~Di

... and the Canadians and Mexicans are not still occupying their ill-gotten plots of land? Either I'm totally missing your point, or I'd like to share what you are smoking. (w00t)

Not trying to be difficult here, but I honestly do not understand what that means. There weren't any such thing as "Yanks" when the wholesale slaughter of natives on the portion of the continent now known as the USA (and Canada as well, for that matter) began. That slaughter was instigated by the French and the Brits, primarily, and continued on for a couple of centuries before there was such a thing as an "American." And the Spanish managed to wipe out two of the grandest civilizations of its time, the Aztecs and the Mayans, then conquered a slab of land nearly the size of the USA in total. That's a fairly large scale, I'd say. So what point, exactly, is the one you consider to be valid, while ignoring the identical atrocities which led to the establishment of both our neighbors to the north and to the south? Discussions like this one always leave me perplexed, because they seem to be a perversion of the past in an attempt to perpetrate bigotries of the present. Besides which, it makes no freaking sense.

Because that's who occupies it now? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So people who live in the USA today are responsible for what Brits, Spainards, French and Porteguese did 300+ years ago? Hmm. Interesting concept. Guess that means those lousy Canadians should also be subjected to criticism and contempt, since they are responsible for what the Brits and the French did to the native populatioin up there. And blame the Mexicans for what the Spanish and Porteguese to the Mayans, Aztecs, and other native cultures. That's the ticket. Each person on the planet is responsible for every bad thing done by humans to humans in the history of mankind. Sounds about right.

Apparently not. No, no, you've got it wrong! I love people who hate my country and use one standard for it and another standard for the rest of the world. Honest. I love people who, when cornered on issues, lash out with personal attacks instead! And I love people who ignore their own bigotry to blame anyone with the gall to point that bigotry out. Really. Sarcasm aside, there's no need to get personal. The fact that you are incensed about a vague possibility of some future sentence being guessed at by journalists who are merely reading the min-max of the judicial system without factoring in any of the mitigating aspects that will be considered at trial... yet are not the least bit concerned about what is happening to this same individual under the Romanian justice system which is trying him now is to me rather telling, to say the least. He is being charged with 9 counts of computer intrusion, and one count of conspiracy. The conspiracy charge is the big one. From what I'm hearing, there may be more arrests because this little club of his has been targeting US governmental computers for years, and has logged over 150 break-ins. The counts of computer intrusion probably have minimal jail time per count. The conspiracy charge is the one that has heavy-duty sentence possibilities. So it doesn't matter how many of the charges he is convicted of so much as it depends upon which of the charges he is convicted of... and whether they run consecutively or concurrently (which I've said before, and which you have conveniently ignored). Part of the justice system is punishment; part of it is deterrent. I suspect the authorities have not enjoyed having a bunch of geeks messing around with computers filled with national security stuff AND which control people's lives, ala the Space Program. I personally don't want to see a shuttle crash and burn because a bunch of computer geeks thought it would be cute to write "Kilroy was here" or some other stupid thing on computers monitoring its vital functions. So no, I don't think a severe sentence is out of line here. These individuals have been deliberately targeting US computers for their own enjoyment for years, and in doing so have cost ME and my fellow citizens major dollars, plus have endangered the security of 300 million people. That's worth more than a slap on the wrist if for no other reason than to make the rest of the weenie-wagging geeks of the world think twice about trying the same thing. I seriously doubt this guy will get anything close to the maximum sentence. He'll probably strike a deal with the prosecutor long before any trial. But if I'm wrong and he gets 54 years, he'll be out in a third that time due to our lenient (yes, lenient) good behavior laws. And I won't shed a tear either way.

Again, let me point out that no sentence has even been imposed here. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So, the existence of the possibility that he might spend half a century in prison is not ridiculous to you? I for one think it is way of the line. I can understand large corporations making statements with dissident convicted to decade-long rehabilitations, but this is insane. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So you are determined to be incensed over something that has not happened? *shrug* Fine, if all you want is to rant over possibilities, knock yourself out. BTW, while you're busy obsessing over what might happen in a future American courtroom, do you happen to know what sentence he is facing on the charges he's currently on trial for in Romania? Do you care?

Perhaps it is semantics with the word "colonization". It's my understanding that Britain began it's move on India in the 1600's with the creation of the East Indian Trading Company. By 1765, before America's revolutionary war, Britain had solidified its economic and political hold on India, and began its trek into colonizing Canada during the same basic timeframe. There was a bit of a scuffle in 1847 or thereabouts, but Britain continued to hold onto its power inside India until the mid-1900's. Even if I'm mistaken about precise dates, the crux of my initial post remains the same.

Again, let me point out that no sentence has even been imposed here. Murderers (not so much rapists, unfortunately) do have rather severe penalties. A single count of murder usually carries a 25-to-life sentence; ten counts of murder usually carries the death penalty. Unless, of coures, it's just a husband murdering his wife, in which case he'll probably be out in seven years.

Because what happened in America happened on a systematically much larger scale with the objective of conquering a vast area through organized means, leading to demographic change of a nature not entirely comparable to a whole lot of other historical examples. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As Meta pointed out, plenty of folks to blame. The Spainards managed to wipe out several civilizations in Central America and Mexico, and plop their own genetic profile in its stead. The Porteguese took care of those pesky natives in and around much of South America. The French wiped out most of the natives in Florida and what is now Central-Western USA, along with a healthy dollop of what is now Canada before the blood-thirsty Brits landed and began to wipe out those tribes along the east coast. Of course the Brits were behind France, Spain and Portugal in the North-South American native-slaughtering business because they were stretched a bit thin, having to liberate an entire continent (Australia) from those naughty aboriginal folks, not to mention the effort it took for them to claim one of the most populated countries in Asia (India) as its own. This all happened long before there was any population known as "American", because it was long before there was even a country known as America or the USA. So tell me again, why is North America... specifically the territory now known as the USA... being singled out for criticism and contempt here?

First, the guy IS a robber. He robbed the US government of hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions even, by his criminal act. Secondly, he has not be sentenced to 54 years. He hasn't even gone on trial yet, since the Romanians are trying him first for another set of crimes there. Heaven knows what sentence they may give him. Third, the USA will charge him with ten counts, approximately 5 years maximum sentence per count. Only if he is convicted on all ten counts, given the maximum sentence on each count, AND the sentences are to run consecutively rather than concurrently would he end up with the 54 years. So I suggest y'all quit gnashing your teeth about how unfair American justice is until there has actually been some American justice meted out. That is all.

Besides the fact that history has proven that laws regulating one's behavior toward oneself are inevitably dismal failures, one thing folks seem to be conviently forgetting is that an enormous percentage of people sitting in jails at this very moment (I once read something like 80% or some similarly staggering number) are there for drug related crimes. Can you imagine the massive sigh of relief from the penal system, the justice system, and the taxpayer if their burden was lessened by 80%? Just something to think about.

I can't believe the way some of you are excusing this guy, as if he did nothing really wrong! He hacked into government and military computers, for god sake. You're acting like all he did was tidy up those messy disks, and he ought to be put on the payroll. Lemme put it to you this way: Say you come home to find that someone has broken into your house, gone through your fridge and put your leftovers in different containers, laid stuff on the counters, threw some stuff away... then went into your room and hacked into your computer just to show that he could. Would you feel mad? Violated? Would you immediately spend a fortune to have new locks and alarms installed? Would you throw all the food away, because god knows what he might have done to it? Would you change all your computer passwords, cancel all the credit cards you've used with that computer, and close your bank account? Of course you would unless you're the world's biggest fool. Even if this person did nothing evil to your food, your computer, your personal information, he violated your privacy and forced you to spend enormous amounts of time and money to protect yourself from the break-in. This person is a criminal. Period. I'm amazed some of you don't seem to see that... unless I'm misinterpreting what y'all have said.

Several appelate courts disagree. So do the families of the FBI agents that he killed. Pretty much every prisoner in the country (in most countries, actually) consistently declares himself/herself to be (A) innocent, and (B) wrongly convicted. As for the "Save Leonard" folks... hell, even John Wayne Gacy had a fanclub. *shrug*

Because you dislike the topic for it pertains to a real life issue not to your liking? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. Because the "topic" in the obtusely-worded rhetorical question is so subject to myriad interpretations that there is, in effect, no topic at all. Perhaps if you were less poetic and more clear in what you are asking you might get some thoughtful and serious replies.

*thinking, as requested* You've had a couple of interesting, discussion-provoking threads lately. I don't think this is destined to become of of them.

I just love this series. It's a gulty pleasure... kinda like Survivor, lol... but both husby and I are hooked on it. Talk about rollicking fun! I love it. My big question is

Without a trial? Link, please. If you are referring to Leonard Peltier , he most certainly did get a trial. In 1977 he was convicted of killing two FBI agents. As frequently happens with high-profile cases, there is a core of folks who believe that he is innocent, or that even if he's guilty he had a right to kill the agents, or that he's a political prisoner because he was taken into custody on an Indian reservation... but he most certainly had a trial, so you may want to be a bit more prudent with such allegations in the future.

The USA hasn't had selective service (or the "draft") in decades. Interesting question about Native Americans, though. I honestly don't know the answer. Legally, Indian reservations are each sovereign nations, governed by the tribes themselves. American authorities cannot enter Indian reservations without permission, except when they ignore the law and storm the place (not unlike what they do to other countries that annoy them) to root out hiding criminals or whatnot. But that's really frowned upon. Anyway, you could ask the same question about nearly every country on the planet, since the original inhabitants of them all are either long-gone or find themselves sharing with the descendants of conquerors. Why just pick on North America? :cool:

Heh, I'm glad they got him. I hope he serves the entire sentence. Hackers suck. That is all.

It's obvious I am expressing myself poorly, and we are apparently talking about two different things. Yes, I believe one owes alligiance to ones country, a country which gives us a relatively safe, comfortable, modern existance. If you do not believe the citizens of the USA are blessed with a relatively safe, comfortable, modern existance, then I encourage you to visit a few third-world and oppressive societies that do not provide such things to their citizens. As I've said, it's easy to criticize rules and motives when one is warm, safe, well-fed and on the inside looking out. Those rules and motives may not seem so sinister when one is cold, frightened, hungry and on the outside looking in. You seem to have twisted every word I've written in order to label me patronizing, and once again presume me to be in favor of a war I've already repeatedly expressed disapproval of. This leads me to believe that you are not understanding what my words are saying; you are interpreting based upon your own presumption. Obviously it won't help for me to heap more words which will also in all probability be misinterpreted. We are both talking... but we obviously are neither listening nor hearing.

Indeed, and it is not a privilege that was handed to citizens of the USA or any other country on a silver platter. It is a privilege fought for and died for by those who came before us. So how do you express your displeasure with a government that has made a decision you disagree with? Do you become active in your society, joining organizations that fight for political positions you agree with? Do you (if you were drafted, which is the topic of this thread... ) put your money where your mouth is and serve your time in the brig rather than in a war you don't like? Or do you merely sit back and take what you want from the country, using the "I disagree with the government" excuse to avoid giving anything back in return? As you've pointed out, the borders of this country and other countries swing both ways. If you are unwilling to be a part of society by doing service for it or fighting to maintain it for all its citizens, either fighting figuratively or literally, then you simply do not deserve to live in that place. Please leave and find another place. Nice excuse to justify selfishness and personal greed. The above rant has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. If you wish to start a "capitalism sucks" thread, or a discussion of multiculturism vs individualism vs collectictivism, feel free. Hogwash. This is just a rambling justification of why one can supposedly shrug off any and all personal responsibility by simply declaring disagreement with governmental policies, then mosey through life taking all the good things without giving a damned thing in return. As I've said, if you do not agree with governmental policies then you have a duty to work... and fight... to change those policies. You do not have a duty, or a right, to use your disagreement as an excuse to sit on your posterior raking in the benefits of life in your country and being a leech on society. Big words and tomes of text do not a reasonable rationalization for selfish laziness make! And frankly, that's what it comes down to. People who do not contribute to society nearly always justify themselves by citing government corruption or bad policies without acknowledging any of the good said government does... and the government must obviously have a lot of good policies in place, or folks wouldn't be living the good life in the first place. The whole thing sounds a lot like a houseful of ungrateful adolescents complaining about mom and dad's rules, only to be horrified when mom and dad close down the refrigerator and change the door locks. The rules don't seem quite so onerous when one suddenly has to forage for one's own food and find one's own shelter. People in most western societies take their comforts and their countries for granted, just like spoiled teenagers who are so busy complaining about what they don't have and what they don't like that they forget to take a look at what they do have, and give serious thought to the sacrifices somebody made to give them those things. That's my take on the "one's duty to country" argument, and I'm sticking to it!

Out of curiosity, I searched how many countries have mandatory drafts. There are, according to this site , nearly 50 nations where military service is compulsory, including most nations south of the USA, lots of African and Middle East nations (not surprisingly), Asia and more than I would have though in Europe. Just a bit of topic-related trivia. Carry on!

Er, you seem to be under the impression that I am in favor of reinstating the draft. I'm not, not unless it was a matter of our country's survival, as it was in WW2. The question was not whether I was in favor of reinstating the draft; the question was simply that if there was a draft and I was drafted, would I serve. And I would.

If I were drafted, I would serve my country to the best of my ability. I wouldn't line up civilians and slaughter them, but I am not naive to the realities of war. If one is not willing to fight for one's country, well, there are a lot of countries out there. Choose another one. I'm deadly serious. When a country is at war, real war, its citizens shouldn't have the luxury of deciding whether they will participate or just take the benefits that others will bestow upon them through their own sacrifice. I hate the Iraq war. I believe it to be a massive mistake. Yet people I care about are serving there, and doing their level best to perform their duties, whether those duties are trying to enforce security in the midst of chaos (yes, yes, a chaos that wouldn't exist if they hadn't been sent there in the first place, but that is a discussion for another thread) or rebuilding schools and hospitals and trying to get decent water and electricity to ALL of Iraq, not just the Baathist areas in and around Baghdad, which was the only place Saddam offered these nice little perks of civilization. Maybe it's old school, but JFK was right. People who only take the good stuff from their country without being willing to give back to it, whether they refuse to give back under the guise of "personal morals" or just plain lazy selfishness, should find another country, one that they care enough about to be part of society rather than just a drain on it.

Yes, I used the word "adult" to encompass the legal defiition of the word, which is basically a person over the age of majority who is mentally capable of functioning at an adult level.

You've expanded your initial post. At first you made the flat statement that if a soldier disagreed with a particular mission, he/she should simply "quit the service." That statement was ludicrous, since most people understand that one does not simply "quit the service." That is called going AWOL and is a court-marshal offense. It appeared to me you expected soldiers by the tens of thousands to simply present themselves for court marshal and spend a few years in the brig before you would personally support them. Ah, of course. Being female, my pesky emotions just keep cropping up. Thankfully there is usually a big, strong, emotionless-and-therefore-superior male around to publicly point out such flaws.