Fishteacher73 Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Any system or state that has a hierarchy in which there are citizens with rights and citizens without the same rights is participating in such legislated crime. There has been a widening os scope as to what constuted "citizen". It started with only white, male, land owners; slowly it expanded to just white males, then women's sufferage came about, the civil liberty of the african americans, etc. We are slowly moving to a place that all people have the same merit and rights, anything short of that is state sponsored crime. From slavery, true colonialism, genocide,eugenics, caste systems, economic colonialism, to puppet regiems, the world is ful of sanctioned crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted July 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 The subjective response of patriotic indignation by a few US citizens regarding slander against their country, is actually more proof of what you're talking about. They will try to defend their country, regardless of what its being blamed for, sometimes coming with evidence to the contrary, sometimes coming with an attempt to dodge the topic and focus the attention somewhere else - "Yes, but what about country X doing this and that...", "If it wasn't for the US in 1940, then...", etc., etc. I'm with you there! Nationalism is dangerous. Patriotism is dangerous. State-sponsored propaganda, combined with nationalism and blind patriotism, is fatal. Normally, bad forms of patriotism are called nationalism. Patriotism is not bad, in my book, any more then rival schools. It's just a loyalty to something you helped build (hopefully). Nationalism is very bad, we've seen it in post-WWI Germany and post-9/11 America. Thankfully, we Americans are more in control, and it seems to be diminishing. It's a natural response to stress- rally round the flag! Nationalism does blind you to any wrongdoings your country might be commiting, and as such is very dangerous. In America, I think the Patriot Act was only passed because of the nationalistic tendencies of the moment. But as Infamous wisely said- it's hard to get back freedom's once you've given them up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 We are slowly moving to a place that all people have the same merit and rights, anything short of that is state sponsored crime. From slavery, true colonialism, genocide,eugenics, caste systems, economic colonialism, to puppet regiems, the world is ful of sanctioned crime.Very intelligent post Fish, we do find ourselves in an evolving social strata. I recently started the thread; What is good government. My first thought was this; "Good government is that government that can change as, they the people change themselves". My point being, when things are a bit wrong with the status quo, good government will allow the pepole to change it. When governments forbid this option, we have bad government. America still has some state sponsored injustice to clean up, but at least we have the freedom to get on with it, and I believe we will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 In America, I think the Patriot Act was only passed because of the nationalistic tendencies of the moment. But as Infamous wisely said- it's hard to get back freedom's once you've given them up.What if you didn't give them up willingly, but had them stolen from you, as is the case with 'Patriot Act'. That was one thing that really embarrassed me, how willingly so many people just went along with many of our "rights" being taken away. I think it's just disgusting that the government can do this under the guise keeping our country safe. What a crock of bullsh*t. It just angers me to think about it. I seriously considered moving to France for a bit, then nemo reminded me how cold it can get there! :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Normally, bad forms of patriotism are called nationalism. Patriotism is not bad, in my book, any more then rival schools. It's just a loyalty to something you helped build (hopefully). Nationalism does blind you to any wrongdoings your country might be commiting, .100% on the money bumab, there is a profound difference between the two. I do understand however, why some choose to look harshly upon the word 'Patriotism". This tactic has it's roots and origin in the propaganda techniques employed by many totalitarian dictatoships. If you can redefine a word to suite your purposes and at the same time turn it against your competition, it is like killing two birds with one stone. In this thread, the term "State sponsored crime" is used to define just about every shortcoming a nation could have. I chose to use the term, "State sponsored injustice" instead. There is a vast difference between crime and injustice. There is certainly many cases where the term "State sponsored crime" could rightly be used. But to make the term all inclusive is not equitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted July 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2005 What if you didn't give them up willingly, but had them stolen from you, as is the case with 'Patriot Act'. And they just broadened it a little bit... I'm proud to say all the rep's from my state voted against it, sad to say it wasn't enough. Nationalism, though, and the paranoia encouraged by the government (what "color" alert are we today, sir?), both conspire to get people to think short term- hence giving up rights for something that really won't work. Recently a librarian around here got investigated (eventually suspended) by the FBI because she wouldn't release library records of a citizen. Rediculous. What are we fighting against, again?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted July 23, 2005 Report Share Posted July 23, 2005 . Rediculous. What are we fighting against, again?!Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts Absolutely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartock Posted July 24, 2005 Report Share Posted July 24, 2005 http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent777/1285114.html If this is what the amarican soldiers are doing in the name of democracy and human freedom, then what do the amarican people think of what is going on in the minds of the Iraqi people.This is stste sponsored crime.And it is allowed to happen every day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartock Posted July 24, 2005 Report Share Posted July 24, 2005 Government defies an order to release Iraq abuse photosBy Kate Zernike (published 07/23/2005.nytimes.com)Lawyers for the Defense Department are refusing to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release secret photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal. Skip to next paragraph The lawyers said in a letter sent to the federal court in Manhattan late Thursday that they would file a sealed brief explaining their reasons for not turning over the material, which they were to have released by yesterday. The photographs were some of thousands turned over by Specialist Joseph M. Darby, the whistle-blower who exposed the abuse at Abu Ghraib by giving investigators computer disks containing photographs and videos of prisoners being abused, sexually humiliated and threatened with growling dogs. The small number of the photographs released in spring 2004 provoked international outrage at the American military. In early June, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of Federal District Court in Manhattan ordered the release of the additional photographs, part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union to determine the extent of abuse at American military prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The government has turned over more than 60,000 pages of documents on the treatment of detainees, some containing graphic descriptions of mistreatment. But the material that the judge ordered released - the A.C.L.U. says there are 87 photographs and 4 videos - would be the first images released in the suit. The judge said they would be the "best evidence" in the debate about the treatment of Abu Ghraib prisoners. "There is another dimension to a picture that is of much greater moment and immediacy" than a document, Judge Hellerstein said in court. He rejected arguments from the government that releasing the photographs would violate the Geneva Conventions because prisoners might be identified and "further humiliated," but he ordered any identifying features to be removed from the images. In the letter sent Thursday, Sean Lane, an assistant United States attorney, said that the government was withholding the photographs because they "could result in harm to individuals," and that it would outline the reasons in a sealed brief to the court. The A.C.L.U. accused the government of continuing to stonewall requests for information "of critical public interest." "The government chose the last possible moment to raise this argument," said Amrit Singh, a staff lawyer with the A.C.L.U. "Because it is under seal, we don't know whether their reasons are adequate," Ms. Singh said. More Articles in Washington >Order an Online Edition of The NY Times & Read at Your Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted July 24, 2005 Report Share Posted July 24, 2005 Well, there you go. The US government hiding criminal acts, contravening the Geneva Convention and relying on it whenever it suits it. Guantanamo Bay, prisoners being kept without even being charged, for years on end? Come on. That's draconian, to say the least. Will an innocent individual have a civil claim towards the US government for loss of income for that time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harzburgite Posted July 24, 2005 Report Share Posted July 24, 2005 There is no shred of moral equivalency between making a prisoner wear women's underwear on his head and lopping off a captive's head on video.If I have been imprisoned without due process, and no indication of when, if ever I shall be released, the distinction between these two states gets as blurred as Schroedinger's cat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted July 24, 2005 Report Share Posted July 24, 2005 Guantanamo Bay, prisoners being kept without even being charged, for years on end?Charged with what? They are not being held as criminals, they are prisoners of war, a war the U.S. declared against Al-Qaeda after being attacked by Al-Qaeda. Are you trying to suggest that it is wrong for the U.S. to declare war on those that attack it and to take prisoners in the process? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted July 24, 2005 Report Share Posted July 24, 2005 If I have been imprisoned without due process, and no indication of when, if ever I shall be released, the distinction between these two states gets as blurred as Schroedinger's cat.There is no due process in war. Prisoners of war are just that until the war is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted July 24, 2005 Report Share Posted July 24, 2005 Charged with what? They are not being held as criminals, they are prisoners of war, a war the U.S. declared against Al-Qaeda after being attacked by Al-Qaeda. Are you trying to suggest that it is wrong for the U.S. to declare war on those that attack it and to take prisoners in the process?Exactly C1ay, when another nation or any group of individuals joined togeather with common purpose declare war on another, the other has no choice but to be at war. If I'm not mistaken, Al-Qaeda declared war on America first. We have no choice but to be at war with Al-Qaeda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nkt Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Charged with what? They are not being held as criminals, they are prisoners of war, a war the U.S. declared against Al-Qaeda after being attacked by Al-Qaeda. Are you trying to suggest that it is wrong for the U.S. to declare war on those that attack it and to take prisoners in the process?If they are prisoners of war, (which I agree with you about, they should be) then they should be treated as prisoners of war. What they should not be is a new, magically made-up thing, called an "enemy combatant", or whatever term they choose today. You cannot say someone is still a combatant when they have been locked up on the other side of the world for three years. Why can they not be standard prisoners of war? Because then the USA would have to treat them humanely, stop torturing, and allow visits by the Red Cross. Instead they use a legal fiction. The USA can't even win gracefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 ...contravening the Geneva Convention....As a matter of law, this is categorically untrue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 If I have been imprisoned without due process, and no indication of when, if ever I shall be released, the distinction between these two states gets as blurred as Schroedinger's cat.Unless this is the law of the land. Which it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.