ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:04 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: random controversy
PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:44 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:48 pm
Posts: 1347
Location: New York, USA
stuward wrote:
Matt Z wrote:
I just read that the government is waving Miranda rights for the Boston bombing suspect. I don't like this at all.


"The public safety exception is triggered when police officers have an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from immediate danger."

I tend to agree with this approach. If he's working with someone else, or if there are other bombs out there, the police need to know this right away. If gathering this type of information was hampered out of fear of not getting a conviction, that would be a bad thing. There are legitimate times when personal rights have to take a back seat.


...and so it ends, skating down the slippery slope.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: random controversy
PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:07 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6329
Location: Halifax, NS
KenDowns wrote:
stuward wrote:
Matt Z wrote:
I just read that the government is waving Miranda rights for the Boston bombing suspect. I don't like this at all.


"The public safety exception is triggered when police officers have an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from immediate danger."

I tend to agree with this approach. If he's working with someone else, or if there are other bombs out there, the police need to know this right away. If gathering this type of information was hampered out of fear of not getting a conviction, that would be a bad thing. There are legitimate times when personal rights have to take a back seat.


...and so it ends, skating down the slippery slope.


There's always a balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of society. That's why we have courts, to make that call.

_________________
Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: random controversy
PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:15 pm 
Offline
Veteren Member
Veteren Member

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:12 pm
Posts: 2406
It's my understanding than not being read the rights does not mean you don't have them.
I sorta see it more as a political move to appease the fearful
To add, it will make it more challenging to use his words against him if it gets to a court of law

I'm oddly uncomfortable with the amount of times we're told how we have amazing resolve and we wont be intimidated and how heroic Boston is. Not that there is no truth to much of that but it gets all a bit touchy feely too soon. And honestly, it's a bit disproportionate compared to what many other countries deal with regularly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: random controversy
PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:43 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4360
Location: Pennsylvania
"There's always a balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of society." - stuward

I don't think we can overlook individual rights every time there's an emergency or an unusual event. That's how rights become privileges, and rules become guidelines. Next they'll be waterboarding Americans, and saying that in "extreme cases" they don't need to tell people the charges against them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: random controversy
PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:53 am 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:48 pm
Posts: 1347
Location: New York, USA
Matt Z wrote:
"There's always a balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of society." - stuward

I don't think we can overlook individual rights every time there's an emergency or an unusual event. That's how rights become privileges, and rules become guidelines. Next they'll be waterboarding Americans, and saying that in "extreme cases" they don't need to tell people the charges against them.


Matt, that's not a "next" that's an "already." The President now believes he can murder a US citizen without charge anywhere in the world, and has done so. The courts, our last defense, have agreed.

Why didn't Ossama Bin Laden get a trial? Because everybody knows he was guilty right? How do you know? Because the government told you. And we all trust the government don't we? Oh wait, no, we don't, that's we require them to produce evidence in open court.

Everybody hates big government until it starts murdering people, then they cheer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: random controversy
PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:58 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
I agree with Matt. I also don't like the fact that some folks want to try him as an enemy combatant. He's a US citizen, and needs to be tried in a standard criminal court.

As for the Miranda rights, if they are not going to read them until they get bomb info, that is fine. However if you do that, anything he says during that time is not admissible in court. In this case we don't need any statements from him, because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence showing this guy did it. There is even a video clearly showing him committing the crime.

"Terrorist", "communist", "witch", it's just another excuse to deny people rights. It doesn't matter how severe a crime is, we have to be sure they are guilty before we sentence them.

Severity of a crime also does not mean we get to exact cruel and unusual punishment on anyone. Our penalties are harsh enough in most cases.

People seem unable to separate their blood lust and desire for vengeance from the responsibility of justice and protecting the public.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: random controversy
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:03 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4360
Location: Pennsylvania
Any thoughts on the IRS scandal and/or the NSA's domestic spying? I'm a little disappointed that the media in general hasn't been more critical of the administration.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: random controversy
PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:54 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
The current administration is a little ways down the list on the need for criticism. What they have been doing wrong is the same things they have been doing wrong the entire time, it's the main complaint I have and have had about them in fact. That is continuing the policies of the previous administration.

The previous administration is only a little higher up the list though. It was Congress that did this, and let Bush do what he did, and gives Obama better than 90% support for continuing such policies. Plus many of the members of Congress that made the Patriot Act, which is what makes all this legal, are still in office now. The Supreme Court is a close second to Congress. They failed to do their job time and time again, that being to uphold the constitution.

We have to hold the majority of Americans responsible as well. More than Obama and even Bush, but not quite to the level of the Supreme Court. Americans don't like this now that they know, but they wanted the Patriot Act. They also know deep down that they would choose to give up these freedoms even knowing what they know now, for 2 reasons.

The first and lesser reason is their paranoid fear, fueled more by the 24 hour news cycle than actual facts. They know their privacy buys them some safety; much less than they think, but it does in fact buy them some.

The other reason, and BY FAR the most important to them is their desire for vengeance and retribution, and their desire to have it IMMEDIATELY. In actuality it really does give them this. The Boston Bombers for instance. Notice how quick it went down, almost like they got caught red handed, just the time it takes their software to parse the data. It's not just for terrorism either, but anyone accused of a crime. Notice how people thirst for blood, before a high profile trial begins? They would gladly trade their privacy for that.

So maybe in a way the people are their own worst enemy. This is going on because it's what they want. They bitch about the high price, but they want the product they get for it, so they pay it. So basically they got some crack for nearly nothing, but later noticed the dealer stole some money from them. They are mad because the money is gone, but they would have been willing to pay that much for their crack, for getting their fix. Of course in the analogy the dealer said he was going to take that money from them, and they only thought he wouldn't, until he did.

It's not what I want, and most people think it's not what they want, but it actually is what they want, and that's the problem. I would be willing to allow some of the less invasive things they do, in certain circumstances, but I'm against the vast majority of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: random controversy
PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:27 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4360
Location: Pennsylvania
It seems to me that many people (including many in the media) care more about their petty party loyalties than they do about their own principals. Many who were sharply critical of Bush for the Patriot Act are now defending the Obama administrations domestic spying program. Meanwhile others who defended the Patriot Act are now attacking Obama.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: random controversy
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:12 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
Matt Z wrote:
It seems to me that many people (including many in the media) care more about their petty party loyalties than they do about their own principals. Many who were sharply critical of Bush for the Patriot Act are now defending the Obama administrations domestic spying program. Meanwhile others who defended the Patriot Act are now attacking Obama.


I agree 100%. There is a whole lot of that going on. That's how they control us, with this "us vs them" demagoguery. It's not standing up for a point of view much of the time, it's this identification with either Democrats or Republicans as "us" and the other party as "them". While I may disagree with Republicans on 99% of things, I do agree if and when they are right. While I may support Democrats, it's only as the lessor of 2 evils, I only agree with them half the time, and I have no problem saying so. Other people seem to blindly follow one or the other, or have ridiculous "false middle" fallacy beliefs where they pretend that two sides are equally valid regardless of the merit of either, the existence of additional "sides", or any other facts. It simply does not logically follow that every difference of view must be as such, and it serves only to falsely bolster their pompous, "above the fray" feeling of undeserved self-importance, which belies (only to the most foolish) their fatuousness and intellectual dishonesty; in short, the target audience of CNN.

Bush was a panicked fool, and Obama is blinded by his single-minded desire to dish out as much whoop-ass on the terrorists as possible, regardless of the cost, primarily to counter the Republicans ridiculous stereotypical narrative of Democrats being soft on terrorism.

Every day I get more and more disgusted with our puppet government as they continue to whittle our rights down to only those deemed desirable for us to have, in the view of their oligarchic corporate overlords.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: random controversy
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:48 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4360
Location: Pennsylvania
I was thinking yesterday about what how the NSA scandal has put the government in a very awkward position. The president can't pardon Snowden, since doing so would encourage others to leak sensitive information. However, if Snowden is captured and tried, the resulting media circus will keep the scandal in the news for months, drawing more harsh criticism. This made me wonder how hard the government is really trying to find him, when the NSA, the Obama Administration and pretty much everyone involved with the domestic spying program presumably want this story to go away ASAP. ... This led me to another question. What if Snowden is already dead? It wouldn't be the first time our government has killed someone to protect sensitive information, and the public would never have to know. Meanwhile, without Snowden there's no story. Soon the media would lose interest and go back to reporting on Kim Kardashian's baby pictures, and the NSA can continue spying.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: random controversy
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:54 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
He's not dead. He's in a sort of neutral zone, but it's surrounded by Russia. Nothing will be going on that the Russians don't want to be going on. What they want, is for him to stay there without incident, for as short a time as possible, and to never cross into Russian territory. The only thing they want to have happen, is for him to get on a plane to another country. If there is going to be a delay, they will probably push for him to spend that time in another country's embassy. They don't care where he goes, but they care very much that he does go, that he doesn't set foot in Russia, and that there are no incidents.

As for what to do about it.... That's easy. The answer is "propaganda" of course. That is the answer to most things. All kinds of things that go against the interests of the people are held in place that way. The thing about the typical human mind is that confirmation bias, "us vs them", and general fears/prejudices, can be easily used to get people to think almost anything. This works on the vast majority, the vast majority of the time. Once it's in place, it's nearly always there for ever, can virtually never be undone.

So you have a small minority who are unaffected by some significant amount of propaganda. You have a much smaller minority affected by none, or virtually none. They can't do anything on their own. They are also only able to convince a small minority of believers.


Remember the military guy that helped the wikileaks guy? His name escapes me at the moment. He was held without any rights, and tortured. I'm not sure what became of him. Sent to Guantanamo maybe? Most people were fine with that. Sure there were a lot of us who protested, but not enough.

Same thing will happen to Snowden. If he gets brought back here, he will be tortured, and given no rights. At that time, public opinion will have been altered enough for the government to get away with it. It may already be altered enough already.


These sorts of leaks are going to happen sometimes. Here is why. When people get secret clearance, or clearance to be around large sums of money, there are certain tests in addition to background checks. What they mostly determine is the persons honesty. They also need a little bit of willingness to obey, but not too much. Too much and they are a risk to blab to unauthorized people they may view as some sort of authority figure. So honesty is the overriding attribute, with some loyalty and such thrown in as well. When the government is doing more and more things that are dishonest, the honest people become more likely to tell. Mostly they are kept in line with fear, which is a great tool, works on everyone to a certain degree. But every so often there is a person willing to fall on his sword for honesty and integrity, perhaps he is particularly obsessed with that, and tends to get depressed. The more dishonesty, the more likely you are to set off one of these people.


This is really just an inconvenience and embarrassment for the government though. They know how to deal with it, as I have said.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: random controversy
PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:45 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4360
Location: Pennsylvania
So congress failed to pass a budget and now the government is shutdown. ... But why does it need to shutdown. Why not just rollover the previous year's budget to the new new year? ... Obviously, this wouldn't be ideal, but wouldn't it be better than having no budget at all? Meanwhile, it would prevent either party from holding the public hostage.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: random controversy
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:53 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
That would make sense. Unfortunately there is a faction of the Republican party that likes holding the country hostage. Because of big money being used defeat Republicans in primaries when they try to take a stand, the rest of the party doesn't want to do anything about it. Gerrymandering has made a few districts in the house safe for far right crazies, which lets them do whatever they want. The other right wingers don't agree with them because despite being far right, they aren't quite as far as the ultra crazy bunch. They do fear primary challenges and big money though. Since they are not crazy, they also consider the fact that if a far right person ends up the Republican candidate in a purple to light red state, and the Democrats run a centrist to slightly conservative candidate, the GOP can kiss that seat goodbye.

I am hoping that this spurs support for taking big money out of politics, and ending tactics like gerrymandering and voter suppression. A change to a run-off type voting system to allow other parties more of a fair chance would also be nice. Take someone like me, I might prefer the Green party or an independent, yet vote Democrat because the primary objective is defeating Republicans. Another example would be libertarian-leaning conservative who might prefer the Libertarian party, or some sort of libertarian-leaning independent, yet votes Republican just to stop Democrats even though he doesn't agree with a lot of the GOP platform. It's going to be hard to defeat the oligarchy though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: random controversy
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:13 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4360
Location: Pennsylvania
I agree. I don't think either major party wants more competition.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group