because they practice things like beating drunks with a cane. Would you prefer if the US did that instead? Would that make you happy?

The financial cost of imprisoning people is incredibly high: per year per prisoner the straight-out cost is comparable to giving people a decent university education, and that's not even counting the fact that people in prison are not doing a job and paying taxes and contributing to the economy, nor the fact that ex-prisoners find it incredibly difficult to get jobs for the rest of their lives due to their prison records and thus contribute much less to the economy as a result of their prison time.

That's nice and none of that proves your assertions either. You made the claims dimbulb, so prove them or let me guess... this is yet another one your, "I hate America" screeds and nothing more, correct?

[lilpixieofterror]

The UN and Irish judges have no bearing on US prisons. Plus if the UN is against it, that is a point in favor of our system.

I do agree that we have far too many folks in prison. But that is a much more complex question than you are dealing with here.

And considering that they didn't want to send somebody that would have no problem murdering every last one of them; well...

[lilpixieofterror]

The US being a sovereign nation, I'm not interested in your claim of violations of international law, but I'm curious if you can enumerate the violations of the US Constitution.

This is just another one of his, "I hate America!" screeds and nothing more (like I'm suppose to care what a bunch of hypocrites, who sat back while over a million people were murdered in Africa, let slavery continue, do nothing about people murdering Christians in the middle east, etc think or believe).

[Bill the Cat]

See, I really don't care about the law.

That's irrelevant. Can you stand before a judge and tell him that and then expect to get off?

The law is just a reflection of what the populace morale is at the time - which we know can change at a moments notice.

But until it does, if you pay your money, you take your chances.

I'm for each individuals personal freedom to do with their life, whatever the damn well please, so long as the don't intrude on the rights of another.

And I'm for law. Obey, and you get freedom. Disobey, and suffer the consequences until such a time the law is changed via the legal process. Without law, there is only anarchy.

Whether society recognizes those rights is it's own problem, and not mine.

And whether an individual cares or doesn't about what is legal or not is their own problem. And consequences demand payment.

I'm one of the only people that will see this but here it goes: screw the populace. Everyone is out for themselves in the world of ideas. There's a reason we have bill of rights. It's so society wouldn't go full-on fascist via a mob rules mentality. The majority doesn't need protection, the minority does - and everyone is in the minority on something. That's exactly what the bill of rights is for.

I have no problem with that. Again, these things help us determine what is legal and what isn't.

That's the lazy mans way of thinking.

No, it's the practical way. If I break a law, even if it is a stupid law, I should expect the punishment associated with it. Bitching that it isn't "fair" will not keep you out of jail, nor should it. Again, without law, and the equitable application of it, we get anarchy. If we desire it changed, use the process.

Right and wrong are objective truths - so are personal freedoms. To let such cherished and sacred things be the will of a democratic vote, is to let the world eventually go to the dogs.

And ignoring the rule of law does the same.

I can clearly see your personal ethics creeping into what you think should be the 'law'.

I've not said a single thing about what I THINK should be the law. I've said what IS the law, and I've held firm to my belief that if yo do the crime, you should expect the time. Regardless of how unjust you feel that law is.

That's ridiculous. What did these people ever to do you?

Nothing. They broke the law, therefore the law punishes them. That's how a society functions.

The young girls that are brought up in horrible conditions that are just trying to survive;

I've met young men who broke into houses and robbed people who just did it to survive. But they broke the law. Just like the girls you allude to. You CAN survive without breaking the law. It's just easier to break it.

they deserve to be locked-up like thieves, rapists, thugs, murders, and pedophiles?

Yes, and like embezzlers, money launderers, counterfeiters, and other white collar criminals.

Doesn't sound like you're very understanding - or compassionate for that matter.

You'd be correct. I'm really not in that area. Crime is crime, and punishment follows breaking the law.

Thanks, but I'll go for treating people like human beings.

And you will be doomed to get the exact same thing you are getting now. No respect for the law, no respect for law enforcement, and repeat offenders. With no incentive to not commit a crime in the first place, you handicap them with personal preference dominating obedience to the law.

You can't just throw people in jail for weeks, months, or years and expect them to come back and live a stable life.

Therefore, you make them not want to do what is necessary to get into jail in the first place.

I can't tell you how many people I know that have been convicted of drug possession crimes, that have their lives absolutely wrecked by the system.

Did they know they were breaking the law? And did they care about the known consequences?

When it comes to people versus laws, I'll pick the people every time.

And you will get anarchy.

You go on ahead and support the system because eventually, you get cut by your own blade.

I disagree. The system holds and exercises the power, no matter how much we wish to delude ourselves into thinking an individual does. My way of change maintains the system's order while allowing flexibility to change rules when they make sense to change them. Yours encourages anarchy.

[Sea of red]

That's irrelevant. Can you stand before a judge and tell him that and then expect to get off?



But until it does, if you pay your money, you take your chances.



And I'm for law. Obey, and you get freedom. Disobey, and suffer the consequences until such a time the law is changed via the legal process. Without law, there is only anarchy.



And whether an individual cares or doesn't about what is legal or not is their own problem. And consequences demand payment.




I have no problem with that. Again, these things help us determine what is legal and what isn't.



No, it's the practical way. If I break a law, even if it is a stupid law, I should expect the punishment associated with it. Bitching that it isn't "fair" will not keep you out of jail, nor should it. Again, without law, and the equitable application of it, we get anarchy. If we desire it changed, use the process.



And ignoring the rule of law does the same.





I've not said a single thing about what I THINK should be the law. I've said what IS the law, and I've held firm to my belief that if yo do the crime, you should expect the time. Regardless of how unjust you feel that law is.




Nothing. They broke the law, therefore the law punishes them. That's how a society functions.



I've met young men who broke into houses and robbed people who just did it to survive. But they broke the law. Just like the girls you allude to. You CAN survive without breaking the law. It's just easier to break it.



Yes, and like embezzlers, money launderers, counterfeiters, and other white collar criminals.



You'd be correct. I'm really not in that area. Crime is crime, and punishment follows breaking the law.



And you will be doomed to get the exact same thing you are getting now. No respect for the law, no respect for law enforcement, and repeat offenders. With no incentive to not commit a crime in the first place, you handicap them with personal preference dominating obedience to the law.



Therefore, you make them not want to do what is necessary to get into jail in the first place.



Did they know they were breaking the law? And did they care about the known consequences?




And you will get anarchy.



I disagree. The system holds and exercises the power, no matter how much we wish to delude ourselves into thinking an individual does. My way of change maintains the system's order while allowing flexibility to change rules when they make sense to change them. Yours encourages anarchy.

Just saw this.

I don't have time to break it down point by point with quotes so I'll just say this.

At the end of the day, I believe in individual rights; you believe in a democratic vote to determine those rights. These two ideas are mutually exclusive and have nothing to do with each other. If our rights can be voted away then they are not rights, they are simply populist morale - something that has a bad track record. Most of the major figures in our nations history understood this, and realized that if everything came up to a majority vote, we would end up with a society that used their vote as a weapon against minority groups they didn't like.

It speaks volumes that you believe in individual rights (or so you say) but wish to leave it up to the mob. How you reconcile this with the idea of your belief, is baffling to me.

Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
John Adams

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
Ben Franklin

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine
Thomas Jefferson

[Chillanodon]

Just saw this.

I don't have time to break it down point by point with quotes so I'll just say this.

At the end of the day, I believe in individual rights; you believe in a democratic vote to determine those rights. These two ideas are mutually exclusive and have nothing to do with each other. If our rights can be voted away then they are not rights, they are simply populist morale - something that has a bad track record. Most of the major figures in our nations history understood this, and realized that if everything came up to a majority vote, we would end up with a society that used their vote as a weapon against minority groups they didn't like.

Have minority groups ever behaved badly or colluded among themselves to the detriment of their host society, necessitating their correction or removal by the majority of citizens who fall victim to them?

It speaks volumes that you believe in individual rights (or so you say) but wish to leave it up to the mob. How you reconcile this with the idea of your belief, is baffling to me.

In history, have designated minority groups ever formed an oligarchy skilled at keeping themselves apart from the law, necessitating their removal by a mob and their leader?

Founding Fathers quotes

Do you think this rhetoric presupposes a level of equality among the people being discussed? Do you think John Adams' respect for monarchy and aristocracy carries some weight in this discussion when we talk about people being equal, almost as though every man were a monarch of his territory and property, and carried an equal voice, and treated society as a king treats his dealings with foreign powers? Do you think that certain laws are probably more respectable in themselves than others, and are worth sending otherwise good people to prison over? Do you think you can avoid dealing with or swearing allegiance to all abstract systems if you have a good enough group of people? Which should dominate if one says one way and one the other?

My gut feeling on this is that while Bill may not be especially detailed in the statement of his philosophy, you seem to be alarmingly less so.

[Jedidiah]

Just saw this.

I don't have time to break it down point by point with quotes so I'll just say this.

At the end of the day, I believe in individual rights; you believe in a democratic vote to determine those rights. These two ideas are mutually exclusive and have nothing to do with each other. If our rights can be voted away then they are not rights, they are simply populist morale - something that has a bad track record. Most of the major figures in our nations history understood this, and realized that if everything came up to a majority vote, we would end up with a society that used their vote as a weapon against minority groups they didn't like.

It speaks volumes that you believe in individual rights (or so you say) but wish to leave it up to the mob. How you reconcile this with the idea of your belief, is baffling to me.

Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
John Adams

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
Ben Franklin

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine
Thomas Jefferson

I believe you are misrepresenting Bill's position.

[Carrikature]

Just saw this.

I don't have time to break it down point by point with quotes so I'll just say this.

At the end of the day, I believe in individual rights; you believe in a democratic vote to determine those rights. These two ideas are mutually exclusive and have nothing to do with each other. If our rights can be voted away then they are not rights, they are simply populist morale - something that has a bad track record. Most of the major figures in our nations history understood this, and realized that if everything came up to a majority vote, we would end up with a society that used their vote as a weapon against minority groups they didn't like.

It speaks volumes that you believe in individual rights (or so you say) but wish to leave it up to the mob. How you reconcile this with the idea of your belief, is baffling to me.

Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
John Adams

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
Ben Franklin

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine
Thomas Jefferson

I'd be interested in seeing the alternative you propose.

[Bill the Cat]

Just saw this.

I don't have time to break it down point by point with quotes so I'll just say this.

At the end of the day, I believe in individual rights; you believe in a democratic vote to determine those rights.

I believe in a blend of the two. And in the end, you probably do too. Law is necessary to protect freedoms. You just see more away from adherence to law than I do.

These two ideas are mutually exclusive and have nothing to do with each other.

Nothing can be further from the truth. They are complementary. You claim the right to do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights. Well, what do you fall on when theirs DOES infringe on yours?

If our rights can be voted away then they are not rights,

Honestly, there really ISN'T anything called "rights". Who gives you the right to vote? Why does your voice get to be included? Notions of rights are nothing more than populist opinions. You have what rights others are willing to let you have.

they are simply populist morale - something that has a bad track record. Most of the major figures in our nations history understood this, and realized that if everything came up to a majority vote, we would end up with a society that used their vote as a weapon against minority groups they didn't like.

Which is why we have a representative democracy, not a true one.

It speaks volumes that you believe in individual rights (or so you say) but wish to leave it up to the mob.

That's not quite what I said, but I'm not going to quibble over semantics.

How you reconcile this with the idea of your belief, is baffling to me.

Because without adherence to law, we have anarchy.

John Locke, "True end of government", late 1600's; chapter 28 "Of Tyranny". 202. Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm;

Source: The Soldiers Training Manual issued by the War Department, November 30, 1928

TM 2000-25: 120-121 REPUBLIC: Authority is derived throughout the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

© Copyright Original Source

http://lawandliberty.org/quotes.htm