View Full Version : The Glorious American Justice system!
HoreTore
11-20-2013, 10:41
All Hail!
The ACLU has released a report (http://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/111813-lwop-complete-report.pdf) on 3278 prisoners with lifetime sentences for nonviolent crimes. If you don't feel like reading, have a handy interactive graphic (http://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapTour/index.html?appid=18b06879984343978cd36edfcba79186&webmap=4149f2acaaf74482b330dc3b6f551bbe).
These scum of the earth have committed such heinous crimes as stealing a wallet, a truck or selling 10g of pot. BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!
FYI Americans, this is why we Europeans consider you barbaric. There is no excuse for this kind of behaviour. None.
Three times your out, does it says what the previous crimes were. And most won't die in prison, life in prison isn't life in prison in America. I admit it is a really harsh system, but over here people who have a criminal record the size of the bill of rights get away with everything every time, at a certain point they should be removed from society. Where that point should be laying I don't know.
All Hail!
The ACLU has released a report (http://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/111813-lwop-complete-report.pdf) on 3278 prisoners with lifetime sentences for nonviolent crimes. If you don't feel like reading, have a handy interactive graphic (http://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapTour/index.html?appid=18b06879984343978cd36edfcba79186&webmap=4149f2acaaf74482b330dc3b6f551bbe).
These scum of the earth have committed such heinous crimes as stealing a wallet, a truck or selling 10g of pot. BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!
3278. Out of millions. Not impressive at all.
FYI Americans, this is why we Europeans consider you barbaric. There is no excuse for this kind of behaviour. None.
Okay. No problem.
Ironside
11-20-2013, 12:58
Three times your out, does it says what the previous crimes were. And most won't die in prison, life in prison isn't life in prison in America. I admit it is a really harsh system, but over here people who have a criminal record the size of the bill of rights get away with everything every time, at a certain point they should be removed from society. Where that point should be laying I don't know.
The life time/capita number (50/100.000) in the US is about 60% of the total prisoners in the Netherlands (82/100.000). And the total number per capita is 9 times higher in the US (743/100.000), giving them about 25% of the prisoners in the world.
I think that counts as going overboard.
And 3 times you're out is probably too few times for those who turn around after starting to commit crimes. It may take 2 or more times before the descision to change really comes.
Rhyfelwyr
11-20-2013, 13:15
The US seriously needs to remove corporate/private financial interests from where they don't belong. You should never have a situation where it is in the financial interests of the prison authorities to keep prisoners for as long as possible. Where judges have shares in those organizations!
1/4 of the world's prison population in the 'leader of the free world', lol. More blacks in prison today than there were slaves in 1850. And some of them on the sites of former plantations! If I was born black in America I would be doing everything I could to leave. I don't see how anybody can think this is a healthy situation.
Never mind that US prisons look a lot meaner than British ones. How can putting people in a state of perpetual race war, where petty criminals have to join brutal gangs possibly help to prepare people for re-integrate into society?
Montmorency
11-20-2013, 13:32
3278. Out of millions. Not impressive at all.
As a raw number it's not impressive, but what is it, 2% of all life-sentences? That's a bit more troubling; should be more like 0.1% in a properly-functioning system.
The life time/capita number (50/100.000) in the US is about 60% of the total prisoners in the Netherlands (82/100.000). And the total number per capita is 9 times higher in the US (743/100.000), giving them about 25% of the prisoners in the world.
I think that counts as going overboard.
And 3 times you're out is probably too few times for those who turn around after starting to commit crimes. It may take 2 or more times before the descision to change really comes.
The USA is bigger. I am getting a bit tired of the US-bashing that mostly seems to come from Scandinavian countries. Oh so better. No you arent't, you are just being jerks. That arrogance doesn't look good on you. Especially since the rape-statistics of your lands of unicorns and rainbows would shame any third world country. Best to shut up before you point any fingers.
HoreTore
11-20-2013, 15:29
Okay. No problem.
Ah, good ol' mindless american nationalism...
On some level it's good to know that it's not just some europeans who are stuck in a 1930's mindset, the same attitude exists over the pond as well.
Ah, good ol' mindless american nationalism...
On some level it's good to know that it's not just some europeans who are stuck in a 1930's mindset, the same attitude exists over the pond as well.
And THAT is really bad. That is beyond being offensive, and I will just take it before our American posters do. How dare you, you Norwegians are known for euganics,nuntill 19300 and you still think you can judge others. You killed children that didn't have Nordic features.
That's your country. The country that could just as well could have organised a parade should the nazi's invade them another time, so easy
Ah, good ol' mindless american nationalism...
What's nationalism to some is just common sense to others. American justice is set up by us exclusively for us. We're not asking you to adopt our system, even though your treatment of Breivik is hair raising to many people here. Your country, your rules. Our country, our rules. Think what you will of this, it's not gonna matter to the way we do things here.
America isn't Europe. America isn't trying to be Europe or even be like Europe. Is that really so unsettling for the Europeans?
HoreTore
11-20-2013, 16:37
What's nationalism to some is just common sense to others. American justice is set up by us exclusively for us. We're not asking you to adopt our system, even though your treatment of Breivik is hair raising to many people here. Your country, your rules. Our country, our rules. Think what you will of this, it's not gonna matter to the way we do things here.
America isn't Europe. America isn't trying to be Europe or even be like Europe. Is that really so unsettling for the Europeans?
Mindless nationalisms trademark #2:
Whenever someone from "the outside" offers a point of view, he's trying to force you to change. There can be no other purpose to his despicable attacks of the One Truth(which is "we're the best and you suck").
HoreTore
11-20-2013, 16:39
And THAT is really bad. That is beyond being offensive, and I will just take it before our American posters do. How dare you, you Norwegians are known for euganics,nuntill 19300 and you still think you can judge others. You killed children that didn't have Nordic features.
That's your country. The country that could just as well could have organised a parade should the nazi's invade them another time, so easy
Do you honestly believe I have warm feelings for my country, or take any pride in my nation whatsoever, Fragolini?
...Whenever someone from "the outside" offers a point of view, he's trying to force you to change...
There's a difference between offering a point of view and repeating that point of view ad nauseum at every opportunity. You think America is backward and barbaric. Okay, got it. We've heard you and we don't care. Can we talk about something else now?
HoreTore
11-20-2013, 16:46
There's a difference between offering a point of view and repeating that point of view ad nauseum at every opportunity. You think America is backward and barbaric. Okay, got it. We've heard you and we don't care. Can we talk about something else now?
I do not, but I can see how a nationalist like you would think so.
I do not, but I can see how a nationalist like you would think so.
Didn't you just say...
...FYI Americans, this is why we Europeans consider you barbaric...
You're a European, no? Or you're not one of those Europeans?
HoreTore
11-20-2013, 16:56
Didn't you just say...
You're a European, no? Or you're not one of those Europeans?
Mindless nationalism trademark #3: the tendency to take everything literally, especially when it's negative statements about ones country.
Mindless nationalism trademark #3: the tendency to take everything literally.
Perhaps you could provide the figurative meaning of your statement for this "mindless nationalist"? Or would this be considered a "Mindless nationalism trademark #4"?
HoreTore
11-20-2013, 17:05
Perhaps you could provide the figurative meaning of your statement for this "mindless nationalist"? Or would this be considered a "Mindless nationalism trademark #4"?
Don't see much point in that.
Anyway, back to the topic:
Anyone else have thoughts on the three strike system, and/or on giving the most severe punishment for nonviolent crimes?
Don't see much point in that.
Right. Because there was no alternate figurative meaning.
Do you honestly believe I have warm feelings for my country, or take any pride in my nation whatsoever, Fragolini?
I just suspect some pride misgiven horrie. Scandinavians can really be jerks, and their confidence that they are holding the light is annoying.
Scandinavia/America/United States of Whatever.
Nationality aside, some of those cases are appalling in how they are handled.
Life imprisonment for a Vicar borrowing a car from a friend to visit his family on Christmas. Seriously?
Points on licence, fining, community service. No one is saying he shouldn't be punished for driving an vehicle he is uninsured for. But life sentence without parole?
If you really can sit there and justify that sentencing, you really need to take a hard look at your life.
Ironside
11-20-2013, 19:04
The USA is bigger. I am getting a bit tired of the US-bashing that mostly seems to come from Scandinavian countries. Oh so better. No you arent't, you are just being jerks. That arrogance doesn't look good on you. Especially since the rape-statistics of your lands of unicorns and rainbows would shame any third world country. Best to shut up before you point any fingers.
China is 4 times bigger. And is a dictorship. And has less prisoners. If you combine the prisoners and ‘detention centres’, then you get a similar size in numbers. So that's 1/4 of the number, with about 30% blatant political prisoners. UK is a western European anomaly with about 150.
It's not a US vs Scandinavia on this one, it's US stands out a lot compared to the rest of the world (presumably due to the war on drugs). Globally, the US is more normal on tax policies, gun control and police abuse/SWAT teams than on this.
Rape statistics contains an actual increase, but is also mostly a mixture of increased reporting (that or those immigrants doesn't ever do assult rapes) and changes in what constitutes rape instead of severe sexual harasment.
It's interesting that the majority of those sentenced to life without parole are Black and are located in the South and Midwest. This is a travesty of justice and to me constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment". The war on drugs needs to stop.
Montmorency
11-20-2013, 19:42
Interesting note: since prisons are so overcrowded, violent criminals are often remanded to local jails and just shuffled around from place to place until they can be fitted somewhere more long-term. So there are increased opportunities for this type to rub shoulders with 'lesser' criminals over extended periods.
Question: should the organization of the prison-system be changed (after everything is done with reducing overcrowding and rewriting the penal code on personal use of drugs/controlled substances) so that highly-recidivistic misdemeanants+minor felons are concentrated together in prisons (which also raises the question of whether misdemeanants should serve their sentences in jails in all cases) to isolate them from the rest of the short-sentence inmates? That is, if prisons are going to be 'crime schools', then maybe we should implicitly designate specific units of the system as such, rather than allowing the diffusion of criminal norms and techniques throughout the entire incarcerated population.
The (semi) privatizing of the penal system, declaring wars on social problems and the fallout from political blundering, and these human rights abusing three strike laws all lead to the US becoming an authoritarian police state.
The (semi) privatizing of the penal system, declaring wars on social problems and the fallout from political blundering, and these human rights abusing three strike laws all lead to the US becoming an authoritarian police state.
How would you define an authoritarian police state? Specifically, what attributes would make a state authoritarian, and what attributes would classify it as a police state?
Is that really so unsettling for the Europeans?
Not for me. :wine:
Kralizec
11-20-2013, 21:23
Anyone else have thoughts on the three strike system, and/or on giving the most severe punishment for nonviolent crimes?
Three strikes is an insane idea. It takes an extremely self-righteous person, or perhaps just a stupid one, to think that locking someone up for life for three petty convictions has anything to do with "justice".
And it's bloody expensive as well - I wonder how many of its supporters are self-described "fiscal conservatives".
And it's bloody expensive as well - I wonder how many of its supporters are self-described "fiscal conservatives".
Three strike law states present a very weird mix of super-conservative (like Texas) and super-liberal (like Massachusetts) states.
Kralizec
11-20-2013, 21:33
I'm a fair minded guy. Liberals can be imbeciles, too.
I'm a fair minded guy. Liberals can be imbeciles, too.
Come to Michigan then! It's a locally Red state that is almost completely Blue on the federal level. Heck, we don't even have the death penalty here.
Papewaio
11-21-2013, 02:45
How would you define an authoritarian police state? Specifically, what attributes would make a state authoritarian, and what attributes would classify it as a police state?
One that has secret courts and spies on all its citizens foreign and a lot of their domestic communications would be one...
Oh that's another thread...
USA can do its own things in its own country. Just don't go touting 'We are the leaders of the free world' without the stats to back 'em up like voter particaption, life span, access to health, access to representation etc
If you can stop spouting that the POTUS is the leader of the free world then maybe the Vikings will stop stating the obvious that you aren't.
If you can stop spouting that the POTUS is the leader of the free world then maybe the Vikings will stop stating the obvious that you aren't.
What exactly makes one a leader of the free world? And if we're not the leader, then who is? Not that leadership is a privilege or anything like that. It's a burden. I'd be happy to see us turn back to isolationism if that was a viable option, but alas. We're the leader alright, but all we have to show for it is a group of ungrateful do-nothing "allies" with the notable exception of the Brits. Leadership is overrated at least as far as its benefits go.
Papewaio
11-21-2013, 05:11
Swords are not ploughs.
How good a life all the citizens lead within a country determines leadership within the free world. Not how many people can be stomped on.
Swords are not ploughs. How good a life all the citizens lead within a country determines leadership within the free world. Not how many people can be stomped on.
That still doesn't answer the question of which country should take the torch of leadership in the free world. I'd venture a guess that there will be no takers.
Papewaio
11-21-2013, 06:08
That still doesn't answer the question of which country should take the torch of leadership in the free world. I'd venture a guess that there will be no takers.
I'm not convinced that there can be a leadership position for freedom. It's certainly not attained by force of arms or spying on everyone. It is like leading a horse to water, sure you can get it there but you can't make it drink. Freedom is something people have to want and strive for at a grass root level. Freedom is a personal choice as much as an environmental one.
If there is a leadership role for freedom it isn't based on force or arms but the quality of life of a countries citizens and the positive benefit the nation has on other people's lives.
I'm not convinced that there can be a leadership position for freedom. It's certainly not attained by force of arms or spying on everyone. It is like leading a horse to water, sure you can get it there but you can't make it drink. Freedom is something people have to want and strive for at a grass root level. Freedom is a personal choice as much as an environmental one.
If there is a leadership role for freedom it isn't based on force or arms but the quality of life of a countries citizens and the positive benefit the nation has on other people's lives.
That would work. In vacuum. Or in the land of the prancing ponies. The good old Earth however requires the ability to project deadly force in order to protect freedom. Freedom isn't free. It's not worth a plug nickel if it cannot stand up for itself and protect itself.
“The good old Earth however requires the ability to project deadly force in order to protect freedom.”
Yeah, we had the phase in French Democracy development as well, few centuries ago… The Revolutionary’s armies freed Europe in the 18th Century of it Tyrants, proclaimed Republics everywhere they could. It was their duty and burden. However, someone (Robespierre) told: People don’t like armed prophets. He was absolutely right.
Apparently the French (Republican) idea of Freedom was not was the rest of Europe wanted. What a shame…
It took 7 coalitions and 20 years for Europeans Monarchies and Empires to destroy the idea and they re-installed a despot on the Throne of France (and this was their idea of freedom).
Back to the US leadership of the free world, as stated, it is more the right to do what they want freely than really defending freedom as concept. What get me is the US policy hard core supporter’s whinging. They want to roam the Earth freely as they pleased, but if someone kill them they don’t understand and complain than no one love them (ungrateful). At the time of Colonial Powers, the French crushed rebellions, but they never asked why the rebellions happened. They knew.
When you impose your laws and your interests upon populations there are backlashes. And yes, we were kicked out by the ungrateful leaders of these countries, men and women we educated in our schools. And they did it on the name of the values written in the French Constitution, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, because the French forgot what these concepts mean, and that they are Universal.
What exactly makes one a leader of the free world? And if we're not the leader, then who is? Not that leadership is a privilege or anything like that. It's a burden. I'd be happy to see us turn back to isolationism if that was a viable option, but alas. We're the leader alright, but all we have to show for it is a group of ungrateful do-nothing "allies" with the notable exception of the Brits. Leadership is overrated at least as far as its benefits go.
You're the leader of Americanism or the American empire perhaps, but not of the free world. With such a large prison system, surveillance programs, military occupations, torture programs and a "we're stronger, suck it up or try to fight us"-attitude you can hardly claim to be a leader in terms of freedom.
That would work. In vacuum. Or in the land of the prancing ponies. The good old Earth however requires the ability to project deadly force in order to protect freedom. Freedom isn't free. It's not worth a plug nickel if it cannot stand up for itself and protect itself.
The only freedom you protect is the freedom to be spied on universally and to have a government that is more influenced by corporate interest than the interest of the people it governs. And maybe the freedom of the USA to do whatever it wants with both allies and enemies. Why would anyone want to follow you other than because they want to be with the biggest bully rather than against him? Where is the freedom in that?
Back to the US leadership of the free world, as stated, it is more the right to do what they want freely than really defending freedom as concept. What get me is the US policy hard core supporter’s whinging. They want to roam the Earth freely as they pleased, but if someone kill them they don’t understand and complain than no one love them (ungrateful). At the time of Colonial Powers, the French crushed rebellions, but they never asked why the rebellions happened. They knew.
Exactly.
Montmorency
11-21-2013, 11:49
Leaving aside this strange concept of "freedom", the point is merely that most non-Americans do not share rvg's perspective: namely, that there is no reason for non-Americans to be upset when America imposes its agenda on them -
America is a (relatively)* benevolent master, after all...
So the problem is a lack of empathy. Whether or not it pushes decision-making into the realm of the gentle or sentimental, it is a good idea to at least recognize how people feel, how they have come to feel this way, and how natural such feelings are, if only to better effect your own hegemony. If you don't mind that others hate you, then prudence dictates that you take the precaution of working to maintain the sentiment at a substrate-level, and to do this you must first understand the sentiment on a more-than-surface level.
Or, you know, maybe let's leave it at 'everyone just hates America out of jealousy cuz America is rich and better than them'...
So keep in mind that, while the majority of states desperately want American support and attention, this is mostly due to the economic benefits such things entail, as well as the fact that a distant strong America is preferable for many to a nearby strong Russia or China. But geopolitical winds change, you know. If Russian and Chinese projection can/will fade in time, then so can/will the USA's...
*What is missed whenever America's relative benevolence is mentioned is the fact that the conditions that produce this historical benevolence are such that they automatically raise the bar for benevolence. Just keep in mind that ethical standards and contemporary (for any point) conditions are inextricably intertwined. Obviously, Romanesque expand-and-devastate (or vice-versa) would almost immediately precipitate both an American civil war and a World War.
Leaving aside this strange concept of "freedom", the point is merely that most non-Americans do not share rvg's perspective: namely, that there is no reason for non-Americans to be upset when America imposes its agenda on them -
America is a (relatively)* benevolent master, after all...
Is it so hard to see the discrepancy between having freedom and having a master?
I don't think rvg wants the government to be his master, even if it were a benevolent master, but America being the master of the "free" world is fine. It's a bit like communist dictatorships calling themselves peoples' democracies...
...However, someone (Robespierre) told: People don’t like armed prophets. He was absolutely right.
What did Robespierre know about freedom? He was too busy harvesting heads. The man was a bloodthirsty tyrant who had guillotined thousands of innocent people.
What did Robespierre know about freedom? He was too busy harvesting heads. The man was a bloodthirsty tyrant who had guillotined thousands of innocent people.
Things are rarely that black and white.
You're the leader of Americanism or the American empire perhaps, but not of the free world. With such a large prison system, surveillance programs, military occupations, torture programs and a "we're stronger, suck it up or try to fight us"-attitude you can hardly claim to be a leader in terms of freedom.
Okay, then who is the leader if not us?
The only freedom you protect is the freedom to be spied on universally and to have a government that is more influenced by corporate interest than the interest of the people it governs. And maybe the freedom of the USA to do whatever it wants with both allies and enemies. Why would anyone want to follow you other than because they want to be with the biggest bully rather than against him? Where is the freedom in that?
I sense someone's precious feeling being hurt. Everybody spies. We're no different from anyone else in that sense. As for why anyone would follow us, I don't know, some do it to save money on defense budget, others do it because our interests align. Can you speak for everyone?
Okay, then who is the leader if not us?
Noone. The UN was supposed to take a leading function among nations but nationalistic interests of the strongest nations at the time resulting in veto powers ruined it.
I sense someone's precious feeling being hurt. Everybody spies. We're no different from anyone else in that sense. As for why anyone would follow us, I don't know, some do it to save money on defense budget, others do it because our interests align. Can you speak for everyone?
Does the government always speak for everyone?
How do you know my feelings are hurt? Do you work for the NSA or are you just trying to mock me?
Everybody spies but not everybody spies on friends and foes alike and not every population is willing to tolerate it.
It's just a cheap excuse that ignores the scale at which some nations do it and the fact that everybody doing something bad does not make it good.
HoreTore
11-21-2013, 14:28
Noone. The UN was supposed to take a leading function among nations but nationalistic interests of the strongest nations at the time resulting in veto powers ruined it.
I'd say Amnesty fits.
Noone. The UN was supposed to take a leading function among nations but nationalistic interests of the strongest nations at the time resulting in veto powers ruined it.
Interesting. Remember our old pal Muammar? He didn't really bother anyone, all he wanted was to massacre a few dissenters in Benghazi. Easy-peasy, but no, the U.N. doesn't take very kindly at such action and passes a scary resolution. Muammar ratchets up the rate of killing. What does the U.N. do next? The U.N. looks at America and expects us to deal with Muammar. France and Italy would love the idea as well, but they themselves don't seem to be able to do it. Suddenly they realize that without proper logistics in place they can't do a thing to stop Muammar. French and Italian plans that can almost reach Muammar make him almost scared and force him to almost halt the drive towards Benghazi. So France and Italy also look at America and expect us to fix this.
Our cruise missiles start flying and the rest is history. Moral of the story is that high ideals are worthless without the ability and the will to enforce them.
Does the government always speak for everyone?
Not for everyone, but for the majority. Usually.
How do you know my feelings are hurt? Do you work for the NSA or are you just trying to mock me?
Just a guess.
Everybody spies but not everybody spies on friends and foes alike...
And you know this how?
ICantSpellDawg
11-21-2013, 14:47
No one has respect for the law here. We just don't want to do hard time or lose rights, which is the consequence of an endless list of insignificant and non-violent errors. The government is a monster which must be overcome.
Too many people are persecuted for too little and it is not going unnoticed. The law protects established interests and intolerant curmudgeons and we are doing our best to unravel the legal system that we've (people who no one knows who lived many years ago who had a trivial understanding of reality) created. You know, except for nanny staters who seek to expand the list of nonviolent offences that put you in jail. Keeping property that you have owned legally, smoking plants in your own home, recording police betraying their oaths, etc
The US government and the legal system it supports is a global disgrace. It is a criminal enterprise which seeks to weaken free thought, free expression and free will while expanding draconian control over everyone and everything. The good news? So is every government out there. The beasts have taken the reigns, and it is time to wrest them back. The government can do good things if it remembers why it exists in the first place.
Interesting. Remember our old pal Muammar? He didn't really bother anyone, all he wanted was to massacre a few dissenters in Benghazi. Easy-peasy, but no, the U.N. doesn't take very kindly at such action and passes a scary resolution. Muammar ratchets up the rate of killing. What does the U.N. do next? The U.N. looks at America and expects us to deal with Muammar. France and Italy would love the idea as well, but they themselves don't seem to be able to do it. Suddenly they realize that without proper logistics in place they can't do a thing to stop Muammar. French and Italian plans that can almost reach Muammar make him almost scared and force him to almost halt the drive towards Benghazi. So France and Italy also look at America and expect us to fix this.
Our cruise missiles start flying and the rest is history. Moral of the story is that high ideals are worthless without the ability and the will to enforce them.
Well, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You want to be the world police and other nations adapt to it. Then you have to be the world police and complain that other people use you as the world police. If you don't want to babysit European countries, you could start by leaving NATO and abandoning all your bases in Europe.
And you know this how?
Completely different laws. We also have less CCTV than the British for example.
Well, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You want to be the world police and other nations adapt to it. Then you have to be the world police and complain that other people use you as the world police.
I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that high ideals cannot be implemented without someone having to do the dirty work.
If you don't want to babysit European countries, you could start by leaving NATO and abandoning all your bases in Europe.
I would love to see us do that.
Completely different laws. We also have less CCTV than the British for example.
Laws? We're talking about spying here, it by definition runs contrary to laws.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-21-2013, 17:54
That still doesn't answer the question of which country should take the torch of leadership in the free world. I'd venture a guess that there will be no takers.
The concept is Oxymoronic. America lead the Free World during the Cold War because of its overwhelming military might, having deliberately beggared Britain and France, undermined our economies, dismantled our Empires, bound us to you be debt. America was never the Good Guy - you were the Big Guy who was preferable to the Ruskies.
Now the ruskies are no longer such a terrible threat - we no longer need you to "lead us".
What, you thought it was a moral thing?
The concept is Oxymoronic. America lead the Free World during the Cold War because of its overwhelming military might...
Is that a bad thing?
...having deliberately beggared Britain and France, undermined our economies, dismantled our Empires, bound us to you be debt.
Interesting. Did we provoke the entire African continent to start an independence movement? Was it us who stirred up India or Indochina? You bear the responsibility for losing your empires, we had no hand in that. We didn't stand to gain anything from your losses.
America was never the Good Guy - you were the Big Guy who was preferable to the Ruskies.
WWI comes to mind. We joined in strictly to help out...
Now the ruskies are no longer such a terrible threat - we no longer need you to "lead us".
No problem, we are not holding anyone hostage.
The Stranger
11-21-2013, 19:53
Interesting. Did we provoke the entire African continent to start an independence movement? Was it us who stirred up India or Indochina? You bear the responsibility for losing your empires, we had no hand in that. We didn't stand to gain anything from your losses.
you definitely had a hand in it, and so had russia.
WWI comes to mind. We joined in strictly to help out...
so russia wouldnt take it all :/
No problem, we are not holding anyone hostage.
you kinda are, although not at gunpoint.
“What did Robespierre know about freedom? He was too busy harvesting heads. The man was a bloodthirsty tyrant who had guillotined thousands of innocent people.”: That is the story developed by his enemies and the reasons they gave to justify their actions. Unfortunately, it is the shared (by false) representation of his actions, Not that he didn’t killed (his policy) some people, but they were far from being innocents. But that is another debate.
“Was it us who stirred up India or Indochina? You bear the responsibility for losing your empires, we had no hand in that. We didn't stand to gain anything from your losses.” I don’t know for India but for Indochina I have some lights and, err, yes, USA wanted to make the pacific a big Mare Nostrum (and succeeded). Yes, USA did support Vietminh against the French until Korean War (Major Patty’s mission). As the matter of losing our Empires, that was a good thing, even if my father was one of the soldiers fighting to keep it.
“WWI comes to mind. We joined in strictly to help out...” Joining the winners…
“No problem, we are not holding anyone hostage”… Right… Asked Allende and several South American Countries their opinions about it… How many times did you try to kill Castro, and why do you still have an illegal blockade on Cuba?
“so russia wouldnt take it all” Not in WW1. Fear of Communism, not really at that time…
The Stranger
11-21-2013, 20:42
“so russia wouldnt take it all” Not in WW1. Fear of Communism, not really at that time…
ah i missread. I thought he wrote ww2
That is the story developed by his enemies and the reasons they gave to justify their actions. Unfortunately, it is the shared (by false) representation of his actions, Not that he didn’t killed (his policy) some people, but they were far from being innocents. But that is another debate.
And you know this how exactly?
I don’t know for India but for Indochina I have some lights and, err, yes, USA wanted to make the pacific a big Mare Nostrum (and succeeded). Yes, USA did support Vietminh against the French until Korean War (Major Patty’s mission).
We only supported Vietminh in their struggle against the Japanese.
Joining the winners…
When we joined in 1917 the Entente bloc wasn't doing too well.
… Right… Asked Allende and several South American Countries their opinions about it…
Allende was deposed by the local junta. If you think otherwise, prove it.
How many times did you try to kill Castro, and why do you still have an illegal blockade on Cuba?
It's called an embargo. We are not obligated to trade with anyone. As for trying to kill Castro, he deserve as much for conspiring with the commies and nearly causing the WW3.
The have an interesting definition of "nonviolent". Here's one of the first descriptions I clicked on:
John Montgomery said that immediately before committing the armed burglary that led to his life without parole sentence, he was turned away from the hospital, where he sought treatment for his mental illness, because there was no room.
And another a few clicks later:
Alfonse Danner, a decorated U.S. Navy veteran, served in the Persian Gulf War. After that, “things went downhill for me,” he says. Danner will die behind bars for armed burglary and grand theft.
Last I checked, burglarizing a home while armed was a violent offense.
“And you know this how exactly?” Exactly in the same way you known he was a “bloody” dictator.
“We only supported Vietminh in their struggle against the Japanese” Read more.
“When we joined in 1917 the Entente bloc wasn't doing too well.” Read more : US army was not ready in 1917, so the only impact was psychological. Have to be equipped and trained by the English and the French. They were ready to take part in the last offensive in 1918 and their help, if not vital, was appreciated.
“Allende was deposed by the local junta. If you think otherwise, prove it.” Read on the subject. Operation Condor and Charlie.
“As for trying to kill Castro, he deserve as much for conspiring with the commies and nearly causing the WW3.” Yeah yeah yeah…Good old propaganda…
“We are not obligated to trade with anyone.” Ho? You don’t belong to the World Trade Organisation? Read about it, you really need to have your facts right.
It is amazing how you are unprepared for any debate, thinking that to be rude and offensive is enough…:bow:
HoreTore
11-21-2013, 23:25
“As for trying to kill Castro, he deserve as much for conspiring with the commies and nearly causing the WW3.” Yeah yeah yeah…Good old propaganda…
Funny how it's "conspiring and nearly causing ww3" when the missiles were shipped to Cuba as a response to NATO nukes deployed near eastern europe(Italy and Turkey, iirc)... It wasn't to gain a nuclear advantage, it was to eliminate the nuclear advantage enjoyed by NATO.
Also, Castro only turned to the USSR when it became obvious the US was and would remain hostile. He wasn't a soviet loyalist from the start.
“... Exactly in the same way you known he was a “bloody” dictator...
...Read more...
...Read more...
...Read on the subject...
...Yeah yeah yeah…Good old propaganda…
...Read about it...
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Your "arguments" are a joke. I'm not wasting any more time on your nonsense.
Greyblades
11-22-2013, 01:25
I am reminded of an anedote I was told; where castro recomended the russians set off a few nukes to make the americans back off, dude hadnt been told that nukes were bad even without the possibility of MAD.
Tellos Athenaios
11-22-2013, 01:37
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Your "arguments" are a joke. I'm not wasting any more time on your nonsense.
Well as to the blockade of Cuba, that was simply illegal. :shrug:
Well as to the blockade of Cuba, that was simply illegal. :shrug:
Cuba hasn't been blockaded in decades though. It's still under a US embargo, but there's nothing wrong with embargoes. Cuba can trade at will with whomever she likes, just not with the US. As for what happened in 1962, the question of legality kinda pales in comparison with how close we got to WW3. Cuba was blockaded, yes, and for a damn good reason.
The Stranger
11-22-2013, 02:28
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Your "arguments" are a joke. I'm not wasting any more time on your nonsense.
thats kinda funny coming from the guy who's arguments were "How do you know?/Can you prove that?" from the start.
thats kinda funny coming from the guy who's arguments were "How do you know?/Can you prove that?" from the start.
The burden of proof lies with the one making a statement. I am merely asking questions. :bow:
Cuba hasn't been blockaded in decades though. It's still under a US embargo, but there's nothing wrong with embargoes. Cuba can trade at will with whomever she likes, just not with the US. As for what happened in 1962, the question of legality kinda pales in comparison with how close we got to WW3. Cuba was blockaded, yes, and for a damn good reason.
You mean instead of starting WW3 the US decided to enact a blockade instead and now people should be thankful to the USA for not starting WW3?
You mean instead of starting WW3 the US decided to enact a blockade instead and now people should be thankful to the USA for not starting WW3?
Whatever floats your boat. Blame us or the commies, it's just a matter of preference.
Whatever floats your boat. Blame us or the commies, it's just a matter of preference.
The commies didn't threaten to start WW3 when you placed nukes in their backyard.
When they placed nukes in your backyard in return, you did threaten to start WW3 as you just said.
It's not a matter of preference, it's a completely different reaction.
The commies didn't threaten to start WW3 when you placed nukes in their backyard.
When they placed nukes in your backyard in return, you did threaten to start WW3 as you just said.
It's not a matter of preference, it's a completely different reaction.
If you insist on thanking JFK for not destroying the world then go right ahead.
If you insist on thanking JFK for not destroying the world then go right ahead.
Do you give up or do you simply not read the posts you reply to?
Do you give up or do you simply not read the posts you reply to?
Let's just say that we're talking about slightly different things. You're focusing on a tit-for-tat nuclear missile placement in asserting the guilt. I'm focusing on the fact that both sides had major naval battlegroups around Cuba fully prepared for an engagement, just waiting for a final go-ahead. Either side could have lit up the tinderbox with a single spark. In this situation I find ascribing guilt or innocence to be a matter of personal preference. It was a different world back in 1962. There was us and there was them.
“The burden of proof lies with the one making a statement” says the one saying “the man was a bloodthirsty tyrant who had guillotined thousands of innocent people.”
“I'm not wasting any more time on your nonsense” So, you will not read more to learn more.
Freedom starts by knowledge, why are you against freedom? Then, as you didn’t answer at all anyway, you didn’t waste much time. As much as information gathering, learning facts and thinking I supposed.
As Cuba is concerned, the assassination attempts and the Bay Pig landing were BEFORE the Cuban Missiles Crisis. Ad to have missile in US backdoor is a reason for WW3 when having US (nuclear) missiles in Turkey was not, missiles that JFK agreed to withdraw after negotiation with USSR.
These are the same kinds of arguments. Hitler did attack USSR BUT Stalin was ready to attack Germany. Commies are bad, so we can invade other countries and put dictatorships on others, all in the name of Freedom. Castro became bad so it was right to try to kill him before.
The fact that Communism is not illegal doesn’t appear as an obstacle for these freedom lovers.
HoreTore
11-22-2013, 13:15
Cuba hasn't been blockaded in decades though. It's still under a US embargo, but there's nothing wrong with embargoes. Cuba can trade at will with whomever she likes, just not with the US. As for what happened in 1962, the question of legality kinda pales in comparison with how close we got to WW3. Cuba was blockaded, yes, and for a damn good reason.
.....Exept, of course that the embardo didn't start in 1962 or was related to the missile crisis. It was started in 1960 as a response to Cuba nationalization of the sugar industry.
Which, in turn, lead to Castro seeking closer relations to the USSR(he had to trade with someone), which lead to nukes placed on Cuba.
The iron law of unintended consequences strikes yet again.
.....Exept, of course that the embardo didn't start in 1962 or was related to the missile crisis. It was started in 1960 as a response to Cuba nationalization of the sugar industry.
Which, in turn, lead to Castro seeking closer relations to the USSR(he had to trade with someone), which lead to nukes placed on Cuba.
The iron law of unintended consequences strikes yet again.
Sure, and one of the contributing causes of Pearl Harbor was our refusal to sell oil to Imperial Japan. So what? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
HoreTore
11-22-2013, 14:09
Sure, and one of the contributing causes of Pearl Harbor was our refusal to sell oil to Imperial Japan. So what? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Well, my main point is that the cuban missile crisis was not the cause of US hostility, rather US hostility was the cause of the missile crisis.
The second point, I guess, would be that the US created a Stalin instead of accepting a Tito. The US could have had a far more friendly Cuba than they got, and I do believe a friendly Cuba would be more beneficial to the US than a hostile Cuba.
Well, my main point is that the cuban missile crisis was not the cause of US hostility, rather US hostility was the cause of the missile crisis.
Perhaps the causes of that hostility also need an evaluation. Eisenhower wouldn't embargo Cuba just for fun.
The second point, I guess, would be that the US created a Stalin instead of accepting a Tito. The US could have had a far more friendly Cuba than they got, and I do believe a friendly Cuba would be more beneficial to the US than a hostile Cuba.
Hindsight.
HoreTore
11-22-2013, 14:25
Perhaps the causes of that hostility also need an evaluation. Eisenhower wouldn't embargo Cuba just for fun.
Already stated the reason: cuban nationalization of the sugar industry.
Hindsight.
Of course, never claimed otherwise. "Law of unintended consequences" hints at hindsight, doesn't it?
Already stated the reason: cuban nationalization of the sugar industry.
There was more to it: Castro basically expropriated anything belonging to the Americans.
Sarmatian
11-22-2013, 17:12
There was more to it: Castro basically expropriated anything belonging to the Americans.
Actually, that's only the end of the story. Castro imported crude oil from Soviet Union and US-owned refineries in Cuba refused to process it, under pressure from American government. Castro nationalized the refineries after that. US invoked sanctions on Cuban sugar, Castro nationalized the rest.
Actually, that's only the end of the story. Castro imported crude oil from Soviet Union and US-owned refineries in Cuba refused to process it, under pressure from American government. Castro nationalized the refineries after that. US invoked sanctions on Cuban sugar, Castro nationalized the rest.
Yeah, sounds like a perfectly logical causal chain almost leading to the Apocalypse. Cold War politics, gotta love 'em.
Crazed Rabbit
11-23-2013, 00:04
In general I agree that many of these cases are terrible (though as Tincow pointed out, sometimes the definition of non-violent is stretched). It's a result, I think, of the whole 'tough on crime' attitude cultivated by both parties in the US for decades because that's what appeals to the voters. It's presented as a black and white issue that most voters don't see the wrong side of.
One thing I wanted to note, however, in response to a couple folks;
The US seriously needs to remove corporate/private financial interests from where they don't belong. You should never have a situation where it is in the financial interests of the prison authorities to keep prisoners for as long as possible. Where judges have shares in those organizations!
1/4 of the world's prison population in the 'leader of the free world', lol. More blacks in prison today than there were slaves in 1850. And some of them on the sites of former plantations! If I was born black in America I would be doing everything I could to leave. I don't see how anybody can think this is a healthy situation.
Never mind that US prisons look a lot meaner than British ones. How can putting people in a state of perpetual race war, where petty criminals have to join brutal gangs possibly help to prepare people for re-integrate into society?
Our prison system is a cash cow. Nothing more, nothing less. Millions of people owe their livelyhoods not only to the prison system, but to the notion that it MUST grow. We're headed for a dark place when the police become as corporate as the Prisons... and its coming. And the rvg types will wave their flags all the way to Dystopia.
The privatized prison issue is a minor part of this overall. I think a bigger part (though not the main part) is the public employee unions, specifically those like the California Prison Guards Union:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/california-prison-guards_n_3894490.html
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2011/06/05/the-role-of-the-prison-guards-union-in-californias-troubled-prison-system
http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2013/05/the-california-prison-guards-union-benefits-from-nonsensical-laws-which-increase-the-prison-population/
http://www.policymic.com/articles/41531/union-of-the-snake-how-california-s-prison-guards-subvert-democracy
These are not corporate interests, nor should they be labeled as such. To say the unions are becoming corporate because they support more people in prison is disingenuous to me. It seems like a view that doesn't want to accept that unions can do wrong, or rather that 'unionism' or what have you is fundamentally good, while 'corporatism' is fundamentally bad.
The labels are important because you have to correctly identify the problem in order to solve it.
The (semi) privatizing of the penal system, declaring wars on social problems and the fallout from political blundering, and these human rights abusing three strike laws all lead to the US becoming an authoritarian police state
I think, of those tissues you stated, only the war on drugs is a main driver for an increasingly authoritarian state.
CR
Crazed Rabbit
11-23-2013, 02:35
I see no fundamental difference between certain unions and certain abusive corporations. Both often subvert the public good in order to vastly exceed their mandates, especially in this case.
I agree. But I don't think unions acting as such are necessarily acting 'corporate' in that situation.
CR
HoreTore
11-23-2013, 11:02
I think, of those tissues you stated, only the war on drugs is a main driver for an increasingly authoritarian state.
Life in jail for three counts of theft doesn't strike you as authoritarian? Seriously?
Life in jail for three counts of theft doesn't strike you as authoritarian? Seriously?
There's nothing authoritarian about it. It might be unnecessarily harsh depending on the circumstances of the crime, but that doesn't have a thing to do with authoritarianism. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Crazed Rabbit
11-23-2013, 17:47
In terms of police unions? I disagree. At every potential threat to Police the answer is always to put the safety of the police first. This results in corporate-style lobbying and major cooperation with corporations that supply the latest and greatest tactical gear.
What? Unions don't lobby? How is there lobbying different from the lobbying other unions do (in terms of function if not results)?
Police unions are not so much unions as groups that seek to turn a delicate and important task like law enforcement into a self-perpetuating haven for unfirable incompetents with a power fetish. Unlike almost every other Union, their agenda is in line with a corporate agenda, minus the occasional pay squabble.
Other unions don't go to the hilt to prevent people from being fired? You talk about cooperation with the 'corporate' agenda (buying ammo & gear, etc., I assume), but I think that's minor overall.
If you're talking about prison guard unions and cooperation with private prisons to push for more prisons & more prisoners, I still don't think that makes those unions corporate. Lots of unions have interests aligned with corporate interests; machinists unions for Boeing want more pork bills from the govt for building planes, construction unions want more money for infrastructure, dockworkers unions want more money for building up ports and increasing trade, etc.
True police reform would hurt police unions HARD.
Oh, certainly.
Life in jail for three counts of theft doesn't strike you as authoritarian? Seriously?
Come on now;
I think, of those tissues you stated, only the war on drugs is a main driver for an increasingly authoritarian state.
I said it wasn't a cause for the state becoming increasingly authoritarian. It's more a result of the state becoming more authoritarian, I would say. The related cause for the whole 3 strikes thing would be the attitudes on crime and criminals that led to those laws being passed.
CR
Montmorency
11-23-2013, 18:41
dockworkers unions want more money for building up ports and increasing trade
Well, these days it's more about keeping our head above the water, so to speak. Many of our harbors are overdue for much-needed maintenance.
At least the Harbor Fund has more money than the poor Waterways Fund. I think it was ~$120 billion we were losing yearly due to our ancient canals? Those things ought to have undergone major improvement before most of us were born! Let's go for the Kallanai limit, I suppose?
Rhyfelwyr
11-24-2013, 00:08
@Crazed Rabbit: Interesting links, I'll give them a more thorough read tomorrow - its an angle I never thought about before.
Although like you said to GC, there are probably wider trends which led to the three strikes law. I would hazard to guess that sensationalist media, urbanisation, and the development of a crime-dependent underclass has a lot to do with it.
Kamakazi
11-28-2013, 05:20
At a glance... notice the amount of people in this list that are black. A lot of it comes down to race. If you look at the American "justice system" African Americans are more harshly punished than any other race. The American system is a farce. Its more luck of the draw than fare
ICantSpellDawg
11-28-2013, 13:03
At a glance... notice the amount of people in this list that are black. A lot of it comes down to race. If you look at the American "justice system" African Americans are more harshly punished than any other race. The American system is a farce. Its more luck of the draw than fare
Don't worry, the abusive machine is expanding every day to treat all people like slaves. Equal opportunity.
Regarding police unions - it is a tough one. They clearly need a focused advocate. The life of a police officer in metropolitan areas is often in danger. Add to this that they are a constant beacon of political fury rightly or wrongly. They need a strong blue line to provide backup in a way that most other industries dont. Too often, this is used to evil and self serving ends.
You could make officers lives much safer if you stopped forcing them to rustle up trouble where there isnt much and breed criminals through the contempt that they build for "justice". You would also make them less numerous and less well paid.
HoreTore
11-28-2013, 13:30
At a glance... notice the amount of people in this list that are black. A lot of it comes down to race. If you look at the American "justice system" African Americans are more harshly punished than any other race. The American system is a farce. Its more luck of the draw than fare
Also notice their geographical location in the south.
The Lurker Below
12-03-2013, 16:38
At a glance... notice the amount of people in this list that are black. A lot of it comes down to race. If you look at the American "justice system" African Americans are more harshly punished than any other race. The American system is a farce. Its more luck of the draw than fare
As the great Richard Pryor said: "You go down there looking for justice; that's what you find: just us."
Sasaki Kojiro
12-07-2013, 10:43
If more people commit serious crimes, then there should be more people in prison. So it is strange when people hold out there number of people in prison as if it proves injustice. If one country had 10,000 criminals, and 20,000 people in prison, that would be terribly unjust, while if another country had 100,000 criminals and 50,000 in prison that would be terrible police work. well it would be pretty good police work actually but you get the idea.
the aclu is a retarded propaganda organization. click the infographic, it says a reverend is serving life for borrowing a coworkers truck. Google for a news article, you read:
"Aaron Jones, after serving two years in prison in his 20s for involuntary manslaughter during a bar fight, turned his life around. He earned his electrical technician degree, got married, was ordained and founded the Perfect Love Outreach Ministry. While renovating a motel, Jones used a co-worker’s truck, which was being used at the time as a company vehicle, to visit his wife and children. When the co-worker discovered the truck missing, he reported it stolen, not knowing that Jones had it. Jones was pulled over while driving the truck, arrested and convicted to life without parole in Louisiana due to his previous conviction."
dig down into the actual pdf:
Jones, who is Black, was subsequently found driving the
truck by police, who pulled him over for driving through a stop sign.885 He was
sentenced to mandatory LWOP as a fourth felony offender at age 34 because of
prior convictions for issuing worthless checks in 1995, negligent homicide in 1989,
and armed robbery in 1982.886 After he served two years in prison for the negligent
homicide conviction, which stemmed from a knife fight outside of a bar during
which Jones unintentionally killed his attacker, he had turned his life around.887
and this is still his/the aclu's story! I guess they figure people will only read infographics.
************
Europeans are very confused about justice.
"In particular, every German state grants regular Christmas amnestie,s which free all inmates serving short sentences. German lawyers, indeed, can try to plan around these amnesties, in the effort to guarantee their clients the shortest possible stay in prison. It is known, in the various states, that inmates must serve a certain minimum time--typically a month--before they may benefit from any amnesty. Savvy offenders can try to delay their admission to prison until one month before the effective date of the annual Christmas amnesty, effectively shortening their sentences to one month. The German justice system tolerates these tactics reflects a systematic toleration for relative mildness."--
James Q Whitman, harsh justice: criminal punishment and the widening divide between america and europe. A very interesting book by the way.
"So too does the prominence of matter form the law of insult in the prisons. The regulations require German prison guards to address prisoners as "Sie.," the respectful formal form of address. German inmates have not infrequently brought successful actions against guards who addressed them disrespectfully..."--pg 90
"In one important case, an inmate who had been handed an unfavorable decision of the Constitutional Court burst out at his guard, "Don't be so snotty, you uppity jerk." Subjected to disciplinary measures for this insult, the inmate carried the case to the Constitutional Court once again, which carefully ruled that, while criminal insults were naturally punishable, prison officials had a special obligation to weigh that interest against the inmate's interest in free expression. Strangely enough, German convicts may thus actually be more free to hand out insults than ordinary Germans are."--pg 91
And remember the case of gunther parche:
"In 1990, at the age of 16, Seles became the youngest-ever French Open champion. She went on to win eight Grand Slam singles titles before her 20th birthday and was the year-end World No. 1 in 1991 and 1992. However, on April 30, 1993 she was the victim of an on-court attack, when a man stabbed her in the back with a 9-inch-long knife.[3] Seles did not return to tennis for over two years. Though she enjoyed some success after rejoining the tour in 1995, including a fourth Australian Open success in 1996, she was unable to consistently reproduce her best form. She played her last professional match at the 2003 French Open, but did not officially retire until February 2008."
"To one degree or another, every northern European country has turned to the day fine, or probation in some other form, for all but the most serious, and especially violent, offeneses. Indeed, even very high-profile violent offenders often do no time. When Gunter Parche stabbed tennis star Monica Seles, Americans expected that he would receive a long prison sentence, as would surely have been the case in the United States. Following normal German practice, though, he received a sentence of probation."--pg 72
"Seles vowed never to play tennis in Germany again, disenchanted by the German legal system. "What people seem to be forgetting is that this man stabbed me intentionally and he did not serve any sort of punishment for it... I would not feel comfortable going back. I don't foresee that happening."[8]"
www.law.berkeley.edu/sugarman/Sports_Stories_-_Monica_Seles.pdf
*************
It's obviously hard to get things exactly right. But if you read about it you can see that the Europeans have gone wrong in many ways. Unfortunately it seems like the americans who want to improve our system think that the Europeans have got it right. But it's just not that easy.
If more people commit serious crimes, then there should be more people in prison. So it is strange when people hold out there number of people in prison as if it proves injustice. If one country had 10,000 criminals, and 20,000 people in prison, that would be terribly unjust, while if another country had 100,000 criminals and 50,000 in prison that would be terrible police work. well it would be pretty good police work actually but you get the idea.
And why does America have so many criminals compared to all other countries?
the aclu is a retarded propaganda organization. click the infographic, it says a reverend is serving life for borrowing a coworkers truck. Google for a news article, you read:
dig down into the actual pdf:
and this is still his/the aclu's story! I guess they figure people will only read infographics.
How is it incorrect? He had served his time for all his previous crimes, got arrested for an alleged crime he did not really commit and was still sentenced for it? Why?
Europeans are very confused about justice.
James Q Whitman, harsh justice: criminal punishment and the widening divide between america and europe. A very interesting book by the way.
We are not confused, these paroles are not handed out to sex offenders, murderers and other dangerous criminals, which is the little bit of info your quotes omit. It would probably really hurt you to parole some guys who were caught with some marihuana, what a danger to society... :rolleyes:
And remember the case of gunther parche:
"In 1990, at the age of 16, Seles became the youngest-ever French Open champion. She went on to win eight Grand Slam singles titles before her 20th birthday and was the year-end World No. 1 in 1991 and 1992. However, on April 30, 1993 she was the victim of an on-court attack, when a man stabbed her in the back with a 9-inch-long knife.[3] Seles did not return to tennis for over two years. Though she enjoyed some success after rejoining the tour in 1995, including a fourth Australian Open success in 1996, she was unable to consistently reproduce her best form. She played her last professional match at the 2003 French Open, but did not officially retire until February 2008."
"Seles vowed never to play tennis in Germany again, disenchanted by the German legal system. "What people seem to be forgetting is that this man stabbed me intentionally and he did not serve any sort of punishment for it... I would not feel comfortable going back. I don't foresee that happening."[8]"
www.law.berkeley.edu/sugarman/Sports_Stories_-_Monica_Seles.pdf
He was found to have a personality disorder, that's why he got the lower sentence. Again your quotes omit information.
He also didn't go on stabbing a lot of other people or showed more criminal behavior, so what's the point? Locking up mentally challenged people for once in a lifetime incidents? Maybe Seles could have gotten better counseling if America had had a proper healthcare system since her psychological injuries were much greater than the negligible physical ones she got from the incident.
It's obviously hard to get things exactly right. But if you read about it you can see that the Europeans have gone wrong in many ways. Unfortunately it seems like the americans who want to improve our system think that the Europeans have got it right. But it's just not that easy.
You started your post by claiming that America has a whole lot more criminals than European countries and that's why you have a higher prison population. And you end it by saying Europeans are not doing anything better. Why do we have fewer criminals then?
Sasaki Kojiro
12-07-2013, 21:31
And why does America have so many criminals compared to all other countries?
...
You started your post by claiming that America has a whole lot more criminals than European countries and that's why you have a higher prison population. And you end it by saying Europeans are not doing anything better. Why do we have fewer criminals then?
These are two different topics. People who quote the prison numbers relative to Europe are arguing that they are themselves proof of a poor justice system. But they aren't for the reason I mentioned. The question of why we have more criminals in America is not really related to why our justice system is harsher. We made our system harsher in response to a crime wave.
How is it incorrect? He had served his time for all his previous crimes, got arrested for an alleged crime he did not really commit and was still sentenced for it? Why?
If you keep committing crimes, the penalties should increase. But I think you are being deliberately stubborn here. The aclu infographic does simply say that he was given life in jail for borrowing a truck, does it not? And yet he had been convicted of armed robbery, check fraud, and "unintentionally" killing someone in a knife fight (was he trying to stab to wound???). It's very unlikely that he was caught and convicted for every crime he committed, so likely he committed more. That makes the aclu's claim blatant propaganda.
He was found to have a personality disorder, that's why he got the lower sentence. Again your quotes omit information.
His "personality disorder" was that he worshipped steffi graf, and wanted to injure monica seles because she was graf's main competitor. Why would that get him a lower sentence? What's the difference between that and someone obsessed with racial or religious issues, who tries to kill someone on that account? What's the difference between that and someone watching about of al-quaeda propaganda videos and letting off a bomb at a marathon? Anyway, you don't just have a "personality disorder" like that. He chose over the years to obsess over steffi graf, to live vicariously through her successes and defeats.
Allowing psychiatrists to pretend like their expertise applies to moral questions like this happens in american courts too however. That's why minimum sentencing laws are important.
He also didn't go on stabbing a lot of other people or showed more criminal behavior, so what's the point? Locking up mentally challenged people for once in a lifetime incidents? Maybe Seles could have gotten better counseling if America had had a proper healthcare system since her psychological injuries were much greater than the negligible physical ones she got from the incident.
like I said, you are completely confused about justice. Seles is completely right to be outraged that he was not punished. Without him being punished there is no justice.
If his obsession with steffi graf had lead to him raping her instead of stabbing seles, would you still want him on probation? With "counseling" for her "psychological injuries" since her physical ones were "negligable"?
These are two different topics. People who quote the prison numbers relative to Europe are arguing that they are themselves proof of a poor justice system. But they aren't for the reason I mentioned. The question of why we have more criminals in America is not really related to why our justice system is harsher. We made our system harsher in response to a crime wave.
And did it work out well? The question is whether the harsher justice system actually reduces crime or not. Unless you think improvement is for chumps.
If you keep committing crimes, the penalties should increase. But I think you are being deliberately stubborn here. The aclu infographic does simply say that he was given life in jail for borrowing a truck, does it not? And yet he had been convicted of armed robbery, check fraud, and "unintentionally" killing someone in a knife fight (was he trying to stab to wound???). It's very unlikely that he was caught and convicted for every crime he committed, so likely he committed more. That makes the aclu's claim blatant propaganda.
But he did not steal any truck, so why was he sentenced? Because he "likely committed something else"? Or simply because he had some previous crimes and they just felt like randomly arresting him again for those? Your quote clearly says that his co-worker was mistaken when he reported the truck stolen because he didn't know Jones had it:
While renovating a motel, Jones used a co-worker’s truck, which was being used at the time as a company vehicle, to visit his wife and children. When the co-worker discovered the truck missing, he reported it stolen, not knowing that Jones had it. Jones was pulled over while driving the truck, arrested and convicted to life without parole in Louisiana due to his previous conviction.
Or do you get jail time for driving over a stop sign in the US?
His "personality disorder" was that he worshipped steffi graf, and wanted to injure monica seles because she was graf's main competitor. Why would that get him a lower sentence? What's the difference between that and someone obsessed with racial or religious issues, who tries to kill someone on that account? What's the difference between that and someone watching about of al-quaeda propaganda videos and letting off a bomb at a marathon? Anyway, you don't just have a "personality disorder" like that. He chose over the years to obsess over steffi graf, to live vicariously through her successes and defeats.
Allowing psychiatrists to pretend like their expertise applies to moral questions like this happens in american courts too however. That's why minimum sentencing laws are important.
Did you talk to the guy or do you just like to pretend you know better than the psychiatrists who examined him?
If you want to doubt their expert opinion, you are the one who has to provide the proof.
So far you just want to exact revenge on someone who may have had serious mental issues. The comparison to terrorists is a bit silly since he was neither close to being a mass murderer nor did he plan and attempt more attacks after his conviction.
like I said, you are completely confused about justice. Seles is completely right to be outraged that he was not punished. Without him being punished there is no justice.
If his obsession with steffi graf had lead to him raping her instead of stabbing seles, would you still want him on probation? With "counseling" for her "psychological injuries" since her physical ones were "negligable"?
A rape is far more intimate than a stabbing into a relatively harmless area. And I don't know about the exactreasons that led him to do this. Experts who examined them did however find that he should get a lower sentence and you still haven't shown how and why they were wrong.
I'm not confused about justice, justice as you define it is about dwelling over the past while I prefer to improve the future. No amount of justice will ever undo the past. In some cases punishment serves a purpose but judges and experts are there to determine when and how much has to be applied. Do you really think it is always just to completely satisfy a victim's desire for revenge? Do you think Iran allowing a woman to pour acid into a man's face after he blinded her by doing the same to her makes the world a better place?
Sasaki Kojiro
12-07-2013, 23:16
And did it work out well? The question is whether the harsher justice system actually reduces crime or not. Unless you think improvement is for chumps.
Are you making the argument that our justice system makes crime worse? That lighter prison sentences would lead to less crime? Otherwise you have essentially gone from defending a poor statistical argument (more prisoners is inherently bad) to another topic entirely.
But he did not steal any truck, so why was he sentenced? Because he "likely committed something else"? Or simply because he had some previous crimes and they just felt like randomly arresting him again for those? Your quote clearly says that his co-worker was mistaken when he reported the truck stolen because he didn't know Jones had it:
Or do you get jail time for driving over a stop sign in the US?
We don't know anything about it. The aclu press release says that he was just borrowing it, but if so why didn't the co-worker testify in his defense? It doesn't really make sense. Why trust them when they lied so blatantly?
Did you talk to the guy or dod you just like to pretend you know better than the psychiatrists who examined him?
If you want to doubt their expert opinion, you are the one who has to provide the proof.
So far you just want to exact revenge on someone who may have had serious mental issues. The comparison to terrorists is a bit silly since he was neither close to being a mass murderer nor did he plan and attempt more attacks after his conviction.
The psychiatrist is a paid expert. They are paid by the defense to argue in such a way that their client gets a lighter sentence. The article I linked to and quoted a bit from goes into more detail.
I don't think you believe that "serious mental issues" means someone should get off, and that has never been the legal standard in any case.
A rape is far more intimate than a stabbing into a relatively harmless area. And I don't know about the exactreasons that led him to do this. Experts who examined them did however find that he should get a lower sentence and you still haven't shown how and why they were wrong.
I don't think you understand the issues with expert testimony in the courts. And you vastly overrate the expertise of psychiatrists, and the relevance of that expertise to what is essentially a moral question. You don't say much about what kind of mental conditions you think should lead to lighter sentences, so it seems like you are simply taking that psychiatrists word for it. Frequently at these trials there are two experts brought in and paid to disagree with each other. In the united states in the 90's there were many psychiatrists who argued that children could repress memories of child abuse, which is complete pseudo-science. It's questionable that psychiatrists should even be allowed in court on many of these cases.
He knew what he was doing, and understood full well that it was wrong. His desire to kill her is what is held up as evidence as a serious mental issue, but why would that be relevant? That's a moral question, not a psychological one.
also "At the hospital, doctors discovered that the knife had gone in about one and a half
inches into Monica’s upper back, but had luckily missed the lungs, spine, and other vital
organs" she was lucky. It's completely weird how much you try and downplay a stabbing like this. It's not like he gave her a papercut. You can easily kill or maim someone by stabbing them in the back.
I'm not confused about justice, justice as you define it is about dwelling over the past while I prefer to improve the future. No amount of justice will ever undo the past. In some cases punishment serves a purpose but judges and experts are there to determine when and how much has to be applied. Do you really think it is always just to completely satisfy a victim's desire for revenge? Do you think Iran allowing a woman to pour acid into a man's face after he blinded her by doing the same to her makes the world a better place?
Sometimes the victims are wrong. Probably they often wish for excessive punishment, but that is why we have courts, to hand out punishment in a civilized way. I would not give much thought to their excessive desires for revenge, though I would give some to their calls for mercy in certain circumstances.
But there is no need for hypotheticals like that.
For her
part, Monica expressed shock and huge disappointment, crying for days when she heard
the news. Through her management group, she released a statement condemning the
decision: “What kind of message does this send to the world? Mr. Parche has admitted
that he stalked me, then he stabbed me once and attempted to stab me a second time. And
now the court has said he does not have to go to jail for this premeditated crime. He gets
to go back to his life, but I can't because I am still recovering from his attack, which
could have killed me”38 In her first interview since the verdict was announced, Monica
further denounced the decision. “’Everyone expected him to get at least 10 or 15 years. It
was obvious what he did to me. It was on tape.”39 Monica’s initial shock turned into
sadness, and then a burning anger.
Is she wrong to demand that kind of prison sentence? I say she is right. But maybe it is just impossible to argue about a difference in a basic conception of justice like that. I shouldn't have said you are confused (though you might be), perhaps your thoughts are completely in order but we differ on a foundational belief.
Are you making the argument that our justice system makes crime worse? That lighter prison sentences would lead to less crime? Otherwise you have essentially gone from defending a poor statistical argument (more prisoners is inherently bad) to another topic entirely.
No, I'm making the argument that harsher prisons and sentences do not reduce crime.
When prisons are so harsh and sentences so long that inmates learn how to fight, get raped by other inmates, join gangs and make more criminal friends and generally come out as tough criminals after going in for maybe the possession of minor amounts of pot, then how is that going to reduce crime? Our prison system is not perfect, we even had a few escapes lately, which is also not good, but our aim is usually to produce better citizens in jails and not to produce better criminals there. Harsher sentences might as well mean that criminals try to kill the policement hunting them more often and more vigorously, leading to police militarization etc. That's another topic of course but generally harsher sentences do not just bring advantages IMO.
We don't know anything about it. The aclu press release says that he was just borrowing it, but if so why didn't the co-worker testify in his defense? It doesn't really make sense. Why trust them when they lied so blatantly?
Exactly, something about the case is weird, I'm just not convinced they're lying, would be nice to have another source but apparently there is none. It's still pretty much true though that the tough on crime stance is there and some states go very far with it.
The psychiatrist is a paid expert. They are paid by the defense to argue in such a way that their client gets a lighter sentence. The article I linked to and quoted a bit from goes into more detail.
I don't think you believe that "serious mental issues" means someone should get off, and that has never been the legal standard in any case.
He didn't get off, he paid a fine. It may have been useful to require him to get counseling but apparently he never did anything like that again.
Who paid the expert does not seem very obviousbut I don't think judges here have to trust experts brought in by either side.
The whole part in that pdf you linked about how a jury system is so much better showed a very clear and IMO very wrong bias anyway. It said that judges are cold and have no emotion etc. but that is wrong. It also didn't mention Schöffen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schöffe) who are not professional judges. The entire article is written with a clear bias against the German justice system, which is not perfect, but also not as bad as the article wants to make it look.
I could also write tirades about how German companies hardly ever win a court case in the USA because of national bias but it's not as heartwarming a story as a girl getting stabbed. This very topic is about the very numerous failings of the court system in the US whereas for Germany one can draw only on a few dubious cases apparently.
I don't think you understand the issues with expert testimony in the courts. And you vastly overrate the expertise of psychiatrists, and the relevance of that expertise to what is essentially a moral question. You don't say much about what kind of mental conditions you think should lead to lighter sentences, so it seems like you are simply taking that psychiatrists word for it. Frequently at these trials there are two experts brought in and paid to disagree with each other. In the united states in the 90's there were many psychiatrists who argued that children could repress memories of child abuse, which is complete pseudo-science. It's questionable that psychiatrists should even be allowed in court on many of these cases.
Those are issues in US courts, where juries can often not judge the expertise of experts very well, I do however trust very intelligent judges more on this matter. I also don't think you can give an expert testimony here if you have signed your own diploma. ~;)
That experts, and especially psychiatrists, can be wrong is a fact of life, but the judge in this case found the expert and the defendant quite believable which is not a requirement. According to an angry blog post I found judges can just dismiss experts and order a state-sanctioned expert to review the subject matter. Apparently the judge in this case did not deem this necessary although the article (pdf) is unclear about who paid the expert in the first place, it just says the defense called the expert to testify.
He knew what he was doing, and understood full well that it was wrong. His desire to kill her is what is held up as evidence as a serious mental issue, but why would that be relevant? That's a moral question, not a psychological one.
It would be relevant if his mental state was so bad that he could not resist his desire for reasons out of his control.
A bit like drug addicts know what they do is wrong but lack the mental capacity to resist the drug. I do not understand how that works either as I never had such an urge but apparently it happens to a lot of people and not everyone is the same. The article does a good job portraying it as an evil ploy of his advocates though. It may have been so but much like the ACLU thing above, the article is very biased.
also "At the hospital, doctors discovered that the knife had gone in about one and a half
inches into Monica’s upper back, but had luckily missed the lungs, spine, and other vital
organs" she was lucky. It's completely weird how much you try and downplay a stabbing like this. It's not like he gave her a papercut. You can easily kill or maim someone by stabbing them in the back.
Well, if I drive a car for a robber who promises to just scare people with a plastic gun and the whole affair ends up a bloodbath while I'm sitting 100m away in a car, oblivious to what is going on, then I still get sentenced for murder in the US and my intention not to hurt anyone doesn't count anything in the face of the result. Now it is the other way around, that a crime turned out less bad than it could have and you want the guy sentenced based on his intentions instead of the result? He even stated that he just wanted to wound her and had no intention to kill her, whether judge or jury, sometimes people believe this and sometimes not, in this case the judge believed it.
Sometimes the victims are wrong. Probably they often wish for excessive punishment, but that is why we have courts, to hand out punishment in a civilized way. I would not give much thought to their excessive desires for revenge, though I would give some to their calls for mercy in certain circumstances.
Exactly, and the court decided a jail term was not necessary in this case.
Is she wrong to demand that kind of prison sentence? I say she is right. But maybe it is just impossible to argue about a difference in a basic conception of justice like that. I shouldn't have said you are confused (though you might be), perhaps your thoughts are completely in order but we differ on a foundational belief.
Well, I could also bring up the Trayvon Martin case, a lot of people also believed that the decision was not just, yet that's how it is. The woman can demand what she wants, I'm not going to judge whether she was right, all I know is that I find our justice system a lot more reliable than one based almost entirely on people who would rather be elsewhere and only ended up in court because they couldn't find a convenient excuse to escape jury duty. I do get why some believe being judged by your peers would be preferable but I do not believe that it actually is in reality. A lot of people also trust a lot of other people to be their friends and turn out to be wrong in many cases once something bad happens.
Of course that does not mean that professional judges always make the right decision but I think statistically they are better than juries.
Ironside
12-08-2013, 11:28
These are two different topics. People who quote the prison numbers relative to Europe are arguing that they are themselves proof of a poor justice system. But they aren't for the reason I mentioned. The question of why we have more criminals in America is not really related to why our justice system is harsher. We made our system harsher in response to a crime wave.
Link on differences on tendencies on punishments. (http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/sentencing.pdf) Short version. The US uses both longer sentences and convicts people to prison more often.
Crime in the US is going down (a general trend in the west), but the number of prisoners still goes up. And the recidivist rates stays high.
What caused that crime wave btw? Your counter argument are that the American system is working fine -> it reduces crime, -> crime rate driven from very high to high and that the US got a very high baseline. Would you say that methods that drives down the baseline outside the prison system are a part of the extended justice system?
My beef with the US system isn't that it's poor in the meaning of corrupted judgements (systematic plea bargains might have an effect), but that the harsh punishments doesn't significantly drive down crime, but rather hurts society more as it hurts the prisoners (who usually gets out sooner or later). So increasing the number of prisoners and worsening the treatment aren't helping society.
like I said, you are completely confused about justice. Seles is completely right to be outraged that he was not punished. Without him being punished there is no justice.
If his obsession with steffi graf had lead to him raping her instead of stabbing seles, would you still want him on probation? With "counseling" for her "psychological injuries" since her physical ones were "negligable"?
The justice system went something like this. Attempted murder? No. Assult? Yes. How big injury + weapon used? Small injury (either 1,5 cm or 1,5 inches, someone is getting it wrong here) but with a knife. 2 years.
Mental stability. Bad. Risk of harming anyone by doing it again? Deemed insignificant -> Probation. It should be some kind of forced treatment in the case somewhere.
Drinking dimethylmercury is good for you.
Is that enough to get me convicted for attempted murder, Sasaki?
If it's not deemed attempted murder, then 2 years for assult is pretty standard.
That mental instabillity is considered diffferent from normal crimes are a long standing standard and the focus there is more on treatment, rather than punishment. That said, it's also the only way to get life on a mental institution, in those countries that doesn't have life in practice.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-08-2013, 23:16
Some good points here.
I think Sasaki was trying to assert (and I agree) that the higher per capita rate of imprisoned persons does not, of itself, mean that the justice system is flawed. If more persons commit crimes, more are likely to be caught, convicted and imprisoned for crimes committed.
Now, there are EXCELLENT arguments to be made (some have been already above) as to whether harsher sentencing is achieving the objective of minimizing crime and recidivism or not, as well as questions regarding race and prison sentences imposed. There are, also, potentially huge issues regarding cultural attitudes and norms vis-a-vis incarceration.
I'd suggest that a higher overall rate of incarceration when compared to Europe may be more symptomatic of cultural difference than qualitative difference in the system of justice.
Some good points here.
I think Sasaki was trying to assert (and I agree) that the higher per capita rate of imprisoned persons does not, of itself, mean that the justice system is flawed. If more persons commit crimes, more are likely to be caught, convicted and imprisoned for crimes committed.
I absolutely agree with that as well by the way. And I understood it when Sasaki said it.
One does however wonder where all those criminals come from given that other countries have fewer and it's not because other countries are unable to catch criminals.
I'd suggest that a higher overall rate of incarceration when compared to Europe may be more symptomatic of cultural difference than qualitative difference in the system of justice.
Well, if you have a minimal amount of drugs on you here for personal use, you don't go to prison AFAIK.
Ironside's link has this really nice graphic on page one showing the relation of fines to prison sentences in a few countries.
If we equate a prison sentence with a harsher punishment compared to a fine, then the USA have a far harsher system and yet all these criminals are left.
Now consider that if you served jail time for a crime it gets a lot harder to get a job while when you pay a fine there will usually be no record of your crime (not for potential employers that is). People without a job have a higher rate of recidivism I would assume without looking for sources.
Just posting a link (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people) on how Prison is handled in HoreTore's homeland as an alternative to the current trend.
I think that it is a rather good method, it is also a cheaper alternative too.
On the ferry back to the mainland I think about what I have seen and heard. Bastoy is no holiday camp. In some ways I feel as if I've seen a vision of the future – a penal institution designed to heal rather than harm and to generate hope instead of despair. I believe all societies will always need high-security prisons. But there needs to be a robust filtering procedure along the lines of the Norwegian model, in order that the process is not more damaging than necessary. As Nilsen asserts, justice for society demands that people we release from prison should be less likely to cause further harm or distress to others, and better equipped to live as law-abiding citizens.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-09-2013, 06:15
Just posting a link (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people) on how Prison is handled in HoreTore's homeland as an alternative to the current trend.
I think that it is a rather good method, it is also a cheaper alternative too.
Interesting piece. I wonder if the difference in recidivism is cultural, policy-centered, or a combination of both. Certainly sounds like it will waste fewer taxpayer dollars and recidivism below 30% would be wonderful.
Empire*Of*Media
12-11-2013, 13:00
All Hail!
The ACLU has released a report (http://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/111813-lwop-complete-report.pdf) on 3278 prisoners with lifetime sentences for nonviolent crimes. If you don't feel like reading, have a handy interactive graphic (http://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapTour/index.html?appid=18b06879984343978cd36edfcba79186&webmap=4149f2acaaf74482b330dc3b6f551bbe).
These scum of the earth have committed such heinous crimes as stealing a wallet, a truck or selling 10g of pot. BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!
FYI Americans, this is why we Europeans consider you barbaric. There is no excuse for this kind of behaviour. None.
the links you posted, they've deleted/censored it!! i think now you are a threat! watch your back because USA has many terrorists! (you call it agents - Like Brenus!) :laugh4:
after that your mind and intelligences will grower and will discover more of USA POLITICAL System !!
i suggest you join http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29 to discover better & more, and create another CONQUER WALL STREET! or maybe CAPITOL HALL !
download their movies/documentaries or email them! they will show you how is the IMPERIALIST USA !
ah....i said and linked this, so you dont call me conspiracy theorist! or you may again!.......
ah i know im not Julian Asange or...... or US & UK Government! and all World Imperialistical Systems im the greater danger ! leave Pannonian & HoreTore !!
HoreTore
12-11-2013, 13:26
I'll start by calling you "an incoherent writer". The links still work perfectly, so I might throw out a "conspiracy theorist" as well.
And seriously, join anonymous...?
Empire*Of*Media
12-11-2013, 13:46
I'll start by calling you "an incoherent writer". The links still work perfectly, so I might throw out a "conspiracy theorist" as well.
And seriously, join anonymous...?
i update my first post.........
an i know it may sound not connected! but it is as i said you "after that your mind and intelligences will grower and will discover more of USA POLITICAL System !!"
if you'd like to join....but if not......just watch their documentaries!! if you find of course! because UK & US imperialism and other are highly afraid of their revelations! (an example- was USA's link to Bashar Assad and Syrian Civil war!!) as they are hunting to kill Anonymous Members like Julian Assange and the one that escaped to Russia! (i dont remember his name)
i know they just misuse the word "democracy & angel of mankind in history-(like in hollywood)" so if they dont have anything to hide, why they are afraid of revealing their covers and crimes?! why they kill their defector such as KENNEDY & Lincoln & ........too many other?!!
anyway, i like the way Anonymous moves, they Rock! i like USA & Imperialism's Hate on Anonymous as they were fearly resisting their revolt in Occupy Wall Street Movement in 2011! even if they were Victorious standing against will of People...and...people forgot!!
but you could mail them in some way....they will mail you...but you cant mail them!! well, they're Hacktivists and even CIA & FBI Cant get them!! haha!!
Kadagar_AV
12-11-2013, 16:54
EasternSpartakus, I don't know if you'd be better of trying to filter your teenage angst and aggression towards slightly less fields, so you could dwell deeper into them and actually learn stuff... Or if you just need to get laid.
Both solutions would do wonders on your focus however, right now it seems to be all over the place. And honestly, even people agreeing with you on certain aspects will find it hard to respect your posts, or for that matter, even understand what your posts are about.
HT was very diplomatic and Norwegianly nice when he called you an "incoherent writer".
HoreTore
12-11-2013, 17:11
i update my first post.........
an i know it may sound not connected! but it is as i said you "after that your mind and intelligences will grower and will discover more of USA POLITICAL System !!"
if you'd like to join....but if not......just watch their documentaries!! if you find of course! because UK & US imperialism and other are highly afraid of their revelations! (an example- was USA's link to Bashar Assad and Syrian Civil war!!) as they are hunting to kill Anonymous Members like Julian Assange and the one that escaped to Russia! (i dont remember his name)
i know they just misuse the word "democracy & angel of mankind in history-(like in hollywood)" so if they dont have anything to hide, why they are afraid of revealing their covers and crimes?! why they kill their defector such as KENNEDY & Lincoln & ........too many other?!!
anyway, i like the way Anonymous moves, they Rock! i like USA & Imperialism's Hate on Anonymous as they were fearly resisting their revolt in Occupy Wall Street Movement in 2011! even if they were Victorious standing against will of People...and...people forgot!!
but you could mail them in some way....they will mail you...but you cant mail them!! well, they're Hacktivists and even CIA & FBI Cant get them!! haha!!
1. Julian Assange is the face of the organization wikileaks.
2. Snowden is an unaffiliated whistleblower(or traitor I guess, depending on perspective), formerly a contractor for the NSA.
3. Anonymous isn't a group, it's a name internet nerds give themselves to make themselves feel important when they're sharing images of nude children, kittens and horrible memes.
And I am quite familiar with "the US political system", thankyouverymuch.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-11-2013, 18:11
i update my first post.........
an i know it may sound not connected! but it is as i said you "after that your mind and intelligences will grower and will discover more of USA POLITICAL System !!"
if you'd like to join....but if not......just watch their documentaries!! if you find of course! because UK & US imperialism and other are highly afraid of their revelations! (an example- was USA's link to Bashar Assad and Syrian Civil war!!) as they are hunting to kill Anonymous Members like Julian Assange and the one that escaped to Russia! (i dont remember his name)
i know they just misuse the word "democracy & angel of mankind in history-(like in hollywood)" so if they dont have anything to hide, why they are afraid of revealing their covers and crimes?! why they kill their defector such as KENNEDY & Lincoln & ........too many other?!!
anyway, i like the way Anonymous moves, they Rock! i like USA & Imperialism's Hate on Anonymous as they were fearly resisting their revolt in Occupy Wall Street Movement in 2011! even if they were Victorious standing against will of People...and...people forgot!!
but you could mail them in some way....they will mail you...but you cant mail them!! well, they're Hacktivists and even CIA & FBI Cant get them!! haha!!
I thought that you, of all people, would know that Anonymous is nothing more than the stalking horse of the trilateralists. Sure, they "strike at the power," but only at the "official" government level. Unknowingly, they do little more than keep public scrutiny away from the REAL powers-that-be.
Empire*Of*Media
12-15-2013, 09:29
I told you truth, in a bad english way i agree that, i said my english is only good for making a little understand, well anyway, im sorry for you people that see some strange truth, instead of searching or even questioning, insulting & offensing mocking and extenuating, will be your shelter, and you think your the perfect and you know the truth against those that THEY have told you are nothing to be counted and should not be listened to.......
one of my british friends that doesnt pay any ****ing attention to political discussions here and all you know him, hes is even moderator, i was surprised with his hate toward The ELITE that rules the world & Their Imperialism told me that most of us (you) know the truth, told me about stopping discussion with blind & deaf people said:
all these etiquetes and stereotypes are lies we tell ourselves, so that we can keep an idea of "us and them" the truth is that there's only an us and whole mankind belongs to it.
i said, you know, the most big huge problem of mankind, is that they dont "THINK" !!!! some dont some Suppose they are thinking !! but its all what its told them to be !!
then he said a brilliant answer: fear my friend, they are slaves of fear consciously or unconsciously they are scared to be signaled out, so they don't formulate their opinions or keep them to themselves! the funny thing is it is all so clear and simple, but we stack in our heads so many troubles and distraction that we just can't see it anymore or worse decide to ignore it, because it causes us depression :D
he told me ignore and have my life, but sadly i cant ignore the ignorance! and concers of the world is my concern too! because my mind & thinkings are not limited like yours! i even concern about people in Burkinafaso that you dont even know where it is!!
mostly im sorry for myself thinking that not to convince, but at least have a good rational disscussion, not to offense and insults and mockeries !!
but know that! its your think that US or ME is the absolute and the perfect truth, because i/we have been used to think like this how they to make us thought since we we were in schools ......and you/they are the child thinkers or crazy minds that only know to attack hate and kill! well if you look to your world and see more you'll see that YOUR OWN world wasnt like that you thought!! anyway.....im not THE VICTOR or the Ruler, To Write or show the truth and even history for you !!! its the others that dont like the Truth !
go into your American & New (American) European Dream !
go Robots and dont listen to anything!
just do what life they've created for you........
You have to go to Montmorency's thread if you want to discuss us humans being robots.
As for having a narrow mind, it's just as narrow to insist on these conspiracies as it is to think there is never any truth to any of them.
People in the West do not care about Burkina Faso because they already have a comfy life, tell them there are terrorists in Burkina Faso who will cause the oil price to double and then people here will care. That's nothing new however.
one of my british friends that doesnt pay any ****ing attention to political discussions here and all you know him, hes is even moderator.
There isn't actually anyone who fits that description, to my knowledge..
There isn't actually anyone who fits that description, to my knowledge..
It's Brenus most likely. ~;)
Kadagar_AV
12-15-2013, 23:48
It's Brenus most likely. ~;)
I had a mouth full of coffee as I read that...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.