Re: Gulags
On 3 Aug 2005, at 12:24 am, Dave Land wrote: On Aug 2, 2005, at 3:35 PM, William T Goodall wrote: I don't think it's easily eradicated. I didn't say that. I said, and you quoted it, that 'religion is one of the easiest causes of evil to eradicate.' True. Eradicating religion isn't an easy project, but it is easier than changing human nature or one of the other hard to eradicate causes of evil. You formerly held that religion is evil and should be eradicated. You now seem believe that religion is merely a cause of evil. Is that progress, or are they about the same thing in your mind? I suspect English is not your native language. Causing evil is evil. The fact is, I think we will always have to contend with evil. Learning to live in a world that contains things that hurt us (gravity, storms, poisonous plants, certain forms of religion, certain forms of atheism) is one of the major purposes of life. We should just put up with as there is nothing we can do? I'm more optimistic than you. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness, Impatience and Hubris - Larry Wall ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On 3 Aug 2005, at 4:29 am, Doug Pensinger wrote: William wrote: Eradicating religion isn't an easy project, but it is easier than changing human nature or one of the other hard to eradicate causes of evil. I would argue that a need to explain the unexplainable _is_ human nature and that religion provides those explanations. The more we are able to understand our universe, the less we will need the imaginary explanations provided by religion. Indeed, outside of the U.S. and less developed nations, the need for religion seems to be waning. The degree to which the people of U.S. cling to religion baffles me. ShrubMoron is speaking out on behalf of intelligent design again: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na- creation3aug03,0,3586432.story?track=tottext http://tinyurl.com/8zgqu Advocates of an alternative to the theory of evolution took heart Tuesday from President Bush's remarks that both sides ought to be properly taught in public schools. In an interview with several Texas newspapers Monday, Bush was asked about the growing debate over the idea of intelligent design, which holds that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life. I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, Bush said. And I'm not suggesting — you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes. This new American Lysenkoism, based on ridiculous religious ideas, will decimat e a generation of potential life-scientists in the USA. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Maybe Windows is good for people who *think* they're geeks, but are not very good at it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On Aug 3, 2005, at 5:39 AM, William T Goodall wrote: This new American Lysenkoism, based on ridiculous religious ideas, will decimat e a generation of potential life-scientists in the USA. I'm at least as disturbed by this as you are, but it's a bit of a leap to go from ID-iocy to to suggesting that the reason there's so much prison rape is religion. Not that I expect you to see that it's such a leap; I've begun to realize you're kind of in a rut here. :\ -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On 3 Aug 2005, at 4:26 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Aug 3, 2005, at 5:39 AM, William T Goodall wrote: This new American Lysenkoism, based on ridiculous religious ideas, will decimate a generation of potential life-scientists in the USA. I'm at least as disturbed by this as you are, but it's a bit of a leap to go from ID-iocy to to suggesting that the reason there's so much prison rape is religion. Not that I expect you to see that it's such a leap; It's perfectly obvious; no leaping (or levitating) required. A country riddled with primitive superstition is bound to show an equal lack of advancement in other areas. I've begun to realize you're kind of in a rut here. :\ Better than the rut of evil superstitious nonsense :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness, Impatience and Hubris - Larry Wall ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On Aug 3, 2005, at 8:42 AM, William T Goodall wrote: I've begun to realize you're kind of in a rut here. :\ Better than the rut of evil superstitious nonsense :) A rut that prevents critical thinking is a rut that prevents critical thinking, whether it is based on belief in pink unicorns or just your lonely little self. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On 3 Aug 2005, at 7:15 pm, Dave Land wrote: On Aug 3, 2005, at 8:42 AM, William T Goodall wrote: I've begun to realize you're kind of in a rut here. :\ Better than the rut of evil superstitious nonsense :) A rut that prevents critical thinking is a rut that prevents critical thinking, whether it is based on belief in pink unicorns or just your lonely little self. Well, you've taken the first step to seeing what's wrong with your worldview anyway, although perhaps you are being a bit harsh on 'your lonely little self' :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Better than the rut of evil superstitious nonsense :) gigantic yawn B-O-R-I-N-G... Do you really think that the Broken Record technique (which is what you're applying here) is going to accomplish your goals - whatever the heck they are? If you want to be interesting, *please* use some creativity instead of monotone, monochrome sheepspeak. Debbi Four Feet Good, Two Feet Bad Maru :P Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On 3 Aug 2005, at 9:25 pm, Deborah Harrell wrote: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Better than the rut of evil superstitious nonsense :) gigantic yawn B-O-R-I-N-G... Do you really think that the Broken Record technique (which is what you're applying here) is going to accomplish your goals - whatever the heck they are? To educate and enlighten? If you want to be interesting, *please* use some creativity instead of monotone, monochrome sheepspeak. LOL. I'd rather be right than interesting any day of the week :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Aerospace is plumbing with the volume turned up. - John Carmack ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On Aug 3, 2005, at 1:50 PM, William T Goodall wrote: LOL. I'd rather be right than interesting any day of the week :) Hmm, so far you're 0 for 2. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL. I'd rather be right than interesting any day of the week :) -- William T Goodall I note (for historical interest, if nothing else) than Henry Clay once said I'd rather be right than President. To which Andrew Jackson (I believe) immediately replied, Senator, you'll never be either. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3 Aug 2005, at 9:25 pm, Deborah Harrell wrote: snip If you want to be interesting, *please* use some creativity instead of monotone, monochrome sheepspeak. LOL. I'd rather be right than interesting any day of the week :) So this is obviously a bad week, hmm? wicked little smile Debbi You Knew That Was Coming! Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On Aug 3, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL. I'd rather be right than interesting any day of the week :) -- William T Goodall I note (for historical interest, if nothing else) than Henry Clay once said I'd rather be right than President. To which Andrew Jackson (I believe) immediately replied, Senator, you'll never be either. Gautam wins 1000 points! 500 for bring the first interesting post in this thread since it fell into WTG's rut, historicity, 350 for historicity and 150 bonus points because I think I owe him from an earlier round. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
At 03:25 PM Wednesday 8/3/2005, Deborah Harrell wrote: Debbi Four Feet Good, Two Feet Bad Maru Whoever said that size doesn't matter . . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
At 03:50 PM Wednesday 8/3/2005, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Aug 2005, at 9:25 pm, Deborah Harrell wrote: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Better than the rut of evil superstitious nonsense :) gigantic yawn B-O-R-I-N-G... Do you really think that the Broken Record technique (which is what you're applying here) is going to accomplish your goals - whatever the heck they are? To educate and enlighten? If you want to be interesting, *please* use some creativity instead of monotone, monochrome sheepspeak. LOL. I'd rather be right than interesting any day of the week Most of the people who read your posts on this topic would be happy with either one. :D -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On 3 Aug 2005, at 11:18 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 03:50 PM Wednesday 8/3/2005, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Aug 2005, at 9:25 pm, Deborah Harrell wrote: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Better than the rut of evil superstitious nonsense :) gigantic yawn B-O-R-I-N-G... Do you really think that the Broken Record technique (which is what you're applying here) is going to accomplish your goals - whatever the heck they are? To educate and enlighten? If you want to be interesting, *please* use some creativity instead of monotone, monochrome sheepspeak. LOL. I'd rather be right than interesting any day of the week Most of the people who read your posts on this topic would be happy with either one. :D They must be delighted to be getting both every time then! Now that's value! -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Maybe Windows is good for people who *think* they're geeks, but are not very good at it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On Aug 1, 2005, at 4:59 PM, William T Goodall wrote: My own take on this is that a country that is more religious than the UK is bound to exhibit more depraved and bestial behaviours across the board - more murder, more rape and so on. A country mired in primitive religious superstition is hardly likely to shine on respect for human rights. Well, it *had* been a compelling post until this graf. Is EVERY evil that exists ANYWHERE attributable in your mind to religion? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On 2 Aug 2005, at 6:14 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Aug 1, 2005, at 4:59 PM, William T Goodall wrote: My own take on this is that a country that is more religious than the UK is bound to exhibit more depraved and bestial behaviours across the board - more murder, more rape and so on. A country mired in primitive religious superstition is hardly likely to shine on respect for human rights. Well, it *had* been a compelling post until this graf. Is EVERY evil that exists ANYWHERE attributable in your mind to religion? Stupidity and ignorance have roles too :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On Aug 2, 2005, at 10:37 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 2 Aug 2005, at 6:14 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Aug 1, 2005, at 4:59 PM, William T Goodall wrote: My own take on this is that a country that is more religious than the UK is bound to exhibit more depraved and bestial behaviours across the board - more murder, more rape and so on. A country mired in primitive religious superstition is hardly likely to shine on respect for human rights. Well, it *had* been a compelling post until this graf. Is EVERY evil that exists ANYWHERE attributable in your mind to religion? Stupidity and ignorance have roles too :) Heh, indubitably. But I still think it's rather naive to suggest that *all* behavior we judge as atrocious can be attributed to one root cause. The argument that it's all because of religion is as simplistic, I think, as the argument that we're innately a violent species, that it's somehow in our genes to perpetrate violence. Hubbard tried something similar in attributing all negative behavior to engrams and founded a cult of lunatics in the process. One-sided monochromatic thinking tends to lack subtlety and doesn't often see that *some* validity for *some* points of view does not equal 100% rectitude in all situations. That's a long way around suggesting the outlook it's all religion's fault is not only monotonous but possibly obsessive. It's also patently false. I can think of quite a few evils not perpetrated in the name of religion. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On 2 Aug 2005, at 6:50 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Aug 2, 2005, at 10:37 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 2 Aug 2005, at 6:14 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Well, it *had* been a compelling post until this graf. Is EVERY evil that exists ANYWHERE attributable in your mind to religion? Stupidity and ignorance have roles too :) Heh, indubitably. But I still think it's rather naive to suggest that *all* behavior we judge as atrocious can be attributed to one root cause. I don't suggest that. But I do think that religion is one of the easiest causes of evil to eradicate. The argument that it's all because of religion is as simplistic, I think, as the argument that we're innately a violent species, that it's somehow in our genes to perpetrate violence. Hubbard tried something similar in attributing all negative behavior to engrams and founded a cult of lunatics in the process. One-sided monochromatic thinking tends to lack subtlety and doesn't often see that *some* validity for *some* points of view does not equal 100% rectitude in all situations. That's a long way around suggesting the outlook it's all religion's fault is not only monotonous but possibly obsessive. It's also patently false. I can think of quite a few evils not perpetrated in the name of religion. Maybe if you looked closer? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much prefer it to Linux. - Bill Joy. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On Aug 2, 2005, at 11:05 AM, William T Goodall wrote: I don't suggest that. But I do think that religion is one of the easiest causes of evil to eradicate. Which is why tyrants throughout the centuries have had so much luck doing so? I think you'll find that it is only in your narrow little I hate religion and you should, too view of the world that religion is easy to eradicate. Call it charlatanry, foolishness, stupidity or whatever insult you may want to hurl at it, but the persistence of religious belief across virtually every society in the history of the world suggests that your belief that religion can be easily eradicated puts you in a miniscule minority. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On 2 Aug 2005, at 11:21 pm, Dave Land wrote: On Aug 2, 2005, at 11:05 AM, William T Goodall wrote: I don't suggest that. But I do think that religion is one of the easiest causes of evil to eradicate. Which is why tyrants throughout the centuries have had so much luck doing so? I think you'll find that it is only in your narrow little I hate religion and you should, too view of the world that religion is easy to eradicate. Call it charlatanry, foolishness, stupidity or whatever insult you may want to hurl at it, but the persistence of religious belief across virtually every society in the history of the world suggests that your belief that religion can be easily eradicated puts you in a miniscule minority. I don't think it's easily eradicated. I didn't say that. I said, and you quoted it, that 'religion is one of the easiest causes of evil to eradicate.' Eradicating religion isn't an easy project, but it is easier than changing human nature or one of the other hard to eradicate causes of evil. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Maybe Windows is good for people who *think* they're geeks, but are not very good at it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On Aug 2, 2005, at 3:35 PM, William T Goodall wrote: I don't think it's easily eradicated. I didn't say that. I said, and you quoted it, that 'religion is one of the easiest causes of evil to eradicate.' True. Eradicating religion isn't an easy project, but it is easier than changing human nature or one of the other hard to eradicate causes of evil. You formerly held that religion is evil and should be eradicated. You now seem believe that religion is merely a cause of evil. Is that progress, or are they about the same thing in your mind? The fact is, I think we will always have to contend with evil. Learning to live in a world that contains things that hurt us (gravity, storms, poisonous plants, certain forms of religion, certain forms of atheism) is one of the major purposes of life. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
William wrote: Eradicating religion isn't an easy project, but it is easier than changing human nature or one of the other hard to eradicate causes of evil. I would argue that a need to explain the unexplainable _is_ human nature and that religion provides those explanations. The more we are able to understand our universe, the less we will need the imaginary explanations provided by religion. Indeed, outside of the U.S. and less developed nations, the need for religion seems to be waning. The degree to which the people of U.S. cling to religion baffles me. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On 11 Jun 2005, at 11:04 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:28 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Jun 11, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 01:02 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Jun 11, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the regular prisons, I'd be glad to hear them. For rape? One solution springs immediately to mind. For the non-clairvoyant among the members of the list, what would that be? Castration, chemical or otherwise, of course. While the redneck side of me may agree (and in fact suggests that the chemical method ought to involve something like pouring a liter or so of concentrated H2SO4 in their lap), my real opinion as to what should be done is to get the correction officers back in control of the prisons (and not in an abusive or sadistic way, either). If what it takes is keeping the inmates locked in their cells so they can't get to each other to rape each other or kill each other, so be it. If it involves a return to the practice of making little ones our of big ones so that when they return to the cell block they are too exhausted to commit mischief, so be it. Perhaps someone else has a better idea of how to fix the problems in the regular prisons . . . ? http://www.spr.org/en/academicarticles/odonnell.html Why is it that an aspect of prison life that appears to be so tightly woven into the prisoner's experience in the United States is not to be found in any concentrated form in the UK? Ian O'Donnell a1, Prison Rape in Context, 44 Brit. J. Criminology 241 (March 2004) Fear of sexual violence is a defining characteristic of the prison experience in the United States. Rape has been a key theme in the literature on imprisonment since at least the 1930s. There is evidence--from prison argot and epidemiological studies in particular--that this problem is not as ingrained in the UK. Clearly there is more at play here than sexual deprivation and the pains of confinement, which know no jurisdictional boundary. It is suggested that the answer may lie, to some extent at least, in the poisonous history of race relations in the United States: prison rape can be seen as a legacy of slavery and the lynch mob. The particularity of the US situation may also be explained in part by higher levels of violence in society more generally and a cynical attitude on the part of prison staff. Introduction In today's world the judge who sentences a young person to reform school or prison passes male rape on him as surely as the sentence. Every inmate has a very short time, once inside, to pick a 'wolf' (a tough protector) or face gang rape, becoming the 'girl' of the institution, or death. Many of the prison suicides we read about can be traced to this choice. Worse, prison officers might even have sold the boy to aggressive inmates in order to keep the institution quiet. (Scacco 1982: vii) The above quotation encapsulates several of the main themes to be addressed in this paper. First, the notion that prison rape is a quotidian experience, that it is an inevitable secondary effect of incarceration. Second, that this is a recent development, peculiar to 'today's world'. Third, that the existence of this practice is so firmly rooted in prison life that it has generated its own argot. Fourth, that there is an intimate connection between the fear of sexual assault and violence (whether directed inwardly as suicide or at other prisoners in self-defence or retaliation.) Fifth, that prison staff may be complicit in the continuation of this practice. Scacco presents in stark form an argument that is found throughout the literature on imprisonment in the United States. Prisoner biographies and litigation, academic treatises, popular 'entertainment' and reform groups (such as Stop Prisoner Rape) are at one in their emphasis on the subculture of sexual violence that permeates prison life. Penal institutions are shown as crucibles of masculinity; places where distorted--and destructive--forms of male identity are forged. In this bleak view, those who do not fit the mould are destroyed. Only 'real men' can survive the unrelenting struggle for domination that marks the passage of time behind bars. According to Smith and Batiuk (1989: 30): the threat of sexual violence actually dominates the prison environment and structures much of the everyday interaction that goes on among inmates. In fact, the threat of sexual victimization becomes the dominant metaphor in terms of which almost every other aspect of 'prison reality' is interpreted. To give one example of this reality, consider the following account from a terrified eyewitness in Terrant County Jail in Forth Worth, Texas. This prisoner escaped rape when a 17-year-old youth, admitted to the same communal
Re: Gulags
William wrote: My own take on this is that a country that is more religious than the UK is bound to exhibit more depraved and bestial behaviours across the board - more murder, more rape and so on. A country mired in primitive religious superstition is hardly likely to shine on respect for human rights. IMO, if they started putting the white collar criminals in with the rest instead of in country club prisons it might provide incentive to change a few things. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags L3
Just as note that while I did do a lot of thought and research into it it was posted at nearly 5 AM and there are some things I would not have written or at least written better with more sleep. Gary D ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags L3
On 7/1/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Answering your thoughtful post. Then it would seem that all AQ has to answer is name rank and serial number, right? I don't think so. What is prohibited is usually considered, based on article 130: grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or willfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention. That would mean things that are not torture and is not causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health might be permitted depending on how far you go. A lot of the debate within officials with long experience and the new political appointees based on leaked memos are explorations as to what extent techniques like water boarding (drowning without killing) and sleep deprivation and long periods of times in uncomfortable positions (that actually do cause long-term damage) and techniques that are extremely painful but leave no permanent damage (electrodes anyone?) are lawful. Do we really want to explore this? You want to interrogate someone - should you have the guards rough up the prisoners for several days before the interrogation as long as they leave no permanent physical scars? Several of the people released after over a year and never charged have long-term disabilities now. No carrot, no stick at all, is the way I read the Geneva Conventions on POWs. Is that what you think should be the case? I think that must come from the controversial Article 17 - No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. This does not preclude classic plea bargaining - that is, the offer of leniency in return for cooperation - or other incentives. Plea bargaining and related incentives has been used repeatedly with success to induce cooperation from members of other violent criminal enterprises such as the Mafia or drug traffickers. Unpleasant results... I am opposed to using torture in the name of democracy. I am wondering if you are minimizing or are truly unaware of some of the things classified under unpleasant results which in places outside of Gitmo have included torturing people to death. No, I'm not doing that. I'm trying to obtain first and understanding of what has been going on, and then trying to form a reasonable opinion about it. I don't think that when the Geneva Convention talks about unpleasantness that they were using a euphemism for torture. I took it as, well, unpleasantness. For example, you could not interrupt the sleep of people who aren't talking. You couldn't change their diet from a tasty one to one that is nutritious, follows their dietary laws, but is rather tasteless and bland. You couldn't impose solitary confinement for refusing to talk. You couldn't shine lights in their cell. 1st - I think historically article 17 has not been interpreted strictly. 2nd - Who do you want to cause unpleasantness to and why? 3rd To what degree do you want to cause unpleasantness? 4th - Is there any evidence this unpleasantness is effective? 5th Aren't there undesirable consequence to using these techniques, in the reliability of information obtained, in brutalizing our guards as well as the prisoners, in our standards of decency, in the world's opinion of us, in God's eyes? 6th A long history of research in torture and brutal interrogation techniques shows it is not effective. What might be called plea bargaining deals and a long process of extracting information in a relatively cooperative atmosphere has been shown to be much more accurate. Basically, it appears that prisoners should be as well treated as one's own soldiers until the war is over. You can't even refuse them cigarettes as a means of getting them to talk. That's what I'm referring to when I write of unpleasantness. And where did you find this interpretation? I eventually found article 17 in looking through the articles. The killing of prisoners who are not engaged in life threatening activities (e.g. an armed prison riot) is not acceptable. Torturing prisoners is not acceptable; particularly ones that are not likely to have information that can save hundreds or thousands of lives. The actions depicted in the Time report looks to be on the borderline to me. That's why I copied the details of that and asked
Re: Gulags L3
Dan, I will have to think about your reply more for a fuller answer. Right now I am convinced we are in the early stages of admitting the invasion was a tragic mistake and plunged us into an unwinable war. The issue of how we treat prisoners should be resolved to restore the good name of the United States while also protecting the U.S. from real terrorists. I will also have to reread the Time article. You do know that Time has a long history of presenting some foreign policy and intelligence information in ways that the CIA and other conservative policy leaders wanted out? Time Magazine was tied to the CIA and a loosely organized group that evolved into the neo-cons and had some of the closest editorial connections. In the 70's it came out that hundreds of US journalists were also on the payroll of the CIA. The opinion of the owners of much of the so called liberal media was expressed by Washington Post's owner Katharine Graham at CIA headquarters, There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows. She didn't admit to not only covering up but actively pushing a CIA story numerous times. On the Democrats lack of organized widely supported alternative plans - they have a much more complicated political job. Reeves editorial quoting Thomas Mann: Republicans have to defend a war that was very badly planned and is costing much more in blood and treasure than the public was led to believe. Democrats struggle to define and agree on alternative policy that doesn't simply write off the sacrifices already made by our armed forces and accept defeat. In other words, the die has been cast; we have crossed both the Tigris and the Euphrates. But if history is our guide, it will take six more years to declare peace with honor, one more time. As if most of us, Iraqis aside, did not already know that this war is over. We tried the impossible again, with the usual result -- and it will take time to craft a noble rationale for what we have done to ourselves. http://tinyurl.com/9ahgw or http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storycid=123e=1u=/ucrr/20050624/cm_ucrr/timetablesixmoreyearsiniraq On 7/1/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a very thoughtful reply. -- Gary Denton http://www.apollocon.org June 24-26 Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags L3
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 3:50 AM Subject: Re: Gulags The stance of the experts I cited seems to be all prisoners, POW or not, are entitled to the standard of care specified in the Geneva Conventions except for communications between governments regarding the prisoners. Then it would seem that all AQ has to answer is name rank and serial number, right? . No carrot, no stick at all, is the way I read the Geneva Conventions on POWs. Is that what you think should be the case? Unpleasant results... I am opposed to using torture in the name of democracy. I am wondering if you are minimizing or are truly unaware of some of the things classified under unpleasant results which in places outside of Gitmo have included torturing people to death. No, I'm not doing that. I'm trying to obtain first and understanding of what has been going on, and then trying to form a reasonable opinion about it. I don't think that when the Geneva convention talks about unpleasantness that they were using a euphemism for torture. I took it as, well, unpleasantness. For example, you could not interrupt the sleep of people who aren't talking. You couldn't change their diet from a tasty one to one that is nutritious, follows their dietary laws, but is rather tasteless and bland. You couldn't impose solitary confinement for refusing to talk. You couldn't shine lights in their cell. Basically, it appears that prisoners should be as well treated as one's own soldiers until the war is over. You can't even refuse them cigarettes as a means of getting them to talk. That's what I'm referring to when I write of unpleasantness. The killing of prisoners who are not engaged in life threatening activities (e.g. an armed prison riot) is not acceptable. Torturing prisoners is not acceptable; particularly ones that are not likely to have information that can save hundreds or thousands of lives. The actions depicted in the Time report looks to be on the borderline to me. That's why I copied the details of that and asked questions. There is a wide range of possibilities for what has happened at Gitmo, which strongly influences my understanding of Bush's approach to the handling of prisoners. If the Time story gives a good feel for the limits set by the Bush government for the treatment of prisoners that they consider the most likely to provide critical information, then we can make some conclusions. Worse treatment of less important prisoners(importance measured in terms of intelligence potential) would probably not be directly ordered. Instead, one would look to not providing proper oversight, clear guidelines, the proper atmosphere, etc. as culprits in the worsening of the US treatment of prisoners. If this understanding is false, and the full range of torture techniques are used at Gitmo, then things are different. One would have to assume that Time magazine was given a record that ignored the instances of real torture. But, one would also expect that there would be deaths at Gitmo under very suspicious circumstances...as there were elsewhere. I think that the data are vague and uncertain enough to be consistent with a range of hypothesis, but I think that the majority of the data does support something along what I outlined. I realize that there are testimonials about horrid mistreatment of people we have released. But, one has to take these with a grain of salt. A person who stood up to torture by Americans is a hero. One who really had nothing to admit, was a cooperative prisoner, got along OK with the MPs, played soccer regularly, etc. is not quite as heroic. In short, just because one should take the administration's claims with a grain of salt doesn't mean that one swallows competing claims whole. It is possible for more than one person to lie. :-) BushCo. had to make a decision how to treat those who attacked the US. They went along like the overage frat boys they are saying what they would like to have done to them and then got their lawyers to come up with reasons and ways they could ignore the military justice system and our prisoner system and use rogue agent CIA rules. While that is certainly an emotionally satisfying explanation, I think a cold examination of the facts show something a bit more subtle. One of the problems that came out in the testimony of the 9-11 commission was the uncertainty the CIA had as to whether they could kill Bin Laden if/when they had them in their sights. A picture of the CIA as a risk avoiding bureaucracy came out, in the testimony, as well as from other information. One example of this is the fact that someone who has no contact with the rest of the world has a far easier time getting high security clearances than someone who has had extensive contact and experience. Yet, the latter are far more useful for work in intelligence than
Re: Gulags
On 6/23/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: replying to me snip If they did not have a clear sign, recognizable at a distance, if they were determined to be AQ, then the US could say they didn't have a doubt and no tribunal was needed. That may be a bit lawyerly, but it seems to match the plain sense of article 5. I don't think that Bishop Berkley style doubts count, either. The administration correctly argues that AQ are not POWs. (I'm back from ApolloCon and recuperating.) Before getting to the clinchers let's check with some experts. The Administration is applying the wrong part of the Conventions. They have invoked the provisions for irregular combatants not under Article 4-1, but under Article 4-2. They are treating them as though they are guerrillas or partisans who were fighting for a party to the conflict. And that's wrong in my view, said Robert Goldman, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at the Washington College of Law, American University. I'm a bit confused as to what point he was making. That AQ was not party to the conflict with the US? I'd argue that they were the senior party and that the Taliban were the junior party...who harbored them and gave them a safe base from which to stage attacks. It's hard to say what particular action of the administration he is responding to. The administration has lumped previous Afghanistan government forces, narcotics traffickers, Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi insurgents, anti-American religious fanatics and AQ into one group - terrorists. We don't have the facts. We don't know to what extent these people had a proper command structure, wore some sort of distinguishing features and complied with the laws of armed conflict. We just don't know, said APV Rogers, OBE, a retired major general in the British Army and recognized expert on the laws of war. Who's we? I think it is reasonable to assume that that is a determination that can be made in the field of whether they had a distinguishing feature recognizable at a distance. If that is your requirement the most modern elements of the US Army, the different ranger and ranger type units, are not entitled to POW status. I believe he has a better grasp of the Geneva protocols as to what is a recognized military which does include more than uniforms. The Bush Administration, by contrast, is claiming that there is no doubt. In its view, neither Al Qaeda nor the Taliban are eligible for POW status because they did not wear uniforms or otherwise distinguish themselves from the civilian population of Afghanistan or conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war—an argument that is disputed by the majority of our experts. IIRC, they got back a legal review and grudgingly accepted that the Taliban probably qualified. It is not clear this grudging acceptance applies operationally, we are still shipping prisoners out to other states for torture and interrogation. Some of our experts said they feared the Administration's decision could come back to haunt US soldiers should they ever be captured by a foreign enemy, particularly special forces who usually don't wear uniforms. I think we may have set a bad precedent. The drawback is that we have given the other side some ammunition when they capture our people, said H.Wayne Elliott, a retired US Lieutenant colonel and former chief of the international law division at the US Army's Judge Advocate General's School. From an article on POW's or Unlawful Combatants http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/pow-intro.html You might claim that is a liberal source so let us see what the International Red Cross has to say: The legal situation of 'unlawful/unprivileged combatants' In it the Red Cross argues while these detainees may not be POWs as defined by the Third Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War), they still deserve more limited protections under the Fourth Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) and the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. That is a reasonable arguement. But, the question is, what sort of protection do they deserve.. Do they deserve protection against unpleasantness, as do real POWs? Is anything that could be called undignified unacceptable. Take the case in Time magazine. If this is the extreme treatment that was only authorized for a few high value prisioners (like the probable 20th hijacker) is that acceptable, or must You trailed off but I get the gist. To what extent do you want to give the protectors of the state a free pass on what they do to the most well known political prisoners? There have been numerous accounts of abuse of Gitmo and other prisoners. If you read the tales and did not know where they occurred you would think they did
Re: Gulags
That is a reasonable arguement. But, the question is, what sort of protection do they deserve.. Do they deserve protection against unpleasantness, as do real POWs? Is anything that could be called undignified unacceptable. Take the case in Time magazine. If this is the extreme treatment that was only authorized for a few high value prisioners (like the probable 20th hijacker) is that acceptable, or must Or must what, Dan? we be resigned to asking only polite questionswithout even the leverage available to police working with common criminals? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 7:07 PM Subject: Re: Gulags On 6/13/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are focusing on one section in several Geneva Conventions. I will repeat what I have above. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol II apply to prisoners regardless of the status of the legal standing of their organization. Common Article 3 also applies to government clashes with armed insurgent groups. In the Geneva Convention of 1949, I find. quote Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are. (The competent individual tribunals for determination of status is from the 1st protocol to the Geneva Conventions as well as Article 5 of the 3rd Convention. If you point to article 4 would you agree the administration should have to follow article 5?.) Lets see what Article 5 says: quote The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation. Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. end quote If they did not have a clear sign, recognizable at a distance, if they were determined to be AQ, then the US could say they didn't have a doubt and no tribunal was needed. That may be a bit lawyerly, but it seems to match the plain sense of article 5. I don't think that Bishop Berkley style doubts count, either. Before getting to the clinchers let's check with some experts. The Administration is applying the wrong part of the Conventions. They have invoked the provisions for irregular combatants not under Article 4-1, but under Article 4-2. They are treating them as though they are guerrillas or partisans who were fighting for a party to the conflict. And that's wrong in my view, said Robert Goldman, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at the Washington College of Law, American University. I'm a bit confused as to what point he was making. That AQ was not party to the conflict with the US? I'd argue that they were the senior party and that the Taliban were the junior party...who harbored them and gave them a safe base from which to stage attacks. We don't have the facts. We don't know to what extent these people had a proper command structure, wore some sort of distinguishing features and complied with the laws of armed conflict. We just don't know, said APV Rogers, OBE, a retired major general in the British Army and recognized expert on the laws of war. Who's we? I think it is reasonable to assume that that is a determination that can be made in the field of whether they had a distinguishing feature recognizable at a distance. The Bush Administration, by contrast, is claiming that there is no doubt. In its view, neither Al Qaeda nor the Taliban are eligible for POW status because they did not wear uniforms or otherwise distinguish themselves from the civilian population of Afghanistan or conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war—an argument that is disputed by the majority of our experts. IIRC, they got back a legal review and grudgingly accepted that the Taliban probably qualified. Some of our experts said they feared the Administration's decision could come back to haunt US soldiers should they ever be captured by a foreign enemy, particularly special forces who usually don't wear uniforms. I think we may have set a bad precedent. The drawback is that we have given the other side some ammunition when they capture our people, said H.Wayne Elliott, a retired US Lieutenant colonel and former chief of the international law division at the US Army's Judge Advocate General's School. From an article on POW's or Unlawful Combatants http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/pow-intro.html You might claim that is a liberal source so let us see what the International Red Cross has to say: The legal situation of 'unlawful/unprivileged combatants' In it the Red Cross argues while these detainees may not be POWs as defined by the Third Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War), they still deserve more limited protections under the Fourth
Re: Gulags
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 7:07 PM Subject: Re: Gulags From an article on POW's or Unlawful Combatants http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/pow-intro.html You might claim that is a liberal source so let us see what the International Red Cross has to say: The legal situation of 'unlawful/unprivileged combatants' In it the Red Cross argues while these detainees may not be POWs as defined by the Third Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War), they still deserve more limited protections under the Fourth Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) and the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. That is a reasonable arguement. But, the question is, what sort of protection do they deserve.. Do they deserve protection against unpleasantness, as do real POWs? Is anything that could be called undignified unacceptable. Take the case in Time magazine. If this is the extreme treatment that was only authorized for a few high value prisioners (like the probable 20th hijacker) is that acceptable, or must Or must what, Dan? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:27 AM Subject: Re: Gulags Dr. Cole is correct, what you are arguing is that a class of people should be held indefinitely without trial. This is known as a bill of attainder and is expressly forbidden by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. Actually, it's known as habius corpus. A bill of attainder is a law that is aimed at punishing a single person, IIRC. When in the past did we either try prisoners taken in wars or quickly release them? Aren't such prisoners usually kept for the duration of hostilities. OK, you do recognize the problems with this. However, your dismissal of the courts, not even recognizing the difference between military justice and the right demonized liberal court system is troubling to me. I was discussing the often repeated argument I've heard from members of the left wing of the Democratic party that I know that we need to treat AQ like any other criminal, with warrants for arrests, evidence presented in public, etc. I was referring to the problems with that Also, according to a recent AP story, all but about 12 of the people at Gitmo have been before a tribunal that either declared them enemy combatants or ordered their release. I have absolutely no idea how many have been charged with war crimes. So, in a real sense, they have been before at least some sort of military tribunal. But, remember, I'm not defending Gitmo. I think it has done more harm than good to the US; I think that the administration handing of prisoners has caused tremendous problems. I think that the blurring of the bright line between torture and good treatment by the ambiguous inclusion of High Stress has contributed to the tremendous failure of the military to live up to the standards they have set in the previous decade. But, I do not think it represents the start of the end of civil liberties in the US. I don't think it represents one of the most significant risks to civil liberties in the US. I don't believe it is one of the most significant risks to the liberty of a randomly selected American today. I'm discussing that in more detail later in this post. But, I'd just like to point out here that the bar I have set for defending Gitmo is rather low. If it is immoral, stupid, and counter-productive, if Bush has hurt US interests by torturing people that are at Gitmo simply because they had the wrong personal enemies in Afghanistan, then I could still defend Gitmo as not being one of the most serious risks to the liberty of Americans in history. It could still be horrid without posing a significant risk to the liberty of American citizens. Many wars are not between governments with fixed boundaries. That is true. And, prisoners taken during such a war can be held until the war has ended. That is Bush's argument. We're in a war and have the right to hold combatants that we capture until hostilities have ceased. My argument is more restrictivesince the war on terror is a war that has unusually unclear boundaries, it is not reasonable to hold prisoners until there is no more terror. The actions by the administration violate the laws of the military justice system and are legal and constitutional systems and have only been possibly matched at the worst times in our history. I'd be curious to see examples of the established laws of military justice system has handled captured combatants that have not been covered by treaty on this. I think part of the challenge for the Supreme Court is that this is new legal groundso they are being careful where they step. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol II apply to prisoners regardless of the status of the legal standing of their organization. Common Article 3 also applies to government clashes with armed insurgent groups. In addition the 4th Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) lays out separate protections for civilians, including so-called unlawful combatants. Article 4 of the 3rd Geneva Convention sets out six distinct categories of prisoners whom the convention defines as POWs. The Constitution states that all treaties that the United States have signed have the full status of law. I would not call the administration being careful. (Just curious - are you like John getting your news and analysis from Scaife's NewsMax or Murdoch's Fox News?) Let's see. I tend to get my news from internet sources, particularly articles and opinions from: The New York Times The Washington Post The Christian Science Monitor The AP Reuters The Los Angeles Times Of all the columnists on world affairs, I think that Tom Freedman is my favorite; he tends to be closest to my viewpoints. He has written a scathing criticism of the Administrations handling of prisoners, which I agree with. (He has
Re: Gulags
On Jun 13, 2005, at 2:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 08:28 PM Sunday 6/12/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/11/2005 5:52:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How does procreation have to do with homosexual rape among prisoners and how to prevent it, which is what this discussion was originally about? We are animals (I mean that in no pejorative way). Our sex drive is an adaptation that insures that we will procreate. Men don't have sex to have babies directly but the drive for sex is founded in procreation. Initially, maybe, but all along our evolutionary branch there are abundant examples of penile play and penetration used to do many things *other than* procreate. Some are pleasant and probably reinforce social bonds. Some are not so much so and seem to reinforce social *hierarchy*. Reducing sex to something as simple as a drive to procreate (in humans) seems as sensible to me as attributing sexual orientation to a gene. So the persons the men who want sex most are young men because this makes for more babies and they want to have sex with young women. With gay sex the object of diesire is changed but the diesire for youth is not Oy. Not quite sure where to start on this one... For most of our evolutionary history, few of our species ever made it past 30 or so. If there's any inherited component to sexual attraction, this is surely a factor that cannot be overlooked. But I think you might be overlooking something significant, in much the same way that a fish doesn't notice water: Culture. In the US for certain, a LOT of value is artificially placed on youth. In the midst of our look-young-or-die culture, drawing conclusions about sex partners that claim to be anchored solidly in biology seems a tad risky. We'd need a major longitudinal study of many cultures before we could look for something like biological causes to behaviors as complex as sexuality. But all of this is apart from prison rape, which doesn't seem to be about social bonding; it seems more like a way of enforcing superiority on others, doesn't it? So the procreative aspects of sexuality are completely abrogated here; it's the social enforcement aspects of penetrative intercourse that are coming into play. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
At 01:25 PM Thursday 6/16/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: [snip] But all of this is apart from prison rape, which doesn't seem to be about social bonding; it seems more like a way of enforcing superiority on others, doesn't it? So the procreative aspects of sexuality are completely abrogated here; it's the social enforcement aspects of penetrative intercourse that are coming into play. Yes. Right now, we have a prison system where the inmates are in charge and do pretty much whatever they want to other inmates. How do we get things back(?) to where the ones who should be in charge are in charge, and the weaker inmates or those who happen to be the wrong color or who don't belong to the right gang are protected from the other inmates? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On Jun 16, 2005, at 2:12 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 01:25 PM Thursday 6/16/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: [snip] But all of this is apart from prison rape, which doesn't seem to be about social bonding; it seems more like a way of enforcing superiority on others, doesn't it? So the procreative aspects of sexuality are completely abrogated here; it's the social enforcement aspects of penetrative intercourse that are coming into play. Yes. Right now, we have a prison system where the inmates are in charge and do pretty much whatever they want to other inmates. How do we get things back(?) to where the ones who should be in charge are in charge, and the weaker inmates or those who happen to be the wrong color or who don't belong to the right gang are protected from the other inmates? For some reason it seems castration isn't considered a viable response. That leaves us with more intense enforcement and control on the parts of guards; and possibly with some kind of counseling or therapy sessions attended by the prisoners themselves, I suppose. Reducing crowding would probably help too; crowding can cause stress, and that gets vented in lots of unhealthy ways. And of course doing away with Draconian federal guidelines regarding mandatory minimum sentencing -- particularly on drug charges -- might also be of merit. How to deal with ex-cons socially is probably another factor. What do we do for them on release to help ensure they don't offend again? Those caught in the stupid overzealous web of drug hysteria can't even get federal student assistance for higher education, which helps ensure they end up with fewer future options. That doesn't make much sense to me, nor does the way ex-cons are required to expose their histories when applying for jobs. At what point do we decide it's OK for them to aim higher than dead-end minimum wage soul-sucking employment? Frankly the mess is probably intricate and sourced in several problems. Without really having a background in the way prisons are run and operated, I don't think I can comment in depth about how to fix anything. All I've got are vague notions, and that's not really enough to base serious suggestions upon. I have a sense that increased awareness might help; I have a sense that reducing the number of incarcerated might help as well. But that's about it. Some time ago I somehow got the idea that it might be useful to set up prison farms. Each con gets maybe two acres, and he gets his own one-bedroom house as well. He farms the soil organically and is responsible for seeing to it that his plot of land thrives. The idea was, I suppose, that the prisoner would be doing something productive, would be in an environment probably completely other than the one in which he'd learned to be a criminal, and would have ample opportunity for reflection and soul-searching without having to deal with the constant pressure of living in a dense population of hardened criminals. It's probably a seriously fuzzy-headed idea, but there's something about it that I find appealing as well. Can't say for sure if it would work or not, but we know there are lots of things we're doing right now that do *not* work. What the heck; we aren't really using Kansas or Iowa for much right now anyway... ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On 6/14/05, Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What REALLY bothers me about all this is this: If the United States wants to hold itself out as a paragon to the rest of the world, shouldn't we hold ourselves to a HIGHER standard than we'd hold other countries? If we want other countries to look up to the US, shouldn't we follow the spirit not just the letter of the law? Absolutely. Quoting scripture and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Hinson suggested the nation is greedy and morally bankrupt and warned that America's fear of terrorism is excessive and unhealthy. Denouncing fear that immobilizes, fear that causes you to lash out mindlessly, fear that prompts a nation to launch a preemptive strike against an imagined enemy, fear in excess, Hinson said, Only God's love can bring that kind of fear under control. - Baptist Seminary of Kentucky Professor Glenn Hinson: http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/local/11888623.htm -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
Seems to belong here - a long article on the US interrogation system this past Sunday. Perm link http://tinyurl.com/7rmhr http://www.bugmenot.com Only after a new commanding officer had arrived and official inquiries had issued their reports did we learn that 40 percent of those penned up at Guantanamo never belonged there in the first place. At Abu Ghraib in Iraq, the record was even worse: two-thirds of the detainees were eventually said to have been innocent of terrorist links. At least when they were picked up. Who knows what leanings they developed or links they forged during and after their interrogations? ...uncomfortable with both absolutist positions -- the trusting ''do what you have to do in secret'' carte blanche versus the pure ''no coercive force ever'' position held by those who are strict constructionists when it comes to laws against torture lite as well as torture -- and equally dubious about the feasibility of a decent middle ground, I set out with notebook in hand several months ago to speak to politicians on Capitol Hill, spymasters, interrogators and legal experts. My hopes were that their experience and conclusions would shed light on the ingredients of a successful interrogation, whether these included coercion and, if so, how much, and whether there was anything that ordinary citizens could safely be told about what goes on in the shadows. My itinerary wasn't arduous. It involved traveling to Washington for conversations on Capitol Hill; then to Cambridge, Mass., to talk to law professors with a range of strong views on my subject; and finally to Israel, a country whose Supreme Court had asserted its jurisdiction and declared in 1999 that not only torture but all forms of ''cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment'' -- the term for torture lite used in the Convention Against Torture -- were illegal under Israeli law. At least there, it seemed, the security services that conduct interrogations had adapted themselves over many years to the idea that some legal standards might actually apply on the dark side. That was more or less the American view until just after 9/11. Even when clear evidence of the effectiveness of torture lite is hard to come by, democracies threatened by terrorism shrink from laying down the weapon. Should the threat ever pass, we can be expected to repress any memory of its use as we now try to do in daily life while it persists. Then we'll discover how much gratitude or resentment has accrued to us in the places where we've operated, among the descendants of those we've detained. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On Jun 15, 2005, at 1:09 PM, Gary Denton wrote: http://www.bugmenot.com It's ironic that a New York Times columnist recommended bugmenot in a column (http://tinyurl.com/5hvqc) last month on minor annoyances, given that folks have probably used bugmenot to bypass the NYT's forced registration more than just about any other site. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On 6/13/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are focusing on one section in several Geneva Conventions. I will repeat what I have above. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol II apply to prisoners regardless of the status of the legal standing of their organization. Common Article 3 also applies to government clashes with armed insurgent groups. In the Geneva Convention of 1949, I find. quote Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are. end quote That excludes virtually all of the members of AQ. I think if they were Iranian, they might be covered, so that's a reasonable point. I see the same clause in the 4th Geneva convention, so the protected person status there appears to be the same. If you see a contrary definition of a protected person from the one I listed, I'd like to know where it is. I tried to go to the obvious place to find these definitions, but I realize treaties can have things in not so obvious places. Number 1. Simply put the Bush administration has classified Al Qaeda members, the Taliban and anyone it suspects of being a terrorist as non-protected combatants not entitled to the Geneva Conventions. This includes many captives from Afghanistan sometimes turned in for the reward money or to settle old grievances. They have even applied this definition to two US citizens Number 2. You agree with the Bush administration and point to the 3rd Convention article 4 which defines POWs as a particular type of combatant. There is disagreement as to rather the Al Qaeda combatants would meet the definition there but near unanimity that the Taliban and other prisoners don't. In all cases a tribunal must be called to determine their status which has not been done. (The competent individual tribunals for determination of status is from the 1st protocol to the Geneva Conventions as well as Article 5 of the 3rd Convention. If you point to article 4 would you agree the administration should have to follow article 5?.) Before getting to the clinchers let's check with some experts. The Administration is applying the wrong part of the Conventions. They have invoked the provisions for irregular combatants not under Article 4-1, but under Article 4-2. They are treating them as though they are guerrillas or partisans who were fighting for a party to the conflict. And that's wrong in my view, said Robert Goldman, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at the Washington College of Law, American University. But even according to the criteria specified for irregular forces, most of our experts believe the Taliban detainees, and possibly Al Qaeda as well, although there is less agreement on this point, would be entitled to POW status. They cited Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, which says that if there is any doubt as to whether or not the detainees meet the conditions, then they should be granted POW status until a competent tribunal determines otherwise. We don't have the facts. We don't know to what extent these people had a proper command structure, wore some sort of distinguishing features and complied with the laws of armed conflict. We just don't know, said APV Rogers, OBE, a retired major general in the British Army and recognized expert on the laws of war. Curtis Doebbler, Professor of Human Rights Law at American University in Cairo, who served as an advisor to the Taliban government on the laws of war and believes that the Taliban, unlike Al Qaeda, do meet the criteria enumerated in Article 4. But he agreed that we do not have all of the facts. The first thing is to determine the status of the detainees, and until a competent tribunal declares that they are not POWs, then they are. After that, you can have legal wrangling over the criteria in the Geneva Conventions, he said. The Bush Administration, by contrast, is claiming that there is no doubt. In its view, neither Al Qaeda nor the Taliban are eligible for POW status because they did not wear uniforms or otherwise distinguish themselves from the civilian population of Afghanistan or conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of waran argument that is disputed by the majority of our experts. Some of our experts said they feared the Administration's decision could come back to haunt US soldiers should they ever be captured by a foreign enemy, particularly special forces who usually don't wear uniforms. I think we may have set a bad precedent. The drawback is that we have given the other side some ammunition when they capture our people, said H.Wayne
Re: Gulags
William T Goodall wrote: Instead of the present incredibly wasteful and expensive prison system just transport all serious criminals to a tropical resort island and give them free booze, drugs and hookers for life. This would be far cheaper than the present prison system, more humane, and have a 0% recidivism rate since transportees don't get to return. Less serious criminals can do tagged house arrest and community service. Hey - it worked for us (though a few of us convicts occasionally sneak back to Mother England..) (the booze is not free, and our wonderfully friendly and co-operative young ladies would object to the term hookers...) Russell C. Convict descendant on the world's largest and most tropical prison island. --- This email (including any attachments) is confidential and copyright. The School makes no warranty about the content of this email. Unless expressly stated, this email does not bind the School and does not necessarily constitute the opinion of the School. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify the sender. --- GWAVAsig ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gulags
Behalf Of Gary Denton This is pretty basic stuff and trying to argue that none of the Geneva Conventions apply just lowers the standing of the United States in the world. What REALLY bothers me about all this is this: If the United States wants to hold itself out as a paragon to the rest of the world, shouldn't we hold ourselves to a HIGHER standard than we'd hold other countries? If we want other countries to look up to the US, shouldn't we follow the spirit not just the letter of the law? - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On 11 Jun 2005, at 11:04 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: While the redneck side of me may agree (and in fact suggests that the chemical method ought to involve something like pouring a liter or so of concentrated H2SO4 in their lap), my real opinion as to what should be done is to get the correction officers back in control of the prisons (and not in an abusive or sadistic way, either). If what it takes is keeping the inmates locked in their cells so they can't get to each other to rape each other or kill each other, so be it. If it involves a return to the practice of making little ones our of big ones so that when they return to the cell block they are too exhausted to commit mischief, so be it. Perhaps someone else has a better idea of how to fix the problems in the regular prisons . . . ? Instead of the present incredibly wasteful and expensive prison system just transport all serious criminals to a tropical resort island and give them free booze, drugs and hookers for life. This would be far cheaper than the present prison system, more humane, and have a 0% recidivism rate since transportees don't get to return. Less serious criminals can do tagged house arrest and community service. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.' There is no evidence that people want to use these things. -John C. Dvorak, SF Examiner, Feb. 1984. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On 6/11/05, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:38 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Robert Seeberger wrote: Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:31 PM Friday 6/10/2005, Dan Minette wrote: [snip] One of the things that is done with regularity at Gitmo (according to one our Congresspersons who was *allowed* to visit there), is tying a prisoner down till he defecates and urinates on himself and then leaving him there for 18 - 24 hours. This is supposed to deliver intelligence to our Mil/Int services. But I see no valid comparisons between the abuses of our penal system and the way political prisoners are handled at Gitmo and the other places where Americans are paid to leave their humanity at the door. Without making excuses or attempting to justify any abuses in either prison system, I did make a point in a post to another list earlier today in response to a reference to the alleged desecration of the Qu'ran at Gitmo: whatever else we may have done there, we at least have made provision for Muslim prisoners we are holding to exercise their religion by allowing them to have copies of their holy book, by giving them something to use as a prayer rug and allowing them to pray, by giving them meals which meet their religious dietary restrictions, etc. I have not heard that the Muslims have, frex, provided captured Christians with Bibles or captured Jews with yarmulkes, or otherwise facilitated them in their exercise of their religions. (If I am incorrect in that, I would appreciate correction.) And whatever we may have done as far as abuse or mistreatment of prisoners at Gitmo, I have not heard of us kidnapping known non-combatants such as aid workers and posting video of their decapitation on the Internet . . . I am sure you are not meaning to say that our standard of treatment only has to meet the standard of barbarians. So by this standard as long as we don't torture people to death or take pictures of it we are doing OK. As it is the incident I posted, one of several available, of torturing people to death. Part of the humiliation interrogation technique was taking photos. We are outsourcing some cases to places where torture is more practiced. Surprisingly one of those was Syria which tortured a Canadian for several weeks after the US shipped him in there before concluding he was innocent. Syria has since stopped participating in our information gathering. So even by the lowest possible standards are we doing OK? I do not want the US ttreatment to be the new minimum standard of decency. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On 6/10/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 6/9/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dr. Cole is right. IMHO, he amplifies and mirrors one of the worst tendencies of the Bush administration: seeing adversaries as evil incarnate and not willing to believe that their viewpoints can be opposed, except by evil. We disagree. I don't see him as amplifying that administration trait. The prison at Guantanamo was expressly set up to circumvent laws the US had on how to treat prisoners, POWs and other combatants. That isn't clear to me. What is clear to me is that they didn't want the complication of bringing prisoners taken in a war into the United States. Let's look back at a few wars. It is clear that the general Viet Cong (Nam), Chinese (Korea), German or Japanese (WWII) prisoners would be covered by the Geneva convention, but no one was arguing that they had a right to either a trial under the US court system or quick release. Further, there was summary justice practiced in Europe with lower level German officers found guilty of war crimes. I think it would be useful to see what the rules as well as the practices were in past wars. So, IMHO, going to Gitmo was initially defendable. Some of the prisoners (AQ) were clearly not protected by the Geneva Conventions. That was fairly well established on list at the time, by reference to the conventions. If you look at what was expected by a number of people, military trials within a few months, and then sentencing, it was not inherently unreasonable. The Geneva Conventions does specify how to handle POWs and all other prisoners. There was a campaign by the administration to deny this and to deny that sections of our uniform military code of justice applied. This recommendation by the administration and the White House was vigorously protested by experienced State Department and senior military JAG officials. I know of no one who thought that these prisoners would be held just a few months until military trials but I will admit I didn't ask you. That didn't happen. The administration now has prisoners there for 2.5 years, and seems most willing to hold most of them indefinitely without trial. I think they are caught, having prisoners that they are sure will return to fighting the United States if released, but without sufficient evidence of criminal activity to convict, even in a military court. Their justification is, at least, slightly based in reality. There is a war on terrorism, and they have caught AQ unlawful combatants in this war. They have the right to hold them until the war is over. This is totally preposterous. This war on a vague dangerous sounding noun will last how long? Dr. Cole is correct, what you are arguing is that a class of people should be held indefinitely without trial. This is known as a bill of attainder and is expressly forbidden by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. The difficulty with this rational is obvious. While the adversary(ies) we are facing are not simply criminals...they have had many of the resources available to nations at their disposal, the war on terror is not fixed in place and time as older wars have been. So, these men could be held until they die of old age because of the vague boundaries involved in the war on terror. I consider this wrong. But, I consider the idea that AQ is just a bunch of criminals that should be left to the courts to be wrong. I think we are in a new type of situationone in which the rules need to be worked out. None of the old templates work. Hyperbola doesn't help this process. OK, you do recognize the problems with this. However, your dismissal of the courts, not even recognizing the difference between military justice and the right demonized liberal court system is troubling to me. IMHO you also seem to be remiss in claiming this is a unique situation. Many wars are not between governments with fixed boundaries. The administration set out to get and obtained from their lawyers advise that the Geneva Accords were quaint and that the president was entitled to authorize torture if he felt it necessary. IIRC, the question was more limited. It was whether the US president would have to forgo state trips to Europe because violations of the Geneva convention would be an arresting offence when he was there. The answer was no. It is somewhat germane, because a Spanish judge is looking at charging the American servicemen who fired a round into a hotel that they mistakenly thought was the source of shots fired at them. This is a somewhat distorted argument IMHO. Gonzales was writing trying to find some means that agents of the government violating the Geneva Convention would not be subject to trial by a future administration, not by foreigners.
Re: Gulags
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:27 AM Subject: Re: Gulags Right away, I wanted to re-establish what the Geneva convention actually says. The Geneva Conventions does specify how to handle POWs and all other prisoners. The relevent section of the covention, from an earlier post of mine: A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. AQ doesn't qualify under these provisions. Particularly clear is the fact that they do not comply with b. The Geneva convention is a treaty between governments. It does not cover citizens of a country fighting in another country without clearly joining the military or militia of that other country and demonstrating it by wearing uniforms. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On 6/13/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:27 AM Subject: Re: Gulags Right away, I wanted to re-establish what the Geneva convention actually says. The Geneva Conventions does specify how to handle POWs and all other prisoners. The relevent section of the covention, from an earlier post of mine: A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. AQ doesn't qualify under these provisions. Particularly clear is the fact that they do not comply with b. The Geneva convention is a treaty between governments. It does not cover citizens of a country fighting in another country without clearly joining the military or militia of that other country and demonstrating it by wearing uniforms. Dan M. You are focusing on one section in several Geneva Conventions. I will repeat what I have above. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol II apply to prisoners regardless of the status of the legal standing of their organization. Common Article 3 also applies to government clashes with armed insurgent groups. In addition the 4th Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) lays out separate protections for civilians, including so-called unlawful combatants. Article 4 of the 3rd Geneva Convention sets out six distinct categories of prisoners whom the convention defines as POWs. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 2:34 PM Subject: Re: Gulags On 6/13/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:27 AM Subject: Re: Gulags Right away, I wanted to re-establish what the Geneva convention actually says. The Geneva Conventions does specify how to handle POWs and all other prisoners. The relevent section of the covention, from an earlier post of mine: A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. AQ doesn't qualify under these provisions. Particularly clear is the fact that they do not comply with b. The Geneva convention is a treaty between governments. It does not cover citizens of a country fighting in another country without clearly joining the military or militia of that other country and demonstrating it by wearing uniforms. Dan M. You are focusing on one section in several Geneva Conventions. I will repeat what I have above. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol II apply to prisoners regardless of the status of the legal standing of their organization. Common Article 3 also applies to government clashes with armed insurgent groups. In the Geneva Convention of 1949, I find. quote Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are. end quote That excludes virtually all of the members of AQ. I think if they were Iranian, they might be covered, so that's a reasonable point. I see the same clause in the 4th Geneva convention, so the protected person status there appears to be the same. If you see a contrary definition of a protected person from the one I listed, I'd like to know where it is. I tried to go to the obvious place to find these definitions, but I realize treaties can have things in not so obvious places. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
-Original Message- From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 00:22:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Gulags At 08:28 PM Sunday 6/12/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/11/2005 5:52:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How does procreation have to do with homosexual rape among prisoners and how to prevent it, which is what this discussion was originally about? We are animals (I mean that in no pejorative way). Our sex drive is an adaptation that insures that we will procreate. Men don't have sex to have babies directly but the drive for sex is founded in procreation. So the persons the men who want sex most are young men because this makes for more babies and they want to have sex with young women. With gay sex the object of diesire is changed but the diesire for youth is not -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
In a message dated 6/11/2005 5:52:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Castration does not stop rapists. Rape is typically a crime of power/violence. People who have been chemically castrated have subsequently raped women. I won't go into detail about how they could do it, but it should be obvious. How often do castrated men actually commit rape? Is there really any data on this? I ask because the equation of rape and power is usually not questioned. The notion that rape is about power and violence was proposed in the 60s by Susan Brownmiller (sp). It has recently been challenged by Randy Thornhill. He points out that the rape= power formula would predict that rape should be seen in all adult men and that rape should be directed at all woman. The reality is that rape is almost exclusively commited by young men and upon young women. Thornhill proposes that rape is about sex. (duh). Young men who do not think they have a chance to succeed wihtout coercion use force. At some level they are trying to procreate. Although this is by an large an unsuccessful strategy it may seem atractive if the man thinks he has no chance of succeeding in any other way. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
At 08:28 PM Sunday 6/12/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/11/2005 5:52:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Castration does not stop rapists. Rape is typically a crime of power/violence. People who have been chemically castrated have subsequently raped women. I won't go into detail about how they could do it, but it should be obvious. How often do castrated men actually commit rape? Is there really any data on this? I ask because the equation of rape and power is usually not questioned. The notion that rape is about power and violence was proposed in the 60s by Susan Brownmiller (sp). It has recently been challenged by Randy Thornhill. He points out that the rape= power formula would predict that rape should be seen in all adult men and that rape should be directed at all woman. The reality is that rape is almost exclusively commited by young men and upon young women. Thornhill proposes that rape is about sex. (duh). Young men who do not think they have a chance to succeed wihtout coercion use force. At some level they are trying to procreate. Although this is by an large an unsuccessful strategy it may seem atractive if the man thinks he has no chance of succeeding in any other way. How does procreation have to do with homosexual rape among prisoners and how to prevent it, which is what this discussion was originally about? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
At 11:31 PM Friday 6/10/2005, Dan Minette wrote: 2) The treatment of prisoners in our regular prisons. Prison rape is winked at by government officials on both sides of the aisle. There is no national outrage concerning this. You may think it is an outrage, as do others of us on this list, but it really is off the radar. In fact, the whole topic is treated as fodder by comedians. And many otherwise reasonable people think it is no worse than many of them deserve, especially those convicted of rape or child abuse. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:31 PM Friday 6/10/2005, Dan Minette wrote: 2) The treatment of prisoners in our regular prisons. Prison rape is winked at by government officials on both sides of the aisle. There is no national outrage concerning this. You may think it is an outrage, as do others of us on this list, but it really is off the radar. In fact, the whole topic is treated as fodder by comedians. And many otherwise reasonable people think it is no worse than many of them deserve, especially those convicted of rape or child abuse. Ahhhso let Joe Bob Redneck be the standard by which our moral compass is set? I find it disappointing in the extreme that people are abandoning morality, ethics, and the rule of law in favor of excusing the kinds of things that they know are absolutely wrong. It happens all the time arguments don't impress me. xponent GA Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
At 12:25 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Robert Seeberger wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:31 PM Friday 6/10/2005, Dan Minette wrote: 2) The treatment of prisoners in our regular prisons. Prison rape is winked at by government officials on both sides of the aisle. There is no national outrage concerning this. You may think it is an outrage, as do others of us on this list, but it really is off the radar. In fact, the whole topic is treated as fodder by comedians. And many otherwise reasonable people think it is no worse than many of them deserve, especially those convicted of rape or child abuse. Ahhhso let Joe Bob Redneck be the standard by which our moral compass is set? I find it disappointing in the extreme that people are abandoning morality, ethics, and the rule of law in favor of excusing the kinds of things that they know are absolutely wrong. It happens all the time arguments don't impress me. I was agreeing with you that it is a bad thing. I was simply pointing out how bad it has become. If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the regular prisons, I'd be glad to hear them. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On Jun 11, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the regular prisons, I'd be glad to hear them. For rape? One solution springs immediately to mind. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
At 01:02 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Jun 11, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the regular prisons, I'd be glad to hear them. For rape? One solution springs immediately to mind. For the non-clairvoyant among the members of the list, what would that be? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 12:25 PM Subject: Re: Gulags Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:31 PM Friday 6/10/2005, Dan Minette wrote: 2) The treatment of prisoners in our regular prisons. Prison rape is winked at by government officials on both sides of the aisle. There is no national outrage concerning this. You may think it is an outrage, as do others of us on this list, but it really is off the radar. In fact, the whole topic is treated as fodder by comedians. And many otherwise reasonable people think it is no worse than many of them deserve, especially those convicted of rape or child abuse. Ahhhso let Joe Bob Redneck be the standard by which our moral compass is set? Part of the problem is that people who should be considered much more refined are saying that. I find it disappointing in the extreme that people are abandoning morality, ethics, and the rule of law in favor of excusing the kinds of things that they know are absolutely wrong. It happens all the time arguments don't impress me. I certainly wasn't making excuses for things I consider wrong. To me questions about whether something is one of the worst threats ever to our constitutional rights are different from questions concerning whether something is right or wrong. I do consider how we handle normal prisoners a greater moral outrage than how we handled Gitmoand I'm prepared to argue why. But, I never mean to imply that, because I can show that that A is worse than B, that B becomes acceptable. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 12:25 PM Subject: Re: Gulags Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:31 PM Friday 6/10/2005, Dan Minette wrote: 2) The treatment of prisoners in our regular prisons. Prison rape is winked at by government officials on both sides of the aisle. There is no national outrage concerning this. You may think it is an outrage, as do others of us on this list, but it really is off the radar. In fact, the whole topic is treated as fodder by comedians. And many otherwise reasonable people think it is no worse than many of them deserve, especially those convicted of rape or child abuse. Ahhhso let Joe Bob Redneck be the standard by which our moral compass is set? I'd like to apologize to Ronn! for misreading him. I found it very disappointing to think someone I find to be a reasonable person might harbor such a sentiment. At work, I am constantly surrounded by Joe Bob Rednecks who do harbor such sentiments, and it is an endless source of frustration for me. Part of the problem is that people who should be considered much more refined are saying that. Yeah, it is like a kind of cynicism that has taken up permanent lodging in many peoples minds. It happens all the time, you cannot change it, therefore it is OK. To me, that is reprehensable, and it is to a great degree directly opposed to the direction that justice and righteousness have been moving us the last 60 years or even the last 145 years. I find this opposition to crop up in discussions of current events all the time with very little comment from any quarter. I find it disappointing in the extreme that people are abandoning morality, ethics, and the rule of law in favor of excusing the kinds of things that they know are absolutely wrong. It happens all the time arguments don't impress me. I certainly wasn't making excuses for things I consider wrong. Unless my newsreader is messing up attributions, I thought I was commenting on Ronns! remarks. (Sadly out of place I was) To me questions about whether something is one of the worst threats ever to our constitutional rights are different from questions concerning whether something is right or wrong. I do consider how we handle normal prisoners a greater moral outrage than how we handled Gitmoand I'm prepared to argue why. One of the things that is done with regularity at Gitmo (according to one our Congresspersons who was *allowed* to visit there), is tying a prisoner down till he defecates and urinates on himself and then leaving him there for 18 - 24 hours. This is supposed to deliver intelligence to our Mil/Int services. But I see no valid comparisons between the abuses of our penal system and the way political prisoners are handled at Gitmo and the other places where Americans are paid to leave their humanity at the door. * Dear Mr Bush, Anyone who builds a torture chamber or employs torturers, is most assuredly going to burn in hell for eternity. There are no subclauses or exceptions that will give you an out. God will not care about your appeals to reason. Rather, he will let you burn in the company of the lawyers and televangelists that advised you to commit unchristian acts upon your brothers and sisters. Yes, God will forgive you, but you will burn just the same. Your best bet is to pray to Satan for mercy, since God's judgement is final. Luv, rob ** But, I never mean to imply that, because I can show that that A is worse than B, that B becomes acceptable. I agree that A is bad, very bad, but I doubt you can make such an argument succeed if one keeps the argument contemporaneous. xponent Wild Hair Day Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On Jun 11, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 01:02 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Jun 11, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the regular prisons, I'd be glad to hear them. For rape? One solution springs immediately to mind. For the non-clairvoyant among the members of the list, what would that be? Castration, chemical or otherwise, of course. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 4:28 PM Subject: Re: Gulags On Jun 11, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 01:02 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Jun 11, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the regular prisons, I'd be glad to hear them. For rape? One solution springs immediately to mind. For the non-clairvoyant among the members of the list, what would that be? Castration, chemical or otherwise, of course. Castration does not stop rapists. Rape is typically a crime of power/violence. People who have been chemically castrated have subsequently raped women. I won't go into detail about how they could do it, but it should be obvious. Dan M. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On Jun 11, 2005, at 2:31 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jun 11, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 01:02 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Jun 11, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the regular prisons, I'd be glad to hear them. For rape? One solution springs immediately to mind. For the non-clairvoyant among the members of the list, what would that be? Castration, chemical or otherwise, of course. Castration does not stop rapists. Rape is typically a crime of power/violence. People who have been chemically castrated have subsequently raped women. I won't go into detail about how they could do it, but it should be obvious. If chemical castration doesn't work there's the physical alternative, isn't there? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 4:37 PM Subject: Re: Gulags On Jun 11, 2005, at 2:31 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jun 11, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 01:02 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Jun 11, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the regular prisons, I'd be glad to hear them. For rape? One solution springs immediately to mind. For the non-clairvoyant among the members of the list, what would that be? Castration, chemical or otherwise, of course. Castration does not stop rapists. Rape is typically a crime of power/violence. People who have been chemically castrated have subsequently raped women. I won't go into detail about how they could do it, but it should be obvious. If chemical castration doesn't work there's the physical alternative, isn't there? I wasn't clear. Maybe I'll have to be less delicate. 1) Castration stops the source of testosterone as well as sperm. It effectively ends sexual desire, as well as the chance to father children. That doesn't address the main motivation for rape. 2) If a male is physically incapable of normal sexual functions, due to a physical lack, he can still perform acts that qualify as rape. Someone who uses a foreign object does not automatically qualify for a lesser sentence. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
At 03:38 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Robert Seeberger wrote: Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 12:25 PM Subject: Re: Gulags Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:31 PM Friday 6/10/2005, Dan Minette wrote: 2) The treatment of prisoners in our regular prisons. Prison rape is winked at by government officials on both sides of the aisle. There is no national outrage concerning this. You may think it is an outrage, as do others of us on this list, but it really is off the radar. In fact, the whole topic is treated as fodder by comedians. And many otherwise reasonable people think it is no worse than many of them deserve, especially those convicted of rape or child abuse. Ahhhso let Joe Bob Redneck be the standard by which our moral compass is set? I'd like to apologize to Ronn! for misreading him. I found it very disappointing to think someone I find to be a reasonable person might harbor such a sentiment. At work, I am constantly surrounded by Joe Bob Rednecks who do harbor such sentiments, and it is an endless source of frustration for me. No problem. This must be one of those days when I am not making myself clear: I've had to go back and clarify things I've posted on two or three other lists, too. [snip] One of the things that is done with regularity at Gitmo (according to one our Congresspersons who was *allowed* to visit there), is tying a prisoner down till he defecates and urinates on himself and then leaving him there for 18 - 24 hours. This is supposed to deliver intelligence to our Mil/Int services. But I see no valid comparisons between the abuses of our penal system and the way political prisoners are handled at Gitmo and the other places where Americans are paid to leave their humanity at the door. Without making excuses or attempting to justify any abuses in either prison system, I did make a point in a post to another list earlier today in response to a reference to the alleged desecration of the Qu'ran at Gitmo: whatever else we may have done there, we at least have made provision for Muslim prisoners we are holding to exercise their religion by allowing them to have copies of their holy book, by giving them something to use as a prayer rug and allowing them to pray, by giving them meals which meet their religious dietary restrictions, etc. I have not heard that the Muslims have, frex, provided captured Christians with Bibles or captured Jews with yarmulkes, or otherwise facilitated them in their exercise of their religions. (If I am incorrect in that, I would appreciate correction.) And whatever we may have done as far as abuse or mistreatment of prisoners at Gitmo, I have not heard of us kidnapping known non-combatants such as aid workers and posting video of their decapitation on the Internet . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
At 04:28 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Jun 11, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 01:02 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Jun 11, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the regular prisons, I'd be glad to hear them. For rape? One solution springs immediately to mind. For the non-clairvoyant among the members of the list, what would that be? Castration, chemical or otherwise, of course. While the redneck side of me may agree (and in fact suggests that the chemical method ought to involve something like pouring a liter or so of concentrated H2SO4 in their lap), my real opinion as to what should be done is to get the correction officers back in control of the prisons (and not in an abusive or sadistic way, either). If what it takes is keeping the inmates locked in their cells so they can't get to each other to rape each other or kill each other, so be it. If it involves a return to the practice of making little ones our of big ones so that when they return to the cell block they are too exhausted to commit mischief, so be it. Perhaps someone else has a better idea of how to fix the problems in the regular prisons . . . ? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On Jun 11, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Dan Minette wrote: I wasn't clear. Maybe I'll have to be less delicate. 1) Castration stops the source of testosterone as well as sperm. It effectively ends sexual desire, as well as the chance to father children. That doesn't address the main motivation for rape. I'm very aware that rape is not motivated by desire, that it's about dominance instead. It seems to me that if a man knows he will be castrated for committing rape, he's got a very strong disincentive. 2) If a male is physically incapable of normal sexual functions, due to a physical lack, he can still perform acts that qualify as rape. Someone who uses a foreign object does not automatically qualify for a lesser sentence. Well, there's also shooting the bastards. If a man's that committed to rape, it seems to me he's essentially disqualified himself from being on the planet with those of us who can maintain control and function as more or less civilized creatures. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
On 6/9/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 2:40 PM Subject: Gulags Dr. Cole is right. IMHO, he amplifyies and mirrors one of the worst tendencies of the Bush administration: seeing advisaries as evil incarnate and not willing to believe that their viewpoints can be opposed, except by evil. We disagree. I don't see him as amplifying that administration trait. The prison at Guantanamo was expressly set up to circumvent laws the US had on how to treat prisoners, POWs and other combatants. The administration set out to get and obtained from their lawyers advise that the Geneva Accords were quaint and that the president was entitled to authorize torture if he felt it necessary. The actions by the administration violate the laws of the military justice system and are legal and constitutional systems and have only been possibly matched at the worst times in our history All of those instances in the past had been subsequently denounced. I don't believe only evil people support this, many frightened people do. Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 3:16 AM Subject: Re: Gulags On 6/9/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 2:40 PM Subject: Gulags Dr. Cole is right. IMHO, he amplifies and mirrors one of the worst tendencies of the Bush administration: seeing adversaries as evil incarnate and not willing to believe that their viewpoints can be opposed, except by evil. We disagree. I don't see him as amplifying that administration trait. The prison at Guantanamo was expressly set up to circumvent laws the US had on how to treat prisoners, POWs and other combatants. That isn't clear to me. What is clear to me is that they didn't want the complication of bringing prisoners taken in a war into the United States. Let's look back at a few wars. It is clear that the general Viet Cong (Nam), Chinese (Korea), German or Japanese (WWII) prisoners would be covered by the Geneva convention, but no one was arguing that they had a right to either a trial under the US court system or quick release. Further, there was summary justice practiced in Europe with lower level German officers found guilty of war crimes. I think it would be useful to see what the rules as well as the practices were in past wars. So, IMHO, going to Gitmo was initially defendable. Some of the prisoners (AQ) were clearly not protected by the Geneva Conventions. That was fairly well established on list at the time, by reference to the conventions. If you look at what was expected by a number of people, military trials within a few months, and then sentencing, it was not inherently unreasonable. That didn't happen. The administration now has prisoners there for 2.5 years, and seems most willing to hold most of them indefinitely without trial. I think they are caught, having prisoners that they are sure will return to fighting the United States if released, but without sufficient evidence of criminal activity to convict, even in a military court. Their justification is, at least, slightly based in reality. There is a war on terrorism, and they have caught AQ unlawful combatants in this war. They have the right to hold them until the war is over. The difficulty with this rational is obvious. While the adversary(ies) we are facing are not simply criminals...they have had many of the resources available to nations at their disposal, the war on terror is not fixed in place and time as older wars have been. So, these men could be held until they die of old age because of the vague boundaries involved in the war on terror. I consider this wrong. But, I consider the idea that AQ is just a bunch of criminals that should be left to the courts to be wrong. I think we are in a new type of situationone in which the rules need to be worked out. None of the old templates work. Hyperbola doesn't help this process. The administration set out to get and obtained from their lawyers advise that the Geneva Accords were quaint and that the president was entitled to authorize torture if he felt it necessary. IIRC, the question was more limited. It was whether the US president would have to forgo state trips to Europe because violations of the Geneva convention would be an arresting offence when he was there. The answer was no. It is somewhat germane, because a Spanish judge is looking at charging the American servicemen who fired a round into a hotel that they mistakenly thought was the source of shots fired at them. The actions by the administration violate the laws of the military justice system and are legal and constitutional systems and have only been possibly matched at the worst times in our history. I'd be curious to see examples of the established laws of military justice system has handled captured combatants that have not been covered by treaty on this. I think part of the challenge for the Supreme Court is that this is new legal groundso they are being careful where they step. I won't consider 19th century cases, because I think that would be like shooting fish in a barrelbesides being part of a very different time. I can think of a number of 20th century cases that are worse than this, so I don't see how you can say only matched at the worst time in our history. The cases I'm thinking of span about the first 2/3rds of the 20th century. 1) Lynchings of 30,000 blacks in the first 30-40 years. 1000 lynchings per year is a large number. 2) The internment 100k Americans as a result of their ethnic background (Japanese) during WWII. 3) The legality of segregation. 4) The legality of Jim Crow laws All of these are examples of extensively practiced denial of the US constitutionally guaranteed freedoms for Americans. There are other things that our military has done
Re: Gulags
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 2:40 PM Subject: Gulags Dr. Cole is right. IMHO, he amplifyies and mirrors one of the worst tendencies of the Bush administration: seeing advisaries as evil incarnate and not willing to believe that their viewpoints can be opposed, except by evil. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gulags
This just in: Jimmy Carter Asks Washington to Close Guantanamo Prison http://www.ahora.cu/english/SECTIONS/national/2005/Junio/09-06-05c.htm But full text here: Former US President Jimmy Carter called on the Bush administration to close the prison at the US naval base in Guantanamo, Cuba in order to end the terrible embarrassment and a blow to [the US's] reputation. In recent statements from a two-day human rights conference in Atlanta, Carter said that the current US administration is continuing to discredit itself in light of ongoing reports of offenses against prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo. The US Nobel Peace laureate said that the Washington must inform the detainees of the charges against them, and that no inmate should be held incommunicado. Carter's demand joined others, such as the appeal made by US Senator Joseph Biden, the highest ranking Democrat on the Senate's Foreign Affairs Committee. Biden demanded the shutting down of the Guantanamo prison last week. In statements to the ABC television network, the senator described the prison at the illegally occupied base in Cuba as shameful. Previously The New York Times had suggested that President Bush shut down the detention center, where some 540 persons are being held with no access to legal counsel. In its editorial, the US newspaper pointed out that many international organizations have criticized the Bush administration for torture inflicted on inmates and for desecrating Islam's sacred Koran. (From AIN) Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l