Our closest ally stabs us in the back

[Aristes]

This is where you lost me. I could follow your arguments elsewhere in your post, but clearly justice demands different punishments for different crimes and for different categories of crimes. I contend that terrorism is fundamentally different from murder in the same way that armed robbery is fundamentally different from murder. It is outright silly to suggest that all categories of crime should be treated exactly the same. That is not justice. I simply have no idea what to call it.

 

Accusations of murder and armed robbery are both tried in the same (type of) courts. I feel strongly that is not outright silly that those crimes are treated the same in that way, which is why I responded to your original statement that:

 

I think terrorist acts should be handled differently by the system.

 

following that line of thought. If you instead meant that terrorism should be punished differently, I'd say that punishment with regards to points 1 and 3 must differ between every unique crime (as they are classified by the legal system), not just terrorism/everything else.

I largely meant punishment, however, I'm unsure as to whether terrorism should be considered a crime in the first place. That is to say, it is a 'crime' in the larger sense, but it may not be a legal matter at all. Is it a matter for the DoJ or the DoD?

 

Even if we agree that different crimes require different punishments but legal systems should process each crime in the same manner, then I still disagree with the idea of granting clemency to a terrorist in the same way that it is granted to a murderer. Someone might murder his wife in a fit of rage. He is sentenced to... I dunno... 15 years but his actual time of imprisonment might be reduced based on good behavior. If someone murders a family of people in cold blood, he might be sentenced to life and have no chance for parole based on behaviour. At some point, I don't think end of life clemency should be available. It's simply a matter of where we draw the line. Don't make a mistake about it, though. We do draw that line. There was a choice as to whether or not to free Megrahi.

 

As to whether or not he actually murdered the folks, that's a different case. However, if he is not guilty, then he should be freed on those grounds, not on the grounds of clemency. If you think there is sufficient evidence that he did not commit the crime but you want to extend the benefit of the doubt to him while he still has the chance to return home, say that. Don't say it's what you grant every criminal. Since it seems fairly clear that this was a deal over oil rather than justice, there doesn't appear to much point in using this particular case as our prime example. It's a philosophical discussion at this point.

 

Anyhow, I was going to joke around a bit, but it looks like were all actually at odds with each other, so I don't want to stoke the fire. I do think it's funny that we don't really have two sides on this issue. Literally, virtually everyone has a bone to pick with everyone else in the thread, which is kind of funny in and of itself. hehehe

 

...And, STILL, I'm not outraged, even when Straw admits it was based on national interests. These things are always based on national interests. The Brits just got caught.

[alanschu]

we punish people to serve justice, period. your other three reasons for punishment are byproducts of serving justice. other, less civilized, nations may punish people for the reasons you cite, but that does not change the definition of justice.

 

 

What does it mean to serve justice? Give an explanation of justice, and specifically, since you're making the statement that "other, less civilized, nations may punish people for the reasons that [Rostere] cites," am I correct in assuming that you do not feel that these nations punish people to serve justice?

Edited September 6, 2009 by alanschu

[213374U]

You actually sound surprised?

 

I do, actually. I don't gad about adopting cynical poses to try and look more in the know. So I don't begin by assuming all government is crap.

Well. Good for you, then. I'd recommend NOT reading up on how the oil biz works, if your panties are so quick to get in a knot. That way you may get away with your non-cynical pose.

 

 

Nah. Justice has a foundation in ethics, and those are pretty plastic.

no, jeesus... it has a definition, look it up. i can't even believe that i have to argue this point.

 

so, by this idiotic logic, when i call you all retards for making me debate this, don't get offended because i really mean "people who wear nice shoes."

Okay, so you just cut out the part of my post that addressed and explained the difference between scientific (retard refers to any number of well-documented medical conditions) and moral definitions, and proceeded to make a poor (both in quality and taste) analogy.

 

Um, nice work.

[Killian Kalthorne]

we punish people to serve justice, period. your other three reasons for punishment are byproducts of serving justice. other, less civilized, nations may punish people for the reasons you cite, but that does not change the definition of justice.

 

 

What does it mean to serve justice? Give an explanation of justice, and specifically, since you're making the statement that "other, less civilized, nations may punish people for the reasons that [Rostere] cites," am I correct in assuming that you do not feel that these nations punish people to serve justice?

 

Justice, in my view, is when a criminal is duly punished based on the severity of the crime. For the crime this man did Life In Prison without Parole should have been the minimum punishment allowed. He should have been executed for that terrorist act of cowardice.

[Aristes]

Okay, I will admit that I was wrong in how I used literally up above. It struck me, when I was reading the latest comments, that I didn't mean we are literallly picking each others bones. Sounds.... dirty.

 

Anyhow, I wonder how the situation will pan out politically in the UK. I meant to bring this up before but forgot.

[alanschu]

we punish people to serve justice, period. your other three reasons for punishment are byproducts of serving justice. other, less civilized, nations may punish people for the reasons you cite, but that does not change the definition of justice.

 

 

What does it mean to serve justice? Give an explanation of justice, and specifically, since you're making the statement that "other, less civilized, nations may punish people for the reasons that [Rostere] cites," am I correct in assuming that you do not feel that these nations punish people to serve justice?

 

Justice, in my view, is when a criminal is duly punished based on the severity of the crime. For the crime this man did Life In Prison without Parole should have been the minimum punishment allowed. He should have been executed for that terrorist act of cowardice.

 

 

 

Why is that justice? What makes that appropriate justice compared to something else?

[Walsingham]

Anyhow, I wonder how the situation will pan out politically in the UK. I meant to bring this up before but forgot.

 

Brown's administration is - in the popular analysis - totally discredited already. He vacillated on the banking issue, has failed to support the Armed Forces in either leadership or materiel, and wastes time on stunts like ringing X Factor contestants while 'ignoring' critical issues like this one. he appears to be pinning everything on the hope that there will be a spontaneous economic rally before the next general election, when he will no doubt paly the scare card over a conservative victory in anattempt to rally Labour supporters.

 

I don't believe this alone will greatly affect the trainwreck of his doom plunge.

[Gorgon]

Was he ever popular or was he just the crown prince being groomed for party leadership. That's what he have now too by the way, our PM would be quite unlikely to win anything by himself, without the backing and resources of his office and the party.

 

It's not often a PM is so unpopular he actually has to go out and defend his decision not to resign.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Gorgon

[Junai]

The Navy awarded medals for meritorious service to two of the top officers who were serving on the Vincennes at the time the cruiser shot down the Iranian A300 airliner over the Persian Gulf with 290 people aboard. They were welcomed as heroes.

 

Now Al-Megrahi returns, and is welcomed as a hero.

 

 

The winds of karma exact perfect justice, not kangaroo courts.

 

 

J.

[Gorgon]

There is a notable difference between shooting down an airliner through incompetence or neglect, and a deliberate terrorist action. Did the pilot responsible for the mistake get a medal ?, if not, what does it matter what other medals were given out at the time.

[GreasyDogMeat]

You wouldn't happen to be a reader of Saul Alinski would you Junai?

[Guard Dog]

You wouldn't happen to be a reader of Saul Alinski would you Junai?

It doesn't matter. Also reminding him the the Vincennes was protecting US flagged oil tankers that had been attacked several times by Iranian gun boats (as had the Vincennes) and buzzed by Iranian F-14s. It also would not help to point out to Junai that Iran Air 655 had switched off it's IFF (deliberate or not, ordered too or not we'll never know) so there was no way the cruiser could identify it was a civilian aircraft. Junai has this whole thing set in his mind US=bad, everything else=good.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Why is that justice? What makes that appropriate justice compared to something else?

 

If you deliberately murder a person then the only just recourse is to have your own life forfeited. This man help kill hundreds. Why show him mercy when he showed none to his victims?

[213374U]

The winds of karma exact perfect justice, not kangaroo courts.

See, everyone has their opinion on what "justice" really is.

[Humodour]

Libya paid for prognosis on Lockerbie bomber

 

lol.

[Rostere]

rostere... please read my statements and look at the definition of justice. justice is not "defined by" your three points. justice has its own definition just as rehabilitiation has its own definition.

 

Since you displayed such eagerness at doing so, I did look up the definition of justice in an actual dictionary. And I found (which I wrote) that defintion #1 by Webster's Online Dictionary corresponds, when applied to the field of punishment of crime, exactly with what I wrote myself (in my opinion. Please give your own). And leads me to:

 

reading comprehension. clearly the most lacking of skills in society and, IMO, part of the reason that people say such stupid things. nobody understands anybody anymore because they make up their own terminology on the fly.

 

Since you clearly are someone from a very civilized country, oh supreme master of the noble art of reading comprehension, who does not make up your terminology at the fly, could you please answer my question and pick which definition of justice you meant from the excerpt from Webster's Online Dictionary that I offered, alternatively link to a dictionary of your own choice?

 

i have already stated, in multiple places, that rehabilitation is often a goal, but that is not justice in and of itself. did you even bother to read when i said that?

 

i also stated that making an example out of someone often occurs, but it is not part of any civilized legal system. did you read that?

 

i also stated that prevention is rarely a goal simply because it only works for life and death sentences - people get out of prison otherwise. did you read that?

 

none of these is justice. by serving justice and making criminals pay their debt to society, they may get rehabilitated, they may not be able to commit crimes in the future if we execute them, and they may even be made an example of to other would be perpetrators of similar crimes. i said that, too, or are you incapable of gleaning that from my posts?

 

Oh yes, I read those parts, very carefully even. I also thought you also said rehabilitation is only a liberal fantasy. Have you changed your mind on that matter? And then I wrote I did not think what you wrote is true, and responded with a question. Why do you keep reiterating this over and over? Basically, this is where we are right now:

 

Rostere: YOU PUNISH PEOPLE BECAUSE OF SEVERAL PRAGMATIC REASONS

taks: NO, THOSE ARE ALL SILLY BARBARIC DRACONIAN LIBERAL FANTASIES. YOU PUNISH PEOPLE SOLELY BECAUSE OF JUSTICE

Rostere: WHAT KIND OF JUSTICE

taks: LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF JUSTICE! THE KIND OF JUSTICE YOU'LL FIND IN A DICTIONARY

Rostere: GIEF LINK TO DEFINITION PLZ

 

You have previously stated (although not proven that you do not "make the definition up on the fly") that justice is repaying an arbitrary debt to society. I asked, in my previous post, which one of the dictionary definitions correspond with your one.

 

Apparently, you are also opposed to both the death penalty and the prison system. Keeping people in prison or killing them costs money (and actually an awful lot, in most civilized countries), so that's hardly repaying a debt. Since apparently (according to you), when someone breaks the law it is nigh impossible to keep them from doing it again using punishment... Are you suggesting we should abolish prisons and instead create labor camps? Would your ideal state have labor camps and paying fines as the only forms of punishment? How would you force the prison inmates into generating 25 billion dollars (an approximation of the running costs or all US prisons) of profit a year?

 

And what if the state you are living in ordered death penalty for every crime by public vote? Surely, you must understand that justice, the reason for punishing people, must be based on several ethic principles, and not what someone happened to write down in a book of law. That way of thinking reminds me of the mindset of the fervently religious.

 

Oh, and furthermore, you did not answer to my response to your explicit statement that only execution or lifelong incarceration can prevent someone who broke the law from doing it again (sic). Do you (and if you do, then perhaps more importantly, WHY) support other kinds of punishment, even though you hold against them that they are 100% ineffective when it comes to preventing someone from breaking the law again?

 

Preventing [criminals] from committing future crimes is, well, silly. the only way this can work in the first place is if they are put away for life or put to death.

[Rostere]

I don't understand why you should blame the Libyans for celebrating the return of Megrahi. I mean, they actually believe he is innocent. You can of course discuss whether he really is innocent, but would not Americans celebrate the return of Capt. Will Rogers III from a hypothetical prison tenure in Iran if they believed he was innocent?

[alanschu]

Why is that justice? What makes that appropriate justice compared to something else?

 

If you deliberately murder a person then the only just recourse is to have your own life forfeited. This man help kill hundreds. Why show him mercy when he showed none to his victims?

 

 

That's not explaining how that is specifically justice. You still didn't actually answer the question anyway. You gave an example of what you feels is justice with a justification for why you feel the punishment in this case is appropriate. I was hoping for something more macro level, then a specific verdict for a specific case.

 

Having said that, I have more than beat this horse in the past with you, and quite frankly I wasn't asking you when I inquired. I'm well aware of your position.

Edited September 6, 2009 by alanschu

[Junai]

You wouldn't happen to be a reader of Saul Alinski would you Junai?

I'm not a commie just because I feel uncomfortable when mass-murder is rewarded with medals of meritious service.

Also, if it makes you feel any better, I didn't feel particularily comfortable when Megrahi was welcomed as a hero either.

 

It also would not help to point out to Junai that Iran Air 655 had switched off it's IFF (deliberate or not, ordered too or not we'll never know) so there was no way the cruiser could identify it was a civilian aircraft

the dead don't care

 

J.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Libya paid for prognosis on Lockerbie bomber

 

lol.

I watched the debate on this in the Scottish Parliament, and I really felt that the '3 months' had been conjured out of the air to fit the legal requirements. We do need to change the law on this, whether you agree with early release or not.

[Zoraptor]

It doesn't matter. Also reminding him the the Vincennes was protecting US flagged oil tankers that had been attacked several times by Iranian gun boats (as had the Vincennes) and buzzed by Iranian F-14s. It also would not help to point out to Junai that Iran Air 655 had switched off it's IFF (deliberate or not, ordered too or not we'll never know) so there was no way the cruiser could identify it was a civilian aircraft. Junai has this whole thing set in his mind US=bad, everything else=good.

 

[le sigh]

 

(1) The Vincennes was not protecting tankers, it had finished that duty some time previous and was simply proceeding through the Straits of Hormuz. It chased speedboats 50 miles to get some action, a task it was manifestly unsuitable for having only 2 (iirc) depressible deck guns, was ordered away and decided to ignore that order and all the relevant standing orders.

 

(2) The IFF was a complete fabrication and quietly withdrawn very early in the piece, ex wiki, and from the official US report: "The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that [iran Air Flight 655] was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in altitude from take-off at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down." The IFF lie was post facto slander in an egregious attempt to escape responsibility by besmirching a perfectly innocent party.

 

(3) Its flight in no way matched an attack run from an F14- the self same Sides with its rinky dink bog standard radar correctly identified it as traveling slowly and climbing at the same time as the Vincennes (with AEGIS) identified it as diving and increasing speed. ie, simply monitoring the correct transponder channel or identifying its altitude and speed correctly would tell anyone with even vestigial competence that it was not an F14. Together with (2) that's gross incompetence

 

[edit: On reflection the last bit was unnecessarily confrontational, so I've removed it]

Edited September 6, 2009 by Zoraptor

[Wrath of Dagon]

3. We just took a huge steaming poop on our working relationship with the US.

Not a thing we can do about it anyway. Plus you'd probably get better treatment from Obama by being an enemy instead of an ally.

 

Does the director of the FBI usually involve himself in political debate, make statements to the press about what he thinks about this and that and justice in general. You would think as a federal employee he would be forbidden to say anything even remotely likely to influence foreign relations.

This is not any political debate, this is a criminal law matter involving the murder of 180 Americans that the FBI spent huge amount of resources investigating, and there was an understanding reached with the British/Scots. Besides, I'm sure he got higher level approval before he sent the letter. Edited September 7, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[GreasyDogMeat]

the dead don't care

 

J.

 

The living do though. Thats why there are different punishments for manslaughter and murder. Unless you believe in some barbaric sense of an eye for an eye type of justice. Drunken ahole runs over some guys daughter, so now victim's father has the right to run over drunk's daughter even though she has nothing to do with the situation. Its karmic justice!

[alanschu]

the dead don't care

 

J.

 

The living do though. Thats why there are different punishments for manslaughter and murder. Unless you believe in some barbaric sense of an eye for an eye type of justice. Drunken ahole runs over some guys daughter, so now victim's father has the right to run over drunk's daughter even though she has nothing to do with the situation. Its karmic justice!

 

 

Wait, is that the proper use of the term justice as it is defined?

[Walsingham]

It also would not help to point out to Junai that Iran Air 655 had switched off it's IFF (deliberate or not, ordered too or not we'll never know) so there was no way the cruiser could identify it was a civilian aircraft

the dead don't care

 

I actually shrieked with laughter when I read this!

 

Are those goalposts on the back of a pickup truck or what? GD comes back saying it wasn't a mistake in the sense of available information and you just YOINK say justifications don't exist. I salute your madness with a joyous heart, sir.

 

Zoraptor, you make an interesting point, and thanks for mentioning at least one source. I suggest you have a quick squizz at the BBC historical version. I would suggest this was a case of 'running with scissors', where a **** ups happen in a warzone in times of war. If you think you may be attacked you have literally a couple of seconds to react with modern missiles. There had been attacks on US forces by both Iraq and Iran, and the captain apparently decided enough was enough from the unidentified target.

 

I don't want to have a go at the poor buggers who died on that airliner, but what in the name of unholy **** was it doing flying across contested waters during a shooting war?