Guantanamo Bay

[sebbysteiny]

Sebby,you responded to my PM requesting you to to correct a post in which you misquoted me.You havn't done so after two days.This is the second time you have misquoted me.Fix it.

 

I did fix it, or at least I thought I did. Perhaps I've misquoted you a second time. Tell me the post. Also, why do you care so much?

[Edella]

Sebby,you responded to my PM requesting you to to correct a post in which you misquoted me.You havn't done so after two days.This is the second time you have misquoted me.Fix it.

I did fix it, or at least I thought I did. Perhaps I've misquoted you a second time. Tell me the post. Also, why do you care so much?

If you don't know why people dislike being misquoted,I'm not sure I can help you.Refer to my PM for the post.

[Cedars]

Do you agree that it is better to release 10 guilty men then imprison wrongly even one?

If not, your living in the wrong country. I am not trying to be facetious here, it is absoulutely one of the founding principles of your country.

 

Quote according to wikipedia:

"US and other common law courts mention with strong approval Blackstone's formulation also known as Blackstone's ratio popularly stated as "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" -- although he did not first express the principle".

 

One should also note this same person did not hold Catholics in England with the same regard:

 

"As to papists, what has been said of the Protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of reliques and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects".

— Bl. Comm. IV, c.4 ss. iii.2, p. *54

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blackstone

[sebbysteiny]

If you don't know why people dislike being misquoted,I'm not sure I can help you.Refer to my PM for the post.

 

Still don't understand why it matters too much, but I like you so if it makes you happy, it makes me happy. Merry Christmas, hope you like your present :D.

[sebbysteiny]

Quote according to wikipedia:

"US and other common law courts mention with strong approval Blackstone's formulation also known as Blackstone's ratio popularly stated as "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" -- although he did not first express the principle".

 

One should also note this same person did not hold Catholics in England with the same regard

 

Ace research. Quality point from me.

 

Your latter point about Blackstone not holding Catholics in England with the same regard was unfortunately ad hominem as you were criticising the man and not the argument. It was still good research though.

[TheFaithfulStone]

One should also note this same person did not hold Catholics in England with the same regard:

 

We all have feet of clay.

 

George Washington was a slave owner, Bill Clinton, Dwight Eisenhower, and Franklin Roosevelt were a philanderers. Einstein was a womanizer, and Churchill was a drunk.

 

I don't see how Blackstone's hypocrisy regarding Catholics is terribly relevant. The maxim is not "Better ten guilty ... unless they're trying to overthrow the government or are really, really, clearly bad people. Then woe to them."

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

Still I'm too wrapped up in my own head to worry too much about your request, which I think is stupid, but you seem to be someone I wish to speak with again in the future, so if you're going to be a baby and insist I be accurate when I quote you, then fine.

What if I'd quoted you this way? It really does matter, and we appreciate you making the change as Edella requested.

 

 

Edella,

 

You can PM a Mod or Admin if ever this happens and the user does not respond. We can help with these things as well.

 

 

Cheers. ;)

[sebbysteiny]

What if I'd quoted you this way? It really does matter, and we appreciate you making the change as Edella requested.

 

I see the point that one can offend people using delibate misquoting as a tool, but there are hundreds of other ways to insult people too. I don't think even Edella is claiming that the misquote was in anyway offensive, deliberately or accidently.

[Cedars]

Ace research. Quality point from me.

 

Your latter point about Blackstone not holding Catholics in England with the same regard was unfortunately ad hominem as you were criticising the man and not the argument. It was still good research though.

I suppose I could have inserted 'legal' regard rather than just regard to define where I was with that comment.

[Cedars]

We all have feet of clay.

 

George Washington was a slave owner, Bill Clinton, Dwight Eisenhower, and Franklin Roosevelt were a philanderers. Einstein was a womanizer, and Churchill was a drunk.

 

I don't see how Blackstone's hypocrisy regarding Catholics is terribly relevant. The maxim is not "Better ten guilty ... unless they're trying to overthrow the government or are really, really, clearly bad people. Then woe to them."

 

TFS

 

I didnt bring any of the above people into the discussion. Actually, I didnt bring Blackstones quote up either but researching the quotes accuracy I found the position on Catholics. Being as Blackstone was defending the laws regarding Catholics in his writings its not so much hypocrisy as an educated opinion on the law. Both quotes were about law (both quotes from the same writings) from a lawyer/professor, and not personal habits, such as your comparison (minus the slavery part, which wasnt a legal matter then). You did read the link right? As far as how its related, well it just shows it can be policy/law to regard some positions as lesser when a nation is dealing with outside influences.

[sebbysteiny]

As far as how its related, well it just shows it can be policy/law to regard some positions as lesser when a nation is dealing with outside influences.

 

Too true. It is far better to imprison 10 innocent people than to allow terrorists to strike using a nuclear bomb.

 

The external influences changes the entire founding premise of 'innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt' that is at the heart of the all of our CRIMINAL justice systems.

[pgrmdave]

Have you ever read 1984? It describes a society which could be perfectly safe from terrorism. If Big Brother is watching, nobody can commit a crime. Just arrest the whole of the world and there won't be any more terrorism.

[Cedars]

Have you ever read 1984? It describes a society which could be perfectly safe from terrorism. If Big Brother is watching, nobody can commit a crime. Just arrest the whole of the world and there won't be any more terrorism.

 

A fiction novel. Yeah, I did read it. The whole world wouldnt be arrested because not everyone is a terrorist. Thats apparent with only x number of people in US custody compared to how many have been captured/encountered in afghanistan (and Iraq).

 

Let me know when Imans/mullahs begin disapearing from the streets of [insert any western nation].

[TheFaithfulStone]

I didnt bring any of the above people into the discussion. Actually, I didnt bring Blackstones quote up either but researching the quotes accuracy I found the position on Catholics. Being as Blackstone was defending the laws regarding Catholics in his writings its not so much hypocrisy as an educated opinion on the law. Both quotes were about law (both quotes from the same writings) from a lawyer/professor, and not personal habits, such as your comparison (minus the slavery part, which wasnt a legal matter then). You did read the link right? As far as how its related, well it just shows it can be policy/law to regard some positions as lesser when a nation is dealing with outside influence

 

Okay, I mistook the point about Blackstone being anti-catholic as an attack on the position, like "He may have said that, but he didn't really mean it, and therefore it's not a good opinion" and not as a description of his legal reasoning.

 

But it's still not relevant and here's why. I don't think that Kayra meant to cite Blackstone's legal opinion, he was simply stating the commonly held aphorism "It is better to let ten guilty free than imprison one innocent." The aphorism does not include Blackstone's anti-Catholic "rider" about "papists."

 

Like the famous Malcolm X quote "By any means necessary..." Of course, in his later years, Malcolm softened his view, and actually supported Islam as a means of racial harmony. But then, when people quote Malcolm's "By any means necessary..." they don't usually mean - "until I go on the Hajj and come back a changed man."

 

It's the same with the Blackstone Formulation. When people say "Better 10 guilty go free..." They're simply using it as a shorthand for conventional wisdom. As such, Blackstones tempering views on the subject are irrelevant in anything but a legal context.

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

Let me know when Imans/mullahs begin disapearing from the streets of [insert any western nation].

 

How about Italy?

 

TFS

[pgrmdave]

I was merely taking Sebby's logic to it's logical conclusion - if ten men can be wrongfully imprisoned to prevent a nuclear strike, why not eleven? 100? 10,000? The tipping point really would be solved by the equation Vl * Nk - Vf * Ni = 0, where Vl = the Value of Life, Nk = the Number killed in a nuclear explosion, Vf = the Value of Freedom, and Ni = the Number imprisoned. Of course, that is simplifying it a bit as it doesn't take into account the long term effects of a nuclear weapon, but the idea is good. Of course, there is more than one nuclear weapon in the world, so really we have to modify it to take that into account. The number grows so quickly with that, that we have to acknowledge that more people could be killed than arrested, so we should arrest everybody.

[Cedars]

How about Italy?

 

TFS

 

damn, I had forgotten about that incident. After googling a bit I came up with some additional info on this person and the allegations of violation of Italian soverignty and their hosting of terror suspects.

 

With the ongoing investigation, and the arrest of Italian Intelligence officers, the claim made by the CIA regarding the approval of the Italian government for this particular operation holds more weight that this wasnt an operation carried out soley by the Americans.

 

"The Italian government and its intelligence services were not aware of and did not participate in the alleged CIA kidnapping of an Egyptian cleric in Milan, a Defense Ministry official told Senate committees Tuesday, amid growing evidence that the Americans did not act alone."

 

and from the same article this:

 

"But prosecutors in Milan investigating the kidnapping arrested two Italian intelligence agents last week - the first official sign that Italians were, in fact, involved."

 

from this link:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060711/D8IPOJPG1.html

 

There are lots of actions carried out with these methods that do not imply 1984 mentality. Carlos the Jackal comes to mind as an example of bringing someone to justice who deserved to be captured. We also have the cases of holocaust perps being grabbed out of S. America and brought to justice.

 

Additionally, the cleric was apparently turned over to Egypt, and a judge there released him. Due process occured. What has become of him since is an unknown other than what occured then happened in Egypt, not a western nation.

 

Nasr was wanted by Egypt for his involvement in Jemaah Islamiah, a network of Islamic extremists that had sought the overthrow of the government. Many leaders escaped abroad to avoid arrest. Nasr fled to Albania but also sought refuge in Germany and Bosnia before settling in Italy in 1997.

 

You are not claiming that this particular person is an terrorism innocent are you?