The Glorious American Justice system!

[Greyblades]

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]

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.

[rvg]

Well as to the blockade of Cuba, that was simply illegal.

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]

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.

[rvg]

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.

[Husar]

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?

[rvg]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[rvg]

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.

[Husar]

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?

[rvg]

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.

[Brenus]

“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]

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.

[rvg]

.....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]

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.

[rvg]

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]

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?

[rvg]

Already stated the reason: cuban nationalization of the sugar industry.

There was more to it: Castro basically expropriated anything belonging to the Americans.

[Sarmatian]

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.

[rvg]

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]

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/2013/0...n_3894490.html
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2...-prison-system
http://www.againstcronycapitalism.or...on-population/
http://www.policymic.com/articles/41...vert-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]

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]

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?

[rvg]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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.