wednes | I guess "Cruel and Unusual" was far too vague.

Current Mood: aggravated
Current Location: a fascist country
Current Music: Blind Melon

Entry tags:

I guess "Cruel and Unusual" was far too vague.

I was really hoping that marijuana would be legalized before government sponsored torture and warantless searches.
But no....

The way this vote was conducted and snuck through is the highest level of shady. Do people still not realize that aside from torture being inherently wrong, that US soldiers will now be tortured if they are captured? I thought it was against UN rules to torture people...are we risking losing their support yet again? I have no desire to live in a fascist country, espeically one that is totally dishonest about their fascism.

I started reading the news today and saw that it had also been approved that any student who attends a US public school can be patted down, strip searched, or have bags and lockers searched without a warrant or even suspicion. Aside from the obvious problem of giving teachers the right to "strip search" minors, this is just gross. When I was in high school people were still arguing whether or not random drug testing for sports was okay. Now we're searching any old student for any old thing for any old reason. And if you think honest students shouldn't have anything to hide, just ask the West Memphis Three.
I find this especially infuriating because kids could grow up and have the "I went through it and I turned out fine" attitude to such blatant disregard for privacy and basic freedom.

As for me, I have a meeting with the life coach today, followed by EMDR and then a nice nap.
Hazel's first draft WILL be done by the time I leave town Friday evening. Mark my words.
For now, methinks I shall have a turkey bacon and avocad bagel sandwich, just like Hazel has in chapter six.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

'that US soldiers will now be tortured if they are captured'

Because they never were before now. Not ever.

I am not aware of any country that makes it thier current military policy to torture US soldiers. That is usually the action of a despot or extremist/fringe group (unless I'm incredibly naive on this topic--which is entirely possible). Even so, the fact that someone else might do something reprehensible is no reason for us to do it.

Doesn't the US always end up in a war with a despot or extremist/fringe group?

Only if they have oil and/or are full of non-whites.

is there a way of looking up the individual votes for the Judiciary Committee?...if memory serves, both of Wisconsin's Senators are on it, and while I'm pretty sure both would have voted against it (especially Russ Feingold), I'd like to make sure...

of course, now that it will go to the House, I'm sure that my Representative will give it a rubber stamp...and unfortunately, it does not look likely that he will get ousted this November...

Yeah, I do like a well made tuna sandwich. But back on topic now.

You were trying to explain why a 'a despot or extremist/fringe group' will now torture US soldiers when they wouldn't before. Wait, or were you trying to say that I internationally respected nation (say France, Germany, India) will start doing it because of a change in US policy?

Is there a third interpretation that I've missed? I'm confused, some clarification would be appreciated.

The article made it sound as if the individual votes are unavailible on purpose. I didn't think they could do that. I really am floored that such a think would pass.

Many US senators have agreed that the best reason not to torture (aside from the humanity issues) is so that American soldiers will not be tortured if they are captured.

I do beleive that respected nations will indeed torture our soldiers if we torture theirs. Your sarcastic reply that implied that soldiers already get tortured occasioned me to mention that the people who do this are despots or fringe groups, because by their nature, they will do whatever the hell they want and are therefore exempt from this argument. Certainly bad people will continue being bad no matter what they do. But blatantly ignoring UN protocol and committing what I would call crimes against humanity will turn the whole world against us (moreso, I guess).

If you've ever worked a retail job, you'll know that customers talk to lowly cashiers as if they run the whole company and personally agree with everything they do. Soldiers represent America to many other countries, and people will take out their frustrations with America on our soldiers. Not to mention simple retribution; people meet violence with more violence, and torture with more torture.

Of course, the soldiers safety is just one of many, many reasons why this bill is totally fucked.

*sigh* Just fucking depressing. At least on the strip search thing, it isn't law yet. It just passed the house to help some jackass from KY get re-elected. The Senate probably won't be as quick to jump on it. Well, we can hope, anyway.

And yeah, on the torture thing. Even if allowing torture didn't open the door for other countries to feel free to torture our people, it doesn't work as an interrogation method. This has been proven since the freaking Inquisition, people! It's just a way for these creeps (the interrogators and our beloved administration) to get their rocks off.

I suppose it's possible that some people really do think torturing our enemies will make us safer. I just think anyone that misinformed and short sighted shouldn't be making those kind of decisions.

To hell with the West Memphis Three. Not because I necessarily believe they're guilty of the crimes which they've been convicted. Frankly I don't care whether they did it or not. See, I've lived around these people all my life. Those three, their families, the psycho stepdad of one of the victims. I know where they live and breathe. And I know that regardless of this particular crime, the world's a better place with that poser and his two inbred buddies sitting behind bars. If anyone who'd ever put on one of those FREE THE WEST MEMPHIS THREE t-shirts spent five minutes in Robin Hood Hills with any of the crackers who reside there, they'd want the whole goddamn bunch of them packed into a gas chamber.

But have a documentary air on HBO then a few musicians who back your cause and you end up with the biggest martyrs since Jesus Christ.

Admittedly, I only know of this case from the various media hoo-ha and some internet reading. I don't doubt that they come from a long line of ignorant white trash. But thankfully for our prison system, being ignorant, a poseur, or an asshole is not punishable by hard time.

The character of the people involved is less relevant than the fact that they were convicted of a crime they didn't committ simply because they were unlikable and their PD's were ignorant buffoons. Such things aren't supposed to happen in the US; that's what we tell the rest of the world, anyway.

And now we get to the core of my objection.

'I do beleive that respected nations will indeed torture our soldiers if we torture theirs.'

That is presented as an opinion. You believe it, but an opinion leaves open the possibility that you may be wrong.

'Do people still not realize that aside from torture being inherently wrong, that US soldiers will now be tortured if they are captured?'

Now it may just be me, but this doesn't come across as you stating an opinion.

That's fair. I have no idea what other countries would do. Hell, I don't even know what my own country does most of the time. But military advisors who don't seem to be full of shit IMHO have said that our troops are much more likely to be tortured if we do it. I always allow for the possibility that I may be wrong. In this case, you'd need a future telling device to know for sure.

In essence, it might have been more factually correct to say "soldiers could now be tortured" but as you pointed out, that was always the case.

I guess I don't understand what your objection is. Is it based on the fact that I stated an opinion rather than a fact; or on the entirety of my idea that torture is wrong and gov't supported torture is totally fucked? For the record, roughly 95% of what goes into this journal is my opnion. Well, except that Bush is an ass. That is commonly accepted fact. ;-]

*nods* If we could just figure out a way to get the misinformed and short sighted out of office (since elections don't seem to work anymore ...).

any student who attends a US public school can be patted down, strip searched, or have bags and lockers searched without a warrant or even suspicion.

Sounds to me like an open invitation to humiliate, abuse, and molest - including sexually ... so this can be done for no reason at all, just because the principal/teachers feel like it? Woo hoo. In my own experience, there were *always* those adults who used their positions of authority as an excuse to psychologically abuse, if not physically, the kids in their responsibility. And now we're telling them they don't even need to come up with even a lame justification for it?!

This is just revolting.

The other thing is revolting too but I can't think of anything intelligent to say about it at the moment.

::angry, disgusted face::

Hopefully it will get killed on the floor. McCain isn't budging on that shit, and he carries a lot of weight. I soooo wish that McCain were president instead.

Let's face it. You might soon live in a country that has granted the executive branch the authority to prosecute and seek the death penalty based on evidence supplied under torture that was never provided to the defendant.

And there seem to be a lot of people who are OK with this. I just can't figure it out.

Sadly the bill of rights doesn't seem to protect minors. When I was in school there was a lot of talk about how in public schools they couldn't search the lockers without permission, but that at private schools they coulds search anywhere in the school. But it never occurred to me that anyone would search our persons.

I think that if Sabrina were 16 and an employee of her school asked her to take clothes off, I would assume that they were trying to assault her. And if it's the police I expect them to contact me, and ask for my permission to search her. Which I can't imagine I would ever give.

Can you point me in the direction of the news story?

Nevermind I think I found it. Are you talking about the Bill that's coming up for a vote in the House next week?

There are a lot of strip search stories of minors in the news recently.

Ok I just found out that it was already voted on, and there was no recorded vote. So not only do I not know how my rep voted, when I asked they refused to tell me. They say they'll mail me a packet letting me know what her views on this issue are.

Why on earth would other signatories to the Geneva Conventions hold themselves to a higher moral standard concerning treatment of prisoners, to a narrower reading of Article III, than the United States does? Like it or not, the US leads by example in the world, and if we say, "Well, we're allowed to do X to captured prisoners now," it's the height of optimism to think that any nation we happen to end up at war with will not take the opportunity to do X to our soldiers. It would be stunningly moral, but almost impossibly altruistic, for them to do otherwise. What's more likely is our interpretation will be seen as the gold standard, and every other country we fight will feel free to interpret it with just a little more wiggle room.

We're not going to end up at war with France or India. But the nations we might end up at war with are probably signatories—there are 194 of them—and while they might violate Article III right now they do so at the risk of reprisals, sanctions, international outrage. That is a serious dissuasive force. If the US sets the bar lower, argues that Article III legally permits a lot of things it hasn't been interpreted to permit in the past, other nations will be free to do the same without any worries about people getting their knickers in a twist—because, hey, the leader of the free world says its okay. They will be able to point to us, and the rest of the world will be able to do nothing.

Other nations look to us for guidelines on how to interpret "binding" treaties like the Geneva Convention; we are both an example and a warning. If there's any interrogation method you think would be unacceptable for other countries to practice on our soldiers, you should not encourage the US to practice it. You can't say, "Well the insurgents in Iraq don't pay attention anyway"—they're not the only people we're ever going to fight, and once Article III is loosened there's no easy way to tighten it. (Remember that the administration considers it "quaint", according to Gonzales.)

And they won't. Not as long as DIEBOLD has anything to say about it.

Yeah. I'm sure many if not most teachers are excellent and care about nothing but the student's education and welfare. But it only takes one fucked up one to totally destroy lives.

It was at Yahoo news this morning.
Can't find it now. I'll let you know when I come across it again.

You got that right. Revolution, anyone?

I beleive that's the one.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 3

I guess "Cruel and Unusual" was far too vague.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject