tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post673994470249767343..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Don't fear to let bad guys talkUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65792361114868375042009-11-24T11:00:00.663-06:002009-11-24T11:00:00.663-06:00I'm late to this party, but just to add, my in...I'm late to this party, but just to add, my initial reactions were these when I heard the following points of discussion on the news about the controversy as to whether to try him in military or civilian court:<br /><br />1. To the point our prisons aren't secure enough to hold really dangerous people, I was freaked that we use them to hold the Ted Bundies, Ted Kahzinskys and Jeffrey Dahmers of the nation. I mean, if a prison isn't good enough for a dangerous person, that's a cue we need to fix our prisons, because we have plenty of dangerous people in prison currently.<br /><br />2. If our courts aren't any good for convicting when we really need them to--for society's protection--then again, that's a cue we need to rethink our system of justice. This, as #1, demonstrates a belief that our courts simply suck and that we can't trust justice to be effectively served. If that's the case--why aren't we up in arms about switching to a better system? I heard a JAG on TV saying that Hasan (in the Ft. Hood shootings) will have _more_ rights and protections in a military trial than a civil trial--which is it?!<br /><br />3. I'm having trouble discerning between the War on Terror and the War on Drugs. Why aren't we all up in arms about trying drug offenders in civilian courts? Living in Texas, on the border with Mexico, and a corridor for drugs into the U.S., I can tell you that we suffer from international violence and crime with drug trafficking daily. It's not just an internal issue, it crosses national lines. But I've never seen congressional support to get the U.S. military as heavily involved on the Mexico-U.S. border as I have to get them over to the Middle East. Mexico's drug cartels are agents of terror. They're assissinating elected officials routinely. They're breeding violence intended to intimidate and strike fear into anyone who isn't on board with their operations. I really can't understand why we feel it's OK to label this a "War" on Drugs, with openly terroristic groups, but predominantly handle it through civil channels, while we handle the "War" on Terror completely differently. It's not another nation's military that struck us--it was people organized into a terroristic association. And that's exactly the same with what we're dealing with in Mexico. Whether they're driven by religion, politics or economics, I really don't give a sh*t. They're killing people hand-over-fist without a second thought. And however we handle them, I don't see why it shouldn't be consistent...?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-46819558638672769172009-11-23T09:40:46.145-06:002009-11-23T09:40:46.145-06:00Any link to the details of those 8? Because it...Any link to the details of those 8? Because it's not like the mormon church from foundation doesn't have a reputation for fraud and deception.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73562732727628378382009-11-23T06:26:43.700-06:002009-11-23T06:26:43.700-06:00Oh wait, my mistake... there are three guys who cl...Oh wait, my mistake... there are three guys who claimed to have seen the plates in a vision, and eight who (initially at least) claim to have seen them for real. Still kind of questionable testimony, of course, but still on the level of stupid as "The story says nobody really saw the plates!"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79302126459745506302009-11-23T05:55:50.721-06:002009-11-23T05:55:50.721-06:00@Tom:
Wow, yeah. If the "witnesses" on...@Tom:<br /><br />Wow, yeah. If the "witnesses" only saw the plates in a <i>vision</i>, then they weren't witnesses at all. In fact, I might even say that the South Park version of events is vindicated right there. I wonder if Seth R. disputed this?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77074821070724848312009-11-23T05:54:14.090-06:002009-11-23T05:54:14.090-06:00People don't just go free instantly because th...People don't just go free instantly because their Miranda rights haven't been read. The only consequence of that is that a confession they make isn't admissible testimony.<br /><br />Since there are already irregularities in the case like torture, it's unlikely that KSM's testimony would be valid anyway. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've heard the attorney general Eric Holder say that they've gone to great lengths to build a case that avoids reliance on such things. And I imagine in this case, the evidence would be substantial.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-67420163148250339172009-11-22T23:57:33.227-06:002009-11-22T23:57:33.227-06:00I agree that a secret and swift death sentence wou...I agree that a secret and swift death sentence would be a tremendous blow to the image of the country and is basically an uncivilized option. Someone mentioned the worse thing that could happen is that he would get the death penalty. But another horrible thing would be that he gets off on a procedural technicality. Did we read him his Miranda rights? I don't mean this flippantly. There are a million such potential pitfalls if tried in a traditional US court with all rights intact. We are accorded some specific protections. It seems suggested that non-citizens get all of the protections while having none of the responsibilities. Maybe that is how it really is?<br /><br />Again, I think the court happenings should be reasonably public. In this there is no disagreement at all. But to pretend the US courts can handle these trials "like any other" and with the same rules of law is a little short sighted possibly.<br /><br />I hope this makes sense without sounding too disrespectful.rrpostalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336728549010108830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50033880179890924552009-11-22T23:39:24.272-06:002009-11-22T23:39:24.272-06:00On the Mormon plates. Strange how so many of the w...<a href="http://www.exmormon.org/file9.htm" rel="nofollow">On the Mormon plates</a>. Strange how so many of the witnesses saw the plates <i>in a vision</i>. You'd think that would be unnecessary if they actually existed. <br /><br />It's not just a matter of the book confirming itself, but it's a set of anecdotes with no more evidential validity than Paul's vision of Jesus.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68865810740925142062009-11-22T19:01:55.565-06:002009-11-22T19:01:55.565-06:00just wanted to say, really good post and subsequen...just wanted to say, really good post and subsequent conversation in the comment thread.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53340509045319243612009-11-20T18:03:59.532-06:002009-11-20T18:03:59.532-06:00Kazim,
you said:
"I'd like to point out t...Kazim,<br />you said:<br />"I'd like to point out that you're laboring under the false assumption that non-citizens are not entitled to due process under United States law."<br /><br />You're partly right. My assumption does not surround "non-citizens" as a whole. My assumption excludes all but "war criminals", which is how I'm viewing this individual. <br /><br />You've presented some persuasive information here. I'll have to think a little, but certainly I feel it's a valid point that we want to be a model of ethical conduct on an international level - actually, I think I quite agree with that. <br /><br />I think you may have won me over.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-67215514459337944622009-11-20T17:33:32.985-06:002009-11-20T17:33:32.985-06:00Andrew,
I'd like to point out that you're...Andrew,<br /><br />I'd like to point out that you're laboring under the false assumption that non-citizens are not entitled to due process under United States law. That is actually not true, and hasn't been at least since the case of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins" rel="nofollow">Yick Wo v. Hopkins</a> in 1886, 113 years ago.<br /><br />While not the primary focus of the law, the opinion rendered by Justice Matthews stated that individuals residing in the United States have benefits under the bill of rights regardless of whether they are citizens or not. So your argument that Mohammed must be denied a trial because he isn't a citizen just doesn't hold any water.<br /><br />Is there precedent for holding "war criminals" in a fair and open trial with legal representation? Yes, of course there is, and in many cases it is remembered as a shining example of the United States being a model of ethical conduct in international conflicts. For example, the Nuremberg Trials, although they were military tribunals and not civilian trials, were open affairs in which the Nazis were given the opportunity for legal defense. The defendants were provided with lawyers, many were even allowed to use their own German lawyers, and the details of the trials were available to the public.<br /><br />Reaching further back in history, John Adams defended British soldiers after the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre" rel="nofollow">Boston Massacre</a>. Later, he wrote: <br />"The Part I took in Defense of Captain Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country. Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right."<br /><br />The point is that whether we are required to or not, it is <i>better</i> to present the US as a country that maintains the rule of law, even under stressful circumstances. Better for the US as a whole in ensuring liberty and justice to people within our borders, and better for public relations as a citizen of the international community. Countries that spirit away visitors, or even their own citizens, and try them in secret without right to a hearing or an effort to prove their innocence? That would be <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/26/world/fg-iran-trial26" rel="nofollow">the other guys</a>.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-35334441300811932582009-11-20T15:57:59.845-06:002009-11-20T15:57:59.845-06:00Ing,
I don't think (fundamentally) that both ...Ing, <br />I don't think (fundamentally) that both points of view are right - at least I'm not convinced of it at this point. I'm willing to be convinced.<br /><br />I understand why one would want him tried in the American legal system, but I think the reasons may be misguided. Ultimately, I still see him as a war criminal. So my question is, how is he not one? And how is this not a military matter?Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-28742268009170228342009-11-20T15:38:36.998-06:002009-11-20T15:38:36.998-06:00I think the biggest danger of trying him in court ...I think the biggest danger of trying him in court is that he will get the death penalty and be executed, thus becoming a martyr. Although if they rigged the sentence to be the death penalty but get it stuck in appeals till he died (of natural causes of course) that would be awesome.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13093051567266810629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43931075222552736782009-11-20T13:42:53.196-06:002009-11-20T13:42:53.196-06:00@ Andrew. I actually think both POVS may be right...@ Andrew. I actually think both POVS may be right. I'm contingently supporting public trial right now mostly for emotional reasons of it hurting the egos of these paramilitary fucks (same reason I'm hopeing he doesn't get death penalty...that way he has to live hi life out and not die as a martyr.) I think the real problem is that Bushco tried to have it both ways and choose civilian court for some and tribunals for others, Obama has continued this and it's a big can of worms. There's no clear guidlines or parimeters for deciding how they're tried so now it all depends on whose making the decision. Bush probably would do more tribunals while Obama wanting to show people something he's doing will favor public. Each right now have just about the same legal justification. That is a problem. <br /><br />Again since Obama&friends have made it clear that he'll be held even if he's exonerated the trial is a moot point and a waste of money so meh.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37209023216858792642009-11-20T10:16:21.865-06:002009-11-20T10:16:21.865-06:00PS,
Please pardon the contentiousness, I mean no d...PS,<br />Please pardon the contentiousness, I mean no disrespect - it's just me being me. <br /><br />I'm really interested in the justification of your point of view.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-31913380118895633812009-11-20T07:35:32.064-06:002009-11-20T07:35:32.064-06:00Kazim, you said:
“That doesn't make any sense....Kazim, you said:<br />“That doesn't make any sense. It's barely even coherent. How can "an ideology" declare war on anything? An ideology is not a country; it has no central governing body. It has no authority to declare war.”<br /><br />What war is not against an ideology, and what war declared is not for ideological reason? We didn’t fight the Germans for the sake of killing Germans, we were fighting fascism, the extermination of the Jews, etc. The American civil war is another great example, the ideology of north and south. What gave either side the right to declare war in this circumstance? (Fascism is not a country, Jew killing is not a country, slavery is not a country, but the people who had those ideologies happened to be in centrally located place, so they were easy to find.)<br /><br />Your notion of being unable to declare war if you’re not a state is pure dogmatic thinking. In the case of radical Islam, yes, it isn’t located in the south, it isn’t on the other side of the Rhine, and it doesn’t wear uniforms. Sort of reminds me of the rebels from “Star Wars”, who themselves in many cases had no uniforms and no borders. You want to say, (rather dogmatically) that since radical Islam doesn’t have a state that it has no authority, power, cannot declare war, etc. Yet, here we are at war with radical Islamic ideology in Afganistan – go figure. <br /><br />So tell me then, Kazim, how does “a state” give one the power to declare war? Where does that power come from? What’s a state?<br /><br />Kazim, you also said:<br />”Terrorism is not even an ideology anyway -- it's a tactic. You can be a terrorist for many reasons, and many terrorists have diametrically opposed viewpoints.”<br /><br />We’re not at war with terrorists, we’re at war with radical Islamists (ideology) who happen to be using terrorist tactics.<br /><br />As to your last paragraph, the problem is (again) you can’t imagine war without state - because, I don't know, that's against the "rules" for you?. Which (funny enough) is much like a Christian not being able to imagine the world without God. One implies the other, you can’t have one without the other etc. Which is just plain, I don’t know, dumb. It’s simply a dogmatic view of what war is.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12553618033233047672009-11-20T06:06:45.458-06:002009-11-20T06:06:45.458-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73436396044721058342009-11-20T03:22:37.903-06:002009-11-20T03:22:37.903-06:00Even IF the 9/11 terrorists were considered war cr...Even IF the 9/11 terrorists were considered war criminals, why wouldn't their trial be public and set in NY? Their crimes have been public and set against civilians, in a country at peace. Isn't that enough to consider it a public issue? <br /><br />About atheism in England, a perspective from a Quebecker who has been living in the country on and off for the last ten years: while it is certainly much more liberal and open than the States, religions still have an undue influence. The state is in theory a theocracy, with the Queen both a head of state and head of the Church of England, which has therefore constitutional tights with the state. Even in public schools (and I work in one), a vicar is entitled to come and do bits of preaching at assemblies. There are also faith schools that can throw creationism in the national curriculum. During my MA and PhD studies, the Christian Union was very militant and trying to proselytise foreign students. When I was saying that I was atheist, I have ben told "But that's awful" more often by local British students than by American ones. But it's not only Christianity that gets a free pass: Islamists are very militant here and the sharia is in effect in the Muslim community, with the government closing its eyes. England is indeed more secular than many countries and one can easily be openly atheist here, but it is far from atheist heaven yet.Guillaumehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376749604845793465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10957272056771988672009-11-19T22:26:08.139-06:002009-11-19T22:26:08.139-06:00I think the fact that the church of later day sain...I think the fact that the church of later day saints used to forbid blacks from being priests (note that priest==head of a family so they were barred from leading their own family) more than makes up for the false claim before. <br /><br />It's a dumb religion that works on a pyramid scheme model.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-67228408567664976652009-11-19T21:48:45.650-06:002009-11-19T21:48:45.650-06:00The bottom line is, a group of people (an ideology...<i>The bottom line is, a group of people (an ideology) declared war on us – further more, a group of people who are not American citizens. So why should we treat them as if they are, and afford hem the same rights? This is clearly a military issue (I’d argue) not a problem of the “AMERICAN” justice system.</i><br /><br />That doesn't make any sense. It's barely even coherent. How can "an ideology" declare war on anything? An ideology is not a country; it has no central governing body. It has no authority to declare war.<br /><br />Terrorism is not even an ideology anyway -- it's a tactic. You can be a terrorist for many reasons, and many terrorists have diametrically opposed viewpoints.<br /><br />What makes this really nonsensical is that there is no barrier to entry for terrorism. If you declare war on a country, and the country's government is deposed, you win. People can still attack us for other reasons, but not with the backing of that country anymore. Not so with "terrorism." What are the victory conditions for a war with terror? Do you think that someday if you win, no one will think to fight for whatever the hell their pet cause is by terrifying people anymore? If we execute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed without a trial, will that prevent a thug like Scott Roeder from murdering abortion doctors to scare people?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69819394984840697132009-11-19T20:49:37.599-06:002009-11-19T20:49:37.599-06:00I disagree with 9-11 being clearly an act of war.
...I disagree with 9-11 being clearly an act of war.<br /><br />It was an action committed by a group that is an informal military with no official state sponsorship and isn't a state military. I think we should treat them as if they were just like the Mob or the like. I can go both ways but the fact that these fuckers get hard imagining themselves as martyrs in the army of light makes me really want to avoid validating their delusions of grandeur with a military trial.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37658564000845791052009-11-19T19:39:56.684-06:002009-11-19T19:39:56.684-06:00@TheOpiumofthePeople ... I wish I lived where you ...@TheOpiumofthePeople ... I wish I lived where you to then. England must be magical place where admitting you aren't a Bible thumper doesn't:<br /><br />1) Instantly alienate you from friends.<br />2) Instantly invoke disownership from family.<br />3) Cause your employer to find some way of firing you.<br />4) Cause future employers (if you're open about it) to not hire you.<br />5) Instantly annihilate any chance you have of running (successfully) for any kind of public office.<br />6) Drastically increase your chances of retaliation (slashed tires, vandalism or harassment).<br />7) Get you killed.<br /><br />Yes, we tend to hesitate for a moment...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05491878203645997521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83034695083958292102009-11-19T18:07:35.427-06:002009-11-19T18:07:35.427-06:00We’re at war in Afghanistan. Suppose an enemy “ter...We’re at war in Afghanistan. Suppose an enemy “terrorist/soldier” manages to hop a plane to New York, hijack it, and crash it into a building. At the last minute he parachutes out and is captured by the NYPD. Should he be put in jail and await trial, or be handed over to the military?<br /><br />To avoid the obvious Straw Man, let me say a couple things:<br /><br />A.)We’re not at war with the “State” of Afganistan, we’re at war with a group of people who share a certain idealism that happen to live there. <br /><br />B.)The attack on 9/11 was essentially a declaration of war by this group, hence our current activity there. <br /><br />The issue here surrounds (I think) the word “terrorism”, or “terrorist”. Since he’s not officially affiliated with “a state”, he gets this title. As a result, we argue over what rights he may have and may not have, how he should be tried, etc. etc..<br /><br />The bottom line is, a group of people (an ideology) declared war on us – further more, a group of people who are not American citizens. So why should we treat them as if they are, and afford hem the same rights? This is clearly a military issue (I’d argue) not a problem of the “AMERICAN” justice system.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1170511897254308562009-11-19T17:51:16.364-06:002009-11-19T17:51:16.364-06:00Does Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, (as an enemy combatan...Does Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, (as an enemy combatant) have the same rights as an American citizen?<br /><br />I think you're throwing out a big Red Herring here.<br /><br />You want to say that the objection is something along the lines of keeping the American people from seeing and hearing this guy. But I don't think that's the case at all - hence the red herring. The issue is, does he have the same rights as an American citizen to due process? Or, should he be treated as a war criminal and be tried under tribunal?Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76366241344294931912009-11-19T16:53:39.325-06:002009-11-19T16:53:39.325-06:00Also considering the fact that the CoLDS has a doc...Also considering the fact that the CoLDS has a documented history of forgery and fraud the written witnessing of said gold plates amounts to exactly dick. The fact that lots of the claims Smith made are disproved should really make this a closed case.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-22091145199634542062009-11-19T14:31:12.178-06:002009-11-19T14:31:12.178-06:00I also shake my head when I hear what atheists in ...I also shake my head when I hear what atheists in the US have to go through sometimes (the legal case over the guy who shot his friend because he thought he was the devil, for instance), though I would say that becuase of the difference, It causes atheists in America to be more pro-active.Pombolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16735540265123793662noreply@blogger.com